Find a Forest (NF)
or Grassland (NG)
Find a District (RD)
or Grassland (NG)
USDA Forest Service
Pike & San Isabel National Forests
Cimarron & Comanche National Grasslands
2840 Kachina Drive
Pueblo, CO 81008
719-553-1400
Telephone for the
Hearing Impaired
719-553-1404
|
![United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service.](https://webarchive.library.unt.edu/eot2008/20081023131753im_/http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/psicc/local-resources/images/usda-fs-shield-brown.gif) |
|
Publications - Decision Notice
DECISION NOTICE
AND
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Upper South Platte Watershed Protection
and Restoration Project
Vegetation Treatment Subproject in Inventoried Roadless Areas
USDA Forest Service
Rocky Mountain Region
Pike and San Isabel National Forests
South Platte Ranger District
Douglas and Jefferson Counties, Colorado
INTRODUCTION
The Upper South Platte watershed is located in the foothills of the Colorado
Front Range of the Rocky Mountains. The Project Area is approximately
140,000 acres in total area (public and private lands) and encompasses
three sub-watersheds of the Upper South Platte River watershed, including
Horse Creek, Waterton/Deckers, and Buffalo Creek subwatersheds. These
watersheds are located in Jefferson and Douglas Counties, southwest of
Denver.
The U.S. Forest Service in cooperation with the Colorado State Forest
Service and Denver Water assessed the 640,000-acre Upper South Platte
Watershed to identify and prioritize restoration opportunities, focusing
on forested areas that are not sustainable as evidenced by their departure
from historical conditions. The partners determined the primary issues
and goals for this project by completing and reviewing the Upper South
Platte Watershed Landscape Assessment (Foster Wheeler Environmental 1999).
The Waterton/Deckers/Horse Creek subwatersheds were ranked highest for
needing restoration management based on their high risk of fire and soil
erosion.
The current forested landscape condition does not reflect the historic
disturbance regime and is not sustainable. Past land uses and management
have resulted in relatively dense, even-aged, closed-crown forest condition
throughout the ponderosa pine/Douglas-fir forest with a much higher risk
of catastrophic fire compared to pre-settlement conditions. The existing
small trees serve as ladder fuels, permitting surface fires to climb into
the tree canopy and become crown fires. Wildfire would occur as a high-intensity
crown fire under hot, dry, and windy conditions that are common in early
summer. Modification of forest structure and composition to pre-settlement
conditions would help fire-control efforts and reduce the likelihood of
future large-scale fires. The USDA Forest Service prepared an Environmental
Assessment (EA) for the Upper South Platte Watershed Protection and Restoration
Project that was released for public review in August 2000. The EA describes
the proposed actions and the potential environmental effects. The EA describes
alternatives to the proposed action and the effects those alternatives
may have on the environment.
The EA evaluated four subprojects including: 1) vegetation treatments,
2) Buffalo Creek burn area revegetation, 3) road reclamation, and 4) South
Platte River access trail improvements (see EA pages 2-10 to 2-17). Decisions
for the four subprojects were anticipated to be independent of one another
to best address the purpose and need (see EA pages 1-13 and 1-14). The
Decision Notices for the reclamation of unclassified roads, the South
Platte River access trail improvements, and the Buffalo Creek burn area
revegetation subprojects are separate documents. The Gill Trail Improvement
was approved on February 2, 2001 and the Buffalo Creek Tree Planting on
March 1, 2001.
Commentors on the EA requested a map showing the entire roadless area
boundaries and clarification of the alternatives. A map with the roadless
area boundaries is attached. The alternatives are clarified below.
The decision on the vegetation treatment will be made in two parts. This
Decision Notice is for vegetation treatment within Inventoried Roadless
Areas. A separate Decision Notice for vegetation treatment outside of
Inventoried Roadless Areas and Forest Plan Amendment 28 has been signed.
The vegetation treatment within Inventoried Roadless Areas is consistent
with the Roadless Area Conservation Final Rule and Record of Decision
published January 12, 2001 and current Chief’s direction.
DECISION
This decision, on vegetation treatment within Inventoried Roadless Areas,
was made following review of the EA, supporting materials referenced by
the EA, and additional information contained in the Decision Notice and
response to comments in Attachment B to the Decision Notice/FONSI for
the Vegetation Treatment Subproject in Non-Roadless Areas. The analysis
in the EA was done for all the proposed vegetative treatments, whether
outside or inside roadless areas. This decision modifies the selected
alternative from that described in the EA and has been adequately analyzed
in the EA. This decision adds the Inventoried Roadless Area of the project
area to the prior decision for the non-roadless areas (see the Decision
Notice/FONSI for the Vegetation Treatment Subproject in Non-Roadless Areas).
The potential environmental impacts to the combined Inventoried Roadless
Areas and non-roadless areas have been disclosed in the EA.
Vegetation Treatments
I have decided to implement Alternative B (proposed action in the EA)
for the Inventoried Roadless Areas portions of the vegetation treatment
areas with modifications in response to public and agency input on the
project. Alternative B as modified for the Inventoried Roadless Areas
includes the following actions:
- Use adaptive management to treat up to 5,200 acres (See Inventoried
Roadless Areas Vegetation Treatment Areas Map).
- Thin stands on 4,200 acres.
- Intersperse 1 to 40- acre persistent openings on 1,000 acres.
- Remove logs from 3,400 acres.
- Improve Pawnee montane skipper habitat on 1,400 acres.
- Phase the first two years of work to facilitate adaptive management.
- Monitor and mitigate OHV use in treatment areas.
![Roadless Vegetation Treatment Areas](https://webarchive.library.unt.edu/eot2008/20081023131753im_/http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/psicc/spl/images/map_roadless.jpg)
VEGETATION TREATMENT DESCRIPTION
The vegetation treatment will include thinning, creating openings, prescribed
burning, and removing trees on up to 5,200 acres within the Waterton/Deckers/
Horse Creek subwatersheds. The treatments will generally be below 7,500
feet elevation. The purpose of the project is to: 1) reduce the risk of
large-scale fires and subsequent erosion in the watershed that could threaten
property and human life and exacerbate soil and water quality problems;
2) restore the forest to more sustainable conditions; and 3) improve up
to 1,400 acres of habitat used by the federally-listed Pawnee montane
skipper. A detailed description of the proposal and effects is in the
environmental assessment. The main elements of the proposed project, including
elements added or modified to address public and agency input on the project,
are listed below.
- Treat vegetation using adaptive management to ensure protection
of resources
- Monitor operations and treatment areas during the life of this
project to ensure management and resource protection objectives
are achieved (see monitoring below).
- Phase the first two years of work to allow time to evaluate the
treatment activities and identify any potential problems that may
require remedial measures or modifications to treatment prescriptions.
Upon completion of the project approximately 75 to 80% of the treated
acres will be thinned, 20 to 25% of the treated acres will be created
openings, and up to 100% of the treated acres will be prescribed
burned
- After the first two years, the area treated annually may be increased
based on the outcome of monitoring during the first two years.
