James Creek Fuel Reduction Project Decision Notice & Finding of No Significant Impact

Transcription

1 James Creek Fuel Reduction Project Decision Notice & Finding of No Significant Impact Introduction USDA Forest Service Arapaho-Roosevelt National Forests And Pawnee National Grassland Boulder Ranger District Boulder, Colorado On September 2, 2004, Christine M. Walsh, Boulder District Ranger, signed the Decision Notice (DN) to authorize the James Creek Fuel Reduction Project and selected Alternative A with Modifications for Upon signing the DN, a legal notice was posted in the Boulder Daily Camera newspaper on September 6, 2004 initiating the official 45-day appeal period as described in 36 CFR An appeal was filed against that decision with specific actions requested due to the resource and analysis concerns of the appellants. The specific actions included a request that the decision be withdrawn as well as four other requests highlighted in the letter of appeal. On November 4, 2004, an informal meeting was held with the appellants to negotiate a resolution to the appeal. No agreement was reached and the formal appeal process proceeded with the review of the analysis followed with recommendations by the Regional Appeal Review Team to the Appeal Deciding Officer. On December 6, 2004, the Appeal Deciding Officer, James S. Bedwell, Forest Supervisor for the Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests and Pawnee National Grassland, withdrew the decision for the project based on recommendations from the Appeal Reviewing Officer and the Regional Appeal Review Team. The decision was reversed on compliance with tracking populations and trends of Management Indicator Species (MIS), specifically aquatic species. The Environmental Assessment (EA) and Aquatic Species Biological Evaluation and Specialist Report did not provide or reference the quantitative Forest Plan MIS monitoring data or provide a context for the effects of the decision on aquatic species. The DN was upheld on all other appeal points and all other requests by the appellants were denied. Because that original decision was withdrawn by the Appeal Deciding Officer, a new DN and appeal period is required before the project can proceed. This document constitutes the new DN for the James Creek Fuel Reduction Project. A revised Aquatic Species Report and Biological Evaluation describing effects to Aquatic Species MIS have been added to the existing analysis to address the appeal point. The revised report and analysis did not change any of the previous findings or the analysis presented in the James Creek Fuel Reduction Project EA or the original James Creek Fuel Reduction Project DN and Finding of No Significant Impact, therefore a revision of the EA is not required and not subject to legal notice and comment (36 CFR 215.4). The original report found that no fisheries species would be adversely affected by the implementation of this project. The lack of documentation citing the appropriate monitoring data and population and trend conclusions were merely a reporting error and in no way affected the analysis and findings in the EA and original DN. James Creek Fuel Reduction Project Decision Notice 1

2 The new decision for the James Creek Fuel Reduction Project incorporates the updated information on aquatic species populations and trends as well as minor improvements and changes to the project design and analysis as a result of the appeal and detailed review of the appeal points. Changes are described in the Modifications section below. None of these changes or improvements resulted in a change in findings as analyzed in the EA previously published or the Specialist Reports contained in the Administrative Record. I have reviewed the edited EA and related material, including the Administrative Record, and base my decision upon that review. Background The James Creek Fuel Reduction Project EA summarizes the analysis and findings of a no action and three action alternatives for vegetation management in the James Creek Project Area. As a result of public and internal review of the EA and original DN, several edits and modifications have been made to the EA/DN and supporting analysis to correct grammatical errors and provide clarifications to the analysis and findings that support the new decision. The James Creek Fuel Reduction Project is designed to support the goals and objectives of the 1997 Revised Forest Plan and the National Fire Plan, and in doing so, move the James Creek Geographic Area toward the desired conditions identified in the Forest Plan. A comparison of the existing conditions and the desired future conditions for this project area indicates the need to reduce existing wildfire fuel now. There is strong evidence that the forest in the James Creek area is overly dense and more vulnerable to high-intensity, stand replacing fires than it was historically. Past management practices and fire exclusion have allowed over-dense stand structures to develop on the forested landscape across Colorado s Front Range. Since 1996, several large crown fires have devastated natural resources, homes, and municipal water supplies in the area, including the Overland Fire of 2003 located in the James Creek Project Area. Action is needed in the short term to reduce the potential for another large crown fire occurring in the James Creek Project Area and the associated potential losses from such a fire. The primary purpose of the James Creek Fuel Reduction Project is to reduce the risk of crown fire initiation and spread by thinning forests and removing the ladder fuels needed for a ground fire to reach the tops of trees. Fuel reduction through vegetation management will help limit wildland fire size and severity by directly affecting fire behavior and indirectly aiding fire suppression activities. A recent study of fire behavior on the 2002 Hayman Fire on the Pike National Forest showed that fuel reduction treatments including thinning and prescribed fire directly affected fire behavior by reducing fire intensity and severity, and the impacts to natural resources. The purpose and need for the James Creek Fuel Reduction Project is described beginning on page 3 of the EA and supports the proposed action of thinning and pruning overstocked stands to reduce the risk of wildfire, creating ridge fuel breaks to aid in fire suppression, restoring meadows and aspen communities, using prescribed fire to reduce fuels and remove vegetation and increasing the area of early-seral vegetation to provide structural diversity (EA page 4). The project area is located northwest of the City of Boulder on the Boulder Ranger District of the Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests and Pawnee National Grassland. It is bounded to the James Creek Fuel Reduction Project Decision Notice 2

