United States Department of Environmental Assessment Agriculture Emergency Power Line Clearing Project Forest Service Portions of the Arapaho and Roosevelt, Routt, and White River National Forests in May 2010 Boulder, Clear Creek, Eagle, Garfield, Gilpin, Grand, Gunnison, Jackson, Larimer, Mesa, Pitkin, Rio Blanco, Routt and Summit Counties, Colorado For Information Contact: Jamie Kingsbury 925 Weiss Drive Steamboat Springs, CO 80487 970-870-2149 [email protected] Prepared for: Arapaho & Roosevelt National Forest Routt National Forest White River National Forest Prepared By: JG Management Systems, Inc. 336 Main Street, Suite 207 Grand Junction, CO 81501 970-254-1354 The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or a part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. –Final – Environmental Assessment of the Emergency Power Line Clearing Project Environmental Assessment Organization This Environmental Assessment (EA) addresses the proposed actions determined by the United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service (USFS), the Arapaho and Roosevelt (ARNF), the Routt (RNF), and the White River National Forests (WRNF) necessary to implement hazard tree removal activities associated with power lines on the three forests, in central Colorado. The EA is written pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA, 42 USC §4321), Council on Environmental Quality regulations (40 CFR Parts 1500-1508), and 36 Code of Federal Regulation [CFR] 218 and 220. The EA is organized in the following fashion: Executive Summary briefly describes the Proposed Action, provides a summary of environmental, cultural, and socioeconomic consequences, and compares and contrasts potential effects associated with the considered alternatives. Section 1.0 – Project Overview summarizes the purpose of and need for the Proposed Action, provides relevant background information, and describes the scope of the EA. Section 2.0 – Alternatives describes the No Action and the Proposed Action Alternatives. Section 3.0 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences identifies potential environmental, cultural and socioeconomic effects of implementing the No Action Alternative and the Proposed Action Alternative. Section 4.0 – Consultation and Coordination provides a listing of agencies, organizations, and personnel that were involved in the Proposed Project. Section 5.0 – References provides bibliographical information for cited sources. Appendix A – Consolidated Forest Plan Standards provides a combined set of standards from the forest plans for the ARNF, RNF and WRNF that were used to develop and manage the Proposed Project. Appendix B – Maps provides a description of the maps available as a portion of the project record for the Proposed Project. ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Arapaho and Roosevelt, Routt, and White River National Forests May 2010 United States Forest Service Page i –Final – Environmental Assessment of the Emergency Power Line Clearing Project (THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK) ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Arapaho and Roosevelt, Routt, and White River National Forests May 2010 United States Forest Service Page ii –Final – Environmental Assessment of the Emergency Power Line Clearing Project EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Environmental Assessment (EA) has been prepared to fully identify, document, and address the potential physical, environmental, cultural, and socioeconomic effects associated with implementation of the Emergency Power Line Clearing Project, proposed for implementation on National Forest System (NFS) lands on the Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests (ARNF), Routt National Forest (RNF), and White River National Forest (WRNF), located in north central Colorado. This project identifies those parts of the ARNF, RNF, and WRNF that contain large numbers of dead or dying trees along power line rights-of-way that may pose a threat or hazard to the integrity of utility power lines and their infrastructure. The Proposed Action has been determined essential by the USFS, and has been authorized under the Healthy Forests Restoration Act (HFRA) Title 1, 102 (a) 1 and 4, to ensure the safety and security of power lines that service segments of the local population as well as function as a portion of the local, regional, and national electrical grid. The three principal purposes of the Proposed Action include: • Reduce the potential for wildland fires caused by hazardous trees falling onto the power lines. • Reduce hazardous fuel loadings associated with trees killed by beetles or disease. • Ensure reliable electrical service to the local, regional, and national electrical grid in compliance with the Energy Policy Act of 2005. By implementing the Proposed Action, these purposes would be achieved by reducing the potential for fire, injury, and damage and/or malfunction of power lines, thereby increasing the safety of users and administrative staff. The Proposed Action assessed in this document is a one-time authorization to allow felling and/or removal, where feasible, of hazardous trees up to 200 feet (from each side of centerline) of transmission lines and up to 75 feet (from each side of centerline) of distribution lines. After treatments have been completed, maintenance would return to widths and standards specified in existing permits and easements. Through employment of proper resource management strategies, this action is not expected to have significant impacts. This EA examines in-depth two alternatives: 1) a No Action Alternative, and 2) a Proposed Action Alternative, defined as follows. • No Action Alternative: Do not implement the Proposed Action identified as the Emergency Power Line Clearing Project and allow all resource management authorized by permits and easements to continue as currently conducted. • Proposed Action Alternative: Implement the Proposed Action as identified in the Emergency Power Line Clearing Project addressing resource management strategies for the ARNF, RNF, and WRNF. The Proposed Action Alternative effectively provides the best combination of land and resource management to allow the removal of hazardous trees and removal of potential fuel for the protection of the power lines on the ARNF, RNF, and WRNF and to help prevent interruption of power supply and reduce potential wildfire starts. The No Action Alternative reduces the level of protection for power lines in the areas identified by the Proposed Action and as stated in the respective forest Land and Resource Management Plans. In addition, the No Action Alternative would result in the allowance of the abundantly available fuels created by the bark beetle epidemic of the mountain west to accumulate. This would create a heavier than normal load of ground fuels in areas with a high potential for ignition, thus compromising the integrity of the power lines. However, the No Action Alternative is comparatively analyzed with this EA as required under federal law. ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Arapaho and Roosevelt, Routt, and White River National Forests May 2010 United States Forest Service Page iii –Final – Environmental Assessment of the Emergency Power Line Clearing Project After describing the physical, environmental, cultural, and socioeconomic aspects of the project area and its region of influence, each considered alternative was evaluated to determine its potential direct and/or indirect effect(s) on that setting. To simplify and render consistent the impact analysis presentation, and to facilitate the reader’s review and understanding of that section, each technical area subsection was organized using the same structure. Following are the technical areas examined listed in order of presentation: • Recreation • Heritage Resources • Inventoried Roadless Areas • Engineering and Public Access • Hydrology • Scenery Resources • Amphibians, Fisheries, and Aquatic • Soils Habitats • Special Interest Areas • Botany • Research Natural Areas • Forested Vegetation/Old Growth • Wilderness Areas • Fire and Fuels • Wildlife Through implementation of integrated, and required, best management practices (BMPs), application of Design Criteria, and compliance with applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations, any adverse impacts would be minimized. The EA includes examination of the potential direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of implementing both of the considered alternatives, within the administrative boundaries of the ARNF, RNF, and WRNF and within the affected