United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Coulton Floyd II Timber & Fuels Management Analysis Environmental Assessment

Hahns Peak/Bears Ears Ranger District, Medicine Bow-Routt National Forests & Thunder Basin National Grassland, Routt County, Colorado June, 2014

Responsible Official: Chad Stewart District Ranger

For Further Information: Mark Cahur 925 Weiss Dr. Steamboat Springs, CO 80487 [email protected]

Typical forest conditons within Coulton Floyd II analyis area.

Disclaimer: The Forest Service uses the most current and complete data it has available. GIS data and product accuracy may vary. They may be: developed from sources of differing accuracy, accurate only at certain scales, based on modeling or interpretation, incomplete while being created or revised, have represented features not in accurate geographic locations, etc. The Forest Service makes no expressed or implied warranty, including warranty of merchantability and fitness, with respect to the character, function, or capabilities of the data or their appropriateness for any user's purposes. The Forest Service reserves the right to correct, update, modify, or replace this geospatial information based on new inventories, new or revised information, and if necessary in conjunction with other federal, state or local public agencies or the public in general as required by policy or regulation. Previous recipients of the products may not be notified unless required by policy or regulation. For more information, contact the Medicine Bow - Routt National Forests and Thunder Basin National Grassland Supervisor's Office (2468 Jackson Street, Laramie, WY 82070, 307-745-2300).

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 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 for program information (e.g. Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) please 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, SW., Washington, DC 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

i Contents Contents ...... ii I. Introduction ...... 1 II. Proposed Project Location ...... 1 III. Purpose & Need Need for the Proposal ...... 4 IV. Proposal Developement...... 4 V. Proposed Action and No Alternatives ...... 5 Alternative #1-No Action ...... 5 Alternative #2-Proposed Action ...... 6 VI. Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action and No Alternatives ...... 12 A. Biological Evaluations and Assessments Summary ...... 12 B. Aquatic Resources, Amphibians & Fish ...... 15 C. Botanical Resources ...... 16 D. Economics & Social Resources ...... 18 E. Fire & Fuels ...... 18 F. Heritage Resources ...... 19 G. Hydrologic Resources ...... 20 H. Lands & Mineral Resources ...... 23 I. Rangeland Resources ...... 24 J. Recreation Resources ...... 26 K. Soils Resource ...... 26 L. Visual Resource ...... 27 M. Wildlife- Terrestrial Resources ...... 28 VII. Finding of No Significant Impact ...... 34 Context ...... 34 Intensity ...... 34 References ...... 37

List of Tables

Table 1. Forest Plan Geographic Area Information ...... 1 Table 2. Treatment Unit Descriptions ...... 7 Table 3. Description of Effects Determinations ...... 13 Table 4. Species Effects Determinations ...... 13

List of Figures Figure 1. Vicinity map ...... 3 Figure 2. Proposed Action Map...... 10 Figure 3. Proposed Action Map...... 11

Appendix Appendix A. Non-governmantal Oganization and Individual Involvement List ...... 55 Appendix B. Other Agency, Tribal Consultation & Involvement……………………………..…59 Appendix C. Responses to Comments ...... 60

ii Hahns Peak/Bears Ears Ranger District, Medicine Bow-Routt National Forests & Thunder Basin National Grassland

I. Introduction The Hahn’s Peak/Bears Ears Ranger District (“the District”) proposes to manage predominately beetle killed vegetation through timber harvest on approximately 2355 acres in the Coulton Floyd II analysis area (AA). These actions are proposed to be implemented on the Hahns Peak/Bears Ears Ranger District of the Medicine Bow-Routt National Forests and Thunder Basin National Grassland. The District prepared this environmental assessment (EA) to determine whether implementation of the actions may significantly affect the quality of the human environment and thereby require the preparation of an environmental impact statement. By preparing this EA, we are fulfilling agency policy and direction to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). For more details of the proposed action, see the Proposed Action and Alternatives section of this document.

II. Proposed Project Location

The proposal is located in Routt County, Colorado; approximately 20 miles north of the town of Steamboat Springs, Colorado on United States Forest Service (USFS) administered land. The closest incorporate town is Clark, Colorado approximately 5 miles to the west. The legal description AA is T9N R84W Sections 4-9, 16-21, 29-32, T9N R85W Sections 1, 12, 13, 24, 25, 36, T10N R84W Sections 29-31, and T10N R85W Section 36. The area around and near the AA is locally and commonly referred to as Seedhouse and/or Hinman Park.

The Routt National Forest Land & Resource Management Plan 1997 Revision (Forest Plan) identifies the majority of the greater landscape as the Upper Elk River Geographic Area. Pursuant to this geographic area direction, an over-arching desired condition is to maintain spruce/fir, lodgepole pine and aspen as the dominant cover types (Forest Plan 3- 65).

Table 1- Forest Plan Geographic Area Information, includes acres and the percent of the AA within the various geographic areas.

Table 1 Forest Plan Geographic Area Information Acres within Geographic Area Percent of AA the AA UPPER ELK RIVER 9,240 95% SAND MTN 260 3% LOWER ELK RIVER 200 2% TOTAL 9,700 TOTAL

1 Coulton Floyd II Timber & Fuels Management Analysis

Management Area’s (MA) further refine the guidance within the broader thematic view of the geographic areas displayed in Table 1. The management areas provide more specific desired conditions and standards and guidelines that drive management actions and project development.

Approximately 90% of the proposed treatments would occur within:  5.13 Management Area (MA) – Forest Products (forest plan 2-44) o MA Theme – Areas are managed to produce commercial wood products. o Desired Condition - Manage vegetation composition and structure for a mosaic of ages and heights for a sustained yield of forest products. Approximately 4% of the proposed treatment would occur within:  7.1 MA – Residential/Forest Interface (forest plan 2-50) o MA Theme – Areas characterized by an interface between private lands and National Forest System lands are managed to build and maintain cooperative relationships between the landowners and other governments with jurisdictions. o Desired Condition – Management actions will influence the vegetation composition and structure to promote visual screening and minimize the risk of catastrophic fires and insect epidemics. Approximately 6% of treatments are proposed in other MA prescriptions to allow for meaningful treatment at a stand level. These MA’s include:  MA 1.32 Backcountry Recreation Non-motorized With Winter Limited Motorized  MA 3.4 National River System - Scenic Rivers, Designated and Eligible  MA 4.3 Dispersed Recreation  MA 5.14 Deer And Elk Winter Range

2 Hahns Peak/Bears Ears Ranger District, Medicine Bow-Routt National Forests & Thunder Basin National Grassland

Figure 1. Vicinity map

3 Coulton Floyd II Timber & Fuels Management Analysis

III. Purpose & Need for the Proposal The purpose of this project is to establish regeneration, growth and vigor to beetle killed stands expediting the establishment of the next forest.

There is a need to:  Manage timber stands to create optimum conditions for timber resiliency, growth, and regeneration.  Provide a continuing supply of quality timber products to existing and new forest markets and economies.  Reduce the development of large continuous high hazard fuel conditions.  Protect private property and safety of forest users through timber removal.

The project would be accomplished using commercial and non-commercial timber harvest to capture marketable forest products before deterioration. Timber removal will assist in expediting regeneration, improve forest health and vigor, reduce hazardous fuel loads and improve public safety. The timber and silvicultural practices will also be used as a tool to benefit other forest uses and resources as appropriate.

IV. Proposal Development

The purpose, need and initial proposal where developed to meet guidance, direction and desired future conditions as outline in the Forest Plan (see II. Project Location) while addressing the overriding factor of a large scale beetle epidemic that has killed 75% to 90% of the mature lodgepole pine across the geographic area.

An interdisciplinary team (IDT) of USFS resource specialists assisted in development of the initial proposal. The IDT also further refined and analyzed the proposal and its effects on the human environment. The contingent of IDT members and ancillary subject matter experts include: IDT Members: Aitken, Marti – Botanist Brewen, Jessica -Transportation Engineer Cahur, Mark – Timber Management Specialist and IDT Leader Faller, Janet – Lands and Minerals Foster, Kent – Recreation Henderson, Rick – Fisheries Biologist Jones, Becky – Wildlife Biologist Krezelok, Jamie – Hydrologist Roth, Bridget – Archeologist Sargent, Pete – Rangeland Management Specialist Stahlin, Erick – Fuels Tepler, Randy – Soils Scientist Tupala, Jeff – Landscape Architect

4 Hahns Peak/Bears Ears Ranger District, Medicine Bow-Routt National Forests & Thunder Basin National Grassland

Subject Experts: Bencke, Nick – Global Information Systems (GIS) Klug, Paul – Silviculture Oreleman, Andrew – Forester

The proposal has been listed in the United States Forest Service Schedule of Proposed Actions since July 1, 2013 for the Medicine Bow-Routt National Forest. Legal Notice was published in the newspaper of record, Steamboat Pilot & Today, on August 11, 2013 initiating the 30 day comment period. Simultaneously the Notice of Proposed Action (proposal) was mailed directly to 33 individuals and 78 non-governmental organizations (see Appendix A). The Forest Service also provided the proposal to or consulted directly with Federal, Tribal, State, and/or local agencies (see Appendix B). The proposal was also made available through links established on the Medicine Bow-Routt National Forests & Thunder Basin National Grassland external web site.

The IDT considered public comments received throughout development of the final proposed action and also provided responses to comments (Appendix C). Incorporated throughout this EA are also responses to consultation, design criteria and the IDT’s analysis and input.

The initial proposal described three sivilcultural treatments, clearcut, salvage/sanitation, and shelterwood that would be used to attain the purpose and need of the proposal. Silvicultural treatments control the establishment, growth, composition, health, and quality of forests and woodlands to meet the diverse needs and values of landowners and society on a sustainable basis (Forest Service Manual 2400 Chapter 70-Silviculural Practices).

Throughout proposal development, these silvicultural treatments were considered along with potential variants to these treatments, changes to proposed treatment acres, proposal- specific design criteria, and other resource management opportunities. The proposed action (Section V) provides a detailed description of the refined proposal, which includes a total of 2,355 of the originally identified 2,493 treatment acres.

V. Proposed Action & No Alternatives

Two alternatives were analyzed: No Action and the Proposed Action. The Proposed Action was developed to maximize attainment of the purpose and need. The Proposed Action also integrates actions and strategies that meet Forest Plan goals, objectives, standards, and guidelines (36 CFR 220.7 (b) (2) (iv)).

Alternative #1 – No action

Under the No Action alternative vegetation management would not take place. The predominately beetle killed lodgepole pine forest would continue to deteriorate and eventually (5-10 years) all or most of the dead trees would fall and accumulate on the ground across the 2,355 acres of proposed treatment. Road improvement work would not

5 Coulton Floyd II Timber & Fuels Management Analysis take place. Protection of improvements such as fences, power lines, roads and dispersed camping areas from falling trees would not occur. Many currently accessible areas would become inaccessible. Silvicultural techniques to expedite regeneration and diversity of the next forest would not occur.

Alternative #2 - Proposed Action

Under the Proposed Action the Forest Service would treat approximately 2,355 acres of forested stands through even and un-even aged timber management. Commercial and non-commercial logging operations would implement various silvicultural prescriptions and post-harvest techniques, described in detail below, to meet the purpose and need for the project. Also included as part of the proposed action are the design criteria included under each individual resource sectioned contained in section VI.

Silvicultural Prescriptions (Rx)

Rx1: Clearcutting with Reserves (908.32 acres) In this prescription all lodgepole pine trees would be removed in order to: (a) provide forest products; (b) avoid additional windthrow and excessive buildup of down wood or fuel hazards; and (c) create an exposed microclimate—favorable for natural regeneration of lodgepole pine and suitable for other early-seral species such as spruce or Douglas-fir. This treatment is considered a final harvest. As applied in this setting, it would create a mainly non-stocked condition needing regeneration of a new age-class. Clearcutting is best suited to pine-dominated stands that have not transitioned to subalpine fir-dominated understories.

Rx1a: Clearcutting with Reserves and Removal of Subalpine Fir (649.63 acres) This prescription is similar to Rx1, but includes removal of subalpine fir trees from the middle and understory canopy during the site preparation step. Removal of subalpine fir would prevent the stands from transitioning to multi-layered stands of subalpine fir and spruce with a lodgepole pine component limited to openings large enough for lodgepole to regenerate. The units selected for this treatment occur on productive upland lodgepole pine sites currently supporting an overstory of dead lodgepole pine and well-stocked lower layers of subalpine fir.

Rx2: Salvage Cutting and Irregular Group Regeneration (205.17 acres) This prescription would remove all bark beetle-attacked dead or dying trees as well as live lodgepole pine at risk of windthrow. The treatment would retain a multi-layered, multi-age-class subalpine fir component, intended to conserve and promote winter habitat for snowshoe hare, an essential winter prey of the Canada lynx, a federally listed threatened species. The salvage treatment is designed to add a new age-class of mixed species regeneration, non-uniformly distributed as small canopy gaps and irregular larger openings. Long-term future production of sawtimber or wood biomass in these areas will be possible with continued irregular uneven-aged group harvest practices at intervals over time.

6 Hahns Peak/Bears Ears Ranger District, Medicine Bow-Routt National Forests & Thunder Basin National Grassland

Rx2a: Salvage Cutting (361.05 acres) This prescription would remove all bark beetle-attacked dead or dying trees as well as live lodgepole pine at risk of windthrow. Following treatment, the remaining lodgepole pine is expected to be adequate for full site occupancy (more than 150 pole- or sawtimber-size trees per acre). This prescription would be used on predominantly high- productivity, moist sites on concave slopes or easterly aspects that, in addition to harvestable components of lodgepole pine sawtimber, support a full range of subalpine fir and sometimes various spruce ages and size classes including mature sawtimber. Rx3: Special Treatment (186.06 acres) This prescription is similar to Rx2a, but is primarily assigned to stands without access (or need) for commercial treatments. These are generally the areas along private boundaries where salvage treatments may be conducted by hand or by stewardship contracting as the need arises generally for safety or fuel reduction.

Rx4: Reforestation (44.56 acres) This prescription would be applied to stands that are essentially non-stocked following recent timber harvest and do not reflect conditions favorable for natural regeneration from seed. These stands need “clean-up” of remaining dead and down lodgepole pine trees, many of which are not merchantable. In addition, these areas will require planting to promptly return them to a productive forested condition.

Table 2- Treatment Unit Descriptions, including size of treatment unit, Forest Plan management area it is within and silvicultural prescription.

Table 2 Treatment Unit Descriptions Treatment Unit Forest Plan MA Silvilcultural Prescription Acres M1 5.13 Rx1a 58.22 M2 5.13 Rx1 10.99 M3 5.13 Rx1a 79.60 M4 5.13 Rx2a 31.42 M5 5.13 Rx1a 27.78 M6 5.13 Rx1 161.33 M7 5.13 Rx1a 100.35 M9 5.13 Rx2a 58.19 M11 5.13 Rx1a 17.81 M12 5.13 Rx1a 70.48 M15 5.13 Rx2a 259.56 M19 5.13 Rx1a 32.68 M21 5.13 Rx1a 14.48 M22 5.13 Rx1a 8.77 M26 5.13 Rx1 20.37 M30 5.13 & 5.41 Rx2a 5.32 + 6.56 = 11.88 M31 5.41 Rx1 5.47 M32 5.13 & 5.41 Rx1 16.26 + 8.45 =24.71 M35 5.13 Rx1 26.73 M36 5.13 Rx2 33.18 M37 5.13 Rx1 23.55

7 Coulton Floyd II Timber & Fuels Management Analysis

M39 3.4 & 1.32 Rx1 12.14 + 90.69 = 102.83 M40 5.41 & 7.1 Rx3 4.15 + 14.27 = 18.42 M41 5.41 Rx3 2.48 M42 5.41 & 7.1 Rx3 15.04 +.06 = 15.10 R13 5.13 Rx2 17.42 W1 4.3 Rx1 21.39 W2 5.13 Rx1a 10.46 W3 5.13 Rx1a 28.22 W4 5.13 Rx1 44.03 W5 5.13 Rx1a 23.34 W6 5.13 Rx1a 17.86 W7 5.13 & 7.1 Rx1 9.71 + 6.96 = 16.67 W8 5.13 Rx1 25.45 W9 5.13 Rx2 17.21 W10 5.13 Rx1a/Rx4 4.69/2.0 W12 5.13 Rx1/Rx4 3.99/9.0 W13 5.13 Rx1a 6.40 W14 5.13 Rx1 35.84 W15 5.13 Rx4 2.62 W16 5.13 Rx1 27.69 W17 5.13 Rx1 8.77 W18 5.13 Rx1 41.02 W19 5.13 Rx4 21.06 W21 5.13 Rx1a 11.94 W22 5.13 Rx1 5.32 W23 5.13 Rx1 22.13 W24 5.13 Rx1 19.87 W25 5.13 Rx1a 13.53 W26 5.13 Rx1 28.46 W27 5.13 Rx1 15.80 W28 5.13 Rx1a 10.88 W29 5.13 Rx1a 30.48 W30 5.13 Rx2 14.98 W31 5.13 Rx1a 7.66 W32 5.13 Rx2 37.02 W35 5.13 Rx2 36.20 W36 5.13 Rx1a 52.15 W40 5.13 Rx2 38.40 W42 5.13 Rx1 4.22 W43 5.13 Rx1a 13.93 W46 5.13 Rx1 12.30 W47 5.13 Rx1 76.61 W50 5.13 Rx1 38.82 W51 5.13 Rx4 8.42 W52 5.13 Rx1 17.25 W53 5.13 Rx1a 7.92 W54 5.13 Rx2 10.76 W55 5.13 Rx1 44.30 W56 5.13 & 4.3 Rx3 2.33 + 1.25 = 3.58 W57 4.3 Rx1 21.21 W58 7.1 Rx3 5.63 W59 7.1 Rx3 58.36 W60 5.13 Rx3 11.97

8 Hahns Peak/Bears Ears Ranger District, Medicine Bow-Routt National Forests & Thunder Basin National Grassland

W61 5.13 Rx3 70.52 W62 5.13 Rx4 1.46 W63 5.13 & 4.3 Rx1 1.17 + .03 = 1.20 Total Acres Treatment 2354.78 *Note: Table 1- Unit Treatment Descriptions displays acreages in 1/100th of an acre, however treatment units may vary up to 5% due to mapping discrepencies and to ensure feasability of implementation.

