United States Department of Environmental Assessment Agriculture

Emergency Power Line Clearing Project Forest Service Portions of the Arapaho and Roosevelt, Routt, and White River National Forests in May 2010 Boulder, Clear Creek, Eagle, Garfield, Gilpin, Grand, Gunnison, Jackson, Larimer, Mesa, Pitkin, Rio Blanco, Routt and Summit Counties, Colorado

For Information Contact: Jamie Kingsbury 925 Weiss Drive Steamboat Springs, CO 80487 970-870-2149 [email protected]

Prepared for: Arapaho & Roosevelt National Forest Routt National Forest White River National Forest

Prepared By: JG Management Systems, Inc. 336 Main Street, Suite 207 Grand Junction, CO 81501 970-254-1354

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or a part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. –Final – Environmental Assessment of the Emergency Power Line Clearing Project

Environmental Assessment Organization

This Environmental Assessment (EA) addresses the proposed actions determined by the United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service (USFS), the Arapaho and Roosevelt (ARNF), the Routt (RNF), and the White River National Forests (WRNF) necessary to implement hazard tree removal activities associated with power lines on the three forests, in central Colorado. The EA is written pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA, 42 USC §4321), Council on Environmental Quality regulations (40 CFR Parts 1500-1508), and 36 Code of Federal Regulation [CFR] 218 and 220. The EA is organized in the following fashion:

Executive Summary briefly describes the Proposed Action, provides a summary of environmental, cultural, and socioeconomic consequences, and compares and contrasts potential effects associated with the considered alternatives.

Section 1.0 – Project Overview summarizes the purpose of and need for the Proposed Action, provides relevant background information, and describes the scope of the EA.

Section 2.0 – Alternatives describes the No Action and the Proposed Action Alternatives.

Section 3.0 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences identifies potential environmental, cultural and socioeconomic effects of implementing the No Action Alternative and the Proposed Action Alternative.

Section 4.0 – Consultation and Coordination provides a listing of agencies, organizations, and personnel that were involved in the Proposed Project.

Section 5.0 – References provides bibliographical information for cited sources.

Appendix A – Consolidated Forest Plan Standards provides a combined set of standards from the forest plans for the ARNF, RNF and WRNF that were used to develop and manage the Proposed Project.

Appendix B – Maps provides a description of the maps available as a portion of the project record for the Proposed Project.

______Arapaho and Roosevelt, Routt, and White River National Forests May 2010 United States Forest Service Page i –Final – Environmental Assessment of the Emergency Power Line Clearing Project

(THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK)

______Arapaho and Roosevelt, Routt, and White River National Forests May 2010 United States Forest Service Page ii –Final – Environmental Assessment of the Emergency Power Line Clearing Project

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This Environmental Assessment (EA) has been prepared to fully identify, document, and address the potential physical, environmental, cultural, and socioeconomic effects associated with implementation of the Emergency Power Line Clearing Project, proposed for implementation on National Forest System (NFS) lands on the Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests (ARNF), Routt National Forest (RNF), and White River National Forest (WRNF), located in north central Colorado.

This project identifies those parts of the ARNF, RNF, and WRNF that contain large numbers of dead or dying trees along power line rights-of-way that may pose a threat or hazard to the integrity of utility power lines and their infrastructure.

The Proposed Action has been determined essential by the USFS, and has been authorized under the Healthy Forests Restoration Act (HFRA) Title 1, 102 (a) 1 and 4, to ensure the safety and security of power lines that service segments of the local population as well as function as a portion of the local, regional, and national electrical grid. The three principal purposes of the Proposed Action include:

• Reduce the potential for wildland fires caused by hazardous trees falling onto the power lines. • Reduce hazardous fuel loadings associated with trees killed by beetles or disease. • Ensure reliable electrical service to the local, regional, and national electrical grid in compliance with the Energy Policy Act of 2005.

By implementing the Proposed Action, these purposes would be achieved by reducing the potential for fire, injury, and damage and/or malfunction of power lines, thereby increasing the safety of users and administrative staff.

The Proposed Action assessed in this document is a one-time authorization to allow felling and/or removal, where feasible, of hazardous trees up to 200 feet (from each side of centerline) of transmission lines and up to 75 feet (from each side of centerline) of distribution lines. After treatments have been completed, maintenance would return to widths and standards specified in existing permits and easements. Through employment of proper resource management strategies, this action is not expected to have significant impacts.

This EA examines in-depth two alternatives: 1) a No Action Alternative, and 2) a Proposed Action Alternative, defined as follows.

• No Action Alternative: Do not implement the Proposed Action identified as the Emergency Power Line Clearing Project and allow all resource management authorized by permits and easements to continue as currently conducted.

• Proposed Action Alternative: Implement the Proposed Action as identified in the Emergency Power Line Clearing Project addressing resource management strategies for the ARNF, RNF, and WRNF.

The Proposed Action Alternative effectively provides the best combination of land and resource management to allow the removal of hazardous trees and removal of potential fuel for the protection of the power lines on the ARNF, RNF, and WRNF and to help prevent interruption of power supply and reduce potential wildfire starts.

The No Action Alternative reduces the level of protection for power lines in the areas identified by the Proposed Action and as stated in the respective forest Land and Resource Management Plans. In addition, the No Action Alternative would result in the allowance of the abundantly available fuels created by the bark beetle epidemic of the mountain west to accumulate. This would create a heavier than normal load of ground fuels in areas with a high potential for ignition, thus compromising the integrity of the power lines. However, the No Action Alternative is comparatively analyzed with this EA as required under federal law.

______Arapaho and Roosevelt, Routt, and White River National Forests May 2010 United States Forest Service Page iii –Final – Environmental Assessment of the Emergency Power Line Clearing Project

After describing the physical, environmental, cultural, and socioeconomic aspects of the project area and its region of influence, each considered alternative was evaluated to determine its potential direct and/or indirect effect(s) on that setting. To simplify and render consistent the impact analysis presentation, and to facilitate the reader’s review and understanding of that section, each technical area subsection was organized using the same structure. Following are the technical areas examined listed in order of presentation:

• Recreation • Heritage Resources • Inventoried Roadless Areas • Engineering and Public Access • Hydrology • Scenery Resources • Amphibians, Fisheries, and Aquatic • Soils Habitats • Special Interest Areas • Botany • Research Natural Areas • Forested Vegetation/Old Growth • Wilderness Areas • Fire and Fuels • Wildlife Through implementation of integrated, and required, best management practices (BMPs), application of Design Criteria, and compliance with applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations, any adverse impacts would be minimized.

The EA includes examination of the potential direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of implementing both of the considered alternatives, within the administrative boundaries of the ARNF, RNF, and WRNF and within the affected region.

Positive cumulative effects to the regional land use and socioeconomic environment are anticipated under the Proposed Action Alternative. No cumulative adverse effects on natural resources, heritage resources, and socioeconomic capacities are anticipated.

Under the No Action Alternative, cumulative effects to natural resources, heritage resources, and socioeconomic capacities are expected to be minor. Due to the deterioration of forest resources, increases in personal injury, property damage, fire intensity, and damages to infrastructure are anticipated to occur, which in turn would result in potential power outages, area closures, and additional socioeconomic effects.

Implementation of the Emergency Power Line Clearing Project on the ARNF, RNF, and WRNF within the project area provided in this assessment would not have a significant effect on either the natural or cultural environment of the three forests. In addition, implementation of the Proposed Action Alternative would reduce risks to the utility infrastructural assets from hazards resulting from the ongoing bark beetle epidemic and assist with the mitigation or restructuring of heavy fuel loads that continue to build as a result of the epidemic. Given the integration of Design Criteria and the established standards of the Land and Resource Management Plans (LRMPs), the ARNF, RNF, and WRNF anticipate no adverse effects to USFS lands or assets as a result of implementation of project activities and only beneficial effects.

______Arapaho and Roosevelt, Routt, and White River National Forests May 2010 United States Forest Service Page iv – Final– Environmental Assessment of the Emergency Power Line Clearing Project

Table of Contents Environmental Assessment (listed by page number) TABLE OF CONTENTS……………….………………………………………………... v Index of Figures…………………………………………………………………………... vii Index of Tables……………………………………………………………………………. vii Abbreviations and Acronyms……………………………………………………………. ix Glossary…………………………………………………………………………………… xi 1.0 OVERVIEW……………….…………………………………………………………. 1 1.1 Introduction……………………………………………………………………………….………….. 1 1.2 Energy Regulation…………………………………………………………………………………… 3 1.3 Purpose and Need for Action….…………………………………………………………………….. 4 1.4 Authority…………………………..…………………………………………………………………. 9 1.5 Public Involvement……………………………..……………………………………………………. 9 2.0 ALTERNATIVES……………………………………………………………………. 13 2.1 No Action Alternative………………………………………….…………………………………….. 13 2.2 Proposed Action Alternative…….………...………………………………………………………… 13 2.3 Design Criteria……………………………...………………………………………………………... 13 2.4 Project Implementation………………………………………….…………………………………... 24 2.5 Post-Project Site Management……………………………………………………………………… 27 2.6 Comparison of Alternatives….……………………………………………………………………… 28 2.7 LRMP Project Guidance…………………………………………………………………………….. 30 3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES.. 31 3.1 Recreation…………………………………………………………………………………………….. 31 3.2 Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs)…………………………………………………………………. 36 3.3 Hydrology…………………………………………………………………………………………….. 47 3.4 Amphibians, Fisheries, and Aquatic Habitat………………………………………….…………… 52 3.5 Botany………………………………………………………………………………………………… 66 3.6 Forested Vegetation and Old Growth Stands.……………………………………………………... 80 3.7 Fire and Fuels………………………………………………………………………………………… 84 3.8 Heritage Resources…………………………………………………………………………………... 86 3.9 Socioeconomics……………………………………………………………………………………….. 92 3.10 Engineering and Public Access…………………………………………………………………….. 96 3.11 Scenery Resources and Visuals…………………………………………………………………….. 97 3.12 Soils………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 101 3.13 Land Use…………………….………………………………………………………………………. 105 3.14 Wildlife………………………………………………………………………………………………. 110 3.15 Overall Cumulative Effects………………………………………………………………………… 127 3.16 Unavoidable Adverse Effects………………………………………………………………………. 133 3.17 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources………………………………………. 133 4.0 CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION………………………………………. 135 5.0 REFERENCES CITED……………………………………………………………… 139 APPENDIX A – Consolidated Forest Plan Standards...…..……………………………. A-1 APPENDIX B – Tribal Consultation Dates and SHPO Programmatic Agreement….. B-1 APPENDIX C – Maps……………………………………………………………………. C-1

______Arapaho and Roosevelt, Routt, and White River National Forests May 2010 United States Forest Service Page v – Final– Environmental Assessment of the Emergency Power Line Clearing Project

(THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.)

______Arapaho and Roosevelt, Routt, and White River National Forests May 2010 United States Forest Service Page vi – Final– Environmental Assessment of the Emergency Power Line Clearing Project

Index of Figures

Figure 1-1 Geographic Distribution of the Emergency Power Line Clearing Project 2 Figure 1-2 Example 1 of Proximity of Hazard Trees to Power Line Infrastructure 4 Figure 1-3 Example 2 of Proximity of Hazard Trees to Power Line Infrastructure 5 Figure 1-4 Example 3 of Proximity of Hazard Trees to Power Line Infrastructure 5 Figure 1-5 Lateral View of Power Line (including Sag) Under Normal Conditions 6 Figure 1-6 Aerial View of Power Line Under Normal (including Sag and Lateral 6 Movement from Wind) Figure 1-7 Cross-Sectional View of Power Line Infrastructure Relative to the 7 Emergency Power Line Clearing Project Figure 1-8 Lateral View of Power Lines Relative to Normally Occurring Sag and 7 Topographic Features Figure 1-9 Bark Beetle Infestation in the North Central Colorado Rocky Mountains 8 Figure 3-1 Recreational Uses Within the Combined Forests 31 Figure 3-2 Recreational Uses Within the Arapaho and Roosevelt, Routt, and White 32 River National Forests Excluding Downhill Skiing Figure 3-3 Rivers and Major Watersheds of North Central Colorado 47 Figure 3-4 Fuel Profile Hazard Associated with Mountain Pine Beetle Mortality 85 Figure 3-5 Combined Forest Acreage by VQO/SIO Category 99 Figure 3-6 Combined Forest Acreage by VQO/SIO Category, Featuring the Project 99 Area

Index of Tables

Table 1.1-1 Estimates of the Project Area and Possible Treatment Area in Miles and 1 Acres Table 2.3-1 TEPC Plant Species Habitats and Field Survey Windows 14 Table 2.3-2 Waterbar Spacing 21 Table 2.5-1 Appropriate Silvicultural Systems by Forest Cover Type 27 Table 2.5-2 Standards for the Required Minimum Numbers of Seedlings for Adequate 27 Restocking of a Regeneration Site Table 2.6-1 Quantity of the Total Area Potentially Affected by the Proposed Project 28 Table 2.6-2 Effectiveness of the Alternatives in Addressing the Purpose and Need 29 Table 2.6-3 Assessment of the Potential Effects of the Alternatives on Forest Resources 29 Table 3.2-1 Inventoried Roadless Areas within the Project Area 37 Table 3.2-2(a) Public Drinking Water Supplies Identified within IRAs within the Proposed 40 Project Area Table 3.2-2(b) IRAs Containing Portions of the Proposed Project Area within Areas 41 Identified as Sensitive to Changes for Public Water Supplies Table 3.2-3 Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, Sensitive, and Local Concern Plant 43 Species Documented Within Inventoried Roadless Areas Table 3.2-4 Comparison of Expected Effects to Inventoried Roadless Area 46 Characteristics Area Table 3.4-1 Rivers/Streams, Wetland, and Riparian Areas in the Project Area for the 52 Three Forests Table 3.4-2 Region 2 Sensitive Species and Management Indicator Species that Occur 53 within the Project Area for the Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests Table 3.4-3 Federally Listed Fish Species Potentially Affected by Activities within the 55 Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests Table 3.4-4 Region 2 Sensitive Species and Management Indicator Species that Occur 56 within the Project Area for the Routt National Forest Table 3.4-5 Federally Listed Fish Species Potentially Affected by Activities within the 57 Routt National Forest

______Arapaho and Roosevelt, Routt, and White River National Forests May 2010 United States Forest Service Page vii – Final– Environmental Assessment of the Emergency Power Line Clearing Project

Table 3.4-6 Region 2 Sensitive Species and Management Indicator Species that Occur 58 within the Project Area for the White River National Forest Table 3.4-7 Federally Listed Fish Species Potentially Affected by Activities within the 59 White River National Forest Table 3.4-8 Sensitive and Management Indicator Aquatic Faunal Species 64 Determinations Table 3.4-9 Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, and Candidate Aquatic Faunal Species 65 Determinations Table 3.5-1 Threatened and Endangered Plant Species 67 Table 3.5-2 Sensitive Plant Species Known or Suspected to Occur Within or Near the 68 Proposed Project Area Table 3.5-3 Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, and Candidate (TEPC) Plant Species 73 Determinations Table 3.5-4 Sensitive Plant Species Determinations 74 Table 3.5-5 Plant SOLC Potentially Affected by the Proposed Project 78 Table 3.6-1 Extent of Mountain Pine Beetle Damage Within the Three Forests and the 80 Project Area Table 3.6-2 Acreage by Tree Species and Power Line Type 81 Table 3.6-3 Old Growth Stands within the Project Area 83 Table 3.8-1 Cultural Resources within the APE and NRHP Eligibility Status 87 Table 3.8-2 Cultural Resources within the APE by Cultural Affiliation 87 Table 3.9-1 Acreage of Forests and Poverty Level, Minority and Urban Populations in 93 Each County within the Project Area Table 3.12-1 Optimal Coarse Woody Debris (CWD) Retention Densities by Forest Type 102 Table 3.13-1 Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests Management Areas Within Project 106 Table 3.13-2 Routt National Forest Management Areas Within Project Area 106 Table 3.13-3 White River National Forest Management Areas Within Project Area 106 Table 3.13-4 Special Interest Areas (SIAs) within the Proposed Project Area (PPA) 108 Table 3.13-5 Tree Species within Special Interest Areas (SIAs) 108 Table 3.14-1 Management Indicator Species (MIS) on the Arapaho & Roosevelt National 110 Forests (ARNF) and Environmental Assessment Relevance Table 3.14-2 Management Indicator Species (MIS) on the Routt National Forest (RNF) 112 and Environmental Assessment Relevance Table 3.14-3 Management Indicator Species (MIS) on the White River National Forest 113 (WRNF) and Environmental Assessment Relevance Table 3.14-4 Region 2 Sensitive Species for the Arapaho & Roosevelt National Forests 116 (ARNF) Table 3.14-5 Region 2 Sensitive Species for the Routt National Forest (RNF) 118 Table 3.14-6 Region 2 Sensitive Species for the White River National Forest (WRNF) 119 Table 3.14-7 Federally Listed Species within the Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests (ARNF), Routt National Forest (RNF), and the White River National Forest 123 (WRNF) Table 4-1 Interdisciplinary Team Members, Resource Specialists and Consultants 135 Table 4-2 Federal, State, and Local Agencies Notified During the Scoping Period 135 Table 4-3 Native American Tribes Notified During the Scoping Period 136 Table 4-4 Private Citizens and Organizations Notified During the Scoping Period 136 Table 4-5 Private Citizens, Agencies and Organizations Who Provided Comment 138 During the Scoping Period

______Arapaho and Roosevelt, Routt, and White River National Forests May 2010 United States Forest Service Page viii – Final– Environmental Assessment of the Emergency Power Line Clearing Project

Abbreviations and Acronyms: ARNF Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests AT V All-terrain vehicle BA Biological Assessment BE Biological Evaluation BMPs Best Management Practices CCC Civilian Conservation Corps CFR Code of Federal Regulations CRCT Colorado River cutthroat trout CWD Coarse woody debris DBH Diameter at breast height DN Decision Notice EA Environmental Assessment EO Executive Order FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact GIS Geographic Information Systems GBCT Greenback cutthroat trout HFRA Healthy Forest Restoration Act (2003) ID Interdisciplinary (as in “ID team”) IRA Inventoried Roadless Area LRMP Land and Resources Management Plan MA Management Area MPB mountain pine beetle NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NERC North American Electric Reliability Corporation NFS National Forest System NRHP National Register of Historic Places NVUM National Visitor Use Monitoring OHV Off-highway vehicle PUC Public Utilities Commission RNF Routt National Forest ROW(s) Right(s)-of-way SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer SIO Scenic Integrity Objective SOLC Species of Local Concern SRLA Southern Rockies Lynx Amendment

______Arapaho and Roosevelt, Routt, and White River National Forests May 2010 United States Forest Service Page ix – Final– Environmental Assessment of the Emergency Power Line Clearing Project

TEPC Threatened, Endangered, Proposed and Candidate TEPS Threatened, Endangered, Proposed and Sensitive USC United States Code USDA United States Department of Agriculture USFS United States Forest Service USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service VQO Visual Quality Objective WIZ Water Influence Zone WRNF White River National Forest WUI Wildland-Urban Interface

______Arapaho and Roosevelt, Routt, and White River National Forests May 2010 United States Forest Service Page x – Final– Environmental Assessment of the Emergency Power Line Clearing Project

Glossary Analysis area: The area covered by this analysis, specifically, the Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests, Routt National Forest, and White River National Forest

Bole: The trunk of a tree

Canopy: The continuous forest cover of branches and foliage formed by tree crowns

Chipping: To cut into pieces using a sharpened tool or machine

Coarse Woody Debris (CWD): Sound and rotting logs and stumps (greater than 3 inches in diameter) that provide habitat for plants, animals, and insects, and a source of nutrients for soil development

Crushing: To break an object into small pieces by blunt force

Cumulative effect: Impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of an action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions

Dominant trees: Trees that extend above surrounding individuals and capture sunlight from above and around the crown

Entisol: A fertile soil of recent origin that is distinguished by a lack of horizons and is found worldwide in all climates

Ephemeral: Lasting a very short time

Fell: To cut down

Fens: Peat-forming wetlands that receive nutrients from sources other than precipitation, usually from upslope sources through drainage from surrounding mineral soils and from groundwater movement

Fuel: Any living or dead material that will burn

Fuel Load: The amount of live and dead fuel (duff, litter, fine-woody debris 0-3" diameter material, and coarse woody debris 3"+ diameter material) in terms of weight per unit area often expressed in tons per acre or tonnes per hectare

Hydric: Of, pertaining to, or adapted to a wet or moist environment

Hydro axe: Mechanical treatment used to turn stumps, wood, or other organic material into mulch. The hydro axe allows the operator to be precise in the areas and vegetation treated. The mulch creates a protective vegetal layer for the rubber tire tractor to travel over, thus reducing surface disturbance. Large safety zones are required when using the machine.

Hydrophobicity: The property of being water-repellant; tending to repel and not absorb water

Inceptisol: A soil so young that horizons have just begun to form; especially prevalent in tundra areas

Landing: A cleared area in the forest to which logs are yarded or skidded for loading onto trucks for transport

Lop: To cut limbs from trees, whether standing, felled, or fallen — synonym prune, de-limb

______Arapaho and Roosevelt, Routt, and White River National Forests May 2010 United States Forest Service Page xi – Final– Environmental Assessment of the Emergency Power Line Clearing Project

Lop and Scatter: A hand method of removing the upward-extending branches from tops of felled trees to keep slash low to the ground, to increase rate of decomposition, lower fire hazard, or as a pretreatment prior to burning

Masticate: The mowing/mulching/chipping of undesirable vegetation

Overstory: The level of forest canopy that includes the crowns of dominant, codominant, and intermediate trees

Perennial: Lasting or continuing throughout the year, as in a stream Regeneration: The process by which a forest is reseeded and renewed

Remove: To take away from the original location

Riparian: Of, pertaining to, or situated or dwelling on the bank of a river or other body of water

Scalloped: Edged with a series of curved projections

Scarify: To loosen (the soil) with a type of cultivator

Shelterwood: The cutting of most trees, leaving those needed to produce sufficient shade to produce a new age class in a moderated microenvironment —note the sequence of treatments can include three types of cuttings: (a) an optional preparatory cut to enhance conditions for seed production, (b) an establishment cut to prepare the seed bed and to create a new age class, and (c) a removal cut to release established regeneration from competition with the overwood; cutting may be done uniformly throughout the stand (uniform shelterwood), in groups or patches (group shelterwood), or in strips (strip shelterwood); in a strip shelterwood, regeneration cuttings may progress against the prevailing wind

Silviculture: The art and science of controlling the establishment, growth, composition, health, and quality of forests and woodlands. Silviculture entails the manipulation of forest and woodland vegetation in stands and on landscapes to meet the diverse needs and values of landowners and society on a sustainable basis.

SIO/VQO: Long term objectives for the scenery or visual resource

Slash: The residue, e.g., treetops and branches, left on the ground after logging or accumulating as a result of storm, fire, girdling, or de-limbing.

Snag: A standing dead tree or part of a dead tree from which at least the smaller branches have fallen. Snags provide important food and cover for a wide variety of wildlife species.

Stand: A continuous group of trees sufficiently uniform in age-class distribution, composition, and structure, and growing on a site of sufficiently uniform quality, to be a distinguishable unit

Turbidity: Cloudiness or murkiness caused by stirred up sediment

Water Influence Zone (WIZ): A minimum 100-foot horizontal width buffer measured from the top of each stream bank which protects interacting aquatic, riparian, and upland functions by maintaining natural processes and resilience of soil, water, and vegetation systems

Watershed: The area of land where all of the water that is under it or drains off of it goes into the same place

Wildland: Land that has not been cultivated, esp. land set aside and protected as a wilderness

Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI): The area where houses meet or intermingle with undeveloped wildland vegetation. The WUI is thus a focal area for human environment conflicts, such as the destruction

______Arapaho and Roosevelt, Routt, and White River National Forests May 2010 United States Forest Service Page xii – Final– Environmental Assessment of the Emergency Power Line Clearing Project of homes by wildfires, habitat fragmentation, introduction of exotic species, and biodiversity decline. The HFRA provides expedited NEPA procedures for authorized fuel-reduction projects on NFS and BLM lands in the WUIs of at-risk communities. Under HFRA Section 101(1), an at-risk community is one that: • Is an interface community as defined in the Federal Register notice of January 4, 2001 (66 FR 753), or a group of homes and other structures with basic infrastructure and services (such as utilities and collectively maintained transportation routes) in or adjacent to Federal land • Has conditions conducive to a large-scale wildland fire • Faces a significant threat to human life or property as a result of a wildland fire

______Arapaho and Roosevelt, Routt, and White River National Forests May 2010 United States Forest Service Page xiii – Final– Environmental Assessment of the Emergency Power Line Clearing Project

1.0 OVERVIEW 1.1 Introduction The United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service (USFS), Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests (ARNF), Routt National Forest (RNF), and White River National Forest (WRNF), proposes to allow felling and/or removal, where feasible, of hazardous trees up to 200 feet (from each side of centerline) of transmission lines and up to 75 feet (from each side of centerline) of distribution lines. These width distances are maximums; actual distances may be less and would depend upon site specific circumstances used to determine which trees are considered hazards to the lines (i.e., tree heights, slopes, etc.). This project will be referred to throughout the remainder of this assessment as the Emergency Power Line Clearing Project (“Proposed Action,” “Proposed Project,” or “project.”)

The analysis area consists of National Forest System (NFS) lands on the ARNF, RNF, and WRNF (“the three forests”). Within the analysis area, the potential implementation area (“project area”) for the Proposed Project comprises portions of the three forests extending into Boulder, Clear Creek, Eagle, Garfield, Gilpin, Grand, Gunnison, Jackson, Larimer, Mesa, Pitkin, Rio Blanco, Routt, and Summit Counties in north central Colorado.

The project area for the Proposed Project consists of 22,235 acres and includes all distribution and transmission lines on NFS lands across the three forests. The USFS expects that the application of the Proposed Project may occur on approximately 15,606 acres of land within the project area. This area includes existing cleared utility right-of-way (ROW) widths of an average of 50 feet from centerline for transmission lines and 15 feet from centerline for distribution lines. The acreage within the average cleared ROW widths represents approximately 27% of the total expected treatment acres.

Table 1.1-1 shows estimates of total miles and acres on NFS lands based on the Proposed Action, as well as estimates of possible treatment area in miles and acres, including the area within existing ROWs.

Table 1.1-1 Estimates of the Project Area and Possible Treatment Area in Miles and Acres Total Project Total Project Proposed Project Possible Possible Area Miles on Area Acres on Area Treatment Miles* Treatment Acres** NFS Lands NFS Lands All NFS Lands 302 800 15,606 22,235 Roadless Areas† 47 119 1,450 3,580 Utility ROWs 302 800 2,804 6,008 NOTE: The mileage of lines is not intended to be directly proportionate to the acreage provided for the Total Proposed Project area on NFS quantity. Approximately 40 miles of power lines are overlapping in their distributions and when buffered, portions of the buffered areas overlap as well. The quantity provided as 22,235 acres is representative of the area with consideration that all overlapping features have been removed. * Possible treatment miles were developed by extracting those portions of the utility lines that occur in areas that have been identified as exhibiting bark beetle damage. ** Possible treatment acres were developed by extracting those portions of the Proposed Project area that contain areas that have been identified as exhibiting bark beetle damage. † Roadless area mileage/acreage is provided within the total provided for All NFS Lands in the Total Proposed Project area on NFS Lands. Roadless areas are provided separately in an effort to describe the area in which they are contained.

Although the power lines are located on NFS lands, some extend onto private lands located within the three forests’ boundaries. This analysis does not include actions on those private lands except to the extent necessary to assess the cumulative effects to the resources requiring such assessment.

See Figure 1-1, Geographic Distribution of the Emergency Power Line Clearing Project, for an illustration of the project area.

______United States Forest Service May 2010 Arapaho and Roosevelt, Routt, and White River National Forests Page 1 – Final– Environmental Assessment of the Emergency Power Line Clearing Project

Figure 1-1 Geographic Distribution of the Emergency Power Line Clearing Project

______United States Forest Service May 2010 Arapaho and Roosevelt, Routt, and White River National Forests Page 2 – Final– Environmental Assessment of the Emergency Power Line Clearing Project

Hazardous Tree Definition

Hazardous trees are defined in reference to the project as:

Any tree that may fall due to mortality, a structural defect, or changed stand condition and, as a result, may cause property damage or personal injury. A defective tree is considered hazardous when its failure could result in damage to something of value.

1. Dead trees of any species 2. Dying trees a. Foliage transparency 40% + (thin crown, off-color or dwarfed foliage) b. Borer attacks obvious and abundant - the presence of insect activity, such as bark beetles or ips, may indicate that a tree has been weakened by other agents. 3. Trees likely to wind throw after removal of adjacent dead and dying trees. (Removal of more than 1/3 of a stand’s basal area increases risk of wind throw to remaining trees.) 4. Trees with significant defects: a. Canker rots b. Root rots c. Trunk injuries (mechanical damage, stem decay, etc.) d. Crown defects (broken or damaged branches, forked tops, dead tops, etc.)

1.2 Energy Regulation

The construction, maintenance and operation of the power grid and transmission of electricity are regulated by a variety of federal and state agencies. Three key agencies are the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) and the State Public Utility Commissions.

Electricity must be generated and then used immediately. Furthermore, electricity follows the “path of least resistance”, so it generally cannot be routed in a specific direction or to a specific location. This means generation and transmission operations in North America must be monitored and controlled in real-time, 24 hours a day, to ensure a consistent and ample flow of electricity. This requires the cooperation and coordination of hundreds of electricity industry participants.

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) is an independent agency that regulates the interstate transmission of electricity. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 gave FERC additional responsibilities, such as regulating the transmission and wholesale sales of electricity in interstate commerce, reviewing the sitting application for electric transmission projects under limited circumstances, and protecting the reliability of the high voltage interstate transmission system through mandatory reliability standards. Many areas outside of FERC’s jurisdictional responsibility are dealt with by State Public Utility Commissions.

The North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) ensures the reliability of the bulk power system in North America. That is achieved by developing and enforcing reliability standards; monitoring the bulk power system; and educating, training, and certifying industry personnel. NERC is a self- regulatory organization, subject to oversight by FERC. Reliability standards are the planning and operating rules that electric utilities follow to ensure the most reliable system possible. NERC has the legal authority to enforce compliance with NERC reliability standards, which it achieves through a rigorous program of monitoring, audits and investigations, and the imposition of financial penalties and other enforcement actions for non-compliance.

The Colorado Public Utilities Commission (PUC) regulates investor-owned electric, gas and water utilities, as well as partial regulatory control over municipal utilities and electric associations. The Electric Section of the PUC accomplishes its mission by issuing authorities to operate; establishing industry rate, service, and adequacy and reliability standards; initiating enforcement and compliance activities; and assisting consumers with complaints and educational efforts. Each electric utility serving Colorado customers must

______United States Forest Service May 2010 Arapaho and Roosevelt, Routt, and White River National Forests Page 3 – Final– Environmental Assessment of the Emergency Power Line Clearing Project apply for and receive a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity to operate in Colorado from the PUC. The PUC also issues service standards that range from establishing minimum adequacy and reliability standards to ensuring power is available to Colorado consumers.

1.3 Purpose and Need for the Action

The USFS has determined that there is an imminent threat to power lines from an increasing number of hazardous trees that may fall onto power lines or add significantly to the fuel loads within and adjacent to power line ROWs in the three forests. The three forests are experiencing tree mortality at epidemic levels as a result of the continued spread of bark beetles in lodgepole, ponderosa and limber pine forests, as well as some spruce trees, and substantial losses of aspen trees from sudden aspen decline. As of 2009, 3.6 million acres have been affected as a result of the epidemic in northern Colorado and southeastern Wyoming. Figure 1-9 illustrates the extent of the ongoing bark beetle epidemic in the North Central Colorado Rocky Mountains.

The purpose of this project is to allow felling and/or removal, where feasible, of all hazardous trees within up to 200 feet from each side of centerline for transmission lines and within up to 75 feet from each side of centerline for distribution lines. This project would provide a one-time authorization to fell and/or remove hazardous trees within a distance approximately 150 feet beyond the existing utility ROWs for transmission lines and approximately 60 feet beyond the existing ROWs for distribution lines. As tree mortality continues as a result of the bark beetle epidemic, this additional clearance is needed in order to reduce the risk of trees falling across power lines, which could ignite wildland fires or cause power outages, and reduce the risk of radiant heat from wildfires. This project is needed in order to reduce the threat of wildfire starts, as well as protect the power line infrastructure, which would better assure uninterrupted power to local customers and the national grid.

The photos below (Figures 1-2 through 1-4) depict the proximity of hazard trees to the flammable infrastructures of both distribution and transmission line types.

Figure 1-2 Example 1 of Proximity of Hazard Trees to Power Line Infrastructure

______United States Forest Service May 2010 Arapaho and Roosevelt, Routt, and White River National Forests Page 4 – Final– Environmental Assessment of the Emergency Power Line Clearing Project

Figure 1-3 Example 2 of Proximity of Hazard Trees to Power Line Infrastructure

Figure 1-4 Example 3 of Proximity of Hazard Trees to Power Line Infrastructure

Although not all portions of the electrical infrastructures are flammable, all portions that interface directly with the forests may fail as a result of the hazardous trees. According to the utility company engineers,

______United States Forest Service May 2010 Arapaho and Roosevelt, Routt, and White River National Forests Page 5 – Final– Environmental Assessment of the Emergency Power Line Clearing Project even metal portions of the infrastructure begin to weaken after being exposed to temperatures over 200°F for more than 30 minutes (Ron Turley, Western Area Power Administration, verbal comment, August 2009). Increased heat from wildfire may also cause lines exposed to heat to fail. Lines that sag, warp, or bend would require repair, possibly resulting in outages or overloads in widespread areas, as well as increased expense to power companies and the general public.

The following diagrams (Figures 1-5 through 1-8) illustrate examples of infrastructure and lines under normal and adverse conditions, as well as examples of conditions under which hazard trees would be treated.

Figure 1-5 Lateral View of Power Line (including Sag) Under Normal Conditions

Note: The source for this image is Western Area Power Administration.

Figure 1-6 Aerial View of Power Line Under Normal (including Sag and Lateral Movement from Wind)

Note: The source for this image is Western Area Power Administration.

______United States Forest Service May 2010 Arapaho and Roosevelt, Routt, and White River National Forests Page 6 – Final– Environmental Assessment of the Emergency Power Line Clearing Project

Figure 1-7 Cross-Sectional View of Power Line Infrastructure Relative to the Emergency Power Line Clearing Project

Note: The source for this image is Western Area Power Administration.

Figure 1-8 Lateral View of Power Lines Relative to Normally Occurring Sag and Topographic Features

Note: The source for this image is Western Area Power Administration.

The objectives of the Proposed Action include: • Reduce the potential for wildland fires caused by hazardous trees falling onto the power lines. • Reduce hazardous fuel loadings associated with trees killed by beetles or disease. • Ensure reliable electrical service to the local, regional, and national electrical grid in compliance with the Energy Policy Act of 2005.

______United States Forest Service May 2010 Arapaho and Roosevelt, Routt, and White River National Forests Page 7 – Final– Environmental Assessment of the Emergency Power Line Clearing Project

Figure 1-9 Bark Beetle Infestation in the North Central Colorado Rocky Mountains

______United States Forest Service May 2010 Arapaho and Roosevelt, Routt, and White River National Forests Page 8 – Final– Environmental Assessment of the Emergency Power Line Clearing Project

1.4 Authority An Environmental Assessment (EA) is a document disclosing the potential environmental effects of implementing a Proposed Action and alternatives to that action. This EA describes and compares the environmental effects of implementing a Proposed Action and a No Action Alternative. The EA was prepared in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other relevant federal and state laws and regulations, including the Healthy Forests Restoration Act (HFRA). On July 24, 2009 the Forest Supervisors of the ARNF, RNF, and WRNF determined that the Emergency Power Line Clearing Project is an “authorized project” under the HFRA because of the ongoing bark beetle epidemic.

The HFRA was enacted in 2003 and contains a variety of provisions to expedite environmental analysis and treatment of lands that are at risk of wildland fire, have experienced wind throw or blowdown, or are impacted by insect and disease epidemics. As an “authorized project” under HFRA Title I, Sec. 102(a)(1 and 4), the planning process is expedited in order to effect timely vegetation management on certain National Forest System lands that are experiencing disease or insect epidemics or are at imminent risk of such epidemics. There is no requirement to develop and analyze a range of alternatives beyond the No Action and Proposed Action and project decisions are not subject to appeal. However, the project is planned collaboratively, and public participation is a key component of project design.

Projects authorized under the HFRA are subject to a “Pre-decisional Administrative Review Process” (36 CFR 218). Under the administrative review process, individuals or agencies who commented on the proposal during the formal comment periods initiated on September 10, 2009 will have 30 days to file an objection to the alternatives proposed. The objection filing period begins the day after the release of an official statement describing the Proposed Action and Purpose and Need for the Emergency Power Line Clearing Project.

Decision Notices and Findings of No Significant Impact (DN/FONSI) for this project will not be issued by the Forest Supervisors of the ARNF, RNF, and WRNF until the USFS responds, in writing, to all objections received within a subsequent 30-day time period. Each DN/FONSI will specify which alternative is selected for implementation and the rationale for the decision.

Given the purpose and need for the project, the Forest Supervisors will review the Proposed Action Alternative, the No Action Alternative, issues identified during the scoping process, and the environmental consequences associated with implementing each alternative. This information will form the basis for the Forest Supervisors to make the following determinations:

• The alternative that is selected for implementation, which could be the Proposed Action Alternative (as described in Chapter 2.0 of this document), a modified version of the Proposed Action Alternative, or the No Action Alternative, including the rationale used to make the determination; and • Design Criteria, mitigation measures, and monitoring requirements necessary for project implementation.

1.5 Public Involvement On August 19, 2009, the USFS mailed a scoping letter (in accordance with 40 CFR 1501.7) describing the Proposed Action and purpose and need for the project to 175 individuals, organizations, and agencies. A press release describing the Proposed Action was also issued on the same day. Both the scoping letter and the press release requested that comments pertaining to the Proposed Action be submitted by October 2, 2009. Further publicity for the Proposed Action was provided through a legal notice in the Denver Post, Laramie Boomerang, and Glenwood Post Independent, on September 10, 2009. The USFS received 15 comment letters in response to the August and September 2009 notices.

During the August-October 2009 comment period, the USFS hosted four open house meetings as advertised in the scoping letter, press release, and legal notice. The first open house meeting was held in Steamboat Springs, CO at the Hahn’s Peak-Bears Ears District Office on August 26, 2009 from 5:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m.

______United States Forest Service May 2010 Arapaho and Roosevelt, Routt, and White River National Forests Page 9 – Final– Environmental Assessment of the Emergency Power Line Clearing Project

The second open house meeting took place in Fort Collins, CO at the Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forest Supervisor’s Office on August 27, 2009 from 5:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. The third open house meeting was held in Silverthorne, CO at the Dillon District Office on September 2, 2009 from 5:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. The fourth and final open house meeting was held in Walden, CO at the North Park Ranger District Office on September 3, 2009 from 5:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. The public meetings had a total attendance of 43 individuals.

The comment letters were reviewed by the Responsible Officials and the Interdisciplinary Team. Each comment was reviewed and discussed to result in cumulative incorporation of public concerns into the assessment. The official record for the Proposed Project is on file at each of the Forest Supervisors’ offices.

The USFS separated the comments into two groups: issues resulting from internal scoping and issues resulting from external scoping. Issues serve to highlight effects or unintended consequences that may occur from the Proposed Action and alternatives, giving opportunities during the analysis to reduce adverse effects and compare trade-offs for the decision-maker and public to understand. Issues are best identified during scoping early in the process to help set the scope of the actions, alternatives, and effects to consider; but, due to the iterative nature of the NEPA process, additional issues may come to light at any time. (Forest Service Handbook 1909.15, Section 12.4).

1) Issues Resulting from Internal Scoping: Environmental issues used to develop alternatives that meet the purpose and need of the Proposed Action. Internal scoping lead to development of the following objectives:

• Reduce the potential for wildfires caused by hazardous trees falling onto the power lines. • Reduce hazardous fuel loadings associated with trees killed by beetles or disease. • Ensure reliable electrical service to the local, regional, and national electrical grid in compliance with the Energy Policy Act of 2005.

2) Issues Resulting from External Scoping: Issues can be addressed by using Best Management Practices (BMPs), alternative design features, forest plan standards, or other mitigation measures. Several issues were identified during the review of public comments and have been responded to as follows:

• Corridor Width and USFS Treatment Intentions: Public comments indicated that the proposed corridor width for felling and/or removing hazardous trees is larger than necessary to meet the purpose of the Proposed Action and that more vegetation than necessary would be removed as a part of the project. Comments of this nature have been fully considered and this assessment provides explanation for the maximum amount (acreage) and distribution of treatments that would be expected as a part of the Proposed Project.

• Reforestation and Re-Vegetation: Public comments indicated that reforestation was not adequately addressed by the Proposed Action. The requirement to re-vegetate treatment areas was developed (Design Criteria 6 through 11) and is commensurate with the standards of the LRMPs (ARNF LRMP Chapter 1, page 18; RNF LRMP Chapter 1, pages 7 and 10; and WRNF LRMP Chapter 2, pages 2-11 and 2-16), as described in Section 2.5.1.

• Wildlife Resources: Public comments indicated that project implementation would result in unacceptable forest fragmentation, too much reduction of down woody debris, and a reduction in hiding cover. Comments also indicated that species surveys should be completed and that potential effects should be completely assessed. The potential effects of implementation of the Proposed Action have been fully assessed within Chapter 3 of this document and the species reports available as part of the project record. Design Criteria (61 through 77, Section 2.3.13) addressing wildlife protection were developed and are included as part of the Proposed Action Alternative.

______United States Forest Service May 2010 Arapaho and Roosevelt, Routt, and White River National Forests Page 10 – Final– Environmental Assessment of the Emergency Power Line Clearing Project

• USFS Management of Power Lines is a Misappropriation of Money: Public comments indicated that the public perception is that the USFS would be covering the cost of treatments for power lines. Section 2.4 provides a thorough explanation that the power companies bear the responsibility for treatments proposed in this EA through coordination with the USFS as needed in order to meet certain requirements.

• Effects to Roads and Trails: Public comments indicated that the project needs to consider the construction of roads and utilization of trails for treatment of sites. Design Criteria (12-14, 22-24, and 50-58) were developed to guide the potential construction or closure of temporary roads and the use of trails. LRMP standards as well as standard safety procedures would be followed during implementation of the Proposed Action Alternative.

• Environmental Quality: Public comments indicated that full consideration of potential environmental effects should be considered and that appropriate permitting be attained prior to site treatments. The following assessment was completed in consideration of the potential effects associated with the implementation of the Proposed Action Alternative. Required permitting would be the responsibility of those treating the sites.

• Benefits to the Public: Public comments indicated that treatments should be considerate of the desires of the public such as providing resources to the public, such as firewood collection sites, distribution to sites for bio-fuel collection, or similar resources. Comments of this nature are outside the scope of this assessment, as treatments for sites and disposal of wood products or biomass would be the responsibility of the individual utility companies.

______United States Forest Service May 2010 Arapaho and Roosevelt, Routt, and White River National Forests Page 11 – Final – Environmental Assessment of the Emergency Power Line Clearing Project

(THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK)

______United States Forest Service May 2010 Arapaho and Roosevelt, Routt, and White River National Forests Page 12 – Final – Environmental Assessment of the Emergency Power Line Clearing Project

2.0 ALTERNATIVES This EA identifies two project alternatives: the No Action Alternative and the Proposed Action Alternative.

2.1 No Action Alternative Adoption of Alternative 1, or the No Action Alternative, would mean that no coordinated effort to remove trees qualifying as hazardous from the project area, outside of the existing ROWs, would be made. It is assumed that tree removal would be necessary on a site-by-site, individualized basis and that utility companies would continue to perform maintenance and clear hazardous trees within their permitted ROWs.

The Regional Forester issued a letter on June 3, 2009 further clarifying that the utility companies have permission under their respective authorization documents to fell or mitigate hazard trees and limbs of trees, whether on or adjacent to the ROW, that are considered to be an immediate hazard to the integrity and safe, reliable operation of power line facilities. Therefore, it is also assumed that felling of trees considered to be an imminent threat to power lines would continue in areas adjacent to ROWs, with the following limitations: 1) use of motorized vehicles may be used on existing routes and roads that are either open to the public or already authorized under the special use authorization; 2) trees and limbs may be cut and felled using hand tools only, but may not be removed or otherwise disposed of; and 3) activities must be coordinated with the respective Forest Supervisor’s Office or District Ranger’s office prior to conducting such activities (Cables, 2009).

2.2 Proposed Action Alternative This proposed action is a one-time authorization to allow felling and/or removal, where feasible, of hazardous trees up to 200 feet (from each side of centerline) of transmission lines and up to 75 feet (from each side of centerline) of distribution lines. Removal of trees may include salvageable saw-timber size trees (greater than 7 inches diameter at breast height (DBH)) and products other than logs (POL) size trees (5 to 7 inches DBH). NOTE: Saw-timber sized trees on the RNF are greater than 9 inches DBH and POL size trees are 5 to 9 inches DBH. Non-salvageable trees may be: chipped, masticated, roller chopped, removed, and/or piled and burned to reduce the fire hazard they may pose. All burning will be done on landings, which will be located outside of the proposed treatment area described above and will be placed in compliance with the Design Criteria described in section 2.3.

This proposed action includes the construction of temporary roads outside of roadless areas for access to lines and to reduce impacts to resources. Temporary roads will be allowed on a case by case basis and approved by a Forest Service Representative.

After treatments have been completed, maintenance of lines would return to widths and standards specified in existing permits and easements.

2.3 Design Criteria For the purpose of developing the Emergency Power Line Clearing Project, the ARNF, RNF, and WRNF convened an Interdisciplinary (ID) team of USFS resource specialists. The ID team developed the following Design Criteria to avoid significant adverse effects on resources and ensure compliance with LRMP standards.

2.3.1 General

1. Prior to each field season, the proponents will provide the Forest Service representative with GIS layers and/or hardcopy maps of intended treatment areas. The Forest Service representative will ensure specialists receive the information in a timely manner.

______United States Forest Service May 2010 Arapaho and Roosevelt, Routt, and White River National Forests Page 13 – Final – Environmental Assessment of the Emergency Power Line Clearing Project

2.3.2 Botany

2. Prior to implementation all potential habitat for Threatened, Endangered, Proposed and Candidate (TEPC) plant species, Sensitive plant species and Species of Local Concern (SOLC) coinciding with the proposed treatment area (200 feet on each side of transmission lines, 75 feet on each side of distribution lines, plus any additional workspace needed) will be surveyed. For proposed new or upgraded access routes surveys will be conducted 330 feet either side of centerline for TEPC plant species where there is suitable habitat for these species. Where there is no suitable habitat for TEPC plant species surveys will be conducted 30 feet of centerline for sensitive plant species and SOLC where there is suitable habitat for these species. The Forest Service representative will work with the proponents’ consultants to ensure that plant surveys are conducted for the right target species, at appropriate intensity levels, and occur during the correct biological windows. The Forest Service representative will also work with the proponents’ consultants to determine appropriate survey methods based on potential suitable habitats. The table below provides habitats and field survey windows for all TEPC plant species considered in the pre-field review for this analysis. Similar data tables for sensitive plant species and SOLC can be found in species lists for each of the three individual forests.

Table 2.3-1 Threatened, Endangered, Proposed and Candidate (TEPC) Plant Species Habitats and Field Survey Windows Scientific Common Elevation Survey Likelihood of Status Habitat Name Name Range Window Occurrence* “[H]ighly seleniferous, grayish-brown clay soils derived from shales of the Niobrara, Pierre and Troublesome formations (Spackman et al. 1997).” Astragalus Osterhout 7,400 to June to Endangered Moderate slopes in openly Low osterhoutii milkvetch 7,900 ft. August vegetated sagebrush badlands (Anderson and Jordan 1992). Sometimes, growing up through sagebrush branches /foliage (Spackman et. al. 1997). Alpine tundra, rooted in mosses on stream banks and in wetlands that remain wet Eutrema Penland’s year-round (Spackman et. al. 12,300 to Late June to edwardsii ssp. alpine fen Threatened 1997). It occurs primarily Low 13,100 ft. Mid- August penlandii mustard on soils developed from a calcareous substrate (Center for Plant Conservation 2005). Gaura Sub-irrigated, alluvial soils neomexicana Colorado 5,800 to of drainage bottoms July to Threatened Low ssp. butterfly plant 6,200 ft. surrounded by mixed grass September coloradensis prairie Strongly seleniferous clay- shales of the Troublesome Penstemon Penland’s 7,500 to Formation on steep barrens Endangered June to July Low penlandii beardtongue 7,700 ft. with sparse plant cover, sagebrush badlands (Spackman et. al. 1997).

______United States Forest Service May 2010 Arapaho and Roosevelt, Routt, and White River National Forests Page 14 – Final – Environmental Assessment of the Emergency Power Line Clearing Project

Scientific Common Elevation Survey Likelihood of Status Habitat Name Name Range Window Occurrence* North Park where it grows on sparsely vegetated exposures of the Coalmont formation which underlies most of North Park and consists of sandstone, conglomerate and Phacelia North Park 8,000 to carbonaceous shale. Steep- Late June to Endangered Low formosula phacelia 8,500 ft. sided ravines emanating September from low sandy hills or bluffs. Larimer County in the Laramie River Valley where it is restricted to outcrops of the Niobrara Formation (NatureServe (2006). Downstream effects to Western Plantanthera species in NE if water Not prairie fringed Threatened N/A Low praeclara depletions exceed 0.1 acre/ft Applicable orchid to main stem of Platte River. This cactus grows on cobbled, gravelly or “[r]ocky hills, mesa slopes, and alluvial benches” in arid desert shrub environments April to (Spackman et al. 1997). Its Colorado May. Plants Sclerocactus 4,500 to elevation range is between hookless Threatened usually only Low glaucus 6,000 ft. 4500 and 6000 feet. cactus visible in Shadscale, galleta, black- flower. sage and Indian rice grass often dominate the plant community where this cactus is found (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1990). Seasonally moist soils and wet meadows near springs, perennial streams, lakes and their associated flood plains Late July to Spiranthes Ute ladies’- 4,500 to Threatened below 7,000 feet (Fertig et Mid- Low diluvialis tresses 6,800 ft. al 2005, Spackman et al September 1997, USDI 1992). Also found in sub-irrigated meadows, ditch margins. * Likelihood of occurrence within the Proposed Project area.

3. Where sensitive and SOLC plant species are found in the project area, the Forest Service botany representative will recommend to the Line Officer or other appropriate official where site specific protection measures are needed, including activity restrictions (area, timing, retaining felled trees on-site to provide connectivity/linkage of habitats, etc.) such that implementation will not result in a trend toward federal listing or loss of population viability on the planning unit.

4. In the event a TEPC plant species is found in the project area, a qualified, independent third- party contractor or federal agency vegetation specialist will be onsite during all activities taking place within 650 feet of TEPC occupied habitat to provide general project oversight and to assure compliance with the following conservation measures:

a) No mechanized equipment or ground disturbing activities (road construction, maintenance, log skidding, etc.) would take place within 65 feet of habitat occupied by a TEPC plant species. If TEPC plant species are present within 65 feet of a proposed access route, the route will be rerouted a minimum of 65 feet from occupied habitat.

______United States Forest Service May 2010 Arapaho and Roosevelt, Routt, and White River National Forests Page 15 – Final – Environmental Assessment of the Emergency Power Line Clearing Project

b) Do not place or burn slash piles or broadcast burn slash within 65 feet of habitat occupied by a TEPC plant species.

c) Hand crews, on foot, will be allowed to fell hazard trees within 15 feet of populations using hand held saws. Trees would be directionally felled away from occupied habitat. If felled trees occurring within 65 feet of occupied habitat must be removed, it would be done by hand in a way that does not negatively impact TEPC plant populations.

d) Indirect (dust, etc.) and/or unintended impacts (accidental trampling by humans or equipment, etc.) due to ground disturbing activities planned near habitat occupied by a TEPC plant species would be minimized as follows:

1) Temporary or permanent barrier fencing would be erected to restrict vehicles and machinery from operating within 65 feet of habitat occupied by a TEPC plant species. The fencing would designate the maximum workspace width allowable. If topography or physical screening by trees restricts vehicles and machinery to work areas (greater than 65 feet from occupied habitat), fencing may not be necessary.

2) Dust abatement would be implemented where hazard tree removal, road construction and/or any other dust generating activities occur within 650 feet of occupied habitat. The dust control would be implemented to prevent plumes of dust from dispersing heavy amounts of particulate matter on adjacent occupied site. Only fresh water or non-chloride based dust suppressants will be used on equipment and vehicle work and travel surfaces. Dust abatement activities resulting in water depletions within the Platte and Colorado River Watersheds will remain below the diminimus determined for each forest.

5. If future surveys and planning reveal that any of the above criteria cannot be met at a specific location(s), further consultation (re-initiation with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service {USFWS}) will occur at that time.

2.3.3 Rehabilitation and Re-vegetation

Evaluating need for treatment and selecting type of treatment: 6. As identified by FS Representatives, sites with low erosion potential, suitable native seed sources nearby, and low risk of colonization by noxious weeds or other harmful invasive plant species will be allowed to re-vegetate naturally.

7. For sites where one or more of the following conditions exist, apply erosion control measures and/or seed (or plant) the site:

a) The site has high erosion potential based on soil type, slope, and vegetation cover. b) Noxious weeds or other harmful invasive plant species are present on the site or near enough to pose a threat of colonizing the disturbed area. c) There is a lack of suitable and/or abundant native seed nearby or in the soil seedbank to allow natural re-vegetation to occur in a timely manner. d) There is a need to accelerate the natural re-vegetation process because the site has especially high ecological, economic, social, or aesthetic value. e) If there is a high risk of sediment delivery to a lake, pond, stream or wetland, erosion control materials should be used, regardless of whether the site is seeded.

______United States Forest Service May 2010 Arapaho and Roosevelt, Routt, and White River National Forests Page 16 – Final – Environmental Assessment of the Emergency Power Line Clearing Project

The decision to use either erosion control or seeding (or plantings), or both erosion control and seeding (or plantings), will depend on the characteristics of the site such as steepness, soil characteristics, severity of noxious weed threat, how quickly adjacent or remnant native vegetation can be expected to cover bare soil, etc.

8. Re-vegetation will be completed using native species where feasible. Re-vegetation for all forests shall use the Routt National Forest’s re-vegetation policy (which is consistent with each of the three Forest Plans) as a point of reference, except that seed mixes shall be derived in consultation with the Forest Service botany representative.

9. All seed shall be free of all noxious weed seeds listed on the All States noxious weed seed exam.

10. If a species in the specified seed mix is not available, the contractor shall provide written evidence by three seed vendors that the species is not available. On written approval by the Forest Service, the mix may be adjusted and a new species may be substituted after consultation with the USFS.

11. All mulch, hay and straw used shall be certified weed-free.

2.3.4 Developed Recreation Sites, Trails, Trailheads, and Administrative Sites

12. The Forest Service will define the necessary parameters for felling and/or removing trees within the treatment areas to minimize damage to designated infrastructure. Should damage occur, the proponent will be responsible for replacing or repairing damaged infrastructure.

13. Coordinate closure, if necessary, of impacted trailheads, administrative sites, campgrounds, and travel corridors with local Ranger District to minimize impacts to the public and other permitted users. Provide information to the recreating public on the purpose and duration of the closure.

14. Felled trees and slash removed from power line corridors shall not be placed within the corridor of roads, trails, and other mowed or maintained areas within developed recreation sites.

2.3.5 Heritage Resources

15. A cultural resource inventory for each action will be completed in consultation with the Colorado State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) prior to project implementation. In compliance with the “Programmatic Agreement Among The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, the Colorado State Historic Preservation Office and the U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Medicine Bow-Routt National Forests, Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests, White River National Forest, Pike and San Isabel National Forests, Regarding the Implementation of Spruce Bark Beetle and Mountain Pine Beetle Management, Hazardous Fuel Reduction, and Hazard Tree Reduction Programs (PA),” implementation will not begin until the SHPO has concurred with a determination of no historic properties affected or no historic properties adversely affected.

16. A 50-foot buffer surrounding all historic properties (cultural resources that are field eligible for inclusion or are listed on the National Register of Historic Places {NRHP}) within the project area will be marked on the ground and the exclusion area included in any contracts. No heavy equipment or mechanical vegetation removal will be allowed within these exclusion areas. If treatment is necessary, these sites and the 50-foot buffer will be hand- treated for hazard trees and accumulated fuel buildup. Slash pile burning will be allowed

______United States Forest Service May 2010 Arapaho and Roosevelt, Routt, and White River National Forests Page 17 – Final – Environmental Assessment of the Emergency Power Line Clearing Project

within these exclusions in areas reviewed by and approved by a qualified archaeologist prior to the implementation of the burn.

17. Ground disturbing activities identified during implementation planning will be reviewed by an archaeologist. If these actions are located in areas not covered by the original inventory and are in areas with a high potential for historic properties, cultural resource inventories will be conducted on these areas. Project implementation will not proceed until the Forest complies with Stipulations D and E of the PA regarding the implementation of reporting on negative inventory reports and selected small projects, spruce bark beetle and MPB management, grapple piling for hazardous fuel reduction and hazard tree reduction program.

18. If additional prehistoric or historic materials are found during the course of this project, work in that area will cease. Work in the area of the cultural resource will not resume until the site has been evaluated for cultural materials and potential effects. The discovery must be protected until notified in writing to proceed by the authorized officer that compliance with Section 106 of the NRHP has been completed.

19. If so requested by the SHPO or an Indian tribe, the Forest Service will conduct additional consultation for the identification of properties of traditional cultural and religious significance to Indian tribes or other interested parties. Additional Design Criteria may be required if areas or sites are determined to be of importance to an Indian tribe.

2.3.6 Invasive Species

20. The Forest Service may conduct surveys to determine noxious weed occurrence and risk of spread prior to treatment(s) in and around power line corridors. This may result in noxious weed eradication efforts prior to treatment implementation. The surveys may also help identify areas in which disturbance or activity would be minimized to the extent feasible, due to likely abundance of noxious weed seed bank in the soil.

21. Off-road equipment shall not be moved into project area without having first taken reasonable measures to make sure it is free of soil, seeds, vegetative matter, or other debris that could contain noxious weed seeds. A Forest Service representative shall be notified at least 48 hours in advance of off-road equipment arriving on the forest, to provide the option of inspecting the equipment to ensure it has been cleaned. Equipment may also require inspection prior to moving it from areas infested with invasive species of concern to areas free of such invasive species. Reasonable measures include pressure-washing or steam cleaning in an off-site location so oil, grease, soil and plant debris can be contained and provide optimal protection of project areas. All equipment surfaces should be cleaned especially drive systems, tracks and “pinch points” to ensure removal of potentially invasive debris.

2.3.7 Public Safety

22. Maintenance Level 2 – 5 roads, county, state and federal highways shall be posted with warning signs and traffic control devices in accordance with the “Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices.”

23. Maintenance Level 3 - 5 roads:

a) Shall be maintained for through traffic during felling, slash treatment, and/or removal operations, although traffic delays may occur.

______United States Forest Service May 2010 Arapaho and Roosevelt, Routt, and White River National Forests Page 18 – Final – Environmental Assessment of the Emergency Power Line Clearing Project

b) Shall be left in an operational condition that will adequately accommodate traffic at the end of each work day.

c) Shall have barricades erected and/or proper signs placed at any traffic hazards in or adjacent to the road at the end of each workday. All felled trees and slash shall be removed from the bladed, mowed, or brushed road each day.

d) Felling, slash treatment, and/or removal operations shall be restricted or prohibited on weekends, holidays, and one day prior to the opening of each of the four big game rifle seasons.

24. For public safety, maintenance Level 2 roads may be temporarily closed to general public access during felling, slash treatment, and/or removal operations.

2.3.8 Riparian Areas/Aquatic Protection

25. Equipment staging areas and refueling locations shall be located at least 250 feet away from streams and wetlands.

26. Vehicles, including heavy equipment, trucks, and ATV’s will be allowed to cross perennial and intermittent streams, with defined beds and banks, at open channel crossings (without bridges or culverts) only at locations approved by the Forest Service representative. If the Forest Service determines that it is needed, open channel crossing locations will be restored following use to restore the channel to appropriate dimensions, stabilize stream banks and prevent erosion, and allow for vegetation recovery.

27. Any stream crossing structures and other in-stream structures required (e.g. culverts, bridges, etc.) will be designed to provide for passage of flow and sediment, withstand expected flood flows, and allow free movement of resident aquatic life. Temporary stream crossing structures will be removed following completion of project activities.

28. For hazardous trees felled within riparian or wetland buffers:

a) Ground based equipment will not be permitted within 100 feet from the edge of streams, or within the edge of riparian or wetlands/fens vegetation, whichever is greater (located with GIS/GPS maps and/or marked on the ground during project implementation), except as noted below and authorized by the appropriate specialists. For some streams, terrain may limit the extent of riparian vegetation, and upland vegetation may occur within the riparian buffer. For these streams, conventional logging equipment may be used within the riparian buffer with Forest Service approval. The Forest Service representative should consult with appropriate resource specialists (e.g. botanist, hydrologist, wildlife biologist, soil scientist and/or fish biologist) prior to granting approval.

b) Hand felling of hazardous trees is permitted in the 100-foot buffer. Trees should be directionally felled away from streams and wetlands. However, where power lines (and hazard tree removal) run parallel to streams, and large wood recruitment into streams is desired, 3-5 trees per 100 feet of stream should be felled across or into the stream channel. These trees should be at least eight inches DBH or the largest available on the site. Whole trees should be left, with limbs and tops intact. Trees for large wood recruitment may also be identified and marked by a fish or wildlife biologist or hydrologist.

c) Any hazard tree and associated debris cut down and lying within the active channel within 100 feet upstream of a perennial or intermittent stream/road culvert crossing that

______United States Forest Service May 2010 Arapaho and Roosevelt, Routt, and White River National Forests Page 19 – Final – Environmental Assessment of the Emergency Power Line Clearing Project

has the potential to obstruct a bridge or culvert will be moved outside the active stream channel. Conventional logging equipment can be used for removal.

d) Where felled trees are left in place, slash should be lopped and scattered to a height of less than 24 inches above ground level, except where approved otherwise. Where leaving felled trees may create unacceptable fuel loading, fail to meet visual objectives, or unacceptably limit human or wildlife access to streams and riparian areas, trees may be removed with Forest Service approval. The Forest Service representative should consult a Forest Service botanist, hydrologist, wildlife biologist and/or fish biologist prior to granting approval.

e) Trees requiring removal shall be moved using at least one-end (partial) suspension.

f) Trees shall not be skidded across perennial or intermittent stream courses.

29. Burn piles shall be located at landings. No landings shall be located in riparian or wetland buffers.

30. Isolated wetlands that occur under the tree canopy may not be mapped and may not be visible on aerial photos. Power line corridors should be surveyed to identify wetlands and riparian areas prior to use of mechanical equipment.

31. For isolated wetlands that occur within the power line corridors, trees within the wetland and wetland buffer should be left standing, if the trees are short enough and far enough away from the line that the trees will not threaten the line if they should fall.

2.3.9 Scenic Byways and Special Interest Areas (SIAs)

32. Trees should be hand felled within power line clearing corridors that are adjacent to scenic byways and SIAs. Boles must be left in place; slash will be lopped and scattered to a height of less than 24 inches above the ground.

33. Hazardous trees will be hand felled and not removed in RNAs.

2.3.10 Slash Disposal/Fuels Treatments

34. Slash (tops, limbs, non-salvageable trees and other woody material) resulting from tree felling or removal operations should be treated to a fuels profile that promotes surface fire behavior of less than four-foot flame lengths (maximum fireline intensity of 100 BTU/ft/s) under the average severe fire weather conditions1.

1 Average severe weather conditions (High Percentile or 90th Percentile Weather Conditions) were obtained from the Colorado Wildfire Risk Assessment. Fire Weather Meteorologists developed nine Weather Influence Zones (WIZ) for Colorado. A WIZ is defined as an area where for analysis purposes the weather on any given day is uniform. The Emergency Power Line Clearing Project is within five of the nine WIZs. Depending on where the power lines are located, a different set of weather conditions will be applied. The following is a breakdown of the different WIZs represented and their accompanying weather conditions: • WIZ 1 (includes most of Rio Blanco county): Atmospheric and fuel conditions where fuel moisture content (dry weight basis) of 1-hour timelag fuels is three percent (3%), 10-hour fuels is four percent (4%), and 100-hour fuels is seven percent (7%) (equivalent to fuel size classes of <0.25 in, 0.25-1.0 in, and 1.0-3.0 in, respectively), live herbaceous fuels is thirty- one percent (31%), and live woody fuels is sixty-nine percent (69%) . Twenty-foot open wind speed (20’ winds) is twenty miles per hour (20 mph) with gusts to forty miles per hour (40 mph). • WIZ 2 (includes part of Rio Blanco and Garfield counties, and all of Routt, Eagle, Summit, Grand, and Jackson counties): 1- hour fuels is 4%, 10-hour fuels is 6%, 100-hour fuels is 10%, live herbaceous fuels is 24%, live woody fuels is 80%, and 20’ winds is 15 mph with gusts to 33 mph. • WIZ 3 (includes all of Larimer, Boulder, Gilpin, and Clear Creek counties): 1-hour fuels is 4%, 10-hour fuels is 6%, 100- hour fuels is 10%, live herbaceous fuels is 31%, live woody fuels is 81%, and 20’ winds is 12 mph with gusts to 29 mph. • WIZ 4 (includes most of Garfield county and part of Mesa county): 1-hour fuels is 3%, 10-hour fuels is 4%, 100-hour fuels is 7%, live herbaceous fuels is 28%, live woody fuels is 65%, and 20’ winds is 14 mph with gusts to 32 mph.