3 west by the Peak-to-Peak Highway, to the south by the Gold Hill Road, to the north by the Middle and South St. Vrain Creeks, and to the east by the Forest Boundary. The project area contains approximately 38,660 acres of public and private lands. Of this amount, approximately 24,479 acres are National Forest System land and approximately 14,181 acres are in other ownerships, mostly private. The 1997 Revision of the Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) describes the area with the following management emphasis: 1.41, Core Habitat; 3.5, Forested Flora and Fauna Habitat; 4.2, Scenery; 4.3, Dispersed Recreation; 7.1, Residential Forest Intermix. See the Forest Plan for more information on these management categories. Decision I have decided to select Alternative A with modifications, for Under Alternative A with modifications, mechanical thinning, prescribed underburning, patch cuts, ridge fuel breaks, and aspen and meadow enhancement activities will occur on approximately 6,204 acres of National Forest land in the James Creek Project Area. Alternative A with modifications will move the project area towards the desired conditions from the Forest Plan by applying vegetation management treatments on approximately 4,784 acres, applying prescribed fire on up to 923 acres, and applying thinning treatments followed by prescribed underburning on approximately 497 acres. My decision also includes approximately 1.1 miles of system road improvements, approximately 0.2 miles of road re-alignment to eliminate resource damage from the existing alignment, approximately 3.5 miles of non-system road improvement for project use to be closed after use, approximately 7.9 miles of temporary road construction to access treatment units, and approximately 1.4 miles of non-system road closures in the Owens Flat area (see Tables 1 and 2 for treatment and road work comparisons) ( see Appendix B and C for detailed treatment unit and road information). My decision includes the Mitigation Measures found in Appendix A. Table 1: Comparison of Decision Changes by Project Activity. Project Activity Original Decision New Decision Vegetation Management 4,890 Acres 4,784 Acres Prescribed Burning 938 Acres 923 Acres Thinning w/prescribed Fire 574 Acres 497 Acres System Road Improvement 1.1 Miles 1.1 Miles Non-System Road 3.5Miles 3.5 Miles Improvement to be Closed Road Re-alignment 0.2 Miles 0.2 Miles Temporary Road Construction 8.6 Miles 7.9 Miles Non-System Road Closure 1.4 Miles 1.4 Miles My decision to implement Alternative A with modifications is based on information contained in the project record including, but not limited to, the EA and the effects analysis described in Chapter 3, the Resource Specialist Reports, the management requirements of the applicable laws and policies, the mitigation measures and design criteria described in Appendix A (attached), and the comments received during the public involvement process for this project. James Creek Fuel Reduction Project Decision Notice 3