Transportation

Existing transportation systems would be utilized to provide general access to the treatment units. Existing roads may require some reconstruction to allow for harvest equipment access and implementation. Reconstruction would also have the desired effect of stabilizing problem areas such as drainage structures or hardening where necessary to maintain and improve hydrologic condition of system roads. Approximately 7 miles of system roads may be improved through reconstruction associated with this project. Approximately 7.5 miles of temporary road would be needed to access units. The majority of these temporary road locations are in place, although closed, from previous harvest entry; however, some new temporary road locations will be required. All temporary roads will be closed and rehabilitated after use. Less than 1 mile of specified road (a new road that is fully designed and would remain in place) may be needed to provide an engineered prism in access routes that require additional control measures (drainage or other road structures). Post-Harvest Site Preparation Treatments

Post-harvest silvicultural techniques (site preparation) will be used to ensure adequate regeneration and tree stocking across the treatment units as required by The National Forest Management Act of 1976. Two primary site preparation methods are scarification and broadcast burning. Scarification uses equipment to expose (not displace) mineral soil while crushing green tops and incorporating seed to promote regeneration. Broadcast burning at moderate or greater fire intensity levels may be used as an alternative to or in conjunction with scarification to clear slash and prepare the seedbed. Lopping, scattering, or piling and burning of residual logging slash may be used as needed to meet silvicultural objectives and Forest Plan standards. Planting of lodegpole pine, Engleman spruce or Douglas-fir may occur where needed/elected for supplemental stocking or to promote species diversity.

9 Coulton Floyd II Timber & Fuels Management Analysis

Figure 2: Proposed Action Map, North.

10 Hahns Peak/Bears Ears Ranger District, Medicine Bow-Routt National Forests & Thunder Basin National Grassland

Figure 3: Proposed Action Map, South.

11 Coulton Floyd II Timber & Fuels Management Analysis

VI. Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action & No Action Alternatives This section summarizes the potential impacts of the Proposed Action. An interdisciplinary team of district resource specialists reviewed the Proposed Action and assisted in evaluating potential resource issues. These issues are displayed by resource area with design criteria that address the issue or other needs associated with the specific resource. Additionally, where specific impacts of the No Action have been identified by specialists, they have been listed. Full reports by resource area are contained in the project file. The effects (direct, indirect and cumulative) on all resources were found to be negligible (with effects of limited extent, duration, and intensity) and did not drive the development of another action alternative. Environmental effects of the Proposed Action to the aquatic wildlife, botany, fire/fuels resource, heritage, hydrology, lands & minerals, rangeland, recreation, soils, visuals, wildlife-terrestrial, including transportation and social/economic resources would remain well-within Forest Plan desired conditions. Though considered and analyzed for this EA, they are not included in their entirety pursuant to 40 CFR 1500.4(c) and summaries have been displayed. Where concerns, considerations or issues have been identified for a resource, they are explained and design criteria included if necessary under the appropriate resource heading. Complete copies of the resource reports are available for public review at the Hanhs Peak/ Bears Ears Ranger District Office, 925 Weiss Drive, Steamboat Springs, CO 80487.

A. Biological Assessments & Evaluations for Amphibians, Birds, Fish, Mammals & Plants Summary

All Federally listed Threatened, Endangered, Proposed or Candidate (TEPC) species and Regional Forester Sensitive Species (RFSS) and Management Indicator Species (MIS) were considered for analysis in the Biological Assessment and Evaluations for wildlife, botany and aquatic resources (Table 4). Also included are effects determinations for plants of local concern. Generally those species with suitable habitat and at least a marginal potential of occurrence within the project area were analyzed in detail and listed here. Individual resource reports may contain additional information on species considered but removed from detailed or additional analysis. The individual resource reports can further define those species that have a likelihood of or known presence within the AA and/or greater area,

Additional information, effects of the No Action alternative on sensitive species and specific design criteria that address Aquatic Resources (amphibian, fish), Botanical Resources and Terrestrial Wildlife can be found under the individual resource heading.

12 Hahns Peak/Bears Ears Ranger District, Medicine Bow-Routt National Forests & Thunder Basin National Grassland

Table 3. Description of Effects Determinations. Forest Service Manual 2670 Supplement No: R2_2600-2011-1 outlines four effects determination options for USDA Forest Service Rocky Mountain Region Sensitive Species.

Table 3 Description of Effects Determination Effects Determination Description No Impact (NI). Project will not alter sensitive species habitat or harm individuals. Beneficial Impact (BI). Project is wholly beneficial for sensitive species. No short-term impacts expected. May adversely impact individuals, but not Project has potential to alter habitat or harm likely to result in loss of viability in the individuals but not to the level where Planning Area, nor cause a trend toward viability is questionable. federal listing (MAII). Likely to result in a loss of viability in the Project will substantially impact individuals Planning Area, or a trend toward federal or habitat to the degree that species viability listing. is threatened.

Table 4. Species Effects Determination, outlines one of the four effects determination options for USDA Forest Service Rocky Mountain Region Sensitive Species (Table 3). These include Threatened, Endangered, Proposed or Candidate (TEPC) Species, Sensitive Species, Management Indicator Species (MIS) and Plants of Local Concern for those that have the potential to occur within the AA. For Species Effects Determination of the No Action please see the individual resource reports.

Table 4 Species Effects Determination Plants- Federally listed Threatened, Endangered, Proposed or Candidate (TEPC) Species No TEPC plants or critical and/or suitable habitat found within the analysis area Plants- U. S. Forest Service, Region 2 Sensitive Species Common name & Scientific name Impact or Effect narrowleaf moonwort-Botrychium lineare MAII Rabbit Ear’s gilia-Ipomosis aggreta ssp. Weberi MAII Plants- Medicine Bow-Routt N.F. and Thunder Basin N.G. Species of Local Concern Common name & Scientific name Impact or Effect whiteveined wintergreen-Pyrola picta- MAII western moonwort-Botrychium hesperium MAII lanceleaf grapefern-Botrychium lanceolatum MAII leathery grapefern-Botrychium multifidum MAII purple lady’s slipper-Cypripedium fasciculatum MAII curlyhead gumweed-Procomma croccea MAII western wakerobin -Trillium ovatum MAII squashberry -Viburnum edule MAII

13 Coulton Floyd II Timber & Fuels Management Analysis

panicled bulrush, small bur-reed NI Plants-Management Indicator Species No plants have been designated for inclusion on the forest MIS list. Fish- Federally listed Threatened, Endangered, Proposed or Candidate (TEPC) Species No TEPC fish found within the analysis area, no suitable habitat and no water depletions associated with this project. Fish- U.S. Forest Service, Region 2 Sensitive Species Common name & Scientific name Impact or Effect Colorado River cutthroat trout -clarkii plueriticus MAII Mountain sucker-Castostomus platyrhynchus MAII Fish – Management Indicator Species Common name & Scientific name Impact or Effect Colorado River cutthroat trout- clarkii plueriticus MAII Amphibians - Federally listed Threatened, Endangered, Proposed or Candidate (TEPC) Species No Amphibian TEPC species found or anticipated within the AA. Amphibians- U. S. Forest Service, Region 2 Sensitive Species Common name & Scientific name Impact or Effect Northern Leopard Frog-Lithobates pipiens MAII. Boreal toad-Anaxyrus boreas boreas MAII Amphibians-Management Indicator Species No amphibians have been designated for inclusion on the forest MIS list. Birds- Federally listed Threatened, Endangered, Proposed or Candidate (TEPC) Species

Common name & Scientific name Impact or Effect

Yellow-billed cuckoo - Coccyzus americanus NI Greater Sage-grouse – Centrocercus urophasianus NI Birds- Region 2 Sensitive Species Common name & Scientific name Impact or Effect Boreal owl-Aegolis funerues MAII Flammulated owl-Otus flammeolus MAII Northern goshawk-Accipter gentilis MAII Olive-sided flycatcher-Contopus cooperi MAII American peregrine falcon, Bald eagle, Black swift, Black backed NI woodpecker, Brewer’s sparrow, Columbian sharp-tailed grouse, Grasshopper sparrow, Greater sage grouse, Lewis’s woodpecker, Loggerhead shrike, Northern harrier, Purple martin Birds- Management Indicator Species

14 Hahns Peak/Bears Ears Ranger District, Medicine Bow-Routt National Forests & Thunder Basin National Grassland

Common name & Scientific name Impact or Effect Golden crown kinglet –Regulus satrapa MAII Northern Goshhawk – Accipter gentilis MAII Vespers sparrow, Wilson’s warbler NI Mammals- Federally listed Threatened, Endangered, Proposed or Candidate (TEPC) Species Common name & Scientific name Impact or Effect Canada lynx - Lynx Candensis MAII North American wolverine NI Mammals- Region 2 Sensitive Species Common name & Scientific name Impact or Effect American marten-Martes Americana MAII Finged myotis-Myotis thysanodes MAII Hoary bat-Lasiurus cinereus MAII Pygmy shrew-Sorex hoyi MAII Townsend’s big eared bat-Plecotus townsendii MAII Gray wolf, River otter, Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep NI Mammals- Management Indicator Species No mammals have been designated for inclusion on the forest MIS list.

B. Aquatic, Amphibian & Fisheries Resources

Issues Related to Proposed Action The primary issues of concern presented by and contained in the Aquatic, Amphibian & Fisheries specialist report are: 1. See Biological Assessments and Evaluations section and specifically Table 3 & Table 4 as they relate to species effects analysis for fish and amphibians. 2. Although vegetation management activities and road construction are not considered a factor in the decline of amphibian species, crushing of juveniles and adults may occur. Negative impacts from the proposed activities would most likely occur in the spring when amphibians are migrating from over wintering habitat to breeding habitat and after the breeding season when they are dispersing. This period is usually from middle of May through the first part of September. 3. Effects also come about through habitat changes that occur due to vegetation removal. For example, vegetation management activities change microclimate conditions by reducing moisture content and increasing temperature, which can block amphibian migrations (Loeffler 2001). The shrub component of the upland forest environments used by amphibians is important as they increase retention of water and heat energy necessary for amphibians (Loeffler 2001).

15 Coulton Floyd II Timber & Fuels Management Analysis

Issue Related to No Action 1. None identified.

Proposed Action Design Criteria and other Aquatic, Amphibian, & Fisheries Resources Needs  Fishery resources will be primarily protected through the implementation of either 1) 100 foot minimum hard buffer on each side of streams, or 2) a soft buffer where the buffer width will be approximately 100 feet. Riparian areas dominated by lodgepole pine are already losing much of this microclimate as these tree die. This has led to the use of a soft buffer so that in some riparian areas dead trees within 100 feet of the stream can be harvested without affecting riparian conditions (coordination with Fisheries Biologist required for soft buffer).  If breeding sites are found for any of the sensitive amphibian species and it is determined that the proposed actions would negatively affect the site, then operations would cease in that area until site specific mitigations can be implemented.  If management activities are determined to be directly producing negative impacts to streambanks or water quality in Colorado River cutthroat trout streams, then operations would cease in that area until site specific mitigations can be implemented.

Direct, indirect and cumulative effects of each alternative are analyzed in the Aquatic Amphibian & Fisheries Resources Report. Both the No Action and Proposed action would be consistent with the Forest Plan. Based on existing information, the best available science, comments received from other agencies and the public, and the information provided by the Fiheries Biologist, it was determined that none of these issues were significant (i.e. alternative driving) issues for the project. Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines, Best Management Practices, Project Monitoring and implementation of the stated Design Criteria are believed adequate to minimize any issues and result in Forest Plan consistency and the Endangered Species Act. . C. Botanical Resources

Issues Related to Proposed Action The primary issues of concern presented by and contained in the Botanical Resources report are: 1. See Biological Assessments and Evaluations section and specifically Table 3 & Table 4 as it relates to species effect’s analysis for certain plants. 2. Timber harvest and thinning has led to a more open canopy with additional light reaching the forest floor (which may be beneficial or detrimental depending on the species), soil disturbance and compaction, development of skid roads, and noxious weed invasion. Changes in forest composition, structure and fire frequency have also taken place. 3. Direct effects to all terrestrial plant species included trampling of individuals resulting in breaking, crushing and/or uprooting individuals. Individuals may be covered or smothered by slash, chips, or soil and may have trees fallen over them.

16 Hahns Peak/Bears Ears Ranger District, Medicine Bow-Routt National Forests & Thunder Basin National Grassland

4. Road construction causes soil disturbance and erosion, destruction of habitat, and noxious weed invasion. It also increases the impacts from recreational activities by allowing improved access for those activities.

Issues Related to No Action 1. In forested habitats, the possibility of dead trees falling and crushing individuals or populations may increase as a function of time following individual tree mortality. 2. Increased water yields are expected to occur as a result of tree mortality under both the No Action (MPB killed trees, greater opportunity for high severity fire in watershed) and the Proposed Action (MPB killed and harvested trees, reduced opportunity for high severity fire in watershed).

Proposed Action Design Criteria and other Botanical Resource Needs  If specific impacts from the alternatives to threatened, endangered, and Region 2 sensitive species (TES) or their habitats are identified, management may be adjusted as necessary to reduce those impacts through working with the biologists or botanists. Timing restrictions may also need to be applied. The TES species of interest include goshawks, raptors, pygmy shrews, amphibians, and rare plants.  Delineate a 100 ft. buffer around known occurrences of R2 sensitive and local concern plant species and flag for avoidance by project-related activities. Limit operations in buffered population’s areas to hand and/or non-ground disturbing mechanical equipment. Unless identified as a fuel hazard, trees felled in buffered areas would be left on site. All known botany occurrences are identified on proposed action map.  To avoid introduction of non-native species, clean all equipment, both Forest Service and private, before entering the project area. Equipment should be inspected prior to coming onto the Forest when it has been in areas of known noxious weed infestations or any unknown areas.  Any seed used in the project area will be tested for noxious and non-native seed according to the Guidelines for Re-vegetation for the Medicine Bow-Routt National Forests and Thunder Basin National Grasslands.

Direct, indirect and cumulative effects of each alternative are analyzed in the botanical Resources Report. Both the No Action and Proposed action would be consistent with the Forest Plan. Based on existing information, the best available science, comments received from other agencies and the public, and the information provided by the Botanist, it was determined that none of these issues were significant (i.e. alternative driving) issues for the project. Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines, Best Management Practices, Project Monitoring and implementation of the stated Design Criteria are believed adequate to minimize any issues and result in Forest Plan consistency and the Endangered Species Act.

17 Coulton Floyd II Timber & Fuels Management Analysis

D. Economics & Social Resources

Issues Related to Proposed Action 1. The current market demand for timber, economic conditions of local communities, and post-project costs must be considered during the analysis process.

Issues Related to No Action 1. The Routt National Forest Plan includes goals, objectives, and strategies related to the social and economic contributions of the Plan area. Goal 3 of the Forest Plan is to “cooperate with local governments and communities to develop opportunities that contribute to economic viability” (p. 1-2). Objectives and Strategies outlined in the Forest Plan include: implementing a sustainable timber program each year; developing programs that are complementary to local community objectives and plans; and assisting local governments in promoting economic stability. These may not occur under the No Action alternative.

2. Forest Service Region 2 2013 Vegetation Management Strategy funded 455,750 CCF (where 1 CCF = 100 cubic feet). Sawtimber, pellet producers, post & pole and wood-to energy companies identified a regional demand for 756,203 CCF. A 300,453 CCF shortfall was identified (source R2 industry meeting and 2013 Vegetation Strategy spreadsheet July12, 2013). The No Action would not assist in rectifying this market demand shortfall.

Proposed Action Design Criteria and other Economic Needs  None identified.

Direct, indirect and cumulative effects of each alternative are analyzed in the Economics Report. Both the No Action and Proposed action would be consistent with the Forest Plan. Based on existing information, the best available science, comments received from other agencies and the public, and the information provided the forest planner, it was determined that none of these issues were significant (i.e. alternative driving) issues for the project. Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines, Best Management Practices, Project Monitoring and implementation of the stated Design Criteria are believed adequate to minimize any issues and result in Forest Plan consistency.

E. Fire & Fuels

Issues Related to Proposed Action The primary issues of concern presented by and contained in the Fire & Fuels report are: 1. If burning of logging slash is desired, ensure pile size is appropriate to meet Colorado Air Pollution Control Division Standards relating to smoke.

18 Hahns Peak/Bears Ears Ranger District, Medicine Bow-Routt National Forests & Thunder Basin National Grassland

Issue Related to No Action 1. The majority of acres within the units move from a currently low intensity fire behavior to high intensity fire beahvior through time. Intensity is generally defined as the the amount of heat produced and the resistence to control should a fire start. Low intensity fires produce less heat and have less resistance to control than high intensity fires.

