CHAPTER 5. CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

Preparers and Contributors __________________ The Forest Service consulted the following individuals, Federal, state and local agencies, tribes and non-Forest Service persons during the development of this environmental impact statement: INTERDISCIPLINARY TEAM MEMBERS: James S. Bedwell; Deciding Officer, Forest Supervisor, ARNF and PNG Craig Magwire; District Ranger, Sulpher Ranger District Rick Caissie; Team Leader; Silviculturist and Recreation Patricia Hesch; Forester, Lands Theresa Savery; Hydrologist Mary Hattis; Geographic Information Systems Janice Naylor; Geographic Information Systems Jan Burke; Forester Suz Layne; Engineer Kristen Sexton; Fisheries Jeff Witcosky; Entomology Jeff Tupala, Landscape Architect Kevin Colby, Landscape Architect Thomas O Williams; Forester Lisa M Bryant; Soils and Air Bill Janowsky; Fisheries Paul Mintier; Fire and Fuels Susan Oderwald; Forester, Recreation Steve Popovich, Botanist Allen Storie; Writer and Editor Bill Dunkelberger; Recreation Miles Miller; Recreation, Transportation Wendy Magwire; Wildlife FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL AGENCIES: James L. Newberry; Grand County Board of Commissioners Gene M Stover; Town of Grand Lake Cynthia Cody; United States Environmental Protection Agency TRIBES: Edna Frost; Southern Ute Indian Tribe OTHERS: Michael Melio Jim Wolf; Continental Divide Trail Society 199

Terry Toy Dorothy Borgeson James C. Keesey Jason C. Ruf Nan Keehner Davis Rogers Kasey Gallogly Debra A. Guenther Colorado Public Interest Research Group (31 Letters Received) Phil Cafaro Lisa Dale; Citizens for the Arapaho-Roosevelt Marty Walter Barton Smith Bill Schaupp Gregg Mackey Rachel Thomas David Marion Frances Jill Gibbs Robert D. Evans Thomas Bainbridge Scott Hatfield; Sierra Club Rocky Mountain Chapter Edward B. Zukoski; The Land and Water Fund of the Rockies Rocky Smith; Colorado Wild Harlin Savage; American Lands Alliance Jacob Smith; Center for Native Ecosystems Mark Webster Wendell Funk

200

CHAPTER 6. LIST OF AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS AND PERSONS TO WHOM COPIES OF THE FINAL EIS WAS SENT Members of the Public to whom copies of the Final EIS was sent:

Betty Ball, Boulder Environmental Activists Resource (BEAR), Rocky Mountain Peace and Justice Center Sama Blakwell Thomas Bainbridge Phil Cafaro, Poudre Canyon Group of Sierra Club Jeffrey L. Carter Robert D. Evans Mandy Hanifen, Chairperson and Project Administrator, Stillwater Fire Abatement Coalition

Mary Harlow

Jennifer Kathol James C. Keesey

Trude Kleess

Udi Lazimy, American Lands Alliance Willard Lewis

David A. Lien

Felicia Muftic

Carol Sidofsky

Rocky Smith, Forest Watch Campaign Director, Colorado Wild

John Spezia

Terrence J. Toy

Anne Vickery

201

Edmund H. Waszkiewiez, P.E.

Members of the Public to whom electronic notice of availability of the Final EIS was sent as no address was available:

Emily Hornback Members of the Public to whom a Record of Decision and notice of availability of the Final EIS was sent:

Kevin Hayes Andrew Chelsea Ann Bookett Dorothy Borgeson Dylan Brooks Jennifer Broughton Ryan Davis Gary Erickson, Big Horn Lumber Co. Daniel Firger Wendell Funk Frances Jill Gibbs Debra Guenther Scott Hatfield, Rocky Mountain Chapter of the Sierra Club Emily Johnston Greg Mackey Elizabeth Mount Rob Pudim Dave Shelton Barton Smith Rachel Thomas

202

Ron Tidball Marty Walter Mark Webster Jim Wolf, Continental Divide Trail Society Edward Zukoski, Land and Water Fund of the Rockies

Government Agencies to whom copies of the Final EIS was sent:

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, Director, Planning and Review Ron Cousineau, Asst. District Forester, Colorado State Forest Service Deputy Director, USDA APHIS PPD/EAD Regional Office, Rocky Mountain Region, USDA Forest Service (2 copies) National Resources Conservation Service, National Environmental Coordinator, USDA USDA, National Agricultural Library, Head, Acquisitions & Serials Branch (3 copies) Director, Environmental Coordination, Forest Service – USDA (3 copies) US Army Engineers, Northwestern Division U.S. Coast Guard, Environmental Impact Branch, Marine Environmental and Protection Division (2 copies) BLM Colorado State Office BLM, Kremmling, Colorado Office Office of Environmental Affairs, Department of the Interior (12 copies) Director, Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance, United States Department of the Interior (9 copies)

Robert F. Stewart, Regional Environmental Officer, U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance Intermountain Region, National Park Service Vaughn L. Baker, Superintendent, United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Rocky Mountain National Park

203

Carl Cordora, United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Rocky Mountain National Park United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Rocky Mountain National Park, attn: Annie, FMO (5 copies) Larry Svoboda, Director, NEPA Program, Office of Ecosystems Protection and Remediation, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8 (5 copies) Management Information Unit, Office of Federal Activities (A-104), Environmental Protection Agency, EIS Filing Section (5 copies)

Northwest Mountain Region, Regional Administrator, Federal Aviation Administration Western Region, Regional Administrator, Federal Highway Administration Granby Library Grand County Board of Commissioners Billy W. Sumerlin, Director, Grand County Department of Natural Resources

Grand Lake Library U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Environmental Review Division U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, HUD Senior Environmental Officer for Colorado Allen Green, State Conservationist, National Resource Conservation Service

Rural Utilities Services (RUS) Edna Frost, Southern Ute Indian Tribe Town of Granby Town of Grand Lake

References_________________________________ Agee, J. A. 1993. Fire Ecology of Pacific Northwest Forests. Island Press, Washington, D.C. 493 p. Agee, James K., 1996, The Influence of Forest Structure on Fire Behavior. Proceedings from the 17th Annual Forest Vegetation Management Conference.

