Decision Notice and FONSIa123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic... · 2010-01-29 ·...

United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service January 2010

Decision Notice and FONSI

North Summit Wildland Urban Interface Fuel Reduction Project

Dillon Ranger District, White River National Forest Summit County, Colorado

Legal Description: R78W, T3S, Sec. 33; R78W, T4S Sec. 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14, 16, 21, 25, 27, 34; R77W, T4S, Sec. 30, 31; R78W, T5S, Sec. 10, 11, 15

For Information Contact: Cary Green [email protected]

P.O. Box 190 Minturn, CO 81645 (970) 827-5160 http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/whiteriver/projects

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 14th and Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (202) 720-5964 (voice and TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

North Summit WUI Decision Notice and FONSI 3

Introduction__________________________________________

The US Forest Service, White River National Forest, Dillon Ranger District, has analyzed a

proposal to create defensible space on approximately 1095 acres of wildland urban interface

(WUI) by reducing hazardous fuels within a 600‟ strip along the boundary of National

Forest/private development. A site-specific environmental analysis has been completed and is

documented in the North Summit Wildland Urban Interface Fuel Reduction Project

Environmental Assessment (North Summit WUI EA), which is referenced throughout this

document.

The analysis has been completed using the Healthy Forest Restoration Act 2003 (HFRA), Title I,

Sec. 102 (a) (1) authorities. This project meets the definition of an “Authorized Project” under

HFRA because the project will reduce hazardous fuels within the Wildland Urban Interface

(WUI).

The EA is available for review at the Dillon Ranger District Office located in Silverthorne,

Colorado and is also available on the web at http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/whiteriver/projects/.

Project Location______________________________________

The project area includes National Forest lands along the Highway 9 corridor, from the

neighborhoods of Wildernest north to Sierra Bosque. These communities have been identified

through the collaborative Summit County Community Wildfire Protection Plan process as

having high hazard fuels risks. Approximately 706 acres that are proposed for treatments fall

within Forest Plan inventoried roadless areas. See Figure 1 for project area location map.

Purpose and Need for Action___________________________

With tens of thousands of acres of mature lodgepole pine dying in Summit County, the Forest

Service is compelled by its mission to reduce hazardous fuels around communities at risk. The

north end of Summit County has been affected by the mountain pine beetle outbreak since 2005.

Mortality rates of mature lodgepole pine in high hazard stands1 are in excess of 74%, with

mortality reaching as high as 95%2. Current projections are that 90% of mature lodgepole pine is

expected to die on federal and non-federal lands in northern Colorado within the next 3-5 years3.

As dead lodgepole pines deteriorate and fall to the ground, heavy fuels accumulate. This

situation is likely to create conditions that could support large-scale wildfire characterized by

high severity/high intensity fire behavior over the next 10 to 20 years. Extreme fire behavior and

the resulting high fire intensity would threaten private property, community infrastructure and

fire fighter safety. Consequently, there is a need to provide community wildfire protection in the

wildland urban interface.

1 High Hazard – Stands where trees greater than 5.0 inches in diameter have an average diameter greater than 8.0

inches, are more than 80 years old and occur at favorable elevation for mountain pine beetle development (Amman,

1977). 2 Data from Wildernest Stewardship Cruise (2007), Maryland Creek WUI Cruise (2007), Pebble Creek Cruise

(2007) and Blue River Campground Salvage Cruise (2008). 3 Northern Colorado Bark Beetle Cooperative, Strategy for Action and Assessment of the Bark Beetle Situation,

February 2006, p. 42

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/whiteriver/projects/


Figure 1 - Vicinity Map

Dillon Reservoir

Wildernest / Mesa CortinaArea

Lily

Pa

d T

rail

§̈¦I-70

£¤US-6

^Silverthorne

PrivateLands

Gore Range Trail

&-CO-9

Maryland CreekRanch

Mary

land

C

k. T

rail

CR 1353

CR 1376

Boulder Creek Rd.