______United States Forest Service May 2010 Arapaho and Roosevelt, Routt, and White River National Forests Page 20 – Final – Environmental Assessment of the Emergency Power Line Clearing Project

35. Burning of slash and debris may only be completed on designated landing sites and must comply with the following:

a) Minimum pile size shall be no less than 6' wide x 6' high x 6' long.

b) Maximum pile size shall be based on current Air Pollution Control Division requirements and proximity to homes. This will be coordinated with the local fuels specialist prior to contract preparation and/or implementation.

c) Piles shall be compact and constructed by laying created slash material in a manner as to eliminate large air spaces within the piles with either a brush rake or grapple type attachment to keep dirt out of the piles.

d) When piling, created slash material up to 6 inches in diameter shall be piled. Piling created slash greater than 6 inches in diameter is discretionary.

e) Construct piles at least 50 feet away from trees, preferably in an opening or cleared area, and out of the power line corridor.

36. To achieve the desired surface fire behavior the resulting fuel bed must exhibit:

a) low fuel loading such as that represented under Fuel Models(FM) such as Timber Litter(TL) 3, TL 5, FM8 or FM9, or

b) a highly compacted fuel bed (crushed, chipped or masticated2)

For reference to fuel models see Scott and Burgan (2005) and Anderson (1992).

37. When masticating/chipping felled trees or existing down slash, masticated materials must be spread to be discontinuous (less than 60% of surface covered by four inches maximum depth of chips). Masticated/chipped materials may be scattered outside of the corridor to achieve this criterion.

38. Treatments may include (individually or in combination): removal, chipping, crushing, and mastication.

39. If a Forest Service Representative determines that it is not feasible to remove slash and debris in areas not accessible by ground equipment or within Inventoried Roadless Areas, material may be lopped and scattered in place (maximum depth 24 inches) as long as the resulting fuel bed will result in surface fire behavior of less than four-foot flame lengths (maximum fireline intensity of 100 BTU/ft/s) under the average severe fire weather conditions. Material should be removed from around the bases of transmission line structures (towers/guy wires, anchors, etc.) for a distance of at least five feet.

2.3.11 Soils

40. No machinery will be used on slopes greater than 35% grade, except for slopes less than 100 feet in length.

• WIZ 5 (includes part of Mesa county and all of Pitkin and Gunnison counties): 1-hour fuels is 4%, 10-hour fuels is 5%, 100- hour fuels is 8%, live herbaceous fuels is 27%, live woody fuels is 76%, and 20’ winds is 13 mph with gusts to 30 mph.

2 If mastication (synonymous with mulching or slash busting) is a selected treatment method, a vertical shaft masticator with sufficient horsepower and hydraulic system performance to perform efficiently is recommended, as the materials are distributed better (less than 60% of surface covered by four inches maximum depth of chips) and there is less soil disturbance necessary to achieve the desired fuel profile.

______United States Forest Service May 2010 Arapaho and Roosevelt, Routt, and White River National Forests Page 21 – Final – Environmental Assessment of the Emergency Power Line Clearing Project

41. Heavy equipment will be restricted from operating when soil conditions are “too wet”. Soils are too wet when soil can be molded into a ball that holds together under repeated tosses, or if the soil can be rolled into a 3mm thread without breaking or crumbling.

42. When skid trails are closer than or equal to 75 feet apart on soils rated high for susceptibility to compaction, the skid trails will be rehabilitated to bring the detrimental compaction below 15%.

43. The organic ground cover of each land unit shall be maintained so that pedestals, rills, and surface runoff from the land unit are not increased. Maintain a ground cover of 65% or greater within activity areas.

44. Allowable chipped material depth and percent ground cover, outside the power line ROWs will be determined by the Forest Service representative on a site specific basis. As a general guideline, chipped material should be no more than four inches deep over 60% of the activity area. Areas exceeding depth and cover limits may be re-spread using hand tools.

45. When required, roads and other disturbed sites will be stabilized and maintained during and after implementation to control erosion as shown below in Table 2.3-2, Waterbar Spacing.

Table 2.3-2 Waterbar Spacing Grade of Road or Trail Unstable Soils or High Erosion Stable Soils or Low (%) Hazard Erosion Hazard 2 135 ft 170 ft 5 100 ft 140 ft 10 80 ft 115 ft 15 60 ft 90 ft 20 45 ft 60 ft 25+ 30 ft 40 ft

46. If landings, roads or skid trails are constructed by removing topsoil:

a) Topsoil will be stockpiled for re-spreading.

b) Inclusion of stumps and woody debris with topsoil will be minimized.

c) Handling topsoil during wet conditions will be avoided.

d) Topsoil piles will be protected from traffic and water erosion and will not be buried by slash.

e) The consistency of the surface of the re-spread topsoil will be suitable for the subsequent seeding (if seeding is to be done).

f) Slash will be scattered on the soil surface to provide some erosion control until vegetation is established.

g) Where rehabilitation treatments will include both tillage and topsoil re-spreading, the sequence of operations will be planned in such a manner to avoid re-compacting tilled areas. Tilling can take place after topsoil is re-spread with a minimum of mixing.

47. Sub-soiling and/or ripping shall occur when soil moisture is such that the soil is friable, which means dry enough to crumble (rather than smear) but not so dry to turn to powder.

______United States Forest Service May 2010 Arapaho and Roosevelt, Routt, and White River National Forests Page 22 – Final – Environmental Assessment of the Emergency Power Line Clearing Project

48. Landing debris should be used to help provide soil organic matter. Ash from burn piles will be spread along with topsoil and other debris to create a source of organic matter.

49. All scarification and other site prep work should be completed along the contours of the local topography.

2.3.12 Transportation

50. All newly constructed temporary roads crossing perennial or intermittent stream channels will have drainage structures installed. Drainage structures will be sized to pass debris and allow unimpeded movement of the aquatic ecosystem. Engineers will work with hydrologists and aquatic biologists on site design. Stream crossings will be hardened to withstand floods as follows:

Design Life (years) 1 2 5 10 20 50 Design Flood (years) 10 10 25 50 100 200

51. Before excavation occurs, the Utility Notification Center of Colorado/Wyoming will be contacted for locations.

52. Slash and debris will be kept out of ditches and drainage channels.

53. Log hauling will be suspended on native surface roads during periods of precipitation that results in excessive road damage and may contribute to possible sediment discharges into stream channels. Hauling will be suspended until the road sub-grade can adequately carry loaded log trucks and road damage will not occur.

54. If surface blading of haul roads is required, all ruts, holes and washboards shall be removed by scarifying or cutting the bottom of such defects. Fines accumulated in blading roads or from drainage ditches shall not be wasted over fill shoulders.

55. Temporary roads may be located outside of the Proposed Project area; however temporary roads would be located and approved on a case by case basis for the purpose of protecting sensitive resources, such as patches of advanced regeneration. Temporary roads will be rehabilitated by pushing, pulling or depositing excavated soils and rock to fill in road cut, where feasible.

56. Water bars, out sloping the prism and cross drains will be installed on temporary roads as needed to remove surface water and stabilize road surfaces. Stumps, rocks, slash and logs will be placed on the ripped road surface to a density and depth to mimic the surrounding ground. Specific rehabilitative methods would be determined on a case by case basis.

57. No temporary roads will be constructed within Inventoried Roadless Areas.

58. Where feasible, measures to prevent public summer motorized use must be approved by a Forest Service Representative and may include gates, placement of boulders or debris, fencing, berms, or similar methods. USFS resources specialists will be consulted to determine the most appropriate action in effort to provide the most appropriate level of mitigation without negatively impacting resource integrity, such as scenery or biodiversity.

2.3.13 Visuals

59. Where necessary and physically feasible in areas of Very High or High Scenic Integrity Objectives and Preservation or Retention Visual Quality Objectives, scalloped edges for all units will be created to provide natural appearing edges that visually blend in with the

______United States Forest Service May 2010 Arapaho and Roosevelt, Routt, and White River National Forests Page 23 – Final – Environmental Assessment of the Emergency Power Line Clearing Project

surrounding forested landscape. The scallops will have curvilinear edges for varying amplitude (50- to 1000-foot radii), and randomly ordered (for example, a short one followed by two long ones and then a medium one) so that they are not in a line themselves. Treatment area edges should be feathered and undulating, irregular and freeform to soften the line.

60. Where necessary and physically feasible in areas of Very High or High Scenic Integrity Objectives and Preservation or Retention Visual Quality Objectives, units located in mixed conifer stands and stands with different age and size classes should have feathered and tapered edges to maintain natural appearance. The feathering would go from a clearcut or maximum thinned density to existing stand density for approximately 200 feet in a gradual progression.

61. Where necessary and physically feasible in areas of Very High or High Scenic Integrity Objectives and Preservation or Retention Visual Quality Objectives, clumps and/or islands of trees may be left (where sagging lines and ground clearance are not a concern) to break sight distance and to maintain natural appearing landscape mosaic pattern.

2.3.14 Wildlife

62. Based on GIS layers and hardcopy maps of potential treatment areas provided prior to each field season, Forest Service wildlife biologists will evaluate for potential impact on Proposed, Endangered, Threatened, and Sensitive (PETS) species, Management Indicator Species (MIS), and species of local concern prior to implementation.

63. Wildlife biologists will recommend to the Forest Service representative when site specific protection measures are needed. For any PETS species or species of local concern with identified viability concerns, the wildlife biologist will identify activity restrictions (area, timing, retaining felled trees on-site to provide connectivity/linkage of habitats, etc.) to avoid a trend toward federal listing or loss of population viability.

64. When treatments occur within or near known amphibian breeding sites, a decontamination protocol may be required to prevent the spread of chytrid fungus (Bd). This would be predicated on whether or not equipment has been exposed to sites that are known to harbor or are highly suspected of harboring chytrid fungus.

Lynx

65. Within designated Lynx Linkage Areas, trees will be felled and left in place.

66. In all areas where live residual vegetation (post-treatment) is discontinuous and/or less than 2-3 feet tall, create structure (from felled trees) perpendicular to the direction of the power line corridor.

a. Taking fuel loads into consideration, in areas with limited or no live understory, fell and leave in place, as much structure as possible.

b. Avoid/minimize impacts (incidental damage) to live regeneration (below dead/dying overstory) within ROW

c. Avoid new road construction

d. Minimize development of skid trails

e. Avoid maintenance operation during winter months except for emergency situations

______United States Forest Service May 2010 Arapaho and Roosevelt, Routt, and White River National Forests Page 24 – Final – Environmental Assessment of the Emergency Power Line Clearing Project

f. Avoid creating large unnatural gaps in overstory canopy by leaving vertical structure where practicable. Try and avoid linking natural openings with cleared sections of power-line corridor.

Preble’s Meadow Jumping Mouse

67. Mechanical vegetation and slash treatments within any mapped Preble’s habitat (USFWS designated) will occur only during the Preble’s hibernation period (November 1 through April 30). Hand (chainsaw) treatments of vegetation and slash may occur at any time. Preble’s habitat includes riparian and upland vegetation below 7,600 feet and within 300 feet of the 100-year flood plain, or, where the 100-year floodplain is not clearly definable, within 300 feet from the outside edge of the riparian vegetation.

68. Impacts to shrubs in upland areas (300 feet from outside the riparian area) by vehicles and associated logging/slash/disposal equipment will be minimized.

69. No burn piles will be located within any USFWS designated Critical Habitat.

70. Stream crossings in Preble’s Critical Habitat are allowed only where they currently exist; no new crossings will be established.

2.3.15 Winter Treatments

71. For soils rated high for susceptibility to compaction, harvesting will not be done when soils are “too wet” (as described in Soils Criteria). If harvesting during conditions when soil wetness cannot be determined (i.e. when soil is covered with snow), either a soil scientist or hydrologist will be consulted or the following guidelines will be used:

a) Harvest when frozen soil is 4 inches deep OR

b) Compactable snow or a combination of compactable snow and frozen soil is 12 inches in thickness. Snow quality should be such that it will compact and form a running surface for equipment by being moist and non-granular.

c) Skid trails will be designated skid trails are not required except for other resource concerns.

d) Conditions to monitor closely during operations are: soil being “too wet” (as described in Soils Criteria); bare soil in trails; and day time temperatures exceeding 35° F for an extended period.

72. For soils rated low or moderate for susceptibility to compaction, harvesting will not be done when soils are “too wet” (as described in Soils Criteria). These soil types may be harvested on year-round as long they are not wet. Snow or frozen soil is NOT required to protect soils.

73. For units that are planned for winter treatment, wetlands, riparian areas, streams, and crossings will be identified and designated prior to snowfall, and marked with indicators that will be visible above the depth of expected snow accumulations.

______United States Forest Service May 2010 Arapaho and Roosevelt, Routt, and White River National Forests Page 25 – Final – Environmental Assessment of the Emergency Power Line Clearing Project

2.4 Project Implementation

Implementation of the Emergency Power Line Clearing Project would occur on a site by site basis throughout the area identified by the ARNF, RNF, and WRNF as the project area and outside existing utility ROWs. The Proposed Action limits the project area for implementation of the Proposed Action to those areas that lie within up to 200 feet from centerline of transmission lines and within up to 75 feet from centerline of distribution lines. Implementations of site specific treatments within the project are expected to occur over a 15-year period in order to fully address the needs of the forest and in order to meet the budgetary constraints of the utility companies. Any authorization given to utility companies to implement the Proposed Action would be a one-time authorization and would not permanently increase the utility easements or ROWs for any company. Authorization would be given to utility companies to remove hazardous trees as needed, but would not require the utility companies to remove any trees specifically. There may be dead or live trees that remain untreated, due to the specific conditions of each site.

This one time authorization is connected to the occupancy of National Forest System lands by utility company owned transmission and distribution lines. As such the authority to cut and/or dispose of National Forest timber shall be guided by the Timber Settlement authority described in the Forest Service Manual, Chapter 2464.

Removal of trees may include salvageable saw timber size trees (greater than 7 inches in diameter at breast height (DBH) and products other than logs size trees (5 to 7 inches DBH). If removal is not feasible or removal activities would cause unacceptable resource damage, the salvageable size trees may be felled and left in place. NOTE: Saw-timber sized trees on the RNF are greater than 9 inches DBH and POL size trees are 5 to 9 inches DBH.

Non-salvageable trees (those less than 5 inches DBH) may be felled and left in place. These non-salvageable trees may be hydro axed, chipped, masticated, roller chopped, removed, and/or piled and burned to reduce the fire hazard they may pose as accumulating forest fuels. All burning activities will be restricted to designated landings outside of the Proposed Project area and will be managed as indicated by the Design Criteria.

Slash treatments may include removal, hydro-axing, lopping and scattering, roller chopping, chipping, mastication, and/or pile burning. When and where lop and scatter slash treatments are utilized the slash will be spread not to exceed a depth of 24 inches. Slash may be chipped to a depth not to exceed four inches.

Design Criteria would be applied to protect sensitive areas including, but not limited to, water influence zones (WIZs), wetlands, and wildlife habitat during treatment operations. Winter logging may also be considered in specific areas, and on a case-by-case basis, to further protect sensitive resource areas. Potential treatment sites would be identified by utility companies and assessed according to the requirements identified by the USFS in the Design Criteria. Ensuring completion of requirements prior to site treatment would be the responsibility of the utility companies and must be accomplished in coordination with the USFS in order to ensure USFS approval prior to site treatment. A priority for scheduling treatments would be addressed by the respective forest or district after the analysis is completed.

Site treatment would be executed by the individual utility companies and may be accomplished through the use of any variety of service contracts or agreements with third parties. The USFS would not be responsible for executing site treatments. If it is determined that hazardous trees are within a developed recreation site, timber sale area, stewardship contract area or fuels treatment contract area, the utility companies would coordinate with the USFS to determine the best course of action for safe and efficient removal of the designated hazard trees.

______United States Forest Service May 2010 Arapaho and Roosevelt, Routt, and White River National Forests Page 26 – Final – Environmental Assessment of the Emergency Power Line Clearing Project

2.5 Post-Project Site Management

2.5.1 Reforestation

The LRMPs detail appropriate silvicultural systems for reforestation/regeneration activities where the suitable timber land base is located or when necessary to achieve management objectives or goals for forest resources. Regeneration of suitable lands harvested would comply with established standards in the LRMPs with respect to harvest methods, species stocking level, and regeneration methods.

Harvest methods would comply with Table 1.11 on page 21 of the ARNF LRMP, Table 1-4 on page 10 of the RNF LRMP, and Table 2-5 on page 2-12 of the WRNF LRMP. Approved harvest methods include group and single tree selection, salvage, clearcut, shelterwood, and seed-tree silvicultural systems. Clearcut openings normally would not exceed 40 contiguous acres in size, but exceptions are salvage treatments following natural catastrophic events. Clearcutting or even-aged regeneration systems are normally discouraged, but acceptable in stands that are in imminent danger from insect and disease attack or in stands killed in natural catastrophic events. Table 2.5-1, Appropriate Silvicultural Systems by Forest Cover Type, was taken from the WRNF LRMP to use as a point of reference and considered representative of all three LRMPs.

Table 2.5-1 Appropriate Silvicultural Systems by Forest Cover Type Forest Cover Type Even-aged Two-aged Uneven-aged Shelterwood, clearcut, and Group selection and single-tree Ponderosa Pine Irregular shelterwood seed-tree selection Shelterwood, clearcut, and Group selection and single-tree Mixed Conifer Irregular shelterwood seed-tree selection Aspen Coppice* Coppice with standards** Group selection*** Shelterwood, clearcut, and Lodgepole Pine Irregular shelterwood Group selection seed-tree Engelmann Spruce Group selection and single-tree Shelterwood and clearcut Irregular shelterwood Subalpine-fir selection * Coppice is a vegetation reproduction method with clear felling or clear cutting. Clear felling (clear cutting) stimulates sprouting from the residual roots. ** “Standards” are selected overstory trees reserved for a longer rotation at the time each crop of coppice material is cut. *** Use of group selection as an appropriate silvicultural system in aspen is currently under study to determine regeneration success, but is authorized on a test basis.

Salvage of dead and dying trees can create even-aged, two-aged, or uneven-aged regeneration systems depending on the extent of the mortality.

Appropriate minimum stocking levels following regeneration harvest methods are detailed in Tables 1.9 and 1.10 on page 20 of the ARNF LRMP, Table 1-5 on page 10 of the RNF LRMP, and Table 2-6 of the WRNF LRMP. Regeneration may include natural regeneration as well as regeneration by artificial means such as transplanting. There are no minimum height requirements for seedlings, and regeneration should be accomplished within five years after clearcut or final harvest of seed-tree and shelterwood management methods (even-aged and two-aged regeneration systems). Stocking surveys should be completed within treatment areas to assure that minimum LRMP standards are met. Table 2.5-2, Standards for the Required Minimum Numbers of Seedlings for Adequate Restocking of a Regeneration Site, was taken from the WRNF LRMP and is considered representative of the three LRMPs.

Table 2.5-2 Standards for the Required Minimum Numbers of Seedlings for Adequate Restocking of a Regeneration Site Species Spruce-fir Aspen Douglas-fir Lodgepole Pine Trees/Acre 150 300 150 150

Species Ponderosa Pine Pinyon-juniper Other Softwood Other Hardwood Trees/Acre 150 120 150 300

______United States Forest Service May 2010 Arapaho and Roosevelt, Routt, and White River National Forests Page 27 – Final – Environmental Assessment of the Emergency Power Line Clearing Project

2.5.2 LRMP Compliance Design Criteria have been developed by ARNF, RNF, and WRNF resource specialists to ensure LRMP compliance is maintained for all three forests and resources are protected. Activities associated with implementation of the Proposed Action would follow the Design Criteria developed for this project.

2.6 Comparison of Alternatives

This section summarizes and compares the potential effects of implementation of the No Action and Proposed Action Alternatives. Table 2.6-1 quantifies the total area potentially affected by the Proposed Project. Table 2.6-2 shows how well each of the alternatives meets the purpose and need for the Proposed Project. Lastly, Table 2.6-3 provides a comparative assessment of the potential effects of each of the proposed alternatives on forest resources.

It is important to note that the quantities provided in Table 2.6-1 are intended to represent the maximum possible project area and the figures provided were developed accordingly. The figures are based on the use of a 400 foot-wide treatment area along transmission lines and a 150 foot-wide treatment area along distribution lines. This methodology for assessment of the forest resources that are discussed in the Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences portion of this document was determined to be the most systematic method available for this purpose. This means that the potential effects provided in Tables 2.6-1 through 2.6-3 are overstated, however, to what degree cannot be determined prior to the treatment of the sites that would be selected for treatment. Actual acreages and mileages treated could be much less depending on the availability of funding for projects, personnel available to manage projects, contracting limitations, access to project sites, the relative abundance of hazardous trees at project sites, and other site specific factors.

It is also important to note that the No Action Alternative is not a true ‘no action’ and the figures in the Proposed Action column include the area within the existing utility ROWs. An average of 20% (30 out of 150 feet) of the project area along distribution lines lies within existing distribution line ROW widths; an average of 25% (100 out of 400 feet) of the area along transmission lines consists of existing transmission line ROW widths. Analysis of effects on each resource was completed taking into consideration the area within existing ROWs that will continue to be cleared by utility companies.

Although the No Action Alternative suggests that NO activities for treating hazard trees along power lines in a coordinated and uniform fashion would occur, it is likely that hazard tree removals would occur within the existing utility ROWs as is currently authorized.

Table 2.6-1 Quantity of the Total Area Potentially Affected by the Proposed Project Alternative 1: No Action* Alternative 2: Proposed Action Maximum Acreage Treated** Transmission Lines 4,401 Acres 15,287 acres Distribution Lines 1,607 Acres 7,701 acres Maximum Miles Treated** Transmission Lines 374 miles 374 miles Distribution Lines 449 miles 449 miles * The quantities provide for the No Action Alternative are not reflective of the areas that may be treated within existing and permitted ROWs. ** The figures provided for maximum acreage and mileage treated are not reflective of areas where transmission and distribution lines overlap.

______United States Forest Service May 2010 Arapaho and Roosevelt, Routt, and White River National Forests Page 28 – Final – Environmental Assessment of the Emergency Power Line Clearing Project

Table 2.6-2 Effectiveness of the Alternatives in Addressing the Purpose and Need Purpose and Need Alternative 1: No Action Alternative 2: Proposed Action Maintenance within existing Reduce the potential for ROWS would continue and Yes. The removal of hazardous trees within the project wildfires caused by hazardous individualized treatments may area would reduce the potential for hazardous trees to trees falling on power lines. occur outside of the ROWs in fall on power lines. compliance with current FS policy. Maintenance within existing Yes. In a relatively linear fashion in areas most Reduce hazardous fuel loadings ROWS would continue and affected by bark beetle infestation, the removal of associated with beetle killed individualized treatments may aerial and ground fuels would lower the risk of high trees. occur outside of the ROWs in intensity wildfires in those areas. compliance with current FS policy. Maintenance within existing Yes. The removal of hazardous trees near power lines Ensure reliable electrical service ROWS would continue and would reduce the potential for interruption of service to the local, regional, and individualized treatments may resulting from trees falling on power lines and/or national electrical grid. occur outside of the ROWs in wildfires, thus protecting the local, regional, and compliance with current FS policy. national electrical power grid.

Table 2.6-3 Assessment of the Potential Effects of the Alternatives on Forest Resources Forest Resource Alternative 1: No Action Alternative 2: Proposed Action The potential effects of treatment activities Coarse woody debris recruitment would be would be minimized or eliminated through the expected to increase. Canopy cover would use of Design Criteria. Coarse woody debris continue to thin possibly affecting aquatic Amphibian, Fisheries, and recruitment would be expected to increase. The habitats. In the event of a fire or wind Aquatic Habitat threat of power lines igniting fires would be throw event, habitat could be affected by lowered; however the effects of fire would erosion, sedimentation, and canopy remain where fuels are not lowered. Canopy reductions. reductions may affect habitat conditions. All species would potentially be affected by Some effects to species may occur as a activities proposed for implementation, but result of the trees to falling and crushing or would be protected to the greatest extent smothering plant species considered. practicable through the utilization of proposed Some species would potentially be Design Criteria. Some potential effects to Botany affected in the event that a fire would species may result from changes in habitat or occur. Vegetative communities may vegetative cover. The potential for species to be change as a result of changes in vegetative affected by fire would be lowered slightly as a cover types. result of the removal of potential ignition sources and fuel loads. Temporary travel delays may be expected Roads and trails could potential be closed during project implementation on some as a result of hazardous trees falling on Engineering/Public Access roadways. Temporary road construction would power lines. A fire event could result be allowed; however, through the use of the which may cause closures as well. Design Criteria effects would be minimized. Treatments may provide lines of defense to potential fire management activities. Fuel loads Fuels would increase and fires could result Fuels on project sites would be reduced or from trees falling onto power lines. restructured such that the risk of high intensity fires in project areas would be lowered. Commercial sales of forest products would Woody debris would be removed and Forested Vegetation not be utilized and biomass for energy reforestation efforts would be made where and production would be lost. Natural when appropriate, which would serve to ensure regeneration in infested stands could be future forests. Some commercial sale of limited due to woody debris accumulation. materials would be captured where and when possible as a result of removal activities. Mature lodgepole pine stands would continue to deteriorate due to the All timber currently listed identified as Old Old Growth Strategy Stands spreading growth of the bark beetle Growth would be likely to be removed because epidemic. it would be expected to be infested. Heritage structures and/or features could Heritage resource sites/features would benefit Heritage Resources be damaged as infested stands deteriorate. from the treatment of hazardous trees. Deterioration of bark beetle infested stands would create loading of woody debris in Effects resulting from treatment activities would riparian areas, wetlands, and floodplains. be minimized through the use of the Design Hydrology Water quality could be affected by Criteria. The effects of wildfire would be sediment movement or a large high lessened slightly. intensity fire.

______United States Forest Service May 2010 Arapaho and Roosevelt, Routt, and White River National Forests Page 29 – Final – Environmental Assessment of the Emergency Power Line Clearing Project

Forest Resource Alternative 1: No Action Alternative 2: Proposed Action All mature bark beetle susceptible stands Hand treatments in these areas could be allowed would be expected to fail and deteriorate. if needed. All debris created by treatment

would be scattered on site. Inventoried Roadless Areas In the event of a catastrophic fire, the nine

roadless characteristics would be The potential for fires caused by trees falling on unprotected and some may be irretrievably power lines would be reduced. damaged or lost. Public safety may be improved for visitors using trails/roads that occur near power lines Developed and special use recreation sites proposed for treatment. Potential for power may be closed in the event of power failures would be reduced, ensuring continued Recreation failure or wildfire from trees falling onto use of recreational areas providing those power lines. resources. Some temporary closures to recreation sites may occur as a result of treatment activities. Scenery would change as a result of the Scenery would change as a result of the removal deterioration of bark beetle infested stands of hazardous trees. Wider utility corridors Scenery and existing hazard trees could be the would be more visible and noticeable as breaks source for fires that could fall onto power in the landscape due to their linear distribution. lines. Potential effects include increased public Less damage to power lines from hazardous and fire fighter danger, reduced economic trees and wildfires would decrease the risk of viability of forest resources, interruption of power interruptions and physical or electrical and dependent services provided socioeconomic damage to local and connected to recreationalists or other utility users, a Socioeconomics communities. Some temporary closures of more severe aesthetic impact, and damage resource areas and aesthetic changes may result or malfunction of transmission and from treatment activities. Temporary/seasonal distribution lines. Power grid failure could job opportunities may result from treatment result in local, regional and national activities. economic effects. Little to no effect on soils resources or productivity would take place through the use of BMP, Design Criteria, and compliance with the Heavy fuel loads could result in wildfires Soils LRMPs. that may cause soil sterilization.

The potential effects of wildfire would be expected to be lessened slightly.

Some federally listed and sensitive species as Some federally listed and sensitive species well as Management Indicator Species (MIS) as well as Management Indicator Species may be affected as a result of implementation of Wildlife (MIS) may be affected as a result of the Proposed Action Alternative. The proposed implementation of the No Action Design Criteria would be applied to decrease Alternative. impacts/effects to species.

2.7 LRMP Project Guidance The USFS is responsible for implementing the respective LRMPs for the ARNF, RNF, and WRNF by completing analysis and evaluation of site-specific project proposals. The LRMPs contain direction to guide natural resource management activities and to provide the USFS, forest users, and the public with an overall strategy for managing the forests.

______United States Forest Service May 2010 Arapaho and Roosevelt, Routt, and White River National Forests Page 30 – Final – Environmental Assessment of the Emergency Power Line Clearing Project

3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

This section summarizes the physical, biological and social environments of the project area and the estimated effects involved in the implementation of each alternative on each of them. The affected existing environmental condition for each resource is described as to baseline condition for comparison of stated alternatives followed by an analysis of effects to the described resource. The No Action Alternative and the Proposed Action Alternative are analyzed for each resource area of the ARNF, RNF, and WRNF.

This analysis assumes that hazardous trees would be felled and/or removed up to 200 feet from the centerline of all transmission lines and up to 75 feet from the centerline of all distribution lines. The method used may overstate the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of the impacts resulting from implementation of the Proposed Action. The actual mileage/acreage treated as a result of implementation of the Proposed Action Alternative is expected to be less as it would be dependent on 1) budgetary constraints, 2) workforce limitations, 3) contractor/purchaser limitations, 4) site limitations, and 5) the distribution of hazardous trees.

3.1 Recreation

Affected Environment

The most recently compiled data available from the National Visitor Use Monitoring Program (NVUM) estimates the combined forests have nearly 17 million site visits annually. A majority of the use on all three forests is downhill skiing and snowboarding (71% in WRNF, 63% in RNF, and 28% in ARNF) followed by cross-country skiing (8% in ARNF, 4% in WRNF, and 3% in RNF). A majority of the remaining use is distributed among hiking/walking, viewing natural features (scenery) and fishing with each activity having a greater impact depending on the forest. See Figure 3-1 for recreational uses on the three forests.

Figure 3-1 Recreational Uses Within the Combined Forests

Combined Forest Average - User Activity Average % of Users

No Activity Reported Motorized trail Activity Gathering forest products … Other non-motor activity (swim, etc.) X-C skiing, snow shoeing Downhill skiing or snowboarding Non-motorized water travel Bicycling Horseback riding Hiking or walking Other motorized activities Motorized water travel Snowmobile travel Driving for pleasure OHV use Hunting Fishing Relaxing Nature Study Visiting a nature center Visiting historic/prehistoric sites Viewing natural features (scenery) Viewing wildlife, birds, fish, etc Picnicking Resort Use Backpacking Primitive camping Camping in developed sites

0 20 40 60 80

______United States Forest Service May 2010 Arapaho and Roosevelt, Routt, and White River National Forests Page 31 – Final – Environmental Assessment of the Emergency Power Line Clearing Project

Figure 3-2 expands the portion of the above chart to show greater detail for those primary recreational uses of less than 20%, and identifies those uses by forest.

Figure 3-2 Recreational Uses Within the Arapaho and Roosevelt, Routt, and White River National Forests Excluding Downhill Skiing

Developed Recreation

Developed recreation includes all recreational activities that take place on all sites with constructed facilities. Amenities potentially affected by the Proposed Project include 177 developed campgrounds, 13 rental cabins and 58 picnic areas. Developed recreation is often located near roadways, where power lines often traverse.

Dispersed Recreation

Most recreational activities that occur on the forests that do not involve constructed facilities are considered dispersed recreation. Many motorized activities occur on the roads within the forests from scenic drives to ATV/motorcycle group rides. Resources include dispersed camping (camping outside of developed campgrounds), mountain biking, horseback riding, photography, wildlife viewing and sightseeing, as well hunting and fishing.

• Trails - There is a combined 3,953 miles of trails within the three forests’ trail system. Most of the trails are used for hiking, backpacking, horseback riding and mountain biking while some of the trails are designated for motorized recreation such as ATVs and motorcycles. Though there are a total of approximately 3,953 miles of trails on the three forests, not all trails would be potentially affected by the Proposed Project. The only trails that may be affected would be those that contain an interface with power lines; there are 97 trails, or trail segments, that are crossed by power lines. These trail crossings would contain the existing ROWs for the respective power line types (averaging 30 feet wide for distribution lines and 100 feet wide for transmission lines.)

______United States Forest Service May 2010 Arapaho and Roosevelt, Routt, and White River National Forests Page 32 – Final – Environmental Assessment of the Emergency Power Line Clearing Project

• Winter Trails - The forests support a wide range of winter recreation including snowmobiling, cross-country skiing, sledding, snowshoeing and dog sledding. Many of the trails are marked and designated on maps and many are groomed for specific uses such as cross-country skiing or snowmobiling. There are a total of five winter trail segments that are crossed by power lines that may be affected by the Proposed Project. However, similar to the trails discussed previously, these trails would already contain the existing ROWs for the lines that cross them.

Recreation Special Uses

All three forests have issued special use permits for activities including outfitters and guides, as well as for non-commercial groups such as weddings, rallies and church services. Commercial permits are issued for such events as races, jeep rallies, wagon trains and concerts. Other permits are issued for activities that involve permanent and immobile structures such as recreation residences and ski areas and resorts. The USFS would define the necessary parameters for felling and/or removing trees within the clearing corridors to minimize damage to designated infrastructure.

Environmental Consequences

3.1.1 Alternative 1: No Action

Direct and Indirect Effects

Under the No Action Alternative, management practices of the utility companies would continue along power line ROWs as currently authorized. Accordingly, implementation of the No Action Alternative would not negate the requirement to remove all documented hazardous trees or tree limbs, according to current authorizations, with assistance from timber management, forest health management, and recreation specialists. If dead and dying trees adjacent to the existing ROWs would not be treated, then they would continue to be potential hazards. Also, as the bark beetle epidemic continues to expand, the quantity of dead trees adjacent to the power line ROWs would continue to increase as well. The risk of dead trees falling onto power lines would continue to grow also, which would increase potential fire hazards as a result of arcing and falling debris, potentially resulting in loss of power for utility users, but also result in recreation area closures. This likely scenario would have detrimental effects on developed recreation sites, dispersed recreation sites and recreational special use permits and recreational use.

Implementation of the No Action Alternative would promote the accumulation of excessive numbers of snags and down woody debris, which would compromise safety standards as established by Occupational Safety and Health Act, the Highway Safety Act, and Forest Service Manual 7700. Due to the requirements to maintain safety standards within areas exhibiting these characteristics, the USFS would likely close developed recreation areas that contain power lines as a portion of their infrastructure. The result of these types of closures could be the effective closure of trails and roads with connectivity to closed developed recreation sites.

It should be noted that the RNF and WRNF have approved projects that allow for the treatment of hazard trees within designated recreation sites and the ARNF has also proposed a project for the removal of hazard trees within recreation sites. Therefore, if this alternative were to be implemented the potential would exist that these sites would be treated through those projects and the likelihood that sites would be closed for safety concerns would be minimized.

Cumulative Effects

The No Action Alternative would add to an already existing problem throughout the region in that closures of facilities are being required for the safety of the users. This requirement comes as a result of acceptable risk levels being exceeded due to the abundance of hazard trees in a given area. The closures of areas as a result of this effect may be seasonal or permanent, depending on the level of use and abundance of hazard trees. Given this effect, events or campsites may receive lower turnouts or usage as they are reopened. This would possibly cause users to relocate their events or usage to other areas during the closure and clean-up

______United States Forest Service May 2010 Arapaho and Roosevelt, Routt, and White River National Forests Page 33 – Final – Environmental Assessment of the Emergency Power Line Clearing Project period. It is also possible that some of those users or events may not return to the area after closure and clean-up due to a variety of circumstances.

Section 3.15 provides a description of the other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects that may occur that would add to the cumulative effects of implementation of this alternative.

3.1.2 Alternative 2: Proposed Action

Direct and Indirect Effects

The Proposed Action Alternative would be expected to have minimal impact, either directly or indirectly, to many recreational activity areas including hiking trails, undeveloped campsites, winter trails, and scenic byways. However, the effect on the activities in the forests could vary greatly and could be as minimal as the temporary re-routing of an individual trail or portion of a trail, to the closure of a developed campground for several weeks or as long as an entire season while the hazard trees are cleared from treatment areas.

Clearing within the Proposed Project area would neither increase nor decrease access to campgrounds and trailheads, but may reduce additional hazard trees in affected recreation areas. The Proposed Action Alternative would have a positive effect on recreation sites and their associated activities within the project area, as the clearing of trees would help prevent hazard trees from falling across power lines as well as the intersections with roads and trails, thus maintaining a safer environment in the treated areas as the bark beetle epidemic continues to progress.

3.1.2.1 Developed Recreation Areas

The Proposed Project area is known to contain developed campgrounds, picnic areas and trailheads that may be directly and indirectly affected by the Proposed Action Alternative. The direct effects to these resources would be expected to be any damages that may be sustained to the infrastructure contained within these types of sites as a result of implementation of this alternative. Mitigation measures for these sites within developed recreation areas (trailheads, administrative sites, campgrounds and travel corridors) would comply with the proposed Design Criteria for treatment activities (section 2.3). These parameters for clearing hazard trees within developed recreation facilities have been designed to protect selected infrastructure and minimize potential damage caused by the treatment activities.

The effects to these sites would vary depending on the extent to which the proposed treatment area would occur within the developed recreation areas. It may become necessary to close off a part or the whole of certain sites during implementation of the Proposed Action Alternative. All closures would be coordinated with the local Ranger District to minimize impacts to the public and permitted users. The public would be informed of the purpose of the closure and the anticipated duration of the closure, and would be directed to alternative recreation opportunities in the vicinity. The entire/partial closure of the site would affect users due to the additional personnel, machinery and noise within treatment areas as well as through the loss of access to treatment areas, particularly developed recreational activity. However, these effects would be temporary due to the expected short duration of treatment activities and the availability of alternative sites within the vicinity.

As stated in section 3.1.1, the RNF and WRNF have approved projects that allow for the treatment of hazard trees within designated recreation sites and the ARNF has also proposed a project to remove of hazard trees within recreation sites. Therefore, without regard to this proposal, hazard trees may be removed within these sites.

3.1.2.2 Dispersed Recreation Areas

Dispersed recreational areas are not mapped on any of the forests. Although direct effects to these areas would not be expected, there would remain some potential for indirect effects to occur. However, it is not known how many dispersed recreation areas may be indirectly affected by the implementation of the Proposed Action Alternative, and the effects to those areas would be dependent upon the proximity of those

______United States Forest Service May 2010 Arapaho and Roosevelt, Routt, and White River National Forests Page 34 – Final – Environmental Assessment of the Emergency Power Line Clearing Project areas to locations proposed for treatment. Dispersed campsites that are located within the Proposed Project area and likely to be selected for treatment, but outside of the existing utility ROWs, would likely be heavily affected or unintentionally demolished. At a minimum, the areas’ character would be altered by the removal of the trees, and the wider, more open areas associated with power lines would characterize all or portions of them. Since these dispersed recreation areas are not mapped, there is a potential that they would be used for slash piles, landings for yarded logs, piles for future burning operations or simply buried under chipped, masticated or roller chopped timber debris. Dispersed sites could also be affected during the implementation of this alternative either from traffic and personnel if they are located directly within the project area, or from the sight and sound of machinery used to complete this action when the campsite is located within or near the proposed treatment areas.

Most trails do not follow utility corridors, but many do cross the existing ROWs. There portions of approximately 97 trails and five winter sports trails which cross power line ROWs. As such, the potential for indirect effects to these features of the forests would exist. During implementation of the Proposed Action Alternative, these portions of trails would likely see an increase in activities associated with treatments. Treatment activities would likely cause temporary closure of these trails displacing potential users until project activities are completed. However, hazardous trees within the Proposed Project area that would potentially fall into power lines would also potentially fall into trails as well. Their removal would be likely to improve these conditions along the Proposed Project area and trail interface and allow for more dependable access in the future. The result of the removal of hazard trees within the Proposed Project area would not only be expected to alleviate potential hazards for power lines, but also improve the safety of the public who use the trails that are within the cleared portion of this project area.

3.1.2.3 Recreation Special Uses

Implementation of the Proposed Action Alternative would affect most ski resorts and some cabins within the three forests. These activities involve structures that typically have an electrical distribution line that provides electricity to the facilities. The Proposed Action Alternative would be expected to benefit the recreational special use activities by ensuring fewer interruptions to power service and reducing the potential of a forest fire caused by the additional fuel load and/or hazardous trees falling on lines.

The activities associated with the implementation of the Proposed Action Alternative would have a temporary indirect effect on these facilities during project implementation, such as sight and sound of machinery and other implementation activities, as treatments would occur in close proximity to the activities related to the special use permits such as skiing, cabin rentals, and resort use.

The visual effects resulting from the treatments would potentially be adverse for special recreation visitors as well. The visibility of treatment areas would vary depending on the amount of hazard trees within the potential treatment areas; however, Design Criteria would be implemented to minimize those effects. Recreation areas that are within Very High or High Scenic Integrity Objectives and Preservation or Retention Visual Quality Objectives would have clumps of living trees left in openings to break up sight distances.

The implementation of the Proposed Action Alternative would potentially affect some special uses more than others, such as those that do not require immobile infrastructure versus those that do. These types of activities, such as outfitting, rendezvous and concerts, may be temporarily displaced during project implementation; however, events of this nature would be expected to be relocated to prevent conflict during the project implementation.

Cumulative Effects

The cumulative effects to recreational resources would be limited for this project due to the fact that the activities that would be utilized to alleviate hazardous conditions would improve site safety conditions. This effect would be recognized in a shorter timeframe than would be allowed through implementation of the No Action Alternative. The cumulative effect is that all areas that would receive treatment under the Proposed Action Alternative would likely be closed for a temporarily and would recover more quickly as well. This is

______United States Forest Service May 2010 Arapaho and Roosevelt, Routt, and White River National Forests Page 35 – Final – Environmental Assessment of the Emergency Power Line Clearing Project the case throughout the region where a systematic and developed plan has been implemented. The result is a temporary effect through closures during treatments causing displacement of users, followed by a reopening upon the rehabilitation of the sites which would be beneficial for users.

Similar types of activities are likely to be scheduled on other public lands throughout the region as well. The net result for the region as a whole would be similar to those for the three forests in that the temporary effects would be detrimental to the users of the areas; however, the recovery of the sites/areas would allow for future usage.

Changes within recreation sites as a whole are constant factors that require maintenance and improvements or alterations. Most administrative types of activities within recreation areas are in response to USFS requirements to provide safe environments for users and result from the changing natural environment. Some examples of other projects to which the Proposed Action Alternative would add cumulatively are the projects to remove hazards trees and fuel loads along roads, trails, and administrative sites (such as recreation sites) within the Arapaho and Roosevelt, Routt-Medicine Bow and White River National Forests, as well as other projects that have been proposed or approved within the region. The expected end result of the treatments that are being implemented from projects collectively, locally and throughout the region, would be that recreation areas/sites containing tree species that are susceptible to the ongoing bark beetle epidemic would change for the short term.

Section 3.15 provides a description of the other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects that may occur that would add to the cumulative effects of implementation of this alternative.

Forest Plan Consistency Both alternatives would follow Forest Plan direction for the management of forest resources.

3.2 Inventoried Roadless Areas Affected Environment

Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs) are undeveloped areas typically exceeding 5,000 contiguous acres that meet the minimum standards for wilderness areas under the Wilderness Act of 1964. The areas were inventoried over the last three decades during the USFS’s Roadless Area Review and Evaluation (RARE) process, subsequent assessments, or forest planning (USDA 2000). IRAs are those areas identified as part of a national effort and are in a set of inventoried roadless area maps contained in Forest Service Roadless Area Conservation, Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2, dated November 2000 (USDA 2001).

There are nine characteristics of roadless areas identified in 36 CFR Part 294 Special Areas, Roadless Area Conservation, Final Rule 2001, page 3245. The General Accounting Office document titled GAO-01-47 Forest Service Roadless Areas states that one or more of the nine specific characteristics should be protected.

“Characteristics of roadless areas that are to be protected are (1) soil, air, and water; (2) sources of public drinking water; (3) diversity of plant and animal communities; (4) habitat for threatened, endangered, candidate, and sensitive species and those species that depend on large undisturbed areas of land; (5) primitive, semiprimitive nonmotorized, and semiprimitive motorized classes of dispersed recreation; (6) reference landscapes for research, study, or interpretation; (7) landscape character and scenic integrity; (8) traditional cultural properties and sacred sites; and (9) other locally identified unique characteristics.”

Portions of the project area lie within IRAs in all three forests. Many of the areas proposed to be treated are distribution lines adjacent to private property and populated areas at or near the boundaries of IRAs. A combined total of 51 IRAs have existing power line corridors inside their boundaries. The total acreage of all IRAs that include power line corridors is approximately 584,110 acres of which the project area is approximately 3,580 acres or 0.6% of the total IRAs with power line corridors. Table 3.2-1 below illustrates information derived from GIS and Region 2 Vegetation databases showing the IRAs containing power line

______United States Forest Service May 2010 Arapaho and Roosevelt, Routt, and White River National Forests Page 36 – Final – Environmental Assessment of the Emergency Power Line Clearing Project corridors, the Proposed Project area within the IRAs, and approximate acreage of bark beetle infested species within the project area.

Table 3.2-1 Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs) within the Proposed Project Area (PPA) % of % of % of Total Acres in IRA in Acres IRA in Total IRA Name Forest IRA the PPA the Infested the PPA IRA Acres PPA Infested Infested Bard Creek 25,386 71 0% 0 0% 0% Byers Peak 10,233 337 3% 130 39% 1% Cache la Poudre Adjacent 2,886 2 0% 0 0% 0% Area Comanche Peak Adjacent 3,195 13 0% 4 28% 0% Area Copper Mountain 13,581 265 2% 242 91% 2% Crosier Mountain 7,205 11 0% 0 0% 0% Gold Run 6,565 16 0% 11 68% 0% Green Ridge –East 26,693 3 0% 0 0% 0% Grey Rock 12,150 21 0% 0 0% 0% ARNF Hell Canyon 5,924 12 0% 0 0% 0% James Peak Adjacent 890 62 7% 53 85% 6% Area Lion Gulch 6,576 1 0% 0 0% 0% Mount Evans Adjacent 10,239 1 0% 0 0% 0% Area North Lone Pine 9,459 55 1% 0 0% 0% Square Top Mountain 6,440 58 1% 0 0% 0% Troublesome 13,824 33 0% 33 100% 0% Vasquez Adjacent Area 6,126 21 0% 21 100% 0% Williams Fork 36,040 242 1% 242 100% 1% ARNF Total 18 203,411 1,227 1% 735 60% 0% Bushy Creek 11,393 4 0% 4 100% 0% Dome Peak RNF 36,845 16 0% 16 100% 0% Long Park 43,979 355 1% 124 35% 0% RNF Total 3 92,218 376 0% 144 38% 0% Assignation Ridge 13,266 5 0% 0 0% 0% Basalt Mountain A 14,043 137 1% 1 1% 0% Basalt Mountain B 7,428 15 0% 0 0% 0% Berry Creek 8,564 13 0% 0 0% 0% Buffer Mountain 11,034 455 4% 228 50% 2% Burnt Mountain 1,712 6 0% 0 0% 0% Crystal River 6,070 27 0% 0 0% 0% East Vail WRNF 8,024 6 0% 5 79% 0% Gypsum Creek 17,950 169 1% 62 37% 0% Hardscrabble 11,742 189 2% 34 18% 0% Hoosier Ridge 6,057 8 0% 0 0% 0% Little Grand Mesa 6,514 75 1% 41 54% 1% McClure Pass 2,207 1 0% 0 0% 0% Morapos B 14,057 8 0% 0 0% 0% Mormon Creek 3,030 52 2% 0 0% 0%

______United States Forest Service May 2010 Arapaho and Roosevelt, Routt, and White River National Forests Page 37 – Final – Environmental Assessment of the Emergency Power Line Clearing Project

% of % of % of Total Acres in IRA in Acres IRA in Total IRA Name Forest IRA the PPA the Infested the PPA IRA Acres PPA Infested Infested North Woody 8,520 3 0% 0 8% 0% Porcupine Peak 8,746 102 1% 29 29% 0% Ptarmigan A 2,674 68 3% 64 94% 2% Ptarmigan Hill A 13,069 25 0% 1 3% 0% Ptarmigan Hill B 7,709 3 0% 0 0% 0% Red Table 39,085 207 1% 15 7% 0% Reno Mountain 12,375 1 0% 0 0% 0% Sloan Peak 20,099 160 1% 8 5% 0% Spraddle Creek B 6,504 80 1% 52 65% 1% Tenderfoot Mountain 8,378 1 0% 1 100% 0% Tenmile 6,383 25 0% 1 3% 0% Wildcat Mountain B 2,322 41 2% 0 0% 0% Wildcat Mountain C 4,690 12 0% 0 2% 0% Williams Fork 6,684 71 1% 28 39% 0% Woods Lake 9,545 11 0% 0 2% 0% WRNF Total 30 288,481 1,977 1% 571 29% 0% Totals 51 584,110 3,580 1% 1,450 40% 0%

In the ARNF, 18 IRAs have power line corridors inside or at the edges of IRAs. These IRAs amount to 203,411 acres of which 1,227 acres are found in the project area making up 0.6% of the total area. Within the project area inside these IRAs, bark beetle infested areas totaled approximately 735 acres, or approximately 60% of the ARNF project area within IRAs.

In the RNF, the three IRAs that have power line corridors comprise approximately 92,218 acres of which 376 acres are effectively in the project area, representing 0.4% of the total area. Aerial surveys indicated bark beetle infestation in this project area spans 144 acres, or approximately 38% of the RNF project area within IRAs.

There are 30 IRAs with power line corridors in the WRNF, comprising approximately 288,481 acres of which approximately 1,977 acres fall in the project area, representing 0.7% of the total area for IRAs in the WRNF. Aerial bark beetle surveys reveal that approximately 571 acres, or 29% of the WRNF project area within IRAs, has been infested.

Environmental Consequences

The environmental consequences section includes three “sub-sections”: 1) General Effects; 2) Effects to Inventoried Roadless Area Features; and 3) IRA Conclusions.

3.2.1 General Effects

3.2.1.1 Alternative 1: No Action

Direct and Indirect Effects

Through implementation of the No Action Alternative, the utility companies would continue management practices as currently authorized. Otherwise, hazardous trees along power lines ROWs within IRAs would not be felled and removed except for those occurring immediately adjacent to sites or features that could be damaged from falling debris and exhibiting eminent danger. In such cases, treatments would occur as consistent with the LRMPs for IRAs.

______United States Forest Service May 2010 Arapaho and Roosevelt, Routt, and White River National Forests Page 38 – Final – Environmental Assessment of the Emergency Power Line Clearing Project

Dead trees would be expected to continue to stand for several years and fall by natural processes, adding to fuel loads and potential fire intensities. It is expected that IRAs would retain very few, if any, large diameter live lodgepole pines after the end of the bark beetle epidemic. Falling large trees may cause damage to power lines and the infrastructure that supports them, causing power loss to the public and possibly wildland fire events from arcing. In the event of fire, few or none of the nine roadless characteristics would be protected and any or all may be affected as specific vegetative communities would be expected to be altered. Threatened and endangered species habitat adjacent to the power lines may be altered by a potential fire event; water quality may be reduced due to erosion and sedimentation of unstable, unprotected soils. Wildland fire may also cause damage to cultural or historic properties outside the existing power line ROWs.

3.2.1.2 Alternative 2: Proposed Action

Direct and Indirect Effects

Within the three forests up to 1,450 acres would be likely to be treated through implementation of the Proposed Action Alternative. Of these acres approximately 735 occur within ARNF IRAs, 144 occur within RNF IRAs, and 571 occur within WRNF IRAs. Proposed treatments within IRAs would be required to be implemented as consistent with the LRMPs for each of the forests and the treatment methods applied within these areas would be limited in an effort to avoid changes to the character of these areas. Further protection of the characteristics of IRAs is provided through Design Criterion 39, which addresses the treatment of slash and debris resulting from tree removals without ground based equipment, and Design Criterion 57, which specifies that no temporary roads would be constructed within IRAs.

3.2.2 Effects to IRA Features

The effects of the alternatives on the nine features that characterize IRAs3 were considered and are discussed below:

1. High Quality or Undisturbed Soil and Air

Soil types and geologic formations within the IRAs are variable due to the distribution of the areas across the three forests. In general the bedrock geologies are granitic, with exception for those portions if IRAs that occur within the southwestern portions of the Proposed Project area that are sandstone in composition. The granitic features are not highly erodible and are resistant to weathering; however the sandstone features experience some increased rates of erosion when disturbed. Soils throughout the areas proposed for treatment are generally well drained and composed of a loams, clays, shales, and siltstones.

Air quality within the IRAs is generally high, however no Class I (high protection) areas are contained within the Proposed Project area. Some impacts to air quality occur, both within and adjacent to the IRAs, as a result of current and continued management strategies; however all past and current causes have been and are considered localized and temporary. No portions of the Proposed Project area are within areas that are currently in non-attainment for criteria pollutants.

No Action Alternative

Soil disturbance levels would not be expected to increase as a result of implementation of this alternative. When beetle killed trees fall they tend to break off at ground level, thus leaving the soils associated with the root systems of the trees in place (Lewis and Hartley, 2006). As the trees would begin to fall and accumulate on the forest floor they would provide extra protection from erosion through as the downed debris would aid in slowing run-off rates. In the event that a high intensity wildfire would occur, the rate of erosion would be expected to increase due to the lack of ground cover and the water repellency of post fire soils (Robichaud et al, 2003).

3 The nine characteristics are outlined in 36 CFR Part 294 Special Areas; Roadless Area Conservation; Final Rule 2001,page 3245.

______United States Forest Service May 2010 Arapaho and Roosevelt, Routt, and White River National Forests Page 39 – Final – Environmental Assessment of the Emergency Power Line Clearing Project

Air quality would not be expected to decrease measurably through the implementation of this alternative, except in the event of a catastrophic wildfire. In that event, some impacts to air quality would be expected to include ash and smoke being suspended in the air locally and possibly throughout the affected airshed(s). Catastrophic wildfires (i.e. the 1997 Hayman Fire), similar to those that may occur as a result of the abundant forest fuels resulting from the ongoing bark beetle epidemic, have been known to affect populations hundreds of miles away.

Proposed Action Alternative

Rates of erosion within the Proposed Project area would be expected to increase slightly as treatments would be implemented; however, these effects would be expected to be temporary and ceasing as vegetation would recover. Erosion rates would be expected to be minimized through the implementation of the proposed Design Criteria, which would provide for soil stabilization. Treatments within the IRAs would be expected to be small in size and fragmented in distribution, further minimizing the increases in erosion. In the event that a catastrophic wildfire would occur, the expected effects within the Proposed Project area would be reduced due to the removal of dead trees and reduction of fuel loads; however, erosion would be expected to occur, though not as great as would be expected as a result of implementation of the No Action Alternative.

Air quality within the Proposed Project area would be expected to be affected minimally and temporarily as a result of implementation of this alternative. Effects would result from the activities associated with removal operations, such as chainsaw use and dust created from tree felling and removal. Due to the mixing of air throughout the airshed(s), effects to the air quality in multiple airsheds may occur as a result of a wildfire. Though fuel loads would be reduced as a result of this alternative, regeneration of tree species within the stands would be expected to occur. As such, smoke and ash would be expected to result within the Proposed Project area in the event of a fire, with the degree of effects to smoke and ash production based upon the stage of regeneration.

2. Sources of Public Drinking Water

All three forests are known to contain sources of public drinking water within portions of IRAs. However, though portions of municipal watersheds are known to occur within the IRAs, not all portions of the Proposed Project area within IRAs are within municipal watersheds. Table 3.2-2(b) provides a listing of the IRAs that are located within areas that may influence public water supplies and that portion of the Proposed Project area that occurs within those areas as well.

The areas identified as being at risk for influence to public water supplies do not necessarily represent the entire watershed for each population center, but identifies the most sensitive portions of those watersheds. The source dataset for municipal watersheds that was used to develop this information was obtained from the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. This dataset was developed in an effort to identify those areas that would most likely be affected by changes to surface features resulting in changes in overland flow. The methodology for developing the source dataset was such that streams within five miles upstream of sensitive water sources were buffered by one-half mile and compiled for each five-mile area. These areas were then compared to the IRAs within the three forests and those portions of the Proposed Project area that were coincident in occurrence with both datasets were calculated. Tables 3.2-2(a & b) list the result of this data extraction.

Table 3.2-2(a) Public Water Supply Watersheds Identified within IRAs within the Proposed Project Area PWS Definition City/Town 1 City of Fort Collins Fort Collins 2 Pinewood Springs Water District Pinewood Springs Community 3 Town of Georgetown Georgetown 4 Climax – Henderson Mill Climax Mine – Henderson Mill 5 Eagle Spring Golf Club Eagle Spring Golf Club 6 Upper Eagle Regional Watershed Vail

______United States Forest Service May 2010 Arapaho and Roosevelt, Routt, and White River National Forests Page 40 – Final – Environmental Assessment of the Emergency Power Line Clearing Project

7 Keystone Summit Lodge Keystone Summit Lodge 8 Town of Red Cliff Red Cliff 9 Town of Dillon Dillon Abbreviations: PWS = Public Water Supply

Table 3.2-2(b) IRAs Containing Portions of the Proposed Project Area within Areas Identified as Sensitive to Changes for Public Water Supplies Acres Percentage of Acres % of IRA IRA PPA PPA Forest PWS IRA Name IRA in PWS in in PWS in IRA in in in PWS IRA PWS IRA MW the PPA 1 Grey Rock 12,150 1,792 15% 41% 21 11 1% 2 Lion Gulch 6,576 1,234 19% 36% 1 1 0% ARNF Mount Evans 3 10,239 207 2% 3% 1 1 1% Adjacent Area 4 Williams Fork 36,040 1,099 3% 22% 242 88 8%

RNF None None 0 0 0% 0% 0 0 0%

5 Berry Creek 8,564 852 10% 12% 13 6 1% 6 Buffer Mountain 11,034 936 8% 13% 455 16 2% 7 Porcupine Peak 8,746 2,838 32% 31% 102 63 2% WRNF 8* Ptarmigan Hill A 13,069 2,500 19% 27% 25 12 0% Tenderfoot 9** 8,378 4,470 53% 89% 1 1 0% Mountain

Totals All IRAs Above 114,796 15,928 14% 27% 862 198 1% Note: The Public Drinking Water Source information was provided by the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment and is sensitive in nature due to restrictions relative to Homeland Security. Abbreviations: IRA = Inventoried Roadless Area PPA = Proposed Project Area PWS = Public Water Supply Waterhed(s) * There are two watersheds that are relative to the Town of Red Cliff. The combined acreage of the watersheds is approximately 10,600; however only one of the watersheds occurs within an IRA on the forest. ** The Town of Dillon Watershed is contained within the Dillon Valley District Watershed; therefore the acreage potentially affected within the Town of Dillon will also potentially affect the Dillon Valley District Watershed.

No Action Alternative

The potential for wildfire ignition would not be alleviated through implementation of this alternative. The results could be that a fire would occur and associated run-off and further increased erosion would cause the water quality in these areas to be affected. However, in the absence of wildfire, the rates of erosion or run-off within these watersheds would not be expected to increase, thus the water quality would not be expected to be affected (Robichaud et al, 2003).

Proposed Action Alternative

There are approximately 101 acres of IRAs on the ARNF and 97 acres on the WRNF that occur within municipal watersheds and within the Proposed Project area. Proposed Design Criteria have been developed to restrict and guide the methodology that would be utilized to complete treatments that have been proposed for these areas. Through the utilization of the criteria, the potential for increased rates of erosion resulting from treatment operations would be minimized. As a result, there would not be any expected changes to water quality that would require significant alteration for water treatment. However, in the event of a catastrophic wildfire there would be a slightly lowered potential for increased rates of erosion and effects to water quality within the Proposed Project area.

______United States Forest Service May 2010 Arapaho and Roosevelt, Routt, and White River National Forests Page 41 – Final – Environmental Assessment of the Emergency Power Line Clearing Project

3. Diversity of Plant and Animal Communities

The forested cover types within the Proposed Project area is highly variable and is composed in some degree of every type of forested vegetation. According to the R2Veg databases for each forest (utilizing the Species tables) the greatest components of the forested vegetation are lodgepole pine, quaking aspen, Engelmann spruce, sub-alpine fir, ponderosa pine with all remaining vegetation being dominated by other species of timber or by other lifeform types (i.e. forbs, grasses, etc.). It is also notable that for all three forests, forested cover types do not compose the majority of the vegetative cover in IRAs. The majority of vegetative cover as a whole is dominated by other lifeform types. Where forested vegetative cover containing lodgepole pine as a component exists within the IRAs the trees are generally large in diameter (>5” DBH) and exhibiting extensive rates of infestation by bark beetles.

The IRAs on all three forests include habitat for nearly all species of wildlife that would be expected to be found on the national forests of Colorado. Some of the more high profile wildlife species that have habitat in IRAs across the three forests include mule deer, elk, moose, bighorn sheep, black bears, and mountain lions. The IRAs also include habitat for USFS Sensitive species, such as boreal toads, Colorado River cutthroat trout, northern goshawks, American martens, boreal owls, and olive-sided flycatchers. Nearly all IRAs contain habitat for Canada lynx, a federally endangered species.

No Action Alternative

Through implementation of this alternative, bark beetle damaged forested areas would persist. Over time (approximately 15 years from the time of death {Mitchell and Preisler 1998}) the trees would be expected to fall as a result of wind throw or simple structural decomposition. Some minimal damages to living vegetation would be expected to occur as trees fall with some living trees being knocked down as well. In areas where high concentrations of dead trees occur, the concentration of down woody debris would be expected to be high. This would also be expected to inhibit the recovery and regeneration of these species, specifically lodgepole pine. However, in areas where concentrations would be lower, the recovery of the forested vegetation would be more rapid. Furthermore, in areas where high concentrations of trees are allowed to cover the ground, the establishment of other species would be expected to be inhibited as well, thus slowing the recovery of vegetative cover in extensively damaged areas. However, areas that contain lower concentrations of fallen trees would be expected to exhibit the establishment of some other vegetative lifeforms and species as the forested vegetation recovers. Though some changes in plant species composition and diversity would be expected to occur on a site-by-site and localized basis, there would not be any expectation that changes in diversity would occur as a whole for the portions of IRAs inside or outside of the Proposed Project area.

The expected effects to fish and wildlife species would be expected to be the same as those provided within the BAs, BEs, and MIS reports and summarized on pages 51-66 and 110-127, respectively, of this EA. Without regard for the Proposed Project, the bark beetle epidemic is expected to continue to progress and infest the remaining large size, mature and old aged lodgepole pine forests as well as some occurrences of mortality in other timber types. The end result is expected to be a preponderance of large woody debris and snags across the forest floor of all three forests and throughout the portions of the IRAs that contain lodgepole pine as a component, especially those where lodgepole is a major component of the forested cover. The abundance of these habitat components has not been studied on such a large scale, but is expected to provide unique habitat opportunities for cavity-nesting, denning, and forage for many species. The species composition of areas would be expected to change in some manner as a result of these changes in habitat conditions.

Proposed Action Alternative

As a result of implementation of this alternative, hazardous trees would be felled and left in place; slash and debris would be lopped and scattered. Plant communities would be affected by changes in shading from woody debris on the forest floor. Other than the method that would cause the trees to fall or be felled, the effects to vegetative communities through this alternative would be expected to be the same as those discussed for the No Action Alternative. Plant species that need more light would not be expected to

______United States Forest Service May 2010 Arapaho and Roosevelt, Routt, and White River National Forests Page 42 – Final – Environmental Assessment of the Emergency Power Line Clearing Project increase because tree trunks lying on the forest floor would create a shaded condition similar to a closed forest canopy. None of the IRAs would be expected to experience much change in plant community diversity. The changes that will occur would be expected to occur as a result of either alternative.

Similar to plant communities, this alternative would not be expected to affect wildlife species either, except with respect to some effects resulting from proposed treatment activities. The noises and activities that would be expected to result from treatments may temporarily displace some individuals of some species as treatments are completed. Treatments that would be expected to occur would be fragmented and disconnected from one another as a result of the mosaic which composes the forested vegetation. There would be little expectation that wildlife species within IRAs would be affected as a result of implementation of this alternative due to the following factors: 1) timber mortality is occurring without regard for treatments; 2) activities would be temporary; and 3) treatments would be largely disconnected.

4. Habitat for Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, and Sensitive (TEPS) Species and those Species Dependent on Large Undisturbed Areas of Land.

There are no known threatened or endangered plant species that occur within the portions of the IRAs that are within the Proposed Project area. However, there is one Region 2 Sensitive plant species (Weber’s scarlet gilia, Ipomopsis aggregata ssp. weberi) that has been identified at four different locations within the area proposed for treatment within the Long Park IRA on the RNF. Several other plant species of local concern (SOLC) have also been documented to occur within the proposed treatment area on the ARNF (one occurrence) and the RNF. There are no documented occurrences of sensitive or SOLC plant species in the WRNF. In total, nine occurrences of five species are documented within the IRAs.

Table 3.2-3 provides a listing of the plant species (Sensitive and SOLC) that are documented to occur within the areas proposed for treatment within IRAs on the three forests. It is notable that other occurrences of these species or other species may be present, though not yet documented, within the areas proposed for treatment within IRAs. Also refer to Section 3.5 for the description of the potential effects to floral species as a result of the Proposed Project.

Table 3.2-3 Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, Sensitive, and Local Concern Plant Species Documented Within Inventoried Roadless Areas Data Common Name Scientific Name Status Forest Year Sites Source Carex magellanica Boreal Bog Sedge NRIS SOLC RNF 2007 1 ssp. Irrigua Weber's Scarlet Ipomopsis aggregata CNHP / Sensitive RNF 2007 4 Gilia* ssp. Weberi NRIS Northern Polystichum lonchitis NRIS SOLC RNF 2007 1 Hollyfern Sparganium natan Small Bur-Reed NRIS SOLC RNF 2007 2 var. minimum Clustered Lady's- Cypripedium CNHP SOLC ARNF 1947 1 slipper fasciculatum * Weber's Scarlet Gilia has been documented to occur within the proposed treatment areas and within two datasets: National Resource Inventory System (NRIS) and Colorado Natural Heritage Program (CNHP). There are four documented occurrences within the CNHP database and one of them is also documented within the Long Park IRA of the RNF, with the remaining three occurrences located outside of the IRAs. It should also be noted that two of the occurrences from each of the datasets are the same; however, they are located northwest of the IRA boundary. All occurrences were documented during 2007, with exception to the two original occurrences identified outside of the IRA (2001) and confirmed in the NRIS database during 2007.