Proposed Action Design Criteria and other Fire & Fuels Resource Needs  Restrict slash piles to 7068 ft³ or current Colorado Air Pollution Control Division (CAPD) specifications (smoke permit limits efficient burning to a maximum pile size of (45’x20’x15’).  Burning in high moisture conditions will reduce the potential of an escaped fire. Follow all applicable pile burn requirements specified in the CAPCD smoke permit and/or Routt Zone programmatic pile burn plan.  Machine slash piles shall be located at least twice their diameter from residual timber so damage will not occur during burning operations.  Machine slash piles shall be located at least 1/8th mile away from any residence and hand piles shall be located at least 100’ from any residence.

Direct, indirect and cumulative effects of each alternative are analyzed in the Fire & Fuels Report. Both the No Action and Proposed Action would be consistent with the Forest plan. Based on existing information, the best available science, comments received from other agencies and the public, and the information provided by the Assistant District Fire Management Officer, it was determined that none of these issues were significant (i.e. alternative driving) issues for the project. Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines, Best Management Practices, Project Monitoring and implementation of the stated Design Criteria are believed adequate to minimize any issues and result in Forest Plan consistency.

F. Heritage Resources

Issues Related to Proposed Action The primary issues of concern presented by and contained in the Archeologist’s specialist report are: 1. There are two cultural resources (5RT3015 & 5RT1736.1) that occur within or adjacent to actual timber management units. 2. Should any road construction or other activities occur outside surveyed units potential for detrimental effects is applicable.

Issues Related to No Action 1. Deterioration of at least one significant archeological site may occur from significant disturbance associated with dead and falling trees.

19 Coulton Floyd II Timber & Fuels Management Analysis

Proposed Action Design Criteria and other Heritage Resource needs  Prior to on the ground sale preparation or other implementation the archeologist will be involved to identify the known cultural resources (5RT3015 & 5RT1736.1) and they will be protected.  Approximate locations of roads occurring outside units will be made known to archeologist prior to final timber sale contract and review will occur.  Should “Center Stock Driveway” signs be identified on trees during implementation, these trees can be topped for safety, leaving the lower bole and sign standing in place.  Burn piles should not be placed outside of identified treatment units.  Site 5RT3015 will not have mechanized equipment within its boundaries. Hand falling is allowed and mechanized arms can reach into the site to harvest trees with the rest of the vehicle remaining outside and will remove the dead tree hazard to the site. Felled tree will be left in place and/or lopped and scatter within the site.

Direct, indirect and cumulative effects of each alternative are analyzed in the Heritage Resources Report. Both the No Action and Proposed action would be consistent with the Forest Plan. Based on existing information, the best available science, comments received from other agencies and the public, and the information provided by the Forest Service Archeologist, it was determined that none of these issues were significant (i.e. alternative driving) issues for the project. Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines, Best Management Practices, Project Monitoring, consultation with Colorado State Historic Preservation Officer and stated Design Criteria are believed adequate to minimize impacts and result in Forest Plan consistency.

G. Hydrologic Resources Issues Related to Proposed Action The primary issues of concern presented by and contained in the Hydrologic Resources specialist report are: 1. Ground disturbing activities would occur. The main sources of ground disturbance are associated with transport of logs to the landing, post-harvest site preparation by machine trampling or roller chopping, and the network of roads, skid trails and landings needed to access the stands (MacDonald and Stednick 2003). 2. With any ground disturbing activity there is potential for increased erosion and delivery of sediment to the stream system. 3. This alternative would have an increase in water yield since there would be no interception by standing tree boles and removal of some understory vegetation. If the increase in water yield results in channel adjustment processes, which are then amplified by removal of trees and increased ground disturbance through timber harvest activities, then long-term stream health could be compromised.

20 Hahns Peak/Bears Ears Ranger District, Medicine Bow-Routt National Forests & Thunder Basin National Grassland

Issue Related to No Action 1. This alternative would not affect current road concerns. Roads would be managed in their current state, and would continue to affect hillslope hydrology and sedimentation. Gullying would still occur on multiple roads and the existing connected disturbed areas would remain 2. The no action alternative may affect the Standard “Manage land treatments to conserve site moisture and to protect long-term stream health from damage by increased runoff” if the increase in water yield results in channel adjustment processes and compromises long-term stream health.

Proposed Action Design Criteria and other Hydrologic Resource Needs  Keep slash out of perennial and intermittent stream courses, and all riparian areas and wetlands. Do not accumulate slash greater than 24” high in ephemeral stream courses.  Landings should be located in upland areas, where practicable, to minimize the potential for slash piles and burning of slash to affect protected stream courses  Keep skid trails out of swales, ephemeral draws, and crenulations, except where designated.  Areas outside of unit boundaries and road right of ways are excluded to protect riparian areas, wetlands, sensitive plants and animals, and heritage resources unless approved by the Forest Service.  Avoid soil disturbing actions during periods of heavy rain or wet soils. Do not operate equipment when conditions will result in rutting of soils. Winter operations can occur with a minimum of 1 foot of packed snow or 2 inches of frozen soil.  Locate vehicle service and fuel areas, chemical storage and use areas, and waste dumps on gentle upland sites. Mix, load and clean on gentle upland sites. Dispose of chemicals and containers in State-certified disposal areas.  Where possible, use hardened fords rather than culverts for road-stream crossings, outslope roads with rolling dips and/or waterbars to maintain hillslope hydrology to the extent possible and ensure adequate road drainage for all conditions. Armor rolling dips as needed to prevent rutting damage. Space cross drains based on slope and soil type.  Avoid operating mechanical equipment on sustained slopes steeper than 35%.  Within units, streamside management zones will be designated wherever USGS blue-line streams, wet depressional areas, springs or other riparian and wetland habitats exist. No heavy equipment will be allowed to operate within these streamside management zones. Keep equipment 100’ from developed spring sources.  Piling of slash is discouraged except in fuels reduction units. Burn piles should not exceed 60 feet in diameter. Burn piles greater than 30 feet in diameter will be rehabilitated when economically feasible. Consider not burning piles that cannot be rehabilitated due to economics, access, or would serve as wildlife habitat. Smaller (less than 20 foot diameter) hand piles may be left unburned for habitat.

21 Coulton Floyd II Timber & Fuels Management Analysis

 Complete site preparation by burning whenever possible, especially in units with steep slopes, and/or those adjacent to streams and wetlands where traditional site preparation may increase surface erosion and stream sedimentation. Units with a stream in bottom of unit and trail above are good candidates as minimal control lines would be needed.  Mechanical site preparation passes should occur on the contour versus down the fall line on all slopes greater than 5 percent where possible.  Designate areas listed below as protected improvements on the Sale Area or Contract Map to prevent damage through tree felling, skidding, piling, and burning (see provided map). Require avoidance and/or restoration to full function of these protected improvements including but not limited to: irrigation ditch right-of-ways; fences, motorized and non-motorized trails, high use dispersed campsites, power-line right-of-ways, cattle guards, water improvements and all associated structures, and road signs.  Slash and other logging debris will be kept out of irrigation ditches. If slash or other material does get in the ditch, it shall be removed promptly to avoid impeding flow of water and damage to the ditch.  All crossings of ditches will be temporary in nature and will not affect ditch function or stability. Upon completion of work all construction materials shall be removed and ditch restored to fully functional condition.  All new specified road locations will be reviewed by a watershed specialist.  Temporary road construction will follow the following criteria. o Outslope roads with rolling dips and/or waterbars to maintain hillslope hydrology to the extent possible and ensure adequate road drainage for all conditions. o Road widths should not exceed 12 feet unless needed to meet curve radius or intersection needs. o Temporary roads should not exceed 8 percent. o Any cut/fill required for temporary road construction should not exceed 2 feet in height. o Temporary roads will not cross perennial or intermittent stream courses, wetlands, or riparian areas.  Restore and re-contour all temporary roads to a hydrological self-maintaining and natural state. Restore hydrology and landscape character of the area and re- contour temporary roads that cross slopes of 25 percent or more. Waterbarring and sub-soiling may be required. Scarify and reseed old roadbed to reduce visual impact and to blend with the surrounding landscape, as necessary. Do not use berms/tank traps for road closure adjacent to high-use arterial and collector roads. Use different sizes of rocks and boulders buried at least 1/3 in ground for barrier instead of berm/tank trap in the immediate foreground of arterial and collector roads.  Skid trails and landings shall be ripped, seeded, and/or have slash scattered to prevent erosion and reduce compaction. Scattering of slash may be in lieu of constructing water bars. Scattering of slash shall cover approximately 30-50% of the skid trail or landing. Heavily used trails and landings identified by the Forest Service will require ripping to reduce compaction instead of scattering

22 Hahns Peak/Bears Ears Ranger District, Medicine Bow-Routt National Forests & Thunder Basin National Grassland

slash. These trails will be ripped to a depth of 4-6 inches and seeded with an approved seed mix. When ripping skid trails, the ripper teeth shall be lifted every 150 feet on slopes less than 15%, every 100 feet on slopes 15-30%, and every 50 feet on slopes greater than 30% to prevent concentration of water and development of rills and gullies.  Implement Watershed Conservations Practices Handbook-FSH2509.25-Chapter 10 Management Measures.

Direct, indirect and cumulative effects of each alternative are analyzed in the Hydrologic Resources Report. Both the No Action and Proposed action would be consistent with the Forest Plan. Based on existing information, the best available science, comments received from other agencies and the public, and the information provided by the Forest Service Hydrologist, it was determined that none of these issues were significant (i.e. alternative driving) issues for the project. Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines, Best Management Practices, Watershed Conservations Practices Handbook-FSH2509.25- Chapter 10 Management Measures, Project Monitoring and implementation of stated Design Criteria contained herein are believed adequate to minimize issues and result in Forest Plan and the Clean Water Act consistency.

H. Lands & Mineral Resources Issues Related to Proposed Action The primary issues of concern presented by and contained in the Lands & Minerals specialist report are: 1. Ensure protection and access to the various special uses during implementation. These include electric transmission lines, recreation residences, private property access roads, ditches and gaging stations.

Issue Related to No Action 1. Falling dead timber could be a threat to the special use authorizations within the analysis area, primarily the power line and recreation residences. The potential for damage to facilities from blown-down timber would not be reduced. 2. The threat of wildfire presented to these various facilities would not be mitigated.

Proposed Action Design Criteria and other Lands & Minerals Resource Needs  Area listed below are protected improvements and are designated on the Analysis Area Map and /or should be designated on Sale Area or contract map, as appropriate, to prevent damage through proposed activities. Require avoidance and/or restoration to full function of these protected improvements: o Irrigation Ditches and access routes (all access routes may not be identified on map) o Fences o Special Use Roads o Powerline right-of-ways and access routes (all access routes may not be identified on map) o Gauging Stations

23 Coulton Floyd II Timber & Fuels Management Analysis

 Allow access to permittees on the following roads: NFSR 440 and NFSR 441, private property access routes for the McLaughlin Property Owners Assoc., and the Hinman Road Access Assoc./Hinman Acres Access Road Assoc., access to the powerline via FSR 442.1 and 448.1A and other access routes shown on the Analysis Area Map.  Communication and coordination with private property owners and permittees should occur throughout the project.  Contact the YVEA (Eddie Magee 970-871-2226) 48 hours prior to commencing work, if performing work within 10’ of overhead powerlines.  Ensure slash piles do not block or interfere with the use of permitted facilities and their associated access roads on National Forest System lands. Whenever possible, clearing dead and downed trees around facilities and their access roads is encouraged.  Where powerlines are present, limit overall height of equipment under lines to 14 feet to assure clearances.  Leave vegetation in portions of the ROW (where sagging lines and ground clearance are not a concern) to break sight distance and to maintain natural appearing landscape mosaic pattern.

Direct, indirect and cumulative effects of each alternative are analyzed in the Lands & Minerals Resources Report. Both the No Action and Proposed action would be consistent with the Forest Plan. Based on existing information, the best available science, comments received from other agencies and the public, and the information provided by the Realty Specialist, it was determined that none of these issues were significant (i.e. alternative driving) issues for the project. Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines, Best Management Practices, and Design Criteria, Project Monitoring and implementation of the stated Design Criteria contained herein are believed adequate to minimize any issues and result in Forest Plan consistency.

I. Rangeland Resources

Issues Related to Proposed Action The primary issues of concern presented by and contained in the Rangeland Resources report are: 1. Livestock may avoid areas where harvesting work is occurring, but may be attracted to the openings created following the removal of timber. 2. Ground disturbance caused by scarification, skid trails, landings, and roads can promote the spread of noxious weeds. Canada thistle and houndstounge are the most prevalent noxious weeds in the area. 3. The risk for introducing noxious weeds would increase as vehicles and equipment are brought into the project area.

Issues Related to No Action 1. Lodgepole pines are currently falling at an unprecedented scale and causing irreversible damage to range fences.

24 Hahns Peak/Bears Ears Ranger District, Medicine Bow-Routt National Forests & Thunder Basin National Grassland

2. Livestock distribution will become more restricted by the accumulation of deadfall from lodgepole. This could increase grazing pressure on the more accessible areas of the allotment.

Proposed Action Design Criteria and other Rangeland Resource Needs  Locate and use weed free project staging areas e.g., landing areas.  Avoid or minimize all types of travel through weed infested areas, or restrict to those periods when spread of seed or propagules are least likely. If questions arise consult noxious weed coordinator.  Remove mud, dirt, and plant parts from equipment before moving it into a project area.  Clean all equipment, before leaving the project site, if operating in areas infested with weeds. Yellow toadflax is adjacent to units W42, W18, W2, and W56 (see map below). Two previous timber sales (Barley and Mill Creek) are currently being treated for small populations of yellow toadflax and Canada thistle adjacent to the project area  Minimize soil disturbance to the extent practical, consistent with project objectives. Where project disturbance creates bare ground, consistent with project objectives, re-establish vegetation to prevent conditions to establish weeds.  Inspect ground disturbing operations in noxious weed infested areas for at least three to five growing seasons following completion of the project. For on-going projects, continue to monitor until reasonable certainty is obtained that no weeds have occurred. Provide for follow-up treatments based on inspection results.  All fences will be restored promptly after logging to the condition existing immediately prior to logging (see map below). Hinman Park fence runs through unit W56. The Mckee fence runs through unit W58. The Burn Creek fence runs through units W54, W4, and W16. The Reed Creek/Burn Creek boundary fence runs through units W24 and W18. The Barbey/Reed Creek boundary fence runs through W28, W29, W35, and W36. There are cattleguards located on NFS road 440. Fence repair will be kept current with logging operations.  Trees should be logged up to both sides of a fence.  Abide by timber sale contract provision RO-C6.223 (protection of fences) or similar in Coulton Floyd II project area. Unless otherwise agreed to in writing, all fences, as designated on Sale Area Map, which are required to be cut because of temporary road construction, skid road construction, or other logging activities, shall not be cut until the fence has first been "line braced" or "fence braced," to prevent loss of tension, on both sides of the wire span or series of short spans to be cut.

Direct, indirect and cumulative effects of each alternative are analyzed in the Rangeland Resources Report. Both the No Action and Proposed action would be consistent with the Forest Plan. Based on existing information, the best available science, comments received from other agencies and the public, and the information provided by the Rangeland Specialist, it was determined that none of these issues were significant (i.e. alternative driving) issues for the project. Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines, Best Management Practices, Project Monitoring and implementation of the stated Design

25 Coulton Floyd II Timber & Fuels Management Analysis

Criteria are believed adequate to minimize any issues and result in Forest Plan consistency.

J. Recreation Resources Issues Related to Proposed Action The primary issues of concern presented by and contained in the Recreation Specialist report are: 1. Concern over possible conflicts with the various permitted outfitter/guides operating within or in the vicinity of the proposal to include: Vista Verde Guest Ranch, Elk River Guest Ranch, Home Ranch, Del’s Triangle 3 Outfitters and Steamboat Lake Outfitters.

Issue Related to No Action 1. Safety concerns and potential future limitation on access to high use recreation areas due to falling trees.

Proposed Action Design Criteria and other Recreation Resource Needs  During project implementation phase, work with the recreation staff to schedule harvest activity on both a timing (operating season, timing restrictions, etc.) and geographic scale (sale design, subdivisions, etc.) to minimize impacts to outfitter/guides to the smallest extent possible.  No operations the day before and the first weekend of all hunting seasons.

Direct, indirect and cumulative effects of each alternative are analyzed in the Recreation Resources Report. Both the No Action and Proposed action would be consistent with the Forest plan. Based on existing information, the best available science, comments received from other agencies and the public, and the information provided by the Forest Service Recreation Specialist, it was determined that none of these issues were significant (i.e. alternative driving) issues for the project. Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines, Best Management Practices, Project Monitoring and stated Design Criteria are believed adequate to minimize impacts and result in Forest Plan consistency.

K. Soil Resources Issues Related to Proposed Action The primary issues of concern presented by and contained in the Soils Resources specialist report are: 1. Erosion will occur but is not expected to be detrimental to productivity. 2. Complete site preparation to only the extent needed for reforestation. 3. Temporary roads usually alter site hydrology, and soil productivity through compaction and loss of nutrients from removal of surface horizons or by mixing surface soils with unfavorable substrates.

26 Hahns Peak/Bears Ears Ranger District, Medicine Bow-Routt National Forests & Thunder Basin National Grassland

Issues Related to No Action 1. No action will likely produce an increase in fine organic matter and coarse woody debris and increase contiguous fuel conditions. If fire were to occur it would likely be high severity to the soil horizon. It would reduce ground cover, creating levels the first year below the amount sufficient to control accelerated erosion, but would increase in years following. Loss of organic materials can result in water repellency and bare soils being exposed to overland flow and raindrop impact. Large-scale erosion and flooding after severe wildfires are common, normal occurrences in mountainous or hilly terrain (Curran et al., 2006). This erosion could be detrimental to soil productivity, quality and hydrologic function of the watershed.

