Hunter creek-smuggler Mountain Cooperative Plan Environmental Assessment
April 2014
USDA Forest Service White River National Forest Aspen and Sopris Ranger District 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 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 USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (800) 795-3272 or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. HUNTER CREEK-SMUGGLER MOUNTAIN COOPERATIVE PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO
APRIL 2014
Proposed Action: Responsible Official: Further Information: Hunter Creek-Smuggler Mountain Karen Schroyer David Francomb Cooperative Plan EA Aspen and Sopris District Ranger Deputy District Ranger White River National Forest (970) 963-2266 x3136 Location: Carbondale, CO White River National Forest Pitkin County, Colorado
Lead Agency: USDA Forest Service White River National Forest Pitkin County, Colorado
Abstract: This Environmental Assessment (EA) has been prepared to analyze a proposal presented by the Aspen Center for Environmental Studies (ACES), Pitkin County, and the City of Aspen to implement projects outlined in the Hunter Creek-Smuggler Mountain Cooperative Plan (Hunter-Smuggler Plan). The purpose of the Hunter- Smuggler Plan is to improve recreational opportunities, forest health, and wildlife habitat in the study area. The study area includes 4,681 acres of National Forest System (NFS) lands on Smuggler Mountain and in the Hunter Creek Valley, east of the city of Aspen. The Action Alternatives include projects to: improve the navigability, condition, and management of the trail network in the study area; expand the trail network; improve the health of lodgepole pine, mixed conifer, aspen, Gambel oak, mountain shrub, and sagebrush stands; and improve educational opportunities and public awareness on NFS lands. This EA discusses the Purpose and Need for the proposal, the process used to develop alternatives, potential direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of implementing the No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), the Proposed Action (Alternative 2), Alternative 3, and project design criteria (PDC).
Table of Contents Table of Contents
TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. PURPOSE AND NEED ...... 1-1 A. Introduction ...... 1-1 B. Background ...... 1-2 C. Relationship to Previous Analyses and Approvals ...... 1-3 D. Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action ...... 1-4 E. Summary of the Proposed Action ...... 1-9 F. Public Involvement ...... 1-9 G. Issues and Indicators ...... 1-10 H. Issues Not Carried Forward for Detailed Analysis ...... 1-14 I. Scope of Analysis ...... 1-14 J. Forest Service Policy and Direction ...... 1-14 Forest Plan Direction ...... 1-15 Colorado Roadless Areas ...... 1-17 K. Decision to be Made ...... 1-17 L. Other Necessary Permits, Licenses, Entitlements and/or Consultation ...... 1-18 2. DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES ...... 2-1 A. Introduction ...... 2-1 B. Alternatives Considered in Detail ...... 2-1 Alternative 1 – No Action ...... 2-1 Alternative 2 – The Proposed Action ...... 2-1 Alternative 3 ...... 2-12 C. Comparison of Alternatives ...... 2-15 D. Alternatives and Design Components Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Analysis ...... 2-16 Increasing Size of Patch Cuts ...... 2-16 E. Management Requirements and Project Design Criteria ...... 2-16 3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ...... 3-1 Introduction ...... 3-1 A. Recreation ...... 3-3 Scope of Analysis ...... 3-3 Affected Environment ...... 3-3 Direct and Indirect Environmental Consequences...... 3-6 Cumulative Effects ...... 3-10 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources ...... 3-12 B. Scenery ...... 3-13 Scope of Analysis ...... 3-13 Management of the Scenic Environment on National Forest System Lands ...... 3-13 Affected Environment ...... 3-16 Direct and Indirect Environmental Consequences...... 3-16 Cumulative Effects ...... 3-19 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources ...... 3-20 C. Cultural ...... 3-21 Scope of Analysis ...... 3-21 Affected Environment ...... 3-21 Direct and Indirect Environmental Consequences...... 3-22 Cumulative Effects ...... 3-23 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources ...... 3-23 D. Wildlife and Aquatic Species ...... 3-24 Scope of Analysis ...... 3-24 Affected Environment ...... 3-24 Direct and Indirect Environmental Consequences...... 3-34 Cumulative Effects ...... 3-43
Hunter Creek-Smuggler Mountain Cooperative Plan Environmental Assessment i Table of Contents
E. Botany ...... 3-47 Scope of Analysis ...... 3-47 Forest Plan Direction ...... 3-47 Affected Environment ...... 3-48 Direct and Indirect Environmental Consequences...... 3-51 Cumulative Effects ...... 3-55 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources ...... 3-55 F. Forest Health ...... 3-56 Scope of Analysis ...... 3-56 Forest Plan Direction ...... 3-56 Affected Environment ...... 3-57 Direct and Indirect Environmental Consequences...... 3-61 Cumulative Effects ...... 3-66 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources ...... 3-67 G. Soil Resources and Geology ...... 3-68 Scope of Analysis ...... 3-68 Forest Plan Direction ...... 3-68 Affected Environment ...... 3-70 Direct and Indirect Environmental Consequences...... 3-75 Cumulative Effects ...... 3-78 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources ...... 3-80 H. Watershed and Wetlands ...... 3-81 Scope of Analysis ...... 3-81 Forest Plan Direction ...... 3-81 Affected Environment ...... 3-83 Direct and Indirect Environmental Consequences...... 3-86 Cumulative Effects ...... 3-88 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources ...... 3-89 I. Air Quality ...... 3-90 Scope of Analysis ...... 3-90 Regulatory Direction ...... 3-90 Affected Environment ...... 3-92 Direct and Indirect Environmental Consequences...... 3-93 Cumulative Effects ...... 3-95 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources ...... 3-95 J. Colorado Roadless Areas and Central Mountains Outdoor Heritage Proposal ...... 3-96 Scope of Analysis ...... 3-96 2002 Forest Plan ...... 3-96 2012 Colorado Roadless Rule ...... 3-97 Affected Environment ...... 3-101 Direct and Indirect Environmental Consequences...... 3-103 Cumulative Effects ...... 3-109 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources ...... 3-110 K. Traffic and Access ...... 3-111 Scope of Analysis ...... 3-111 Affected Environment ...... 3-111 Direct and Indirect Environmental Consequences...... 3-111 Cumulative Effects ...... 3-113 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources ...... 3-114 4. CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION ...... 4-1 A. List of Preparers ...... 4-1 Forest Service Team ...... 4-1 Consultant Team ...... 4-1
Hunter Creek-Smuggler Mountain Cooperative Plan Environmental Assessment ii Table of Contents
B. Agencies, Organizations, Tribal Governments and Persons Contacted ...... 4-2 Federal Government ...... 4-2 Tribal Government ...... 4-2 State Government ...... 4-2 Local Government ...... 4-2 Local Media ...... 4-2 Other Entities and Organizations ...... 4-2 Other Interested Individuals ...... 4-3 5. REFERENCES ...... 5-1 6. FIGURES ...... 6-1
VICINITY MAP FIGURE 1: ALTERNATIVE 1: NO ACTION FIGURE 2: ALTERNATIVE 2: PROPOSED ACTION – RECREATION PROJECTS FIGURE 3: ALTERNATIVE 2: PROPOSED ACTION – FOREST HEALTH/WILDLIFE PROJECTS FIGURE 4: ALTERNATIVE 3 – RECREATION PROJECTS FIGURE 5: ALTERNATIVE 3 – FOREST HEALTH/WILDLIFE PROJECTS FIGURE 6: 2013 PROJECTS FIGURE 7: ROAD ACCESS FIGURE 8: COLORADO ROADLESS AREAS AND CENTRAL MOUNTAINS OUTDOOR HERITAGE PROPOSAL
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A: IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY APPENDIX B: VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PLAN PRESCRIPTIONS
Hunter Creek-Smuggler Mountain Cooperative Plan Environmental Assessment iii Table of Contents
LIST OF TABLES TABLE 2-1: COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES ...... 2-15 TABLE 2-2: PROJECT DESIGN CRITERIA AND MONITORING PRACTICES INCORPORATED INTO THE ACTION ALTERNATIVES ...... 2-17 TABLE 3D-1: FEDERALLY LISTED AND PROPOSED ANIMAL SPECIES POTENTIALLY AFFECTED ...... 3-25 TABLE 3D-2: REGION 2 SENSITIVE ANIMAL SPECIES THAT POTENTIALLY OCCUR IN THE STUDY AREA ...... 3-27 TABLE 3D-3: WHITE RIVER NATIONAL FOREST MANAGEMENT INDICATOR SPECIES ...... 3-31 TABLE 3E-1: TEP PLANT SPECIES EVALUATED AND THEIR ASSOCIATED HABITAT TYPES ...... 3-48 TABLE 3E-2: RFSS PLANT SPECIES EVALUATED AND THEIR ASSOCIATED HABITAT TYPES ...... 3-49 TABLE 3E-3: DETERMINATION SUMMARY FOR THREATENED, ENDANGERED, AND PROPOSED PLANT SPECIES ...... 3-52 TABLE 3E-4: DETERMINATION SUMMARY FOR REGION 2 SENSITIVE SPECIES ...... 3-53 TABLE 3G-1: SOIL MANAGEMENT UNITS IDENTIFIED WITHIN THE STUDY AREA ...... 3-72 TABLE 3H-1: LENGTH OF STREAMS WITHIN THE STUDY AREA ...... 3-84 TABLE 3H-2: EXISTING WETLAND ACREAGE BY TYPE ...... 3-85 TABLE 3I-1: NATIONAL AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS FOR CRITERIA POLLUTANTS ...... 3-91 TABLE 3J-1: COLORADO ROADLESS AREAS BY NATIONAL FOREST ...... 3-99 TABLE 3J-2: CRAS WITHIN THE STUDY AREA ...... 3-101
Hunter Creek-Smuggler Mountain Cooperative Plan Environmental Assessment iv List of Acronyms
LIST OF ACRONYMS µg Micrograms ACES Aspen Center for Environmental Studies BA Biological Assessment BE Biological Evaluation BMP Best Management Practice CAA Clean Air Act CEQ Council on Environmental Quality CFR Code of Federal Regulations CFS Cubic Feet per Second CO Carbon Monoxide
CO2 Carbon Dioxide CRA Colorado Roadless Area CRR Colorado Roadless Rule CWA Clean Water Act CWD Coarse wood debris DN/FONSI Decision Notice/Finding of No Significant Impact EA Environmental Assessment EIS Environmental Impact Statement EO Executive Order EPA Environmental Protection Agency ESA Endangered Species Act FMU Fire Management Unit FSH Forest Service Handbook FSM Forest Service Manual GIS Geographic Information System HFRA Healthy Forest Restoration Act HRV Historical Range of Variability ID Team Interdisciplinary Team IRA Inventoried Roadless Area LAU Lynx Analysis Unit LRMP Land and Resource Management Plan MA Management Area mg/l Milligrams per liter MIS Management Indicator Species MPB Mountain Pine Beetle NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NFS National Forest System NHPA National Historic Preservation Act
Hunter Creek-Smuggler Mountain Cooperative Plan Environmental Assessment v List of Acronyms
NO2 Nitrogen Dioxide NOI Notice of Intent
NOx Nitrogen Oxide NRHP National Register of Historic Places PDC Project Design Criteria
PM10 Particulate Matter under 10 microns
PM2.5 Particulate Matter under 2.5 microns PSD Prevention of Significant Deterioration R2 Region Two RARE Roadless Area Review and Evaluation ROD Record of Decision SAD Sudden Aspen Decline SIO Scenic Integrity Objective SIP Site Implementation Plan SIVC Species with an Identified Viability Concern SMP MOU Smoke Management Plan Memorandum of Understanding
SO2 Sulfur Dioxide TES Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive species TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load TMP Travel Management Plan TOC Threshold of Concern TSP Total Suspended Particulate USACE US Army Corps of Engineers USC United States Code USCA United States Code Annotated USDA United States Department of Agriculture USFS United States Forest Service USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service USGS US Geological Survey VMP Vegetation Management Plan WCPH Watershed Conservation Practices Handbook WEPP Water Erosion Prediction Project WIZ Water Influence Zone WRNF White River National Forest
Hunter Creek-Smuggler Mountain Cooperative Plan Environmental Assessment vi Chapter 1 Purpose and Need Chapter 1: Purpose and Need
1. PURPOSE AND NEED
A. INTRODUCTION The set of projects analyzed in this document constitutes a federal action, which has the potential to affect the quality of the physical, biological and human environment on public lands administered by the United States Forest Service (Forest Service). Therefore, these projects must be analyzed pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). Under NEPA, federal agencies must carefully consider environmental concerns in their decision-making processes and provide relevant information to the public for review and comment.
The White River National Forest (WRNF) has prepared this Environmental Assessment (EA) in compliance with NEPA and other relevant federal and state laws and regulations. This EA contains analyses consistent with NEPA, Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations, and Forest Service policy. It discloses potential direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental effects on the human and biological environment anticipated to result from implementation of the No Action Alternative, Proposed Action and Alternative 3. Additionally, it is intended to ensure that planning reflects the environmental and social values of the study area and that potential resource conflicts are minimized or avoided. The document is organized into six chapters:
• Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need: includes information on the history of the project proposal, the purpose of and need for the project, and the proposal for achieving that Purpose and Need. Chapter 1 also details how the Forest Service informed the public of the proposal and how the public responded (scoping).
• Chapter 2 – Description of Alternatives: provides a detailed description of the three alternatives that are analyzed in detail—No Action, Proposed Action and Alternative 3. This discussion also includes alternatives considered but eliminated from further analysis and mitigation measures.
• Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences: provides a description of the affected environment (i.e., existing conditions) according to resource area and describes the environmental consequences of implementing the No Action Alternative, the Proposed Action and Alternative 3. Chapter 3 is organized by resource topic.
• Chapter 4 – Consultation and Coordination: provides a list of preparers and agencies consulted during the preparation of this EA.
• Chapter 5 – References: provides complete references for documents cited within this EA.
• Chapter 6 – Figures: includes the figures that are referred to throughout the analysis.
• Appendices – Appendix A – Implementation Strategy: includes a proposed strategy to plan and implement projects in the future in a collaborative setting. Appendix B – Vegetation
Hunter Creek-Smuggler Mountain Cooperative Plan Environmental Assessment 1-1 Chapter 1: Purpose and Need
Management Plan Prescriptions: includes descriptions of vegetation treatments to be utilized in the implementation of forest health and wildlife enhancement projects.
Additional documentation, including more detailed analyses of study area resources, may be found in the project administrative record located at the Aspen and Sopris Ranger District office of the WRNF.
B. BACKGROUND The Hunter Creek-Smuggler Mountain Cooperative Plan (Hunter-Smuggler Plan), published online at www.hunter-smugglerplan.com, outlines a series of projects and improvements to the Hunter Creek- Smuggler Mountain study area immediately east of Aspen (refer to Vicinity Map). Developed through an open and cooperative approach of community and local agency involvement, the Hunter-Smuggler Plan responds to important needs of this area. Smuggler Mountain and the Hunter Creek Valley contain some of the most heavily used trails in Aspen, as well as important wildlife habitat and stunning scenic beauty. However, the area has lacked integrated, cohesive management and vision, and thus, is now seeing degradation of trails, wildlife habitat, and forest health. With a clear vision for orchestrated action, the project collaborators identified the following topics to guide the Hunter-Smuggler Plan: recreation, education, wildlife, forest health, fire management, infrastructure, and economic development.
Located on the WRNF managed by the Aspen and Sopris Ranger District, the Hunter-Smuggler study area consists of 4,681 acres adjacent to Smuggler Mountain Open Space and private property. It is the scenic backdrop for the community of Aspen. The planning process for the Hunter-Smuggler Plan has been carried out over sixteen months, between June 2011 and September 2012. The primary geographic features consist of Smuggler Mountain and Hunter Creek Valley. The former is directly adjacent to Aspen and a very popular area for three-season hiking and mountain biking; the latter is a picturesque alpine valley home to mining, logging, and homesteading relics, lush vegetation, and outstanding year-round recreational trails. Together these two areas provide a haven for wildlife and the enjoyment of the outdoors.
The Hunter-Smuggler Plan is unique in scale, scope, and community engagement. It embodies a planning approach that relies upon cooperation for various management partners to achieve a comprehensive, long- term vision for the area. This approach will ultimately improve hundreds of acres of forest and wildlife habitat, enhance the overall experience and sustainability of the trail system, and lead to a wealth of reciprocal benefits to economic development, education, and infrastructure.
In reference to the topics listed above, the Hunter-Smuggler Plan seeks to decrease the negative impacts of wildfire on the Aspen community, improve the safety and quality of the recreation experience on National Forest System (NFS) lands, promote a healthy and diverse forest in the study area, manage wildlife habitats in the study area to support diversity, expand educational opportunities to promote
Hunter Creek-Smuggler Mountain Cooperative Plan Environmental Assessment 1-2 Chapter 1: Purpose and Need ecological and historical understanding, incorporate existing infrastructure such as roads into an improved system, and promote local economic development.
C. RELATIONSHIP TO PREVIOUS ANALYSES AND APPROVALS There are a number of regional plans and analyses that relate to this proposal. The plans described below generally relate to forestwide management and incorporate many of the goals outlined in the Hunter- Smuggler Plan.
Travel Management Plan The WRNF has completed the Travel Management Plan Environmental Impact Statement (TMP EIS) and Forest Supervisor Scott Fitzwilliams signed a Record of Decision on March 17, 2011. Travel management is the integrated planning of, and providing for, movement of people and products to and through NFS lands. A Travel Management Plan (TMP) provides clear, specific direction on the appropriate levels of land, water, and air access opportunities to be made available. The decision outlines specific details for all forms of transportation on the WRNF. This includes which roads and trails will be open for motorized and non-motorized use in summer and winter as well as identifying which roads and trails will be closed and/or decommissioned. Implementation of the TMP will be occurring over several years and will include prioritization of implementation areas and signing and/or decommissioning routes.
Healthy Forest Restoration Act of 2003 The Healthy Forest Restoration Act (HFRA) improves the ability of the Forest Service to conduct hazardous fuels reduction projects on NFS lands aimed at protecting wildland-urban interfaces of at-risk communities, watersheds, and certain other at-risk lands from catastrophic wildfire, to enhance efforts to protect watersheds and address threats to forest and rangeland health, including catastrophic wildfire, across the landscape, and for other purposes.
The legislation contains a variety of provisions aimed at expediting the preparation and implementation of hazardous fuels reduction projects on federal land and assisting rural communities, States and landowners in restoring healthy forest and watershed conditions on state, private and tribal lands. It also authorizes large-scale silvicultural research, the acquisition of conservation easements and the establishment of monitoring and early warning systems for insect and disease outbreaks. HFRA provides for expedited environmental review, a pre-decisional Forest Service administrative review process, and other measures on NFS lands that are at-risk of catastrophic fire.
Forestwide Hazardous Tree Removal and Fuels Reduction EA The general goal of the Forestwide Hazardous Tree Removal and Fuels Reduction project is to remove hazardous trees from roadways, trails, high-use areas, culturally significant sites, and administrative areas to reduce the possibility of personal or property damage from falling debris resulting from the Mountain Pine Beetle (MPB) epidemic that has been active on the WRNF.
Hunter Creek-Smuggler Mountain Cooperative Plan Environmental Assessment 1-3 Chapter 1: Purpose and Need
The WRNF has begun implementing the Selected Alternative to meet the goal for providing for public safety in and around administrative sites, developed recreation sites, and along road and trail corridors by reducing risks associated with falling trees and hazardous fuels.
White River National Forest Fire Management Plan The WRNF’s Fire Management Plan is the primary guiding document for what will occur if a fire occurs on the Forest and within the study area. Most of the study area is located in Fire Management Unit (FMU) “B.” The definition of FMU B is below:
“Fire plays a natural role in the function of the ecosystem, however because of resource concerns and potentially high economic impacts from unplanned ignitions, considerable constraints and mitigation measures exist. Fuel hazard reduction as a major means of mitigating potential risks and associated loss are a priority. Unit costs for prescribed fire are high and require stringent mitigation and contingencies.”
FMU B-0215-02 Sopris/Aspen Intermix
Wildland Fire Management Direction:
• All wildland fires, regardless of ignition source, will be high priority and receive prompt action commensurate with human safety in all instances.
• Minimize the size of wildland fires using suppression tactics as put forth in recommendations and restrictions.
General Guidance for Prescribed Vegetation Treatments (site-specific EA required):
• Reduce hazardous fuel loading and the risks of wildland fire escaping public lands.
• Reduce fuels around significant cultural sites and developed recreation sites.
The policy defined in these plans compliments many aspects of the Hunter-Smuggler Plan and would guide site-specific implementation of proposed projects.
D. PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION The purpose of the project is to improve the natural and recreational environment in the Hunter Creek- Smuggler Mountain study area.
As mentioned above, the Hunter-Smuggler Plan was prepared in order to respond to the concerns of deterioration of resources in the study area. Chapter 3 of the Hunter-Smuggler Plan presents the Vision for the study area with Vision Statements and Guiding Principles by topic. The Hunter-Smuggler Focus Group and Planning Team developed the Vision Statements and Guiding Principles to identify common values upon which to base potential actions. Vision statements were developed around seven topics: Fire
Hunter Creek-Smuggler Mountain Cooperative Plan Environmental Assessment 1-4 Chapter 1: Purpose and Need
Management, Recreation, Forest Health and Vegetation, Wildlife Habitat, Education, Infrastructure, and Economic Development. The Vision Statements and Guiding Principles together led to the formulation of the following needs, as identified in Chapter 4 of the Hunter-Smuggler Plan:
Need #1: Improve the Recreational Trail Network Improve the navigability, cohesiveness, and overall enjoyment of the recreational trail network within the study area through more consistent and complete signage, maps, and trail and route designations.
Objective: The study area is a recreational haven for residents and visitors of Aspen, providing great opportunities for hiking, mountain biking, horseback riding, cross country skiing, hunting, and other activities. There are abundant trails, especially on the Hunter Creek side; however, as described in the Vision, these trails have not been managed cohesively as part of a greater trail network. Many trails originate on City of Aspen or Pitkin County open space and extend onto NFS lands with little indication to users. While the City and County have made significant investments in designing and installing signage for their trails, they do not carry over onto NFS lands. Improving basic trail infrastructure such as signs and gateways would improve the navigability and overall enjoyment of the system as a whole.
Need #2: Improve Condition of the Recreational Trail Network Improve the condition and sustainability of existing trails within the study area, through repairs, restoration, and realignments or stream and wetlands crossings.
Objective: Many trails were identified through the planning process as being considerably degraded, very difficult to ride or hike, poorly drained and steep, and generally in bad condition. The objective here is to illustrate those locations and recommend that focused improvements be carried out over time, through partnerships with the City of Aspen, Pitkin County, and volunteer organizations such as the Roaring Fork Outdoor Volunteers.
Need #3: Improve Management of the Recreational Trail Network Identify opportunities for new trail connections, separation of uses, and trail closures within the study area, and allow for adaptive management in the future so that the Forest Service can consider additional trail projects as demand evolves.
Objective: Within the study area, there are opportunities for improved single-track connectivity, as well as areas of very high trail density where opportunities to separate uses should be explored. Trails that are redundant
Hunter Creek-Smuggler Mountain Cooperative Plan Environmental Assessment 1-5 Chapter 1: Purpose and Need and don’t have a great benefit to the recreational experience should be considered for closure to improve wildlife habitat.
Need #4: Improve the Health of Lodgepole Pine Stands Improve the age class and species diversity of lodgepole pine and mixed conifer units, eliminate hazard trees, encourage aspen regeneration and reduce fuel loads and fire risk to values at risk such as lives, homes, water supplies and important infrastructure.
Objective: Lodgepole pine within the study area lacks the diversity that it needs to remain healthy. Treating lodgepole stands will produce the younger trees and understory growth that the existing forest is lacking. Over time, this will lead to a more sustainable forest that can support a wider range of wildlife species.
The lodgepole pine found within the study area is also susceptible to MPB. Applying verbenone treatments and removing brood (infested) trees will increase the forest’s ability to defend itself against isolated occurrences of infestation and allow for the retention of some mature trees. In turn, the safety and wildfire risks associated with a die out of lodgepole will be reduced.
Need #5: Improve Aspen Habitat Increase the extent, age class diversity, and quality of aspen habitat within the Hunter-Smuggler study area.
Objective: Maintaining the health of aspen is essential to supporting a wealth of wildlife species found within the study area. Currently, many aspen stands are failing due to lack of disturbance, encroachment of conifers, and diseases such as Sudden Aspen Decline (SAD). Forest treatments are necessary to combat these various conditions and promote the mosaic of forest cover types and wildlife habitat that is desired within the study area.
Need #6: Improve Health of Gambel Oak Stands Increase the age class diversity and quality of Gambel oak stands within the Hunter-Smuggler study area.
Objective: The health of Gambel oak is important to wildlife, as well as to the community of Aspen. Fire is an essential component of Gambel oak communities, and treatment is essential to either mimic or replace it to keep these stands from becoming over-mature. The situation that currently exists within the study area is a result of no natural fire, no prescribed fire, and very little mechanical treatment. Forest treatment is
Hunter Creek-Smuggler Mountain Cooperative Plan Environmental Assessment 1-6 Chapter 1: Purpose and Need needed to restore age class diversity to Gambel oak to increase its wildlife habitat quality and to reduce the wildfire risk that it poses to Aspen.
Need #7: Explore Options for Mountain Bike Trails Explore the potential for a single-track mountain biking trail on the south side of Smuggler Mountain that minimizes impacts to wildlife and maximizes rideability and trail experience.
Objective: The “Balcony Trail” is a social trail that was constructed and developed by mountain bikers outside of the Forest Service/NEPA review process. It is used mostly by residents of Aspen, and is an advanced mountain biking trail known for its views of the valley and City below. The trail is contentious because of the manner in which it was built, without approval from the Forest Service or analysis of wildlife habitat or other resources. However, it is fulfilling a desire, as it is the only mountain biking trail on this portion of the Forest, on the south side of Smuggler Mountain.
By planning an appropriate single-track alignment, regardless of where the current Balcony Trail exists today, the Forest Service can either confirm that alignment or find a better, more compatible alignment. The solution may be a combination of the two. The potential trail may coincide in areas with the existing route and diverge into new areas to avoid important wildlife habitat and improve rideability and experience. Where it does not coincide, the existing route should be closed and restored to its natural condition. New spurs or social trails stemming from the Balcony Trail will not be tolerated and if created will be immediately closed and recovered.
Regardless of the alignment, a new trust must be forged between the mountain biking community, the conservation community, and the Forest Service to ensure the long-term success of this planning effort. Proper planning at this time, coupled with community trust and the appropriate management and enforcement will ensure that the trail remains an important, sustainable component of Aspen’s recreational trail network for decades to come.
Need #8: Improve Smuggler Mountain Road Make improvements to Smuggler Mountain Road (not subject to Forest Service authorization) that uphold the character and recreational value of the roads, and enable safe vehicular access to the study area for management activities to occur.
Objective: Smuggler Mountain Road is a keystone of the Hunter-Smuggler Plan. The road is the only access point to the Smuggler Mountain side of the study area and is thereby the only avenue through which to transport equipment and materials to conduct the forest health, wildlife, and recreation projects described in the plan. At the same time, the road is a tremendous recreational resource for the Aspen community and there
Hunter Creek-Smuggler Mountain Cooperative Plan Environmental Assessment 1-7 Chapter 1: Purpose and Need is sensitivity to interfering with the qualities that hikers and bikers so much enjoy. Smuggler Mountain Road is a Pitkin County limited service area road, and is to be maintained “primarily to accept non- vehicular traffic.”1 The road is open to high-clearance vehicles, and is maintained on approximately a ten- year cycle to allow safe passage of such vehicles. Smuggler Mountain Road is largely impassable at this time and is due for these improvements, which include focused grading and drainage. The plan has identified specific sections of road that would not be passable by short-bed truck or similar high-clearance vehicle, though these are not comprehensive. Further evaluation of the road is recommended to fully assess the extent of improvements that are needed for safe passage, without altering the service level of the road.
Need #9: Promote Experiential Education Promote the study area as an outdoor classroom and research site for cultural resources and environmental education.
Objective: Aspen is extremely unique, in that it attracts more attention and press than perhaps any other community of its size. More and more, Aspen is known for its innovative research organizations, institutions, and festivals that attract world-renowned leaders from politics and business, to academia and research. This project has the potential to be a powerful platform to convey lessons in environmental education, as well as a local classroom for the history and cultural resources found here.
Educational opportunities may arise on a variety of levels, as management activities progress. There are immediate opportunities to align recreation with the existing cultural resources found within the study area, such as through a “Heritage Trail” that would allow people to safely access and explore mining and homesteading sites. In the future, as resources are further researched and explored, such a trail could be expanded upon. The City, County, and local organizations will play an essential role in developing outreach materials such as maps, background information, signage, but aside from that, the foundation is already in place through existing trails.
The study area also presents an exciting opportunity for environmental research and education. Should the recommendations of the Hunter-Smuggler Plan be implemented, they will demonstrate tools and techniques that have not been applied to a National Forest within such close proximity to a major destination as Aspen. There will be countless opportunities for partnerships between local schools, colleges and universities, and organizations such as Aspen Center for Environmental Studies to use the study area as a demonstration site and long-term research laboratory.
1 Pitkin County Asset Management Plan, 2008
Hunter Creek-Smuggler Mountain Cooperative Plan Environmental Assessment 1-8 Chapter 1: Purpose and Need
E. SUMMARY OF THE PROPOSED ACTION The Proposed Action includes the following project groups, each of which is described with additional detail in Chapter 2:
• Recreation Trail Improvements, Management and Maintenance
• Forest Health and Wildlife Habitat Improvements and Management
• Smuggler Mountain Road (County Road 21) Improvements and Maintenance
• Outdoor Education
F. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT The creation of the Hunter-Smuggler Plan involved a number of agencies and public participants. The Hunter-Smuggler Plan is a culmination of efforts across many agencies, organizations, stakeholders (which made up the Focus Group), and the Aspen community. The Planning Team (comprised of the City of Aspen, Pitkin County, the U.S. Forest Service, and the Aspen Center for Environmental Studies) has worked with the Hunter-Smuggler Plan Focus Group and community members to craft vision statements and guiding principles, evaluate opportunities and recommendations, and work with the public to ensure that a full range of perspectives is represented in the Cooperative Plan. The Focus Group met regularly throughout the Visioning and Opportunities phases of the planning process over a nine-month span, including two public workshops (August 30, 2012, at the Pitkin County Library and December 14, 2012, at the County’s Rio Grande Room), seven meetings, and many more individual discussions with members of the Planning Team. In addition, on January 9, 2013, the City and County held a final public open house to understand concerns from the public. Minimal concerns regarding the Cooperative Plan, and therefore the projects proposed herein, were raised by public.
In addition to these formal meetings, several more individual stakeholder meetings (including a number of meetings of local recreationists and fire managers), phone calls, and discussions occurred throughout this time to ensure that all opportunities were explored and balanced across planning topics. To further engage the public a project website (www.hunter-smugglerplan.com) was created to provide interested individuals a portal to learn about the process, project and current activities.
Subsequent to the finalization of the Hunter-Smuggler Plan (described above) and the initiation of the NEPA process for this EA, a public open house regarding this project was held during scoping, on Thursday, April 11, 2013 at Pitkin County’s Rio Grande Room. Representatives from the WRNF and the Aspen Center for Environmental Studies were present to answer questions and provide additional information on this project.
Hunter Creek-Smuggler Mountain Cooperative Plan Environmental Assessment 1-9 Chapter 1: Purpose and Need
The project was first listed in the Schedule of Proposed Actions in February, 2013 and updates are provided quarterly. Further information about this project can be found on our website at http://www.fs.fed.us/nepa/fs-usda-pop.php/?project=41413.
G. ISSUES AND INDICATORS This EA addresses the effects of the No Action Alternative, Proposed Action Alternative and Alternative 3for the following resources: Recreation, Scenery, Cultural, Wildlife and Aquatic Species, Botany, Forest Health, Soil Resources and Geology, Watershed and Wetlands, Air Quality, Colorado Roadless Areas and Central Mountains Outdoor Heritage Proposal, and Traffic. The EA will be issue-driven and contain detail commensurate to the degree to which a resource may be affected.
Issues are unresolved conflicts that arise as a result of the Proposed Action. Initially, the Forest Service has identified the following issues that will be analyzed in detail in the forthcoming EA. Preliminary analytical indicators are provided for each issue. Both issues and analytical indicators will be refined prior to, and within, the EA. As discussed, the District Ranger may also require additional Project Design Criteria (PDC) and/or Best Management Practices (BMPs).
Based on the results of internal and public scoping, the Forest Service identified specific issues to address in this EA. Issues generally require in-depth analysis and disclosure, and are utilized to generate alternatives, if necessary. In some cases, they can be addressed by PDC. Each of the following issue statements includes a list of indicators that are means of measuring or quantifying the anticipated level of impact on a particular resource. While some indicators are necessarily qualitative in nature, every effort was made to utilize indicators that are quantitative, measurable, and predictable.
Recreation Issue: Proposed projects (recreation and non-recreation) would affect the recreation experience within the study area.
Analytical Indicators & Requirements:
• Quantification of approximate recreational trail mileage
• Discussion of the recreational experience with regards to navigability, trail management/maintenance and additional segments
• Discussion of impact to recreation experience due to forest health and wildlife enhancement projects (short-term and long-term)
• Discussion of impact to recreation experience on Smuggler Mountain Road due to forest health and wildlife enhancement projects
Hunter Creek-Smuggler Mountain Cooperative Plan Environmental Assessment 1-10 Chapter 1: Purpose and Need
Scenery Issue: Forest health and wildlife enhancement projects may be visible from the City of Aspen and within the study area from a recreation user’s perspective.
Analytical Indicators & Requirements:
• Discussion of the Scenic Integrity Objectives (SIO) for the study area and consistency due to project effects
• Documentation of the incremental effects to the scenic environment resulting from implementation of the proposed projects compared to historic landscape alterations within the study area
Cultural Issue: Proposed projects and associated ground disturbing activities may affect known or unidentified cultural and heritage resources within the study area.
Analytical Indicators & Requirements:
• Discussion of cultural surveys within the study area
• Documentation of impacts to any potentially-eligible National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) sites
Wildlife and Aquatic Species Issue: Implementation of proposed projects (including construction and use) could affect Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive (TES) and Management Indicator (MIS) wildlife and aquatic species.
Analytical Indicators & Requirements:
• Acreage of impacts to Region 2 Sensitive, Management Indicator, and Threatened/Endangered/ Candidate species’ habitat
• Identification of Lynx Analysis Unit (LAU) boundaries in relation to the study area
• Assessment of aquatic habitat found in Hunter Creek that could be affected
Botany Issue: Plant communities (including Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive [TES] species, WRNF Species with an Identified Viability Concern [SIVC] and invasive plant species) may be impacted as a result of proposed projects.
Analytical Indicators & Requirements:
• Identification of any TES plant species present in the study area
Hunter Creek-Smuggler Mountain Cooperative Plan Environmental Assessment 1-11 Chapter 1: Purpose and Need
• Quantification (acreage) of proposed ground disturbance and overstory vegetation removal effects by species
• Identification and use of design criteria and BMPs to avoid contamination of the study area by noxious weeds
Forest Health Issue: The mountain pine beetle (MPB) epidemic has climaxed, and in the study area MPB has been isolated and is small in scale. In addition, proposed projects identified in the Hunter-Smuggler Cooperative Plan Vegetation Management Plan would affect stands within the study area.
Analytical Indicators & Requirements:
• Quantification (acreage) of lands affected by MPB (pure/mixed lodgepole pine)
• Quantification (acreage) and disclosure of regeneration potential
• Quantification (acreage) of impacts from proposed projects by stand type
Soil Resources and Geology Issue: Proposed projects may affect erosion within the study area.
Analytical Indicators & Requirements:
• Discussion of soil conditions based on existing soil survey within study area
• Discussion of impacts to soil characteristics and quality in response to forest health and wildlife habitat enhancement projects
• Assessment of proposed access roads and identification of road design criteria
Watershed and Wetlands Issue: Proposed projects (vegetation removal, road reconstruction, and recreation trail construction/re- routes) have the potential to affect stream and riparian health. Identified wetlands throughout the study area could be temporarily and/or permanently affected by construction and implementation of the proposed projects. Analytical Indicators & Requirements:
• Identification/quantification of streams and wetlands in the study area
• Quantification (acres) of ground disturbance within the Water Influence Zone (WIZ) of water bodies
• Analysis of PDCs and BMPs to minimize and/or avoid impacts to stream channels and wetlands
Hunter Creek-Smuggler Mountain Cooperative Plan Environmental Assessment 1-12 Chapter 1: Purpose and Need
• Assessment of stream health conditions within the study area (in accordance with WRNF and Region 2 protocols)
Air Quality Issue: Prescribed burning, as a tool to achieve forest health and wildlife enhancement project goals, may temporarily affect air quality. In addition, short-term, construction related emissions could be generated by proposed projects.
Analytical Indicators & Requirements:
• Summary of baseline conditions and the anticipated effects to the proximate Class I Airshed
• Assessment of short-term, construction related effects
• Identification of design criteria to reduce air quality effects
Colorado Roadless Areas and Central Mountains Outdoor Heritage Proposal Issue: The 2012 Colorado Roadless Rule designates two Colorado Roadless Areas (CRA) that overlap with portions of the study area—Red Mountain and North Independence A. Proposed projects within these CRAs have potential to change the characteristics of the CRAs. In addition, Senator Udall’s Central Mountains Outdoor Heritage Proposal (Central Mountains Proposal) includes lands within the Study area proposed for wilderness designation (pending a legislative process). Proposed projects within the lands identified in the Central Mountains Proposal could impact the ability for these lands to be designated in the future as wilderness.
Analytical Indicators & Requirements:
• Quantification of overlapping acreage between the CRAs and the study area
• Evaluation of each alternative within the context of the 2012 Colorado Roadless Rule (including Roadless Area Characteristics, prohibitions on tree cutting, sale or removal, and prohibitions on road construction and reconstruction)
• Quantification of overlapping acreage between the Central Mountains Proposal and the study area
• Evaluation of each alternative within the context of the Central Mountains Proposal and the alteration of characteristics that could preclude future designation as a wilderness area
Traffic Issue: Proposed projects, particularly forest health and wildlife habitat enhancement projects, have the potential to affect traffic in and around the study area. The transportation of logging equipment and removal of material could increase construction traffic primarily on Smuggler Mountain Road and Red Mountain Road/Hunter Creek Toll Road.
Hunter Creek-Smuggler Mountain Cooperative Plan Environmental Assessment 1-13 Chapter 1: Purpose and Need
Analytical Indicators & Requirements:
• Quantification of vehicle trips associated with vegetation treatment projects
H. ISSUES NOT CARRIED FORWARD FOR DETAILED ANALYSIS Social and Economic Resources These resources are dismissed from further analysis because none of the alternatives would result in long- term effects to jobs in the region, population trends, or housing. The implementation of forest health and wildlife enhancement projects could result in short-term timber jobs, but these would not be permanent or of lasting duration. The effect of these jobs on the Aspen economy would be minimal. Additionally, the alternatives are not expected to impact population trends or housing demand/availability in the Aspen region.
Noise This resource is dismissed from further analysis due to the temporary nature and limited spatial scale of noise-generating projects in the study area. The implementation of forest health and wildlife enhancement projects could generate limited noise. However, the noise would be of a limited duration, only occurring for a portion of the summer. Additionally, given the large size of the study area (4,681 acres), localized noise from project implementation would likely not be audible throughout the majority of the study area and surrounding lands.
I. SCOPE OF ANALYSIS Scope consists of the range of actions, alternatives, and impacts to be considered within this EA. Furthermore, it includes the spatial and temporal boundaries associated with the actions, alternatives, and impacts. Individual project elements that compose the alternatives are discussed in detail in Chapter 2, and are illustrated in associated figures. The scope of this environmental analysis varies by resource. Therefore, the scope of analysis is presented at the beginning of each resource section in Chapter 3. This EA analyzes direct, indirect and cumulative impacts on a resource-by-resource basis.
J. FOREST SERVICE POLICY AND DIRECTION The alternatives align with goals, objectives, and strategies from the 2002 White River National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan). All of the proposed projects are analyzed in the context of Forest Service policy and direction in order to ensure compliance. No inconsistencies have been identified.
The Forest Plan includes 33 separate Management Areas for different portions of the forest based on ecological conditions, historic development, and anticipated future conditions. The study area falls within five different Management Areas: Backcountry Recreation – Non-motorized; Scenery; Dispersed Recreation, High Use; Forested Flora and Fauna Habitats; and Deer and Elk Winter Range. These
Hunter Creek-Smuggler Mountain Cooperative Plan Environmental Assessment 1-14 Chapter 1: Purpose and Need
Management Areas, and their applicability to the study area and the Hunter-Smuggler Plan, are summarized below.
FOREST PLAN DIRECTION
Management Area 1.31: Backcountry Recreation – Non-motorized The southeastern portion of the study area on Smuggler Mountain is allocated as Management Area 1.31. This Management Area extends well south, beyond the study area, to the Benedict Huts.
Backcountry, non-motorized recreation areas are managed to provide recreation opportunities in a natural-appearing landscape. These areas are generally unroaded or may have some evidence of past roads, natural or natural-appearing with little evidence of recent human-caused disturbance, and important for providing non-motorized recreation near the primitive end of the recreation opportunity spectrum. Within this Management Area, a variety of year-round non-motorized recreation opportunities occur across the Forest, and trailheads, trails, signs, bridges, fences, huts or shelters that enhance the recreational opportunities may be present. Within the study area, many of these features exist and could be enhanced to support hiking, horseback riding, cross-country skiing, snowshoeing, and mountain biking opportunities.
Management Area 4.2: Scenery The southwestern portion of the study area on Smuggler Mountain is allocated as Management Area 4.2. Across the Forest, Scenery areas are managed to protect or preserve scenic values and recreation uses of designated scenic byways and other heavily used scenic destinations and travel corridors. In this case, Highway 82 towards Independence Pass is part of the Top of the Rockies National Scenic and Historic Byway and the NFS lands adjacent to Highway 82 include this designation to preserve the scenic integrity. In the study area, recreation facilities such as scenic overlooks and interpretive signs occur. This Management Area allows for vegetation alterations to be present to enhance the viewing opportunity and to maintain long-term vigor and health of the vegetation. Vegetation management activities should be visually subordinate to the surrounding landscape. Access is provided to natural attractions or areas that feature desired recreational opportunities.
Because scenic quality is emphasized, all activities and interactions should maintain the scenic values for which the area is designated. The Management Area description in the Forest Plan directs that activities should maintain a variety of successional stages, plant communities, and associated wildlife through a combination of human manipulation and natural processes. Habitat-improvement projects that increase the potential for viewing and interpreting a variety of wildlife species while providing for visitor and wildlife safety are encouraged.
Hunter Creek-Smuggler Mountain Cooperative Plan Environmental Assessment 1-15 Chapter 1: Purpose and Need
Management Area 4.32: Dispersed Recreation, High Use Management Area 4.32 is managed for recreational opportunities and scenic qualities in locations that attract high numbers of users, such as areas around easily accessible bodies of water. For the Hunter- Smuggler study area, Management Area 4.32 occurs on the western end of the Hunter Creek Valley where Hunter Creek and extensive wetland complexes dominate the landscape. In general, Dispersed Recreation Management Areas are commonly located adjacent to bodies of water where the public concentrates for recreational purposes, which is certainly true for the Hunter Creek Valley. These activities occur in settings characterized by scenic beauty.
Trails and roads may lead to and around water features within this Management Area, which occurs within the Hunter-Smuggler study area. The Management Area allows for recreation facilities to be developed and maintained as needed to provide for resource protection and a high quality recreation experience. Biological communities should be maintained or improved to provide an attractive setting for visitors, complement the recreational values, and provide varied plant communities, structural stages, and associated wildlife.
Management Area 5.4: Forested Flora and Fauna Habitats Management Area 5.4 includes primarily forested ecosystems intermingled with grassland and shrub communities, and are managed to provide a mix of ecological and human needs. This Management Area is located in the more remote, eastern portion of the study area where less human activity currently exists.
Visitors can expect to see other people and evidence of human activities including silvicultural treatments and domestic livestock; see managed but natural-appearing stands of trees with cut or burned areas showing soil disturbance, snags, tree stumps, slash, landings, or skid trails; and find dispersed recreation opportunities including both motorized and non-motorized, although they may also find that access is restricted, at times, through the use of seasonal or year-long road closures. Recreation management activities are compatible with other resource values. The area has a road and trail system.
These areas provide for a variety of forest and non-forest plant communities and successional stages, over the long term, through a combination of human manipulation and natural processes. Management activities are influenced by biological processes found in the area, and strive to replicate local natural vegetation patterns and patch size (HRV). Vegetation management is designed to simulate natural disturbances, thus silvicultural treatments may be larger than 40 acres in size. A full range of silvicultural prescriptions may be employed that includes timber harvest and prescribed fire management, in which both focus on long-term desired conditions.
Management Area 5.41: Deer and Elk Winter Range Deer and elk winter ranges are managed to provide adequate amounts of quality forage, cover and solitude for deer, elk and other species while on winter range. The northern portion of the study area is comprised of this Management Area. Human activities are managed so that deer and elk can effectively
Hunter Creek-Smuggler Mountain Cooperative Plan Environmental Assessment 1-16 Chapter 1: Purpose and Need use the area. Activities that may be managed or restricted include burning, rangeland management, timber harvest, habitat manipulation, recreation, minerals exploration and development, and road management. Population herd objectives are established in coordination with Colorado Parks and Wildlife.
Vegetation composition and structure are managed to meet the needs of deer, elk, and other species on their winter range. Quaking aspen, Gambel oak, serviceberry, antelope bitterbrush, sage, grasses, and forbs are common throughout the area. Management activities are designed to maintain or create habitat mosaic of various types, age classes, and structural stages.
COLORADO ROADLESS AREAS The 2012 Colorado Roadless Rule, which replaces the 2001 Roadless Rule, provides a high level of conservation of roadless area characteristics on approximately 4.2 million acres of NFS lands within the state. The rule refers to roadless areas within the State of Colorado as “Colorado Roadless Areas” (CRAs). There are two CRAs within the study area (refer to Figure 8). The North Independence A CRA overlaps with the southeastern portion of the study area and extends southeast, bordered on the south by Colorado Highway 82 and to the north and east by Hunter-Fryingpan Wilderness. The total area of the North Independence A CRA is approximately 4,550 acres, of which approximately 380 acres (8 percent) is within the study area. The Red Mountain CRA overlaps with the northern portion of the study area and extends to the north, bordered on the east by Hunter-Fryingpan Wilderness, on the north by the North Woody CRA, and on the west by the forest boundary and private land. The total area of the Red Mountain CRA is approximately 6,480 acres, of which approximately 1,720 acres (26 percent) is within the study area. The 2012 Colorado Roadless Rule establishes prohibitions for tree cutting, road construction and reconstruction, and use of linear construction zones with limited exceptions. Please refer to Chapter 3 for a more detailed discussion of CRAs within the study area. The CRAs assessment and findings were reviewed through the Forest Service Region 2 Roadless Project Evaluation process, and the Forest Service coordinated with the State of Colorado throughout the planning process.
K. DECISION TO BE MADE Based on preliminary internal Forest Service analysis and external public scoping, and evaluation of the context and intensity factors contained in 40 CFR 1508.27, the Forest Service determined an EA is appropriate to review, analyze, and document the potential impacts to the human, physical and biological environment anticipated to result from implementation of the Action Alternatives. This EA is a disclosure rather than a decision document and its purpose is to provide sufficient environmental analysis to support a Decision Notice.
Based on the analysis documented within this EA, the responsible official—the District Ranger—will decide whether to select the No Action Alternative, Proposed Action or Alternative 3. A draft Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact document has been released in conjunction with this EA. In addition to determining which alternative to select, the responsible official will also determine which
Hunter Creek-Smuggler Mountain Cooperative Plan Environmental Assessment 1-17 Chapter 1: Purpose and Need
PDCs to require. The responsible official may also require additional management requirements not discussed within this document.
L. OTHER NECESSARY PERMITS, LICENSES, ENTITLEMENTS AND/OR CONSULTATION The Forest Service decision would apply only to NFS lands analyzed within this EA. However, other federal, state, and local entities may also have jurisdiction. Decisions by jurisdictions to issue or not issue approvals related to this proposal may be aided by the analyses presented in this EA. While the Forest Service assumes no responsibility for enforcing laws, regulations, or policies under the jurisdiction of other governmental agencies, Forest Service regulations require permittees to abide by applicable laws and conditions imposed by other jurisdictions. In addition to requisite Forest Service approvals, consultation with the following entities, or permits, may be required to implement any approved projects:
• Permission from Pitkin County to transport logging equipment and material on county roads and use of Pitkin County Open Space lands for landing areas.
Hunter Creek-Smuggler Mountain Cooperative Plan Environmental Assessment 1-18 Chapter 2 Description of Alternatives Chapter 2: Description of Alternatives
2. DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES
A. INTRODUCTION Chapter 2 describes the alternatives considered within this environmental analysis. Management Requirements and PDC included in the Action Alternatives to lessen or avoid impacts are also detailed.
NEPA requires that an environmental analysis examine a range of alternatives, which are reasonably related to the purpose of the project.2 Both CEQ Regulations and Forest Service Handbook direction emphasize that alternatives must meet the “reasonableness” criteria in order to warrant detailed analysis. Alternatives and project components which were considered by the Forest Service Interdisciplinary (ID) Team, but not carried forward for detailed analysis, are discussed here.3
B. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED IN DETAIL
ALTERNATIVE 1 – NO ACTION As required by NEPA, a No Action Alternative has been included in this analysis for review alongside the Proposed Action.4 By definition, the No Action Alternative represents a continuation of existing management practices without changes, additions, or upgrades to existing conditions. The No Action Alternative serves as the baseline for which to compare the potential environmental effects of the Proposed Action. No vegetation management or recreational projects would be approved under the No Action Alternative (refer to Figure 1).
ALTERNATIVE 2 – THE PROPOSED ACTION Components of the Proposed Action focus on addressing the needs that were previously identified. Figures 2 and 3 identify locations and opportunities for projects within the study area. If approved, implementation of projects would occur primarily in the summer months during the next twenty years. The Forest Service recognizes that conditions may change during this time and supplemental NEPA review/analysis may be necessary. Projects included in the Proposed Action are located across a larger study area, which is 4,681 acres. For this reason, each project is not exactly identified in location; therefore, the Proposed Action identifies general locations of projects based on the assessment and outreach conducted during the Hunter-Smuggler Plan process. For forest health and wildlife habitat improvement, the Proposed Action project list provides a range of potential projects to address the needs of certain resources and identified concerns. Analyzing and potentially approving a range of projects (or tools) to achieve the identified needs would allow improved flexibility in the future to implement projects that will better meet the current and site-specific conditions of that time. This analysis identifies general
2 USDA Forest Service, 2008 3 40 CFR 1502.14(a) 4 40 CFR 1502.14
Hunter Creek-Smuggler Mountain Cooperative Plan Environmental Assessment 2-1 Chapter 2: Description of Alternatives areas for possible project implementation and ground disturbance. Site-specific surveys would be conducted before engaging in ground-disturbing activities.