204

Alexander, Chuck. November 13, 2003. Personal Communication about the Red Top Valley Ditch. Amman, G.D. 1977. The role of the mountain pine beetle in lodgepole pine ecosystems: Impact on succession. In: Mattson, W.J., ed. Arthropods in forest ecosystems. Proceedings in the Life Sciences, Springer-Verlag, Inc. New York, New York. pp. 3-18. Amman, G.D. 1989. Why partial cutting in lodgepole pine stands reduces losses to mountain pine beetle.. IN: Amman, G.D., ed. Proceedings – Symposium on the Management of Lodgepole Pine to Minimize Losses to the Mountain Pine Beetle; 1988 July 12-14; Kalispell, MT. Gen. Tech. Rept. INT-262. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. pp. 48-59. Amman, G.D., McGregor, M.D., Cahill, D.B., and Klein, W.H. 1977. Guidelines for reducing losses of lodgepole pine to the mountain pine beetle in unmanaged stands in the Rocky Mountains. Gen. Tech. Rept. INT-36. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 19 p. Amman, G.D.; McGregor, M.D.; Schmitz, R.F.; Oakes, R.D. 1988. Susceptibility of lodgepole pine to infestation by mountain pine beetles following partial cutting of stands. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 18: 688-695. Amman, Gene D., Mcgregor, Mark D. and Dolph, Jr., Robert E. 1989. Forest and Disease Leaflet2. Mountain Pine Beetle. USDA Forest Service, Washington D.C. Amman, G.D., McGregor, M.D., and Dolph, Jr., R.E. 1989. Mountain pine beetle. Forest Insect and Disease Leaflet 2. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 11 p. Bartos, D.L., and Amman, G.D. 1989. Microclimate: an alternative to tree vigor as a basis for mountain pine beetle infestations. Res. Paper INT-400. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 10 p. Benavides-Solorio, J. and L. H. MacDonald. 2001. Post-fire runoff and erosion from simulated rainfall on small plots, Colorado Front Range. Hydrol. Process. v.15, p. 2931-2952. Brown J.K. 1975 Fire cycles and community dynamics in lodgepole pine forests. In: Proc. Symp. Management of Lodgepole Pine Ecosystems. D.M. Baumgartner, ed. Coop. Ext. Serv., Washington State Univ., Pullman Wash. pp 429-456. Bureau of Economic Analysis, 1994. CA05 Personal Income by Major Source and Earnings by Industry. Bureau of Economic Analysis, 2001. CA05N Personal Income by Major Source and Earnings by Industry. Bureau of Economic Analysis, 2001. CA34 Wage and Salary Employment.

205

Burk, J. 2003. ERA Grand Realty. Personal communication with Jennifer Kathol. May, 2003. Butler, Bret W.; Cohen, Jack D. 1998. Firefighter Safety Zones: A theoretical model based on radiative heating. International Journal of Wildland Fire. 8(2): 73-77. Byram, GM. 1959. Combustion of forest fuels. Pages 61-123 in Davis, KP (editor). Forest fire control and use. McGraw-Hill, New York. Caissie, R. NEPA coordinator. Recreation Specialist. Arapaho-Roosevelt National Forest. Personal communication with Jennifer Kathol. April-May, 2003. Carlton D., 2001, Fuels Management Analyst Suite – Users Guide to Crown Masstm , Fire Program Solutions, Estacada OR, 74 pages. Cervenka, J. Grand Lake Town Manager. Personal communication with Jennifer Kathol. May, 2003. Chambers, Carl. November 17, 2003. Personal Communication about the Red Top Valley Ditch. Cohen, Jack D. 1999. Reducing the Wildland Fire Threat to homes: Where and How much. In: Proceedings of the Symposium on Fire Economics, Planning and Policy: Bottom Lines, April 5-9, 1999, San Diego, California. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, General Technical Report PSW – 173: pages 189-194. Cohen, Jack. D.; Butler, Bret. W. 1998. Modeling potential structure ignitions from flame radiation exposure with implications for wildland/urban interface fire management. In: 13th Conference on Fire and Forest Meteorology; 1996 October 27-31; Lourne, Victoria, Australia. Proc. Fairfield, WA: International Association of Wildland Fire: 81-86 Cole, W.E., and Amman, G.D. 1980. Mountain pine beetle dynamics in lodgepole pine forests. Part 1: Course of an infestation. General Technical Report INT-89. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 56 p. Colorado Demography Information Service , 2001. Table 5: Intercensal Population Estimates for Counties and Municipalities, 1990-2000. May, 2001. Colorado Department of Labor and Employment, Labor Market Information a. Covered Employment and Wages in Colorado. 2001. Colorado Department of Labor and Employment, Labor Market Information 2001. Revised Annual Labor Force Averages. Colorado Department of Labor and Employment, Labor Market Information 2001 Occupational Wages in Colorado. Colorado Department of Local Affairs. Grand County Personal Income, 2002.

206

Colorado Department of Local Affairs. 2000 Economic Base Analysis. Grand County. Feb. 2002. Colorado Department of Local Affairs. Local Government Financial Compendiums. 2000 Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. 2002. Status of Water Quality in Colorado – 2002. Water Quality Control Division, Denver, CO. Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW). 1977. Stream fisheries surveys of Stillwater Creek, North Supply Creek, Middle Supply Creek, and South Supply Creek. Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW). 1980. Stream fisheries survey of Supply Creek. Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW). 1984. Stream fisheries survey of Trail Creek. Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW). 1990. Stream fisheries survey of Soda Creek. Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW). 1999. Ann Grey: personal communication with Jake Bennett, CDOW. Crabtree, E. 2003. Crabtree Company Real Estate. Personal communication with Jennifer Kathol. May, 2003. DeBano, LF, PF Ffolliott, and MB Baker Jr. 1996. Fire Severity Effects on Water Resources. In: Ffolliott, PF, LF Debano, MB Baker Jr., GJ Gottfried, G Solis-Garza, CB Edminster, DG Neary, LS Allen, and RH Hamre, tech cords. Effects of fire on Madrean province ecosystems – A symposium proceedings, Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-289. Rocky Mountain Research Station. Fort Collins, CO. 80526. pp 77-84. DeBano, Leonard, Daniel Neary, and Peter Ffolliot. 1998. Fire Effects on Ecosystems. John Wiley and Sons, Inc. 605 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10158-0012. Dennis, F.C.; Creating Wildfire-Defensible Zones. Colorado State University Cooperative Extension Fact Sheet, Forestry – Natural Resources Series No. 6.302, In cooperation with Colorado State Forest Service. Dissmeyer, G. 1994. Evaluating the Effectiveness of Forestry Best Management Practices in meeting water quality goals or standards. USDA Forest Service, Misc. Pub. 1520. July 1994. pp. 166. Elliot, William. 2002. Pp. 554-559 in Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Environmental Regulations: Proceedings of the March 11-13, 2002 Conference, (Fort Worth, Texas, USA) Publication Date March 11, 2002. ASAE Publication Number 701P0102, editor Ali Saleh. Fetter, C. W. 1988. Applied Hydrogeology. 2nd Ed. Merrill Publishing Co., Columbus, OH. 581 pp.