Proposed Action Design Criteria and other Soils Resource Needs  Only scarify to the extent needed for reforestation, this is considered light to moderate soil disturbance.  Roads that are to be built will be 100 feet from streams and wetlands, if stream crossings are necessary they will cross at right angles there by reducing sediment (also included in Hydrology Design Criteria).  After the use of temporary roads as access to harvest units they will be rehabilitated (also included in Hydrology Design Criteria).  Units W8, W29, W30, W32, W35, W36 and potions of M40 are on areas with a high mass wasting potential and are not suited for additional roads.

Direct, indirect and cumulative effects of each alternative are analyzed in the Soil Resources Report. Both the No Action and Proposed action would be consistent with the Forest Plan. Based on existing information, the best available science, comments received from other agencies and the public, and the information provided by the Forest Service Soil Scientist, it was determined that none of these issues were significant (i.e. alternative driving) issues for the project. Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines, Best Management Practices, Watershed Conservations Practices Handbook-FSH 2509.25- Chapter 10 Management Measures and Design Criteria, project monitoring and stated Design Criteria are believed adequate to minimize issues and result in Forest Plan consistency.

L. Visual Resources

Issues Related to Proposed Action The primary issues of concern presented by and contained in the Visual Resources specialist report are: 1. Short term effects on visual resources would be noticed by visitors while camping or traveling on roads or trails.

Issue Related to No Action 1. Overtime a landscape of jackstraw trees would exist. If wildfire were to occur a long lasting visible scar would exist until new vegetation is established.

27 Coulton Floyd II Timber & Fuels Management Analysis

Proposed Action Design Criteria and other Visual Resource Needs  Layout units to mimic natural landscape mosaic pattern by following natural contour lines and create irregular and undulating edges. Locate edges of units adjacent to existing aspen stands as feasible.  Retain and protect natural features such as rock outcrops, young healthy trees, understory trees of lodgepole pine, aspen and spruce/fire and shrubs: cut stumps low to the ground as feasible; remove heavy slash and locate and screen slash piles and landings away from Hinman Camground, trailhead parking areas, dispersed recreation sites and the immediate foreground (approximately 25 to 200 feet from edges of road) of NFSRs 400, 430, 440 and 441, NFSTs 1176 and 1188 to minimize visual impacts and to maintain scenic quality.  Rehabilitate and/or revegetate disturbed soils on landings, burned slash pile sites, skid trails and temporary roads after the completion of treatments to reduce soil contrast.

Direct, indirect and cumulative effects of each alternative are analyzed in the Visual Resources Report. Both the No Action and Proposed action would be consistent with the Forest Plan. Based on existing information, the best available science, comments received from other agencies and the public, and the information provided by the Forest Service Landscape Architect, it was determined that none of these issues were significant (i.e. alternative driving) issues for the project. Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines, Best Management Practices, Project Monitoring and stated Design Criteria are believed adequate to minimize impacts and result in Forest Plan consistency.

M. Wildlife-Terrestrial Resources

Issues Related to Proposed Action The primary issues of concern presented by and contained in the various wildlife reports are: 1. See Biological Assessments and Evaluations section and specifically Table 3 & Table 4 as they relate to species effects analysis for certain birds and mammals. 2. Potential impacts to known or discovered raptor nests, including northern goshawk nests. 3. Potential impacts to Lynx habitat. 4. Potential impacts to wildlife habitat (general). 5. Potential impacts to screening along roads for ungulates. 6. Motorized travel in Management Area 5.41-Deer and Elk Winter Range. 7. Roads and skid trails in lynx habitat.

Issue Related to No Action 1. Bark beetles are causing high levels of tree mortality in the analysis area. This will likely influence wildlife even under the no-action scenario. Potential scenarios for nine species, the American marten, boreal owl, boreal toad, North American elk, northern goshawk, olive-sided flycatcher, pine squirrel, snowshoe

28 Hahns Peak/Bears Ears Ranger District, Medicine Bow-Routt National Forests & Thunder Basin National Grassland

hare, and three-toed woodpecker in table 4. The source reports associated with these species assessments are included in the project record and available from the authors of this report or at the internal Forest Service website http://fsweb.r2.fs.fed.us/rr/ecology/barkbeetles. Proposed Action Design Criteria and other Wildlife Resource Needs  Units and/or sections of units that are determined to be primary lynx habitat by quantitative (coverboard measurements) and/or qualitative (field assessment) field measures will be dropped from the proposed action and no timber management will occur within these units. These areas have been dropped and are displayed on the proposed action map as lynx exclusions and will not be treated.  Timber management in Unsuitable Lynx Habitat with areas of advanced understory regeneration have been identified and the specific silvicultural prescriptions that have been developed for the proposed action will be followed. These areas of advanced regeneration are also included on the proposed action map.  Retain on average 4 existing ‘hard’ snags (typically, lodgepole pines killed by mountain pine beetles or spruces killed by spruce beetles, decay class 1 or 2) per acre within treatment units. This may be reduced to 2 snags per acres in the 5.13 management areas, but should be at 4 snags/ acre in all other management areas. Distribute snags singly or in groups of up to 32 trees (equivalent to 4 snags/acre x 8 acres). Leaving a mixture of single snags (occasionally) as well as snag groups (2 to 32 trees/group) would be the most desirable result. Snag clumps are preferred and when the opportunity exists these should be placed in the locations of rare plant species identified as also needing protection (this would result in the snag retention clumps meeting two biological purposes). If a stand does not contain adequate snags to meet this criteria, meet this requirement by retaining this required tree density as additional snag replacement ‘live trees’ Use the design criteria for ‘live tree’ retention for marking guidance. Selected ‘hard’ snags should have a larger-than-average diameter for the stand and be at least 25 feet tall, but in no case should a retained snag be smaller than 10 inches dbh. Snags with evidence of existing wildlife use (cavities, nests, etc.) should receive preference for retention. Select snags that are away from roads or likely landing locations and that appear to be firmly rooted and free of potentially dangerous defects (such as an unstable top or “widow maker” limbs). It is acceptable to connect some snag groups to the unit perimeter (a “peninsula”) but most groups (> 70% by stem count) should be “islands” retained inside the treatment unit perimeter. Retain all ‘soft’ (i.e., rotten, decay class 3 to 5) snags unless they are a safety hazard (Biological Diversity Standard 2 in RNF LRMP on p. 1-8). Paint retention snags (hard and soft) with an identifiable “wildlife tree” marking. Furthermore, protect snags under special provisions identified in Section A (of the timber sale contract), List of Special Provisions, by distinguishing marked snags as “reserve trees” under provisions C[T]2.3# (Reserve Trees) and C[T]6.32# (Protection of Reserve Trees). Retention snags should be considered and avoided in the sale layout of skidding and timber removal activities. Should it be determined at the time of logging that a reserve snag would be in a skid trail or that it is a hazard to people, fell (or top) the snag; however, the snag shall be

29 Coulton Floyd II Timber & Fuels Management Analysis

retained on site as coarse woody debris and an equivalent replacement snag within the unit should be marked for each snag that cannot be avoided.  Applicable to management actions that include all intermediate harvest cuts. Retain on average 4 live character trees per acre. Trees may be retained singly or in groups of up to 32 trees (equivalent to 4 live trees/acre x 8 acres). Leaving a mixture of single trees (occasionally) and groups (2 to 32 trees/group) would be the most desirable result. Select trees that are away from roads or likely landing locations. It is acceptable to connect some groups to the unit perimeter (a “peninsula”) but most groups (> 70% by stem count) should be “islands” retained inside the treatment unit perimeter. Snag clumps are preferred and when the opportunity exists these should be placed in the locations of rare plant species identified as also needing protection (this would result in the snag retention clumps meeting two biological purposes). Select live trees that are dominant or co-dominant in the stand, but in no case should a retained tree be smaller than 10 inches dbh or 25 feet tall. Character trees have obvious (even severe) bole or crown defects (broken top, forked bole, spike top, stem decay, cat face, bayonet top, lop-sided-crown, etc.) or have a squirrel midden at the base and are preferred over undamaged, symmetrical trees. Any conifer species is an acceptable choice for retention but Douglas-fir, spruce and subalpine fir trees are preferred. Up to 20% of character trees may be aspens. However, do not mark for retention any live tree infested with bark beetles (mountain pine beetle or other species) or root disease or that is an obvious safety hazard. Generally, select lodgepole pines with a Hawksworth dwarf mistletoe rating of 2 or less. Occasionally, however, it may be necessary to leave a pine with a mistletoe rating of 3 or more to satisfy the spatial distribution criteria for snags and replacement snags within units. Paint all live retention trees with an identifiable ‘wildlife tree’ marking. Protect these trees under special provisions identified in Section A (of the timber sale contract), List of Special Provisions, by distinguishing marked trees as “reserve trees” under provisions C[T]2.3# (Reserve Trees) and C[T]6.32# (Protection of Reserve Trees). Should it be determined at the time of logging that a reserve tree would be in a skid trail or that it is a hazard to people, fell (or top) the snag; however, the snag shall be retained on site as coarse woody debris and an equitable replacement reserve tree within the unit should be marked for each reserve tree that cannot be avoided. Within 2 years after completion of the timber sale, it is desirable to install a ‘Wildlife Tree’ sign on all surviving live reserve trees (collect K-V $’s for this purpose). One sign should be attached to the trunk at dbh using at least 2 aluminum nails. Eight years or more following treatment, an evaluation may be scheduled to ascertain the number of surviving live character trees per acre. Wind, ice, beetle infestation and other factors are expected to substantially reduce the number of live trees standing after 8 years. Where more than 2 live reserve trees are present per acre, and where potential mistletoe infection of young trees is unacceptable, girdling or branch-pruning of mistletoe- infested lodgepole pines in excess of 1/acre may be considered.  In treatment units along open roads, retain snag clumps and live character trees adjacent to roads to provide screening for deer and elk. This retention of snags and live character trees may be used to meet the Design criteria for snag retention

30 Hahns Peak/Bears Ears Ranger District, Medicine Bow-Routt National Forests & Thunder Basin National Grassland

and the Design criteria for live character tree retention. Ideal trees for retention will have the characteristics described in the aforementioned design criteria. Trees that are retained should be at least 300 feet from the road to reduce the likelihood that they will be harvested by firewood cutters.  Design Criteria for the Protection of Known Goshawk Nest Stands (identified before award of timber sale contract). The design of the prescription would be devised at the time of marking and implementation in consultation with a wildlife biologist. ‘Known’ goshawk nest stands are those verified as active anytime from 2004 through to completion of sale layout. Where treatment management actions are proposed within a 3/8-mile radius of a known goshawk nest site, a wildlife biologist will delineate three 30-acre nesting habitat protection areas. One protection area of no less than 30-acres shall be centered on the stand where goshawk nesting is currently active or where nesting occurred most recently. The other two 30-acre reserve areas would be used to protect two additional nearby stands (alternate sites) that are apparently suitable (structurally and compositionally appropriate) for goshawk nesting. Optionally, some or all 60 acres may be used to expand the 30-acre protection area of the active/recently active nest site or to create a single alternative nest stand larger than 30 acres. In any case, a total of no less than 90 mature-forest acres would be segregated as goshawk nest stand protection area(s). Trees within the nest stands and/or reserve nest stands shall not be marked for removal.  Design Criteria for the Protection of Raptor Nesting Sites (identified before award of timber sale contract and all species other than goshawks). Modify any planned silvicultural prescription to conserve key elements of nesting habitat in a treatment stand where a nest is present or in a stand which is designated as alternative nesting habitat. The design of the prescription would be devised at the time of marking and implementation in consultation with a wildlife biologist. ‘Known’ raptor nesting sites are those verified as active anytime from 2004 through to completion of sale layout. Where treatment management actions are proposed within a 3/8-mile radius of a known raptor nesting site, a wildlife biologist will establish one nesting habitat protection area of no more than 30 acres in size. The size of a nest stand protection area necessary for a species’ protection will vary by species and for many small owl species is typically no more than 5 acres. One protection area of no more than 30-acres shall be centered on the active or inactive raptor nest site. Trees within the nest stands and/or reserve nest stands shall not be marked for removal.  Design Criteria for Raptor Nesting Period Seasonal Restriction in Logging Operations. This criterion will be implemented as stated for the northern goshawk but may be reduced for other species if determined appropriate to do so by a wildlife biologist. Prohibit all logging-related operations or activities, including log haul, within ¼-mile of an active raptor nest between March 15 and September 15. Use of national forest roads, otherwise open to unrestricted public vehicle use, is specifically exempted from this seasonal control. A wildlife biologist must determine nesting status (active or inactive) for each year during sale implementation. Within ¼-mile of an active raptor nest, limited use of an existing road (that has been and is currently closed to public travel) may be granted to

31 Coulton Floyd II Timber & Fuels Management Analysis

allow workers to access worksites more than ¼-mile beyond the nest. However, permission to use a road for daily access to a worksite would be granted on a case by case basis only and in consultation with a wildlife biologist. On average, no more than 4 separate vehicle passes/day would be allowed on a road that is adjacent to (i.e., within ¼-mile of) an active raptor nest. One “pass” is defined here as the single disruptive event caused by 1 vehicle (or as many as 3 vehicles together) traveling along the road segment (adjacent to an active nest) on a single occasion. This limited use exception is NOT intended to allow log haul past the nest during the seasonally restricted period. Only vehicles used for transporting workers (including FS sale administration personnel), logging machinery, machinery maintenance equipment or fuel would be permitted to use a road during the seasonal restriction. Include language in timber sale contract provision C[T]6.25# (Site Specific Protection Measures for Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Species) defining this nest-centered seasonal restriction. The roads and sections of roads where the seasonal restriction is potentially applicable may be displayed on the sale area map(s). For purposes of identifying in the TS contract areas where logging operations are seasonally restricted, roads or road sections affected by this project design criteria may be shown on contract maps.  Design Criteria for Monitoring of Goshawk Nest Locations during Implementation. Prior to TS contract award: Train timber sale layout, engineering and resource personnel to identify and report active goshawk nests (or goshawks defending a territory) found during routine fieldwork. Protect new nests located during layout as described for “Protection of Known Goshawk Nest Stands.” After TS contract award: Between May 1 and July 31st of each year, a wildlife biologist or trained crew will conduct goshawk inventory (detection) surveys in areas scheduled for treatment during the upcoming operating season if adequate surveys have not been completed to the degree to evaluate goshawk occupancy. An adequate survey requires appropriate surveys of the area for two consecutive years. Protect new nests located during these surveys as described below for “Protection of Newly Discovered Goshawk Nest Stands.”  Design Criteria for Conservation of Coarse Woody Debris. To the extent practicable, and where available, retain in place within timber harvest units some existing deadfalls (whole trees) or logs (portions of tree boles) measuring >16 inches in diameter and that are >20 feet in length. Where existing large (i.e., >16” x 20’) deadfalls and logs are plentiful within a cutting unit, no attempt should be made to retain all (or even most) existing down woody pieces because interference with cutting and skidding operations would result. In particular, avoid retention of deadfalls and logs in areas close to proposed landings or near to open access roads. On the other hand, in cutting units where deadfalls and logs are sparse, retention of much or most of the existing large woody material should be emphasized. Large deadfalls and logs identified for retention need not be painted or marked as reserve trees/timber. However, to effectively “retain” this material in place on the site during harvest operations, use standing leave (non- included timber) or wildlife reserve trees (snags and live character trees) to shield the deadfall or log from mechanical damage or displacement. The conservation purpose is to maintain the existing integrity of a deadfall or log by preventing

32 Hahns Peak/Bears Ears Ranger District, Medicine Bow-Routt National Forests & Thunder Basin National Grassland

cutting (bucking), displacement from its bed or utilization of the material during harvest operations. In addition to purposeful retention of existing large deadfalls during sale preparation, CWD conservation should be the continuing objective during slash disposal operations conducted in post-harvest cutting units. Only limbs, tops and short chunks of woody material should be the targets of debris collection. Rotten or otherwise unutilized whole down trees or logs left scattered throughout a stand following logging, and that are larger than 8 inches diameter on the small end, should not be targeted for disposal. To the extent practicable, leave this larger woody debris well-distributed in treatment areas and expend diligent effort to conserve coarse woody debris on site.  Design Criteria for Development of Roads and Skid Trails in Lynx Habitat. Roads (temporary, reconstructed and specified roads) and skid trails developed for this project will be designed to avoid impacting primary lynx habitat. If the unit cannot be accessed without impacting the primary lynx habitat, then the unit would be dropped from the proposed action. The district wildlife biologist will work with the sale area administrators and the road engineers to ensure that there is a clear understanding of what primary lynx habitat is. If there is any question regarding the habitat near a proposed road or skid trail, then the site would be visited by the district biologist to make a determination regarding lynx habitat.

Direct, indirect and cumulative effects of each alternative are analyzed in the Wildlife Resources Report. Both the No Action and Proposed action would be consistent with the Forest Plan. Based on existing information, the best available science, comments received from other agencies and the public, and the information provided by the Wildlife Biologist it was determined that none of these issues were significant (i.e. alternative driving) issues for the project. Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines, Best Management Practices, Project Monitoring and implementation of the stated Design Criteria are believed adequate to minimize any issues and result in Forest Plan and Endangered Species Act consistency.

33 Coulton Floyd II Timber & Fuels Management Analysis

VII. Finding of No Significant Impact As the responsible official, I am responsible for evaluating the effects of the project relative to the definition of significance established by the Council of Environmental Quality (CEQ) Regulations (40 CFR 1508.13). I have reviewed and considered the EA and documentation included in the project record, and I have determined that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment. As a result, no environmental impact statement will be prepared. My rationale for this finding is as follows, organized by sub-section of the CEQ definition of significance cited above.