- Thin trees to a canopy closure of about 25 percent on up to 4,200
acres. The residual stand basal area will average 40-60 square feet
per acre (or approximately 50-75 trees per acre). The following guidance
and constraints will be used:
- The residual stand will be resilient to surface fires and have
a low risk of sustaining a crown fire. Preference will be given
to retaining ponderosa pine over Douglas-fir and retaining larger
trees with few low branches. More Douglas-fir will be retained on
north aspects and higher elevations with few Douglas-fir retained
on east, south, and west aspects in the lower elevations. Larger
more mature trees will typically be retained. The spacing will be
variable retaining natural clumpy characteristics. Retain existing
snags that are not a hazard, for cavity-dependent wildlife.
- The landscape is deficient in old-growth forests. Ponderosa pine
and Douglas-fir stands that meet old growth standard defined in
Old-Growth Forests in the Southwest and Rocky Mountain Regions Proceedings
of a Workshop, USDA Forest Service General Technical Report RM-213,
and any trees identifiable as being over 150 years old will be retained
to help achieve future old-growth conditions. Larger trees will
generally be retained throughout the treatment areas, but some larger
trees will be cut. Areas that do not meet the old-growth standard
but have larger trees where the local residual stocking is greater
than 80 square feet of basal area per acre will be thinned to approximately
60 square feet of basal area. Priority will be given to retaining
the largest ponderosa pine and then the largest Douglas-fir. The
residual stand will be kept on a trajectory to achieve an old-growth
condition.
- Lop and scatter slash left on-site or crush with yarding and harvesting
equipment. Heavy slash will be piled.
- Thinning operations will comply with the conservation measures
outlined in the Biological Opinion (USFWS 2001); the Water Conservation
Practices and BMPs listed in the EA; and the standard and guidelines
listed in the Land and Resource Management Plan, Pike and San Isabel
National Forests; Comanche and Cimarron National Grasslands (Forest
Plan) as amended.
- Create 1 to 40-acre openings on up to 1,000 acres under the following
guidance and constraints:
- Openings will be dispersed where they would most likely have naturally
persisted the longest. The openings will be in areas that have regenerated
in the past 120 years and will primarily be located on south and
west aspects. Approximately 80 to 90% of the openings will be 5
acres or less. Openings larger than 5 acres will be created only
where there is evidence that a larger opening existed historically.
These sites will have few if any trees greater than 100 years old,
no stumps, and little or no organic soil development. No openings
will be greater than 40 acres. Retain existing snags that are not
a hazard, for cavity-dependent wildlife.
- Approximately 40% of the acres in openings will have no trees
and the remaining 60% will have canopy closures of 1-10%.
- Lop and scatter slash left on-site or crush with yarding and harvesting
equipment.
- Openings and operations to create openings will comply with the
conservation measures outlined in the Biological Opinion (USFWS
2001); the Water Conservation Practices and BMPs listed in the EA;
and the standard and guidelines listed in the Forest Plan as amended.
- Prescribe burn up to 5,200 acres under the following guidance and
constraints:
- Prescribe burn logs and slash after material has sufficiently
dried, one to two years after completing mechanical treatments.
- Prescribe burn the new openings again 5 to 6 years later if necessary
to minimize tree regeneration, then every 10 to 30 years as needed
to maintain the openings.
- Prescribe burning will comply with the conservation measures outlined
in the Biological Opinion (USFWS 2001); the Water Conservation Practices
and BMPs listed in the EA; and the standard and guidelines listed
in the Forest Plan as amended.
- Remove logs from up to 5,200 acres under the following guidance
and constraints:
- Harvesting equipment will not be allowed on slopes greater than
30% to remove logs from an estimated 1,200 acres, unless the contractor
can demonstrate ability to remove logs without environmental damage.
No vegetation treatments will occur on any slopes greater that 40%.
Approximately 1,000 additional acres will not have logs removed
because it would be economically infeasible.
- Use forwarders or other approved methods to remove logs from approximately
3,000 acres to existing roads. If other methods are approved, they
must maintain the roadless character and have effects similar to
a forwarder system.
- Access the treatment areas under the following guidance and constraints:
- No roads will be constructed or reconstructed in the 5,200 acres
of Inventoried Roadless Areas within the treatment area. Existing
roads (both within and outside of the Inventoried Roadless Areas)
will be routinely maintained to prevent resource damage.
- Vegetation screens will be retained immediately adjacent to open
roads where there is potential to increase unauthorized off-road
access.
- Existing unclassified roads used to access the treatment areas
will be obliterated by combination of water barring, scarifying,
seeding, and blockading access after treatments are completed. Biosolids
may be used as a soil amendment to accelerate revegetation.
- Monitor project area resources to ensure resource management objectives
are achieved:
- Monitor federally listed species according to the Biological Opinion
and carry out required conservation measures (USFWS 2001).
- Monitor Management Indicator Species (MIS) and Forest Sensitive
Species that may be directly affected by the project. Species that
will be monitored in the project area include: Abert’s squirrel,
brook trout, elk, fox sparrow, golden-crowned kinglet, mountain
bluebird, mule deer, olive-sided flycatcher, northern goshawk, pygmy
nuthatch, three-toed woodpecker, turkey, Wilson’s warbler, and Virginia’s
Warbler.
If MIS or Forest Sensitive Species are found during monitoring
surveys, then apply the following protection measures as appropriate:
- No ponderosa pine with signs of active Abert’s squirrel nesting
or feeding will be cut.
- No elk and mule deer calving and fawning concentration areas
will be modified or disturbed from May 15 – June 30.
- No treatment activities will occur within a 650-foot buffer
surrounding northern goshawk nest sites.
iv. No treatment activities will occur within a 2,500-foot buffer
surrounding active northern goshawk nests during post-fledgling
periods (March thru September).
- Protect other raptor nesting sites using measures similar
to those for goshawk.
- Apply Forest Plan standards and guidelines for wildlife.
If the Forest Plan general directions, standards, and guidelines
for wildlife and fish resources and habitat improvement and maintenance
are not achieved, then:
vi. Reduce or modify vegetation treatment
operations and/or
vii. Increase species monitoring to determine
the source of impact and apply appropriate mitigation.
- Monitor vegetation and noxious weeds according to the “Upper South
Platte Watershed Protection and Restoration Project Monitoring Strategy.”
If the Forest Plan general directions, standards, and guidelines
for habitat improvement and maintenance are not achieved, then
- Reduce or modify vegetation treatment operations and/or
- Increase use of noxious weed control measures
- Increase noxious weed monitoring to determine the source of
impact and apply appropriate mitigation.
- Monitor soil erosion and water quality, including implementation
and effectiveness of water conservation practices and other mitigation,
according to the “Upper South Platte Watershed Protection and Restoration
Project Monitoring Strategy.” If the Forest Plan general directions,
standards, and guidelines for soil and water resources are not achieved,
then:
- Reduce or modify vegetation treatment operations and/or
- Increase the use of Water Conservation Practices and BMPs
- Increase soil and water quality monitoring to determine the
source of impact and apply appropriate mitigation.