Known and potential habitat is available for nearly all wildlife and fish TEPS and Management Indicator Species (MIS) within the Proposed Project area within the IRAs for the three forests, including Canada lynx, Mexican spotted owl, and Preble’s meadow jumping mouse, which are each federally endangered species. See Sections 3.4 and 3.14 for the descriptions of fish and wildlife species analyzed in this EA.

______United States Forest Service May 2010 Arapaho and Roosevelt, Routt, and White River National Forests Page 43 – Final – Environmental Assessment of the Emergency Power Line Clearing Project

No Action Alternative

The effects of implementation of the No Action Alternative for TEPS or other flora and fauna species would be similar to those described for Characteristic 3 above. Species diversity would be likely to be altered somewhat as a result of the progression of the bark beetle epidemic. These changes may alter the habitats of some species if they are present; however, the extent to which those habitats or individuals of those species would be affected is unknown.

Proposed Action Alternative

The effects of implementation of this alternative for TEPS or other flora and fauna species would be similar to those described for Characteristic 3 above. Changes to habitat for species within IRAs would be expected to change as the epidemic continues to progress. The Proposed Action Alternative proposes to remove only those trees that would be considered a hazard to the power lines. As such, the overall habitat for these species would be minimally affected due to the fact that none of the species exist only within the areas proposed for treatments within IRAs, nor do they exist only with the IRAs considered. The potential effects to TEPS or other species would be prevented or minimized through the utilization of the Design Criteria that were developed for the Proposed Project. The habitat for these species would be expected to be similarly affected by implementation of the No Action Alternative, except with respect to the timeframe in which the trees would be felled or removed and the methodology used to complete those actions.

5. Primitive, Semi-primitive, Non-motorized, and Semi-primitive Motorized Classes of Dispersed Recreation.

Recreation opportunities in IRAs are managed according to assigned Management Area (MA) prescriptions. Analysis area IRAs include an array of different MA prescriptions that allow for either winter motorized use with summer non-motorized use, year-round motorized use, or year-round non-motorized use. Winter motorized activities generally include snowmobiling while summer motorized activities include on-road vehicle use and off-road vehicle use on designated roads and trails. Winter non-motorized activities include cross-country skiing, snowshoeing, and sledding while summer non-motorized activities include hiking and biking.

No Action Alternative

Implementation of this alternative would be expected to result in the closure of some areas due to the persistence of hazard trees along power lines. These closures may occur because some of the areas that would be used for these activities have some interface with power line corridors. These types of activities may be highly influenced by the occurrence of a wildfire, which would be expected to alter some aspects of the landscape and would be more likely to occur through implementation of this alternative.

Proposed Action Alternative

Implementation of this alternative would be expected to provide some reduction in the likelihood that recreational use would need to be restricted, specifically with respect to closures that could result from hazardous conditions occurring within the areas proposed for treatment. It would not be expected that the treatment of these areas would cause anything other than some temporary access disruptions for recreational opportunities during treatment activities.

6. Reference Landscapes

Reference landscapes are generally large undisturbed areas that provide the basis for developing management strategies and developing an understanding of what an undisturbed landscape looks like and how it might function. Reference landscapes need to be larger than the predicted size of natural disturbances (e.g., fire, insects, diseases) to provide information to managers on the scale and effect of natural disturbances.

______United States Forest Service May 2010 Arapaho and Roosevelt, Routt, and White River National Forests Page 44 – Final – Environmental Assessment of the Emergency Power Line Clearing Project

No Action Alternative

Implementation of this alternative would not be expected to affect the overall character of the landscape for the IRAs. The trees would be allowed to fall naturally through this alternative and treatment activities would not be implemented. Therefore the landscape would remain unchanged from its current state.

Proposed Action Alternative

The implementation of the Proposed Action Alternative would be expected to have a negligible effect on the landscape due to the fact that the only areas proposed for treatment would be those areas that would fall naturally as a result of the current bark beetle epidemic. The process for felling would be expected to occur more quickly; however the end result would be the same.

7. Natural Appearing Landscapes and High Scenic Quality

The areas within IRAs that are also within the Proposed Project area include visual quality objectives and scenic integrity objectives of every description.

No Action and Proposed Action Alternatives

The scenic quality of the IRAs would be expected to be affected the same for either alternative. Due to the fact that the landscape in the areas contains an abundance of bark beetle mortality and due to the fact that these trees would fall by either means (mechanically or naturally), there would be no expectation that the results of either alternative would be any different from the other, except with respect to the timeframe in which the trees would be felled.

8. Traditional Cultural Properties and Sacred Sites

Traditional cultural properties are places, sites, structures, or objects that have played an important role in the cultural history of a group. Sacred sites are places that have special religious significance to a group. Section 3.8 of this EA provides a full description of the potential effects to Heritage Resources for the Proposed Project. No traditional cultural properties or sacred sites have been identified within the portions of IRAs that would potentially be treated as a portion of the Proposed Project.

No Action and Proposed Action Alternatives

Due to the fact that no known resources of these types are present within the areas proposed for treatments within IRAs, there would be no expectation that any effects would occur. However, if properties were to be discovered, Design Criteria have been developed to avoid effects to the resources.

9. Other Locally Identified Unique Characteristics.

Unique characteristics of IRAs would be features that are specific to the area contained within the IRA(s). These characteristics could be physical, biological, or cultural features. Examples of these types of features would be specific habitats, such as fens. Fens only occur in certain areas and under certain conditions and they take thousands of years to develop. Another example would be similar specific or rare vegetative communities.

No Action Alternative

Some effects to the unique characteristics of these IRAs may occur as a result of the degradation of bark beetle damaged forested vegetation. These damaged areas could impact some resources as they fall, such as to inundate a fen, or fall in such a way as to alter the hydrology of a fen. While it would not be expected that much opportunity for such characteristics would exist within such close proximity to existing power line infrastructure, some resources could exist.

______United States Forest Service May 2010 Arapaho and Roosevelt, Routt, and White River National Forests Page 45 – Final – Environmental Assessment of the Emergency Power Line Clearing Project

Proposed Action Alternative Though the unique areas that help characterize IRAs would not be expected to occur within a close proximity to power line infrastructure, some potential exists that they may occur and could be affected by implementation of this alternative. Design Criteria have been developed to avoid impacts to unique features, such as fens. As such, no effects beyond those that would be expected to occur through implementation of the No Action Alternative would be expected to occur.

3.2.3 IRA Conclusions

The information presented above indicates that neither the No Action Alternative nor the Proposed Action Alternative would result in a significant adverse impact to any of the nine features that characterize IRAs.

Table 3.2-4 provides a summary of the comparison of the two alternatives and expected effects as described in Section 3.2.2.

Table 3.2-4 Comparison of Expected Effects to Inventoried Roadless Area Characteristics Possible Effects Possible Effects Characteristic No Action Alternative Proposed Action Alternative As treatment areas are small and Design Natural erosional processes would Criteria would be implemented for soil continue. A large scale fire, if one stabilization, effects would be expected to occurred, could greatly increase erosion be minimal. Risk of erosion and increased Soil, Water, Air and sedimentation. turbidity due to fire event would be slightly reduced. Air quality would be expected to remain relatively unchanged. Air quality would not be expected to remain relatively unchanged. Design Criteria would minimize soil Natural sedimentation processes would movement into the water supply and Public Drinking continue. A large scale fire, if one provide soil stabilization. Effects from fire Water occurred, could greatly increase erosion would be lessened slightly as a result of and sedimentation. the removal of ignition sources and some fuels. Plant/Animal Species diversity would not be likely to Changes would be likely to occur as a result of the bark beetle epidemic with or Communities change due to cover type changes. without treatment. Slight changes to TEPS habitats would be Slight changes to TEPS habitats would expected to occur. Habitat may be T&E Habitat be expected to occur. temporarily impacted by the human disturbance of treatment activities. Some closures may result in areas Dispersed Reduced potential for access closure as where treatments would not occur due hazards would be removed; however, Recreation to hazardous conditions. access may be limited on a temporarily. Reference areas should be large enough Reference Negligible effect; treatments would mimic to sustain natural disturbances (insect, the natural process as dead trees begin to Landscapes fire) with little effect. fall naturally. Reduced due to large numbers of dead Reduced due to large numbers of dead Scenic Integrity trees. trees. No current resource concerns; however, Design Criteria specific to cultural No current resource concerns. Cultural Properties properties would allow potential effects to be avoided if properties were to be located. Locally Unique Some effects may occur as trees fall Potential effects resulting from treatments would be avoided through the use of the Characteristics naturally. Design Criteria.

______United States Forest Service May 2010 Arapaho and Roosevelt, Routt, and White River National Forests Page 46 – Final – Environmental Assessment of the Emergency Power Line Clearing Project

Forest Plan Consistency

Consistency with the Forest Plan direction is based on effective implementation of the appropriate Design Criteria.

3.3 Hydrology

Affected Environment

The ARNF is located on the Front Range and Western Slope of the Southern Rocky Mountains. The forest is located at the headwaters of three major watersheds: the North Platte River watershed, the South Platte River watershed and the Colorado River Headwaters watershed.

Figure 3-3 Rivers and Major Watersheds of North Central Colorado

______United States Forest Service May 2010 Arapaho and Roosevelt, Routt, and White River National Forests Page 47 – Final – Environmental Assessment of the Emergency Power Line Clearing Project

The RNF is located to the west of the ARNF and north of the WRNF and is located on both sides of the Continental Divide. The RNF is also located within three of northern Colorado’s major watersheds: the Colorado River Headwaters, the North Platte River and the Yampa-White River watersheds.

The WRNF is located to the west of the ARNF and to the south of the RNF. The majority of the WRNF is located in the Colorado River Headwaters, but the northwestern portion of the forest is located in the Yampa- White River watershed. (Watershed Designation HUC3)

Figure 3-3, Rivers and Major Watersheds of North Central Colorado, illustrates the location of the three forests with respect to the major watersheds and rivers.

Based on available GIS data as provided by the USFS, there are over 24,450 miles of rivers and streams within this area. Of these waterways, there are 44 miles of rivers, 31 miles of perennial streams, 30 miles of intermittent streams, and 10 miles of ephemeral streams in the project area. The total number of perennial and intermittent stream crossings within the Proposed Project area is 367. There is no expectation for the construction of additional stream crossings; however the Riparian Areas/Aquatic Protection Design Criteria would be followed in this unlikely event.

There are a number of large lakes and reservoirs in the three forests. The power line project area is adjacent to the following lakes and reservoirs:

• Lake Granby • Grand Lake • Willow Creek Reservoir • Lower Cabin Creek Hydroelectric Reservoir • Manchester Lake • Muddy Pass Lake • Dillon Reservoir • Green Mountain Reservoir • Old Dillon Reservoir • Ruedi Reservoir • Tames #2 Reservoir

Floodplains and Riparian Zones

Floodplains generally are areas of low, level ground present on both sides of a stream channel that are subject to either periodic or infrequent inundation by flood waters. Floodplains are typically the result of lateral erosion and deposition that occurs as a river valley is widened. Inundation dangers associated with floodplains have prompted federal, state, and local legislation limiting the development in these areas to recreation, agriculture, and preservation activities. Floodplains are regulated by Executive Order (EO) 11988 which requires federal agencies to restore and preserve the natural and beneficial values served by floodplains and to reduce the risk of flood storage loss.

Floodplains within the project area are associated with most perennial and intermittent streams, and tend to be quite narrow. Floodplain widths are largely influenced by valley morphology as well as by stream size. Broad, low-gradient valleys typically have a broader floodplain than steep, narrow valleys. Many of the affected stream reaches occur in steep, narrow valleys in the mountains. Therefore, many of the floodplains within the project area are of limited extent.

Riparian areas are associated with lands adjacent to perennial and some intermittent streams. There are approximately 161,003 acres of riparian areas within the three forests of which 786 acres may be affected by the Proposed Project.

______United States Forest Service May 2010 Arapaho and Roosevelt, Routt, and White River National Forests Page 48 – Final – Environmental Assessment of the Emergency Power Line Clearing Project

Wetlands

EO 11990 (Protection of Wetlands) requires federal agencies to take action to minimize the destruction, loss or degradation of wetlands, and to preserve and enhance the beneficial values of wetlands.

There are approximately 784 acres of mapped wetlands within the three forests that may be directly affected by project implementation. It is important to note that an accurate inventory of wetlands is not available for the three forests and wetland data has been acquired from the National Wetlands Inventory where available. It is therefore reasonable to assume that unmapped wetlands would be discovered during field examinations.

Wetlands are often present in the form of fens. Fens are peat lands that support unique plant communities. Peat forms slowly which means that fens cannot be constructed and are, therefore, considered irreplaceable.

Environmental Consequences

3.3.1 Alternative 1: No Action

Direct and Indirect Effects

Direct and indirect effects of the No Action Alternative on the hydrologic conditions would be generally confined to sediment loading, and streambed and bank instability.

Under the No Action Alternative, utility companies would continue their management practices as currently authorized. Access from maintenance vehicles would continue at the existing rates along the existing power line access roads, including areas where the roads cross riparian areas and wetlands. Sedimentation would also be expected to continue to occur at the existing rate due to regular power line operations and maintenance, and vehicles crossing streams. Thus, the effects on water quality from increased sedimentation or turbidity associated with these ground disturbing activities would be expected to continue at existing rates.

Ongoing accumulations of dead trees would be expected to result in a greater potential for large wood and debris from fallen trees to block culvert inlets, and there are 367 stream crossings in the Proposed Project area. Blockage of the stream crossings could lead to failures within the drainages and stream systems. Such failures could cause erosion as they bypass the existing culvert and create a new, less stable path. Further damage may result as road fills erode and the culvert structures are lost. These failures would increase the sediment loading to the stream network. However, it should be noted that the road systems within the RNF and WRNF have been assessed for the removal of hazard trees and the ARNF roads are being assessed. Therefore, blockages that may occur within these areas would be likely to be mitigated through removal activities on all three forests, though some areas along portions of those roads may not be treated through those projects.

There would be little to no increase in direct effects to bed and bank stability under this alternative. Impacts to bed and bank stability would likely continue to occur at the existing level due to regular power line operations and vehicles crossing streams. However, an indirect effect may be a slight increase in the potential loss of bed and bank stability due to culvert blockages and failures. Such occurrences would be expected to redirect flows such that bed and bank stability may be affected.

The No Action Alternative also presents a potentially detrimental indirect effect to water quality and community water supplies. Since the potential for a wildfire would be slightly higher under this alternative, it may result in an increased risk of degrading water quality through ash and sediment loading.

Cumulative Effects

The primary cumulative effects of the No Action Alternative on hydrologic resources include increased sediment loading and decreased bank stability. Over time, dead trees falling over could cause culvert blockages, which could result in culvert failures. Though GIS data indicates 367 stream crossings in the

______United States Forest Service May 2010 Arapaho and Roosevelt, Routt, and White River National Forests Page 49 – Final – Environmental Assessment of the Emergency Power Line Clearing Project proposed treatment area, the issue of culvert blockage by beetle killed fallen trees is of greater concern for the road networks of the three forests as a whole, rather than just in the power line areas. Culvert failures would likely cause increased sedimentation to the stream network, which could affect community water supplies, and decrease bed and bank stability.

Under the No Action Alternative, the negative cumulative effects of ash and sediment loading would be exacerbated due to the slightly increased likelihood of fires, which could be expected due to existing fuel loads and hindered firefighter access.

Section 3.15 provides a description of the other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects that may occur that would add to the cumulative effects of implementation of this alternative.

3.3.2 Alternative 2: Proposed Action

Direct and Indirect Effects

Direct and indirect effects resulting from implementation of the Proposed Action Alternative would be expected for hydrologic resources. These resources include riparian areas, wetlands, and floodplains. There are approximately 786 acres of riparian areas and 784 acres of mapped wetlands within the proposed treatment areas that may be affected by this project. This accounts for 6.2% of the Proposed Project area acreage and 8.9% of the total acreage of the expected treatment area. Once again, the wetland inventory data provided is an estimate and the issues of wetlands must be further addressed in the field if the Proposed Action Alternative were to be implemented.

3.3.2.1 Riparian Areas and Wetlands

While extensive effects to these resources would not be expected, minor effects to riparian areas and wetlands would be expected as a result of implementation of the Proposed Action Alternative. Effects may include soil disturbance and compaction, as well as plant life disturbance or destruction. Removing trees around a wetland or riparian area may also increase the sediment load to that wetland or riparian area until re-vegetation occurs. These effects would be mitigated through utilization of the Design Criteria that was developed as a part of the Proposed Action Alternative.

Treatment areas would be accessed by existing state, county and NFS roads or through the development of temporary roads. No direct effects to riparian areas or wetlands along these routes would be expected. Equipment access along the existing power line access roads may result in minor temporary effects to riparian areas and wetlands because these roads are relatively primitive and may need to be improved to allow access for large equipment. Soils Design Criteria have been developed to minimize or eliminate the potential effects of temporary road improvements.

Indirect effects to wetlands are not anticipated as a result of this project. Removal of some trees from the 100-foot wetland buffers, when it can be done without ground-based equipment, is expected to have little or no effect on overall wetland function. Furthermore, fens/wetlands would also be protected through implementation of Design Criteria developed for the Proposed Project.

3.3.2.2 Streams and Floodplains

Effects within floodplains would include the potential for increased sediment delivery to streams from removal of trees and equipment access. Direct effects may result from ground disturbance associated with providing access to the project area as well as with cutting or removal of trees with ground-based equipment. This would be especially apparent in areas where equipment may cross streams. Indirect effects may include a temporary increase in sediment loading until vegetation is reestablished on disturbed soils.

No new specified roads would be constructed; however, temporary roads and excavated skid trails would be limited. As previously stated, existing state, county and USFS roads would be used to access the proposed treatment areas. Little to no effects on sedimentation along these routes would be expected because these

______United States Forest Service May 2010 Arapaho and Roosevelt, Routt, and White River National Forests Page 50 – Final – Environmental Assessment of the Emergency Power Line Clearing Project roads generally have culverts at stream crossings. Equipment access along the more primitive existing power line access roads may result in temporary increases in sedimentation, especially in areas where no culverts exist at crossings or in areas that would need to be improved for equipment crossings. These effects would likely be to occur only during use and recovery of the areas and would be minimized by following the established Design Criteria and BMPs, which have been shown to be effective in reducing erosion and sedimentation. While some erosion may occur and deliver sediment to some streams, the effects would be expected to be minor, localized, and temporary.

Where temporary roads would be needed, FS Representatives would be required to designate suitable areas and the proper use of the Design Criteria as well as BMPs and WCPs would mitigate the potential effects of their construction and use.

The past effects of road building would not be exacerbated with implementation of the Proposed Action Alternative. Removal of hazardous or fallen trees within the active channel upstream of culverts would minimize future culvert blockages and the potential for culvert failures within the project area. This would reduce the potential for increased sedimentation to the stream network which would help to maintain bed and bank stability, and minimize effects to community water supplies.

The Proposed Action would be expected to have minor effects on streambed or bank stability as hazardous trees adjacent to streams may be cut down and/or removed. Stumps and root masses providing stream bank stability would remain in place. Hazardous trees would be expected to begin falling over the next 15 years if no action were to be taken (Mitchell and Preisler 1998). Cutting a hazardous tree prior to its falling would be likely to retain the stump/root masses in place longer and provide more stream bank protection than if the trees were to fall over and pull the root mass away from the stream bank. However, streambed and bank stability would likely suffer adverse effects through use of heavy equipment and increased vehicle access during implementation of the Proposed Project. The Proposed Project Design Criteria and BMPs would be utilized to effectively protect streambed and bank stability, which limit or preclude the use of heavy equipment in and near streams.

Implementation of the Proposed Action Alternative would contribute to beneficial effects as well. The potential extent and severity of a catastrophic wildfire would be slightly reduced through the implementation of this alternative for a number of reasons. Removing the hazardous trees would reduce the potential for wildfires caused by hazardous trees falling onto the power lines. If a wildfire were to start through other means, the reduction of hazardous fuel loading would decrease the severity of the fire where treatments would have occurred. The removal of the hazardous trees in the vicinity of the power lines would also create firebreaks along the power line corridors and would benefit firefighter access in those corridors. This would lower potential for adverse effects to water quality caused by increased stream sedimentation and loss of streambed and bank stability that can occur following wildfire.

Cumulative Effects

Through implementation of the Proposed Action Alternative some cumulative effects would be expected to occur through the stabilization of soils within the Proposed Project area. Over the short-term (until vegetation could be re-established in treated areas) some erosion would be expected to occur; however, such erosion would be expected to be minimized through the use of BMPs and through adherence to the Water Conservation Practices Handbook (WCPH).

However, many other projects are planned or are being implemented for the removal of hazard trees along similar areas. Two such projects are known to be occurring on the RNF and WRNF as well as a third project which is currently being planned on the ANRF. As such, implementation of those projects would be expected to experience similar effects as those listed above. Those projects that are not occurring on federal lands may not comply with all management practices that are required for the management of federal lands. On those lands increases in erosion may exceed that on federal lands.

Erosion related to this project would be expected to contribute to the overall cumulative effects to water features throughout the region. The potential effects listed above would be additive to all of those past,

______United States Forest Service May 2010 Arapaho and Roosevelt, Routt, and White River National Forests Page 51 – Final – Environmental Assessment of the Emergency Power Line Clearing Project present and future activities described in Section 3.15, which includes projects occurring within the watersheds on the east and west sides of the Continental Divide. However, as stated above, through the use of BMPs and through adherence to the WCPH, the effects of the implementation of the Proposed Action Alternative would be expected to be minimal and short in duration.

Forest Plan Consistency

Consistency with the Forest Plan direction is based on effective implementation of the appropriate Design Criteria.

Consistency with Other Regulations

Both alternatives would comply with the Clean Water Act and Colorado State Water Quality Standards with the use of BMPs planning and a compliance monitoring program, and are consistent with the Wetlands/Floodplains Executive Orders.

3.4 Amphibians, Fisheries and Aquatic Habitats

Affected Environment

This section is presented by grouping the resources for each of the three forests according to the significance of their locality and status. Therefore this section presents each resource according to the forest in which they are considered and then grouped according to their status as a management indicator species (MIS), USFS Region 2 Sensitive species, or Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, or Candidate (TEPC) species.

Amphibians and fish species occur in various aquatic and wetland habitats throughout the ARNF, RNF, and the WRNF. These habitats include streams, creeks, lakes, ponds, and occasionally bogs, which are all known to occur within the project area. Table 3.4-1 provides information on the aquatic habitats within the three forests. The values provided for rivers and streams include all perennial and intermittent streams within the Proposed Project area.

Table 3.4-1 Rivers/Streams, Wetland, and Riparian Areas in the Proposed Project Area Rivers/Streams within the Project Area Forest Distribution Lines (Miles) Transmission Lines (Miles) Total (Miles) ARNF 18.5 19.0 37.5 RNF 1.6 16.2 17.8 WRNF 24.7 35.1 59.8 Total Miles 115.1 Acreage of Wetland Areas within the Project Area Total Acres in the Distribution Lines Transmission Lines Forest Total (Acres) Forest (Acres) (Acres) ARNF 24,811 157 136 293 RNF 31,966 40 120 160 WRNF 44,515 168 163 331 Total Acres 784 Acreage of Riparian Areas within the Project Area Forest Total Acres Distribution Lines Transmission Lines Total (Acres) ARNF 49,997 117 112 229 RNF 49,616 47 81 128 WRNF 61,321 190 239 429 Total Acres 786

A Biological Assessment (BA) has been prepared for each of the three forests, which includes the TEPC aquatic faunal species that occurs on or within the areas potentially affected by the Proposed Project. A

______United States Forest Service May 2010 Arapaho and Roosevelt, Routt, and White River National Forests Page 52 – Final – Environmental Assessment of the Emergency Power Line Clearing Project

Biological Evaluation (BE) has also been prepared for each of the three forests covering the Region 2 sensitive aquatic faunal species that occurs or potentially occurs within the areas potentially affected by the Proposed Project. Lastly, a Management Indicator Species (MIS) report for aquatic MIS that occur or potentially occur within the area that could be affected has been prepared for each of the three forests as well. The BA, BE, and MIS report for each of the forests’ aquatic faunal species considered is available as a portion of the administrative record at the appropriate Forest Supervisor’s office.

Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forest

Management Indicator Species (MIS)

MIS species are used to assess influences or impacts to fish and amphibian species from changes in habitat composition, structure, or function due to land and resource management activities. Aquatic MIS for the ARNF include the greenback cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarkii stomias) (GBCT), Colorado River cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarkii pleuriticus) (CRCT), brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis), brown trout (Salmo trutta), rainbow trout (Onchorhynchus mykiss), and boreal toad (Anaxyrus boreas boreas).

Region 2 Sensitive Species

The Rocky Mountain Region of the USFS (Region 2) Endangered, Threatened, Proposed, and Sensitive Species list, (May 8, 2009) was reviewed to determine if any sensitive fish and amphibian species would potentially occur within the Proposed Project area. This review determined that four sensitive aquatic species are known to occur or are potentially present in the Proposed Project area. The Colorado River cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarkii pleuriticus), mountain sucker (Catostomus platyrhynchus), boreal toad (Anaxyrus boreas boreas), and the northern leopard frog (Lithobates pipiens) are sensitive species that have potential to be affected due to species being present or suitable habitat being present within the project area.

Table 3.4-2 identifies the preferred habitats of the MIS and sensitive species, qualifies their presence, and indicates their management status within the ARNF portion of the Proposed Project area.

The CRCT is known to occur in three streams within the portion of the Proposed Project that occurs within the ARNF and these streams are identified by their intersection with either a transmission or distribution line. Ute Creek and Mcqueary Creek are located in Grand County and intersect a transmission line. These two streams are also CRCT conservation populations. A conservation population is a CRCT population whose genetic integrity has been determined to be greater than 99% pure and is managed to preserve the historical genome and/or unique genetic, ecological, and/or behavioral characteristics (CRCT Coordination Team 2006). Cabin Creek, located within Grand County, is not a conservation population but is a stream that contains CRCT and intersects a distribution line. This analysis is based on data provided by the USDA Forest Service “CRCT_GBCT Distributions” Geodatabase, updated April 2009.

Amphibian distribution data was obtained from the Colorado Division of Wildlife (Tina Jackson 2009) and used for the analysis of the boreal toad distribution across the three forests. Within the ARNF project area there are a total of two known boreal toad breeding sites: Silverdale and Vintage. Either a distribution or transmission line lies within a 100-meter radius of these breeding sites. The northern leopard frog occurs within the ARNF but not within 100 meters of any transmission or distribution lines. Some locations near the Proposed Project area where populations exist include, Poudre Canyon, Rollinsville, Shadow Mountain Lake, and Dowdy Lake.

Table 3.4-2 Region 2 Sensitive Species and Management Indicator Species (MIS) that Occur within the Proposed Project Area for the Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests Common Region 2 Scientific Name Habitat Type Presence* MIS Name Sensitive Cold, clear, gravelly Greenback Oncorhynchus headwater streams and Yes No Yes cutthroat trout clarkii stomias mountain lakes

______United States Forest Service May 2010 Arapaho and Roosevelt, Routt, and White River National Forests Page 53 – Final – Environmental Assessment of the Emergency Power Line Clearing Project

Common Region 2 Scientific Name Habitat Type Presence* MIS Name Sensitive Colorado Oncorhynchus Isolated, headwater River cutthroat clarkii streams and lakes with Yes Yes Yes trout pleuriticus cold temperatures Cold, clear, gravelly Salvelinus Brook trout headwater streams and Yes No Yes fontinalis mountain lakes Cold and cool water Brown trout Salmo trutta streams, rivers, and Yes No Yes lakes Cold, clear, gravelly Oncorhynchus Rainbow trout headwater streams and Yes No Yes mykiss mountain lakes Large warm-water Flannelmouth Catostomus streams and rivers of No Yes No sucker latipinnis western Colorado Glacial scour lakes, Couesius rivers, and streams Lake chub No Yes No plumbeus with clear cold water and gravel bottoms Cold water creeks and Mountain Catostomus small to medium rivers Yes Yes No sucker platyrhynchus with cobble gravel and sand substrate. Marshes, wet meadows, streams, shallow-water Anaxyrus boreas Boreal toad edges of beaver ponds Yes Yes Yes boreas and lakes interspersed with subalpine forests Wet meadows, banks and seasonally flooded areas near streams and Northern Lithobates lakes, marshes, ponds, Habitat Yes No leopard frog pipiens beaver ponds, lakes rivers, and irrigation ditches Rocky Cold mountain lakes Acroloxus Mountain and occasionally very No Yes No coloradensis capshell snail slow-moving rivers. Sedge wetlands, adjoining grassy Lithobates meadows, willow bogs, Wood frog Habitat Yes No sylvatica moist and humid coniferous forests, and aspen groves * Presence values are No = no presence of the species or its habitat in the Proposed Project area or area potentially affected, Yes = presence of the species and its habitat within the Proposed Project area or area potentially affected, Habitat = indicates that suitable habitat is present within the Proposed Project area or area potentially affected.

Federally Listed Species

A review of the Rocky Mountain Region Endangered, Threatened, Proposed, and Sensitive Species List (January 2010) was conducted to determine if any federally listed fish species occurred or had preferred habitat within the Proposed Project area. It was determined that one federally endangered fish species, GBCT, occurred or had habitat within the Proposed Project area.

______United States Forest Service May 2010 Arapaho and Roosevelt, Routt, and White River National Forests Page 54 – Final – Environmental Assessment of the Emergency Power Line Clearing Project

The GBCT occurs within Little Vasquez Creek which intersects a distribution line located in the Proposed Project area. In addition, many other streams occur adjacent to or near the project area that may potentially sustain or support GBCT. Little Vasquez Creek and these other streams are vulnerable to disturbance due to habitat degradation or excessive sedimentation that has previously occurred. This has resulted in the reduction in the quality and quantity of over-winter, rearing, and spawning habitats necessary for life history completion. This analysis is based on data provided by the USDA Forest Service “CRCT_GBCT Distributions” Geodatabase, updated April 2009.

Table 3.4-3 displays the federally listed fish species that may potentially be affected by activities within the ARNF. Of these species the only one known to occur within the ARNF is the GBCT. The other federally listed species (each of those listed as endangered) are not further discussed in this analysis since there were no species occurring or no preferred habitat within the project area. This determination is explained in detail within the BA for this project and is located in the administrative record for this project.

Table 3.4-3 Federally Listed Fish Species Potentially Affected by Activities within the Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests Fish Species River System Federal Status Humpback chub (Gila cypha) Colorado River Endangered Bonytail chub (Gila elegans) Colorado River Endangered Colorado pikeminnow (Ptychocheilus lucius) Colorado River Endangered Pallid sturgeon (Scaphirhynchus albus) Platte River Endangered Razorback sucker (Xyrauchen texanus) Colorado River Endangered Native to the Platte and Arkansas River basins but Greenback cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarkii have been recently found to Threatened stomias) occur within the Colorado River basin as well.

Routt National Forest

Management Indicator Species

MIS species were selected because their population changes are believed to indicate the effects of management activities and to monitor aquatic habitat fragmentation on the forest. The RNF aquatic MIS include the Colorado River cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarkii pleuriticus) (CRCT) and brook trout (Salvelinus fontinali).

Region 2 Sensitive Species

Review of the Rocky Mountain Region Endangered, Threatened, Proposed, and Sensitive Species list (May 8, 2009) revealed eight species of aquatic fish and amphibians known to occur or potentially present in the RNF: the bluehead sucker (Catostomus discobolus), flannelmouth sucker (Catostomus latipinnis), mountain sucker (Catostomus platyrhynchus), roundtail chub (Gila robusta), Colorado River cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarkii pleuriticus), boreal toad (Anaxyrus boreas boreas), northern leopard frog (Lithobates pipiens), and the wood frog (Lithobates sylvatica). The mountain sucker, Colorado River cutthroat trout, boreal toad, northern leopard frog, and the wood frog have potential to be impacted by the Proposed Project due to species being present and/or habitat being present within the Proposed Project area.

Table 3.4-4 identifies the preferred habitats of the MIS and sensitive species, qualifies their presence, and indicates their management status within the RNF portion of the Proposed Project area.

______United States Forest Service May 2010 Arapaho and Roosevelt, Routt, and White River National Forests Page 55 – Final – Environmental Assessment of the Emergency Power Line Clearing Project

Table 3.4-4 Region 2 Sensitive Species and Management Indicator Species that Occur within the Proposed Project Area for the Routt National Forest Management Scientific Region 2 Common Name Habitat Type Presence* Indicator Name Sensitive Species Warm-water streams and Catostomus Bluehead sucker rivers of western No Yes No discobolus Colorado Large warm-water Flannel mouth Catostomus streams and rivers of No Yes No sucker latipinnis western Colorado Cold water creeks and Catostomus small to medium rivers Mountain sucker Habitat Yes No platyrhynchus with cobble gravel and sand substrate. Warm-water streams and Roundtail chub Gila robusta rivers of western No Yes No Colorado Oncorhynchus Isolated, headwater Colorado River clarkii streams and lakes with Yes Yes Yes cutthroat trout pleuriticus cold temperatures Cold, clear, gravelly Salvelinus Brook trout headwater streams and Yes No Yes fontinalis mountain lakes Marshes, wet meadows, streams, and shallow Anaxyrus water edges of beaver Boreal toad Yes Yes No boreas boreas ponds and lakes interspersed with subalpine forests Wet meadows, banks and seasonally flooded areas near streams and Northern leopard Lithobates lakes, marshes, ponds, Habitat Yes No frog pipiens beaver ponds, lakes rivers, and irrigation ditches Sedge wetlands, adjoining grassy Lithobates meadows, willow bogs, Wood frog Habitat Yes No sylvatica moist and humid coniferous forests, and aspen groves * Presence values are No = no presence of the species or its habitat in the Proposed Project area or area potentially affected, Yes = presence of the species and its habitat within the Proposed Project area or area potentially affected, Habitat = indicates that suitable habitat is present within the Proposed Project area or area potentially affected.

The CRCT occurs in one stream within the project area for RNF. This stream intersects a transmission line on Deadman Gulch in Routt County. This CRCT population that is within the Proposed Project area is not considered a conservation population. This population is stable and the habitat is in fair condition; no non- natives are present. Other streams may be occupied or support cutthroat trout but none are representative of the data that was provided. This analysis is based on data provided by the USDA Forest Service “CRCT_GBCT Distributions” Geodatabase, updated April 2009.

There is one boreal toad breeding site located within the Proposed Project area for the RNF. This breeding site is located at Muddy Pass Lake. There is a distribution line that is located within a 100-meter radius of

______United States Forest Service May 2010 Arapaho and Roosevelt, Routt, and White River National Forests Page 56 – Final – Environmental Assessment of the Emergency Power Line Clearing Project this breeding population. Portions of transmission lines also occur within the area but are not within the 100- meter buffer created for the breeding sites. (Data obtained by CDOW, Jackson 2009.)

Northern leopard frogs and wood frogs occur on the RNF. There is one population of northern leopard frogs that occurs within the Proposed Project area; this population intersects a transmission line in the southern part of the forest. Although the populations of wood frogs do not occur directly in the Proposed Project area, habitat does exist within close proximity to some areas that may potentially be treated. The transmission line located near Teal Lake has several kettle ponds and wetlands in which these amphibians occur.

Federally Listed Species

A review of the Rocky Mountain Region Endangered, Threatened, Proposed, and Sensitive Species List (January 2010) was conducted to determine if any federally listed fish species occurred or had preferred habitat within the project area. It was determined that no federally endangered or threatened fish species occurred or had habitat within the RNF project area.

Table 3.4-5 displays the federally listed species that may potentially be affected by activities within the RNF. These federally endangered species are not further discussed in this analysis since there were no species occurring or no preferred habitat within the project area. This determination is explained in detail within the BA for this project.

Table 3.4-5 Federally Listed Fish Species Potentially Affected by Activities within the Routt National Forest Fish Species River System Federal Status Humpback chub (Gila cypha) Colorado River Endangered Bonytail chub (Gila elegans) Colorado River Endangered Colorado pikeminnow (Ptychocheilus lucius) Colorado River Endangered Pallid sturgeon (Scaphirhynchus albus) Platte River Endangered Razorback sucker (Xyrauchen texanus) Colorado River Endangered

White River National Forest

Management Indicator Species

There are four aquatic MIS species and one aquatic management indicator community that are located within the WRNF: Colorado River cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarkii pleuriticus), brook trout (Salvelinus fontinali), brown trout (Salmo trutta), and rainbow trout (Onchorhynchus mykiss), as well as all aquatic macro-invertebrates grouped together and considered as one management indicator community.

Region 2 Sensitive Species

Review of the Rocky Mountain Region Endangered, Threatened, Proposed, and Sensitive Species list (May 8, 2009) revealed seven species of aquatic fish and amphibians that are known to occur or are potentially present in the WRNF: the bluehead sucker (Catostomus discobolus), flannelmouth sucker (Catostomus latipinnis), mountain sucker (Catostomus platyrhynchus), roundtail chub (Gila robusta), Colorado River cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarkii pleuriticus), boreal toad (Anaxyrus boreas boreas), and the northern leopard frog (Lithobates pipiens). The Colorado River cutthroat trout, mountain sucker, boreal toad and the northern leopard frog have the potential to be impacted by the Proposed Project due to the species being present and/or habitat being present within the Proposed Project area.

Table 3.4-6 identifies the preferred habitats of the MIS and sensitive species, qualifies their presence, and indicates their management status within the WRNF portion of the Proposed Project area.

______United States Forest Service May 2010 Arapaho and Roosevelt, Routt, and White River National Forests Page 57 – Final – Environmental Assessment of the Emergency Power Line Clearing Project

Table 3.4-6 Region 2 Sensitive Species and Management Indicator Species that Occur within the Proposed Project Area for the White River National Forest Management Common Scientific Region 2 Habitat Type Presence* Indicator Name Name Sensitive Species Warm-water streams and Bluehead Catostomus rivers of western No Yes No sucker discobolus Colorado Large warm-water Flannel mouth Catostomus streams and rivers of No Yes No sucker latipinnis western Colorado Cold water creeks and Mountain Catostomus small to medium rivers Habitat Yes No sucker platyrhynchus with cobble gravel and sand substrate. Warm-water streams and Roundtail chub Gila robusta rivers of western No Yes No Colorado Oncorhynchus Isolated, headwater Colorado River clarkii streams and lakes with Yes Yes Yes cutthroat trout pleuriticus cold temperatures Oncorhynchus Cold, clear, gravelly Greenback clarkii headwater streams and Yes No No cutthroat trout stomias mountain lakes Cold, clear, gravelly Salvelinus Brook trout headwater streams and Yes No Yes fontinalis mountain lakes Cold and cool-water Brown trout Salmo trutta streams and rivers, and Yes No Yes lakes Cold, clear, gravelly Oncorhynchus Rainbow trout headwater streams and Yes No Yes mykiss mountain lakes Marshes, wet meadows, streams, and shallow- Anaxyrus water edges of beaver Boreal toad Yes Yes No boreas boreas ponds and lakes interspersed with subalpine forests Wet meadows, banks and seasonally flooded areas Northern Lithobates near streams and lakes, Habitat Yes No leopard frog pipiens marshes, ponds, beaver ponds, lakes rivers, and irrigation ditches Perennial and ephemeral streams, ponds, lakes,

Aquatic macro- reservoirs and wetlands, Yes No Yes invertebrates usually found mostly in

community cold high oxygenated waters * Presence values are No = no presence of the species or its habitat in the Proposed Project area or area potentially affected, Yes = presence of the species and its habitat within the Proposed Project area or area potentially affected, Habitat = indicates that suitable habitat is present within the Proposed Project area or area potentially affected.

______United States Forest Service May 2010 Arapaho and Roosevelt, Routt, and White River National Forests Page 58 – Final – Environmental Assessment of the Emergency Power Line Clearing Project

Analysis of GIS data revealed that CRCT occurs within 14 streams located within the WRNF project area, mostly within Eagle and Summit Counties. These include Frey Gulch, Straight Creek, Indiana Creek, Wearyman Creek, Mill Creek, Red Sandstone Creek, Berry Creek, Eagle River, Two Elk Creek, Fryingpan River, Lime Creek, Antones Cabin Creek, Beaver Creek, and Ute Creek. These streams were identified as being potentially impacted by the Proposed Project because they intersect a transmission line or distribution line at some point within their length. Of these streams within the project area, Berry Creek is also a CRCT conservation population. This analysis is based on data provided by the USDA Forest Service “CRCT_GBCT Distributions” Geodatabase, updated April 2009.

Within the WRNF there are two boreal toad breeding sites located within 100 meters of either a transmission line or distribution line: Straight Creek and the Lower North Fork Snake River (Data obtained by CDOW, Jackson 2009). There are a few populations that are just outside the 100-meter buffer near the transmission or distribution lines, which include upper North Fork Snake River and Peru Creek. Due to dispersal, these populations would also need to be considered if the Proposed Action were to be implemented, as well as any disturbance to the wetland areas near the treatment areas.

GIS analysis does not reveal any northern leopard frog populations within the 100-meter buffer zone that intersects the Proposed Project area. However, there are two populations found near the project area near Dillon Reservoir; one population is adjacent to a distribution line and may have potential for disturbance due to the proximity of the habitat to the potential treatment area. It is also worth noting that another population that occurs outside the Proposed Project area bounds (because it is on non-NFS lands) is within the 100- meter buffer. Although the particular distribution line segment to which it is associated is outside the Proposed Project area, there is some potential for disturbance to this population due to hazard tree removal(s) that may be needed in this area. Removal(s) in this area would not be considered a part of the Proposed Project, but would be considered as a connected action. However, it should also be noted that the likelihood that this area would require such removal(s) would be low due to the lack of trees in the immediate area.

Federally Listed Species

A review of the Rocky Mountain Region Endangered, Threatened, Proposed, and Sensitive Species List (January, 2010) was conducted to determine if any federally listed fish species occurred or had preferred habitat within the project area. It was determined that one federally endangered or threatened fish species, GBCT, occurred or had habitat within the WRNF project area.

The GBCT occurs within Frey Gulch which intersects a distribution line located in the Proposed Project area. In addition, many other streams occur adjacent to or near the project area that may potentially sustain or support GBCT. Frey Gulch and these other streams are vulnerable to disturbance due to habitat degradation or excessive sedimentation that has previously occurred. This has resulted in the reduction in the quality and quantity of over-winter, rearing, and spawning habitats necessary for life history completion. This analysis is based on data provided by the USDA Forest Service “CRCT_GBCT Distributions” Geodatabase, updated April 2009.

Table 3.4-7 displays the federally listed species that may potentially be affected by activities within the WRNF. Of these species the only one known to occur within the WRNF is the GBCT. The other federally listed species (each of those listed as endangered) are not further discussed in this analysis since there were no species occurring or no preferred habitat within the project area. This determination is explained in detail within the BA for this project.

Table 3.4-7 Federally Listed Fish Species Potentially Affected by Activities within the White River National Forest Fish Species River System Federal Status Humpback chub (Gila cypha) Colorado River Endangered Bonytail chub (Gila elegans) Colorado River Endangered Colorado pikeminnow (Ptychocheilus lucius) Colorado River Endangered

______United States Forest Service May 2010 Arapaho and Roosevelt, Routt, and White River National Forests Page 59 – Final – Environmental Assessment of the Emergency Power Line Clearing Project

Fish Species River System Federal Status Razorback sucker (Xyrauchen texanus) Colorado River Endangered Native to the Platte and Arkansas River basins Greenback cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarkii but have been recently Threatened stomias) found to occur within the Colorado River basin as well.

Environmental Consequences

3.4.1 Alternative 1: No Action

Direct and Indirect Effects

ARNF, RNF, and WRNF

Implementation of the No Action Alternative would be expected to have the same effects across all three forests. The existing conditions within the Proposed Project area throughout the three forests would be allowed to persist and currently occurring effects related to the management of the existing power line ROWs would continue to occur.

Over time, the existing potential for bark beetle infestations to continue to alter forest habitats and riparian and wetland areas would continue to grow. Increased mortality of trees within these riparian/wetland areas due to the bark beetle epidemic would be expected to reduce overhead cover (shade) and therefore potentially cause an increase in water temperatures. The increased water temperatures have the potential to reduce, or even eliminate, feeding fish in streams and can also cause harmful metabolic effects that could impact fish populations (Sauter et. al. 2001). Under the No Action Alternative, the number of dead and dying trees would possibly increase as the current bark beetle epidemic continues. Over time, potential for a wind throw event may occur resulting in accumulations of trees that may have many detrimental influences on the landscape. Trees that have been involved in a wind throw event may accumulate on the ground, which would decrease re-growth of shrubs and herbaceous sized vegetation that provide bank stability and cover for fish.

Through implementation of the No Action Alternative, the risks of hazard trees coming in contact with the power lines causing possible wildfires would not be reduced, except to the extent reduced by ongoing management practices as currently authorized. Vegetation contacting distribution and/or transmission lines would have the potential to ignite a wildfire due to the increased fuel loading associated with the current bark beetle epidemic. The number of dead and dying trees would increase as the epidemic progresses. As fuel loads increase with the continued absence of fire, the potential for catastrophic or damaging wildfires would increase as well.

A wildfire would have the potential to affect fish and wildlife species and the habitat in which they live, either by direct mortality or by displacement. Wildfire can have a variety of impacts to aquatic ecosystems, including but not limited to decreased stream channel stability, greater and more variable discharge, altered woody debris delivery and storage, increased nutrient availability, higher sediment delivery and transport, and increased solar radiation and altered water temperature regimes (McMahon and deCalesta 1990; Young 1994; Reeves et al. 1995; Minshall et al. 1997, 2001; Benda et al. 1998; Gresswell 1999; Dunham et al. 2003). Studies indicate that generally fish populations are more resilient to the impacts of wildfire and recover more quickly in larger, interconnected systems and in systems that are less disturbed (Dunham et al. 2003).

Over time, recruitment of coarse woody debris (CWD) in streams, rivers or wetland habitats from the progression of the bark beetle epidemic would be expected to increase. This would potentially cause woody debris to clog drainage or in-stream infrastructure, resulting in flooding of areas that may not normally flood

______United States Forest Service May 2010 Arapaho and Roosevelt, Routt, and White River National Forests Page 60 – Final – Environmental Assessment of the Emergency Power Line Clearing Project and could potentially cause stream bank scouring and erosion. USFS maintenance of these structures would continue as they currently do, however, maintenance may not be achieved until after some of the effects had already occurred.

However, as trees die and fall, CWD may benefit some aquatic habitats. CWD is essential in aquatic habitats for pool formation, which influences a stream’s velocity, depth, and storage capacity. Fish need pools to seek refuge from predation and provide habitat during winter and low flow years. Large woody debris provides complex cover, protecting fish from predation, competition, and displacement. Additionally, wood may decrease the number of intra-species behavioral interactions, permitting greater numbers of fish to coexist (Dolloff 1993). The gravel trapped and stored behind wood can provide quality spawning habitat. Large woody debris influences sediment scour-fill patterns by deflecting flow, resulting in spawning habitat in the form of riffle areas located downstream of woody debris. Many macro-invertebrates (a food source for fish) depend on wood, both directly for specific habitat needs and indirectly for food (Dolloff 1993).

Cumulative Effects Many situations occurred prior to the development of the Proposed Project which have impacted and continue to impact native trout and their habitats. These impacts include 1) altered natural flows and fragmentation resulting from water diversions and barriers to fish movement; 2) introduction of non-native trout species altering genetic purity; and 3) microbial invasion (whirling disease) that causes mortality in trout species. These factors contribute to population declines of native trout and will continue to create effects regardless of whether the No Action Alternative is implemented.

Implementation of this alternative would be expected to have minimal effects to aquatic species; however, species may experience changes in water temperatures as trees begin to fall and shade is removed. This effect would be expected to occur wherever dead trees occur along the edges of water features throughout the three forests. It would also be expected that water chemistry could be affected as a result of wildfires in the future; thus affecting aquatic species as well.

The presence of the Proposed Project area near water features would be expected to provide some connectivity for falling trees to enter waterways. Due to the widespread distribution of the bark beetle epidemic it would be expected that waterways would receive higher loads of woody debris as the epidemic progresses and as trees begin to fall. The results may be beneficial in some areas and detrimental in others as water levels may increase or decrease due to the loading of the debris. This effect would be expected to be consistent throughout the region where bark beetle mortality occurs.

Though no concerted effort to remove hazard trees would be implemented with this alternative, other projects are expected to be implemented or are being implemented to remove hazard trees throughout the region. As such, some changes to aquatic ecosystems could result that would be additive to the current and past effects of other projects.

Other projects that may add cumulatively to these effects are listed and discussed in Section 3.15.

3.4.2 Alternative 2: Proposed Action

Direct and Indirect Effects

ARNF, RNF, and WRNF

Implementation of the Proposed Action Alternative would be expected to have minimal direct and indirect effects to fish and amphibian populations and their habitats as a result of treatments. These potential effects would include possible crushing of amphibians during implementation activities, reduction of shade, increases in sediment movement into wetlands and streams, and possible decreased CWD recruitment into stream channels.

______United States Forest Service May 2010 Arapaho and Roosevelt, Routt, and White River National Forests Page 61 – Final – Environmental Assessment of the Emergency Power Line Clearing Project

Implementation of this alternative in riparian and wetland areas would potentially increase sedimentation in streams and impact bank stability as a result of the construction of temporary roads and other activities performed within the water influence zone (WIZ). Temporary road construction would provide the potential to indirectly affect fish populations and their habitat by increasing sedimentation and reducing riparian vegetation. Ground disturbance and loss of protective ground cover on banks may also increase erosion, therefore increasing sediment delivery into streams; sediment causes reduction in prey availability, a decrease in dissolved oxygen and trapping embryos and emerging fry resulting in a decrease in salmonid recruitment (Suttle et al. 2004). In addition, if roads were to intersect stream corridors, there may be potential to impede fish passage at stream crossings. Indirect effects on fish populations from fish passage would not be anticipated due to project Design Criteria that would provide for proper fish passage and protect other aquatic life at stream crossings, if temporary roads were to be constructed.

Disturbance of hill slope and riparian soil can result in an increased sediment delivery to streams (Nakamoto 1998). This sediment may result in behavioral impacts, such as temporary disruption in territoriality and movements (Anderson 1996); physiological impacts, such as impaired growth and decreased resistance to disease and parasitism (Anderson 1996); population impacts, such as increased egg mortality, reduced egg hatches, and potential mortality to juveniles and adults if exposed to high suspended sediment concentrations) (Bisson and Bilby 1982, Anderson 1996, Argent and Flebbe 1999); and changes to associated aquatic habitats, such as degraded water quality and decreased habitat complexity (Anderson 1996, Miller and Benda 2000). Implementation of the project Design Criteria would mitigate or minimize direct effects to riparian and aquatic habitats within the project area, as ground based equipment would not be permitted within 100 feet from the edge of the streams, riparian, wetlands/fens. Hazard tree removal near streams would be limited to hand felling within a 100-foot buffer and trees are to be felled away from the streams and wetlands; however, where large woody debris recruitment in streams is desired, trees may be felled into the stream to provide habitat for aquatic species. Heavy equipment would be restricted within the WIZ, therefore reducing the potential for degradation of water resources from increased erosion and sediment loading from ground disturbance.

In areas where tree removal occurs, reduction of the canopy may potentially create opportunities for re- growth of shrubs and riparian vegetation. This would eventually provide stream side cover, promote soil retention and potentially provide an increase in aquatic productivity from solar radiation (Nakamoto 1998). The reduction of shade can also lead to higher water temperatures, which could have negative biological effects for the species considered. (Johnson and Jones 2000) Increased water temperatures combined with greater solar radiation may increase primary productivity as area streams are primarily allochthonous. However, it should be noted that the potential for treatments along streams would be expected to be minimal, localized, and completed through hand treatments and incompliance with the proposed Design Criteria.

The potential effects of wildfire on aquatic habitats would be expected to include changes in water chemistry and increased rates of erosion adding sediment to the habitat. Though forest fuels would be expected to be reduced in many of the proposed treatment areas, the fuel load may only be restructured in others depending on the treatments applied (mechanical harvest vs. chipping/mastication). As such, in areas where fuel loads may be decreased the potential effects of wildfire on aquatic habitats would be expected to be reduced, but only incrementally due to the limited size of the Proposed Project area and the persistence of adjacent fuel loads. In areas which would not have fuel loads reduced the potential effects of wildfire would not be expected to be altered other than to the extent that fire behavior may change as a result of the altered fuel structure.

Dust is expected to be an indirect effect of implementing the Proposed Action Alternative. Dust abatement strategies include the use of water during implementation activities when and where necessary. However, the use of water for dust abatement is limited in quantity by the Design Criteria. Thresholds have been determined for the Platte and Colorado River basins and water usage by each forest for this project would be limited to fall within the quantity deemed allowable (noted as insignificant and immeasurable) as determined by each basin’s recovery program. Furthermore, dust abatement would be expected to be minimal as it would only be used in areas where it is required in order to protect TEPC plant species. Therefore, implementation of the Proposed Action Alternative would not create or cause measurable water depletions to downstream rivers and stream habitats. With proper employment of forest standards, as well as project

______United States Forest Service May 2010 Arapaho and Roosevelt, Routt, and White River National Forests Page 62 – Final – Environmental Assessment of the Emergency Power Line Clearing Project

Design Criteria and water conservation practices, it is unlikely that negative impacts would occur to the streams within the project area. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has adopted a policy that water-related activities in the Platter River basin resulting in less than 0.1 acre-foot/year of depletions in flow to the nearest surface water tributary to the Platte River system do not affect the Platte River target species and thus do not require consultation for potential effects on those species (USFWS 2009).

Management Indicator Species

Within the Proposed Project area of the three forests, brook trout, brown trout, and rainbow trout populations are known to be distributed across all of watersheds that have been included as part of the area potentially affected. The Proposed Action Alternative would not impact the viability of these species within these watersheds.

Sensitive Species

Sensitive fish species that occur within streams would be susceptible to the effects described above in the Proposed Action Alternative with respect to sediment delivery and temperature fluctuations from the reduction of shade and overhead cover. Although there is potential for these effects on stream habitats to occur, they would likely be minimal and temporary.

Within the Proposed Project area amphibian populations exist near power lines. Effects to amphibians within the project area may occur directly from heavy equipment or trees crushing individuals or by destroying wetland and riparian vegetation. Riparian and wetland vegetation is crucial for the survival of boreal toad eggs which attach to the emergent vegetation; if this vegetation is destroyed by any activity, there is potential for species decline. Within these areas the WIZ would be protected by riparian and aquatic Design Criteria, such that only hand treatments would be permitted. Trees would be mechanically felled outside of wetlands only; however, for some streams, terrain may limit the extent of riparian vegetation and upland vegetation within the WIZ. For these streams, conventional logging equipment may be used within the WIZ with USFS approval. In these cases, biologists and USFS personnel would need to assess the area before treatment occurs as required by the proposed Design Criteria. Although these areas are protected through the project Design Criteria and BMPs, minimal indirect effects may still occur to this habitat.

During upland migration to and from the breeding sites there is potential for amphibians to be crushed by equipment, human activity, or falling trees. Prior to implementation, surveys would need to be conducted in areas where known amphibian populations occur. Surveys would be site specific and treatments would only be allowed after migration to breeding sites occurs and again in the fall when the species migrates to upland habitats. This timing restriction is not defined in specific Design Criteria but is primarily a guideline set forth within the forest plan(s); the forest biologist would determine if restrictions on implementation would need to be established.

Federally Listed Species

Effects to GBCT would be minimal as a result of the Proposed Action Alternative. This species is native to the Platte and Arkansas River basins but has been recently found to occur within the Colorado River basin. Within the Proposed Project area there is one GBCT stream that intersects a distribution line. As previously described above, effects to this species and its habitat would include sedimentation, reduction of shade, and potential erosion from treatment areas. Little Vasquez Creek is currently degraded due to excessive sedimentation. This has resulted in the reduction of quality and quantity of over-winter, rearing, and spawning habitats necessary for life history completion (Larkin 2009). Potential does exist for habitat degradation and fragmentation to occur for other streams that GBCT may inhabit, which may be adjacent to or near treatment areas. Application of project Design Criteria and the LRMP standards protect these habitats from being further degraded by forest management activities.

As implementation of this alternative would be expected to cause immeasurable to no water depletions in downstream habitats in the Colorado or Platte River Basins and Design Criteria and forest plan standards

______United States Forest Service May 2010 Arapaho and Roosevelt, Routt, and White River National Forests Page 63 – Final – Environmental Assessment of the Emergency Power Line Clearing Project would protect habitat, a determination of “may affect, not likely to adversely affect” is warranted for this species.

Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects include any past, current and future management planning activities that may include timber harvest, grazing, and other activities. In addition, effects have been known to occur as a result of the construction of water diversions, introduction of non-native fish invasions, and presence of disease.

Other effects that may result from implementation of the Proposed Action Alternative include some temporary increases in erosion, sedimentation, and decreases in streamside shading resulting from implementation activities. Similar types of projects are being implemented throughout private, state and locally owned lands, as well as on neighboring USFS lands. As such, some similar types of effects may be experienced where activities occur on those lands. It is also known that similar projects have been, are being, or will be implemented on state, county, and private lands. Due to the fact that management strategies for each entity are variable, the effects of such implementations could also be variable and increases or decreases to the mentioned effects would be dependent upon the management strategies implemented.

Other projects that may add cumulatively to these effects are listed and discussed in Section 3.15.

Biological Determination

Table 3.4-8, Sensitive and Management Indicator Aquatic Faunal Species Determinations, provides a listing of the aquatic species assessed, national forest of relevance, determinations, and rationale for determination for a “may adversely impact individuals, but not likely to result in a loss of viability in the Planning Area, nor cause a trend toward federal listing” or “no impact” as a result of implementation of the Proposed Action Alternative.

Table 3.4-8 Sensitive and Management Indicator Aquatic Faunal Species Determinations Common Scientific Forest Status Det.* Rationale Name Name Potential effects from increased Aquatic sediment resulting from implementation Macro- WRNF MIS would be limited through utilizing the Invertebrates Aquatics Design Criteria and adherence to the WCPH. Roundtail RNF / No measurable water depletions would Gila robusta S NI chub WRNF occur from this project. Bluehead Catostomus RNF / No measurable water depletions would S NI sucker discobolus WRNF occur from this project. Flannel Catostomus RNF / No measurable water depletions would S NI mouth sucker latipinnis WRNF occur from this project. Implementation of Aquatics Design Mountain Catostomus RNF / Criteria and adherence to the WCPH S MAII sucker platyrhynchus WRNF would be utilized to minimize effects to habitat and water quality. Implementation of Aquatics Design Greenback Oncorhynchus ARNF / Criteria and adherence to the WCPH cutthroat clarkii MIS WRNF would be utilized to minimize effects to trout stomias habitat and water quality. Colorado Implementation of Aquatics Design Oncorhynchus ARNF / River Criteria and adherence to the WCPH clarkii RNF / S / MIS MAII cutthroat would be utilized to minimize effects to pleuriticus WRNF trout habitat and water quality.

______United States Forest Service May 2010 Arapaho and Roosevelt, Routt, and White River National Forests Page 64 – Final – Environmental Assessment of the Emergency Power Line Clearing Project

Common Scientific Forest Status Det.* Rationale Name Name Implementation of Aquatics Design ARNF / Salvelinus Criteria and adherence to the WCPH Brook trout RNF / MIS fontinalis would be utilized to minimize effects to WRNF habitat and water quality. Implementation of Aquatics Design ARNF / Criteria and adherence to the WCPH Brown trout Salmo trutta MIS WRNF would be utilized to minimize effects to habitat and water quality. Implementation of Aquatics Design Rainbow Oncorhynchus ARNF / Criteria and adherence to the WCPH MIS trout mykiss WRNF would be utilized to minimize effects to habitat and water quality. Aquatics Design Criteria and adherence to the WCPH would be utilized; ARNF / Anaxyrus protection of riparian, wetland, and Boreal toad RNF / S / MIS MAII boreas boreas upland habitats would be required. FS WRNF biologist would assess habitat before hazard tree treatments. Aquatics Design Criteria and adherence to the WCPH would be utilized; ARNF / Northern Lithobates protection of riparian, wetland, and RNF / S MAII leopard frog pipiens upland habitats would be required. FS WRNF biologist would assess habitat before hazard tree treatments. Aquatics Design Criteria and adherence to the WCPH would be utilized; Lithobates ARNF / protection of riparian, wetland, and Wood frog S MAII sylvatica RNF upland habitats would be required. FS biologist would assess habitat before hazard tree treatments. * Determination definitions: MAII – may adversely impact individuals, but not likely to result in a loss of viability in the Planning Area, nor cause a trend toward federal listing; NI – no impact.

Table 3.4-9, Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, and Candidate Aquatic Faunal Species Determinations, provides a listing of the aquatic species assessed, their national forest of relevance, their determinations, and the rationale for the determination of “may affect, not likely to adversely affect” or “no effect” as a result of implementation of the Proposed Action.

Table 3.4-9 Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, and Candidate Aquatic Faunal Species Determinations Federal Fish Species Forest Det.* Rationale for Determination Status ARNF / Species or habitat does not occur within Humpback chub RNF / Endangered NE project area. No water depletions would (Gila cypha) WRNF occur from implementation. Species or habitat does not occur within ARNF / Bonytail chub project area. No measureable water RNF / Endangered NE (Gila elegans) depletions would occur from WRNF implementation. Colorado Species or habitat does not occur within ARNF / pikeminnow project area. No measurable water RNF / Endangered NE (Ptychocheilus depletions would occur from WRNF lucius) implementation.

______United States Forest Service May 2010 Arapaho and Roosevelt, Routt, and White River National Forests Page 65 – Final – Environmental Assessment of the Emergency Power Line Clearing Project

Federal Fish Species Forest Det.* Rationale for Determination Status Species or habitat does not occur within Pallid sturgeon ARNF / project area. No measurable water (Scaphirhynchus Endangered NE RNF depletions would occur from albus) implementation. Species or habitat does not occur within Razorback sucker ARNF / project area. No measureable water (Xyrauchen RNF / Endangered NE depletions would occur from texanus) WRNF implementation. This species is known to occur within the Greenback project area. Implementation of Aquatics cutthroat trout ARNF / MA, Threatened Design Criteria would be utilized to (Oncorhynchus WRNF NLAA minimize effects to habitat and water clarkii stomias) quality. * Determination definitions: MA, NLAA – may affect, not likely to adversely affect; NE – no effect.

Forest Plan Consistency

Consistency with the Forest Plan direction is based on effective implementation of the appropriate Design Criteria.

Consistency with Other Regulation

All compliance will be met in accordance with the National Forest Management Act, Endangered Species Act Section 7, and Healthy Forest Restoration Act (HFRA).

3.5 Botany

The botany section is composed of text that discusses two categories of plants; 1) Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, Candidate (TEPC) and Region 2 Sensitive Plant Species and 2) Species of Local Concern (SOLC).

3.5.1 Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, Candidate (TEPC) and Sensitive Plant Species

Affected Environment

Federally Listed Species

According to habitat descriptions and GIS data provided by the Colorado Natural Heritage Program as well as the USFWS and USFS botanists, the Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, or Candidate (TEPC) floral species that were considered due to their known occurrences or potentially suitable habitat within the Proposed Project area or the area potentially affected by the Emergency Power Line Clearing Project are the eight species that are provided in Table 3.5-1, Threatened and Endangered Plant Species Considered.

A Biological Assessment (BA) has been prepared for each of the three forests, including all TEPC plant species that occur on or within the area potentially affected by the Proposed Project. The BA for each of the forests is available as a portion of the administrative record at the appropriate Forest Supervisor’s office.

Region 2 Sensitive Species

There are 42 sensitive plant species with potential habitat in the area potentially affected by the Proposed Project. However, many of these species do not have potential habitat within the Proposed Project area itself, but may exist within the area of effect for the Proposed Project. The Region 2 Sensitive Plant Species List for the ARNF, RNF, and WRNF were initially evaluated for the occurrence of known populations or habitats

______United States Forest Service May 2010 Arapaho and Roosevelt, Routt, and White River National Forests Page 66 – Final – Environmental Assessment of the Emergency Power Line Clearing Project capable of supporting these species within the area that could be affected by the Proposed Project. Species lacking suitable habitat in the area potentially affected were dropped from further consideration based on the low likelihood of effects on these species. Sensitive plant species with known occurrence and/or the presence of suitable habitat in the area potentially affected were selected for analysis in this assessment.

Table 3.5-1 Threatened and Endangered Plant Species Considered Common Elevation Survey Scientific Name Status Habitat Name Range* Window “[H]ighly seleniferous, grayish- brown clay soils derived from shales of the Niobrara, Pierre and Troublesome formations (Spackman Astragalus Osterhout 7,400 to et al. 1997).” Moderate slopes in Endangered June to August osterhoutii milkvetch 7,900 ft. openly vegetated sagebrush badlands (Anderson and Jordan 1992). Sometimes, growing up through sagebrush branches /foliage (Spackman et. al. 1997). Alpine tundra, rooted in mosses on stream banks and in wetlands that Eutrema Penland’s remain wet year-round (Spackman et. 12,300 to Late June to edwardsii ssp. alpine fen Threatened al. 1997). It occurs primarily on soils 13,100 ft. Mid- August penlandii mustard developed from a calcareous substrate (Center for Plant Conservation 2005). Gaura Sub-irrigated, alluvial soils of Colorado 5,800 to July to neomexicana ssp. Threatened drainage bottoms surrounded by butterfly plant 6,200 ft. September coloradensis mixed grass prairie Strongly seleniferous clay-shales of the Troublesome Formation on steep Penstemon Penland’s 7,500 to Endangered barrens with sparse plant cover, June to July penlandii beardtongue 7,700 ft. sagebrush badlands (Spackman et. al. 1997). North Park; where it grows on sparsely vegetated exposures of the Coalmont formation which underlies most of North Park and consists of sandstone, conglomerate and Phacelia North Park 8,000 to Late June to Endangered carbonaceous shale. Steep-sided formosula phacelia 8,500 ft. September ravines emanating from low sandy hills or bluffs. Larimer County in the Laramie River Valley where it is restricted to outcrops of the Niobrara Formation (NatureServe (2006). Downstream effects to species in NE Plantanthera Western prairie Threatened N/A if water depletions exceed 0.1 acre/ft Not Applicable praeclara fringed orchid to main stem of Platte River. This cactus grows on cobbled, gravelly or “[r]ocky hills, mesa slopes, and alluvial benches” in arid desert shrub environments April to May. (Spackman et al. 1997). Its elevation Sclerocactus Colorado 4,500 to Plants usually Threatened range is between 4,500 and 6,000 glaucus hookless cactus 6,000 ft. only visible in feet. Shadscale, galleta, black-sage flower. and Indian rice grass often dominate the plant community where this cactus is found (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1990). Seasonally moist soils and wet meadows near springs, perennial streams, lakes and their associated Spiranthes Ute ladies- 4,500 to Late July to Threatened flood plains below 7,000 feet (Fertig diluvialis tresses orchid 6,800 ft. Mid-September et al 2005, Spackman et al 1997, USDI 1992). Also found in sub- irrigated meadows, ditch margins. * Elevation ranges provided for each species are approximations only and are not intended to specifically limit the range of occurrence for each species, but are intended as a guide for species considered.