207

Field Notes. Theresa Stevens Savery, Bill Janowsky, and Lisa Bryant. June, July, August, and September 2002. Field Notes. Theresa Stevens Savery, Carl Chambers, Bill Janowsky, and Miles Miller. October 2003. Findley, S. 2003. Grand County Assessor. Personal communication with Jennifer Kathol. May, 2003. Fleischner, T.L. 1994. Ecological costs of livestock grazing in Western North America. Conservation Biology, Volume 8, No. 3. Fox, A. 2003. ReMax Real Estate Sales. Personal communication with Jennifer Kathol. April, 2003. Geils, B.W.; Tovar, C; Moody, B, (tech. coords.). 2002. Mistletoes of North American Conifers. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-98. USDA, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Ogden, UT. 123 p. Online:http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs/rmrs_gtr098.pdf Hastings, F.L., Holsten, E.H., Shea, P.J., and Werner, R.A. 2001. Carbaryl: A review of its use against bark beetles in coniferous forests of North America. Environ. Emtomol. 30: 803-810. Haverty, M.I., Shea, P.J., Hoffman, J.T., Wenz, J.M., Gibson, K.E. 1998. Effectiveness of esfenvalerate, cyfluthrin, and carbaryl in protecting individual lodgepole pines and ponderosa pines from attack by Dendroctonus spp. Res. Paper PSW-RP-237. Albany, CA: Pacific Southwest Research Station, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture; 12 p. Hawksworth, F.G., and Johnson, D.W. 1989. Biology and management of dwarf mistletoe in lodgepole pine in the Rocky Mountains. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-169. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 38 p. Hawksworth, F.G.; Johnson, D. W. 1989. Biology and management of dwarf mistletoe in lodgepole pine in the Rocky Mountains. General Technical Report RM-169. USDA, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, CO. 38 p. Hester, K. Hesters Mill. Kremmling, CO. Personal communication with Jennifer Kathol. May, 2003. Huber, E.; D. Gloss; P. Lisowsky; S. Layne; J. Burke; S. Ipswitch; and R. Phelps. 2000. North Fork Colorado River Watershed above Shadow Mountain Lake – Summary of Selected Land Management Activities on National Forest System Lands. Arapaho-Roosevelt National Forest, Sulphur Ranger District, unpublished report. Hydrosphere Resource Consultants. 2002. Three Lakes Clean Lakes Watershed Assessment Draft Phase 1 Report. Unpublished report submitted to The Three Lakes Technical Advisory Committee, April 19, 2002.

208

Johnson, D.W., Hawksworth, F.G., and Drummond, D.B. 1980. 1979 dwarf mistletoe loss assessment survey on National Forest lands in Colorado. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest Pest Management, Methods Application Group Rep. 80-6. 18 p. Johnson, E. 2001. 2001 aerial detection survey of the Rocky Mountain Region. Report R2-02-09. U.S. Department of Argriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region Forest Health Management. 20 p. Kappler, Charles J. 1904 Indian Affairs: Laws and Treaties. Electronic Document http://digital.library.okstate.edu/kappler, accessed February 7, 2003. Klein, W.H.; Parker, D.L.; Jensen, C.E. 1978. Attack, emergence, and stand depletion trends of the mountain pine beetle in a lodgepole pine stand during an outbreak. Environmental Entomology 7: 732-737. Knox, D. East Grand County School District #2. Administration. Personal communication with Jennifer Kathol. May, 2003. Lessard, G., Hildebrand, D., and Haneman, D.M. 1987. Forest pest conditions in the Rocky Mountain Region for 1986. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Timber, Forest Pest, and Cooperative Forestry Management. 52 p. Lotan, Brown, Neunschwander, 1984 Role of Fire in Lodgepole Pine Forests. In: Proc. Symp. Lodgepole Pine the Species and its Management. D.M. Baumgartner et al ed. Washington State Cooperative Extension, pp 133-152. Marcus, M.D., M.K. Young, L.E. Noel, B.A. Mullan. 1990 Salmonid-habitat Relationships in the Western United States: a review and indexed bibliography. Fort Collins, p12. Massman, WJ, JM Frank, WD Sheppard, and MJ Platten. 2003, in press. In Situ Soil Temperature and Heat Flux Measurements During Controlled Burns at a Southern Colorado Forest Site. USDA Forest Service Proceedings, Rocky Mountain Research Station, RMRS-P-xx. Fort Collins, CO 80526. Mata, S.A., J.M. Schmid, and W.K. Olsen. 2003. Growth of lodgepole pine stands and its relation to mountain pine beetle susceptibility. Res. Pa. RMRS-RP-42. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 19 p. McGregor, M.D., Amman, G.D., Schmitz, R.F., and Oakes, R.D. 1987. Partial cutting lodgepole pine stands to reduce losses to the mountain pine beetle. Can. J. For. Res. 17: 1234-1239. McGregor, M.D.; Cole, D.M. 1985. Integrating management strategies for the mountain pine beetle with multiple-resource management of lodgepole pine forests. General Technical Report INT-174. USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Ogden, UT. 68 p.