- Monitor off-highway vehicle (OHV) use within the treatment area.
If the Forest Plan general directions, standards, and guidelines
for dispersed recreation, including OHV use, are not achieved, then:
- Scarify, seed, and block unauthorized OHV trails and/or
- Gate and/or sign with “closed to motor vehicles” to discourage
use of temporary roads or unauthorized OHV trails and increase
law enforcement.
- Treat vegetation within 500 feet of private property under the
following guidelines:
- Work cooperatively with private landowners to address
their concerns about forest conditions on public lands managed by
the Forest Service adjacent to their land. Treat national forest
lands adjacent to private lands using the guidance and constraints
listed under items 1 thru 7 above.
INFORMATION RELEVANT TO MY DECISION
The following are the key pieces of information related to my decision.
Information contained in the three-volume Landscape Assessment for the
Upper South Platte Watershed (Foster Wheeler Environmental 1999) was considered.
The U.S. Forest Service in cooperation with the Colorado State Forest
Service and Denver Water assessed the 640,000-acre Upper South Platte
Watershed to identify and prioritize restoration opportunities within
the watershed, focusing on forested areas that are not sustainable as
evidenced by their historical conditions. The Waterton/Deckers/Horse Creek
subwatersheds were ranked highest for needing restoration management based
on their high risk of fire and soil erosion.
The purposes of the proposed vegetation treatments are to reduce the risk
of large-scale fires and subsequent erosion in the Upper South Platte
watershed, that could threaten property and human life and exacerbate
soil and water quality problems, and to create or restore the forest to
more sustainable conditions. The proposed action of these treatments also
has the goal of improving Pawnee montane skipper habitat in order to reverse
the current downward trend of this threatened butterfly.
The current forest conditions combined with greater human encroachment
into forestlands have dramatically increased the risk of loss of life
and property from wildfires in recent years. The current forested landscape
condition does not reflect the historic disturbance regime and is not
sustainable. Past fire control (suppression), logging, and grazing allowed
smaller, thin-barked trees to proliferate. This resulted in relatively
dense, even-aged, closed-crown forest conditions throughout the ponderosa
pine/Douglas-fir forest that have a much higher risk of catastrophic fire
compared to pre-settlement conditions which were surface and mixed severity
fires. Because the forests have very little down wood to permit low-intensity
ground fires, prescribed fires alone are unable to modify the forest structure.
The existing small trees serve as ladder fuels, permitting surface fires
to climb into the tree canopy and become crown fires. Wildfire will carry
as a high-intensity crown fire under hot, dry, and windy conditions that
are common in early summer.
The 1996 Buffalo Creek fire and the 2000 Hi Meadow fire clearly demonstrated
the devastation a large-scale high-intensity fire can cause. The Buffalo
Creek fire burned almost 10,000 acres in less than 11 hours and eventually
burned a total of 12,000 acres. Fire suppression cost $2.5 million and
emergency rehabilitation cost $1.6 million. The fire destroyed several
homes and essential forest cover on highly erodible soils. Heavy rainfall
and floods following the fire resulted in two fatalities and caused substantial
erosion and sedimentation. The fire also severely impacted downstream
reservoirs that supply water to the Denver metropolitan area. Nearly 80
percent of the water used by the 2.5 million Denver metropolitan residents
comes from or is transmitted through this river drainage. The Denver Water
Board spent nearly $1 million on water quality cleanup and dredging operations
at Strontia Springs reservoir after the flood. They anticipate spending
an additional $10 to 15 million on future cleanup, dredging, and water
treatment modifications over the next 10 years because of the Buffalo
Creek fire.
In June 2000, the Hi Meadows fire burned nearly 11,000 acres, including
a small portion of the Project Area. This fire destroyed 58 structures,
including 51 homes. The fire followed a hot and dry period. These conditions,
combined with high winds, created a high-intensity, and fast-moving crown
fire in portions of the burn area. The fire suppression efforts cost nearly
$5 million. Heavy rains have caused erosion and flooding, although not
to the extent of the Buffalo Creek fire. The potential for further erosion
and flooding from the Hi Meadow fire is unknown at this time because the
fire was so recent.
Current research in the Upper South Platte watershed and knowledge of
wildfire behavior indicate that modification of forest structure and composition,
as proposed in this EA, will help fire-control efforts and reduce the
likelihood of future large-scale fires. The Hi Meadow Incident Operations
Report (June 2000) examined the impact previous forest management activities
had on the behavior of this fire. It was found that “it is evident that
thinning and prescribed fire reduced the spread and intensity of the High
[sic] Meadow wildfire.”
The proposed actions are also needed to help protect recreational resources,
including the highly regarded South Platte River trout fishery, within
the Project Area. This project will also increase forest vegetation and
wildlife diversity and increase resistance to widespread insect and disease.
The project will improve habitat for the threatened Pawnee montane skipper.
REASONS FOR MY DECISION
Substantive Comments on the EA
The EA was available for public review from August 11 to October 16, 2000.
The Forest Plan Amendment was available for public review from June 15
to July 16, 2000. The Forest Service received 53 public comment letters
on the EA and an additional 33 letters on the amendment. The EA team reviewed
and responded to all substantive comments. Issues raised by the public,
including a summary of the substantive comments and responses to those
comments, are addressed in the Public Review of the Environmental Assessment,
Upper South Platte Watershed Protection and Restoration Project and Forest
Plan Amendment 28 document.
Key Issues
The interagency group of partners that includes the U.S. Forest Service,
Colorado State Forest Service, Denver Water, and Environmental Protection
Agency initiated the Upper South Platte Watershed Protection and Restoration
Project in August 1998. They were concerned about continued soil and water
problems from the Buffalo Creek Fire of 1996 and the potential for future
fires to cause problems in other parts of the watershed. The partners
also wanted to address issues identified by the Colorado Unified Watershed
Assessment which concluded that the Upper South Platte River as a high
priority watershed in need of restoration. The partners determined the
primary issues and goals for this project by completing and reviewing
the Landscape Assessment for the Upper South Platte Watershed (Foster
Wheeler Environmental 1999). Key issues addressed in the Landscape Assessment
included relationship between the existing forest vegetation, soil erosion
and transport to streams, as well as future risks of catastrophic disturbances
that could increase soil erosion and transport. The intent of the Landscape
Assessment was to study ecological processes and develop recommendations
to restore and maintain the health of the Upper South Platte Watershed.
The public scoping and specialist’s input from US Forest Service, project
partners, and the NEPA contractor contributed to issue identification
and alternative development. Scoping identified three key issues for defining
the purpose and need for the proposed action. These issues and the objectives
of the actions proposed by the EA are presented in Table 1. The scoping
process identified mechanical vegetation treatment activities in roadless
areas as a key issue that formed the basis for two alternatives to the
proposed action, Alternatives A and C. Alternative C minimized activities
in the roadless areas by not allowing mechanical entry or removal of harvested
trees, while striving to meet the project’s objective. Alternative A (no
action) would have no vegetation treatment activities in Inventoried Roadless
Areas, but it would not meet project objectives. Alternatives A and C
would not use biosolids.
