Yankee Hill Fuel Treatment Project Decision Notice & Finding of No Significant Impact

Transcription

1 Yankee Hill Fuel Treatment Project Decision Notice & Finding of No Significant Impact USDA Forest Service Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests And Pawnee National Grassland Clear Creek Ranger District Idaho Springs, Colorado 1. Decision and Reasons for the Decision Background The Forest Service prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other relevant laws and regulations. The EA discloses the direct, indirect and cumulative environmental impacts that would result from the alternatives. Additional documentation, including more detailed analyses of project area resources, may be found in the project record located at the Clear Creek Ranger District Office in Idaho Springs, Colorado. I have reviewed the EA and the supporting analysis and make my findings based on that review. The project area is the entire Yankee Hill Geographic Area on the Clear Creek Ranger District as defined in the Forest Plan. The area includes National Forest System lands within the Clear Creek watershed located north of Interstate 70 and west of Colorado State Highway 40 between Idaho Springs and Berthoud Falls and extending north and west to the southern boundary of the Lump Gulch Geographic Area on the Boulder Ranger District (Map 1). The community of Saint Mary s is within the project area and Black Hawk and Central City are east of the project area boundary. The purpose of this project is to lower the intensity and slow the rate of spread of wildfire on National Forest System lands by modifying vegetation structure and fuel loads, creating openings in the forest canopy, and expanding existing natural and manmade fuel breaks in strategic locations. The Proposed Action, as described in the EA, recommended treatment on approximately 1,471 acres. Silvicultural prescriptions included a variety of treatments strategically placed on the landscape to best support project objectives. Mechanized (i.e., skidder, feller-buncher, harvester, masticating equipment, forwarder) and manual vegetation treatments (cutting with chainsaws) would be used. Treatments would focus on reducing ladder fuels, increasing the average height between the ground surface and the base of live crowns of trees within the stand, increasing the spacing between tree crowns and groups of trees, and expanding existing openings. A variety of slash treatments would be used, including: lop and scatter, piling and burning, chipping and mastication, or removal. For all treatments, where possible, aspen would be retained, enhanced, and Yankee Hill Fuel Treatment Project Decision Notice 1

2 expanded; bristlecone and healthy limber pine would be retained; and clumps of Engelmann spruce and subalpine fir with low branches would be retained. This document contains a Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI). The Decision Notice identifies the decision and the rationale for selecting or modifying an alternative from the EA. The FONSI shows that the decision does not cause significant impacts on the human environment and explains why an environmental impact statement is not necessary. Decision Based upon my review of the analysis and alternatives, I have decided to implement Alternative B, the Proposed Action (Map 2), including all design criteria, mitigation measures and monitoring requirements included in Appendix A of this document found on pages Alternative B will move the project area toward the desired conditions from the Forest Plan by applying vegetation modification treatments on approximately 1,471 acres. My decision also includes approximately 1.56 miles of road improvement, approximately 1.3 miles of temporary road construction to access units, approximately 1.18 miles of road to be converted from motorized to non-motorized use, and approximately 1.68 miles of road closures (Map 3). My decision to implement Alternative B is based on information contained in the project record including, but not limited to, the EA and the effects analyses described in the Environmental Consequences section (pp ), the resource specialist reports, the management requirements of the applicable laws and policies, the mitigation measures and design criteria described in Appendix A, and the comments received during the public involvement process for this project. Reasons for the Decision In determining which alternative or combination of treatments best supports the purpose and need for action and the project objectives, I first considered whether the proposed activities would meet the purpose and need for the project and achieve the stated objectives described in the EA. The 1997 Revised Forest Plan designates this area for a variety of uses and management applications where recreation, fuel reduction, wildlife habitat management, and the wildland-urban interface are emphasized. Management in this area also provides for visual diversity, cultural integrity, user and resident access and a variety of other uses and services. I find that the access and road management actions, which include road reconstruction, temporary road construction, road closures of user-created roads and trails, and the acquisition of rights-of-way will provide for adequate administrative and public access. Overall, existing road density will be reduced in Alternative B, but not in Alternative A. Reduced road density would improve the effectiveness of wildlife habitat while continuing to provide abundant motorized and non-motorized recreation opportunities. Environmental effects to overall ecosystem health are determined to be neutral or beneficial in this analysis, with potentially detrimental effects mitigated through project Yankee Hill Fuel Treatment Project Decision Notice 2