209

Neary, D.G. and A.L. Medina. 1996. Geomorphic response of a montane riparian habitat to interactions of ungulates, vegetation and hydrology. In: Shaw, D.W. and D.M. Finch, tech cords. 1996. Desired future conditions for SW riparian ecosystems: bringing interests and concerns together. 1995. Albuquerque, NM. General Technical Report RM-GTR-272. Fort Collins, CO. 359p. Omi, Philip and Erik Martinson. 2002. Effect of Fuels Treatment on Wildfire Severity. Final Report. Western Forest Fire Research Center. Colorado State University. Fort Collins, CO 80526. Platts, W.S. 1981. Impairment, protection and rehabilitation of Pacific salmonid habitats on sheep and cattle ranges. In: Hassler, T.J., ed. Proceedings: Propagation, enhancement, and rehabilitation of anadromous salmonid populations and habitat in the Pacific Northwest Symposium, 1981 October 15-17, Arcata, CA. Platts, W.S. and R.L. Nelson. 1985. Stream habitat and fisheries response to livestock grazing and instream improvement structures, Big Creek, Utah. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation. 40(4). Powers, Robert. 1991. Are We Maintaining the Productivity of Forest Lands? Pg 70-81. In: Harvey and Neueschwander (comp.) Proceedings—management and productivity of western-montane forest soils: 1990 April 10-12; Boise, ID. General Tech Report INT-280. Ogden, UT: USDA Forest Service Intermountain Research Station). Powers, Robert, Allan Tiarks, and James Boyle. 1998. Assessing Soil Quality: Practicable Standards for Sustainable Forest Productivity in the United States. Soil Science Society of America Special Publication no. 53. Madison, WI 53711. Ready, D. 2003. Mountain Lake Properties. Personal communication with Jennifer Kathol. April, 2003. Reinhardt, Elizabeth D., Robert E. Keane, Joe H. Scott. 2000. Methods for Characterizing Crown Fuels for Fire Modeling. Report on file at USDA Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research Station, Missoula Fire Sciences Laboratory, 8p. Relyea, R. A. and N. Mills. 2001. Predator-induced stress makes the pesticide Carbaryl more deadly to gray treefrog tadpoles (Hyla versicolor). PNAS vol. 98, no. 5, p. 2491-2496. Robichaud, Peter, Jan Beyers, and Daniel Neary. 2000. Evaluating the Effectiveness of Postfire Rehabilitation Treatments. USDA Forest Service. Rocky Mountain Research Station. GTR RMRS-GTR-63. Fort Collins, CO 80526. 85pp. Rosenberger, Randall S. and Eric L. Smith 1998. Assessing Forest Scenic Beauty Impacts of Insects and Management. FHET 98008. USDA Forest Service, Forest Health Protection, Forest Health Technology Enterprise Team, Ft. Collins, Colorado. Schmid, J.M., and Amman, G.D. 1992. Dendroctonus beetles and old-growth forests in the Rockies. In: Kaufmann, M.R.; Moir, W.H.; Bassett, R.L., tech. eds. Old-growth forests in the

210

Southwest and Rocky Mountain regions. Proceedings of a workshop; 9-13 March 1992; Portal, AZ. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. General Technical Report RM-213. p. 51-59. Schmid, J.M., and Mata, S.A. 1996. Natural variability of specific forest insect populations and their associated effects in Colorado. Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station General Technical Report RM-GTR-275. 14 p. Schmid, J.M. Personal communication with Rick Caissie concerning thinning from below in lodgepole pine to reduce the risk of mountain pine beetle infestation, February 2003. Schmitz, R.F.; McGregor, M.D.; Amman, G.D.; Oakes, R.D. 1989. Effect of partial cutting treatments of lodgepole pine stands on the abundance and behavior of flying mountain pine beetles. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 19: 566-574. Scott, Joe H.; Canopy Fuel Treatment Standards for the Wildland-Urban Interface. In: Proceedings of the Conference on Fire, Fuel Treatments, and Ecological Restoration; April 16-18, 2002; Fort Collins, CO. pages 29-37 Shaw, N.L. and W.P. Clary. 1996. Willow establishment in relation to cattle grazing on an eastern Oregon stream. In: Shaw, D.W. and D.M. Finch, tech cords. 1996. Desired future conditions for SW riparian ecosystems: bringing interests and concerns together. 1995. Albuquerque, NM. General Technical Report RM-GTR-272. Fort Collins, CO. 359p. Shore, T. L.; Safranyik, L. 1992. Susceptibility and risk rating systems for the mountain pine beetle in lodgepole pine stands. Information Rep. BC-X-336. Victoria, BC: Forestry Canada, Pacific and Yukon Region, Pacific Forestry Centre. 12 p. Smith, G. J. 1987. Pesticide use and toxicology in relation to wildlife: Organophosphorus and Carbamate Compounds. US Fish and Wildlife Service: Resource Publication 170. Somasundaram, L.; J. R. Coats; and K. D. Racke. 1991. Mobility of pesticides and their hydrolysis metabolites in soil. Envrion. Toxicol. Chem. 10: 185-194. State of Colorado, Department of Public Health and Environment, Water Quality Control Division. “Water Quality Limited Segments Still Requiring TMDL’s, Colorado 2002 303(d) List and Monitoring and Evaluation List”. September 10, 2002. Troendle, C. A. and R. M. King. 1985. The Effect of Timber Harvest on the Fool Creek Watershed, 30 Years Later. Water Resources Research, Vol. 21, No. 12, pages 1915-1922. Troendle, C. A. and R. M. King. 1987. The Effect of Partial and Clearcutting on Streamflow At Deadhorse Creek, Colorado. Journal of Hydrology, vol. 90, pages 145-157. Troendle, C. A. and W. K. Olsen. 1994. Potential Effects of Timber Harvest and Water Management on Streamflow Dynamics and Sediment Transport. In: Sustainable Ecological Systems Proceedings, USDA, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, GTR RM-247, 34-41.

