The Forest Supervisor for the Pike and San Isabel National Forests; Comanche and Cimarron National Grasslands proposes to implement the National Fire Plan with the Trout-West Fuels Reduction Project.
The National Fire Plan discusses two principles related to fire hazard reduction:
Principle #4: “Assign highest priority for hazardous fuels reduction to communities at risk and readily accessible municipal watersheds.”
Principle #5: “Restore healthy, diverse, and resilient ecological systems to minimize uncharacteristically intense fires on a priority watershed basis. Methods will include removal of excessive vegetation and dead fuels through thinning, prescribed fire, and other treatment methods.”
The Trout-West project follows these principles. The National Forest lands proposed for treatment are high priority because they are at high risk of catastrophic losses from wildfire. The project area is located within the “red zone” as defined by the Colorado State Forest Service in 1999. The red zone identifies areas of extreme fire hazard to surrounding communities.
The Trout-West area contains a readily accessible municipal watershed for the community of Woodland Park, as well as major tributaries to the South Platte River and the Denver municipal water supply. The Trout-West project proposes methods such as thinning and prescribed burning to reduce the canopy density and ground fuels throughout six project areas.
High fire hazard was also identified as a serious concern for the Trout and West Creek watersheds in the Upper South Platte Watershed Landscape Assessment (Foster-Wheeler 1999), due to the vegetation conditions, home density, and fire history of the area.
Management direction guiding the proposed project is contained within the Pike and San Isabel National Forests; Comanche and Cimarron National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan, USDA 1985). The Upper South Platte Restoration Project Environmental Assessment (USDA 1999) also provided relevant information.
The project is located within the Trout and West Creek Watersheds, tributary to the Upper South Platte River. The project area is depicted on the Vicinity map 1.
Fuels need to be treated within the Trout-West project area to reduce the potential adverse effects of wildfire and provide for firefighter and public safety. Much of the Trout-West area contains forests that burn hotter than historic forests (Kaufmann, Fornwalt, Huckaby, and Stoker 2001; Kaufmann, Regan, and Brown, 2000; Kaufmann, Huckaby and Gleason, 1999, and Brown, Kaufmann, and Sheppard, 1999; Hann 2001). Nearby, recent fires have led to catastrophic losses of life, watershed values, homes, property, and wildlife habitat. Without action, continued catastrophic losses from wildfire are predicted.
The risk of these effects from wildfire is high (and increasing) within the Trout and West Creek Watersheds. The watersheds are important to residents, visitors, and the city of Denver as part of their municipal water supply. Many private homes and subdivisions are nestled within over-dense forests. Approximately 20,000 people live in the Trout and West Creek watersheds and many more use the National Forest for recreation and other needs. In the past ten years, population has increased by over a million people within a two-hour’s drive of the project area. As population increases, so do the chances for a human-caused fire. Lightning also has the potential to cause damaging wildfires. The project area averages 6 to 20 lightning strikes (cloud to ground) per square mile annually.
The type, density, and structure of the wildland vegetation, as well as the amount of down, dead material determine the type of fire behavior and associated hazard. Generally, the potential for high intensity crown fire increases with the density and continuity of forest canopy.
The National Fire Plan uses the concept of Fire Regime Condition Class to characterize whether vegetation is prone to uncharacteristically damaging wildfires. Fire Regime Condition Class 1 describes a condition within the sustainable, historical range. Wildfires under Fire Regime Condition Class 1 fuels conditions would be expected to behave in a natural or characteristic manner. Wildfires in Fire Regime Condition Classes 2 and 3 areas would behave in uncharacteristically damaging manner. The differences between Fire Regime Condition Classes are in degree of departure from the historical average; Fire Regime Condition Class 2 has greater risks of uncharacteristic wildfire behavior than Fire Regime Condition Class 1, and Fire Regime Condition Class 3 has greater risk than Class 2.
The Trout-West project area contains thousands of acres in Fire Regime Condition Classes 2 and 3. The objective for vegetation management under the National Fire Plan is to move areas to Fire Regime Condition Class 1.
◘ Promote less hazardous
fuel conditions by reducing overall biomass and canopy continuity.
◘ Reduce potential for loss
of ecological and monetary values on public and private lands.
◘ Reduce potential for
insect and disease infestation.
◘ Promote sustainable,
diverse forest conditions, more like historical forest conditions.
◘ Increase acreage in Fire
Regime Condition Class 1.
◘ Promote aspen regeneration to
increase species diversity and reduce future fuel hazard.
◘ Reduce risk of erosion and sediment delivery to area
streams; protect short and long term municipal water quality.
◘ Develop a socially
acceptable project regarding safety, aesthetic quality, and smoke.
◘ Adequately protect
cultural heritage sites.
◘ Adequately protect
wildlife, fish and plant habitats.
◘ Meet legal requirements
and Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines.