CR 1

425

To Kremmling

White River National Forest


To Denver

To Vail

X

X

X

XPtarmigan

Peak

Ute Peak

Boulder Lake

Ruby Lake

North Rock Creek Trail

!9Blue River

Campground

PrivateLands

PrivateLands

Gore

Range T

rail

^Dillon

PrivateLands

^Frisco

&-CO-9

North Summit WUI ProjectVicinity Map

USDA Forest ServiceWhite River National Forest

Dillon Ranger DistrictSummit County, Colorado

Legend

Proposed Treatment Units

Local Roads

Highways

Interstate 70

NFS Trails

Dillon Reservoir

Private Lands Ü0 1 20.5

Miles

Scale 1:100,000

sll 03/30/2009


The purpose of the proposed action is to reduce wildfire hazards that could threaten community

infrastructure4 and public and firefighter safety.

The objective of the fuel breaks is to provide firefighters with a safe defensible space to initiate

and carry out firefighting operations. Not only would this help protect private property from

fires encroaching from the forest, but would also provide separation from fires which start on

private land and threaten the National Forest. Treatments have been designed to remove or treat

in place the standing dead, dying and down biomass which would reduce long-term crown fire

potential by eliminating large accumulations of future dead and down material. Removing these

trees while they are sound and standing is more economical than attempting to remove them

once they are on the ground and decomposing.

Alternatives Considered___________________________

An interdisciplinary team (IDT) of resource specialists conducted the analysis and documented

the results in accordance with the National Forest Management Act, the National Environmental

Policy Act and Healthy Forest Restoration Act 2003, Title I, Sec. 102 (a) (1) authorities. A

proposed action was formulated incorporating recommendations and addressing issues raised

during scoping, while complying with Forest Plan goals, objectives, standards and guidelines.

The IDT considered the affected area and estimated the environmental consequences for the

proposed action. The HFRA provides authorities for expedited environmental analysis of

allowable projects including the analysis of only the proposed action and the no action

alternative if there are no other alternatives proposed during scoping that meet the purpose and

need. Other alternatives were suggested by the public during scoping but none of them met the

purpose and need (EA, Chapter 2, page 19), therefore only the proposed action and the no-action

alternatives were considered in detail in the EA. These alternatives are summarized below.

Alternative 1-No Action:

Under the No Action alternative, current management plans would continue to guide

management of the project area. Management activities would not be used to change the current

conditions. No fuels reduction treatments would be implemented. Ongoing planned activities for

recreation, fire suppression, travel management and road maintenance would continue.

Management activities analyzed under other environmental documents may still occur within the

project area.

Alternative 2 - The Proposed Action:

To meet this primary purpose of community protection, the Forest Service is planning to reduce

hazardous fuels in the wildland urban interface in the Lower Blue River corridor. Fuels

reduction treatments will include removing or treating on site dead, dying and/or MPB-

susceptible lodgepole as well as those remaining trees that may be susceptible to windthrow.

The proposed action will create a 400-600 foot wide community protection zone fuel break on

NFS lands adjacent to private property or community infrastructure. Four hundred feet was

chosen as a safe width for a crown fire free zone under high to extreme weather conditions (Scott

2003). Fuel breaks could be as much as 600 feet wide, but may be less depending on terrain and

vegetation. The reason for extending up to the 600 foot width is to have the ability to “feather”

4 Infrastructure includes homes, outbuildings, roads, power utilities and water utilities.


the treatments to blend in with other natural features.

The predominant vegetation proposed for treatment is lodgepole pine, lodgepole pine mixed with

conifer (spruce/fir), and lodgepole pine mixed with aspen. Approximately 1,095 acres (acres are

approximate within + or – 10%) of vegetation will be treated using mechanical treatments, hand

treatments and prescribed fire (EA, Appendix C). Prescribed fire will be limited to burning slash

piles created from the mechanical and hand treatments. The estimated volume to be removed in

the project area is 10,000 – 15,000 CCF (hundred cubic feet) or 5,000 – 7,500 MBF (thousand

board feet).