211

U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000 Table DP-1. Profile of General Demographic Characteristics: 2000. Grand County, Colorado. U.S. Department of Interior, Department of Agriculture, Forest Service IMPLAN model, Now IMPLAN Corp. USDA Forest Service 1973. Handbook #434 National Forest Landscape Management Volume 1, Washington D.C. USDA Forest Service 1974. Handbook #462 National Forest Landscape Management Volume 2, Chapter 1. Visual Management System. Washington D.C. USDA Forest Service 1980. Handbook #559 National Forest Landscape Management Volume 2, Chapter 5. Timber. Washington D.C. USDA Forest Service. 1986a. Stillwater AIP – Fisheries Report. On File: Arapaho and Roosevelt and Routt National Forests, Ft. Collins, CO. USDA Forest Service. 1986b. Level III Stream Habitat Inventory Notes for Supply Creek, North, Middle, and South Supply Creeks by D. McKinley. On File: Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests, Granby, CO. USDA Forest Service. 1990. Arapaho National Recreation Area - AIP – Fisheries Report. On File: Sulphur Ranger District, Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests, Granby, CO. USDA Forest Service. 1991. Final Environmental Impact Statement – Hatchet Park Timber Sale. Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests, Sulphur Ranger District, Granby, CO. USDA Forest Service. 1991. Record of Decision for the Hatchet Park Timber Sale. Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests, Sulphur Ranger District, Granby, CO. USDA Forest Service. 1991. Record of Decision for the Skeeter Timber Sale. Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests, Sulphur Ranger District, Granby, CO. USDA Forest Service. 1992. Forest Service Handbook – Soil Management 2509.18, Region 2 Supplement, August 15, 1992. USDA Forest Service. 1992. Draft Colorado River Cutthroat Trout Conservation Plan. Rocky Mountain Region, Denver, CO. USDA Forest Service. 1994. Ecological Subregions of the United States. Compiled and edited by Robert G. Bailey, Peter Avers, Thomas King, and Henry McNab. Available on the internet at www.fs.fed.us/land/pubs/ecoregions/chp43.html. USDA Forest Service 1995. Handbook # 701 Landscape Aesthetics – A Handbook for Scenery Management. Washington D.C.

212

USDA Forest Service 1997. Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests and Pawnee Grassland Land and Resource Management Plan, 1997 Revision. USDA Forest Service Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests and Pawnee National Grassland. Ft. Collins, Colorado. USDA Forest Service. 1999. Environmental Assessment – Kawubunga Timber Sale. Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests, Sulphur Ranger District, Granby, CO. USDA Forest Service. 1999. Decision Notice for the Kawubunga Timber Sale. Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests, Sulphur Ranger District, Granby, CO. USDA Forest Service. 1999. Watershed Improvement Needs – Supply and Stillwater Creeks Watersheds. Memo from David J. Gloss to Rich Phelps, Sulphur District Ranger, File Code 2522, 2/24/99. On file: Arapaho-Roosevelt National Forests, Ft. Collins, CO. USDA Forest Service. 1999. Forest Service Handbook – Watershed Conservation Practices Handbook 2509.25, Region 2 Supplement, Denver, CO, March 22, 1999. USDA Forest Service. 2001. DRAFT Soil and Terrestrial Ecological Land Unit Survey for the Arapaho – Roosevelt National Forests, Colorado. Unpublished internal document, Fort Collins, CO 80526. USDA Forest Service. 2002. Caribou National Forest Land Management Plan Revision. USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service. 1983. Soil Survey of Grand County Area, Colorado. D. Alstatt and R. Miles. USDA Soil Conservation Service and Forest Service in cooperation with Colorado Agricultural Experiment Station. Lakewood, CO. US Environmental Protection Agency. 1980. An Approach to Water Resource Evaluation of Non-point Silvicultural Sources. EPA-600/8-80-012. August 1980. Van Wagner, C.E. 1977. Conditions for the start and spread of crown fire. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 7:23-34. Van Wagner, C.E. 1993. Prediction of crown fire behavior in two stands of jack pine. Canadian Journal of Forest Reasearch 23:442-449. Von Rumker, R., E. W. Lawless, and A. F. Meiners. 1974. Production, distribution, use, and environmental impact potential of selected pesticides. Office of Pesticide Programs. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D C. pp 439. Walters M. Ronald 1990. Visual Quality Objectives in Douglas-Fir Forests. USDA Forest Service, Recreation Unit, Pacific Northwest Region, Portland, Oregon. Wheeler, Charles W and Gary Martin n.d. “The Granby Site:Early-Middle Archaic Wattle and Daub Structures” Southwestern Lore, Vol. 48, No. 3, Page 16. Whisenant, S.G. 1999. Repairing damaged wildlands. Cambridge University Press. 312pp.

213

Young, M.K., R.N. Schmal, T.K. Kohley and V.G. Leonard. 1996. Colorado River cutthroat trout. Pages 87-96 and appendices In Conservation assessment for inland cutthroat trout, Duff, D.A., editor. USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Region. Ogden, Utah.

Index _____________________________________

C Cabaryl, 44 Campgrounds, v, 6, 10, 11, 12, 13, 26, 27,

44, 108, 121, 128, 131, 136, 138, 139, 143, 144, 167, 170, 173

D Defensible space, 71, 75

E Erosion, 18, 26, 34, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42,

43, 45, 48, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 58, 59, 60, 64, 67, 71, 106, 117, 126, 127, 128, 155, 156, 157, 159, 188, 192, 207

G Good Neighbor Agreement, i, x, 6, 14, 16,

18, 31, 74, 86, 123, 124, 162, 196 Grand Lake, iv, v, 1, 7, 27, 35, 37, 39, 40,

41, 42, 46, 47, 48, 49, 51, 52, 53, 54, 56, 71, 97, 98, 116, 118, 120, 122, 131, 132, 133, 138, 141, 142, 143, 156, 157, 158, 162, 165, 173, 174, 189, 192, 202, 208

I

Insecticide, 14, 31, 32, 44, 76

L Lynx, 6, 98, 103, 104, 105, 108, 110, 111,

112, 152, 170, 171

O Old Growth, xii, 33, 113, 114

R Riparian, iv, xi, 57, 81

Roadless Area, i, v, vi, 1, 6, 8, 14, 16, 18, 20, 22, 24, 33, 65, 74, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 110, 123, 145, 151, 153, 161, 167, 168, 169, 173, 180

Roadless Area Conservation Rule, i, vi, 87, 88, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 168, 169, 180

Roads, vi, xi, xii, 1, 6, 8, 14, 16, 18, 20, 22, 24, 26, 28, 29, 31, 38, 39, 40, 45, 49, 53, 55, 56, 60, 66, 67, 69, 71, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 95, 96, 105, 107, 108, 109, 110, 112, 115, 116, 117, 123, 126, 129, 132, 134, 135, 138, 143, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 159, 169, 170, 171, 172, 174, 175, 180, 182, 188, 189

S Salvage, 70, 82, 174 Scenic Resources, v, 3, 6, 8, 11, 12, 14, 16,

18, 20, 22, 24, 31, 32, 93, 117, 122, 131, 133, 136, 138, 139, 173, 174, 180, 200, 213

Sedimentation, xi, 42, 52, 54, 56, 127, 158, 189, 214

Shadow Mountain Lake, v, 13, 35, 38, 39, 41, 42, 52, 53, 54, 55, 98, 121, 122, 138, 143, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 161, 165, 188, 189, 192, 211