Specific locations and timelines for project implementation would be established in annual Implementation Plans (refer to Appendix A). The Implementation Team would meet at least semi- annually to specify projects to be implemented. With reference to the Hunter-Smuggler Plan and adherence to potentially approved projects in the Forest Service decision document, the Implementation Team would create an annual Implementation Plan specifying location, management prescription, PDC, and other necessary information for projects to be implemented each year. The Implementation Plan would be finalized by March of that year through recommendations from the team to the Forest Service. This process would ensure adequate time for review and site specific surveys prior to implementation, typically occurring in late summer. Prior year projects could start and/or continue as specified in the prior year’s Implementation Plan. The Forest Service would remain the final decision maker for annual projects to be implemented.
The Proposed Action incorporates an adaptive management approach. Adaptive management is an iterative process of decision making in the face of uncertainty, with an aim to reducing uncertainty over time via monitoring. Adaptive management is a crucial tool to ensure that the design and implementation of ecological management projects use the most up to date information, data and scientific research possible. Projects designed and implemented as part of the Hunter Smuggler Cooperative Plan should utilize adaptive management principles. Each project should not only have a clear set of objectives but should also include an evaluation component to assess whether those objectives were met and identify a feedback loop to determine how similar projects should be modified in the future to better achieve project objectives.
A major component of this overall process and project is education. The Forest Service and the project proponents strongly believe this project can be an example of effective landscape planning, analysis, implementation and monitoring, which can serve as an outdoor classroom for generations to come.
In conjunction with any approved ground disturbing activities, PDCs would be implemented to avoid or minimize resource impacts (e.g., soil, water and vegetation). All disturbed areas would be revegetated and stabilized promptly.
The Proposed Action includes the following project groups, each of which is described with additional detail below:
• Recreation Trail Improvements, Management and Maintenance
• Forest Health and Wildlife Habitat Improvements and Management
• Smuggler Mountain Road (County Road 21) Improvements and Maintenance
Hunter Creek-Smuggler Mountain Cooperative Plan Environmental Assessment 2-2 Chapter 2: Description of Alternatives
• Outdoor Education
Recreation Trail Improvements, Management and Maintenance In response to Purpose and Need #1, 2, 3 and 7 (described in this EA as well as the Hunter-Smuggler Plan), the following projects are proposed to address desired conditions. Many of the projects require minimal, if any, ground disturbance to implement. Many of the projects would utilize existing trails to improve the overall trail network. Those projects that are new trails or require measurable ground disturbance in the context of the overall study area are discussed in greater detail (refer to Figure 2).
Signage, Maps and Trail/Route Designations • Extend the theming and signage design already established by the City of Aspen and Pitkin County on adjacent open space properties onto NFS lands within the study area.
• Add additional signage and way-finding to trail junctions throughout the study area.
• Identify, through maps and signage, trail difficulties throughout the study area as either “Easy” or “Moderate-Difficult.”
• Identify and map an extended loop within the study area, comprised of existing trails, which would provide a half-day mountain biking experience. Promote this trail through materials at local bike shops and with guides.
• Identify a Heritage Trail, comprised of existing trails, which would allow recreationists to safely explore the mining, logging, and homesteading relics found within the study area.
• Identify a short, easily accessible nature hike on existing trails within the study area that offers wildlife viewing, educational/interpretive amenities, and light recreation.
• Identify backcountry skiing trails and routes on existing trails within the Hunter Creek Valley.
• Develop a recreational map to illustrate all of the above opportunities.
Existing Trail Repairs, Restoration, Realignments or Crossings • Re-route to improve erosion/drainage, as well as rideability of trails; restore/revegetate existing alignments. As identified on Figure 2, four existing trails would be re-routed: Upper Plunge, Van Horn Lookout, Sunnyside Plunge and Iowa Shaft.5 The exact re-route alignments are undefined at this time; however, the Planning Team understands the existing problem and that a re-route would improve the condition of the trail, the riding experience and reduce erosion issues. Primarily these trails would be re-routed away from existing streams. The re-route would occur within the zones displayed on Figure 2. The current alignment that would be re-routed would be fully revegetated and restored upon establishment of the new route to preclude future use.
5 The official Forest Service trail numbers for these trails are as follows: Sunnyside Plunge, 1987.2; Sunnyside, 1987.1; Van Horn, 1989.1; Iowa Shaft, 2172.1.
Hunter Creek-Smuggler Mountain Cooperative Plan Environmental Assessment 2-3 Chapter 2: Description of Alternatives
• Repair/resurface or fill ruts and holes in existing trails that are causing flooding and trail obstacles; install boardwalks or drains as necessary. As identified on Figure 2, Sunnyside, Hunter Valley, and Lollipop (non-system) trails would be repaired. The proposed repairs would primarily occur within the existing tread width; however, additional restoration or boardwalks may occur beyond the existing tread width to improve the condition of the existing trail and reduce erosion.
Existing Trail Closures, New Trail Connections and Separation of Uses • Close and rehabilitate trails that are redundant and unnecessary. Several trails within the study area were approved in the WRNF TMP for closure. Those trails are re-identified in this Proposed Action for closure, as the project proponents intend to expedite the trail closure and restoration process. Two trails that are unnecessary and would be closed, include: a trail that parallels the south side of Hunter Creek and a trail/historic mining road that is located on the north aspect of Smuggler Mountain between Smuggler Mountain Road and Iowa Shaft trail. These trails would be revegetated and restored to preclude future use.
In addition, the Van Horn Lookout trail would be closed to motorized use.
• Close and restore trails in order to increase contiguous wildlife habitat. A trail on Smuggler Mountain in the southeast corner of the study area has been identified for closure to improve wildlife habitat. This trail was identified in the WRNF TMP for closure, and the trail would be revegetated and restored to preclude future use.
• Establish a new single-track loop in the Hunter Creek Valley for beginner riders and hikers. A new trail (Hummingbird Traverse and Hunter Ditch Loop) with a tread width averaging approximately 24 inches would be constructed with appropriate grades to allow for use by beginner riders and hikers. Prior to implementation of this project, the Implementation Team would delineate the exact alignment of the trail and determine consistency with the resource analysis and findings included in this EA. This new trail could be up to 2.5 miles in length. The trail concept would connect Sunnyside Plunge with Hunter Valley North approximately 1 mile east of the existing connection. This connection could be up to 0.5 mile in length. This concept would provide the appropriate steepness for a beginner hiker and biker or families with children.
• Identify areas where conflicts are known to occur and consider the separation of uses, through management or paralleling of trails. The Planning Team has identified two trail segments that would involve a separation of uses: Iowa Shaft and Lollipop trails.
• Clearly indicate through signage and mapping where motorized recreation is allowed.
• Monitor trail condition and user trends, ongoing into the future, to identify shifting demand within the study area.
Hunter Creek-Smuggler Mountain Cooperative Plan Environmental Assessment 2-4 Chapter 2: Description of Alternatives
Single-track Mountain Bike Trail • Design an ideal alignment for a mountain biking trail on the south side of Smuggler Mountain, regardless of its current route (refer to Figure 2 for the proposed general zone of a new trail); considerations must include avoidance, completely or to the greatest extent practicable, of important wildlife habitat (such as elk winter range and transition habitat and bear fall concentration and denning habitat), rideability, and visual experience. This trail could be up to 4.2 miles in length.
• Prior to implementation of this project, the Implementation Team would delineate the exact alignment of the trail and determine consistency with the resource analysis and findings included in this EA.
• Close and restore sections of the current alignment that do not coincide with the newly designed alignment.
• Where existing segments do coincide with the newly designed alignment, identify and correct existing drainage, surface, or width issues.
• Implement strict closures for recreational use between December 1st and April 30th; enforce these closures through physical gates, signage and cooperation from Forest Service, City and County rangers.
• Install signage on Smuggler Mountain Road every quarter-mile to coincide with closures to educate the public about the importance of staying out of these areas during the winter.
Forest Health and Wildlife Habitat Improvements and Management In response to Purpose and Need #4, 5 and 6, the following projects are proposed to address desired conditions. The vegetation treatment projects within the study area have been developed to address the goals/needs of both forest health and wildlife habitat. Unlike the recreation trail projects, the following project list is a range of potential actions to address the stated need. Furthermore, in some areas of the study area a patch cut may be more beneficial than brood tree removal and verbenone application. By analyzing and potentially approving a suite of tools, the Implementation Team could be more flexible in the future during implementation (refer to Figure 3).
Tree removal to improve forest health, wildlife habitat and fire hazard reduction is restricted by limited infrastructure. Smuggler Mountain Road is steep and narrow, with heavy recreational use. Red Mountain Road has a tight switchback and is a residential road. This mostly demands the use of short bed trucks (approximately 20-foot) for all timber removal. Furthermore, the lack of roads in general for the area, slopes over 35 percent, and erosive soils limit the amount of ground-based operations (tractor, skidder, forwarder or equivalent) that can be used. Considering the limitations, it is expected that the majority of material would be removed via helicopter. The use of ground disturbing, heavy machinery would be limited to stands within a quarter-mile of an existing road of the study area (refer to Figure 7 for an
Hunter Creek-Smuggler Mountain Cooperative Plan Environmental Assessment 2-5 Chapter 2: Description of Alternatives identification of the quarter-mile buffer). Stands further than quarter-mile from an existing road would be ineligible for treatment using ground disturbing, heavy machinery, and material would be removed via helicopter or burned on site, depending on the fuel type.6 Helicopter use throughout the study area would be restricted to a limited time period in the fall to account for wildlife. No new permanent roads would be constructed. The skid tracks and forwarder tracks approved would be short-term and temporary. Specifically, temporary roads / tracks would be authorized by contract, permit, lease, other written authorization, or emergency operation that may be associated with a timber sale contract, fire activity, or other short-term project access need, and not intended to be part of the forest development transportation system and not necessary for future resource management. When intended use is ended, these roads are treated to eliminate motor vehicle traffic and permit the reestablishment of vegetation to minimize erosion with intent to return to a natural state. All temporary roads / tracks would be closed, treated, and returned to their natural state within three years of the road / track construction date. This would allow for multiple season implementation but ensure temporary roads / tracks are not maintained and subsequently used for other purposes. Refer to Table 2-2 for more detailed criteria for permitted treatment and removal options.
Prohibitions in the Colorado Roadless Rule further limit circumstances where tree cutting can occur. Any tree cutting within a Colorado Roadless Area (CRA) would meet exceptions for wildlife habitat improvement, improving ecosystem composition and structure, or incidental to a management activity not otherwise prohibited. Mechanical harvesting and the use of heavy equipment are not prohibited by the Colorado Roadless Rule. No permanent road construction or road reconstruction would take place within a CRA. Colorado Parks and Wildlife assisted in the development of this project and helped ensure meeting the intent of the Colorado Roadless Rule (CRR). Further, this project was reviewed for Rule consistency by the Regional Office.
Lodgepole Pine and Mixed Conifer To improve the age class and species diversity of lodgepole pine and mixed conifer units, eliminate hazard trees, encourage aspen regeneration and reduce fuel loads and fire risk to values at risk such as lives, homes, water supplies and important infrastructure, the following range of projects is proposed. Within the study area, approximately 1,080 acres of high/moderate risk lodgepole pine stands exist, and
6 Treatment and removal measures permitted within a quarter-mile of existing roads include the use of ground disturbing, heavy machinery, including but not limited to: chippers, skidders, forwarders, de-limbers, clippers, and log trucks. Due to the proximity to existing roads, these logging operations would not require the construction of new roads. Non-mechanical treatments such as prescribed fire and verbenone application would also be permitted within a quarter-mile of existing roads. Treatment and removal occurring further than quarter-mile from existing roads would exclude ground disturbing, heavy machinery as described above. Permitted measures would include chainsaw, prescribed burn, and verebone application. Removal from these areas would be limited to helicopter. On a site specific basis, following review by resource specialists, treatment units beyond the quarter-mile buffer but contiguous with units within the quarter-mile buffer could be available for treatment utilizing ground disturbing heavy machinery if it were determined the resource conditions were similar in nature and no additional impacts would result. These potential units beyond the quarter-mile buffer would be located on terrain that would not require impacts beyond those disclosed in Chapter 3 of this EA.
Hunter Creek-Smuggler Mountain Cooperative Plan Environmental Assessment 2-6 Chapter 2: Description of Alternatives the Proposed Action would mechanically treat up to 220 acres of this vegetation stand type through implementation of patch cuts. Approximately 1,200 acres of moderate risk mixed conifer stands exist, and the Proposed Action would mechanically treat up to 80 acres of this vegetation stand type through band cuts. In addition to mechanical treatments, other options are presented in detail below. Refer to Figure 3 for an identification of all lodgepole pine and mixed conifer stands.
Refer to VMP Treatments 2A-E and 3A-F (in Appendix B of this document)
• 1- to 2.5-acre patch cuts on up to 20 percent of moderate and high-risk lodgepole stands (up to 220 acres total), and up to 6.7 percent of moderate and high-risk mixed conifer stands (up to 80 acres total). Risk is based on the Forest Service MPB Risk Model, and percentages are based on historic fire return (HRV) intervals. These treatments will retain valuable wildlife habitat elements such as cavity trees, large snags, large down logs, pockets of hardwoods (aspen or oak), or pockets of coarse woody debris. This treatment option could occur within the quarter-mile road buffer with the use of ground disturbing, heavy machinery. In addition, this treatment option could occur beyond the quarter-mile road buffer without the use of ground disturbing, heavy machinery, or consistent with the above stated provision in footnote 6.
• Brood tree removal and verbenone patch or flake application across select lodgepole and mixed conifer stands, where MPB population is present in more than 1 percent of the stand.
• Prescribed burns, including both broadcast and pile burning; performed with careful consideration to the proximity to the Aspen community and private property. Broadcast burning would be used only where the retention or regeneration of lodgepole pine is not desired. That is, broadcast burning may be used to favor the establishment of aspen or other tree or shrub species.
• Pre and Post treatment of inventoried invasive species would occur as necessary to discourage the establishment or spread of invasive noxious weeds. All weed treatments will be done in accordance with the White River National Forest Invasive Plant Species Management decision (8/30/2007).
• Issuance of firewood permits, where practicable, for the use of felled timber may occur under the administration of the Forest Service.
• Intermediate weed and release in previously treated stands to maximize retention or establishment of desirable tree species.
• Ongoing monitoring activities in all treated stands (refer to Table 2-2).
Aspen To increase the extent, age class diversity and quality of the aspen covertype in the study area, the following range of projects is proposed. Within the study area, approximately 1,400 acres of aspen stands
Hunter Creek-Smuggler Mountain Cooperative Plan Environmental Assessment 2-7 Chapter 2: Description of Alternatives exist, and the Proposed Action would mechanically treat up to 280 acres of this vegetation type through implementation of patch cuts (refer to Figure 3).
Refer to VMP Treatments 1A-E and 2A-C (in Appendix B of this document)
• 0.1- to 2-acre patch cuts of stagnant and decadent aspen on up to 20 percent of the aspen stands found within the study area (up to 280 acres total). Patch cuts could be followed by mechanical root stimulation to increase representation and quality of aspen. Root stimulation does not require the use of ground disturbing, heavy machinery. Refer to Table 2-2 for design criteria that will evaluate the impact of over-browsing on aspen patch cuts. The Forest Service will determine if larger patch sizes are necessary to achieve project goals. VMP Treatment Types: 1B and 2B.
• Band cuts of lodgepole pine within approximately 100 feet of aspen stands where regeneration is being inhibited (up to 80 total acres). VMP Treatment Types: 1D, 2A and 2C.
• Biochar may be added as a soil amendment.
• Christmas tree cutting within aspen stands that are exhibiting conifer encroachment, where practical.
• Prescribed fire could be used to stimulate the root system, encourage new growth, and provide a suitable environment for them to establish and grow.
• Pre and Post treatment of inventoried invasive species would occur as necessary to discourage the establishment or spread of invasive noxious weeds. All weed treatments will be done in accordance with the White River National Forest Invasive Plant Species Management decision (8/30/2007).
• Ongoing monitoring activities in all treated stands (refer to Table 2-2).
Prior to the implementation of the Aspen Treatments, the Forest Service in cooperation with the Implementation Team would clearly identify the priority units to be treated. The location of aspen projects would be determined based on evaluation of stand conditions using the criteria described below. This evaluation and mapping would occur semi-annually both through consultations with Forest Service, City and County specialists and from relevant and available scientific research seeking to map and evaluate aspen stand conditions with an eye towards informing management.
Criteria to guide aspen treatment locations:
• Whether aspen stands are converting to conifer stands or not.
• Whether saplings and seedlings are limited or abundant within aspen stands.
• Whether aspen stands are susceptible to or buffered from drought stress.”
Hunter Creek-Smuggler Mountain Cooperative Plan Environmental Assessment 2-8 Chapter 2: Description of Alternatives
The final implementation authority rests with the Forest Service Line Officer responsible for implementation of a decision. The Forest Service Line Officer would take project recommendations from the Implementation Team (refer to Appendix A for additional detail).
Gambel Oak/Mountain Shrub/Sagebrush To increase the age class diversity and quality of Gambel oak and mountain shrub and sagebrush stands in the study area, the following range of projects is proposed. Within the study area, approximately 300 acres of Gambel oak stands exist, and the Proposed Action would mechanically treat up to 60 acres of this vegetation type. Additionally, there are approximately 250 acres of mountain shrub and 50 acres of sagebrush within the study area, and the Proposed Action would mechanically treat up to 50 acres and 10 acres of these vegetation types, respectively (refer to Figure 3).
Refer to VMP Treatments 4A-B, 5A-B, and 6A-C (in Appendix B of this document)
• A mosaic of 2- to 10-acre mechanically cleared patch cuts to mimic fire disturbance and/or contiguous cuts to serve as fuel breaks in up to 20 percent of the Gambel oak stands (up to 60 acres total).
• Prescribed burning in Gambel oak stands that are in the outer portions of the study area.
• Mechanical treatment of up to 20 percent of mountain shrub stands (up to 50 acres total). Refer to the VMP for details.
• Mechanical treatment of up to 20 percent of sagebrush stands (approximately 10 acres total). Refer to the VMP for details.
• Pre and Post treatment of inventoried invasive species would occur as necessary to discourage the establishment or spread of invasive noxious weeds. All weed treatments will be done in accordance with the White River National Forest Invasive Plant Species Management decision (8/30/2007).
• Ongoing monitoring activities in all treated stands (refer to Table 2-2).
Smuggler Mountain Road (County Road 21) Improvements and Maintenance Smuggler Mountain Road would be improved to enable safe vehicular access for proposed management activities, while upholding the character and recreational value of the road. The following projects are proposed to address Purpose and Need #8. As previously stated, Smuggler Mountain Road improvements are not subject to Forest Service authorization; however, the Forest Service has included this project in the Proposed Action to provide the public with a full understanding of actions that may occur as a result of a Forest Service decision on the Proposed Action.
• Grading of key sections of Smuggler Mountain Road, from the Smuggler Mountain Road trailhead to the top of Smuggler Mountain (approximately 4 miles), primarily focused on steep
Hunter Creek-Smuggler Mountain Cooperative Plan Environmental Assessment 2-9 Chapter 2: Description of Alternatives
and degraded sections of the road between the trailhead and the picnic area (first 2 miles), and the additional mile past the picnic area.
• Drainage improvements throughout the first 4 miles of Smuggler Mountain Road, to not only allow safe passage, but also to protect water quality; including water bars, swales, and ditches.
• Additional signage to inform the community about the road’s level of service, allowable usage, and role in the management of the surrounding lands.
• Additional improvements as identified through ground surveys, such as surfacing, tree/shrub trimming, etc., in accordance with the Pitkin County Asset Management Plan.
Outdoor Education To promote the study area as an outdoor classroom and research site for cultural resources and environmental education, the following projects are proposed.
• Establish a “Heritage Trail” on existing trails that allows people to easily and safely see and learn about the cultural resources found within the study area.
• Identify on an ongoing basis research and educational opportunities for schools, local organizations, and other groups, as management activities for forest health and wildlife are implemented.
• Promote prescribed burning within the study area as a demonstration site for the benefits that result from ecological disturbance.
2013 Forest Vegetation Treatments The WRNF would implement forest vegetation treatments in the fall of 2013 on Smuggler Mountain. There are seven units proposed for treatment on NFS lands, totaling approximately 9.7 acres. These units are labeled usfs1-usfs7 on Figure 6. Individual acreage of units is as follows: usfs1, 1.6 acres; usfs2, 1.4 acres; usfs3, 2.5 acres; usfs4, 1.8 acres; usfs5, 1.2 acres; usfs6, 0.6 acre; and usfs7, 0.6 acre. Considering the quarter-mile buffer, usfs3 is considered contiguous to usfs1 and the terrain would allow effective access to the unit beyond the quarter-mile buffer. Treatment of these identified units would require limited lengths of skid tracks and forwarder tracks.
The project would include four patch cuts, removing beetle-infested and high risk lodgepole pine (units usfs1-usfs4). The goal of this project is consistent with the overall project Purpose and Need and the project description stated within the Proposed Action under the “Forest Health and Wildlife Habitat Improvements and Management,” “Lodgepole Pine and Mixed Conifer” headings. Moreover, the project would improve the age class diversity of lodgepole pine and other species diversity within the proposed site-specific project area, and the project would further preclude the unacceptable accumulation of heavy fuels within the project area.
Hunter Creek-Smuggler Mountain Cooperative Plan Environmental Assessment 2-10 Chapter 2: Description of Alternatives
Access (Forwarder Track) to units usfs1-usfs4 would utilize an existing road prism, approximately 1,785 feet in length. Skid tracks to usfs1–usfs4 would total approximately 1,526 feet. Road construction is not required or proposed to access usfs1-usfs4; however, a forwarder and skidder would be used. Materials would be consolidated at the landing area near the units then transported down the access route and Smuggler Mountain Road.
Specifically, the project would:
• Fell and remove all lodgepole pine greater than 7 inches DBH;
• Retain all healthy spruce, Douglas-fir and true fir;
• Use a ground based logging system to treat stands, including the use of mechanical fellers, skidders, and forwarders;
• Fell serotinous cone-laden limbs of live trees at the point of felling;
• Lop and scatter or hand pile slash in cutting unit;
• Revegetate disturbed soils with approved native seed mix.
• Prohibit whole tree skidding to protect existing fir and spruce regeneration as well as the residual stand from damage;
• Prohibit burning excessively sized landing piles to preclude potential effects to soils;
• Restrict landing size to < 0.5 acre to reduce soil compaction, maintain scenery, and support travel management compliance; and
• Prohibit temporary road construction and utilize forwarder to reduce skid distances.
In addition to the lodgepole pine treatment, the WRNF would implement three patch cuts to increase the extent, age class diversity and quality of the aspen covertype in the project area (refer to Figure 7). The goal of this project is consistent with the overall project Purpose and Need and the project description stated within the Proposed Action under the “Forest Health and Wildlife Habitat Improvements and Management,” “Aspen” headings. Access to units usfs5-usfs7 would be primarily via Smuggler Mountain Road. An over-the-snow skid track approximately 617 feet in length would provide access to usfs5 and usfs6. The over-the-snow skid track would continue down Smuggler Mountain Road for approximately 1,948 feet, facilitating the removal of materials from usfs5, usfs6, and usfs7 to the landing area on open space land.
Specifically, the project would:
• Use a ground based logging system, including the use of mechanical fellers, skidders, and forwarders;
Hunter Creek-Smuggler Mountain Cooperative Plan Environmental Assessment 2-11 Chapter 2: Description of Alternatives
• Log and skid/forward units located along or below the lower Balcony Trail on snow-pack to preclude widening and increasing the visible access to this non-system trail and to protect the understory shrub component within the project area;
• Cut all trees, including aspen, greater than 5 inches DBH, except for healthy spruce, Douglas-Fir, and subalpine fir;
• Prohibit temporary road construction and utilize forwarder to reduce skid distances; and
• Lop and scatter or hand pile slash in cutting unit, or whole tree skid/forward to the Smuggler Mountain Road, if practicable.
2013 Recreation Projects The WRNF, in partnership with Aspen Center for Environmental Studies, Pitkin County and the City of Aspen, will implement trail signage and wayfinding at high priority locations across the study area. In addition, improved trail mapping may be implemented on NFS lands through collaboration with key partners.
ALTERNATIVE 3 Alternative 3 was created in response to several identified issues raised internally by the WRNF resources staff and externally by the public during the scoping process.
Alternative 3 includes the majority of projects included in the Proposed Action. Alternative 3 differs from the Proposed Action in projects related to Recreation Trail Improvements, Management and Maintenance and Forest Health and Wildlife Habitat Improvements and Management. To respond to identified issues, Alternative 3 does not include a trail on the south side of Smuggler Mountain, designates an 830-acre portion of the study area as a Natural Disturbance Treatment Zone only available for less intensive vegetation management treatments for forest health and wildlife enhancement projects, and reduces total proposed forest health/wildlife project acreages. The boundary of the Natural Disturbance Treatment Zone was determined based on the spatial overlap of a Forest Plan Management Area, CRAs, and proposed wilderness areas. In the eastern portion of the study area, Management Area 5.4: Forested Flora and Fauna Habitats overlaps with the Red Mountain and Hunter CRAs. In addition, Management Area 5.4 overlaps with the Central Mountains Outdoor Heritage proposal boundary for the creation of more wilderness areas. The Alternative 3 Natural Disturbance Treatment Zone boundary of this area was primarily determined by the extent of the Forested Flora and Fauna Habitats Management Area (refer to Figure 5).
Recreation Trail Improvements, Management and Maintenance Alternative 3 includes all recreation projects described in the Proposed Action with the exception of a single track mountain bike trail on the south side of Smuggler Mountain, and incorporates an alternative
Hunter Creek-Smuggler Mountain Cooperative Plan Environmental Assessment 2-12 Chapter 2: Description of Alternatives spatial boundary for the new Hummingbird Traverse and Hunter Ditch Loop trails. Within the Natural Disturbance Treatment Zone there would be no development of recreational trails. The alternative concept for the Hummingbird Traverse and Hunter Ditch Loop in Alternative 3 results in a shorter trail than the Proposed Action. The Hummingbird Traverse and Hunter Ditch Loop could be up to 2.5 miles in length. The connection to Sunnyside Plunge could be up to 0.5 mile in length (refer to Figure 4).
Forest Health and Wildlife Habitat Improvements and Management Alternative 3 includes all forest health and wildlife projects described in the Proposed Action with the exception of activity in the Natural Disturbance Treatment Zone.
Within the Natural Disturbance Treatment Zone vegetation and wildlife habitat enhancement projects would be completed through natural disturbance treatments. Natural disturbance treatments include prescribed fire and future insect infestation processes. Outside of the Natural Disturbance Treatment Zone, the treatments would be similar, but quantifiably less, to those in the Proposed Action. As in the Proposed Action, the quarter-mile buffer from existing roads would determine areas eligible for the use of ground disturbing, heavy machinery. Refer to Table 2-2 for more detailed criteria for permitted treatment and removal options.
In addition to these deviations from the Proposed Action, Alternative 3 also proposes lower total acreages of forest health/wildlife improvement projects. The Natural Disturbance Treatment Zone covers 19 percent of the area of proposed treatments outlined in the Proposed Action, thus in Alternative 3, the area of proposed treatments is reduced by 19 percent. Maximum proposed mechanical treatment areas in Alternative 3 are as follows:
• Lodgepole pine: 178 acres
• Mixed conifer: 65 acres
• Aspen: 226 acres
• Gambel oak: 48 acres
• Mountain shrub: 40 acres
• Sagebrush: 8 acres
• Band cuts of lodgepole pine/mixed conifer in areas of aspen encroachment: 65 acres
2013 Forest Vegetation Treatments Forest vegetation treatments proposed for implementation in the fall of 2013 would be identical to the projects described in Alternative 2.
Hunter Creek-Smuggler Mountain Cooperative Plan Environmental Assessment 2-13 Chapter 2: Description of Alternatives
2013 Recreation Projects Recreation trail projects proposed for implementation in the fall of 2013 would be identical to the projects described in Alternative 2.
Hunter Creek-Smuggler Mountain Cooperative Plan Environmental Assessment 2-14 Chapter 2: Description of Alternatives
C. COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES Table 2-1: Comparison of Alternatives
Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Component Alternative 3 No Action Proposed Action
Study Area (acres) 4,681 4,681 4,681 Total Length of Existing Recreation Trails within 31 31 31 the Study Area (miles)
RECREATION TRAIL REPAIRS (# OF TRAILS) 0 3 3 Sunnyside No Yes Yes Hunter Valley No Yes Yes Lollipop No Yes Yes
RECREATION TRAIL RE-ROUTES (# OF TRAILS) 0 4 4 Upper Plunge No Yes Yes Van Horn Lookout No Yes Yes Sunnyside Plunge No Yes Yes Iowa Shaft No Yes Yes
NEW RECREATION TRAILS (# OF TRAILS, MILES) 0 3, 7.2 miles 2, 1.5 miles Hummingbird Traverse No Yes, 2.5 miles Yes, 1 mile Hunter Ditch Loop No Yes, 0.5 mile Yes, 0.5 mile Southside Smuggler No Yes, 4.2 miles No
FOREST HEALTH/WILDLIFE HABITAT IMPROVEMENTS PROJECTS (MECHANICAL TREATMENTS) Lodgepole Pine Treatment (acres) 0 220 178 Mixed Conifer Treatment (acres) 0 80 65 Aspen Treatment (acres) 0 280 226 Gambel Oak Treatment (acres) 0 60 48 Mountain Shrub Treatment (acres) 0 50 40 Sagebrush Treatment (acres) 0 10 8 Lodgepole Pine/Mixed Conifer Removal – 0 80 65 Aspen Encroachment (acres)
FOREST HEALTH/WILDLIFE HABITAT IMPROVEMENTS PROJECTS (NON-MECHANICAL TREATMENTS) Verbenone Application (acres) 0 2,280 2,128 Natural Disturbance Treatment Zone (acres) 0 0 830 (refer to Figure 5)
Hunter Creek-Smuggler Mountain Cooperative Plan Environmental Assessment 2-15 Chapter 2: Description of Alternatives
D. ALTERNATIVES AND DESIGN COMPONENTS CONSIDERED BUT ELIMINATED FROM DETAILED ANALYSIS
INCREASING SIZE OF PATCH CUTS Concerns were raised during the scoping process that the size of patch cuts in the Proposed Action is too small to adequately address forest health concerns in the study area. A new alternative was considered that would have increased the size of patch cuts, but was not carried forward. It was determined a PDC addressing patch cut size in both Action Alternatives would appropriately allow for adjustments to patch cut size (refer to Table 2-2). If monitoring determines the patch cut sizes are too small resulting in too much browsing, the size could be adjusted.
E. MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS AND PROJECT DESIGN CRITERIA In order to minimize potential resource impacts from construction and implementation of any approved projects, PDCs and monitoring practices have been incorporated into the Action Alternatives. These are identified in Table 2-2.
PDC are devised in the pre-analysis and analysis phases to reduce environmental impacts that must be complied with by law and/or regulation. They include, but are not limited to, BMPs, standards and guidelines, and standard operating procedures.
PDC were designed by the Forest Service and specialists involved in this analysis. They come from federal, state, and local laws, regulations and policies, forest plans, scientific research, and from experience in designing similar projects. The bulk of the PDC are considered common practices that have been historically used in alpine and sub-alpine environments to prevent or decrease potential resource impacts. They are highly effective methods that can be planned in advance and adapted to site conditions, as needed.
The potential effects of implementing the Action Alternatives (provided in Chapter 3) were analyzed with these PDC applied.
Responsibility for ensuring that required PDCs are implemented rests with the Forest Service, although the intent is to complement management actions on adjacent lands administered by the City of Aspen and Pitkin County. In all cases, the ultimate enforcement mechanism for implementation of the specified PDC would be the Decision Notice, and would extend from the Forest Supervisor to the District Ranger.
Hunter Creek-Smuggler Mountain Cooperative Plan Environmental Assessment 2-16 Chapter 2: Description of Alternatives
Table 2-2: Project Design Criteria (PDC) and Monitoring Practices Incorporated into the Action Alternatives WILDLIFE Prior to each field season, district wildlife biologists and botanists will be provided with GIS layers and hardcopy maps of potential treatment areas. Proposed Endangered, Threatened and Sensitive species (PETS) and species of local concern will be individually evaluated as they occur within proposed project areas. The Line Officer, in coordination with District wildlife biologists and botanists will determine consultation, survey and site protection needs on an individual and as-needed basis. For any PETS species or species of concern with identified viability concerns, the wildlife biologist and/or botanist will identify activity restrictions or enhancement opportunities (area, timing, retention of felled trees on-site to provide linkage/connectivity of habitats, etc.) such that implementation will not result in a trend toward Federal listing or loss of population viability. 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: Reduce sediment from existing roads and trails. Maintain pool depths. Maintain riparian vegetation. Retain large woody debris in streams. For the boreal toad and northern leopard frog, allow no loss or reduction in habitat quality of occupied or known historic boreal toad or leopard frog habitat. 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. To prevent direct mortality to boreal toads restrict the following activities to periods when toads are inactive (generally late fall to early spring): 1) Management ignited fire treatments within 3 miles of occupied boreal toad breeding sites, 2) Vegetation management using heavy, ground-based equipment with 1.5 miles of occupied boreal toad breeding sites. Restrictions will be approved by the Line Officer in coordination with a Forest Service aquatic biologist. Protect or enhance individuals of management species of concern and their habitat by modifying treatment design as necessary. This can include increasing treatment patch sizes due to over-browsing to achieve project goals. Overall treatment patch size acreage will remain within the total acreage approved for the different stand types within the study area. For breeding migratory birds, avoid burning or mechanical treatments during the primary avian nesting and young rearing seasons for each general vegetation/elevation zone: May to mid-August for subalpine grasslands 6,000 to 10,000 ft. elevation; End of May to mid-August for oak-dominated shrublands 5,500 to 9,500 ft elevation; June to end July for aspen vegetation above 7,000 ft elevation; Treatments may occur in these timeframes, with prior approval of the Line Officer in coordination with a Forest Service wildlife biologist. Reason for adjusting treatment periods may include changes in breeding and nest phenology due to annual variation in available summertime resources. Alternatively the biologist may design measures to protect or enhance individuals and their habitat, and these will be incorporated into the treatment design. Protect nests or dens as necessary. Protect purple martin nesting habitat in aspen vegetation and as necessary. Mines and homesteads should be examined for the presence of cave bat (incl. Townsend’s big-eared bat and fringed myotis) hibernacula or maternity roosts prior to being included within the Heritage Trail network and/or vegetation treatment units. Protect cave bat hibernacula or maternity roosts, as needed, by restricting burning or tree felling within 0.25 miles of occupied or suspected roosts. Restrict actions within 500’ of caves used by bats that will negatively affect use of such caves by bats. Avoid vegetation treatments and trail construction in any identified big game production range during the period May 15-June 20 without approval of the line officer in coordination with a District Wildlife Biologist. Input from the Colorado Parks and Wildlife District Manager will be requested as necessary. Using helicopters to extract cut timber will be done in a manner that minimizes disturbances to big game and wildlife of local concern during key seasonal time
Hunter Creek-Smuggler Mountain Cooperative Plan Environmental Assessment 2-17 Chapter 2: Description of Alternatives
Table 2-2: Project Design Criteria (PDC) and Monitoring Practices Incorporated into the Action Alternatives periods. Typically, the most suitable period for the use of low flying helicopters will be July 1 – August 31, unless authorized in coordination with prior approval of the Line Officer in coordination with a Forest Service wildlife biologist. Helicopter use prior to this period can disturb birthing and young rearing wildlife, and after this period helicopter use can disturb black bears foraging in preparation for winter as well as wintering big game. Avoid vegetation treatments and trail construction in any identified big game winter range during the period December 1 – April 15 without approval of the line officer in coordination with a District Wildlife Biologist. Input from the Colorado Parks and Wildlife District Manager will be requested as necessary. This may include winter logging operations and helicopter operations. Institute seasonal closures for trails located in big game winter range, severe winter range, and production range. Winter and severe winter range closures will be in effect during the period from December 1 – April 15. Calving area closures would be in effect during the period from May 15 – June 20. No spring burning should be conducted within 0.5 miles of any known or suspected occupied lynx denning area unless approved by a Line Officer in coordination with a Forest Service wildlife biologist. Areas of mapped lynx winter foraging, denning, and other habitat in proposed treatment units shall be reviewed on the ground prior to implementation. Horizontal cover will be measured by the District Wildlife Biologist to determine whether habitat conditions provide effective (i.e. >35% horizontal cover) lynx habitat. Where field review indicates the presence of high quality lynx habitat, the stand or stand area shall be excluded from treatment. Mixed conifer treatments shall only be implemented on sites demonstrating a lack of effective lynx habitat (i.e. < 35% horizontal cover). Impacts of new trail construction and re-routes will be calculated yearly to assess impacts on lynx habitat. Permanent conversion of suitable lynx habitat to unsuitable will not exceed 2 acres over the life of the project. Following each prescribed fire or mechanical treatment, a Forest Service wildlife biologist will identify the acres of lynx habitat converted to unsuitable or other condition from existing condition. The forest-wide database for tracking changes in lynx habitat by Lynx Analysis Unit (LAU) will be updated to account for actual changes in habitat conditions due to treatments as implementation proceeds. Treatments will not exceed the assumed lynx habitat changes identified in the project BA for unsuitable, winter foraging, or denning in any LAU, without reevaluation in an updated Biological Assessment and additional ESA consultation if warranted In cases of trail reroutes, abandoned trail segments will be revegetated to establish wildlife habitat. Sagebrush vegetation treatments should be designed to maintain or improve sagebrush stand conditions without degrading existing sagebrush attributes of shrub structure, complexity, diversity, or overall age of the stand. Grass and forb components may be targeted for improvement as well. Wildlife Monitoring Implementation monitoring will be conducted to ensure that riparian and aquatic habitats are protected appropriately in treatment areas. Conduct visual surveys along streams and wetlands post-implementation for compliance. Migratory Birds: Conduct post-implementation surveys as needed for migratory birds to monitor changes in species composition. Surveys are to be done at units representing vegetation communities and elevation ranges within the project area. Big game: Objectives to be monitored at transects, fixed-radius plots, or equivalent: 1) age diversity of plants; 2) quantity of available browse and palatable forage (live stems that deer or elk could browse); 3) horizontal cover of shrubs. Black Bear: Monitor post-treatment forage quantity. Monitor conflicts in project area trails, treatment areas, at developed facilities, in order to take action to minimize conflicts. Actions could trigger additional treatments, timing and use restrictions, facilities, or educational programs.
Hunter Creek-Smuggler Mountain Cooperative Plan Environmental Assessment 2-18 Chapter 2: Description of Alternatives
Table 2-2: Project Design Criteria (PDC) and Monitoring Practices Incorporated into the Action Alternatives Lynx Habitat: Conduct horizontal cover and Krebs plot surveys at baseline locations or as needed to assess effectiveness of lodgepole and mixed conifer treatments. BOTANY The Line Officer, in coordination with a Forest Service botanist, will determine if surveys for management status plant species are needed prior to implementing each treatment unit. If these species are found, measures to protect or enhance individuals and their habitat will be incorporated into the treatment design. Survey prior to project implementation and avoid identified individuals and/or populations of Proposed Endangered, Threatened and Sensitive species (PETS). Seek opportunities to use wheeled and tracked vehicles on frozen ground while plants are dormant to avoid or minimize impacts to select management status plants. When air temperatures are below freezing (32˚F/0˚C), many of the species will be dormant and impacts to ground cover, soil and microorganisms will be reduced. Prior to each field season, district wildlife biologists and botanists will be provided with GIS layers and hardcopy maps of potential treatment areas. Proposed Endangered, Threatened and Sensitive species (PETS) and species of local concern will be individually evaluated as they occur within proposed project areas. District wildlife biologists and botanists will determine consultation, survey and site protection needs on an individual and as-needed basis. For any PETS species or species of concern with identified viability concerns, the wildlife biologist and/or botanist will identify activity restrictions (area, timing, retention of felled trees on-site to provide linkage/connectivity of habitats, etc.) such that implementation will not result in a trend toward Federal listing or loss of population viability. Botany Monitoring Monitor burned units as needed to determine response of any management status plant species present in treated areas. Incorporate monitoring results into future burn plans. Evaluate revegetation needs for burn piles or other project areas on a case-by-case basis, with an interdisciplinary team addressing botany, soils, invasive plants, and wildlife. INVASIVE SPECIES Invasive weed control, as outlined in the WRNF Invasive Plant Species Management Decision Notice/EA (2007) will take place as needed in the analysis area. Project design criteria and contract provisions will be implemented to minimize spread of existing weeds and introduction of new ones. Prior to implementing each treatment unit, each unit is to be surveyed for invasive plants. If any are discovered, potential design criteria for unit layout or implementation will be identified following the pre-implementation checklist. Applicable Best Management Practices (FSM 2000 Zero Code 2080) for invasive/noxious weed management concerning roads, timber cutting, mechanical shrub cutting, and prescribed burning are:
Pre-treatment: Assess risk of weeds in the environmental analysis. Incorporate weed prevention actions into aspen cutting, mechanical shrub cutting, and prescribed burning units. Weed infestations will be inventoried and scheduled for treatment. Treat weeds on staging areas, roads, landings, foot trails, and skid trails that are weed infested before activities are initiated, where practical to minimize risk of vehicular transport of weed seed from the project area.
During treatment: For plant and aquatic invasive species, all mud, dirt, and plant parts will be cleaned from all off road equipment before moving into the project area. This will also be applied to equipment used for mechanical shrub cutting. Cleaning (and drying) will occur off National Forest lands. This does not apply to service vehicles that will stay on the roadway, traveling frequently in and out of the project area (i.e., pickup trucks and log trucks).
Hunter Creek-Smuggler Mountain Cooperative Plan Environmental Assessment 2-19 Chapter 2: Description of Alternatives
Table 2-2: Project Design Criteria (PDC) and Monitoring Practices Incorporated into the Action Alternatives
Post-treatment: Post-project monitoring of possible weed infestations will be conducted and weeds will be treated after project completion. Use only certified noxious weed-free hay, straw, seed, or mulch for revegetation projects on National Forest System lands.
Prescribed burning: Burn units will be inspected for invasive weeds prior to implementation and high-risk areas, such as road right-of-ways and existing weed populations will be treated before burning. Prescribed burning will not be implemented where existing weed populations exist that cannot be treated before or after prescribed fire. Burning will be avoided within known invasive weed infestations at least until the infestations are successfully treated and vehicle travel through infested areas will be avoided. Treated areas will be monitored and re-treated after burning, if necessary. Off road equipment shall not be moved into the project area until reasonable measures have been taken to ensure that each piece of equipment is free from soil, seeds, vegetative matter, or other debris that is potentially infested with invasive species seeds or other reproductive materials. Pressure-washing or steam cleaning in an offsite area where containment of oil, grease, soil and plant debris provides 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. Re-vegetation in the project area(s) may be required where ground cover is disturbed (e.g., landings, burned slash pile sites, skid trails, etc.). As a general guideline, ground cover should recover to its normal range of variability for the land type and geo-climatic area by the end of the third growing season after contract termination. Native plant species should ultimately dominate the site, although introduction of non-persistent species may be used to ensure initial soil stabilization for establishment of native vegetation. Invasive Species Monitoring For three years after treatment completion, treatment units should be monitored for newly invading exotic species. Establish post-treatment monitoring and follow-up weed treatment plan for each unit. WATERSHED AND WETLANDS Minimize Connected Disturbed Area by ensuring roads, road ditches, and other disturbed areas drain to undisturbed soils rather than directly to streams. Manipulate drainage from disturbed areas as necessary using natural topography, rolling dips, waterbars, or ditch-relief culverts to disconnect disturbed areas from streams. In accordance with FSH 2509.25, retain the average per-acre levels of coarse woody debris (CWD) summarized in the table below:
Minimum Retention for Small Minimum Retention for Diameter Component (tons Large Diameter Component Total Down CWD Retention Forest Type per acre) (tons per acre) (tons per acre) Lodgepole pine 4.25 0.75 5 Aspen 2.5 0.5 3 Spruce-Fir 8.5 1.5 10
Retain live and dead trees within 100 feet of perennial and intermittent streams, except within designated stream crossings.
Hunter Creek-Smuggler Mountain Cooperative Plan Environmental Assessment 2-20 Chapter 2: Description of Alternatives
Table 2-2: Project Design Criteria (PDC) and Monitoring Practices Incorporated into the Action Alternatives Keep heavy equipment out of streams, swales, and lakes, except to cross at designated points, build crossings, when doing restoration work, or if protected by at least 1 foot of packed snow or 2 inches of frozen soil. In accordance with FSH 2509.25, design stream crossings to withstand floods as follows: Design Life (years): 1 2 5 10 20 50 Design Flood (years):10 10 25 50 100 200 Stream crossings and other in-stream structures will be designed to provide for passage of flow and sediment and allow free movement of resident aquatic life. Do not locate roads, landings, or skid trails on slopes that show signs of instability, such as slope failure, mass movement, or slumps. Operate heavy equipment for land treatments only when soil moisture is below the plastic limit, or protected by at least 1 foot of packed snow or 2 inches of frozen soil. Keep ground vehicles out of wetlands unless protected by at least 1 foot of packed snow or 2 inches of frozen soil. If machine piling of slash is done, conduct piling to leave topsoil in place and to avoid displacing soil into piles or windrows. Locate vehicle service and fuel areas on gentle upland sites at least 100 feet away from streams to prevent pollutants from contaminating water. Do not disrupt water supply or drainage patterns into wetlands. Riparian areas, rivers and stream channels, isolated wetlands and wetland complexes, ponds, seeps, and springs will be protected by buffering these areas from equipment travel, mastication, and intense fire effects. No tree felling, piling slash, and pile burning will occur in these areas. Do not conduct intense prescribed fire or mechanical treatments using heavy, ground-based equipment in the Water Influence Zone (100 feet on each side of perennial or intermittent streams) and within 330 feet of fens without review and concurrence by the district resource specialist. Hand felling of hazardous trees is permitted in the 100 foot buffer. Felled trees will be left in place. Avoid soil-disturbing actions during periods of heavy rain or on steep slopes. Staging areas/landings, de-limbing, bucking areas and refueling locations will be placed at least 100 feet away from perennial and intermittent streams and wetlands. The FS will designate heavy equipment crossings for streams that have definable beds and banks. Keep logging slash and debris out of ditches and drainage channels. Reclaim disturbed areas promptly when use ends to prevent resource damage and invasion of noxious weeds. Rehabilitate temporary roads when project is complete by: • Removing all culverts; • Removing all fill in stream channels, and recontouring stream banks to the original geometry; • Installing additional cross drains and/ or outsloping to reestablish natural drainage patterns; • Ripping and seeding of road segments located within 100 feet of streams; • Placing additional waterbars as needed. Obliterate skid trails after operations are complete by pulling slash on skid trails; building waterbars where needed; placing barriers within skid trails to prohibit mechanized and motorized use; and seeding skid trails with approved seed mix, where necessary, to establish vegetation.
Hunter Creek-Smuggler Mountain Cooperative Plan Environmental Assessment 2-21 Chapter 2: Description of Alternatives
Table 2-2: Project Design Criteria (PDC) and Monitoring Practices Incorporated into the Action Alternatives Manage land treatments to limit the sum of severely burned and detrimentally compacted, eroded, displaced land to no more than 15% of any activity area. Specifically: • Designate the location and size of landings and major skid trails; • Minimize the length of temporary road approved to meet objectives; • Limit the width of skid trails to 12 feet and ensure the spacing between skid trails is no closer than 120 feet on average; • Rip all landings and main skid trails to a depth of 8-12 inches and seed with Forest Service approved seed mix immediately upon closure. Do not pile and burn slash in the Water Influence Zone. For hazardous trees within stream buffers, a) Directionally hand felled toward the stream will be employed where practical except within 200 feet upstream of a culvert or bridge. b) Hazardous trees may be removed using at least one-end (partial) suspension for those trees which occur within the Water Influence Zone (WIZ), 100 feet of a stream or wetland but upslope of a road. c) In cases where the proposed treatment will result in greater than 20 tons per acre of ground fuel in the WIZ, timber removal or other fuels treatment will be allowed in the WIZ after site-specific consultation with a FS hydrologist or fish biologist. Similar modifications will be made where the proposed treatment will unacceptably reduce public access to streams or fail to meet visual quality objectives. Resulting treatments will balance overall objectives with the need to protect stream health and reduce potential effects to sensitive plant species. Wherever possible, align trails using natural topography to create grade reversals or rolling dips to facilitate maintenance-free drainage. Use waterbars, ditches and cross drains only when grade reversals and rolling dips are not practical. Schedule maintenance of waterbars, ditches and cross drains to maintain function. Avoid routing trails directly down the fall line. Place drainage structures above steep stretches of trail to minimize the amount of water that gets routed onto steeps. Increase the frequency of drainage features in steep areas. Avoid routing trails down the bottom of ephemeral draws or other low spots so that water has somewhere to drain besides down the trail tread. Minimize the number of times trails cross streams. Where stream crossings are required, use rolling dips or grade reversals where trails approach streams to drain trail runoff into undisturbed soils rather than directly into streams. Manage bike trails with seasonal closures as needed to avoid the development of ruts when soils are saturated. When rehabilitating abandoned trails, ensure an adequate number of drainage features are installed to eliminate ongoing erosion problems. Use check dams, waterbars and sediment traps to keep water and sediment from running down entrenched trails. Maximum Distance Apart Fireline Slope (%) (ft.) 1 – 6 300 Construct waterbars along fire lines at the spacing listed to the right. These are maximum 7 – 9 200 spacings that should be reduced if warranted by onsite factors. Combine these spacings with 10 – 14 150 common sense to place cross drains where damage to slopes and streams will be minimized. 15 – 20 90 21 – 40 50 41 – 60 25 Watershed and Wetlands Monitoring Watershed Conservation Handbook/Best Management Practices. Monitor as needed compliance of the proposed action with standards and design criteria in Chapter 10 of Forest Service Handbook 2509.25–Watershed Conservation Practices Handbook (FSH 2509.25). The standards and design criteria meet the
Hunter Creek-Smuggler Mountain Cooperative Plan Environmental Assessment 2-22 Chapter 2: Description of Alternatives
Table 2-2: Project Design Criteria (PDC) and Monitoring Practices Incorporated into the Action Alternatives requirements of the Best Management Practices in Colorado and if unexpected adverse effects become evident through monitoring, treatment activities may be reduced, revised, or halted completely for watershed resource protection. Monitor burn severity of fire effects on soil resources. Incorporate monitoring results into future burn plans to maintain adequate watershed conditions. FOREST HEALTH Forest Health Monitoring A combination of photo-point monitoring and plot sampling will be used to determine if treatment objectives are met. Monitoring indicators will be developed in the Implementation Plan and carried forward in the monitoring plan for that treatment. PUBLIC SAFETY Maintenance Level 2 – 5 roads, county, state and federal highways shall be posted with warning signs and traffic control devices shall be employed in accordance with the “Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices.” Maintenance Level 3 - 5 roads: a) Shall be maintained for through traffic during felling, slash treatment, and/or removal operations. Traffic delays may occur for a maximum of one half (½) hour. b) Shall be left in an operational condition that will adequately accommodate traffic at the end of each work day. c) Shall have barricades erected and/or proper signs placed at any traffic hazards in or adjacent to the road at the end of each workday. All felled trees and slash shall be removed from the bladed, mowed, or brushed road corridor each day. d) No felling, slash treatment, and/or removal operations shall occur on weekends, holidays, or one day prior to the opening of each of the four big game rifle seasons. Maintenance level 2 roads shall be temporarily closed to general public access during felling, slash treatment, and/or removal operations. Temporary closures may occur from one day to two weeks. AIR QUALITY Conduct prescribed burns under conditions permitted by the Air Pollution Control Division (APCD) under the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE). The Colorado Smoke Management Memorandum of Understanding requires the Forest Service to conduct its prescribed burns under conditions permitted by the Air Pollution Control Division (APCD) under the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE). Each prescribed fire will have a burn plan that is reviewed by the Division. Burn plans are approved based on model outputs of particulate matter concentrations and prescribed smoke mitigation measures to protect population centers and sensitive visibility sites. Air Quality Monitoring Smoke monitoring will include at a minimum: a. Visual monitoring of smoke impacts to Aspen, Basalt, and Carbondale. b. Instrumented real-time monitoring of PM2.5 at nearby population centers (above towns, as appropriate) SCENERY RESOURCES In prescribed fire units, design and construct fire lines to minimize vegetative disturbances and avoid straight lines. Any marking on trees should be done on the opposite side of the tree from where it is seen from the road or residual paint marks will be blacked out post treatment as practicable.
