HomeMy WebLinkAboutParticipation as Amicus Curiae in Alliance for the Wild Rockies et al v. US Forest Service1
Commission Memorandum
REPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and City Commission
FROM: Greg Sullivan, City Attorney
Brian Heaston, Engineering Division
Craig Woolard, Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Participation as Amicus Curiae in Alliance for the Wild Rockies et al v.
United States Forest Service et al
(litigation filed in the Montana Federal
District Court (cause number 9:12-cv-00055-DLC: the Bozeman
Municipal Watershed Project) (Sullivan, City Attorney)
MEETING DATE: September 17, 2012
AGENDA ITEM TYPE: Action
RECOMMENDATION: Direct the City Attorney’s Office to seek leave of the Montana
Federal District Court to file an Amicus Curiae Brief in the litigation surrounding the Bozeman
Municipal Watershed project.
SUGGESTED MOTION: Having heard and considered the staff memorandum and public
comment, I move to direct the City Attorney to prepare and file a motion seeking leave of the
Montana Federal District Court to file a brief in Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. United States
Forest Service
BACKGROUND:
for the purposes discussed and if such leave is granted to prepare and file a brief.
1) The BMW Project
:
The Gallatin National Forest began the Bozeman Municipal Watershed project (BMW) in 2005
in an effort to reduce the severity of future wildfire in Hyalite and Bozeman Creek watersheds
through fuel reduction.1 Excessive and hazardous fuel conditions in these adjacent drainages
were independently documented in three studies completed for these watersheds in the early
2000’s by the Gallatin National Forest, the City, and the Bozeman Watershed Council.2
1 The City and Gallatin National Forest entered into a Memorandum of Understanding in 2005 regarding the need to
coordinated activities in Sourdough and Hyalite drainages. The BMW project was a result of that coordination. The
MOU is attached.
Collaborative discussions between these parties ultimately produced the BMW project the
2 The Bozeman Watershed Council was a local interest group concerned about the management of Bozeman municipal
watersheds. In 2004, the group completed a Watershed Assessment for the Sourdough/Bozeman Creek drainage. The
assessment was partially funded by Bonneville Power with grant funds set aside for improving community watersheds.
112
2
primary purpose of which is to maintain a high-quality, long term, and predictable water supply
for the City of Bozeman through meaningful reductions in fire severity and probability in the
municipal watersheds.
The BMW identifies extensive treatment units in the lower forested reaches of Hyalite and
Bozeman Creeks, as well as along the wildland/urban interface (WUI). Each treatment unit is
prescribed a specific treatment measure designed to reduce forest density, increase crown base
height, and reduce existing levels of down woody debris once implemented. The post-project
condition serves to reduce the risk of excess sediment and ash reaching the municipal water
treatment plant in the event of a severe fire.
2) Benefit of BMW Project to the City of Bozeman
:
Bozeman and Hyalite Creeks provide 80% of the City’s annual potable water supply. A high
quality and plentiful water source is imperative in meeting the City’s ever growing water
demands. Water supply planning is one of the City Commission’s most important ongoing
priorities.
The greatest and most realistic threat to the municipal water supply is severe wildland fire.
Heavy sediment loads following erosive runoff events in a burn area can severely impact the
treatment capability of the City’s direct filtration treatment plant and exceed its capacity to
remove suspended solids. Fire-impacted water quality can last days to weeks following each
runoff event and persist for years until vegetative filtering capacity is re-established to pre-fire
levels. Although the City’s new water treatment plant currently under construction is designed
to treat fire impacted source water, it will do so at reduced efficiency with increased wear and
tear on membrane filters and pumps.
Other impacts to the City’s water supply systems may result from severely impacted water
quality, such as clogging of the Hyalite and Bozeman Creek water intakes, damage to
transmission system valves between the intakes and plant, and possible replacement of current
filtering media, or future filter membranes.
It’s also important to note that the proximity of these two watersheds to each other indicates a
wildfire occurrence in either the Hyalite or Bozeman Creek drainage could move into the other
resulting in a situation where both sources of municipal water supply are simultaneously
impacted.
Meaningful reductions in fire severity achieved through full implementation of the BMW should
serve to limit the extent of a wildfire in these municipal watersheds. In doing so, fire-impacted
water quality should remain at a level suitable for treatment, eliminating the need to enact and
endure major water restrictions and resultant negative effects on resident health and safety,
quality of life, and economy.