A Draft Environmental Impact Statement was nearly complete when Hayman Fire started June 2002. Release of the DEIS was delayed to consider the impacts of the fire on the project. The DEIS was rewritten after the Hayman Fire, although the project record contains many references to the pre-Hayman landscape and project. Approximately 5,000 acres proposed for treatment were dropped from consideration for thinning because they burned in the Hayman Fire.
The Proposed Action includes thinning of about 20,000 acres of National Forest; yarding trees from about 17,000 of these acres; construction of about 14 miles of temporary roads [1] to facilitate log haul; restoration to near natural conditions of about 48 miles of existing unclassified (non-system roads) [2] once they are no longer needed to facilitate operations; and follow up slash treatments such as piling and burning any remaining unwanted debris.
Thinned areas would have an average crown closure of 15 to 25 percent [3] following treatment; any given acre would range from 0 to 50 percent crown density. Thinning would be “from below,” with the oldest and largest trees retained. Thinning from below could include removal of some overstory (co-dominant) trees as part of the canopy reduction prescription. Understory trees would be removed first; larger trees would be removed only as needed to reach crown density reduction goals.
In the early stages of this project, the Pike and San Isabel Forest Supervisor elected to document the effects of this project with an environmental impact statement. At that time no conclusion had been made regarding whether an EIS was the required type of document—too little was known about the project and its effects to support such a conclusion. Rather, it was concluded that preparing an EIS would be the most efficient approach in terms of the overall project timeline. Had an environmental assessment been prepared and the conclusion subsequently reached that an EIS was required, then additional time would have been needed to prepare an EIS. Therefore, in the interest of time and not knowing whether an EIS would be necessary, the Forest Supervisor elected to disclose the effects of the Trout West project via an EIS.
A Forest Service Enterprise Team was hired to prepare the Draft EIS in cooperation with Pike and San Isabel National Forests personnel. The Pike and San Isabel National Forest Supervisor will consider the relative costs, effectiveness, and environmental risks associated with the alternatives. The Forest Supervisor will decide:
- Whether or not to implement the Proposed Action or select an alternative
- Design features, mitigation measures, and monitoring connected with the selected alternative
Assuming an action alternative is selected, treatment areas will be field verified and laid out on the ground. Boundaries shown on maps in this Environmental Impact Statement are subject to change based on actual field conditions. Cutting guidelines and operational methods are expected to vary depending on conditions during lay out and implementation. The likelihood for change is high, especially where the project areas abut private land. Neighbors would be contacted before implementation and would have input into the type of treatment, mitigation measures, and access.
Many methods are available to the Forest Service to accomplish the work. The Trout-West project may be implemented through service contracts, timber sales, small forest products sales, Federal work crews, partnerships with private groups, individuals or other agencies, or a combination of methods.
This project is directly related the National Fire Plan and is intended to be implemented using National Fire Plan or other fuels-related funding. The Pike and San Isabel National Forest Plan is also an integral part of the design of this project. The Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) reviewed the Forest Plan guidance for the six Trout-West project areas and found that the fuel hazard reduction project was consistent with the existing land allocations. The team recommended mitigation measures and design features as needed to meet Forest Plan guidance. Levels of treatment under Trout-West and other National Fire Plan projects are unlikely to exceed Forest Plan direction for vegetation management and fuels treatment.
The analysis assumes this project would be implemented over ten years; within that time period, monitoring and other information is likely to lead to changes in the project. The Forest Service will maintain implementation files and document site-specific changes as they occur. Changes that do not deviate from the intent of the decision and supporting effects analysis would not be subject to further disclosure under the National Environmental Policy Act.
The Trout-West project area is allocated to the following Forest Plan Management Areas:
Table 1. Trout-West Forest Plan Management Areas
|
Management Area |
Trout-West Location |
|
2B- Rural and Roaded Natural Recreation
|
Western edge of Phantom, Eastern two-thirds of Ryan Quinlan, South half of Long John, Entire Skelton area.
|
|
4B – Wildlife Management Indicator Species Management |
Southwest part of Rampart |
|
7A – Wood Fiber Production (logs) |
Western third Ryan Quinlan, North half of Phantom,
|
|
7D - Wood Fiber Production (other forest products) |
Most of Rampart
|
|
9A - Riparian Area Management |
Streamsides throughout the project area. |
|
10B – Manitou Experimental Forest
|
The entire Ridgewood area, north part of Rampart, North half of Long John |
Each of these land allocations is associated with specific Forest Plan guidance and objectives. Fuels reduction treatments are generally not proposed in Management Areas 9A and 4B due to restrictive Forest Plan guidelines for these areas. The Manitou Experimental Forest (Management Area 10B) is managed as a natural laboratory. Ongoing and future research projects need to be protected in the area. Fuels reduction is excluded in a large portion of this area due to maintain the integrity of existing research plots.
Transportation analysis was completed as per Forest Service Manual 7710 and FS-643, Roads Analysis: Informing Decisions About Managing the National Forest Transportation System. Recommendations from the Roads Analysis were carried into the Proposed Action where applicable.