Hunter Creek-Smuggler Mountain Cooperative Plan Environmental Assessment 2-23 Chapter 2: Description of Alternatives
Table 2-2: Project Design Criteria (PDC) and Monitoring Practices Incorporated into the Action Alternatives In mechanical units, leave shrub islands of various shapes and size in a random distribution to provide a natural appearance. Attempt to emulate the size and shape of openings and patterns in the surrounding landscape. The edges of the units should be varied and random to soften and blend with the native vegetative mosaic. Make clearing edges irregular and freeform, feathering and undulating edges. Openings in the canopy should have a natural appearance with uneven edges. Blend with natural landscape features such as natural openings and rock outcrops, when possible. Straight line edges should also be avoided along roadless area, wilderness area, and boundaries. In mechanical treatment units, avoid the appearance of regular spacing. Leave small clusters of shrubs in irregular patterns and shapes to provide screening and wildlife cover, leaving clumps in random patterns about 75 to 250 feet apart. This will supply variety. In mechanical units, cut stumps as low to the ground as feasible within the immediate foreground. All other locations, stumps shall be 12-inch maximum height. In prescribed fire units, use natural breaks for fire control whenever possible (rock outcrops, meadows and wet areas, changes in vegetation type/structure/condition etc.). Using concepts of a wave-like line instead of straight lines and following natural patterns will help to retain natural landscape characteristics. Design and construction of fire lines shall minimize vegetative disturbances and avoid straight lines. All constructed fire lines shall be water- barred and seeded. Hand lines may be from 1 to 3 feet wide. In prescribed fire units, desired scenic conditions include a diversity of shrublands and aspen/shrublands vegetative species including grasses, forbs, shrubs, and aspen. A variety in size, shape, and distribution intermingled within surrounding unburned areas is desirable in some areas; whereas in others, the creation of open spaces that provide scenic and physical access is preferred. Avoid piled or "windrowed" brush that will create scenic impacts for a long time. Post-burn treatments should obliterate lines, address erosion concerns, and encourage vegetation re-growth. Management Areas (MAs) assigned High and Moderate Scenic Integrity Objectives: a) Minimize damage to natural features such as rock outcrops, young healthy trees, and understories of trees and shrubs. Cut stumps as low to the ground as feasible, and remove and/or treat (lop and scatter, pile and burn, etc.) heavy slash within the immediate foreground (approximately 25 to 200 feet from the edge) of roads, trails, and recreation sites. c) The edges of the corridors should be designed with variable density marking, to the extent that is silviculturally feasible. This will allow preferable blending of edges into the surrounding area. Treatment (project) areas should blend with natural landscape features such as natural meadows or openings and rock outcrops when/where possible to allow for free form vegetative shapes that mimic natural vegetation patterns of adjacent landscapes. Treatment (project) area edges should be left irregular and freeform, feathering and undulating edges where possible. d) Root wads created as a result of project activities that are visible in the foreground of a road shall be buried or otherwise removed from sight as practical to prevent excess soil disturbance. e) Tree removal unit boundary paint shall either face away from the open roads, trails and recreation sites or be removed or ‘blacked out’ after the management is complete. f) After completion of slash and debris pile burning, blackened logs and stumps within 100 feet of system roads and trails should be scattered back into project area or removed. Leave some logs on the ground to provide visual diversity. The debris from project activities will be removed to the extent practical to avoid the creation of undesirable textural contrasts with the landscape. Forest Plan guidance regarding coarse woody debris will be met. All Management Areas, including Low Scenic Integrity Objectives: a) Any skid trails should be rehabilitated to reduce the color contrast of the exposed soil by randomly scattering and spreading slash to replace scraped material. Cover exposed bare soil with adjacent organic material when/where possible. Where feasible, construction of skid trails should avoid creating straight line corridors when the skid trails connect with open system roads and trails. Skid trails will be held to the minimum number, width, and length necessary to complete
Hunter Creek-Smuggler Mountain Cooperative Plan Environmental Assessment 2-24 Chapter 2: Description of Alternatives
Table 2-2: Project Design Criteria (PDC) and Monitoring Practices Incorporated into the Action Alternatives the project. b) Where possible, landings will be placed in existing openings, (in or adjacent to aspen stands) unless doing so will adversely affect other resources. If an existing opening cannot be used, clearing size and form of the landings should mimic that of surrounding vegetative mosaic as seen from middle-ground and background views (distances greater than ½ mile). The shape of landings should be an irregular pattern similar to existing natural openings and should avoid straight-line edges. c) Scattered slash and logging debris resulting from project activities should be limbed and scattered over disturbed areas to a maximum depth of 18 inches of the ground surface within 100 feet of open system roads and trails and recreation sites. All equipment and construction debris (man-made debris and trash, including old culverts) generated by project activities shall be removed from the site at project completion. A landscape architect and other staff resource specialists including timber and fuels personnel will be involved in project planning and initial layout strategy. A portion of each project area that is representative of the whole project area will be used to develop specific resource prescriptions and overall project management strategies. Scenery Resources Monitoring Develop a site specific project-level monitoring and evaluation plan for scenic management objectives. Monitor project implementation from key viewpoints during project implementation and after project completion to determine compliance with scenery objectives in the monitoring and evaluation plan. FUELS Require a minimum of 2” of snow as a prerequisite for pile burning to reduce the potential for an escaped fire. Minimize damage to sagebrush stands to preserve existing wildlife habitat attributes. Minimize ground-disturbing activities associated with fire management actions. All ignitions will receive an appropriate management response according to the WRNF Fire Management Plan. Machine piles shall be located at least twice their diameter from standing green trees to minimize the potential for damage to residual timber. Minimize the potential for damage resulting from fire spread into areas of contiguous sagebrush from prescribed fire by applying fire prescriptive requirements and/or constructing control lines to halt fire spread. Direct prescribed fire ignition will not be utilized in sagebrush stands to preserve existing wildlife habitat attributes. Minimize ground-disturbing activities associated with fire management actions. Construct control lines for prescribed burning treatments by hand in roadless areas to help maintain roadless character as practicable. Lop and scatter tops and limbs and/or hand pile slash for later burning as prescribed project-by-project. For road clearing operations and at all trailheads, limbs and tops may be chipped or mulched on site with chips left in place for a distance not to exceed 30 feet from the road or trail prism. Chip depth should not exceed TWO inches above the ground surface. At administrative sites and developed recreation sites, chips resulting from chipping/mulching operations may be hauled off site or left in designated areas as prescribed by district personnel. Slash piles designated for burning should be burned within three years. Piles are to be burned so as not to leave, blackened logs and stumps LRMP guidance regarding coarse woody debris will be met.
Hunter Creek-Smuggler Mountain Cooperative Plan Environmental Assessment 2-25 Chapter 2: Description of Alternatives
Table 2-2: Project Design Criteria (PDC) and Monitoring Practices Incorporated into the Action Alternatives Other slash treatments shall include lopping and scattering outside of developed areas to a height of less than 24 inches, tree boles may be cut and stacked for firewood utilization with written approval from the appropriate line officer Fuels Monitoring Fuels management specialists will conduct periodic ocular assessments of fuel bed condition over a five year period following the completion of planned treatments. RECREATION Protect treatment units from off-road motorized travel by creating a buffer zone between roads and treatment areas as necessary. Coordinate treatment timing with Colorado Division of Wildlife, as needed to minimize impacts to hunters. Leave vegetation buffers around trailheads as directed by the Line Officer, in coordination with a Forest Service recreation specialist and silviculturist. Treatment units that already have off-road impacts and/or the potential for new and increased off-road vehicular use should be protected by creating a buffer zone between the road and the treatment area where practical. Buffer zones should be deep enough, where practical, to discourage attempts at creating new routes. Closure of heavily used trailheads will be coordinated with District recreation staffs and to minimize impacts to the public. Closure information will be provided to the recreating public as to the purpose and duration of the closure as well as a listing of alternative recreation opportunities in the vicinity. Recreation Monitoring Monitor effectiveness of measures taken to preclude off-road motorized travel in units post treatment. Results may trigger additional actions to minimize potential impacts. Monitor trail use and the need for separation of trail uses. Monitor recreation Special Use Permits in the study area to minimize conflicts and/or provide prospectus for mountain biking Outfitters and Guides in the area. Monitor user satisfaction with the recreational experience within the study area. Encourage the preparation of a Memorandum of Understanding between the Forest Service, City of Aspen, and Pitkin County aimed at better managing and enforcing travel management regulations on National Forest System Lands. CULTURAL Take measures to ensure that historic and prehistoric structures are not adversely affected. The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) requires that if newly discovered cultural resources are identified during project implementation, work in that area must stop and the responsible agency Authorized Officer notified immediately (36 CFR 800.13). The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), requires that if inadvertent discovery of Native American Remains or Objects occurs, activity must cease in the area of discovery, a reasonable effort made to protect the item(s) discovered, and immediate notice made to the Authorized Officer, as well as the appropriate Native American group(s) (IV.C.2). Notice may be followed by a 30-day delay (NAGPRA Section 3(d)). Further actions also require compliance under the provisions of NHPA and the Archaeological Resource Protection Act. Guidelines of Bulletin 38 of the National Register, Native American Traditional Cultural Properties (TCPs) are to be considered in the planning and completion of federal actions in accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, as amended. Sufficient notification of proposed actions or land
Hunter Creek-Smuggler Mountain Cooperative Plan Environmental Assessment 2-26 Chapter 2: Description of Alternatives
Table 2-2: Project Design Criteria (PDC) and Monitoring Practices Incorporated into the Action Alternatives management policies that may restrict future access to or ceremonial use of, or adversely affect the physical integrity of, sacred sites will be provided. The confidentiality of these sites will be protected. Two stages of inventory shall be accomplished. First stage is a Class I research and preview of past work in the area and a field study to determine specific areas of concern. The second stage is a Class II and III field inventory involving a pedestrian survey of the project area. If the Forest Archaeologist concludes that previous surveys within the project area are sufficient to address archaeological concerns, these specified areas will not need to be re-surveyed again and will be included in the present report by reference. Usually, surveys over 10 years will need to be re-examined at least a minimum Class II level. For prescribed fire treatment areas, survey strategy will focus on proposed fire lines and areas determined to be of high potential for historic properties. Inventory will be conducted once burn plans are drafted and more specific treatments and fire lines are identified. An archeologist shall monitor known archeological sites and Traditional Cultural Property areas during project implementation as necessary. Post-burn survey may be required if access and visibility are severely limited prior to treatments. A risk assessment will be conducted for archeological sites determined eligible to the National Register. A mitigation plan will be developed for those properties at risk. The Forest will document the results of the field inventory, consultation with Indian Tribes and any proposed measures to avoid adverse effects to historic properties. The report will be submitted to SHPO and await comment prior to project implementation, usually a 30-day period. Cultural resource inventories will be performed prior to any ground disturbing activity and, if necessary, site protection needs will be defined. All consultation and reporting responsibilities will be fulfilled according to SHPO guidelines. Historic properties that have been field-determined as eligible to the NR will be protected. No mechanical treatment will occur within the site boundary including a 50-ft buffer around the site. If treatment is necessary, the site and buffer zone will be hand-treated for hazardous trees. Following this standard treatment will result in a finding of no adverse effect. New archaeological sites found or located as a result of project implementation shall require that the activity cease within the area until the Forest Archaeologist evaluates the site and proposes mitigation. Historic administrative sites and those structures listed on or eligible to the National Register should be reviewed for treatment needs. It is recommended to remove hazardous trees within a 200-ft radius of the structure or complex to reduce risk from falling trees and fuel loading. Hand treatment (e.g., chainsaw thinning) is the preferred method unless mechanical treatment is possible without adverse effect to the historic property. Cultural Monitoring Monitor treatments and mitigation measures as necessary Conduct any necessary post-treatment surveys and document findings for SHPO GEOLOGY AND SOILS Prior to construction, a detailed site erosion control plan will be prepared. This plan shall include the following components: Silt fences, straw bales, straw wattles, and other standard erosion control BMPs shall be employed to contain sediment onsite. Jute-netting or appropriate erosion-control matting on steep fill slopes (i.e., land with a slope angle of 35% or greater) to protect soils and enhance conditions for vegetation re-establishment
Hunter Creek-Smuggler Mountain Cooperative Plan Environmental Assessment 2-27 Chapter 2: Description of Alternatives
Table 2-2: Project Design Criteria (PDC) and Monitoring Practices Incorporated into the Action Alternatives Existing roads will be used for construction and routine maintenance of the proposed project components where possible Vegetative buffers will be maintained adjacent to intermittent or perennial drainages and wetlands, to the extent possible. Where avoidance is not possible, impacts will be minimized in sensitive areas. Areas determined to have been compacted by construction activities may require mechanical subsoiling or scarification to the compacted depth to reduce bulk density and restore porosity Ground cover, as a combination of revegetation, organic amendments and mulch applications, will restore depths of soil A and/or organic ground cover. If machine piling of slash is done, conduct piling to leave topsoil in place and to avoid displacing soil into piles or windrows. Avoid burning slash piles on shallow soils (soils that are less than 50 centimeters/20 inches to bedrock or another root restricting layer). When possible, burn slash pile with a minimum of 2 inches (and preferably 4-6”) of snow on the ground to reduce the consumption of soil organic matter (O horizon material or forest “duff”). Construct burn pile size per CDPHE (Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment) standards. These limit hand pile sizes to ≤ 300 ft3 and machine pile size to ≤ 7068 ft3. When possible, scarify soils and revegetate with a Forest Service-approved seed mix on slash pile burn sites. Utilize soil organic amendments (i.e. compost, biochar, and humates) and biological inoculants (i.e. mycorrhizal fungi) as appropriate during this process. Where determined necessary during post construction monitoring activities, water bars (12 to 18 inches deep) will be constructed across all roads, trails, and other disturbed areas prior to seeding and fertilization at 50, 75, or 100-foot intervals as a function of slope angle, or as necessary, to disperse surface runoff. The frequency will be field-fit and will be sufficient to prevent rill erosion and sediment delivery channel formation. Geology and Soils Monitoring Monitoring will follow protocols set forth in the Forest Soil Disturbance Monitoring Protocol Handbook (Page-Dumroese et al., 2009) and the Field Guide for Mapping Post-Fire Soil Burn Severity (Parson et al., 2010). Slash pile burn areas for burn severity and impacts on soil productivity, and fireline soil retention and restoration will be the primary monitoring. Units will also be inspected for erosion features such as rills, gullies, and scarps to ensure compliance with existing policy and regulations. Monitor burned units as needed to estimate the percent of soil organic ground cover removed. Incorporate monitoring results into future burn plans. COLORADO ROADLESS AREAS (CRAS) In roadless areas where mechanical treatment or mechanical preparation is required, use the minimal amount and type of equipment necessary, as feasible, to accomplish the treatment goals. If and where wheeled or tracked equipment is used, measures should be taken to rehabilitate any ground disturbance from such use. This includes but is not limited to scarifying, chipping, seeding, and slash distribution (to cover and hold soils). All tree cutting within roadless areas is consistent with exceptions allowed in the Colorado Roadless Rule. This project does not involve road construction, road reconstruction, or the construction of linear construction zones. CRA Monitoring Monitor roadless and wilderness characteristics over time to ensure that these characteristics are either maintained or enhanced. ROADS Limited lengths of temporary road and/or skid tracks and forwarder tracks can be constructed, but all temporary roads / tracks will be closed, treated, and
Hunter Creek-Smuggler Mountain Cooperative Plan Environmental Assessment 2-28 Chapter 2: Description of Alternatives
Table 2-2: Project Design Criteria (PDC) and Monitoring Practices Incorporated into the Action Alternatives returned to their natural state within three years of the contract termination date. Excavated skid trails will be authorized where necessary to gain access up or down cut/fill slopes. Decking and landing areas will be designated by the FS. Projects will be designed to minimize damage to drainage structures and road features. Projects will be planned to allow for the repair and restoration of any damage to drainage structures, road features, and cut/fill slopes that occurs as a result of the project(s). When operating on or along the road prism, skidding within or across drainage ditches will not be allowed; limit impacts to road surfaces. When damage is unavoidable as a result of project implementation, reconstruction and/or replacement of road surfacing will be completed as necessary. The FS will determine post-operation/haul road maintenance, repair, reconditioning, or resurfacing needs on an individual basis. Project implementation will consider existing seasonal road closures and other road restrictions during hazardous tree felling, slash treatment, and/or removal operations for species or resources that are sensitive to disturbance. Seasonally closed or restricted roads may be opened early upon approval of the appropriate line officer. Felled hazardous trees and slash from roadside ditches, lead-off ditches, and culvert inlets/outlets will be removed. Slash will be placed such that it will not fall, roll, or be blown into roadside ditches, lead-off ditches, and culvert inlets/outlets. WINTER LOGGING AND WINTER OPERATIONS Operating conditions will be closely monitored after consecutive nights of above freezing temperatures; operations on roads will cease if damage begins to occur. When daytime temperatures are above freezing, but nighttime temperatures remain below freezing, operations will be allowed to continue during the morning only. Project area operations will cease operations when the ground temperature is above freezing. When removing/plowing snow for winter operations, snow shall be removed from the entire width of the road. To protect road surfaces, snow removal/plowing equipment shall be equipped with shoes or runners to keep plow blades at a minimum of four inches above the road surface. Snow berms shall be removed or holes provided in the berm to allow road drainage. Drainage holes shall be spaced as necessary to allow satisfactory surface drainage and shall not be discharged onto erodible slopes or into drainage channels. Winter treatment activities will be allowed to take place in or related to the project area when the ground is frozen to a depth of two inches or more, or when snow is packed one foot or more deep as adequate cover to minimize project area ground disturbance. Project areas will be identified in the summer to ensure winter logging does not result in mechanized equipment operating on peat substrates in fen, wetlands and other riparian areas when they are hidden by snow. Plow or pack snow in the operating area to minimize the insulation value and facilitate ground freezing. Enough area will be cleared to accommodate future snow plowing.
Hunter Creek-Smuggler Mountain Cooperative Plan Environmental Assessment 2-29 Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
INTRODUCTION
CEQ regulations direct agencies to succinctly describe the environment that may be affected by the alternatives under consideration.7 As such, Chapter 3 describes the existing physical, biological and social components of the project area which have potential to be affected by implementing any of the alternatives (i.e., the Affected Environment). Each Affected Environment description is followed by an Environmental Consequences discussion that provides an analysis of the potential effects of implementation of each of the alternatives.
Chapter 3 is organized by resource area, and follows the organization of issues and resources requiring further analysis (and indicators) as presented in Chapter 1. Each resource section in Chapter 3 is organized in the following order:
SCOPE OF ANALYSIS
The scope of analysis briefly describes the geographic area(s) potentially affected by the alternatives for each issue. The scope of analysis varies according to resource area and may be different for direct, indirect, and cumulative effects.
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
The Affected Environment section provides a description of the environment potentially affected, as based upon current uses and management activities/decisions.
DIRECT AND INDIRECT ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
This section provides an analysis of direct and indirect environmental effects of implementing each of the alternatives, according to the issues or resources requiring additional analysis and indicators identified in Chapter 1. Cumulative effects are discussed separately.
Direct effects are caused by the action and occur at the same time and place. Indirect effects are caused by the action and occur later in time or are farther removed in distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable (i.e., likely to occur within the duration of the project).
7 40 CFR 1502.15
Hunter Creek-Smuggler Mountain Cooperative Plan Environmental Assessment 3-1 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
CUMULATIVE EFFECTS
Cumulative effects are the result of the incremental direct and indirect effects of any action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, and can result from individually minor but collectively major actions taking place over a period of time.
RESOURCES/ISSUES DISMISSED FROM DETAILED ANALYSIS Social and Economic Resources
These resources were dismissed from further analysis because no measurable effects to social and economic resources are anticipated due to the No Action or Action Alternatives. None of the proposed projects contain components that would measurable impacts to social and economic indicators such as employment, income or population.
Noise
This resource was dismissed from further analysis because noise related effects would be negligible. The implementation of projects could involve the use of noise-producing mechanical machinery and tools, but the extent of this noise would be temporally and spatially limited.
Hunter Creek-Smuggler Mountain Cooperative Plan Environmental Assessment 3-2 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences A. Recreation
A. RECREATION
SCOPE OF ANALYSIS
The Hunter Creek-Smuggler Mountain study area is a recreational destination for residents and visitors of Aspen, providing opportunities for hiking, mountain biking, horseback riding, cross country skiing, hunting, and other activities.
Smuggler Mountain is directly adjacent to Aspen and is a popular area for three-season hiking and mountain biking. The Hunter Creek Valley is an alpine valley home to mining, logging, and homesteading relics, and year-round recreational trails. Together these two areas provide wildlife habitat and outdoor recreation. This analysis includes year-round recreational activities that occur across the study area on WRNF land managed by the Aspen-Sopris Ranger District.
The 2002 Forest Plan identifies the NFS lands in the study area as falling within five different management areas, including two recreation-related areas: Management Area 1.31: Backcountry Recreation – Non-Motorized, and Management Area 4.32: Dispersed Recreation, High Use.
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
The Hunter Creek Valley and Smuggler Mountain are popular destinations for the Aspen community due to their proximity to the City of Aspen and the variety of recreational opportunities. There are approximately 40 miles of trails found within the study area including single track, double track, and 4WD trails that allow mountain biking, hiking, Nordic skiing, horseback riding, and motorized recreation. The area is also a popular destination for hunters.
Existing Trail Network
As mentioned above, there are approximately 40 miles of existing recreation trails in the study area. Most of these trails are in the Hunter Creek Valley and extend along the northern side of the valley. These trails vary in difficulty. Most of the trails are multiple-use, with hikers and mountain bikers the most common users.
Smuggler Mountain Road is the main artery of the recreation found on the Smuggler side of the study area, acting as a trail itself for hikers and mountain bikers, as well as a portal to a network of popular single and double track found on City/County open space and on the WRNF. Smuggler Mountain Road is a Pitkin County limited service road, so is minimally maintained, but open to high-clearance vehicles. The current condition of the road, however, is poor due to major drainage and erosion problems. The road is currently impassible by most vehicles. While it is open to motorized vehicles, its scenic overlook and width make it an enjoyable recreation trail. The road is extremely popular amongst hikers and mountain bikers. Currently non-motorized users greatly outnumber motorized users on Smuggler Mountain Road. A balance between these different uses is important to maintain. In addition to this recreational value,
Hunter Creek-Smuggler Mountain Cooperative Plan Environmental Assessment 3-3 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences A. Recreation
Smuggler Mountain Road also provides access to the Benedict Huts. Managed as part of the 10th Mountain Division hut system, the Benedict Huts are located to the southeast of the study area. The huts are open in both winter and summer for use by hikers, skiers, etc. Huts are particularly popular during the winter season and are commonly booked every weekend between Thanksgiving and April 30.
Another notable trail in this area is the Balcony Trail, a popular local mountain biking trail that was developed by mountain bikers outside of a planning and regulatory process. This trail was not considered or discussed in the WRNF TMP and thus could be designated as either open or closed to future use. The Balcony Trail is the only mountain biking or hiking trail on the southern face of Smuggler Mountain and provides a unique overlook view of Aspen. The Balcony Trail is approximately 4.2 miles in length and includes an internal loop. Both ends of the trail connect to Smuggler Mountain Road. The trail is physically and technically difficult, which limits the overall quantity of use the trail experiences. To access the trail, riders must first ascend for approximately 2 miles of steep grades on Smuggler Mountain Road. Given the difficult access, the trail is primarily used by expert riders. There is also evidence of heavy motorized use of this trail.
As a non-system trail, the Balcony Trail was built without environmental analysis. There are a number of environmental concerns about the current alignment of the trail, including drainage and erosion, and fragmentation of wildlife habitat. The southside of Smuggler Mountain is bear habitat and the presence of recreationalists, particularly motorized, can severely degrade the quality of habitat.
In addition to the Balcony Trail, there are several historic pack and mining trails found on the Smuggler side of the planning area. These are used infrequently and considered “closed” per the WRNF TMP, with the exception of one historic stock trail that remains open and is occasionally used by off-highway vehicles (OHVs).
The Hunter Creek Valley contains many high quality recreation opportunities. There are a number of trails which parallel Hunter Creek, and a network of trails extending up out of the valley to the north. These trails are popular for hikers and mountain bikers alike.
As discussed in Chapter 1 of this EA, the recreational resources in the study area suffer from a number of shortcomings. Despite the quantity and quality of trails in the study area, a lack of signage, maps, and trail/route designations that makes the area difficult to navigate. A number of trails begin on land managed as City or County open space and continue onto NFS lands. Signage in open space is not consistent with signage on NFS lands which makes wayfinding complicated and difficult. Additionally, some existing trails are in need of repair, restoration, or realignment to improve the user experience and reduce environmental damage. Particular trail condition issues are outlined below (refer to Figure 2):
The Plunge: major drainage problems; too steep for most users
Sunnyside: drainage issues
Hunter Creek-Smuggler Mountain Cooperative Plan Environmental Assessment 3-4 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences A. Recreation
Hunter Valley North Trail: drainage issues
Smuggler Loop: conflicts between hikers and mountain bikers due to trail density and configuration
Tootsie Roll: conflicts between hikers and mountain bikers due to trail density and configuration
Lollipop: conflicts between hikers and mountain bikers due to trail density and configuration
Iowa Shaft: conflicts between hikers and mountain bikers due to trail density and configuration
Balcony Trail: interruption of valuable wildlife habitat
Smuggler Mountain Road: drainage and erosion problems, difficulty of vehicle access
These problems in trail network navigability and trail condition diminish the recreational experience. For example, trails with drainage issues can have muddy sections that are difficult to traverse, trails with poor alignments can be too steep for hikers and riders to enjoy, and trails that experience high use by both hikers and mountain bikers can lead to safety concerns for both user groups. The lack of comprehensive signage further diminishes the recreation experience by forcing users to spend more time wayfinding and route planning than they would otherwise need to. Many of the trails in the study area likely go unnoticed by the majority of users.
Hunting
Hunting in the Hunter Creek and Smuggler Mountain area has occurred for generations. Hunting generally begins with the archery deer and elk seasons at the end of August and continues through the last rifle season in November. Hunters access the study area via Hunter Valley Toll Road, which is open for persons with valid licenses during the time such permits are valid and seven days immediately preceding and following the license dates (otherwise the road is gated and locked). Hunters both hike and hunt within the study area and continue through the study area to hunt further to the east. The greatest amount of hunting pressure occurs during the second and third rifle deer/elk seasons. In addition to big game hunting, many sportsmen also hunt dusky grouse in September/October. Other types of activity that occur include black bear, coyote, bobcat, and mountain lion hunting.
Guided Horseback Riding
In addition to dispersed recreation and hunting within the study area, Aspen Wilderness Outfitters offers guided horseback tours in the area. The outfitter operates during the summer months, guiding guests through the study area on horseback. While guided horseback riding in the study area provides recreational value, it also impacts other forms of dispersed recreation. User conflicts between horseback riders and mountain bikers, for example, can be extreme. The current recreational trail system does not provide guidance for minimizing such user conflicts.
Hunter Creek-Smuggler Mountain Cooperative Plan Environmental Assessment 3-5 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences A. Recreation
DIRECT AND INDIRECT ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES Alternative 1 – No Action
No changes to the trail network or other recreational resources would occur under Alternative 1.
Signage, Maps and Trail/Route Designations As mentioned above, the current trail network suffers from numerous problems which diminish the recreation experience. Under Alternative 1 there would be no improvements to the navigability, cohesiveness, or overall enjoyment of the recreational trail network within the study area, as discussed in Need Statement #1. Signage would continue to be inconsistent between City and County open space and NFS lands, which could lead to confusion and excessive time spent wayfinding.
Existing Trail Repairs, Restoration, Realignments or Crossings Under Alternative 1 there would be no improvements to the condition of the recreational trail network in the study area. Need Statement #2 presents a need to improve the condition and sustainability of existing trails within the study area. As discussed above, many trails are being considerably degraded, very difficult to ride or hike, poorly drained and steep, and generally in bad condition. All of these issues lead to a degraded recreation experience. None of these issues would be addressed in Alternative 1.
Existing Trail Closures, New Trail Connections and Separation of Uses Additionally Alternative 1 includes no improvements to management of the trail network. Need Statement #3 presents a need to identify new trail connections, separation of uses, and trail closures within the study area as well as the development of an adaptive management program. Alternative 1 includes no new trails and would result in the official closure of the non-system Balcony Trail. This lack of new, high quality recreation trails does not meet the Purpose and Need of this proposal. In addition, Alternative 1 does not respond to safety concerns created by conflicts between users on heavily used trails. There would be no additional trail closures.
In conclusion, Alternative 1 does not meet the Purpose and Need of this proposal to improve the recreational experience within the study area.
Alternative 2 – Proposed Action
Under the Proposed Action there would be a number of improvements to recreational resources in the study area.
Signage, Maps and Trail/Route Designations The Proposed Action includes projects which would improve the navigability of the trail network within the study area. Installing consistent trail signs, distributing and displaying trail maps, and designating trails and routes throughout the study area would help recreationalists: plan outings more easily, spend
Hunter Creek-Smuggler Mountain Cooperative Plan Environmental Assessment 3-6 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences A. Recreation less time wayfinding, and find a route of the appropriate difficulty. All of these projects would improve the recreational experience for trail users in the study area. The projects proposed for implementation in the fall of 2013 would improve the navigability and user experience at high priority locations in the study area.
Existing Trail Repairs, Restoration, Realignments or Crossings These projects would address trail segments that are considerably degraded, very difficult to ride or hike, poorly drained and steep, and generally in bad condition. Degraded trail segments can disrupt a user’s experience. Improving the condition of existing trails by, for example, re-routing around steep, rocky drainages or building boardwalks across wet areas would greatly improve the recreational experience. Well-maintained trails without obstacles contribute to positive recreational experiences.
Existing Trail Closures, New Trail Connections and Separation of Uses As described in Chapter 2, the WRNF TMP approves several trails within the study area for closure. This analysis provides further site-specific analysis of these trails that were previously authorized for decommissioning. Under Alternative 2, three trails would be closed: a 1.5-mile trail connecting the Smuggler Mountain Road to the Hunter Creek Valley and the Iowa Shaft Trail, a 0.8-mile trail along the south side of Hunter Creek, and a 0.5-mile trail in the very southeastern portion of the study area. The closure of these trails would lead to a negative impact to recreational resources for certain users. However, the trails identified for closure are redundant and unnecessary, and thus their removal would negligibly impact the recreational experience in the study area.
In addition to these trail closures, the Proposed Action would alter the trail network by adding a new single-track trail loop in the study area. Total new trail segments could be up to 3 miles in length. The Hummingbird Traverse and Hunter Ditch Loop, designed for beginner riders and hikers, would provide an appropriate steepness and technical difficulty for users of a greater diversity of ages and abilities. Prior to implementation, the Implementation Team would work with user groups and biologists and delineate the exact alignment of the trail and determine consistency with the resource analysis and findings included in this EA. This new trail connection would add an important link to the existing trail network, as there is currently no beginner loop. The Proposed Action would also create a “Heritage Trail” that would create an educational experience for guests to the area. This trail would link existing trails and create an educational destination.
Separation of use projects would occur in the study area as well, which improves the recreation experience for all parties. Hikers, bikers, and motorized users all move at different speeds, and conflicts can lead to safety hazards. By designating certain trails as open to specific uses, these risks are reduced and the recreation experience is improved as there is no fear or stress of encountering a conflicting user.
Hunter Creek-Smuggler Mountain Cooperative Plan Environmental Assessment 3-7 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences A. Recreation
Single-track Mountain Bike Trail The Proposed Action would include a single-track mountain bike trail on the south side of Smuggler Mountain. While the un-sanctioned Balcony Trail currently exists in this area, the Proposed Action would officially assess the opportunity for a trail in this area and determine if there is a suitable alignment. As mentioned above, the Balcony Trail as it exists currently adversely impacts wildlife habitat and other resources. However, members of the community have attested to the high quality of recreation a trail in this area provides. A trail in this area would be relatively easy to access from Aspen and provides a physically and technically challenging ride with views of the city.
If the Proposed Action is approved, prior to implementation, the Implementation Team would work with user groups and biologists and delineate the exact alignment of the trail and determine consistency with the resource analysis and findings included in this EA. The new alignment could be no longer than the current trail, 4.2 miles in length. The location would take into consideration wildlife habitat, streams and wetlands, as well as the recreation goals this trail would be designed to achieve. The goal is to meet the demand for recreation in this area and preclude further construction of unauthorized trails. Strict monitoring measures would be enacted to ensure the continued sustainability of recreation in this area and prevent the creation of addition un-authorized trails. Refer to Table 2-2 for these monitoring protocols and design criteria.
Forest Health Projects Besides the direct impacts to recreational resources mentioned above, the forest health and wildlife projects in the Proposed Action could directly and indirectly impact the recreational experience in the study area. These projects would have both positive and negative impacts to recreation in the study area.
Projects removing hazardous trees adjacent to trails would improve the recreational experience. Additionally, in the long term, improvements to forest health would create a more natural and authentic environment and recreational experience. While the long term impact on recreation would be positive, in the short term the experience could be negatively impacted. Forest health projects could take away from the natural recreation experience and temporarily close trails adjacent to projects during construction. Tree removal activity could alter the natural landscape as observed from the trail system. However, in the long term, the reestablishment of the forest community would provide a high quality environment for recreation.
Forest health projects could result in a negative impact on recreation on Smuggler Mountain Road. As mentioned above, Smuggler Mountain Road is widely used for recreation. The implementation of forest health projects on Smuggler Mountain would require the use of Smuggler Mountain Road for the transportation of equipment and materials. Generally, forest health projects would require machinery to fell and remove trees. This machinery would be transported to the project site and truck traffic would also occur. Additionally, felled material could be removed from the project area via short-bed truck
Hunter Creek-Smuggler Mountain Cooperative Plan Environmental Assessment 3-8 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences A. Recreation
(approximately 20 feet in length). Thus, forest health projects on Smuggler Mountain would result in slight increases in traffic on Smuggler Mountain Road and temporary closures of the road to avoid user conflict. However, these interruptions of recreational use of Smuggler Mountain Road would likely by limited. It is expected that a portion forest material would be removed from the site via helicopter, and the transportation of machinery and equipment would be short in duration. Strategies would be implemented to minimize recreation impacts and conflicts on Smuggler Mountain Road, such as timing of truck traffic to occur during lower use times of the day and/or year.
2013 Forest Vegetation Treatments Implementation projects occurring in 2013 would have short-term impacts to certain recreation experiences on Smuggler Mountain. Logging trucks would impact hikers and bikers on Smuggler Mountain Road during hauling activities. These impacts would be short-term in duration and would be scheduled during a time of day that reduces interactions with the public. In addition, three of the units would be implemented during winter months; thereby reducing interaction with the public. Alternative 3 Signage, Maps and Trail/Route Designations Alternative 3 includes the same improvements to trail system navigability as Alternative 2. Thus, projects in Alternative 3 would have the same positive impact on navigability and the recreational experience. Project proposed for implementation in 2013 would improve the navigability and user experience at high priority locations in the study area.
Existing Trail Repairs, Restoration, Realignments or Crossings Alternative 3 includes the same repairs, restorations, realignments and crossings as Alternative 2. Thus, projects in Alternative 3 would have the same positive impact on trail conditions and the recreational experience.
Existing Trail Closures, New Trail Connections and Separation of Uses Alternative 3 includes the same trail closures and separation of use projects as Alternative 2. Alternative 3 includes a shorter version of the Hummingbird Traverse and Hunter Ditch Loop. Under Alternative 3 these new trail segments could be up to 1.5 miles in length. These new trails would partially meet the need of establishing new trail connections, and would provide a trail for beginner hikers and riders. Due to less spatial area, the trails may need to be steeper in segments.
Single-track Mountain Bike Trail Under Alternative 3 the potential for a single-track mountain bike trail on the south side of Smuggler Mountain would not be contemplated. The existing non-system trail known as the Balcony Trail would be closed and revegetated. Alternative 3 would not address the demand for a trail in this area. There is a high
Hunter Creek-Smuggler Mountain Cooperative Plan Environmental Assessment 3-9 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences A. Recreation demand for a trail in this area because of the views of Aspen as well as the difficulty level. Among the local mountain bike community a trail in this area is a high priority.
Forest Health Projects Alternative 3 includes a similar set of forest health projects as Alternative 2. Therefore, the impacts to recreation due to these projects would be similar under Alternative 3. There would be less mechanical treatments allowed under Alternative 3; therefore, theoretically, there could be less short term direct and indirect recreation effects.
2013 Forest Vegetation Treatments Alternative 3 impacts would be identical to the Proposed Action.
CUMULATIVE EFFECTS Scope of Analysis Temporal Bounds The temporal bounds for the cumulative effects analysis for recreational resources extends from the late 20th century when the growing population in Aspen began to lead to high numbers of recreationalists, through the foreseeable future in which the TMP is expected to be current (assumed to be approximately 20 years).
Spatial Bounds The spatial bounds for this cumulative effects analysis focuses on the study area and the Aspen metro region.
Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions
Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions that affect recreation resources within the analysis area are related to activities in the study area on NFS lands as well as adjacent private lands. These past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions include:
2008 Smuggler Mountain Open Space Management Plan
2009 Forestwide Hazardous Tree Removal and Fuels Reduction Project EA
2011 WRNF TMP
Guided Horseback Riding
Regional mountain biking opportunities
Hunter Creek-Smuggler Mountain Cooperative Plan Environmental Assessment 3-10 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences A. Recreation
2008 Smuggler Mountain Open Space Management Plan This plan presents a management strategy for the approximately 234-acre Smuggler Mountain Open Space property. The plan discusses opportunities and constraints on recreation management within Smuggler Mountain Open Space (SMOS), which is adjacent to the study area. The plan includes potential trail additions within the Potential Recreation Area, maintenance of Smuggler Mountain Road in its current condition, separation of uses on existing trails, and existing trail maintenance. In general, projects contained in this plan would further improve the recreational experience in the area surrounding Aspen.
2009 Forestwide Hazardous Tree Removal and Fuels Reduction Project EA This EA allows for the removal of hazardous trees bordering roads and trails on NFS lands. Implementation of these removal projects would have a negative effect on recreation in the short-term, as temporary trail and road closures could be possible for public safety reasons. However, in the long-term, these projects would improve the safety of recreation experiences.
2011 WRNF TMP The TMP provides guidance for the management of trails and roads within WRNF. The plan defines designated roads and trails throughout the forest, as well as allowable uses on these routes. The TMP decommissions a number of trails and roads within the Aspen region which would, by reducing the number of recreational trails, negatively impact the recreational experience. However, the TMP primarily decommissions trails that are infrequently used or redundant, thus the removal of these trails from the system would likely not have a long-term negative impact on recreation. In addition, the TMP does not preclude the addition of new trails to the system. In fact, the 2011 TMP incorporated a number of new trails. Thus it is likely that the TMP will regulate the recreational trail network in the region so that the supply of trails meets the demand.
Guided Horseback Riding As described above, Aspen Wilderness Outfitters currently holds a Special Use Permit to operate guided horseback riding in and around the study area. The current Special Use Permit expires in 2015. It is expected that this permit will be renewed. Thus the presence of guided horseback riding in the study area will likely continue at current levels into the future. Proposed projects would address user conflict concerns and improve the recreational experience for both horseback riders and dispersed recreationalists in the study area.
Regional Mountain Biking Opportunities The Aspen region contains numerous opportunities for mountain biking that contribute to the demand for mountain bike trails in the study area. The development of mountain bike trails at Snowmass and elsewhere throughout the Aspen region increases the supply of recreation in the area. The high density of trails provides mountain bikers with numerous options. It is expected that over time the quantity of trails in the region increases. This would improve the quality of recreation and could decrease the demand for
Hunter Creek-Smuggler Mountain Cooperative Plan Environmental Assessment 3-11 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences A. Recreation mountain biking within the study area. However, the proximity of the study area to the City of Aspen makes it likely that mountain biking on Smuggler Mountain and in Hunter Creek Valley will remain popular.
IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES
No irreversible or irretrievable commitments of resources with respect to recreation have been identified in association with any alternative analyzed in this document.
Hunter Creek-Smuggler Mountain Cooperative Plan Environmental Assessment 3-12 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences B. Scenery
B. SCENERY
SCOPE OF ANALYSIS
The Hunter Creek-Smuggler Mountain study area provides an important scenic resource to the WRNF and nearby Aspen. The study area for scenic resources includes 4,681 acres of NFS lands that serve as the backdrop of the Aspen community and a popular area for recreation.
MANAGEMENT OF THE SCENIC ENVIRONMENT ON NATIONAL FOREST SYSTEM LANDS
The Scenery Management System (SMS) was adopted in 1995 as the primary scenery management direction by the Forest Service. In brief, the SMS is a systematic approach for assessing scenic resources in a study area to help make management decisions on the project.
Scenic Integrity Objectives and Landscape Character
An action can cause changes to scenic resources that can be objectively measured. By assessing the existing scenic character of an area in terms of pattern elements (form, line, color and texture) and pattern character (dominance, scale diversity and continuity), it is possible to identify the extent to which the scenic character would exhibit scenic contrast with the landscape, or its converse—scenery compatibility.
The 2002 Forest Plan establishes acceptable limits of change for Scenic Resources.8 The acceptable limits of change of a particular area (e.g., Management Area, as defined in the 2002 Forest Plan) are the documented Scenic Integrity Objectives (SIO), which serve as management goals for scenic resources. SIOs provide a measure of visible disruption of landscape character, ranging from “Very High” to “Unacceptably Low.” In order of least-to-most altered, SIOs are:
Very High (unaltered)
High (appears unaltered)
Moderate (slightly altered)
Low (moderately altered)
Very Low (heavily altered)
Unacceptably Low (extremely altered)
The study area falls into Management Areas 1.31, 4.2, 4.32, 5.4, and 5.41, and has varying SIO values within each category. As indicated in the 2002 Forest Plan, the study area has a wide range of SIOs—
8 USDA Forest Service, 2002a
Hunter Creek-Smuggler Mountain Cooperative Plan Environmental Assessment 3-13 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences B. Scenery from Low to Very High.9 For reference, a Very High SIO is typically found in designated wilderness areas and special interest areas.
The Low SIO is defined as:10
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, changes in vegetation types, or architectural styles outside the landscape being viewed.
The Moderate SIO is defined as:11
Noticeable deviations must remain visually subordinate to the landscape character being viewed.
The High SIO is defined as:12
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.
The Very High SIO is defined as:13
Very High scenic integrity refers to landscapes where the valued 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.
The 2002 Forest Plan suggests that all NFS lands be managed to attain the highest possible scenic quality commensurate with other appropriate public uses, costs, and benefits.14
Scenery Management System Distance Zones
Viewing distance is important in determining how change is perceived across a landscape. Distance zones are divisions of a particular landscape being viewed, and are used to describe the part of a characteristic landscape that is being inventoried or evaluated.
Immediate Foreground: This zone begins at the viewer and extends to about 300 feet. Individual leaves, flowers, twigs, bark texture, and other details dominate this view.
Foreground: This zone is usually limited to areas within 300 feet to 0.5 mile (not to exceed 0.5 mile) of the observer, but it must be determined on a case-by-case basis, as should any
9 SIO designations within the study area are depicted graphically in the Project File. 10 USDA Forest Service, 1995 11 Ibid. 12 Ibid. 13 Ibid. 14 USDA Forest Service, 2002a
Hunter Creek-Smuggler Mountain Cooperative Plan Environmental Assessment 3-14 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences B. Scenery
distance zoning. Generally, detail of landforms is more pronounced when viewed from within the foreground zone.
Middleground: Alterations in the middleground (0.5 to 4 miles from the observer) are less distinctive. Texture is normally characterized by the masses of trees in stands or uniform tree cover.
Background: This zone extends from middleground (minimum of 4 miles between the observer and the area being viewed) to infinity. Shape may remain evident beyond 10 miles, especially if it is inconsistent with other landscape forms. Beyond 10 miles, alteration in landscape character becomes obscure.
Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines
In addition to the SMS, the 2002 Forest Plan contains forest-wide standards and guidelines which apply to resources across the WRNF.15 While the 2002 Forest Plan contains no forest-wide standards for scenery management, it offers the following guidelines that are applicable to this project:16
Management activities should be designed and implemented to achieve, at minimum, the level of scenic integrity shown on the Scenic Integrity Objective Map.
Plan, design and locate vegetation manipulation on a scale that retains the color and texture of the landscape character, borrowing directional emphasis of form and line from natural features.
The 2002 Forest Plan further states that it is a regional goal to “provide for scenic quality and a range of recreational opportunities that respond to the needs of the forest customers and local communities.”17
The Built Environment Image Guide
The Built Environment Image Guide (BEIG) was prepared by the Forest Service for the “thoughtful design and management” of the built environment contained within the National Forests.18 The Forest Service defines the built environment as “the administrative and recreation buildings, landscape structures, site furnishings, structures on roads and trails, and signs installed or operated by the Forest Service, its cooperators, and permitees.19 The BEIG divides the United States into eight provinces which combine common elements from the ecological and cultural contexts over large geographical areas; the entire study area and adjacent NFS lands are within the Rocky Mountain Province. Site development, sustainability, and architectural character should conform to BEIG guidelines described for this Province.
15 A standard is a course of action which must be followed; adherence is mandatory. A guideline is a preferred course of action designed to achieve a goal, respond to variable site conditions, or respond to an overall condition. 16 USDA Forest Service, 2002a 17 Ibid. 18 USDA Forest Service, 2001 19 Ibid.
Hunter Creek-Smuggler Mountain Cooperative Plan Environmental Assessment 3-15 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences B. Scenery
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
The Hunter-Smuggler study area is generally consistent with the 2002 Forest Plan SIO designations from Low to Very High, as well as Forest-wide guidelines for scenery management. The existing recreational trail system and few roadways in the study area contribute to the Low to High SIO designations for this area, while the undeveloped portions of the Forest meet the Very High scenic integrity objectives.
Within the study area the vast majority of landscapes fall in the Moderate category, with Very High SIO limited to small segments near the City/County Open Space and on the eastern edge of the study area near the end of the Hunter Valley trail. The central portion of the study area, including the lower portions of the Hunter Valley and Iowa Shaft trails, is identified as High SIO along with the part of Smuggler Mountain closest to Aspen. A few isolated blocks of Low SIO landscapes occur along the eastern edge of the study area, near the City/County Open Space, and in isolated areas in the Hunter Creek Valley.
The existing scenic condition of the study area appears relatively undisturbed, which has meant that the landscape has not been managed mechanically or naturally. The study area was the site of numerous mines starting in the early 1880s silver rush. The mining boom also led to demand for construction lumber and timbers for mine sites and underground workings. Loggers met demand by clearing large swaths of forest in the current study area, among other nearby locations. The result was a decimated forest that took decades to recover. Since then, forest health has been impacted by a lack of age class diversity as many of the stands are roughly the same age and at higher risk of stand replacing disease or fire. Large stands of trees are also susceptible to bark beetle epidemic and tree mortality from excessively high density.
There is a relatively high diversity of tree species, however, which contributes to the aesthetic value of the study area for Aspen. Overlooks from the study area to the city and surrounding area are also of scenic value, and contribute to the popularity of the area for recreation.
DIRECT AND INDIRECT ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES Alternative 1 – No Action
Under the No Action Alternative, no changes or modifications would be approved and would not affect the scenic quality of the Hunter Creek-Smuggler Mountain study area. Alternative 1 would not treat the study area for forest health concerns, which could result in a decline in scenic quality and age class diversity from Sudden Aspen Decline (SAD) or another bark beetle epidemic. As discussed under Existing Conditions, Hunter-Smuggler follows the Low SIO (“heavily altered”) to Very High SIO (“unaltered”) classification for the study area. Under the No Action Alternative, developed and undeveloped portions of the study area would continue to meet the Low to Very High SIO.
Hunter Creek-Smuggler Mountain Cooperative Plan Environmental Assessment 3-16 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences B. Scenery
Alternative 2 – Proposed Action
Potential impacts from vegetation management activities relate to project visibility and the introduction of elements of different form, line, color and texture into the landscape. The extent of noticeable change to the landscape as a result of project implementation can be measured in levels of scenic contrast. NEPA requires that effects in an EA be discussed in terms of context and intensity. In this section, context refers to the location, type, or size of the area to be affected relative to each resource component. Intensity refers to the severity or level of magnitude of impact. The duration of effects can be categorized as temporary (short-lived during construction), short term (five years or less), or long term (more than five years).
The Proposed Action includes projects to manage and maintain recreational trails, manage and improve forest health and wildlife habitat, and maintain and improve Smuggler Mountain Road (County Road 21). The specific locations of these projects have not been detailed, but would be established in annual Implementation Plans.
Recreation Trail Improvements, Management and Maintenance Many of the recreation trail projects require minimal ground disturbance to implement. Moreover, many of the proposed projects would utilize existing trails to improve the overall trail network. The majority of recreation trail work is focused on re-routing and repairing existing trails to reduce erosion, improve drainage, and improve the rideability of trails for bicycles. The existing trails that would be rerouted would be restored and revegetated to limit impacts to the scenery. In some cases, trail restoration would entail filling ruts and holes, and installing boardwalks or drains to limit erosion and trail flooding.
The Hummingbird Traverse, Hunter Ditch Loop, and the Southside Smuggler trail are the only proposed projects of entirely new trails in the Proposed Action. All new trails would be single-track, which limits disturbance and scenic impact. The Southside Smuggler trail area would replace existing, unapproved trails and be rerouted to avoid important wildlife habitat, and improve the rideability and the scenic experience. The Hummingbird Traverse and Hunter Ditch Loop are almost entirely hidden from view from Aspen and present no deviation from the scenery for most populated areas.