______United States Forest Service May 2010 Arapaho and Roosevelt, Routt, and White River National Forests Page 67 – Final – Environmental Assessment of the Emergency Power Line Clearing Project

Of the 43 sensitive species known or suspected to occur within the project area or in the area potentially affected by the Proposed Project, there are 22 of these species that are documented to occur in the ARNF, while 7 of the species are documented to exist in the RNF, and 23 of the species are documented to exist in the WRNF. Similarly, there are 9 sensitive species that are suspected to occur on the ARNF, 26 that are suspected to occur on the RNF, and 10 that are suspected to occur on the WRNF. (Note that the number of species known or suspected to occur on the three forests is not intended to be cumulative, as most of the species are known or suspected to occur on more than one forest.) Table 3.5-2 displays both the documented and suspected species along with their general habitat requirements, stratified Proposed Project area analysis indications, and forest of occurrence.

Table 3.5-2 Sensitive Plant Species Known or Suspected to Occur Within or Near the Proposed Project Area Forest of Occurrence* Scientific Name Common Name ARNF RNF WRNF Armeria maritima ssp. sibirica Sea Pink S S K Astragalus leptaleus Park Milkvetch K S K Astragalus wetherillii Wetherill Milkvetch - - K Botrychium ascendens Trianglelobe Moonwort S - S Botrychium campestre Prairie Dunewort S - - Botrychium “furcatum” Fork Leaf Moonwort K S S Botrychium lineare Slender Moonwort S** S K Botrychium paradoxum Paradox Moonwort S S - Braya glabella Smooth Rockcress - - K Carex diandra Lesser Panicled Sedge K K K Carex livida Livid Sedge K K S Cirsium perplexans Rocky Mountain Thistle - - K Cypripedium parviflorum Yellow Lady’s Slipper K S K Draba exunguiculata Clawless Draba K S K Draba grayana Gray’s Peak Draba K S K Drosera rotundifolia Round Leaf Sundew K K S Eliocharis elliptica Elliptic spike rush - S - Eriogonum exilifolium Slender Buckwheat K S S Eriophorum altaicum var. neogaeum Altai Cottongrass - S K Eriophorum chamissonis Chamisso's Cottongrass - - K Eriophorum gracile Slender Cottongrass K K K Festuca hallii Hall Fescue K S S Ipomopsis aggregata ssp. weberi Weber's Scarlet Gilia - K - Kobresia simpliciuscula Simple Kobresia K S K Machaeranthera coloradoensis Colorado Tansy-Aster S S K Malaxis brachypoda White Adder's Mouth Orchid S S - Mimulus gemmiparus Weber's Monkeyflower K S - Parnassia kotzebueii Kotzebue's Grass of Parnassus K S K Penstemon harringtonii Harrington Beardtongue S S K Phacelia scopulina var. submutica Debeque Phacelia - - K Potentilla rupincola Rocky Mountain Cinquefoil K S - Primula egaliksensis Greenland Primrose S - - Ptilagrostis porteri Porter's Feathergrass - - K Ranunculus karelinii Arctic Buttercup K S K Rubus arcticus ssp. acaulis Dwarf Raspberry K S K Salix candida Hoary Willow K S S Salix serissima Autumn Willow K S S Selaginella selaginoides Low Spike-Moss - S - Sphagnum angustifolium Peat Moss K K K Sphagnum balticum Baltic Bog Moss - S S

______United States Forest Service May 2010 Arapaho and Roosevelt, Routt, and White River National Forests Page 68 – Final – Environmental Assessment of the Emergency Power Line Clearing Project

Thalictrum heliophilum Sun-Loving Meadowrue - - K Utricularia minor Lesser Bladderwort K K S Viola selkirkii Great Spurred Violet K S - * Type of occurrence abbreviation definitions: K = Known; S = Suspected; - = Not Known or Suspected. ** This species is known to occur very near the Proposed Project area.

A Biological Evaluation (BE) has been prepared for each of the three forests, including all sensitive plant species that occur within the area that could be affected by the Proposed Project. The BE for each of the forests is available as a portion of the administrative record at the respective Forest Supervisor’s office.

Environmental Consequences

3.5.1.1 Alternative 1: No Action

Direct and Indirect Effects

No new direct or indirect effects on TEPC or sensitive plant species would be expected as a result of implementation of the No Action Alternative. Through implementation of this alternative the existing conditions would be allowed to persist; however, site specific removals would be expected in order to avoid or restore disruptions in electrical service due to the conditions resulting from the ongoing bark beetle epidemic. Such disturbance activities would potentially result in adverse and beneficial effects to TEPC and/or sensitive plant species.

Continued firewood removals and individual removal of hazardous trees would leave these species, if present, experiencing the same rates of disturbance. As insect and disease-killed trees continue to fall and become part of the fuel load, potential wildfire risk and intensity would continue to rise. Species capable of sustaining wildfire events would be more likely to benefit in these areas potentially shading out some or all of the presently occurring TEPC species. If wildfires do not occur, forest gaps created by falling trees may augment the expansion of present TEPC species populations. Conversely, continued mortality of overstory trees would eliminate shade and moisture gradient changes would be likely to occur, allowing specific habitat to dry out beyond the necessities of the species, while others could receive more water as a result of the absence of mature trees in the overstory.

Additionally, dead trees and limbs may fall, crushing or burying sensitive plant species. These potential negative effects are similar to those described for the Proposed Action, but differ in their causation (deterioration of beetle-infected lodgepole pine stands versus prescribed treatment activities).

Cumulative Effects

Loss and alteration of occupied suitable habitats and unoccupied potentially suitable habitats are the primary effects from past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions on the forests. Reasonably foreseeable federal on-going activities or management actions that may remove or alter sensitive plant species habitats include, but are not limited to, continued livestock grazing, timber harvest, winter recreation such as snowmobiling, summer recreation and fire suppression. Implementation of the No Action Alternative would have no additional cumulative effects on TEPC and/or sensitive species above the existing conditions.

3.5.1.2 Alternative 2: Proposed Action

Direct and Indirect Effects

Direct impacts to these plant species may include trampling by machinery, covering by slash and debris, reduced site soil integrity from rutting or mechanical soil displacement, and potential of burning slash and debris piles on top of the species, or any other activity that would directly interact with the species. Potential indirect effects on these species include changes in local habitat suitability and availability, increased competition with invasive or other native plants and possible changes in the abundance and distribution of

______United States Forest Service May 2010 Arapaho and Roosevelt, Routt, and White River National Forests Page 69 – Final – Environmental Assessment of the Emergency Power Line Clearing Project pollinating species, or any other similar, unnamed effects that would not directly affect the individuals of the species themselves.

Design Criteria specific to botanical resources have been developed that would require USFS botanist approval of sites prior to implementation of the Proposed Action Alternative. Potential effects to species would be mitigated by requiring USFS approved surveys and site assessments to be conducted in areas where TEPC and/or sensitive plant species are known or have the potential to occur. These surveys and site assessments would ensure that all efforts to avoid potential effects to the species would be made. If a TEPC and/or sensitive plant species were to be located within a proposed treatment area, the USFS would ensure that suitable measures would be taken to protect the species identified. Furthermore, if the criteria developed would not adequately protect the species on a given site, the USFS would ensure that suitable consultation with the USFWS would be conducted to manage the effects for that population.

The Riparian Areas / Aquatics Protection Criteria would reduce the intensities and frequencies of potential negative effects to the fen/wetland, riparian, and riparian transitional habitats by requiring approval for road/landing construction and requiring a site assessment by a forest/district botanist specifically for the identification of TEPC and/or sensitive plant species occurring within the site specific project boundaries. These criteria would establish buffer zones around riparian/wetland/fen areas habitats. These buffers would limit the types of treatments that would be allowed within treatment areas which would greatly reduce the potential for directly impacting the species in these habitats.

There are also Design Criteria that have been developed to limit or avoid the introduction or spread of invasive/noxious plant species and to aid in the re-vegetation/reestablishment of treatment sites which would further minimize or avoid effects to TEPC and/or sensitive plant species. These criteria were developed to reduce the potential for invasive species and competition by requiring equipment to be cleaned of soils and seeds before use on the site and they require the establishment of effective ground cover within three growing seasons. Allowance is also provided to the USFS to ensure that invasive/noxious plant species would be located prior to the implementation of proposed treatments and that eradication efforts could be utilized as needed before implementation would begin.

While these criteria minimize the risk to the species, the potential would still exist for un-mitigated and unforeseen negative effects to occur.

TEPC Species

Of the eight TEPC plant species analyzed (Table 3.5-1), only the Colroado hookless cactus and Western prairie fringed orchid are known to exist wholly outside of the Proposed Project area. However, these two species are located within an area that may be affected by implementation of the Proposed Action due to their connectivity to the Proposed Project through potential water depletions or through access routes that could occur as a result of implementation of the Proposed Action Alternative. These indirect effects on these species are not expected to occur.

Three of the eight assessed TEPC plant species are known to inhabit open, upland habitats. None of these species is currently known to inhabit portions of the Proposed Project area that are expected to be treated. However, Osterhout milkvetch, Penland’s beardtongue and North Park phacelia have been considered to be in close enough proximity to the Proposed Project area to warrant consideration, as they may be affected by implementation activities. Potential effects to these species would be expected to be mostly indirect in nature; however, if these species were to be located within the boundary of a particular project site, then the potential effects could be direct as well. Through the use of the Botany Design Criteria these effects would be mitigated and the species would be avoided.

The three remaining TEPC plant species are riparian/wetland species. Penland’s alpine fen mustard is only known to inhabit alpine (above the tree line) fens and are thus far only known to exist along the mountain range that separate Summit, Lake and Park counties in central Colorado. Effects to this species would be limited to those associated with access or treatment activities that would require use of the areas that exist above the tree line. Ute ladies’-tresses orchid and Colorado butterfly plant are riparian species and they are

______United States Forest Service May 2010 Arapaho and Roosevelt, Routt, and White River National Forests Page 70 – Final – Environmental Assessment of the Emergency Power Line Clearing Project suspected to occur along streams that could potentially necessitate treatment through the Proposed Project. Effects to these species would be expected to be largely indirect through potential water depletion activities, but also direct through implementation activities where hazard trees may need to be removed. These potential effects would be mitigated through implementation of the Botany and Riparian Area / Aquatics Protection Design Criteria.

Sensitive Species

Of the 42 sensitive species listed in Table 3.5-2, three are identified as occurring above the tree line and would experience minimal potential effects as a result of implementation of the Proposed Action Alternative. Impacts to these species would be limited to those associated with implementation activities that may require utilization of those portions of the forests that occur above the tree line. Such activities may include access to treatment sites or site preparation/management/rehabilitation activities. Through the utilization of the Botany Design Criteria impacts from such activities would be avoided.

Nineteen other sensitive species are identified as occurring in upland or open areas such as old mine sites, roadsides, dams or xeric sites with sparse vegetation and no significant tree overstory. A potentially negative impact would result from the utilization of existing openings as landings; however, through the use of Design Criterion 2, requiring USFS approval of project sites through surveys for presence or absence of sensitive species, occurrences within specific project bounds would be avoided.

Fifteen of the listed sensitive species occur in riparian areas, wetlands, or fens. These wet areas are subject to Riparian Area/Aquatic Protection Design Criteria to eliminate the use of machinery within buffered zones around riparian areas, wetlands, and fens as well as limiting the methods used to remove hazardous trees within those sites. To avoid negative impacts to the wetland species, any specific removal project would be subject to Design Criterion 2 requiring a site survey and protection plan by the USFS before removal operations begin.

Lastly, five of the sensitive species have been identified as transitional or wetland generalist. These plants, by their habitat, would potentially be exposed to treatment activities near the edges of moist forested areas. These species would be protected through the utilization of the Design Criteria for Botany.

Hall fescue (Festuca halli) is a species that must be considered carefully in specific proposed treatment areas as this plant is associated with subalpine forest openings. Populations of hall fescue are potentially located in openings that may be considered for use as a landing or concentration area for specific treatment sites. Machine operation, piling of debris and alteration of shade/overstory is likely to present a negative effect to a population. Surveys and protection plans under Design Criterion 2 would protect and limit negative effects to the species.

Similarly, moonwort species may be affected by implemenation of this alternative as well. Botrychium (moonwort) species may depend on a shifting mosaic of suitable habitats for long-term persistence (Popovich 2005). Disturbances and land management activities may create and maintain suitable habitat for Botrychium species or may negatively impact existing populations depending on the disturbance timing, intensity and frequency. No disturbance may mean less available habitat for colonization, while excessive disturbance could extirpate populations making recolonization less likely due to lack of propagules. Potential threats to occupied sites include activities that change the canopy cover, soil temperature, or soil moisture of moonwort habitat. Because only one observance to date has documented these moonwort species in habitat with a closed canopy, canopy cover changes in which canopy is removed are not likely to adversely affect moonwort species. Because Botrychiums, in general are mostly found in previously disturbed areas, actions that clear or burn acres could create future habitat for this species. If any habitat is improved or created for moonworts as part of this project and the habitat becomes occupied, this would result in an increase in the known populations for these species.

It may be years (at least 10) before moonworts would occupy newly created habitat. Since these plants are small and delicate, any soil or ground disturbance that directly affects growing plants is likely to cause damage, at least to the aboveground structures (Popovich 2005). Because moonwort species appear to be at

______United States Forest Service May 2010 Arapaho and Roosevelt, Routt, and White River National Forests Page 71 – Final – Environmental Assessment of the Emergency Power Line Clearing Project least tolerant of disturbance, activities that cause light ground disturbance are not likely to significantly impact populations. Moderate to intense ground disturbing activities occurring within occupied locations could negatively affect individuals and habitat including the mychorrhizal relationships of early gametophytes which occur below the ground as well as the roots, stems, leaf primordia and fern-like structures which occur above the surface.

Invasions often occur where habitats are disturbed. If a noxious weed invasion occurred within occupied habitat, individuals or whole populations of moonwort species could be lost as a result of the change in plant community and resulting competition. Through implementation of the proposed Design Criteria, machinery cleaning before use on NFS lands would eliminate the transport of weed/invasive species seeds from off- site.

During planning processes for specifically located proposed treatment projects, considerations would be made for survey, location and protection of all of these Region 2 sensitive species to avoid damaging the habitats and plants themselves. Design Criteria numbers 2 and 3 require evaluation of sensitive species and restriction of activities to avoid federal listing or loss of population viability.

Indirect impacts to sensitive species are related to changes in soil temperatures, moisture levels, and direct sunlight intensity and duration. The extent of potential impacts is unknown as it would be dependent upon the amount of slash deposited, as well as the needs of specific sensitive plant species involved.

Cumulative Effects

Past, ongoing, and planned projects have likely altered TEPC and sensitive plant species occurrence on or near the three forests. Activities with the potential for impacting TEPC and sensitive plant species and their habitats include timber harvests, livestock grazing, recreational use, fire suppression, prescribed fire and wildfire, mining, development, and noxious weed infestation. The utilization of the Rehabilitation and Re- Vegetation and Invasive Species Design Criteria would help to avoid the unintentional introduction of invasive/noxious species to treatment site.

LRMP standards apply to projects occurring on NFS lands and thereby have reduced or eliminated the potential type and severity of cumulative effects from past, ongoing, and planned projects on TEPC and sensitive plant species and their habitats. The Proposed Action Alternative would be subject to the same LRMP standards, combined with the project-specific Design Criteria, the Proposed Project would not contribute to meaningful effects on these plant species.

Biological Determination

Table 3.5-3, Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, and Candidate Plant Species Determinations, provides a listing of the plant species assessed, their national forest of relevance, their determinations, and the rationale for the determination of “may affect, not likely to adversely affect” or “no effect” as a result of implementation of the Proposed Action.

Table 3.5-4, Sensitive Plant Species Determinations, provides a listing of the plant species assessed, National Forest of relevance, determinations, and rationale for determination for a “may adversely impact individuals, but not likely to result in a loss of viability in the Planning Area, nor cause a trend toward federal listing” or “no impact” as a result of implementation of the Proposed Action.

The appropriate use of Design Criteria, forest policies, and standards would mitigate effects to TEPC and sensitive plant species.

Forest Plan Consistency

All Design Criteria and rationale specific to TEPC and sensitive species are consistent and/or directly quoted from the LRMPs for the ARNF, RNF, and WRNF. Compliance to the LRMPs is based on compliance with the appropriate employment of the project Design Criteria.

______United States Forest Service May 2010 Arapaho and Roosevelt, Routt, and White River National Forests Page 72 – Final – Environmental Assessment of the Emergency Power Line Clearing Project

Table 3.5-3 Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, and Candidate (TEPC) Plant Species Determinations Scientific Common National Determination* Rationale Name Name Forest This species is known to occur within the vicinity of the Proposed Astragalus Osterhout ARNF / Project area. However, all potential MA, NLAA osterhoutii milkvetch RNF effects would be immeasurable and discountable through the use of the Design Criteria. Treatment activities could result in utilization of access routes above the Eutrema Penland’s tree line. Through the use of the edwardsii alpine fen WRNF MA, NLAA Design Criteria, the potential effects ssp. penlandii mustard would be immeasurable and discountable. Potential habitat is located within the Gaura forest. Water depletions could affect neomexicana Colorado ARNF MA, NLAA this species. However, all depletions ssp. butterfly plant would be immeasurable and coloradensis discountable. This species is known to occur within the vicinity of the Proposed Penstemon Penland’s ARNF / Project area. However, all potential MA, NLAA penlandii beardtongue RNF effects would be immeasurable and discountable through the use of the Design Criteria. This species is known to occur within the vicinity of the Proposed Phacelia North Park ARNF / Project area. However, all potential MA, NLAA formosula phacelia RNF effects would be immeasurable and discountable through the use of the Design Criteria. This species is only known to exist in populations that are disconnected Western from the Proposed Project area. Platanthera ARNF / prairie fringed NE Water depletions could affect this praeclara RNF orchid species. However, all depletions would be immeasurable and discountable. Colorado Sclerocactus No habitat for this species occurs hookless WRNF NE glaucus within the Proposed Project area. cactus Potential habitat is located within the forest. Water depletions could affect Spiranthes Ute ladies- ARNF / this species. However, all potential MA, NLAA diluvialis tresses orchid WRNF effects would be immeasurable and discountable through the use of the Design Criteria. * Determinations are MA, NLAA = May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect and NE = No Effect. Determinations are descriptive of expected species effects for both the No Action and Proposed Action Alternatives and are based upon the requirement that the proposed Design Criteria would be implemented to the fullest extent.

______United States Forest Service May 2010 Arapaho and Roosevelt, Routt, and White River National Forests Page 73 – Final – Environmental Assessment of the Emergency Power Line Clearing Project

Table 3.5-4 Sensitive Plant Species Determinations Determination* Scientific Name Common Name ARNF RNF WRNF Armeria maritima ssp. sibirica Sea Pink MAII MAII MAII Astragalus leptaleus Park Milkvetch MAII MAII MAII Astragalus wetherillii Wetherill Milkvetch - - MAII Botrychium ascendens Trianglelobe Moonwort MAII - MAII Botrychium campestre Prairie Dunewort MAII - - Botrychium “furcatum” Fork Leaf Moonwort MAII MAII MAII Botrychium lineare Slender Moonwort MAII MAII MAII Botrychium paradoxum Paradox Moonwort MAII MAII - Braya glabella Smooth Rockcress - - MAII Carex diandra Lesser Panicled Sedge MAII MAII MAII Carex livida Livid Sedge MAII MAII MAII Cirsium perplexans Rocky Mountain Thistle - - MAII Cypripedium parviflorum Yellow Lady’s Slipper MAII MAII MAII Draba exunguiculata Clawless Draba MAII MAII MAII Draba grayana Gray’s Peak Draba MAII MAII MAII Drosera rotundifolia Round Leaf Sundew MAII MAII MAII Eliocharis elliptica Elliptic spike rush - MAII - Eriogonum exilifolium Slender Buckwheat MAII MAII MAII Eriophorum altaicum var. neogaeum Altai Cottongrass MAII MAII MAII Eriophorum chamissonis Chamisso's Cottongrass - - MAII Eriophorum gracile Slender Cottongrass MAII MAII MAII Festuca hallii Hall Fescue MAII MAII MAII Ipomopsis aggregata ssp. weberi Weber's Scarlet Gilia - MAII - Kobresia simpliciuscula Simple Kobresia MAII MAII MAII Machaeranthera coloradoensis Colorado Tansy-Aster MAII MAII MAII Malaxis brachypoda White Adder's Mouth Orchid MAII MAII - Mimulus gemmiparus Weber's Monkeyflower MAII MAII - Parnassia kotzebueii Kotzebue's Grass of Parnassus MAII MAII MAII Penstemon harringtonii Harrington Beardtongue MAII MAII MAII Phacelia scopulina var. submutica Debeque Phacelia - - MAII Potentilla rupincola Rocky Mountain Cinquefoil MAII MAII - Primula egaliksensis Greenland Primrose MAII - - Ptilagrostis porteri Porter's Feathergrass - - MAII Ranunculus karelinii Arctic Buttercup MAII MAII MAII Rubus arcticus ssp. acaulis Dwarf Raspberry MAII MAII MAII Salix candida Hoary Willow MAII MAII MAII Salix serissima Autumn Willow MAII MAII MAII Selaginella selaginoides Low Spike-Moss - MAII - Sphagnum angustifolium Peat Moss MAII MAII MAII Sphagnum balticum Baltic Bog Moss - MAII MAII Thalictrum heliophilum Sun-Loving Meadowrue - - MAII Utricularia minor Lesser Bladderwort MAII MAII MAII Viola selkirkii Great Spurred Violet MAII MAII - * Determinations are MAII = May Adversely Impact Individuals, but not likely to result in a loss of viability in the Planning Area, nor cause a trend toward federal listing and NI = No Impact. Determinations are descriptive of expected species effects for both the No Action and Proposed Action Alternatives and are based upon the requirement that the proposed Design Criteria would be implemented to the fullest extent.

______United States Forest Service May 2010 Arapaho and Roosevelt, Routt, and White River National Forests Page 74 – Final – Environmental Assessment of the Emergency Power Line Clearing Project

3.5.2 Species of Local Concern

Affected Environment

Plant species of local concern (SOLC) are documented or suspected to be at risk at a forest-wide scale but do not meet the criteria to be classified for Regional 2 Sensitive species designation because their populations are reasonably secure or stable within portions of Region 2 of the USFS. These could include species with declining trends in only a portion of Region 2. Risk to species viability may differ at national, regional and local scales. Species at the edge of their range may not merit regional Sensitive Species status, but may be important elements of biological diversity for the Forest/Grassland unit (from R2 Planning Desk Guide Chapter 27: Selection of Sensitive Species, Species of Local Concern, and MIS in R2). The purpose of a plant SOLC report is to inform the decision maker and disclose the likely effects of the alternatives on plants of local concern. SOLC are identified during revision of individual LRMPs.

The LRMPs for each of the three forests do not include direction (standards or guidelines) for the management of plant SOLC. However, direction for the management of these species is provided in several forest service manual (FSM) directives. FSM 1926.15, number 13, states to “Ensure the plan provides for the kinds, amounts, and distribution of habitat needed for recovery of threatened or endangered species and needed to maintain viable, well-distributed populations of all existing native and desired nonnative species.” Further direction is provided in FSM 2670.22, number 2, which states to “Maintain viable populations of all native and desired nonnative wildlife, fish, and plant species in habitats distributed throughout their geographic range on National Forest System lands.”

The lists of plant SOLC for the three forests includes plants that occur throughout those areas of the forests that are inhabited or may be inhabited by other sensitive species, such as those listed as Region 2 Sensitive and TEPC. Due to the variations in the habitats that may be affected by the Proposed Project in one form or another, all plant SOLCs for the three forests (138 species and three generic categories of plants) have been included and considered for analysis. Of the species that are considered, there are 34 species and two generalized categories of plants which would be considered as potentially occurring on the ARNF, 96 species potentially occurring on the RNF, and 52 species and one generalized group potentially occurring on the WRNF.

Of the total 138 species considered, a total of 53 upland species and some species within the three generic categories of plant SOLC would be considered as potentially occurring within the Proposed Project area; however, not all species would be expected to occur in areas that may be affected. Of those upland species, many are limited in their potential to occur within potentially affected areas due to specific biology and species requirements which limit them to rocky or open slopes, grasslands, pinyon-juniper dominated areas, wet meadows, or similar non-forested habitats. In general, the upland species would be suspected to occur along forested edges and within access areas or potential landing sites.

The generalist species, which compose 41 of the 138 species, would have the greatest potential to be affected by the Proposed Project. Twelve of these species have been noted to occur or suspected to occur within lodgepole pine stands. These species are generally associated with forested areas that retain higher levels of soil moisture and provide a greater degree of shade and cover.

Species other than those that occur on upland or generalist sites may also occur within the Proposed Project area. In general, wetland and riparian species, specifically those which are obligates, would be expected to be protected through implementation of the proposed Design Criteria and would not be expected to be affected by the Proposed Project. However, the 13 wetland or riparian species that are considered as transitional to forested areas could potentially be affected by the Proposed Project and have been assessed accordingly.

Furthermore, there are two generalized groups of plants that are considered SOLC on the ARNF and one on the WRNF. These species occupy a variety of habitats including upland sites as well as riparian and wetland transitional sites. As such, some of the species could potentially occur in areas that would be affected by the Proposed Project.

______United States Forest Service May 2010 Arapaho and Roosevelt, Routt, and White River National Forests Page 75 – Final – Environmental Assessment of the Emergency Power Line Clearing Project

The area assessed for effects as a part of the Proposed Project includes several known recent and historical occurrences of plant SOLC (according to data obtained from the NRIS and CNHP databases). These occurrences include 9 occurrences within the ARNF, 9 occurrences within the RNF, and 3 occurrences within the WRNF. The occurrences within the ARNF are composed of an undetermined species of Botrychium spp., Botrychium echo, Corallorhiza trifida, Cypripedium fasciculatum*, Goodyera oblongifolia, Listera cordata, Lewisia rediviva*, Petasites sagittatus, and Polypodium saximontanum. The 9 occurrences that have been noted within the RNF are composed of Agoseris lackschewitzii, Athyrium filix- femina, Botrychium hesperium*, Botrychium lanceolatum var. lanceolatum, Carex magellanica ssp. irrigua, Penstemon radicosus*, Platanthera sparsiflora var. ensifolia, Polystichum lonchitis, and Sparganium natans. The three known occurrences noted for the WRNF include Botrychium echo*, Conimitella williamsii*, and Draba porsildii. Species noted with an asterisk (*) have been noted to also occur within areas that have been infested by bark beetles (DCA_1 = 11000 through 11015) within the Proposed Project area according to aerial surveys that have been completed by the USFS.

Several other occurrences of plant SOLC have also been noted to occur on the ARNF, but have not been documented within the source datasets. These occurrences include Conimitella williamsii, Fritillaria atropurpurea, Lewisia rediviva, and common moonworts (Botrychium spp.) (Personal communication with Steve Popovich, 2009-2010).

A listing and report of potential effects to plant SOLCs for each forest is available as a portion of the administrative record at the respective Forest Supervisor’s office.

Environmental Consequences

3.5.2.1 Alternative 1: No Action

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects

Direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of implementation of the Proposed Action Alternative to SOLC species would be expected to be the same as the effects described for TEPC and sensitive species in section 3.5.1.1.

3.5.2.2 Alternative 2: Proposed Action

Direct and Indirect Effects

Direct effects to plant SOLC could include trampling, smothering, or being burned under slash piles. Affected individuals may experience reduced growth and development as well as reduced rates of reproduction. Treatments occurring on sites containing SOLC could affect species diversity and reproduction as a result of the effects of disturbances during flowering or seeding. As a result changes to meta-population structure and species viability on the project site could occur. The greatest risk of direct effects would be to those species occurring in upland habitat due to the likelihood of treatment activities taking place in those types of habitats.

Indirect effects to plan SOLC could take place through the overall changes in habitat structure as a result of the removal of the overstory in treatment areas. Changes to sunlight, nutrient, and water availability could positively or negatively affect life supporting processes of any of these species, depending upon the requirements for those species.

Invasive competition from species could also indirectly affect species of local concern. However, Design Criteria have been developed to minimize or avoid this potential effect to the extent practicable.

Through the use of the Design Criteria, specifically numbers 2 & 3, the potential effects to SOLCs would be minimized or avoided altogether. Though some individuals or populations of these species may be affected during project implementation, there is no expectation that activities related to implementation of the Proposed Action Alternative would contribute to a decline of these species or their habitats.

______United States Forest Service May 2010 Arapaho and Roosevelt, Routt, and White River National Forests Page 76 – Final – Environmental Assessment of the Emergency Power Line Clearing Project

A number of upland species have also been excluded from this analysis due to their lack of affinity for the areas that would be likely to be affected through implementation of this alternative. These species occur in areas above the tree line, in open grasslands, in rocky or open vegetation, or in other vegetative cover that would not be affected (i.e. Pinyon-Juniper habitats). Some of these species have been previously noted to occur within the Proposed Project area; however, they would not be expected to be affected by either alternative. If they were to be determined present during surveys, the Design Criteria would be applied as appropriate to protect their occurrences.

Table 3.5-5 provides a listing of the species of local concern that would have the greatest potential to be affected by the Proposed Project. As stated above, many of these species occur in a variety habitats and are referred to as generalists; however, several species that are riparian/wetland transitional are included as well. The Global Heritage ranking (G/T) and CNHP state status (S) is provided as well as the national forest in which these would most likely be found or to which their populations are of concern. It is also useful to emphasize that other species of local concern not presented on the list may occur within the Proposed Project area as well.

Table 3.5-5 Plant SOLC Potentially Affected by the Proposed Project

Presence

RNF

Scientific Name Status Global Species Species Species ARNF Prk WRNF Ymp State Status State HPBE All Fern Species Except Cystopteris fragilis - - + - - - - Agoseris lackschewitzii G4 - - D S S - Allium schoenoprasum var. sibiricum G5T5 S1 - S -- -- - Aralia nudicaulis G5 S2 + S S S - Asplenium trichomanes ramosum G4 S1S2 - - - - + Aster alpinus var. vierhapperi G5T5 S1 - - - - + Botrychium ssp. - - + - - - - Botrychium crenulatum G3 - - - - - + Botrychium echo G3 S3 - D S S + Botrychium hesperium G4 S2 - S S D + Botrychium lanceolatum var. lanceolatum G5/T4 S3 + S S D + Botrychium lunaria G5 S3 - D S S + Botrychium minganense G4 S1 - S S D - Botrychium multifidum G5 S1 + D D S - Botrychium pallidum G3 S2 - S S S + Botrychium pinnatum G4 S1 + - S S + Botrychium 'redbank' - - + S S S - Botrychium simplex G5 S1 + D S S + Botrychium spathulatum G3 - + - - - - Botrypus virginianum G5 S1 + - - - - Callitriche heterophylla G5 S1 - S S S - Calypso bulbosa G5 S4? + - - - - Carex cocinna G4 S1 - - - S + Carex stenoptila G2 S2 - S S S - Chrysosplenium tetrandrum G5 - + - - - - Conimitella williamsii G3? S1 + - - - + Corallorhiza trifida G5 SNR + S S S - Corallorhiza wisteriana G5 SNR + - - - - Cryptogramma stelleri G5 S2 - S S S + Cypripedium fasciculatum G4 S3 + D S S + Cystopteris montana G5 S1 + S S S + Draba spectabilis var. oxyloba G3/T3-Q S3 - S S S +

______United States Forest Service May 2010 Arapaho and Roosevelt, Routt, and White River National Forests Page 77 – Final – Environmental Assessment of the Emergency Power Line Clearing Project

Fritillaria atropurpurea G5 S3? + - - - - Gymnocarpium dryopteris G5 S3 + S S S + Juncus vaseyi G5 S1 - V S S - Lewisia rediviva G5 S2 + S S S - Liatris ligulistylis G5? S1/2 - S S S - Lilium philadelphicum G5 S2/3 + S S S - Listera borealis G4 S2 + S S S + Listera convallarioides G5 S2 + S S S + Listera cordata G5 SNR + - - - - Lycopodium annotinum G5 S4 + S S S - Muscaria monticola G5T5 S1 - - - - + Polystichum lonchitis G5 S2? + S D S - Pyrola picta G4/5 S3 + D D S - Pyrrocoma crocea var. crocea G4?/T4? SNR - S S S - Rhododendron albiflorum G4 S2 - D D S - Sullivantia hapemanii var. purpusii G3T3 S3 - S S S - Symphyotrichum porteri G3/4 SNR - S S S - Thalictrum alpinum G5 SNR + - - - - Townsendia rothrockii G2/3 S2/3 - - - - + Trillium ovatum G5 S3/4 + S D S - Viburnum edule G5 S3? - S S S - Veratrum tenuipetalum G4?Q S4? + D D S + Presence Acronyms: ARNF=Arapaho & Roosevelt National Forests, RNF=Routt National Forest (Prk=Parks Ranger District, HPBE=Hahn's Peak-Bear's Ears, Ymp=Yampa Ranger District), WRNF=White River National Forest ARNF and WRNF Presence Codes: + = Known or suspected to occur, - = Not known or suspected to occur RNF Presence Codes: S=Suspected, D=Documented, V=Vicinity, (NC?)= Possibly not concern, ?=Remotely possible, - = Not present

Moonworts as a generalized group or when considered individually by species would be considered potentially present in many proposed treatment areas, depending on the suitability of the habitat. These species generally occur on disturbed sites, such as those within power line ROWs, and they are very small (less than 3 inches in height) and difficult to distinguish. As such, individuals of the Botrychium genus could remain undetected during survey efforts and they may be affected by this alternative. Assuming they are present, effects of implementation of the Proposed Action on these species would likely occur and would be similar to those described for these species in Section 3.5.1.2.

Cumulative Effects

Loss and alteration of occupied suitable habitats and unoccupied potentially suitable habitats are the primary effects from past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions on the forests. Reasonably foreseeable federal ongoing activities or management actions that may remove or alter plant SOLC habitats include, but are not limited to, continued livestock grazing, timber harvest, and winter recreation such as snowmobiling, summer recreation and fire suppression. Implementation of the Proposed Action Alternative would not be additive to the cumulative effects on plant SOLCs above the existing conditions, except to the extent that additional acreage of potential habitat for species may be disturbed.

Forest Plan Consistency

None of the LRMPs for the three forests require consideration for plant SOLC; however FSM 1926.15, number 13, and FSM 2670.22, number 2, provide direction for the management of these species. As such, both alternatives would be compliant with the LRMPs for all three forests.

______United States Forest Service May 2010 Arapaho and Roosevelt, Routt, and White River National Forests Page 78 – Final – Environmental Assessment of the Emergency Power Line Clearing Project

3.5.3 Rationale for Biological Determinations (includes consideration for plant SOLC, TEPC, and Sensitive Species)

Implementation of the No Action Alternative would not be expected to increase the currently existing potential for negative effects or impacts to the plant SOLC, TEPC, or sensitive species addressed in this assessment based on the absence of new direct or indirect effects or for a lack of a contribution to cumulative effects. It is noteworthy to indicate that under this alternative, the bark beetle epidemic would continue to affect lodgepole pine and other timber stands across the forests with subsequent potential effects on plant species considered through the loss of shade and changes in soil moisture regimes associated with defoliation and death of beetle-infected trees, and the potential for dead and dying trees and limbs to fall, crushing or burying the species. Although, the cause for these potential effects would differ from those associated with the similar effects described under the Proposed Action Alternative, the long-term effects on the plant species considered similar.

Implementation of the Proposed Action Alternative would have the potential to affect or impact individuals, but would not result in a loss of viability of the species. This determination is based on the application of effective Design Criteria included as part of the Proposed Action Alternative that would reduce the potential for meaningful effects on individuals and populations of these species.

Riparian/Wetland/Fen and Riparian Transitional/Generalist Species

• Suitable habitats occur in the area potentially affected by the Proposed Project.

• Implementation of the Riparian Areas / Aquatic Protection Design Criteria would buffer known or potential habitat to restrict the types of activities that would be allowed within the riparian/wetland/fen habitats. These criteria would require USFS specialist review for all sites prior to implementation of the Proposed Action Alternative, which would ensure that if species were present, they would have been found and the Botany Design Criteria would provide further direction for the protection of considered plant species. These criteria would allow Forest Service biologists/botanists to reduce the potential effects to suitable habitats and occurrences by evaluating occurrence and habitat information associated with each treatment unit; determination of consultation and site protection requirements to reduce issues associated with species viability; and identification of activity restrictions based on site conditions and species-specific information so that the Proposed Project would not result in a trend toward federal listing or loss of population viability.

• Implementation of the Design Criteria for Invasive Species and Rehabilitation and Re-vegetation would ensure that all possible measures would be taken to prevent or reduce the potential for erosion and invasive species introduction, which would potentially have a detrimental effect to TEPC and sensitive species as well as plant SOLCs.

• The proposed treatments are designed to treat forested habitats and would likely have little impact on other habitats that may support considered plant species including riparian/riparian transitions (streams, wetlands, bogs, springs, and fens), grasslands, sagebrush, and barren.

Upland Species

• The majority of the treatment areas would be located in areas associated with the ongoing bark beetle epidemic, which would limit the area treated to those areas exhibiting large acreages of been infestation mortality, but would also include those areas that exhibit other species tree mortality or hazardous tree conditions.

• Implementation of the Botany Design Criteria would require USFS involvement to ensure that surveys for TEPC and sensitive plant species, as well as plant SOLCs, which would ensure that treatment activities would be implemented such that detrimental effects to these species would be avoided where feasible. These criteria would allow the USFS to reduce the potential effects to suitable habitats and occurrences by evaluating occurrence and habitat information associated with each treatment unit;

______United States Forest Service May 2010 Arapaho and Roosevelt, Routt, and White River National Forests Page 79 – Final – Environmental Assessment of the Emergency Power Line Clearing Project

determination of consultation and site protection requirements to reduce issues associated with species viability; and identification of activity restrictions based on site conditions and species-specific information so that the Proposed Project would not result in a trend toward federal listing or loss of population viability.

3.6 Forested Vegetation and Old Growth Stands

3.6.1 Forested Vegetation

Affected Environment

Bark beetles, including MPB, are endemic to all coniferous forests of North America. The forests of the Rocky Mountains have seen a dramatic increase in bark beetle infestations followed by conifer mortality. The four species that are major hosts of MPB infestation are lodgepole pine, ponderosa pine, sugar pine and white pine. The lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta) has suffered the greatest losses in this current bark beetle infestation. Lodgepole stands are vulnerable due to several factors including: 1) several years of drought; 2) existing stand conditions of old, overstocked and large diameter; 3) earlier melt in smaller drought impacted snow-packs; 4) and higher average temperatures allowing greater expansion on bark beetle lifecycles, movement and survival into higher elevations. The bark beetle epidemic will likely continue and increase until a sustained period of extremely low temperatures (< -30°F) occurs during the winter season. In addition, other tree species that often suffer mortality from MPB attacks include: limber pine, white pine, pinyon pine, spruce, true firs, and Douglas-fir. Douglas-fir, true fir and spruce infestations rarely produce active broods of MPB but are often infested and killed when in or adjacent to mixed stands of major host pine species.

Annual aerial surveys conducted for each of the national forests present an unbelievable picture of the rate of spread for the current beetle epidemic. Surveys in the late 1990’s indicated only few, scattered and otherwise endemic beetle infestations less than 10 acres each. By 2005, numbers of infested acres were climbing. Between 2006 and 2007, forests to the north were inundated with large contiguous areas of infestation. Between 2007 and 2008, lodgepole stands from north to south along the Rocky Mountains were heavily infested with bark beetles. The “red” trees observed in aerial surveys show the extent of the previous year’s infestation, while the recently infested trees are still “green” and will not show “red” until the following year. At the rate of expansion of this current beetle infestation, it is believed that more than 80% of all lodgepole pines greater than five inches in diameter will be dead within the next three years along the Rocky Mountains. Table 3.6-1 lists the extent of the spread of bark beetles throughout the Proposed Project area for each of the three forests.

Table 3.6-1 Extent of Bark Beetle Damage within the Proposed Project Area Forest 1994-2007 Spread 2008 Expansion 2009 Expansion ARNF 5,935 124 421 RNF 2,367 512 11 WRNF 5,584 571 83 Sub-Totals 13,886 1,206 515 Total 15,606

The 15,606 acres of existing infestation listed above are distributed across approximately 302 of the 800 total miles of power lines that are proposed for treatment. These 302 miles are those that would be expected to be most affected by the Proposed Project.

Table 3.6-2 below displays the number of acres by species for each of the three forests. It should be noted that this table only displays the acreage of the areas dominated by the species listed. Due to the fact that the data provided in this table is only representative of the areas that are dominated by the species listed and not specifically representative of all areas where these species occur, the following table is not intended to represent the areas that may be affected by the Proposed Project, but is intended to provide an understanding of the distribution of the vegetative coverage throughout the Proposed Project area.

______United States Forest Service May 2010 Arapaho and Roosevelt, Routt, and White River National Forests Page 80 – Final – Environmental Assessment of the Emergency Power Line Clearing Project

Table 3.6-2 Areas Dominated by Tree Species within the Proposed Project Area (PPA) Forest ARNF RNF WRNF % of % of % of Species† Total* PPA Total** PPA Total* PPA Timber Timber Timber ABLA 74,965 232 0% 76,906 113 0% 243,060 757 0% PICO(L) 260,052 1,150 0% 175,393 568 0% 185,624 1,426 1% PIEN 162,201 501 0% 142,776 164 0% 384,658 1,043 0% PIFL2 16,010 69 0% 671 0 0% 100 0 0% PIPO(S) 103,785 409 0% 0 0 0% 455 0 0% PIPU 147 0 0% 11 0 0% 5,381 37 1% POTR5 60,642 392 1% 83,816 153 0% 300,800 1,287 0% PSME 54,840 147 0% 5,514 14 0% 60,683 344 1% Totals 732,642 2,900 0% 485,087 1,012 0% 1,180,762 4,895 0% † USDA Species codes are used to identify tree species within the ARNF, RNF and WRNF vegetative cover types GIS database named R2Veg. * Figures were extracted from R2VEG data that includes some portions of vegetative cover that exists outside of lands owned by the USFS. ** Figures were extracted from only that portion of the R2VEG data that exists within the NFS lands of the forest.

It is important to note that many areas have been infested by bark beetles and the results of infestations are high levels of mortality among coniferous tree species. Though these areas generally exhibit large numbers of dead trees, they may not necessarily pose a hazard to the power lines themselves. As such, individual areas that contain large numbers of dead trees may not be affected by the Proposed Project, whereas some other areas that contain similar numbers of dead trees may be affected. Determinations of the hazards posed by the dead trees will be made on a site-by-site basis through coordinated efforts by the USFS and the utility companies.

Natural regeneration is occurring, seemingly uninhibited by bark beetle infestation, in the tree species listed above. Younger, faster growing seedlings and saplings with heavy resin flows are often capable of “pitching out” beetles as they bore into trees. Natural regeneration represents the future forest when the MPB infested trees are no longer in place. The species composition would change as the overstory begins to degrade, opening up the forest floor to more sunlight. Grasses and forbs, as well as a soil seed bank with additional tree species, would begin to germinate and add to the future forest. Factors such as fire frequency and intensity, drought, snowpack, and the rate of overstory collapse would determine the actual composition of the future forest.

Environmental Consequences

3.6.1.1 Alternative 1: No Action

Direct and Indirect Effects

Implementation of the No Action Alternative would create no direct or indirect effects on existing forested vegetation, as utility companies would continue their management practices as currently authorized.

Natural regeneration would be inhibited as many plant species seeds must have a disturbance event to expose bare mineral soils for an acceptable seed bed. In areas where natural regeneration occurs, the reproduction would emerge through a heavy fuel load of fine and coarse fuels.

Under the No Action Alternative, fine and heavy fuels would build up along power line ROWs until removed by a wildfire or after many decades of decomposition and decay returning the biomass to the soil. Heavy fuel loads could delay natural reestablishment of forest regeneration, due to lack of exposed mineral soil for the seeds to germinate in. The No Action Alternative would not provide for utilization of forest products such as posts, poles, lumber, and biomass for energy production.

______United States Forest Service May 2010 Arapaho and Roosevelt, Routt, and White River National Forests Page 81 – Final – Environmental Assessment of the Emergency Power Line Clearing Project

Cumulative Effects

Implementation of the No Action Alternative would not add cumulatively to the general effects to forested vegetation across the Proposed Project area. This alternative would allow the natural process of stand degradation to process uninhibited. It would be expected that treatments outside of the Proposed Project area to be implemented and with the continued loss of mature forests as a result of the ongoing bark beetle epidemic the forest cover types would be expected to change dynamically. Some stand areas may be altered to the extent that the stand species may change altogether whereas in other areas the stands would be expected to retain their current species diversity.

3.6.1.2 Alternative 2: Proposed Action

Direct and Indirect Effects

The Proposed Action Alternative would allow for removal of forest products, effective release of natural regeneration, as well as planting, and soil seed bank and mitigation of severe wildfire hazard. Standards within the LRMPs set forth the required snag and down woody debris retention levels.

Some indirect effects that would potentially result from implementation of the Proposed Action Alternative would include changes in stand species diversity and species composition. The result of this effect could be that as the forest types change, other floral and faunal species may change as well, such that the species that utilize particular areas may fluctuate. This effect could be beneficial or adverse depending on the species considered. The species that prefer open cover types would benefit over the next 10-20 years, but as the vegetative cover converts from open to timbered (20-50 years) the species composition would be expected to change again (Lotan and Perry 1983).

Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects may be incurred where this project intersects with other disturbance-creating projects such as timber and fuels removal projects. Specific disturbance related projects should be evaluated in relation to this Proposed Action for negative cumulative effects.

As a whole the changes across the landscape of the northern Colorado Rocky Mountains has been great with respect to forest health. Many of the forest stands across the landscape have been adversely affected by the progression of the bark beetle epidemic, specifically lodgepole pine dominant stands.

As a result many of the stands that have been affected on federal, state, and private lands have been targeted for removal in an effort to reduce fuel loads and promote forest health. The Proposed Project would add cumulatively to the projects that have been implemented or planned for those lands. This effect as a whole across the landscape has provided the potential for stand regeneration to progress more quickly in some areas, whereas in other areas the regeneration of stands has not been targeted in an effort to provide zones for protection from wildfires for communities into the foreseeable future in planning for the potential for catastrophic wildfires that could result from the increased fuel loads associated with the increasing timber mortality.

Forest Plan Consistency

Both alternatives are consistent with the standards for Silviculture in the respective LRMPs.

3.6.2 Old Growth Strategy – Late Succession Forest

Affected Environment

Old Growth Strategy management includes stands of trees with characteristics related to late succession of the dominant forest type. Late succession is defined as mature and old growth forest with moderate to dense canopy closure, defined in structural stages being distinguished by old trees and their related structures such

______United States Forest Service May 2010 Arapaho and Roosevelt, Routt, and White River National Forests Page 82 – Final – Environmental Assessment of the Emergency Power Line Clearing Project as accumulations of large dead woody material, number of crown layers, species composition, and ecological function. Old Growth Strategy stands are divided into nine categories that are descriptive of their current condition or stage such as either “good” or “fair” condition. The terms “recruit” or “recruitment” are used to identify those stands that have the characteristics to be Old Growth and are in the process of accumulating the required traits. Due to the level of influence from management strategies, a significant portion of the Old Growth on the three forests occurs in Wilderness Areas.

There are incidences where Old Growth stands intersect with power line corridors for very short distances (less than 0.25 miles). Table 3.6-3 below illustrates the acres of Old Growth that are adjacent to power line ROWs in each of the three forests.

Table 3.6-3 Old Growth Stands within the Proposed Project Area Old Growth within the % of Old Growth within the Forest Old Growth Acreage Project Area Project Area ARNF 58,264 67 0.1% RNF* 479,616 624 0.1% WRNF 128,654 24 0.0% Total 666,534 715 0.1% * Old Growth stands for this dataset are those defined within the R2VEG database R2VEG_SPECIES_CALCS attributes table as 4B and 4C HAB_STR _STG, which are noted as features that are mature in age and a portion of stands that contain greater than 40% crown closure.

By their definition and requirements, Old Growth Strategy stands require the presence of mature dominant trees. The nature of the ongoing bark beetle epidemic is that the target or preferred hosts in a given stand are mature trees. In general, this means that the most mature trees in a given stand are affected first when beetles infest the stand. The overall effect of this dynamic has resulted in the infestation and subsequent death of much, if not all, of the mature lodgepole pine forests in the RNF. The current epidemic continues to spread, east and south as lodgepole pine stands are present in nearly contiguous stands; this dynamic is replicating itself throughout those forests as well and the WRNF has few Old Growth stands that have not been infested by the beetles. The ARNF still contains a number of stands that have not been infested (including those that do not qualify as Old Growth), however the quality of those too are expected to degrade as the epidemic continues to spread eastward.

Environmental Consequences

3.6.2.1 Alternative 1: No Action

Direct and Indirect Effects

With implementation of the No Action Alternative, little would change with the condition of most Old Growth stands. Trees would die and fall over time in patterns similar to the other or similar to that in stands that exhibit comparable compositions of species. Lodgepole pine components of these stands would likely succumb to mortality first with some incidental mortality of adjacent spruce trees through injury or infestation with spruce bark beetle, as well as fir species by falling trees. The presence of dead and dying trees and small openings created from loss of lodgepole pines would not be likely to cause the removal of the stand from Old Growth status, however, it is expected that mature stands of lodgepole pine will lose upwards of 80% of the individual trees with diameters greater than 6 inches (Mitchell and Preisler 1998).

Cumulative Effects

The continued degradation of bark beetle infested timber stands would be expected to continue to progress into the foreseeable future. Due to the fact Old Growth Strategy timber stands are characterized by almost solely by the diameters of their trees, they are some of the most vulnerable resources that may be affected by the ongoing bark beetle epidemic, specifically lodgepole pine stands since they have been affected the most by the epidemic. Implementation of the No Action Alternative would not be expected to add cumulatively to

______United States Forest Service May 2010 Arapaho and Roosevelt, Routt, and White River National Forests Page 83 – Final – Environmental Assessment of the Emergency Power Line Clearing Project the degradation of Old Growth stands; however the effects of the beetle epidemic on the stands may be significant across the landscape.

3.6.2.2 Alternative 2: Proposed Action

Direct and Indirect Effects

Since a significant portion of the known Old Growth Strategy stands exist within some portion of Wilderness Areas, those stands would not be affected as a result of implementation of the Proposed Action Alternative. Old Growth Strategy stands may be treated through implementation of the Proposed Action Alternative, however the treatments would be expected to be minimal, due to the proximity of the treatments to areas that have been highly and relatively frequently disturbed. Old Growth stands adjacent to power line corridors would be treated in accordance with LRMP standards.

The Proposed Action Alternative is not designed or intended to rehabilitate or protect existing Old Growth Strategy stands, but to mitigate potential overhead hazards and premature fuel buildup associated with the current epidemic.

Cumulative Effects

It is assumable that similar projects are being planned within the region and on other federal, state, and private lands. With the progression of the ongoing bark beetle epidemic is could also be assumed that the majority of timber stands that would qualify as Old Growth Strategy stands, specifically those that are lodgepole pine dominant, would suffer an increased degree of mortality, when compared to younger stands, and add more to fuel loads as they degrade from the resulting mortality. The post bark beetle epidemic result may be large-scale loss of Old Growth stands throughout the region. It is not expected that the Proposed Project would add cumulatively to the loss of Old Growth stands since the treatments proposed would target the removal of dead or dying trees that qualify as hazards to the power line infrastructure only.

Forest Plan Consistency

Both alternatives would follow Forest Plan direction for the management of forest resources.

3.7 Fire and Fuels

Affected Environment

Bark beetle infestations leave behind potentially heavy fuels loads and conditions as the insects spread across the landscape. Fuel loads, fuel types and inherent fire hazard levels change over time.

In the first very obvious stage, the red needle stage, needles persist on the tree providing the means for a surface fire to transition into the forest canopy. Low moisture content in the dead needles allows the fire to move through the crowns more easily than would normal live green crown conditions. Once dead needles fall, crown fire potential is significantly decreased, although forest floor fuel loads are substantially increased by the fallen needles. As needles and other fine fuels transition to the forest floor, the potential for crown fire diminishes as the potential for high intensity surface fire increases.

Within the 5 to 20 years following the initial beetle attacks, the dead trees begin to fall to the forest floor and become a substantial portion of the 1- to 10,000-hour surface fuel load. At approximately this same interval, lodgepole pine regeneration is 2 to12 feet tall, creating a fine fuel/heavy fuel load. At this point in time, the potential fuel loads are the highest and most hazardous point due to the regeneration growing up through the dead fuels. This fuel situation of mixed large diameter dead fuels and pine regeneration creates the potential for very severe surface fires and increased difficulty in fire fighting operations. Figure 3-4 below illustrates the fuel profile hazard associated with MPB mortality over time.

______United States Forest Service May 2010 Arapaho and Roosevelt, Routt, and White River National Forests Page 84 – Final – Environmental Assessment of the Emergency Power Line Clearing Project

It should also be noted that this progression of fuel development is not linear within a given area that has been experiencing mortality from the bark beetle epidemic. The progression of tree mortality is variable and the result is that not all trees within a stand die simultaneously. This causes the progression of fuel accumulation to vary such that infested and dying trees within a stand may be in various stages of mortality. This process may take several years for all trees that would die from the infestation within a stand to die. In the end stands may exhibit trees in the red stage for years at a time.

Figure 3-4 Fuel Profile Hazard Associated with Mountain Pine Beetle Mortality

Environmental Consequences

3.7.1 Alternative 1: No Action

Direct and Indirect Effects

Under the No Action Alternative, utility companies would continue their management practices along power lines as currently authorized, which would do little to mitigate the fuel loads in these areas. Direct effects would be that standing dead trees could possibly fall on power lines causing wildfires and disrupting power delivery to cities, towns and households. Wildfires approaching untreated power line corridors would damage poles and structures while causing wires to break from direct flames or heat exposure. In either case, power delivery would be disrupted to many areas. Without a fire to eliminate accumulated down woody debris, access for maintenance personnel would likely be blocked, potentially causing delays in normal and emergency maintenance during power outages.

Cumulative Effects

The result of implementing the No Action Alternative may be that fuel loads would add cumulatively to the risks posed to the power line infrastructure of the region. The result of the accumulation of fuel loads adjacent to the power lines could be that the infrastructure would be slightly to severely damaged in the event of a wildfire. This effect may be increased costs to utility users as well as disruptions in service. Furthermore, implementation of this alternative could result in damages to soils as a result of fire intensity in the event that a wildfire event would occur. Such damages may cause temporary to permanent damages to soil stability and water quality, which could also cause structural problems to power line infrastructure.

3.7.2 Alternative 2: Proposed Action

Direct and Indirect Effects

By removing hazardous trees near the power lines, trees would not fall on or otherwise contact the power lines potentially causing wildfire and/or loss of electricity. Another positive effect of the Proposed Action

______United States Forest Service May 2010 Arapaho and Roosevelt, Routt, and White River National Forests Page 85 – Final – Environmental Assessment of the Emergency Power Line Clearing Project

Alternative would be reduced intensity of potential fires, originating from power lines arcing or contacting hazard trees and from wildfires that may move into power line ROWs, causing damage to infrastructure.

Removal of fuels along the power lines would reduce the hazard of wildland fire caused by power line malfunction. The removal of hazardous trees and fuels in a linear fashion along the power line ROW would create a zone of disturbed fuels in the event of power line discharge or arcing. With little or no vegetation and forest fuels to sustain a fire, an arc from the power line would not likely be able to ignite fire event. Indirectly, removal of hazard trees and fuel loads along the power lines may prevent power line damage from wildfire by moving the sources of heat and flame away from power lines and power line structures, thus preventing power failure.

In areas where removal is not feasible or possible, fuel treatments such as mastication, chipping, or lopping and scattering would be used to reduce overhead hazards; however, these methods would do little to slow or prevent fire movement to the power line structures. These fuel treatments are designed to place as much of the fuel as possible in direct contact with the ground to facilitate decay through increased moisture retention, potentially lessening the intensity of a fire situation over time while providing increased access for firefighters. Design Criteria have been developed to dictate the placement and use of lop and scatter treatments such that debris would be scattered to a depth below 24 inches in height.

Through the use of the Design Criteria, all burning of slash and debris associated with treatment activities would be required to be located on landing sites, which would be located outside of the Proposed Project area. This would provide further protection to the power line infrastructure.

Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects can be anticipated to occur where other, unrelated, vegetation management or timber cutting projects overlap with power line clearing areas. In any overlap areas, trees may have already been removed or are designated for removal and fuels may have already been treated in areas adjacent to the project area. Other cumulative effects include the production of particulate matter into the air by burning slash piles and generation of dust by vehicles. Regulations and monitoring programs are in place to assess the impacts to air quality associated with production of less than 10-micron diameter particulate matter (PM10). Cumulative effects from this project are expected to be minimal.

Forest Plan Consistency

Both alternatives would comply with standards listed in the LRMPs concerning Disturbance Processes, Fire. Specific Design Criteria related to fuel management would be used in preplanning as well as planning any activities related to fuels management.

3.8 Heritage Resources

Affected Environment

The Emergency Power Line Clearing Project area of potential effect (APE) spans 767 miles across USFS lands including an expected total of 17,628 treatment acres. The scope of this project falls within what is spatially defined as the North Central Mountain Region of Colorado for cultural research purposes. This area includes a broad range of cultural resources from Paleo-Indian sites to recent historic developments. To give these sites and their significance context within the APE, general descriptions of the cultural affiliations documented within the Proposed Project area are provided in Appendix B of the Heritage Resources Specialist Report for this project. More extensive information and relevant research for the prehistory of Northern Colorado can be found in Cassells (1994), and Reed and Metcalf (1999). Historical background and research can be found in Church et.al. (2007), Mehls (2006), Wyckoff (1999), and Twitty (2002).

______United States Forest Service May 2010 Arapaho and Roosevelt, Routt, and White River National Forests Page 86 – Final – Environmental Assessment of the Emergency Power Line Clearing Project

Heritage Resource Environmental Assessment Methodology and Results

The three forests provided information regarding site types, descriptions, GIS data, and eligibility for recorded sites within or significantly near the project area. The SHPO databases were searched using GIS and COMPASS records to obtain additional site information, survey information and eligibility for the project area. Data from these two sources was combined and compared to evaluate the potential impacts on these cultural resources. This information indicates that 5,314.1 acres of the project area (555.8 in ARNF; 1,383.2 in RNF and 3,375.1 in WRNF) have been inventoried for cultural resources.

Until 1992, most cultural resource inventories were conducted for commercial timber sales. After 1992, the list of activities requiring cultural surveys expanded to include range allotment plans, proponent projects, and recreation projects. The majority of cultural resource inventories completed before 1986 are not adequate for project clearances (as defined in 36 CFR 800) due to problems with survey intensity, research design, and methodology.

Table 3.8-1 summarizes cultural resources within the APE and their associated NRHP eligibility status. Table 3.8-2 presents cultural resources by their associated cultural affiliations (prehistoric/historic).

Table 3.8-1 Cultural Resources within the APE and NRHP Eligibility Status Status ARNF RNF WRNF Total Listed on NRHP 2 0 3 5 State Register of Historic Places 1 0 0 1 NRHP Eligible 36 7 10 53 NRHP Non-eligible 73 21 141 235

(IF* - included in total) (22) (21) (25) (68) No Official Determination / No Data Available 53 24 3 80 SHPO Needs Data 5 5 38 48 Contributing to Existing or Eligible District 5 1 1 7 Non-contributing to Existing or Eligible District 1 0 0 1 Within Potential District – Unknown Status 6 0 0 6 Totals 182 58 196 436 * Isolated Find/Isolated Feature

Table 3.8-2 Cultural Resources within the APE by Cultural Affiliation Affiliation (Plus Isolated Finds/Features) ARNF RNF WRNF Total Prehistoric 28 14 56 98

(IF* - not included in total) (9) (15) (22) (46) Historic 129 20 79 228

(IF* - not included in total) (12) (4) (3) (19) Multi-component** 3 2 6 11 Unknown 1 3 30 34 Totals 182 58 196 436 * Isolated Find/Isolated Feature ** Refers to those cultural resources with remains from more than one culture or time period (e.g. both prehistoric and historic remains).

A total of 436 previously recorded sites are currently documented within the APE. The data set also included a total of 66 Isolated Finds which have also been included here as supplemental cultural resource information. Isolated Finds are defined as small cultural depositions or remains, often of 10 artifacts or fewer that may have significant meaning in terms of cultural activity and distribution (see definitions in Appendix B of the Specialist Report). These previously recorded sites are the result of 331 documented surveys within or near the APE.

______United States Forest Service May 2010 Arapaho and Roosevelt, Routt, and White River National Forests Page 87 – Final – Environmental Assessment of the Emergency Power Line Clearing Project

Of the 436 sites, five are listed on the NRHP and one is listed with the State Register of Historic Places. Two of these sites are listed as historic districts, or towns with listed buildings that are not within the project area but may share contiguous boundaries with federal lands or power lines, and are therefore discussed to provide comprehensive information. Fifty-three sites are listed with Colorado SHPO records as eligible for inclusion in the NRHP. Two hundred thirty-five sites (including Isolated Finds) within the APE have been evaluated by SHPO as not eligible for inclusion in the NRHP. Historic sites are the predominant site type within the APE, with more than twice the number of prehistoric sites. A large portion of the WRNF historic sites are listed as not eligible or needing data, which may be an indicator of the high number of historic sites in the central Colorado Mountains that are affected by high altitudes and adverse climate conditions.

ARNF Affected Environment

A total of 182 previously recorded sites were located within the APE in the ARNF. Two of these are listed on the NRHP, while one is listed on the State Register of Historic Places. Thirty-six sites are listed as eligible for the NRHP, while 73 are listed as not eligible for the NRHP. Historical sites are most abundant, with 130 sites, while 28 previously prehistoric sites are recorded. The following is a brief description of the ARNF sites currently listed on the NRHP and State Register of Historic Places:

1) Site 5GA.82 (Other names and site numbers: Boulder Wagon Road, Moffat Road, Rollins Pass: 5BL.370, 5GlL.10). Rollinsville and Middle Park Wagon Road (5GL.10), and Moffat Road (5GA.82.2 and .3). This site is a former rail bed and wagon road over Rollins Pass between Rollinsville and Winter Park within the Denver, Northwestern and Pacific Railway Hill Route Historic District. The district includes segments of this linear site within Boulder, Gilpin, and Grand Counties.

The Moffat Road is significant for its association with David H. Moffat, a significant financier and industrialist in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century’s. The road was also associated with the Denver, Northwestern, and Pacific Railway, which brought the first rail service over the Continental Divide from Denver to Middle Park. This route was in use by the railway company until the completion of the Moffat Tunnel in 1928. The route was subsequently used by 4-wheel drive enthusiasts, outdoor adventurers, and fishermen. SHPO site forms indicate that the condition of the railway/roadbed varies throughout the site.

This district was originally listed on the NRHP on September 30, 1980. The listing was subsequently amended in September 1997 to increase the historic district to encompass additional site areas. Segments of this site lie directly within the APE.

2) Site 5LR.1388: Arrowhead Lodge Historic District. Arrowhead Lodge is a group of 18 historic log buildings built between 1935 and 1948 to accommodate automobile tourists and vacationers in the Cache la Poudre area. Buildings include cabins, a barn, showers, outhouses, a pumphouse, and a generator plant. Additions have been constructed to the main lodge and some of the original buildings. The SHPO site form states that “the most notable aspect of the complex is the fact that in spite of some additions and remodeling the integrity of the original design has been sustained” (p.4).

Arrowhead Lodge is significant in representing the growth of automobile tourism in Colorado, “responding to the needs of a new type of traveler” (sec. 8, p.9), and is one of the few remaining historic lodges in the area. The current site form indicates that the lodge is in a state of decline with deteriorating foundations and roofs, as well as some exposed wood surfaces affected by rotting. The lodge is under care of the Friends of Arrowhead Lodge and appears to still be in operation. The eastern portion of this site is within the APE.

3) 5CC.194: Squaw Mountain Fire lookout Tower. Located at the summit of Squaw Mountain at 11,486 feet, this site is listed on State Register of Historic Places. Squaw Mountain Lookout was constructed in 1940 by the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC). The site consists of a complex of structures which include the two-story lookout with stone patio, one wood and one stone outhouse,

______United States Forest Service May 2010 Arapaho and Roosevelt, Routt, and White River National Forests Page 88 – Final – Environmental Assessment of the Emergency Power Line Clearing Project

two trash pits, a short stone wall, and a stone residence. According to the current site form the residence continues to house a working radio transmitter. Other significant features include narrow pathways and stairs carved into large granite outcrops from the tower to both a parking lot and outhouse.

The Squaw Mountain Lookout is significant as a historical property representing federal conservation programs and construction (including the CCC), and National Park Service Rustic architecture. The condition was listed as good to excellent upon listing.