A description of the Proposed Action and request for participation was circulated in December 2001 to about 600 addressees. The flyer was also posted at public places in the towns of Woodland Park and Divide. A legal notice was placed in four area newspapers. Each of these flyers and notices advertised two public meetings held January 22 and 24, 2002. A Notice of Intent to prepare an EIS was published in the federal register on Jan 2, 2002.
Two public meetings were held: dozens of people attended and had informal discussion with the IDT and others (managers, Colorado State Forest Service representatives). Some attendees used a comment form provided for their written input. Others mailed or e-mailed letters. In total, 31 comment letters were received during the scoping period. Each letter was examined for substantive comments. These were excerpted, categorized and assigned to team members for analysis.
On April 15, 2002, the IDT reviewed project design features, mitigation measures, and analysis elements suggested by the public comments. The Proposed Action was refined and several alternatives identified to resolve public issues and explore trade offs. The IDT met after the Hayman Fire to revise the analysis accordingly.
The following list of issues is based on public input and National Forest planning requirements. The analysis described in Chapter 3 focuses on these issues.
The primary Purpose and Need for this project relates to the existing high crown fire hazard from over-dense forests within the project area. Some members of the public requested that the Forest Service consider treating only that portion of the project area nearest private property. Alternatives to the Proposed Action were developed to respond to that issue. Each alternative is evaluated based on its effectiveness in reducing crown fire hazard and moving the Fire Regime Condition Class from 2 and 3 to 1 within the analysis area.
Part of the Purpose and Need is to promote vegetation more like historical conditions. Currently, many stands in the Trout-West project area are denser than historic, have an uncharacteristic species mix (specifically more Douglas-fir relative to pine), and have less old-growth and aspen. The current and post-treatment proportions of vegetation structural stages are compared to historic ranges and the similarities and differences between the alternatives and the historic condition are discussed.
Another project goal is to reduce the forest’s susceptibility to insect and disease. Tussock moth, bark beetle, and dwarf mistletoe occur and are likely to spread within the analysis area. The alternatives are compared against No Action in terms of forest pathogen trends and susceptibility. Some members of the public expressed concern about effects of the Proposed Action on mistletoe and the habitat it may provide for wildlife. These concerns are addressed in the section on wildlife.
The decomposed, granitic soils within the Trout and West Creek watersheds can become erodible when disturbed. Storms that follow high intensity wildfire can cause severe erosion. Fuels reduction treatments are intended to reduce the likelihood of watershed damage following a wildfire. Thinning, road work and use, yarding and prescribed burning can also accelerate erosion. Many design features and mitigation measures are included to reduce the potential for erosion from the project.
Once soils are mobilized through erosion, they have the potential to enter streams and deliver sediment downstream. Water quality protection is a goal for this project. Some streams are already listed as impaired due to sediment; the Clean Water Act requires minimizing sediment delivery to these streams.
Amounts of accelerated erosion and sediment delivery are predicted for each alternative. Sediment predictions for the Hayman Fire within the watershed are also included.
Many environmental policies, laws, and Forest Plan standards and guidelines intended to protect fish and wildlife apply to the Trout-West project. A Biological Assessment/Evaluation (BA/BE – Appendix B) was prepared in compliance with the Endangered Species Act and Forest Service policy. Effects analysis focuses on Threatened, Endangered, Sensitive and Management Indicator Species. Habitat capability models are used to evaluate potential effects and Forest Plan consistency for these species.
Mitigation measures applied to all action alternatives are proposed to protect special plant species and range resources, and reduce risk of spreading noxious weeds. A Biological Evaluation/Assessment (BE/BA) was prepared to disclose potential effects on Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Plant Species. The BE/BA is summarized in Chapter 3.
Many members of the public expressed concern about the potential health effects of smoke from prescribed burning. Many environmental standards and analysis processes accompany prescribed burning plans. Issue measures include particulate emission estimates for prescribed fire and wildfire, and number of days of burning each year.
Many people expressed concerns about the effects of the project on aesthetic quality. The project is designed to address standards and guidelines for scenery management. Impacts on visuals from the operation would be mitigated to the extent possible. Potential impacts from the operation and design features to meet Forest Plan standards and guidelines are the focus of this analysis.
Several recreation issues are evident in the public comments. Concern that off road vehicle access may be increased by the project is addressed through project design features in all action alternatives. The project may also disrupt recreation during operations; some trails and roads used for recreation may be needed for the operation, and some may be closed following treatment. Impacts from vegetation management, road work and wildfire are considered.
Each alternative is associated with a monetary cost. The operations proposed are relatively expensive; even if wood products are sold, their value is lower than the cost of removing the wood. Estimated costs of treatment (thinning, yarding, burning, road work) and potential wood product value are disclosed for each action alternative.
There are also costs associated with wildfire. Potential loss of property value, along with suppression and post – fire rehabilitation costs are estimated for No Action and each action alternative.
Other public concerns addressed in this DEIS include protection of heritage resources, safety considerations (including the potential for prescribed burn to escape control), and opportunities for citizen participation in planning, implementation and monitoring of the project.