DOCSLIB.ORG

Decision Memo Monarch Pass U.S. Forest Service San Isabel National Forest Salida Ranger District Chaffee County, Colorado

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Decision Memo Monarch Pass U.S. Forest Service San Isabel National Forest Salida Ranger District Chaffee County, Colorado Decision Memo Monarch Pass U.S. Forest Service San Isabel National Forest Salida Ranger District Chaffee County, Colorado BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE & NEED Background: Beginning in the early 2000’s in the Weminuche Wilderness of southern Colorado, a spruce beetle (Dendroctonus rufipennis) epidemic began expanding north. During stand exam field procedures in 2012, within the Monarch Mountain Ski area, active spruce beetle infestation was discovered on several plots. Further reconnaissance discovered scattered spruce beetle populations in the Monarch Mountain Ski area, Old Monarch Pass and Monarch Park areas. Prior to this time no active spruce beetle infestation had been observed in these areas. Since 2012, spruce beetle activity has increased and is now at epidemic levels across the Monarch Pass area. In some stands, mortality of the mature overstory is approaching 75 percent. In Colorado, spruce beetle has affected over 1.7 million acres since 1996. Figure 1. Example of forest conditions in the Monarch Pass area (early spring 2017). Photo by A. Rudney. — Decision Memo — Page 1 of 23 Figure 2. Example of trees killed by spruce beetle. Photo by A. Rudney. Western balsam bark beetle (Dryocoetes confusus) has been affecting stands within the ski area and across the Monarch Pass area since the early 2000’s. Lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta) forests in the area are at high risk for mountain pine beetle infestation (Dendroctonus ponderosae) due to mature age, tree size and density. In addition, increased snag (dead standing trees) levels within the ski area have exposed visitors to a higher risk of falling trees. The increase in mortality is leading to increased fuel loading and higher risks for firefighters attempting initial or extended attack on wildland fires within the project area. Purpose and Need: The purpose of the Monarch Pass project is to reduce the extent of spruce beetle infestation, western balsam bark beetle infestation, improve forest resiliency to insect and disease infestations, improve watershed health and aquatic habitat, reduce fuel loading, protect infrastructure and developed sites (e.g., ski area, campground, trail corridors), and provide for firefighter and public safety in the Monarch Pass area. The need for the project is due to an ongoing insect infestation resulting in significant mortality of Engelmann spruce (Picea engelmanii) and subalpine fir (Abies lasiocarpa) trees as well as highly susceptible forest conditions to insect outbreaks in the area. The need is also to improve the watershed health along the South Arkansas River by reducing the amount of sedimentation reaching the stream. The Monarch Pass project encompasses approximately 2,809 acres near the crest of Monarch Pass about 20 air miles west of Salida, Colorado. The predominant tree species on the site is Engelmann spruce, with a lesser component of subalpine fir and lodgepole pine and minor amounts of aspen and Douglas-fir. — Decision Memo — Page 2 of 23 DECISION Project Activities I have decided to proceed with the removal of insect infested and susceptible trees in the Monarch Pass area, as well as watershed improvement projects to reduce current sedimentation and erosion issues that are occurring in the project area. My decision incorporates feedback from the collaborative participants, public comments I received during the scoping period, recommendations from Forest Service Regional insect and disease experts, and my resource specialists. Resource concerns identified through the collaborative process and internal meetings with resource specialists were addressed through project design criteria listed below. I believe my decision best addresses the purpose and need for the project while protecting forest resources and meeting Forest Plan standards and other regulatory requirements. Treatments in spruce/fir stands: Sanitation and salvage will be the primary methods used on approximately 1,676 acres of spruce/fir forests. Sanitation is the removal of trees to improve stand health by stopping or reducing the actual or anticipated spread of insects and disease (Helms, 1998). Salvage is the removal of dead trees. Singletree and group selection treatments will be completed on areas within the project that have little or no insect infestation or mortality. Single tree selection is a method where individual trees of all size classes are removed more or less uniformly throughout the stand, to promote growth of remaining trees and provide space for regeneration (Helms, 1998). Under the group selection method, trees are removed and new age classes established in small groups to regenerate and maintain a multiage structure (Helms, 1998). In this case groups may be as small as 3 – 5 trees or up to ¼ acre (59 feet radius) in size. Singletree and group selection may be used on up to 450 acres (approximately 25 percent) of the spruce/fir acres within the project. For all treatments in spruce/fir, retain 10 percent of the stands in untreated reserves ranging in size from 1/10th to 2 acres. Scatter these reserves in a mosaic throughout the stands but focus on areas used by wildlife (i.e., middens, nest trees, etc.), areas containing large snags and down wood, doghair stands, rocky areas or areas that possess other