Forty-seven sites in the ARNF portion of the APE are listed as eligible or contributing to historic districts for the NRHP. The majority (73) of the previously recorded sites within this APE are not eligible for inclusion in NRHP, and 64 are lacking data or are not fully evaluated. Condition of the previously recorded sites in the ARNF APE ranged from excellent to heavily disturbed. SHPO records indicate that 18 are listed as in excellent condition, 34 are listed in fair to good condition, while 70 sites are noted has having light to heavy disturbance.

RNF Affected Environment

A total of 58 previously recorded sites were located within the APE of the RNF. None of these are included on the NRHP. Seven of these sites are listed as eligible for the NRHP. Twenty-one sites are listed as not eligible for the NRHP, while 29 sites are listed as not having insufficient data to evaluate eligibility.

Condition was not noted in 24 of these sites. Conditions that were noted in SHPO records for sites either eligible not eligible range from excellent to heavily disturbed or destroyed. Surface artifacts were collected on eight of the RNF sites within the APE.

WRNF Affected Environment

Ten sites are listed as eligible to the NRHP. Most of these are historical in nature while two are prehistoric. Condition for these sites ranges from good to heavily disturbed or destroyed. Artifacts have been collected by agencies from two of these eligible sites.

Following is a brief description of the NRHP sites and historic districts that lie within the APE, as well as those that are immediately adjacent to the APE.

1) 5PT.553: The Redstone Historic District. This is listed on the NRHP as a multiple property submission to SHPO. Portions of the Redstone Historic District may be within or significantly near the WRNF APE.

Dates representing the growth of Redstone as a town for employees of the local coal mining and related industries generally fall between 1882 and 1903. Coal and marble industrialist John Cleveland Osgood founded Redstone by constructing employee housing and community facilities as well as his own estate. SHPO records list 32 resources as contributing to the district. Two properties within the district were previously listed on the NRHP: Osgood's home, the Cleveholm Manor, and the Redstone Inn. Both properties are contiguous with the Redstone Historic District town proper. Most of these structures are currently used as private housing within municipal Redstone. In additional to the historic buildings of Redstone, remnants of the coal industry remain in the form of coke ovens used for carbonizing coal still stand and are visible from Highway 133.

The Redstone Historic District is significant as a historic property for its representation of the development of the Crystal River Valley and associated coal mining industrialist John Cleveland Osgood narrow gauge railroad, and late Victorian styles of architecture in homes and public buildings. The town represents a departure from the standard mining town of the era, whereby the quality of life for the workers was prioritized in planning and construction.

______United States Forest Service May 2010 Arapaho and Roosevelt, Routt, and White River National Forests Page 89 – Final – Environmental Assessment of the Emergency Power Line Clearing Project

The total size of the Redstone Historic District is listed at 493 acres. This district as well as portions of the Cleveholm Manor property and the property of the Redstone Inn may share contiguous boundaries with federal properties and power company ROWs.

2) 5PT.887: Camp Hale of the 10th Mountain Training Division. Portions of this site are listed as contributing to the Ashcroft Historic District, which is listed on the NRHP. The western portion of this site appears to be included within a distribution line ROW of the APE.

The site is the remnants of a World War II military training facility and dates from 1942 to 1944. At its peak, Camp Hale consisted of about 1,022 structures, including barracks, offices, stables and a hospital. This camp provided housing and winter warfare training for the 10th Mountain Division prior to its deployment to the Italian Alps in World War II. Other areas were used for parades, recreation, gunnery and combat ranges. The surrounding landscape was also used for skiing, rock climbing and storage. Associated roads and railroads were also constructed for supplies and transportation.

Camp Hale is significant as a historical property for its unique role in United States World War II military history, specifically in training for winter conditions and terrain as well as the new military ski patrol program. A tent foundation, rock alignments, ditch and fireplace are noted as features associated with the site. Condition of the remains is noted as ruins with moderate disturbance. The USFS has constructed commemorative picnic areas and campgrounds near the site. The area continues to be used for outdoor recreation and rock climbing.

3) 5ST.1043: Montezuma Schoolhouse. The Montezuma Schoolhouse is listed on the NRHP. It was built in 1884 and is described as architecturally typical of the one-room schoolhouse style for the period. At the time of nomination (November 2006) the school was in good condition with significant historical integrity in construction and setting. The school also functioned as a community center and a Protestant church. The town of Montezuma grew rapidly due to the development of 57 silver and lead mines in the surrounding mountains. It was closed in 1958 due to consolidation in the education system.

The Montezuma Schoolhouse is significant in its representation of distinctive schoolhouse building style, association with the important mining industry in Summit County. It is not clear from the records how close the schoolhouse is to the APE, but portions of the property boundary may be contiguous with federal property or power line ROWs.

Several sites associated with the historic town site of Montezuma in Summit County appear to be significantly close to the APE. Other associated site numbers include 5ST.1245, 1246, and 1247 and represent the town cemetery, reservoir, and waterworks, all of which are noted as not eligible on site forms. The Montezuma to Webster Toll Road (5ST.338.1) is potentially near to the APE, but no information regarding the site could be found in the SHPO database.

4) 5GN.236: The town of Marble. Marble may also have contiguous boundaries with federal lands and portions may be significantly near power line ROWs. However, while the town of Marble includes many buildings and areas currently listed on the NRHP (mill site, town hall, historical museum, and the church) the town itself is not listed as a historic district.

There are 144 sites on the WRNF portion of the APE listed as not eligible. Forty-one of these either have no assessment listed or need official data, and are mostly historic remains from railroads, trash scatters, and camps. These sites range from excellent in condition to heavily disturbed. Portions of historic roads and railroad beds are also represented in both eligible sites and sites not eligible within the APE.

______United States Forest Service May 2010 Arapaho and Roosevelt, Routt, and White River National Forests Page 90 – Final – Environmental Assessment of the Emergency Power Line Clearing Project

Environmental Consequences

3.8.1 Alternative 1: No Action

Direct and Indirect Effects

Utility companies associated with the project have a ROW of 50 ft from centerline for transmission lines, and 15 ft from centerline for distribution lines within the APE (distances are provided as averages for all utility companies). Through implementation of the No Action Alternative, utility company management practices would continue as currently authorized. In many cases, however, this may not preclude adverse effects to cultural resources with portions that could be impacted by deadfall either directly striking aboveground features or by the accumulation of heavy fuels around these properties. As tree mortality and instability increases, the probability for both tree deadfall and wildfire around these heritage resources increases, directly affecting the remains at these sites.

The majority of these sites are historical resources. Both historic and prehistoric sites include features composed of organic materials that can be essentially altered by fire and subsequent watershed and soil changes. Wildfire can consume wood and other organic materials as well as alter the composition and research potential of prehistoric and historic artifacts, rendering them useless or non-existent for cultural or research purposes. The majority of the cultural resources covered by this assessment are within areas potentially affected by tree mortality and therefore are at risk. Most of these sites would be at risk from falling damage or fuel loading without forest treatments. Under the No Action alternative, we may see direct and indirect effects from falling trees destroying cultural resources, or wildfire altering or destroying cultural resources and research potential. Due the fact that the some of the NRHP sites and historic districts are constructed of aged combustible materials, the widespread area of bark beetle infestation poses a wildfire threat to the historic areas. The integrity of prehistoric tools and debitage, as well as stone alignments, bones, and structures, can also be severely altered or destroyed by falling timber and wildfire.

Cumulative Effects

Cultural resources are under constant influences from their surrounding environment, such as weather, soil deposition, decay, construction, development, increased visitation and foot traffic, and vandalism. These factors are at work regardless of and in addition to the current bark beetle infestation and dying trees. Without effective management of the surrounding forest, the quality and heritage potential of these resources would continue to decline, making management more difficult and costly while reducing the potential significance of the cultural property. Under the No Action Alternative, there may be a cumulative effect of continued fuel loading, tree mortality, and deadfall striking or burying sites, reducing access to these areas for monitoring and management.

3.8.2 Alternative 2: Proposed Action

Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects

The wide variety in the conditions and disturbance or deterioration of these historic and prehistoric sites illustrates that cultural resources are under continuous impacts from public access, development, multiple resource use, and natural elements.

Though cultural resource inventories would be required prior to implementation, the potential exists for unidentified cultural resources to be inadvertently discovered and/or affected by project implementation activities. Indirect impacts to cultural resources may also occur from increased public access to sensitive cultural resources, thereby opening the potential for vandalism. Effects of foot traffic from work crews, tree removal equipment, temporary road construction and skid trails near sites may impact some surface remains. However, these impacts may be supervised and monitored, whereas the impacts from randomly falling timber, fuel loading and wildfire cannot be mitigated and can be managed only after the fact.

______United States Forest Service May 2010 Arapaho and Roosevelt, Routt, and White River National Forests Page 91 – Final – Environmental Assessment of the Emergency Power Line Clearing Project

Adverse direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of the Proposed Action Alternative would be avoided by implementing the Design Criteria under the supervision of a qualified resource professional. Trees shall be removed by hand treatments and directional felling near sites that could be impacted from falling timber. Potential impacts from work crews and equipment may be prevented by educating work crews and informing them of their responsibility to protect cultural resources within and near the Proposed Project area, and report any additional cultural resources discovered during tree removal operations. In the event that trees must be felled to prevent power line damage and/or damage to the cultural resource, but removing the tree mechanically or by hand would cause damage to portions of the site, trees may be felled and left in place upon approval of the monitoring resource professional.

In compliance with the Programmatic Agreement (PA) (available in Appendix B of this document), the SHPO and Advisory Council on Historic Preservation have agreed that the determination for the Proposed Action is no historic properties will be adversely affected, provided that all stipulations of the PA and Design Criteria associated with the Proposed Action Alternative would be implemented.

Cumulative Effects

The cumulative effects associated with implementation of the Proposed Action Alternative would be limited to those that would be the result of damages to resources that would remain undiscovered. The potential would always exist that though all efforts would be taken to discover and protect historically significant resources, those resources could remain undiscovered. The only cumulative effects could exist in this form due to the fact that often times on non-government lands surveys of this nature would not be completed. As a result potentially significant resources could remain undiscovered on those lands as well and implementation activities may cause damages or even destroy their significance.

Forest Plan Consistency

The LRMP for all three participating forests specifically address the need to protect cultural heritage resources on USFS lands as well as comply with mandated federal laws and LRMP direction will be followed through both alternatives. The Design Criteria and programmatic agreements are designed to address protection and management of these cultural resources as mandated by federal law. Consistency with Other Regulation

The proposed Design Criteria and management stipulations outlined in the LRMPs are in compliance with the following regulations:

• National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (P.L. 89-665 as amended) • National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (P.L. 91-190) • American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978 (P.L. 96-341) • Native American Grave Protection and Repatriation Act (P.L. 101-601) • Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (P.L. 103-141) • Historical, Prehistorical and Archaeological Resources Act (CRS 24-80-401) • Unmarked Human Graves Act (CRS 24-80-1301)

3.9 Socioeconomics

In meeting the requirements of NEPA, the USFS seeks to fully consider the impacts of the Proposed Action on the physical, biological, social, and economic aspects of the human environment. (40 CFR 1507.2 (a), 40 CFR 1508.14). It is considered whether or not the Proposed Action would change the lives of current and future residents, and in the view of environmental justice (EO 12898), change disproportionately the lives of minority or low income populations. Public perception of the Proposed Action is also important and efforts have been made to understand these perceptions by communicating with the public and affected stakeholders early on in the assessment process.

______United States Forest Service May 2010 Arapaho and Roosevelt, Routt, and White River National Forests Page 92 – Final – Environmental Assessment of the Emergency Power Line Clearing Project

Affected Environment

There are many economic values at risk of loss due to wildfire, including critical infrastructure for water and power supplies. Effects to the power infrastructure not only affect the local communities of the three national forests, but also the larger communities on the Western Slope in addition to the metropolitan areas of Denver, Colorado Springs, Fort Collins and all of the communities in between. Changes to local or regional power infrastructure have the potential to affect the national electrical grid as well.

A glimpse at the counties directly connected to the three forests shows that, according to the most recent census figures, the average median age is 36; poverty levels range from 4 to 15%; and the minority populations range from 5.2 to 25.8%. Seven of the fourteen counties host an urban population over 50%.

Table 3.9-1 identifies the number of acres of each forest that lie within each county in combination with the census statistics. Acreage figures were acquired from Table 6 of the September 30, 2009 USFS Land Areas Report. Census statistics were provided by the State of Colorado Demography Office.

Table 3.9-1 Acreage of Forests and Poverty Level, Minority and Urban Populations in Each County within the Proposed Project Area National NFS Acreage in % Below % Minority % Urban County Forest County* Poverty Level Population Population Boulder Roosevelt 138,070 9.5 16.4 90.8 Clear Creek Arapaho 161,912 5.4 6.0 2.2 Eagle White River 596,519 7.8 25.8 68.7 35,267 Routt Garfield 478,607 7.5 19.0 70.2 White River Total: 513,874 13,013 Arapaho Gilpin 27,567 4.0 8.0 0.0 Roosevelt Total: 40,580 531,428 Arapaho Grand 40,422 7.3 7.0 0.0 Routt Total: 571,850 Gunnison White River 62,545 15.0 7.7 45.7 4,658 Arapaho Jackson 328,636 14.0 7.9 0.0 Routt Total: 333,294 Larimer Roosevelt 648,001 9.2 12.5 86.5 Mesa White River 83,069 10.2 13.0 84.8 Pitkin White River 495,660 6.2 9.4 47.2 111,241 Routt Rio Blanco 247,317 9.6 7.4 0.0 White River Total: 358,531 5,414 Arapaho 571,788 Routt Routt 6.1 5.2 51.1 6,128 White River Total: 583,330 Summit White River 312,668 9.0 13.3 73.2 * Land acreage numbers only pertain to the Arapaho and Roosevelt, Routt, and White River National Forests. Several of the counties listed have other National Forests within their boundaries.

Resources

Recreational attractions, driven by access to public lands, support the tourism economy by bringing millions of dollars and jobs to these communities. As populations increase, the demand for utilities, water, and multiple-use recreation in the national forests increases. While these forests are important year-round public

______United States Forest Service May 2010 Arapaho and Roosevelt, Routt, and White River National Forests Page 93 – Final – Environmental Assessment of the Emergency Power Line Clearing Project recreation destinations for millions of visitors, they are also the location of more than 30,000 private residences. Some resident livelihoods depend on timber, grazing, and other products and services that are provided to residents and visitors. In a 2003 Northwest Colorado Council of Governments sponsored study, for the four counties that were studied (Grand, Summit, Eagle, and Pitkin), services provided as a result of second homes alone were found to generate 27 to 45% of all employment in those counties (Retzlaff, et al 2008).

As an important part of the supporting infrastructure, roadways provide important travel passages and scenic byways for residents and visitors to access national forest lands. Roadways, along with ROW corridors, also provide avenues for critical utilities.

There are over 100 power plants in Colorado interconnected by a power grid of transmission and distribution lines. A delicate balance exists between the power generators and the users, since electricity is produced upon demand and not stored within the electrical infrastructure. As it travels the speed of light, any “bottlenecks” in the transmission/distribution system affect the reliability of electric power. According to the Department of Energy Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, electrical demand since 1990 has increased 25% where investment in transmission lines has decreased 30%, resulting in congested transmission lines. It is estimated that power outages and power quality disturbances cost the US economy from $25 to $180 billion annually.

The infamous Aug 14, 2003 blackout in US and Canada was a cascade of events which was initiated when a power line shut down due to a tree falling against the conductors. Electrical overflow along already congested distribution lines caused the conductors to heat up and sag into trees. This caused more distribution lines to “flashover” and trip out. Fifty million people in eight states and one province in Canada were affected by the blackout. An estimated $5 to $12 billion was in lost economic activity. The task force assigned to determine causes and recommendations viewed tree trimming and better vegetative management as one of the top improvements needed to mitigate future blackouts (US Department of Energy, 2004).

Whenever a tree falls or leans across a power line, arcing can occur. Aside from the interference it may have with the electrical grid, the arcing can also start fires. These fires often bring down distribution lines when they come in contact with the lines because they are typically supported by wooden poles. Outages caused by burned poles can last several days while new poles are installed. During fire fighting, power lines near the fire are typically shut down for safety reasons. Companies occasionally must interrupt service to customers by rotating power outages to cope with the shortfall of transmission line carrying capacity during these shutdowns. This can be disruptive to electricity users far from the fire. When these types of fire events occur, the cost for firefighting can be high and some of the expenses must be covered by the utility companies for reparation to the lines themselves as well as for the firefighting efforts. These types of costs are generally passed on to the utility users.

Changes in social or economic conditions affect the human environment. These changes are reflected in community demographics, retail/service and housing market analyses, demand for public services, changes in employment and income levels, and changes to the aesthetic qualities of the community.

The communities affected by the three forests are numerous and distinctly different demographically. Impacts resulting from the Proposed Action on each individual community, the visiting community at large, and any disadvantaged populations are dependent on many factors such as workers needed, actual implementation areas, timing and intensity of treatment, and duration. Therefore, clear communication between the USFS and the affected populations is very important. Input received from the public helps delineate their most important social and economic priorities. Prioritization of the treatments based on areas with power lines, and highest public use are of particular community concern, as are potential closures of recreational areas, and a potentially decreased aesthetic experience.

A 2007 study that included feedback from Colorado Bark Beetle Cooperative members in five of the counties that are included in this assessment (Eagle, Grand, Jackson, Routt, and Summit), indicated that the threat of wildfire was the single threat most feared by residents. The loss of infrastructure, disruption of

______United States Forest Service May 2010 Arapaho and Roosevelt, Routt, and White River National Forests Page 94 – Final – Environmental Assessment of the Emergency Power Line Clearing Project critical utility supplies, and changes in routine business activity are all encompassed by the threat of wildfire (Retzlaff, et al 2008).

Environmental Consequences

3.9.1 Alternative 1: No Action

Direct and Indirect Effects

No action would result in less direct vegetative and fuel management within the Proposed Project area, thus allowing the existing hazard posed by the bark beetle tree mortality to persist. This hazard poses other effects that may affect public and fire fighter danger, increase costs associated with fire fighting, reduce economic viability of forest resources, interruption of activities and subsequent services provided to recreationalists, a more severe aesthetic impact, and destruction or malfunction of power transmission and distribution lines.

The effects of the No Action Alternative would not be expected to be realized unless a disturbance event would occur, but are balanced on the risk that nature can randomly take its course at any time in the form of a catastrophic wildfire (i.e. Yellowstone 1988 or Hayman 2002 fires) or fallen trees resulting in power grid failure.

Cumulative Effects

The cumulative effects of the No Action Alternative would be a greater area potentially affected and a greater intensity of effects, as tree mortality continues and the potential for trees falling on power lines increases. The lesson of the 2003 blackout is that a lack of vegetative management, especially with regard to power lines, can affect millions of people and billions of dollars of economic activity. Once infrastructures are affected by fire it can be very costly to service providers to recover those costs and restore the level of service that existed prior to the fire. Most likely the cost of critical infrastructure services, such as fire protection, would be even higher. The economic effect of higher costs to taxpayers can result in adverse social effects since money would be allocated to pay higher taxes instead of going to other programs or directly into the local economies.

3.9.2 Alternative 2: Proposed Action

Direct and Indirect Effects

The Proposed Action would decrease the potential for interruptions of electrical service both by reducing the potential of wildfires caused by arcing and power lines shorting out from tree-induced flashovers. The expectation is that with the proposed treatments, the reduced threat of wildfire damage to power lines would continue throughout the 14 affected counties and beyond. Less damage to power lines from hazardous trees and wildfires would decrease the risk of power interruptions and costly physical and socio-economic damage to local communities, and possibly millions of people.

There would be temporary economic effects from implementation of the Proposed Action Alternative in order to accomplish the objectives of reliable and safer power lines. Some temporary negative effects may result from logging damage, temporary area closures, and decreased aesthetics.

Some effects would be positive in terms of jobs and increased economic activity for communities associated with the implementation routes. The areas that can be opened up to logging would help offset costs of implementation. Loggers would have to be contracted and paid to remove trees within the project area, since implementing the Proposed Action would increase the workload beyond the capacity of utility companies. While the new jobs created would be temporary and seasonal and opportunities would be dependent on completion timelines, these new jobs would provide some benefit to the local economies.

______United States Forest Service May 2010 Arapaho and Roosevelt, Routt, and White River National Forests Page 95 – Final – Environmental Assessment of the Emergency Power Line Clearing Project

Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects of the Proposed Action Alternative is that with each proposed treatment, in addition to other recently completed treatments, safety increases and fire hazards become more manageable. When those obstacles are mitigated, it enables economic activity to continue. On a grander scale, the protection of important watersheds and utilities is fortified. The July 2008 Economic Values at Risk study showed that “treatments on national forest lands have already provided a reduced threat of wildfire losses to $1.7 billion of assets across the five-county area” (Retzlaff, et al 2008).

3.10 Engineering and Public Access

Affected Environment

The transportation systems of the ARNF, RNF and WRNF consist of roads and trails that are on or provide access to, National Forest System Lands (36 CFR 212.2). Regulations, such as the Highway Safety Act of 1966 and various USFS Manuals, pertaining to use and maintenance of these roads are clear that the USFS has a responsibility to maintain the safety of its roads and trails. The Highway Safety Act of 1966 authorizes state and local governments as well as participating federal agencies to identify and survey accident locations; design, construct and maintain roads in accordance with safety standards; and promote pedestrian safety. Forest Service Manual 7731.1 states, “Manage forest development roads that are not subject to Highway Safety Act of 1966 (roads not suitable for passenger car traffic) so that they remain safe for intended or planned use.”

The affected environment for this analysis includes: all state and county roads that cross NFS lands, NFS roads under USFS jurisdiction that are open to public travel, and NFS Trails. The project area contains 800 miles of power lines, approximately 426 miles of which are distribution lines and 374 miles are transmission lines.

Environmental Consequences

3.10.1 Alternative 1: No Action

Direct and Indirect Effects

Under the No Action Alternative, utility company management practices would continue along power line ROWs as currently authorized. Traffic would not be affected by road closures or traffic control, as there would be no implementation activities; however, trees falling across roads could create situations requiring temporary closures. No existing roads would be impacted by hauling activities or equipment ingress or egress. Unauthorized public use of the existing power line access roads would not be expected to change from the current condition. The No Action Alternative would not change the existing transportation system. No new roads or trails would be created and no roads or trails would be decommissioned. This applies equally for all three forests.

Under the No Action Alternative, dead and dying trees would eventually fall over, potentially creating roadblocks impeding access for the public and utility companies, and forcing road closures. These closures could result in public use of unauthorized routes. Restricted access within utility company ROWs would pose a problem related to inspection and maintenance of power lines. Indirect effects include potential road closures due to fires resulting from hazardous trees falling onto power lines or other fires intensified by the fuels load.

Cumulative Effects

No cumulative effects specific to engineering or public access would be expected as a result of implementation of the No Action Alternative. Each of the forests within the Proposed Project have completed assessments or are in the process of performing assessments to consider the effects of hazard tree

______United States Forest Service May 2010 Arapaho and Roosevelt, Routt, and White River National Forests Page 96 – Final – Environmental Assessment of the Emergency Power Line Clearing Project removals along travel corridors. As such all areas where power lines intersect with travel infrastructure are assessed as a portion of those projects.

3.10.2 Alternative 2: Proposed Action

Direct and Indirect Effects

The Proposed Action would improve reliability and safety of the utility system and ultimately human health. Implementation of the Proposed Action would allow removal of hazardous trees along the distribution and transmission line corridors. In some cases, activities would occur along transportation corridors on the forests. An indirect adverse effect would be increased unauthorized public use, such as off-highway vehicles (OHVs), occurring within the proposed treatment areas because these openings would become more visible to the general public after implementation.

The Proposed Action Alternative would not permanently alter the existing transportation system. No new roads or trails would be created and no roads or trails would be decommissioned. Implementation of the Proposed Action Alternative may require intermittent and/or temporary road closures to facilitate safe operations. These closures could result in temporary increased traffic on other forest routes and/or use of unauthorized routes. Road closures would be limited so as to minimize the disruption to the public and private landowners (Design Criterion 23).

Temporary road construction would be allowed where feasible in order to facilitate the removal of hazard trees. In compliance with the Design Criteria, these temporary roads would be constructed in areas that would be evaluated by FS Representatives in order to avoid potential affects to forest resources (i.e. T & E Species habitat or occurrences, heritage resources, erodible soils, WIZs, etc.) and BMPs and WCPs would also be applied as appropriate. Also, all temporary roads would then be required to be rehabilitated as appropriate with the Design Criteria.

Cumulative Effects

No cumulative effects specific to engineering or public access would be expected as a result of implementation of the Proposed Action Alternative. Each of the forests within the Proposed Project have completed assessments or are in the process of performing assessments to consider the effects of hazard tree removals along travel corridors. As such all areas where power lines intersect with travel infrastructure are assessed as a portion of those projects.

Forest Plan Consistency

Both alternatives would comply with Standards listed in the respective LRMPs. Compliance in the context of the Proposed Action is based on implementation of specific Design Criteria.

3.11 Scenery Resources and Visuals

Affected Environment

The three forests use differing methodology to identify and manage scenic qualities of the forests they manage. The Routt National Forest uses the Visual Management System (VMS) to establish the appropriate visual quality objectives (VQO) while the Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests and White River National Forest use the Scenery Management System (SMS) to identify the scenic integrity objectives (SIO). Both systems are used to inventory the visual resources and provide measurable standards for the management of the scenery.

______United States Forest Service May 2010 Arapaho and Roosevelt, Routt, and White River National Forests Page 97 – Final – Environmental Assessment of the Emergency Power Line Clearing Project

SIO and correlating VQO categories descriptions are as follows:

• Very High SIO/Preservation VQO refers to landscape character “is” intact with only minute if any deviations. The existing landscape character and sense of place is expressed at the highest possible level. Management activities, except for very low visual impact recreation facilities, are prohibited.

• High SIO/Retention VQO provides the landscape character to appear intact. Deviations may be present but must repeat the form, line, color, texture and pattern common to the landscape character so completely and at such scale that they are not evident.

• Moderate SIO/Partial Retention VQO allows the valued landscape character to appear slightly altered. Noticeable deviations must remain visually subordinate to the landscape character being viewed. Management activities remain visually subordinate to the characteristics of the landscape.

• Low SIO/Modification VQO provides the valued landscape character to appear moderately altered. Deviations begin to dominate the valued landscape character being viewed but they borrow valued attributes such as size, shape, edge effect and pattern of natural openings, vegetative type changes or architectural styles within or outside the landscape being viewed. They should not only appear as valued character outside the landscape being viewed but also compatible or complimentary to the character within.

• Very Low SIO/Maximum Modification VQO refers to landscapes where the valued landscape character appears heavily altered. Deviations may strongly dominate the valued landscape character. They may not borrow from valued attributes such as size, shape, edge effect and pattern of natural openings, vegetative type changes or architectural styles within or outside of the landscape being viewed. However, deviations must be shaped and blended with the natural terrain so that elements such as unnatural edges, roads, landings and structures do not dominate the composition. (USFS, 1995, Landscape Aesthetics, Agricultural Handbook 701, p. 2-4)

Scenery standards for ARNF and RNF prohibit management activities which are inconsistent with the levels of scenic integrity or visual quality required, unless a decision is made to change the SIO/VQO. If a change is desired, the decision to change the SIO/VQO must be documented in the project level NEPA documents (Standard 154, p. 36, ARP Plan).

The WRNF sets forth its scenic integrity objectives in the form of guidelines. A guideline is a preferred or advisable course of action or level of attainment. Guidelines are designed to achieve desired conditions (goals). Deviation from a guideline and the reasons for doing so are recorded in a project-level NEPA document; a forest plan amendment is not required.

See Figures 3-5 and 3-6 for comparison of SIO/VQO acreage for the combined forests and the project area for this project. In Figure 3-6 below, the rows shown in blue and red are reproduced to a larger scale to more clearly show the comparison.

______United States Forest Service May 2010 Arapaho and Roosevelt, Routt, and White River National Forests Page 98 – Final – Environmental Assessment of the Emergency Power Line Clearing Project

Figure 3-5 Combined Forest Acreage by VQO/SIO Category

Figure 3-6 Combined Forest Acreage by VQO/SIO Category, Featuring the Proposed Project Area

______United States Forest Service May 2010 Arapaho and Roosevelt, Routt, and White River National Forests Page 99 – Final – Environmental Assessment of the Emergency Power Line Clearing Project

Environmental Consequences

3.11.1 Alternative 1: No Action

Direct and Indirect Effects

Under the No Action Alternative the dead and dying trees would be left standing, except for those treated through management practices as utility companies are currently authorized. These trees would fall naturally from high wind events, forest fires, snow/landslides and eventually the remaining trees would fall as the supporting roots rotted away. These trees are a threat to the power lines as many are tall enough to make contact with the lines as they fall, which could bring the lines down causing a disruption in service and potentially a fire. The falling trees would likely fall in a jackstraw pattern that would be difficult to navigate and clear. That would cause an increase in the fuel load near the power lines creating conditions for more intense forest fires that would generate levels of heat that could be injurious to the forest ecosystem and utility equipment. As the trees start to fall as a result of the No Action Alternative, they would continue to be cut within the utility ROWs to keep access roads clear, and the cut timber would be left in place. The cut ends of the felled trees and the corridor effect of cleared trees within the utility ROW would have a negative effect on the scenic quality.

There would be no immediate impact to the scenic quality under the No Action Alternative; however, an indirect adverse effect on the existing scenic integrity would be the increased likelihood of a fire, which could result from trees falling onto power lines.

Cumulative Effects

The cumulative effects of the No Action Alternative would be a continual jackstraw build up of the falling trees.

3.11.2 Alternative 2: Proposed Action

Direct and Indirect Effects

The obvious visual impact of the Proposed Action Alternative would be the widening of the cleared trees near the utility ROW. The various utility companies in the three forests have an existing ROW that is cleared of trees to allow access to the power lines and to prevent contact with trees growing into the lines or falling on the lines. The cleared area currently averages 50 feet from the centerline for transmission lines and 15 feet from the centerline for distribution lines. The Proposed Action Alternative would create a one- time clearing of the hazardous trees within up to 200 feet from the centerline of transmission lines and up to 75 feet from the centerline of distribution lines. The action would only affect the hazardous trees within this zone leaving existing, healthy trees intact. The impact to visual quality would be most noticeable along travel corridors such as roads, trails, and at concentrated use areas such as lakes, campgrounds, day use areas, ski areas, residential and service areas.

Non-salvageable trees would be hydro axed, chipped, masticated, roller chopped or piled and burned with slash left on site under 24 inches in height. The slash and burn piles would be visible. Once the remaining dead trees have fallen and new growth starts to dominate the landscape, this variation in growth would become less apparent and the negative visual impact would be lessened.

There are several scenic byways and roadless areas that would be affected by the Proposed Action Alternative. These particularly sensitive areas would have individual Design Criteria applied on a case by case basis to ensure that the scenic integrity associated with each site is maintained.

An indirect effect of the clearing would be exposing the remaining standing trees to a wind pattern different than that situation in the past when the trees may have been protected by the surrounding stand. These trees’ root systems are not as developed as the trees that matured at the edge of the stand and are more prone to blow over in a strong wind event. If the trees do blow down, the fallen trees and potentially exposed roots

______United States Forest Service May 2010 Arapaho and Roosevelt, Routt, and White River National Forests Page 100 – Final – Environmental Assessment of the Emergency Power Line Clearing Project could negatively affect the scenic integrity. However, it has been noted that most trees killed by pine beetles break off at ground level (Lewis and Hartley 2006).

A long-term effect of implementation of the Proposed Action Alternative would be the recovery or establishment of new vegetative cover as a result of the removal activities associated with site treatments. This effect would be obvious initially, but would lessen in time and would not have a permanent effect on the visual quality in any of the inventoried SIO/VQO resource areas. The recovery of the current vegetative cover in treatment sites would be expected to take approximately 20-50 years (Lotan and Perry 1983).

There are several Design Criteria that are aimed to reduce the negative effects of the Proposed Action Alternative. Some of these are management area specific while others pertain to the whole project area. Visual Design Criteria, which apply to the whole project, would be implemented, as feasible in live mixed conifer stands (see section 2.3.12). Scenic Byways and Special Interest Areas (SIAs) are more sensitive visually than other management areas and therefore require additional design goals (see section 2.3.9).

Cumulative Effects

The Proposed Action Alternative would contribute to cumulative effects from other activities such as forest- wide hazard tree removal, additional clearing projects by utility companies not included in this EA, and timber harvest/fuel reduction projects. These projects would further reduce the density of existing trees and would also have a short-term (lasting about 20 years) negative effect on the existing scenery objectives by creating large open spaces that are currently part of the forests’ vegetative cover.

Forest Plan Consistency

All improvements are to be planned and designed to meet the level of VQO or SIO identified. Both the No Action and the Proposed Action Alternatives would comply with direction in the LRMPs of the three forests. Both actions would have a short-term negative impact to the established SIO/VQO. However, the Proposed Action would have a lesser negative effect due to the scalloped and feathered edges and the clumps and islands of trees left to imitate natural openings required in the project's Design Criteria.

3.12 Soils

Affected Environment

The expected treatment area for the Emergency Power Line Clearing Project covers approximately 17,628 acres within the central, mountainous portion of Colorado. Generally, soils in mountainous regions, including (but not limited to) forested slopes, ridge-tops, mountain peaks, and valley bottoms, are shallow, rocky, and coarse textured. Most are characterized by thin surface layers, low water-holding capacity, and low nutrient cycling. Typical soils in mountainous areas are classified under the USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service Soil Taxonomy as entisols and inceptisols, being that they are basically unaltered parent material (unconsolidated sediment or rock). They are generally characterized by thin organic layers, but range from mountain peak(s) soils that have virtually no organic layers, to valley bottom soils that can have thicker organic layers. These soils are relatively young in age as erosional forces in mountainous regions are very active. Constant deposition of parent material and erosion of existing material causes these soils to have no distinguishable soil horizons; although, in valley bottoms, a distinguishable mollic horizon (dark-colored surface horizon rich in organic matter) is sometimes present.

Entisols and inceptisols are not usually susceptible to deep compaction, but compaction can occur in high traffic areas such as roads or skid trails. Most soils in the project area have high potential for erosion if protective ground cover is removed. Soils in the area are also highly susceptible to loss of productivity if the surface organic horizon is displaced, removed, or consumed by fire.

______United States Forest Service May 2010 Arapaho and Roosevelt, Routt, and White River National Forests Page 101 – Final – Environmental Assessment of the Emergency Power Line Clearing Project

Environmental Consequences

3.12.1 Alternative 1: No Action

Direct and Indirect Effects

Through implementation of the No Action Alternative, utility companies would continue their existing management practices as currently authorized. As continued tree mortality occurs, it would necessitate periodic felling and/or buckling of dead trees by maintenance crews to keep power lines operational. The vast majority of beetle-killed trees would eventually fall and be incorporated into the stand as coarse woody debris (CWD). There would be no additional erosion, compaction, or displacement above existing conditions. The resulting high rates of CWD build-up could generate above normal fuel loads, causing forest fires to be very intense. High heat from such an intense fire would cause sterilization of the soil for longer periods of time, compared to a normal forest fire.

Under this alternative, there would be no project-related ground disturbance from mechanical or hand treatments and direct effects to soil resources would not occur, so natural recovery of soil resources within previously affected areas would continue. Fine woody debris and CWD would temporarily accumulate at higher than normal rates in areas with extensive beetle kill, and at normal rates in other areas. The No Action Alternative would not change the current state or ongoing natural processes (directly or indirectly) of soil resources.

Cumulative Effects

Implementation of the No Action Alternative would not have cumulative effects on soil resources within the Proposed Project area.

3.12.2 Alternative 2: Proposed Action

Direct and Indirect Effects

Potential direct and indirect effects of the Proposed Action Alternative include increased rates of soil erosion, soil compaction and exposure, damage to sensitive soils, and decreased soil productivity.

Erosion

Removal of vegetative cover (canopy and surface) would reduce precipitation interception, and expose the soil to the erosive forces of rainfall. Ground-disturbing activities associated with mechanized timber harvesting increase soil surface exposure and erosion rates, which may also result in soil displacement and rutting. The potential to increase erosion rates would be more pronounced as slope steepness increases. Treatment areas along power lines where all trees would be removed would have the highest probability for soil erosion. These areas are mainly confined to areas where beetle kill is extensive. However, following the Design Criteria for CWD, in accordance with LRMP standards, would assure non-detrimental post- harvest soil erosion rates in these areas. Table 3.12-1 identifies the optimal CWD retention densities by forest type.

Table 3.12-1 Optimal Coarse Woody Debris (CWD) Retention Densities by Forest Type* Minimum Retention Minimum Retention Total Down CWD for Small Diameter for Large Diameter 1 4 Retention Forest Type Component1 Component1,3 (Tons per acre of materials (Tons per acre 3 to 8 or 10 (Tons per acre greater than 8 greater than 3 inches in inches in diameter2) or 10 inches in diameter2) diameter) Spruce-fir 8.5 1.5 10 Lodgepole pine 4.25 0.75 5 Aspen 2.5 0.5 3 Douglas-fir 4.25 0.75 5

______United States Forest Service May 2010 Arapaho and Roosevelt, Routt, and White River National Forests Page 102 – Final – Environmental Assessment of the Emergency Power Line Clearing Project

Ponderosa Pine 3.5 0.5 4 Notes: * This table was taken from the WRNF LRMP, Chapter 2, page 2-5, but is consistent with standards for all three forests. 1 - These amounts are to be calculated as per-acre averages for each 1,000 acres over a silvicultural landscape assessment area. 2 - The minimum diameter of CWD is measured at the larger end of the material. 3 - The large diameter component satisfies wildlife needs for CWD retention. 4 - The 8-inch minimum diameter applies to lodgepole pine and aspen, while the 10-inch minimum applies to spruce-fir, Douglas- fir, and ponderosa pine types.

Soil monitoring has previously shown that after harvesting, ground cover meets or exceeds LRMP standards, and therefore no accelerated erosion should occur as a result of activities associated with the Proposed Action, since Design Criteria would be followed in accordance with the following standards (Tepler, 2009):

1. Design vegetation and fuels management treatments to retain optimal average per-acre densities of CWD in areas of aggressive slash treatment. (Optimal per-acre densities of CWD are displayed in Table 4.12-1.) 2. Maintain the organic ground cover of each land unit so that pedestals, rills, and surface runoff from the land are not increased. 3. Restrict machinery from slopes greater than 35%, except for short (less than 100 feet in length) slopes. 4. Operate equipment for land treatments only when the soil moisture concentration is below the soil’s plastic limit.

Mechanical methods of tree removal include roller chopping, use of a hydro axe, and lopping and scattering harvest-generated slash. These mechanical methods would be implemented in a manner to prevent detrimental erosion. Roller chopping causes an increase of litter and tends to drive the generated material into soil, resulting in increased soil stability (Zachman, 2003). In addition, roller choppers towed up and down slopes form blade indentations that tend to retard surface runoff and soil erosion. A hydro axe treatment creates fine litter, or mulch. This mulch provides a protective layer for the rubber tire tractor trailer to travel over, thus reducing surface disturbance and preventing erosion after treatment (Zachman, 2003). Lopping and scattering harvest-generated slash in treatment areas provide post-harvest ground over, as well as generating woody debris and organic material. Such ground cover is very effective in reducing post- treatment erosion.

Compaction and Exposure

Mechanized timber harvest methods increase soil bulk density and may lead to compaction within treatment areas. Concentrated landing activities also create soil compaction. Soils are considered detrimentally compacted if there is a 15% increase in bulk density. Detrimental compaction is presumed to be a preexisting condition along the existing power line access roads, which account for approximately 4 - 6% of the treatment area.

The mechanized timber harvest methods of slash/bole treatments include roller chopping, machine trampling, chipping and/or use of a hydro axe to achieve the desired slash height. Direct effects of machine trampling and roller chopping include increased soil compaction and some soil displacement due to the weight of the equipment. However, the overall effects of these mechanical harvest methods do not result in a significant increase in bulk soil density (Zachman, 2003). As discussed above, roller choppers cause an increase of litter which drives the generated material into soil and cause blade indentations that tend to “fluff” the soil. A hydro axe treatment also reduces soil compaction by leaving a fine mulch cover.

Ground-based skidding can result in 20 – 40% soil exposure in the treatment areas. To reduce this soil exposure, skid trail locations would be designated by the USFS before beginning any treatment activities. Proper planning and use of designated skid trails would reduce this exposure to 7 – 15%. Designating landings and spacing skid trails approximately 100 feet apart would result in 11% of the treatment areas being in skid trails (Garland, 1997). However, due to deviations on the ground and closer skid trail spacing a specified in the design criteria (75 ft.), it is possible that a maximum of 23% of the treatment areas could be detrimentally impacted by skid trails. Therefore, in areas where detrimental effects would be greater than

______United States Forest Service May 2010 Arapaho and Roosevelt, Routt, and White River National Forests Page 103 – Final – Environmental Assessment of the Emergency Power Line Clearing Project

15%, ripping must occur to mitigate these detrimental effects and adhere to LRMP standards (15% maximum soil exposure).

Through implementation of the Design Criteria and soil management measures, the sum of past effects and project-related direct effects would be below 15% for any given activity area in the forests. This translates into a possible maximum of 2,644 acres of detrimental soil effects (namely erosion, compaction and exposure, sensitive soils disturbance, and decreased soil productivity) over the entire project area.

Burning

Slash/logs may be hand or machine piled on landings, and later burned by the USFS. Burn pile effects on soil productivity range from moderate to severe, depending on burn severity, soil type, and site history.

Sensitive Areas

Riparian and wetland soils are very susceptible to detrimental compaction and erosion. Permanent damage to these soils can occur if mechanical treatments were to be conducted on them. Compaction can lead to loss of productivity, and removal of ground cover can lead to detrimental erosion.

As specified by Riparian Areas/Aquatic Protection Design Criteria, hazardous trees within isolated wetlands should be left standing. If the trees are short enough and far enough away from the power line that the trees would not threaten the line if they should fall. Further, no mechanical treatments would occur within 100 feet of riparian and wetland area soils (Design Criteria numbers 28 and 41). Instead, tree removal would be accomplished by hand crews. Minimal ground disturbance would be associated with these hand treatments. Removal of cut logs using one-end suspension may be allowed for this project in sensitive areas. This method is prone to causing detrimental disturbance; however, utilization of Design Criteria would minimize the disturbance.

Other Effects

The use of existing power line access and maintenance roads for project implementation may cause additional temporary ground disturbance and sediment production. Road stability conditions would determine the degree of the impact. Use of roads that were previously only lightly used, well vegetated, and stable would generate additional watershed effects such as sediment production and soil runoff. On heavily used, poorly maintained, and/or unstable roads, the activities associated with the Proposed Action Alternative would likely benefit the watershed by reducing runoff and sediment production.

The effects of lopping/scattering, chipping, and masticating for slash disposal activities on soil resources could be beneficial or harmful, depending on the amount, size, and spatial distribution of material retained.

Potential effects on soil processes/functions are:

• Erosion Control - Retention of slash/chips/chunks may benefit soil resources by providing protective ground cover. • Soil Nutrient Status - Microbes decomposing this wood (chips and chunks) are predicted to immobilize nitrogen and thus reduce soil nutrient availability. When the wood becomes mostly decomposed, it is predicted to begin to release nitrogen, and increase soil nutrient availability. • Soil Carbon - Little change in soil carbon concentrations are expected because most of the carbon in the added wood will be lost through respiration • Soil Physical Properties (Soil Moisture and Temperature Fluctuations) - Overstory thinning and the added wood would decrease evapotranspiration due to fewer trees using shallow ground water and the physical barrier caused by the woody debris. The wood debris will also insulate the soil to reduce heat loss during the night and winter, and reduce heat load during the day and summer. The net result will be more moist soils with decreased diurnal and seasonal soil temperature fluctuations. However, the added wood could intercept and retain precipitation and cause lower soil moisture where small rain storms supply moisture. Additionally, heavy equipment used for chipping or mastication may compact the soil.

______United States Forest Service May 2010 Arapaho and Roosevelt, Routt, and White River National Forests Page 104 – Final – Environmental Assessment of the Emergency Power Line Clearing Project

• Soil Biota - Woody debris provides habitat for soil insects and microbes and addition of carbon from woody debris will lead to an increase in soil biota, especially fungal species that are the primary wood decomposers. • Fire Risk or Behavior - Canopy fire risk will be reduced for some period of time, however material may smolder, resulting in a longer residence time and the heat pulse being directed down into the soil.

Mulch depth deeper than 4’’ can cause a reduction in soil nitrate concentrations causing a decrease in soil productivity. Therefore, mulch depth is not to exceed 4’’ in depth over 60% of an area to prevent adverse effects form chip piling.

Additional indirect effects include probable decreases in soil productivity within the treatment area, and most significantly in association with skid trails and landings. However, to minimize this effect, skid trails and landings would be sub soiled or scared, and the areal extent of detrimental soil disturbances would not exceed 15% of the total treatment area acreage. At this density, these disturbances are not considered to be detrimental.

Winter logging may also occur under the Proposed Action Alternative. With proper implementation of the Design Criteria for winter logging, effects to the soils would be less than those resulting from activities during the summer and fall months. With landings treated after use by ripping, winter logging activities can result in less than 1% of the total area being detrimentally affected (Tepler, 2009).

Cumulative Effects

Most, if not all, effects to soils are the result of direct actions on the soil surface; cumulative soil effects are the result of repeated direct actions within an activity area. Repeated actions can lead to compacted, displaced, puddled, severely burned, and/or eroded soil conditions. The past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions anticipated include additional timber harvests and OHV use.

Repeated harvest activity within the same area can lead to detrimental loss of topsoil or excessive compaction and displacement. It is anticipated that after any completed treatment activities associated with the Proposed Action, trees would not be felled again in the treatment area for at least 10 years or more, with the exception of routine maintenance along the existing power line access roads. Any periodic felling of trees for maintenance purposes would be subject to compliance with LRMP standards to minimize soil compaction and erosion and, therefore, would not detrimentally affect soil conditions.

Currently, OHV use within the areas that may be treated is restricted to the NFS roads and these restrictions are expected to continue in the future. It is not unreasonable to assume, however, that OHVs occasionally drive along power line ROWs; however, the anticipated effects in the treatment areas are considered minimal. The extent of past and reasonably-foreseeable cumulative detrimental effects is expected to be less than 15% for the proposed treatment area.

Forest Plan Consistency

Both alternatives would comply with all LRMP standards pertinent to soil resources. Compliance in the context of the Proposed Action is based on implementation of pertinent project Design Criteria.

3.13 Land Use

Affected Environment

The three forests contain areas identified as developed and non-developed recreation and recreational rivers, as well as ski-based resorts, backcountry recreation, special interest areas, research natural areas, scenery, eligible wild rivers, resource production for range vegetation and forest products, wildlife habitat including floral and faunal biota, and utility corridors, which are each identified as Management Areas (MAs). Tables 3.13-1 through 3.13-3 provide lists of the MAs for each forest, as well as acreages along distribution lines and transmission lines for each area listed.

______United States Forest Service May 2010 Arapaho and Roosevelt, Routt, and White River National Forests Page 105 – Final – Environmental Assessment of the Emergency Power Line Clearing Project

Table 3.13-1 Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests Management Areas within Proposed Project Area Acres within Project Area Management Area Type Distribution Transmission Combined Lines Lines Total Backcountry Recreation 90.85 213.05 303.90 Special Interest Areas, Emphasis on Use 246.96 157.87 404.83 Backcountry Motorized Recreation 1.08 26.32 27.40 Forested Flora and Fauna Habitats 669.30 806.10 1,475.40 Corridors Connecting Core Areas 13.69 0.00 13.69 Scenic Areas 232.36 551.58 783.94 Dispersed Recreation 634.44 646.90 1,281.34 Recreation Rivers, Designated and Eligible 325.12 0.00 325.12 General Forest and Rangelands - Forest Vegetation 0.35 769.68 770.03 Emphasis Forest Products 1.93 0.00 1.93 Fraser Experimental Forest 48.03 0.00 48.03 Deer and Elk Winter Range 17.99 105.46 123.45 Forest Products and Dispersed Recreation 275.50 551.79 827.29 National Forest - Residential Intermix 92.73 162.78 255.51 Developed Recreation Complexes 12.20 0.00 12.20 Ski-Based Resorts, Existing and Potential 91.45 0.00 91.45 Total Acreage of Management Areas 2,753.98 3,991.53 6,745.51

Table 3.13-2 Routt National Forest Management Areas within the Proposed Project Area Acres within Project Area Management Area Type Distribution Transmission Combined Lines Lines Total Municipal Watersheds – Water Quality Emphasis 0.00 418.86 418.86 Backcountry Recreation, Limited Winter Motorized 0.00 45.78 45.78 Scenery 95.94 563.16 659.10 Dispersed Recreation 0.00 563.16 563.16 General Forest and Rangelands – Forest Vegetation 55.55 207.29 262.84 Emphasis Resource Production - Range Vegetation Emphasis 20.23 251.33 271.56 Resource Production – Forest Products 59.24 986.12 1,045.36 Deer and Elk Winter Range 23.53 0.00 23.53 Intermix 0.00 17.33 17.33 Total Acreage of Management Areas 254.49 3,053.03 3,307.52

Table 3.13-3 White River National Forest Management Areas within the Proposed Project Area Acres within Project Area Management Area Type Distribution Transmission Combined Lines Lines Total Recommended Wilderness 57.13 174.22 231.35 Backcountry Recreation, Non-Motorized 53.99 281.07 335.06 Backcountry Recreation, Limited Winter Motorized 5.80 0.00 5.80 Special Interest Areas, Emphasis on Use 15.49 65.74 81.23 Backcountry Recreation, Year-Round Motorized 1.66 59.35 61.01 Scenic Rivers, Designated and Eligible 0.70 0.00 0.70 Scenery 62.70 0.00 62.70 Scenic Byways, Areas, or Travel Corridors 36.86 44.28 81.14

______United States Forest Service May 2010 Arapaho and Roosevelt, Routt, and White River National Forests Page 106 – Final – Environmental Assessment of the Emergency Power Line Clearing Project

Dispersed Recreation 289.45 334.64 624.09 Dispersed Recreation, High Use 42.10 0.00 41.10 Recreation Rivers, Designated and Eligible 344.60 31.60 376.20 Resource Production, Range Vegetation Emphasis 51.80 20.90 72.70 Forested Flora - Fauna Habitats 278.96 576.36 855.32 Deer and Elk Winter Range 328.79 1,759.72 2,088.51 Bighorn Sheep Habitat 29.44 0.00 29.44 Elk Habitat 121.05 199.83 320.88 Forested Landscape Linkages 151.97 503.98 655.95 Intermix 68.30 4.70 73.00 Developed Recreation Complexes 210.38 59.14 269.52 Ski-Based Resorts, Existing and Potential 1,217.38 84.66 1,302.04 Designated Utility Corridors, Existing 229.39 3,324.99 3,554.38 Total Acreage of Management Areas 3,597.94 7,524.88 11,122.12

Effects to the various management areas listed in tables 3.13-1 through 3.13-3 would be the same through implementation of both the No Action and Proposed Action Alternatives. These potential effects to the management areas of the three forests are listed throughout the effects analyzed in sections 3.1 through 3.12 of this document. In general, the power lines assessed as a portion of the Proposed Project are linear in distribution and intersect with many of the management areas listed above. Only those areas that restrict activities such as those proposed as a part of the Emergency Power Line Clearing Project would remain completely unaffected as a result of the project.

It is notable that the tables above do not sum to the totals that have been provided as the Proposed Project area and that some features listed within the tables are those that have already been identified as not potentially affected by implementation of the Proposed Project. Inconsistencies of this nature are the result of overlapping features within the datasets that have been used to calculate the areas potentially affected. Those inconsistencies are not reflective of the accuracy of the databases themselves, but rather are due to the nature of the geographic distribution of the power lines and are a result of the estimation process that has been used to evaluate the areas that have been proposed for treatment.

An example of this inconsistency is that power lines are not allowed within Wilderness Areas, however according to Table 3.13-3 there are a total of 231.35 acres of the Proposed Project area that occurs within areas identified as Recommended Wilderness within the WRNF. This is a result of the buffering process that has been used to assess the geographic distribution of the Proposed Project area. In reality no power lines exist within the indicated area; however, as a result of applying a buffer to those lines in modeling the Proposed Project area, the buffered areas would overlap with the areas proposed for Wilderness designation and it should be emphasized that no treatments would occur within Wilderness Areas.

3.13.1 Special Interest Areas (SIAs)

Special Interest Areas (SIAs) are normally managed to protect or enhance areas with unusual or unique ecological, zoological, geological, scenic, paleontological, historic, or prehistoric characteristics. All management activities for SIAs center on maintaining the values that make these areas special. Other resource values and uses are deemed secondary to the protection, maintenance, and restoration of the designated special interest of the identified area.

The three forests contain a total of 34 SIAs, which compose approximately 502,000 acres. A total of 413 acres of SIAs occur within the Proposed Project area. This number represents approximately 0% of the total area for all SIAs on the three forests. Table 3.13-4 lists the number of SIAs and the proportion of them that occurs within the SIAs.

______United States Forest Service May 2010 Arapaho and Roosevelt, Routt, and White River National Forests Page 107 – Final – Environmental Assessment of the Emergency Power Line Clearing Project

Table 3.13-4 Special Interest Areas (SIAs) within the Proposed Project Area (PPA)* Number of Acres of Acres of SIAs % of SIA Acres Forest SIAs in the PPA SIAs SIAs in the PPA in the PPA ARNF 12 444,901 1 333 0% RNF 7 28,739 0 0 0% WRNF 15 28,132 4 80 0% Total 34 501,773 5 413 0% * SIAs were obtained from the Management Area databases for each of the three forests, where MA 3.1 is representative of SIAs for the ARNF, MA 2.1 is representative of SIAs for the RNF, and MA 2.1 and 3.1 for the WRNF.

The SIA that would potentially be affected by the Proposed Project on the ARNF is the Arapaho National Recreation Area. This particular area has a high emphasis on use and is managed for the support of recreation. This particular SIA would be likely to receive a number of vegetation treatments associated with a similar project that is currently be planned on the ARNF, in which hazard trees are proposed for removal along roads, trails, and within administrative sites (which includes developed recreation areas). Many of the areas that would be affected by this Proposed Project would also be likely to be affected by that proposal as well.

The WRNF has two categories of SIAs that are managed on the forest: 1) Management Area 2.1 and 2) Management Area 3.1. Category 2.1 SIAs are managed for minimal use and none of these areas contain portions that may be affected by the Proposed Project. Category 3.1 SIAs are managed for an emphasis on their use. There are four SIAs of this category that may be affected by the Proposed Project. Page 3-29 of the WRNF LRMP provides management direction for this category of SIA which states that, “Vegetational manipulation may be used to maintain or restore natural conditions in order to protect threatened, endangered, and sensitive species, or to protect other values for which the SIA was proposed or designated.” In total 80 acres of these SIAs are within the Proposed Project area and these types of SIAs allow for the types of vegetation management proposed by this project.

There are approximately 96 acres of vegetative cover that are dominated by tree species that are located within the SIA portions of the Proposed Project area. Table 3.13-5 lists the types of tree dominant stands located within the Proposed Project area within SIAs for the ARNF and WRNF. These numbers are not intended to suggest that effects may only occur in these areas; however, it would be expected that these areas would be affected by the Proposed Project.

Table 3.13-5 Tree Species within Special Interest Areas (SIAs) Acreage within the PPA Dominant Timber Species* ARNF WRNF PICO(L) 30 9 PIEN 0 47 POTR5 3 7 Total 33 63 * The acreage of dominant tree species was extracted from the R2VEG databases available for each forest. The species dominance was determined based upon the R2VEG_SPECIES attribute table using the Species column.

Environmental Consequences

3.13.1.1 Alternative 1: No Action

Direct and Indirect Effects

Through implementation of the No Action Alternative, management practices would continue along utility ROWs as currently authorized. However, such treatment would not be managed in a concerted effort or within the scope and timeframe of the Proposed Action Alternative.

______United States Forest Service May 2010 Arapaho and Roosevelt, Routt, and White River National Forests Page 108 – Final – Environmental Assessment of the Emergency Power Line Clearing Project

Implementation of this alternative would be expected to result in the same conditions over time as implementation of the Proposed Action Alternative, due to the fact that the areas that are proposed for treatment as a portion of the Proposed Project would only include those locations where hazard trees exist. It is expected that over time the hazard trees will deteriorate and fall, in which case the effects would be the same.

The uncontrolled falling of hazard trees could potentially have detrimental effects on individuals of at risk species, which help to characterize some SIAs. It would not be expected that there would be many direct effects to these species; however, through implementation of this alternative there would be no protections provided for those individuals or occurrences. Similarly, the uncontrolled falling of hazard trees could have detrimental effects (i.e. damages to personal property and personal injury) to forest users if they were to be utilizing the areas within the SIAs where the power lines are located.

Cumulative Effects

No cumulative effects would be expected to result through implementation of the No Action Alternative.

3.13.1.2 Alternative 2: Proposed Action

Direct and Indirect Effects

Effects to SIAs as a result of implementation of the Proposed Action Alternative would be expected to occur mostly in the form of changes to the natural character of the areas potentially affected, such that the “corridor effect” along the power line ROWs that are proposed for treatment would be enhanced. However, the degree to which the enhancement would take place would be dependent upon the implementation of the proposed Design Criteria and the occurrence of hazard trees. This potential effect would also be minimal due to the fact that only a small portion of SIAs would be expected to be treated as a portion of implementing the Proposed Action Alternative.

Some slight indirect effects relative to the structural state of the vegetative cover would also be expected to occur, however, this would be expected as a result of implementation of the No Action Alternative as well.

Cumulative Effects

Implementation of the Proposed Action Alternative would be expected to add to the cumulative effects to SIAs. SIAs on other NFS lands may be affected similarly to those on the three forests as a result of the ongoing bark beetle epidemic, specifically those focused on emphasizing the floral characteristics of the areas. As is the case with the other forests in the region, it would be expected that some effect to the natural character of the areas would result from implementation of this alternative. The “corridor effect” that already exists along power lines within these areas would be enhanced through implementation of this alternative; however, the end result of the ongoing bark beetle infested trees continue to die and eventually fall across the landscape would be achieved through either alternative. The only difference between the two alternatives would be the method used and timing of tree felling. It is also reasonable to assume that proposed treatments within SIAs would be coordinated with other projects in the foreseeable future as well.

Forest Plan Consistency

The Proposed Project would remain consistent with the direction for SIAs provided in the LRMP for each forest.

3.13.2 Research Natural Areas (RNAs)

There are no Research Natural Areas (RNAs) that would be potentially affected as a result of the Proposed Project.

______United States Forest Service May 2010 Arapaho and Roosevelt, Routt, and White River National Forests Page 109 – Final – Environmental Assessment of the Emergency Power Line Clearing Project

3.13.3 Wilderness Areas

Though areas designated as Wilderness may be modeled to occur within the Proposed Project Area, no active treatments would occur within the boundaries of designated Wilderness Areas as a result of the Proposed Project.

3.14 Wildlife

3.14.1 Management Indicator Species

Affected Environment

The National Forest Management Act (NFMA) of 1976 requires that national forest planning “provide for diversity of plant and animal communities based on the suitability and capability of the specific land area in order to meet overall multiple-use objectives.” To implement this mandate, in 1982 the U.S. Forest Service developed and implemented regulations requiring the identification of Management Indicator Species (MIS) to be used as planning and analysis tools to set goals, objectives, and minimum management requirements in Forest Plans; to focus the analysis of effects of plan alternatives; and to monitor the effects of plan implementation at the project level. MIS species were created to evaluate the effects of management practices on fisheries and wildlife resources. The U.S. Forest Service monitors select species whose population trends are believed to reflect the effects of management activities on forest ecosystems (Federal Regulation 36 CFR 219.9). Specifically, the regulations state that “these species shall be selected because their population changes are believed to indicate the effects of management activities” (36 CFR 219.19). The MIS designation is not intended to provide special protective status, serve as biological diversity benchmarks, nor represent every species of plant or animal found in the forest.

An assessment of potential changes to the ARNF, RNF, and WRNF MIS was conducted and detailed within the Biological Report (BR) located within the project file at the respective Forest Supervisor’s office. This assessment describes distribution and status, habitat associations, potential effects (direct, indirect, and cumulative), as well as the rationale for the conclusions for each species that could be affected by this project. Tables 3.14-1 through 3.14-3 list the selected MIS on the ARNF, RNF, and WRNF, and the relevance of these species to the analysis. ARNF Affected Environment

Table 3.14-1 Management Indicator Species (MIS) on the Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests (ARNF) and Environmental Assessment Relevance Common Scientific Habitat Species Conclusion/Evaluations of Name Name Characteristics Analyzed Influences on MIS The Proposed Action would have a temporary effect on bighorn sheep habitat and displacement of Rocky outcrops, individuals or groups during project Rocky Ovis cliffs, slopes, implementation. As the bark beetle Mountain canadensis YES canyons adjacent to epidemic continues, it will result in bighorn sheep canadensis rivers habitat alteration from increasing numbers of dead and dying trees. Overall, a neutral influence is expected for this species.

______United States Forest Service May 2010 Arapaho and Roosevelt, Routt, and White River National Forests Page 110 – Final – Environmental Assessment of the Emergency Power Line Clearing Project

Common Scientific Habitat Species Conclusion/Evaluations of Name Name Characteristics Analyzed Influences on MIS The Proposed Action would have a temporary negative effect on elk habitat and displacement of Woodland habitats individuals or groups during project Cervus and meadows implementation. As the bark beetle American Elk YES elephus adjacent to epidemic, it will result in habitat woodland areas alteration from increasing numbers of dead and dying trees. Overall, a neutral influence is expected for this species. Similar effects as above for the elk. Individuals or groups may be affected in the temporarily displaced Grasslands, open during treatment activities. Post- Odocoileus meadows, and Mule deer YES treatment benefits include natural hemionus edges of woodland forest regeneration resulting in habitats adequate foraging habitat. Overall, a neutral influence is expected for this species. The Proposed Action Alternative may negatively impact this species Mature coniferous during breeding or foraging. These and deciduous woodpeckers seek forests with forests, forests dense canopy, snags and fallen logs. Hairy Picoides edges that have YES In doing so, they follow food woodpecker villosus disturbance from sources and where insect fire/harvest, also infestations occur, this species found in wetland would be expected to be present. habitats Overall, a neutral influence is expected for this species. This species would have habitat available during and after implementation. Forest biologists Spruce-fir, aspen, would ensure adequate surveys are Northern Accipiter lodgepole pine, old YES completed prior to treatments; if goshawk gentilis growth mature and nests occur, they would be protected even-aged stands by forest standards. Overall, a neutral influence is expected for this species. This species primarily inhabits lower elevation ponderosa pine forests that are not generally impacted by bark beetle; therefore, Ponderosa pine, this species would not be expected pinyon-juniper, Pygmy Sitta to be found in treatment areas. mixed conifer- YES nuthatch pygmaea However, if they are present, the aspen, montane loss of breeding and foraging riparian areas habitat by removal of large dead and dying trees is possible. Overall, a neutral influence is expected for this species.

______United States Forest Service May 2010 Arapaho and Roosevelt, Routt, and White River National Forests Page 111 – Final – Environmental Assessment of the Emergency Power Line Clearing Project

Common Scientific Habitat Species Conclusion/Evaluations of Name Name Characteristics Analyzed Influences on MIS This species is mostly abundant in spruce-fir forests so there would be limited potential for direct impacts Golden- Dense spruce-fir to this species. Breeding occurs in Regulus crowned forests with closed YES spring; biologists’ assessment of satrapa kinglet canopies project timing and retention is important. Overall, a neutral influence is expected for this species. This species is primarily found in pinyon-juniper habitat, which would Forest edges with not be expected to be affected by the snags for foraging, Proposed Project. However, they Mountain Sialia sagebrush, pinyon- also utilize meadows adjacent to YES bluebird currucoides juniper, shrubs forests; therefore, they may be adjacent to affected by disturbance from grasslands implementation. Overall, a neutral influence is expected for this species. The type of habitat utilized by this species would not be impacted by Warbling vireo Vireo gilvus Aspen forests NO this project. A neutral influence is expected for this species. Riparian areas, edges of beaver The type of habitat utilized by this ponds, lake, bogs, Wilson's Wilsonia species would not be impacted by and overgrown NO warbler pusilla this project. A neutral influence is clear cuts of expected for this species. montane and boreal forests

RNF Affected Environment

Table 3.14-2 Management Indicator Species (MIS) on the Routt National Forest (RNF) and Environmental Assessment Relevance Common Scientific Habitat Species Conclusion/Evaluations of Name Name Characteristics Analyzed Influences on MIS The Proposed Action would have a temporary effect on bighorn sheep habitat and displacement of Rocky outcrops, individuals or groups during project Rocky Ovis cliffs, slopes, implementation. As the bark beetle Mountain canadensis YES canyons adjacent to epidemic continues, it will result in bighorn sheep canadensis rivers habitat alteration from increasing numbers of dead and dying trees. Overall, a neutral influence is expected for this species.

______United States Forest Service May 2010 Arapaho and Roosevelt, Routt, and White River National Forests Page 112 – Final – Environmental Assessment of the Emergency Power Line Clearing Project

Common Scientific Habitat Species Conclusion/Evaluations of Name Name Characteristics Analyzed Influences on MIS This species is mostly abundant in spruce-fir forests so there would be limited potential for direct impacts Golden- Dense spruce-fir to this species. Breeding occurs in Regulus crowned forest with closed YES spring; biologist assessment of satrapa kinglet canopies project timing and retention is important. Overall, a neutral influence is expected for this species. Various open habitats including The type of habitat used by this Vespers Pooectes grasslands, prairie, species would not be impacted by NO sparrow gramineus sagebrush, steppe, this project. A neutral influence is meadows, and expected for this species. pastures Riparian areas, edges of beaver The type of habitat used by this ponds, lake, bogs, Wilson's Wilsonia species would not be impacted by and overgrown NO warbler pusilla this project. A neutral influence is clear cuts of expected for this species. montane and boreal forests This species would have habitat available during and after implementation. Forest biologists Spruce-fir, aspen, would ensure adequate surveys are Northern Accipiter lodgepole pine, old YES completed prior to treatments; if goshawk gentilis growth mature and nests occur, they would be protected even-aged stands by forest standards. Overall, a neutral influence is expected for this species.