4 Table 2: Summary of Original and New Treatment Acres by Treatment Type for Alternative A with Modifications. Treatment Type Original New Treatment Type Original New Acres Acres Acres Acres Enhance Aspen Ridge Fuel Breaks Old Growth Patch cuts Development Thinning in Mixed 1,532 1,433 Prescribed Fire Conifer Thinning in Ponderosa Ridge Fuel Break & Pine Prescribed Fire Thinning in Lodgepole Thinning & Prescribed Pine Fire Regeneration Thinning Secondary Burn Areas Manual Thinning Total Acres Treated 6,402 6,204 Modifications This section describes the changes or modifications made to Alternative A for this decision. All other actions described in the EA under Alternative A will be implemented except for the changes described below. Modifications 1 through 4 did not change from the original decision, 5 through 10 are new modifications to Alternative A. 1) Modifications to Alternative A include a change of treatment prescription in treatment unit M0501. The initial prescription proposed patch cuts of up to five acres in size with thinning between the patches. This decision modifies that proposal by dividing the treatment unit into two zones. The east zone, now identified as unit M0503, will receive a thinning treatment removing up to 30% of the basal area and eliminating the patch cut openings. In the west zone, unit M0501a will be thinned removing up to 30% of the basal area. Unit M0501b is an aspen enhancement treatment unit. Unit M0501c will receive patch cut treatments (see the attached project map for zone and unit locations). This change was made to ensure compliance with Visual Quality Objectives. The east zone is best suited for thinning because it is the least susceptible to wind and potential windthrow because of its location. The west side incorporates patch cuts that minimize windthrow potential and support the project goals. Specifically, the patch cut previously located on the east boundary is eliminated. The patch cuts located adjacent to Forest System Road are eliminated from this project. Access to thinning and patch cut treatments will be from existing Forest System Roads 373.1, 373.1A, 373.3B, 374.1, 374.1A and 374.1B and temporary roads R and RR constructed for this project. Temporary roads R and RR are shortened considerably as a result of these changes. A short temporary spur, road RRR has been added to access a landing off of road The existing system road into the treatment unit would be reconstructed to provide access to the east zone thinning unit M0503. The reconstructed portion of the loop road on will be closed to motorized access after treatment, pending final disposition during travel management planning. Closure method will be determined at the time it is needed using the most appropriate tool such as boulders, buck & rail fence, or a gate. James Creek Fuel Reduction Project Decision Notice 4

5 2) The temporary road E to be constructed for access into unit MPB1 will be located out of the riparian area adjacent to the pond as modified by the project hydrologist and soil scientist. 3) Treatment unit M3301 has been deleted from this decision because access across private land to reach this area has been denied by the property owners. 4) Temporary roads MMM near Rock Lake and Z near 102J have been added to access treatment units as a result of further analysis. 5) A review and update of the Interior Forest analysis showed an inconsistency within the data base used to identify Interior Forest in the Project Area. A new analysis was performed using the current Common Vegetative Unit (CVU) data base and new Interior Forest areas were identified. For this project, mechanical treatment units within Interior Forest areas in the 3.5-Forested Flora and Fauna Habitats Management Emphasis Areas are eliminated from treatment to maintain the integrity and function of those areas. Hand treatments and prescribed fire will still occur in other Interior Forest areas as prescribed with this decision. Interior forest function will be maintained in hand treatment and prescribed fire areas due to the light intensity and minimal disturbance associated with those treatments. A map of Interior Forest areas and the criteria for this analysis is contained in the project record. This modification results in the reduction of approximately 100 acres of mechanical treatments from treatment units M3501 and M3502 and the elimination of two temporary roads, roads T and W (0.7 miles) from the project. 6) Approximately 98 acres have been excluded from portions of nine treatment units in Prebles Jumping Mouse habitat as a result of the refinement of treatment unit boundaries. Treatment unit boundaries are approximate at the map scale. The exclusion of Prebles Jumping Mouse habitat is consistent with the original analysis and would have occurred during project layout regardless of the mapped location. Further review of treatment unit boundaries provided an opportunity to refine the project map and treatment acres. 7) The Biological Report for Terrestrial Wildlife was examined for clarity and understanding. As a result, the analysis and evaluation of terrestrial threatened, sensitive and Management Indicator Species (MIS) were expanded. This included a more detailed evaluation of all MIS that may occur in the project area. This resulted in an increase in the number of MIS species considered for this project. This change is reflected in the Wildlife Biological Assessment and Report contained in the project record and summarized in Table 4 below (page 17). 8) Approximately 14 acres of primary burn unit PBFB4(b) have been corrected to show a secondary burn prescription due to a mapping error in the original decision. This change reflects the original intent for this treatment unit. 9) Approximately 104 acres of primary burn unit PBFB3(a) have been changed to secondary burn due to the reevaluation of the burn area for implementation feasibility and firefighter safety following a boundary change that resulted from the refinement of the Prebles Jumping Mouse habitat buffer. James Creek Fuel Reduction Project Decision Notice 5