TABLE 1. ISSUES AND MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES
FOR THE ACTIONS
Issue |
Objectives for the Actions |
Deviation of the character
and function of the forest from its historical condition. |
Restore the Project Area
to a more sustainable condition that emulates the historical
functionality of the ecosystem, including reintroduction
of the historical fire regime, where possible. Use timber
harvesting or vegetation treatments to thin the forest
and create openings that more closely emulate the historical
vegetation patterns in treated areas. |
High risk of catastrophic
wildfires due to existing forest conditions. |
Reduce the risk of large,
intense wildfires that are outside of the historical
fire regime and could put human life, water supplies,
and property at high risk for loss or damage. |
Excessive erosion, resource
damage, and stream sedimentation in the Project Area |
Reduce existing and potential
stream sedimentation due to erosion and transport of
the highly erodible soils throughout the Project Area.
Specific objectives include improving the trail system
to discourage use of social trails and reducing erosion
from the burn area and unclassified roads. |
Minimal management activity
in roadless areas. |
Minimal activity in the roadless
area while striving to meet the project’s objectives,
including no mechanical entry or removal of harvested
trees. |
Biosolid use |
Minimal use of biosolids. |
|
Science
Scientists (Kaufmann et al. in preparation; Huckaby et al. 2000; Kaufmann
et al. 2000; Brown et al. 1999; and Kaufmann et al. 1999) have been studying
historical landscape conditions on Denver Water’s Cheesman Lake property
with the Pike and San Isabel National Forests since 1995. They have shown
that the historic Cheesman Lake forest was less dense, more open, and
less vulnerable to large-scale fires than the current condition of the
surrounding forested landscape. The historical fire behavior in this area
followed a mixed severity fire regime characterized by a combination of
surface fire and patchy crown fire. They concluded that past logging,
grazing, tree planting, and fire suppression has substantially increased
the current forest density and amount of Douglas-fir and small trees that
act as a ladder fuel for fires. As a result, the current forest conditions
favor a crown fire regime, with a high risk of catastrophic stand-replacing
fire. These higher-severity fires are more apt to have detrimental effects
on soil and watersheds, as well as wildlife habitat (Brown 2000). Because
conditions are well outside the historic range of variability within the
Forest, research scientists believe that managers must mechanically remove
wood to break up the dense, continuous forest (Kaufmann et al. 2000).
Dry forests offer the clearest opportunities for thinning in conjunction
with prescribed fire to contribute to restoration of wildlife habitat
while making the forests more resistant to uncharacteristically severe
fire (Brown 2000). Because openings are an important and transient part
of the landscape, removing dense, young trees and retaining old trees
will do much to restore the ecosystem and at the same time reduce wildfire
risk. Such ecological restoration is compatible with reduction of hazard
of catastrophic fire and insect outbreak (Veblen et al. 2000). Creating
a more open forest will result in a more grassy understory that will burn
at lower fire intensities, increase tree, shrub, and grass survival, and
reduce soil erosion (Kaufmann et al. 2000).
Kaufmann and others (in preparation) indicated that more than 90% of the
historical landscape had a crown closure of 30% or less. In contrast,
only 50% of the current nearby forests affected by logging, grazing, tree
planting, and fire suppression has crown closure of 30% or less. In other
words, the historical forest stands were much more open. They describe
four basic stand conditions in the area: 1) openings vegetated primarily
with grasses and shrubs, 2) patches that are pure or nearly pure ponderosa
pine, 3) patches having both ponderosa pine and Douglas fir, and 4) patches
of very old trees, persistent old growth. Historically, approximately
15% of landscape had persistent old-growth patches. Pure ponderosa pine
patches accounted for 35-50% of the landscape, primarily on east, south,
and west slopes. Ponderosa pine/Douglas fir patches on north slopes and
portions of other aspects accounted for 20-30% of the landscape, and at
least 25% of the landscape was open, with no more than 10% tree crown
closure. Undoubtedly these proportions varied over time, especially when
fires created openings, reduced tree densities, or killed young Douglas
fir trees invading patches (Kaufmann et al. in preparation). The departure
from the historical landscape conditions was used to help develop the
purpose and need. Actions to address this departure became the proposed
action.
The current conditions resulted as the patch proportions shifted dramatically
because the effects of logging, grazing, fire suppression, and tree planting
contributed to increased forest density. Logging decreased the amount
of old growth. Grazing helped the establishment of new seedlings by reducing
the grass that normally carried surface fires and competed for soil moisture.
The lack of fire allowed more seedlings to survive. The result was a sharp
increase in forest density, expansion of the area having a significant
Douglas-fir component, and the loss of openings following a temporary
increase during intense logging during the late 1800’s (Kaufmann et al.
in preparation). Because the lower montane forests are well outside the
historic range of variability, recent vegetation disturbances such as
fire and insects have had a greater influence on the vegetation trends
than forest management activities (Thinnes 2001; Veblen et al. 2000).
Rationale
I selected Alternative B, with the modifications described above, because
it provides the best means to reduce the risk of large-scale fires, improve
habitat for the Pawnee montane skipper, and restore the forest to more
sustainable conditions. Alternative B is science-based and has the support
of residents within the Project Area. The required mitigation measures
combined with monitoring and adaptive management ensure the Project’s
objectives will be achieved while protecting the resources. Alternative
B will best achieve the desired landscape conditions and is well supported
by scientists, other government agencies, and the local residents. Alternative
B meets the purpose and need of the project. Alternative B complies with
the Forest Plan by providing for fuels reduction, public health and safety,
sustainable ecosystems, merchantable timber from the suitable timber base,
health and vigor of all vegetation types, reduced soil erosion, improved
water quality, protection of riparian and wetland areas, improved wildlife
habitat and diversity, species population viability, recovery of endangered
and threatened species, increased elk and deer winter range habitat capability,
maintenance of air quality, protection of visual quality, and protection
of cultural resources (see EA chapter 4).
Under Alternative C, no logs would be removed from Inventoried Roadless
Areas and contiguous unroaded areas greater than 1,000 acres. Thus, Alternative
B will leave less downed material than Alternative C. This dried and downed
material will be prescribe burned at a later date. The prescribed burns
will potentially cause less air pollution, produce less intense heat,
be less hazardous, and have less fuel loading under Alternative B than
Alternative C, because there will less downed material to burn. Prescribed
fires under alternative B will cause less heat-related stress to remaining
trees and less potential for bark beetle attack and mortality. Alternative
B will generate less smoke and have a fewer number of smoky days affecting
local communities. Alternative B will also generate more revenue from
logs than Alternative C.
Alternative A would defer restoration action at this time. Deferring actions
would not reduce the risk of large-scale fires and the subsequent erosion
that would threaten property and human life and exacerbate soil and water
quality problems. It also would not create or restore the forest to more
sustainable conditions, which are necessary to improve habitat for the
Pawnee montane skipper. I have decided that the risk of fire and other
consequences by deferring action at this time are not prudent. Alternative
A does not meet the purpose and need of the project.