Supply Creek, 29, 30, 35, 38, 39, 41, 42, 46, 47, 48, 49, 51, 53, 54, 56, 62, 68, 85, 86, 108, 122, 133, 152, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 170, 172, 182, 188, 189, 209, 214

W Weeds, 26, 27, 118, 119, 120, 121, 171, 172 Wildland Urban Interface, v, xii, 3, 8, 14,

16, 18, 20, 22, 24, 31, 68, 69, 75, 208, 213

214

Appendix A ________________________________ ANRA FOREST HEALTH AND FUELS REDUCTION PROJECT

MANAGEMENT INDICATOR SPECIES (MIS) SUPPLEMENTAL ANALYSIS

Project MIS Selection Management Indicator Species (MIS) are wildlife species that have been selected by a National Forest/Grassland to represent the habitat needs of a larger group of species requiring similar habitat communities and that are likely to reflect changes in habitat community conditions. Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species that may be affected by land and resource management may also be chosen as MIS. The complete list of management indicator species for the Arapaho/Roosevelt National Forests is listed below in Table 1. Those species not chosen for further analysis for the proposed ANRA Forest Health and Fuels Reduction Project are noted in the table. Reasons for MIS selection are presented in following sections. Table 1: Arapaho/Roosevelt NF Management Indicator Species Common Name Species Management Indicator

Community Species Excluded

Reason for Exclusion

Mammals Bighorn sheep Ovis canadensis Openings X Not present in project area. Black bear Ursus americanus Interior forests X Response to project

activities is unlikely. Canada lynx Lynx canadensis None identified in Forest Plan X Population response to

project activities unlikely Elk Cervus elaphus Young to mature forests and

openings

Mule deer Odocoileus hemionus Young to mature forests and openings

X Represented by elk.

River otter Lontra canadensis None identified in Forest Plan X Response to project activities is unlikely.

Townsend’s big-eared bat

Corynorhinus townsendii

Caves/Mines X Caves/mines not proposed for modification.

Wolverine Gulo gulo None identified in Forest Plan X Response to project activities is unlikely.

Birds American peregrine falcon

Falco peregrinus anatum

None identified in Forest Plan X Response to project activities is unlikely.

American three-toed woodpecker

Picoides dorsalis Old growth forests X Represented by hairy woodpecker.

Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus

None identified in Forest Plan X With required mitigation, response to project activities is unlikely.

Flammulated owl Otus flammeolus Old growth forests X Not present in project area. Golden-crowned kinglet Regulus satrapa Interior forests X Modification of primary

habitat minor. Population response to project activities is unlikely.

Hairy woodpecker Picoides villosus Young to mature forests Mountain bluebird Sialia currucoides Openings X Represented by elk and

hairy woodpecker.

215

Common Name Species Management Indicator Community

Species Excluded

Reason for Exclusion

Pygmy nuthatch Sitta pygmaea Old growth forests X Modification of primary habitat not expected. Population response to project activities is unlikely.

Warbling vireo Vireo gilvus Aspen forest Wilson's warbler Wilsonia pusilla Montane riparian and wetlands X Response to project

activities is unlikely. Amphibians Boreal toad Bufo boreas boreas Montane riparian and wetlands X Response to project

activities is unlikely. Northern leopard frog Rana pipiens Montane riparian and wetlands X Response to project

activities is unlikely. Wood frog Rana sylvatica None identified in Forest Plan X Response to project

activities is unlikely. Fish Brook trout Salvelinus fontinalis Montane aquatic X Represented by CRCT Brown trout Salmo trutta Montane aquatic X Represented by CRCT Colorado River cutthroat trout

Oncorhynchus clarki pleuriticus

Montane aquatic

Greenback cutthroat trout

Oncorhynchus clarki stomias

Montane aquatic X Not present in project area.

Rainbow trout Onchorynchus mykiss Montane aquatic X Represented by CRCT Management Indicator Species that were determined to be absent from the project area were excluded from additional analysis because they would not be influenced by the proposed ANRA Forest Health and Fuels Reduction Project activities. Specifically this includes bighorn sheep, flammulated owl, and greenback cutthroat trout. Two bighorn sheep herds use the high alpine habitats along the Continental Divide on the northern and eastern boundaries of the larger analysis area, but these locations are in Rocky Mountain National Park, the Never Summer Wilderness, and the Indian Peaks Wilderness and outside of the project area. No project activities are proposed in these bighorn sheep habitats nor are indirect influences from the proposed activities expected. The flammulated owl is not known to be present in Grand County (Jasper and Collins 1991). The greenback cutthroat trout is a native trout of the South Platte and Arkansas River drainages east of the Continental Divide (Trotter 1987). None of the proposed project activities would result in water depletion, which might lead to reducing water flows currently diverted from the western slope of the Continental Divide to the eastern slope. Twenty-three of the 26 Management Indicator Species are known to be residents or are expected to occur in the ANRA Forest Health/Fuels Reduction project area due to the presence of suitable habitat. An evaluation was done by the project wildlife and fisheries biologists to identify which of the 26 MIS best represent the habitat types and conditions proposed for modification in the ANRA Forest Health/Fuels Reduction Project and are most likely to respond (positively or negatively) to the potential effects of the proposed project actions. Four MIS were chosen to carry forward in the project analysis. Elk was chosen because it is an indicator for openings within or adjacent to forests, as well as an indicator for young to mature forest habitats. The hairy woodpecker was chosen because it is an indicator for young to mature forest structural stages with a requirement for dead trees. The warbling vireo was chosen because it represents the habitat needs of species found in aspen

216

forest habitat. The Colorado River cutthroat trout represents the habitat needs of species found in montane aquatic systems. The remaining twenty MIS that are likely to be present in the project area but were not chosen as management indicators for the ANRA Forest Health/Fuels Reduction Project, were determined to be representative of habitat types and conditions that are not proposed for modification, are less likely to respond (positively or negatively) to the potential effects of the proposed project actions, or their habitat needs are addressed through the analysis of another MIS species. Specific species and the reason they were not selected as MIS are listed below. • Townsend’s big-eared bat is the Arapaho/Roosevelt Management Indicator Species for

caves and mines. These habitat types are not proposed for modification. • The golden-crowned kinglet is primarily found in mature and old spruce/fir forest habitat.