Under the Proposed Action, approximately 595 acres will be treated using a clearcut with „leave

trees‟5 regeneration method. The majority of these areas will be mechanically treated but there

will be some areas of hand treatments. Aspen and small groups of spruce/fir may still be left

where present in the stand, although incidental amounts6 of spruce/fir and aspen scattered

throughout the treatment units will be included for removal.

Clearcutting is the appropriate silvicultural method because if only the dead and infested trees

were removed, the remaining are at a greater risk of windthrow; and, the remaining lodgepole

pine trees may soon become infested. Removing only dead and infested trees has been tried in

the past, and the Forest Service has seen that residual trees then attacked by beetles, although at a

lesser rate than trees in the surrounding, untreated forest. The trees in even-aged stands of

lodgepole pine develop windfirmness together, mutually supporting each other from exposure to

wind. If partial cutting is employed, which removes more than 20-30% of the basal area at one

time, the residual stand is at a higher risk of windthrow (Alexander, 1975). Currently, the mature

lodgepole pine component of the proposed treatment units is approximately 74-95% dead and/or

infested (See Project Record for additional data). These are typically the largest trees in the

stand, and when removed, would leave a residual stand that is highly susceptible to windthrow.

Approximately 500 acres will be treated using hand treatments. These hand treatments would

occur in areas that are inaccessible to mechanized equipment due to steep slopes, wetlands or

limited access to National Forest System lands. Hand treatments will vary across the project area

from patch cutting to partial cutting depending on lodgepole pine vegetation composition. These

treatments would not remove forest products. Hazardous fuels would be treated on site.

Figures 4 through 6 show the treatment units from Sierra Bosque south to Mesa Cortina and

Wildernest.

5 Clearcut with „Leave Trees‟ is a harvest method that removes most trees in a stand in one entry, producing an

exposed microclimate for the development of a new age class. A minor (less than approximately 10% of full

stocking) live component is retained for reasons other than regeneration (FACTS definition, 2007). 6 Incidental amounts - up to 15% of total area volume per acre measured in CCF)


Figure 2 – North Summit WUI Project

North

7

3

5

4

1

14

9

6

8

10

2

11

13

!9

&-CO-9

Blu

e R

idg

e R

d.

CR

1400

Boulder Creek Rd.

CR 1376

Bould

er Ck.

Tra

il

CR 1353

CR 1351

Pebble C

reek

Rd.

Eagle's Nest Wilderness Area

Maryland CreekRoadless Area

BoulderRoadless Area


Private Lands

CR 1871

Marylan

d C

k. R

d.

Private Lands

Private Lands

Blue RiverCampground

Private Lands

Private Lands

CR 1

425

North Summit Wui ProjectProposed Action - North



Legend


Local Roads

Highway

NFS Trails

Private Lands

Wilderness Areas

Roadless Areas

0 2,500 5,0001,250

Feet

Scale 1:30,000

sll 03/31/2009

Ü

CR 1350

Gore Range Trail

Private Lands


Figure 3 – North Summit WUI Project

Central

14

9

7

6

22

18

12

8

10

21

15

17

13

4

11

19 20

16

28


&-CO-9

Eagle's Nest Wilderness

Private Lands

White River National ForestPrivate

Lands

Ptarmigan Peak Wilderness

CR 187

1

Maryland C

k. Rd.

Hunte

rs K

nob R

d.

Gam

e Tr

ail R

d.

Mar

yland C

reek Trail

CR

1352

Willow Roadless Area

Ptarmigan ARoadless Area

Private Lands

Maryland CreekRoadless Area

Golden Eag

le D

r.