Alternative C is similar to Alternative B for the non-roadless portions
of the vegetation treatment areas. Alternative C would not remove logs
from unroaded areas in addition to RARE II Inventoried Roadless Areas.
Alternative C meets the purpose and need of the project. I have decided
that leaving all felled material in the unroaded areas followed by prescribed
fire would result in unnecessary smoke emissions. The heavy fuels would
result in prescribed fire being less likely to fully achieve the stand
and landscape objectives in areas where the logs would be left in place.
Therefore, Alternative B as modified best meets the Purpose and Need for
this project area.
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
A total of nine public meetings were held from February through May 2000.
Over 115 people attended these meetings. A slide show, handouts, and maps
about the proposed action were presented at the meetings. Dr. Merrill
Kaufmann presented information about his research on the historic forested
landscape near the project area. Newsletters were sent out to 607 individuals,
agencies, organizations, and elected officials and only a few responses
were received. These newsletters contained a description of the proposed
activities and a map showing the location of the proposed vegetation treatment
areas. These newsletters asked for public input and invited the public
to attend three scoping meetings that were held at local communities near
the project area between May 2 and May 4, 2000. In addition, the project
partners conducted numerous tours with elected officials, agency representatives,
and local landowners. The majority of people that attended these meetings
and tours expressed support for the project. The public involvement effort
is documented in the EA (see pages 2-6 through 2-8).
Over 500 EAs were distributed to individuals, agencies, organizations,
and elected officials plus the full EA was posted on the Internet. The
EA was available for public review from August 11, 2000 to October 16,
2000. In response to public requests, the comment period on the EA was
extended twice to 66 days. The Forest Service received 53 public comment
letters on the EA.
The Forest Plan Amendment was also available for public review from June
15 to July 16, 2001. The Forest Service received 33 public comment letters
on the amendment.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
Three alternatives were considered in detail (the No Action, the Proposed
Action and one alternative to the Proposed Action). A primary goal of
the Proposed Action is to restore the forest to a sustainable condition
by reducing tree density and creating persistent openings in the forest
canopy. The other two alternatives include the “No Action” alternative
and an action alternative that addresses the issue of activity in roadless
areas. The alternatives are discussed in Chapter 2 of the EA (pages 2-10
through 2-17). See Table 2, Comparison of Alternatives for Vegetation
Treatment Subproject, at the end of this section. An alternative to avoid
treatments in Pawnee montane skipper habitat was not considered in detail
because the project could improve habitat for this federally-listed species
(EA page 2-9).
ALTERNATIVE A – NO ACTION
The No-Action alternative, which is required by National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA), addresses the issue of “no activity in roadless areas”.
Current forest management would be continued with no different actions
taken to reduce fire risks or stream sedimentation. There would be no
landscape restoration to pre-settlement conditions, or reduction of catastrophic
wildfire risk. The current fire policy for the Project Area would remain.
This policy requires controlling wildfires with emphasis on protecting
property or developments. This includes mixed severity fires, which are
part of the historical fire regime, in areas of dense forest.
In the Buffalo Creek burn area, natural revegetation processes would be
allowed to occur. Riparian sediments would be stabilized over time by
natural accumulation of woody debris and reforestation of the uplands
by natural succession. The existing sediment deposits would gradually
erode into streams until stabilized by natural processes.
Existing roads would be maintained as necessary to control erosion. There
would be no active road reclamation, except for the Wildcat Area as determined
by previous decisions. All designated trails would be maintained to reduce
erosion. There would be no additional trail improvements, except maintenance
of drainage structures and vegetation to control erosion.
There would be no habitat improvement for the Pawnee montane skipper.
ALTERNATIVE B – PROPOSED ACTION
This alternative is described in Chapter 2 of the EA. The overall concept
of the alternative is to meet the purpose and need for landscape restoration
and catastrophic wildfire risk reduction by thinning, creating openings,
and using prescribed fire. This alternative would also meet the purpose
and need of improving habitat for the federally-listed Pawnee montane
skipper. This approach would move the area toward a more historical, mosaic
pattern of vegetation than currently exists in the Project Area. Large
areas of dense forest would remain untreated. The openings and thinned
forest would create firebreaks between areas of dense tree cover. See
Table 2 for a comparison of alternatives for vegetation subprojects, including
the modifications for alternative B under this Decision Notice.
The current fire policy for the Project Area would remain. This policy
requires controlling wildfires with emphasis on protecting property or
developments. This includes mixed severity fires, which are part of the
historical fire regime, in areas of dense forest. However, the potential
for large, catastrophic fires will be reduced in the Project Area due
to openings and less dense forest conditions that would be created in
the treatment areas.
The proposed harvesting would be completed without constructing or reconstructing
new roads, permanent or temporary roads. Existing unclassified roads would
be used to remove logs. These unclassified roads would be obliterated
after use. The treatment areas are designed to use existing roads and
stay on gentle slopes as much as possible. Off-road heavy equipment (skidders
and forwarders) would be used as necessary to remove logs from areas that
are reachable by existing roads, eliminating the need to build access
roads to these areas. Where the use of equipment is not feasible, felled-trees
would be left on-site. Logs would not be removed from steep slopes, areas
too far from existing roads, or areas where the trees are of little to
no economic value. The logs and slash left on-site would be crushed by
the harvesting and yarding equipment, allowed to dry one to two years,
and the burned by prescribed fire.
Mechanical felling and harvest treatment areas would be burned with prescribed
fire to reduce fire fuels. To minimize air quality impacts and prescribed
fire intensity, the material in the prescribed burns would be limited
to slash and existing ground fuels.
TABLE 2: COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES
FOR VEGETATION TREATMENT SUBPROJECT
|
Alternative A – No Action |
Alternative B – Proposed Action for
Non-Roadless Areas and IRAs |
Modified Alternative B – Proposed Action
for Inventoried Roadless Areas under this Decision |
* Total Vegetation Treatment Associated
with August 2000 Environmental Assessment for the Upper
South Platte Watershed Protection and Restoration Project |
* Alternative C |
Adaptive Management |
Defer vegetation treatments
on 12,200 acres in non-roadless and 5,200
acres in Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs). |
Use adaptive management to
treat up to 17,400 acres in non-roadless areas
and IRAs to reduce fire risks, improve habitat conditions,
and meet regulatory and Forest Plan management requirements.
No phasing of treatments to facilitate adaptive management.
No additional monitoring or mitigation of OHV use. |
Use adaptive management to
treat up to 5,200 acres in IRAs to reduce fire
risks, improve habitat conditions, and meet regulatory
and Forest Plan management requirements. Phase work
to allow more time for evaluating treatments and remedying
possible problems. Monitor and mitigate OHV use in treatment
areas. |
Use adaptive management to
treat up to 17,400 acres in non-roadless areas
and IRAs to reduce fire risks, improve habitat conditions,
and meet regulatory and Forest Plan requirements. Phase
work, treating up to 2,000 acres the first year and
4,000 acres the second year to allow more time for
evaluating treatments and remedying possible problems.