Trails that are redundant and unnecessary would be closed under the Proposed Action. The trail that parallels the south side of Hunter Creek, and a trail/historic mining road that is located on the north aspect of Smuggler Mountain between Smuggler Mountain Road and Iowa Shaft trail would be revegetated and restored to preclude future use under this alternative. A trail on Smuggler Mountain in the southeast corner of the study area has also been identified for closure to improve wildlife habitat, and would be revegetated and restored.
All the proposed trails and trail repair projects are on NFS lands with the exception of projects related to the Lollipop trail, which is located on Open Space and NFS lands.
Hunter Creek-Smuggler Mountain Cooperative Plan Environmental Assessment 3-17 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences B. Scenery
Forest Health and Wildlife Habitat Improvements and Management Vegetation treatment projects would be used to improve forest health, fire hazard, and wildlife habitat. The use of ground disturbing, heavy machinery would be limited to stands within quarter-mile of an existing road to prevent erosion and soil disruption. Helicopters would be used to remove some necessary vegetation and there would be vegetation burned on site, but such activities would be restricted to a limited time period in the fall to account for wildlife.
In total, approximately 220 acres of Lodgepole pine and 80 acres of mixed conifer would be treated in the total study area. Patch cutting of up to 20 percent of moderate and high-risk lodgepole stands would occur in 1- to 2.5-acre patches within the buffer area. Approximately 280 acres of aspen vegetation would be treated to increase the diversity and quality of aspen habitat. 0.1- to 2-acre patch cuts of stagnant and decadent aspen on up to 20 percent of aspen stands in the study area would be followed by mechanical root stimulation to increase the representation and quality of aspen in the study area. The Proposed Action would also treat approximately 60 acres of Gambel oak, mountain shrub, and sagebrush to increase age class diversity and habitat quality. Treatment entails patch cutting of 2-to 10-acres to mimic fire disturbance in up to 20 percent of these stands. The treatment technique for each vegetation group may also include prescribed burns with careful consideration to the proximity to the Aspen community and private property.
Due to the topography of the study area, the majority of treatment and Proposed Actions will not be visible from Aspen. The area of Gambel oak, mountain shrub, and sage brush in the southwest corner of the study area is likely the most visible from Aspen and also the Gambel oak stand above the Hunter Creek Toll Road in the northwest corner of the study area. These Gambel oak, mountain shrub, and sagebrush stands would likely be treated with 2- to 10-acre patch cuts to mimic fire disturbance or contiguous cuts to serve as fuel breaks. Adjacent aspen stands, which may be visible from Aspen, may also be treated with 0.1- to 2-acres patch cuts where stands are stagnant and decadent. Patch cuts would not follow a linear or geometric pattern, and patch edges would be scalloped-feathered and use variable density marking to prevent a noticeable change to the scenery from populated areas and adjacent land.
Project Design Criteria (PDC), like the patch cutting techniques used in Gambel oak stands, have been identified in Table 2-2 and incorporated into the Action Alternatives in order to minimize potential impacts to scenery and other resources. Among the other PDCs to be utilized in the Action Alternatives is avoiding vegetative disturbance of fire lines, avoiding regular patterns and spacing when clearing, minimizing damage to natural features, and rehabilitating ground disturbance.
2013 Forest Vegetation Treatments Projects proposed for treatment in 2013 would adhere to PDC included in Table 2-2. By following PDC, these projects are not anticipated to have scenery impacts from identified viewpoints or areas of concern.
Hunter Creek-Smuggler Mountain Cooperative Plan Environmental Assessment 3-18 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences B. Scenery
Skid tracks and the forwarder track would be minimized in length and would not include the creation of a temporary or permanent road. Smuggler Mountain Road (County Road 21) Improvements and Maintenance Improvements to Smuggler Mountain Road are not subject to Forest Service authorization, but have been reviewed and analyzed in the public interest. Grading, drainage improvements, and additional improvements as identified through ground surveys, such as surfacing, tree/shrub trimming, etc., would occur on Smuggler Mountain Road. These projects would not impact the scenic resources of the study area as the road would maintain its existing route.
Alternative 3
Alternative 3 is largely the same as the proposed alternative with some difference in the projects related to improvements to recreation trails, forest health, and wildlife habitat. Less intensive development options include the exclusion of the trail on the south side of Smuggler Mountain and the omission of the Hummingbird Traverse/Hunter Ditch Loop trails. Alternative 3 also designates a portion of the study area as a Natural Disturbance Treatment zone where only less intensive vegetation management treatments would be allowed. This proposed treatment area is unique to Alternative 3 and the boundary of the Natural Disturbance Treatment Zone was determined based on the spatial overlap of Forest Service designated Management Areas, Colorado Roadless Areas (CRA), and proposed wilderness areas. The Zone is largely in the eastern portion of the study area, and roughly corresponds to the boundaries of the Management Area 5.4: Forested Flora and Fauna Habitats (refer to Figure 5). Treatments in the Natural Disturbance Treatment Zone include prescribed fire and the continuation of the MPB or other, future insect infestation processes. Outside of the Zone, the treatments would be identical to those in the Proposed Action; therefore, the impacts to scenery would be similar. As in the Proposed Action, the quarter-mile buffer from existing roads (refer to Figure 7), would determine areas eligible for the use of ground disturbing, heavy machinery.
Projects proposed for implementation in 2013 would have impacts identical to the Proposed Action.
CUMULATIVE EFFECTS Scope of Analysis Temporal Bounds The temporal bounds for the cumulative effects analysis for scenery resources extends from 2009 through the regeneration of the forest, upwards of 100 years.
Spatial Bounds The spatial bounds for this cumulative effects analysis focuses on the study area and the Aspen metro region.
Hunter Creek-Smuggler Mountain Cooperative Plan Environmental Assessment 3-19 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences B. Scenery
Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions
Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions that affect scenery resources within the analysis area are related to activities in the study area on NFS lands as well as adjacent private lands. These past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions include:
2009 Forest-wide Hazardous Tree Removal and Fuels Reduction Project EA
2011 Starwood Fuels Reduction Project EA
2009 Forestwide Hazardous Tree Removal and Fuels Reduction Project EA This EA allows for the removal of hazardous trees bordering roads and trails on NFS lands. Implementation of these removal projects would have a spatially limited and short-term impact on scenic resources. Visitors to the study area would be affected by the presence of machinery and trail- and road- side tree removal. The scenery as experienced by recreational users within the study area would be diminished by these projects. However, since these removal projects would be located along existing trails and roads, there would not be new openings in the forest cover. Thus, these projects would not adversely affect the scenery of the study area as viewed from a distance.
2011 Starwood Fuels Reduction Project EA This EA allows for the removal of dead and infested trees adjacent to the community of Starwood, approximately 3 miles north of Aspen. By creating openings in the forest canopy, this project could have negative short-term impacts on scenery in the area. The proximity of this project to the community of Starwood increases its visibility. Forest openings caused by this project combined with openings associated with the Action Alternatives could adversely affect the scenery of the Aspen area as viewed from a distance. However, in the long-term, the removal of dead trees would improve the scenery of the area, and the restoration of natural forest patterns would positively affect scenic resources.
As discussed above, the proposed projects would likely result in some temporary and short term effects to scenic resources. During the implementation of recreation trails, improvements to Smuggler Mountain Road, and forest management projects the scenery of the study area would likely be altered for on-site users. In the long term, however, the scenery of the study area would be improved for the public and be consistent with the SIOs assigned. No past, present or reasonably-foreseeable future projects have been identified that, when combined with the Proposed Action, would permanently affect scenery resources in the study area.
IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES
No irreversible or irretrievable commitments of resources with respect to scenery have been identified in association with any alternative analyzed in this document.
Hunter Creek-Smuggler Mountain Cooperative Plan Environmental Assessment 3-20 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences C. Cultural Resources
C. CULTURAL RESOURCES
SCOPE OF ANALYSIS
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) requires that federal agencies take into account the effects of a federal undertaking on any cultural resource that is included in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Cultural resources may refer to sites, areas, buildings, structures, districts, and objects which possess scientific, historic, and/or social values of a cultural group or groups as specified by 36 CFR 296.3.
This assessment is based on archaeological sources that indicate the historic and prehistoric utilization of lands within and adjacent to the proposed Hunter-Smuggler study area. NRHP eligibility is evaluated in terms of the integrity of the resource; its association with significant persons, events, or patterns in history or prehistory; its engineering, artistic, or architectural values; or its information potentially relative to important research questions in history or prehistory.20 The significance of NRHP eligibility of cultural resources is determined by the Forest Archaeologist in consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer.
In conjunction with this EA and the Hunter-Smuggler Plan, Mountain States Historical (MSH) compiled a report documenting heritage resources. A few limited cultural resource projects have been carried out to date, involving isolated land tracts or previously determined sites. Between 1980 and 2006, the Forest Service surveyed four tracts for heritage resources in preparation for land exchanges, trail construction, and infrastructure development. The surveys were need-specific and not designed for heritage resource studies. Little of note was found during the surveys, demonstrating that future management plans need not consider heritage resources in these areas. Exact locations will be provided when information is available.
A full report of MSH’s findings in contained in the project file. The following information is a summary of that report.
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
Smuggler and Red mountains, and Hunter Creek Valley are among Colorado’s important historical places, figuring prominently in Aspen’s famed silver rush. Prospectors searched the mountain slopes during the early 1880s for silver veins concealed underneath soil and vegetation, excavating pits and sinking shallow shafts. Ultimately, they determined that the rich Smuggler Vein system trended northeast through the study area, from Aspen through Van Horn Park and over to Woody Creek. Later in the decade, speculators purchased the promising claims and developed some at depth, finding profitable ore in a few cases.
20 36 CFR 60.4
Hunter Creek-Smuggler Mountain Cooperative Plan Environmental Assessment 3-21 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences C. Cultural Resources
But silver was not the only natural resource that drew people into the study area during the rush. As the regional mining industry grew, entrepreneurs turned to the forests to satisfy a heavy demand for construction lumber and timbers in underground workings. Loggers operating from base camps high on Smuggler and Red mountains harvested evergreen trees and sent them down to several sawmills for processing in Hunter Creek Valley. Freight outfits then hauled forest products and ore from the mines down to Aspen. Native Americans also used Hunter Creek Valley prior to the rush, primarily hunting game.
A legacy of heritage resources remains from this colorful past, and historic sites can be found scattered throughout the study area. Despite this, little work has been completed among the study area’s historic sites, with no systematic studies, surveys, or other coordinated efforts yet attempted.
Of the numerous heritage resources in the study area, only five sites have been formally documented and registered with the Forest Service or Colorado Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation. Four were mines selected in 2007 for closure of hazardous openings. One was in Van Horn Park and the other three at the northwest base of Smuggler Mountain where ore production was heaviest. The last site, on the northwest flank of Smuggler Mountain, was an intact log cabin whose role in regional history is presently unclear. The mines qualify as archaeological resources, lacking buildings, structures, or equipment, and represented instead by foundations, waste rock dumps, and artifacts. The cabin qualifies as an architectural resource because it is largely intact with walls and roof.
Altogether, the heritage resources likely fall into three general historical themes and geographic areas. In the first, mines and prospects attributable to the 1880s silver rush are distributed along the Smuggler Vein system, trending northeast through the study area. Complexes of surface excavations, prospect shafts, and associated camps are numerous in the Van Horn Park area where prospectors sought silver veins but found little of worth, leaving shallow exploratory workings. Mines, which actually yielded ore, are concentrated on Smuggler Mountain’s northwest base, near the previously recorded sites mentioned above. The second theme involves timber industry resources, with several sawmill sites in Hunter Creek Valley and small logging camps on the upper reaches of Smuggler and Red mountains. The third theme is homesteading, with several sites on Hunter Creek Valley’s floor. Some were established for cattle and dairy, while others merely to claim title to land for speculation. Prehistoric resources are also possible in Hunter Creek Valley, although they will be difficult to find due to thick vegetation and minimal use.
DIRECT AND INDIRECT ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES Alternative 1 – No Action
Under the No Action Alternative, none of the proposed projects would occur in the study area. Because no ground disturbance is proposed under the No Action Alternative, there is no potential to affect the historic sites surveyed within the APE.
Hunter Creek-Smuggler Mountain Cooperative Plan Environmental Assessment 3-22 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences C. Cultural Resources
Alternative 2 – Proposed Action
As stated, five cultural resources are known within the study area. Four are related to mining and the fifth is an intact log cabin. None of these resources are identified as NRHP-eligible. None of the projects included in the Proposed Action would physically impact any known cultural resources in the study area, and there would be no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects on them. Prior to ground disturbing activity a walking survey of the immediate project area would be conducted and any sites would be documented and avoided (refer to Table 2-2).
One of the stated needs of this project highlights the opportunity to promote experiential education. Project components such as the interpretive “Heritage Trail” were designed to improve access to the cultural resources in the study area and promote education about the region’s unique history. Throughout the planning process, the protection and celebration of cultural resources has been a stated goal. Thus, by design the proposed projects would not only avoid direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts to cultural resources, but would promote education/interpretation to people who otherwise might not be aware of the study area’s unique history.
2013 Forest Vegetation Treatments Site specific surveys of the treatment units and access routes occurred in August 2013. No NRHP-eligible resources were identified. Alternative 3
Alternative 3 would have no impacts to cultural resources. As in Alternative 2, none of the projects included in Alternative 3 would physically impact a known cultural resource in the study area. As in Alternative 2, a PDC requiring a walking survey of the area would be required prior to ground disturbing activity, and any cultural resources would be documented and avoided. A survey of the 2013 projects has occurred and no cultural resources were identified.
CUMULATIVE EFFECTS
No effects to NHRP-eligible cultural resources were identified within the study area related to the Proposed Action; therefore, by definition, no cumulative effects would occur or require further analysis.
IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES
No irreversible or irretrievable commitments of resources with respect to cultural resources have been identified in association with any alternative analyzed in this document.
Hunter Creek-Smuggler Mountain Cooperative Plan Environmental Assessment 3-23 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences D. Wildlife and Aquatic Species
D. WILDLIFE AND AQUATIC SPECIES
SCOPE OF ANALYSIS
This wildlife analysis is tiered to the 2002 WRNF Forest Plan FEIS, and incorporates by reference the 2002 Forest Plan, as amended, as well as the 2008 Southern Rockies Lynx Amendment.21 Species analyzed include those identified as listed proposed, threatened, endangered, Forest Service Region 2 (R2) sensitive and management indicator species (MIS).
The study area encompasses approximately 4,681 acres of NFS lands immediately east of the city of Aspen.
A Biological Assessment (BA), Biological Evaluation (BE) and MIS report were prepared for this project. The BA analyzes the potential effects on federally listed threatened, endangered, and proposed species. The BE provides a similar analysis regarding the potential effects of the Proposed Action on R2 Sensitive species in the area. The MIS report addresses species that the Forest Service uses as a means to monitor selected issues on the Forest as required by regulation.22 In addition, migratory birds were addressed per the 2008 Forest Service Memorandum of Understanding with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to promote the conservation of migratory birds.
The following analysis is a summary of the BA, BE and MIS report that are contained in the project file.23 Additional information can be obtained by reviewing the larger documentation there. All references are contained therein.
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT Threatened, Endangered and Proposed Species
Table 3D-1 identifies federally-listed and proposed animal species present on the WRNF, potentially present on the Aspen-Sopris Ranger District, and/or potentially affected by management decisions associated with the Proposed Action. Other listed and proposed species known to occur elsewhere on the WRNF or in Colorado were considered but dropped from detailed analysis because 1) their habitats do not occur on the Aspen-Sopris District; 2) they have no affinities to study area habitats; and/or 3) the study area is outside of the species’ range. No portion of the study area or vicinity has been designated critical habitat by the Secretary of the Interior.
21 USDA Forest Service, 2002a; 2008a 22 36 CFR 219.19 23 Colfer, 2013 and 2013a
Hunter Creek-Smuggler Mountain Cooperative Plan Environmental Assessment 3-24 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences D. Wildlife and Aquatic Species
Table 3D-1: Federally Listed and Proposed Animal Species Potentially Affected Common name, Scientific Name Status Rationale if Not Carried Forward for Analysis Uncompahgre fritillary butterfly, No potential habitat in study area. Elevation of study area E Boloria acrocnema is below 12,500’ MSL Humpback chub, E Gila cypha The USFWS has determined water depletions and Bonytail chub, E regulated flows are the current activities with the greatest G. elegans impact on all of the endangered Colorado River fishes. Colorado pikeminnow, There would be no depletions or regulated flows as a E Ptychocheilus lucius result of the proposed project. Thus, there would be no Razorback sucker, effect on any of these four fish. E Xyrauchen texanus Greenback cutthroat trout, No evidence to suggest that greenback cutthroat trout are T Oncorhynchus clarkii stomias found in the Roaring Fork River drainage. Canada lynx, Carried forward in analysis; suitable habitat present within T Lynx canadensis study area. Mexican Spotted Owl T No potential habitat in study area. Strix occidentalis lucida Wolverine No potential habitat in study area, species extirpated from P Gulo gulo State Federal status, listed after species, is as follows: E = Endangered, T = Threatened, P = Proposed.
Of the above listed species, only the Canada lynx was further analyzed. The remaining federally listed species in Table 3D-1 were dropped from detailed analysis because either 1) their range distributions do not include the analysis area; 2) habitats necessary during their life history are not found within the study area; and/or 3) their habitats would not be affected by the proposed project.
Canada Lynx Canada lynx in the contiguous United States was listed as threatened effective April 24, 2000. The Canada lynx has been classified by the State of Colorado as a State endangered species since 1976. On September 17, 2010, the CDOW (now CPW) announced that the lynx reintroduction project had successfully accomplished its goal of establishing a breeding population in the Southern Rockies.
The Southern Rockies Ecosystem represents the extreme southern edge of the range of lynx in North America. Canada lynx occur primarily in spruce-fir and lodgepole pine forests, at elevations between 8,000 and 12,000 feet. On a landscape scale, Canada lynx habitat includes a mosaic of early seral stages that support snowshoe hare populations and late seral stages of dense old-growth forest that provide high quality denning and security habitat.
Because of the patchy, discontinuous distribution of lynx habitat in Colorado, maintaining landscape- level habitat connectivity may be paramount to maintaining a viable population. Colorado lynx habitats are not only constrained by broad alpine zones and non-forested valleys, but also by towns, reservoirs,
Hunter Creek-Smuggler Mountain Cooperative Plan Environmental Assessment 3-25 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences D. Wildlife and Aquatic Species highways, and other human developments that fragment and isolate montane and subalpine lynx habitats. Any continuously forested corridor between mountain ranges supporting lynx habitat that is relatively free of human development has the potential to be an important landscape linkage.
The Canada Lynx Conservation Assessment and Strategy (LCAS) indicated that project planning should evaluate the effects to lynx habitat within designated Lynx Analysis Units (LAU) exceeding 25,000 acres in the southern Rocky Mountain Geographic Area. LAUs are intended to provide the smallest scale at which the effects of management actions on lynx habitat are quantitatively evaluated. LAUs do not represent actual lynx home ranges, but their scale should approximate the size of an area used by an individual lynx. For the purposes of this analysis, the Canada lynx action area includes the Independence Pass and Fryingpan South LAUs, as well as the identified landscape linkages at McClure Pass, Glenwood Canyon, and from Hagerman Pass to Thomasville. The landscape linkage at McClure Pass is 27 miles west of the study area, connecting lynx habitat in the Huntsman Ridge and Coal Creek area to southern habitat in the Raggeds Wilderness. Glenwood Canyon contains a landscape linkage 34 miles north of the study area, connecting habitat in the Elk Mountains to habitat in the Flattops.
The 2002 Forest Plan and Southern Rockies Lynx Amendment (SRLA) identified Forested Landscape Linkages (Management Area 5.5 on the WRNF) to be managed as key landscape linkages for lynx and other carnivores. The goal of linkage areas is to ensure population viability through population connectivity. Linkage areas are areas of movement opportunities between habitat blocks that may be separated by intervening areas of “non-habitat” such as basins, valleys, agricultural lands, or where lynx habitat naturally narrows between blocks. They exist on the landscape and can be maintained, degraded, or severed by management activities and human infrastructure, such as high-use highways, subdivisions, or other developments. The Forest Service does not consider lynx linkages to be “corridors” (which imply only travel routes), but broad areas of habitat where animals can find food, shelter, and security that also provide connectivity between larger habitat blocks. However, characteristics of some of the linkages considered herein are largely limited to highway crossing locations. Such linkages zones would be expected to support greater use by transient or nomadic individuals. The 2002 Forest Plan identifies a Forested Landscape Linkage management area extending west from Hagerman Pass north of the main Fryingpan River to Thomasville located 9 miles northeast of the study area.
Wolverine There are historical records of wolverines in the Colorado Rocky Mountains, but the species is believed to have been extirpated from the region by the early 1900s. Wolverines do not appear to specialize on specific vegetation or geological habitat aspects, but instead select areas that are cold and receive enough winter precipitation to reliably maintain deep persistent snow late into the warm season. Deep, persistent, and reliable spring snow cover (>=1.5 meters during April 15 to May 14) is the best overall predictor of wolverine occurrence. In these areas, females excavate cavities formed by large boulders, downed logs
Hunter Creek-Smuggler Mountain Cooperative Plan Environmental Assessment 3-26 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences D. Wildlife and Aquatic Species
(avalanche debris), and snow to birth and rear young. The landscape within the study area does not provide such habitat. The wolverine is thus excluded from further analysis.
Region 2 Sensitive Species
R2 sensitive species represent those that are declining in number or occurrence or whose habitat is declining, either of which could lead to federal listing if action is not taken to reverse the trend, and species whose habitat or population is stable but limited. From the updated R2 sensitive species list, a subset of species, including two insects, five fish, two amphibians, eighteen birds, and eight mammals (Table 3D-2), was determined to be present or potentially present on the WRNF.24
Table 3D-2: Region 2 Sensitive Animal Species that Potentially Occur in the Study Area Common name, Scientific name Rationale for Potential Project Effects (Habitat Affinity) INSECTS Great Basin silverspot, No suitable habitat (Wetlands supporting violet populations) Speyeria nokomis nokomis Hudsonian emerald, Somatochlora hudsonica No suitable habitat (boggy ponds) FISH Roundtail chub, Gila robusta robusta No suitable habitat (large, western slope rivers) Potential habitat (small to medium streams below 8600’; Mountain sucker, Catostomus platyrhynchus throughout west on both sides of Continental Divide) Bluehead sucker, Catostomus discobolus No suitable habitat (large, western slope rivers) Flannelmouth sucker, Catostomus latipinnis No suitable habitat (large, western slope rivers) Colorado River cutthroat trout, Oncorhynchus No CRCT in study area streams. clarkii pleuriticus AMPHIBIANS Boreal western toad, Anaxyrus boreas Potential habitat (subalpine forest habitats with marshes, wet boreas meadows, streams, beaver ponds, and lakes) Potential habitat (wet meadows, marshes, ponds, beaver ponds, Northern leopard frog, Lithobates pipiens streams) BIRDS Potential habitat (open forests, mainly mixed conifer and aspen, Northern goshawk, Accipiter gentilis above 7500’) No suitable habitat (marshes, wetlands, alpine tundra in fall Northern harrier, Circus cyaneus migration, shrublands) Ferruginous hawk, Buteo regalis No suitable habitat (grasslands and semi-desert shrublands) American peregrine falcon, No suitable habitat (nest on cliffs, forage over forests and Falco peregrinus anatum shrublands) No suitable habitat (low elevation riparian habitat along Bald eagle, Haliaeetos leucocephalus Colorado, Eagle, and White River drainages and major tributaries)
24 USDA Forest Service, 2011
Hunter Creek-Smuggler Mountain Cooperative Plan Environmental Assessment 3-27 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences D. Wildlife and Aquatic Species
Table 3D-2: Region 2 Sensitive Animal Species that Potentially Occur in the Study Area Common name, Scientific name Rationale for Potential Project Effects (Habitat Affinity) No suitable habitat (alpine tundra, high-elevation willow White-tailed ptarmigan, Lagopus leucurus thickets, krummholz, spruce-fir) Greater sage grouse, No suitable habitat (large sagebrush shrublands) Centrocercus urophasianus Columbian sharp-tailed grouse, Tympanuchus No suitable habitat (mid-elevation mountain phasianellus columbianus sagebrush/grassland) Potential habitat (aspen-mixed conifer forests, Pinyon juniper Flammulated owl, Otus flammeolus woodlands, ponderosa pine below 10,000’) Potential habitat (mature spruce-fir or spruce-fir/lodgepole Boreal owl, Aegolius funereus interspersed with meadows) No suitable habitat (nests behind waterfalls, forages at high Black swift, Cypseloides niger elevations over montane and lowland habitats) No suitable habitat (lowland and foothill riparian forests, mature Lewis’ woodpecker, Melanerpes lewis cottonwood groves) Potential habitat (breeds in mature spruce-fir and Douglas fir esp. Olive-sided flycatcher, Contopus cooperi on steep slopes) No suitable habitat (open riparian areas, grasslands and Loggerhead shrike, Lanius ludovicianus shrublands below 9000’) Purple martin, Progne subis Potential habitat (breeds in mature aspen near water and parks) Potential habitat (sagebrush shrublands, mountain parks, alpine Brewer’s sparrow, Spizella breweri willow stands) Sage sparrow, Amphispiza belli Potential habitat (sagebrush shrublands) Three-toed woodpecker, Picoides tridactylus Potential habitat (mature spruce-fir) MAMMALS Pygmy shrew, Microsorex hoyi montanus Potential habitat (variety of subalpine habitats) Fringed myotis, Myotis thysanodes No suitable habitat (low elevation conifer, oakbrush, shrublands) No suitable habitat (montane forests, Pinyon-juniper, open Spotted bat, Euderma maculatum semidesert shrublands, rocky cliffs for roosts) Hoary Bat, Lasiurus cinereus Study area well outside known geographical range Townsend’s big-eared bat, Potential habitat (semidesert shrublands, Pinyon-juniper, open Corynorhinus townsendii townsendii montane forests, caves and abandoned mines) Potential habitat (spruce-fir and lodgepole pine with complex Marten, Martes americana physical structure) No suitable habitat (larger river systems which traverse a variety River otter, Lontra canadensis of other habitats) Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep, Ovis No suitable habitat (rocky, steep, or rugged terrain for escape canadensis canadensis cover with grass habitat nearby for foraging) Other R2 species are not listed because they have not been found on the WRNF, they have no affinities to study area habitats, and the study area is outside of the species’ range or elevational distribution. Species in bold are potentially present and/or are discussed in the text. Source: USDA Forest Service, 2011
Hunter Creek-Smuggler Mountain Cooperative Plan Environmental Assessment 3-28 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences D. Wildlife and Aquatic Species
The following section provides specific baseline information relevant to the habitat characteristics attributed to individual sensitive species. In several instances, species have been grouped for discussion based on a demonstrated preference for shared habitat characteristics.
Marten (Martes americana), Boreal owl (Aegolius funereus), Olive-sided flycatcher (Contopus borealis), Three-toed woodpecker (Picoides tridactylus) These species share habitat characteristics exhibited in mixed conifer or spruce-fir forest interior. Three- toed woodpeckers and marten can also be found in lodgepole pine stands. Suitable habitat for these species exists in 1,193 acres of mixed conifer stands throughout the study area. Lodgepole pine habitat for marten and three-toed woodpecker exists in an additional 1,078 acres of lodgepole pine stands.
Owl surveys conducted in April 2012 located one boreal owl in the study area. Three-toed woodpeckers were both heard and seen during surveys of the study area, as were olive-sided flycatchers. Marten are expected to exist within the study area as well, although specific surveys have not been conducted.
Northern goshawk (Accipiter gentilis) The northern goshawk nests primarily in mature aspen trees on WRNF. Active and inactive goshawk nest territories are known to exist on the Aspen-Sopris district outside the study area. While surveys have not identified any individuals or nests at this time, aspen and mixed conifer stands on the north side of Hunter Creek are potentially suitable nesting habitat, while foraging habitat exists throughout the entirety of the study area.
Townsend’s Big-eared bat (Plecotus townsendii townsendii) Townsend’s big-eared bat is associated with areas containing caves, mines, and structures for roosting habitat. Beyond the constraint for cavernous roosts, habitat associations become less well defined. Generally, Townsend’s big-eared bats are found in the dry uplands where they forage in a wide variety of habitats, primarily in and near vegetation. Thus, suitable foraging habitat is thought to be a heterogeneous mosaic of forested and edge habitats, including riparian zones, which are also used for commuting and drinking. Roosting habitat and hibernacula in the form of mines, trees, and snags may be found in the study area. Suitable foraging habitat also exists throughout the study area.
Pygmy shrew (Sorex hoyi) The pygmy shrew is able to survive under a variety of ecological conditions, including mixed conifer stands, clear cuts, selectively logged forests, forest meadow edges, boggy meadows, willow thickets, aspen-fir forests, and subalpine parklands. Suitable habitat exists throughout the study area. Pygmy shrews have recently been documented on the WRNF, although none are known to exist on the Aspen- Sopris District.
Hunter Creek-Smuggler Mountain Cooperative Plan Environmental Assessment 3-29 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences D. Wildlife and Aquatic Species
Flammulated owl (Otus flammeolus), Purple martin (Progne subis) There are no known inactive or active flammulated owl territories on the district, but potential habitat may exist within the 1,405 acres of mature aspen present in the study area. No purple martin nesting areas have been documented in or adjacent to the study area, but there is potential nest habitat in some aspen stands. Both species nest in cavities found in mature/decadent aspen or aspen snags.
Boreal toad (Bufo boreas boreas), Northern leopard frog (Rana pipiens), Mountain sucker (Catostomus platyrhynchus) Hunter Creek and associated ponds and wetlands could provide habitat for mountain sucker, boreal toad and leopard frog. A 2011 survey of Hunter Creek did not identify and boreal toads or leopard frogs.
Management Indicator Species
MIS are those whose response to management activities can be used to predict the likely response of a larger group of species with similar habitat requirements. In addition, selected MIS should be those whose change in population would be directly attributable to the management action. MIS are to be evaluated at the Forest-wide scale. Therefore, project-level activities are evaluated in relation to how they affect Forest-wide population and habitat trends.
The WRNF modified the Land and Resource Management Plan 2002 Revision (LRMP) list of MIS in the 2006 MIS Forest Plan Amendment to the Land and Resource Management Plan – 2002 Revision. The list of MIS set forth in the 2006 Amendment to the LRMP is included in Table 3D-3.
The purpose of this MIS Evaluation is to determine the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of the proposed project on Forest-wide habitat and population trends for the MIS selected for analysis. The MIS to be evaluated are chosen based upon the scope of the current project and their potential to be impacted by the project. Table 3D-3 identifies the MIS that have been selected for analysis in this current project, and the reason that each was selected.
Hunter Creek-Smuggler Mountain Cooperative Plan Environmental Assessment 3-30 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences D. Wildlife and Aquatic Species
Table 3D-3: White River National Forest Management Indicator Species Are species and habitat present in the MIS Species Habitat Occupied by Species analysis area? Species Presence: Unknown Cave Bats Caves, abandoned mines Habitat Presence: Unknown Elk Species Presence: Yes Forest and non-forest habitats Habitat Presence: Yes Species Presence: Unknown Brewer’s Sparrow Sagebrush Habitat Presence: No Species Presence: No American Pipit Alpine Grassland Habitat Presence: No Species Presence: Unknown Virginia’s Warbler Dense shrub habitats Habitat Presence: Yes All Trout (brook, brown, Species Presence: Yes Perennial streams and lakes rainbow, CR cutthroat) Habitat Presence: Yes Aquatic Perennial streams, intermittent Species Presence: Yes Macroinvertebrates streams, lakes and reservoirs Habitat Presence: Yes
These MIS were chosen based on the nature of the project, which has the potential to affect management of abandoned mines (Cave Bats), involves non-motorized recreation and travel (Elk), shrub habitat (Virginia’s Warbler), and could potentially affect water quality (Macroinvertebrates and Trout).
Cave Bats Cave bats are included as an MIS because of their sensitivity to human disturbance. Pesticide application has the potential to decrease forage availability and expose individuals to the hazardous effects of chemicals. Changes to vegetation and environmental conditions surrounding caves can influence microclimates that make caves suitable for bat use.
Within the study area, several existing mine openings have been mapped. In addition, all of the plant communities within the study area provide potential foraging and roosting habitat for cave bats. Cave bat species for whom potentially suitable habitat exists within the study area include long-eared myotis (Myotis evotis), little brown bat (M. lucifugus), long-legged myotis (M. volans), Silver-haired bat (Lasionycteris noctivagans), Western pipestrelle (Pipistrellus hesperus), big brown bat (Eptesicus fuscus), and Townsends big-eared bat (Plecotus townsendii). There is no specific data relative to the presence or absence of individuals or populations of any bats within the study area.
Elk Elk are considered to be habitat generalists, thus elk population changes at the Forest level are not necessarily representative of Forest management activities in elk habitat. However, elk have been documented to be sensitive to the effects of human disturbance, and elk distribution is likely partially dependent on human use of the Forest. The primary issue affecting elk distribution on the Forest is
Hunter Creek-Smuggler Mountain Cooperative Plan Environmental Assessment 3-31 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences D. Wildlife and Aquatic Species motorized and non-motorized travel and recreation management activities. Although individual projects are not likely to lead to major changes in habitat effectiveness or population, monitoring elk as an MIS can measure effects at the Forest level due to collective recreational activities.
During the growing season, elk find habitat providing cover and forage throughout the study area. Based on the Forest Service vegetation mapping, 94 percent of the study area provides cover for elk during the summer, while 28 percent of the study area provides forage. Cover is provided by conifers, aspen, Gambel oak, and mountain shrub plant communities. Forage is found in aspen, Gambel oak, mountain shrub, sagebrush, mountain meadow, and wetland communities.
The State of Colorado has the responsibility for the management of wildlife populations. The CPW has specific elk management goals and objectives that have been developed in cooperation with landowners, the public and federal land management agencies. These plans help guide the State’s direction in the management of elk, increasing and decreasing harvest quotas in attempts to balance herd numbers with habitat availability.
The analysis area is located within data analysis unit E-16 (DAU E-16). DAU E-16 is currently at an elk habitat effectiveness index (HEI) of 0.39, below the Forest-wide index of 0.45. The HEI for elk on the forest varies from 0.28 to 0.62 within the individual Data Analysis Units (DAUs). For the determination of desired winter range habitat conditions, four habitat variables (cover quality, forage quality, density of roads open to motorized vehicles, and the size and spacing of forage and cover areas) are used to calculate HEI. Improving winter range may increase the HEI and may provide more year-round habitat for elk within the DAUs. DAU E-16 contains approximately 341 square miles (218,240 acres) of elk winter range, the bulk of which occurs on private land.
Virginia’s Warbler The Virginia’s warbler is monitored as an MIS for activity involving mountain shrub communities. This species is well represented in mountain shrub communities and is believed to be responsive to management activities affecting those habitats.
There are approximately 559 acres of potential Virginia’s warbler habitat within the study area, located in Gambel oak and mountain shrubland communities. Focused surveys for this species have not been conducted in the study area and their population numbers are currently not known.
All Trout Cutthroat, rainbow, brook, brown trout, and their hybrids are included within the group “All Trout.” Trout occur in most of the perennial water bodies on the WRNF, including streams, rivers, lakes, and reservoirs. At high elevations, trout may be absent due to low water temperatures. The timing of flow, water quality, and availability of various habitat features such as deep pools, cover, and spawning gravels influence trout abundance.
Hunter Creek-Smuggler Mountain Cooperative Plan Environmental Assessment 3-32 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences D. Wildlife and Aquatic Species
Geology, elevation, temperature, gradient, and substrate distribution are other factors that commonly influence trout abundance. Trout are known to be responsive to management activities that alter chemical pollutants, sediment load, or flow rate. In such cases, trout typically respond with lower abundance and poor year class distribution.
Suitable trout habitat is present throughout the 2.9 miles of Hunter Creek that passes through the study area. Additional habitat is present in streamside ponds, mostly existing as abandoned creek oxbows. The study area has not been sampled to determine species composition and population estimates.
Macroinvertebrates Aquatic macroinvertebrates are those invertebrates that spend at least part of their life cycle in water. These include worms, mollusks, mites, and insects. Insects are by far the most common. Most insect species spend just the immature phase (larval or nymph phase) in water. Although sensitive species occur in most insect families, three families are comprised primarily of species that are more sensitive to disturbance. These are Ephemeroptera (mayflies), Plecoptera (stoneflies), and Tricoptera (caddisflies). “EPT taxa richness” refers to the number of taxa in these three sensitive families, while “taxa richness” refers to the number of taxa of all aquatic macroinvertebrates.
Macroinvertebrate communities occur in all water bodies on the WRNF, including ponds, lakes, reservoirs, wetlands, rivers, perennial streams, and intermittent streams. Even degraded systems usually contain aquatic macroinvertebrates; however these communities look very different from those in pristine systems. On the WRNF, macroinvertebrate communities were selected to address trends and conditions of flowing waters only and, therefore, macroinvertebrate communities in still water habitats will not be discussed further in this document. Because of their wide distribution and their sensitivity to disturbance and pollutants, macroinvertebrates are widely used to monitor the health of streams and rivers.
Habitat for aquatic macroinvertebrates exists in the study area along Hunter Creek and associated tributaries and wetlands. To date, there have been no samples collected from within the study area and the specific composition of macroinvertebrate communities is not known.
A number of PDCs are included in the Action Alternatives regarding macroinvertebrates. Buffers provided in the PDC table (Table 2-2) would provide adequate protection for instream macroinvertebrate and trout habitat. No mechanical activities or burning would be permitted within 100 feet of streams and wetlands, but this buffer could be expanded if necessary to protect aquatic habitats. This delineation would occur prior to unit treatments in any given year during the window of implementation.
Hunter Creek-Smuggler Mountain Cooperative Plan Environmental Assessment 3-33 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences D. Wildlife and Aquatic Species
DIRECT AND INDIRECT ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES Alternative 1 – No Action Threatened and Endangered Species Canada Lynx Under this alternative, no vegetation treatments would be implemented and recreational use of trails would not change. There would be no potential impacts to evaluated species from disturbance or displacement due to project activities. There would be no potential impacts to existing habitat from fire, tree felling, or mechanical mastication. Vegetation and structure that provide cover, refuge, nest sites, and prey habitat would remain in their existing condition. Across the landscape, habitat connectivity would remain in its existing condition and there would be no change in habitat capability for species that currently occur in the study area.
Over the long-term, vegetation in the study area would be influenced by natural succession and disturbance processes. Conifer, aspen, oakbrush, and mountain shrub habitat that is presently poorly developed and lacks age class diversity would regenerate, but at a slow rate due to the decreased level of disturbance. Habitat conditions that are of poor quality would persist as these stands mature until natural processes introduce more gaps in the canopy, regeneration occurs, and new vegetation replaces old. Declining conditions could persist for a long time in some vegetation types without a natural disturbance event such as fire and wind-throw.
Mixed conifer stands with low horizontal cover and poor snowshoe hare habitat would continue to provide low quality lynx forage habitat. Lodgepole pine stands that currently exist in a decadent, over- mature state would continue to provide little to no hare habitat until natural disturbance regenerates the stands in either small patches or widespread areas, dependent on the scale of the disturbance.
Region 2 Sensitive Species Under this alternative, no vegetation treatments, trail projects, or road reconstruction would occur. There would be no potential impacts to evaluated species from disturbance or displacement due to project activities. There would be no potential impacts to existing habitat from fire, tree felling, or mechanical mastication. Vegetation and structure that provide cover, refuge, nest sites, and prey habitat would remain in its existing condition. Across the landscape, habitat connectivity would remain in its existing condition and there would be no change in habitat capability for species that currently occur in the study area.
Over the long-term, vegetation in the study area would be influenced by natural succession and disturbance processes. Aspen, oakbrush, mixed conifer, lodgepole pine, and sagebrush habitat that is presently poorly developed and lacks age class diversity would regenerate, but at a slow rate due to the decreased level of disturbance. Habitat conditions that are of poor quality would persist as these stands mature until natural processes introduce more gaps in the canopy, regeneration occurs, and new
Hunter Creek-Smuggler Mountain Cooperative Plan Environmental Assessment 3-34 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences D. Wildlife and Aquatic Species vegetation replaces old. Declining conditions could persist for a long time in some vegetation types without a natural disturbance event such as fire, wind-throw, or widespread insect infestation.
Management Indicator Species Under the No Action alternative, none of the proposed projects would be implemented. Evaluated MIS would not be impacted by disturbance or displacement due to project activities. There would be no impacts to existing habitat from prescribed fire or logging. Vegetation and structure that provides cover, refuge, nest sites, and prey habitat would remain in its existing condition. Across the landscape, habitat connectivity would remain in its existing condition and there would be no change in habitat capability for species that currently occur in the study area.
Over the long-term, vegetation in the study area would be influenced by natural succession and disturbance processes. In the absence of disturbance such as wildfire or pathogen infestations, lodgepole pine stands would continue to exist in an overstocked condition that has led to less vigorous stands that are highly susceptible to attack by forest pathogens such as mountain pine beetle. Forage and browse availability would continue to be low within these stands.
Barring disturbance, aspen stands would continue to mature and convert to mixed conifer as spruce and fir encroach in the understory and eventually extend into the overstory. Significant sources of ungulate browse would continue to be unavailable due to the lack of regeneration of aspen stands. Succession of aspen to mixed conifer would reduce the available summertime forage for elk, slowly reducing the carrying capacity of the analysis area over time.
Barring wildfire, Gambel oak stands would continue to exist in an over-mature state, providing less winter forage for elk than would occur with a prevalence of younger, more vigorous stands.
Mixed conifer stands that are poorly developed and lack age class diversity would continue through the process of stand succession towards a more uneven-aged character; however, succession would proceed at a slow rate due to the lack of recruitment in the understory that is a current characteristic of these dense stands. Poor quality habitat conditions would persist as stands mature until natural processes introduce more gaps in the canopy, regeneration occurs, and new vegetation replaces old. These successional stages would likely take 80 to 120 years or more to reach the fruition of a healthy, vigorous uneven-aged forest. Declining conditions could persist for a long time in some vegetation types without a natural disturbance event such as fire, wind-throw, or widespread insect infestation.
The Balcony trail would continue to exist in its current alignment, which creates human/bear conflicts during the fall hyperphagic and early spring “green up” periods that are important stages during the yearly cycle for black bear.
Hunter Creek-Smuggler Mountain Cooperative Plan Environmental Assessment 3-35 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences D. Wildlife and Aquatic Species
Alternative 2 – Proposed Action Threatened and Endangered Species Canada Lynx The Action Alternatives would not prevent lynx from traveling through or using the study area. The proposed actions would meet all SRLA objectives, standards, and guidelines. Suitable habitat would be maintained for lynx above minimum requirements in all LAUs. Effects to denning, winter foraging, and other foraging habitat would have an insignificant and discountable effect on lynx at the LAU level. The proposed actions would maintain and improve the natural condition of plant communities, which would promote better long-term conditions for lynx, including a small over-all increase in available browse forage for lynx prey. Therefore, the Action Alternatives may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the Canada lynx.
Region 2 Sensitive Species Some projects proposed in Alternative 2 would provide net benefits to wildlife habitat in the short-term. Other projects may have initial adverse impacts to wildlife that are unavoidable in order to set the stage for long-term wildlife benefits.
The discussion of impacts to sensitive species will address these two timeframes. It will, in certain instances, be necessary to define which time frame we are discussing. Short-term impacts will generally be those which would occur within a ten-year time frame. Long-term impacts are those which would occur beyond the ten-year time frame. These discussions will be organized by species in the following sections.
Marten Proposed vegetation treatment activities designed to improve the size class and structural stage distribution in mixed conifer and lodgepole pine would convert suitable marten habitat to non-habitat in the short-term. If martens are present in these areas, they would continue to utilize adjacent untreated forest. In the short-term, marten habitat would be decreased in the study area. In the long-term, marten habitat would be improved as a result of mixed conifer treatments.
Treatments in mixed conifer designed to increase the extent of aspen stands in the study area would create a long-term decrease in marten habitat, due to the expected re-colonization of clearcut mixed conifer marten habitat by aspen. While the effects of these treatments are not likely to impact fecundity or natality, there may be both short and long-term impacts to marten habitat. These impacts would not be detectable at the scale of the study area. Therefore, under Alternative 2, the activity may impact individuals, but is not likely to result in a loss of viability in the study area, nor cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of species viability range-wide.
Hunter Creek-Smuggler Mountain Cooperative Plan Environmental Assessment 3-36 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences D. Wildlife and Aquatic Species
Boreal Owl One boreal owl was found during owl surveys in the study area. Surveys have not been conducted to find the nest for this individual, but would be conducted prior to treatments (as required by PDC) nearby the location of the owl detection. Surveys for calling owls would also be conducted prior to any vegetation management projects in mixed conifer. Protection measures would be applied if a boreal owl nest or territory is found prior to or during project implementation. As a result of these protection measures, at the scale of the study area the proposed mixed conifer treatments would not measurably affect natality or fecundity. In the long-term, habitat for owls would be improved. Consequently, under Alternative 2, vegetation management in mixed conifer would have no impact on boreal owl.
Olive-sided Flycatcher Flycatchers were heard during wildlife surveys in the study area but no nests were located. Therefore, protection of nests during the nesting period is not practicable. Individuals could be killed or displaced during logging activities, but such isolated mortality would not lead to a detectable decrease in fecundity or natality at the scale of the study area. As a result, under Alternative 2, the proposed treatments in mixed conifer habitat may impact individuals, but are not likely to result in a loss of viability on the study area, nor cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of species viability range-wide. In the long-term, flycatcher habitat would be improved as a result of the vegetation management activities proposed under Alternative 2.
Three-toed Woodpecker Three-toed woodpeckers were heard and observed during wildlife surveys in the study area but no nests were located. Therefore, protection of nests during the nesting period is not practicable. Individuals could be killed or displaced during logging activities, but such isolated mortality would not lead to a detectable decrease in fecundity or natality at the scale of the study area. As a result, proposed treatments in mixed conifer habitat under Alternative 2 may impact individuals, but are not likely to result in a loss of viability on the study area, nor cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of species viability range-wide.
Northern Goshawk Nest territory protection measures would be applied in the event that a goshawk nest is found prior to or during project implementation and the limited size of treatment units would retain suitable foraging habitat. Due to nest protection and habitat improvements resulting from the proposed projects, natality and fecundity would not be affected across the study area. While long-term habitats would be improved, existing nests (if any are found) would be protected, and foraging habitat would not be decreased, there could be short-term loss of forest vegetation and limited trail disturbances. Thus, the proposed activities under Alternative 2 may impact individuals, but are not likely to result in a loss of viability on the study area, nor cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of species viability range-wide.
Hunter Creek-Smuggler Mountain Cooperative Plan Environmental Assessment 3-37 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences D. Wildlife and Aquatic Species
Townsend’s Big-eared Bat Effects of proposed vegetation treatments on bat foraging habitat would not be significant. In fact, due to Townsend’s habits of foraging at the edges of vegetation, vegetation treatments could immediately improve bat habitat by increasing forest and shrubland edge habitat. Design criteria would protect roost sites and would minimize disturbances that could affect natality and fecundity. Therefore, the projects proposed under Alternative 2 would have no impact on this species.
Pygmy Shrew Pygmy shrews are known to inhabit clear cuts and selectively logged forests after harvest activities have been completed. Therefore, there is a risk of crushing or killing individuals during harvest activities. Such isolated mortality would not be expected to impact long-term population viability or fecundity within the study area or on a forest wide scale.
Furthermore, it is possible that individual shrews could be crushed or displaced by bicycle traffic during the summer. Such mortality impacts would not be expected to impact long-term population viability or fecundity, nor would the risk be greater than it is under the current recreation usage. However, individual shrews could be destroyed, affecting individual natality or fecundity. Therefore, the activities proposed under Alternative 2 may impact individuals, but are not likely to result in a loss of viability on the study area, nor cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of species viability range-wide.
Flammulated Owl, Purple Martin PDCs have been identified that would protect any purple martin or flammulated owl nests found during project implementation and the amount of proposed habitat treatment would not measurably affect fitness or breeding across the study area. Thus, the activities proposed under Alternative 2 may impact individuals, but are not likely to result in a loss of viability on the study area, nor cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of species viability range-wide.
Boreal Toad The proposed project would not fill or otherwise alter potentially suitable boreal toad summertime breeding habitat. PDCs designed to prevent sediment migration from construction sites would minimize water quality impacts due to construction and use of new trails in upland areas, as well as vegetation management treatments and road reconstruction. All wetland sites providing potential habitat to toads would be bridged and not otherwise impacted by the trails.
Since individual boreal toads are known to travel up to 2.5 miles from breeding areas to sites within spruce-fir or lodgepole pine forests for fall/winter hibernation, and since post-breeding toads have traveled up to 1.5 miles along stream networks during summer, proposed vegetation treatments and trail construction during fall/winter could disturb or crush toads hibernating within mixed conifer stands. Such impacts could result in decreased survival of boreal toads. Recreational use of trails could similarly crush
Hunter Creek-Smuggler Mountain Cooperative Plan Environmental Assessment 3-38 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences D. Wildlife and Aquatic Species toads during late summer or fall, affecting fecundity or natality. Surveys would be conducted along the trail route adjacent to streams and wetlands prior to construction.
Forest Plan Standard #1 allows no loss or reduction in habitat quality of occupied or known historic boreal toad habitat. Forest Plan Guideline #2 is designed to prevent direct mortality to boreal toads and restricts construction of new roads and trails within 300 feet of occupied or known historic boreal toad and leopard frog breeding sites to prevent direct mortality and disturbance of adjacent vegetation during construction and trail use.
Since toads could be crushed during vegetation management treatment, trail construction, and subsequent use of the trails, Alternative 2 may impact individuals but is not likely to result in a loss of viability on the study area, nor cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of species viability rangewide.
Northern Leopard Frog, Mountain Sucker The proposed projects would not fill or otherwise alter potentially suitable leopard frog or Mountain Sucker habitat. Water quality impacts due to trail construction, road reconstruction, and vegetation management activities would be avoided through the use of PDCs designed to prevent sediment migration off of construction sites. All wetland sites providing potential habitat to toads would be bridged and not otherwise impacted by the trails. Therefore, the proposed Action Alternatives would have no impact on these species.
Management Indicator Species Cave Bats The proposed Heritage Trail, which would identify and publicize existing trails that provide access to the area’s mining and homesteading relics, would have an impact should any mines in the area provide roosts or hibernacula for cave bats. However, a PDC restricting action within 500 feet of caves used by bats would minimize this impact. All mines and homesteads would be examined for the presence of cave bat use prior to being added to the Heritage Trail network. If no bats or evidence of bat usage is observed, and with implementation of PDC if bats are present, there would be no impact on cave bats from construction of the proposed Heritage Trail.