Context For the proposed action and alternatives the context of the environmental effects is based on the environmental analysis in this EA. Disclosure of direct, indirect, and cumulative effects in this EA and associated resource reports located in the project record demonstrate analysis of the proposed action primarily in the context of the analysis area (i.e., effects within the treatment units and analysis area boundary) and the locality (e.g., effects beyond the boundaries of the analysis area, including downstream and to adjacent landowners). Effects to the geographic region (i.e., the Medicine Bow-Routt National Forests, extent of specific animal and plant populations) were also considered. Both short-term and long-term effects of the Proposed Action were found to be of limited extent and context and are not expected to affect national resources or the human environment.

Intensity Intensity is a measure of the severity, extent, or quantity of effects, and is based on information from the effects analysis of this EA and the references in the project record. The effects of this project have been appropriately and thoroughly considered with an analysis that is responsive to concerns and issues raised by the public. The agency has taken a hard look at the environmental effects using relevant scientific information and knowledge of site-specific conditions gained from field visits. My finding of no significant impact is based on the context of the project and intensity of effects using the ten factors identified in 40 CFR 1508.27(b). 1. Impacts that may be both beneficial and adverse. A significant effect may exist even if the Federal agency believes that on balance the effect will be beneficial. Scrutiny across all resource areas was given to the potential impacts of the proposed action. Impacts or Issues as displayed in the EA (pgs. 12-33) and within resource reports are of limited intensity. Many beneficial results of maintaining a managed vegetative condition in the analysis area are presented, and those issues presented were partially or completely eliminated through project design and design criteria. The quality of the human environment will be improved through removal of dead lodgepole pine, resulting in safer recreation access, and improved safety and protection of forest roads, fences, powerlines and other infrastructure. Considerable direct, indirect and cumulative benefits exist in removal of dead trees and reduction of

34 Hahns Peak/Bears Ears Ranger District, Medicine Bow-Routt National Forests & Thunder Basin National Grassland

urban interface fuel accumulations, particularly when compared to the no action alternative, under which the entire collapse of a dead forest overstory would eventually accumulate on the forest floor. Assisting and thus expediting the reestablishment of a diverse new forest fosters a long-term benefit. 2. The degree to which the proposed action affects public health or safety. Public health and safety will be improved through the proposed action. Open forest roads with considerable public use will be maintained and the dead tree hazard removed. Dispersed camping sites will be safer by eliminating the overhead hazards of dead and deteriorating lodgepole pine. Significant fuel loads will be removed directly adjacent to homes and other infrastructure including powerlines. Establishment of the next forest can be considered the culmination of the project. 3. Unique characteristics of the geographic area such as the proximity to historical or cultural resources, parklands, prime farmlands, wetlands, wild and scenic rivers, or ecologically critical areas. The analysis area does not include parklands, prime farmlands, or ecologically critical areas. A survey of cultural resources and consultation was completed in accordance with the programmatic agreement with Colorado State Historic Preservation Office and Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act to ensure that any cultural resources found within proposed treatment areas will be protected. No water depletions were identified in the Hydrologic Resources Report or the Aquatic Resource Reports contained in the project record and also summarized within the EA (pgs.12-33). 4. The degree to which the effects on the quality of the human environment are likely to be highly controversial. No substantial scientific evidence has been determined or presented through the analysis process contained in this EA or the project record that would indicate any controversial effect to the human environment. Issues identified during public comment period resulted in no unresolved or unmitigated issues.

5. The degree to which the possible effects on the human environment are highly uncertain or involve unique or unknown risks. There is a low degree of uncertainty regarding the risks to the human environment via implementation of the proposed action. The effects of these types of actions are understood and Issues brought forth in the EA (pgs. 12-33) by resource are not unique and tend to have clearly defined design criteria (EA pgs. 12-33) that will limit or fully eliminate undesirable effects.

6. The degree to which the action may establish precedent for future actions with significant effects or represents a decision in principle about a future consideration. There is a low degree of risk that the treatments identified in the proposed action will establish precedent for future actions with significant effects. The project is designed to use appropriate silvicultural treatments (EA Proposed Action Pgs. 5-11) to attain

35 Coulton Floyd II Timber & Fuels Management Analysis

various resource benefits (Purpose & Need EA pg. 4) culminating in the establishment of the next forest.

7. Whether the action is related to other actions with individually insignificant but cumulatively significant impacts. Significance exists if it is reasonable to anticipate a cumulatively significant impact on the environment. Significance cannot be avoided by terming an action temporary or by breaking it down into small component parts. The proposed action is not likely to contribute to adverse cumulative effects to the overall environment of the area. Cumulative effects analysis in each resource area’s Environmental Reports contained in the project record did not identify any significant risks or significant impacts. (EA –VI. Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action and No Action Alternatives, pgs. 12-33) 8. The degree to which the action may adversely affect districts, sites, highways, structures, or objects listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places or may cause loss or destruction of significant scientific, cultural, or historical resources. The proposed action is not likely to affect any resource that is eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. The known cultural resources in the area will be fully avoided and one site will be enhanced by the proposed action, where the no action alternative could significantly degrade the site by falling trees crushing the historical resource (see Heritage Resource report and the consultation correspondence with Colorado State Historic Preservation Officer in the project record and Heritage Resources portion of the EA pgs.19-20). 9. The degree to which the action may adversely affect an endangered or threatened species or its habitat that has been determined to be critical under the Endangered Species Act of 1973. Biological Evaluations and Assessments were prepared for botanical, aquatic and terrestrial wildlife resources and can be found in the project record in compliance with the Endangered Species Act. Also Table 4 of the EA summarizes and quantifies these determinations. For some species, there was a finding of “may adversely impact individuals.” The project has potential to alter habitat or harm individuals, but not to the level where viability is questionable. 10. Whether the action threatens a violation of Federal, State, or local law or requirements imposed for the protection of the environment. The proposed action does not threaten a violation of Federal, State, or local law requirements for protection of the environment. This EA was prepared in compliance with all applicable laws and regulations (applicable laws contained in the individual resource report contained in the project record) and complies with the Forest Plan (EA -Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action & No Action Alternatives, pgs. 12-33 and Resource Reports contained in the project record).

36 Hahns Peak/Bears Ears Ranger District, Medicine Bow-Routt National Forests & Thunder Basin National Grassland

References

Aquatic, Amphibians and Fisheries Resources

Chamberlin, T. W., R. D. Harr and F. H. Everest. 1991. Timber Harvesting, Silviculture and Watershed Practices. American Fisheries Society Special Publication 19:181- 206. Loeffler, C., editor. 2001. Conservation Plan and Agreement for the Management and Recovery of the Southern Rocky Mountain Population of the Boreal Toad (Bufo boreas boreas). Boreal Toad Recovery Team. 76 pp. + appendices. Hirsch, C. L., S. Q. Albeke, and T. P. Nesler. 2006. Range-wide status of Colorado River cutthroat trout. (Oncorhynchus clarkii pleuriticus): 2005. Colorado Division of Wildlife, Denver, Colorado. Colorado River cutthroat trout Conservation Cordination Team Report. Craig, Colorado. Moore, R. D., D. L. Spittlehouse and A. Story. 2005. Riparian microclimte and stream temperature response to forest harvesting: a review. Journal of the American Water Resources Association. 41(4):813-834. Packauskas, R.J. (2005, August 24). Hudsonian Emerald Dragonfly (Somatochlora hudsonica): a technical conservation assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/hudsonianemeralddragonfly.pdf (2006, June 29) Rosgen, D.L. 1994: A classification of natural rivers. Catena 22(3): 169-199. USDA Forest Service. 1997. Routt National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 1997 Revision. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region (R-2), Lakewood, Colorado. Also included is the Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Botanical Resources

Beatty, B.L., W.F. Jennings, and R.C. Rawlinson, 2003. Botrychium ascendens W.H. Wagner (trianglelobe moonwort), B. crenulatum W.H. Wagner (scalloped moonwort), and B. lineare W.0H. Wagner (narrowleaf grapefern): a technical conservation assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/botrychiums.pdf [Feb 27, 2007].

Busse, M.D., K.R. Hubbert, G.O. Fiddler, C.J. Shestack, and R.F. Powers. 2005. Lethal Soil Temperatures During Burning of Masticated Forest Residues. International Journal of Wildland Fire 14:267-276.

Decker, K., D.R. Culver, and D.G. Anderson. (2006). Eriophorum gracile W. D. J. Koch (slender cottongrass): a technical conservation assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest

37 Coulton Floyd II Timber & Fuels Management Analysis

Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/eriophorumgracile.pdf

Gage, E. and D.J. Cooper. 2006a. Carex livida L. (livid sedge): a technical conservation assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/carexlivida.pdf

Gage, E. and D.J. Cooper. 2006b. Drosera rotundifolia L. (roundleaf sundew): a technical conservation assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/droserarotundifolia.pdf

Goss M.J., De Varennes A. 2002. Soil disturbance reduces the efficacy of mycorrhizal associations for early soybean growth and N2 fixation, Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 34 (8), pp. 1167-1173.

Jenkins, M.J., E. Hebertson, W. Page, and C.A. Jorgensen. 2008. Bark beetles, fuels, fires and implications for forest management in the Intermountain West. Forest Ecology and Management 254:16-34.

Lynch, H.J., R.A. Renkin, R.L. Crabtree, and P.R.Moorcroft. 2006. The Influence of a Previous Mountain Pine Beetle (Dendroctonus ponderosae) Activity on the 1988 Yellowstone Fires. Ecosystems 9:1318 –1327.

MacDonald, L.H. 2000. Evaluating and managing cumulative effects: process and constraints. Environmental Management. 26(3): 299-315.

MacDonald, L.H. and J.D. Stednick. 2003. Forests and Water: A State-of-the-Art Review for Colorado. Colorado State University. CWRRI Completion Report No. 196. 65 pp.

Muller, S. 2000. Assessing occurrence and habitat of Ophioglossum vulgatum L. and other Ophioglossaceae in European forests: Significance for nature conservation. Biodiversity and Conservation 9: 673-681.

Ridenour, W.M., Callaway, R.M. 2001. The relative importance of allelopathy in interference: the effects of an invasive weed on a native bunchgrass. Oecologia 126:444–450

Romme, W.H., J. Clement, J. Hicke, D. Kulakowski, L.H. MacDonald, T.L. Schoennagel, and T.T. Veblen. 2007. Recent Forest Insect Outbreaks and Fire Risk in Colorado Forests: A Brief Synthesis of Relevant Research. Colorado Forest Restoration Institute Publication. 24 pp.

USFWS 2013. Coulton Floyd II Species List – Consultation Tracking Number 06E24100-2014-SLI-0031. December 4, 2013.

38 Hahns Peak/Bears Ears Ranger District, Medicine Bow-Routt National Forests & Thunder Basin National Grassland

Uunila, L., B. Guy, and R. Pike. 2006. Hydrologic Effects of Mountain Pine Beetle in the Interior Pine Forests of British Columbia: Key Questions and Current Knowledge. Streamline Watershed Management Bulletin Vol. 9 No. 2 Spring 2006. FORREX Forest Research Extension Partnership. Kamloops, BC 6 pp.

Vanderhorst, J. 1997. Conservation Assessment of Sensitive Moonworts (Ophioglossaceae; Botrychium Subgenus Botrychium) on the Kootenai National Forest. Agreement No. 11011454002, report prepared for: Kootenai National Forest Supervisors Office, Libby, MT. Available at: http://nhp.nris.state.mt.us/plants/reports/botry.pdf [11/11/05].

Williston, P. 2001. The Ophioglossaceae of Alberta. Alberta Environment, Edmonton, Alberta, CAN. 61p.

With, K.A. 2002. The landscape ecology of invasive spread. Conservation Biology 16(5): 1192-1203.

Zika, P.F., R. Brainerd and B. Newhouse. 1995. Grapeferns and moonworts (Botrychium, Ophioglossaceae) in the Columbia Basin. A report submitted to the Eastside Ecosystem Management Project, U.S. Forest Service Walla Walla, Washington. 126 pages. Available at: http://icbemp.gov/science/scirpt.html.

Fire and Fuels Schoennagel, Veblen, Negron, Smith. 2012. Effects of Mountain Pine Beetle on Fuels and Expected Fire Behavior in Lodgepole Pine Forests, Colorado, USA Brown, J.K., E. D. Reinhardt and K. A. Kramer. 2003. Coarse woody debris: Managing benefits and fire hazard in the recovering forest. RMRS GTR-105. Buechling, A. and W.K. Baker, 2004. A fire history form tree rings in a high-elevation forest of Rocky Mountain National Park. Can. J. For. Res. 34: 1259-1273. Despain, D.G., 1990. Yellowstone Vegetation: consequences of environment and history in a natural setting. Roberts Rinehart Inc. Publishers. Boulder, CO. 239 p. Rothermel, Richard C., 1983. How to Predict the Spread and Intensity of Forest and Range Fires. LANDFIRE Program: Fire Regimes, Disturbance and Fuel Maps and Data.

Graham R.T. Technical Editor. 2003. Haymanfire case study: Summary. RMRS GTR- 115. Schoennagel, T., T.T. Veblen, and W.H. Romme. 2004. The interaction of fire, fuels, and climate across Rocky Mountain Forests. BioSci. 54: 661-676.

39 Coulton Floyd II Timber & Fuels Management Analysis

Turner, M.G., W.H. Romme and D.B Tinker. 2003. Surprises and lessons form the 1988 Yellowstone fires. Front Ecol. Environ 2003. Schroeder, Dave; Russo, Glenda; Beck, Judi; Hawkes, Brad; Dalrymple, George. 2006. Modelling ignition probability of thinned lodgepole pine stands. Advantage Vol. 7 No. 12 June 2006. USDA Forest Service. Land and Resource Management Plan, Routt National Forest. 1998. Heritage Resources 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. 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. 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. Naze, Brian. 1986. The Folsom Occupation of Middle Park, Colorado. Southwestern Lore 52(4):1-32. 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. Hydrologic Resources 16 U.S.C. 475. Organic Administration Act. June 4, 1897. 33 U.S.C. 1251, 1254, 1323, 1324, 1329, 1342, 1344. The Federal Water Pollution Control Act, (Clean Water Act). Amended November 27, 2002. Cheng, J.D. 1989. Streamflow Changes After Clear-Cut Logging of a Pine Beetle Infested Watershed in Southern British Colombia, Canada. Water Resources Research 25(3): 449-456. Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. (2012, March 30) [Colorado’s Section 303(d) List of Impaired Waters and Monitoring and Evaluation List], [online]. Available: http://www.cdphe.state.co.us/regulations/wqccregs/93_2012(03).pdf Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. 2009. Memorandum of Understanding Between State of Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) and United States Forest Service Rocky Mountain Region. FS Agreement No. 09-MU-11020000-024, 6p.

40 Hahns Peak/Bears Ears Ranger District, Medicine Bow-Routt National Forests & Thunder Basin National Grassland

Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. 2008. Metadata for spatial GIS data for Colorado Sourcewater areas. Colorado Forestry. (December 2008) [Colorado Forestry Best Management Practices Forest Stewardship Guidelines for Water Quality 2008 Field Audit Report, Colorado State Forest Service], online]. Available: http://csfs.colostate.edu/pages/documents/2008_Field_audit_report_final.pdf Executive Order 11988. Floodplain Management. May 24, 1977. Executive Order 11990. Protection of Wetlands. May 24, 1977. Forest Practices Board. 2007. The Effect of Mountain Pine Beetle Attack and Salvage Harvesting on Streamflows. Special Investigation. FPB/SIR/16, 27p. F.S.H. 2509.25. Watershed Conservation Practices Handbook. May 5, 2006. F.S.M. 2521. Watershed and Air Management: Watershed Condition Assessment. May 26, 2004. F.S.M. 2526. Watershed and Air Management: Riparian Area Management. May 26, 2004. F.S.M. 2542. Municipal Supply Watersheds. September 4, 2007. Heede, Burchard H. 1980. Stream Dynamics: An Overview for Land Managers. U.S. Department of Agriculture, General Technical Report RM-72, 25p. IRI (Integrated Resource Inventory Training Guide). 2005. Chapter 3: Common Water Unit. USDA Forest Service Rocky Mountain Region. Jenkins, Michael J., Elizabeth Hebertson, Wesley Page, and C. Arik Jorgensen. 2008. Bark Beetles, Fuels, Fires and Implications for Forest Management in the Intermountain West. Forest Ecology and Management 254: 16-34. Litschert, S.E., and L.H. MacDonald. 2009. Frequency and Characteristics of Sediment Delivery Pathways from Forest Harvest Units to Streams. Forest Ecology and Management. Love, L.D. 1955. The Effect on Stream Flow of the Killing of Spruce and Pine by the Engelmann Spruce Beetle. Transactions, American Geophysical Union (36)1: 113-118.

Lynch, Heather J., Roy A. Renkin, Robert L.Crabtree, and Paul R. Moorcroft. 2006. The Influence of Previous Mountain Pine Beetle (Dendroctonus ponderosae) Activity on the 1988 Yellowstone Fires. Ecosystems 9: 1318-1327. MacDonald, Lee H. and John Stednick. 2003. Forest and Water: A State-of-the-art Review for Colorado. Ft. Collins, CO. Colorado State University. CWRRI Completion Report No. 196, 65p.