3 mitigation measures described in Appendix A. Alternative B was designed to respond to the purpose and need described in the EA and to support the National Fire Plan and the regional priority of treating fuels in wildland-urban interface areas. I selected Alternative B (Proposed Action) for the following reasons: 1. Alternative B meets the purpose and need identified in the EA (p. 5-8). 2. Alternative B moves the area towards the desired conditions established in the Forest Plan. Other Alternatives Considered In addition to the selected alternative, I considered the no-action alternative described in the EA (p. 11). This project qualifies for the use of the Healthy Forest Restoration Act (HFRA) of 2003 to plan and design the project proposal. Under HFRA, authorized projects require the development and analysis of an action and a no-action alternative. However, several other alternatives were considered but eliminated from the project. They are described on pages of the EA. Alternative A (No Action) Under Alternative A (No Action), no fuels reduction, forest health, or watershed improvement projects would be implemented. I did not select Alternative A (No Action) for the following reasons: 1. Alternative A does not meet the purpose and need identified in the EA (p. 5-6) because it does not: Reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfire occurrence Prevent further watershed degradation. 2. Alternative A does not move the area towards the desired conditions established in the Forest Plan. 2. Public Involvement The Forest Service first listed the Yankee Hill Fuel Treatment Project in the 3 rd quarter, 2005 issue of the Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests and Pawnee National Grassland Schedule of Proposed Actions (SOPA). The Forest distributes the SOPA to over 600 parties and it is available on the internet at: [ Public Meetings Many of the preliminary treatment units presented to the public in September of 2006 were the direct result of fire behavior modeling and the public involvement process. Letters and maps were sent to 793 individuals living in or interested in the Yankee Hill area inviting them to two public meetings. A proposal to apply a variety of thinning activities to approximately 2000 acres of National Forest System lands was presented on Yankee Hill Fuel Treatment Project Decision Notice 3

4 September 9, 2006 at the Gilpin County Community Center and again on September 14, 2006 at Clear Creek Middle School. A total of 28 people attended the two meetings. Media In addition to the mass mailing, the IDT sent media releases to local newspapers and television outlets to announce meetings and provide details on the proposal. As a result, four articles appeared in local newspapers such as The Gilpin County News, The Weekly Register Call, and The Clear Creek Courant. Two articles featuring the project appeared on September 22, 2006 with other articles appearing on September 14 and September 29, Community Meetings Team members attended several neighborhood meetings during the summer preceding the roll out of the proposal in order to present the proposal and solicit input from the local community on the preliminary plan. Members of the Forest Service IDT team attended the following community meetings: June 3, 2005 July 9, 2006 August 12, 2006 August 20, 2006 August 19, 2006 Gilpin County Fire Chiefs Meeting St. Mary s/alice Property Owners Association Fall River Road Homeowners Association Board meeting of the Missouri Lakes Homeowners Association Mill Creek Park Homeowners Association In response to the Forest s request for comments, interested parties submitted 35 individual letters with specific comments. Several issues were brought forward as key issues to be addressed in the Environmental Assessment or were instrumental in modifications of the proposal during the proposal refinement process. A legal notice, announcing the 30-day objection period to the EA appeared in the Clear Creek Courant newspaper on August 8, The Forest Service mailed copies of the EA to those parties who previously expressed interest in the project. Copies of the EA were also available at the Clear Creek Ranger District office and via the Internet. The 30- day objection period ended on September 7, One objection to the project was received. The objection identified concerns with fuel treatments adjacent to the Mill Creek community. Specifically, the objection focused on the need for treatment in the area and questioned the potential effectiveness of the treatments. Regulations listed at 36 CFR Part require the Forest Service to review and respond to objections within 30 days following the objection period. After reviewing the objections, a response was developed by the Forest Supervisor, (Objection Reviewing Officer) and mailed to the objector on September 27, Resolution of the objection did not require any modification to the proposed action described in the EA. 3. Finding of No Significant Impact After considering the environmental effects described in the EA (p ), I determined that these actions will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human Yankee Hill Fuel Treatment Project Decision Notice 4