Vegetation management projects could impact cave bats by felling cave and roost trees. However, PDC would minimize direct impacts by protecting known cave and roost trees. Indirect effects resulting in loss of fitness and foraging capability would be minimal. Prescribed fire treatments in Gambel oak, mountain shrub, and sagebrush foraging habitat would impact cave bats in the short-term until vegetation sprouting results in a mosaic of vegetation age classes that maintain foraging opportunities for these species. Smoke, noise from equipment, and human presence could have direct and indirect impacts to cave bats. Although burning operations generate smoke, potential impacts would be limited to periods when cave bats are not hibernating in winter. In addition, PDC would limit burning within 500 feet of identified roost
Hunter Creek-Smuggler Mountain Cooperative Plan Environmental Assessment 3-39 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences D. Wildlife and Aquatic Species caves to minimize smoke disturbances or displacement. Given the extent of mines in the study area, cave bats would be able to find roosts away from treatment areas without any effects to fitness or ability to reproduce.
Proposed improvements to Smuggler Mountain Road would have no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects on cave bats.
Outdoor education projects would have no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects on cave bats. While some species and their habitat could receive intangible benefits in terms of public knowledge, understanding, appreciation, and critical thinking, such benefits are immeasurable and therefore beyond the scope of this analysis.
Elk Under Alternative 2, recreation projects could beneficially impact elk in the study area. Closure of redundant and unnecessary trails would beneficially impact elk and numerous other species by increasing the effectiveness and security of forest interior habitat. Re-routing the Balcony Trail would beneficially impact elk and black bear by removing disturbance during critical periods during the year. Similarly, closure of winter ski trails in mapped elk winter range would beneficially impact wintering elk. Placement of signage along Smuggler Mountain Road would increase the effectiveness of these closures and beneficially impact elk and other species. There are no trail projects proposed that would negatively impact elk or other terrestrial wildlife species.
Vegetation management projects would impact elk in both the short and long-term. Vehicle travel, noise from equipment, and human presence related to project implementation could lead to disturbance and temporary displacement of elk individuals. These impacts would be small in the context of the home range of elk and PDCs are in place to ensure that implementation would be limited to periods when elk are not present in winter forage range or calving habitat. Treatment of Gambel oak stands would provide a long-term benefit to elk by improving winter forage production. In the short-term, treatment of mixed conifer and lodgepole pine stands would increase forage production for elk in summer. In the long-term, mixed conifer and lodgepole pine would decrease forage production but improve hiding cover. Mixed conifer and lodgepole pine treatments would not change the HEI within the DAUs. Aspen treatments would increase production of year-round forage while retaining summertime cover, resulting in a net beneficial impact on elk.
Improvements to Smuggler Mountain Road would contribute to short-term, localized increases in vehicle traffic, but this activity would be limited to times when elk are not using winter range adjacent to the road. Thus, human use of roads would not contribute detectable effects and elk distribution is not expected to change from Smuggler Mountain Road improvements. The project would not contribute to motorized and non-motorized recreation travel that could influence elk distribution in the study area.
Hunter Creek-Smuggler Mountain Cooperative Plan Environmental Assessment 3-40 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences D. Wildlife and Aquatic Species
Outdoor education projects would have no measurable beneficial or adverse impact on elk. While some species and their habitat could receive intangible benefits in terms of public knowledge, understanding, appreciation, and critical thinking, such benefits are immeasurable and therefore beyond the scope of this analysis.
Virginia’s Warbler Recreation projects in Alternative 2 would have no impact on Virginia’s warbler.
Under Alternative 2, the use of prescribed fire and mechanical treatment in Gambel oak communities could kill individuals attending nests if operations are conducted during late May to early July. However, PDC have been developed to ensure that timing of implementation would have negligible impacts on reproduction of this species. In the short-term, treatments in Gambel oak stands would have no effect on populations or habitat on a Forest-wide scale. In the long-term, habitat conditions that provide nesting cover, structure, and foraging areas would be expected to improve within three years of treatments and remain until stands progress beyond the mature stage. In the region, in the absence of fire, Gambel oak stands reach maturity in sixty to eighty years, after which stands start to decline and habitat trends generally follow.
Improvements to Smuggler Mountain Road would have no impact on Virginia’s warbler.
Proposed education projects would have no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects on Virginia’s warbler. While some species and their habitat could receive intangible benefits in terms of public knowledge, understanding, appreciation, and critical thinking, such benefits are immeasurable and therefore beyond the scope of this analysis.
All Trout and Macroinvertebrates Recreation projects under Alternative 2 would result in ground disturbance outside of the Watershed Influence Zone (WIZ). There are no new trails proposed within the WIZ. Trail drainage would be installed in accordance with the Watershed Conservation Practices Handbook (FSH-2509.25) Standards and Design Criteria. As a consequence, recreational trail management projects included within Alternative 2 would have no measurable effect on existing trout or macroinvertebrate population trends in the study area or Forest-wide.
Vegetation management treatments would result in ground disturbance outside of the WIZ. PDCs have been developed to ensure that a buffer is maintained between disturbance areas and the WIZ. Vegetation treatments included within Alternative 2 would have no measurable effect on existing trout or macroinvertebrate population trends in the study area or Forest-wide.
Improvements to Smuggler Mountain Road would result in ground disturbance outside of the WIZ. Natural buffers would trap any increased sediment delivery resulting from the project. This alternative
Hunter Creek-Smuggler Mountain Cooperative Plan Environmental Assessment 3-41 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences D. Wildlife and Aquatic Species would have no measurable effect on existing trout or macroinvertebrate population trends in the study area and Forest-wide.
Proposed education projects would have no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects on trout and macroinvertebrates. While some species and their habitat could receive intangible benefits in terms of public knowledge, understanding, appreciation, and critical thinking, such benefits are immeasurable and therefore beyond the scope of this analysis.
2013 Forest Vegetation Projects The projects proposed for implementation in 2013 were reviewed in the field on August 22, 2013 by the District wildlife biologist. Four of the units are comprised of mid- to late-seral conifer, primarily lodgepole pine, and the canopy is partially dead or dying. Live trees are uniform in age and provide little structure for wildlife nesting. No nests or dens were identified. There is little understory in the units, so they provide little capability for snowshoe hare and thus Canada lynx. Three units are comprised of aspen and mixed conifer species. Portions of the canopy are partially dead or dying. There is a sparse understory of aspen that would respond well to canopy removal. One of these units is located at a similar elevation to the conifer units. No nests or dens were identified. There is little understory in the units, so they provide little capability for snowshoe hare and thus Canada lynx. Wildlife impacts associated with the proposed 2013 projects are consistent with impacts disclosed for the overall project.
Alternative 3 Threatened and Endangered Species Effects to Canada lynx under Alternative 3 would be identical to those under Alternative 2. Refer to the above discussion.
Region 2 Sensitive Species Effects to sensitive species under Alternative 3 would be identical to those under Alternative 2. Refer to the above discussion.
Management Indicator Species Under Alternative 3, effects to the following MIS would be identical to those under Alternative 2: cave bats, all trout and macroinvertebrates. Impacts to elk and Virginia’s warbler are discussed below.
Elk Effects to elk from recreation projects in Alternative 3 would be identical to those under Alternative 2. Effects from vegetation management projects in Alternative 3 would have fewer benefits for elk than projects in Alternative 2. Because the overall acreage of vegetation treatment projects in Alternative 3 is 19 percent less than under Alternative 3, the benefits realized for elk under this alternative would be less by approximately 19 percent.
Hunter Creek-Smuggler Mountain Cooperative Plan Environmental Assessment 3-42 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences D. Wildlife and Aquatic Species
Virginia’s Warbler Effects to Virginia’s warbler from recreation projects in Alternative 3 would be identical to those under Alternative 2. Under Alternative 3, the short-term impact of vegetation management projects on Virginia’s warbler would be 19 percent less than that described under Alternative 2. However, this decrease is insignificant at the scale of the WRNF. In the long-term, the benefits to Virginia’s warbler habitat that would accrue as a result of Gambel oak treatments would be less than that described under Alternative 2.
2013 Forest Vegetation Projects Impacts due to the 2013 projects would be identical to those described in the Proposed Action.
CUMULATIVE EFFECTS
Cumulative effects as defined by NEPA include the incremental effects of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable related future actions without regard to land ownership boundaries. Past and present impacts on wildlife resources in the analysis area were described in the preceding sections. The basis of cumulative effects analysis is that the combined number, type and juxtaposition of human activities and natural disturbances may have a significant impact on wildlife, even though each individual action appears to have minimal effects. Activities considered in this analysis include: early and current use of the Hunter/Smuggler region as a recreation area; Hunter-Fryingpan and Collegiate Peaks Wilderness Designation; wildfire prevention and control; mining-era timber harvest; post-mining timber harvest; post-1980s lack of timber harvest; private land development; road and trail construction and reconstruction projects; ski area management projects.
Threatened and Endangered Species Canada Lynx The Fryingpan South and Independence Pass LAUs contain approximately 8,474 acres of state and private lands, most of which are found below 8,500 feet and are unlikely to contain suitable habitat for lynx given their absence of conifer forests.
For the Canada lynx, similar fire and mechanical treatment activities occurring in suitable habitats on state and private lands have the potential to affect the species either through habitat loss, habitat degradation, direct mortality and/or behavioral impacts (e.g., displacement from habitats). On private lands, where the Federal government’s ability to regulate/mitigate impacts to lynx are diminished, the negative effect of such land uses on lynx may be more severe than those occurring from similar actions on Federal lands.
There are no reasonably foreseeable future projects on state, county, or private lands in the LAUs that would affect suitable lynx habitat above the 15 percent standard. The cumulative effects of all projects in the respective LAUs are consistent with the above Forest-wide standards.
Hunter Creek-Smuggler Mountain Cooperative Plan Environmental Assessment 3-43 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences D. Wildlife and Aquatic Species
The SRLA Biological Opinion (BO) identifies highways and other high speed or high traffic volume roads as potential movement barriers to lynx and potential sources of mortality. High traffic volumes (4,000 vehicles/day) are thought to serve as a barrier to lynx. This proposal would result in no measurable increases to regional and interstate highway traffic volumes. There would be no cumulative impacts to habitat connectivity.
Region 2 Sensitive Species
Habitat for sensitive species in Pitkin County, WRNF, and throughout Colorado has been continually fragmented and occasionally eliminated by urban expansion and development, ski area development, and transportation projects. Additionally, Mining-era logging activities within lodgepole pine and mixed conifer forest, in combination with more recent fire suppression activities, have created conditions leading to an alteration of the structural composition of both uneven-aged and even-aged stands. These types of stands provide cover and/or forage habitat for sensitive species. For some of these species, habitat conversion has reduced the availability of suitable habitat and may be associated with population declines. For other species, such as the northern goshawk and pygmy shrew, habitat conversion may not be associated with population declines.
Some of the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions identified above have cumulatively affected habitat for sensitive species. Designation of the Hunter-Fryingpan and Collegiate Peaks Wilderness areas provided conservation of potential habitat for the most of the species described above. However, wildfire prevention and control may have reduced cavity nesting opportunities for species such as the three-toed woodpecker.
Finally, ongoing recreational activities during the summer and winter throughout NFS lands and within the study area may impact sensitive species such pine marten which are documented to avoid areas of intensive human activities. Summer recreational use is elevated in the Hunter/Smuggler area in comparison to the remainder of the WRNF surrounding Aspen. This elevated level of human activity and presence is likely to have led some species to alter their use of the study area. Others that are not typically averse to human presence (olive-sided flycatcher, three-toed woodpecker) are not likely to have been affected. Potential future activities that have not yet been approved may add to this impact, if and when they are approved by the Forest Service.
The proposed recreation trails would be implemented in areas currently developed for summer recreation. The proposed trail projects and would add a small increase to the current trail mileage throughout its alignment. However, the proposed activities would be implemented within the already heavily utilized Hunter/Smuggler landscape. The project would not further contribute to fragmentation of forest habitat, due to the very small impact spread out over the length of the trails. Regardless, the project would add to the cumulative zone of disturbance due to human recreation that has taken place throughout Colorado, Pitkin County, and the landscape within the Snowmass Mountain permit area. These activities will add
Hunter Creek-Smuggler Mountain Cooperative Plan Environmental Assessment 3-44 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences D. Wildlife and Aquatic Species incrementally to the effects of human recreation on species such as marten, pygmy shrew, northern goshawk, boreal owl, boreal toad, flammulated owl, and purple martin. Proposed Balcony Trail activities would not add to cumulative impacts, beneficial or otherwise, on these species, as they do not use habitats present in the current alignment nor in any potential re-routes.
The landscape and study area would continue to be used for a variety of public recreational uses and common uses on NFS lands. Impacts from these actions can have direct and indirect impacts to evaluated species and the scope and intensity of these activities in the study area would determine the level of impact. Since these actions are historic and ongoing, and the Action Alternatives would not likely cause an increase in these activities, it is doubtful that these activities would contribute meaningful cumulative effects to those of the Action Alternatives.
There are a number of other vegetation management projects set to be implemented within the next ten to twelve years. Approximately 1,400 acres of vegetation management activities within the next ten to twelve years will be implemented within the Fryingpan River drainage as the Burnt Mountain and Crooked Creek Timber sales. In addition, the Aspen-Sopris Wildlife Habitat Improvement Project will be implemented on a variety of locations across the Aspen-Sopris Ranger District, covering about 46,000 acres of forest, mountain shrub, and grasslands during the next ten years. Treatments would be implemented on 2,000 to 3,500 acres per year over the next ten years.
There would not be any negative cumulative effects of vegetation management projects on wildlife and aquatic species in the study area and surrounding region as an effect of proposed projects. The scheduled treatments would occur at staggered intervals so as to minimize the amount of unsuitable conditions across the watershed at one time. Additionally, large quantities of similar habitat would be available in the region for species to use during project implementation, thereby reducing the impact of these projects. Finally, the combination of these vegetation management projects Forest-wide would have a long-term benefit to habitat quality for sensitive species on a Forest scale.
Management Indicator Species
The project proposes trail projects, road reconstruction, vegetation treatments, and educational projects across the landscape over a twenty-year management horizon. Many ongoing and foreseeable future actions have potential to occur during the same time period and could be additive to the direct and/or indirect impacts to evaluated species. At the same time, since actions would be distributed widely, some local MIS populations and individuals could be impacted, but only during the limited scope and scale of the proposed treatment.
Recreation activities have greatly influenced the travel system throughout the Forest. Trails and user created new routes that have become established over time (and eventually viewed by the public as system roads or trails) have impacts to wildlife and plant populations by fragmenting and decreasing
Hunter Creek-Smuggler Mountain Cooperative Plan Environmental Assessment 3-45 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences D. Wildlife and Aquatic Species habitat effectiveness and capability within the Forest. This proposal would contribute beneficially to this cumulative impact by reducing fragmentation of wildlife habitat by unnecessary and re-routed trails.
The landscape and study area would continue to be used for a variety of public recreational uses. Impacts from these actions can have direct and indirect impacts to evaluated species and the scope and intensity of these activities in the study area would determine the level of impact. Since these actions are historic and ongoing, and the Action Alternatives would not likely cause an increase in these activities, it is doubtful that these activities would contribute meaningful cumulative effects to those of the proposed projects.
Urban expansion and development in Colorado and surrounding the District has in some cases eliminated and fragmented habitat for a variety of species. Residential development continually erodes the amount of Gambel oak, mountain shrub, and sagebrush habitat for species such as the Virginia’s warbler and Brewers sparrow, as well as diminishing the availability of winter range for elk. The expansion of homes and some municipal facilities up mountain slopes, into forests of aspen and conifer habitat reduces the availability and increases fragmentation of elk summer range. The cumulative effect of private land development has reduced and fragmented forest cover types for elk throughout the study area and WRNF. Proposed projects would provide high quality habitat for elk in the region.
Hunter Creek-Smuggler Mountain Cooperative Plan Environmental Assessment 3-46 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences E. Botany
E. BOTANY
SCOPE OF ANALYSIS
The study area encompasses approximately 4,681 acres of NFS lands immediately east of the city of Aspen in the Hunter Creek-Smuggler Mountain study area. Adjacent property includes the Smuggler Mountain Open Space and private property. A Biological Evaluation (BE) was prepared for this project and analyzes potential effects of the Proposed Action on federally listed threatened, endangered, and proposed (TEP) species, and the Regional Forester’s list of sensitive species (RFSS). The objectives of the BE were 1) to ensure that proposed actions do not contribute to loss of viability of any native or desired non-native plant species; 2) to ensure that activities do not cause any species to move toward federal listing; and 3) to incorporate concerns for sensitive species throughout the planning process, reducing negative impacts to species and enhancing opportunities for mitigation.
Invasive species in the vicinity of the Hunter-Smuggler study area were also identified in the BE and PDCs were detailed to limit their spread.
FOREST PLAN DIRECTION
The White River National Forest Land Management Resource Plan provides the following Standards which are specific to management status plant species:
TEP Standard #2: Restrict activities to avoid disturbing proposed, threatened, or endangered species during breeding, young rearing, or at other times critical to survival. Exceptions may occur when individuals are adapted to human activity, or the activities are not considered a threat.
Sensitive Species Standard #3: Activities will be managed to avoid disturbance to sensitive species that would result in a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability. The protection will vary depending on the species, potential for disturbance, topography, location of important habitat components, and other pertinent factors. Special attention will be given during breeding, young rearing, and other times that are critical to survival of both flora and fauna.
SOVC Standard # 1: Survey for the following plant species of viability concern in the identified areas prior to any activities that might impact them:
o Harrington penstemon in sagebrush areas in the Eagle and Frying Pan River drainages. o DeBeque phacelia in the Wasatch Geologic Formation. o Sun-loving meadowrue in the Parachute Creek Geologic Formation. o Leadville milk-vetch; Sea pink; Rockcress draba; Tundra buttercup, and Colorado tansy aster in suitable alpine areas. o Altai cottongrass, Kotzebue grass-of-Parnasus, and Porter feathergrass in suitable riparian and wetland areas.
Hunter Creek-Smuggler Mountain Cooperative Plan Environmental Assessment 3-47 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences E. Botany
o Avoid disturbances that would significantly affect species viability or trend the species towards federal listing.
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed Species
Table 3E-1 identifies federally-listed and proposed plant species present on the WRNF, potentially present on the Aspen-Sopris Ranger District, and/or potentially affected by management decisions associated with the Action Alternatives. Other listed and proposed species known to occur elsewhere on the WRNF or in Colorado were considered but dropped from detailed analysis because 1) their habitats do not occur on the Aspen-Sopris District; 2) they have no affinities to study area habitats; and/or 3) the study area is outside of the species’ range.
Table 3E-1: TEP Plant Species Evaluated and their Associated Habitat Types
Habitat Classification* Species Excluded in Reason for TEP Species Riparian Non Current Exclusion Alpine Forest & Fen Forest Assessment? Aquatic
1 Eutrema edwardsii No alpine ssp. penlandii P S Y habitat over 12,150’
2 Phacelia scopulina No Utah juniper var. submutica P S Y habitat, beyond elevation range.
3 Sclerocactus No desert scrub glaucus P Y habitat, beyond elevation range 4 Spiranthes Beyond P Y diluvialis elevation range
P= Primary habitat, S= Secondary habitat
The botanical survey conducted a broad-scale assessment, focused on sites within the Hunter-Smuggler study area that offered the greatest suitability for species on the TEP list. These surveys failed to detect the presence within the Hunter-Smuggler study area of any TEP species. As the botanical survey did not include 100 percent of the study area, the project design criteria require individual study area to be surveyed for the presence of TEP plant species prior to implementation, at which time more exhaustive botany surveys will be undertaken.
Hunter Creek-Smuggler Mountain Cooperative Plan Environmental Assessment 3-48 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences E. Botany
Region 2 Sensitive Species
Table 3E-2 identifies plant species identified in the Regional Forester’s list of sensitive species that have potential habitat on the WRNF, the Aspen-Sopris Ranger District, and/or the study area. The table identifies the habitat classification and the need to assess the potential impacts of the management decisions associated with the Action Alternatives on the plant species.
Table 3E-2: RFSS Plant Species Evaluated and their Associated Habitat Types
Habitat Classification Species Excluded in RFSS Species Riparian Reason for Exclusion Non Current Alpine Forest and Fen Forest Assessment? Aquatic
No alpine habitat over 1 Armeria maritima P Y 11,900’ present
2 Astragalus leptaleus S P N Not Excluded 3 Botrychium ascendens P N Not Excluded 4 Botrychium lineare P N Not Excluded 5 Botrychium paradoxum P N Not Excluded
6 Braya glabella P Y No alpine habitat present 7 Carex diandra P S N Not Excluded
8 Carex livida P Y No fen habitat present 9 Cypripedium parviflorum S P N Not Excluded
10 Draba exunguiculata P Y No alpine habitat present
11 Draba grayana P Y No alpine habitat present No alpine streamside 12 Draba weberi P S Y habitat No peatland habitat 13 Drosera rotundifolia P Y present 14 Epipactis gigantea P N Not Excluded
No sparsely vegetated 15 Eriogonum exilifolium P Y shrub-steppe habitat 16 Eriophorum altaicum var. neogaeum P Y No fen habitat present
17 Eriophorum chamissonis P Y No fen habitat present 18 Eriophorum gracile P N Not Excluded 19 Festuca hallii S P N Not Excluded
Hunter Creek-Smuggler Mountain Cooperative Plan Environmental Assessment 3-49 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences E. Botany
Table 3E-2: RFSS Plant Species Evaluated and their Associated Habitat Types
Habitat Classification Species Excluded in RFSS Species Riparian Reason for Exclusion Non Current Alpine Forest and Fen Forest Assessment? Aquatic
No wet tundra, glacial 20 Kobresia simpliciuscula P Y cirques, or fens 21 Machaeranthera S P S N Not Excluded coloradoensis 22 Parnassia kotzebuei P N Not Excluded 23 Penstemon harringtonii P S N Not Excluded 24 Ptilagrostis porteri P N Not Excluded
25 Ranunculus karelinii P Y No alpine habitat present 26 Rubus arcticus ssp. S P N Not Excluded acaulis 27 Salix candida P N Not Excluded 28 Salix serissima P N Not Excluded 29 Sphagnum angustifolium P N Not Excluded 30 Sphagnum balticum P N Not Excluded
No arid basin habitat 31 Thalictrum heliophilum P Y present 32 Utricularia minor P N Not Excluded 33 Viburnum opulus var. S P N Not Excluded americanum
P= Primary habitat, S= Secondary habitat; Potential habitat exists in the study area for species highlighted in Bold Red.
The botanical survey was not intended to be inclusive of 100 percent of the study area. Rather, the intent was to conduct a broad-scale assessment, focused on sites within the Hunter-Smuggler study area that offered the greatest suitability for species on the RFSS list. These surveys failed to detect the presence within the Hunter-Smuggler study area of any RFSS species. Project design criteria require individual study area to be surveyed tor the presence of RFSS plant species prior to implementation, at which time more exhaustive botany surveys will be undertaken.
Hunter Creek-Smuggler Mountain Cooperative Plan Environmental Assessment 3-50 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences E. Botany
Until surveys demonstrate otherwise, the analysis presented in this BE shall assume that all species for which there is suitable habitat in the Hunter-Smuggler study area, including the three botrychiums, exist at the current time and would be impacted by all projects proposed under the Action Alternatives.
Botrychium (Moonwort)
For moonworts, even after surveys have been completed and even if none are found, it will be feasible for moonworts to exist and go un-detected during survey efforts. Therefore, Botrychium ascendens, B. lineare, and B. paradoxum will be discussed further in the effects analysis portion of this document.
DIRECT AND INDIRECT ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
Surveys will be conducted for TEP and RFSS species prior to implementation of any projects included in the Hunter-Smuggler plan. Until surveys demonstrate otherwise, the analysis presented in the BE assumes that all species for which there is suitable habitat in the Hunter-Smuggler study area, including the three botrychiums, exist at the current time and would be impacted by all projects proposed under the Action Alternatives.
For moonworts, even after surveys have been completed and even if none are found, it will be feasible for moonworts to exist and go un-detected during survey efforts. Therefore, Botrychium ascendens, B. lineare, and B. paradoxum will be discussed further in the effects analysis portion of this document. Assuming they are present, the effects of implementing either of the Action Alternatives would likely be as follows.
Alternative 1 – No Action
Alternative 1 is a true No Action Alternative and because no ground disturbance is proposed under the No Action Alternative, there is no potential to affect vegetation resources as a result of vegetation treatments or management practices. The No Action Alternative reflects a continuation of existing conditions without changes, additions, or upgrades, so the vegetation in the study area would not be managed to a more natural condition as in the Proposed Action.
Alternative 2 – Proposed Action
Under the Proposed Action, vegetation treatment projects would improve natural vegetation health and diversity throughout the study area. The general goal of vegetation treatment projects within the study area is to restore vegetative habitat to a more natural condition to improve ecosystem health and vitality. Regeneration is a primary focus of all treatment projects. Regeneration is expected to occur in 100 percent of treated acres.
Surveys will be conducted for TEPS species prior to implementation of any projects included in the Hunter-Smuggler plan. Until surveys demonstrate otherwise, the analysis presented in this BE shall assume that all species for which there is suitable habitat in the Hunter-Smuggler study area, including the
Hunter Creek-Smuggler Mountain Cooperative Plan Environmental Assessment 3-51 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences E. Botany three botrychiums, exist at the current time and would be impacted by all projects proposed under the Action Alternatives.
The 2013 Forest Vegetation Treatment areas were surveyed for PETS species and species of local concern; no species were identified.
Alternative 3
Alternative 3 responds to several identified issues raised by the WRNF and externally by the public during the scoping process. Alternative 3 includes the majority of projects included in the Proposed Action, but differs from the Proposed Action in projects related to Recreation Trail Improvements, Management and Maintenance and Forest Health and Wildlife Habitat Improvements and Management. To respond to identified issues, Alternative 3 does not include a trail on the south side of Smuggler Mountain, designates an 830-acre portion of the study area as a Natural Disturbance Treatment Zone only available for less intensive vegetation management treatments for forest health and wildlife enhancement projects, and reduces total proposed forest health/wildlife project acreages. The boundary of the Natural Disturbance Treatment Zone was determined based on the spatial overlap of a Forest Plan Management Area, Colorado Roadless Areas (CRA), and proposed wilderness areas. In the eastern portion of the study area, Management Area 5.4: Forested Flora and Fauna Habitats overlaps with the Red Mountain and Hunter CRAs. In addition, Management Area 5.4 overlaps with the Central Mountains Outdoor Heritage proposal boundary for the creation of more wilderness areas. The Alternative 3 Natural Disturbance Treatment boundary of this area was primarily determined by the extent of the Forested Flora and Fauna Habitats Management Area.
The 2013 Forest Vegetation Treatment areas were surveyed for PETS species and species of local concern; no species were identified.
Table 3E-3: Determination Summary for Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed Plant Species
TEP Species Effect Rationale Mitigation
No suitable habitat or known 1 Eutrema edwardsii ssp. penlandii No Effect N/A occurrences in action area. No suitable habitat or known 2 Phacelia scopulina var. submutica No Effect N/A occurrences in action area. No suitable habitat or known 3 Sclerocactus glaucus No Effect N/A occurrences in action area. No suitable habitat or known 4 Spiranthes diluvialis No Effect N/A occurrences in action area.
Hunter Creek-Smuggler Mountain Cooperative Plan Environmental Assessment 3-52 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences E. Botany
Table 3E-4: Determination Summary for Region 2 Sensitive Species
RFSS Species Impact Rationale Mitigation
1 Armeria maritima NI No suitable habitat. N/A 2 Astragalus leptaleus MII Site specific surveys needed. A, B 3 Botrychium ascendens MII Populations may exist un-detected. A, B 4 Botrychium lineare MII Populations may exist un-detected. A, B 5 Botrychium paradoxum MII Populations may exist un-detected. A, B 6 Braya glabella NI No suitable habitat. N/A 7 Carex diandra MII Site specific surveys needed. A, B 8 Carex livida NI No suitable habitat. N/A 9 Cypripedium parviflorum MII Site specific surveys needed. A, B 10 Draba exunguiculata NI No suitable habitat. N/A 11 Draba grayana NI No suitable habitat. N/A 12 Draba weberi NI No suitable habitat. N/A 13 Drosera rotundifolia NI No suitable habitat. N/A 14 Epipactis gigantea MII Site specific surveys needed. A, B 15 Eriogonum exilifolium NI No suitable habitat. N/A 16 Eriophorum altaicum var. neogaeum NI No suitable habitat. N/A
17 Eriophorum chamissonis NI No suitable habitat. N/A 18 Eriophorum gracile MII Site specific surveys needed. A, B 19 Festuca hallii MII Site specific surveys needed. A, B 20 Kobresia simpliciuscula NI No suitable habitat. N/A 21 Machaeranthera coloradoensis MII Site specific surveys needed. A, B 22 Parnassia kotzebuei MII Site specific surveys needed. A, B 23 Penstemon harringtonii MII Site specific surveys needed. A, B 24 Ptilagrostis porteri MII Site specific surveys needed. A, B 25 Ranunculus karelinii NI No suitable habitat. N/A 26 Rubus arcticus ssp. acaulis MII Site specific surveys needed. A, B 27 Salix candida MII Site specific surveys needed. A, B 28 Salix serissima MII Site specific surveys needed. A, B
Hunter Creek-Smuggler Mountain Cooperative Plan Environmental Assessment 3-53 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences E. Botany
Table 3E-4: Determination Summary for Region 2 Sensitive Species
RFSS Species Impact Rationale Mitigation
29 Sphagnum angustifolium MII Site specific surveys needed. A, B 30 Sphagnum balticum MII Site specific surveys needed. A, B 31 Thalictrum heliophilum NI No suitable habitat. N/A 32 Utricularia minor MII Site specific surveys needed. A, B 33 Viburnum opulus var. MII Site specific surveys needed. A, B americanum
Notes: A = Implement pre-project surveys B = Avoid individuals and populations
There is no habitat in the study area for federally threatened, endangered, or proposed plant species. Habitat does exist in the study area for several sensitive species. Plant surveys conducted to date do not address specific locations where projects would be implemented. Therefore, surveys shall be implemented where suitable habitat exists for sensitive species prior to project implementation. Project design criteria require that surveys be implemented prior to project implementation and that individuals and/or populations be avoided.
For Region 2 Sensitive Species, a determination of MAII (may impact individuals, but is not likely to result in a loss of viability on the study area, nor cause a trend to federal listing) was given for 20 of the 33 species. Pre-project surveys and avoiding individuals and populations of these species were recommended mitigation measures. All other species listed reached a determination that the Action Alternatives would have No Impact (NI) with no suitable habitat for those species in the study area.
Botrychium (Moonwort)
Botrychium (moonwort) species may depend on a shifting mosaic of suitable habitats for long-term persistence. 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.
Since moonworts are small and delicate, any soil or ground disturbance that directly affects growing plants is likely to cause damage, at least to the above-ground structures. Because moonwort species appear to be at least tolerant of disturbance, activities that cause light ground disturbance are not likely to significantly impact populations. Moderate to intense ground disturbing activities, such as heavy
Hunter Creek-Smuggler Mountain Cooperative Plan Environmental Assessment 3-54 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences E. Botany equipment work, 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.
A determination of MAII was given for all three Botrychium species, and the implementation of pre- project surveys and avoiding individuals and populations was suggested for mitigation.
CUMULATIVE EFFECTS
There is no habitat in the study area for TEP plant species. Habitat does exist in the study area for several RFSS listed species. Plant surveys conducted to date do not address specific locations where projects would be implemented. Therefore, surveys shall be implemented where suitable habitat exists for sensitive species prior to project implementation. Project design criteria require that surveys be implemented prior to project implementation and that individuals and/or populations be avoided.
Botrychium (Moonwort)
Past and current activities have or continue to alter sensitive plant species occurrences and their habitats. Such activities have the potential to cumulatively affect sensitive plant species in the vicinity of the study area resulting in current conditions. Assuming presence, past actions including livestock grazing, ski trail clearing, timber harvest, thinning, motorized and non-motorized recreational use, road and trail building and maintenance, insect and disease outbreaks, fire suppression, prescribed fire, mining, road construction, land exchanges, urban development (sub-dividing and development of private land), noxious weed infestation, and ditching are likely to have had the greatest past negative impacts on R2 sensitive plant species and their habitats. Past actions (timber harvest, ski trails, fuels reduction, fire use and Rx burning) that cleared forest canopy while minimizing ground disturbance or soil sterilization and avoided the introduction of noxious weeds would likely have been beneficial actions for many of the species.
IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES
Ground disturbance related to trail and lift development would represent an irretrievable effect to botanical resources within the SUP area. However, this is not considered an irreversible commitment because vegetation is a renewable resource. Should ground disturbance occur to the point where potential habitat is removed entirely, an irreversible commitment of this resource could occur. However, as stated in the analysis, Threatened and Endangered species were not identified in the areas of disturbance, and mitigation measures were suggested for R2 sensitive species.
Hunter Creek-Smuggler Mountain Cooperative Plan Environmental Assessment 3-55 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences F. Forest Health
F. FOREST HEALTH
SCOPE OF ANALYSIS
This section provides a discussion of the existing condition of forest stands within the study area and potential impacts of the alternatives on forest health. The study area consists of 4,681 acres of NFS lands managed by the Aspen-Sopris Ranger District of the WRNF. The study area is managed for backcountry recreation, scenery, dispersed recreation (high use), forested flora and fauna habitats, and deer and elk winter range. The scope of this analysis includes an assessment of forested vegetation throughout the study area. The components of the Action Alternatives would meet the Forest Plan definition of vegetation management—”any activities undertaken to modify the existing condition of the vegetation.”25 As mentioned in Chapter 1, improving forest health in the study area is a primary goal of the Action Alternatives. As discussed in Chapter 2, the exact location and method of treatment for forest health projects is not yet determined. This analysis will discuss impacts to forest health on the scale of the study area related to the Purpose and Need.
FOREST PLAN DIRECTION
Activities permitted and conducted on NFS lands must comply with the long-term management directions included in the Forest Plan. The Forest Plan includes 33 separate Management Areas for different portions of the Forest based on ecological conditions, historic development, and desired future conditions. The Forest Plan includes forest-wide objectives and strategies to increase the amount of forest restored to or maintained in a healthy condition.26 In addition to general forest-wide objectives of improving forest health, specific management areas also contain direction for vegetation management. The desired condition for Management Area 4.2: Scenery notes that vegetation management activities should maintain scenic values by fostering forest communities with a variety of successional stages, plant communities, and associated wildlife.27 Additionally, the desired condition of Management Area 4.32: Dispersed Recreation, High Use highlights the importance of providing an attractive setting for visitors with the qualities mentioned in the Scenery desired condition. The desired condition for Management Area 5.4: Forested Flora and Fauna Habitats, which is important to note, includes the following direction for forest health: “These areas provide for a variety of forest and non-forest plant communities and successional stages, over the long-term, through a combination of human manipulation and natural processes. Management activities are influenced by biological processes found in the area, and strive to replicate local natural vegetation patterns and patch size
25 USDA Forest Service, 2002a 26 Ibid. 27 Ibid.
Hunter Creek-Smuggler Mountain Cooperative Plan Environmental Assessment 3-56 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences F. Forest Health
(HRV). Vegetation management is designed to simulate natural disturbances, thus silvicultural treatments may be larger than 40 acres in size.” (3-55)
Management Area 5.4 includes a standard that permits a full range of vegetation treatments.28 Similarly, Management Area 5.41: Deer and Elk Winter Range includes a standard that permits vegetation management projects designed to maintain or improve deer and elk habitat objectives, containing a mosaic of habitat varieties, age classes, and structural stages.29
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
In conjunction with the preparation of the Hunter-Smuggler Plan, a Vegetation Management Plan (VMP) was created for the study area. The VMP provides the baseline and planning information specific to forest health in the study area. Within the study area, the VMP outlines vegetation management projects that would be of short- and long-term benefit to forest resources and users. For more detail about existing forest health conditions refer to the VMP and Hunter-Smuggler Plan.
The study area is home to a complex and diverse ecological landscape. More specifically, there are eight dominant vegetation communities found here, including aspen, Gambel oak, mixed conifer forest, mountain meadows, mountain shrub, sage, willow (wetlands) and lodgepole pine forests. Each of these dominant types have small inclusions of willows, water, mountain shrub, Douglas-fir and aspen habitats that may be either too small to map or not the dominant species. The aspen and lodgepole stands are further broken down to pure and mixed stands. Current conditions within the study area support the following vegetation types: mountain meadow (6 percent), mountain shrub (6 percent), Gambel oak (Quercus gambelii) (6 percent), pure lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta) forest (10 percent), mixed lodgepole pine forest (13 percent), mixed conifer forest and spruce-fir forest (Picea engelmannii-Abies bifolia), (26 percent), pure aspen (Populus tremuloides) forest (22 percent), mixed aspen forest (8 percent), willow- wetland (2 percent), and sagebrush (1 percent).30
All tree species in the study area are susceptible to a wide variety of insects and diseases. Mountain Pine Beetle peaked in the study area and throughout Colorado in 2012. In the study area MPB activity has been isolated and small in scale on its affects to lodgepole pine. Current data suggests that there are approximately 1,790 acres of forest stands within the study area that have experienced some degree of MPB infestation and mortality. Other forest insects and diseases (e.g., lodgepole pine dwarf mistletoe, armellaria root rot) are present but not at epidemic levels. Although spruce beetle has not been identified within the study area, spruce beetle epidemics have been identified in the region.
28 Ibid. 29 Ibid. 30 These vegetation types follow the “USFS R2 Vegetation—Revised 2009” classification scheme.
Hunter Creek-Smuggler Mountain Cooperative Plan Environmental Assessment 3-57 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences F. Forest Health
Another measure of forest health is stand density. Stand density index (SDI) is a forest measurement tool that takes into account average trees per acre and average diameter at breast height of a given stand. The maximum SDI for a given species is defined as the maximum number of trees of a given size that can occupy a site. Relative SDI measures how close the species in that stand is to its maximum density. Within the study area, relative SDI should be below 40 percent.31 Anything higher than this would create heightened risk for tree mortality. Of the stands observed, 73 percent were over 40 percent relative SDI. Stands below 40 percent SDI, and dominated by lodgepole, are experiencing significant mortality too. High SDI levels also result in higher fuels loads, which can lead to more extreme fire behavior.
The average age of the lodgepole in the study area ranges from roughly 90 to 120 years old. From a silvicultural perspective, the ideal age distribution for lodgepole would include trees from the ages of 0 to 150 years. For aspen a reasonable range is 0 to 100; for Gambel oak shrub 0 to 80; mixed conifer 200 to 300; and Gambel oak trees 0 to 200.
Lodgepole Pine Forest Community
The lodgepole pine dominant forest community is the third (23 percent) most extensive vegetation type in the study area, behind mixed conifer and aspen. Dense, mature stands of lodgepole pine are located throughout the Smuggler Mountain portion of the study area, below 10,500 feet. Stands in this area are mostly single storied, even aged, and of a uniform density. Trees throughout these stands are infected with dwarf mistletoe. These infected trees will likely die, which will result in opportunities for other species to grow in the area. There are a few widely scattered mature subalpine fir, Douglas fir, and/or Engelmann spruce throughout these stands. Subalpine fir seedlings and saplings are numerous, but unevenly distributed throughout the understory. Lodgepole pine stands on the north side of Hunter Creek are similarly even-aged. However, there are often large natural non-forested openings throughout these stands, and stand structure found here is typically clumpy rather than uniform. Throughout lodgepole pine stands, forest floor vegetation is variable depending on soil type, moisture regimes, aspect and previous human-caused disturbance.
Mixed Conifer Forest Community
These are multi-aged, multistoried stands of conifer that include subalpine fir [Abies bifolia], Douglas fir [Pseudotsuga menziesii], lodgepole pine [Pinus contorta], and/or Engelmann spruce [Picea engelmannii]). Some stands exhibit a healthy range of tree sizes while others are noticeably lacking in the larger diameter trees. In stands lacking the larger diameter component, site conditions, stand age and/or stand density have suppressed individual tree development t. Mortality is occurring in small clumps of subalpine fir, and in scattered individuals, most likely due to root rot. Occasionally, individual lodgepole pines or groups of pines display evidence of mountain pine beetle activity. Subalpine fir seedlings and
31 Peterson and Hibbs, 1989
Hunter Creek-Smuggler Mountain Cooperative Plan Environmental Assessment 3-58 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences F. Forest Health saplings are distributed throughout the understory of these stands but their development is suppressed by the overstory trees that out-compete them for available water and light.
Management of these conifer stands is focused on removing dead and dying trees, reducing the amount of MPB brood trees, and improving density, age and species composition. Particular emphasis is placed on releasing and enlarging aspen stands where conifers have encroached on aspen stands. Improving diversity of age class and structure would additionally improve wildlife habitat.
Aspen Forest Community
The aspen forest community is the largest (30 percent) and most extensive vegetation type in the study area. Aspen stands are distributed throughout the study area, but are more numerically abundant near the base of the Hunter Creek drainage and on hill slopes to the north of Hunter Creek. Aspen is the most shade-intolerant tree species in the study area. Throughout the study area, most aspen stands exhibit at least some mortality because they are older or as a result of some pathogen or adverse site condition.
Ecologically, aspen stands tend to be even aged and short-lived, relative to coniferous forest. As stands age, and trees die out, other more shade tolerant trees may establish in the understory if there is a seed source available. Many of the aspen stands in the study area do, in fact, have some subalpine fir seedlings and saplings present in the understory.
In the denser stands, less vigorous aspen have been over topped and have succumbed to the competition from more dominant aspen in the stand. Aspen regeneration is sparse or non-existent within the interior of these stands. These stands should persist with little change in composition until they reach an age when individual tree mortality begins again. Then, more shade tolerant conifers will gradually become a more significant component on these sites and will eventually replace the aspen altogether.
With the exception of riparian areas, aspen communities are considered the most biologically diverse ecosystems in the Intermountain West.32 The preservation of healthy aspen stands is thus a central forest health concern. Based on inventory and observation, many aspen stands within the study area appear to be in good condition overall. However, as outlined in Chapter 1 as Need #1, some stands exhibit risk factors such as conifer encroachment and susceptibility to Sudden Aspen Decline (SAD), among other issues associated with mature aspen. The objective of efforts to improve the health of aspen stands is to increase the number of aspen acres, as well as, promoting greater age class diversity within the study area over time.
32 Kay, 1997
Hunter Creek-Smuggler Mountain Cooperative Plan Environmental Assessment 3-59 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences F. Forest Health
Gambel Oak
Gambel oak stands are present on many of the lower, south and west-facing slopes of Smuggler Mountain and in the Hunter Creek basin. Gambel oak stands typically contain a number of other co-dominant or sub-dominant shrubs and a number of different grass species. The form of oak stands varies depending on slope, soil conditions, and amount of browsing. Stands on south-facing slopes are heavily browsed by wintering elk, resulting in stunted oaks. Throughout the study area, Gambel oak stands have become increasingly dense and over-mature due to a lack of disturbance. This density impacts the quality of wildlife habitat while additionally creating a wildfire risk.
Management of Gambel oak stands is primarily focused on providing wildlife habitat. Lack of disturbance over the last century has reduced age class and structural diversity, reduced browse production for wintering elk, and reduced the value of the habitat for elk and numerous other species. As discussed in Chapter 1 as Need #6, long-term goals would be to provide a range of age classes within the Gambel oak type distributed in a mosaic to maximize browse production and to increase age and structural diversity.
Mountain Shrub
Sites characterized as mountain shrub contain a variety of dominants, including serviceberry, chokecherry, snowberry, sagebrush, mountain mahogany, Gambel oak, and aspen. The distribution of species across this vegetation type varies based on aspect, slope, and water content. In addition to the dominant species listed above, this vegetation type contains a large variety of shrubs, grasses, and forbs.
Mountain shrub is also managed primarily for wildlife habitat, with a variety of shrub species present. Similar to Gambel oak, long-term management goals are to provide a range of size and age classes of shrubs within this plant community.
Sagebrush
Patches of sagebrush communities are dispersed across south- and west-facing aspects in the study area. Mountain big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata ssp. vaseyana) is co-dominant with Douglas and rubber rabbitbrush. Other shrub, grass, and forb species are present throughout.
Sagebrush is also managed primarily for wildlife habitat. Long-term goals in sagebrush communities in the study area are to maintain or improve the health and vigor of sagebrush by improving the age and size class diversity within stands and within the study area.
Mountain Meadow Community
Mountain meadow vegetation is dominated with grasses and forbs, managed for wildlife, recreation and scenery. Long-term goals are continued management to reduce the extent of invasive weeds within
Hunter Creek-Smuggler Mountain Cooperative Plan Environmental Assessment 3-60 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences F. Forest Health meadows and to review road relocation options where roads could be better located to prevent resource impacts.
Willow/Riparian/Wetlands
This vegetation type is located adjacent to Hunter Creek and its tributaries, as well as with beaver ponds and an old dam along Hunter Creek. Riparian species such as willow, sedges, rushes, alder, and cottonwood dominate this vegetation type. Several populations of the rare mountain bladder fern (Cystopteris montana) were observed in wetland areas along Hunter Creek. Wetlands within the study area provide important ecological functions such as streambank stabilization, aquatic food chain support, pollutant filtering, dynamic water storage, flood flow attenuation, and wildlife habitat.
Long-term management goals include maintaining the level of ecological service provided by the Hunter Creek riparian zone and preventing any decrease in water quality in Hunter Creek.
DIRECT AND INDIRECT ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES Alternative 1 – No Action
The No Action Alternative provides a baseline for comparing the effects of the Action Alternatives. The No Action Alternative reflects a continuation of existing conditions without changes, additions, or upgrades. No improvements to the trail network would be approved, nor would any forest health and wildlife projects. Under Alternative 1, there would be no impact to forest composition or health. The forest would continue to lack age class diversity and would remain susceptible to disease and insect infestations.
Alternative 2 – Proposed Action
Under the Proposed Action, vegetation treatment projects would improve forest health throughout the study area. The general goal of vegetation treatment projects within the study area is to increase age class and species diversity in forest communities. Regeneration is a primary focus of all forest health projects. Regeneration is expected to occur in 100 percent of treated acres.
Projects proposed for implementation in 2013 would treat approximately 9.5 acres, addressing proposed project elements discussed below.
Lodgepole Pine Forest Community The Proposed Action would treat up to 220 acres of this vegetation type. As described above, lodgepole pine within the study area would benefit from an increase in age-class diversity. Treating lodgepole stands would produce younger trees and understory growth that the area currently lacks. Proposed projects would improve the age class diversity of lodgepole pine and improve species diversity within the study area. Over time this would lead to a reduction in fuel and a more resilient forest able to support a wider
Hunter Creek-Smuggler Mountain Cooperative Plan Environmental Assessment 3-61 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences F. Forest Health range of wildlife species. Treatment of lodgepole pine stands within the study area would have the following impacts on forest health (refer to Chapter 2 for a detailed description of the Proposed Action, and Appendix B for management prescriptions from the VMP):
Patch cuts of moderate and high-risk lodgepole stands would improve long-term stand health by increasing age class diversity. This treatment encourages regeneration of all species to increase age class and species diversity for long-term ecosystem resilience. Multi-aged, diverse stands are more able to withstand disease and infestation and would also have a positive effect on wildlife habitat quality; refer to Chapter 3, Section D – Wildlife for more information.
Limiting patch cut size to no more than 2.5 acres is likely to spread dwarf mistletoe to the regenerating lodgepole pine since infected trees will remain within the adjacent overstory. Timely treatment of those adjacent trees while the seedlings are still very young will be critical to meeting objectives for age class diversity within the lodgepole pine cover type.
Brood tree removal and verbenone application in stands where MPB is present in more than 1 percent of the stand would address the immediate forest health concern of MPB infestation. By removing trees currently hosting MPB, the spread of MPB would be directly reduced. Salvaging currently infected brood trees before beetles hatch and fly could significantly reduce the spread of MPB. Verbenone application would reduce the risk of re-infestation. Additionally, this treatment would reduce fuel loads for wildfire protection. The removal of dead trees would reduce the fuel load in the study area. This treatment tool would only be used if the Implementation Team determines the increased level of MPB activity cannot be managed through other treatment methods. Although this type of treatment has been used on other sites in the area, the MPB epidemic peaked in 2012, so this treatment tool is not warranted unless conditions change.
Treating for invasive noxious weeds would improve overall forest health by protecting the long- term viability of native species. Invasive noxious weeds have the ability to replace native species which are crucial to the ecological stability of the study area. By eliminating invasive species prior to and following all treatments, the persistence of native species would be more likely.
Issuing firewood permits for the use of felled timber may facilitate the removal of forest material from the study area where it is decked adjacent to roads that are easily accessible to fuelwood permittees.
Ongoing monitoring in treated stands would ensure that treatments improve long-term forest health. If it were determined that a treatment was detrimental to forest health, through monitoring an alternative treatment could be identified and implemented.
Mixed Conifer Forest Community The Proposed Action would treat up to 80 acres of this vegetation type. Proposed projects in mixed conifer stands are identical to those listed for lodgepole pine stands. Vegetation management projects
Hunter Creek-Smuggler Mountain Cooperative Plan Environmental Assessment 3-62 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences F. Forest Health within mixed conifer forest would be focused on improving age class and species diversity, thereby improving forest health and reducing fuel loads.
Aspen Forest Community The Proposed Action would treat up to 280 acres of this vegetation type. The range of proposed projects within aspen stands is designed to increase the amount, diversity and quality of aspen habitat in the study area. Treatment of aspen stands within the study area would have the following impacts on forest health (refer to Chapter 2 for a detailed description of the Proposed Action):
Patch cuts would increase the age-class diversity and quality of aspen by spurring regeneration across the project are and removing encroaching conifer. Aspen regeneration is initiated when an aspen is killed by burning or cutting, at which point growth hormones are stimulated. Thus, by removing patches of old aspen in areas where stands are marginal due to lack of disturbance or climatic changes, new growth would be initiated and the overall age class diversity of aspen stands would become more resilient. Removal of encroaching conifer would maintain existing aspen stands over a longer term.
Band cuts of lodgepole pine within 100 feet of aspen stands where regeneration is being inhibited would further initiate new aspen growth. As discussed above, in the absence of disturbance, longer-lived conifer tress would continue to grow and eventually crowd out aspen stands. By removing lodgepole pine that are adjacent to aspen stands, the extent of the aspen covertype may be increased. By promoting the regeneration of aspen, age class diversity and therefore forest resilience would be enhanced.
Christmas tree cutting within aspen stands that are exhibiting conifer encroachment would further improve aspen regeneration and long-term age class diversity and stand health. As discussed above, understory conifer can prohibit aspen regeneration and grown conifers can crowd out and kill mature aspen. Thus, removing conifers in aspen stands would protect both young and old aspens and improve the age class diversity of aspen stands.
As mentioned above, new aspen growth can be initiated through fire. When the base of the trees is killed, a hormonal signal is sent to the root system to re-sprout. Simultaneously, fire reduces the competition from other understory species and creates bare soil. Sun-warmed soil then encourages re-sprouting. Prescribed fire could stimulate regeneration, further improving age class diversity and stand health.
Treating for invasive noxious weeds would improve overall forest health by protecting the long- term viability of native species. Invasive noxious weeds have the ability to replace native species which are crucial to the ecological stability of the study area. By eliminating invasive species prior to and following all treatments, the persistence of native species would be more likely.