41 Coulton Floyd II Timber & Fuels Management Analysis

Martin, D.A., 2007: Post-Fire Hydrology and Water Quality Effects: A General Overview. Presentation at the Bark Beetle and Lodgepole Pine Workshop for Public Land Management Agencies. June 13, 2007. Winter Park, Colorado. Motha, J.A., P. J. Wallbrink, P.B Hairsine, R.B. and Grayson. 2003. Determining the Sources of Suspended Sediment in a Forested Catchment in Southeastern Australia. Water Resources Research 39(3) 1056. Neary, Daniel G., Peter Folliott, and Johanna Landsberg. 2005. Chapter 5: Fire Streamflow Regimes. In: Daniel G. Neary, Kevin Ryan, and Leonard DeBano. Eds. Wildland Fire in Ecosystems: Effects of Fire on Soils and Water. General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-42-vol.4. 250 p. Rosgen, David L. 1994. A Classification of Natural Rivers. Cantena 22(3): 169-199. Troendle, Charles A. and R.M. King. 1985. The Effect of Timber Harvest on the Fool Creek Watershed, 30 Years Later. Water Resources Research 21(12): 1915-1922. Troendle, Charles A., Mark Wilcox, Greg Bevenger, and Laurie Porth. 2001. The Coon Creek Water Yield Augmentation Project: Implementation of Timber Harvesting Technology to Increase Streamflow. Forest Ecology and Management 143 (2001): 179-187. USDA Forest Service. 1974. Forest Hydrology Part II: Hydrologic Effects of Vegetation Manipulation. Missoula, MT. U.S. Department of Agrigulture, Forest Service, 229 p. USDA Forest Service. 1993. Routt National Forest Riparian Inventory. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Routt National Forest. USDA Forest Service. 1997. Routt National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. Steamboat Springs, CO. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Routt National Forest. USDA Forest Service. 2010. Medicine Bow-Routt Watershed Condition Assessment. Laramie, WY. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Routt National Forest. USDI Bureau of Land Management. 1993: Riparian Area Management: Process for Assessing Proper Functioning Condition. Technical Reference 1737-9. Denver, CO: USDI Bureau of Land Management Service Center. (Revised 1995).

Uunila, Lars, Brian Guy, and Robin Pike. 2006. Hydrologic Effects of Mountain Pine Beetle in the Interior Pine Forests of British Colombia: Key Questions and Current Knowledge. Kamloops, BC. Streamline Watershed Management Bulletin 9(2). 6p. Wemple, Beverley C., Julia Jones, and Gordon Grant. 1996. Channel Network Extension by Logging Roads in Two Basins, Western Cascades, Oregon. Water Resources Bulletin 32(6): 1195-1207.

42 Hahns Peak/Bears Ears Ranger District, Medicine Bow-Routt National Forests & Thunder Basin National Grassland

Winward, Alma H. 2000. Monitoring the Vegetation Resources in Riparian Areas. General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-47. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. Lands & Minerals resource USDA Forest Service. 1997. Routt National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 1997 Revision. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region (R-2), Lakewood, Colorado. Also included is the Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Rangeland Resources USDA Forest Service. 1997. Routt National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 1997 Revision. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region (R-2), Lakewood, Colorado. Also included is the Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Recreation Resources USDA Forest Service. 1997. Routt National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 1997 Revision. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region (R-2), Lakewood, Colorado. Also included is the Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Silviculture Alexander, Robert R. 1987. Classification of the Forest Vegetation of Colorado by Habitat Type and Community Type. Research Note RM-478. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. Fort Collins, Colorado. Anderson, Michelle D. 2003. Pinus contorta var. latifolia. In: Fire Effects Information System, [Online]. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory (Producer). Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/ [Accessed: 2013, September 17]. Ferdinand, S.I. 1983. “Site Preparation for Natural and Artificial Regeneration of Lodgepole Pine in Alberta.” In: Lodgepole Pine: Regeneration and Management. The Proceedings of a Fourth International Workshop. General Technical Report PNW-157. USDA Forest Service. Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. Portland, Oregon. Lotan, James E. and William B. Critchfield. 1990. “Pinus contorta Dougl. ex. Loud. Lodgepole Pine.” In: Silvics of North America, Volume 1, Conifers. USDA Forest Service. Agriculture Handbook 654. Washington, DC. Vol. 1, 675 p. Available online at: http://na.fs.fed.us/spfo/pubs/silvics_manual/Volume_1/pinus/contorta.htm Perry, David A. and James E. Lotan. 1979. “A Model of Fire Selection for Serotiny in Lodgepole Pine.” Evolution Vol. 33, No. 3 (Sep., 1979), pp. 958-968. Society for

43 Coulton Floyd II Timber & Fuels Management Analysis

the Study of Evolution. Available online at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2407658. Accessed: 22/08/2013 10:24 Steinberg, Peter D. 2002. Pseudotsuga menziesii var. glauca. In: Fire Effects Information System, [Online]. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory (Producer). Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/ Teste, Francois P., Victor J. Lieffers, and Simon M Landhäusser. 2011. “Viability of Forest Floor and Canopy Seed Banks in Pinus contorta, var. latifolia (Pinaceae) [Lodgpole Pine] Forests After a Mountain Pine Beetle Outbreak.” American Journal of Botany 98(4): 630–637, 2011. Botanical Society of America. Available online at http://www.amjbot.org/ USDA Forest Service. 1998. Routt National Forest. Revised Land and Resource Management Plan, as currently amended. Medicine Bow-Routt National Forests & Thunder Basin National Grassland. Laramie, Wyoming. Available online at: http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/mbr/landmanagement/planning/?cid=fsbdev3_0251 10 Soils Resource Amaranthus, M. P., Page-Dumroese, D. S., Harvey, A. E., Cazares, E. and Bednar, L. F. 1996. Soil compaction and organic matter removal affect conifer seedling non- mycorrhizal and ectomycorrhizal root tip abundance and diversity. Res. Pap. PNW-RP-494. USDA, For. Serv., Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Stn., Portland, OR. 12 pp. Boyer D. E., Dell J. D. 1980. Fire Effects on Pacific Northwest Forest Soils. Forest Service USDA Pacific Northwest Region Watershed Management and Aviation and Fire Management. Aug. 1980. Carlson J. 2008. Potential Risks and Impacts to Soil and Water Resources from Mountain Pine Beetle Mortality, Treatments and Wildfire in Colorado and Wyoming National Forest. On file at Supervisors Office Medicine Bow- Routt National Forests. Laramie WY. Castelle A.J., A.w. Johnson, C. Conolly 1994. Wetland and Stream Buffer Size Requirements – A Review. J. Environ. Qual. 23:878-882 1994. Colorado Forestry Best management Practices Forest Stewardship Guidelines for Water Quality 2008 Field Audit Report. Colorado State Forest Service Dec. 2008. Colorado Forestry Best Management Practices Forest Stewardship Guidelines for Water Quality Protection 2012 Field Audit Report. Colorado State Forest Service Feb. 2013. Curran, M.P., B. Chapman, G.D. Hope, and D. Scott. 2006. Large-scale erosion and flooding after wildfires: understanding the soil conditions. B.C. Min. For. and Range,

44 Hahns Peak/Bears Ears Ranger District, Medicine Bow-Routt National Forests & Thunder Basin National Grassland

Res. Br., Victoria, B.C. Tech. Rep. 030. http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfd/pubs/Docs/Tr/Tr030.htm Elliot, 2004 W.J. Elliot, WEPP Internet interfaces for forest erosion prediction, J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 40 (2004), pp. 299–309. Froehlich, H.A. 1979. Soil compaction from logging equipment: effects on growth of young ponderosa pine. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation. 34(6): 276-278. Froehlich, H.A., and D.H. McNabb. 1984. Minimizing soil compaction in Pacific Northwest forests. p. 159–192. In E.L. Gharabaghi B., R.P. Rudra, P.K. Goel 2006. Effectivness of Vegetative Filter Strips in Removal of Sediments from Overland flow. Water Qual. Res. J. Canad 2006. Vol 41, No. 3, 275-282. Greacen E. L., R. Sands 1980. Compaction of Forest Soils. A review. Aust. J. Soil Res, 1980 18, 163-89 Heede B.H. 1990. Vegetation Strips Control Erosion in Watersheds. USDA FS Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. Research Note RM-499. Jun. 1990. Helms, J. A., Hipkin C. 1986. Effects of Soil Compaction on Tree Volume in a California Ponderosa Pine Plantation. West. Jor. Amer. For. 1(4) 1986. Lakel W.A. III, M. A. Wallace, et al 2010. Sediment Trapping by Streamside Management Zones of Various Widths after Forest Harvest and Site Preparatrion. Forest Science 56(6) 2010 541-551. Lull, H. W.: 1959, Soil compaction of forest and range lands. U.S.D.A. Misc. publ., USDA For. Serv., Washington D.C., USA. Meeuwig, R. O., P. E. Packer. 1975. Erosion and Runoff on forest and rangelands. Proceedings of the fifth Workshop of the U.S. and Aust. Rnglnds Panel, Boise, ID. Utah State University, Logan, UT. 105-116pp. Noble E.L. 1963. Sediment Reduction Through Watershed Rehabilitation. US Dept Of Ag. For. Serv. Inter. Region 1963. Passovoy, M.D., Fule, P.Z., 2006. Snag and woody debris dynamics following severe wildfires in northern Arizona ponderosa pine forests. Forest Ecology and Management 223, 237–246.

Ponder F. Jr., R.L. Fleming, et.al. 2012. Effects of organic matter remoaval, soil compaction and vegetation control on 10th year biomass and foliar nutrition: LTSP continent-wide comparisons. For. Eco. And Mngmnt. 278 (2012) 35-54.

45 Coulton Floyd II Timber & Fuels Management Analysis

Soil Monitoring various years. On file at Supervisors Office Medicine Bow- Routt National Forests. Laramie WY. Stone, E.L. 1973. The impact of timber harvest on soils and water. pp. 427-463. In: report of the President's advisory panel on timber and the environment. U.S. Govt. Printing Office. Washington D.C. Switalski, T. A., J. A. Bissonette, T. H. DeLuca, C. H. Luce, and M. A. Madej. 2004. Benefits and impacts of road removal. Frontiers in Ecol. and the Environ. 2(1): 21‐28. Tepler 2009. Field notes for Coulton-Floyd Salvage and fuels Reduction Project. On file at Supervisors Office Medicine Bow- Routt National Forests. Laramie WY. USDA 1992. Forest Service Handbook, Denver, CO. 2509.18 Soil Management Handbook, R2 Supplement No 2509.18-92-1. Aug. 1992. USDA 1994. DRAFT Soil Resource Inventory of the Routt National Forest. On file at the Supervisors Office of the Medicine Bow-Routt National Forests. Laramie WY. USDA 1997. Land and Resource Management Plan 1997 Revision. USDA 2006. Forest Service Handbook Rocky Mountain Region (R2) Denver, CO. FSH 2509.25 – Watershed Conservation Practices Handbook Chapter 10 – Mangement Measures and Design Criteria. Amendment No. 2509.25-2006-2. Von Wilpert, K., Schaffer J. Ecological effects of soil compaction and initial recovery dynamics: a preliminary study. Eur J Forest Res (2006) 125: 129-138 Wert, S., and Thomas, B.R. 1981. Effects of skid roads on diameter, height, and volume growth in Douglas-fir. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 45: 629–632. Visual Resources USDA Forest Service 1974. Handbook #462 National Forest Landscape Management Volume 2, Chapter 1. Visual Management System. Washington D.C. USDA Forest Service 1980. Handbook #608 National Forest Landscape Management Volume 2, Chapter 6. Fire. Washington D.C.. USDA Forest Service 1998. Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Routt National Forest Land Resource Management Plan, 1997 Revision. USDA Forest Service Medicine Bow- Routt National Forest. Steamboat Springs, Colorado. Wildlife-Terrestrial Biological Evaluation& Assessment Report Barclay, R. M. R. and L. A. Harder. 2003. Life histories of bats: Life in the slow lane. Pages 209-253 in T. H. Kunz and M. B. Fenton, editors. Bat Ecology. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL. Beauvais, G.P. and J. McCumber. (2006, November 30). Pygmy Shrew (Sorex hoyi): a technical

46 Hahns Peak/Bears Ears Ranger District, Medicine Bow-Routt National Forests & Thunder Basin National Grassland

conservation assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. [Accessed on March 27, 2009]. Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/pygmyshrew.pdf Beck J.L., R.C. Skorkowsky, G.D. Hayward. 2009. Designing a Regional Northern Goshawk Monitoring Program based on a National Protocol. Draft manuscript in review. Colorado Bat Working Group. 2010. Colorado Bat Matrix. Available: http://www.cnhp.colostate.edu/RASwebpage/cbwgASPtemplate/batDisplay.asp?i d=Lasiurus cinereus. Accessed 20 January 2011. Cryan, P. M. 2003. Seasonal distribution of migratory tree bats (Lasiurus and Lasionycteris) in North America. Journal of Mammalogy 84:579-593. Cryan, P. M. and R. M. R. Barclay. 2009. Causes of bat fatalities at wind turbines: hypotheses and predictions. Journal of Mammalogy 90:1330-1340. Cryan, P. M., M. A. Bogan, R. O. Rye, G. P. Landis, and C. L. Kester. 2004. Stable hydrogen isotope analysis of bat hair as evidence for seasonal molt and long- distance migration. Journal of Mammalogy 85:995-1001. Ellison, L. E. 2008. Summary and analysis of the U.S. Government Bat Banding Program: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2008-1363.117 pages. Fitzgerald, J.P., C.A. Meaney, and D.M. Armstrong. 1994. Mammals of Colorado. Giezentanner, K. 2009. Response of olive-sided flycatcher to epidemic mountain pine beetle-caused mortality under a no-action alternative. [Online]. USDA Forest Service. Rocky Mountain Region. Available: http://fsweb.r2.fs.fed.us/rr/ecology/barkbeetles/olive_sided_flycatcher.doc Gruver, J. C. 2002. Assessment of bat community structure and roosting habitat preferences for the hoary bat (Lasiurus cinereus) near Foote Creek Rim, Wyoming. University of Wyoming, Laramie. 149 pages. Gruver, J.C. and D.A. Keinath (2006, October 25). Townsend’s Big-eared Bat (Corynorhinus townsendii): a technical conservation assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/townsendsbigearedbat.pdf [date of access]. Hakkarainen, H. and E. Korpimaki. 1996. Competitive and predatory interactions among raptors: an observational and experimental study. Ecology 77:1134-1142. Hayward, G.D. 1997. Forest management and conservation of boreal owls in North America. Journal of Raptor Research. 31(2): 114-124 Hayward, G.D. 2009. Response of boreal owl to epidemic mountain pine beetle-caused mortality under a no-action alternative. [Online]. USDA Forest Service. Rocky

47 Coulton Floyd II Timber & Fuels Management Analysis

Mountain Region. Available: http://fsweb.r2.fs.fed.us/rr/ecology/barkbeetles/boreal_owl.doc Keinath, D.A. (2004, October 29). Fringed Myotis (Myotis thysanodes): a technical conservation assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/fringedmyotis.pdf [May 31, 2007]. Kennedy, P.L. (2003 January 2). Northern Goshawk (Accipiter gentilis atricapillus): a technical conservation assessment. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/northerngoshawk.pdf Kingery, H. 1998. Colorado Breeding Bird Atlas. Colorado Bird Atlas Partnership and Colorado Division of Wildlife. Denver, Colorado. USA. Kotliar, N.B. (2007 February 20). Olive-sided flycatcher (Contopus cooperi): a technical conservation assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest Service. Rocky Mountain Region. Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/olivesidedflycatcher.pdf Kozlowski, S. 2009. Response of American marten to epidemic mountain pine beetle- caused mortality under a no-action alternative. [Online]. USDA Forest Service. Rocky Mountain Region. Available: http://fsweb.r2.fs.fed.us/rr/ecology/barkbeetles/marten-no-action-alt-v1-0-2009- 04-03.pdf Lacki, M. J., S. K. Amelon, and M. D. Baker. 2007. Foraging ecology of bats in forests. Pages 83-127 in M. J. Lacki, J. P. Hayes, and A. Kurta, editors. Bats in Forests. The John Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD. Loose, S. 2009. Response of three-toed woodpecker to environmental conditions under a no-action alternative. [Online]. USDA Forest Service. Rocky Mountain Region. Available: http://fsweb.r2.fs.fed.us/rr/ecology/barkbeetles/three_toed_woodpecker.0.doc NatureServe. 2013. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. Accessed 27 December 2013. Natural Resource Manager, Natural Resource Inventory Service (NRIS) Wildlife transactional database, S_R02_RCEF data, EDC, Accessed 27 December 2013. O'Shea, T. J. and M. A. Bogan. 2003. Monitoring trends in bat populations of the United States and territories: problems and prospects: U.S. Geological Survey Informaton and Technology Report 2003-0003. 274 pages. O'Shea, T.J., L.E. Ellison, and T.R. Stanley. 2004. Survival estimation in bats: historical overview, critical appraisal, and suggestions for new approaches. Pages 297-336 In W.L. Thompson (ed.). Sampling rare or elusive species: concepts, designs, and techniques for estimating population parameters. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.