Monitor and mitigate OHV use in treatment areas. |
Same as Alternative B for
Non-Roadless Areas and IRAs. |
Thinning |
Defer thinning to reduce
fire risks or improve stand conditions. |
Thin stands on 13,400
acres in non-roadless areas and IRAs to a canopy
closure of about 25 percent to 1) increase resilience
to surface fires, 2) reduce risk of crown fires, 3)
create a trajectory to an old growth condition, and
4) improve habitat diversity and conditions; Retain
old growth stands, trees older than 150 years, and larger
more mature trees. |
Thin stands on 4,200 acres
in IRAs to a canopy closure of about 25 percent to 1)
increase resilience to surface fires, 2) reduce risk
of crown fires, 3) create a trajectory to an old growth
condition, and 4) improve habitat diversity and conditions;
Retain old growth stands, trees older than 150 years,
and larger more mature trees. |
Same as Alternative B for
Non-Roadless Areas and IRAs. |
Same as Alternative B for
Non-Roadless Areas and IRAs. |
Persistent Openings |
Defer creation of persistent
openings to reduce fire risks or improve stand conditions. |
Intersperse 1 to 40-acre
persistent openings on 4,000 acres in non-roadless
areas and IRAs throughout the treatment area to 1) minimize
the risk of sustaining a crown fire, and 2) create more
patchy conditions to mimic historic habitat diversity.
|
Intersperse 1 to 40-acre
persistent openings on 1,000 acres in IRAs throughout
the treatment area to 1) minimize the risk of sustaining
a crown fire, and 2) create more patchy conditions to
mimic historic habitat diversity. |
Same as Alternative B for
Non-Roadless Areas and IRAs. |
Same as Alternative B for
Non-Roadless Areas and IRAs. |
Prescribed Burns |
Defer prescribed burns to
reduce surface fuels on 12,200 acres in non-roadless
and 5,200 acres in IRAs. |
Prescribe burn up to 17,400
acres in of the treatment area to reduce surface
fuels. |
Prescribe burn up to 5,200
acres in IRAs of the treatment area to reduce surface
fuels. |
Same as Alternative B for
Non-Roadless Areas and IRAs. |
Same as Alternative B for
Non-Roadless Areas and IRAs. |
Log Removal |
Defer log removal. |
Remove logs from up to 17,400
acres in non-roadless areas and IRAs to reduce surface
fuels and reduce smoke pollution. Approximately 3,000
acres would have logs left on-site due to lack of
merchantability or lack of feasible harvest systems.
|
Remove logs from up to 5,200
acres in IRAs to reduce surface fuels while minimizing
smoke pollution. Approximately 2,200 acres would
have logs left on-site due to lack of merchantability
or lack of feasible harvest systems. |
Same as Alternative B for
Non-Roadless Areas and IRAs. |
Remove logs from 9,100
acres to reduce surface fuels and smoke pollution.
Minimize use of logging equipment in roadless areas
by not removing logs from 8,300 acres in IRAs
and contiguous unroaded areas > 1,000 acres. |
Treatment Area Access
|
Defer reclamation of unclassified
roads |
Access treatment areas in
non-roadless areas and IRAs without creating new road
disturbance. Reclaim unclassified roads after completion
of vegetation treatments. |
Access treatment areas in
IRAs without creating new road disturbance. Reclaim
unclassified roads after completion of vegetation treatments.
|
Same as Alternative B for
Non-Roadless Areas and IRAs |
Same as Alternative B for
Non-Roadless Areas and IRAs. |
Treatments Near Private
Land |
Defer vegetation treatments
near private property. |
Cooperate with interested
landowners to treat vegetation within a 500-foot buffer
in non-roadless areas and IRAs surrounding private property. |
Cooperate with interested
landowners to treat vegetation within a 500-foot buffer
in IRAs surrounding private property. |
Same as Alternative B for
Non-Roadless Areas and IRAs. |
Same as Alternative B for
Non-Roadless Areas and IRAs. |
Pawnee Montane Skipper Habitat |
Defer skipper habitat improvements
on 2,500 non-roadless acres and 1,400 IRA acres. |
In non-roadless areas and
IRAs, thin and create openings to improve 3,900 acres
of skipper habitat in non-roadless. |
Thin and create openings
to improve 1,400 acres of skipper habitat in IRAs. |
Same as Alternative B for
Non-Roadless Areas and IRAs. |
Same as Alternative B for
Non-Roadless Areas and IRAs. |
|
*See the Decision Notice/FONSI for the Vegetation Treatment Subproject
in Non-Roadless Areas for a description of the modified alternative B
for the non-roadless areas.
Stream sedimentation is addressed through the landscape modifications,
which reduce the risk of large-scale sedimentation from wildfire followed
by flooding (See Background Section in EA Chapter 1). Additional measures
to reduce existing and potential future erosion problems include burn-area
revegetation, road reclamation, and trail improvements. Soil amendments,
such as biosolids, may be used to accelerate reestablishment of indigenous
plant communities in reclaimed areas. These activities also address the
issue of forest restoration.
In the Buffalo Creek burn area, 60 acres of exposed sediments along streams
and washes would be planted with certified weed-free indigenous plant
material. The stream channel would be stabilized with strategically placed
woody debris and boulders, and sediment deposits would be reshaped with
conventional equipment to facilitate plant reestablishment. In the upland
areas, 1,000 acres of the burn would be planted with Ponderosa seedlings
to assist the revegetation of the area. Appropriate types of biosolids
would be used to improve conditions for revegetation. Suction dredging
in Buffalo Creek would be part of the stream monitoring program.
Twenty-five miles of currently closed, non-system roads would be reclaimed
and made impassible. This would be done by ripping and seeding the roadbeds
for erosion control and to encourage revegetation. Biosolids would be
used to increase soil fertility. Self-maintaining drainage would be created.
If necessary to discourage use, the first quarter mile would be obliterated
and recontoured. Also trees would be felled across the roads throughout
their length.
Seven and a half miles of existing trail along the South Platte River
would be improved to increase safety and to control erosion and vegetation
loss. This would be accomplished with expansion of the existing trailhead
and parking space at Wigwam Campground; new trail construction and trail
upgrades on Gill Trail; construction of safe and sustainable river access
trails; construction of barrier-free accessible fishing sited and trails;
and reclamation of social trails using conventional methods.
ALTERNATIVE C
The overall concept of this alternative is the same as that for Alternative
B. However, this alternative would minimize off-road heavy equipment use
in unroaded areas. The details of the two action alternatives are the
same, except for the differences discussed below.
The amount and type of thinning and opening creation is the same as for
Alternative B. The difference is that there would be no removal of logs
from the unroaded areas. As in areas where logs are not removed in Alternative
B, the felled-trees in the roadless areas would be allowed to dry for
one year. After that time, burning would be prescribed to consume the
fine fuels. Like Alternative B, this would also be the protocol for areas
where logs are left on-site outside of the unroaded areas.
In the Buffalo Creek burn area, this alternative is the same as Alternative
B except biosolids would not be used to increase fertility for revegetation,
and the sediment deposits in the riparian zone would be reshaped using
only hand tools.