North Summit WUI ProjectProposed Action - Center



Legend


Local Roads

Highways

Interstate 70

NFS Trails

Private Lands

Ü0 2,500 5,0001,250

Feet

Scale 1:30,000

sll 03/30/2009

Wilderness Areas

Roadless Areas


Figure 4 – North Summit WUI Project South

26

22

28

23

21

2425

18

27

19 20

Dillon Reservoir


^Silverthorne

Wild

ern

est R

d.

Lakeview D

r.

Royal Buffalo Dr.

Royal Red Bird Dr.

Buffalo

Dr.

Ryan Gulch Rd.

&-CO-9

§̈¦I-70

South Ruby Rd.

Eagle's Nest Wilderness

Private Lands

Private Lands

To Vail

£¤US-6


Ruby Rd.

Golden Eagle Rd.

Golden Eagle R

d.

Two Cabin Dr.

Hu

nte

rs K

no

b R

d.

Hamilton Ck. R

d.

Lily

Pa

d T

rail

Ryan GulchRoadless Area

Willow Roadless Area

Ptarmigan ARoadless Area

North Summit WUI ProjectProposed Action - South



LegendProposed Treatment Units

Local Roads

Highways

Interstate 70

NFS Trails

Dillon Reservoir

Private Lands

Ü0 2,500 5,0001,250

Feet

Scale 1:30,000

sll 03/30/2009

Roadless Areas

Wilderness Areas

Gore

Range T

rai l


The prescriptions for hazardous fuel treatments are as follows:

Pure Lodgepole Pine:

Mechanized treatment areas - remove all dead/dying and susceptible (to MPB attack or

blowdown) sized lodgepole pine trees greater than 5” dbh. These areas will be clearcut

with leave trees. This will reduce crown bulk density7 (CBD) and remove future fuel

loading.

Hand treatment areas – Same action as mechanized treatment areas, except treatments

would involve felling, bucking, piling and burning of hazardous fuels in place.

Lop and scatter slash to within 18” of the ground. As needed, pile and burn dead and

down and activity fuels to achieve the optimum total fuel load of less than 15 tons/acre.

The threshold of 15 tons/acre will optimize the amount of coarse woody debris (CWD)

for wildlife, soil productivity, and fire behavior and resistance to control.

Mixed Lodgepole Pine and other conifer:

Mechanized treatment areas - where mixed species are present, up to 30% of the

overstory basal area8 of dead/dying and susceptible lodgepole pine trees may be removed

to reduce the incidence of windthrow. This will reduce CBD and remove future fuel

loading. If lodgepole pine trees comprise over 30% of the basal area, some lodgepole

may be left on site to reduce the risk of windthrow where other tree species exist. It is

expected that these treatments would be patchy in nature, as treatments focus on

removing groups of lodgepole pine trees and beetle infested spruce.



For lynx habitat, retain at least 30% canopy cover in understory and overstory, preferably

in patches to provide optimum wildlife habitat.

Retain healthy aspen.



Mixed Lodgepole Pine and Aspen:

Mechanized treatment areas - remove lodgepole pine that is dead, dying, insect infested

or susceptible to mountain pine beetle.



Retain healthy aspen and remove decadent aspen.



7 Crown Bulk Density is a measure of canopy fuels used in fire behavior modeling applications. Typically it is the

weight of fine canopy fuels (leaves, needles, smaller branches, etc.) divided by the total canopy volume. This layer

is provided in units of kg / m3.

8 Basal Area is the cross-sectional area of a tree measured at 4.5 feet above the ground. Basal area can be used to

measure how much of a site is occupied by trees. The term often describes the collective basal area of trees per acre.


Removal of dead and down trees within 200 feet of the private/National Forest boundary will be

allowed by the public only with Forest Service approval within the proposed treatment units.

Adjoining property owners or interested parties will be required to submit a tree removal

application at the Dillon District Office where the application will be either approved or denied

by the District Ranger. If approved, the Forest Service will issue a forest products permit with

stipulations for tree removal. Stipulations will include what can be removed, how much,

location and by what methods (non-motorized, motorized). These permits will respond to

homeowner and municipality requests to remove dead and down trees near infrastructure.