Very little spruce/fir habitat is proposed for modification as part of the proposed projects and changes to population trend are unlikely.

• Pygmy nuthatch is primarily found in mature and old growth ponderosa pine. Ponderosa pine habitat is limited within the project area and is not scheduled for treatment.

• The peregrine falcon, river otter, Wilson’s warbler, boreal toad, leopard frog, and wood frog are expected to continue using the aquatic, wetland, wet meadow, and riparian habitats in the project area without expected changes from the proposed projects. Cliff habitats potentially used by peregrine falcons are not proposed for project activities.

• Bald eagles are expected to continue using the project area with no anticipated changes with implementation of required mitigation measures.

• The black bear is a species that uses a large variety of habitat types, conditions, and successional stages. Because black bears will continue to use habitats within the project area whether they are modified by the proposed projects or not, the black bear is not selected as a MIS for the project area.

• If wolverines are present in the ANRA Forest Health/Fuels Reduction analysis area, they would also be unlikely to respond to project activities due to their use of many habitat types and conditions, their extremely large home ranges, and their use of remote wilderness areas and alpine habitats, which are not proposed for project activities.

• Habitat needs for brook trout, brown trout, and rainbow trout are addressed through analysis of Colorado River cutthroat trout.

• Mule deer is represented by elk. • The mountain bluebird is represented by the elk for its use of open habitats and by the hairy

woodpecker for its requirement for dead trees/nesting cavities. • Because the hairy woodpecker uses many forest structural stages including old growth, and it

is especially attracted to forest stands with high levels of insects and diseases, the hairy woodpecker also represents the habitat needs of the three-toed woodpecker.

• Although the proposed ANRA Forest Health/Fuels Reduction Project has the potential to affect suitable lynx habitat, the Canada lynx is not chosen as a management indicator species for this project. It would be unlikely for lynx populations to respond to project activities due to their extreme rarity on the ARNF, their use of many habitat types and conditions, and their large home range size. A thorough analysis of potential effects to lynx and lynx habitat is provided in the EIS and the biological assessment for this project.

217

The Canada lynx, bald eagle, river otter, Townsend’s big-eared bat, wolverine, peregrine falcon, three-toed woodpecker, golden-crowned kinglet, pygmy nuthatch, boreal toad, northern leopard frog, and wood frog are analyzed in the ANRA Forest Health/Fuels Reduction Project EIS because they are Threatened or Sensitive Species that are known or suspected to be present in the analysis area. They were not chosen as MIS to represent this project for the reasons stated above. Baseline The following information on population levels and trends is provided to give context for expected effects to elk, hairy woodpecker, warbling vireo, and Colorado River cutthroat trout from the proposed ANRA Forest Health and Fuels Reduction Project. The Colorado Division of Wildlife annually monitors elk populations on the Arapaho/Roosevelt National Forest (ARNF). Elk populations show an upward trend on the ARNF from an estimated 15,300 animals (post-hunting season) to 20,100 animals (post-hunting season) between 1990 and 2000 (CDOW 1990, 2000). Data collected by the Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory (Gillihan 2002) to estimate population size and monitor population trends for management indicator bird species for the ARNF estimates that densities of hairy woodpeckers on the ARNF range from 1-3 individuals per 100 acres in suitable habitats. Breeding Bird Survey data collected on the ARNF between 1990 and 2001 is unable to obtain a population trend for the hairy woodpecker due to small sample sizes. However, winter bird counts in the Evergreen/Idaho Springs area between 1981 and 2001 suggest a relatively stable hairy woodpecker population. Breeding surveys show an upward trend at the continental level. The same Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory report (Gillihan 2002) states that warbling vireo population densities near the ARNF vary widely from an estimated 3.0-78.9 territories per 100 acres depending on habitat type. Population density data specific to the ARNF is limited at this time. Breeding Bird Survey data collected on the ARNF between 1990 and 2001 is unable to discern a clear population trend for the warbling vireo. A slight downward breeding trend, but no discernable winter trend is apparent at continental scale. Bird transects continue to be monitored annually on the ARNF to collect population data and determine trends of these avian MIS and other species. This is part of the Monitoring Colorado’s Birds partnership program. For more detailed information on the population estimates and trends for the hairy woodpecker and warbling vireo compiled by the Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory, their report (Gillihan 2002) is available at the Sulphur Ranger District office. The Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW), USFWS and the Forest Service have monitored Colorado River cutthroat trout populations within Colorado. Baseline information for populations on the ARNF was collected in 2000, 2001 and 2002 by the Forest using a three-pass electro-fishing protocol. Population data was collected in all streams known to support Colorado River cutthroat trout and populations were found to be persisting in all but a few of these streams. Data collected within thee ANRA analysis area found approximately 2,370 two-year old fish in Buchanan Creek and its tributary, Thunderbolt Creek. Roaring Creek data indicates approximately 300 two-year old fish and approximately 1,050 two-year old fish were found in

218

Trail Creek (Supervisor’s Office files). These numbers cannot be used to establish trend by comparison to previously collected information because the methods used to establish population levels were not the same. The protocol used in 2000, 2001 and 2002 is continuing to be used across the ARNF to monitor fish populations and additional data will be collected in these streams within the next two years. Summary of Effects of the Proposed Project on Management IndicatorCommunities (MICs) and Respective MIS Populations The proposals to treat forest stands within the ANRA Forest Health and Fuels Reduction project area to reduce fire hazards, prevent additional lodgepole pine trees from becoming infected with mountain pine beetle, improve scenic values, and improve forest health have been analyzed in depth for the expected effects to elk, hairy woodpecker, warbling vireo, and Colorado River cutthroat trout in the EIS. Overall, the proposed ANRA Forest Health and Fuels Reduction Project is expected to result in considerable improvement of foraging habitat for elk (representing Young to Mature Forest Structural Stages and Openings MICs) but may also result in increased off-road/trail vehicle disturbance primarily around home development areas and along roads and trails. Although improvements in elk foraging habitats on spring, summer, and fall ranges are expected as a result of the proposed ANRA Forest Health/Fuels Reduction project activities, elk populations are controlled primarily through hunting and winter range habitat conditions and availability. Improvements of elk habitat in the ANRA Forest Health/Fuels Reduction project area would allow elk to enter the winter months in better physical condition to survive harsh winter conditions, but the project would not affect the condition or availability of winter ranges. Therefore, the proposed ANRA Forest Health and Fuels Reduction Project is not expected to change the existing trend for elk populations either within the project area or within the Planning Area (ARNF). Proposed project activities would result in substantial aspen regeneration resulting in an increase in quantity and quality of habitat (representing Aspen MIC) for the warbling vireo. Because the current mountain pine beetle epidemic and implementation of the proposed ANRA Forest Health and Fuels Reduction Project would increase the amount of aspen habitat available to warbling vireos in the project and analysis areas, warbling vireo populations are expected to increase over time as aspen regenerates in areas formerly dominated by relatively closed canopies of lodgepole pine. The cumulative effects of reduced lodgepole canopy and enhanced aspen regeneration over larger landscapes may increase warbling vireo populations on larger scales including the Planning Area (ARNF). These potential population increases may be buffered by habitat conditions on warbling vireo winter ranges in Mexico and Central America, which are outside the scope of this project. Although the proposed project would result in the salvage and removal of standing dead trees in proposed treatment units, the mountain pine beetle epidemic has and continues to increase habitat quality and quantity (representing Young to Mature Structural Stages – with requirement for snags) for the hairy woodpecker across the landscape of the ANRA Forest Health/Fuels Reduction analysis area.