48 Hahns Peak/Bears Ears Ranger District, Medicine Bow-Routt National Forests & Thunder Basin National Grassland

Reynolds, R.T., R.T. Graham, M.H. Reiser, R.L. Bassett, P.L. Kennedy, D.A. Boyce, Jr., G. Goodwin, R. Smith and E.L.Fisher. 1992. Management recommendations for the northern goshawk in the southwestern United States. General Technical Report RM-217. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station and Southwestern Region. Fort Collins, CO. 90 pp. Shump Jr., K. A. and A. U. Shump. 1982. Lasiurus cinereus. Mammalian Species 105:1- 5. Skorkowsky, R.C. 2009. Response of northern goshawk to epidemic mountain pine beetle-caused mortality under a no-action alternative. http://fsweb.r2.fs.fed.us/rr/ecology/barkbeetles/northern-goshawk-no-action-alt- v1-0-2009-04-13.pdf Skorkowsky, R.C., J.L. Beck and G.D. Hayward. 2009. Occupancy estimates of the northern goshawk within Region 2 of the US Forest Service. Draft manuscript in review. Squires, J. R., and R. T. Reynolds. 1997. Northern Goshawk (Accipiter gentilis). In The Birds of North America, No. 298 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, PA, and The American Ornithologists’ Union, Washington, D.C. Spencer, A.W. and D. Pettus. 1996. Habitat preferences of five sympatric species of long-tailed shrews. Ecology 47:677-683. USDA Forest Service. 1994a. Flammulated, Boreal, and Great Gray Owls in the United States: A Technical Conservation Assessment. Hayward, G.D, and J. Verner (eds.). USDA Forest Service. General Technical Report RM-253. USDA Forest Service. 1998a. Routt National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, 1997 Revision. USDA Forest Service Medicine Bow-Routt National Forest. Steamboat Springs, Colorado. USDA Forest Service. 1998b. Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Routt National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan - 1997 Revision. USDA Forest Service Medicine Bow-Routt National Forest. Steamboat Springs, Colorado. USDA Forest Service. 2001b. Region 2 Sensitive Species Evaluation Form (Myotis thysanodes). Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/evalrationale/evaluations/mammals/fringedm yotis.pdf USDA Forest Service. 2001f. Region 2 Sensitive Species Evaluation Form (Contopus cooperi). Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/olivesidedflycatcher.pdf

49 Coulton Floyd II Timber & Fuels Management Analysis

USDA Forest Service. 2001g. Region 2 Sensitive Species Evaluation Form (Martes americana). Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/americanmarten.pdf USDA Forest Service. 2001j. Region 2 Sensitive Species Evaluation Form (Otus flammeolus) http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/evalrationale/evaluations/birds/flammulatedo wl.pdf USDA Forest Service. 2001k. Region 2 Sensitive Species Evaluation Form (Accipiter gentilis) http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/evalrationale/evaluations/birds/northerngosha wk.pdf USDA Forest Service. 2003a. Region 2 Sensitive Species Recommendation Rationale: American Marten List. Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/ USDA Forest Service. 2003c. Region 2 Sensitive Species Recommendation Rationale: Olive-sided Flycatcher. Available : http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/ U.S. Geological Survey Bat Population Database for the United States and Trust Territories (BPD). Available: http://www.fort.usgs.gov/BPD/. Accessed 19 January 2011. Valdez, E. W. and P. M. Cryan. 2009. Food habits of the hoary bat (Lasiurus cinereus) during spring migration through New Mexico. Southwestern Naturalist 54:195- 200. Wiggins, D. (2004a July 1). American three-toed woodpecker (Picoides dorsalis): a technical conservation assessment. USDA Forest Service. Rocky Mountain Region. http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/americanthreetoedwoodpecker.p df Wilson, D. E. and D. M. Reeder, editors. 2005. Mammal species of the world. Johns Hopkins University Press. Woodbridge, B.; Hargis, C.D. 2006. Northern goshawk inventory and monitoring technical guide. Gen. Tech. Rep. WO-71. Washington, D.C: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 80 p. Wildlife – Terrestrial Specialist Report Dressen, M.A. 2009. Mountain pine beetle epidemic: Response of snowshoe hare to environmentalconditions under a no-action alternative. Version 1.0, DRAFT unpublished report, USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region, Lakewood, CO. Giezentanner, K. Response of olive-sided flycatcher to epidemic mountain pine beetle- caused mortality – under a no-action alternative. Version 1.0, USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region, Lakewood, CO.

50 Hahns Peak/Bears Ears Ranger District, Medicine Bow-Routt National Forests & Thunder Basin National Grassland

Hayward, G. D. 2008. Response of boreal owl to epidemic mountain pine beetle-caused mortality – under a no-action alternative. Version 1.0, USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region, Lakewood, CO. Hayward, G. D. 2008. Response of pine squirrel to epidemic mountain pine beetle- caused mortality – under a no-action alternative. Version 1.0, USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region, Lakewood, CO. Holland, T. M. 2008. Response of North American elk to epidemic mountain pine beetle-caused mortality – under a no-action alternative. Version 1.0, USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region, Lakewood, CO. Kozlowski, S. 2008. Response of American marten to epidemic mountain pine beetle- caused mortality – under a no-action alternative. Version 1.0, USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region, Lakewood, CO. Loose, S. 2008. Response of three-toed woodpecker to epidemic mountain pine beetle- caused mortality – under a no-action alternative. Version 1.0, USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region, Lakewood, CO. McCormick, B. and D. Sumerlin. 2008 Response of boreal toad to epidemic mountain pine beetle-caused mortality – under a no-action alternative. Version 1.0, USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region, Lakewood, CO. Romme, W. H., J. Clement, J. Hicke, D. Kulakowski, L. H. MacDonald, T. L. Schoennagel, and T. T. Veblen. 2006. Recent forest insect outbreaks and fire risk in Colorado forests: a brief synthesis of relevant research. Colorado Forest Restoration Institute, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO (www.cfri.colostate.edu). Skorkowsky, R. C. 2009. Response of Northern goshawk to epidemic mountain pine beetle-caused mortality – under a no-action alternative. Version 1.0, USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region, Lakewood, CO. USDA Forest Service. 1998a. Routt National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, 1997 Revision. USDA Forest Service Medicine Bow-Routt National Forest. Steamboat Springs, Colorado. USDA Forest Service. 2008. Southern Rockies Lynx Amendment. USDA Forest ServiceNational Forests in Colorado & southern Wyoming. Available on-line: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/lynx/documents/volume-1.pdf Wildlife – Terrestrial MIS Report Andrews, R., and R. Righter, 1992 Colorado Birds. Denver Museum of Natural History, Denver CO. 442 pp. Andrle, R.F., and J.R. Carroll, eds. 1988. The atlas of breeding birds in New York State. Cornell Univ. Press, Ithaca, NY. 551 pp. Baker, B.W. 2004. Interaction of beaver and elk herbivory reduces standing crop of willow. In press. Ecological Applications.

51 Coulton Floyd II Timber & Fuels Management Analysis

Beck J.L., R.C. Skorkowsky, G.D. Hayward. 2009. Designing a Regional Northern Goshawk Monitoring Program based on a National Protocol. Draft manuscript in review. Blakesley, J.A.., 2008a. Population densities and trend detection of avian Management Indicator Species on the Routt National Forest. Supplemental Report M-MCB- USFS07-01. Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory, Brighton, CO. 11 pp. Blakesley, J.A.., 2008b. Population densities and trend detection of avian Management Indicator Species on the Medicine Bow National Forest. Supplemental Report M- MWB-USFS07-01. Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory, Brighton, CO. 8 pp. Blakesley, J.A., and D. J. Hanni. 2009. Monitoring Colorado’s Birds, 2008. Tech. Rep. M-MCB08-01. Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory, Brighton, CO. 39 pp. Brewer, R., G.A. McPeek, and R.J. Adams, Jr. 1991. The atlas of breeding birds of Michigan. Michigan State Univ. Press, East Lansing, MI. 594 pp. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Department of Health and Human Services. 2005. Website: http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dvbid/westnile/birdspecies.htm DeGraff R.M., V.E. Scott, R.H. Hamre, L. Ernst and S.H. Anderson. 1991. Forest and rangeland birds of the United States: natural history and habitat use. USDA Forest Service. Agriculture Handbook No. 688. 625 pp. Fisher, Chris C. 1997. Birds of the Rocky Mountains. Lone Pine Publishing. p.184. Kennedy, P.L. 2003. Northern goshawk (Accipiter gentilis atricapillus): A technical conservation assessment. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. xi + 189 pp. Kingery. H. (ed.).1998. Colorado Breeding Bird Atlas. Colorado Bird Atlas Partnership. Co-published by the Colorado Division of Wildlife Resources, 636 pages. Laughlin, S.B., and D.R. Kibbe, eds. 1985. Atlas of breeding birds of Vermont. Univ. Press of New England, Hanover, NH. 456 pp. Lukacs, P.M. 2005. Analysis of Avian Management Indicator Species for the Routt National Forest. Medicine Bow-Routt National Forest. Laramie, Wy.. Reynolds, R.T., R.T. Graham, M.H. Reiser, R.L. Bassett, P.L. Kennedy, D.A. Boyce, Jr., G. Goodwin, R. Smith and E.L.Fisher. 1992. Management recommendations for the northern goshawk in the southwestern United States. General Technical Report RM-217. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station and Southwestern Region. Fort Collins, CO. 90 pp. RMBO, Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory, Partners in Flight Species Assessment Database (PIF), online 2/9/05 - http://www.rmbo.org/index.html Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory. 2013. The Rocky Mountain Avian Data Center. [web application]. Brighton, CO. http://adc.rmbo.org. (Accessed: December 31, 2013).

52 Hahns Peak/Bears Ears Ranger District, Medicine Bow-Routt National Forests & Thunder Basin National Grassland

Sauer, J. R., J. E. Hines, and J. Fallon. 2004. The North American Breeding Bird Survey, Results and Analysis 1966 - 2003. Version 2004.1. USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, MD. Most recent update June 7, 2004, online 2/9/05, http://www.mbr-pwrc.usgs.gov/bbs Skorkowsky, R. C. 2003. The Effects of Blowdown in the Engelmann Spruce and Subalpine Fir Forest and Subsequent Blowdown Salvage Logging on Bird Communities in Colorado. Masters thesis. USDA Forest Service Medicine Bow- Routt National Forest. Hahns Peak Bears Ears RD. Steamboat Springs, Colorado. Skorkowsky, R. C. 2005. Medicine Bow-Rout National Forest Thunder Basin National Grassland Northern Goshawk Territory Occupancy Monitoring Protocol 2005 update to the 2004 protocol. Medicine Bow- Routt National Forest. Laramie, Wy. Skorkowsky, R.C. 2009. Response of Northern goshawk to Epidemic Mountain Pine Beetle-Caused Mortality – Under a No-Action Alternative. Medicine Bow-Routt National Forest. Laramie, Wy. Skorkowsky, R. C. and P. Dolan 2005. Draft Medicine Bow – Routt National Forests Songbird Management Indicator Species Monitoring Protocol. Medicine Bow- Routt National Forest. Laramie, Wy. Skorkowsky, R.C., J.L. Beck and G.D. Hayward. 2009. Occupancy estimates of the northern goshawk within Region 2 of the US Forest Service. Draft manuscript in review. Squires, J.R. 2000. Food habits of northern goshawks nesting in south central Wyoming. Wilson Bulletin. 112: 536-539. Squires, J.R. and R.T Reynolds. 1997. Northern goshawk (Accipiter gentilis). In: Poole, A. and F. Gill (eds.), The birds of North America, No. 298. The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, PA, and American Ornithologists’ Union, Washington, DC, USA. USDA Forest Service. 1998a. Routt National Forest Revised Land and Resource Management Plan. Medicine Bow Routt National Forest. Steamboat Springs, Co. 80487 USDA Forest Service. 2002. Medicine Bow-Routt National Forests Bark Beetle Analysis FEIS. Laramie, WY. USDA Forest Service. 2005. Region 2 Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species Assessments. USDA Forest Service Region 2 website. Available: http://fsweb.r2.fs.fed.us/rr/scp/birds/golden_crowned_kinglet.shtml [Accessed 2005, February 8] USDA Forest Service 2013. Management Indicator Species data located in Medicine Bow-Routt National Forest NRM Wildlife database. GIS-based application used for administrative purposes.

53 Coulton Floyd II Timber & Fuels Management Analysis

USDA Forest Service 2007. Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact for the Management Indicator Species Forest Plan Amendment 04 to the Routt National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan – 1997 Revision, January 2007. USDA Forest Service 2007. Management Indicator Species Forest Plan Amendment 04. Medicine Bow Routt National Forest. Laramie, Wyoming. Woodbridge, B.; Hargis, C.D. 2006. Northern goshawk inventory and monitoring technical guide. Gen. Tech. Rep. WO-71. Washington, D.C: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 80 p.

54 Hahns Peak/Bears Ears Ranger District, Medicine Bow-Routt National Forests & Thunder Basin National Grassland

Appendix A – Non-Governmental Organizations & Individuals Contacted

First Last Organization Name Name Address City STATE Ancient Forest Rescue Michael McGowan PO Box 762 San Luis CO Backcountry Snowsports Alliance Kim Hedberg PO Box 989 Fort Collins CO Patrick Banjo Sheep and Company Sharon O'Toole PO Box 22 Slater CO Bighorn Lumber Co Inc Gary Erickson PO Box 2231 Laramie WY Biodiversity Conservation Alliance 1536 Wynkoop Ste B 501 Denver CO Biodiversity Conservation Alliance PO Box 1512 Laramie WY Black Mountain Trails Committee Bill Hiss 1201 S Shelly Dr Deming NM Blue Ribbon Coalition Jack Welch 246 S Holman Way Golden CO Center for Native Ecosystems Megan Corrigan 1536 Wynkoop Ste 301 Denver CO Chew Ranch PO Box 126 Jensen UT Tom and Circle Four Lodge Patricia Lindley PO Box 770971 Steamboat Springs CO Clark Ranch Partnership Doug Carlson PO Box 668 Clark CO Clark Store Susan Saari PO Box 825 Clark CO Colorado Mountain Club Anne Vickery 5255 Pensylvania Ave Boulder CO Colorado Mountain Club 710 10th St Ste 200 Golden CO Colorado Mountain College 1330 Bob Adams Dr Steamboat Springs CO Colorado OHV Coalition Jerry Abboud 2060 E Main St Grand Junction CO Colorado OHV Coalition Toni Louder 470 Woodbury Craig CO Colorado Trout Unlimited David Nickum 1320 Pearl St Ste 320 Boulder CO Colorado Wild Inc Rocky Smith 1030 Pearl Ste 9 Denver CO Columbine Cabins Inc Lyman Fancher PO Box 716 Clark CO Continental Divide Trail Society James Wolf 3704 N Charles St Ste 601 Baltimore MD Cyclone Creek LLC Dave Harrison 1781 Macom Dr Sedalia CO Dels Triangle 3 Ranch Ray Heid PO Box 333 Clark CO

55 Coulton Floyd II Timber & Fuels Management Analysis

Duncan Livestock Company PO Box 47 Slater CO Dutch Creek Guest Ranch Jon Hawes PO Box 846 Clark CO Egeria Land and Cattle Kirk Shiner 33420 RCR 1 Antelope Rd McCoy CO Elkridge Homeowners Kevin Ford PO Box 770413 Steamboat Springs CO Fetcher Ranch PO Box 866 Clark CO Forest Guardians Bryan Bird 312 Montezuma Ave Rm A Santa Fe NM Grand County Historical Hot Sulphur Association Don Woster PO Box 165 Springs CO Intermountain Forest Association Tom Troxel 2218 Jackson Blvd Ste 10 Rapid City SD Intermountain Resources LLC Randy Harrison PO Box 670 Montrose CO Inyan Kara Grazing Association Jim Darlington PO Box 458 Newcastle WY Jones and Lynch Logging Patrick Lynch PO Box 294 Encampment WY Land and Water Fund of the Rockies Melissa Decker 2260 Baseline Rd Ste 200 Boulder CO Little Snake Motorcycle Club 470 Woodberry Craig CO Look Ranch PO Box 1087 Clark CO May S-S Ranch LLLP David May 933 Alta Vista Dr Craig CO Morgan Creek John Smith PO Box 789 Craig CO Museum NW Colo Historical Society Dan Davidson 590 Yampa Ave Craig CO National Wildlife Federation Luke Danielson 1400 16th St NW Ste 501 Washington DC Needmore Ranch 3900 N Mccoll Rd Mcallen TX Northwest Colorado Joe and Snowmobile Club Jenny Tonso PO Box 3 Craig CO Nottingham Land & Livestock Mike Nottingham PO Box 969 Craig CO Peroulis Bros Ltd Partnership PO Box 355 Craig CO Poulter Colorado Camps PO Box 770969 Steamboat Springs CO R & T Land and Cattle Darrel Teter 206 W County Line Rd Highlands Ranch CO Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation Allan Reishus 601 Sandrock Dr Craig CO Rocky Mountain Van De Youth Corps Gretchen Carr PO Box 775504 Steamboat Springs CO Round Mountain Ranch Dan Souders 51870 Rcr 129 Steamboat Springs CO Routt County Cattleman's Association Larry Monger 39765 CR 44 Steamboat Springs CO Routt County Riders Brad Cusenbary PO Box 770094 Steamboat Springs CO Routt Powder Riders PO Box 770043 Steamboat Springs CO