For all treatment areas, associated activities would include:

o Use of existing transportation system roads for harvest and log hauling operations, where

feasible.

o Road maintenance such as clearing brush, grading, widening, and replacing gravel.

o Construction of approximately 0.5 mile of temporary road.

o No temporary road construction in roadless areas.

o Closure and/or obliteration of temporary roads once they are no longer needed for operations.

o Design criteria and conservation practices that ensure consistency with Forest Plan

Standards, address issues and other resource concerns (see EA, Appendix A).

Table 1 lists total treatment acres and treatment acres in roadless areas by treatment type and

unit. Both mechanical and hand treatments may occur within certain proposed treatment units.

Unit overlap - the way the units are displayed on the proposed action map - is purely from a

defensible space treatment area view. They are not broken out by mechanical or hand treatments

because the topography varies so much within the units, and access for mechanical treatments is

limited. Appendix C in the EA breaks the treatment units down into more detail.

Table 1 - North Summit WUI Proposed Action

North Summit WUI Proposed Action

Silvicultural

Treatment

Units Acres Roadless

Acres

Clearcut with leave

trees

1, 4, 59, 6, 7, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18,

19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26

595 351

Hand Treatments

(Cut, Pile, Burn)

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15,

18, 27, 28

500 356

Total acres 1,095 706

Slash Treatments Units Acres Roadless

Acres

9 The portion of unit 5 to the west of Summit Guest Ranch (SGR) would not be included within the larger timber

sale, but would be available for the SGR landowners, through permitting by the Forest Service, to implement fuel

mitigation on the National Forest lands analyzed in this EA and adjacent to their properties.


North Summit WUI Proposed Action

Machine pile and

burn; lop and scatter

18”

1, 4, 510

, 6, 7, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17,

18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26

595 351

Hand Treatments -

Cut, Pile, Burn; lop

and scatter 18”

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15,

18, 27, 28

500 356

Total acres 1,095 706

As authorized in the Knutson-Vandenberg Act of 1930 (KV), a portion of the timber receipts

from the proposed commercial timber harvests would be deposited in a cooperative account for

future use in improving existing structures and renewable natural resources within sale

boundaries. Projects proposed by the interdisciplinary team are listed in Table 2 in order of

funding priority. These projects would be included in the Sale Area Improvement Plan, which is

required to receive and disperse KV funds and are a part of the Proposed Action. Required

reforestation KV projects would be funded by base timber rates. Other KV projects would occur

if timber sales produce sufficient revenue.

Table 2 - Sale Area Improvement (KV) Projects (listed in priority order)

Sale Area Improvement (KV) Projects (listed in priority order)

1. Regeneration surveys –1st, 3

rd, 5

th year

2. Post-sale weed treatment11

Decision______________________________________

This Decision Notice (DN) documents my decision for the North Summit WUI Project Area as

well as the rationale for this decision. Of the two alternatives considered in detail, I have

selected Alternative 2, as described above and in the North Summit WUI EA, for implementation

after consideration of applicable laws, 2002 Forest Plan consistency, environmental effects,

information in the EA and project file, and public comments received during the scoping and

objection periods. My decision also includes the Sale Area Improvement Projects as described in

the EA, pages 18-19.

One Homeowners’ Association requested clarification of part of the proposed action that would

affect their subdivision. To clarify the language in the EA, the portion of unit 5 to the west of

Summit Guest Ranch (SGR) would not be included within the larger timber sale, but would be

available for the SGR landowners, through permitting by the Forest Service, to implement fuel

10

The portion of unit 5 to the west of Summit Guest Ranch (SGR) would not be included within the larger timber

sale, but would be available for the SGR landowners, through permitting by the Forest Service, to implement fuel


11

This document tiers to the “Forestwide Weed Treatment EA” and incorporates the August 30, 2007 Decision

Notice that would cover the weed treatments in the KV plan.