Hunter Creek-Smuggler Mountain Cooperative Plan Environmental Assessment 3-63 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences F. Forest Health
Ongoing monitoring in treated stands would ensure that treatments improve long-term forest health. If it were determined that a treatment was detrimental to forest health, through monitoring an alternative treatment could be identified and implemented.
Gambel Oak The Proposed Action would treat up to 60 acres of this vegetation type. Proposed treatments are designed to increase the age class diversity and quality of Gambel oak stands in the study area. Treatment of Gambel oak stands in the study area would have the following impacts on forest health (refer to Chapter 2 for a detailed description of the Proposed Action):
Patch cuts or contiguous cuts would lead to regeneration within Gambel oak stands. Regeneration is stimulated through fire or cuts. Old, large Gambel oak is generally less valuable wildlife habitat than young stands. Refer to Chapter 3, Section D – Wildlife for a discussion of impacts to wildlife habitat and species.
As with patch cuts as described above, prescribed burning of Gambel oak would initiate regeneration and return the stand to a more natural disturbance cycle which promotes age class and structural diversity.
Treating for invasive noxious weeds would improve overall forest health by protecting the long- term viability of native species. Invasive noxious weeds have the ability to replace native species which are crucial to the ecological stability of the study area. By eliminating invasive species prior to and following all treatments, the persistence of native species would be more likely.
Ongoing monitoring in treated stands would ensure that treatments improve long-term forest health. If it were determined that a treatment was detrimental to forest health, through monitoring an alternative treatment could be identified and implemented.
Mountain Shrub The Proposed Action would treat up to 50 acres of this vegetation type. Treatment of mountain shrub communities would include the same projects proposed to treat Gambel oak. Refer to Chapter 2 for a detailed description of the Proposed Action. Mountain shrub treatments would have the same impacts to forest health as Gambel oak projects. In the long-term, proposed treatments would increase the age class diversity and quality of mountain shrub communities in the study area.
Sagebrush The Proposed Action would treat up to 10 acres of this vegetation type. Treatment of sagebrush communities would include the same projects proposed to treat Gambel oak. Refer to Chapter 2 for a detailed description of the Proposed Action. Sagebrush treatments would have the same impacts to forest health as Gambel oak projects. In the long-term, proposed treatments would increase the age class diversity and quality of sagebrush communities in the study area.
Hunter Creek-Smuggler Mountain Cooperative Plan Environmental Assessment 3-64 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences F. Forest Health
Mountain Meadow Community The Proposed Action does not contain any projects in mountain meadow communities. There would be no direct impacts to forest health in this vegetation type. In the long-term, management of surrounding vegetation types could improve overall ecosystem functions and forest health throughout the study area. In particular, treatment of invasive species in adjacent vegetation types could protect the native species of mountain meadow communities.
Willow/Riparian/Wetlands The Proposed Action does not contain any projects in willow/riparian/wetland communities. There would be no direct impacts to forest health in this vegetation type. In the long-term, management of surrounding vegetation types could improve overall ecosystem functions and forest health throughout the study area. In particular, treatment of invasive species in adjacent vegetation types could protect the native species of these communities.
Alternative 3
Under Alternative 3, forest health and wildlife projects would improve forest health throughout the study area. All proposed treatments are identical to those in the Proposed Action but would apply to fewer acres. While Alternative 2 would apply up to 780 acres of vegetation treatment, Alternative 3 would apply up to 630 acres. Because all treatment methods are the same as the Proposed Action, refer to the above discussion of impacts to forest health. Under Alternative 3, all positive impacts to forest health would be less than under the Proposed Action due to the smaller acreage to which treatment would be applied. Prescribed fire in the Natural Disturbance Treatment Zone could lead to additional regeneration in that portion of the study area. Refer to Chapter 2 for a detailed description of Alternative 3.
Projects proposed for implementation in 2013 would have similar effects as discussed in the Proposed Action.
Lodgepole Pine Forest Community Alternative 3 would treat up to 178 acres of this vegetation type.
Mixed Conifer Forest Community Alternative 3 would treat up to 65 acres of this vegetation type.
Aspen Forest Community Alternative 3 would treat up to 226 acres of this vegetation type. Band cuts of lodgepole within 100 feet of aspen stands where regeneration is being inhibited could apply to up to 65 acres.
Gambel Oak Alternative 3 would treat up to 48 acres of this vegetation type.
Hunter Creek-Smuggler Mountain Cooperative Plan Environmental Assessment 3-65 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences F. Forest Health
Mountain Shrub Alternative 3 would treat up to 40 acres of this vegetation type.
Sagebrush Alternative 3 would treat up to 8 acres of this vegetation type.
Mountain Meadow Community Alternative 3 does not contain any projects in mountain meadow communities.
Willow/Riparian/Wetlands Alternative 3 does not contain any projects in willow/riparian/wetland communities.
CUMULATIVE EFFECTS Scope of Analysis Temporal Bounds The temporal bounds for the cumulative effects analysis for forest health resources extends from the present into the future on the scale of forest regeneration (up to 100 years).
Spatial Bounds The spatial bounds for this cumulative effects analysis focuses on the study area and forested areas of the Aspen area.
Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions
Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions that affect recreation resources within the analysis area are related to activities in the study area on NFS lands as well as adjacent private lands. These past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions include:
2008 Smuggler Mountain Open Space Management Plan
2009 Forestwide Hazardous Tree Removal and Fuels Reduction Project EA
2011 Starwood Fuels Reduction Project EA
2008 Smuggler Mountain Open Space Management Plan This plan presents a management strategy for the approximately 234-acre Smuggler Mountain Open Space property. The plan includes a forest management component that involves the creation of a Forest Resource Baseline Inventory, a Forest Resource Management Plan, a Forest Insect Planning and Action Plan, and a Fire and Fuel Management Action Plan. It is expected that the city and county will engage in forest health projects in the future. Combined with the proposed projects, regional forest health would be further improved.
Hunter Creek-Smuggler Mountain Cooperative Plan Environmental Assessment 3-66 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences F. Forest Health
2009 Forestwide Hazardous Tree Removal and Fuels Reduction Project EA This EA allows for the removal of hazardous trees bordering roads and trails on NFS lands. These projects target trees that pose a public safety risk and are not designed to improve overall forest health. However, many of the hazardous trees have likely been impacted by MPB. By removing infested trees, these projects could improve the health of forested stands. Additionally, reducing the density of stands could allow for a more diverse understory to develop. Thus while these projects are likely to have a minimal impact on forest health, when combined with proposed projects forest health could be improved in the long-term.
2011 Starwood Fuels Reduction Project EA This EA allows for the removal of dead and infested trees adjacent to the community of Starwood, approximately 3 miles north of Aspen. The goal of this project is to reduce the risk of wildfire near the community of Starwood, but by removing MPB infested trees the regional forest health could be improved. Combined with proposed projects in the study area, the impacts of MPB could be reduced and the regional forest could be restored to a more natural condition.
IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES
No irreversible or irretrievable commitments of forest health resources associated with any of the alternatives have been identified.
Hunter Creek-Smuggler Mountain Cooperative Plan Environmental Assessment 3-67 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences G. Soil Resources and Geology
G. SOIL RESOURCES AND GEOLOGY
SCOPE OF ANALYSIS
The scope of analysis for soil resources includes areas proposed for direct disturbance due to vegetation treatment projects within a quarter-mile of existing roads and proposed recreation trails within the study area. This analysis is based on review of the soil survey data from the National Resource Conservation Service Web Soil Survey and the unpublished Forest Service Holy Cross Area Soil Survey. Prior to construction activities, field verification to establish depths of soil organic (mineral A and/or organic O) horizons would take place in order to comply with Forest Plan standards and guidelines and Water Conservation Practices Handbook (WCPH) management measures. BMPs and PDCs (refer to Table 2-2) are included to minimize erosion sedimentation and loss of soil organic matter due to implementation of the proposed projects.
FOREST PLAN DIRECTION
The 2002 Forest Plan and the 2006 Forest Service WCPH, provides soil management measures to guide land treatments within the WRNF. The following measures apply to the proposed projects.
2002 Forest Plan Standards 5. Manage land treatments to maintain or improve soil quality, limiting the sum of detrimental soil impacts to no more than 15 percent of an activity area.
7. Design vegetation and fuels management treatments to retain the average per-acre levels of coarse wood debris (CWD) displayed in Table 2-1 in the Forest Plan. Coarse wood 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 conditions. Guidelines 1. Conduct an onsite slope stability exam in areas identified as potentially unstable. Potentially unstable land is described as having a “high” or “very high” instability ranking or classified as “unstable” or “marginally unstable.” Limit intensive ground-disturbing activities on unstable slopes identified during examinations.
3. When logging over snow, conditions should allow for 1 foot of packed snow to be continuous (i.e., not patchy) and competent enough so that wheeled or tracked vehicles do not break through. When logging over frozen ground, a minimum of 3 inches of continuous frozen ground should be present.
Hunter Creek-Smuggler Mountain Cooperative Plan Environmental Assessment 3-68 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences G. Soil Resources and Geology
4. To minimize soil impacts, the following practices should be followed for vegetation management activities: o Use practices other than brush rake piling and crushing by heavy equipment to dispose of slash o Limit the width of skid trails to 12 feet and spacing between trails to no closer than 120 feet on average o Limit heavy equipment such as feller-bunchers to three round trip passes on designated skid trails o Utilize low p.s.i. equipment when available and appropriate
Appendix AA – National Strategic Goals This list is based on Forest Service Manual (FSM) objective statements. Soil Resource Improvement (2553.02)
1. Improve soil quality to selected levels for specific purposes by mechanical treatment, chemical or other soil additives, irrigation, or vegetative manipulation.
2. Rehabilitate soils that are in unsatisfactory condition.
Water Conservation Practices Handbook
The WCPH contains several Management Measures of relevance regarding effects to soils: Hydrologic Function
11.1 Manage land treatments to conserve site moisture and to protect long-term stream health from damage by increased runoff.
11.2 Manage land treatments to maintain enough organic ground cover in each activity area to prevent harmful increased runoff. Sediment Control
13.2 Construct roads and other disturbed sites to minimize sediment discharge into streams, lakes, and wetlands.
13.3 Stabilize and maintain roads and other disturbed sites during and after construction to control erosion. Soil Quality
14.1 Manage land treatments to limit the sum of severely burned soil and detrimentally compacted, eroded, and displaced soil to no more than 15 percent of any activity area.
Hunter Creek-Smuggler Mountain Cooperative Plan Environmental Assessment 3-69 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences G. Soil Resources and Geology
14.2 Maintain or improve long-term levels of organic matter and nutrients on all lands.33
Refer to Table 2-2 in Chapter 2 for a complete table of PDCs and BMPs that are designed to minimize the resource impacts of proposed projects.
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
The study area is located on Smuggler Mountain and Red Mountain and within the Hunter Creek Valley, northeast of Aspen, Colorado. The area ranges from 8,900 feet above mean sea level (amsl) to 10,500 feet amsl. The study area is primarily forested, with dense aspen, mixed conifer and lodgepole pine stands as well as Gambel oak and willow stands, some large grassy meadows and wetland complexes are located throughout the study area, particularly within the Hunter Creek Valley an on Red Mountain. The average temperature in the winter months is approximately 37 degrees Fahrenheit; average temperature in the summer is approximately 77 degrees Fahrenheit. The climate and elevation of the study area limit the rate of soil formation.34
The study area is underlain by Precambrian granites and gneisses on the Smuggler Mountain side, Leadville limestone and Belden Formation in the Valley bottom, and the Maroon and Minturn formations on the Red Mountain side. There are approximately 16 miles of streams within, or directly adjacent to, the study area including Hunter Creek and unnamed tributaries. Streams and drainages along the flatter valley floor and well-vegetated Red Mountain have experienced less down cutting and erosion than those on the steeper Smuggler Mountain side of the study area.
Although some mining has occurred in the area, as evidenced by the large Smuggler silver and lead mines (active between 1879 and 1920) immediately west of the study area, signs of mining within the study area are limited to some small, isolated tailing piles, pits and shallow shafts observed during site review in Summer 2011. Historic roads crossing the study area were originally developed to harvest timber from both Smuggler and Red mountains. Some homestead sites are also located on the valley floor.
As discussed in Chapter 2, currently the study area contains some of the most heavily used trails in Aspen and provides important wildlife habitat. Approximately 40 miles of single track, double track and 4WD trails are located within the study area. Although the major roads were constructed long ago for logging operations, construction of trails is on-going, both with both system and non-system trails. With this wide range of resources and activity, soils in the study area ranged from those in a relatively undisturbed, native condition to those adversely affected (compacted, eroded, etc.) by the aforementioned land uses.
Soils identified within the study area can be grouped into 34 soil map units. These are displayed in Table 3G-1. With such a wide range of soils, drainage classes, runoff potential and revegetation limits vary
33 USDA Forest Service, 2006 34 Western Regional Climate Center, 2013
Hunter Creek-Smuggler Mountain Cooperative Plan Environmental Assessment 3-70 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences G. Soil Resources and Geology widely from very poorly to somewhat excessively drained, slow to rapid runoff, and low to severe revegetation limits. Although surface and subsurface soil erodibility is generally low (Kw ≤ 0.2), approximately 840 acres have moderate soil erodibility values (Kw ≥ 0.22). Higher erosion risk ratings owe to slope/erodibility (refer to Table 3G-1).35 Using the whole soil (w subscript) K-factor values best reflect natural soil conditions in the field as rock fragment serve to “armor” soil and make them less erodible overall.36
Soil organic matter can also be related to soil erodibility as organic horizons allow infiltration and provide productive soils for stabilizing vegetation.37 Maintenance of soil organic matter and surface O and A horizon integrity minimizes erosion, compaction, and hydrology problems within a study area. Better drained and more permeable soils result in more absorption of water as the soils act like a sponge rather than creating surface flow which precipitates erosion. Refer to Table 3G-1 for a summary of these soil characteristics.
35 Natural Resources Conservation Service, 2012 36 McCormick et al., 1982 37 Franzluebbers, 2002; McMullen, 2011
Hunter Creek-Smuggler Mountain Cooperative Plan Environmental Assessment 3-71 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences G. Soil Resources and Geology
Table 3G-1: Soil Management Units Identified within the Study Area Soil Management Unit Characteristics Drainage/Permeability Kwa Acres 9 Ansel-Anvik association, Fine-loamy, Well drained; slow or medium runoff; soils are noncalcareous throughout 0.37 244 25 to 45% slopes moderate permeability 11 Anvik-Skylick-Sligting association, Well drained; slow or medium runoff; soils are noncalcareous throughout 0.24 273 Fine-loamy, 25 to 50%slopes moderate to moderate/slow permeability 12 Arle-Ansari-Rock outcrop complex, loamy Well drained; medium to rapid runoff; typically calcareous throughout -- 259 skeletal/loamy, 12 to 50%slopes moderate permeability. 14 Callings-Yeljack complex, Clayey-skeletal\ Well drained; medium to rapid runoff; slow medium acid to mildly alkaline 0.20 115 Fine-loamy, 25 to 65%slopes permeability. slightly acid to slightly alkaline to 66 Jerry-Millerlake loams\fine-loamy, fine, Well drained; rapid or medium runoff; slow moderately alkaline or strongly 0.20 52 6 to 25% slopes to very slow permeability. alkaline slightly acid to slightly alkaline to Well drained; rapid or medium runoff; slow 67 Jerry-Millerlake loams, 25 to 45% slopes moderately alkaline or strongly 0.20 87 to very slow permeability. alkaline 76 Mine loam, 12 to 25% slopes ------9 77 Mine loam, 25 to 65% slopes ------220 108 Uracca, moist Mergel complex, Loamy- moderately alkaline or strongly Well drained; slow to medium runoff; -- 0.06 skeletal, 6 to 12% slopes alkaline moderate permeability 100A Cryaquolls-Borohemists association, Variable/very poorly drained, variable to -- 0.20 5 0 to 15% slopes slow runoff, variable to rapid permeability. 104A Cryoborolls-Cryaquolls association, Very poorly drained, moderate to slow -- 0.20 245 0 to 15% slopes runoff, moderate to rapid permeability. Well to somewhat excessively drained; slow 203B Handran-Gateview families complex, moderately acid to slightly alkaline runoff; moderately rapid to rapid 0.10 33 Loamy-skeletal, 5 to 40% slopes permeability 203C Handran family, till substratum, Well drained; slow runoff; moderately rapid -- 0.10 3 4 to 60% slopes to rapid permeability 204D Leighcan family, till substratum-Rock Well drained; moderate to rapid runoff; outcrop complex, loamy skeletal, very strongly acid to slightly acid 0.15 3,085 moderately rapid permeability 40 to 150% slopes 225B Leighcan family-Cryaquolls complex, Well drained; moderate to rapid runoff; very strongly acid to slightly acid 0.15 485 loamy skeletal, 0 to 25% slopes moderately rapid permeability
Hunter Creek-Smuggler Mountain Cooperative Plan Environmental Assessment 3-72 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences G. Soil Resources and Geology
Table 3G-1: Soil Management Units Identified within the Study Area Soil Management Unit Characteristics Drainage/Permeability Kwa Acres 226B Leadville family-Cryaquolls complex, Well drained; moderate to rapid runoff; very strongly acid to slightly acid 0.24 71 loamy skeletal, 0 to 25% slopes moderately rapid permeability 345B Doughspon family, Clayey-skeletal, Neutral or slightly acid moderately well or well drained 0.22 30 5 to 40% slopes 345C Doughspon family, 40 to 60% slopes Neutral or slightly acid moderately well or well drained 0.22 28 346B Gateview-Handran families complex, calcareous ranging from Well to somewhat excessively drained; slow 0.15 166 Loamy-skeletal, 5 to 40% slopes 0 to 13 inches runoff; moderate rapid to rapid permeability. 346C Gateview-Handran-Eyre families complex, calcareous ranging from Well to somewhat excessively drained; slow 0.15 596 loamy skeletal, 40 to 65% slopes 0 to 13 inches runoff; moderate rapid to rapid permeability. 348B Tellura family, Clayey-skeletal, Well drained; medium or high or very high slightly acid or neutral 0.10 25 5 to 40% slopes runoff; slow permeability Somewhat excessively drained; slow and 351C Scout family, Loamy-skeletal, strongly acid to slightly acid medium runoff; moderately rapid to very 0.08 132 40 to 65% slopes rapid permeability Somewhat excessively drained; slow and 352C Scout family, shale substratum, loamy strongly acid to slightly acid medium runoff; moderately rapid to very 0.08 48 skeletal, 40 to 65% slopes rapid permeability Somewhat excessively drained; slow and 353C Scout family, loamy skeletal 40 to 65% strongly acid to slightly acid medium runoff; moderately rapid to very 0.08 113 slopes rapid permeability Somewhat excessively drained; slow and 356B Scout-Handran families complex, loamy strongly acid to slightly acid, medium runoff; moderately rapid to very 0.08 60 skeletal. 5 to 40% slopes calcareous ranging from 0 to 13 inches rapid permeability Somewhat excessively drained; slow and 367B Scout-Leadville families complex, loamy Very strongly acid to slightly acid medium runoff; moderately rapid to very 0.08 569 skeletal, 5 to 40% slopes rapid permeability 380B Seitz family, Clayey-skeletal, Well drained; high and very high runoff; slightly acid or neutral 0.24 96 5 to 40% slopes slow permeability. Well drained; medium to rapid runoff; slow 383B Wetopa family, fine, 5 to 25% slopes moderately acid or slightly acid 0.24 85 permeability.
Hunter Creek-Smuggler Mountain Cooperative Plan Environmental Assessment 3-73 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences G. Soil Resources and Geology
Table 3G-1: Soil Management Units Identified within the Study Area Soil Management Unit Characteristics Drainage/Permeability Kwa Acres Somewhat excessively drained; slow and 395D Scout family-Rock outcrop-Cryoborolls strongly acid to slightly acid medium runoff; moderately rapid to very 0.08 198 complex, loamy skeletal, dry, 40 to 150% slopes rapid permeability Well to somewhat excessively drained; very low to medium runoff; moderate 420C Subwell-Duffymont families complex, slightly to strongly alkaline permeability through the 2Ck horizon and 0.15 1 Loamy-skeletal, 40 to 65% slopes moderately rapid permeability in the 2C horizon. 467B Leadville family, sandstone substratum, Well drained; medium to high runoff; strongly acid to neutral 0.24 12 Loamy-skeletal, 5 to 40% slopes moderate permeability 602C Handran family, loamy skeletal, Well drained; slow runoff; moderately rapid moderately acid to slightly alkaline 0.10 176 40 to 60% slopes to rapid permeability. 604C Leighcan family, Loamy-skeletal, Well drained; moderate to rapid runoff; moderately acid 0.10 36 40 to 60% slopes moderately rapid permeability. 661B Legualt-Tolby families complex, Well drained; moderate to rapid runoff; moderately acid 0.10 335 5 to 40% slopes moderately rapid permeability. W Water, 0 to 5% slopes ------3 Grand Total ------4,681 Notes: a The factor K represents the soil’s susceptibility to erosion in their plot condition based on soil texture. Soils that are resistant to erosion have low K values (0.02 to 0.2); display moderate erosion are in the middle of the range (0.25 to 0.40); and highly erodible so.37ils tend to have values greater than 0.4. Soil erodibility values (kw≥0.22) are considered higher erosion risk ratings due to slope/erodibility in this analysis, and are shown in Bold in the table above. Source: WRNF, 2006
Hunter Creek-Smuggler Mountain Cooperative Plan Environmental Assessment 3-74 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences G. Soil Resources and Geology
DIRECT AND INDIRECT ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES Alternative 1 – No Action
Because no ground disturbance is included in Alternative 1, there would be no new impacts to soils within the study area as a result of the No Action Alternative. As a result of approving the Alternative 1, no improvements would be made to existing identified erosion issues on trails and roads within the study area. These areas where soil stabilization is an ongoing problem are generally located directly adjacent trails and roads, with the majority of the study area existing in a natural, undisturbed state with respect to soil resources.
Alternative 2 – Proposed Action
Considering the scale of this project, it is not appropriate to identify precisely where every trail segment, all vegetation treatments, and any potential ground disturbance would occur. The proposed projects have potential to affect soils primarily through: 1) trail and road improvements, 2) ground disturbance and stream crossings for vehicle access during vegetation removal 3) ground disturbance and stream crossings when skidding trees, 4) a reduction in overstory vegetation within the watershed, and 5) fire effects increasing erosion.
Although the recreation and vegetation/wildlife project alignments have not been specifically identified, potential project areas have been (refer to Figures 2 and 3). These projects were overlaid with soil map units and several areas were identified as needing additional BMPs to minimize impacts to the soil that have moderate susceptibility to soil erodibility (the Kw ≥ 0.22 in Table 3G-1). These BMPs may include, but are not limited to: minimize use of heavy equipment on moderately erodible soils and during periods of excessive soil moisture, avoid skidding on erodible slopes greater than 30 percent, and apply soil amendments to improve soil absorption and vegetative ground cover after any disturbance.38
A map of soils units with moderate susceptibility to erosion is contained in the Project File, but generally the soil map units include approximately 500 acres on Smuggler Mountain (near where the potential new trail would be explored and near Lollipop) and approximately 300 acres on Red Mountain between Hunter Creek Toll Road and Four Corners Road. According to project areas identified for recreation and vegetative/wildlife treatments, total a maximum of 430 acres of soils with moderate erodibility have potential to be disturbed under Alternative 2. With appropriate BMPs, impacts to the soils resource could be minimized and maintain compliance with the 2002 Forest Plan and WCPH.
Recreation and Road Improvements Although the Purpose and Need identifies a broad range of goals for these projects, Purpose and Need #2 identifies the intent to improve the condition and sustainability of existing trails. This element of the
38 USDA Forest Service, 2006
Hunter Creek-Smuggler Mountain Cooperative Plan Environmental Assessment 3-75 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences G. Soil Resources and Geology
Proposed Action focuses on improving poor drainage and inappropriately sited trails that route water and thereby result in erosion and degradation of soils. Therefore, the proposed recreation projects are intended to improve the condition of soils within the study area. Although approximately 7.2 miles of new trails and trail segments would be constructed and approximately 4 miles of trails would be re-routed, it is reasonable to assume that because of the improvements to existing trails and implementation of BMPs on any existing and new segments, impacts to the soils resource would be minimal and could be beneficial as a whole.
In addition, as part of the Proposed Action, Smuggler Mountain Road would also be minimally re -graded and appropriate drainage features would be installed including water bars, swales and ditches rolling dips, in-sloping and installation of a roadside ditch, check dams and sediment traps (Need #8). Although this project has several intents and uses, installing proper drainage on this road would reduce erosion within and adjacent the road benefitting the soils resource by maintaining adjacent organic ground cover and soil stabilization. As part of the Proposed Action, restoration and monitoring would be appropriate where road and trail stabilization occurs. Additional PDCs are identified in Table 2-2 in Chapter 2.
Vegetation and Wildlife Habitat Improvements Although some projects are specifically intended to improve trail sustainability by reducing erosion and drainage issues and thereby reducing existing impacts to the soils resource, other projects identified to improve vegetative sustainability and wildlife habitat have potential to negatively impact soil organic matter within the study area. Throughout the study area, approval of Alternative 2 would allow a total of 780 acres of vegetation treatments. Vegetation treatments and associated actions could affect soil resources in several steps: access to the stands for mechanical treatments, skidding timber for removal and/or prescribed burns, and reduced moisture uptake and exposure of soils from the loss of overstory vegetation.
Access and Removal To limit ground disturbance for vegetation and wildlife habitat management projects, ground disturbing heavy machinery would be limited to areas within a quarter-mile of existing roads within the study area (refer to Figure 7). No permanent road construction is permitted within the entire study area. Any tree removal outside the quarter-mile buffer would be removed by hand and either burned in place or flown out of the area by helicopter. Therefore, outside the quarter-mile buffer, impacts to soils would be limited to tree felling and would be minimal.
Within the quarter-mile buffer, loss of soil organic matter, and accompanying impacts to soil productivity and function could occur across approximately 780 acres from access and skidding. To minimize impacts from vehicles and timber removal the most appropriate BMPs would be used as identified by the Forest Service Soil Scientist. These BMPs could include, but are not limited to: use appropriately inflated tires (low p.s.i.) to minimize compaction and soil displacement; avoid soil-disturbing actions during periods of
Hunter Creek-Smuggler Mountain Cooperative Plan Environmental Assessment 3-76 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences G. Soil Resources and Geology heavy rain; leave stumps in place; keep ground based equipment out of hydric soils such as Cryoborolls- Cryaquolls (as identified in Forest Service mapping in the project file); and avoid skidding on slopes with greater than 40 percent grade. If any areas are compacted, they should be appropriately rehabilitated. Organic matter could be gained if soil amendments including, but not limited to, compost, biochar, biosolids, or a combination of these mediums are used to rehabilitate impacted areas.
Prescribed Burn In addition to access and skidding, prescribed burns have potential to affect soils. Although burning in place could minimize the need for over-ground skidding, fire can result in loss of organic matter and nutrients. Therefore, by design, any prescribed burning would be low temperature burns to minimize loss of soil organic matter, retaining its anchoring effects, permeability and nutrients.39 Ultimately using this type of burning prescription (low intensity) could minimize impacts to soils and help facilitate revegetation. For these reasons, vegetation management proposed under Alternative 2 would benefit the soil resource by reducing the chance of wildfire which burn much hotter and can lead to greater loss of soil organics and nutrients and their function and values. PDCs related to burn piles have been incorporated into the Proposed Action (refer to Table 2-2).
Removal of Vegetation As discussed in the WCPH, Management Measure 11.1, reducing the density of live vegetation cover will increase runoff, which can lead to erosion of soils; however, “in snow dominated areas, flow increases occur mostly during spring runoff… and are not measurable until about 25 percent of the basal area of a forested watershed is affected.”40 Although the potential 780 acres of vegetation removal is far below 25 percent of the 97,600 acres within the Upper Roaring Fork Watershed (in which most of the tree removal is focused), bank stability in Hunter Creek would be monitored over each year after vegetation removal is completed to ensure down cutting, rilling and gullying, or any other signs of soil degradation are not occurring from increased runoff. Additionally, this project is set to occur over approximately twenty years; therefore, revegetation of some areas would be occurring, while new areas are cut, so not all 780 acres would be cut at one time.
Summary Over the long-term, as roads and trails are managed and stand diversity improves, including understory regeneration, soil function and values would be expected to improve in these areas as well. With implementation of appropriate PDCs, implementation of the Proposed Action would maintain compliance with Forest Service Standards and Guidelines and WCPH Management Measures.
Forest vegetation treatment projects proposed for implementation in 2013 would adhere to PDCs included in Table 2-2. In addition, no permanent road construction would occur as a result of the 2013 projects
39 USDA Forest Service, 2011a 40 USDA Forest Service, 2006
Hunter Creek-Smuggler Mountain Cooperative Plan Environmental Assessment 3-77 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences G. Soil Resources and Geology described in Chapter 2. Therefore, impacts to soils would be consistent with the overall effects described for the study area.
Alternative 3
As discussed under Alternative 2, recreation and vegetation/wildlife project alignments have not been specifically identified, however, potential project areas have been (refer to Figures 4 and 5). These projects were overlaid with soil map units According to project areas identified for recreation and vegetative/wildlife treatments, total a maximum of 430 acres of soils with moderate erodibility have potential to be disturbed under Alternative 2. With appropriate BMPs, identified above under Alternative 2 and in Chapter 2 Table 2-2, impacts to the soils resource could be minimized and maintain compliance with the 2002 Forest Plan and WCPH.
Recreation and Road Improvements Alternative 3 identifies approximately 1.5 miles of new trails and trail segments to be constructed and approximately 4 miles of trails to be re-routed. This minimal amount of new trails and routes would have minor negative impacts to soil resources and because of the improvements to existing trails, and implementation of BMPs on any existing and new segments, impacts to the soils resource would be minimal and could be beneficial as a whole.
Vegetation and Wildlife Habitat Improvements Alternative 3 designates an 830-acre portion of the study area as a Natural Disturbance Treatment Zone only available for less intensive vegetation management treatments for forest health and wildlife enhancement projects, and reduces total proposed forest health/wildlife project acreages. Although the potential effects and PDCs would be the same for Alternative 3 as was discussed under Alternative 2, the area of potential impacts would less, approximately 630 acres of vegetation/habitat management projects and does not include a trail on the south side of Smuggler Mountain. With implementation of appropriate BMPs, implementation of Alternative 3 would maintain compliance with Forest Service Standards and Guidelines and WCPH Management Measures.
Impacts from forest vegetation treatment projects proposed for implementation in 2013 would be consistent with those described in the Proposed Action.
CUMULATIVE EFFECTS Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions
Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions that affect recreation resources within the analysis area are related to activities in the study area on NFS lands as well as adjacent private lands. These past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions include:
Hunter Creek-Smuggler Mountain Cooperative Plan Environmental Assessment 3-78 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences G. Soil Resources and Geology
Historic Mining Activities
2008 Smuggler Mountain Open Space Management Plan
2009 Forestwide Hazardous Tree Removal and Fuels Reduction Project EA
2011 WRNF Travel Management Plan
Regional mountain biking opportunities
Historic Mining Activities As discussed in the Affected Environment, signs of mining within the study area include small, isolated tailing piles, pits and shallow shafts observed during site review in summer 2011. Excavation and tailing piles have reduced soil organic matter and increased erosion in small areas throughout the study area. The Action Alternatives would be managed to minimize ground disturbance and impacts to soil resources.
2008 Smuggler Mountain Open Space Management Plan This plan presents a management strategy for the approximately 234-acre Smuggler Mountain Open Space property. The plan discusses opportunities and constraints on recreation management within Smuggler Mountain Open Space (SMOS), which is adjacent to the study area. The plan includes potential trail additions within the Potential Recreation Area, maintenance of Smuggler Mountain Road in its current condition, separation of uses on existing trails, and existing trail maintenance. In general, additional trails represent increased soil compaction (although would likely be minor) and potential erosion issues. Proper maintenance of new trail segments and Smuggler Mountain Road, would minimize impacts to soils.
2009 Forestwide Hazardous Tree Removal and Fuels Reduction Project EA This EA allows for the removal of hazardous trees bordering roads and trails on NFS lands. Implementation of these removal projects would have similar short-term effects to soils resources as discussed for the proposed vegetation/wildlife habitat projects in ground disturbance from access, skidding, prescribed fire; however, over the long-term, improving the sustainability of forested stands and reducing wildfire potential would benefit soils within the study area.
2011 WRNF Travel Management Plan The TMP provides guidance for the management of trails and roads within WRNF. The plan defines designated roads and trails throughout the forest, as well as allowable uses on these routes. The TMP decommissions a number of trails and roads within the Aspen region which would, if properly rehabilitated benefit the soil resource by reducing compacts and erosion consistent with roads and trails. However, the TMP does not preclude the addition of new trails to the system, and the presence of trails is likely to be maintained, thereby maintaining the current conditions of soils within the Aspen area.
Hunter Creek-Smuggler Mountain Cooperative Plan Environmental Assessment 3-79 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences G. Soil Resources and Geology
Summary When considered cumulatively with the proposed projects, other past, present and future projects affect soils by reducing soil organic matter and increase exposure resulting in increased erosion within the study area. However, with implementation of project PDCs and BMPs, these issues within the study area could be minimized. Current and future conditions of soils within the study area are anticipated to maintain compliance with the 2002 Forest Plan and the WCHP.
IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES
No irreversible or irretrievable commitments of resources with respect to soils have been identified in association with any alternative analyzed in this document.
Hunter Creek-Smuggler Mountain Cooperative Plan Environmental Assessment 3-80 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences H. Watershed and Wetlands
H. WATERSHED AND WETLANDS
SCOPE OF ANALYSIS
The scope of analysis for watershed and wetland resources focuses on the Woody Creek, Hunter Creek and the Roaring Fork River above Aspen, watersheds. The proposed projects would occur on the Smuggler Mountain, in the Hunter Creek Valley and on the southern face of Red Mountain. The intent of these projects is to improve the natural and recreational environment in a key area directly adjacent the City of Aspen. The proposed projects are intended to improve the condition and sustainability of existing trails within the study area through repairs, restoration and realignment or stream and wetland crossings. In addition, stand management projects are intended to improve stand health and diversity improving stand sustainability and reducing wildfire risk.
FOREST PLAN DIRECTION
Pursuant to the Forest Plan, as amended, stream health standards and design criteria are mandated by the Region 2 Watershed Conservation Practices Handbook (WCPH) and the 2002 Forest Plan.41
Watershed Conservation Practices Handbook
The WCPH contains several Management Measures of relevance regarding stream health and water resources effects: Hydrologic Function
11.1 Manage land treatments to conserve site moisture and to protect long-term stream health from damage by increased runoff.
11.2 Manage land treatments to maintain enough organic ground cover in each activity area to prevent harmful increased runoff. Riparian Areas and Wetlands
12.3 In the water influence zone (WIZ) 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.
12.2 Design and construct all stream crossings and other instream structures to provide for passage of flow and sediment, withstand expected flood flows, and allow free movement of resident aquatic life.
12.3 Conduct actions so that stream pattern, geometry, and habitats maintain or improve long-term stream health.
41 USDA Forest Service, 2006; USDA Forest Service, 2002a
Hunter Creek-Smuggler Mountain Cooperative Plan Environmental Assessment 3-81 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences H. Watershed and Wetlands
12.4 Maintain long-term ground cover, soil structure, water budgets, and flow patterns of wetlands to sustain their ecological function.
12.6 Manage water use facilities to prevent gully erosion of slopes and to prevent sediment and bank damage to streams. Sediment Control
13.1 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.
13.2 Construct roads and other disturbed sites to minimize discharge into streams, lakes, and wetlands.
13.3 Stabilize and maintain roads and other disturbed sites during and after construction to control erosion.
13.4 Manage land treatments to limit the sum of severely burned soil and detrimentally compacted, eroded, and displaced soil to no more than 15 percent of an activity area. Soil Quality
14.2 Maintain or improve long-term levels of organic matter and nutrients on all lands. Water Purity
15.1 Place new sources of chemical and pathogenic pollutants where such pollutants must be filtered out before they reach surface or ground water.
15.2 Apply runoff controls to disconnect new pollutant sources from surface and ground water.
15.3 Apply chemicals using methods that minimize risk of entry to surface and ground water.
Forest Plan Direction
Standards
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 all stream crossings and other instream 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.
Hunter Creek-Smuggler Mountain Cooperative Plan Environmental Assessment 3-82 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences H. Watershed and Wetlands
The WRNF analyzes projects for impacts within the Watershed Influence Zone (WIZ), quantity of connected disturbed area (CDA) and potential for Best Management Practices (BMP) to minimize impacts to the water resource from the proposed project.
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT Watersheds
The study area is comprised of the Woody Creek, Hunter Creek and the Roaring Fork River above Aspen, sub-watersheds. The Woody Creek Sub-Watershed is 31,122 acres, the Hunter Creek Sub-Watershed is 27,575 acres and the Roaring Fork River above Aspen Sub-Watershed is 10,670 acres. The Hunter Creek and Roaring Fork River above Aspen Sub-Watersheds are part of the Upper Roaring Fork River Watershed. Together all of these watersheds are part of the Roaring Fork Watershed and ultimately drain into the Colorado River in Glenwood Springs.42
Annual precipitation measures approximately 19 inches per year (approximately 1.5 inches per month), much of the precipitation arrives in the form of snow, receiving between 18 and 25 inches of snow per month November through March.43 In watersheds that receive much of the annual precipitation in snowfall, spring/summer peak flows are a key period in the watershed dynamics.
The primary uses of these watersheds are described by the management of the area: Dispersed Recreation and Deer and Elk Winter Range, as well as County Open Space. Historically mining has also influenced waters within the study area. The Smuggler Mine is on the west face of Smuggler Mountain and is listed as an Environmental Protection Agency Superfund site for lead and cadmium in the soils and groundwater from silver and lead mining processes; however, this is downstream of the study area and does not affect water or wetlands within the area.44
Streams
Hunter Creek is the only named perennial stream within the study area; however, there are approximately 16 miles of ephemeral, intermittent and perennial streams and drainages in the study area (refer to Table 3H-1).
42 Roaring Fork Conservancy, 2012 43 Western Regional Climate Center, 2013 44 EPA, 2013
Hunter Creek-Smuggler Mountain Cooperative Plan Environmental Assessment 3-83 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences H. Watershed and Wetlands
Table 3H-1: Length of Streams within the Study Area Stream Class Linear Feet Miles Ephemeral 11,385 2.2 Intermittent 18,112 3.4 Perennial 57,018 10.8 Total 86,515 16.4
There is a water gauge located in Hunter Creek near Aspen which began operations in 1950, prior to the Fryingpan-Arkansas diversion project. There is one current water sample for Hunter Creek, which showed good water quality; suitable for all uses (the data are available in the project file). Two major diversions the Red Mountain Extension Ditch and the Hunter Creek Flume Diversion, divert an average of 29 percent of Hunter Creek annually. The water gage record on Hunter Creek shows the magnitude, frequency, duration and year to year variation in natural flow regime, particularly in May, June and July has been altered for the creek. The diversions result in lower maximum flows and shorter duration high flows than pre diversion gage readings; however, the bypass flow recommendation for minimum instream flows is 12 cfs or natural flow, whichever is less, to protect aquatic resources, however because the water rights are junior, they are often not met.45
Pitkin County does not use magnesium chloride for deicing, but does use low amounts of sand.46 Hunter Creek is an important resource within the open space supplying water to wetlands, vegetation and adding aesthetically to the natural surroundings.
Disturbance within the Water Influence Zone
There are approximately 15 acres of trails and roads within the WIZ. This data provides the extent to which the disturbed trail and road surfaces have potential to route flows directly to the stream system, within each watershed. The potential effect of graded terrain within the WIZ is to increase direct surface flows to the stream system and transport sediment directly to drainages. Although sedimentation within streams was not measured, considering the identified erosion and drainage issues within the study area, it is assumed these trails and roads do contribute some sedimentation to Hunter Creek and surrounding tributaries. However, at this time water quality measured in Hunter Creek is “good, suitable for all uses.”47
Stream health was not surveyed for all parameters, but certain trail and road crossings were identified that could be improved through installing proper drainage management. No other current direct impacts to
45 Roaring Fork Conservancy, 2012 46 Ibid. 47 Ibid.
Hunter Creek-Smuggler Mountain Cooperative Plan Environmental Assessment 3-84 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences H. Watershed and Wetlands stream health were identified. At this time streams within the study area comply with 2002 Forest Plan Standards and WCPH Management Measures.
Wetlands
Wetland classification is based on the Cowardin classification system.48 The Cowardin system classifies wetlands primarily by dominant plant community. Approximately 82 acres and two types of wetlands were identified within the study area consisting of palustrine shrub/scrub and palustrine emergent (refer to Table 3H-2).
Table 3H-2: Existing Wetland Acreage by Type
Wetland Type Area (acres)
Palustrine Shrub/Scrub (PSS) 66 Palustrine Emergent (PEM) 16 Total 82
The palustrine shrub/scrub type is comprised of willow (Salix spp.), sedges (Carex spp.), rushes (Juncus spp.), alder (Alnus tenuifolia), and/or narrowleaf cottonwood (Populus angustifolia) in association with the riparian fringe along Hunter Creek and its tributaries, as well as with beaver ponds and a dam along Hunter Creek. Several populations of the rare mountain bladder fern (Cystopteris montana) were observed in wetland areas along Hunter Creek.
The palustrine emergent type is dominated by meadow vegetation such as dandelion (Taraxicum officinale), yarrow (Achillea lanulosa), alsike clover (Trifolium repens), vetch (Vicia americana), Letterman needlegrass (Stipa lettermanii), Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis), Idaho fescue (Festuca idahoensis), goldeneye, alpine timothy (Phleum alpinum), elk sedge (Carex geyeri), goldenrod (Solidago simplex), hairy goldenaster (Heterotheca villosa), mountain brome, Canada bluegrass (Poa compressa), alpine bluegrass (Poa alpina), death camas (Zigadenus elegans), rosy pussytoes, black-tip senecio (Senecio atratus), and lupine. This community is in generally good condition except for some invasive species and poorly located roads that should be relocated.
Functionally, wetlands in the study area provide a variety of ecological services that are not typically replicated in upland areas. These services include streambank stabilization, aquatic food chain support, pollutant filtering, dynamic water storage, flood flow attenuation, and wildlife habitat. Sites dominated by willows and alders provide a greater level of streambank stabilization and flood flow attenuation. Wetland and riparian sites also provide essential wildlife habitat. Wetlands within the study area comply with the 2002 Forest Plan WCPH Management Measures.
48 Cowardin et al., 1979
Hunter Creek-Smuggler Mountain Cooperative Plan Environmental Assessment 3-85 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences H. Watershed and Wetlands
DIRECT AND INDIRECT ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES Alternative 1 – No Action
Alternative 1 reflects a continuation of existing operations and management practices within the study area, without major changes, additions, or upgrades on NFS and/or adjacent County Open Space lands. Effects of on-going road and trail use, and existing vegetation and wildlife habitat conditions maintain the opportunity for erosion and drainage issues that may lead to sedimentation in study area streams and the existing chance for wildfire. The No Action Alternative would have no additional direct, indirect, or cumulative impacts or benefits to watershed resources or wetlands. Alternative 1 would not be expected to alter watershed drainage health.
Alternative 2 – Proposed Action
Although the proposed projects were designed to meet a variety of goals for the study area, as stated in the Purpose and Need, the intent is also to improve the sustainability of recreation use, overstory vegetation and wildlife habitat. This includes specifically improving drainage along existing roads and improving stream and wetland crossings. Therefore, no impacts to streams and wetlands are anticipated from road improvements or trail improvements or re-routes.
The proposed projects have potential to affect watershed and streams primarily through: 1) ground disturbance and stream crossings for vehicle access during vegetation removal within a quarter-mile of the existing roads within the study area, 2) ground disturbance and stream crossings when skidding trees within a quarter-mile of the existing roads within the study area, 3) a reduction in overstory vegetation within the watershed, and 4) and fire effects increasing erosion.
Ground disturbance from vehicle access and skidding would be minimized through PDCs identified in the soils section; however, some limited impacts to understory vegetation and soil organic matter are anticipated, which can lead to a temporary increase in localized erosion. However, as a component of the design of this proposal, no vegetation or habitat management projects would occur within the WIZ unless there is an area that is identified to improve stream or wetland health (none have been identified at this time). By leaving vegetation in place adjacent to streams and wetlands, the natural vegetative buffer would minimize potential for connected disturbed area, avoiding impacts to streams and wetlands from erosion and sedimentation or impacts to stream temperatures by exposing stream segments to increased sunlight. Further, because there are no vegetation or habitat management projects proposed within the WIZ, there would be no reason to create any new stream crossings for access or tree removal. Currently, the existing road network throughout the study area pr ovides necessary stream crossings.
Although vegetation and habitat management projects would result in a reduction of 780 acres of vegetated area within the study area, this acreage would occur over a lengthy timeframe, meaning some revegetation would occur each year. Therefore, there would never be 780 acres of clearcut within the
Hunter Creek-Smuggler Mountain Cooperative Plan Environmental Assessment 3-86 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences H. Watershed and Wetlands study area at one time, minimizing potential impacts from loss of vegetation within the study area. In addition, thinning proposed stands is well below the 25 percent threshold where water yield changes would be detectable (FSH 2509.25) (the Hunter creek watershed is 27,575 acres, the Woody Creek Watershed is 31,122 and the Roaring Fork Watershed above Aspen 10,670 acres).
Effects of fire within a watershed can be extensive if the fire burns vegetation at high temperatures, reducing soil organic matter, which results in erosion and loss of stabilizing vegetation over a long-term as nutrients return to the soil. By design, prescribed fire is a low intensity fire, therefore leaving soil organic matter in place. Prescribed fire would not be used to remove tree canopy within the WIZ, thereby maintaining the natural vegetated buffer within the WIZ. This measure would minimize potential for increased sedimentation from excessive runoff. Any fire would be appropriately sited in an area that would not result in impacts to streams or wetlands.
Through the requirement and implementation of PDCs, the proposed recreation trail improvements, realignments, new trail segments, and forest health and wildlife habitat management would have negligible effects to water resources and meet Forest Service direction as identified in the WCPH and 2002 Forest Plan.
With adherence to PDCs, the 2013 projects proposed for implementation would not affect watershed resources and wetlands, and the impacts would be consistent with those disclosed for the overall study area.
Alternative 3
Alternative 3 designates an 830-acre portion of the study area as a Natural Disturbance Treatment Zone only available for less intensive vegetation management treatments for forest health and wildlife enhancement projects, and reduces total proposed forest health/wildlife project acreages. Although the potential effects and PDCs would be the same for Alternative 3 as was discussed under Alternative 2, the area of potential impacts would less, approximately 630 acres of vegetation/habitat management projects and does not include a trail on the south side of Smuggler Mountain. With implementation of appropriate BMPs, implementation of Alternative 3 would maintain compliance with Forest Service Standards and Guidelines and WCPH Management Measures.
With adherence to PDCs, the 2013 projects proposed for implementation would not affect watershed resources and wetlands, and the impacts would be consistent with those disclosed for the overall study area.
Hunter Creek-Smuggler Mountain Cooperative Plan Environmental Assessment 3-87 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences H. Watershed and Wetlands
CUMULATIVE EFFECTS Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions
Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions that affect recreation resources within the analysis area are related to activities in the study area on NFS lands as well as adjacent private lands. These past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions include:
Historic Mining Activities
2008 Smuggler Mountain Open Space Management Plan
2009 Forestwide Hazardous Tree Removal and Fuels Reduction Project EA
2011 WRNF Travel Management Plan
Historic Mining Activities
Signs of mining within the study area include small, isolated tailing piles, pits and shallow shafts observed during site review in summer 2011, in addition the Smuggler Mine is a EPA superfund site located downstream of the study area. Mining operations reduce stabilizing vegetation and contribute to increase erosion and potential sedimentation into streams in the area.
2008 Smuggler Mountain Open Space Management Plan
This plan presents a management strategy for the approximately 234-acre Smuggler Mountain Open Space property. The plan discusses opportunities and constraints on recreation management within Smuggler Mountain Open Space (SMOS), which is adjacent to the study area. The plan includes potential trail additions within the Potential Recreation Area, maintenance of Smuggler Mountain Road in its current condition, separation of uses on existing trails, and existing trail maintenance. The addition of trails within the Open Space increases potential stream and wetland crossing and grading within the WIZ, generally increasing potential sediment delivery to drainages and wetlands. With implementation of BMPs, the length of new trail grading connected to drainages and wetlands could be minimized.
2009 Forestwide Hazardous Tree Removal and Fuels Reduction Project EA
This EA allows for the removal of hazardous trees bordering roads and trails on NFS lands. Implementation of these removal projects would have impacts from access and tree removal as well as reduction of vegetation within the study area. With implementation of BMPs these impacts could be minimized and would not be large enough to reach 25 percent of the vegetation within the watershed, affecting flows. Over the long-term, new vegetation growth could improve watershed health.
2011 WRNF Travel Management Plan
The TMP provides guidance for the management of trails and roads within WRNF. The plan defines designated roads and trails throughout the forest, as well as allowable uses on these routes. The TMP
Hunter Creek-Smuggler Mountain Cooperative Plan Environmental Assessment 3-88 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences H. Watershed and Wetlands decommissions a number of trails and roads within the Aspen region however, the TMP does not preclude the addition of new trails to the system therefore trails in the area are expected to maintain similar to the existing condition. Future trail development would need to have proper drainage and crossings to minimize impacts to streams and wetlands.
Summary
When considered cumulatively with the proposed trail and road improvements, vegetation and wildlife habitat projects past, present and future projects affect streams and wetlands by increased erosion within the study area. However, with implementation of project BMPs these issues within the study area could be minimized. Current and future conditions of streams and wetlands within the study area are anticipated to maintain compliance with the 2002 Forest Plan and the WCHP.
IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES
No irreversible or irretrievable commitments of resources with respect to watershed and wetlands have been identified in association with any alternative analyzed in this document.
Hunter Creek-Smuggler Mountain Cooperative Plan Environmental Assessment 3-89 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences I. Air Quality
I. AIR QUALITY
SCOPE OF ANALYSIS
This air quality analysis focuses on the study area and adjacent NFS lands, city/county public open space, and private lands. The study area consists of 4,681 acres of NFS lands managed by the Aspen-Sopris Ranger District of the WRNF. The analysis focuses on impacts to air quality from short-term, construction related emissions and prescribed burning in the study area.
REGULATORY DIRECTION
The goal for air quality on NFS lands in Colorado is to manage emissions generated in or near Federal land management areas such that air quality will meet the National Clean Air Act and Colorado State air quality requirements. Specific requirements can be found in the Forest Service Air Quality Program, Colorado Smoke Management Program Memorandum of Understanding (SMP MOU), and Colorado Air Quality Control Commission Regulation No. 9. In addition, National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS) for particulate matter (PM10) and the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Total Suspended Particulate (TSP) increment for Class 1 and 2 areas must be met.