unique features. The spruce beetle epidemic is evolving each year with new trees and new stands being impacted. In order to meet the purpose and need of the project a flexible implementation strategy will be necessary. Stands and areas selected for the single tree and group selection methods that become infested with spruce beetle affecting 30 percent or more of the basal area of the mature overstory will be converted to sanitation and salvage. Singletree and group selection treatments are generally limited to removing no more than 25 – 30 percent of the pre-treatment basal area of a stand. Allowing sanitation harvest of these acres allows the treatments to meet the purpose and need of the project. Treatments in lodgepole pine stands: Bark beetles are native to Colorado and do not typically pose a significant threat to healthy trees. Thinning remains the most effective treatment to improve forest health by reducing abiotic stress and thus, reducing the risk of insect infestation (Fettig 2012). Thinning combined with a reduction of accumulated surface fuels and shrubs also effectively reduces susceptibility to stand-replacing fires. Thinning implemented to promote landscape heterogeneity (i.e., age, size, density, and species composition) is most effective at increasing stand resistance to insect infestations (and other natural disturbances) as homogeneous forested landscapes provide large contiguous areas of susceptibility to similar disturbances (Fettig et al. 2007, Fettig and Hilszczanski — Decision Memo — Page 3 of 23 2015). Insect infestations and outbreaks, for example, tend to occur when favorable host conditions (i.e., stands with little heterogeneity) coincide with favorable environmental conditions (i.e., drought). When these conditions align, the probability of encounters with a suitable host increases (i.e., one in which resistance mechanisms (resin) can be overcome) (Fettig et al. 2007). Approximately 569 acres of lodgepole pine within the project area will be treated using a combination of thinning, patch cuts (group selection) and reserve. (Thinning is a treatment made to reduce stand density of trees primarily to improve growth or enhance forest health.) The treatments will be designed to reduce susceptibility to insect infestation, regenerate mature lodgepole stands and create age class diversity. Thin 80 percent of the stands generally from below to an average of 80 – 120 BA/A. Thinning should be irregular in character and fall in all BA/A values across the range. When thinning, remove 20 – 40 percent of the existing basal area on any given site. Example, if an area currently contains 240 BA/A, thin to no lower than 145 BA/A by removing 40 percent of the existing BA or thin 80 B/A to 60, removing 25 percent. If thinning will not meet the 80 – 120 BA/A target; this is OK. This target is designed to reduce the probability of blowdown within the residual stand. Thinning will be across diameter ranges. Leaving well-formed disease free trees with better crown ratios and conical shaped crowns (evidence of more rapid growth) is the goal. It is permissible to remove larger slow growing individuals to favor more vigorous, well-formed smaller trees. Leave trees should have greater than 40 percent crown ratios where possible. Under the patch cut (group selection) method trees are removed and new age classes established in small groups to regenerate and maintain a multiage structure (Helms, 1998). Treat up to 10 percent of the stands with group selection (1/4 to 1 acre in size) openings where all trees are removed. Retain 10 percent of the stands in untreated reserves ranging in size from 1/10th to 2 acres. Scatter these reserves in a mosaic throughout the stands but focus on areas used by wildlife (i.e., middens, nest trees, etc.), areas containing large snags and down wood, doghair stands, rocky areas or areas that possess other unique features. Additional Information for All Treatments: Treatments will occur on slopes up to 60 percent. On slopes up to 35 percent, conventional logging equipment (i.e., harvesters and skidders) and high floatation equipment (i.e., cut-to-length systems) will be utilized. On sustained slopes between 35 – 60 percent, high floatation equipment (i.e., cut-to-length systems) or aerial yarding techniques (i.e., skyline or helicopter yarding) will be utilized. In order to increase species diversity and resilience to insect and disease, as well as ensure regeneration of cut over areas, planting of new trees may be necessary. Where appropriate and needed, a mix of tree species will be planted. A mixture of Engelmann spruce, sub-alpine fir, lodgepole pine, bristlecone pine (Pinus aristata), limber pine (Pinus flexilis), Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) and aspen (Populus tremuloides) may be planted.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • History of Upper Arkansas Water Conservancy District by Ken Baker