Mitigation Measures, Design Criteria and Conservation Practices

No mitigation was identified; however, design criteria and conservation practices that provide for

public safety and ensure consistency with Forest Plan standards are incorporated into this

decision and are located in Appendix A of the EA.

Rationale for the Decision________________________

My decision involved balancing several considerations, including which alternative or

combination of treatments best supports the purpose and need for action and the project

objectives described in the EA while at the same time maintains healthy watersheds, fisheries,

and effective wildlife habitat; protects residual vegetation; provides for public health and safety;

minimizes impacts to scenery; and maintains the roadless characteristics within the project area

in the long term. I reached my decision after careful consideration of the environmental effects

of the alternatives discussed in detail in the EA, the associated planning record, the issues

identified during the planning process, and public comments. My decision meets the

requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Healthy Forest Restoration

Act (HFRA), and best responds to the purpose and need for this project as described on page 3

through 5 of the EA. The rationale for my decision is further detailed below.

1. The project proposal is consistent with management direction in the Forest Plan as required

by 36 CFR 219.10 (e). Specifically, the project conforms to the White River National Forest

management direction to accomplish vegetation management that will meet the goals and

objectives White River NF Goals and Objectives: (Pg 1-3, 1-8 WRNF LRMP 2002 Revision)

Goal 1: Promote ecosystem health and conservation using a collaborative approach to sustain

the nation‟s forests, grasslands, and watersheds.

Objective 1d: Increase the amount of forest and rangelands restored to or maintained

in a healthy condition with reduced risk and damage from fires, insects, disease, and

invasive species.

Goal 2: Provide a variety of uses, products, and services for present and future generations

by managing within the capability of sustainable ecosystems.

Objective 2c: Improve the capability of national forests and rangelands to sustain

desired uses, values, products, and services.

Strategy 2c.1: By the end of the plan period, offer for sale the allowable sale

quantity.

The Forest Plan assigned management prescriptions for specific areas of land in the White

River National Forest, providing the emphasis and requirements used in project

implementation to help achieve Forest Plan goals and objectives. Vegetation treatments will

occur in Management Area MA 4.32 – Dispersed Recreation, High Use – managed for

recreational opportunities and scenic qualities in locations that attract high numbers of users;

MA 5.41 Deer and Elk Winter Range – managed to provide adequate amounts of quality


forage, cover and solitude for elk, deer and other species; MA 5.43 Elk Habitat – managed

for low road densities and optimum forage and cover ratios; and MA 8.32 Designated

Utility Corridors – Existing and Potential – Managed for existing and potential linear and

non- linear rights-of-way corridors. Specific direction for these management areas is listed in

pp. 3-45 thru 3-90 of the Forest Plan. A full range of vegetative treatments, including timber

management may be applied to meet resource objectives. This project is consistent with all

management area standards where treatments are proposed. Alternative 2 contributes to

Forest Plan Goals and Objectives and meets the project purpose and need. The resource

reports detail more fully how the proposed action achieves consistency with the Forest Plan.

The resource reports are hereby incorporated by reference and are located in the project file.

2. Alternative 2 meets the purpose and need to provide community wildfire protection in the

wildland urban interface by reducing current and future fuel loads.

3. Alternative 2, as designed, will have no significant adverse effect on roadless characteristics,

vegetation diversity, recreation resources, wildlife and their habitat, hydrologic/soil/fisheries

resources, scenic resources, recreation resources, or heritage/cultural resources, as

documented in the EA.

4. Alternative 2 has been designed to address the issues brought up during scoping. Design

criteria have been prescribed to 1) protect public safety during logging operations, 2) protect

private and county roads from logging damage, 3) protect advanced regeneration, 4)

minimize risk of windthrow, 5) minimize impacts on roadless characteristics, 6) minimize

impacts on scenic integrity , 7) reduce soil damage, 8) protect existing snags and live trees

from burning slash piles, 9) reduce fuel loading from slash, 10) effectively close roads and

skid trails after use, 11) locate, prevent and treat weeds to reduce the existing populations,

and 12) protect lynx and other wildlife and fish habitat.