6 10) Additional mitigation measures and clarification to existing mitigation measures has been added to the project decision. Clarifications to mitigations concerning potential soil impacts and effects wildlife habitat, including, but not limited to, skid trail and landing rehabilitation, Goshawk nest sites, snags and Prebles Jumping Mouse habitat, have been added to Appendix A. Rationale 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 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 (WUI) 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. Site specific analysis determined that 1) this area is in desperate need of fuel reduction, 2) this area is the right place for this project and its objectives, 3) prescribed fire and mechanical or manual treatments are the appropriate tools to accomplish the objectives, and 4) the environment in the project area can be improved and moved towards desired conditions as a result of this project. Therefore, I feel that fuel reduction through vegetation management, prescribed fire and road management activities are appropriate in this area. Secondly, I considered which of the alternatives would best meet the Purpose and Need. The difference between the three action alternatives is in the amount of area treated and the type of treatment each area receives. Alternative C emphasizes minimizing the effects from clear cutting and the concern for the risk of escape fire from prescribed burning treatments. Alternative D was designed to respond to the potential for increased access and use from opening forested areas by thinning and road construction. All alternatives were developed as a result of key public issues identified during the public scoping process. All alternatives meet the goals, objectives and direction provided in the 1997 Revised Forest Plan. I find that the access and road management actions, which include road reconstruction, temporary road construction, road closures of non-system roads and the acquisition of rights-ofway will provide for adequate administrative and public access. Overall, existing road density will be reduced in all action alternatives upon project completion. This will improve the effectiveness of wildlife habitat while continuing to provide non-motorized recreation opportunities. Since road closures are included in all alternatives, the differences are based on the access needed for the proposed vegetation management. When compared to the other alternatives, Alternative A with the modifications described above will best meet the stated objectives by utilizing a variety of vegetation management tools, including prescribed fire, that will create a mosaic of stand conditions designed to minimize the potential for a sustained crown fire while increasing overall ecosystem health through the reduction of competition between trees. The pattern of treatments provides a connected mosaic that will disrupt the continuous path of a wind-driven crown fire. More importantly, it James Creek Fuel Reduction Project Decision Notice 6

7 accomplishes the highest number of acres proposed for treatment in the highest wildfire risk areas, making it the most comprehensive and beneficial alternative across the project area. Environmental effects to overall ecosystem health are determined to be neutral or beneficial in this analysis (EA Chaper 3), with potentially detrimental effects minimized through project mitigation measures described in Appendix A. This alternative was designed to respond to the purpose and need described in Chapter 1 of the EA, to support the National Fire Plan, and the regional priority of treating fuels in the Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) areas. Activities for Alternative A with Modifications Mechanical Treatments Silvicultural treatments in Alternative A with modifications include a wide variety of fuel reduction activities applied to specific locations, are designed to reduce the risk of crown fire initiation and spread, aid in fire suppression activities in the WUI and enhance the potential for old growth development in selected stands. See the Alternative A with modifications maps included with this document for treatment area locations. The goal of reaching the desired condition in a stand may not require treatment on every acre due to the variety of forest conditions. Specifically: Thinning treatments will remove trees in a pattern to create gaps in the forest canopy, decrease biomass, reduce ladder fuels, and thus reduce the potential of a sustained crown fire. Aspen and meadow enhancements include the removal of encroaching conifers in selected meadows and aspen stands to encourage the growth of aspen and maintain meadows as a natural fire break. Patch cuts will occur primarily in lodgepole pine stands to create gaps for stand structure development and fuel breaks, and encourage the growth of forage species. The long-term benefit of this treatment includes increased individual tree growth and vigor due to a reduction in competition for water, nutrients and light. This treatment also adds structural diversity to an otherwise even-aged, single-storied stand. Due to the generally poor current condition of lodgepole stands, the benefits will be realized over a longer period, and overall stand health will improve substantially over time. In the short-term, patch cuts will create openings in the forest canopy, reduce the available biomass and minimize potential wildfire severity. Ridge fuel breaks will decrease understory vegetation and provide a change in fuel load with the intent of modifying fire behavior. Ridge fuel breaks also provide areas for fire line construction or fire retardant drops. Slash treatments include a variety of types including lop and scatter, chipping, mastication (large chunks), piling and burning, and broadcast burning. All units may be made available for firewood cutting and gathering after treatment. James Creek Fuel Reduction Project Decision Notice 7