    History of Upper Arkansas Water Conservancy District By Ken Baker Note: Ken Baker was Chaffee County Attorney in 1977 and became one of the original organizers of the UAWCD, its first General Manager and attorney, and later a Board Consultant. I. ORIGINAL DISTRICT The Upper Arkansas Water Conservancy District (UAWCD and sometimes “Upper District” or “the District”) was officially authorized on April 27, 1979 by Decree signed by the Hon. Max Wilson, District Court Judge in Division 11, sitting in Fremont County, Colorado. The Upper District comprised the territory within Chaffee County and that portion of Fremont County included within School District R-32-J and School District RE-3. The territory included in the District encompasses School District RE-3, School District R-32-J and School District R-31. The Upper District was organized under the “Water Conservancy Act” of the State of Colorado. The Act requires the districts formed under this Act to have specifically described territory, thus the selection of legally existing and legally described governmental agencies (the School Districts) as the “territory” within the District. The original directors, all of whom were active participants in the promotion and organization of the District, were: Denzel Goodwin RE-3 Fremont County Thomas Young RE-3 Fremont County Glenn Everett R-32-J Chaffee County Wendell Hutchinson R-32-J Chaffee County Roy Bowen R-31 Chaffee County Franklin Springer R-31 Chaffee County Verl Freek At Large Directors Goodwin, Hutchinson, Everett and Springer were appointed for three- year terms beginning June 1, 1979 and ending June 1, 1983.
    [Show full text]
  • Profiles of Colorado Roadless Areas
    PROFILES OF COLORADO ROADLESS AREAS Prepared by the USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region July 23, 2008 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 2 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS ARAPAHO-ROOSEVELT NATIONAL FOREST ......................................................................................................10 Bard Creek (23,000 acres) .......................................................................................................................................10 Byers Peak (10,200 acres)........................................................................................................................................12 Cache la Poudre Adjacent Area (3,200 acres)..........................................................................................................13 Cherokee Park (7,600 acres) ....................................................................................................................................14 Comanche Peak Adjacent Areas A - H (45,200 acres).............................................................................................15 Copper Mountain (13,500 acres) .............................................................................................................................19 Crosier Mountain (7,200 acres) ...............................................................................................................................20 Gold Run (6,600 acres) ............................................................................................................................................21
    [Show full text]
  • City of Salida Source Water Protection Plan
    City of Salida Source Water Protection Plan Chaffee County, Colorado January 31, 2018 Written by: Colleen Williams Source Water Specialist Colorado Rural Water Association For the Water Provider: City of Salida: ID # CO0108700 Cover photo by www.salidacouncilofarts.org 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS ACRONYMS ................................................................................................................................. 5 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................ 6 OVERVIEW OF COLORADO’S SWAPP PROGRAM ........................................................................ 7 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................... 8 Purpose of a Source Water Protection Plan .................................................................. 8 Protection Plan Development ........................................................................................ 9 Stakeholder Participation in the Plan Process ............................................................. 10 WATER SUPPLY SETTING ........................................................................................................... 11 Location and Description ............................................................................................ 11 Physical Characteristics ................................................................................................ 12 Geology ......................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Hydrogeology and Quality of Ground Water in the Upper Arkansas River Basin from Buena Vista to Salida, Colorado, 2000–2003
    Hydrogeology and Quality of Ground Water in the Upper Arkansas River Basin from Buena Vista to Salida, Colorado, 2000–2003 By Kenneth R. Watts Prepared in cooperation with the Upper Arkansas Water Conservancy District Scientific Investigations Report 2005–5179 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Department of the Interior Gale A. Norton, Secretary U.S. Geological Survey P. Patrick Leahy, Acting Director U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2005 For sale by U.S. Geological Survey, Information Services Box 25286, Denver Federal Center Denver, CO 80225 For more information about the USGS and its products: Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov/ Any use of trade, product, or firm names in this publication is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. Although this report is in the public domain, permission must be secured from the individual copyright owners to reproduce any copyrighted materials contained within this report. Suggested citation: Watts, K.R., 2005, Hydrogeology and quality of ground water in the upper Arkansas River Basin from Buena Vista to Salida, Colorado, 2000–2003: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2005–5179, 61 p. iii Contents Abstract ...........................................................................................................................................................1 Introduction.....................................................................................................................................................1