5. Alternative 2 will generate revenue from the sale of wood products that will help offset the

cost of meeting the purpose and need for fuel mitigation.

6. I have a statutory obligation under the Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act to “…develop and

administer the renewable surface resources of the national forests for multiple use and

sustained yield of the several products and services obtained therefrom…” (SEC.2.[16 U.S.C.

529])

7. There is strong community and county support for the North Summit WUI project, though as

is common with management of national forest resources, not unanimous support. (EA,

appendix B; 32 letters in project file)

8. I did not choose Alternative 1 (No Action) because it will not meet the objective of fuel

reduction as outlined in the EA. It would be irresponsible for me to select an alternative that

does so little to address the fuel hazards in the wildland urban interface. Most of the

treatment areas were chosen because they are consistent with areas that have been identified

in the Summit County Community Wildfire Protection Plan or were requested by the

landowner.


Public Involvement____________________________

Most of the acres included in this “new” project were already planned in the Lower Blue WUI

decision of 4/02/07 and some acres are being planned in the current Lower Blue Forest Health

and Fuels Project. On December 5, 2007, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals invalidated the

Forest Service‟s further use of the planning category (FSH 1909.15_31.2 #10) under which the

Lower Blue WUI decision was made. On November 25, 2008 nearly all projects that were

authorized under that particular category since 2004 were enjoined by the Court and work was

forced to cease. Many of the acres in the Lower Blue WUI project were already under contract

to have the work done and that work is now enjoined from being completed. The Forest Service

knows that these fuel reduction projects are very important to the community, especially in light

of the spreading mountain pine beetle (MPB) epidemic, and we see the need to get these projects

back on track as quickly as possible, with a new analysis and decision. The scoping record for

the Lower Blue WUI is incorporated in the EA and this decision.

Lower Blue WUI

A proposal to reduce fuels in the Lower Blue Wildland Urban Interface area was listed in the

White River National Forest Quarterly Schedule of Proposed Actions starting June 2006. A

scoping letter was sent to potentially affected and interested parties, including homeowners

associations, on June 12, 2006 informing them of the proposed action and requesting their input.

Two responses were received. On August 31, 2006 a legal notice was published in the Summit

Daily News, requesting comments within 30 days. One comment letter was received. The

responses to those comments are in the Lower Blue WUI project file. The decision memo was

signed on April 2, 2007. No appeals were filed.

North Summit WUI

The North Summit WUI project was first listed in the Quarterly Schedule of Proposed Actions in

January 2009. The proposal was provided to the public and other agencies for comment during

the scoping period beginning February 4, 2009. Scoping letters describing the proposed action

were mailed to interested or possibly affected persons, organizations, government agencies and

news media. A news release announcing the opportunity to comment on the North Summit WUI

project appeared in the Summit Daily News on February 14, 2009. A public open-house

informational meeting was held on February 17, 2009. Public comments for the North Summit

WUI project were requested by March 4, 2009.

Of the 30 comment letters received during scoping, 30 were supportive of the project and 5 of

those contained issues that needed to be addressed by the Interdisciplinary Team (IDT).

Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI)___________

After considering the environmental effects described in the EA and the project record, 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 1508.27). The disclosure

of effects in the EA and project record found the actions limited in context. The project area is

limited in size and the activities are limited in duration. Effects are local in nature and they are

not likely to have a significant effect on regional or national resources. The relevant significance

factors are discussed in depth in the EA, pages 35-43 and are summarized here. Thus, an

environmental impact statement will not be prepared. I base my finding on the following:


1.) Effects associated with the project are discussed in the EA and the project record. The

effects are within the range of those identified in the Forest Plan. Alternative 2 in this

decision will not have significant effects on other resources identified in the EA (EA,

pages 37-41).