8 Prescribed Fire Prescribed fire is proposed on lands needing fuel reduction and that are more suitable for burning than mechanical treatments due to species composition, slope and terrain, and desired outcome. All prescribed fire units may include pretreatment such as prunning, thinning and fire break construction to help achieve the burn objectives. Prescribed burning activities in the James Creek Project Area will be implemented in stages using created and natural barriers to contain and control the operation. The size of each operation will be dependent on the natural landscape within the burn unit, weather and available suppression resources. Slash pile burning or removal may occur in any treatment unit with this decision. Roads Temporary Road Construction Temporary road construction is planned for 11.4 miles to access treatment units under Alternative A with modifications, 8.6 miles of new temporary road construction and 3.5 miles of temporary road improvement on existing non-system road prisms. These roads are intended to be temporary and will not become part of the Forest Service transportation system. Temporary roads will be located on existing non-system road prisms if they are available and in areas where rock, terrain or vegetation will discourage motorized off-road use around closures. Closures will be applied upon the completion of the proposed treatments. These roads will not be available for motorized use by the public at any time. One existing non-system road and one trail will be added to the Forest Transportation System as a result of a right-of-way acquisition (see the Access section below). These two routes will be gated after treatment. Temporary roads will be approximately 12 feet wide, provide an adequate turning radius, and generally not include any surfacing material. Temporary roads will be located to minimize tree cutting and site disturbance. Drainage requirements (waterbars or culverts) will be installed as needed. All temporary roads will be obliterated and rehabilitated following treatments. Seeding and/or scattering forest debris may occur if needed to restore road locations. If necessary, access to temporary roads will be blocked to discourage future use. Roads will be blocked in areas with the greatest potential for resource damage and public use. Blocking may consist of boulders, ditches and traps, logs and woody debris or buck and rail fence. The most effective closure will be applied based on a site-specific evaluation. Road Maintenance Road maintenance work is included in the annual road maintenance program on the Boulder Ranger District. It is not included in this decision and is not subject to appeal. Road maintenance will occur on approximately 14.2 miles of Forest System Roads and will widen existing roadbeds to 12 feet and increase the turning radius where necessary. Drainage requirements (waterbars or culverts) may be installed or upgraded as needed. Road improvement work may involve brush and tree cutting and re-grading of the road surface. James Creek Fuel Reduction Project Decision Notice 8

9 Road Improvement Road improvements will occur on 1.1 miles of existing system roads where resource damage is occurring as a result of poor design, location or lack of maintenance. Improvements may include re-routing, reconstruction or heavy maintenance to minimize the potential for continued impacts. Road Closures In addition to the temporary road closures described above, approximately 1.4 miles of existing non-system roads within the project area will be closed. These roads will be closed through ripping and recontouring the existing road surface to restore the road to near-natural conditions (see the roads maps for locations). Future use will be discouraged by the use of boulders, logs, trenches and ditches, buck and rail fences or gates depending on the need and surrounding conditions. Access Alternative A with modifications includes the proposed acquisition of approximately 13 right-ofways through private lands as shown in Table 2.7 in the EA. Right-of-way needs are also identified in the roads analysis report for this project. These right-of-ways will be acquired prior to the implementation of the portion of the project associated with the right-of-way. The following changes have occurred to the list in Table 2.7 since the EA was sent out for comment June 2004: 1. A landowner denied legal access along a portion of NFSR that crossed their property (treatment unit O2801). No units will be dropped but an additional temporary road will need to be constructed and legal access will be pursued through Bar K Ranch subdivision. 2. A landowner denied legal access to H746.1 that crossed their land from Boulder County Road 100J. The mechanical portion of the treatment units will be dropped since there is no legal motorized access to the NFS land. 3. A landowner verbally denied access from two points across their property to treatment unit M1701 because they did not want to amend their conservation easement. Now, access to treatment unit M1701 will be pursued from NFSR 252.1A. The road requires extensive road work to make the road accessible to the treatment unit. Any safety issues regarding hauling through Glacier View Camp will be mitigated prior to Although this route is our third option, it is the only option left prior to dropping the 400 acre treatment unit. 4. One proposed right-of-way acquisition was added from comments received from the EA. The proposed action listed a temporary road to treatment unit M3201 and it was suggested to acquire a right-of-way through an existing road over private land. The planning team will look into this option. 5. Another comment received from the EA requested that we consider acquiring a right-ofway across a landowner to reach treatment unit M0502 instead of building a temporary road from the Gold Lake Road. The planning team is exploring this option. There are up to two proposed right-of-ways that will be added to the transportation system pending final title approval from government attorneys. Neither the road nor trail will be open to James Creek Fuel Reduction Project Decision Notice 9