    [Show full text]
  • Forest Health & Wildfire Resiliency
    Chaffee Common Ground Funding Recommendation June 1, 2021 Page 1 of 4 The Chaffee Common Ground Citizens Advisory Committee recommends $2,448,241 in awards to 18 recipients during the Spring 2021 grant funding cycle. Twenty applications requesting $2.92 million were received. The package includes $2,015,600 for forest health and wildfire resilience, $249,640 to sustain rural landscapes, and $183,001 for recreation management that protects watersheds and landscapes in Chaffee County. Matching cash and in-kind funds associated with these recommendations equal $10,529.35, bringing a potential $12,977,859.35 in investments to the community. The following are the applications received with the amounts requested. Following each description, is the recommended funding. Forest Health & Wildfire Resiliency Monarch Pass Forest & Watershed Health Project $65,000 in 2021 to Arkansas River Watershed Collaborative (ARWC) to complete a 125-acre portion of the 2,809-acre U.S. Forest Service Monarch Pass Vegetation Management Project. Planned treatments are located on the lower slopes of Monarch Ridge near Monarch Park and both sides of US Highway 50 near Old Monarch Pass Road and Monarch Mountain ski area. ARWC’s mission is to serve Arkansas River Basin Communities by addressing locally identified watershed issues for economic, ecological and social benefit. Ranked 6th Recommended Funding: $50,000 in 2021 Focused Fuels Reduction for Fire Ready Communities $300,000 over three years to Colorado State University/Colorado State Forest Service for 260 acres of wildfire risk reduction and forest restoration work in five locations: Broadview along Count Road 289; Three Elk’s community green space; Kiowa Road near Mesa Antero; County Road 325 south of Lost Creek Ranch; and Poncha Pass.
    [Show full text]
  • Table of Contents Table of Contents
    Table of Contents Table of Contents................................................................................................................1 Chapter I: Introduction .......................................................................................................3 Purpose ...................................................................................................................................................................3 Scope of plan..........................................................................................................................................................3 Goals of Plan..........................................................................................................................................................3 Recommendations..................................................................................................................................................3 Public Process ........................................................................................................................................................3 Chapter II: Chaffee County Overview................................................................................4 A. Chaffee County Information.............................................................................................................................4 B. Trails in Chaffee County...................................................................................................................................4 United
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
    Environmental Assessment Continental Divide National Scenic Trail Relocation CHAPTER 3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES A. Background This section describes the current condition of resources in the Study Area, and the potential effects that the proposed action and its alternatives may have on these resources. Impacts to the environment are considered in terms of their direct, indirect and cumulative effects. Definitions for these effects are as follows (40 CFR 1508.7 and 1508.8): • Direct effects – Effects caused by the action and occurring at the same time and place. • Indirect effects – Effects caused by the action, but occurring later in time or further removed in place. • Cumulative effects – Incremental impacts of the proposed activities when added to other past, present and foreseeable future actions, regardless of what agency (Federal or non- Federal) or person undertakes such other actions. Direct, indirect and cumulative effects can result from the No Action Alternative. These effects would occur through the continuation of ongoing management practices and activities. The cumulative effects analysis considers activities on all lands in the project vicinity. Activities that have been occurring for many years, are currently ongoing, or are expected to continue into the near future include: logging; road building; road use and road maintenance; recreational activities; prescribed burning, wildland fires and wildland fire suppression; and mining and mineral exploration. As discussed above, effects discussed in this chapter focus primarily on direct, indirect and cumulative long-term effects resulting from the implementation of an alternative. Any short- term effects from new trails related primarily to construction would be temporary and minor.