WRNF Affected Environment

Table 3.14-3 Management Indicator Species (MIS) on the White River National Forest (WRNF) and Environmental Assessment Relevance Common Scientific Habitat Species Conclusion/Evaluations of Name Name Characteristics Analyzed Influences on MIS The Proposed Action would have a temporary effect on bighorn sheep habitat and displacement of Rocky outcrops, individuals or groups during project Rocky Ovis cliffs, slopes, implementation. As the bark beetle Mountain big canadensis YES canyons adjacent to epidemic continues, it will result in horn sheep canadensis rivers habitat alteration from increasing numbers of dead and dying trees. Overall, a neutral influence is expected for this species. Forage habitat The type of habitat used by this along forest edges, species would not be impacted by Cave bats NO caves, mines, and this project. A neutral influence is cliffs for roosting expected for this species.

______United States Forest Service May 2010 Arapaho and Roosevelt, Routt, and White River National Forests Page 113 – Final – Environmental Assessment of the Emergency Power Line Clearing Project

Common Scientific Habitat Species Conclusion/Evaluations of Name Name Characteristics Analyzed Influences on MIS The Proposed Action would have a temporary negative effect on elk habitat and displacement of Woodland habitats individuals or groups during project Wilsonia and meadows implementation. As the bark beetle American Elk YES pusilla adjacent to epidemic, it will result in habitat woodland areas alteration from increasing numbers of dead and dying trees. Overall, a neutral influence is expected for this species. Arctic tundra The type of habitat used by this Anthus (breeding), species would not be impacted by American pipit NO rubescens grasslands and this project. A neutral influence is riparian areas expected for this species. This species would have habitat available during and after implementation. Forest biologists Spruce-fir, aspen, would ensure adequate surveys are Northern Accipiter lodgepole pine, old YES completed prior to treatments; if goshawk gentilis growth mature and nests occur, they would be protected even-aged stands by forest standards. Overall, a neutral influence is expected for this species. Nest in Oak, pinyon-juniper, The type of habitat used by this Virginias Vermivora adjacent to species would not be impacted by NO warbler virginiae coniferous forests, this project. A neutral influence is dry dense mountain expected for this species. shrub cover The type of habitat used by this Sagebrush, Brewers Spizella species would not be impacted by shrubsteppe NO sparrow breweri this project. A neutral influence is habitats expected for this species.

Environmental Consequences

3.14.1.1 Alternative 1: No Action

Direct and Indirect Effects

ARNF, RNF, and WRNF

Implementation of this alternative would have minimal impacts to the population status or viability of MIS populations forest-wide. Under this alternative, existing utility company management practices would continue as currently authorized; current forest management practices would continue to occur. Ecological processes would be allowed to continue unhindered. Fire behavior and fuel loads would be left to be managed through their natural disturbance regimes. Middle to long-term (5 + years) effects of the current bark beetle epidemic would result from the altered forest and stand characteristics within the foreseeable future. However, in the short term (0-5 years), this alternative would continue to provide habitat and prey availability for all MIS present on the three forests.

As the bark beetle epidemic continues, the potential for habitat quality to decline would continue as well. Short-term responses of wildlife within the forest communities that they represent would be minimal. As

______United States Forest Service May 2010 Arapaho and Roosevelt, Routt, and White River National Forests Page 114 – Final – Environmental Assessment of the Emergency Power Line Clearing Project trees die and evolve into snags, some species may benefit. However, long-term effects may be realized from potential wind throw and/or wildfire resulting in decreased or eliminated habitat. The defoliation and decay of beetle infested trees would be expected to convert some portions of the forest to a more open canopy environment providing limited cover or food for forest species.

If wind throw events were to occur or large amounts of dead trees were to fall, habitat for elk and deer could be degraded as well. Though some small mammals may benefit from large accumulations of downed wood by providing cover and prey, but elk and deer would not be able to move through forests where large accumulations of fallen trees exist. As the previously forested areas regenerate, habitat would slowly increase in quality as prey abundance and cover provide suitable habitats for many MIS.

Wildfires are a natural occurrence in all three forests and they can result in rapid changes in habitat conditions. Though wildfires are a natural occurrence they may affect wildlife. The potential for ignition of a wildfire as a result of trees falling onto power lines would not be mitigated through the implementation of this alternative.

Cumulative Effects

Implementation of this alternative would not be expected to add to the cumulative effects to these species. Due to the widespread nature of the present bark beetle epidemic, large quantities of species habitat have been declining and the short- and long-term effects of these changes throughout the region will be that species habitats will become fragmented through natural processes. For some species this fragmentation may be beneficial and for others it could be adverse; however, implementation of the No Action Alternative would not add to either of these effects. . Other activities that occur on the forest that may contribute to cumulative impacts to sensitive species include, but are not limited to, hunting, recreation, and private land development.

3.14.1.2 Alternative 2: Proposed Action

Direct and Indirect Effects

ARNF, RNF, and WRNF

Under the Proposed Action Alternative, MIS would be monitored according to the forest plans for MIS species. Conclusions to the effects of MIS are mentioned in Tables 3.14-1 through 3.14-3 above. Species that are evaluated or analyzed that may have some potential effects would include bighorn sheep, elk, deer, cave bats, golden crowned kinglet, pygmy nuthatch, hairy woodpecker, mountain bluebird and northern goshawk. These species occur and/or have habitat within the project area. Implementation of this alternative would continue to provide habitat for all MIS species present in the Proposed Project area.

LRMP standards along with the Design Criteria would be met in order to minimize any potential effects. LRMP standards provide for biological diversity of wildlife and protect and ensure water, foraging, roosting, breeding/nesting habitats, and prey animals to support populations of MIS.

Cumulative Effects

Foreseeable future management actions with the potential to influence MIS habitats adjacent to or in the project area include fuels reduction projects, hazard tree removal, livestock grazing, and timber harvests. Other activities that occur on the forest that may contribute to cumulative impacts include, but are not limited to, hunting, recreation, and private land development

The implementation of the Proposed Action Alternative and other similar projects that involve the removal of beetle infested trees would reduce snag availability and may potentially create gaps in the canopy, impacting species cover and foraging habitats. Habitat for these MIS occurs in adjacent NFS and non-NFS lands and, although it is hard to predict, it is reasonable to assume that, given the current MPB infestation, harvesting of these trees may occur, reducing those suitable habitats as well. However, similarly the

______United States Forest Service May 2010 Arapaho and Roosevelt, Routt, and White River National Forests Page 115 – Final – Environmental Assessment of the Emergency Power Line Clearing Project cumulative effect of the changes in habitat throughout the treated areas would also improve habitat for some species also.

3.14.2 Region 2 Sensitive Species

Affected Environment

The USFS Rocky Mountain (Region 2) Endangered, Threatened, Proposed, and Sensitive Species List (May 8, 2009) was considered for this analysis with respect to those species that occur on the ARNF, RNF, and WRNF that are relevant to this project.

A Biological Evaluation (BE) is prepared for each project authorized, funded, or conducted on NFS lands to determine the possible effects the proposed activity may have on sensitive species (FSM 2672.43). The BE process is intended to analyze and document those activities necessary to ensure management actions would not likely jeopardize the continued existence of the species. The BEs for the ARNF, RNF, and WRNF are available in the project record for the Proposed Project that is located in the Forest Supervisor’s office for each respective forest.

The Region 2 Sensitive Species list was reviewed by the wildlife program manager for the ARNF, RNF, and WRNF. The species that did not have habitat within or were not known to occur or have ranges that overlapped the ARNF, RNF, and WRNF were excluded from consideration as sensitive species for this analysis. The justification for exclusion of species from consideration is available within the project record.

Biological Determination and Rationale

It has been determined that the Proposed Action Alternative “may adversely impact individuals, but not likely to result in a loss of viability in the Planning Area, nor cause a trend toward federal listing” for individual Rocky Mountain big-horned sheep, North American wolverine, American marten, pygmy shrew, Townsend’s big-eared bat, fringed myotis, northern goshawk, boreal owl, flammulated owl, American three- toed woodpecker, black-backed woodpecker, and the olive-sided flycatcher. Tables 3.14-4 through 3.14-6 list the species that were considered for the ARNF, RNF, and WRNF and describe their habitats, initial acknowledgement of their known or potential occurrences in the project area, and the rationale for effects determinations.

ARNF Sensitive Species

Table 3.14-4 Region 2 Sensitive Species for the Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests (ARNF) Common Scientific Determination of Effects and Primary Habitat Name Name Rationale for Determination • The Proposed Action would have a short- Rocky Rocky outcrops, Ovis term impact on bighorn sheep habitat and Mountain cliffs, slopes, canadensis displacement of individuals or groups. big horn canyons adjacent to canadensis • Disturbance would impact this species sheep rivers temporarily during project implementation. Secluded spruce- • The Proposed Action would impact only a North fir/lodgepole pine small percentage of available habitats. American Gulo gulo and heavy timber • Limited potential of treatment occurring in wolverine areas, high elevation high elevation preferred habitat. Mature dense forests • Temporary dispersal of individuals, until American Martes of mixed Douglas- forest regeneration occurs. marten americana fir, lodgepole pine • Reduced habitat for cover and foraging by and spruce removal of overhead canopy. Pygmy Wet conifer forests, • Conversion of mesic habitats to drier habitats Sorex hoyi shrew bogs, marshes, from timber harvest and removal of CWD on

______United States Forest Service May 2010 Arapaho and Roosevelt, Routt, and White River National Forests Page 116 – Final – Environmental Assessment of the Emergency Power Line Clearing Project

Common Scientific Determination of Effects and Primary Habitat Name Name Rationale for Determination dense stream forest floors result in habitat alteration. networks- wetlands, • There is potential for the proposed activities elevations above to harm local shrews and reduction of 9,000 feet. suitable habitat. Old abandoned mines, caves, • As foraging occurs in tree canopies, there is Townsend’s Plecotus structures in forests potential for disturbance or displacement of big-eared bat townsendii and woodlands individuals during implementation. above 9,500 ft. • Reduced habitat for cover and foraging by Spruce-fir, aspen, removal of overhead canopy. and lodgepole pine, Northern Accipiter • The Proposed Action would impact only a old growth mature goshawk gentilis small percentage of available habitats. and even-aged • stands Temporary dispersal of individuals, until forest regeneration occurs. Sub-alpine forests of • The Proposed Action would impact only a Aegolius fir and spruce, small percentage of available habitats. Boreal owl funereus mixed conifer and • Temporary dispersal of individuals, until lodgepole pine forest regeneration occurs Coniferous • Species primarily nests in ponderosa pine and mountain forest aspen; sudden aspen decline would create Flammulated Otus mixed with hazard trees in some areas. owl flammeolus Douglas-fir, aspen • The Proposed Action would impact only a or oak, 400-3,000m small percentage of available habitats. (up to 9,300ft) • This species primarily inhabits pinyon- Forest edges with juniper and aspen within and will utilize snags for foraging, forest edges near open meadows and Mountain Sialia aspen, sagebrush, grasslands. bluebird currucoides pinyon-juniper, • Displacement and disturbance may occur to shrubs adjacent to individuals during implementation but would grasslands utilize newly created edges if project were to be implemented. • Over time stands will have high densities of Old growth spruce- American snags from beetle killed trees providing Picoides fir and lodgepole three-toed habitat for this cavity nesting bird. dorsalis pine with recent fire woodpecker • Species may be displaced at first but will disturbance relocate where prey is abundant. • Benefits to fly catchers would likely accrue because reduced canopy cover (from beetle Mixed-coniferous mortality, logging or both) would improve forests, and forest Olive-sided Contopus breeding habitat suitability. edges, especially flycatcher cooperi • In areas where trees are to be removed, disturbed forest single trees and groups of trees that are edges reserved may provide foraging and perching habitats preferable to the flycatcher.

______United States Forest Service May 2010 Arapaho and Roosevelt, Routt, and White River National Forests Page 117 – Final – Environmental Assessment of the Emergency Power Line Clearing Project

Common Scientific Determination of Effects and Primary Habitat Name Name Rationale for Determination

• Species primarily nests in aspen; sudden Mature aspen forests aspen decline would create hazard trees in Purple Progne near meadows and some areas. martin subis open water • The Proposed Action would impact only a small percentage of available habitats.

RNF Sensitive Species

Table 3.14-5 Region 2 Sensitive Species for the Routt National Forest (RNF) Common Scientific Determination of Effects and Primary Habitat Name Name Rationale for Determination • The Proposed Action would have a short- Rocky Ovis Rocky outcrops, term impact on bighorn sheep habitat and Mountain canadensis cliffs, slopes, canyons displacement of individuals or groups. big horn canadensis adjacent to rivers • Disturbance would impact this species sheep temporarily during project implementation. Secluded spruce- • The Proposed Action would impact only a North fir/lodgepole pine and small percentage of available habitats. American Gulo gulo heavy timber areas, • Limited potential of treatment occurring in wolverine high elevation high elevation preferred habitat. • There is potential for temporary dispersal of Mature dense forests American Martes individuals until forest regeneration occurs. of mixed Douglas-fir, marten americana • Reduced habitat for cover and foraging by lodgepole and spruce removal of overhead canopy. • Conversion of mesic habitats to drier habitats Wet conifer forests, from timber harvest and removal of CWD on bogs, marshes, dense Pygmy forest floors result in habitat alteration. Sorex hoyi stream networks- shrew • wetlands, elevations There is potential for the proposed activities to harm local shrews and reduce suitable above 9,000 feet. habitat. Old abandoned mines, • As foraging occurs in tree canopies, potential Townsend’s Plecotus caves, structures in exists for disturbance or displacement of big-eared bat townsendii forests and woodlands individuals during implementation. above 9,500 ft. • Reduced habitat for cover and foraging by Spruce-fir, aspen, and removal of overhead canopy. Northern Accipiter lodgepole pine, old • The Proposed Action would impact only a goshawk gentilis growth mature and small percentage of available habitats. even-aged stands Temporary dispersal of individuals, until forest regeneration occurs. Sub-alpine forests of • The Proposed Action would impact only a Aegolius fir and spruce, mixed small percentage of available habitats. Boreal owl funereus conifer and lodgepole • Temporary dispersal of individuals, until pine forest regeneration occurs.

______United States Forest Service May 2010 Arapaho and Roosevelt, Routt, and White River National Forests Page 118 – Final – Environmental Assessment of the Emergency Power Line Clearing Project

Common Scientific Determination of Effects and Primary Habitat Name Name Rationale for Determination Coniferous mountain • Species primarily nests in ponderosa and forest mixed with aspen; sudden aspen decline would create Flammulated Otus Douglas-fir, aspen or hazard trees in some areas. owl flammeolus oak, 400-3000m • The Proposed Action would impact only a (up to 9,300ft) small percentage of available habitats. Black- Old growth Picoides • Species may be displaced temporarily, but backed coniferous stands with arcticus will relocate where prey is abundant. woodpecker post fire disturbance • Over time stands will have high densities of Old growth spruce-fir American snags from beetle killed trees providing Picoides and lodgepole pine three-toed habitat for this cavity nesting bird. dorsalis with recent fire woodpecker • Species may be displaced temporarily, but disturbance will relocate where prey is abundant. • Benefits to fly catchers would likely accrue because reduced canopy cover (from beetle Mixed-coniferous mortality, logging or both) would improve Olive-sided Contopus forests, and forest breeding habitat suitability. flycatcher cooperi edges, especially • In areas where trees are to be removed, disturbed forest edges single trees and groups of trees that are preserved may provide foraging and perching habitats preferable to the flycatcher.

• Species primarily nests in aspen; sudden Mature aspen forests aspen decline would create hazard trees in Purple Progne near meadows and some areas. martin subis open water • The Proposed Action would impact only a small percentage of available habitats.

WRNF Affected Environment

Table 3.14-6 Region 2 Sensitive Species for the White River National Forest (WRNF) Common Scientific Determination of Effects and Primary Habitat Name Name Rationale for Determination • The Proposed Action would have short-term Rocky Ovis Rocky outcrops, impacts on bighorn sheep habitat and Mountain big canadensis cliffs, slopes, canyons displacement of individuals or groups. horn sheep canadensis adjacent to rivers • Disturbance would impact this species temporarily during project implementation. Secluded spruce- • The Proposed Action would impact only a North fir/lodgepole pine small percentage of available habitats. American Gulo gulo and heavy timber • Limited potential of treatment occurring in wolverine areas, high elevation high elevation preferred habitat. • There is potential for temporary dispersal of Mature dense forests American Martes individuals, until forest regeneration occurs. of mixed Douglas-fir, marten americana • Reduced habitat for cover and foraging by lodgepole and spruce removal of overhead canopy.

______United States Forest Service May 2010 Arapaho and Roosevelt, Routt, and White River National Forests Page 119 – Final – Environmental Assessment of the Emergency Power Line Clearing Project

Common Scientific Determination of Effects and Primary Habitat Name Name Rationale for Determination • Conversion of mesic habitats to drier habitats Wet conifer forests, from timber harvest and removal of CWD on bogs, marshes, dense Pygmy forest floors result in habitat alteration. Sorex hoyi stream networks- shrew • Potential exists for the proposed activities to wetlands, elevations harm local shrews and reduce suitable above 9,000 feet. habitat. Old abandoned mines, caves, • As foraging occurs in tree canopies, potential Townsend’s Plecotus structures in forests exists for disturbance or displacement of big-eared bat townsendii and woodlands individuals during implementation. above 9,500 ft. • Reduced habitat for cover and foraging by Spruce-fir, aspen, and removal of overhead canopy. Northern Accipiter lodgepole pine, old • The Proposed Action would impact only a goshawk gentilis growth mature and small percentage of available habitats. even-aged stands Temporary dispersal of individuals, until forest regeneration occurs. Sub-alpine forests of • The Proposed Action would impact only a Aegolius fir and spruce, mixed small percentage of available habitats. Boreal owl funereus conifer and lodgepole Temporary dispersal of individuals, until pine forest regeneration occurs Coniferous mountain • Species primarily nests in ponderosa pine and forest mixed with aspen; sudden aspen decline would create Flammulated Otus Douglas-fir, aspen or hazard trees in some areas. owl flammeolus oak, 400-3000m (up • The Proposed Action would impact only a to 9300ft) small percentage of available habitats. • Over time stands will have high densities of Old growth spruce-fir American snags from beetle killed trees providing Picoides and lodgepole pine three-toed habitat for this cavity nesting bird. dorsalis with recent fire woodpecker • Species may be displaced temporarily, but disturbance will relocate where prey is abundant. • Benefits to flycatchers would likely accrue because reduced canopy cover (from beetle Mixed-coniferous mortality, logging or both) would improve Olive-sided Contopus forests, and forest breeding habitat suitability. flycatcher cooperi edges, especially • In areas where all trees are to be removed, disturbed forest edges single trees and groups of trees that are preserved may provide foraging and perching habitats preferable to the flycatcher.

• Species primarily nests in aspen; sudden Mature aspen forests aspen decline would create hazard trees in Purple Progne near meadows and some areas. martin subis open water • The Proposed Action would impact only a small percentage of available habitats.

______United States Forest Service May 2010 Arapaho and Roosevelt, Routt, and White River National Forests Page 120 – Final – Environmental Assessment of the Emergency Power Line Clearing Project

Environmental Consequences

3.14.2.1 Alternative 1: No Action

Direct and Indirect Effects

Through the implementation of this alternative, existing utility management practices would continue as currently authorized; current forest management practices would continue to occur. Ecological processes would continue in the absence of implementation of the Proposed Action Alternative. Fire behavior and fuel loads would be left to be managed through their natural disturbance regimes. In the short-term (0-5 years), this alternative would retain existing habitats. Over time (5+ years) the current beetle infestation will alter the forest and stand characteristics within the foreseeable future. Within the mature lodgepole dominated stands preferred habitats would be reduced. In areas of mature spruce-fir and lodgepole pine mix, some habitat reduction may occur, but adequate canopy cover would be retained, which would support wildlife populations within the forest. Over time as the forest regenerates, habitat would slowly increase in quality as prey abundance and cover provide habitat for many sensitive species.

Cumulative Effects

Over time, as the bark beetle epidemic continues to spread, NFS lands will undergo many transformations and habitat alterations. Other impacts to these species to consider are disease, competition, and predation. These are factors that contribute to the decline in populations and are not necessarily due to the epidemic; however as habitat declines because of this epidemic, increased competition for food, cover and available preferred habitats may potentially increase the likelihood of these factors.

With the implementation of the No Action Alternative, tree removal would still be conducted in areas that are adjacent to NFS lands, as well as USFS management practices that would still continue. The habitat that is present for sensitive species on non-NFS lands, and with the current beetle infestation, it is reasonable to assume that tree removal activities may occur in these areas creating a decrease in habitat quality and connectivity. Other activities that occur on the forest that may contribute to cumulative impacts to sensitive species include, but are not limited to, hunting, recreation, and private land development.

3.14.2.2 Alternative 2: Proposed Action

Direct and Indirect Effects

Effects to sensitive species may impact individuals but not result in a loss of viability of any of the sensitive species present within the project areas. Although most species do not generally occur where high volumes of disturbance take place, they still utilize these areas for movement in and out of habitats. Connectivity between habitats or an adequate amount of cover for most species is important for survival against predators. Design Criteria would serve to benefit habitats in some areas by leaving felled trees and slash in place to provide such cover and protection.

During implementation of the Proposed Action Alternative, disturbance from equipment and displacement after tree removal would potentially occur to most species inhabiting the areas in and near treatment sites. In these cases some species may require larger territories or home ranges in order to meet individual survival needs. As a result, densities of populations may decrease in these degraded habitats temporarily and re- establish in these areas once forest regeneration occurs. However, potential impacts to sensitive species would be minimal due to the availability of preferred habitats adjacent to areas potentially being treated.

The current bark beetle epidemic is altering forest stands and creating beneficial impacts to some species and negatively impacting others. These beneficial impacts may be short-term (0-5 years), such as providing woodpeckers with an abundant food source and creating suitable habitat for many cavity nesting birds, as well as forest canopy structure and snags. As the beetle epidemic continues, more areas of tree mortality will occur and there is potential for this habitat to decline considerably in the long-term (25+ years). In treatment areas there is an increased risk of mortality and nest failure for many raptors and other birds that

______United States Forest Service May 2010 Arapaho and Roosevelt, Routt, and White River National Forests Page 121 – Final – Environmental Assessment of the Emergency Power Line Clearing Project inhabit these areas, due to disturbance from treatments as well as potential for felling trees that contain nests. However, employment of Design Criteria and LRMP direction would protect these raptors and other birds from direct mortality of felling trees with nests. In the very long term (80+ years), forest regeneration would occur in treated areas, creating more suitable habitat.

Many small mammal species would be impacted from the reduction of suitable forested habitats. Williams and Snyder (2005) noted that “increased fragmentation and reduction of connective habitat contribute to species decline.” As such, implementation of this alternative would create fragmented areas; however, there would be habitat adjacent to treated areas that would be expected to provide prey and cover from predators.

In some areas, trees would be felled and left in place creating habitat for many small mammals. Reduction in forest canopy may contribute to temporary displacement of individuals from decreased cover making the species more susceptible to predators. Over time (25+ years), forest regeneration would occur providing optimal habitats for these species by increasing prey availability and cover.

Following Design Criteria and the LRMP direction would decrease or prevent some of these potential impacts. Where known populations of sensitive species occur, USFS biologists would assess treatment areas prior to the implementation of treatment activities.

Cumulative Effects

Foreseeable future management actions with the potential to impact sensitive species habitats adjacent to or in the project area include fuels reduction projects, hazard tree removal, livestock grazing, and timber harvests. In addition to the implementation of this alternative, tree removal would be conducted in areas that are adjacent to NFS lands and Forest Service management practices and project would continue.

The implementation of this Proposed Action and other similar projects that are removing beetle infested trees reduce snag availability and may potentially create gaps in the canopy, impacting species cover and foraging habitats. Habitat for these species also occurs in adjacent non-NFS lands and it is known that due to the current bark beetle infestation, tree removals are occurring, which is serving to fragment the landscape and decreasing habitat availability, quality, and connectivity for forest dwelling species. However, over time the currently infested stands would be expected to regenerate and habitat would increase in quality many of the affected sensitive species.

3.14.3 Threatened, Endangered, Proposed and Candidate (TEPC) Species

Affected Environment

USDA FSM 2670, Section 2671.44 provides direction on the review of actions and programs authorized, funded, or implemented by the USFS relative to the requirements of the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Section 7 of the ESA directs federal agencies to insure that any action authorized, funded or carried out by the USFS is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any threatened or endangered species or to result in the destruction or adverse modification of their critical habitat. Federal agencies are also directed under the ESA to consult with the appropriate Secretary on any agency action that is likely to jeopardize or affect the continued existence of any species or its habitat.

A detailed review and determination of effects of the threatened, endangered, proposed, and candidate (TEPC) species can be found within the Biological Assessments (BA) prepared for each forest. The BAs are on file with the respective Forest Supervisor’s offices. The species on the TEPC species list for the ARNF, RNF, and WRNF that have potential to be affected by the alternatives analyzed in this EA are the Canada lynx, Mexican spotted owl, and the Preble’s meadow jumping mouse. No effects are anticipated to occur to the Uncompahgre fritillary since neither the species nor habitat is present within the project area.

Table 3.14-7 identifies the federally listed species within each forest, primary habitat and its presence within the project area, and the determination of effects. This table provides only those species that were analyzed

______United States Forest Service May 2010 Arapaho and Roosevelt, Routt, and White River National Forests Page 122 – Final – Environmental Assessment of the Emergency Power Line Clearing Project for the project. The status for each species is denoted in parentheses (T or E), as well as the forest(s) in which the species and/or habitats occur.

Table 3.14-7 Federally Listed Species within the Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests (ARNF), Routt National Forest (RNF), and the White River National Forest (WRNF) Species or Common Name Scientific Primary Habitat Present Determination of Effects (Status) (Forest) Name Habitat within Project Area “May affect, not likely to adversely affect” • Low number of acres being converted to unsuitable or other habitat, relative to the Lynx occupy total acres available. boreal, sub- • Project follows all *SRLA boreal, and VEG Standards and montane forests Guidelines Canada lynx (T) Lynx with lodgepole Yes-species and • Low potential for dispersal (ARNF, RNF, canadensis pine, subalpine habitat present disturbance. and WRNF) fir, and • Lynx connectivity, Engelmann foraging, and other suitable spruce cover habitats would regenerate types. over time through implementation of Proposed Action. Regeneration allows for increased optimum habitat for snowshoe hare. Steep rocky “May affect, not likely to Mexican spotted canyons and Strix adversely affect” owl (T) cliffs and mature Yes-habitat occidentali • Potential habitat may be (ARNF and mixed-conifer, present s lucida affected by implementation WRNF) pine-oak, and activities. riparian forests “May affect, not likely to Preble’s meadow adversely affect” jumping mouse, Zapus Riparian areas, Yes-species and • Low potential for Colorado SPR hudsonius wetlands, moist- habitat present disturbance to habitat (T) preblei shrub dominant and/or USFWS Designated (ARNF) Critical Habitat. Moist tundra Uncompahgre Boloria with dwarf fritillary (E) No “No Effect” acronema willows in high (WRNF) elevations *SRLA – Southern Rockies Lynx Amendment **LCAS – Lynx Conservation Assessment and Strategy

______United States Forest Service May 2010 Arapaho and Roosevelt, Routt, and White River National Forests Page 123 – Final – Environmental Assessment of the Emergency Power Line Clearing Project

Environmental Consequences

3.14.3.1 Alternative 1: No Action

Direct and Indirect Effects

ARNF, RNF, and WRNF

Under this action there would be no treatments within the project area other than those currently authorized along ROWs of the permitted power companies and regular maintenance of forest management practices. Ecological processes would continue in the absence of implementation of the Proposed Action.

Effects to threatened and endangered species would be very similar to effects on sensitive species mentioned previously. The bark beetle epidemic is naturally altering forest habitats and potentially decreasing habitats that are utilized by the lynx, Mexican spotted owl, and Preble’s meadow jumping mouse.

Due to the risks of dead and dying trees falling onto power lines, the No Action Alternative would increase the potential for a wildland fire, which may create unsuitable habitat. Disturbances such as wind throw events and insect infestations may decrease habitat for snowshoe hare, therefore limiting suitable foraging habitat for the lynx. A wind throw event, which may occur within 5 to 15 years (Mitchell and Preisler 1998), would naturally create open areas that would potentially have a negative effect on lynx habitat. The No Action Alternative would have no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects to the Canada lynx above existing conditions.

Potential effects on the Mexican spotted owl under the No Action Alternative would be minimal. Colorado is in the most northern end of its range; though habitat does exist in some areas of the WRNF and the ARNF. This species prefers canyons and steep slopes of 40% as well as 40% canopy cover within mixed conifer and Douglas-fir. These preferred habitats also generally contain an abundance of CWD (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2004). In the short term, effects to this species would be gradual if they utilize lodgepole pine dominated stands; as trees die and fall, the accumulation of CWD would increase from the natural progression of beetle killed trees. However, as time progresses, canopy cover may decrease from beetle killed trees or possible wind throw, decreasing suitable habitat for the owl.

Effects to Preble’s meadow jumping mouse under the No Action Alternative may result from potential wildland fires creating increased sediment into the riparian areas and stream channels from erosion. Wind throw events may also contribute to habitat alteration by reducing overhead cover resulting in less shade essentially converting mesic habitats to drier riparian and wetland areas.

Cumulative Effects

Over time as the bark beetle epidemic continues to spread, NFS lands will undergo many transformations and habitat alterations. Other impacts to consider for these species are disease, competition, predation, hunting, recreation, and private land development. These are general factors that contribute to the decline in populations and are not necessarily due to the ongoing epidemic; however, the epidemic causes habitat to decline, increased competition for food, cover and available preferred habitats may potentially increase the likelihood the species’ being affected by the general contributors.

With the implementation of the No Action Alternative, tree removal would still be conducted in areas that are adjacent to NFS lands and Forest Service management practices and projects would continue. The habitat that is present for threatened and endangered species on non-Forest Service lands, and with the current beetle infestation, it is reasonable to assume that tree removal activities may occur in these areas creating a decrease in habitat quality and connectivity.

______United States Forest Service May 2010 Arapaho and Roosevelt, Routt, and White River National Forests Page 124 – Final – Environmental Assessment of the Emergency Power Line Clearing Project

3.14.3.2 Alternative 2: Proposed Action

Direct and Indirect Effects

ARNF, RNF, and WRNF

Effects to threatened and endangered species as a result of implementation of the Proposed Action Alternative would be very similar to effects on sensitive species mentioned previously. The bark beetle epidemic is naturally altering forest habitats and potentially effecting habitats that are utilized by the lynx, Mexican spotted owl, and Preble’s meadow jumping mouse.

Human activities that change vegetation patterns of the natural landscape affect ecological processes (competition, dispersal, and predation) in various ways (Ruediger et al. 2000). Direct effects of most concern to lynx conservation as a result of habitat fragmentation are (1) reduction of snowshoe hare habitat and late-successional forests; (2) openings created that allow access for other competing carnivores; (3) increased densities between early-successional and other forest types; and (4) changes in amount and structural complexity of seral forest stands within landscapes (Buskirk et al. 1999). Landscape-level studies have not determined how fragmentation affects lynx ecology and population persistence, but rare species associated with wilderness areas, such as lynx, are generally considered most susceptible to fragmentation (Buskirk et al. 1999).

No direct effects would be expected to occur as a result of implementation of the Proposed Action Alternative. The bark beetle epidemic; however, is a factor indirectly and cumulatively affecting lynx by altering the suitability of habitats and linkage areas. Without regard for the Proposed Project, portions of the currently suitable lynx habitat in some LAUs on the three forests could potentially be converted to unsuitable habitat due to the ongoing bark beetle infestation. It should also be emphasized that the treatments that are proposed as a portion of the Proposed Project would be linear in distribution and would only occur along intermittent segments of the existing power line ROWs. In addition, preferred habitat for the lynx primarily occurs within mature to late-successional spruce-fir forests. With respect to the ongoing epidemic, this habitat type would not likely be treated to the extent that the mature lodgepole pine stands would be treated. However, linkage areas often occur in lodgepole dominated stands and, therefore, may be vulnerable to effects from the Proposed Action Alternative.

Some long-term (25+ years) benefits may occur by the regeneration of forests after timber harvest or natural processes, such as wildfire, by providing newly regenerated vegetation for snowshoe hare habitat (Fitzgerald et al. 1994, Ruediger et al. 2000). In the short term (0-5 years), the interior of newly created openings from timber harvest and salvage are unsuitable for lynx because vegetative cover is important for optimum foraging (Koehler and Aubry 1994). Implementation of the Proposed Action Alternative would facilitate conversion of this habitat, and therefore allow for regeneration in a shorter time period (within 2 to 5 years after implementation) than implementation of the No Action Alternative. Regeneration would create the necessary horizontal cover in the long-term for snowshoe hare, and therefore lynx.

According to lynx data analysis completed for this project, a collective total of 18,541 acres within LAUs are within the Proposed Project area. This quantity is representative of all habitat types and all vegetation within the LAUs, when considering the areas that would most likely be affected, the total quantity falls to approximately 11,733 acres. This total is representative of the areas that contain lodgepole pine in dominant numbers (as either primarily, secondarily or tertiary components of the stands). The sub-totals for each forest are 3,291 acres on the ARNF, 3,029 acres on the RNF, and 5,413 acres on the WRNF, which are all well below 1% of the total available habitat on the forests, respectively and collectively. As such, implementation of the Proposed Action Alternative would result in a minimal change to the lynx habitat relative to the thousands of acres of adjacent available lynx habitat.

In addition, most if not all of the proposed treatments would be expected to occur in currently unsuitable habitat. The results that would be expected to occur after implementation would be a more rapid conversion of the unsuitable habitat to suitable habitat. The treated areas would regenerate from a stand initiation structural stage to the more preferred mosaic of suitable habitats. This recovery would be expected to lower

______United States Forest Service May 2010 Arapaho and Roosevelt, Routt, and White River National Forests Page 125 – Final – Environmental Assessment of the Emergency Power Line Clearing Project the duration of habitat remaining unsuitable habitats and thus aid in species recovery. Therefore, the determination for the lynx is, “may affect, not likely to adversely affect” for the Proposed Action Alternative. The rationale for this determination is located in table 3.14-7 above. Further detail on LAU analysis is available in the BA for each forest for this project and is part of the project file.

The effects to the Mexican spotted owl (MSO) as a result of implementation of the Proposed Action Alternative would be minimal due to the amount of habitat that occurs within the Proposed Project area. The MSO prefers habitat that is steep (40% slope), near water sources, and with greater than 40% canopy closure. For the purposes of the Proposed Project, potential MSO habitat was modeled to aid in determining the potential to which the species would be affected. The modeled habitat, which consists of 40% slope and 40% canopy cover, which is noted to consist of specific dominant timber types, shows habitat occurring in the WRNF and the ARNF; however no habitat was modeled to occur within the RNF project area.

In the ARNF there are approximately seven acres within the Proposed Project area. Two acres occur along transmission lines and five acres occur along distribution lines; however, none of these acres have been affected by bark beetles.

Within the WRNF there are 7,144 acres that have been modeled as preferred habitat for MSO. This modeled habitat primarily occurs within the Glenwood Canyon where there are abundant cliffs and steep rocky slopes with greater than 40% cover. Approximately 21 acres of MSO habitat on the WRNF occurs within the Proposed Project area. Within the transmission line corridors, only 4% of these acres are currently affected by bark beetles and <1% is affected in the distribution line corridors. Design Criteria developed for this project would be implemented to protect this species and LRMP standards would be met to protect TEPC species. Therefore, the determination for the Mexican spotted owl is “may affect, not likely to adversely affect” for the Proposed Action Alternative. The rationale for this determination is located in Table 3.14-7 above.

The Preble’s meadow jumping mouse prefers well-developed riparian vegetation adjacent to streams. This preferred habitat is located primarily on the Front Range of Colorado within the ARNF. No Species or habitats are known to occur within the WRNF and RNF. The USFWS has designated Critical Habitat for the Preble’s meadow jumping mouse, portions of which are located within the Proposed Project area. There are 2.2 miles of designated habitat within areas proposed for treatment that are adjacent to distribution lines; however, no critical habitat occurs within areas proposed for treatment that are adjacent to transmission lines. The majority of this habitat is located in the Cache La Poudre River and the North Lone Pine Creek areas.

There are a total of 233 acres that are mapped by the Forest Service as potential habitat that are present within the Proposed Project area; however this habitat is NOT designated as Critical. It is estimated that four of these acres have been infested by bark beetles; therefore, treatments may be implemented in these areas.

Design Criteria have been developed to guide the implemented if the Proposed Action Alternative if it were to be implemented. The Design Criteria were developed to protect riparian and wetland areas where treatments would occur to limit the amount of sediment introduced to streams and reduce destruction of riparian and wetland habitats from machinery and falling trees. The Forest Service LRMP direction would be met through the implementation of the proposed Design Criteria. A determination of “may affect, not likely to adversely affect” is made for the Preble’s meadow jumping mouse and designated Critical Habitat (Table 3.14-7).

Cumulative Effects

Foreseeable future management actions with the potential to impact federally listed species habitats adjacent to or in the project area include fuels reduction projects, hazard tree removal, livestock grazing, and timber harvests. Other activities that occur on the forest that may contribute to cumulative impacts include, but are not limited to, hunting, recreation, and private land development.

______United States Forest Service May 2010 Arapaho and Roosevelt, Routt, and White River National Forests Page 126 – Final – Environmental Assessment of the Emergency Power Line Clearing Project

In addition to the implementation of this alternative, tree removal would also be expected to be conducted in areas that are adjacent to NFS Lands, as well as the continuation of management practices and projects that are occurring on the three forests. Implementation of this alternative and other similar projects that are mitigating beetle infested trees reduce snag availability and may potentially create gaps in the canopy, impacting species cover and foraging habitats.

Habitat for these species also occurs on adjacent non-Forest Service lands. Given the widespread distribution of the current beetle infestation, it is known that tree removal activities are occurring on those lands, which may be resulting in decreases in habitat quality, quantity, and connectivity. Over time, as the forest regenerates, the affected habitat would be expected to increase in quality as prey abundance and vegetative cover provide preferred habitats for these threatened and endangered species.

Forest Plan Consistency

Implementation of the No Action Alternative and the Proposed Action Alternative would comply with the ARNF, RNF, and WRNF LRMPs respectively. Consistency with the forest plans is based on effective implementation of the appropriate Design Criteria. The Proposed Project has been designed by the USFS to meet all SRLA standards, guidelines and objectives.

Consistency with Other Regulation

All compliance will be met in accordance with the National Forest Management Act, Endangered Species Act Section 7, and Healthy Forest Restoration Act (HFRA)

3.15 Overall Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects are generally considered to be all of those effects that may accumulate incrementally to a greater degree than those that are specifically discussed as direct or indirect effects. Cumulative effects are in essence a summary of the direct and indirect effects that may occur as a result of a series of projects. Also, cumulative effects are not only assessed with respect to the geographic distribution of the project considered, but are inclusive of all projects within the greater area in which the project is located. This area is often referred to as the analysis area for the project. However, the analysis area for each resource that is assessed for a given project may vary in size and scope (i.e., a watershed may be considered for effects to hydrology and an entire forest ecosystem may be considered for effects to changes in vegetation).

3.15.1 Other Projects - Past

When cumulative effects are considered, the past activities that have occurred within and connected to a proposed project are included to set a baseline understanding of the existing conditions to which the potential effects may accumulate. Given the size and scope of this Proposed Project, vast arrays of past activities have taken place. Virtually every resource within the three forests has been altered to some degree due to the past activities that have taken place in the region.

In general, the past actions that have occurred in the region include but are not limited to livestock grazing, timber harvest and thinning, motorized and non-motorized recreational use, road/trail construction, road/trail maintenance, road and trail usage, insect and disease outbreaks, fire suppression, fire (prescribed and wildfire), mining, urban development (including sub-dividing and development of private land), development of recreation areas, creation of water diversions altering the natural flow of waters, noxious weed infestation, and hunting.

Most past activities that have occurred on the lands assessed as a portion of this Proposed Project have been occurring for an extended period of time, many of which have been occurring for more than 100 years. There is no expectation that these activities would cease to take place; however the management of all of these activities has improved over the years and their current effects are understood to be much less in

______United States Forest Service May 2010 Arapaho and Roosevelt, Routt, and White River National Forests Page 127 – Final – Environmental Assessment of the Emergency Power Line Clearing Project comparison to their past effects. For example, urban development projects normally follow through a series of reviews prior to implementation, whereas in the distant past no such reviews were completed.

It is also appropriate to include ongoing climate changes when considering the baseline conditions of the forest. Though the extent of the changes that have occurred and are directly attributable to the current conditions of the landscape is unknown, it is certain that changes in climatic conditions have also caused changes to the natural environment.

3.15.2 Other Projects - Current and Future

Though effects are known to accumulate across a given analysis area, the various effects of all actions are known to vary also in their temporal extents. This Proposed Project has been proposed to be implemented over the course of approximately 15 years. As such, the cumulative effects analysis for each resource has been developed in consideration of the potential projects that may occur over that time period. However, assessing the cumulative effects (effects assessments with consideration of all projects on all lands) of projects that may occur over a 15-year period is limited with consideration to the change agents that are the driving force behind the purpose for the current and reasonably foreseeable future projects within the analysis area for this Proposed Project. This has become evident over the last few years as the spread of the bark beetle epidemic has continued throughout the region. As such, the focus of current and foreseeable projects across the forested landscape in which the Proposed Project is located has shifted from the previous variety to concentrate mostly on reducing forest fuel loads and hazard tree occurrences. This change in projects is characteristic of projects (present and future) that would be expected to occur on other NFS and non-NFS federal, state, and private lands as well.

According to the most recent Schedule of Proposed Actions (SOPA) for the three forests (provide a reference to all three SOPAs), there are a total of 287 (89 on the ARNF, 104 on the Medicine Bow – RNF, and 94 on the WRNF) actions that are being planned (proposed), placed on hold, or completed and ready for implementation within the forests. There are 86 of those projects that have been identified as potentially being connected either physically or characteristically to this Proposed Project. These projects have been included because of their potential to cause effects (which may be minimal or considerable depending upon the resource and project) to the resources assessed in this document. Those projects include (proposed actions are listed by Proposed Project Name Type of Assessment Performed (Project Status) – Project Location and/or Project Purpose):

Projects Proposed and Included in More Than One Region:

1. Gateway West 230/500 kv Transmission Line Project EIS Environmental Impact Statement (Planning) – Special Use Management 2. Geothermal Leasing Programmatic Environment Impact Statement (Planning) – 11 western states and including all BLM and USFS administered lands – Regulations, Directives, Orders 3. Western Area Power Administration Right-of-Way Maintenance and Reauthorization Project Environmental Impact Statement (Planning) – All agency administered lines within USFS Region 2 – Special Use Management

Projects Proposed within the ARNF:

Projects Proposed Across the Entire ARNF:

4. Forest-wide Hazard Tree Removal and Fuels Reduction Project Along Roads, Trails, and Administrative Areas Environmental Assessment (Planning) – Recreation, Roads, and Special Use Management

Boulder Ranger District:

5. Colorado State Highway 7 Recreation Improvements Plan Environmental Assessment (Planning) – Recreation Management

______United States Forest Service May 2010 Arapaho and Roosevelt, Routt, and White River National Forests Page 128 – Final – Environmental Assessment of the Emergency Power Line Clearing Project

6. Corona Grading Project at Eldora Mountain Resort Environmental Assessment (Planning) – Special Use Management 7. Forsythe Fuel Treatment Project Environmental Assessment (Planning) – Fuels Management 8. Gold Hill Fuel Treatment Project Categorical Exclusion (Planning) – Fuels Management 9. Jenny Creek Road Reroute and Restoration Project Environmental Assessment (Planning) – Recreation, Road, and Watershed Management as well as Wildlife, Fish, Rare Plants 10. Lefthand Ditch Company – Lake Isabelle Environmental Assessment (Planning) – Special Use Management

Canyon Lakes District:

11. Cedar Park Fuels Reduction Project Environmental Assessment (Planning) – Fuels and Vegetation Management 12. Glen Haven Hazardous Fuels Reduction Project Environmental Assessment (Planning) – Fuels Management 13. Halligan-Seaman Water Management Project Environmental Impact Statement (Planning) – Special Use Management 14. Magic Sky Fuels Reduction Project Environmental Assessment (Planning) – Fuels and Vegetation Management 15. Mountain Parks Electric Line Replacement Categorical Exclusion (Planning) – Special Use Management 16. Poudre Valley REA Power Line Replacement Categorical Exclusion (Planning) – Special Use Management 17. Poudre Valley Rural Electric Association (REA) Categorical Exclusion (Planning) – Special Use Management

Clear Creek District:

18. Clear Creek County Hwy 103 Easement EA Environmental Assessment (Planning) – Road Management 19. Fairburn Mining and Exploration Plan of Operations Categorical Exclusion (Planning) – Minerals and Geology 20. Intermountain Rural Electric Assoc. (IREA) Master Distribution Line Categorical Exclusion (Planning) – Special Use Management

Sulphur District:

21. Fraser River Settling Pond Upgrade Categorical Exclusion (Planning) – Watershed Management 22. Granby (Farr) Pump Station Switchyard to Windy Gap Substation Transmission Line Rebuild/Upgrade Environmental Impact Statement (Planning) – Special Use Management 23. Public Service Company of Colorado Gas Line Extension Environmental Assessment (Planning) – Special Use Management 24. View Point Trail Categorical Exclusion (Planning) – Recreation Management 25. Williams Fork Forest Plan Amendment Environmental Assessment (Planning) – Land Management Planning 26. Willow Creek Salvage and Fuels Reduction Project Environmental Assessment (Planning) – Forest Products, Fuels, and Vegetation Management 27. Winter Park Resort Vegetation Project – Response to Mountain Pine Beetle Environmental Assessment (Planning) – Fuels Management

______United States Forest Service May 2010 Arapaho and Roosevelt, Routt, and White River National Forests Page 129 – Final – Environmental Assessment of the Emergency Power Line Clearing Project

Projects Proposed within the RNF:

Hahn’s Peak/Bear’s Ears District:

28. 4-Counties Ditch Rehabilitation Environmental Assessment (Planning) – Special Use Management. 29. Buffalo Pass Road Improvement Projects Environmental Assessment (Planning) – Road Management 30. Circle Creek Fish Barrier Modification Categorical Exclusion (Planning) – Wildlife, Fish, and Rare Plants 31. Columbine Parking Area and Snowmobile Trail Reroute Environmental Assessment (Planning) – Recreation Management 32. Coulton/Floyd PCT Project Categorical Exclusion (Planning) – Vegetation Management 33. Coulton/Floyd Salvage and Fuel Reduction Project Environmental Assessment (Planning) – Fuels Management 34. Emery Spring Development Proposal Categorical Exclusion (Planning) – Special Use Management 35. HPBE Travel Management Maintenance Categorical Exclusion (Planning) – Road Management 36. Steamboat Front Categorical Exclusion (Planning) – Fuels Management 37. Steamboat Ski Area Summer Trails Categorical Exclusion (Planning) – Special Use Management 38. Whiskey Connector Trail Categorical Exclusion (Planning) – Recreation Management 39. Wilderness Ranch Fuel Reduction Environmental Assessment (Planning) – Fuels Management 40. Willow Creek Pass Fuels Reduction Environmental Impact Statement (Planning) – Fuels Management

Parks District:

41. Grizzly Environmental Assessment (Planning) – Recreation, Forest Products, Vegetation (other than forest products) Fuels, Watershed, Minerals and Geology, and Road Management 42. Grizzly – Helena Trail Crossing Environmental Assessment (Planning) – Recreation and Watershed Management 43. Lindsey Allotment Brushbeating Categorical Exclusion (Completed) – Grazing and Vegetation Management 44. Ninegar Creek Realignment Categorical Exclusion (Planning) – Grazing and Watershed Management

Yampa District:

45. Morrison Creek Fuels Reduction Environmental Impact Statement (Planning) – Fuels Management 46. National Forest System Road 225 Analysis Environmental Assessment (Planning) – Recreation, Wildlife, Fish, Rare Plants, Watershed, and Road Management 47. Oak Creek Roads Analysis Categorical Exclusion (Planning) - Recreation, Wildlife, Fish, Rare Plants, Watershed, and Road Management 48. Red Dirt Integrated Management Project Environmental Assessment (Planning) – Fuels Management 49. Trout Creek Fish Barrier Environmental Assessment (Planning) – Wildlife, Fish, and Rare Plants Management

______United States Forest Service May 2010 Arapaho and Roosevelt, Routt, and White River National Forests Page 130 – Final – Environmental Assessment of the Emergency Power Line Clearing Project

Projects Proposed within the WRNF:

Forest-wide Projects Proposed:

50. WRNF Oil and Gas Leasing Environmental Impact Statement (Planning) – Land Management Planning and Minerals and Geology Management 51. WRNF Travel Management Plan Environmental Impact Statement (Planning) – Land Management Planning, Recreation, and Road Management

Projects Proposed on More than One District:

52. Aspen-Sopris District Wildlife Habitat Improvement Project Environmental Assessment (Planning) - Wildlife, Fish, Rare Plants, Vegetation (other than forest products), and Fuels Management

East Zone/Dillon District:

53. Breckenridge Forest Health and Fuels Project Environmental Assessment (Planning) - Forest Products, Vegetation (other than forest products), Fuels, and Watershed Management 54. Breckenridge Ski Resort Peak 6 Development Project Environmental Impact Statement (Planning) – Special Use and Recreation Management 55. Carnahan Private Drive Categorical Exclusion (Planning) – Land Ownership and Special Use Management 56. Colorado Natural Gas Pipeline Categorical Exclusion (Planning) – Special Use and Land Ownership Management 57. Green Mountain Reservoir Improvement Project Environmental Assessment (Planning) – Recreation, Special Area, Wildlife, Fish, Rare Plants, Vegetation (other than forest products), and Road Management 58. Keystone Ski Area Forest Health Project Environmental Assessment (Planning) – Vegetation and Fuels Management 59. Miners Creek Ditch, Town of Breckenridge Categorical Exclusion (Planning) - Land Ownership and Special Use Management 60. North Summit WUI Fuels Treatment Environmental Assessment (Completed) – Fuels Management 61. Old Dillon Reservoir Enlargement Environmental Assessment (Completed) – Land Ownership and Special Use Management 62. Ophir Mountain Forest Health and Fuels Reduction Project Environmental Assessment (Planning) – Recreation, Wildlife, Fish, Rare Plants, Forest Products, Vegetation (other than forest products), Fuels, and Watershed Management 63. Rec Path Realignment from Copper Mountain Conoco to Highway 91 Environmental Assessment (Completed) – Recreation and Special Use Management

East Zone/Eagle District:

64. Piney Valley Ranches Ditches Categorical Exclusion (Planning) – Special Use Management 65. Town of Gypsum - LEDE Reservoir Enlargement Environmental Assessment (Planning) – Special Use Management

______United States Forest Service May 2010 Arapaho and Roosevelt, Routt, and White River National Forests Page 131 – Final – Environmental Assessment of the Emergency Power Line Clearing Project

East Zone/Holy Cross District:

66. Beaver Creek Ski Area Forest Health Project Environmental Assessment (Planning) - Vegetation (other than forest products) and Fuels Management 67. Berlaimont Estates, LLC ANILCA Road Easement Environmental Impact Statement (Planning) – Special Use Management 68. Homestake Creek Restoration and Habitat Enhancement Categorical Exclusion (Planning) – Wildlife, Fish, and Rare Plants Management 69. Upper Eagle River Beetle Salvage Supplement Environmental Assessment (Planning) – Fuels Management 70. Vail Ski Area Forest Health Project Environmental Assessment (Planning) - Vegetation (other than forest products) and Fuels Management 71. Vail and Beaver Creek Ski Area 2010 Summer Projects Categorical Exclusion (Planning) – Special Use Management

West Zone/Aspen District:

72. Aspen Administrative Site Redevelopment Project Categorical Exclusion (Planning) – Facility Management 73. Buttermilk Mountain Improvements Environmental Assessment (Planning) – Recreation and Special Use Management 74. Maroon Bells Fourteener (14'er) Trail Project Categorical Exclusion (Planning) – Recreation Management 75. SkiCo Ski Areas Forest Health Project Environmental Assessment (Planning) - Vegetation (other than forest products) and Fuels Management 76. Warmington's Road Improvements Categorical Exclusion (Planning) – Road Management

West Zone/Blanco District:

77. Aldrich Lakes Mechanical Treatments Categorical Exclusion (Planning) – Fuels Management

West Zone/Rifle District:

78. Coulter Mesa Mechanical Treatment Categorical Exclusion (Planning) – Fuels Management 79. Divide Creek Unit Master Development Plan Environmental Assessment (Planning) – Minerals and Geology Management 80. Noble Energy, Inc Cache Creek Master Development Plan (CCMPD) Environmental Assessment (Planning) – Special Use, Minerals and Geology Management 81. Spruce Creek to Mamm Creek Pipeline Environmental Assessment (Completed) – Special Use, Minerals and Geology Management

West Zone/Sopris District:

82. Burnt Mountain Timber Sale Environmental Assessment (Planning) – Forest Products Management 83. CDOT Highway 133 Debris Dump Site and Placita Roadside Landscaping Environmental Assessment (Planning) – Special Use Management 84. Carbondale Administrative Site Redevelopment Project Categorical Exclusion (Planning) – Facility Management

______United States Forest Service May 2010 Arapaho and Roosevelt, Routt, and White River National Forests Page 132 – Final – Environmental Assessment of the Emergency Power Line Clearing Project

85. Crooked Creek Reservoir Outlet Maintenance/Repair Environmental Impact Statement (Planning) - Wildlife, Fish, Rare Plants, Facility, and Road Management 86. Sunshine Timber Sale Environmental Assessment (Completed) – Forest Products Management

The remaining projects that are included within the current SOPA for each of the three forests but not listed above are those that are specifically associated with the issuance or re-issuance of special use permits or similar types of activities and generally not considered to add cumulatively to the potential effects of actions related to this Proposed Project. Projects that have been placed on hold have also been excluded from the above list.

3.15.3 Temporal Extents

Cumulative effects analysis for the purpose of this Proposed Project is based upon the appropriate scale for each of the resource areas considered. Due to the interconnectivity of the Proposed Project with other projects throughout the analysis area (sometimes referred to as the area of potential effect) for the resources considered, the cumulative effects assessed have been developed in consideration of all other types of projects that may affect those resources. In general, the effects that would be expected to occur to each resource area are the same as those that would be expected to occur as a result of other projects that are being implemented or planned within the analysis area.

3.16 Unavoidable Adverse Effects

The application of the LRMP standards and guidelines and the listed proposed Design Criteria would limit the extent and duration of any adverse environmental effects as a result of this project. However, it is impossible to avoid all potential impacts completely. Refer to the discussion of Environmental Consequences for each resource in the preceding sections of this document for the disclosure of all the potential environmental effects.

3.17 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources

The irreversible commitment of resources means that non-renewable resources are consumed or eliminated. Examples include coal extraction which consumes a non-renewable resource, or the potential elimination of a historical site due to some management activity on the ground.

The irretrievable commitment of a resource is an opportunity that is foregone as a result of implementing some activity. It often represents a trade-off in the use and management of forest resources. An example of this would be the expenditure of funds, loss of wood production, or a permanent restriction on the use of a resource.

Neither the No Action nor the Proposed Action Alternative assessed within this EA has any identifiable irreversible commitments of resources, as determined by the Interdisciplinary Team.

Implementation of the Proposed Action Alternative would result in the irretrievable commitment of the timber resource. The current average power line ROWs are 50 feet (for transmission lines) and 15 feet (for distribution lines) wide (from centerlines) and are generally cleared of trees. Through implementation of this alternative, the ROWs would be temporarily expanded to up to 200 feet (for transmission lines) and up to 75 feet (for distribution lines) wide (from centerlines). However, the entire ROWs would not be expected to be treated due to the fragmented occurrence of dead or dying trees across their geographic distribution, and particularly those considered to be hazardous to power lines. The removal of trees within the indicated treatment area would not remove timber resources from the forests over the long term, and they would be allowed to recover after treatments are completed.

______United States Forest Service May 2010 Arapaho and Roosevelt, Routt, and White River National Forests Page 133 – Final – Environmental Assessment of the Emergency Power Line Clearing Project

(THIS PAGE HAS BEEN LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY.)

______United States Forest Service May 2010 Arapaho and Roosevelt, Routt, and White River National Forests Page 134 – Final – Environmental Assessment of the Emergency Power Line Clearing Project

4.0 CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION The USFS consulted the following individuals, federal, state, and local agencies, tribes and non-Forest Service persons during the development of this EA, as shown in Tables 4-1 through 4-5. The USFS also conducted two informal consultation meetings with the USFWS to discuss threatened and endangered species in the areas of wildlife and botany. Records of these meetings are available in the project record.

Table 4-1 Interdisciplinary Team Members, Resource Specialists and Consultants First Name Last Name Discipline Cambria Armstrong Fire and Fuels Michael Black Scenery Management and Recreation Jan Burke Silviculture Mike Caylor Fire/Fuels, Forest, IRAs Carl Chambers Hydrology Dennis Cleary GIS Kevin Colby Scenery Management Lynne Deibel Wildlife Greg Eaglin Fisheries Gloria Edwards Heritage Resources Tom Ford NEPA Coordinator Jane Frambach GIS Bob Garcia Forestry Ray George Recreation Paul Langowski Fuels Suzanne Layne Engineering Cinnamon Levi Wildlife/Fisheries Dave Loomis NEPA Coordinator Scott Mai Hydrology Michael Piontkowski Heritage Resources John Proctor Botany Dana Ravelojaona Socioeconomics Jeff Rickard Soils/Geology Elaine Ruiz Writer/Editor Deb Ryon Lands and Special Uses Tim Sansom Botany Sue Struthers Heritage Resources Randy Tepler Soils Ron Turley Western Area Power Administration (cooperating agency) Dave Wheeler Range

Table 4-2 Federal, State, and Local Agencies Notified During the Scoping Period First Name Last Name Agency Government Joseph Vieira Bureau of Land Management – Royal Gorge Field Office Federal Jeffrey Kitchens Bureau of Land Management – Colorado State Office Federal Los Alamos National Laboratory (an agency of the U.S. Department of Federal Energy) Larry Gamble National Park Service Federal Leslie Ellwood United States Fish and Wildlife Service Federal Sandy Vana-Miller United States Fish and Wildlife Service Federal Western Area Power Administration (an agency of the U.S. Department Rodney Jones Federal of Energy) Kathi Green Colorado Division of Wildlife State Mark Leslie Colorado Division of Wildlife, Area Manager State Ron Velarde Colorado Division of Wildlife, Northwest Regional Manager State Chuck Attardo Colorado Department of Transportation State Tammie Smith Colorado Department of Transportation State Karen Roth Colorado State Forest Service State William Bertschy Colorado State University (Pingree Park) State George Seidel Colorado State University State Peter Fogg Boulder County Land Use County Michelle Krezek Boulder County Land Use County Ryan Ludlow Boulder County Land Use County Garry Sanfacon Boulder County Land Use County

______United States Forest Service May 2010 Arapaho and Roosevelt, Routt, and White River National Forests Page 135 – Final – Environmental Assessment of the Emergency Power Line Clearing Project

First Name Last Name Agency Government Ron West Boulder County, Parks and Open Space Department County Beth Luther Clear Creek County, County Commissioner County Frederick Rollenhagen Clear Creek County Planning Department County Tim Vo g el Clear Creek County Site Development Department County Duane Dailey Grand County, County Commissioner County Jennifer Murray Grand County County James Newberry Grand County, County Commissioner County Colleen Reynolds Grand County Planning Department County Nancy Stuart Grand County, County Commissioner County Drew Davis Larimer County County Rob Helmick Larimer County, Senior Planner County Frank Lancaster Larimer County, County Manager County Weld County County Dennis Bode City of Fort Collins, Water Resources Division City Randy Gustafson City of Greeley City John Kolanz City of Greeley City Dennis Fisher City of Longmont City Edie Eilender Gold Hill Town Town Cynthia Neely Town of Georgetown Town Town of Grand Lake, Planning Town Peter Gleichman Town of Ward Town

Table 4-3 Native American Tribes Notified During the Scoping Period* First Name Last Name Affiliation Location Cheyenne and Arapaho Business Darrell Flyingman Concho, OK Committee Gordon Yellowman Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribes of Oklahoma Concho, OK Harvey Spoonhunter Northern Arapaho Business Council Fort Washakie, WY Tribal Historic Preservation Officer, Darlene Conrad Fort Washakie, WY Northern Arapaho Tribe William C’Hair Northern Arapaho Culture Commission Arapaho, WY Leroy Spang Tribal Council, Northern Cheyenne Tribe Lame Deer, MT Linwood Tallbull THPO, Northern Cheyenne Tribe Lame Deer, MT Curtis Cesspooch Uintah & Ouray Tribal Business Committee Ft. Duchesne, UT Betsy Chapoose Uintah & Ouray Tribe Ft. Duchesne, UT Matthew Box Southern Ute Indian Tribe Ignacio, CO NAGPRA Representative, Southern Ute Neil Cloud Ignacio, CO Indian Tribe *Consultation with the Tribes has been initiated and is ongoing. See Appendix B for a list of dates and description of consultations.

Table 4-4 Private Citizens and Organizations Notified During the Scoping Period First Name Last Name Affiliation/Organization William Andreas Jewell Artzer John Bakken LaVerna Barnhart Daniel Barnica D and D Logging and Chipping Richard Behrmann Left Hand Ditch Co. Bill Beisner Donald Burgener Stanley Cazyer Middle Park Water Conservancy District Sarah Clements Three Lakes Water and Sanitation District Bob Conway John Crutchfield Terry Fankhauser Colorado Cattlemens Foundation Madeline Framson Shining Mountains Group Wendell Funk Skip Greene Hank Henry Caroline Hilligoss Loveland Public Library Eddie Household Big Thompson 4 Wheelers Jan Huffaker North American Packgoat Association David Jones John Keables

______United States Forest Service May 2010 Arapaho and Roosevelt, Routt, and White River National Forests Page 136 – Final – Environmental Assessment of the Emergency Power Line Clearing Project

First Name Last Name Affiliation/Organization Gerald Kelly Tim Kittel Glen Klawonn Heather Knight The Nature Conservancy Kurt Kunkle Colorado Environmental Coalition Doug Laraby Winter Park Resort Cahil Larsen Scott Limmer Comanche Wilderness Outfitters Curtis Lukow Betina Matteson Marilyn Musgrave (Former) U.S. Representative, 4th District Donald Neumann Grand Adventures Snowmobile Tours Steve Nunley Alice Ochs Steven Paul Hurd Creek Ranch Co. Patti Pine Jonathan Proctor Defenders of Wildlife Michael Ptasnik Scottdale Ranch Carey Ranch Richard and G Remaly Robert Rohn Rohn Ranch Nicole Rosmarino Wild Earth Guardians Joe Sands Christine Schuyler-Rossie Denver Water Frank Shavlik Timberline Tours Steve Smith The Wilderness Society Rocky Smith Colorado Wild Phil Stern Dan Straight Rollins Pass Restoration Association Robert Sullivan Lydia Thompson Charles Thompson Colorado Boys Ranch Henry Toll John Treiber Table Mountain Inn John Vahlenkam Daily Times (Longmont) Tom Van Velson Anne Vickery Edmund Waszkiewi Lily Watson Jack Welch John Whitbeck Indian Peaks Wilderness Alliance David White James Wolf Continental Divide Trail Society James Yenter Aspen Canyon Ranch Backcountry Alliance Big Thompson Watershed Forum Colorado Cattlemens Association Colorado Environmental Coalition Colorado Mountain Club Colorado Off-Highway Vehicle Coalition Colorado Wildlife Federation Earth Justice Eldora Civic Association Grand Lake Chamber of Commerce Mile-Hi Jeep Club North Forty News Pinewood Springs Fire Protection District Quinney Natural Resources Library Rawah Ranch Rocky Mountain National Park Western Lands Project

______United States Forest Service May 2010 Arapaho and Roosevelt, Routt, and White River National Forests Page 137 – Final – Environmental Assessment of the Emergency Power Line Clearing Project

Table 4-5 Private Citizens, Agencies and Organizations Who Provided Comment during the Scoping Period Name Organization Bladow, Joel Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association, Inc. Damian, Ann Marie Funk, Wendell Gherardi, Bill Colorado Forestry Association Kastelic, Phillip Colorado Forest and Energy, LLC McQueen, Dan Palsedge, John Ryan, Doug Larimer County, Department of Health and Environment Scott, Jennifer Grand County, Department of Road and Bridge Shoemaker, Sloan Wilderness Workshop Smith, Rocky Colorado Wild Stumbough, Craig Velarde, Ron Colorado Division of Wildlife Waszkiewicz, Edmund

______United States Forest Service May 2010 Arapaho and Roosevelt, Routt, and White River National Forests Page 138 – Final – Environmental Assessment of the Emergency Power Line Clearing Project

5.0 REFERENCES CITED

Anderson, H.E., (1992, April). Aids to Determining Fuel Models For Estimating Fire Behavior, GTR-INT- 122 (or NFES 1574) [Online] Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs_int/int_gtr122.pdf [May 2010].

Anderson, P.G.., (1996). Sediment generation from forestry operations and associated effects on aquatic ecosystems. In: Proceedings of the Forest-Fish Conference: Land Management Practices Affecting Aquatic Ecosystems, Calgary, Alberta.

Arapaho & Roosevelt National Forest, (2009). GIS Database: Multiple components. US Forest Service, Forest Supervisor’s Office, Fort Collins, CO.

Argent, D.G., and P.A. Flebbe, (1999). Fine sediment effects on brook trout eggs in laboratory streams. Fisheries Research 39:253-262.

Benda, L.E., Miller, D.J., Dunne, T., Reeves, G.H., Agee, J.K., (1998). Dynamic landscape Systems, In: Naiman, R.J., Bilby, R.E. (Eds.). River Ecology and Management: Lessons from the Pacific Coastal Ecoregion. Springer, New York, pp. 261-288.