10 the public and will be closed after the project. They are listed as nonsystem in Table 2.7 of the EA. The authority to approve these 13 right-of-way acquisitions resides either at the Forest or Regional level. This decision recommends pursuing the acquisition of the right-of-ways and approval from the appropriate authorized officer. Project Monitoring Monitoring for the James Creek Fuel Reduction Project will be done to ensure that Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines are met where resources may potentially be affected by the implementation of the project. Items to be monitored with associated information are found in Table 3 below. Table 3: Project Implementation Monitoring for the James Creek Fuel Reduction Project Item to be Monitored Responsibility 1 Timing of Monitoring Objective for Monitoring Wildlife Trees, Snags & Down Woody Material Goshawk Nest Locations Soil Compaction and Disturbance Project Operation Restrictions for Wildlife Riparian Area Treatments Weed Infestations and Spread Windthrow Road Closures Wildlife Biologist, Implementation Forester Wildlife Biologist, Implementation Forester Soil Scientist, Implementation Forester Wildlife Biologist, Implementation Forester Hydrologist, Botanist Botanist, Implementation Forester Silviculturist, Fuels Specialist Implementation Forester, Forest Protection Officers During project layout and marking of trees, also during and after treatment. During project area planning, layout, and project During and following project During and following project During and following project During and following project Following project During and following project To ensure compliance with Forest Plan standards and guidelines. Monitor known nest locations, discover new nest locations. To ensure compliance with Forest Plan standards and guidelines. To ensure compliance with mitigation requirements. To ensure compliance with mitigation requirements and project objectives. To ensure compliance with mitigation requirements. To monitor residual stand for blow down occurrence and increases in ground fuel. To monitor unauthorized road use and new road establishment. Temporary Road & Skid Road Layout Prescribed Fire Intensity and Effects Historic properties in prescribed burn units. Implementation Forester, Soil Scientist & Hydrologist Burn Boss, Fuels Specialist, Soil Scientist Archeologist Before and during project During and following project After project implementation in low, moderate and high fire severity prescribed burn To ensure compliance with Best Management Practices. To ensure that Best Management Practices are met and effective. To examine locations of known historic properties and previously undiscovered James Creek Fuel Reduction Project Decision Notice 10

11 Item to be Monitored Responsibility 1 Timing of Monitoring Objective for Monitoring Soil & Vegetation recovery in burn pile locations. Soil Scientist and Botanist. areas. After project historic properties. To evaluate soil and vegetation recovery in burn pile locations. 1 The responsibility for project implementation monitoring will be accomplished by the named resource specialist or their representative. Other Alternatives Considered In addition to the selected alternative, I considered three other alternatives. A comparison of these alternatives can be found in the EA on pages Alternative B-No Action Under the No Action alternative, current plans would continue to guide management of the project area. No forest thinning and no prescribed fire would occur at this time. Alternative B does not meet the purpose and need for this project (EA pages 3-4, &11). Alternative C Alternative C was designed to respond to the concern for the effects from clear cutting and concern for the risk of escape fire from prescribed burning treatments. Alternative C described in Tables 2.2 thru 2.6 of the EA would move the project area towards the desired condition by applying vegetation management on approximately 5,401 acres. While this alternative was designed to respond to the purpose and need described in Chapter 1 of the EA, to support the National Fire Plan, and the regional priority of treating fuels in the Wildland Urban Interface areas, it was deemed less effective because key treatment areas were dropped and an important tool, prescribed fire, was eliminated from use. Mitigation measures described in Appendix A of the EA (page 97) would be applied with this alternative. Alternative D Alternative D was designed to respond to the the potential for increased access and use from opening forested areas by thinning and road construction. While this alternative was also designed to respond to the purpose and need described in Chapter 1 of the EA, to support the National Fire Plan, and the regional priority of treating fuels in the Wildland Urban Interface areas, it was not selected because it would have eliminated key treatment areas and result in the least effective treatment compared to the other action alternatives. Alternative D described in Table 2.2 thru 2.6 of the EA would move the project area towards the desired condition by applying vegetation management on approximately 3,723 acres and performing prescribed burning on approximately 1,436 acres. Mitigation measures described in Appendix A of the EA (page 97) would be applied with this alternative. Public Involvement The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) defines scoping as an early and open process for determining the scope of issues to be addressed and for identifying the significant issues that relate to a proposed action (40 CFR ). The scoping process is established to invite public participation, to help identify public issues, and to obtain public comment at various stages of the environmental analysis process. In addition to the following specific activities, the James Creek James Creek Fuel Reduction Project Decision Notice 11