    [Show full text]
  • Chaffee County, Colorado, and Incorporated Areas
    CHAFFEE COUNTY, Chaffee County COLORADO, AND INCORPORATED AREAS VOLUME 1 OF 2 COMMUNITY COMMUNNITY NAME NUMBER BUENA VISTA, TOWN OF 080030 CHAFFEE COUNTY (UNINCORPORATED AREAS) 080269 PONCHA SPRINGS, TOWN OF 080220 SALIDA, CITY OF 080031 Effective: December 7, 2017 Federal Emergency Management Agency FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY NUMBER 08015CV001A NOTICE TO FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY USERS Communities participating in the National Flood Insurance Program have established repositories of flood hazard data for floodplain management and flood insurance purposes. This Flood Insurance Study (FIS) report may not contain all data available within the repository. It is advisable to contact the community repository for any additional data. Part or all of this FIS report may be revised and republished at any time. In addition, part of this FIS report may be revised by the Letter of Map Revision process, which does not involve republication or redistribution of the FIS report. It is, therefore, the responsibility of the user to consult with community officials and to check the community repository to obtain the most current FIS report components. Initial Countywide FIS Date: December 7, 2017. TABLE OF CONTENTS Volume 1- December 7, 2017 Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 Purpose of Study 1 1.2 Authority and Acknowledgments 1 1.3 Coordination 3 2.0 AREA STUDIED 5 2.1 Scope of Study 5 2.2 Community Description 12 2.3 Principal Flood Problems 17 2.4 Flood Protection Measures 20 3.0 ENGINEERING METHODS 21 3.1 Hydrologic Analyses 21 3.2 Hydraulic Analyses 22 3.3 Vertical
    [Show full text]
  • 1 OVERVIEW in 2012, the Salida Ranger District of The
    TO: Ben Lara, Salida Ranger District, Pike and San Isabel National Forests FROM: Benjamin Rasmussen and Lauren Deaderick, U.S. Department of Transportation Volpe Center SUBJECT: Alternative Transportation Options in, to, and proximate to the Salida Ranger District DATE: August 2013 CC: Rosana Barkawi and Chris Sporl, USFS; Eric Plosky and Lindsey Morse, Volpe Center OVERVIEW In 2012, the Salida Ranger District of the Pike and San Isabel National Forest (Salida District) asked the U.S . Department of Transportation (DOT) John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center (Volpe Center) to identify options to provide or enhance alternative transportation service from Salida, Colorado, to Monarch Mountain Ski Area. The Volpe Center identified an option to expand current Salida Shuttle service to run more days per week, more roundtrips per day, and more weeks of the year. Working with the Volpe Center, the Salida District submitted a grant application to the last round of the Paul S. Sarbanes Transit in Parks (TRIP) Program in September 2012, but the application was not selected for funding. Ridership on the Salida Shuttle during the 2012-2013 ski season was significantly lower than in previous years. In light of this decline and the unsuccessful TRIP application, the Salida District decided not to pursue the expansion of Salida Shuttle service. Instead, the Salida District would like to promote ridesharing to Monarch Mountain Ski Area from the towns of Salida, Buena Vista, and Poncha Springs. Additionally, the Salida District would like to determine if people from the Front Range (Pueblo and Colorado Spring s) would be willing to take alternative transportation to the area.