Under this alternative, the road reclamation would be the same as for
Alternative B except biosolids would not be used to encourage revegetation
of the road surfaces.
This alternative is the same as Alternative B for the South Platte River
access trail improvements.
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
I have determined that these actions will not significantly affect the
quality of the biological, physical or human environment. Therefore, an
environmental impact statement will not be prepared. This determination
is based on the effects analysis documented in the EA, subsequent analysis
associated with the response to comments, and the following factors listed
in 40 CFR 1508.27.
CONTEXT
This project is local and would affect only a portion of the Upper South
Platte Project Area. The Vegetation Treatment Areas would comprise less
than 1% of the forested lands of the Pike and San Isabel National Forests
and only 12 percent of the Project Area and less than 3 percent of the
larger Upper South Platte Landscape. Project duration is expected to be
5 to 8 years, but could take up to 12 years to complete. Although the
project has regional interest, the people most affected by the project
would be primarily local residents and recreationists, primarily from
the Denver metropolitan area, that frequent the area.
INTENSITY
Environmental Effects
I find that the proposed action can be carried out with no significant
effects on socioeconomic, cultural, and natural resources as documented
by the EA. Overall, this project will have a long-term beneficial impact
on the environment (See EA chapter 4). The treated areas will be less
dense, more open, and less vulnerable to diseases, insects, and large
intense wildfires. The treatments will result in a more sustainable and
heterogeneous natural landscape with diverse habitats that would have
a long-term beneficial impact on wildlife in the project area (see EA
page 4-37). The US Fish and Wildlife Service has written a Biological
Opinion that supports that assessment in the EA. The Colorado Division
of Wildlife submitted supportive comments on the EA. Reducing the risks
of high-intensity fires will also help decrease the risk of erosion from
burned areas and the potential for sediment delivery to streams, specifically
the South Platte River. Decreasing the risk of forest fires will improve
health and safety conditions for local landowners and firefighters. The
local economy will temporarily benefit from vegetation treatment-related
employment and expenditures.
I find that the vegetation treatments will cause some insignificant adverse
impacts. Most adverse impacts will be short-term. Impacts to soils will
be insignificant because surface disturbing activities will occur on slopes
that are less than 30 percent and a minimum of 30 to 50 percent effective
ground cover will be left on site following activities to reduce short-term
erosion (see EA page 4-18). The treatments will reduce the area prone
to fire, thus substantially reducing the long-term soil erosion risk.
Impacts to water resources will not be significant because stream buffers
will reduce sediment yield increases and there will be only a minor effect
on peak flow increases (see EA page 4-26). Best Management Practices and
Watershed Conservation Practices (see EA Appendix A) and the adaptive
management approach of the project will ensure compliance with the Clean
Water Act and thus no significant impacts to fisheries or other beneficial
uses will occur (see EA page 4-31). Harvest and burning activities will
temporarily displace some wildlife. Mitigation measures for wildlife presented
in the EA will minimize impacts (see page 4-41). Recreationists and residents
may be affected by noise, visual intrusions, or reduced access during
the short periods of harvesting or burning (see EA pages 4-47 through
4-51). The proposed action will meet the guidelines and standards for
the PM-10 non-attainment areas in Colorado and thus not cause significant
impacts to air quality (see EA page 4-57). The proposed action will change
the visual character of the landscape but not be visually detrimental
and therefore not significant (see EA pages 4-67 through 4-70).
Public Health or Safety
The actions are consistent with the Colorado Prescribed Fire Air Quality
Bill and will comply with all state and federal regulations. I find there
are no adverse effects on public health and safety because the actions
will reduce the risk of large-scale catastrophic fires and the potential
for subsequent flooding (see EA pages 4-49 through 4-50).
Unique Characteristics of the Area
I find there are no significant effects on unique characteristics such
as historic or cultural resources (see EA page 4-76), park lands, prime
farmlands, wetlands (see EA pages 4-22 through 4-28), or wild and scenic
rivers. Park lands and prime farmlands will not be affected because they
do not occur in the project area. The potential for the South Platte River
to be designated as a Wild and Scenic river will not be affected because
vegetation treatment activities near the river will comply with guidelines
applicable to the Wild and Scenic River Act. The interdisciplinary team
evaluated roadless areas. The roadless areas within the analysis area
are not considered unique. Logging in the late 1800s has resulted in the
Inventoried Roadless Areas being similar to other areas.
Controversy
I recognize there is some level of public controversy associated with
the vegetation treatment. Modified Alternative B will help restore ecological
processes and water quality in the area. I find this project to be scientifically
supported as seen in the discussion under the heading “Science”, above,
and in Chapter 3 of the EA.
Uncertainty
The analysis shows the effects are not uncertain and do not involve unique
or unknown risk (see EA Chapter 4). Recent testimony by Dr. W. Wallace
Covington, a Regents Professor and Director of the Ecological Restoration
Institute at Northern Arizona University, before the Committee on Resources,
Subcommittee on Forests & Forest Health of the U.S. House of Representatives
(Covington 2000), supports this finding. The actions evolved from previous
practices. Similar actions have been implemented on adjacent Denver Water
lands as well as other lands in the West. Monitoring and adaptive management
will ensure effects are within the expected parameters.
Precedent
I find that this decision does not set a precedent for future decisions.
The parts of this project that are charting new ground are the collaboration
between agencies and private citizens and the management of a project
across jurisdictional boundaries. The US Forest Service has 14 other large-scale
watershed restoration on-going projects. The project components have all
been accomplished throughout Colorado and the Western United States. These
types of restoration projects have been accomplished in Colorado, Arizona,
Oregon, and other western states in ponderosa pine forests. This project
will not create a template for other projects with significant effects.
Future similar projects would have to be evaluated under NEPA for the
significance of the effects of those specific actions.
Cumulative Impact
I find that the cumulative impacts for the combined Inventoried Roadless
Area and non-roadless area treatments are not significant because this
activity when considered in combination with other past or reasonably
foreseeable actions is not expected to have a cumulatively significant
impact (see EA pages 4-20, 4-27, 4-32, 4-40, 4-51, 4-58, and 4-70). Deferring
the decision on the revegetation and road reclamation subprojects outside
the vegetation treatment areas will not result in adverse cumulative effects
because these subprojects are not considered mitigation for offsetting
the impacts of the vegetation treatments. Each individual subproject would
have beneficial long-term effects and thus result in positive long-term
cumulative effects.
Properties On or Eligible for the National Register of Historic Places;
Significant Resources
I find the action will have no adverse effect on districts, sites, highways,
structures, or objects listed in or eligible for listing in the National
Register of Historic Places because no known listings are present in the
areas affected by the vegetation treatments (see EA pages 3-54 through
3-57 and 4-71 through 4-75).
I find the action will not cause loss or destruction of significant scientific,
cultural, or historical resources because the survey and analysis found
no impact. The conclusion is supported by the Colorado State Historic
Preservation Office (Letters, September 19, 2000 and January 5, 2000,
from Allen E. Kane, Heritage Resources Program Manager, Pike and San Isabel
National Forests, Cimarron and Comanche National Grass Lands to Georgianna
Contguglia, Colorado State Historic Preservation Officer; Letter, January
22, 2001 from Allen E. Kane to Randy Hickenbottom, Ranger, South Platte
District). If cultural resources are found during operations, the work
will be stopped and Forest Service archeologists consulted.