12 Fuel Reduction Project has been listed in the quarterly NEPA Project Calendar (Schedule of Proposed Actions, SOPA) since January, Also, there were many phone calls, informal meetings and messages to discuss issues and concerns of the proposed project. To date, the public was invited to participate in the project in the following ways: May 2, 2003: A letter, providing information and requesting public comment, was mailed to over 2,500 individuals and groups. This included federal and state agencies, Native American groups, municipal offices, businesses, interest groups, nearby private property owners and other individuals. May 20, 2003: Conducted a public meeting in an open house format at the Boulder Ranger District office. General information was provided utilizing posters and project area maps. Eighty-five responses to this initial mailing and public meeting were received. July 15, 2003: A second letter, providing information, requesting public comment, and announcing the Jamestown public meeting was mailed to people who attended the first meeting or who responded to the initial letter. July 29, 2003: Conducted a public meeting in Jamestown, CO. A detailed presentation of the proposed action was made followed by a question and answer session. Forty five people attended the meeting. February 18, 2004: Conducted a public meeting near Ward, CO where the proposed action and alternatives were presented in detail. After a short presentation, the interdisciplinary team answered questions from the public in a forum session. Forty people attended this meeting. July 1, 2004: Conducted a public meeting in Boulder, CO after the EA was sent out for public review. The purpose of the meeting was to answer questions and provide additional detail concerning the Environmental Assessment document. Thirty people attended this meeting. Announcements and feature articles about the project were printed in the Boulder Daily Camera, Denver Post, Nederland Mountain Ear and other local newsletters during the scoping and analysis period. Project information was presented to the Colorado State Forest Service, the Boulder County Wildfire Mitigation Group and to representatives of Native American Tribes, and local town governments. The Environmental Assessment (EA) for the James Creek Fuel Reduction Project was mailed to interested and involved members of the public and organizations on June 25, An invitation to comment on the proposed action was published in the Daily Camera Newspaper, Boulder, CO, on June 25, 2004, in the legal notice section to initiate the 30-day public comment period to comply with provisions of 36 CFR (d)(2)(ii). The comment period ended July 26, By July 30 th 43 letters and/or s were received from individuals and organizations. James Creek Fuel Reduction Project Decision Notice 12

13 Finding of No Significant Impact After considering the environmental effects described in the EA, I have determined that these actions will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment considering the context and intensity of impacts (40 CFR ). The disclosure of effects in the EA found the actions limited in context. The context of this project is local. Local issues were identified through an extensive scoping process and considered in alternative development and analysis. The project area is limited in size and the activities are limited in duration. Effects are local in nature and not likely to significantly affect regional or national resources. Thus, an environmental impact statement will not be prepared. Based on the documentation in the James Creek Fuel Reduction Project Environmental Assessment and the project record, I have determined the following with regard to the intensity of this project: 1. Impacts associated with the project are discussed in Chapter 3 of the EA. The impacts are within the range of those identified in the Forest Plan. The actions described in Alternative A with modifications will not have significant impacts on other resources identified and described in Chapter 3, and the changes in treatment prescriptions called for in the modified Alternative A decision will reduce the overall effect of these activities on the surrounding communities ( EA Chapter 3, Decision Notice (DN) page 2). (40 CFR ) 2. Proposed activities will not significantly affect public health and safety. The purpose of the project is to reduce risks posed by forest fires to firefighter and public health and safety in the project area. Thinning activities will be conducted in a safe manner to protect the public. Similar actions have not significantly affected public health and safety. A minor impact for a short period may occur to local air quality from the prescribed burning treatments and the burning of slash. However, burning will be done in accordance to State air quality standards and within burning periods approved by the State of Colorado (EA, pages 50-56). Prescribed burning can present a risk of escaped fire. Extensive agency experience with similar local projects and conditions show these risks to be low. This is due in part to the design of the project, including construction of fire lines and fuel breaks, reduced fuels along the National Forest/private land boundary, and fire management expertise. The use of experienced crews and the presence of the necessary fire suppression resources also reduce the risk of escaped fire (EA Page 15-16). Warning signs and public announcements will be used to notify recreationists and residents of thinning and burning activities. In addition, trails will be signed or closed to hikers and others when equipment is in use, and during prescribed burning. (EA Appendix A). The environmental analysis indicates no degradation of water quality that will constitute a public health threat (EA pages 58-61, Hydrology and Fisheries Specialists Report, Admin. Record). 3. The activities described in Alternative A with modifications 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. My determination is based on the discussion of effects found in the EA, Chapter 3. There are no park lands, prime farmlands, or wild and scenic rivers within the affected area. James Creek Fuel Reduction Project Decision Notice 13