Forest Service direction regarding air resources is found in the Forest Plan for the WRNF. No specific air quality related standards or guidelines have been promulgated for Management Areas present within the study area; however, Forest-wide standards require that activities “[c]omply with local, state, and federal air quality regulations and maintain conformity with the State Implementation Plan.”49 Any recreation or vegetation management projects on NFS lands should be designed to meet state and federal standards, or employ PDCs and monitoring measures to meet these regulations.
Applicable Air Quality Regulations Federal The Clean Air Act (CAA) was enacted in 1963, but it contained few requirements for reducing air pollutant emissions. It was amended numerous times through 1990 to address reductions in vehicular and stationary source emissions and to establish national air pollution concentration limits. It also established several programs, including: NAAQS, which limited air concentrations to protect public health and welfare; the New Source Performance Standards, which set emission standards for major sources; and the State Implementation Plan (SIP) procedures, which were designed to bring areas that exceeded NAAQS levels (non-attainment areas) to within the standards. In addition, the PSD program was established to help protect attainment areas of the country (Class 1 and 2 areas). The PSD Class 2 designation allows for moderate growth or degradation of air quality within certain limits above baseline air quality. The PSD program also included protection of National Parks, and Wilderness areas greater than 10,000 acres (Class
49 USDA Forest Service, 2002a
Hunter Creek-Smuggler Mountain Cooperative Plan Environmental Assessment 3-90 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences I. Air Quality
1 areas). Finally, the PSD program established visibility impairment restrictions on major sources impacting the Class 1 areas.
Table 3I-1 lists the National Ambient Air Quality Standards.
Table 3I-1: National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Criteria Pollutants Pollutant Primary Standardsa Averaging Times Secondary Standards Carbon Monoxide 9 ppm (10 mg/m3) 8-hourb None 35 ppm (40 mg/m3) 1-hourb None Lead 0.15 μg/m3 Rolling 3-month Average Same as Primary 1.5 μg/m3 Quarterly Average Same as Primary Nitrogen Dioxide 0.053 ppm (100 μg/m3) Annual (Arithmetic Mean) Same as Primary 0.100 ppm 1-hourh Particulate Matter (PM) 3 bc PM10 150 μg/m 24-hour Same as Primary 3 d PM2.5 15.0 μg/m Annual (Arithmetic Same as Primary 35 μg/m3 Mean) 24-houre Same as Primary Ozone 0.075 ppm (2008 std) 8-hourg Same as Primary 0.08 ppm (1997 std) 8-hourf Same as Primary Sulfur Dioxide 0.075 ppm 24-houri 3-hourb 0.5 ppm (1300 μg/m3) a ppm = parts per million, μg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter, mg/m3 – milligrams per cubic meter b Not to be exceeded more than once per year. c 3-year average of the weighted annual mean PM10 concentration at each monitor within an area must not exceed 50 μg/m. d 3-year average of the weighted annual mean PM2.5 concentrations from single or multiple community-oriented monitors must not exceed 15.0 μg/m. e 3-year average of the 98th percentile of 24-hour concentrations at each population-oriented monitor within an area must not exceed 65 μg/m. f 3-year average of the fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentrations measured at each monitor within an area over each year must not exceed 0.08 ppm. g 3-year average of the fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentrations measured at each monitor within an area over each year must not exceed 0.075 ppm. h 3-year average of the 98th percentile of the daily maximum 1-hour average at each monitor within an area must not exceed 0.100 ppm. i 99th percentile of 1-hour daily maximum concentrations, averaged over three years Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2009a. Air and Radiation: National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). http://www.epa.gov/air/criteria.html. Accessed January 10, 2012.
The CAA designates two different air quality areas that receive different levels of protection. Class 1 areas generally include national parks, federally-designated wilderness areas that are in excess of 5,000 acres and that were created prior to 1977, national monuments, national seashores, and other areas of special national or regional value. Class 1 designation warrants the highest level of protection afforded to an area. Class 2 designation typically applies to non-Class 1 areas.
Class 1 and 2 areas are either designated as attainment, non-attainment, or unclassifiable areas. Unclassifiable designations apply where pollution is not anticipated to exceed national standards and
Hunter Creek-Smuggler Mountain Cooperative Plan Environmental Assessment 3-91 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences I. Air Quality where insufficient information is available to either substantiate or reject this assumption. Unclassified areas generally have little, if any, industrial development and comparatively sparse populations. The low likelihood of air quality problems makes these areas a lower priority for expensive monitoring programs.
State
The EPA retains oversight authority but has delegated enforcement of the CAA to the states. In Colorado, the Air Pollution Control Division of the Department of Public Health and Environment acts as the lead agency. The state is required to develop and administer air pollution prevention and control programs; state standards must be either the same as, or more stringent than, Federal CAA standards. In Colorado, the state has adopted all federal ambient air quality standards as reflected in the CAA with an additional particulate standard; the standard for total suspended particulate emissions is 75 micrograms/cubic meter over 24 hours and 260 micrograms/cubic meter annually.
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT Climate
Pitkin County experiences a typical mid-continental, high-elevation climate with cool summers and cold winters. In general, the climate can be characterized as semiarid with a strong seasonal variation in temperatures, abundant sunshine, and relatively low precipitation. The average maximum daily temperature is in the mid 60s to low 70s (F) from April to September, with the daily average maximum reaching approximately 79 degrees in July and August. High temperatures occasionally exceed 90 degrees, but nights are generally cool, with an average low during the summer months in the mid 40s. Winters are generally cold but are characterized by substantial swings in temperature. January is the coldest month with an average daily maximum of 33 degrees (F). However, high temperatures in the 40s are not uncommon even in the winter months, supporting year-round recreation on Smuggler Mountain Road. Average annual precipitation is 19 inches, with the highest amount occurring mostly between May and September. Average annual snowfall is approximately 150 to 200 inches. Prevailing winds for the Aspen region are generally from the south.50
The Maroon Bells-Snowmass Wilderness Area, the only Class I airshed near the study area, is located to the southwest of the study area. Given the prevailing wind direction, it is unlikely that any emissions generated directly or indirectly by activity in the study area would affect this Wilderness Area.
NAAQS Pollutants
Pitkin County has not monitored, and is not currently monitoring, SO2, CO, Pb, or NO2. It is believed that the probability of these pollutants becoming an impediment to attainment is unlikely. This, combined with the expense of monitoring, has made it impracticable to oversee these pollutants.
50 Western Regional Climate Center, 2013
Hunter Creek-Smuggler Mountain Cooperative Plan Environmental Assessment 3-92 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences I. Air Quality
However, due to existing regulations, future exceedances of NAAQS would be unlikely. It is probable that Pitkin County would continue to be classified as an attainment area for all monitored criteria pollutants and no additional air quality issues would be anticipated. Incremental increases in emissions would be unlikely to violate PSD regulations for criteria pollutants.
DIRECT AND INDIRECT ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES Alternative 1 – No Action
Alternative 1—the No Action Alternative—reflects a continuation of existing conditions in the study area without major changes, additions, or upgrades on NFS and/or adjacent private lands. The No Action Alternative would have no additional direct, indirect, or cumulative impacts or benefits to air quality.
Alternative 2 – Proposed Action Long-Term Air Quality Effects No negative long-term air quality impacts are expected within the study area or in adjacent NFS and private lands as a result of the Proposed Action. Proposed projects are not expected to increase vehicular traffic to the study area in the long-term. The Proposed Action is not anticipated to result in violations of state or federal air pollution control laws and regulations or to have an appreciable effect on air quality.
Forest health projects within the study area could have a long-term, positive impact on air quality in the study area and adjacent NFS and private lands. The stimulation of regeneration within forested stands in the study area could result in increased uptake of atmospheric CO2, resulting in a net decrease in regional
GHGs. While healthy, growing trees withdraw atmospheric CO2 through photosynthesis to support life processes, old decaying trees release CO2 through decomposition. Thus, by removing old trees and initiating regeneration, forest health projects could improve air quality in the study area and surrounding lands.
Short-Term Air Quality Effects Implementation of the Proposed Action would comply with 40 CFR Part 85 entitled “A Control of Air Pollution from Mobile Sources.” Vehicles and equipment used for the implementation of recreation and vegetation management projects within the study area could result in short-term emissions. The transportation of workers and equipment into the study area for the implementation of proposed projects would result in greenhouse gas emissions. However, air quality impacts caused by construction equipment emissions would be short-term, occurring only when construction activities are taking place, and would have a minor impact on overall air quality. Additionally, PDCs and monitoring measures would be employed to remain in compliance with local, state, and federal air quality regulations to minimize impacts to air resources (Table 2-2 in Chapter 2).
Hunter Creek-Smuggler Mountain Cooperative Plan Environmental Assessment 3-93 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences I. Air Quality
Fugitive dust emissions are generally the largest source of PM10 during ground disturbing activities. Emissions depend on soil type, soil moisture content, and the total area of soil disturbance. Dust emissions attributable to ground disturbing activities are not considered significant because they would be temporary and would not occur within a designated PM10 or PM2.5 non-attainment area.
Trees felled during implementation of the Proposed Action would be disposed of via a combination of removal of timber or on-site burning, if/when appropriate. Prescribed fire could be utilized as a treatment method to initiate regeneration of forested stands as well. Although there would be localized short-term air quality effects due to the burning of wood debris, the effects are anticipated to be limited in scale and would cease once the debris has been completely incinerated. Any necessary local burn permits would be obtained prior to prescribed burns or disposal of wood debris. Additionally, PDCs and monitoring measures would be employed to remain in compliance with local, state, and federal air quality regulations to minimize impacts to air resources (Table 2-2 in Chapter 2).
The projects proposed for 2013 implementation would adhere to PDCs identified in Table 2-2. Therefore, air quality related impacts associated with these projects would be consistent with the overall project impacts disclosed in this effects analysis.
Alternative 3
Impacts to air quality under Alternative 3 would be very similar to those under the Proposed Action. Please refer to the above discussion of long- and short-term air quality impacts of the Proposed Action. Because the scale of proposed projects in Alternative 3 is less than the Proposed Action (refer to Chapter 2 for a detailed description of alternatives), short-term impacts and long-term benefits to air quality would be less under Alternative 3. Fewer acres of forest health projects and fewer recreation projects would result in fewer negative impacts to short-term air quality. However, fewer acres of forest health projects would also limit the long-term benefits of carbon sequestration.
The projects proposed for 2013 implementation would adhere to PDCs identified in Table 2-2. Therefore, air quality related impacts associated with these projects would be consistent with the overall project impacts disclosed in this effects analysis.
CUMULATIVE EFFECTS Scope of Analysis Temporal Bounds The temporal bounds for the cumulative effects analysis for air quality extends from the mid-20th century through the period of project implementation, approximately twenty years.
Hunter Creek-Smuggler Mountain Cooperative Plan Environmental Assessment 3-94 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences I. Air Quality
Spatial Bounds The spatial bounds for this cumulative effects analysis focuses on the study area and the Aspen metro region.
Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions
Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions that affect recreation resources within the analysis area are related to activities in the study area on NFS lands as well as adjacent private lands. These past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions include:
Modern and historical vehicular and ambient air pollution in the Aspen area
Modern and historical vehicular and ambient air pollution in the Aspen area Throughout its history, the city of Aspen has faced a number of air quality challenges. Pollution from wood fires and vehicles in the city in particular has endangered air quality in the region. During the 1970s and ‘80s, smoke from fireplaces and exhaust from vehicles created dense pollution in the valley.51 While clean air ordinances have significantly improved conditions in the region, dense population in the city of Aspen and traffic on Colorado Highway 82 will continue to contribute significant quantities of air pollutants to the airshed. When compared with these persistent pollution sources, the impact of proposed projects would be negligible. The short-term effects of construction traffic, fugitive dust, debris burning and prescribed fire would be minimal in the context of regional air pollution.
IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES
No irreversible or irretrievable commitments of air quality associated with any of the alternatives have been identified.
51 City of Aspen and Pitkin County
Hunter Creek-Smuggler Mountain Cooperative Plan Environmental Assessment 3-95 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences J. Colorado Roadless Areas and Central Mountains Outdoor Heritage Proposal
J. COLORADO ROADLESS AREAS AND CENTRAL MOUNTAINS OUTDOOR HERITAGE PROPOSAL
SCOPE OF ANALYSIS
Roadless area management on NFS lands has been a contentious and complex issue for over a dozen years, dating back to when the 2001 Roadless Rule was released under President Clinton. In 2005, a second roadless rule was released under the Bush administration. Most recently, in 2012 the State of Colorado and the United States Forest Service finalized the Colorado Roadless Rule (replacing the 2001 Roadless Rule), which provides a high level of conservation of roadless area characteristics on approximately 4.2 million acres of NFS lands within the state.
This analysis provides a summary of roadless area management across the National Forest System and puts the proposed projects from the Hunter-Smuggler Plan into context with the 2012 Colorado Roadless Rule and the North Independence A and Red Mountain Colorado Roadless Areas. The study area for this roadless analysis includes the 6,500-acre Red Mountain Colorado Roadless Area and the 4,500-acre North Independence A Colorado Roadless Area which overlap with the study area.
Note that two terms—”Inventoried Roadless Areas” (IRAs) and “2012 Colorado Roadless Areas” (2012 CRAs)—are used throughout this section. They are not used interchangeably. In the context of this analysis, IRAs refer to areas that were identified by the Forest Service in nation-wide and forest-by-forest roadless inventories and planning across the western United States. With adoption of the 2012 Colorado Roadless Rule, there are no longer IRAs in Colorado. All roadless areas in the state are referred to as 2012 CRAs.
At this time, Colorado and Idaho are the only states that have adopted specific roadless rules for NFS lands within their boundaries. All other states with IRAs on NFS lands within their boundaries are currently subject to the 2001 Roadless Rule.
In addition to analyzing changes within CRAs associated with proposed projects, this section also discusses the impact of activity within areas contained in Senator Udall’s Central Mountains Outdoor Heritage Proposal.
2002 FOREST PLAN
The 2002 Forest Plan identifies 90 roadless areas on the WRNF totaling 640,000 acres. Of these 90 areas, 37 (totaling approximately 298,000 acres) were found capable and available for recommended wilderness. The remaining 53 areas were identified as roadless but lacking sufficient wilderness characteristics.52
52 USDA Forest Service, 2002a, Appendix C, page C-2
Hunter Creek-Smuggler Mountain Cooperative Plan Environmental Assessment 3-96 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences J. Colorado Roadless Areas and Central Mountains Outdoor Heritage Proposal
The roadless area inventory was analyzed for potential wilderness recommendation based on the three tests of capability, availability, and need that assessed each area’s wilderness characteristics, its value relative to other resources, and the perceived need to add the site to the National Wilderness Preservation System. The capability of a potential wilderness is defined in FSH 1909.12-7.21 as “the degree to which the area contains the basic characteristics that make it suitable for Wilderness designation without regard to its availability or need as Wilderness.” Among the characteristics analyzed were environment, challenge, outdoor recreation opportunities, special features, and manageability. All NFS lands found to meet wilderness capability requirements are generally available for consideration as wilderness. However, this availability is constrained by a determination of the value of and need for the wilderness resource relative to the value of and need for other resources from the site. To be available for wilderness, the wilderness values of the resource, both tangible and intangible, should exceed the value of other resources that formal wilderness designation would preclude.53
Appendix C of the 2002 Forest Plan Final EIS discusses roadless area management and recommended wilderness on the Forest. Only those roadless areas that were found to be capable of and available for wilderness recommendation are included in this appendix. The inventoried roadless areas that were either “capable and not available” or “not capable and not available” are listed in Table C-3 of Appendix C. As a result of the WRNF’s 1997 roadless area inventory evaluation for the Forest Plan revision process, the Red Mountain IRA was identified as “not capable and not available” for wilderness recommendation.54 The North Independence A IRA was found to be capable of and available for wilderness recommendation.55
2012 COLORADO ROADLESS RULE
Colorado has approximately 14,520,000 acres of NFS lands, distributed among eight national forests and two national grasslands. Therefore, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the Forest Service, and the State of Colorado agreed that there was a need to provide management direction for roadless areas in the State.
On July 3, 2012, the Colorado Roadless Rule went into effect with the publication of the Final Rule in the Federal Register.56 The 2012 Colorado Roadless Rule includes an updated inventory that added high- quality roadless acres not protected by the 2001 Roadless Rule. It also removed areas where roadless characteristics were compromised. Again, in total, the 2012 Colorado Roadless Rule provides a high level of conservation of roadless area characteristics on approximately 4.2 million acres of CRAs across the state. The 2012 Colorado Roadless Rule identifies 409,500 acres of CRAs that were not identified as
53 Ibid. Appendix C, page C-4 54 Ibid. Appendix C, page 11 55 Ibid. Appendix C, page 9 56 USDA Forest Service, 2012
Hunter Creek-Smuggler Mountain Cooperative Plan Environmental Assessment 3-97 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences J. Colorado Roadless Areas and Central Mountains Outdoor Heritage Proposal
IRAs in the 2001 Roadless Rule. Conversely, approximately 459,100 acres of IRAs that were associated with the 2001 Roadless Rule were not incorporated into the 2012 Colorado Roadless Rule.
The 2012 Colorado Roadless Rule establishes prohibitions for tree cutting, road construction and reconstruction, and use of linear construction zones with limited exceptions and establishes “upper tier” acres on approximately 1.2 million acres.57 On upper tier acres, exceptions to road construction and tree cutting are more restrictive and limiting than the 2001 Roadless Rule. The 2012 Colorado Roadless Rule offers a higher level of conservation for the designated CRAs than management direction under either individual forest plans or the 2001 Roadless Rule. In addition, the 2001 Roadless Rule allows management activities to occur on more acres of roadless areas than the 2012 Colorado Roadless Rule due to the upper tier designation.58
Prohibitions on Tree Cutting, Sale or Removal Under the 2012 Colorado Roadless Rule
Under the 2012 Colorado Roadless Rule, trees may not be cut, sold, or removed in CRAs, with some exceptions. On upper tier acres, notwithstanding the general prohibition, trees may be cut, sold, or removed in CRAs if the responsible official determines the activity is consistent with the applicable land management plan, and: 1. tree cutting, sale, or removal is incidental to the implementation of a management activity not otherwise prohibited; or 2. tree cutting, sale or removal is needed and appropriate for personal or administrative use.59
On non-upper tier acres, trees may be cut, sold, or removed in CRAs outside of upper tier acres if the responsible official determines the activity is consistent with the applicable land management plan, one or more of the roadless area characteristics will be maintained or improved over the long-term, and certain (identified) circumstances exist.60
Prohibitions on Road Construction and Reconstruction under the 2012 Colorado Roadless Rule
Under the 2012 Colorado Roadless Rule, a road may not be constructed or reconstructed in a CRA, with some exceptions.61 In upper tier acres, a road may only be constructed if the responsible official determines that certain conditions are met, including: a road is needed pursuant to reserved or outstanding
57 The Colorado Roadless Rule defines “upper tier” acres as a subset of Colorado Roadless Areas identified in a set of maps maintained at the national headquarters office of the Forest Service which have limited exceptions to provide a high level of protection for these areas. 58 USDA Forest Service, 2012 Executive Summary 59 36 CFR 294.42(a) and (b) 60 36 CFR 294.42(c) 61 36 CFR 294.43(a)
Hunter Creek-Smuggler Mountain Cooperative Plan Environmental Assessment 3-98 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences J. Colorado Roadless Areas and Central Mountains Outdoor Heritage Proposal rights, or a road is needed to protect public health and safety. In non-upper tier acres, a road or temporary road may only be constructed or reconstructed in a CRA if the responsible official determines that one of the following exceptions exists:
it is needed to prevent irreparable resource damage that arises from design, location, use or deterioration of a forest road and cannot be mitigated by road maintenance;
needed to implement a road safety improvement project on a forest road determined to be hazardous;
the Regional Forester determines a road or temporary road is needed in association with an authorized water conveyance structure;
needed to protect public health and safety in cases of imminent threat of flood, fire or other catastrophic event;
the Regional Forester determines a road is needed to facilitate tree cutting, sale or removal with the first half-mile of the community protection zone;
a temporary road is needed within a CRA pursuant to exploration of development of an existing oil and gas lease that does not prohibit road construction or reconstruction; or
a temporary road is needed for coal exploration and/or coal-related surface activities for certain lands within CRAs in the North Fork mining area of the Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunnison NF.
Each National Forest in Colorado contains a portion of the 363 CRAs. The breakdown is included in the following table.
Table 3J-1: Colorado Roadless Areas by National Forest National Forest Total CRAs Total Acres Arapaho and Roosevelt 28 347,100 Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, Gunnison 76 901,100 Manti La-Sal 1 7,700 Pike and San Isabel 66 774,700 Rio Grande 53 518,600 Routt 29 433,600 San Juan 20 566,100 White River 90 636,700 Total 363 4,185,600
Hunter Creek-Smuggler Mountain Cooperative Plan Environmental Assessment 3-99 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences J. Colorado Roadless Areas and Central Mountains Outdoor Heritage Proposal
Red Mountain CRA Profile
The Colorado Roadless Rule provides the following profile of the 6,500-acre Red Mountain CRA: “This unit is located in Pitkin County, on the Aspen Ranger District. The parcel is north of the city of Aspen. The forest boundary and private land form the western border. NFSR 103 (Woody Creek Road) forms the northern boundary. The Town of Lenado is on the NE border. The Hunter-Fryingpan Wilderness defines the eastern boundary. County Road 130 is on the SE side. The CRA is within the Northern Parks and Ranges Eco-Section (M331I) with elevations ranging from 8,000 to 11,000 feet. Red Mountain at 10,400 feet is the most prominent feature in the CRA. The eastern half has gentle terrain with open parks. The west section has steep terrain. Vegetation consists of Gambel oak on the SW- SE aspects; aspen and spruce/fir predominate on the northern aspects at higher elevations.”62
The Red Mountain CRA does contain upper tier acres, but these acres are located outside of the study area.63
North Independence A CRA Profile
The Colorado Roadless Rule provides the following profile of the 4,500-acre North Independence A CRA: “This CRA is located east of the city of Aspen in Pitkin County just west of Independence Pass, and the historic mining town of Independence. It is administered by the Aspen- Sopris Ranger District. North Independence A is a long and fairly narrow CRA located between the Roaring Fork River, Highway 82 along the southern border and contiguous with the Hunter Frying Pan Wilderness along the north. Hunter Creek and Warren Lakes peat bogs are located along the northwestern boundary. Private parcels border the western ends of the unit. There are no existing roads or trails within the CRA. Access to the area is from Highway 82 along the unit’s southern border and NFSR 131 (Smuggler Mountain Road) is on the northwestern border. A trail head to NFST 1996 (Lost Man Creek) leads into the adjacent Hunter Frying Pan Wilderness and is located just outside the southeastern boundary of the CRA. The CRA is within the Northern Parks and Ranges Eco-Section (M331I) with elevations ranging from 8,000 to 12,000 feet. The unit consists mainly of steep, rocky, south-facing slopes. Vegetation varies with elevation from oakbrush to lodgepole pine to spruce/fir and aspen to alpine tundra. It contains primarily
62 USDA Forest Service, 2011b pages 63–64 63 36 CFR 294.49
Hunter Creek-Smuggler Mountain Cooperative Plan Environmental Assessment 3-100 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences J. Colorado Roadless Areas and Central Mountains Outdoor Heritage Proposal
alpine tundra with alpine willows and some Krummholz. The north-northwest section of the unit is drier and less steep with more oakbrush.”64
The North Independence A CRA does contain upper tier acres, but these acres are located outside of the study area.65
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
The study area for the Hunter-Smuggler Plan EA overlaps with both the Red Mountain CRA and North Independence A CRA. The following table illustrates the area of overlap in relation to the entire CRA.
Table 3J-2: CRAs within the Study Area Acres within Total Percent of CRA within CRA Study Area Acres Study Area
Red Mountain 1,717 6,482 26
North Independence A 382 4,546 8
The 2012 Colorado Roadless Rule defines Roadless Area Characteristics according to nine resources or features that are often present in CRAs.66 Below, these nine resources or features are considered within the approximately 2,000-acre portion of the study area within CRAs. As mentioned above, the study area does not overlap with any upper tier acres which, by definition, have limited exceptions to provide a high level of protection for these areas.
Roadless Area Characteristics of the Red Mountain CRA
The Colorado Roadless Rule describes the Roadless Characteristics of the Red Mountain CRA as follows: “This CRA provides potential habitat for the federally listed Canada lynx (threatened). The CRA also provides potential habitat for the following Forest Service sensitive species: wolverine, marten, Northern goshawk, boreal owl, olive-sided flycatcher, flammulated owl, and American 3-toed woodpecker. The unit has been identified as deer and elk summer range. There is some winter range on the southwestern portion. The open parks of the eastern half of the area are a special feature of the unit. There is heavy hiking and mountain biking use, as well as deer and elk hunting and outfitting/guiding.
64 USDA Forest Service, 2011b pages 53–54 65 36 CFR 294.49 66 36 CFR 294.41
Hunter Creek-Smuggler Mountain Cooperative Plan Environmental Assessment 3-101 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences J. Colorado Roadless Areas and Central Mountains Outdoor Heritage Proposal
There is winter use of the McNamara hut system. This CRA is in part within a state defined source water assessment area (municipal water supply).”67
The portion of the Red Mountain CRA which overlaps with the study area experiences heavy recreational use. A number of the habitat qualities mentioned above are present in the study area punctuated by an extensive network of trails.
Roadless Area Characteristics of the North Independence A CRA
The Colorado Roadless Rule describes the Roadless Characteristics of the North Independence A CRA as follows: “This CRA provides winter foraging and summer habitat and movement corridors for the federally listed Canada lynx. Lynx presence in the CRA is documented. The CRA also has potential habitat for the following Forest Service Sensitive Species: wolverine, marten, pygmy shrew, Northern goshawk, olive-sided flycatcher, American 3-toed woodpecker, Atal Cotton-grass, russet cotton-grass, slender cotton-grass, and Sphagnum moss. It is adjacent to Hunter Creek which has Colorado River cutthroat trout populations. This CRA provides habitat for black bear (summer range, fall concentration), elk (winter and summer range, migration corridor which crosses it just east of the city of Aspen), mule deer (summer range, travel corridor), and white-tailed ptarmigan (summer range).Golden eagles and goshawks have been sighted. Uses include backcountry hiking and camping, small and big-game hunting, and fishing. This CRA is within a state defined source water assessment area (municipal water supply).”68
The portion of the North Independence A CRA which overlaps with the study area experiences heavy recreational use.
Central Mountains Outdoor Heritage Proposal
In February 2012, Senator Mark Udall unveiled a proposal to create several new wilderness areas and expand the boundaries of numerous existing wilderness areas throughout Eagle, Pitkin and Summit counties. The proposal, which encompasses 32 separate parcels totaling approximately 235,000 acres, is a combination of regional wilderness proposals presented by numerous parties. In 2011, Representative Jared Polis introduced his Eagle and Summit County Wilderness Preservation Act which would protect 162,000 acres in those counties under wilderness or near-wilderness designations.69 Wilderness Workshop launched their Hidden Gems Campaign in 2007, which proposes wilderness designations in
67 USDA Forest Service, 2011b page 64 68 Ibid. page 53 69 Wilderness Workshop, 2013
Hunter Creek-Smuggler Mountain Cooperative Plan Environmental Assessment 3-102 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences J. Colorado Roadless Areas and Central Mountains Outdoor Heritage Proposal approximately 340,000 acres in central Colorado. The Central Mountains Outdoor Heritage Proposal (Central Mountains Proposal) incorporates portions of both these proposals.
Portions of the study area overlap with areas included in the Central Mountains Proposal. Areas adjacent to Hunter Creek and extending south over Smuggler Mountain are included in the proposal. Please refer to Figure 8 for a map of proposed wilderness areas and roadless areas within the study area. Approximately 1,970 acres of the study area are included in the Central Mountains Proposal.
DIRECT AND INDIRECT ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES Alternative 1 – No Action
Under the No Action Alternative there would be no changes to the existing conditions within the study area. The 2002 Forest Plan and the 2012 Colorado Roadless Rule would continue to provide management for the study area, including the areas in CRAs and wilderness proposal areas. There would be no changes to roadless area characteristics, tree cutting, or road construction and reconstruction. Additionally, there would be no alteration of characteristics that could preclude further designation as a wilderness area.
Alternatives 2 and 3
The following analysis considers the effects of both Action Alternatives on Roadless Area Characteristics, the consistency of proposed projects with prohibitions on tree cutting and road construction in CRAs, and impacts to area characteristics within proposed wilderness areas that could preclude future wilderness area designation. While Alternative 3 would designate a portion of the study area as eligible only for prescribed fire treatments, for the purpose of this analysis the difference between Alternative 2 and Alternative 3 is considered negligible. Both Action Alternatives include vegetation management and recreation projects within CRAs.
2013 Forest Vegetation Treatment projects proposed for implementation would be outside designated CRAs.
Roadless Area Characteristics Analysis The Action Alternatives would not affect the nine roadless area characteristics to the point of altering the characteristics of the Red Mountain or North Independence A CRAs. This is due to the size of the CRAs, nature of the proposed projects, and existing characteristics stated in the Affected Environment. The nine roadless characteristics are responded to directly, below.
1. High Quality or Undisturbed Soil, Water and Air The proposed projects include design measures to protect soils, water and air in accordance with the 2002 Forest Plan standards and guidelines. Additionally, design criteria would further minimize impacts and maintain current resource conditions.
Hunter Creek-Smuggler Mountain Cooperative Plan Environmental Assessment 3-103 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences J. Colorado Roadless Areas and Central Mountains Outdoor Heritage Proposal
2. Sources of Public Drinking Water No waters of the U.S., including wetlands would be impacted by the proposed projects as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. The proposed projects include measures to remain compliant with the Watershed Conservation Practices Handbook and the Clean Water Act. Therefore, the Proposed Action would not affect the sources of public drinking water.
3. Diversity of Plant and Animal Communities The proposed projects would improve wildlife habitat for a multitude of animal species through increased species and age class diversity. The diversity of existing plant communities would not be affected. The proposed projects could improve the diversity of plant and animal communities.
4. Habitat for Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, Candidate, and Sensitive Species, and for Those Species Dependent on Large, Undisturbed Areas of Land The CRAs within the study area provides potential habitat for ESA Threatened animal species and Forest Service Sensitive animal species. The proposed projects would improve wildlife habitat through increased species and age class diversity of various habitat types. The proposed projects within CRAs would improve habitat in the long-term for Canada lynx (threatened) and ten sensitive bird species, including: northern goshawk, boreal owl, sage sparrow, olive-sided flycatcher, flammulated owl, northern three-toed woodpecker, purple martin, and Brewer’s sparrow.
5. Primitive, Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized and Semi-Primitive Motorized Classes of Dispersed Recreation The study area will continue to provide dispersed recreation including hiking, camping, wildlife viewing, hunting, fishing, and cross-country skiing. The study area would also maintain and improve trails through better signage and way finding. The area will continue to be used by mountain bikes.
6. Reference Landscapes The CRAs that overlap with the project study area are fragmented by existing roads. As part of the implementation of the project, monitoring will be required to ensure projects are completed in the correct manner and roadless characteristics are not diminished. While short-term impacts would occur due to the implementation of patch cuts and other vegetation management treatments, the long-term impact would be beneficial and improve the value of the roadless areas.
7. Natural-Appearing Landscapes with High Scenic Quality As part of the implementation of the project, monitoring will be required to ensure projects are completed in the correct manner and roadless characteristics are not diminished. While short-term impacts would occur due to the implementation of patch cuts and other vegetation management treatments, the long-term impact would be beneficial and improve the value of the roadless areas. By addressing existing forest
Hunter Creek-Smuggler Mountain Cooperative Plan Environmental Assessment 3-104 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences J. Colorado Roadless Areas and Central Mountains Outdoor Heritage Proposal health issues within the study area, the vegetation stands would be improved over time and would not affect real estate values for neighboring residents that value this landscape.
8. Traditional Cultural Properties and Sacred Sites A Class 1 survey has been conducted for the study area. Of the numerous heritage resources in the study area, only five sites have been formally documented and registered with the Forest Service or Colorado Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation. Four were mines selected in 2007 for closure of hazardous openings. One was in Van Horn Park and the other three at the northwest base of Smuggler Mountain where ore production was heaviest. The last site, on the northwest flank of Smuggler Mountain, was an intact log cabin whose role in regional history is presently unclear. The mines qualify as archaeological resources, lacking buildings, structures, or equipment, and represented instead by foundations, waste rock dumps, and artifacts. The cabin qualifies as an architectural resource because it is largely intact with walls and roof. All sites will be avoided with strict design measures; therefore, the value of TCPs and sacred sites would be maintained.
9. Other Locally Identified Unique Characteristics The study area is highly valued by the local community for the variety of social and biological values it provides. The values within the CRAs include, but are not limited to, beauty, remoteness, sense of place, solitude, hiking, biking, fishing, hunting, and wildlife viewing. The goal of this project is to preserve those characteristics in the long-term through proper management of vegetation and the recreation environment; understanding that forest health and wildlife habitat enhancement projects will result in a short-term impact to certain values for a brief period of time.
2012 Colorado Roadless Rule Prohibitions on Tree Cutting, Sale or Removal and Road Construction/Reconstruction The project involves tree cutting and removal. Removal would utilize heavy equipment (skidders) within a quarter-mile the existing road network of the study area, where appropriate considering PDCs and resource concerns. The use of heavy equipment would not necessitate the construction of permanent roads as these road types are defined in the Colorado Roadless Rule. Beyond a quarter-mile of the existing road network, non-ground disturbing mechanical clearing and removal would occur, primarily using helicopter logging.
Colorado Roadless Rule prohibits tree cutting in non-Upper Tier acres, with several exceptions. The following requirements must be met in accordance with § 294.42(c):
In Non-Upper Tier Acres, trees may be cut, sold, or removed in Colorado Roadless Areas if the responsible official, unless otherwise noted, determines the activity is:
consistent with the applicable land management plan,
Hunter Creek-Smuggler Mountain Cooperative Plan Environmental Assessment 3-105 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences J. Colorado Roadless Areas and Central Mountains Outdoor Heritage Proposal
one or more of the roadless area characteristics will be maintained or improved over the long- term with the exception of paragraph (5) and (6) of this section,
and one of the following circumstances exists:
o (3) Tree cutting, sale, or removal is needed to maintain or restore the characteristics of ecosystem composition, structure and processes. These projects are expected to be infrequent.
o (4) Tree cutting, sale, or removal is needed to improve habitat for federally threatened, endangered, proposed, or Agency designated sensitive species; in coordination with the Colorado Department of Natural Resources, including the Colorado Division of Parks and Wildlife.
o (5) Tree cutting, sale, or removal is incidental to the implementation of a management activity not otherwise prohibited by this subpart.
Consistency with Applicable Land Management Plan The 2002 Forest Plan management areas that overlap with CRAs include: Backcountry Recreation – Non- motorized; Forested Flora and Fauna Habitats; and Deer and Elk Winter Range. The proposed projects are an allowable use of each management area. The following is a summary of the management areas as it relates to the project study area and a brief description of allowable.
Management Area 1.31: Backcountry Recreation – Non-motorized:
The southeastern portion of the planning area on Smuggler Mountain is allocated as Management Area 1.31. Backcountry, non-motorized recreation areas are managed to provide recreation opportunities in a natural-appearing landscape. These areas are generally unroaded or may have some evidence of past roads, natural or natural-appearing with little evidence of recent human-caused disturbance, and important for providing non-motorized recreation near the primitive end of the recreation opportunity spectrum. Within this Management Area, a variety of year-round non-motorized recreation opportunities occur across the Forest, and trailheads, trails, signs, bridges, fences, huts or shelters that enhance the recreational opportunities may be present. Within the planning area, many of these features exist and could be enhanced to support hiking, horseback riding, cross-country skiing, snowshoeing, and mountain biking opportunities.
Projects Proposed within MA 1.31and CRA:
New recreation trail construction
Tree cutting for forest health and wildlife enhancement projects
Hunter Creek-Smuggler Mountain Cooperative Plan Environmental Assessment 3-106 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences J. Colorado Roadless Areas and Central Mountains Outdoor Heritage Proposal
Management Area 5.4: Forested Flora and Fauna Habitats:
Management Area 5.4 includes primarily forested ecosystems intermingled with grassland and shrub communities, and are managed to provide a mix of ecological and human needs. This Management Area is located in the more remote, eastern portion of the planning area where less human activity currently exists.
Visitors can expect to see other people and evidence of human activities including silvicultural treatments and domestic livestock; see managed but natural-appearing stands of trees with cut or burned areas showing soil disturbance, snags, tree stumps, slash, landings, or skid trails; and find dispersed recreation opportunities including both motorized and non-motorized, although they may also find that access is restricted, at times, through the use of seasonal or year-long road closures. Recreation management activities are compatible with other resource values. The area has a road and trail system.
These areas provide for a variety of forest and non-forest plant communities and successional stages, over the long-term, through a combination of human manipulation and natural processes. Management activities are influenced by biological processes found in the area, and strive to replicate local natural vegetation patterns and patch size (HRV). Vegetation management is designed to simulate natural disturbances, thus silvicultural treatments may be larger than 40 acres in size. A full range of silvicultural prescriptions may be employed that includes timber harvest and prescribed fire management, in which both focus on long-term desired conditions.
Projects Proposed within MA 5.4 and CRA:
Tree cutting for forest health and wildlife enhancement projects
Management Area 5.41: Deer and Elk Winter Range:
Deer and elk winter ranges are managed to provide adequate amounts of quality forage, cover and solitude for deer, elk and other species while on winter range. The northern portion of the planning area is comprised of this Management Area. Human activities are managed so that deer and elk can effectively use the area. Activities that may be managed or restricted include burning, rangeland management, timber harvest, habitat manipulation, recreation, minerals exploration and development, and road management. Population herd objectives are established in coordination with Colorado Parks and Wildlife.
Vegetation composition and structure are managed to meet the needs of deer, elk, and other species on their winter range. Quaking aspen, Gambel oak, serviceberry, antelope bitterbrush, sage, grasses, and forbs are common throughout the area. Management activities are designed to maintain or create habitat mosaic of various types, age classes, and structural stages.
Hunter Creek-Smuggler Mountain Cooperative Plan Environmental Assessment 3-107 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences J. Colorado Roadless Areas and Central Mountains Outdoor Heritage Proposal
Projects Proposed within MA 5.41 and CRA:
Re-route of existing recreation trails (new trails construction)
Tree cutting for forest health and wildlife enhancement projects
Circumstances that Exist Applicable to the Project Temporary roads, as defined in Chapter 2, could be built for the implementation of vegetation management treatments consistent with § 294.42(c). Temporary road construction would be minimized through the review and approval of the annual Implementation Plan. The proposed projects would benefit forest health and wildlife habitat. Proposed treatments in lodgepole pine and mixed conifer stands would improve the age class and species diversity. Proposed treatments in aspen would increase the amount, diversity and quality of aspen habitat within the planning area. Proposed treatment projects in gamble and shrub oak communities would increase the age class diversity and quality of these stands. Collectively, these projects could maintain or restore the characteristics of ecosystem composition, structure and processes in accordance with § 294.42(c)(3). These projects will be infrequent, as the activity season is limited by weather and wildlife lifecycles. Additionally, the timing of project implementation would be arranged to minimize adverse impacts to ecosystems.
Wildlife species that would benefit from proposed treatments include Canada lynx (threatened); and ten sensitive bird species, including: northern goshawk, boreal owl, sage sparrow, olive-sided flycatcher, flammulated owl, northern three-toed woodpecker, purple martin, and Brewer’s sparrow. Collectively, the treatment projects could improve habitat for federally threatened, endangered, proposed, or Agency designated sensitive species in accordance with § 294.42(c)(4). Colorado Parks and Wildlife has assisted in developing projects with maximum benefits to wildlife species.
Several proposed projects include the construction of new, and the re-routing of existing, recreation trails within the project study area. Trail projects would occur within management areas that permit this type of use. Limited tree clearing would occur to construct these projects recreation trail projects that would have a tread width less than 50 inches. These projects would be incidental to the implementation of a management activity not otherwise prohibited in accordance with § 294.42(c)(5).
Central Mountains Outdoor Heritage Proposal Both Action Alternatives include recreation projects within areas contained in the Central Mountains Proposal. The new Hummingbird Traverse and Hunter Ditch Loops are intended for use by mountain bikes. Mechanized travel, including mountain biking, is prohibited in designated wilderness. Thus the wilderness characteristics in the area north of Hunter Creek (which is currently included in the Central Mountains Proposal) could be altered. Other proposed recreation projects (such as repairs and reroutes) within these proposed wilderness areas would have a minimal impact on the character of the area because there is an extensive trail network already present in these areas.
Hunter Creek-Smuggler Mountain Cooperative Plan Environmental Assessment 3-108 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences J. Colorado Roadless Areas and Central Mountains Outdoor Heritage Proposal
Forest health and wildlife projects could have a short-term impact on the character of the region, but in the long-term would lead to improved forest health and wildlife habitat, thereby enhancing wilderness characteristics.
CUMULATIVE EFFECTS
There would be no cumulative effects on roadless characteristics or the possibility of future wilderness designation. As noted above, proposed projects would not impact roadless characteristics, and in the long- term would improve forest health, thereby enhancing wilderness characteristics. As noted above, PDC and monitoring protocols would be included to ensure that the character of the CRAs and Central Mountains Proposal areas is maintained.
Scope of Analysis Temporal Bounds The temporal bounds for the cumulative effects analysis for roadless areas extends from 19th and early 20th century through the period of project implementation, approximately twenty years.
Spatial Bounds The spatial bounds for this cumulative effects analysis focuses on the Red Mountain and North Independence A CRAs as well as areas contained in the Central Mountains Proposal.
Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions
Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions that affect recreation resources within the analysis area are related to activities in the Red Mountain and North Independence A CRAs as well as areas contained in the Central Mountains Proposal. These past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions include:
Historic use and activity in the analysis area
2009 Forestwide Hazardous Tree Removal and Fuels Reduction Project EA
Central Mountains Outdoor Heritage Act
Historic Use and Activity in the Analysis Area The study area has experienced a wide variety of human use in recent history. The mining boom of the late 19th century had a lasting impact on the characteristics of the land. Mining relics including structures and mine shafts from this early period are present and common throughout the study area. Following the end of mining ventures in the study area the area experienced less impactful uses such as recreation. In the context of the history of the study area, most notably mining, proposed projects would have a minimal impact on wilderness and roadless characteristics.
Hunter Creek-Smuggler Mountain Cooperative Plan Environmental Assessment 3-109 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences J. Colorado Roadless Areas and Central Mountains Outdoor Heritage Proposal
2009 Forestwide Hazardous Tree Removal and Fuels Reduction Project EA This EA allows for the removal of hazardous trees bordering roads and trails on NFS lands. Implementation of these projects would have a minimal impact on roadless and wilderness characteristics because the projects are limited to areas adjacent to existing roads and trails.
Central Mountains Outdoor Heritage Act Although currently only a proposal, it is reasonably expected that Senator Udall will propose a bill to designate additional wilderness areas in Colorado. If the proposal as it exists now is successfully passed into law, portions of the study area would be designated as wilderness. This would protect the roadless and wilderness characteristics within those areas in perpetuity.
IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES
No irreversible or irretrievable commitments of resources with respect to roadless areas have been identified in association with any of the alternatives analyzed in this document.
Hunter Creek-Smuggler Mountain Cooperative Plan Environmental Assessment 3-110 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences K. Traffic and Access
K. TRAFFIC AND ACCESS
SCOPE OF ANALYSIS
This traffic analysis will consider impacts of proposed projects to traffic on Smuggler Mountain Road and Red Mountain Road/Hunter Creek Toll Road. Temporally the analysis will consider impacts throughout the implementation of proposed projects, up to twenty years from now.
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
Smuggler Mountain Road is a Pitkin County limited service area road, and is to be maintained “primarily to accept non-vehicular traffic.”70 The road is open to high-clearance vehicles and is maintained on approximately a ten-year cycle to allow safe passage of such vehicles. The current condition of the road is generally poor, and some sections are currently impassible by vehicles. The road is primarily used by recreationalists, both bikers and hikers.
Red Mountain Road is a Pitkin County high service area road, and is maintained “to provide the greatest level of service for all vehicles.”71 Red Mountain Road provides access to numerous residences, as well as NFS lands and the study area. Red Mountain Road turns into Hunter Creek Toll Road as it approaches the study area. Hunter Creek Toll Road continues into the study area.
Comments received during the scoping process expressed a need for improved access to the study area and expanded parking opportunities. There is currently a settlement agreement in place with an adjacent private landowner prohibiting the expansion of parking at the Hunter Creek Toll Road trailhead. For this reason, the Hunter Creek Toll Road trailhead is not discussed further in this document.
DIRECT AND INDIRECT ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES Alternative 1 – No Action
Under the No Action Alternative there would be no changes to traffic on Smuggler Mountain Road or Red Mountain Road. Smuggler Mountain Road would continue to be used primarily by recreationalists, and Red Mountain Road would provide access to residences and limited trailhead parking on NFS lands. Hunter Creek Toll Road would provide access for vehicles into the study area.
Alternative 2
Alternative 2 could potentially increase traffic volume on Smuggler Mountain Road and Red Mountain Road/Hunter Creek Toll Road. There would be no notable increase in traffic due to recreation projects because these would require minimal equipment. Implementation of forest health and wildlife
70 Pitkin County Asset Management Plan, 2008 71 Ibid.
Hunter Creek-Smuggler Mountain Cooperative Plan Environmental Assessment 3-111 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences K. Traffic and Access enhancement projects could add traffic associated with equipment transport and the removal of forest material.
Smuggler Mountain Road and Red Mountain Road/Hunter Creek Toll Road could be utilized in the implementation of forest health and wildlife habitat projects in the study area. Smuggler Mountain Road provides access to the Smuggler Mountain portion of the study area and Red Mountain Road/Hunter Creek Toll Road provides access to the Hunter Creek portion of the study area. Forest health and wildlife enhancement projects would require logging machinery to be transported to project sites, and could require removal of felled material via short-bed truck. While short-bed trucks are not expected to be the sole means of removal from the study area (helicopters would likely be utilized for some or all projects and some material could be left on site) this analysis assumes that material will be removed solely by truck. Material would be removed by short-bed trucks because the condition of the roads prevents the passage of larger trucks. Red Mountain Road has a very sharp switchback that would be impassable by large trucks and Smuggler Mountain Road has steep rocky sections that would be similarly impossible to navigate.
Utilizing a short-bed truck would require approximately two trucks per acre. Trips would be split between Smuggler Mountain Road and Red Mountain Road, depending on the location of specific projects. PDCs would be incorporated to ensure that vehicular trips are timed to minimize disruptions to recreational users and travelers on local roadways.
2013 Forest Vegetation Treatment projects would require approximately 40 trips up and down Smuggler Mountain Road. Approximately three-quarters of these trips would occur during the fall and one-quarter would occur during the winter months. Please refer to Table 2-2 in Chapter 2 for PDCs regarding methods and timing of vehicular trips to and from the study area.
Alternative 3
Alternative 3 would have a similar impact on traffic on Smuggler Mountain Road and Red Mountain Road/Hunter Creek Toll Road. However, because the overall acreage of vegetation treatment projects is lower than in Alternative 2, less material would need to be removed from the study area. Like with Alternative 2, these trips would be split between Smuggler Mountain Road and Red Mountain Road, depending on the location of specific projects. Impacts associated with 2013 projects would be similar to those described in the Proposed Action. Please refer to Table 2-2 in Chapter 2 for PDCs regarding methods and timing of vehicular trips to and from the study area.
Hunter Creek-Smuggler Mountain Cooperative Plan Environmental Assessment 3-112 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences K. Traffic and Access
CUMULATIVE EFFECTS Scope of Analysis Temporal Bounds The temporal bounds for the cumulative effects analysis for traffic extends from the present through the period of project implementation, approximately twenty years.
Spatial Bounds The spatial bounds for this cumulative effects analysis focuses on Smuggler Mountain Road and Red Mountain Road/Hunter Creek Toll Road.
Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions
Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions that affect traffic within the analysis area are related to activities in the study area on NFS lands as well as adjacent private lands. These past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions include:
2008 Smuggler Mountain Open Space Management Plan
2009 Forestwide Hazardous Tree Removal and Fuels Reduction Project EA
2011 WRNF TMP
2008 Smuggler Mountain Open Space Management Plan The Smuggler Mountain Open Space (SMOS) Management Plan includes a number of projects in SMOS which is adjacent to the study area. Smuggler Mountain Road also traverses SMOS. Implementation of recreation and vegetation projects in SMOS could result in increased traffic on Smuggler Mountain Road. Smuggler Mountain road is the primary access point to most SMOS land. Construction vehicles similar to those used in proposed projects could be used to remove forest material or transport machinery. Traffic from projects on SMOS could lead to additional, temporary increases in traffic on Smuggler Mountain Road.
2009 Forestwide Hazardous Tree Removal and Fuels Reduction Project EA This EA approves tree removal projects along trails and roads throughout the WRNF. These projects could generate some traffic on Smuggler Mountain Road and Red Mountain Road/Hunter Creek Toll Road. Because these roads provide access to large areas of the WRNF, they could be used to transport machinery and forest material. However, like the proposed projects, these tree removal projects would be temporally limited. Additionally, since this EA is limited to trees along trails and roads, the quantity of removal is spatially limited. Traffic increases are likely to be negligible.
Hunter Creek-Smuggler Mountain Cooperative Plan Environmental Assessment 3-113 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences K. Traffic and Access
2011 WRNF TMP The TMP does not approve new roads in the study area for vehicular travel. Thus, it is not expected that traffic will increase above current levels.
IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES
No irreversible or irretrievable commitments of resources with respect to traffic have been identified in association with any of the alternatives analyzed in this document.
Hunter Creek-Smuggler Mountain Cooperative Plan Environmental Assessment 3-114 Chapter 4 Consultation and Coordination Chapter 4. Consultation and Coordination
4. CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
A. LIST OF PREPARERS FOREST SERVICE TEAM
The following people participated in the initial scoping, were members of the Interdisciplinary Team, and/or provided direction and assistance during the preparation of this EA.