219

Due to the extent of lodgepole pine mortality as a result of mountain pine beetle infestation, a net increase in local hairy woodpecker populations in the ANRA Forest Health/Fuels Reduction analysis area is still expected, even with implementation of proposed activities. This may also result in increased hairy woodpecker populations at the Planning Area scale (ARNF). Colorado River cutthroat are found in several isolated headwater streams within the analysis area. Habitat requirements for these trout include clear, cold, well-oxygenated streams with gravel to rocky substrate. Trout require cover for protection and deep pool habitat for summer and winter refugia. The effects that may occur as a result of the proposed management activities are very similar between all alternatives. Habitat changes (representing Montane Aquatic MIC) may occur as a result of activities proposed in all of the alternatives. These changes include a reduction in pool habitat as a result of increased sediment entering the stream. Increased water yield and peak flows could decrease stream bank stability causing increased stream channel width, decreased stream channel depth, and decreased riparian vegetation and associated shading. If they occurred, these changes would degrade cutthroat habitat by reducing spawning habitat, increasing temperatures and limiting pool habitat. Stream buffers and implementation of Watershed Conservation Practices minimize the potential for adverse impacts to cutthroat habitat. Loss of habitat is not expected from any of the action alternatives because of the small amount of treatment acres relative to the analysis area and implementation of Watershed Conservation Practices. Successful control of the spread of MPB through implementation of an action alternative would be expected to reduce the changes in water yield over water yield changes anticipated as a result of the no action alternative. Colorado River cutthroat trout populations in the analysis area appear stable in the streams where they are found. Recent collection of population data found reproducing populations of cutthroat in streams where they had been identified during Forest planning. Because the potential effects of management activities to cutthroat habitat have been minimized as described above, it would be expected that populations of cutthroats in the analysis area would remain stable with implementation of all alternatives. Current habitat levels are sufficient to maintain viability for the existing stable populations of cutthroat trout in the analysis area. These stable populations would continue to contribute to a stable trend in cutthroat populations across the ARNF (USDA Forest Service, 1997). Relationship of MIC/MIS Effects to the Forest Plan Young and Mature Forest Structural Stages MIC: Elk and Hairy woodpecker: Effects to this MIC and respective MISs from the proposed project are consistent with Forest Plan direction for these habitats and species. Specifically, direction may be found in Chapter 1, Guidelines 92, 93, 103, 106, 107, 108 and 109; goals 94 and 95; and standard 96 for MIS and/or these forest structural stages, and also in Chapter 2: Geographic Area Direction for the ANRA Openings MIC: Elk: Effects to this MIC and respective MISs from the proposed project are consistent with Forest Plan direction for these habitats and species. Specifically, direction may be found in Chapter 1, Guidelines 41, 92, 93, 103, 106 and 107; goals 94 and 95; and standard 96 for MIS and/or openings within or adjacent to forests, and also in Chapter 2: Geographic Area Direction for the ANRA.

220

221

Aspen MIC: Warbling vireo: Effects to this MIC and respective MISs from the proposed project are consistent with Forest Plan direction for these habitats and species. Specifically, direction may be found in Chapter 1, Guidelines 92, 93 and 103; and goal 94 for MIS and/or aspen habitats. Aquatic Habitat MIC: Colorado River cutthroat trout: Effects to this MIC and respective MISs from the proposed project are consistent with Forest Plan direction for these habitats and species. Specifically, direction may be found in Chapter 1, Guidelines 41, 92, 93, 113, 114 and 115; and goals 110 and 111 for these aquatic habitats. Monitoring Population trends of MIS in relationship to habitat changes are monitored at the Planning Area (ARNF) scale at years 5 and 10 of the Forest Plan (Forest Plan, Chapter 4, Table 4.1). The 5-year Monitoring and Evaluation Report for the years 1997-2002 includes this discussion of MIS population trends in response to Forest Plan implementation and resultant habitat changes, and is available for review at the Sulphur District office. References Colorado Division of Wildlife. 2003. Natural Diversity Information Source wildlife range maps. Colorado Division of Wildlife and Colorado State Univ., Fort Collins, CO. Colorado Division of Wildlife. 2000, 1990. Big game statistics (post-hunt population estimates). Colorado Division of Wildlife, Fort Collins, CO. Gillihan, S.W. 2002. Population data for U.S. Forest Service avian management indicator species on the Arapaho-Roosevelt National Forests and Pawnee National Grassland. Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory, Brighton,CO. Jasper, D.A. and W.S. Collins. 1991. The birds of Grand County, Colorado including Rocky Mountain National Park west of the Continental Divide and Arapaho National Recreation Area. Jasper and Collins, Boulder, CO. Trotter, P.C. 1987. Cutthroat: native trout of the west. Colorado Associated Univ. Press, Boulder, CO. USDA Forest Service. 1997. 1997 revision of the land and resource management plan, Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests and Pawnee National Grassland. USDA Forest Service, Fort Collins, CO. Prepared By Wendy R. Magwire Doreen Sumerlin Kristen Sexton Wildlife Biologist Wildlife Biologist Fisheries Biologist Sulphur Ranger District Sulphur Ranger District Arapaho-Roosevelt NF March 18, 2004 March 18, 2004 March 18, 2004