14 There are no adverse effects to wetlands within the affected area (EA pages 86-90). 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 National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) will be protected or avoided by all proposed activities. (EA pages 49-50, 86-89). 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 eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) would be affected by Alternative A with modifications. 4. The activities described in Alternative A with modifications 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 public access issues and road construction, risk of escaped fire, and the effects to scenery from clear cutting. Chapter 3 of the EA includes a discussion of the effects of the proposed treatments on access and road construction (EA pages 37-39) and scenery (EA pages 39-43). A discussion of the effects of prescribed burning can be found on pages in the EA. My selected alternative, Alternative A with modifications, results in reducing the total number of acres treated to 6,204. Details of the selected road activities are found on pages 8 and 9 of this decision document. Overall, the effects on access will be minimized as a result of right-of-way (ROW) agreements that will minimize the need for new road construction and the rehabilitation and obliteration of any new temporary roads required to access treatment areas. In addition, approximately 4.9 miles of existing non-system roads in the project area have been identified for closure. Wildlife will benefit 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. In the long term, prescribed burning, patch cuts, and thinning treatments will facilitate the development of mature stand characteristics and stand structure diversification thus helping to restore both young and old ages stands to the landscape in support of a variety of wildlife habitat (EA pages 69-73). 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 pages 39-43). Visual mitigation measures will minimize the appearance of tree removal along roads and in foreground retention areas (Appendix A). 5. The activities described in Alternative A with modifications 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 outlined in Appendix A. Therefore, I conclude that there are no highly uncertain, unique, or unknown risks. James Creek Fuel Reduction Project Decision Notice 14

15 6. My decision to implement the activities included in Alternative A with modifications 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. 7. The EA includes all connected, cumulative, and similar actions in the scope of the analysis (pages 84-90). The cumulative effects of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions are considered and disclosed in the EA, Chapter The activities described in Alternative A with modifications will not adversely effect 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 pages 86-89). 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 (Appendix A). There will be no adverse effect to known historic properties. There will be no effect to scientific resources. 9. The activities described in Alternative A with modifications 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. See Table 4 below for the list of endangeded and threatened, and sensitive species analyzed for this project. Biological Evaluations for threatened, endangered, and sensitive plants, wildlife, and fish were conducted and concluded that implementation of Alternative A with modifications will have little or no effect/impact to these species ( EA pages 66, 69, 70, 71, 73). Programmatic consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service was conducted. (EA pages 89-90). The Biological Evaluations have been summarized in the EA and are located in the project file. Mitigations and timing restrictions to protect potential goshawk nest sites and elk calving areas are presented in Appendix A. 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 pages 89-90). The action is consistent with the revised Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests and Pawnee National Grassland Land and Resource Management Plan (EA page 6). Findings Required by Other Laws and Regulations 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: Specific silvicultural requirements of Alternative A with modifications will not result in the degradation of habitat for Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive species. Mitigation measures, design criteria and management requirements will aid in the protection of air, water and cultural resources. Treatment prescriptions are designed to minimize hazards from wildfire. James Creek Fuel Reduction Project Decision Notice 15

16 Vegetation Manipulation: All vegetation treatments in the project area utilize silvicultural prescriptions that are best suited to forests on this landscape. Silvicultural Practices: Alternative A with modifications allows for the use of various silvicultural techniques to improve forest conditions in the project area. Even-aged Management: This project involves using regeneration harvest methods (patch clearcuts) on approximately 147 acres. Riparian Areas: Riparian buffers would occur along streams within the project area. Additional buffering is provided along James Creek. This will result in minimal impacts to riparian areas. Soil and Water: Mitigation measures and design criteria listed in Appendix A are included so that water and soil resources are adequately protected during project Diversity: Wildlife and plant diversity will not be adversely affected by this project. Snags, coarse woody material, and unburned piles will also enhance stand diversity with this project. This decision to implement mechanical thinning, prescribed underburning, patch cuts, fuel breaks, aspen and meadow enhancement, and associated road activities on approximately 6,204 acres in the James Creek Project Area is consistent with the intent of the Forest Plan's long term goals and objectives listed on pages 2-9 of the Forest Plan. The project was designed in conformance with Land and Resource Management Plan standards and incorporates appropriate land and resource management plan guidelines for reducing the risk of crown fire initiation and spread by thinning forests and reducing the ladder fuels (Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests Land and Resource Management Plan, pages 12 to 42). Prescribed fire activities will be in accordance with provisions of the Clean Air Act as administered by the State of Colorado (EA page 87). A requirement of the National Forest Management Act (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 1997 Revision of the Land and Resource Management Plan for the Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests and Pawnee National Grassland (FSM ). MIS for the James Creek Fuel Reduction 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 selected MIS species is expected. The viability of MIS species is not expected to become a concern through the implementation of this project. The selected MIS are listed in Table 4 below. See the Wildlife and Aquatic Species Biological Reports for the effects analysis related to the MIS species listed below. James Creek Fuel Reduction Project Decision Notice 16