Forest Service ID Team
Karen Schroyer Aspen and Sopris District Ranger, Deciding Officer David Francomb Aspen and Sopris Deputy District Ranger Martha Moran Project Leader, Recreation Staff Phil Nyland Wildlife Biologist Justin Anderson Hydrologist Brian McMullen Soil Scientist Jan Burke Silviculturist, Timber Management Officer Patrick Uphus Archaeologist Steve Goodson Forester Steve Hunter Civil Engineering Jon Thompson Recreation Staff Wayne Ives Range Technician John Proctor Botanist Skye Sieber NEPA Coordinator Andrea Brogan Archeologist Bruce Moss Civil Engineer
CONSULTANT TEAM
This EA was prepared by:
SE Group
Travis Beck Senior Project Manager Caroline McHugh Environmental Analyst, GIS Paul Donegan Environmental Analyst Kelly Owens Associate Biologist Paula Samuelson Document Production Specialist
Mountain States Historical, Inc. – Lafayette, CO
Eric Twitty Archaeologist
Hunter Creek-Smuggler Mountain Cooperative Plan Environmental Assessment 4-1 Chapter 4. Consultation and Coordination
Western Bionomics, Inc. – Steamboat Springs,CO
Kelly Colfer Wildlife Biologist
Colorado Wildlife Science LLC – Basalt, CO
Jonathan Lowsky Wildlife Ecologist B. AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS, TRIBAL GOVERNMENTS AND PERSONS CONTACTED FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Bureau of Land Management (BLM)
TRIBAL GOVERNMENT
Ute Indian Tribe Ute Mountain Ute Tribe Southern Ute Indian Tribe
STATE GOVERNMENT
Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) Colorado Department of Transportation Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) Colorado State Forest Service
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
City of Aspen Pitkin County
LOCAL MEDIA
Aspen Times
OTHER ENTITIES AND ORGANIZATIONS
Roaring Fork Mountain Bike Association Tim Gay Wilderness Workshop Will Roush Roaring Fork Mountain Bike Association Mike Pritchard Roaring Fork Mountain Bike Association Aspen Open Space and Trails Charlie Eckart
Hunter Creek-Smuggler Mountain Cooperative Plan Environmental Assessment 4-2 Chapter 4. Consultation and Coordination
Bureau of Land Management Darren Long, Wildlife Biologist Colorado Parks and Wildlife Perry Will, Area Wildlife Manager Aspen Center for Environmental Studies Chris Lane Army Corps of Engineers Lesley McWhirter
OTHER INTERESTED INDIVIDUALS
Dean Derosier Dave Reed Jim Pokrandt Marvie and Robert Musser Bill Madsen Alex Marks Ted MacBlane Janet Rutigliano Nick Thompson Robert Andre Chuck Frias Vernon Batty Mike Maple Stephanie Sullivan Andre Schwegler Bruce Berger Matt Holstein Eric Bindseil David Phillips Anne-Marie Matula Elizabeth Mondry Joanne Wagner Jon Fox-Rubin Paul Johnston Blake Appleby Mary Dominick Shawn Hadley Robert Goldberg Robert Jack Jesse Furr Lucy Nichols John Hoffman Eric Knight Kerry and Ricki Newman Michael Lyons Dominick Saia Mary Russell Jill Sabella Richard Compton Johanna Mueller Ron Cowen Mark Feinsinger Michael Gorman Patricia Batchelder Allen Cutler Martha Izzo Ron Thompson Salvadore Pascarelli Chuck Downey Susie Lockard Suzan Rothstein William Roush Brian Field Rob Purvis Susan and George Fesus Kirk Hinderberger Brian von Dedenroth David Ellenberger Shael Johnson Murlin Goeken
Hunter Creek-Smuggler Mountain Cooperative Plan Environmental Assessment 4-3 Chapter 5 References Chapter 5. References
5. REFERENCES
40 CFR 1500-1508.28. 1978. Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act, as amended July 1, 1986.
36 CFR 60.4. National Register of Historic Places: Criteria for Evaluation.
36 CFR 294.12–13
36 CFR 294.40–49. 2012. Colorado Roadless Area Management.
40 CFR 59, 80, 85 and 86. 2006. Control of Hazardous Air Pollutants from Mobile Sources. March 29.
16 USC 1131–1136.
42 USC 7470-7479. Public Health and Welfare.
City of Aspen and Pitkin County. Air Quality Outdoors. http://www.aspenpitkin.com/Departments/Environmental-Health/Air-Quality-Outdoors/
Colfer, K. 2013 Biological Assessment. Hunter Creek-Smuggler Mountain Cooperative Plan. Aspen- Sopris Ranger District, WRNF. Pitkin County, Colorado. August.
———. 2013a. Management Indicator Species Assessment Biological Evaluation. Hunter Creek- Smuggler Mountain Cooperative Plan. Aspen-Sopris Ranger District, WRNF. Pitkin County, Colorado. August.
Cowardin et al. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. FWS/OBS-79/31, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Biological Services, Washington, DC.
EPA. 2013. Smuggler Mountain. Superfund, Colorado Cleanup Site. SSID 0841. http://www.epa.gov/region08/superfund/co/smuggler/
Franzluebbers, A.J. 2002. Water Infiltration and Soil Structure related to organic matter and its stratification with depth. Soil & Tillage Research 66 (2002) 197-205.
Kay, C.E. 1997. Is Aspen doomed? Journal of Forestry. 95(5): 4-11.
McCormick, D.E., K.K. Young, and G.M. Darby. 1982. “Rock Fragments and K Factor of the Universal Soil Loss Equation.” Erosion and Productivity of Soils Containing Rock Fragments. Madison, WI: Soil Science Society of America. 73-81
McMullen, B. 2011. Draft Specialist Report – Soils and Geology of the North Thompson/Four Mile and Coal Creek Cattle & Horse Grazing Allotment. Soil Scientist, WRNF
Hunter Creek-Smuggler Mountain Cooperative Plan Environmental Assessment 5-1 Chapter 5. References
Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2012. Web Soil Survey. http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/HomePage.htm, Accessed April 4, 2013.
Peterson, W. C., D. E. Hibbs. 1989. Adjusting stand density management guides for stands with low stocking potential. Western Journal of Applied Forestry 4:62-65.
Pitkin County Public Works. 2008. Pitkin County Asset Management Plan: County Roads Equipment, Facilities, and Land.
Roaring Fork Conservancy. 2012. The Roaring Fork Watershed Plan. 4.1 Upper Roaring Fork Sub- Watershed. http://www.roaringfork.org/pub/collaborative/4.1_URF.pdf
USDA Forest Service. 1995. Landscape Aesthetics: A Handbook for Scenery Management. Washington, D.C. December.
———. 2000. Roadless Area Conservation - Final EIS. November.
———. 2001. The Built Environment Image Guide for The National Forests and Grasslands. Washington, D.C.
———. 2002a. White River National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan – 2002 Revision. White River National Forest, Glenwood Springs, CO.
———. 2002b. Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 1, for the White River National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan – 2002 Revision. White River National Forest, Glenwood Springs. CO.
———. 2006. Watershed Conservation Practices Handbook. FSH 509.25. USDA Forest Service Rocky Mountain Region.
———. 2008. Forest Service Handbook. FSH 1909.15. National Environmental Policy Handbook.
———. 2008a. Record of Decision, Southern Rockies Lynx Amendment Management Direction. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Reg. Denver, CO. October.
———. 2011. White River National Forest revised sensitive species list – terrestrial. USDA Forest Service, Glenwood Springs, CO.
———. 2011a. Forest Service Handbook 1909.15, Chapter 10, Section 12.3 – Develop a Framework for Analysis. Washington, D.C. April 1.
———. 2011b. White River National Forest Roadless Area Profiles. http://www.fs.usda.gov/roadmain/roadless/coloradoroadlessrules
———. 2012. Special Areas; Roadless Area Conservation; Applicability to the National Forests in Colorado; Final Rule. Federal Register 77:128 (July 3).
Hunter Creek-Smuggler Mountain Cooperative Plan Environmental Assessment 5-2 Chapter 5. References
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2010. Inventory of US Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990–2008.
U.S. Energy Information Administration. 2009. International Energy Statistics Global CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion. http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/cfapps/ipdbproject/IEDIndex3.cfm> EIA (2009).
Western Regional Climate Center. Prevailing Wind Direction: Colorado. http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/htmlfiles/westwinddir.html#COLORADO.
———. 2013. Climate and Precipitation. Aspen. Colorado. http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMAIN.pl?coaspe
Wilderness Workshop. 2013. New Wilderness. http://www.wildernessworkshop.org/our-work/wilderness/new-wilderness/
Hunter Creek-Smuggler Mountain Cooperative Plan Environmental Assessment 5-3 Chapter 6 Figures Chapter 6: Figures
6. FIGURES
VICINITY MAP
FIGURE 1: ALTERNATIVE 1: NO ACTION
FIGURE 2: ALTERNATIVE 2: PROPOSED ACTION – RECREATION PROJECTS
FIGURE 3: ALTERNATIVE 2: PROPOSED ACTION – FOREST HEALTH/WILDLIFE PROJECTS
FIGURE 4: ALTERNATIVE 3 – RECREATION PROJECTS
FIGURE 5: ALTERNATIVE 3 – FOREST HEALTH/WILDLIFE PROJECTS
FIGURE 6: 2013 PROJECTS
FIGURE 7: ROAD ACCESS
FIGURE 8: COLORADO ROADLESS AREAS AND CENTRAL MOUNTAINS OUTDOOR HERITAGE PROPOSAL
Hunter Creek-Smuggler Mountain Cooperative Plan Environmental Assessment 6-1 September, 2013 0 5 10 Sources: Esri, DeLorme, NAVTEQ, USGS, Intermap, iPC, NRCAN, Esri Japan, [ Miles METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri (Thailand), TomTom, 2013
HUNTER CREEK-SMUGGLER MOUNTAIN COOPERATIVE PLAN EA
Legend Vicinity Map Study Area s er rn Co Four
b Ho b it
andolf / G t i bb Ho
F e l o o u r H
C t
Repeater Rd o n r r u ck/Jedi n etra B gl e S in r V ha t S s a dyside cre R n Se d Horn Park Singletrack et /Jed cr i e d S R ater R epe Bald Knob Rd
d S R u ll n o n T y k s e i re S d C un e r nys P e ide t lu n n u g e H
d R t Dry S e
H im un k R ter Cree
Creek T r o ll Rd nte u H
y Hunter Valle Hunter Creek Hunter Valley - North !f Lazy Man Short Cut R E D ter Va un lley - Sou th M NTER RE H HU C EK O TO U L D N L R T a Sh A Iow a s r Valley ft IN s e ce unt R c H D t A Lo ing BLM Park !B
ter Cree un k Cut H off
e ![ it h p W i o
p
n i
l
a l L
o
L S MU GG Smuggler Loop Tootsie Roll LE R M D !B TN R
Ce nt er St !B ock Driv e Way
ASPEN Mascotte99
September, 2013 0 0.25 0.5 USFSLand Private Land Miles [ ¤£82
Legend HUNTER CREEK-SMUGGLER MOUNTAIN Existing Conditions COOPERATIVE PLAN EA White River National Forest Study Area City/County Open Space 4WD Road Figure 1 ATV Trail Single Track Trail Alternative 1: No Action Trail Closed (per Travel Management Plan) s er rn Co Four
b Ho b it
andolf / G t bi ob H
F e l o o u r H
C t Repeater Rd o n r r u edi n track/J B gle e S in r V ha t S s a dyside re R n c d H Se orn P ark ingletra t S ck/Je re d c i e d S R ter R epea Bald Knob Rd Sunnyside: d S R Repair u ll n o n T Van Horn Lookout: y k s e i re Reroute, close to motorized S d C un e r nysi P e de t lu n n u g H Upper Plunge: e Reroute d R t Dry S e
H im un k R ter Cree
ee Cr k To l R d l Hummingbird Traverse + Hunter Ditch Loop: nter u H Sunnyside Plunge: New trail connection Reroute y Hunter Valle Hunter Valley: Hunter Creek Repair Hunter Valley - North !f Lazy Man Short Cut R E er V D nt alley - S h N Hu ou t M HU TER CREE O K T U O L D N L R T a Sh A Iow a s r Valley ft IN s e ce unt R c H Iowa Shaft: D t A Lo ing Reroute, separation of uses BLM Park !B
ter Cree un k Cut H off
e ![ it h p Lollipop: W i o
p
n i
l
a l Separation of uses,
L
o L repairs SMU GG Smuggler Loop Tootsie Roll LE R M D !B TN R
Ce nt e r Stoc !B k Drive Southside Smuggler: Way Explore potential for new trail within this area
ASPEN Mascotte 99
September, 2013 0 0.25 0.5 USFS Land Private Land Miles [ ¤£82 Legend Existing Conditions Proposed Projects HUNTER CREEK-SMUGGLER MOUNTAIN White River National Forest Recreation Trail Improvements, COOPERATIVE PLAN EA Study Area Management and Maintenance City/County Open Space Figure 2 4WD Road ATV Trail Alternative 2: Proposed Action Single Track Trail Trail Closed Recreation Projects (per Travel Management Plan) Note: Areas shown on the map depict total stand coverage. Treatments will be focused within these areas, but not encompass them. See Recommendations for specific allowable acreage (e.g. "1-2.5 acre patch cuts on up to 20%").
Hunter Creek
R E D M HUNTER O CR D U EE LL R N K TO T A IN R D
SM U G GL ER M TN R D
ASPEN
September, 2013 0 0.25 0.5 Private Land USFS Land Miles [ ¤£82
HUNTER CREEK-SMUGGLER MOUNTAIN Legend COOPERATIVE PLAN EA Existing Conditions Proposed Projects White River National Forest Lodgepole Pine and Mixed Conifer Treatments Figure 3 Study Area Alternative 2: Proposed Action City/County Open Space Aspen Treatments 4WD Road Gambel/Shrub Oak, Sagebrush Forest Health/Wildlife Projects Treatments s er rn Co Four
b Ho b it
andolf / G t bi ob H
F e l o o u r H
C t Repeater Rd o n r r u edi n track/J B gle e S in r V ha t S s a dyside re R n c d H Se orn P ark ingletra t S ck/Je re d c i e d S R ter R epea Bald Knob Rd Sunnyside: d S R Repair u ll n o n T Van Horn Lookout: y k s e i re Reroute, close to motorized S d C un e r nysi P e de t lu n n u g H Upper Plunge: e Reroute d R t Dry S e
H im un k R ter Cree
ee Hummingbird Traverse + Cr k To ll R d nter Hunter Ditch Loop: u H Sunnyside Plunge: New trail connection Reroute y Hunter Valle Hunter Valley: Hunter Creek Repair Hunter Valley - North !f Lazy Man Short Cut R E er V D nt alley - S h N Hu ou t M HU TER CREE O K T U O L D N L R T a Sh A Iow a s r Valley ft IN s e ce unt R c H Iowa Shaft: D t A Lo ing Reroute, separation of uses BLM Park !B
ter Cree un k Cut H off
e ![ it h p Lollipop: W i o
p
n i
l
a l Separation of uses,
L
o L repairs SMU GG Smuggler Loop Tootsie Roll LE R M D !B TN R
Ce nt e r Stoc !B k Drive Way
Mascotte 99 ASPEN
September, 2013 0 0.25 0.5 Private Land USFS Land Miles [ ¤£82 Legend Existing Conditions Proposed Projects HUNTER CREEK-SMUGGLER MOUNTAIN White River National Forest Recreation Trail Improvements, COOPERATIVE PLAN EA Study Area Management and Maintenance City/County Open Space Figure 4 4WD Road ATV Trail Alternative 3 Single Track Trail Trail Closed Recreation Projects (per Travel Management Plan) Hunter Creek
R E D M HUNTER O CR D U EE LL R N K TO T A IN R D
SM U G GL ER M TN R D
ASPEN
September, 2013 0 0.25 0.5 USFS Land Private Land Miles [ ¤£82 Legend Existing Conditions Proposed Projects HUNTER CREEK-SMUGGLER MOUNTAIN White River National Forest Natural Disturbance Treatments COOPERATIVE PLAN EA Study Area Lodgepole Pine and Mixed Figure 5 City/County Open Space Conifer Treatments 4WD Road Alternative 3 Aspen Treatments Gambel/Shrub Oak, Sagebrush Forest Health/Wildlife Projects Treatments # smos2 smos1
usfs7
S D MU N R GGLER MT
usfs5 usfs6 # usfs2
usfs1
usfs4
usfs3
September, 2013 0 0.125 0.25 Miles [
Legend Existing Conditions Proposed Projects (2013) HUNTER CREEK-SMUGGLER MOUNTAIN White River National Forest 2013 Forest Vegetation Treatments COOPERATIVE PLAN EA Study Area Forwarder Track City/County Open Space Over-the-Snow Skid Track 4WD Road Figure 6 Skid Track Area Accessible for Ground Disturbing, Heavy Machinery # Landing Site 2013 Projects (1/4 mile buffer from roads) d R l l
o
T
k e re C r te n H u
le o H Repeater Rd t n r
u B
F
o d u R r r ate C epe o R r n e H r un d S s r R te ate u R r Repe n C d n r e
y e
s k
i
d T e o
l l R d R d b n o Bald K
V a n H o r n P et Rd ar Dry S k Rd
Hunter Creek
ek To l Rd Cre l Hunter
S mu gg le S r L m oo u p g g le r M tn SM Rd U G GL ER M TN R D
September, 2013 0 0.25 0.5 Miles [ ¤£82
HUNTER CREEK-SMUGGLER MOUNTAIN Legend COOPERATIVE PLAN EA White River National Forest Study Area Figure 7 City/County Open Space Road Access for Ground Disturbing, 4WD Road Area Accessible for Ground Disturbing, Heavy Machinery Heavy Machinery (1/4 mile buffer from roads) Red Mountain CRA
Hunter Creek
R E D M HUNTER O CR D U EE LL R N K TO T A IN R D
SM U G GL ER M TN R D
North Independence A CRA
ASPEN USFS Land USFS
Private Land Private September, 2013 0 0.25 0.5 Miles [ ¤£82
HUNTER CREEK-SMUGGLER MOUNTAIN COOPERATIVE PLAN EA Legend White River National Forest Figure 8 Study Area City/County Open Space Colorado Roadless Areas and 4WD Road Colorado Roadless Areas Central Mountains Outdoor Heritage Proposal Central Mtns. Proposal Areas Appendices Appendix A: Implementation Strategy Appendix B: Vegetation Management Prescriptions
Appendix A: Implementation Strategy
APPENDIX A: IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY
A. BACKGROUND
Developed through an open and cooperative approach of community and local agency involvement, the Hunter Creek-Smuggler Mountain Cooperative Plan (Hunter-Smuggler Plan) responds to important needs of this study area. Smuggler Mountain and the Hunter Creek Valley contain some of the most heavily used trails in Aspen, as well as important wildlife habitat and stunning scenic beauty. However, the area has lacked integrated, cohesive management and vision, and thus, is now seeing degradation of trails, wildlife habitat, and forest health. With a clear vision for orchestrated action, the project collaborators identified the following topics to guide the Hunter-Smuggler Plan: recreation, education, wildlife, forest health, fire management, infrastructure, and economic development.
Located on the WRNF managed by Aspen-Sopris Ranger District, the Hunter-Smuggler planning area consists of 4,681 acres adjacent to Smuggler Mountain Open Space and private property. The Hunter- Smuggler Plan is unique in scale, scope, and community engagement. It embodies a planning approach that relies upon cooperation for various management partners to achieve a comprehensive, long-term vision for the area. This approach will ultimately improve hundreds of acres of forest and wildlife habitat, enhance the overall experience and sustainability of the trail system, and lead to a wealth of reciprocal benefits to economic development, education, and infrastructure. B. STRATEGY
The Implementation Strategy identifies the criteria for transitioning projects from Forest Service approval (via a decision document) to the annual Implementation Plan to project implementation. The goal of the Implementation Strategy is continue the collaborative process initiated by the Hunter-Smuggler Plan through the implementation process into the future. In order to achieve this goal, all parties involved must maintain a role and engage in the implementation process. During the development of the Hunter- Smuggler Plan, the Forest Service developed three primary layers of stakeholder involvement: the Round- table, the Focus Group and the Planning Team.
Hunter Creek-Smuggler Mountain Cooperative Plan Environmental Assessment A-1 Appendix A: Implementation Strategy
Planning Team: USFS, Pitkin County, City of Aspen, Aspen Center for Environmental Studies
Focus Group: Planning Team, Wilderness Workshop, Roaring Fork Mountain Bike Association, Hiking, Aspen Skiing Company, Roaring Fork Outdoor Volunteers, Colorado Parks and Wildlife, City and County Emergency Services
Roaring Fork Round-table Steering Committee
Specific locations and timelines for project implementation would be established in annual Implementation Plans. Moving forward, specific locations and timelines for project implementation would be established in annual Implementation Plans. The Implementation Team, consisting of representatives of interested local government, stakeholder, or public, will meet at least semi-annually to specify and recommend projects to be implem ented. A non-Forest Service member of the Implementation Team would be responsible for the on-going evaluation and completion of the feedback loop. This strategy allows for flexibility in the future as roles, involved parties, and levels of involvement are determined over time. With reference to the Hunter-Smuggler Plan and adherence to potentially approved projects in the Forest Service decision document, the Implementation Team would create an annual Implementation Plan specifying location, management prescription, PDC, and other necessary information for projects to be implemented each year. The Implementation Plan would be finalized by March of that year through recommendations from the team to the Forest Service. This process would ensure adequate time for review and site specific surveys prior to implementation, typically occurring in late summer. Prior year projects could start and/or continue as specified in the prior year’s Implementation Plan. The Forest Service would remain the final decision maker for annual projects to be implemented.
In conjunction with any approved ground disturbing activities, applicable PDC would be implemented to avoid or minimize resource impacts (e.g., soil, water and vegetation).
As part of the implementation process, the Forest Service encourages the preparation of a Memorandum of Understanding between the Forest Service, City of Aspen, and Pitkin County aimed at better managing and enforcing travel management regulations on NFS lands.
Hunter Creek-Smuggler Mountain Cooperative Plan Environmental Assessment A-2 Appendix A: Implementation Strategy
C. PROJECT SELECTION STRATEGY
Prior to the preparation of the Annual Implementation Plan, the Implementation Team would determine a list of potential projects on an annual basis. Potential projects will be determined through on-site visits to monitor and investigate current conditions and identified concerns. Budgetary constraints will be determined and disclosed prior to specific project identification. Once a general list of projects is developed by the Implementation Team, the Implementation Team will utilize the following selection criteria to help determine which projects should be prioritized. For Forest Health and Wildlife Enhancement projects, the greater number of total points corresponds to the higher priority project. For Recreation projects, the criteria serve as more general guidelines.
Project Selection Criteria for Vegetation Treatments: 1. General Project Benefit (1 point each): Benefit Points Wildlife Forest Health Hazard Tree Reduction Fuels Reduction Aesthetic Total
2. Proximity to Road Network: Location Points Within ¼ Mile of Existing Road (3 points) Beyond ¼ Mile of Existing Road (1 point) Straddles the ¼ Mile Distance (2 points) Total
3. Land designation status Land Designation Points Within CRA (-1 point) Within CRA and No Temp. Road Const. (0 point) Within CMOHP (0 point) Within CMOHP and No Temp. Road Const. (1 point) Outside CRA and/or CMOHP (2 points) Total
4. Removal Necessary Removal Type Points Helicopter (1 point) Short-bed Truck (0 point) Fuelwood/Christmas Tree (1 point) Leave On-site (3 points)
Hunter Creek-Smuggler Mountain Cooperative Plan Environmental Assessment A-3 Appendix A: Implementation Strategy
Combination of Removal Options (2 points) Total
5. Visibility / Public Awareness / Educational Opportunity Points 0–3 points, 3 is Highly Educational Total
6. Overall Project Subjective Rating Points 0–3 points, 3 is Great Total
Total Points Maximum of 19Points Possible
Project Selection Criteria for Recreation Projects:
Implementation of recreation projects proposed in the Hunter Creek-Smuggler Mountain Cooperative Plan EA will be prioritized according to the following criteria:
1) Time/effort of implementation
2) Impact on recreational experience
3) Impact to environmental resources
Considering these criteria, projects will be generally implemented according to the following priorities:
1) Signage
2) Maps
3) Trail/Route Designations
4) Existing Trail Repairs
5) Existing Trail Restoration
6) Separation of Uses
7) Existing Trail Closures
8) Existing Trail Crossings
9) Existing Trail Realignments
10) New Trails
Hunter Creek-Smuggler Mountain Cooperative Plan Environmental Assessment A-4 Appendix A: Implementation Strategy
This list is not binding, but should provide guidance to ensure that the projects providing the largest net gain are implemented first. Projects like improving signage and trail navigability have little to no adverse environmental impact but can significantly improve the recreational experience. D. ANNUAL IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
Based on the results of the Project Selection Strategy and annual implementation timing and funding considerations, the Annual Implementation Plan will be developed. The Annual Implementation Plan will identify the site-specific details and requirements necessary to effectively and responsibly implement project components approved in the Forest Service decision document. Reference the Annual Implementation Plan form on the following page.
Hunter Creek-Smuggler Mountain Cooperative Plan Environmental Assessment A-5 Appendix A: Implementation Strategy
Hunter Creek-Smuggler Mountain Cooperative Plan
Annual Implementation Plan
Implementation Season:
PROJECTS
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION General overview
Project Location Attach map
Management Prescription Details of management activity (e.g., tools used)
Project Design Criteria Site specific, to supplement general PDC
Hunter Creek-Smuggler Mountain Cooperative Plan Environmental Assessment A-6 Appendix A: Implementation Strategy
2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION General overview
Project Location Attach map
Management Prescription Details of management activity (e.g., tools used)
Project Design Criteria Site specific, to supplement general PDC
3. PROJECT DESCRIPTION General overview
Project Location Attach map
Management Prescription Details of management activity (e.g., tools used)
Project Design Criteria Site specific, to supplement general PDC
4. PROJECT DESCRIPTION General overview
Project Location Attach map
Management Prescription Details of management activity (e.g., tools used)
Project Design Criteria Site specific, to supplement general PDC
Hunter Creek-Smuggler Mountain Cooperative Plan Environmental Assessment A-7 Appendix B: Vegetation Management Plan Prescriptions
APPENDIX B: VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PLAN PRESCRIPTIONS
Vegetation management prescriptions in this appendix are for planning purposes and are subject to change. Final treatment details will be determined and documented in the Annual Implementation Plan (refer to Appendix A). Furthermore, these prescriptions were included in the Vegetation Management Plan prepared for the Hunter-Smuggler Cooperative Plan. A. LODGEPOLE PINE
TREATMENT OPTION 3A: BROOD TREE REMOVAL (BTR), VERBENONE & SANITATION SALVAGE
This management option is designed to reduce potential future MPB activity. This option also provides reductions in fuel loads for wildfire protection.
Salvage currently infected brood trees before beetles can hatch and fly (ideally mark and remove trees in the fall). Verbenone is applied the following spring/summer to reduce risk of re-infestation (broadcast aerial application at a rate of 150 to 500 mg/acre is recommended depending on population level). Salvage of dead trees that are a risk to public safety or contribute to excessive fuel loads in identified fuel breaks. This should be applied on as large a continuous area as possible to reduce amount of edge for re- infestation. The application should be made at low to moderate (<10%) infestation rates.
TREATMENT OPTION 3B: GROUP SELECTION WITH VARIABLE RETENTION
Option B is uneven-aged management in the form of group selection with variable retention. This provides for a long-term (life of the stand) solution by increasing age class diversity. This treatment balances the biological need of the lodgepole for sun to regenerate, but also helps mitigate visual effects and provides the conditions for regeneration of shade tolerant species around the edges too. An additional benefit of group selection is the improved diversity of wildlife habitat.
Variable retention refers to leaving valuable wildlife structural elements as available in the stands in either aggregate or dispersed fashion. Examples include large old green cull trees, remnant large old trees, large down woody debris or clumps of down wood, etc. The idea is to leave critical wildlife habitat elements behind in the new young stands to help wildlife and not wait decades for the new stands to develop these valuable structures. Leaving groups of trees can also create habitat.
This treatment encourages regeneration of all species to increase age class and species diversity for long- term ecosystem resilience. Normally the unit sizes for group selection range from a minimum of 1 acre to about 2.5 acres. Lodgepole ecologically is an even age species, so creating larger units more in line with
Hunter Creek-Smuggler Mountain Cooperative Plan Environmental Assessment B-1 Appendix B: Vegetation Management Plan Prescriptions historic range of variability is preferred to the degree visuals and aesthetics will allow. HRV data shows over 60 percent of stands are in the 6- to 50-acre size.
With mixed species stands the emphasis changes slightly to focus on putting patches in pure lodgepole pine stands and leaving the other species that are more resilient. In stands with some aspen in the understory, patches may be placed around the aspen to help release the aspen.
Once the openings are created it is imperative that conditions are created to encourage regeneration. This means disturbance to create bare mineral soil as a seed bed and to reduce vegetative competition to allow seedlings to regenerate. Track scarify (or other scarification methods) the ground surface to expose a minimum of 50 percent mineral soil and lop and scatter tops and limbs evenly to provide a seed source for stratification through burning or mechanical means.1 For lodgepole leaving some of the tops on site and burning to create natural conditions to open serotinous cones is preferred, but if burning is not possible due to air quality and liability issues then some form of mechanical disturbance can help to crush the cones and release seed. The last resort is to do some form of grubbing on spacing 13 to 18 feet to match long-term spacing of mature trees.
A cheap form of insurance is to plant trees at the above mentioned spacing depending on species to make sure some trees regenerate in the case natural seeding doesn’t work. Planting will depend on elevation, soils, access and other local conditions. Spring and fall planting should be considered.
Salvage dead lodgepole pine and incidental trees susceptible to wind throw. Protect and reserve seedlings, saplings and other trees with at least 50% live crown and healthy leader growth (>6 inches/year). Retain all healthy, disease free lodgepole pine less than 7-inch DBH to retain as much functionality as feasible. Many of these stands have good regeneration in the understory. Where present, protect regeneration with various methods such as needed.
Wind throw of the residual trees is a risk with this option. Retain live trees in clumps so they can support each other during high wind events and on the lower two-thirds of the slope, which will help reduce wind throw. Wind throw risk is higher on the upper third of a slope, on ridges and in areas where topography allows the funneling of wind.
TREATMENT OPTION 3C: THINNING
Thinning of a mixed lodgepole stand usually will involve the removal of trees from above and below. For the lodgepole the thinning will usually be from above as discussed in 3B. But for the other species the thinning should be focused from below removing trees with poor crown rations, poor form, diseased and
1 Track scarification is the roughening of the soil surface with a bulldozer or other tracked equipment. It prepares the site for seeds to access the soil and allows successful seed establishment because once the mineral soil is exposed, seedling roots can penetrate faster than if they had to pass through a thick organic layer.
Hunter Creek-Smuggler Mountain Cooperative Plan Environmental Assessment B-2 Appendix B: Vegetation Management Plan Prescriptions other poor performing trees. The remaining trees are healthier. Where aspen patches are present conifers should be removed away from them to allow release and stop encroachment of conifers on aspen.
Basal area targets (80 to 120) and protection of viable regeneration are the same as for the pure lodgepole.
TREATMENT OPTION 3D: THINNING FROM ABOVE
Thinning from above removes the larger more susceptible trees, while also reduces the density of remaining trees. This helps reduce the stress and competition for resources (light, water and nutrients) enabling the remaining trees to become healthier. This is considered an intermediate treatment between newly regenerated stands and mature stands to maintain stand health. Like brood tree removal this should be applied to as many acres as possible in as continuous fashion as possible to reduce pockets of activity within the stand from starting out breaks. Often after thinning the stands are susceptible to activity in the short-term.
Target thinning levels should be a minimum of 80 square feet of basal area (BA). To prevent wind throw a better target is 100 BA up to a maximum of 120. Stands lower on the slopes are usually less susceptible to wind throw than stands on the upper slopes and ridges. Thinning treatments should be managed accordingly depending on location. On a percentage basis thinning normally removes 25 to 50 percent of the stand, but most often about 30 to 40 percent. Removing and retaining trees in clumps will often help trees regenerate and protect each other respectably.
Salvage dead lodgepole pine and incidental trees susceptible to wind throw. Protect and reserve seedlings, saplings and other trees with at least 50 percent live crown and healthy leader growth (>6 inches/year). Retain all healthy, disease free lodgepole pine less than 7-inch DBH to retain as much functionality as feasible. Many of these stands have good regeneration in the understory. Where present, protect regeneration with various methods such as needed.
TREATMENT OPTION 3E: THINNING SMALL DIAMETER TREES
For stands with QMD less than 6 inches the prescription is to do a thinning to improve spacing. Spacing should be about 13 feet x13 feet or about 250 TPA. This will improve the crown ratio to hopefully about 40% live crown. The objective would be to leave the trees with the best live crown. If severely overstocked this may need to be done in stages over a period of years to allow trees to gain strength to withstand snow loading without snapping out tops. Slash generated from the thinning should be disposed of to reduce fire hazard, this could be done by chipping and removal to cogeneration facility (or other disposal market), biochar, chip on the ground or burn. If chips are left on the ground this should not be done in the spring as it will attract beetles during the summer.
Hunter Creek-Smuggler Mountain Cooperative Plan Environmental Assessment B-3 Appendix B: Vegetation Management Plan Prescriptions
TREATMENT OPTION 3F: PRESCRIBED FIRE
Nature’s way of regenerating lodgepole stands is through crown fires to provide enough heat to open serotinous cones. With the cost of removing logs very high (socially and economically, in remote areas or Roadless areas it may work better to use prescribed fire that would create the needed mineral seed bed and heat for opening cones.
Traditionally broadcast fire has been used to burn slash and tops left on site to facilitate opening of cones for regeneration and slash disposal purposes. B. MIXED CONIFER
TREATMENT OPTION 2A: SANITATION/SALVAGE
This option is a sanitation/salvage harvest.2 Primary focus is on removing brood trees and large (greater than 8-inch DBH) at risk lodgepole pine should be removed as well as poorly formed or diseased subalpine fir and Engelmann spruce. This will reduce fuel and improve forest health. In areas (openings) where regeneration is sparse or not present, conifer seedlings from nursery stock should be planted in the stand to create a fully stocked site and increase the species and size class diversity. If openings are going to be regeneration site preparation, scarification activities and control of competing vegetation may be needed to create the proper conditions for artificial and natural regeneration.
It is recommended that hazard trees of all species be removed within 110 percent of the height of the tallest locally hazardous tree from the edge of heavily used roads and trails.
TREATMENT OPTION 2B: GROUP SELECTION WITH VARIABLE RETENTION
Option B is uneven-aged management in the form of group selection with variable retention. This provides for a long-term (life of the stand) solution by increasing age class diversity. This treatment balances the biological need of the shade tolerant and shade intolerant species by providing a variable amount of shade and disturbed soil conditions to encourage good regeneration, but also helps mitigate visual concerns. An additional benefit of group selection is the improved diversity of wildlife habitat.
The emphasis changes slightly to focus on putting patches where the lodgepole pine is located and leaving the other species that are more resilient. In stands with some aspen in the understory, patches may be placed around the aspen to help release the aspen.
To protect the adjacent species (Engelmann spruce & subalpine fir) patch sizes should be limited to 1 to 2.5 acres in size to reduce the risk of blow down in these shallow rooted species.
2 Sanitation thinning removes trees to prevent or reduce the spread of insects and diseases to the residual stand. The thinning must target trees that are already damaged/infected or those that might serve as good habitat for the spread of a disease or insect population (e.g., >6’’ DBH lodgepole pine, spruce blowdown).
Hunter Creek-Smuggler Mountain Cooperative Plan Environmental Assessment B-4 Appendix B: Vegetation Management Plan Prescriptions
Variable retention refers to leaving valuable wildlife structural elements as available in the stands in either aggregate or dispersed fashion. Examples include large old green cull trees, remnant large old trees, large down woody debris or clumps of down wood, etc. The idea is to leave critical wildlife habitat elements behind in the new young stands to help wildlife and not wait decades for the new stands to develop these valuable structures. Leaving groups of trees can also create habitat.
Scarification after logging to prepare a seed bed is just as important here. In this case leaving lodgepole pine tops with cones is not as important, but still a good idea. We still want to regenerate lodgepole, the goal is to maintain mixed conifer stands. If and/or when the spruce beetle becomes a problem we don’t want to have pure spruce/fir stands.
Wind throw of the residual trees is a risk with this option when more than 25 percent of the basal area of the stand is removed in a single entry. Retention of the residual trees in clumps, so they can support each other in wind events and on the lower two-thirds of the slope will help reduce wind throw. Wind throw risk is higher on the upper third of a slope, on ridges and in areas where topography funnels winds (i.e., saddles).
TREATMENT OPTION 2C: THINNING
Thinning of a mixed conifer stands will involve the traditional thinning removal of trees from below. For mixed species stands the thinning should be focused from below removing trees with poor crown rations, poor form, diseased and other poor performing trees, while producing a stand that is more evenly spaced. The remaining trees become healthier producing desired larger trees. Where aspen patches are present conifers should be removed away from them to allow release and stop encroachment of conifers on aspen.
Basal area targets post thinning for mixed conifer stands dominated with spruce/fir are 100 to 125 square feet. One should not remove more than 25 percent of BA to prevent wind throw. Wind throw is where spruce beetle normally gets established and turns into epidemic problems. This method is usually applied to stands that have an even-aged structure with uniform tree size, with the objective of maintaining this structure and growing larger trees.
TREATMENT OPTION 2D: INDIVIDUAL TREE SELECTION
Individual tree selection is the traditional form of uneven-age silviculture. With this method trees from all size classes are removed either as individuals or in small patches (less than 1 acre). Normally for spruce fir no more than 25 percent of a stand is removed in any one entry and stands are re-entered every ten to twenty years in order to maintain a balance structure between young and old trees. For stands with Douglas-fir and pine the removal can be up to 40 percent. The lower the BA retention the longer between re-entry intervals.
Hunter Creek-Smuggler Mountain Cooperative Plan Environmental Assessment B-5 Appendix B: Vegetation Management Plan Prescriptions
Basal area targets from mixed species stands dominated by spruce/fir are similar to the thinning targets (100 to 150 square feet).
TREATMENT OPTION 2E: PRESCRIBED FIRE
The main function of prescribed fire with mixed conifer stands is broadcast burning slash to encourage lodgepole regeneration if lodgepole is present in the stand or more likely in the form of pile burning to clean up slash after removal of trees to reduce fuel loading and prepare a seed bed for natural regeneration of openings created during harvest. C. ASPEN
TREATMENT OPTION 1A: MONITOR
This is a viable option (treatment) with aspen being a coppice species. Within a healthy stand aspen will regenerate itself. Monitoring is an important part of aspen management to make sure the stands remain healthy with adequate regeneration. The risk is that shade intolerant species can come into the understory and shade out aspen regeneration.
Harvest hazard trees of all species within a 110% of the height of the tallest locally hazardous tree from the edge of roads and trails while retaining all the other species.
TREATMENT OPTION 1B: ACTIVE REGENERATION
Successful vegetative regeneration of aspen is dependent on three key components: hormonal stimulation, growth environment and protection of resulting suckers as represented in the “aspen regeneration triangle.”
Hunter Creek-Smuggler Mountain Cooperative Plan Environmental Assessment B-6 Appendix B: Vegetation Management Plan Prescriptions
Figure 8. The Aspen Regeneration Triangle Management Decision Model
Source: Shepperd, 2001
To get the proper hormonal stimulation for sucker production, an aspen must be killed by burning or cutting to interrupt the auxin flow from stem to roots. The preferred environment for regeneration is achieved by the removal of competing vegetation to provide for warm soil conditions that will stimulate growth. Protection is guarding against over-browsing by livestock and wild ungulates.
In order to induce and support aspen regeneration, several manipulation techniques are available:
Commercial harvest Prescribed fire Mechanical root stimulation Removal of vegetative competition Protection of regeneration from herbivory (fencing) Regeneration from seed Combination of techniques
To be successful, a manipulation technique must meet the three requirements of the aspen regeneration triangle, be cost effective and technically feasible. The most effective treatments usually involve a combination of the above techniques in conjunction with proper identification of stands to be treated, the risk factors, operational limitations and objectives. The most commonly used methods are fire and harvest. Exclusion of fire over the last century has had the effect of eliminating the disturbance aspen needs to regenerate. Air quality and liability issues are potential limiting factors on the use of fire. Steep slopes will limit mechanical options.
Hunter Creek-Smuggler Mountain Cooperative Plan Environmental Assessment B-7 Appendix B: Vegetation Management Plan Prescriptions
Some sample treatments for aspen regeneration are listed below recognizing that each stand has different associated physical and biological circumstances:
Lightly under-burn in the spring or fall (which is ecologically preferred). Hand piles are not a preferred option since burn piles kill roots. Harvest and remove trees along with removal of competing vegetation. Patch cuts of aspen should be 0.1- to 2-acres in size and should be applied on up to 20 percent of aspen stands found within the study area. Stimulate roots around meadows. Remove conifers around the edge of aspen stands.
Many different methods will work but one must meet the biological requirements. One must also keep in mind what other species are within the stand and their biology to understand how they may respond to any fire or mechanical treatment intended to regenerate the aspen.
TREATMENT OPTION 1C: REMOVE CONIFERS
Since the aspen community is so biologically diverse and the DFC is to improve and increase the amount aspen, removing conifers within an aspen stand is an important option. With these mixed stands there are many scenarios, but the main ones are: shade tolerant species in the understory and mature conifers mixed into the overstory. In both cases of succession the aspen usually are taken over by the conifers, unless some disturbance kills or removes the conifers.
Conifer Understory Usually with conifers in the understory the aspen overstory is fairly old, so either harvesting or running fire through the stand will remove or kill the conifers and aspen creating conditions for the aspen to re- sprout. The preferred season for burning aspen is in the fall to match the normal ecological cycle.
Pile burning is not a preferred option because the intense heat with duration kills the aspen roots. The fire needs to be of broadcast nature that burns lightly and rapidly. Aspen and subalpine firs in particular, are easy to kill with fire due to their thin bark.
Overstory Conifer Removing conifer from the overstory is a bigger dilemma. With the heavier fuel loading of a conifer overstory, especially if there is heavy fuel loading in the understory. These heavier fuels can cause more intense fire for a longer period of time, potentially injuring the aspen root system and damaging its ability to re-sprout. Thus, with a conifer overstory it’s important to remove or at least reduce the fuel load prior to any fire treatment.
Hunter Creek-Smuggler Mountain Cooperative Plan Environmental Assessment B-8 Appendix B: Vegetation Management Plan Prescriptions
Just removing the conifer and aspen mechanically is another option and then just letting the aspen re- sprout. Root ripping can also stimulate additional sucker sprouting of the aspen, especially on the edge of stands.
Keep the aspen triangle in mind for any treatments to regenerate aspen. Minimum size of the units should be at least one acre and as large as visual and aesthetic objectives will allow. This species is shade intolerant so bigger openings to allow adequate sunlight to warm the soils and encourage regeneration is important. Control of competing vegetation is always vital to regeneration success.
It is recommended that hazard trees of all species be removed within 110% of the height of the tallest locally hazardous tree from the edge of heavily used roads and trails.
TREATMENT OPTION 1D: REMOVE CONIFER ENCROACHMENT AROUND ASPEN/MEADOWS
A significant problem identified during field review is the encroachment of conifer around aspen patches and meadows at the heads of drainages. These ecosystems are very valuable for wildlife and water. To solve this problem the treatment is to remove conifers for about a 100- to 200-foot band around the edge of these aspen/meadow complexes. Essentially as far back into stands as there is historical evidence of aspen and the soils indicate a higher water table conducive to aspen and meadow species. This work should be done in the summer or fall when the soils around the meadows are as dry as they are going to be for the year to reduce any potential damage to the soils. Sub-soiling to instigate coppice growth will also mitigate any soil compaction (target depth is 18 to 24 inches).
TREATMENT OPTION 1E: PRESCRIBED FIRE
Prescribed fire is closest to the historical natural process of disturbance for regenerating aspen. With aspen’s thin bark the stems of the trees are easily kill with broadcast burning. Traditionally these types of burns occurred in the fall after monsoon rains have stopped and leaves have dropped providing the fuel to carry a fire. By killing the tops of the trees this sends the hormonal signal to the roots to re-sprout. At the same time the fire reduces the competition from other vegetation and creates bare soil allowing the sun to warm the soils to encourage re-sprouting.
Pile burning is generally discouraged due to the intense heat potentially damaging the root system. To facilitate creating the conditions for a broadcast fire to carry, some trees may need to be cut a month or two prior to planned burn to provide enough fuel on the ground to help carry a fire.
If additional root stimulation or expansion of aspen is desired, then some root disturbance around the outside edges of the stand at drip line of trees is suggested. This could be done in conjunction with installation of fire lines for control of fire.
Hunter Creek-Smuggler Mountain Cooperative Plan Environmental Assessment B-9 Appendix B: Vegetation Management Plan Prescriptions
D. GAMBEL OAK
TREATMENT OPTION 4A: REGENERATE
Gambel oak is somewhat like aspen in that if you kill the top of the plant with fire or cutting it down it will re-sprout. Thus, one can use any method desired to kill the tops of the plants to instigate re-sprouting. These primarily fall into three categories of: fire, mechanical or manual. Fire historically has been the disturbance agent, with a variety of unit sizes.
Mechanical treatments (brush hog, rotoclear, hydro axe, chainsaw, etc.) or fire (on a very limited basis) shall be used to remove decadent shrubs that provide little forage and in many cases are out of reach of calves during the winter. Ideally, these methods will foster prolific re-sprouting from oak roots, enhancing the nutrient content of the forage resource and increasing the quantity of forage available to wintering elk. The vigorous regenerated stands will benefit a broad variety of other wildlife in addition to elk.
Mechanical treatment and/or burning of gambel oak stands should occur over a fifty-year period. No more than 10 percent of the total acreage of oakbrush should be treated per five year period (or 20 percent of the total acreage throughout the life of the project) in order that sufficient browse remains in remnant stands for wintering elk. When treated areas have responded (usually in two to four years), other areas can be treated. Over time, the phased approach will provide a mosaic of different age classes and vegetative structure that will foster an increased abundance and diversity of wildlife on the project area.
These treatments are primarily to improve wildlife habitat for deer and elk winter range but also benefits many other species. To maximize this use one needs to keep in mind cover is an important element. The ideal ratio is normally 60:40, forage to cover. With this in mind openings in the range of 2 to 10 acres work very well.
Gambel oak comes in two forms: shrub form and tree form. In this area it is pre-dominantly shrub form. In cases where it is identified as tree form it has a longer life span and provides valuable mast production and adds needed structure to the vegetation and should be protected during treatments to the degree possible. Being a relatively thin barked tree it is susceptible to fire, which may require raking fuels and duff away from trees prior to any fire treatments.
To mitigate recreational impacts to wildlife, buffers should be left along roads and trails to provide a screen between wildlife and human disturbance. To the degree possible roads should be gated to limit vehicular traffic. Education should be used to reduce conflicts with deer and elk on winter range when they are most vulnerable.
TREATMENT OPTION 4B: PRESCRIBED FIRE
Historically fire has been the primary disturbance agent resulting in the regeneration of new growth for Gambel Oak. Since Gambel Oak is an active re-sprouting plant, the oak quickly regenerates after fire. The
Hunter Creek-Smuggler Mountain Cooperative Plan Environmental Assessment B-10 Appendix B: Vegetation Management Plan Prescriptions challenge with burning Gambel oak is that it is often within the Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) making it risky to burn with liability and smoke concerns.
To develop burn prescriptions that will work for Gambel oak often requires mechanical pre-treatment to get some material down on the ground to have enough dry material to carry a fire. Otherwise the burning must be done under relatively dry conditions making a burn only prescription rather risky. Integrated treatments with mechanical and fire are quite common to expand the window of opportunity for safe burning conditions and proper smoke management. For safety purposes burning may be limited to areas away from infrastructure. E. MOUNTAIN SHRUB
TREATMENT OPTION 5A: REGENERATE
The principles for regenerating the mountain shrub community are basically the same as for Gambel oak. Most brush and hardwood species are good re-sprouters after cutting or burning. But there are exceptions to this rule. Sagebrush is one of them (see below for treatment). Sagebrush is killed by fire and regenerates from seed, but does not re-sprout.
Understanding the biology of each of the species involved is important to developing treatments with the proper timing of their application. Historically most of the species are adapted to fire, which usually burned during the summer and fall, this is usually the best time to apply fire treatments. Mechanical means such as mastication are often used to treat brush species for wildlife and wildfire fuel reduction.3 There are numerous different undercarriages and mastication heads to use depending on the topography, species and objectives one is dealing with.
Mechanical treatment of mountain shrub stands should occur over a fifty-year period. No more than 10 percent of the total acreage of oakbrush should be treated per five-year period (or 20 percent of total acreage throughout the life of the project) in order that sufficient browse remains in remnant stands for wintering elk. When treated areas have responded (usually in two to four years), other areas will be treated. Over time, the phased approach will provide a mosaic of different age classes and vegetative structure that will foster an increased abundance and diversity of wildlife on the project area.
TREATMENT OPTION 5B: PRESCRIBED FIRE
The issues and prescriptions for mountain shrub are essentially the same as Gambel oak. There are slight differences in structure, density and configuration for the vegetation that make for slightly different burn prescriptions. The mountain shrub and Gambel oak are often configured within the same mosaic of vegetation, making it likely the units may involve the two vegetation types within any one unit that may be laid out for treatment.
3 The flailing, grinding or mulching of the vegetation into various sizes of chips depending on the equipment used.
Hunter Creek-Smuggler Mountain Cooperative Plan Environmental Assessment B-11 Appendix B: Vegetation Management Plan Prescriptions
As with Gambel oak pre-treatment of the vegetation may be required to facilitate burning. F. SAGEBRUSH
TREATMENT OPTION 6A: PROTECT
Since sagebrush is killed by fire, protection is an option. Another reason for protection of sagebrush in this area is that a lot of the development in the area has replaced much of the sagebrush habitat, putting sagebrush in short supply.
Age class diversity is important with this species like any other species to maintain its health. While one doesn’t want to see all of it burned at one time within this planning area, doing some treatment to small patches scattered in space and time will serve to improve structural and age class diversity and ensure adequate diversity and quantity of browse.
TREATMENT OPTION 6B: REGENERATE
At some point older sagebrush, especially big sagebrush grows out of browse range. In addition, as plants age they lose their nutritional value and it’s important to regenerate the species. Furthermore, the species composition found within sagebrush plant associations varies dependent on the age and structure of the dominant sagebrush cover. Management of sagebrush plant communities typically focuses on providing a variety of age and structural classes.
Although the species is killed by hot fires it also scarifies the seed and stimulates it to germinate, so fire is the primary ecological disturbance sagebrush is adapted too. Summer and fall burns are the preferred method of regenerating sagebrush.
With air quality and liability issues surrounding burning in the area, mechanical means of regeneration are also possible. Roller chopping is a common method in the area for treating and regenerating sagebrush which works best when applied in the fall after plant has went to seed. Seed drilling is another method used in flatter areas that will allow the equipment.4
TREATMENT OPTION 6C: PRESCRIBED FIRE
Burning sagebrush is almost essential for its regeneration. Unlike Gambel oak and mountain shrub, sagebrush does not re-sprout. Sagebrush requires fire to scarify the seed to get it to germinate. So fire is the preferred method of regeneration since it is ecologically adapted to fire. Fall is the best time to do fire in line with historical timing. It takes a relatively hot fire to scarify the seed as compared to normally cooler burns during the spring season.
4 Roller chopping involves pulling a very large weighted roller behind a tractor to crush vegetation, usually on flatter slopes.
Hunter Creek-Smuggler Mountain Cooperative Plan Environmental Assessment B-12 Appendix B: Vegetation Management Plan Prescriptions
As with Gambel oak and mountain shrub, this vegetation type is often intertwined with the WUI making prescribed fire potentially risky. Burning may need to be focused in areas away from infrastructure to reduce liability risks and smoke management concerns.
Hunter Creek-Smuggler Mountain Cooperative Plan Environmental Assessment B-13