Local tribal officials were contacted with letters followed by telephone
calls. They did not have any concerns or issues. Therefore, I find the
action would not affect local tribes.
Endangered or Threatened Species
I find the action will not jeopardize the continued existence of any federally
listed or proposed endangered or threatened species or US Forest Service
listed sensitive species or their critical habitat. The Biological Evaluation
and revised Biological Assessment support this conclusion. (see EA pages
4-41 and B-17). The USDI Fish and Wildlife Service issued a biological
opinion (Attachment C to the Decision Notice/FONSI for the Vegetation
Treatment Subproject in Non-Roadless Areas) to the Forest Service on impacts
to federally-listed endangered and threatened species associated with
the Upper South Platte Watershed Restoration and Protection Project (Final
Biological Opinion, January 10, 2001, from LeRoy W. Carlson, Colorado
Field Supervisor, Fish and Wildlife Service to Randy Hickenbottom, District
Ranger, Forest Service, South Platte Ranger District). The biological
opinion was based on the Biological Assessment for the Upper South Platte
Environmental Assessment submitted to the Fish and Wildlife Service on
November 27th, 2000. Conservation measures described in the Biological
Opinion will be carried out to minimize the impacts of the proposed action
and to further the recovery of threatened and endangered species. The
biological opinion concluded that the effects of the proposed action,
which include the conservation measures, will not jeopardize the continued
existence of the Pawnee montane skipper, Mexican spotted owl, Preble’s
meadow jumping mouse, or the bald eagle. The Fish and Wildlife Service
also concluded that the proposed action will not adversely modify or destroy
proposed critical habitat for the spotted owl. Therefore, I find that
the action can be carried out with no significant adverse effect to federally
listed species.
Legal requirements for environmental protection
I find the action is consistent with federal, state, and local laws and
requirements for the protection of the environment. Applicable laws and
regulations were considered in the EA (see EA page 4-90).
The action is consistent with the Forest Plan, as amended (See EA Chapter
2 pages 3-9).
ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW OR APPEAL OPPORTUNITIES AND IMPLEMENTATION DATE
This decision is subject to appeal under 36 CFR Part 215. A written appeal
must be submitted within 45 days of the day after notice of this decision
is published in the newspaper of record to:
USDA, Forest Service, Region 2
Attn: Appeal Deciding Officer
POB 25127
Lakewood, Colorado 80225-25127
Appeals must meet the following requirements:
1. State that the document is an appeal filed pursuant to 36 CFR 215
2. List the name and address of the appellant and, if possible, a telephone
number
3. Identify the decision document by title and subject, date of the
decision, and name and title of the Responsible Official
4. Identify the specific change(s) in the decision that the appellant
seeks or portion of the decision to which the appellant objects
5. State how the Responsible Officials decision fails to consider comments
previously provided, either before or during the comment period specified
in 36 CFR 215.6 and, if applicable, how the appellant believes the decision
violates law, regulation, or policy.
The appellant is responsible for submitting an appeal on or before the
last day of the appeal filing period. Where there is a question about
timeliness, the U.S. Postal Service postmark on a mailed appeal or the
time and date imprint on a facsimile appeal will be used to determine
timeliness.
A copy of the EA and analysis file is available for public review at the
Upper South Platte Ranger District Office, 19316 Goddard Ranch Court,
Morrison, Colorado 80465. Please direct questions about this DN/FONSI
to Fred Patten, Project Leader, South Platte Ranger District, 303-275-5641.
Pursuant to 36 C.F.R. Sec. 215.10(a), if no appeal is filed, implementation
of this decision may occur on, but not before, 5 business days from the
close of the appeal filing period. If an appeal is received, implementation
may not occur for 15 days following the date of the appeal disposition
(36 CFR 215.10(b)).
For further information contact Fred Patten at (303) 275-5641.
SIGNATURE AND DATE
__________________________________
___________________
Abigail R. Kimbell, Forest Supervisor
Date
Pike and San Isabel National Forests
Responsible Official
REFERENCES
Brown, P.M., M.R. Kaufmann, W.D. Shepperd. 1999. Long-term patterns of
past fire events in a montane ponderosa pine forest of central Colorado.
Landscape Ecology 14:513-532.
Brown, R. 2000. Thinning, Fire and Forest Restoration: A Science-Based
Approach for National Forests in the Interior Northwest. Defenders of
Wildlife.
Covington, W.W. 2000. Testimony of Dr. W. Wallace, Regents’ Professor
and Director of the Ecological Restoration Institute, Northern Arizona
University, before the Committee on Resources, Subcommittee on Forests
and Forest Health, U.S. House of Representatives, Oversight Hearing on
Preventing Wildfires through Proper Management of the National Forests.
Foster Wheeler Environmental Corporation. 1999. Landscape Assessment,
Upper South Platte Watershed. Volumes 1, 2, and 3. Prepared for the U.S.
Forest Service, Colorado State Forest Service, Denver Water Board, and
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Huckaby, L.S., M.R. Kaufmann, J.M. Stoker, and P.J. Fornwalt. 2000. Landscape
patterns of montane forest age structure relative to fire history at Cheesman
Lake in the Colorado Frant Range. Conference: Steps Toward Stewardship:
Ponderosa Pine Forest Ecosystem Restoration and Conservation, Flagstaff,
AZ, April 24-28, 2000.
Kaufman, M.R., P.J. Fornwalt, L.S. Huckaby, and J.Stoker, in preparation.
Cheesman Lake – a historical ponderosa pine landscape guiding restoration
in the South Platte Watershed of the Colorado Front Range. USDA Forest
Service General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-XXX. Rocky Mountain Research
Station, Fort Collins, CO.
Kaufmann, M.R., L. Huckaby, and P. Gleason. 1999. Ponderosa pine in the
Colorado Front Range: long historical fire and tree recruitment intervals
and a case for landscape heterogeneity. Proceedings, Joint Fire Conference
and Workshop, Boise ID, June 1999.
Kaufmann, M.R., C.M. Regan, P.M. Brown. 2000. Heterogeneity in ponderosa
pine/Douglas fir forests: age and size structure in unlogged and logged
landscapes of central Colorado. Can. J. For. Res. 30:698-711.
Thinnes, J. 2001. Pike and San Isabel National Forests lower montane forest
vegetation trends. USDA Forest Service, Pike and San Isabel National Forests,
South Platte Ranger District unpublished report.
USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2001. Biological Opinion for the Upper
South Platte Environmental Assessment. January 10, 2001.
Veblen, T.T., P.M. Brown, and J. Donnegan. 2000. Historical Range of Variability
Assessment for Forest Vegetation of the Pike and San Isabel National Forests,
Colorado. USDA Forest Service, Agreement No. 1102-0001-99-033, with the
University of Colorado, Boulder.
|