2.) Proposed activities will not significantly affect public health and safety. Vegetation

management and road maintenance activities will be conducted in a safe manner to

protect the public. The proposed activities will reduce public safety hazards by removing

hazard trees along roads and trails within this project and by removing the future heavy

fuels that would contribute to increased fuel hazard and potential for high severity

wildfire (EA, page 36).

3.) Alternative 2 will not significantly affect any unique characteristics of the project area.

The project area does not include any parklands, prime farmlands, wilderness areas or

wild or scenic rivers. While it does include wetlands, design criteria have been

prescribed that would avoid any impacts to wetlands (EA, Appendix A, pages 5-7).

While there are roadless areas within this project area, the analysis has shown that

roadless characteristics would not be detrimentally impacted (EA, pages 22-24, 36).

4.) The activities described in Alternative 2 do not involve effects on the human environment

that are likely to be highly controversial (EA, page 36).

5.) The activities described in Alternative 2 will not involve effects that are highly uncertain

or involve unique or unknown risks. All treatments proposed for this project constitute

well-established methods for salvaging beetle-killed timber and re-establishing vegetative

cover. Proposed slash treatments are also well-accepted techniques for reducing

hazardous fuels accumulations. Pertinent scientific literature has been reviewed and

incorporated into the analysis process. Effects are within limits that are considered

thresholds of concern (EA, page 37).

6.) My decision to implement the activities included in Alternative 2 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, the capabilities of the land, and my experience with similar projects in the past

(EA, page 37).

7.) The EA includes all connected, cumulative, and similar actions in the scope of the

analysis. The cumulative effects of past, present, and reasonable foreseeable actions are

considered and disclosed in the EA and there are no significant cumulative effects (EA,

pages 37-41).

8.) The activities described in Alternative 2 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. There will be no historic


properties affected by this decision because all sites eligible for inclusion on the National

Register of Historic Places in the area will be avoided or adverse effects will be mitigated

(EA, page 41).

9.) A Biological Assessment (BA) and Biological Evaluation (BE) are complete and

document any effects to threatened, endangered and sensitive species. The wildlife report

found that the proposed alternatives would not significantly impact Canada lynx (Lynx

canadensis). The impacts from the project would not adversely affect the ability of lynx

to occupy the LAUs in the project area. The Biological Evaluation found that the

proposed activities would not result in a trend toward Federal listing or a loss of viability

for any R2 Sensitive Species (EA, page 41-42).

10.) This action complies with other federal, state, or local laws and requirements imposed for

the protection of the environment (EA, pages 42-43).

Administrative Review or Appeal Opportunities______

This Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact have been completed under authority

of the Healthy Forests Restoration Act (HFRA) and subject to regulation at 36 CRF 218. This

Decision Notice is not subject to the notice, comment and appeal procedures found at 36 CFR

215.

30-Day Predecisional Review of the EA.

Under HFRA process the EA was subject to administrative review termed an “Objection”

process, pursuant to Forest Service regulations at 36 CFR 218. Only parties who submitted

specific written comments related to the project during the opportunity for public comment

provided during preparation of the environmental assessment were eligible to file an objection.

On May 16, 2009, a Legal Notice was published in the Summit Daily News newspaper to

announce a 30 day objection period. No formal objections were filed.

Implementation_______________________________

Implementation of this decision may occur immediately.

Contact Person_______________________________

For further information regarding this decision, contact Cary Green at the Holy Cross Ranger

District, 24747 US Highway 24, P.O. Box 190, Minturn, Colorado 81645 or by phone at (970)

827-5161; Fax 970-827-9343.

January 28, 2010

_________________ ___________________

Jan Cutts Date

District Ranger

Decision Notice and FONSIa123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic... · 2010-01-29 ·...

Documents

Transcript of Decision Notice and FONSIa123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic... · 2010-01-29 ·...