5 environment, considering the context and intensity of impacts (40 CFR ); therefore, an Environmental Impact Statement will not be prepared. I incorporate, by reference, the EA and project record, in making this determination. I base this finding on the following: Context The Yankee Hill project area is in the southwest corner of the 1.3 million acre National Forest and Grassland. The project will treat approximately 1,471 acres or percent of the Forest. All of the treatment acres are classified within the wildland urban interface and intermix. The treatments, spread across a 35,650 acre area of Forest intermixed with private land, will leave a relatively diverse landscape of different vegetation conditions. Intensity I considered the following ten elements of impact intensity (40 CFR b) in assessing the potential significance of project effects. 1. My finding of no significant environmental effects is not biased by the beneficial effects of the action. All practical means to avoid or minimize environmental harm have been adopted. Biological Evaluations (BE), Biological Assessments (BA) and specialist reports prepared for this project are available in the project record, and unless otherwise noted are available upon request. Impacts associated with the project are discussed in the Environmental Consequences section of the EA. Those documents provide the basis for my determinations. 2. Proposed activities will not significantly affect public health and safety. Thinning activities will be conduced in a safe manner to protect the public. Similar actions have not significantly affected public health and safety. A minor temporary impact may occur to local air quality from the burning of slash. Burning will be conducted in accordance with State air quality standards and within burning periods approved by the State of Colorado (EA pages 25-27). Warning signs and public announcements will be used to notify recreationists and residents of thinning and burning activities. Trails will be signed or closed to hikers and others when equipment is in use and when pile burning is being conducted. 3. Activities described in Alternative B will not significantly affect any unique characteristics of the project area such as historic or cultural resources, park lands, prime farmlands, wetlands, wild and scenic rivers, or ecologically critical areas. There are no park lands, prime farmlands, or wild and scenic rivers within the affected area. There are no adverse effects to wetlands within the affected area (EA pages 41-43, 86). A variety of historic or cultural resources are present within the project area and known cultural or historic resources and the qualities which make them eligible to the Nation Register of Historic Places will be protected or avoided by all proposed activities (EA pages 32, 92). If subsequent surveys uncover eligible sites or if an Indian Tribe identifies sites that are of cultural significance, these sites will also be avoided by project activities. No sites Yankee Hill Fuel Treatment Project Decision Notice 5

6 eligible for the National Register of Historic Places would be affected by Alternative B. 4. The activities described in Alternative B do not involve effects on the human environment that are likely to be highly controversial (40 CFR ). Public comment regarding this project focused primarily on road construction, scenery, thinning intensity, smoke management and risk of escaped fire. The Environmental Consequences section of the EA includes a discussion of the effects of the proposed treatments on access and road construction (EA pages 25-82). Discussions of the effects of pile burning can be found throughout the Environmental Consequences section (EA pages 25-82). Wildlife will benefit in some areas from a diversification of habitat structural stages across the landscape as a result of the proposed treatments, which will create openings and gaps that encourage seedlings and forage opportunities to numerous species that depend on grasses and forbs or the prey they support. There will be no effect to federallylisted wildlife species (Canada lynx and Mexican spotted owl) or the peregrine falcon (Region 2 Sensitive species). The proposed action may affect individuals but is not likely to cause a trend to Federal listing or a loss of viability on the planning area for the following Sensitive species: American three-toed woodpecker, flammulated owl, Lewis woodpecker, Northern goshawk, olivesided flycatcher, American marten, North American wolverine, Townsend s bigeared bat, and boreal toad. There will be no change for Management Indicator Species (EA page 75-82). Effects to scenery as a result of patch cuts and fuel break treatments will result in small changes in landscape character. Edges will create irregular lines and utilize natural features if available and thinning treatments will leave individual trees more dominate in the foreground views (EA page 55-59). 5. The activities described in Alternative B will not involve effects that are highly uncertain or involve unique or unknown risks (40 CFR ). Pertinent scientific literature has been reviewed and incorporated into the analysis process and the technical analyses conducted for determinations on the impacts to the resources are supportable with use of accepted techniques, reliable data, and professional judgment. Impacts are within limits that are considered thresholds of concern. Issues of public concern and possible environmental effects of the proposed action have been adequately addressed in the analysis and mitigations listed in Appendix A. Therefore, I conclude that there are no highly uncertain, unique, or unknown risks. 6. My decision to implement the activities included in Alternative B does not establish a precedent for future actions with significant effects or represent a decision in principle about a future consideration. I have made this decision based on the overall consistency of the proposed activities with Forest Plan standards, guidelines and management practices, and the capabilities of the land (EA page 10). Yankee Hill Fuel Treatment Project Decision Notice 6

