Slack Weiss Analysis Project
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
SLACK WEISS ANALYSIS PROJECT Medicine Bow-Routt National Forests & Thunder Basin National Grassland Parks Ranger District Jackson County, Colorado Heritage Specialist Report April 1, 2015 PREPARED BY: _____ /s/ Price B. Heiner____________ Price B. Heiner [email protected] (970) 723-2733 REVIEWED BY: ________________________________________ Charlie Sharp, NEPA Planner ACCEPTED BY: ________________________________________ Ric Ondrejka, IDT Leader PROJECT AND ANALYSIS AREAS The Slack Weiss Project area is located on the Parks Ranger District of the Medicine Bow-Routt National Forests and Thunder Basin National Grassland in Jackson County, approximately 25 miles south of Walden, Colorado, in Townships 4 & 5 North, Ranges 79, 80, & 81 West, 6th PM (Figure 1). Based on watershed boundaries, the Analysis Area encompasses approximately 139,747.7 acres (ac), including 58,804 ac (38.5%) of private land, 46,922 ac (33.6%) on National Forest, 24,015 ac (17.2%) on State lands, 14,926 ac (10.7%) on BLM, and 80.3 ac (0.1%) owned by the Colorado River Water Conservancy District (Figure 1; Table 1). Table 1. Land Ownership in the Slack Weiss Analysis Area. Land Ownership/ Administration Acres % of Total Private 58,804.3 38.5 Routt National Forest 46,922.0 33.6 State 24,014.7 17.2 Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 14,926.4 10.7 CO River Water Conservancy District 80.3 0.1 TOTAL 139,747.70 100.0 The project area encompasses 42,952 acres located primarily in the Arapahoe Creek (27,264 ac) and Chimney Rock (15,612 ac) Geographic Areas (GAs). Both GAs support motorized and non- motorized recreation, and portions of the Continental Divide Trail (CDNST) occur in the northern extent of the Chimney Rock GA. Small portions of the project area occur in the Willow Creek (49 ac) and Troublesome (27 ac) GAs (Figure 1). The 27,310-acre Arapahoe Creek GA is dominated by lodgepole pine (43%), spruce-fir (26%), and aspen (17%). The northeast corner of the GA provides deer and elk winter range. Desired conditions for this area include continued dominance by these land cover types; a variety of tree sizes and seral stages under Management Area prescriptions 5.11 and 5.13 (see Management Areas below); and vegetation diversity for a full spectrum of wildlife (Forest Plan 3-7). In Management Areas 5.13, late successional habitats should be provided and well distributed so that individuals requiring those habitats can interact with others (Forest Plan 3-8). The 15,622-acre Chimney Rock GA is dominated by lodgepole pine (26%), spruce/ fir (35%), aspen (22%), and shrubs (6%). Desired conditions for this area include continued dominance by these land cover types; a variety of tree sizes and seral stages, including late successional; continued shade of kettle lakes to provide amphibian habitat; riparian health that meets forest plan objectives in Indian Creek and other watersheds; and vegetation diversity for a full spectrum of wildlife (Forest Plan 3-12). The 44,897-acre Willow Creek GA is dominated by lodgepole pine (62%), spruce/fir (20%), and aspen (8%). Within the forested portion, 38% is considered late successional. Riparian areas are an important component of the geographic area. The northwest corner provides elk winter range and supports moose. Desired conditions for this area include continued dominance by these land cover types; a variety of tree sizes and seral stages in Management Areas 5.11 and 5.13; vegetation diversity for a full spectrum of wildlife; management of vegetation for big game habitat; and riparian stability and health (Forest Plan 3-41). Page 2 of 43 Figure 1. Slack Weiss Project and Analysis Areas. Page 3 of 43 The 57,208-acre Troublesome GA is dominated by lodgepole pine (64%), spruce/fir (12%), grass and forbs, and shrubs (15%). Within the forested area, 39% is considered late successional. Winter range for big game is provided in the southern portion of the area. Considerable riparian habitat occurs in the area that supports moose. Desired conditions for this area include continued dominance by these land cover types; a variety of tree sizes and seral stages in Management Areas 5.11 and 5.13; vegetation diversity for a full spectrum. Five Management Areas (MAs) represent the project area (Table 2). The majority of the project area is in MA 5.13 (Forest Products) and MA 5.11 (General Forest and Rangelands- Forest Vegetation Emphasis). Table 2: Forest Plan Management Areas in the Slack Weiss Project area. Management Area Acres 1.32 – Backcountry Recreation Non-motorized with Winter Limited Motorized 7,590 5.11 – General Forest and Rangelands – Forest Vegetation Emphasis 20,850 5.12 –General Forest and Rangelands – Range Vegetation Emphasis 5,838 5.13 – Forest Products 7,412 5.41 – Deer and Elk Winter range 1,262 TOTAL 42,952 Desired conditions for MAs in the project area include: MA 1.32 - Backcountry Recreation Non-Motorized with Winter Limited Motorized- Landscapes with predominantly natural appearance in relatively undisturbed condition. A variety of non-motorized recreation opportunities will be provided in summer, with motorized use allowed in winter. MA 5.11 - General Forest and Rangelands –Forest Vegetation Emphasis Vegetation composition and structure that provides a range of successional stages to meet wildlife, range, and timber objectives. MA 5.12 - General Forest and Rangelands – Range Vegetation Emphasis Satisfactory rangeland conditions and desired plant communities with species composition, structure, and pattern plus desired soil characteristics consistent with range site potential. MA 5.13 - Forest Products Vegetation composition and structure that provides a mosaic of tree ages and heights for a sustained yield of forest products. MA 5.41 – Deer and Elk Winter Range Vegetation composition and structure that provides the forage, cover, and solitude needs of deer, elk, and other species. Page 4 of 43 PURPOSE AND NEED The primary purpose of this project is to improve forest health, reduce threats to public safety, and provide commercial forest products while minimizing environmental effects in the project area. A secondary purpose of the project is to address other resource conflicts and needs identified in the project area. The project would advance Forest Service goals, objectives, and desired conditions of the 1997 Routt National Forest Revised Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) including managing for ecosystem function and providing for multiple-uses and sustainability of National Forests in an environmentally acceptable manner (Forest Plan, 1-1 to 1-3). The mountain pine beetle epidemic has affected large portions of the Slack Weiss project area, resulting in reduced regeneration, diversity, and resiliency of forest cover types; and high hazard fuel conditions due to tree mortality. The project would implement a variety of silvicultural treatments and fuels treatments to: Encourage establishment and growing conditions for aspen and lodgepole pine regeneration, through natural regeneration and/or artificial reforestation; Manage timber stands to create optimum conditions for timber resiliency, growth, and regeneration; Reduce the development of large, continuous hazardous fuels and associated threats to public safety by removing dead, dying, and susceptible trees; Enhance wildlife habitat; and Provide commercial forest products and/or biomass to industry. In addition, other resource conflicts and needs have been identified in the project area including fence damage and risk of damage associated with dead and dying trees; and travel-related impacts on recreation, watershed, heritage, and other values. Implementing actions to address these issues would benefit range, hydrology, recreation, heritage, and wildlife resources while minimizing environmental effects in the project area. ALTERNATIVES Alternative 1 – No Action Under the No Action Alternative, current management would continue in the project area. No silvicultural treatments would occur to improve or restore forest health. Attempts to expedite the establishment of the next forest would not occur. Standing or down fuel would not be reduced, and fuel treatments would not occur to provide for public safety. No additional forest products would be utilized. Roads would remain unchanged and scheduled maintenance would continue. Identified resource conflicts and needs in the project area would not be addressed. However, valid previously approved management actions would continue to be implemented in the project area, and new independent actions could be analyzed and/or implemented. The EA may document consideration of a no-action alternative through the effects analysis by contrasting the impacts of the proposed action and any alternative(s) with the current condition and expected future condition if the proposed action were not implemented (36 CFR 220.7(b)(2(ii). Page 5 of 43 Alternative 2 – Proposed Action Alternative 2 is the Proposed Action Alternative designed to specifically meet the purpose and need for this project. Under this alternative, areas affected by mountain pine beetle would be managed to improve and restore conditions for the future forest and to provide timber products. Standing or down fuel loading would be reduced. Fuels treatments would occur to provide safe areas around roads, trails, fences or near private lands. Design criteria would be implemented to avoid or minimize impacts on resources. In developing this alternative, environmental constraints including steep and rocky slopes, roadless areas, wetlands, streams and riparian