    [Show full text]
  • Geology and Uranium Deposits of the Gochetopa and Marshall Pass Districts, Saguache and Gunnison Counties, Colorado
    Geology and Uranium Deposits of the Gochetopa and Marshall Pass Districts, Saguache and Gunnison Counties, Colorado U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY PRO FESS I 6N A L P A PE R 1457 AVAILABILITY OF BOOKS AND MAPS OF THE U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Instructions on ordering publications of the U.S. Geological Survey, along with prices of the last offerings, are given in the cur­ rent-year issues of the monthly catalog "New Publications of the U.S. Geological Survey." Prices of available U.S. Geological Sur­ vey publications released prior to the current year are listed in the most recent annual "Price and Availability List" Publications that are listed in various U.S. Geological Survey catalogs (see back inside cover) but not listed in the most recent annual "Price and Availability List" are no longer available. Prices of reports released to the open files are given in the listing "U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Reports," updated month­ ly, which is for sale in microfiche from the U.S. Geological Survey, Books and Open-File Reports Section, Federal Center, Box 25425, Denver, CO 80225. Reports released through the NTIS may be obtained by writing to the National Technical Information Service, U.S. Department of Commerce, Springfield, VA 22161; please include NTIS report number with inquiry. Order U.S. Geological Survey publications by mail or over the counter from the offices given below. BY MAIL OVER THE COUNTER Books Books Professional Papers, Bulletins, Water-Supply Papers, Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, Circulars, publications of general in­ Books of the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • RGNF Draft Record of Decision & Biological Assessment
    Draft Record of Decision Village at Wolf Creek Access Project United States Department Final Environmental Impact Statement of Agriculture Forest Service USDA Forest Service Rocky Mountain Region Rio Grande National Forest Divide Ranger District Mineral County, Colorado United States Department of Agriculture United States Forest Service Rio Grande National Forest 1803 West Highway 160 Monte Vista, Colorado 81144 July 19, 2018 Table of Contents Number / Section Page 1.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 1 2.0 Background and Location.............................................................................................................. 1 3.0 Purpose and Need .......................................................................................................................... 6 4.0 Decision ......................................................................................................................................... 7 4.1 The Decision .............................................................................................................................. 7 4.2 Selected Alternative................................................................................................................... 8 4.2.1 Best Management Practices ................................................................................................ 9 4.2.2 Monitoring .......................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Buffalo Bill's Cowboys Abroad
    ( ---._ ~ - ---· Buffalo Bill's Cowboys Abroad BY CLIFFORD P. WESTERMEIER Before Buffalo Bill's Wild West show appeared, the cowboy was both a hero and an antihero, depending upon the image created by the authors of dime novels and the writers of articles for newspapers and periodicals. The "hired man on horseback," either glorified or dishonored, was the victim of the pens of many individuals who were not qualified to judge his worth. Further­ more, three years following the launching of the Wild West show (1883), chroniclers of the cowboy began bidding him farewell. "The Decayed Cowboy," "On a Western Ranche," "Cattle Trails of the Prairies," "The Passing of the Cowboy," "A Fading Race," "The Passing of the Cow-Puncher," and "Goodbye to the American Cowboy" were predictive and presumptuous titles of articles pushing his bad-good and good-bad image from the scene. 1 Buffalo Bill may have "started the cowboy hero on his way," but the vast literature that surrounds William Frederick Cody certainly does not reveal any particular effort on his part to do more than enhance his own ego. 2 In fact, the Indian members of his traveling troupe fared far better, at least photographically. However, the ordinary spectator, the notables, and particularly the members of the press were fascinated and enthralled with the cowboy. This was the era of that supershowman "Buffalo Bill" as well as numerous others, among them James Butler Hickok-"Wild Bill," Gordon W. Lillie-"Pawnee Bill," and 1 Clifford P. Westermeier, Trailing the Cowboy (Caldwell, Idaho: Caxton Printers, 1955), pp. 383-90.
    [Show full text]