7 7. The EA includes all connected, cumulative, and similar actions in the scope of the analysis (EA page 96). The cumulative effects of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions are considered and disclosed in the EA (pages 25-86). 8. The activities described in Alternative B will not adversely affect or cause the loss or destruction of significant districts, sites, highways, structures, or objects listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (EA page 31-32). Design criteria that avoid and /or protect these sites and the qualities that make them eligible to the National Register of Historic Places will be applied (EA, page 92). There will be no adverse effect to known historic properties. There will be no effect to scientific resources. 9. The activities described in Alternative B are not likely to adversely affect any endangered or threatened species or its habitat that has been determined to be critical under the Endangered Species Act. The list of endangered and threatened, and sensitive species analyzed for this project can be found in the EA on pages 27, 34, & 75. Biological Evaluations for threatened, endangered, and sensitive plants, wildlife, and fish were conducted and concluded that implementation of Alternative B will have little or no effect/impact to these species ( EA pages 27, 35-36, 81-82). Interagency cooperation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service was conducted. (EA, page 85). The Biological Evaluations have been summarized in the EA and are located in the project file. Mitigation measures for the protection of wildlife habitats are presented on page 21 in this document. 10. The action will not violate Federal, or applicable State and local laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. Applicable laws and regulations were considered in the EA (EA page 85-86). The action is consistent with the revised Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests and Pawnee National Grassland Land and Resource Management Plan (EA page 10). 4. Findings Required by Other Laws and Regulations National Forest Management Act: In accordance with the National Forest Management Act (NFMA) and other applicable laws, I find that all actions meet NFMA requirements, including those for resource protection, silvicultural practices, even-aged management, soil and water protection and species diversity. A requirement of the NFMA (as described in the implementing regulations at 36 CFR ) is that fish and wildlife habitats on National Forest Systems lands be management to maintain viable populations of existing native and desired non-native vertebrate species in the planning area. These species, called Management Indicator Species, are listed in Appendix G of the Final Environmental Impact Statement of the Forest Plan (FSM ) as amended on July 8, MIS for the Yankee Hill Fuel Treatment Project were identified and considered in the Biological Reports for this project. Project analysis shows that no change in the Forest-wide population trends of the Yankee Hill Fuel Treatment Project Decision Notice 7

8 selected MIS species is expected. The viability of MIS species is not expected to become a concern through the implementation of this project. Clean Water Act: The Clean Water Act requires Federal Agencies to comply with all Federal, State, interstate and local requirements, administrative authority, and process and sanctions with respect to the control and abatement of water pollution. Executive Order also requires the Forest Service to meet the requirements of the Act. Alternative B complies with the Clean Water Act and Colorado State Water Quality Control Commission standards. This project incorporates reasonable Soil and Water Conservation Practices, avoids channel degradation, and complies with the Forest Plan (EA pages 41-44). Invasive Species Executive Order of February 3, 1999: This project may promote the introduction and spread of invasive species (EA page 45). Feasible and prudent measures (EA, page 93) have been taken to minimize that risk of spread from activities associated with the selected actions. The purpose of this project is to treat fuel loads to reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfire. With the risk of wildfire comes the potential of large-scale spread of invasive species over a greater area. Compared with this potential, the benefits of the project outweigh the potential harm of invasive species. The Clear Creek Ranger District has an ongoing program to control and reduce the spread of invasive species in the project area. Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources: The physical and biological effects are limited to the project area and/or immediate adjacent areas. There are no known significantly irreversible resource commitments or any significant irretrievable losses of vegetation resources, wildlife habitats, soil productivity, water quality, or other renewable resources (EA, page 84-85). Environmental Justice: In accordance with Executive Order 12898, I have determined this project will not have a disproportionately adverse health or environmental effect on low income or minority populations (EA, pages 33-34, 86). Effects on Floodplains and Wetlands: The project activities will not impact the functional values of any floodplain as defined by Executive Order and will not have negative impacts on wetlands as defined by Executive Order There is no Wild and Scenic River or no adverse impact to any ecologically critical area in the project area (EA, pages 39-44, 86). Energy Requirements and Conservation Potential of Alternatives: The energy required to implement the alternatives in terms of petroleum products will be insignificant when viewed in light of the production costs and effects of the national and worldwide petroleum reserves. Yankee Hill Fuel Treatment Project Decision Notice 8

9 5. Appeal and Implementation This project was subject to the objection process prior to this decision according to 36 CFR Part 218 Subpart A and is not subject to appeal pursuant to 36 CFR Part (i), (218.3). Implementation of this decision may occur immediately. For further information on this decision, contact Mark Martin Planning Team Leader, Boulder Ranger District, 2140 Yarmouth Ave., Boulder, CO or call DANIEL LOVATO District Ranger Clear Creek Ranger District Date 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) (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, DC , or call (800) (voice) or (202) (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. Yankee Hill Fuel Treatment Project Decision Notice 9