Bisson, P. A., and R.E. Bilby. (1982). Avoidance of suspended sediment by juvenile coho salmon. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 4:371-374.

Buskirk, S.W. L.F. Ruggiero, C.J. Krebs., (1999). Chapter 4. In Ruggiero, L.F., K.B. Aubry, S.W. Buskirk, G.M. Koehler, C.J. Krebs, K.S. McKelvey, and J.R. Squires. Ecology and Conservation of lynx in the United States. General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-30WWW. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station.

CDSS Map Viewer, (2009). Colorado’s Decision Support System. Colorado Water Conservation Board. [Online] Available: http://cwcb.state.co.us/WaterInfo/Mapping/ [November 2009].

CWA 33 U.S.C. Clean Water Act, 33 United States Code. [Online] Available: http://www.epa.gov/lawsregs/ laws/cwa.html [November 2009].

Cassells, S.E., (1994). The Archaeology of Colorado. Johnson Books, Boulder, CO.

Cables, Rick D., (2009). Letter from Regional Forester addressed to Tri-State Generation and Transmission Assn., Inc., June 3, 2009.

Church, M.C., S.G. Baker, R.F. Carrillo, B.J. Clark, J.C. Horn, D.R. Guilfoyle, E.S. Cassells, and C.D. Späth, (2007). Rural Agriculture. In Colorado History: A Context for Historical Archaeology, pp. 257– 290. Colorado Council of Professional Archaeologists, Denver, CO.

Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE), (2008, April). Status of Water Quality in Colorado – 2008: The Update to the 2002, 2004, and 2006 305(b) Reports. [Online] Glendale, CO.: Water Quality Control Division, Available: http://www.cdphe.state.co.us/op/wqcc/Resources/ waterstatus_305_b/305bUpdate08.pdf [November 2009].

Colorado Natural Heritage Program (CNHP), (2005). “Southern Rocky Mountain Montane-Subalpine Grasslands.” Ecological System Descriptions and Viability Guidelines for Colorado, [Online] Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO. Available: http://www.cnhp.colostate.edu/projects/eco_systems/pdf/SRM_Montane-Subalpine_Grassland.pdf [October 2009].

Colorado Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, (1988). Historic Resources of Redstone, Colorado Multiple Property Submission. [Online] Available: http://www.coloradohistory- oahp.org/publications/ pubs/638.pdf [November 10, 2009].

______United States Forest Service May 2010 Arapaho and Roosevelt, Routt, and White River National Forests Page 139 – Final – Environmental Assessment of the Emergency Power Line Clearing Project

CRCT Conservation Team, (2006). Conservation agreement for Colorado River cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarkii pleuriticus) in the States of Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming. [Online] Available: http://wildlife.state.co.us/NR/rdonlyres/B31F3257-DADB-4A35-8C3B-DD1791C28223/0/CRCT_ Conservation_Agreement_Final_Dec06.pdf [November 2009].

Doesken, N.J., O.A.P. Bliss, and R.A. Pielke, Sr., (2003, January). “Climate of Colorado.” Climatology Report 60. [Online] Department of Atmospheric Sciences, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO. Available: http://ccc.atmos.colostate.edu/climateofcolorado.php [January 2009]

Dolloff, C.A., (1993). Large woody debris, fish habitat, and historical land use. In Biodiversity and coarse woody debris in southern forests. Southern Research Station, GTR-SE-94.

Dunham, J.B., M.K. Young, R.E. Gresswell, B.E. Rieman. (2003). Effects of fire on fish populations: landscape perspectives on persistence of native fishes and nonnative fish invasions. [Online] Forest Ecology and Management. 178: 183-196. Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/boise/research/fisheries/ fire/FAE%20Papers/dunham_final.pdf [November 2009].

Executive Order 11988, (1977). Floodplains Management. [Online] Available: http://www.epa.gov/OWOW/ wetlands/regs/eo11988.html [October 2009].

Executive Order 11990, (1977). Wetlands Management. [Online] Available: http://www.epa.gov/OWOW/ wetlands/regs/eo11990.html [October 2009].

Fell, James E. and Eric Twitty, (1992). The Mining Industry in Colorado. United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service, NPS form 10-900a.

Fitzgerald, J.P., C.A. Meaney, and D.M. Armstrong, (1994). Mammals of Colorado. Denver Museum of Natural History. University Press of Colorado. 467 pages.

Garland, J.J., (1997). Designated Skid Trails Minimize Soil Compaction, EC1110, The Woodland Workbook, Oregon State University Extension Service.

Godfrey, A., (2009). Historic Preservation Plan: Historic Mining Resources on the White River National Forest, Vols. I, II, and III. Report prepared for the U.S. Forest Service, White River National Forest, Colorado.

Grant, M.P., (1992). Archaeological Inventory of the Squaw Mountain Fire Lookout, Paragon Consultants and the USDA Forest Service.

Guthrie, M.R., P. Gadd, R. Johnson, and J.J. Lischka, (1984). Colorado Mountains Prehistoric Context. State Historical Society, Denver, CO.

Gresswell, R.E., (1999). Fire and aquatic ecosystems in forested biomes of North America. Trans. Am. Fisheries Soc. 128, pp. 193-221.

Healthy Forest Restoration Act (HFRA), (2003). [Online] Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/biology/ wildecology/HFRA.pdf [October 2009]

Humphrey, R.L. and D. Stanford, editors. (1979). Pre-Llano Cultures of the Americas: Paradoxes and Possibilities. Anthropological Society, Washington DC.

Koehler, G..M. and K.B. Aubry. (1994). Lynx Chapter 4 pages 74-98 In: Ruggiero, L.F., K.B. Aubry, S. W. Buskirk, L.J. Lyon and W.J. Ziellinski (tech eds.), The Scientific basis for conserving forest carnivores: American marten, fisher, lynx and wolverine in the Western United States. General Technical Report

______United States Forest Service May 2010 Arapaho and Roosevelt, Routt, and White River National Forests Page 140 – Final – Environmental Assessment of the Emergency Power Line Clearing Project

RM-254. [Online] USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. Fort Collins, CO 184 pp. Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs_rm/rm_gtr254.html [November 2009].

Larkin, K., (2009). Biological Assessment for Winter Park Resort Vegetation Treatments in Response to MPB (Draft). USDA Forest Service Arapaho-Roosevelt National Forest, Sulphur Ranger District.

Lewis, K.J. and I.D. Hartley, (2006). Rate of deterioration, degrade, and fall of trees killed by mountain pine beetle. BC Journal of Ecosystems and Management 7(2):11–19. [Online] Available: http://www.forrex.org/publications/jem/ISS35/vol7_no2_art2.pdf [May 2010].

Lotan, J.E., and D.A. Perry. 1983. Ecology and regeneration of lodgepole pine. U.S. Dep. Agric., For. Serv., Handbook. 606.

McMahon, T.E. and D.S. deCalesta, (1990). Effects of fire on fish and wildlife. In: Walstad, J.D. Radosevich, S.R. Sandberg, D.V. (Eds.). Natural and Prescribed Fire in Pacific Northwest Forests. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, OR. Pp 233-250.

Mehls, S.F., (2006). Colorado Mountains Historic Context (Facsimile edition). Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Colorado Historical Society, Denver, CO.

Miller, D.J. and L.E. Benda, (2000). Effects of punctuated sediment supply on valley-floor landforms and sediment transport. GSA Bulletin 112:1814-1824.

Minshall, G.W., C.T. Robinson, and D.E. Lawrence, (1997). Postfire responses of lotic ecosystems in Yellowstone National Park. USA. Can. J. Fisheries Aquat. Sci. 54, 2509-2525.

Minshall, G.W., J.T. Brock, D.A. Andrews, C.T. and Robinson, (2001). Water quality substratum and biotic responses of five central Idaho (USA) streams during the first year following the Mortar creek fire. Int. J. Wildland Fire 10. pp 185-199.

Mitchell, R.G. and H.K. Preisler, (1998, January). Fall Rate of Lodgepole Pine Killed by the Mountain Pine Beetle in Central Oregon. Society of American Foresters, Western Journal of Applied Forestry, Vol. 13(1): Pp 23-26.

Nakamoto, R.J. 1998. Effects of timber harvest on aquatic vertebrates and habitat in the North Fork Caspar Creek. [Online] USDA Forest Service General Technical Report PSW-GTR-168, Available: http://gis.fs.fed.us/psw/publications/documents/gtr-168/11nakamoto.pdf [November 2009]

National Forest Foundation. (2008, April). [Online] Available: http://www.nationalforests.org/explore/ forests/co/arapaho-roosevelt [November 2009].

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 1969. [Online] Available: http://ceq.hss.doe.gov/nepa/regs/ nepa/nepaeqia.htm [October 2009].

Page, W.G.., M.J. Jenkins, and E.G. Hebertson, (2006). Mountain Pine Beetle Lodgepole Pine Fuel Complexes. [Online] Utah State University and USDA Forest Service, Forest Health Protection, Ogden Field Office, Available: http://fhm.fs.fed.us/posters/posters06/mountain_pinebeetle.pdf [October 2009].

Page, W.G.. and M.J. Jenkins, (2007). Predicted fire behavior in selected mountain pine beetle infested lodgepole pine stands within the Intermountain region. Forest Science. Vol. 53, No. 6: Pp 662-74.

Reed, A.D. and M.D. Metcalf. (1999). Colorado Prehistory: A Context for the Northern Colorado River Basin. Colorado Council of Professional Archaeologists, Denver, CO.

Reeves, G.H., L.E. Benda, K.M. Burnett, P.A. Bisson, and J.R. Sedell, (1995). A disturbance-based ecosystem approach to maintaining and restoring freshwater habitats of evolutionary significant units of

______United States Forest Service May 2010 Arapaho and Roosevelt, Routt, and White River National Forests Page 141 – Final – Environmental Assessment of the Emergency Power Line Clearing Project

anadromous salmonids in the Pacific Northwest. In: Nielsen, J. (Ed.), Proceedings of the American Fisheries Society Symposium on Evolution and the Aquatic Ecosystem, Vol. 17 Bethesda, MD, Pp 334- 349. Retzlaff, M., (2008, July). Economic Values at Risk: Economic Indicators for Five Bark Beetle Infested Counties of Colorado. RMC Consultants, Inc., Lakewood, CO., and Economic Insights of Colorado, LLC., Lone Tree, CO. [Online] Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/bark-beetle/economic_values_ at_risk.pdf [January 5, 2010].

Robichaud, P., L. McDonald, J. Freeouf, D. Neary, D. Martin, and L. Ashmun, (2003). USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-114. [Online] Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs/ rmrs_gtr114/rmrs_gtr114_293_314.pdf [May 2010].

Routt National Forest, (2009). GIS Database: Multiple components. US Forest Service, Forest Supervisor’s Office, Laramie, WY.

Ruediger, B., J. Claar, S. Gniadek, B. Holt, L. Lewis, S. Mighton, B. Naney, G. Patton, T. Rinaldi, J. Trick, A. Vandehey, F. Wahl, N. Warren, D. Wenger, and A. Williamson. (2000). Canada lynx conservation assessment and strategy (2nd Edition). USDA Forest Service, USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, USDI Bureau of Land Management, and USDI National Park Service. Forest Service Publication #R1-00-53, Missoula, MT., 142 pp, Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/r1/clearwater/terra_org/wildlife_07/t_e/ canada_lynx/conservation_assessment_strategy%20.pdf [November 2009].

Sauter, S.T., J. McMillan and J. Dunham. (2001). Salmonid behavior and water temperatures. Environmental Protection Agency unpublished report.

Scott, Joe H.; Burgan, Robert E. 2005. Standard fire behavior fuel models: a comprehensive set for use with Rothermel’s surface fire spread model. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-153. [Online] Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 72 p. Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs/rmrs_gtr153.pdf [November 2009].

Suttle, K.B., M.E. Power, J.M. Levine, and C. McNeely. (2004). How fine sediment in riverbeds impairs growth and survival of juvenile salmonids. Ecological Applications. Vo l . 14(4), Pp. 969-974.

Tepler, R., (2009, October 13). Personal Communication, Forest Service Representative Mr. Randy Tepler.

Twitty, E., (2002). Riches to Rust, Western Reflections Publishing Company, Montrose, CO.

US Department of Energy, US-Canada Power System Outage Task Force, (2004, April). Final Report on the August 14, 2003 Blackout in the United States and Canada: Causes and Recommendations. [Online] Available: https://reports.energy.gov/BlackoutFinal-Web.pdf [December 2009].

US Department of Energy. Electric Power, [Online] Available: http://www.oe.energy.gov/information_ center/faq.htm#p4 [December 2009].

US Department of Energy. Overview of the Electric Grid, Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, [Online] Available: http://sites.energetics.com/gridworks/grid.html [December 2009].

US Forest Service, (1995). Landscape Aesthetics – A Handbook for Scenery Management. s.l. Agricultural Handbook 701.

US Forest Service. (1998). Land and Resource Management Plan, Routt National Forest, [Online] Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/mbr/projects/forestplans/routt/index.shtml [October 2009].

US Forest Service, (2002, May). Forest Service National Visitor Use Monitoring Process: Research Method Documentation. English, Kocis, Zarnoch, and Arnold; Southern Research Station. [Online] Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/recreation/programs/nvum [October 2009].

______United States Forest Service May 2010 Arapaho and Roosevelt, Routt, and White River National Forests Page 142 – Final – Environmental Assessment of the Emergency Power Line Clearing Project

US Forest Service, (2006). National Visitor Use Monitoring Results – Arapaho Roosevelt National Forest.

US Forest Service, (2008). National Visitor Use Monitoring Results – Routt National Forest.

US Forest Service, (2008). National Visitor Use Monitoring Results – White River National Forest.

US Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Division, (2002). Land and Resource Management Plan – White River National Forest. [Online] Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/whiteriver/projects/forest_plan/index.shtml [October 2009].

US Forest Service – Rocky Mountain Region, (1997). Revision of the Land and Resource Management Plan – Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests. [Online] Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/arnf/ projects/forest-planning/management-plan/index.shtml [October 2009].

United States Department of the Interior, United States Geological Survey, The National Map Seamless Server, [Online] Available: http://seamless.usgs.gov/website/seamless/viewer.htm [October 2009].

White River National Forest, (2009). GIS Database: Multiple components. US Forest Service, Forest Supervisor’s Office, Glenwood Springs, CO.

Wilderness Act of 1964. [Online] Available: http://www.fws.gov/laws/lawsdigest/wildrns.html [October 2009].

Wyckoff, W., (1999). Creating Colorado: The Making of a Western Landscape, 1860-1940. Yale University Press, New Haven, London.

Young, M.K., (1994). Movement and characteristics of stream-borne coarse woody debris in adjacent burned and undisturbed watersheds in Wyoming. Can. J. Forest Res., Vo l . 24, Pp 1933-1938.

Zachman, D., (2003). Mechanical Treatments to Meet Resource Needs. BLM Resource Notes No. 67.

______United States Forest Service May 2010 Arapaho and Roosevelt, Routt, and White River National Forests Page 143 – Final – Environmental Assessment of the Emergency Power Line Clearing Project

(THIS PAGE HAS BEEN LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY.)

______United States Forest Service May 2010 Arapaho and Roosevelt, Routt, and White River National Forests Page 144 – Final – Environmental Assessment of the Emergency Power Line Clearing Project

Appendix A

Consolidated Forest Plan Standards

______United States Forest Service May 2010 Arapaho and Roosevelt, Routt, and White River National Forests Page A – 1 – Final – Environmental Assessment of the Emergency Power Line Clearing Project

(THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK)

______United States Forest Service May 2010 Arapaho and Roosevelt, Routt, and White River National Forests Page A – 2 – Final – Environmental Assessment of the Emergency Power Line Clearing Project

Physical

Air

1. Meet state and federal air quality standards and comply with local, state, and federal air quality regulations and requirements either through original project design or through mitigation for such activities as prescribed fire, ski area development or expansion, mining, and oil and gas exploration and production.

White River

2. Perform conformity determinations or apply appropriate mitigation to zero out pollutants in order to maintain conformity with the State Implementation Plan for proposed activities that will contribute to air pollutants to Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) designated non-attainment and maintenance areas.

Caves

White River

1. Manage natural surface drainage and vegetation that may affect known caves or cave resources to protect cave micro-environments.

2. Management activities that may affect known caves will be designed to protect cave ecosystems.

3. Identified significant caves will be withdrawn from mineral entry.

Mineral and Energy Resources

1. In areas of moderate-to-high potential for valuable mineral deposits, perform site-specific mineral evaluations prior to making substantial capital investments, such as recreational developments.

2. Avoid development of capital investments in areas that will be jeopardized by moderate-to-high mineral potential on non-federal mineral estate ownership.

Leasables

1. Recommend consent to lease with appropriate lease terms or stipulations, as set forth in:

White River – the Oil and Gas Leasing Final Environmental Impact Statement for the White River National Forest (1993); and Routt – the Oil and Gas Leasing Analysis Record of Decision and updated by the Forest Plan, the FEIS, and ROD.

2 Recommend against or deny consent to the Bureau of Land Management for issuance of leases, permits, or coal exploration licenses where operational damages to surface resources would not be reclaimed to acceptable conditions (per forest plan direction). Operational damages to surface resources include impacts from surface-based access, product transportation, and ancillary facilities necessary to production and related operations.

Arapaho & Roosevelt

______United States Forest Service May 2010 Arapaho and Roosevelt, Routt, and White River National Forests Page A – 3 – Final – Environmental Assessment of the Emergency Power Line Clearing Project

3 For areas which will be recommended to Congress for inclusion in the Wilderness System during this revision of the Forest Plan, leasing of minerals will be delayed until authorized by Congressional action.

Reserved and Outstanding Rights

1. Negotiate surface management for private oil and gas minerals with the owner and operator to be as close as possible to the standards used for federal minerals. Prohibiting such development is not an alternative.

Paleontological Resources

1. Sensitive Paleontological information will not be subject to Freedom of Information Act disclosure.

2. Provide permits for appropriate prospecting and collecting proposals for vertebrate fossils and minerals by noncommercial, scientific, or educational institutions, and provide appropriate opportunities for recreational collection of mineral and nonvertebrate fossil materials, where consistent with forest plan goals and objectives.

3. Protect from disturbance or mitigate disturbances of known paleontological resources to conserve scientific, educational, interpretive, and legacy values.

4. Mitigate areas of potential paleontological resources in Classes 3, 4, and 5 of the Fossil yield Potential Classification to identify presence or absence of management-relevant paleontological resources. If resources are identified, mitigate to Standard 1.

5. Survey and post land boundaries where paleontological sites have sensitivity rankings of 3, 4, or 5.

Locatable Minerals

1. Allow rockhounding (hunting and collecting rocks and minerals) on National Forest System lands without a permit, except in designated wilderness, providing the activity does not interfere with existing rights and that specimens are used for personal, noncommercial uses.

2. Allow recreational panning, sluicing, and dredging outside of wilderness, where such activities do not interfere with the rights of mining claimants protected under the 1872 Mining Law. Evaluate these activities on a case-by-case basis to determine if an operating plan is needed by the authorized Forest Service official.

3. For designated wilderness, and "wild" segments of proposed wild and scenic rivers: a. For private land surface and mineral estate in holdings, provide for reasonable access of the type necessary to the purpose of proposed operations, and for restoration of disturbed federal lands to their natural condition when they are no longer needed for operations.

b. For private mineral estates under the federal surface, provide for reasonable surface use as described in the ownership deed.

______United States Forest Service May 2010 Arapaho and Roosevelt, Routt, and White River National Forests Page A – 4 – Final – Environmental Assessment of the Emergency Power Line Clearing Project

4. For other classified lands not withdrawn from operations under the general mining laws (research natural areas, national recreation areas, special interest areas such as scenic and geologic, national historical sites, and scenic and recreation segments of wild and scenic rivers) : a. Check the status of classified lands, with respect to withdrawal, before an operating plan is approved.

b. Provide for reasonable protection of the purposes for which the lands were classified.

c. Reclaim disturbed lands to a condition suitable for the purposes for which the lands were classified. Arapaho & Roosevelt – Reclamation will be considered satisfactory when the disturbed area has been reclaimed in accordance with operating plan requirements, desired vegetation species have been seeded, and seeded vegetation has attained 80 percent potential cover on the disturbed areas as compared to adjacent undisturbed areas.

d. Pursue withdrawals where required. Soils

1. Limit roads and other disturbed sites to the minimum feasible number, width, and total length consistent with the purpose of specific operations, local topography, and climate.

2. Construct roads and other disturbed sites to minimize sediment discharge into streams, lakes, and wetlands.

3. Stabilize and maintain roads and other disturbed sites during and after construction to control erosion.

4. Reclaim roads and other disturbed sites when use ends, as needed, to prevent resource damage.

5. Manage land treatments to limit the sum of severely burned and detrimentally compacted, puddled, eroded, and displaced land to no more than 15% of any land unit (FSH 2509.18). If a soil is compressed more than 15 percent or if the soil pore space is decreased more than 15 percent as compared to a soil of similar texture, then the soil is detrimentally compacted.

6. Maintain or improve long-term levels of organic matter and nutrients on all lands.

White River

7. Design vegetation and fuels management treatments to retain the average per-acre levels of coarse woody debris (CWD) displayed in Table 1. Coarse woody debris retention will help maintain long- term site productivity by reducing soil movement, retaining soil moisture, and providing microsites for new plant establishment. Where these levels do not presently exist, evaluate long- term potentials and consider treatments that could help move coarse woody debris levels towards the desired condition.

Table 1. Coarse Woody Debris Retention Levels by Forest Type Forest Type4 Minimum Retention Minimum Retention Total Down CWD for Small Diameter for Large Diameter Retention1 Component1 Component1,3 (Tons per acre of materials greater than 3 inches in (Tons per acre 3 to 8 or 10 (Tons per acre greater than 8 or diameter) inches in diameter2) 10 inches in diameter2) Spruce-fir 8.5 1.5 10 Lodgepole pine 4.25 0.75 5 Aspen 2.5 0.5 3

______United States Forest Service May 2010 Arapaho and Roosevelt, Routt, and White River National Forests Page A – 5 – Final – Environmental Assessment of the Emergency Power Line Clearing Project

Douglas-fir 4.25 0.75 5 Ponderosa pine 3.5 0.5 4 Notes: 1These amounts are to be calculated as per-acre averages for each 1,000 acres over a silvicultural landscape assessment area (see Silviculture Guideline 1). 2The minimum diameter of CWD is measured at the larger end of the material. 3The large diameter component satisfies wildlife needs for CWD retention in Table 2-2. 4The 8 inch minimum diameter applies to lodgepole pine and aspen while the 10-inch minimum applies to spruce-fir, Douglas-fir, and ponderosa pine types. Water

1. In each stream capable of supporting a self-sustaining fishery, ensure that projects maintain sufficient habitat, including flow, for all life history stages of native and desired non-native aquatic species. In streams where reproduction does not occur but supports a recreational fishery, sufficient habitat will be maintained to ensure recreational values.

2. Manage land treatments to conserve site moisture and to protect long-term stream health from damage by increased runoff.

3. Manage land treatments to maintain enough organic ground cover in each land unit to prevent harmful increased runoff.

4. Naturally occurring debris shall not be removed from stream channels unless it is a threat to life, property, important resource values, or is otherwise covered by legal agreement. Removal in designated wilderness must consider wilderness values.

5. In the water influence zone next to perennial and intermittent streams, lakes, and wetlands, allow only those actions that maintain or improve long-term stream health and riparian ecosystem condition.

6. Design and construct all stream crossings and other in stream structures to provide for passage of flow and sediment, withstand expected flood flows, and allow free movement of resident aquatic life.

7. Conduct actions so that stream pattern, geometry, and habitats are maintained or improved toward robust stream health.

8. Maintain long-term ground-cover, soil structure, water budgets, and flow patterns of wetlands to sustain their ecological function, per 404 regulation.

9. Maintain sufficient stream flows under appropriate authorities to minimize damage to scenic and aesthetic values, fish and wildlife, and to otherwise protect the environment. Return some water to dewatered perennial streams when needed and feasible.

10. Manage water-use facilities to prevent gully erosion of slopes and to prevent sediment and bank damage to stream.

11. Place new sources of chemical and pathogenic pollutants where such pollutants will not reach surface or ground water.

12. Apply runoff controls to disconnect pollutant sources from surface and ground water.

13. Apply chemicals using methods that minimize risk of entry to surface and ground water.

Routt

______United States Forest Service May 2010 Arapaho and Roosevelt, Routt, and White River National Forests Page A – 6 – Final – Environmental Assessment of the Emergency Power Line Clearing Project

14. To prevent conditions toxic to fish, avoid human-caused disturbances that result in suspended sediment peaks above 250 mg/l for more than one hour duration in any stream reach or of more than 500 mg/l at any point in time.

15. Maintain enough additional water in streams to sustain the water-dependent recreation values. Generally, Standard #10 provides for most recreation-related water uses, but additional water may be needed for special recreation features and heavy-use recreation areas.

Biological

Alpine

White River

1. Prohibit campfires above treeline to protect alpine ecosystems.

2. Prohibit new developments in alpine wetlands, streams, and riparian areas.

Biodiversity

1. Use genetically local (at the ecological subsection level) native plant species for revegetation efforts when technically and economically feasible. Use seed mixtures and mulch that are noxious weed-free. To prevent soil erosion, non-persistent, nonnative annuals or sterile perennial species may be used while native perennials are becoming established.

2. Develop prescriptions during project planning to identify the amount, size(s), and distribution of downed logs and snags to be left onsite, as well as live, green replacement trees for future snags. On forested sites, retain snags and downed logs (where materials are available) in accordance with the average minimums specified in Table 2.

Table 2. Forest Minimum Requirements for Snag and Woody Debris Retention and Continuing Recruitment on Forested Sites Following Timber Harvest* Snags Large Snags Downed Logs

Retention Retention Minimum Retention Recruitment Minimum Minimum Minimum Density Minimum Density Forest Diameter Density Density Snag Diameter Snag Forest (number Diameter (linear Type at DBH (number (number per height at DBH height per five (inches) feet (inches) per acre) acre) (feet) (inches) (feet) acres) per acre) White Spruce-fir 10 3 3 25 20 1 50 10 150 River Lodgepole 8 3 3 25 20 1 50 8 100 pine Aspen 8 3 3 25 20 1 50 8 50

Douglas- 10 3 3 25 20 1 50 10 100 fir Ponderosa 10 3 3 25 20 1 50 10 50 pine Arapaho & Spruce-fir 10 1 N/A 25 N/A 50

Roosevelt Lodgepole 8 1 N/A 25 N/A 33 pine Aspen 8 1 N/A 25 N/A 33

______United States Forest Service May 2010 Arapaho and Roosevelt, Routt, and White River National Forests Page A – 7 – Final – Environmental Assessment of the Emergency Power Line Clearing Project

Mixed 10 2 N/A 25 N/A 50 Conifer Douglas- 10 1 N/A 25 N/A 50 fir Ponderosa 10 1 N/A 25 N/A 50 pine Routt Spruce-fir 10 1 N/A 25 10 50

Lodgepole 8 1 N/A 25 8 33 pine Aspen 8 1 N/A 25 8 33

Douglas- 10 1 N/A 25 10 50 fir Ponderosa 10 1 N/A 25 10 50 pine *These amounts are to be calculated as per-acre averages over a project area.

Arapaho & Roosevelt

3. Limited timber cutting on unsuitable or tentatively suitable and not available lands, may occur for such purposes as salvage, protection or enhancement of biodiversity or wildlife habitat, or to perform research or administrative studies or scenic-resource management consistent with management area direction. Regulated timber-harvest activities will occur on only those lands classified as suitable and available for timber production as shown on the timber suitability map as part of this document (refers specifically to Arapaho & Roosevelt LRMP).

Routt

4. Retain all soft (rotten) snags unless they are a safety hazard.

White River

5. If no snags meet the minimum diameter and height requirements, use the largest snags available.

6. Manage late-successional and old-growth forests according to the map, table, and explanation found in this document (refers specifically to White River LRMP).

Silviculture

1. Use the scientifically defined silviculture systems which meet the management objectives for the landscape or individual stands of trees within a landscape setting. These systems are shown, by forest cover type, in Table 3. Both even-aged and uneven-aged management systems can be used and applied at scales ranging from a few acres to hundreds of acres. Apply these silvicultural systems in a manner that will ensure natural regeneration where artificial regeneration is not necessary for other resource objectives. Have certified silviculturists approve tree stand vegetation management treatments. The silvicultural systems identified below can be used to convert uneven- aged stands to even-aged management and even-aged stands to uneven-aged management.

Table 3. Appropriate Silviculture Systems by Forest Cover Type Forest Cover Other Management Even-aged Two-aged Uneven-aged Type Activity* Ponderosa pine Shelterwood Irregular shelterwood Group selection Stocking control (thinning) – Clearcut4 Single-tree selection precommercial and commercial Seed-tree Salvage of dead material Site preparation Reforestation-- planting, seeding and natural

______United States Forest Service May 2010 Arapaho and Roosevelt, Routt, and White River National Forests Page A – 8 – Final – Environmental Assessment of the Emergency Power Line Clearing Project

Forest Cover Other Management Even-aged Two-aged Uneven-aged Type Activity* Regeneration protection Tree improvement Mixed Conifer Shelterwood Irregular shelterwood Group selection Stocking control (thinning) – Clearcut Single-tree selection precommercial and commercial Seed-tree Salvage of dead material Site preparation Reforestation-- planting and natural Regeneration protection Tree improvement Aspen Coppice1 Coppice with Group selection3 Salvage of dead material standards2 Site preparation Reforestation—natural Regeneration protection Tree improvement Lodgepole pine Shelterwood Irregular shelterwood Group selection Stocking control (thinning) – Clearcut precommercial and commercial Seed-tree Salvage of dead material Site preparation Reforestation--planting, seeding and Natural Regeneration protection Tree improvement Engelmann Shelterwood Irregular shelterwood Group selection Stocking control (thinning) – spruce/Subalpine fir Clearcut4 Single-tree selection precommercial and commercial Salvage of dead material Site preparation Reforestation-- planting and natural Regeneration protection Tree improvement Interior Douglas-fir Shelterwood Irregular shelterwood Group selection Stocking control (thinning) – and White fir* Clearcut Single-tree selection precommercial and commercial Seed-tree Salvage of dead material Site preparation Reforestation-- planting and natural Regeneration protection Tree improvement *Applies to Arapaho & Roosevelt only 1Coppice is a vegetation reproduction method used with clearcutting. Clearcutting stimulates sprouting from the residual roots. 2Standards are selected overstory trees reserved for a longer rotation at the time each crop of coppice material is cut. 3Use of group selection as an appropriate silviculture system in aspen is currently under study to determine regeneration success but is authorized on a test basis. 4Clearcuts are acceptable systems for Ponderosa pine and Englemann spruce, but not standard practice except to meet specific resource or stand requirements.

2. The maximum size of openings created by even-aged management will be 40 acres regardless of forest type, with the following exceptions:

• When proposals for larger openings are approved by the Regional Forester after a 60-day public review; • When larger openings are the result of natural catastrophic conditions of fire, insect or disease attack, or windstorm; • When the area that is cut does not meet the definition of created openings.

3. When trees are harvested to meet timber production objectives, assure that the technology and knowledge exists to adequately restock these areas with trees within five years after final harvest. Minimum restocking levels are defined in Table 4.

______United States Forest Service May 2010 Arapaho and Roosevelt, Routt, and White River National Forests Page A – 9 – Final – Environmental Assessment of the Emergency Power Line Clearing Project

Table 4. Standards for the Required Minimum Numbers of Seedlings for Adequate Restocking of a Regeneration Site Spruce- Douglas- Lodgepole Ponderosa Pinion- Other Other Species Aspen fir fir pine pine juniper softwood hardwood Trees per 150 300 150 150 150 120 150 300 acre

4. The requirement for adequate restocking within five years is initiated by the final harvest. Five years after final harvest means five years after clearcutting, five years after the final overstory removal in the shelterwood and seed-tree methods, or five years after selection cutting. The timing of first and third year restocking surveys is initiated by the reforestation treatment.

5. No minimum seedling height requirements are specified. Seedlings must have survived a minimum of one year and be expected (on the basis of research and experience) to be able to produce the desired future stand condition specified for the area in the forest plan. The number of seedlings in Table 4 represents the minimum number of seedlings required, considering natural mortality, to produce a merchantable timber stand at rotation age, without intermediate treatments.

6. Use artificial regeneration methods when it is unreliable to count on the natural sequence of events or environmental conditions to regenerate the stand within five years.

7. When trees are to be harvested on other than suitable lands, exceptions to the five-year restocking standards are appropriate as documented in project decisions when the harvest meets one of the following:

• Where it provides permanent openings that serve specific management direction; • Where provided for in specific management practices and prescriptions; or • Where it is desirable to delay the onset of regeneration and crown closure to meet specific desired conditions and management objectives.

8. In order to assure that adequate restocking of openings created as a result of final harvest is accomplished, at a minimum stocking surveys are to be conducted at the end of the first and third growing seasons following reforestation treatment. Adequate stocking cannot be certified until after the third growing season survey.

9. The size of the uncut forest areas between openings must be based on the management objectives for the landscape being analyzed. If these objectives include creating a mix of vegetation types to benefit the kinds of wildlife associated with early successional stages and edges, the uncut units can be small. If the objectives include provisions for old-growth-associated species, the uncut units should be large enough to function as an ecological system not overly influenced by the edge.

10. Where disease can spread from an uncut stand to a newly regenerated stand, it is desirable to cut the adjacent infected stand before the newly regenerated stand reaches a height of six feet.

11. Leave large woody debris on harvested or thinned sites to help retain moisture, trap soil movement, provide microsites for establishment of forbs, grasses, shrubs, and trees, and to provide habitat for wildlife.

12. Utilization standards for live and dead trees are shown in Table 5.

Table 5. Timber Utilization Standards

______United States Forest Service May 2010 Arapaho and Roosevelt, Routt, and White River National Forests Page A – 10 – Final – Environmental Assessment of the Emergency Power Line Clearing Project

Minimum Top Minimum Percent Live or Type of Merchantability Forest Diameter at Diameter Length Net of Dead Trees Product Factor Breast Height Gross (inches) (inches) (feet)

Coniferous Live trees 7-8 5-7 8-10 10.67 sawtimber Live trees Aspen sawtimber 7-8 5-7 8 8

Products other Live trees 5 4 6.5 Variable White River than sawtimber Dead trees Sawtimber 7-12 7-10 6-18 10.67

Products other Dead trees 5 4 Variable Variable than sawtimber

Coniferous Live trees 7 6 8 33 1/3 sawtimber Live trees Aspen sawtimber 8 6 8 50

Products other Arapaho & Live trees 5 4 6.5 50 Roosevelt than sawtimber Dead trees Sawtimber 8 7 16 33.3 Products other Dead trees 5 4 6.5 50 than sawtimber

Coniferous Live trees 7 6 8 sawtimber Products other than sawtimber 5 4 8 1/3 Live trees greater than 5” DBH Products other Live trees Variable Variable Variable than sawtimber less than 5” DBH Routt Sawtimber – Dead trees 8 7 16 Lodgepole pine

Sawtimber – All Dead trees 10 8 16 other coniferous

Products other Dead trees Variable Variable Variable than sawtimber

White River

13. Artificially created openings will no longer be considered openings when the trees in the openings have reached a height and density that meets the objective established for the management area. Considerations in determining when an opening is no longer an opening include:

• The desired future conditions planned for the management area; • Visual sensitivity of the area; • The character of the landscape; • Abundance, quality and need for cover for big game animals; • Other vegetation that may be present (such as tall shrubs); • Forest health; • Need for seed sources;

______United States Forest Service May 2010 Arapaho and Roosevelt, Routt, and White River National Forests Page A – 11 – Final – Environmental Assessment of the Emergency Power Line Clearing Project

• Need for interior forest area; • Production of wood fiber; and • Watershed and riparian area protection.

Table 6 illustrates some guidelines that could be considered in developing local standards for management areas.

Table 6. Guidelines for when an opening is no longer considered an opening Forest Cover Type Trees Per Acre Height of Trees Ponderosa pine and mixed conifer Big game cover 200 6 feet 25% of the height of the High and moderate scenic integrity objectives 200 adjacent stand Lodgepole pine and spruce-fir Big game cover 300 6 feet 25% of the height of the High and moderate scenic integrity objectives 150 adjacent stand Aspen Big game cover 500 6 feet

14. Restrict activities in the ponderosa pine cover type to managing for two-aged or uneven-aged silvicultural systems.

Special Forest Products

White River

1. Plant Collecting—The following do not apply to the harvest of trees for timber, fuel wood, or Christmas trees.

• Sensitive Plant Collections –Permits are required to collect Region 2 sensitive plants or plant parts. Such collection must not jeopardize the continued vigor or existence of a plant population. • Commercial – Collecting of plants or plant parts for any commercial purpose requires a commercial use permit issued by the ranger district in which the collecting activity is proposed. Commercial permits will be issued or denied after review of a proposal presented by the collecting party. No commercial permits will be issued in Management Areas 1.11, 1.12, 1.13, 1.2, 1.41, and 2.2. • General Botanical Collections – Botanical collection permits may be issued to authorize collection of species other than threatened, endangered, or sensitive. No botanical collection permits will be issued in Management Areas 1.11, 1.12, 1.13, 1.2, 1.41, and 2.2. • Traditional Uses – Consider American Indian traditional cultural plant use when designing projects and management activities.

Range

1. For animal damage control activities conducted by other governmental entities, the Forest Service will cooperate by providing mitigation measures to protect National Forests and Grassland resources. Mitigation measures emphasize protection of public safety; threatened, endangered, and sensitive species; water quality; and other resource values.

______United States Forest Service May 2010 Arapaho and Roosevelt, Routt, and White River National Forests Page A – 12 – Final – Environmental Assessment of the Emergency Power Line Clearing Project

2. Phase out season-long grazing systems that allow for livestock grazing use in an individual unit during the entire vegetative growth period, except where it is determined to achieve or maintain the desired plant community. 3. Manage all suitable rangeland to move toward satisfactory management status.

4. Manage rangeland vegetation for a mixture of seral stages. Manage vegetation to allow for successional progress towards a desired seral status.

Wildlife

General

1. Review the forest plan as necessary to determine consistency with new information concerning proposed, threatened, and endangered species (PTES) species. Where appropriate, the plan will be amended to incorporate direction resulting from new information, such as new species listed as PTES; new recovery plans, conservation agreements or conservation strategies; newly described habitats or occurrences for PTES species; newly designated critical habitats; or regional documents that contain new management direction for PTES species.

2. Apply seasonal restrictions on use of travelways under Forest Service jurisdiction to reduce disturbance in sensitive big game areas, such as birthing areas and winter ranges. This does not imply that all birthing areas and winter range are considered equally important, and not all will be considered "sensitive."

3. Structures, such as fences, roads, and canals, will be designed and built so that they do not create unreasonable or unnecessary movement barriers or hazards for wildlife.

4. Where newly discovered threatened, endangered, proposed, or sensitive species habitat is identified, conduct an analysis to determine if any adjustments in the forest plan are needed.

5. Manage activities to avoid disturbance to sensitive species which would result in a trend toward Federal listing or loss of population viability. The protection will vary depending on the species, potential for disturbance, topography, location of important habitat components, and other pertinent factors. Give special attention during breeding, young rearing, and other times which are critical to survival of both flora and fauna.

6. Restrict activities in order to avoid disturbing threatened, endangered, and proposed species (both flora and fauna) during breeding, young rearing, or at other times critical to survival. Exceptions may occur when animals are adapted to human activity, or the activities are not considered a threat.

7. Restrict actions within 500 feet of cave and mine bat roosts to those that will not negatively alter the vegetative and structural characteristics of roosts or impede the movement of bats. When closing mines or caves in the course of establishing resource protection, or in response to safety concerns, minimize disturbance to resident or seasonal bat or other cave-dependent species endemic to the cave or mine and maintain microclimate conditions important to those species. Where bat concentrations are located outside of caves or mines, human disturbance will be managed to protect those populations.

8. Restrict the release of the location of bat roosts to administrative purposes only in order to minimize disturbance to roosting bats.

9. Retain all snags and trees known to be used consistently as bat roosts.

______United States Forest Service May 2010 Arapaho and Roosevelt, Routt, and White River National Forests Page A – 13 – Final – Environmental Assessment of the Emergency Power Line Clearing Project

10. Protect known active and inactive raptor nest areas. The extent of the protection will be based on proposed management activities, human activities existing before nest establishment, species, topography, vegetation cover and other factors. A no-disturbance buffer around active nest sites will be required from nest-site selection to fledging (generally March through July). Exceptions may occur when animals are adapted to human activity.

11. Provide adequate cover to maintain screening, through time, along roads where timber management activities are taking place to minimize disturbance and harassment of deer and elk.

12. In areas where tall dense cover is desired for ground-nesting birds, retain adequate residual cover from previous growing seasons since some species begin nesting in April and May before spring growth.

13. Some bird species prefer to nest in undisturbed cover. In areas where these species are a primary consideration, manage livestock grazing to avoid adverse impacts to nesting habitat.

14. Restrict new developments, including new facilities, roads and trails, and concentrations of humans, within a one-mile sight distance of bighorn sheep lambing and mountain goat kidding areas if they would adversely impact lambing or kidding. Restrictions on activities are usually required from April 1 to July 15.

15. Prevent interaction between bighorn sheep and domestic sheep, where feasible.

16. Do not compromise wildlife habitat values when developing watchable wildlife opportunities for the public.

Arapaho & Roosevelt

17. In riparian areas, cover that provides wildlife travel corridors will be maintained along the entire length of riparian zones on at least one side of the drainage. New corridor interruptions affecting both sides of the drainage will be of minimum width needed and no more than 60 feet.

Routt

18. In forested ecosystems, maintain habitat effectiveness for deer and elk at 50% or greater, as measured at the Geographic Area scale.

White River

19. In riparian areas, vegetation cover will be managed to provide suitable wildlife habitat along a minimum of 80 percent of the length of riparian zones within the project area. New corridor interruptions will be spaced to minimize interruptions to habitat connectivity.

20. Vegetation treatments and new roads and trails will not reduce the elk habitat effectiveness index below 0.45 by Data Analysis Unit (DAU), or further reduce effective habitat in DAUs that are already at or below 0.40 on National Forest System lands.

21. Discourage land use practices and development that adversely alter the character of peregrine falcon hunting habitat or prey base within ten (10) miles of the nest site and the immediate habitats within one (1) mile of the nesting cliff.

22. Human activities will be restricted within one-half (½) mile of occupied peregrine falcon areas between March 15 and July 31 for nest sites, or July 1 to September 15 for hack sites. Protection

______United States Forest Service May 2010 Arapaho and Roosevelt, Routt, and White River National Forests Page A – 14 – Final – Environmental Assessment of the Emergency Power Line Clearing Project

distance may vary depending on local topography, potential for disturbance, and location of important habitat components.

Proposed, Threatened, and Endangered Species and Sensitive Species

White River

Canada Lynx

Note: Standards and guidelines in the “Canada Lynx” section apply only to lands within the lynx habitat matrix. Lynx analysis unit (LAU) boundaries will not be adjusted for individual projects. Forestwide LAU changes will only be completed in coordination and concurrence with the US Fish and Wildlife Service.

1. Projects that have the potential to affect lynx or lynx habitat must include a broad scale assessment that addresses the ecological conditions for the area. (See strategies 1d.1 and 1d.2 for content to be addressed in the assessment.) In the absence of guidance developed from such an assessment, limit disturbance within each lynx analysis unit (LAU) as follows: if more than 30 percent of lynx habitat within an LAU is currently in unsuitable condition, no further reduction of suitable conditions shall occur as a result of vegetation management by federal agencies.

2. Within a LAU, maintain denning habitat in patches larger than 5 acres, comprising at least 10 percent of lynx habitat. Where less than 10 percent denning habitat is currently present within a LAU, defer management actions in stands that have the highest potential for developing denning habitat structure in the future.

3. Management actions such as timber sales, salvage sales, and prescribed fire will not change more than 15 percent of lynx habitat within a LAU to unsuitable condition within a 10-year period. To determine whether the 15% criterion over a 10-year period standard is met, base activities on the 10-year period immediately prior to the initiation of the project in question.

4. Following a disturbance such as blowdown, fire, insect or pathogen mortality that could contribute to lynx denning habitat, do not salvage harvest when the affected area is smaller than 5 acres. Exceptions to this include: (1) developed areas such as campgrounds, and (2) in LAUs where denning habitat has been mapped and field validated, salvage harvests may occur provided that at least 10 percent denning habitat is retained and is well distributed.

5. Allow silvicultural thinning treatments (such as pre-commercial thinning or weed-and release treatments designed to reduce stocking in order to concentrate growth on the more desirable trees) only when stands no longer provide snowshoe hare habitat.

6. In aspen stands, apply harvest prescriptions that favor regeneration of aspen.

7. Manage livestock grazing to maintain or achieve mid-seral or later conditions in shrub-steppe habitats, riparian areas, and willow carrs.

8. Manage livestock use in post-fire and post-harvest created openings to assure successful regeneration of the shrub and tree components.

9. Where over-snow access is required for activities such as non-recreation special use permits, oil and gas exploration and development, access to private in-holdings, or timber sales, restrict use to routes designated by the Forest Service.

10. Close newly constructed roads built for project specific activities such as mineral exploration and development or timber sales to public motorized access during project activities. Upon project

______United States Forest Service May 2010 Arapaho and Roosevelt, Routt, and White River National Forests Page A – 15 – Final – Environmental Assessment of the Emergency Power Line Clearing Project

completion, reclaim or obliterate these roads if not needed for other objectives as documented in the appropriate NEPA document.

Bald Eagle

1. If a winter roost or nest site is discovered, write a management plan to ensure that the necessary habitat components are maintained.

2. Human activities should be prohibited within 250 yards of bald eagle winter roosting areas between November 15 and March 1. Human activities should be prohibited within 400 yards of an active nest between February 1 and August 15.

Southwestern Willow Flycatcher

1. Rely on the riparian vegetation residue guidelines (Table 2-3) and implement Range Guideline #3 as a standard within potential flycatcher habitat to improve the habitat for this species. The rationale for this approach lies in restricting the use of herbaceous forage to obtain a concurrent decrease in the amount of grazing on woody vegetation, resulting in increased amounts and density of woody vegetation in those riparian areas that can support woody vegetation. (Note: Table 2-3 and Range Guideline #3 are specific references found within the White River LRMP.)

Mexican Spotted Owl

1. Do not allow any even-aged timber management within canyons considered as having identified potential habitat and within one-half (½) mile of the canyon’s rim.

2. Allow uneven-aged timber management only if the resulting timber stand contains the necessary habitat components.

3. Develop a vegetation/fire management strategy within the potential habitat that will reduce the risk of catastrophic loss of habitat.

4. If any nests are discovered, limit the amount of human disturbance around the nest through such measures as special area closures, seasonal restrictions, or re-routing of trails.

Uncompahgre Fritillary Butterfly

1. Before any ground disturbing activity (such as trail building), or livestock driveways or bedding grounds are allowed in potential Uncompahgre fritillary butterfly habitat, a survey shall be conducted to determine the existence of the species. Potential habitat and survey protocols are found in the Recovery Plan. Avoid actions that would negatively impact the species known habitat or populations.

2. If any new Uncompahgre fritillary butterfly populations are discovered, a “no-collecting” regulation shall be placed on the area.

Species of Viability Concern, Aquatic

White River

Colorado River Cutthroat Trout

1. For management activities that have the potential to impact occupied cutthroat trout habitat, tributaries of occupied cutthroat trout habitat, or identified reintroduction areas, maintain or enhance existing cutthroat trout habitat. At minimum and where necessary:

______United States Forest Service May 2010 Arapaho and Roosevelt, Routt, and White River National Forests Page A – 16 – Final – Environmental Assessment of the Emergency Power Line Clearing Project

• Reduce sediment from existing roads and trails. • Maintain pool depths. • Maintain riparian vegetation. • Retain large woody debris in streams.

2. When implementing management activities in 6th field Hydrologic Unit Codes (sub-watersheds) containing cutthroat trout identified as recovery populations in the Colorado River Cutthroat Recovery Plan, maintain or reduce existing net density of roads (open or closed) to restore or prevent alteration of the hydrologic function of the sub-watershed. Temporary roads must be decommissioned upon project completion.

Boreal Toad and Leopard Frog

1. Allow no loss or reduction in habitat quality of occupied or known historic boreal toad or leopard frog habitat.

2. Maintain adequate vegetation cover around occupied boreal toad or leopard frog breeding ponds when implementing management activities to minimize avian predation on newly metamorphosed frogs and toads.

3. Use only chemical herbicides shown to have no effect on boreal toads or leopard frogs, or use other vegetation management techniques, within 300 feet of occupied or known historic boreal toad sites.

4. Do not use fish toxins with the potential to harm boreal toads or leopard frogs in occupied boreal toad and leopard frog habitats.

Species of Viability Concern, Plant

White River

1. Survey for the following plant species of viability concern in the identified areas prior to any activities that might impact them:

• Harrington penstemon in sagebrush areas in the Eagle and Frying Pan River drainages; • De Beque phacelia in the Wasatch Geologic Formation; • Sun-loving meadowrue in the Parachute Creek Geologic Formation; • Leadville milk-vetch; Sea pink; Rockcress draba; Tundra buttercup, and Colorado tansy aster in suitable alpine areas; • Altai cottongrass, Kotzebue grass-of-Parnasus, and Porter feathergrass in suitable riparian and wetland areas.

Avoid disturbances that would significantly affect species viability or trend the species towards federal listing.

Species of Viability Concern, Terrestrial

White River

Fringed Myotis and Townsend’s Big-Eared Bat

1. Conduct surveys of known caves and mines before implementation of projects that have the potential to impact fringed myotis and Townsend's big-eared bat habitat.

______United States Forest Service May 2010 Arapaho and Roosevelt, Routt, and White River National Forests Page A – 17 – Final – Environmental Assessment of the Emergency Power Line Clearing Project

• For projects that include the application of insecticide, the survey area includes the project area and a two-mile radius around the project area. • For projects that do not include the application of insecticide, the survey area includes the project area and a one quarter-mile radius around the project area.

2. Prohibit aerial application of insecticides within two miles of occupied or suspected Townsend’s big-eared bat and fringed myotis roosts to retain forage sufficient for bat survival and reproductive success, and to minimize exposure of the insecticide to individual bats. Use other methods of insecticide application to treat small areas such as campgrounds and administrative sites.

Barrow’s Goldeneye

1. Conduct surveys to identify occupied and potential Barrow's goldeneye habitat prior to project implementation that may have the potential to impact Barrow's goldeneye or their habitat.

2. Retain sufficient numbers of snags ≥18 inches DBH within one-third mile of occupied and suspected Barrow’s goldeneye brood-rearing habitat in order to provide adequate nest cavity snags.

3. Manage or restrict animal introductions that have the potential to impact forage insects in lakes and reservoirs within occupied or suspected Barrow’s goldeneye brood rearing, molting, or staging habitat to maintain existing forage insects.

4. Restrict pesticide applications to those that do not have the potential to impact aquatic invertebrates in occupied and suspected Barrow’s goldeneye brood rearing and molting areas.

Sage Grouse and Brewer’s Sparrow

1. For management activities in sage grouse and Brewer’s sparrow habitat, retain or enhance existing habitat by:

• Managing for native vegetation, • Retaining a minimum of five percent of sagebrush over 48 inches in height where site characteristics allow, and • Maintaining a minimum of 20 percent canopy cover of sagebrush.

2. Restrict the use of insecticides in sage grouse and Brewer's sparrow sagebrush habitat to maintain adequate forage insects.

3. Maintain and manage such that a minimum of 15 percent continuous canopy cover of herbaceous plants averaging at least 7 inches in height is retained in sage grouse nesting habitat during the sage grouse nesting and early brood-rearing season (generally from April 1 to July 31). If the herbaceous vegetation in an area cannot provide an average of at least 7 inches in height, maintain 15 percent continuous herbaceous plant canopy cover of the highest average height possible.

4. Restrict activities that have the potential to impact sage grouse and Brewer’s sparrow breeding activities from April 1 to July 31 in areas where breeding is known or suspected in order to minimize any negative impacts to reproductive success or survival.

Pygmy Nuthatch

1. In current and potential ponderosa pine cover types, and in other cover types where pygmy nuthatches are actively nesting or winter roosting, develop prescriptions during project planning to identify the amount, size(s), and distribution of snags and cavity trees to be left on-site, as well as live, green replacement trees for future snags and cavity trees under the following requirements:

______United States Forest Service May 2010 Arapaho and Roosevelt, Routt, and White River National Forests Page A – 18 – Final – Environmental Assessment of the Emergency Power Line Clearing Project

• Conduct avian and cavity surveys before projects are implemented that have the potential to impact pygmy nuthatch nest or winter roost snags and cavity trees. • Protect any known or suspected pygmy nuthatch nest and winter roost cavity trees and snags. • On forested sites, retain ponderosa pine snags (where materials are available) in accordance with the average minimums specified in the Table 2. • Where sufficient ponderosa pine snags or cavity trees are not available, select and manage for the snag or cavity tree species that pygmy nuthatches are using in the area, or for Douglas fir, aspen, or lodgepole pine snags or cavity trees.

Species Requiring More Baseline Inventory and Evaluation to Determine Status

White River

1. Maintain adequate water flow and vegetation at black swift colonies in order to maintain nesting activity and reproductive success.

2. Restrict action at black swift colony sites in order to maintain habitat characteristics, survival and reproductive success at the sites. Actions that may be restricted include, but are not limited to:

• Rock climbing • Ice Climbing • Caving • Hiking

3. Conduct surveys of potential black swift habitat before implementation of projects that have the potential to impact black swift habitat or nesting activities.

4. Conduct surveys for the following butterfly species needing more baseline inventory and evaluation before implementation of projects that may result in not maintaining a viable population in occupied habitat: theano alpine, dark blue, white-veined arctic, indra swallowtail, and two-banded checkered skipper. Prohibit actions that may result in the extirpation of the species in an area that is occupied. Actions that may be restricted include but are not limited to:

• Recreation use and development outside of established routes. • Livestock grazing • Vegetation treatments • Butterfly collecting • Road and trail construction

Disturbance Processes

Fire

1. Decisions made concerning vegetation management activities including “no action” will minimize exposure of firefighters and the public to fire hazards.

White River

2. All ignitions will receive an appropriate management response (suppression or fire use) according to the White River Fire Management Plan. The fire management map (referring specifically to

______United States Forest Service May 2010 Arapaho and Roosevelt, Routt, and White River National Forests Page A – 19 – Final – Environmental Assessment of the Emergency Power Line Clearing Project

White River LRMP) illustrates how areas are allocated to each fire management category based on Management Area direction.

Undesirable Species

1. Control nonnative and noxious plants throughout the forests, with priority given to new species and to designated wilderness areas.

2. Use only certified “noxious weed-free” hay or straw for feed or revegetation projects anywhere in the forests.

3. For all proposed projects or activities, determine the risk of noxious weed introduction or spread, and implement appropriate mitigation measures.

Social

American Indian Rights and Interests

White River

1. Protect important cultural areas for current and future tribal use by recognizing the cultural landscape and geographic diversity left by Ute ancestors and acknowledging intellectual property rights.

2. Protect sensitive and proprietary traditional tribal knowledge.

Heritage

1. Conduct all land management activities to comply with all applicable federal, state, and local regulations. Heritage resource values can be protected effectively through application of the provisions of the following Acts:

• The National Historic Preservation Act (PL 89-665, as amended) • Native American Grave Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) (PL 101-601) • American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978 (PL 96-341) • Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (PL 103-141)

White River

2. Leave human remains undisturbed unless there is an urgent reason for their disinterment. In case of accidental disturbance of historic graves, or reinterment, follow the appropriate tribal policies, state policies and forest policies. Forest policies are contained in the Burial Policy for the White River National Forest, as well as the Southern Ute Indian Tribe’s Burial Policy for the Protection of Burial Sites, Human Remains and Funerary Objects.

Recreation – General 1. Make outfitter and guide permits available based on need, administrative capability, and a suitable mix of guided and non-guided public capacity as determined by a forest-wide capacity study. This mix may vary by type of activity and/or season of use. Capacity validations will be made on an area-specific basis when the general forest-wide capacity determination does not adequately address the management situation.

______United States Forest Service May 2010 Arapaho and Roosevelt, Routt, and White River National Forests Page A – 20 – Final – Environmental Assessment of the Emergency Power Line Clearing Project

2. Prohibit camping within 100 feet of lakes and streams and system trails, unless exceptions are justified by terrain or specific design that protects the riparian and aquatic ecosystems.

Routt

3. Do not issue further permits when capacity has been met for a certain special-use activity.

4. Require valid advanced first-aid certification or equivalent approved qualifications from all outfitter/guides conducting activities with high-risk or frequency of serious injury, such as snowmobiling, whitewater boating, etc.

5. Allow mountain bikes on roads and trails forest-wide (outside of wilderness), unless prohibited.

White River

6. A person is permitted to use his/her wheelchair in a non-motorized area so long as the wheelchair meets the legal definition of wheelchair, “a device designed solely for use by a mobility-impaired person for locomotion that is suitable for use in an indoor pedestrian area.” (Title V, Section 507(c)(2) of the Americans with Disabilities Act).

7. At special recreation features, maintain enough water in streams to sustain the water-dependent recreation values and protect stream flows. Use the following categories to rank streams and stream reaches based on the recreation features and values described:

 High-priority features—waterfalls; scenic areas and overlooks; special event areas (rafting, kayaking, visitor centers); scenic byways; native threatened, endangered, and sensitive species; rivers designated under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act; rivers eligible for wild, scenic, or recreational designation; wilderness water resources under threat of degradation; and similar features where flowing water is critical to a quality recreational experience.  Moderate-priority features—recreation areas including roads, trails, campgrounds, and picnic grounds next to streams where flowing water contributes to a quality recreational experience and to aesthetic values.

Recreation – Developed Recreation

1. Design and manage developed recreation sites according to the adopted recreation opportunity spectrum class and the adopted visual quality objective(s).

2. Provide a range of universally accessible opportunities, within the limits of the site characteristics, at all new or reconstructed developed recreation sites.

3. Develop and maintain vegetative management plans for all developed sites to enhance the natural setting and maintain or develop the desired vegetation.

4. Set camping stay limits to meet management objectives.

5. Withdraw developed recreation areas from locatable mineral entry.

6. Provide parking, trailhead panels for trail information/interpretation, and appropriate sanitation facilities at trailheads. Construct these facilities to be consistent with the recreation setting.

______United States Forest Service May 2010 Arapaho and Roosevelt, Routt, and White River National Forests Page A – 21 – Final – Environmental Assessment of the Emergency Power Line Clearing Project

Recreation – Dispersed Recreation

1. Close or rehabilitate dispersed sites or otherwise mitigate impacts when:

a. Campsite condition reaches Cole's class "heavy" or "severe." b. Site occupancy does not meet the adopted visual quality objective. c. Documented social use conflicts exist. d. Unacceptable environmental damage is occurring.

2. Where forage is limited, require users camping overnight with recreational livestock to carry cubed, pelleted, or rolled feed free of viable noxious weed seeds.

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum

1. Conduct management activities to comply with the requirements of the adopted ROS class and the visual quality objective in the management area prescription.

Scenery Management

1. Apply the Visual Management System (VMS) to all NFS lands. Travel routes, use areas, and water bodies determined to be of primary importance are sensitivity level one and appropriate visual quality objectives are established according to the VMS.

2. Prohibit management activities which are inconsistent with the visual quality objective unless a decision is made to change the visual quality objective. Document the decision to change the visual quality objective in a project-level NEPA decision document.

Wilderness

1. Prohibit recreational livestock within 100 feet of lake shores and streambanks, except during watering and through travel.

2. In pristine management areas of a wilderness, do not reduce the standard of naturalness in order to disperse recreation use from other portions of the wilderness.

3. Limit the maximum group size to 25 people, recreational livestock, or combination thereof. Establish smaller party size limits where biological and physical resource capability cannot support that level of use. Issue permits on a case-by-case basis for parties that are larger than established limits, when the use is compatible with other wilderness management objectives.

White River –

• White River National Forest Wilderness Areas (except Maroon Bells-Snowmass) – no more than 15 people per group with a maximum combination of 25 people and pack or saddle animals in any one group. • Maroon Bells-Snowmass Wilderness – no more than 10 people per group with a maximum combination of 25 people and pack or saddle animals in any one group.

4. Prohibit pets from harassing wildlife or other people. Voice control or physical restraints are acceptable.

5. Use natural-appearing techniques to protect wetlands if alternate trail locations are unavailable.

______United States Forest Service May 2010 Arapaho and Roosevelt, Routt, and White River National Forests Page A – 22 – Final – Environmental Assessment of the Emergency Power Line Clearing Project

6. Permit only those uses authorized by wilderness legislation which cannot be reasonably met on nonwilderness lands.

7. Manage special-uses to minimize impact on wilderness values.

Routt 8. Implement a permit system (for either day-use or overnight-use) or other measures, such as area closures, to manage use-levels and use-patterns when conditions are outside the standards and guidelines established for the management area prescription.

9. Do not develop specific trail improvement work to reduce the level of challenge to accommodate the disabled within wilderness areas.

10. Prohibit construction of new facilities or structures. Do not replace existing facilities if they become uninhabitable or are substantially damaged.

White River

11. No hay, straw, or unprocessed feed allowed.

12. Prohibit campfires above treeline to protect alpine ecosystems. Prohibit campfires and fuel burning below treeline when the use of dead or downed wood for fuel is likely to cause unacceptable vegetative condition, soil nutrient loss, and/or erosion.

13. Manage historic structures, including eligible or listed National Register of Historic Places sites to be compatible with the desired condition for the management area.

14. Emphasize minimum impact suppression techniques in all wilderness wildland fire responses.

15. Prepare wildland fire use plans to allow fire to function as nearly as possible in its natural ecological role.

Administrative

Infrastructure – Facilities

1. Do not retain facilities acquired from land donation, exchange, or purchase unless they serve a definite future purpose and funding is available for their maintenance.

Infrastructure – Travelways

1. Use restricted roads for administrative purposes when:

a. Prescribed in management prescriptions. b. Authorized by the Deciding Officer. c. In case of emergency.

2. Allow motorized use on new or designated travelways unless a documented decision shows that:

a. Motorized use conflicts with the purpose for which the travelways were constructed. b. Motorized use is incompatible with the ROS class.

______United States Forest Service May 2010 Arapaho and Roosevelt, Routt, and White River National Forests Page A – 23 – Final – Environmental Assessment of the Emergency Power Line Clearing Project

c. Travelways are located in areas closed to motorized use and are not "designated routes." d. Motorized use creates user conflicts that result in unsafe conditions unrelated to weather. e. Physical characteristics of travelways preclude any form of motorized use. f. Travelways do not serve an existing or identified future public need. g. Financing is not available for maintenance necessary to protect resources. h. A seasonal restriction has been issued.

3. Close and rehabilitate temporary roads when no longer needed for project purposes.

4. Prohibit motorized use with wheeled vehicles on lands outside designated travelways unless a forest order indicates that such use is specifically allowed.

Routt

5. Prohibit all summer motorized use in Management Areas 1.11, 1.12, 1.13, 1.32, 2.2, and 8.22.

6. Prohibit winter motorized use in Management Areas 1.11, 1.12, 1.13, 1.5, 2.2, 5.41, and 8.22. Allow motorized use in the remaining areas, unless restricted in the future following site-specific analysis.

7. Prohibit motorized access from private land where access for the general public is not available, except by special permit.

White River

8. Permit motor vehicle travel up to 300 feet from designated travelways for direct access to campsites, parking, firewood cutting, or gathering forest products provided that: • Minimal resource damage occurs; • Such access is not otherwise prohibited.

9. Motor vehicles designed for over-snow use are permitted: • In areas compatible with forest plan management prescriptions, Recreational Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) classifications, and the travel management plan; or • On designated routes only through areas of restriction.

Real Estate – Land Adjustments

1. In land adjustment activities, give priority to acquiring lands that contain habitat identified by Fish and Wildlife Service as necessary for recovery of federally listed threatened and endangered species.

2. In land adjustment activities including land exchange, purchase, disposal, and donation, consider the following:

a. Evaluate and balance the overall combination of all resource values and factors including wildlife habitat, fisheries habitat, riparian areas, wetlands, cultural resources, recreation opportunities, scenic value, watershed protection, timber resources, rangelands, public access, better federal land management, and other factors. In all land adjustment activities, consider the important impacts to issues and resources identified during site- specific scoping.

b. Evaluate the effect of land adjustments on sensitive species habitat. Avoid land adjustments which could result in a trend toward federal listing or loss of population viability for any sensitive species. Ownership of sensitive species habitat can be

______United States Forest Service May 2010 Arapaho and Roosevelt, Routt, and White River National Forests Page A – 24 – Final – Environmental Assessment of the Emergency Power Line Clearing Project

conveyed if conveyance would not result in a trend toward federal listing or adversely impact the population viability of the species, or if effects could be mitigated.

c. Acquire lands that contain resource values identified during scoping as important in contributing toward National Forest System resource management goals and objectives as stated in the forest plan. Examples include: wetlands, riparian areas, essential wildlife habitat, threatened or endangered species habitat, sensitive species habitat, significant cultural resources, timber lands, rangelands, or other areas.

Real Estate – Rights-of-Way

1. Retain existing access rights, where needed, to meet forest plan goals and objectives.

2. Actively pursue access rights where needed to meet forest plan goals and objectives.

3. Obtain reasonable public and administrative access to all National Forest System lands by requiring reciprocal grants, where needed, when granting rights-of-way easements across National Forest System lands.

Special uses – General 1. When the permit expires, phase out current uses and do not approve new uses where the primary activity is storage or disposal of hazardous materials, including landfills.

Utility Corridors 1. Conserve existing and designated inventoried rights-of-way needed for implementation of the forest plan.

2. Authorize proposals to utilize designated utility corridors without alternative route analysis, subject to site-specific environmental analysis.

