Jamescreek Fuel Reduction Project

JamesCreek Fuel Reduction Project

Decision Notice Finding of No Significant Impact

USDAForest Service

Arapaho-Roosevelt National Forests

And Pawnee National Grassland

Boulder Ranger District

Boulder, Colorado

Introduction

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 implementation. 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 215.15. 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 The specific actions included a request that the decision be withdrawn as well as four other requests highlighted in the letter of appeal.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 withrecommendationsby 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 RooseveltNational 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 reversedon 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 Because that original decision was withdrawn by the Appeal Deciding Officer, a new DN and appeal period is required before the project can proceed.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 toAquatic SpeciesMIS 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.

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 EApreviously 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 ReductionProject 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 JamesCreek 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 PikeNational 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 RooseveltNational Forests and Pawnee National Grassland. It is bounded to the 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 implementation. 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 CreekProjectArea. Alternative Awith 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 to923 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 roadwork 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.

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.

Table 2: Summary of Original and New Treatment Acres by Treatment Type for Alternative A with Modifications.

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 4did 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. UnitM0501cwill 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 iseliminated. The patch cuts located adjacent to Forest SystemRoad 373.1 are eliminated from this project. Access to thinning and patch cut treatments will be from existingForest System Roads373.1, 373.1A, 373.3B, 374.1, 374.1A and 374.1B and temporary roadsR 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 373.1. The existing system road 373.1 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 373.1 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.

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 RockLake and Znear 102J have been added to access treatment units as a result of further analysis.

5) A review and update of the InteriorForest analysis showed an inconsistency within the data base used to identify InteriorForest in the Project Area. A new analysis was performed using the current Common Vegetative Unit (CVU) data base and new InteriorForest areas were identified. For this project, mechanical treatment units within InteriorForest areas in the 3.5-Forested Flora and Fauna Habitats Management Emphasis Areasare eliminated from treatment to maintain the integrity and function of those areas. Hand treatments and prescribed fire will still occur in other InteriorForest 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 acreshave 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 showa 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.

10) Additional mitigation measures and clarification to existing mitigation measureshas 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 theconcern 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 thinningand 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.