56 Hahns Peak/Bears Ears Ranger District, Medicine Bow-Routt National Forests & Thunder Basin National Grassland

Sheep Mountain Partnership General Delivery Slater CO Sierra Club, Trappers Lake Chapter Rich Levy PO Box 772746 Steamboat Springs CO Smith Rancho Ltd Bradford Smith PO Box 215 Craig CO Steamboat Chamber Resort Association Tom Kern PO Box 774408 Steamboat Springs CO Steamboat Lake Marina Karl Bunker PO Box 867 Clark CO Steamboat Lake Outfitters Sue Applegate PO Box 749 Clark CO Straightline Brett Lee PO Box 774887 Steamboat Springs CO Stratton Sheep CO Charles Juare PO Box 321 Rawlins WY Strawberry Park Group PO Box 772464 Steamboat Springs CO The Nature Conservancy Jamie Williams PO Box 775528 Steamboat Springs CO Thompsen Family 1495 Pine Grove Rd Unit Limited Partnership A101 Steamboat Springs CO Timberline Trailriders Inc Robert Stickler 30355 Cty Rd 14B Steamboat Springs CO Trout Unlimited Rick Hammel 355 County Road 201 Craig CO Vista Verde Ranch PO Box 770465 Steamboat Springs CO Weatherly-White Family Partnership 2101 Hawthorne Pl Denver CO Western Watersheds Project Jonathan Ratner PO BOX 1160 Pinedale WY Westland Holdings Inc PO Box 773232 Steamboat Springs CO Wilderness Ranch George Nickas PO Box 9175 Missoula MT Wilderness Society, Wildland Fire Pgm Coordinator Tom Fry 1660 Wynkoop St Ste 850 Denver CO Wiregrass West Ltd 1515 N Riverhills Dr Temple Terrace FL Yampatika Sonja Macys PO Box 776293 Steamboat Sprngs CO Zirkel Air Quality Dan Ely 4300 Cherry Creek Dr S Denver CO Bick Marsh PO Box 25 Slater CO Dave Garner 716 Fields Ln Simpsonville KY Diane Hoppe 200 E Colfax Rm 223 Denver CO Don Vogel 46660 Rcr 129 Steamboat Springs CO Frank Gerken PO Box 772576 Steamboat Springs CO Holly Richter PO Box 16 Bisbee AZ Ivan Kawcak 7833 Co Rd 29 Craig CO J N May 22500 CTY RD 52E Steamboat Springs CO Jack Taylor 200 E Colfax Rm 274 Denver CO Jack White 22900 RCR 56 Steamboat Springs CO Jim Espy PO Box 146 Savery WY Joe Lake PO Box 823 Clark CO 34469 Weld County Road John Bartmann 25 Greeley CO John Geddie 8040 Bellamah Ct NE Albuquerque NM John Keslick 214 N Penn St West Chester PA John Mason 667 Gray Squirrel Way Franktown CO

57 Coulton Floyd II Timber & Fuels Management Analysis

John Randolph PO Box 770985 Steamboat Springs CO John Spezia PO Box 772255 Steamboat Springs CO Mike Flanders PO Box 302 Hayden CO Pablo Geronimo 2761 E Highway 40 Vernal UT Ray Corbett PO Box 698 Clark CO Richard Blackmore 1145 Sparta Dr Lafayette CO Richard Teck 2140 Centre Ave Bldg A Fort Collins CO Ron Snowden 2127 Cty Rd 18 N Craig CO Spike Meyring 51950 RCR 129 Steamboat Springs CO Steve Coolidge PO Box 744 Clark CO Steve Raftopoulo and John s 893 Stout St Craig CO Terry Nelson PO Box 1139 Clark CO Tom Maneotis PO Box 156 Oak Creek CO Wendell Funk 1707 N 12th St Quincy IL Wendy Holden PO Box 880320 Steamboat Springs CO Van William Straaten PO Box 780 Clark CO William and Ramona Green 2951 Co Rd 18 N Craig CO

58 Hahns Peak/Bears Ears Ranger District, Medicine Bow-Routt National Forests & Thunder Basin National Grassland

Appendix B: Other Agency, Tribal Consultation & Involvement

Federal: USDI Bureau of Land Management – Little Snake Field Office US Representative John Salzar United States Fish & Wildlife Service Senator Mark Udall’s Office

Tribes: Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribes Northern Arapaho Tribe Northern Cheyenne Tribe Northern Ute Tribe Southern Ute Tribe Southern Ute Tribal Council Ute Tribal Business Committee Ute Mountain Tribe

State: Colorado State Representative Office Colorado Parks and Wildlife Colorado State Forest Service State Historic Archeological Preservation Office Wyoming Game and Fish Department Wyoming State Planning Office

Local Agencies: City of Steamboat Springs Parks, Open Space & Recreation City of Craig and Craig City Council, Colorado Routt County Commissioners’ Routt County Planning Commission Mayor James Carothers, Walden Colorado

59 Coulton Floyd II Timber & Fuels Management Analysis

Appendix C – Response to Comments

The 30-day notice and comment period was conducted from August 11, 2013 through September 10, 2013. Below is the consideration of comments received during this 30 day comment period.

Index of Letters or Other Communication Letter Commenter Organization Date Number or of Other Comments 1 Reishus, Alan Life Member - Rocky Mnt. Elk Foundation 8/26/2013 1-3 2 Artley, Dick N/A 9/7/2013 1-22 3 Naranjo, Alden Southern Ute Indian Tribe 9/10/2013 1

Response to Comments

Economics

8. (Artely) The pathetic 12-page Notice of Proposed Action for the Coulton Floyd II timber sale does not disclose the post-project costs

Response: The District generally uses the least-cost methods in the Forest Service Timber Sale Preparation Handbook (FSH 2409.18). Cost effective and least-cost methods involve achieving specified outputs or objectives under given conditions for the least cost. Often, however, the cost of implementing salvage sales in beetle-killed environments (i.e., project planning, sale administration, cutting and hauling logs, and reforestation) exceeds the economic gains of a timber sale due to stand deterioration. This is appropriate if the actions proposed are consistent with the purpose and need of the project and are necessary to protect infrastructure and regenerate forests to healthy productive stands as rapidly as possible (pg. 1 economics report).

12. (Artely) The pathetic 12-page Notice of Proposed Action for the Coulton Floyd II timber sale contains no market demand analysis for timber. Neither does it contain an analysis of the economic condition of local communities, yet the P&N emphasizes the need to “Provide a continuing supply of quality timber products to existing and new forest markets and economies.”

Response: See VI. Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action and No Action Alternatives section of the EA and specifically page 18 containing economic information with additional information contained in the economics report within the project record.

Engineering

17. (Artely) The pathetic 12-page Notice of Proposed Action for the Coulton Floyd II timber sale fails to adequately consider past and existing road maintenance problems

60 Hahns Peak/Bears Ears Ranger District, Medicine Bow-Routt National Forests & Thunder Basin National Grassland

Response: See the proposed action (pgs. 5-11) where it is the stated intent to “stabilize problem areas” in the existing road system. Also see Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action and No Action Alternatives section of the EA (pgs. 12-33).

2. (Rieshus) The proposal states that “existing transportation system will be utilized…” and that “all temporary roads will be closed and rehabilitated after use”. That sounds good, as a start. Ideally, at the end of the project roads are fewer, of less miles, and remaining roads are in better condition than they are presently.

Response: Yes, that is the intent of the road use and reconstruction associated with this project. See Proposed Action (pgs. 5-11)

Fisheries

1. (Artely) The fisheries values of streams are not disclosed or considered in the pathetic 12-page Notice of Proposed Action for the Coulton Floyd II timber sale.

Response: See VI. Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action and No Action Alternatives section of the EA (pgs. 12-33) specifically Aquatic, Amphibian and Fisheries Resources section and the report in its entirety located in the project record.

15. (Artely) The watershed and fisheries data in the pathetic 12-page Notice of Proposed Action for the Coulton Floyd II timber sale is inadequate and unreliable.

Response: See VI. Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action and No Action Alternatives section of the EA (pgs. 12-33) specifically Aquatic, Amphibian and Fisheries Resources section and the report in its entirety located in the project record.

16. (Artely) The pathetic 12-page Notice of Proposed Action for the Coulton Floyd II timber sale analysis of water temperature impacts is inadequate.

Response: See VI. Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action and No Action Alternatives section of the EA (pgs. 12-33) specifically Aquatic, Amphibian and Fisheries Resources section and the report in its entirety located in the project record.

Hydrology/Soils

2. (Artely) BMP are not mentioned in the pathetic 12-page Notice of Proposed Action for the Coulton Floyd II timber sale.

Response: See VI. Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action and No ActionAlternatives section of the EA (pgs. 12-33).

4. (Artely) The pathetic 12-page Notice of Proposed Action for the Coulton Floyd II timber sale entirely fails to consider the effects of landings and skid-trails on watersheds and aquatic habitat

61 Coulton Floyd II Timber & Fuels Management Analysis

Response: See VI. Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action and No Action Alternatives section of the EA (pgs. 12-33) and the project record.

9. (Artely) The pathetic 12-page Notice of Proposed Action for the Coulton Floyd II timber sale fails to consider road-stream connectivity

Response: See VI. Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action and No Alternatives section of the EA (pgs. 12-33) specifically the Hydrological Resources, Soils Resources and Botanical Resources section and those reports in their entirety located in the project record.

10. (Artely) The pathetic 12-page Notice of Proposed Action for the Coulton Floyd II timber sale fails to consider presence and impact of roads in close proximity to streams.

Response: See VI. Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action and No Action Alternatives section of the EA (pgs. 12-33) specifically the Hydrological Resources, Soils Resources and Botanical Resources section and those reports in their entirety located in the project record.

NEPA Process

3. (Artely) Important project-related information is not made reasonably available to the public in the pathetic 12-page Notice of Proposed Action for the Coulton Floyd II timber sale.

Response: It is unclear as to what important information was not available and thus no response can be determined.

7. (Artely) The pathetic 12-page Notice of Proposed Action for the Coulton Floyd II timber sale does not discuss the following items required by law:  Energy requirements and conservation potential of various alternatives and mitigation measures.  Natural or depletable resource requirements and conservation potential of various alternatives and mitigation measures.  Urban quality, historic and cultural resources, and the design of the built environment, including the reuse and conservation potential of various alternatives and mitigation measures.  Means to mitigate adverse environmental impacts (if not fully covered under § 1502.14(f) ).

Response: See VI. Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action and No Action Alternatives section of the EA (pgs. 12-33).

11. (Artely) The pathetic 12-page Notice of Proposed Action for the Coulton Floyd II timber sale does not analyze effects at ecologically meaningful scales

Response: See VI. Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action and No Action Alternatives section of the EA (pgs. 12-33) and the complete project record where both contain information related to the cumulative effects at the treatment, analysis area, geographic area and larger extent.

62 Hahns Peak/Bears Ears Ranger District, Medicine Bow-Routt National Forests & Thunder Basin National Grassland

13. (Artely) The range of alternatives briefly discussed in the pathetic 12-page Notice of Proposed Action for the Coulton Floyd II timber sale is inadequate

Response: There is no requirement to provide a range of alternatives within the EA if no significant issues are determined (see Section VI. Pg. 12)

14. (Artely) The pathetic 12-page Notice of Proposed Action for the Coulton Floyd II timber sale fails to use high quality information or address gaps in data

Response: See this EA in its entirety and the project record located at the HPBE Ranger District, 925 Weiss Dr. Steamboat Springs, CO 80487.

22. (Artely) The Coulton Floyd II timber sale is inconsistent with what the American public wants to occur in their national forests  The following quote comes from forest service publication that describes what the public wants from their national forests: “The public sees the restriction of mineral development and of timber harvest and grazing as being more important than the provision of natural resources to dependent communities (although this is still seen as somewhat important).” (Pg. 28) Source: “Survey results of the American public’s values, objectives, beliefs, and attitudes regarding forests and grasslands: A technical document supporting the 2000 USDA Forest Service RPA Assessment”. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-95. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 111 p. Link to Complete Report: http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs/rmrs_gtr095.pdf

Response: Determining the “want” of the American people as a whole is outside the scope of the analysis. Of the 111 non-governmental organizations and individuals directly contacted for input into this proposal only 3 individuals commented and only 1 negatively. See other involvement and notification processes in the Other Agency, Tribal Consultation & Involvement Appendices of this EA.

1. (Reishus) I am generally supportive of the project.

Response: Supportive Comment

1. (Naranjo) No Effect

Response: Supportive Comment

Silviculture

5. (Artely) The pathetic 12-page Notice of Proposed Action for the Coulton Floyd II timber sale fails to provide an adequate justification for clearcutting and does not tell the public how many acres of their land will be clearcut.

Response: The Proposed Action clearly defines the silvicultural prescriptions (EA pgs. 5- 11). The 6 specific silvicultural prescriptions and the Silvicuture report contained in the

63 Coulton Floyd II Timber & Fuels Management Analysis project record clearly defines the rationale and need to implement the various prescriptions that are developed to provide full regeneration of a diverse and resilient forest.

6. (Artely) The pathetic 12-page Notice of Proposed Action for the Coulton Floyd II timber sale fails to acknowledge the risk of exceeding the 100 acre clearcut size.

Response: The Issues displayed throughout the Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action and Alternatives section (pgs. 12-33) and individual resource reports located in the project record do not indicate any significance nor do they indicate any risks associated with this action.

18. (Artely) The pathetic 12-page Notice of Proposed Action for the Coulton Floyd II timber sale fails to evaluate project impacts to climate change and climate change impacts to forest resources and ecosystem services

Response: The Forest Service acknowledges that global climate change is an important emerging concern worldwide. However, there is no established scientific methodology to measure the effects of small-scale projects, such as the Coulton Floyd II Project, on global climate. This analysis briefly addresses global climate change in two ways: 1) effects of climate change on a proposed project; and 2) effects of a proposed project on climate change. Each of these is briefly discussed below relative to this project.

Effects of Climate Change on a Proposed Project NEPA does not specifically require analysis of how environmental factors, such as global climate change, might impact a proposed action. Any differences in effects of climate change on the project between the alternatives would be negligible.

Effects of the Final Proposed Action on Climate Change The activities associated with the Final Proposed Action are extremely small in scope and magnitude relative to a planetary scale. Although it may be possible to quantify a project’s direct effects on carbon sequestration and greenhouse gas emissions, there is no certainty about the actual intensity of individual project indirect effects on global climate change. Cumulative effects would be a consideration of greenhouse gas emissions affecting climate from multiple projects over time. But, as greenhouse gas emissions are integrated across the global atmosphere, it is not possible to determine cumulative impact on global climate from emissions associated with any number of specific projects. Nor is it expected that such disclosure would provide a practical or meaningful effects analysis for project decisions. Any differences between the alternatives analyzed in this EA would be negligible at a global scale.

21. (Artely) If the Responsible Official is Really Concerned about Aquatic Species’ Health the Final EA MUST Indicate that All Temporary Roads will be Obliterated after Use and the Responsible Official Must do it.

64 Hahns Peak/Bears Ears Ranger District, Medicine Bow-Routt National Forests & Thunder Basin National Grassland

Response: The proposed action states clearly that all temporary roads will be closed (EA pg. 9).

3. (Rieshus) The proposal does not state who is responsible for road erasure and rehabilitation. If is the USFS, I think it is extremely important that the work is done, and done quickly upon completion of logging. If it is a contractor responsible for the rehab, the same requirements are in place, and further, that a significant bonding be required of the contractor to assure that the rehab is properly and completely done.

Response: The proposed action states clearly that all temporary roads will be closed (EA pg. 9). Typically the purchaser or timber sale contractor will be responsible for closure of all temporary roads and this is stipulated in the contract itself via contract provision C5.34# - Obliteration of temporary roads, skid trails and landings. Other avenues exist for road closure and other rehabilitation work by utilization of retained receipts from the timber sales themselves should there be a need or advantage to the work be accomplished by the USFS.

Wildlife

19. (Artely) The Forest Service fails to explain how the pathetic 12-page Notice of Proposed Action for the Coulton Floyd II timber sale complies with the 1982 NFMA Planning Regulations on species viability, which are incorporated into the Medicine Bow – Routt National Forests National Forest Land Management Plan.

Response: The Terrestrial Animal Biological Evaluation for Coulton Floyd II Timber and Fuels Management Project addresses species viability for all Routt National Forest terrestrial sensitive species (pgs. 32-44). The Terrestrial Animal Biological Assessment for Coulton Floyd II Timber and Fuels Management Project addresses species viability for all terrestrial threatened, endangered, proposed and candidate species that might occur on or within the vicinity of influence of the Routt National Forest (pgs. 49-68). This species list was downloaded from US Fish and Wildlife Service’s IPaC website on 1/2/2014. The Management Indicator Species report addresses species viability for all Routt National Forest terrestrial management indicator species (pgs. 4-24). The Wildlife Specialist report sums up the determinations from the 3 previous reports mentioned as well as taking into account other species viability including; raptors, elk and migratory birds (pgs. 25-28). The Medicine Bow-Routt National Forests National Forest Land Management Plan was designed to support the 1982 NFMA Planning Regulations and the wildlife Specialist Report includes a full Forest Plan consistency review and everything agrees (pgs. 7-16).

20. (Artely) The pathetic 12-page Notice of Proposed Action for the Coulton Floyd II timber sale does not discuss how the timber sale’s logging and slash/RX burning activities will affect protected bird species

65 Coulton Floyd II Timber & Fuels Management Analysis

Response: The Terrestrial Animal Biological Evaluation for Coulton Floyd II Timber and Fuels Management Project addresses how the silvicultural treatments will affect all Routt National Forest sensitive bird species (pgs 32-44). The Terrestrial Animal Biological Assessment for Coulton Floyd II Timber and Fuels Management Project refers back to the Biological Evaluation for effects from the silvicultural treatments to the yellow-billed cuckoo, a proposed threatened species, and the greater sage-grouse, a candidate species (pg. 49). These are the only 2 bird species included on the list of species that might occur on or within the vicinity of influence of the Routt National Forest that was downloaded from US Fish and Wildlife Service’s IPaC website on 1/2/2014. The Management Indicator Species report addresses the effects of the silvicultural treatments to the Routt National Forest terrestrial management indicator species (pgs. 4-24). The Wildlife Specialist report sums up the determinations from the 3 previous reports mentioned as well as taking into account the effects of the project on other species including; other raptors, elk and other migratory birds (pgs. 25-28).

66