3. Do not authorize conflicting uses or activities within transportation and utility corridors.

4. Bury electrical utility lines of 33 kilovolts or less, and telephone lines, unless one or more of the following applies:

a. Visual quality objectives of the area can be met using an overhead line. b. Burial is not feasible due to geologic hazard or unfavorable geologic conditions. c. Greater long-term site disturbance would result. d. It is not technically feasible.

5. Do not plan transportation and utility corridors through research natural areas or wild rivers unless required by the acts, or in designated wilderness unless authorized by the President.

6. Consider valid outstanding rights that may conflict with the occupancy and use of corridors.

7. Coordinate the location of major transportation and utility corridors between national forests and other appropriate agencies.

______United States Forest Service May 2010 Arapaho and Roosevelt, Routt, and White River National Forests Page A – 25 – Final – Environmental Assessment of the Emergency Power Line Clearing Project

(THIS PAGE HAS BEEN LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY.)

______United States Forest Service May 2010 Arapaho and Roosevelt, Routt, and White River National Forests Page A – 26 – Final – Environmental Assessment of the Emergency Power Line Clearing Project

Appendix B

Tribal Consultation Dates

And

State Historic Preservation Office Programmatic Agreement (PA)

______United States Forest Service May 2010 Arapaho and Roosevelt, Routt, and White River National Forests Page B – 1 – Final – Environmental Assessment of the Emergency Power Line Clearing Project

(THIS PAGE HAS BEEN LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY.)

______United States Forest Service May 2010 Arapaho and Roosevelt, Routt, and White River National Forests Page B – 2 – Final – Environmental Assessment of the Emergency Power Line Clearing Project

Power Line Hazard Tree Removal, Tribal Consultation Initiation list of Tribes contacted during NEPA process.

January 20, 2010 – The ARP sent initial letters to the following contacts:

Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribes of Oklahoma

Darrell Flyingman Governor Cheyenne and Arapaho Business Committee PO Box 38 Concho, OK 73022 Phone: 405-422-3132 Fax: 405-262-0745

Gordon Yellowman Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribes of Oklahoma POB 145 Concho, OK 73022

Northern Arapaho Tribe

Harvey Spoonhunter Northern Arapaho Business Council PO Box 328 Fort Washakie, WY 82514 Phone: 307-332-6120 x835 Fax: 307-332-7543

Darlene Conrad Tribal Historic Preservation Officer Northern Arapaho Tribe PO Box 396 Fort Washakie WY 82514 307-851-9617 (cell)

William C’Hair (Mr. C’Hair) Northern Arapaho Culture Commission PO Box 9184 Arapaho, WY 82510 Phone: 307-850-2705

Northern Cheyenne Tribe

Leroy Spang Tribal Council PO Box 128 Lame Deer, MT 59043 Phone: 406-477-6284 Fax: 406-477-6210

Linwood Tallbull THPO PO Box 128 Lame Deer, MT 59043

______United States Forest Service May 2010 Arapaho and Roosevelt, Routt, and White River National Forests Page B – 3 – Final – Environmental Assessment of the Emergency Power Line Clearing Project

Ute Tribe

Curtis Cesspooch Chairman Uintah & Ouray Tribal Business Committee PO Box 190 Ft Duchesne, UT 84026 Phone: 435-722-5141 Fax: 435-722-2374

Betsy Chapoose Uintah & Ouray Tribe PO Box 190 Ft Duchesne, UT 84026

Southern Ute Indian Tribe

Matthew Box Chairman PO Box 737 Ignacio, CO 81137 Phone: 970-563-0100 Fax: 970-563-0396

Neil Cloud NAGPRA Representative PO Box 737 Ignacio, CO 81137

On March 26, 2010, the Regional office sent a letter to the following Tribes with information about meetings on the Bark Beetle epidemic and Forest Service efforts to manage it and meetings to discuss the Planning Rule.

Matthew Box Chairman Southern Ute Tribe 356 Ouray Drive Ignacio, CO 81137

Ernest House, Sr. Chairman Ute Mountain Ute Tribe P.O. Box 248 Towaoc, Colorado 81334-0248

Tribal Historic Preservation Office Ute Mountain Ute Tribe P.O. Box 468 Towoac, Colorado 81334

Rodney Bordeaux, President Rosebud Sioux Tribal Council P.O. Box 430 Rosebud, SD 57570

______United States Forest Service May 2010 Arapaho and Roosevelt, Routt, and White River National Forests Page B – 4 – Final – Environmental Assessment of the Emergency Power Line Clearing Project

Donna Rae Peterson, Cultural Program Administrator Tribal Historic Preservation Office Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe P.O. Box 590 Eagle Butte, SD 57625

Robert Cournoyer, Chairman Yankton Sioux Tribal Business & Claims Committee P.O. Box 248 Marty, SD 57361-0248

Dale Hamilton Arapaho Director Culture and Heritage – THPO P.O. Box 38 Concho, Oklahoma 73022

Karen Little Coyote Cheyenne Director Culture and Heritage – THPO P.O. Box 38 Concho, Oklahoma 73022

Mike Catches Enemy Tribal Historic Preservation Office P.O. Box 2070 Pine Ridge, SD 57770

Kathy Arcoren Tribal Historic Preservation Office Rosebud Sioux Tribe P.O. Box 430 Rosebud, SD 57570

Brandon Sazue, Sr., Chairman Crow Creek Sioux Tribal Council P.O. Box 50 Fort Thompson, SD 57339

Amen Sheridan, Chairperson Omaha Tribal Council P.O. Box 368 Macy, NE 68039

Harvey Spoonhunter, Chairman Northern Arapaho Business Committee P.O. Box 396 Fort Washakie, WY 82514

Roger Trudell, Chairman Santee Sioux Nation 108 Spirit Lake Ave. West Niobrara, NE 68760-7219

______United States Forest Service May 2010 Arapaho and Roosevelt, Routt, and White River National Forests Page B – 5 – Final – Environmental Assessment of the Emergency Power Line Clearing Project

Joshua Weston, President Flandreau Santee Sioux Executive Committee P.O. Box 283

Larry Wright, Jr., Chairman Ponca Tribe of Nebraska P.O. Box 288 Niobrara, NE 68760

Leroy Spang, President Northern Cheyenne Tribal Council P.O. Box 128 Lame Deer, MT 59043 Curtis Cesspooch, Chairperson Ute Business Committee P.O. Box 190 Ft. Duchesne, UT 84026

Joseph Brings Plenty, Chairman Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe P.O. Box 590 Eagle Butte, SD 57625

John Blackhawk, Chairman Winnebago Tribal Council P.O. Box 687 Winnebago, NE 68071

Janice Boswell, Governor Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribes of Oklahoma P.O. Box 38 Concho, Oklahoma 73022

Darlene Conrad Tribal Historic Preservation Office Northern Arapaho Tribe P.O. Box 396 Fort Washakie, WY 82514

Kitty Wells Tribal Historic Preservation Office P.O. Box 50 Fort Thompson, SD 57339

Michael Jandreau, Chairman Lower Brule Sioux Tribal Council 187 Oyate Circle Lower Brule, SD 57548

Charles Murphy, Chairman Standing Rock Sioux Tribal Council P.O. Box D Fort Yates, ND 58538

______United States Forest Service May 2010 Arapaho and Roosevelt, Routt, and White River National Forests Page B – 6 – Final – Environmental Assessment of the Emergency Power Line Clearing Project

Ivan D. Posey, Chairman Shoshone Business Committee P.O. Box 217 Fort Washakie, WY 82514

Carol Robertson Flandreau Santee Sioux Cultural Office P.O. Box 283 Flandreau, SD 57028

Michael Selvage, Sr., Chairman Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate of the Lake Traverse Reservation P.O. Box 509 Agency Village, SD 57262-0509

Arlen Shoyo Tribal Historic Preservation Officer Eastern Shoshone Tribe P.O. Box 217

Waste’Win Young Tribal Historic Preservation Office Standing Rock Sioux Tribe

Theresa Two Bulls, President Oglala Sioux Tribal Council P.O. Box 2070 Pine Ridge, SD 57770

David Smith Tribal Historic Preservation Officer Winnebago Tribe P.O. Box 687 Winnebago, NE 68071

Linwood Tall Bull Tribal Historic Preservation Officer Northern Cheyenne Tribe P.O. Box 128 Lame Deer, MT 59043

On April 13, 2010 the ARP hosted the Tribal Meeting to discuss the Bark Beetle epidemic and projects to mitigate the effects, including the Emergency Power line project. The meeting was attended by Robert St Clair who represented the Eastern Shoshone and the Northern Arapaho Tribes.

______United States Forest Service May 2010 Arapaho and Roosevelt, Routt, and White River National Forests Page B – 7 – Final – Environmental Assessment of the Emergency Power Line Clearing Project

(THIS PAGE HAS BEEN LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY.)

______United States Forest Service May 2010 Arapaho and Roosevelt, Routt, and White River National Forests Page B – 8 USFS MBR Agreement No. 07-MU-11020600-056 USFS AR Agreement No. 07-MU-11021000-025 USFS WR Agreement No. 07-MU-11021500-043 USFS PSI Agreement No. 07-MU-11021200-071

AMENDMENT NUMBER ONE FOR THE PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT AMONG THE ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVAT IO N THE COLORADO STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE AND THE U.S.D.A. FOREST SERVICE MEDICINE BOW-ROUTT NATIONAL FORESTS ARAPAHO AND ROOSEVELT NATIONAL FORESTS WHITE RIVER NATIONAL FOREST PIKE AND SAN ISABEL NATIONAL FORESTS REGARDING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF SPRUCE BARK BEETLE AND MOUNTAIN PINE BEETLE MANAGEMENT HAZARDOUS FUEL REDUCTION AND HAZARD TREE REDUCTION PROGRAMS

WHEREAS, the USDA, Forest Service, Medicine Bow-Routt National Forests, Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests, Pike and San Isabel National Forests and White River National Forest (Forests), propose to administer a program of Spruce Bark Beetle and Mountain Pine Beetle Management, and Hazard Tree Reduction Actions (Program) as described in Appendix A, and Stipulations A-G, and to streamline consultation requirements of these reports; and are authorized by the Organic Administration Act (16 U.S.C. 551) and the National Forest Management Act of 1976 (P.L. 94-588, 90 Stat. 2949) and others; and

WHEREAS, this agreement is an amendment to the Programmatic Agreement Regarding the Implementation of the Reporting on Negative Inventory Reports, Spruce Bark Beetle and Mountain Pine Beetle Management, Grapple Piling for Hazardous Fuel Reduction, and Hazard Tree Reduction Program, that was signed in 2007 and supersedes that agreement; and

WHEREAS, the Forests have requested this amendment because of the need for greater streamlining of the reporting process and the addition of other types of resources requiring hazard tree treatment as a result of the escalated danger to public safety; and

WHEREAS, the Forests are committed to preserve and foster appreciation of heritage resources on and related to National Forest System Lands in relationship to such laws as the National Historic Preservation Act, as amended (NHPA) (1992; P.L. 89-665, 80 Stat.915); and

WHEREAS, the Forest Service is involved in undertakings that may potentially affect cultural resources included in or eligible to be included in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), and is required to take into account the effects of any undertaking on such resources according to the implementing federal regulations, “Protection of Historic and Cultural

1

USFS MBR Agreement No. 07-MU-11020600-056 USFS AR Agreement No. 07-MU-11021000-025 USFS WR Agreement No. 07-MU-11021500-043 USFS PSI Agreement No. 07-MU-11021200-071

Properties” (36 CFR Part 800); and

WHEREAS, the Forests consults with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) when identifying historic properties, in assessing effects upon them, and when considering alternatives to avoid or reduce those effects; and

WHEREAS, the Forests, have determined that the Program may affect historic properties either listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, and has consulted with the Colorado SHPO pursuant to Section 800.14(b) of the regulations (36 CFR Part 800), implementing Section 106 of the NHPA; and

WHEREAS, the Forests, have invited the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) to participate in consultation pursuant to Sections 800.6(a)(1) and 800.14(b) of the regulations (36 CFR Part 800), implementing Section 106 of the NHPA, and the ACHP has elected to participate; and

WHEREAS, one purpose of this agreement is to expedite compliance with the ACHP’s regulations (36 CFR Part 800) implementing Section 106 for undertakings needed to control or suppress beetles, to reduce hazardous fuel loads and enhance public safety by removing hazard trees; and

WHERAS, one purpose of this agreement is to identify undertakings that may be exempt from further review and consultation because they are unlikely to affect historic properties; and

WHEREAS, one purpose of this agreement is to streamline the consultation requirements for undertakings needed to control or suppress beetles, to reduce hazardous fuel loads and enhance public safety by removing hazard trees; and

WHEREAS, the Forests intend to use the provisions of this agreement to address in part the applicable requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (42 U.S.C.4321- 4347) pursuant to 40 CFR Part 1500-1508; and

WHEREAS, The Forests have consulted with the Northern Ute, Northern Arapaho, Northern Cheyenne, Shoshone, Southern Ute, Southern Cheyenne, Jicarilla Apache, Southern Arapaho and Ute Mountain Ute Tribes (Tribes) in developing this agreement; and

WHEREAS, The Forests have consulted with the Colorado counties of Boulder, Chaffee, Clear Creek, Douglas, Gilpin, Garfield, Grand, Eagle, Jackson, Jefferson, Lake, Larimer, Mesa, Moffat, Park, Pitkin, Rio Blanco, Routt, Summit, and Teller as Local Governments;

NOW, THEREFORE, the Forests, ACHP, and SHPO agree that the program shall be administered in accordance with the following stipulations to satisfy the Forest Service’s Section 106 responsibilities for all individual undertakings of the Program.

2

USFS MBR Agreement No. 07-MU-11020600-056 USFS AR Agreement No. 07-MU-11021000-025 USFS WR Agreement No. 07-MU-11021500-043 USFS PSI Agreement No. 07-MU-11021200-071

STIPULATIONS

The Forests shall ensure that the following Stipulations are implemented:

A. SCOPE AND OBJECTIVES Some of the management activities used to control beetle infestations and remove hazard trees, because of their nature or scope, have no potential to affect historic properties. Certain other types of beetle management, hazard tree removal and fuel reduction activities can be managed in such a way that their effects on historic properties within the Area of Potential Effects (APE) are minimized or avoided. The cultural resource reporting and consultation process for these undertakings can be streamlined to expedite project implementation.

B. EXEMPT UNDERTAKINGS OR TREATMENTS The following classes of undertakings have little or no potential to adversely affect historic properties and are exempt from further review and/or consultation under the terms of this agreement. Forest Managers, planners and heritage staff are not required to notify or consult with the SHPO, tribes, or other parties, about these classes of undertakings unless such managers, planners and heritage staff have reason to believe that a specific undertaking may affect historic properties. Detailed descriptions of the following classes of undertakings are included in Appendix A. Classes of exempt undertakings are: a. Protective Chemical Spraying b. Individual Tree Sanitation c. Trap Tree d. Lethal Trap Tree e. Trap out Beetles (also called Aggregate Beetles) f. Disaggregate Beetles g. Chainsaw Thinning h. Personal Firewood Sales i. Understory Removal j. Aspen Enhancement Fir Removal k. Christmas Tree Harvest Area l. Branch Pruning m. Boundary Treatment n. Feller – Buncher Grapple Piling from Road o. Feller – Buncher Grapple Piling on Mine Dumps

C. CONSULTATION WITH TRIBES, LOCAL GOVERNMENTS AND THE PUBLIC SHALL BE CONDUCTED DURING THE NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT SCOPING PROCESS

1. NEPA Scoping Process

The Forests shall use the NEPA scoping process and other means necessary to help identify

3

USFS MBR Agreement No. 07-MU-11020600-056 USFS AR Agreement No. 07-MU-11021000-025 USFS WR Agreement No. 07-MU-11021500-043 USFS PSI Agreement No. 07-MU-11021200-071

consulting parties, interested parties and the public as required in 36 CFR Part 800.3(f). 2. Native American Consultation

a. During the NEPA scoping process the Forests will ensure that representatives of Indian tribes, including but not limited to the Ute Mountain Ute, Southern Ute, Northern Ute, Northern Arapaho, Southern Arapaho, Northern Cheyenne, Southern Cheyenne, Jicarilla Apache and Shoshone, are consulted to identify properties of traditional religious and cultural significance that may be located within the project area. Tribes will also be consulted to obtain their views on determinations of eligibility. Field visits will be arranged to visit significant sites located previously and to identify areas of potential importance to Indian tribes.

b. If during the field inventory for cultural resources sites are located that may have traditional cultural and religious significance to Indian tribes or other interested parties, the Forest will conduct additional consultation with SHPO and the affected Indian tribes or other interested parties. This consultation may include determination of eligibility.

3. Local Government and Public Consultation

a. During the NEPA scoping process the Forests will ensure that representatives of local governments, local historical societies and the public are consulted to identify properties of historic and cultural significance that may be located within the project area. Local governments and the public will also be consulted to obtain their views on determinations of eligibility. Field visits will be arranged to visit significant sites located previously and to identify areas of potential importance to the local public.

b. If during the field inventory for cultural resources sites are located that may have special historic significance to interested parties, the Forest will conduct additional consultation with SHPO and the interested parties. This consultation may include determination of eligibility.

4. Unusual or Controversial Projects.

If the Forest or the Forest Heritage Staff determine through the NEPA scoping that a proposed project has elements that are too unusual or too controversial to be covered by the stipulations in this Agreement, the Forest will follow the process specified in federal regulations, “Protection of Historic and Cultural Properties” (36 CFR Part 800).

4

USFS MBR Agreement No. 07-MU-11020600-056 USFS AR Agreement No. 07-MU-11021000-025 USFS WR Agreement No. 07-MU-11021500-043 USFS PSI Agreement No. 07-MU-11021200-071

D. AREA OF POTENTIAL EFFECTS The area of potential effect for specific hazard tree removal projects is as follows:

1) Developed Recreation sites, Administrative Sites, Summer Home Tracts and all other Buildings or Structures. The area of potential effect for developed recreation, administrative sites, summer home tracts and all other buildings or structures that may be under special use permits by the Forest Service will be defined as the administrative boundaries of the site plus a 100 foot buffer zone. Developed recreation sites, summer home tracts and administrative sites that are 50 years old or older that have proposed mechanical treatments shall be considered to be within the area of potential effect for the project and will be recorded and evaluated. The site forms for recorded summer home tracts, developed recreation sites, and administrative sites shall be included in the inventory report.

2) Roads, Trails, Ditches and all other linear features The area of potential effect for roads, trails, ditches and other linear features will be defined as a 200 foot corridor on either side of the road, trail, ditch or other linear feature. If during the project development and planning, the heritage staff determines that specific actions in the project have the potential to affect roads, trails or linear feature that are 50 years old or older, then the road, trail or linear feature shall be considered to be within the area of potential effect and will be recorded and evaluated. The site forms for recorded roads, trails and linear features shall be included in the inventory report.

3) Power Lines. The area of potential effect for power lines will be a 200-foot corridor on either side of the power line for transmission line (for a total of 400 feet) and a 75-foot corridor on either side of the power line for distribution lines (for a total of 150 feet). The APE also includes any slash piles that will be burned outside of the corridors. If during the project development and planning, the heritage staff determines that specific actions in the project have the potential to affect power lines that are 50 years old or older, then the power line shall be considered to be within the area of potential effect and will be recorded and evaluated. The site forms for recorded power lines shall be included in the inventory report.

E. REPORTING AND CONSULTATION PROCEDURES FOR SMALL SCALE FOREST PROJECTS AND HAZARDOUS TREE AND HAZARDOUS FUEL PROJECTS

The following reporting and consultation process will be followed for all hazardous tree removal or hazardous fuel reduction undertakings. The Forests may follow one of the three following processes. They are (1) reporting a negative results inventory, (2) reporting after project implementation utilizing Standard Treatments (Standard Treatment) and (3) reporting during project implementation with cultural resource reporting conducted in phases (Phased

5

USFS MBR Agreement No. 07-MU-11020600-056 USFS AR Agreement No. 07-MU-11021000-025 USFS WR Agreement No. 07-MU-11021500-043 USFS PSI Agreement No. 07-MU-11021200-071

Reporting). Small projects that would utilize the reporting under this agreement are as follows:

Road Construction/Maintenance Mowing Fence Line Construction Prescribed Fire Control Lines Livestock and/or Wildlife Water Tank Construction Water Pipeline Construction Sign or Kiosk Installation Skid Trails/Landing Areas Trail Construction/Maintenance

1. Reporting Process for Negative Results Reports

In the cases in which the field survey for an undertaking identifies no cultural resources, or in which only isolated finds were identified, the inventory report shall be submitted to the SHPO for information purposes only. The related Forest Service undertakings will be given clearance to proceed upon completion of a review of the field investigation by the Forest Archaeologist or heritage designee. SHPO will not return a formal response letter to the Forest Service regarding these cultural resource investigation reports. However, SHPO may comment on the project. The signatories agree to a finding of no historic properties affected for these projects.

2. Alternate Report Process with Standard Treatments.

For hazardous fuel and hazard tree reduction projects where the project will be implemented before the final report is submitted to SHPO, the following procedures will be used:

a. The Forest will submit a letter of notification to the SHPO containing information about the APE, High Potential Areas and proposal to use the Standard Treatment reporting process. If the Forest does not submit a letter of notification to SHPO prior to the field investigation for each related action, the Forest will use the reporting process in follow the process specified in federal regulations, “Protection of Historic and Cultural Properties” (36 CFR Part 800).

6

USFS MBR Agreement No. 07-MU-11020600-056 USFS AR Agreement No. 07-MU-11021000-025 USFS WR Agreement No. 07-MU-11021500-043 USFS PSI Agreement No. 07-MU-11021200-071

b. The Forest will consider all cultural resource sites located during the field inventory to be historic properties and will utilize the standard treatments and design criteria in the NEPA document (Stipulation F and Appendix E) to protect cultural resources. The cultural resource inventory reports shall be consistent with SHPO guidelines including documentation of all previously recorded and newly recorded heritage resources, and determination of National Register eligibility for each heritage resource. The signatories agree to a finding of no adverse effect. The Forest will proceed with the implementation of the project prior to the report submittal.

c. The Forests will submit the report for comment on eligibility of resources, to other consulting parties after implementation, provided that confidential information will be protected from disclosure to the public in accordance with 36 CFR Part 800.11 (c). The report will document a finding of no adverse affect, pursuant to 36 CFR Part 800.5(b), for the undertaking.

d. SHPO will only comment on eligibility of the sites if they do not concur with the Forest’s determination of eligibility. SHPO will have thirty days to comment after receipt of the final report; comment may be by verbal communication, email or formal letter. If the SHPO does not comment on the project, the Forest will assume SHPO concurrence with eligibility determinations at the end of 30 days and will place a memo in the Forests project file and internal databases regarding the official determination of eligibility.

f. If the Forest Service determines that adverse effects cannot be avoided, the Forests will consult further with the SHPO and other consulting parties in accordance with 36 CFR Part 800.6 to resolve the adverse effects. The final cultural resource report will be submitted and SHPO concurrence will be received before the project is implemented.

2. Process with Phased Reporting.

For hazardous fuel and hazard tree removal projects where the project will be implemented before the final report is submitted, the following procedures will be used:

a. The Forest will submit a letter of notification to the SHPO containing information about the APE, High Potential Areas and proposal to use Phased Reporting for the related undertaking. If the Forest does not submit a letter of notification to SHPO prior to the field investigation for each related action, the Forest will use the reporting process and follow the process specified in federal regulations, “Protection of Historic and Cultural Properties” (36 CFR Part 800).

b. The SHPO will assign a tracking number for the project and will send that tracking number to the Forest project contact. The tracking number may be sent by verbal communication, email or formal letter. All addendums to this report will have the tracking number, addendum number, and project name in the title.

7

USFS MBR Agreement No. 07-MU-11020600-056 USFS AR Agreement No. 07-MU-11021000-025 USFS WR Agreement No. 07-MU-11021500-043 USFS PSI Agreement No. 07-MU-11021200-071 c. The Forest shall not treat every cultural resource as a historic property and will use the Standard Treatments only for sites determined, based on a field examination and consultation with the SHPO, to be eligible. d. The Forest will submit an initial cultural resource inventory report, and will consult on the eligibility of individual sites as they are recorded.

1. The initial cultural resource report shall consist of the following:

i) Cultural Resource Survey Management Information Form. ii) Title Page iii) Abstract iv) Table of Contents v) Introduction vi) Environment vii) Culture History/Context and Previous Work viii) Statement of Objectives and Research Design ix) Field/Lab Methods x) References Cited

The initial report shall be submitted to SHPO for review and comment after the project plan has been approved, and after notification of the phased reporting process has been sent to SHPO, but before project implementation. The report will document a finding of no adverse affect, pursuant to 36 CFR Part 800.5(b), for the undertaking.

e. As cultural resource sites are located during the field inventory, each site will be recorded to Colorado Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (CO OAHP) standards. Site forms, a description of each resource, and site eligibility determinations will be sent to SHPO as an addendum to the initial report during the field inventory, as the sites are located. Previously recorded sites will have a re-evaluation form filled out to CO OAHP standards.

f. SHPO will only comment on eligibility of the sites if they do not concur with the Forest’s determination of eligibility. SHPO will have two weeks to comment; comment may be by verbal communication, email or formal letter. The Forest will wait a full two weeks (14 calendar days) for notification from SHPO that they do not concur with the eligibility determination. The Forest will assume SHPO concurrence with eligibility determinations at the end of two weeks and will proceed with the project implementation utilizing the appropriate standard treatments for eligible sites.

g. All sites that are field evaluated as eligible, and/or sites where SHPO has not concurred with the Forest’s determination of eligibility, will be treated with the Standard Treatment for eligible sites (Stipulation F and Appendix E) and will utilize the design criteria in the NEPA document to protect cultural resources. The signatories agree to a finding no adverse effect.

8

USFS MBR Agreement No. 07-MU-11020600-056 USFS AR Agreement No. 07-MU-11021000-025 USFS WR Agreement No. 07-MU-11021500-043 USFS PSI Agreement No. 07-MU-11021200-071

h. The final reporting phase will include an evaluation of the survey strategy, evaluation of effectiveness of Standard Treatments, a list of all sites recorded during the project, summary, and conclusions from the entire project. All phases of the cultural resource inventory reports shall be consistent with SHPO guidelines including documentation of all previously recorded and newly recorded heritage resources, and a determination of National Register eligibility for each heritage resource.

i. The Forest will submit the report for comment on eligibility determinations to other consulting parties, provided that confidential information will be protected from disclosure to the public in accordance with 36 CFR Part 800.11 (c). The report will document a finding of no adverse affect, pursuant to 36 CFR Part 800.5(b), for the undertaking.

j. If the Forest Service determines that adverse effects cannot be avoided, or if the SHPO objects to a determination of eligibility and finding of no adverse effect, the Forests will consult further with the SHPO and other consulting parties in accordance with 36 CFR Part 800.6 to resolve the adverse effects, including notifying the ACHP of the determination of adverse effect. Project implementation will not proceed until the adverse effects or determination of eligibility is resolved with all consulting parties.

F. STANDARD TREATMENTS FOR HISTORIC PROPERTIES

Standard Treatments shall be included in the NEPA specialist report and NEPA decision document as design criteria for the protection of heritage resources. The standard treatments below will be included for each type of action in an undertaking:

1) Hazardous Tree Removal, Grapple Piling, Mechanical Treatment and/or Commercial Timber Sale, Skid Trails and Landing Areas.

When sites that are evaluated as field eligible historic properties are located during the field inventory, no mechanical treatment will occur within the site boundary plus and a 50 foot buffer around the site. If treatment is necessary, these sites and the 50 foot buffer will be hand-treated for hazard trees and accumulated fuel build up utilizing the treatment options in Stipulation B.

2) Road Construction, Fence Construction, Livestock and/or Wildlife Water Tank Construction (placement or replacement), Prescribed Fire Control Line and Water Pipeline Construction.

When sites that are evaluated as field eligible historic properties are located during the field inventory, a 50 foot buffer around the site will be established. The road/fence/fire control line will be moved to avoid the site and the 50 foot

9

USFS MBR Agreement No. 07-MU-11020600-056 USFS AR Agreement No. 07-MU-11021000-025 USFS WR Agreement No. 07-MU-11021500-043 USFS PSI Agreement No. 07-MU-11021200-071

buffer area. If the undertaking consists of construction and there is the potential for unidentified buried cultural remains, the location will be moved to avoid the site and the construction activities in the area will be monitored by an archaeologist.

3) Mowing

When sites that are evaluated as field eligible historic properties are located during the field inventory, a 50 foot buffer around the site will be established with flagging. The mowing will avoid the site and the 50 foot buffer area.

4) Sign and/or Kiosk Installation

When sites that are evaluated as field eligible historic properties are located during the field inventory, a 50 foot buffer around the site will be established with flagging. The construction will avoid the site and the 50 foot buffer area.

G. ANNUAL SUMMARY REPORT OF BEETLE SUPPRESSION AND HAZARDOUS TREE TREATMENT PROGRAM. The Forests will document the combined results of the field inventories, numbers and type of sites, eligibility recommendations, and number of acres surveyed in fulfillment of the Agreement, and dates when reports were sent or are to be sent to SHPO in an Annual Summary Report, due by March 1st of each year. The Annual Summary Report will utilize the format in Appendix D. Each Forest is responsible for sending in the report for their unit. If a Forest fails to send in the report by April 1st, SHPO may remove the offending Forest by sending a letter to the Forest Supervisor and the ACHP. If the Forest fails to send in the report within 30 calendar days, the SHPO shall send a letter documenting the failure to the offending Forest and ACHP, removing that Forest from this agreement.

ADMINISTRATIVE STIPULATIONS

H. DISPUTE RESOLUTION. Should SHPO or any other consulting party object within 30 days to any finding or action proposed pursuant to this agreement, the specific Forest shall consult with SHPO and the objecting party to resolve the objection. If the Forest determines that the objection cannot be resolved, the specific Forest shall forward all documentation relevant to the dispute to the ACHP. Within 30 days after receipt of all pertinent documentation, the ACHP will either:

1. Provide the Forest with recommendations that the Forest will take into account in reaching a final decision regarding the dispute; or

2. Notify the Forest that it will comment pursuant to 36 CFR Part 800.7(c), and proceed to comment. Any ACHP comment provided in response to such a request will be taken into

10

USFS MBR Agreement No. 07-MU-11020600-056 USFS AR Agreement No. 07-MU-11021000-025 USFS WR Agreement No. 07-MU-11021500-043 USFS PSI Agreement No. 07-MU-11021200-071

account by the Forest Service in accordance with 36 CFR Part 800.7(c)(4) with reference to subject of the dispute.

3. Any recommendation or comment provided by the ACHP will be understood to pertain only to the subject of the dispute; the Forest’s responsibility to carry out all actions under this agreement that are not the subjects of the dispute will remain unchanged.

I. QUALIFICATIONS. The Forests shall ensure that cultural resource personnel meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Archeology and Historic Preservation and Professional Qualifications for Archeologists/Historians (48FR190:44716-44742) throughout the implementation of this agreement.

J. COMMENCEMENT AND EXPIRATION. This agreement is executed as of the last date shown below and expires in five years at which time it is subject to review, renewal, or expiration. If the Forests wish to extend the life of the agreement past the five-year period, the Forests will contact the ACHP and SHPO ninety days prior to expiration and schedule a meeting. Based on the meeting, the Forests will make any needed changes to the agreement, and circulate the new document for review and signature.

K. TERMINATION. SHPO, the ACHP, or any signatory Forest Supervisor may terminate this agreement by providing thirty (30) days written notice to the other parties, provided that the parties consult during the period prior to termination to seek agreement on amendments or other actions that would avoid termination. In the event this agreement is terminated, Forests will comply with 36 CFR Part 800 with regard to individual undertakings covered by this agreement.

L. AMENDMENTS. Amendments to this Agreement shall be executed in the same manner as this Agreement.

M. STATEMENT OF NON-BENEFIT. Pursuant to Section 22, Title 41, United States Code, no member of, or Delegate to, Congress shall be admitted to any share or part of this agreement, or any benefits that may arise therefrom.

N. NON-FUND OBLIGATING DOCUMENT. Nothing in this agreement shall obligate the Forest Service, ACHP or Colorado SHPO to obligate or transfer any funds. Specific work projects or activities that involve the transfer of funds, services, or property among the various agencies and offices of the Forest Service and ACHP or Colorado SHPO will require execution of separate agreements and be contingent upon the availability of appropriated funds. Such activities must be independently authorized by appropriate statutory authority. This agreement does not provide such authority. Negotiation, execution, and administration of each such agreement must comply with all applicable statutes and regulations.

O. FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA). Any information furnished to the Forest Service under this instrument is subject to the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552).

11

USFS MBR Agreement No. 07-MU-11020600-056 USFS AR Agreement No. 07-MU-11021000-025 USFS WR Agreement No. 07-MU-11021500-043 USFS PSI Agreement No. 07-MU-11021200-071

However, certain sensitive spatial and non-spatial information will be protected per the NHPA (1966, with revisions).

P. PARTICIPATION IN SIMILAR ACTIVITIES. This instrument in no way restricts the Forest Service or the Cooperators from participating in similar activities with other public or private agencies, organizations, and individuals.

Q. ESTABLISHMENT OF RESPONSIBILITY. This agreement is not intended to, and does not create, any right, benefit, or trust responsibility, substantive or procedural.

R. RESPONSIBILITIES OF PARTIES. The Forest Service and ACHP or Colorado SHPO and their respective agencies and office will handle their own activities and utilize their own resources, including the expenditure of their own funds, in pursuing these objectives. Each party will carry out its separate activities in a coordinated and mutually beneficial manner.

S. PRINCIPAL CONTACTS. The principal contacts for this agreement are:

Colorado State Historic Preservation Office Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Currently Shina Duvall Currently John Eddins 1300 Broadway Room 803, 1100 Pennsylvania Avenue Denver, CO NW Washington, DC 20004 Phone: (303) 866-4674 Phone: (202)-606-8580 FAX: (303) 866-2711 FAX: (202)-606-5072 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected]

Medicine Bow-Routt National Forests Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests Currently Kolleen Bean Currently Sue Struthers 2468 Jackson Street 2150 Centre Avenue, Building E Laramie, WY Fort Collins, CO 80526 - 8119 Phone: (307) 745-2300 Phone: (970) 295-6622 FAX: 307-745-2398 FAX: (970) 295-6799 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected]

White River National Forest Pike and San Isabel National Forests Currently Andrea Brogan Currently Al Kane 9th & Grand, Box 948 2840 Kachina Drive Glenwood Springs, CO 81602 Pueblo, CO 81008 Phone: (970) 945-3204 Phone: (719) 533-1505 FAX: (970) 945-3266 FAX: (970) 553-1540 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected]

T. COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 106 OF THE NATIONAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION ACT. Execution and implementation of this Agreement evidences that the Forests have afforded the ACHP an opportunity to comment on Regarding the Implementation of Spruce Bark Beetle and Mountain Pine Beetle Management, Hazardous Fuel Reduction, and Hazard

12

USFS MBR Agreement No. 07-MU-11020600-056 USFS AR Agreement No. 07-MU-11021000-025 USFS WR Agreement No. 07-MU-11021500-043 USFS PSI Agreement No. 07-MU-11021200-071

Tree Reduction Programs, and that the Forests have taken into account the effects of these undertakings on historic properties.

U. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVES. By signature below, the SHPO and ACHP certify that the individuals listed in this document as representatives of the signatories are authorized to act in their respective areas for matters related to this agreement.

13

USFS MBR Agreement No. 07-MU-11020600-056 USFS AR Agreement No. 07-MU-11021000-025 USFS WR Agreement No. 07-MU-11021500-043 USFS PSI Agreement No. 07-MU-11021200-071

THE PARTIES HERETO as evidenced by their authorized signature below, have executed, and thereby entered into, this agreement upon the date of their signature below.

14

USFS MBR Agreement No. 07-MU-11020600-056 USFS AR Agreement No. 07-MU-11021000-025 USFS WR Agreement No. 07-MU-11021500-043 USFS PSI Agreement No. 07-MU-11021200-071

14

USFS MBR Agreement No. 07-MU-11020600-056 USFS AR Agreement No. 07-MU-11021000-025 USFS WR Agreement No. 07-MU-11021500-043 USFS PSI Agreement No. 07-MU-11021200-071

(THIS PAGE HAS BEEN LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY.)

15

USFS MBR Agreement No. 07-MU-11020600-056 USFS AR Agreement No. 07-MU-11021000-025 USFS WR Agreement No. 07-MU-11021500-043 USFS PSI Agreement No. 07-MU-11021200-071

APPENDIX A. EXEMPT UNDERTAKINGS OR TREATMENTS FOR THE BEETLE SUPPRESSION PROGRAM.

Spruce Bark Beetle and Mountain Pine Beetle Management Actions in this PA consist of the following activities within the defined Forest boundaries, and do not include any other land management decisions or proposed undertakings on public lands unless otherwise stipulated. Treatments for Spruce Bark Beetle and Mountain Pine Beetle are used for suppression (S), prevention (PRE) and protection (PRO). Treatments that have very similar potential effects to historic properties may be given different names for suppression, protection and prevention activities.

a.) Protective Chemical Spraying – Chemical pesticides will be used on individual trees and on small stands of trees. Employees walk from developed roads to the infected trees, and apply the chemical by hand. No trees are removed under this activity. (PRO)

b.) Individual Tree Sanitation – Individual trees are felled, peeled and piled by hand. One year later the piles of trees are burned as slash. No heavy machinery is used. In areas of ponderosa or aspen where there is the potential for culturally scared trees, either culturally peeled or arbor art, the Forest archaeologist or heritage designee will train the hand crews to recognize those trees. Any trees found will be photographed with 35mm black and white film, and will be mapped using GPS. The photos will be developed using standard archival techniques. The photos and site forms with maps will be sent to the SHPO. When culturally peeled trees are felled or die and are wind thrown, additional descriptive information and age borings or scar cross sections will be made to gather as much information about the trees as possible. (S)

c.) Trap Tree – Under this prescription, live saw timber size Engelmann spruce would be felled at a rate of 1 tree per 4 infested trees to serve as “trap trees” within spruce dominated areas where beetle populations have increased past endemic levels. Much like natural blow down, the felled trees attract adult beetles which subsequently lay eggs. One year later the trees would be debarked to kill the beetles that have hatched, piled by hand and burned in designated burn areas. (S)

d.) Lethal Trap Tree – Trees are felled using a chainsaw then chemical pesticide is applied along the entire length of the tree. No trees are removed. (S)

e.) Trap Out Beetles (also called Aggregate Beetles) – Funnel traps with attractive pheromones are hand-placed in trees. The beetles fly to the traps and die within the trap. Traps are subsequently placed by hand and removed by hand. Occasionally a metal fence post will be driven into the ground to support the trap. (S)

f.) Disaggregate Beetles – Pheromones which beetles find distasteful are placed in the trees. These pheromones scare the beetles away from specific stands of trees. (S)

15

USFS MBR Agreement No. 07-MU-11020600-056 USFS AR Agreement No. 07-MU-11021000-025 USFS WR Agreement No. 07-MU-11021500-043 USFS PSI Agreement No. 07-MU-11021200-071

Non-Commercial Mechanical Fuel Reduction Program Activities in this PA consist of the following actions within the defined Forest boundaries and do not include any other land management decisions or proposed undertakings on public lands unless otherwise stipulated.

a.) Chainsaw Thinning and Wood Chipping– Thinning actions consist of employees or contractors who walk to stands from developed roads and utilize chain saws to thin out stands of oak brush, aspen and conifers. Small trees or brush are cut by hand and dropped to the ground. Often thinning is a precursor to a prescribed burn. All vehicles used will be one-ton or smaller with rubber tires. Any chippers utilized will be restricted to those which are equipped with rubber tires and are small enough to be pulled by a one-ton vehicle. In areas of ponderosa or aspen where there is the potential for culturally scared trees, either culturally peeled (peeled for food, procurement of fiber or in a ritual) or arbor art (aspen art or other art carved into the trunks of trees), the Forest archaeologist or heritage designee will train the hand crews to recognize those trees. Any trees found will be photographed with 35mm black and white film, and will be mapped using GPS. The photos will be developed using standard archival techniques. The photos and site forms with maps will be sent to the SHPO. When culturally peeled trees are felled or die and are wind thrown, additional descriptive information and age borings or scar cross sections will be made to gather as much information about the trees.

b.) Grapple Piling – Piling actions consist of using large wheeled or tracked vehicles to skid downed trees and slash to separate slash piles, which are then burnt. For the purposes of this agreement, grapple piling includes any activity where machines are used to push, pull, or skid trees, brush, logs or slash over the ground.

c.) Personal Firewood Sales – Permits are sold to the public which allow individuals to cut firewood for personal use. Slash would be lopped and scattered with heavier concentrations hand-piled and burned in designated burn areas. All vehicles used will be one-ton or smaller with rubber tires. Any chippers utilized will be restricted to those which are equipped with rubber tires and are small enough to be pulled by a one- ton vehicle.

d.) Public Slash Disposal Area – Under this prescription, a gravel pit or non-forested area will be identified in the project area to serve as a slash disposal area for both the FS and private landowners in the vicinity. The slash will be piled by hand and burned (yearly) each fall when there is adequate snow. All vehicles used will be one-ton or smaller with rubber tires. Any chippers utilized will be restricted to those which are equipped with rubber tires and are small enough to be pulled by a one-ton vehicle.

e.) Understory Removal – Under this prescription non-commercial subalpine fir and mistletoed lodgepole regeneration would be cut from the understories of existing

16

USFS MBR Agreement No. 07-MU-11020600-056 USFS AR Agreement No. 07-MU-11021000-025 USFS WR Agreement No. 07-MU-11021500-043 USFS PSI Agreement No. 07-MU-11021200-071 mixed conifer stands, lodgepole poletimber and small sawtimber stands to reduce ladder fuels, break up the continuity of fuels, and to improve stand health and resiliency. This treatment is proposed along with the commercial treatment sanitation/salvage. Slash would either be hand-piled for chipping and/or bucked up by hand, and loaded onto rubber tired vehicles to be hauled to designated burn piles for burning. All vehicles used will be one-ton or smaller with rubber tires. Any chippers utilized will be restricted to those which are equipped with rubber tires and are small enough to be pulled by a one-ton vehicle. f.) Aspen Enhancement – Similar to the understory removal treatment, under this prescription non-commercial subalpine fir and mistletoed lodgepole regeneration would be cut from the understories of existing aspen stands to reduce ladder fuels, break up the continuity of fuels, and to improve stand health and resiliency of existing aspen. To stimulate aspen growth the aspen stands may be cut down using hand tools. The end result of this treatment will be a shaded fuel break around and adjacent to the treated area.

Slash would either be hand-piled for chipping and/or bucked up by hand, and loaded onto rubber tired vehicles to be hauled to designated burn piles for burning. All vehicles used will be one-ton or smaller with rubber tires. Any chippers utilized will be restricted to those which are equipped with rubber tires and are small enough to be pulled by a one-ton vehicle. In areas of ponderosa or aspen where there is the potential for culturally scared trees, either culturally peeled (peeled for food, procurement of fiber or in a ritual) or arbor art (aspen art or other art carved into the trunks of trees), the Forest archaeologist or heritage designee will train the hand crews to recognize those trees. Any trees found will be photographed with 35mm black and white film and will be mapped using GPS. The photos will be developed using standard archival techniques. The photos and site forms with maps will be sent to the SHPO. g.) Fir Removal – Similar to the understory removal and aspen enhancement treatments, under this prescription non-commercial subalpine fir would be cut from regenerated clearcuts to promote a more balanced mix of tree species dominated by aspen and lodgepole pine. Slash would either be hand-piled for chipping and/or bucked up by hand, and loaded onto rubber tired vehicles to be hauled to designated burn piles for burning. All vehicles used will be one-ton or smaller with rubber tires. Any chippers utilized will be restricted to those which are equipped with rubber tires and are small enough to be pulled by a one-ton vehicle. h.) Christmas Tree Harvest Area – Under this treatment, non-commercial subalpine fir would be cut from the understories of stands along roads through personal-use Christmas tree sales to further reduce fir in the vicinity. Slash would either be hand piled for chipping and/or bucked up by hand, and loaded onto rubber tired vehicles to be hauled to designated burn piles for burning. All vehicles used will be one-ton or

17

USFS MBR Agreement No. 07-MU-11020600-056 USFS AR Agreement No. 07-MU-11021000-025 USFS WR Agreement No. 07-MU-11021500-043 USFS PSI Agreement No. 07-MU-11021200-071 smaller with rubber tires. Any chippers utilized will be restricted to those which are equipped with rubber tires and are small enough to be pulled by a one-ton vehicle. i.) Branch Pruning – Under this prescription selected trees would be pruned to remove dwarf mistletoe “witch’s brooms” to improve tree health and resiliency, reduce ladder fuels, and to create defensible space around structures. Slash would either be hand- piled for chipping and/or bucked up by hand, and loaded onto rubber tired vehicles to be hauled to designated burn piles for burning. All vehicles used will be one-ton or smaller with rubber tires. Any chippers utilized will be restricted to those which are equipped with rubber tires and are small enough to be pulled by a one-ton vehicle. j.) Boundary Treatment – Under this prescription dead standing and down trees and slash within 200 feet of the National Forest and private land boundary would be cleared, understory ladder fuels would be removed, and lower branches on retained trees pruned to create a fuel break that would both increase the ability to control a wildfire to prevent it from burning onto private land and/or from private land onto the Forest. Characterized as a “German Forest” concept, the end result of this treatment will be a park-like area, forested with scattered live trees with little or no slash or dead trees present. Slash would either be hand-piled for chipping and/or bucked up by hand, and loaded onto rubber tired vehicles to be hauled to designated burn piles for burning. All vehicles used will be one-ton or smaller with rubber tires. Any chippers utilized will be restricted to those which are equipped with rubber tires and are small enough to be pulled by a one-ton vehicle. In areas of ponderosa or aspen where there is the potential for culturally scared trees, either culturally peeled (peeled for food, procurement of fiber or in a ritual) or arbor art (aspen art or other art carved into the trunks of trees), the Forest archaeologist or heritage designee will train the hand crews to recognize those trees. Any trees found will be photographed with 35mm black and white film and will be mapped using GPS. The photos will be developed using standard archival techniques. The photos and site forms with maps will be sent to the SHPO. k.) Feller – Buncher Grapple Piling from Road - Piling actions from the road consist of using large wheeled or tracked vehicles to reach from the road into harvest area, grab downed trees and lift them onto the road. Once on the hardened road surface, the trees will be put into slash piles, which are then burnt or are placed on trucks to be hauled out of the project area.

l.) Feller – Buncher Grapple Piling on Mine Dumps - Piling actions consist of using large wheeled or tracked vehicles to skid downed trees and slash to separate slash piles, which are then burnt. For the purposes of this agreement, grapple piling includes any activity where machines are used to push, pull, or skid trees, brush, logs or slash over the ground. For the purposes of this agreement grapple piling on mine dumps would be limited to large waste rock piles associated with historic mining activities and would be

18

USFS MBR Agreement No. 07-MU-11020600-056 USFS AR Agreement No. 07-MU-11021000-025 USFS WR Agreement No. 07-MU-11021500-043 USFS PSI Agreement No. 07-MU-11021200-071 devoid of artifacts, cabins, or other mining structures. Grapple piling would only be allowed on hardened mine dumps.

19

USFS MBR Agreement No. 07-MU-11020600-056 USFS AR Agreement No. 07-MU-11021000-025 USFS WR Agreement No. 07-MU-11021500-043 USFS PSI Agreement No. 07-MU-11021200-071

APPENDIX B. SURVEY STRATEGY

A pedestrian field survey using zigzagging transects fewer than 30 meters in width and with no greater than 30 meters between each transect will be used to inventory all areas determined to be of high potential for historic properties within the APE. No sites will be left unevaluated during these field inventories. The following areas are defined as having high potential for historic properties. Field archaeologists may expand the survey area based on site potential identified in the field.

LOWER MONTANE FOREST

The lower montane forest region occupies an elevational range of 6,000 to 8,000 feet. This region consists of a belt of hog backs up to five miles wide to the west of the High Plains. Soil depths and textures vary from deep loam and clay-loam to shallow, young and course deposits.

This region has a shorter growing season than the plains, usually less than 140 days, with warm summers and cold winters. Humidity is quite low and precipitation averages 14 to 20 inches annually. Sage brush and grasses are intermixed in the eastern portion; ponderosa pine and grasses predominate in the central portion; and stands of Douglas-fir and ponderosa pine are found in the western portion of the region. Low moisture levels produce park-like stands of widely spaced trees with a grass/shrub under story.

A. Areas Expected to Have a High Potential for Prehistoric Cultural Sites

1. Areas of known high site density, or known site locations. 2. Ecotonal boundary areas (specifically boundaries between canopied areas and non- canopied areas). 3. Geomorphic features within loosely canopied areas including high points with open views, saddles, terraces, benches, and ridges. 4. South, east, and west facing slopes less than 15% in loosely canopied areas. 5. Areas known to contain geologic outcrops of tool stone source materials (e.g. cherts, quartzites, basalts, etc.).

20

USFS MBR Agreement No. 07-MU-11020600-056 USFS AR Agreement No. 07-MU-11021000-025 USFS WR Agreement No. 07-MU-11021500-043 USFS PSI Agreement No. 07-MU-11021200-071

B. Areas Expected to Have a High Potential for Historic Cultural Sites

1. Areas within or in close proximity to bedrock deposits containing precious or marketable metal ores (gold, silver, zinc, lead, copper, tungsten, molybdenum, among others). 2. Natural travel corridors (river and major stream drainages with suitable slope and terrain for wagon trails or auto roads, or railroads). 3. Areas in proximity to railroad grades. 4. Any potential historic site identified as a result of the literature search.

UPPER MONTANE FOREST

The upper montane forest region is found from roughly 8,000 to 9,000 feet. It occupies the Rocky Mountain physiographic surface. Metamorphic and igneous rock characterize the region. Broad U-shaped valleys were carved by glaciers. Soils are often shallow and rocky on the slopes, and deeper and more mature on the valley floors. Meandering streams, many dammed by beavers, grain the slopes and valley floors.

This region’s climate is cooler, moister, and more humid than at lower elevations. Precipitation averages 20 to 25 inches per year. The growing season is about 100 days long. Willows, alder, birch, grasses and sedges cover the valley floors. The valley walls and ridge tops host fairly dense stands of aspen, ponderosa pine, Douglas fir, limber pine and lodge pole pine.

A. Areas Expected to Have a High Potential for Prehistoric Cultural Sites

1. Areas of known high site density or known site locations. 2. Ecotonal boundary areas (specifically boundaries between canopied areas and non- canopied areas). 3. Geomorphic features within loosely canopied areas including high points with open views, saddles, terraces, benches, and ridges. 4. South, east, and west facing slopes less than 15% in loosely canopied areas.

21

USFS MBR Agreement No. 07-MU-11020600-056 USFS AR Agreement No. 07-MU-11021000-025 USFS WR Agreement No. 07-MU-11021500-043 USFS PSI Agreement No. 07-MU-11021200-071

5. Areas known to contain geologic outcrops of tool stone source materials (e.g. cherts, quartzites, basalts, etc.).

B. Areas Expected to Have a High Potential for Historic Cultural Sites. 1. Areas within or in close proximity to bedrock deposits containing precious or marketable metal ores (gold, silver, zinc, lead, copper, tungsten, molybdenum, among others). 2. Natural travel corridors (river and major stream drainages with suitable slope and terrain for wagon trails, auto roads, or railroads). 3. Areas in proximity to rail road grades. 4. Any potential historic site identified as a result of the literature search.

SUBALPINE FOREST

The subalpine forest region occurs from 9,000 to 11,000 feet in elevation and occupies the flattop physiographic surface. Ridges rise more steeply within this region. Glacial carving of the metamorphic and igneous rock is abundant. Near-surface Tertiary intrusions and associated metallic mineralization have created the Colorado Mineral Belt. Soils are shallow and rocky except in the vicinity of cirque and moraine-formed lakes in the valley floors. Wet meadows and bogs are common.

The region is cool in the summer and cold in winter. Temperatures below zero degrees Fahrenheit are frequent and may extend for long periods of time. The growing season is less than 90 days. Precipitation is 25-30 inches annually. The principal vegetation series are willow-birch and sedge-grass meadows on the valley floors, with limber pine, lodgepole pine, aspen, Engelmann spruce, and subalpine fir on the slopes and ridge tops.

A. Areas Expected to Have a High Potential for Prehistoric Cultural Sites

1. Areas of known high site density or known site locations. 2. Ecotonal boundary areas (specifically boundaries between canopied areas and non- canopied areas). 3. Geomorphic features within loosely canopied areas including high points with open views, saddles, terraces, benches, and ridges. 4. South, east, and west facing slopes less than 15% in loosely canopied areas.

22

USFS MBR Agreement No. 07-MU-11020600-056 USFS AR Agreement No. 07-MU-11021000-025 USFS WR Agreement No. 07-MU-11021500-043 USFS PSI Agreement No. 07-MU-11021200-071

5. Areas known to contain geologic outcrops of tool stone source materials (e.g. cherts, quartzites, basalts, etc.). 6. Known travel routes and river drainages associated with mountain passes 7. Known Native American trails. 8. Areas located within ¼ mile of permanent water sources in areas of moderate or slight slope (including all spring areas regardless of slope.)

B. Areas Expected to Have a High Potential for Historic Cultural Sites

1. Areas within or in close proximity to bedrock deposits containing precious or marketable metal ores (gold, silver, zinc, lead, copper, tungsten, molybdenum, among others). 2. Natural travel corridors (river and major stream drainages with suitable slope and terrain for wagon trails, auto roads, or railroads). 3. Areas in proximity to railroad grades. 4. Any potential historic site identified as a result of the literature search.

23

USFS MBR Agreement No. 07-MU-11020600-056 USFS AR Agreement No. 07-MU-11021000-025 USFS WR Agreement No. 07-MU-11021500-043 USFS PSI Agreement No. 07-MU-11021200-071

APPENDIX C. DEFINITIONS OF TERMS USED IN THE AGREEMENT

Undertaking: Any project, activity, or program funded in whole or in part under the direct or indirect jurisdiction of a Federal agency, including: (1) those carried out by or on behalf of a the agency; (2) those carried out with Federal financial assistance; (3) those requiring a federal permit, license, or approval: and (4) those subject to State or local regulation pursuant to a delegation or approval by a Federal agency.

Exempt Undertakings: Those classes of undertakings listed in Appendix B that when managed according to this agreement, have no potential to affect historic properties, and are exempt from further review or consultation.

Area of Potential Effects (APE): As defined in 36 CFR Part 800.16(d) the "area of potential effects means the geographic area or areas within which an undertaking may directly or indirectly cause changes in the character or use of historic properties, if any such properties exist. The area of potential effects is influenced by the scale and nature of an undertaking and may be different for different kinds of effects caused by the undertaking”.

Cultural Resource Site: A cultural resource site is the location of a significant event, a prehistoric or historic occupation or activity, or a building or structure, whether standing or ruined or vanished, where the location itself possesses historical, cultural, or archaeological value. Cultural resource sites are extremely variable in size and range from the location of a single object to a cluster of structures with associated objects and features. A site may consist of cultural materials in a secondary depositional context or in some cases may exhibit no physical remains at all.

Design Criteria: Design Criteria are the goals a project must achieve in order to be considered successful. They govern the elements of the proposed action, and do not vary by alternative. Design criteria written by specialists during the environmental analysis and included in the design of projects to avoid affecting important resources.

Developed Recreation Sites: Is defined for the purposes of this agreement as “any site on lands managed by the Forest Service, used for public recreation that has built or constructed features and is managed by and/or permitted by the Forest Service.” This list includes, but is not limited to: • Campgrounds • Picnic Areas • Boat Ramps • Trailheads • Trails • Ski Lifts • Ski Runs • Parking Areas • Information and Interpretation Kiosks

24

USFS MBR Agreement No. 07-MU-11020600-056 USFS AR Agreement No. 07-MU-11021000-025 USFS WR Agreement No. 07-MU-11021500-043 USFS PSI Agreement No. 07-MU-11021200-071

• Fishing Docks • Warming Huts • Designated Dispersed Camping Site

Heritage Designee: Is defined for the purposes of this agreement as “a permanent employee with the Forest Service who is employed in the GS193 series and is at the grade level of GS 9, or above.” The heritage designee must meet the criteria for a Principal Investigator in the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Archeology and Historic Preservation and Professional Qualifications for Archeologists/Historians (48FR190:44716- 44742).

Historic Property: Historic property means any prehistoric or historic district, site, building, structure, or object included in, or eligible for inclusion in, the National Register of Historic Places. For the purposes of this agreement, this term includes artifacts, records, and remains that are related to and located within such properties. The term “eligible for inclusion in the National Register” includes both properties formally determined as such by the Secretary of the Interior and all other properties that meet the National Register criteria.

Historic Site: Fifteen or more associated artifacts with or without features. In general, cultural material recorded should be 50 years of age or older. One bottle 51 years of age and broken into 50 pieces is not a historic site. Artifacts and/or features may be completely deposited on the surface of the ground, may be partially on the surface and partially subsurface or buried, or may be completely buried.

25

USFS MBR Agreement No. 07-MU-11020600-056 USFS AR Agreement No. 07-MU-11021000-025 USFS WR Agreement No. 07-MU-11021500-043 USFS PSI Agreement No. 07-MU-11021200-071

Inventory: Includes a literature search, a pedestrian field survey, determination of eligibility to the National Register of Historic Places when appropriate, and property management recommendations. The data from the inventory shall be compiled in a report. It may include treatment plans for historic properties if necessary. Historic properties will be evaluated using approved Colorado state contexts. The field surveys and reports will meet the Secretary of Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Archaeological Documentation and all Colorado SHPO standards and guidelines for documentation.

Isolated Find: Fourteen or fewer associated artifacts (historic or prehistoric), without associated features. Five or fewer prospecting pits that do not have associated artifacts will be recorded as an isolated find.

Literature Search: A review of existing information about a specific area to ascertain historic properties potentially affected by an undertaking, including any data concerning the likelihood that unidentified historic properties exist in the area of potential effects (36 CFR Part 800.4(a)(i)), can include Forest records, SHPO site files, GLO plats, historic documents, and published sources. Also referred to as a file search, records review, or Class I survey.

Prehistoric Site: Fifteen or more associated artifacts with or without associated features. Artifacts and/or features may be completely deposited on the surface of the ground, may be partially on the surface and partially subsurface or buried, or may be completely buried. Project Implementation: For the purposes of this agreement, project implementation means the actual construction, timber sale or other ground disturbing action of the undertaking. Contracting, planning, and landline surveys in preparation of the project are not considered part of the project implementation.

Survey: The actual field examination of the APE to locate historic properties. Three types are:

1. Sample – A pedestrian field examination, of a portion (or portions) of a project area for historic properties. This type of survey is considered sufficient for the identification of all historic properties within the APE, which could be affected by the undertaking.

2. Intensive – A field examination designed to identify, to the extent practicable, all locatable cultural resources within an area defined by the survey strategy.

3. Reconnaissance – Reconnaissance surveys are visual or predictive surveys that identify the general distribution, location, and nature of cultural resources within a given area. These surveys are generally of low intensity and record only selective resources.

26

USFS MBR Agreement No. 07-MU-11020600-056 USFS AR Agreement No. 07-MU-11021000-025 USFS WR Agreement No. 07-MU-11021500-043 USFS PSI Agreement No. 07-MU-11021200-071

APPENDIX D. FORMAT FOR ANNUAL REPORTING

27

USFS MBR Agreement No. 07-MU-11020600-056 USFS AR Agreement No. 07-MU-11021000-025 USFS WR Agreement No. 07-MU-11021500-043 USFS PSI Agreement No. 07-MU-11021200-071

APPENDIX E. PROCESS FOR NEPA ANALYSIS FOR ALL UNDERTAKINGS

1.) Pre-Decision Process: The following actions will be completed as part of the Forest’s environmental analysis under NEPA, prior to issuance of a Decision Memo (DM), or Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI):

a. The Forests shall use the NEPA scoping process and other means necessary to identify consulting parties as required in 36 CFR Part 800.3(f).

b. The Forests shall conduct a literature search of existing information and compile a literature review identifying all known heritage resources in the analysis area. The literature review will include information obtained during the literature search and through consultation with the SHPO, Indian tribes, and the public during the NEPA scoping process.

c. The Categorical Exclusion (CE) or NEPA Environmental Analysis (EA) will include a heritage specialist report and summary of tribal consultation efforts which do not disclose sensitive site information, and will use this information as a basis for determining potential effects of the undertaking(s) on historic properties. The DM or FONSI will also reference this agreement and condition the decision on compliance with the Stipulations contained in this Agreement.

d. The CE or EA will include the following Standard Treatments as Design Criteria for the protection of cultural resources and will reference this Agreement in the NEPA document.

Hazardous Tree Removal, Grapple Piling, Mechanical Treatment and/or Commercial Timber Sale, Skid Trails and Landing Areas

Design Criteria - When sites that are evaluated as field eligible historic properties are located during the field inventory, no mechanical treatment will occur within the site boundary plus and a 50-foot buffer around the site. If treatment is necessary, these sites and the 50-foot buffer will be hand-treated for hazard trees and accumulated fuel build up utilizing the treatment options in Stipulation B.

Road Construction, Fence Construction, Livestock and/or Wildlife Water Tank Construction (Placement or Replacement), Prescribed Fire Control Lines and Water Pipeline Construction

Design Criteria - When sites that are evaluated as field eligible historic properties are located during the field inventory, a 50-foot buffer around the site

28

USFS MBR Agreement No. 07-MU-11020600-056 USFS AR Agreement No. 07-MU-11021000-025 USFS WR Agreement No. 07-MU-11021500-043 USFS PSI Agreement No. 07-MU-11021200-071

will be established. The construction for the project will be moved to avoid the site and the 50-foot buffer area. If the undertaking consists of road construction, prescribed fire control line construction or water line construction and there is the potential for unidentified buried cultural remains, the road/fire line/water line will be moved to avoid the site and the construction activities in the area will be monitored by an archaeologist.

Mowing Design Criteria - When sites that are field evaluated as eligible historic properties are located during the field inventory, a 50-foot buffer around the site will be established with flagging. The mowing will avoid the site and the 50- foot buffer area.

Sign and/or Kiosk Installation Design Criteria - When sites that are field evaluated as eligible historic properties are located during the field inventory, a 50-foot buffer around the site will be established with flagging. The construction will avoid the site and the 50-foot buffer area.

2. Post NEPA Decision Process The following actions will be carried out by the Forests AFTER the NEPA decision is made, wherein cultural resource inventories will be conducted before project implementation, but where the final cultural resource inventory report will be completed during or after the project implementation:

a. The Forests will develop a specific project plan. The APE for mechanical treatment along roads and trails will be defined as a 200-foot corridor on both sides of the road. The APE for developed recreation sites will be defined as the administrative boundaries of the site and a 100-foot buffer around the developed recreation site. The APE for power lines will be a 200-foot corridor from centerline for transmission lines and a 75-foot corridor from centerline for distribution lines. The APE also includes any slash piles that will be burned outside of the corridors. The Forests will complete field inventories of all areas defined as “areas of high potential for historic properties” within the APE using the survey strategy contained in Appendix B, or survey strategy based on a probability model approved in advance by SHPO. The Forest will determine which of the following reporting process (Process with Standard Treatments or Phased Reporting) will be used and will submit a letter of notification to the SHPO containing information about the APE, High Potential Areas, and reporting process, as defined in Stipulation F, the Forest proposes to use.

b. If during the field inventory cultural resources are located through field inventory or consultation with Indian tribes or other interested parties that may have traditional cultural and religious significance to Indian Tribes or other interested parties the Forest will conduct additional consultation with SHPO and the affected Indian tribes

29

USFS MBR Agreement No. 07-MU-11020600-056 USFS AR Agreement No. 07-MU-11021000-025 USFS WR Agreement No. 07-MU-11021500-043 USFS PSI Agreement No. 07-MU-11021200-071 or other interested parties. This consultation may include determination of eligibility and potential effect to sites, and/or mitigation to minimize or mitigate effects. c. If during the project development and planning, the heritage staff determines that specific actions in the project have the potential to affect roads or power lines that are 50 years old or older, then the road or power line shall be considered to be within the APE and will be recorded and evaluated. All developed recreation sites that are 50 years old or older that have proposed mechanical treatments shall be considered to be within the APE for the project and will be recorded and evaluated. The site forms for recorded roads, power lines and developed recreation sites will be included in the inventory report. d. The Forests will follow the reporting process for each individual undertaking as stipulated in the Notification Letter to SHPO and Stipulation F. If the Forest has not sent a notification letter to the SHPO declaring the use of the reporting process as in Stipulation F, the Forest will use the reporting process in follow the process specified in federal regulations, “Protection of Historic and Cultural Properties” (36 CFR Part 800), prior to project implementation. e. If the Forest Service determines that adverse effects cannot be avoided, or if the SHPO objects to a finding of no adverse effect, the Forests will rescind the portion of the DM or FONSI, that implements the undertaking for the area where the historic property is located and consult further with the SHPO and other consulting parties in accordance with 36 CFR Part 800.6 to resolve the adverse effects, including notifying the ACHP of the determination of adverse effect. Consultation and mitigations of adverse effects will be completed prior to project implementation.

30

– Final – Environmental Assessment of the Emergency Power Line Clearing Project

Appendix C Maps

______United States Forest Service May 2010 Arapaho and Roosevelt, Routt, and White River National Forests Page C – 1

– Final – Environmental Assessment of the Emergency Power Line Clearing Project

(THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK)

______United States Forest Service May 2010 Arapaho and Roosevelt, Routt, and White River National Forests Page C – 2

– Final – Environmental Assessment of the Emergency Power Line Clearing Project

Maps

The Proposed Project area maps are available as a portion of the project record that is available at each Forest Supervisor’s office. Each map is 36” x 48” in size and depicts the geographic distribution of the Proposed Project overlaid with the areas exhibiting bark beetle damage that has been recorded yearly from 1994 through 2009. The maps included are:

1. Proposed Project Area within the Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests 2. Proposed Project Area within the Routt National Forest 3. Proposed Project Area within the White River National Forest

______United States Forest Service May 2010 Arapaho and Roosevelt, Routt, and White River National Forests Page C – 3