3) USFS process in developing the project
:
A draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was prepared by the Gallatin National Forest in
conformance with the procedural requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) and released for public comment in August 2007. A final EIS and the Record of
Decision (ROD) were released in March 2010 by the Gallatin National Forest Supervisor. The
ROD was appealed to the Regional Forester for USFS Region 1 who reversed the ROD and
113
3
ordered additional environmental analysis to be completed. A supplemental final EIS and ROD
was released November 2011 by the Gallatin Forest Supervisor. This decision was subsequently
appealed to the Region 1 Forester who upheld the ROD, thus exhausting administrative appeals
for the BMW project.
For more information about the BMW project generally, the EIS, and the ROD please see:
http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/gallatin/landmanagement/projects?cid=stelprdb5137390
4) Current Litigation
:
On April 10, 2012, the Alliance for the Wild Rockies (AWR) and Native Ecosystems Council
filed suit against the USFS seeking injunctive and declaratory relief against the BMW project.
AWR alleges the USFS’ approval of the BMW project violates NEPA, the National Forest
Management (NFMA), the Endangered Species Act (ESA), the Administrative Procedure Act
(APA) and the Forest Service’s Roadless Area Conservation Rule commonly referred to as the
“Roadless Rule.”
To review the complaint please visit:
http://weblink.bozeman.net/WebLink8/0/doc/49653/Page1.aspx
To review the Forest Services’ answer to the complaint please visit:
http://weblink.bozeman.net/WebLink8/0/doc/49654/Page1.aspx
5) Amicus process and benefits of an Amicus Brief
:
a) General:
A brief of amicus curiae, commonly referred to as an “amicus brief,” is a written
document filed by a person or organization that is not a party to a lawsuit but that seeks to
provide direct input in litigation. In Latin, the term amicus curiae means “friend of the
court.” In general, amicus briefs can provide courts with different perspectives from
interested parties affected by litigation. Amicus briefs can also help place what often
times can be very narrow and specific legal issues into a larger context. In short they can
offer information and/or frame a legal argument in a way not found in party briefs, in the
hopes a court will consider their input during its legal analysis.
b) Process of filing an amicus brief:
In the United States District Court for the District of Montana, the filing of an amicus
brief is governed by Rule 7.5 D.Mont.L.R. Leave of Court must be granted before an
amicus brief may be filed. Should the Commission decide to go forward with the
submission of an amicus brief in AWR v. USFS
, the first step is to file a motion for leave
to file an amicus brief pursuant to Rule 7.5. Among other requirements the motion must
specifically state (1) why the City is interested in the matter; and (2) state why an amicus
brief is desirable and relevant, including why the parties involved in the litigation cannot
adequately address the matter.
114
4
Upon approval by the Commission, this motion would be filed this fall. The plaintiffs in
the lawsuit may object to the motion. The Bozeman District Ranger has indicated the
Forest Service will not object to the City filing an amicus brief. U.S. District Court Judge
Dana L. Christensen will rule to either allow or deny the City’s request.
c) Benefits of amicus brief to Court:
The primary benefit for the City to file a brief in this case is to ensure information
the City’s need to protect the municipal watershed in the event of wildland fires is
provided to the federal District Court.
As the litigation involves federal claims related to forest management, endangered
species, etc., we believe that missing from this litigation is the discussion of the City’s
need to reduce fuels on the federal lands in the Hyalite and Bozeman Creek drainages to
reduce the impacts from a wildland fire on the City’s water supply. In an amicus brief,
the City will be able to address its involvement in the development of the BMW project,
management of City owned land in the Bozeman Creek watershed in conjunction with
the BMW project, Bozeman’s dependence on the Hyalite and Bozeman Creek drainages
for potable water, the risks associated should the BMW project be delayed or canceled,
and, obviously express its support for the Forest Services’ preferred alternative.
UNRESOLVED ISSUES: The brief has not been developed. Approval of the motion will
direct the City Attorney’s Office to begin preparing and writing the brief. If leave is granted, the
brief will be filed without returning to the Commission for additional approval.
A copy of the
brief will be made available to the public. In addition, the plaintiff’s may oppose the City
participation.
ALTERNATIVES: At this time, the USFS has held off on moving forward with the project
and as a result the plaintiffs have not filed for injunctive relief. If such relief is sought, we intend
to return to the Commission seeking direction to seek formal intervention rather than amicus
status.
FISCAL EFFECTS: The motion and briefing will be conducted in-house. No additional
resources other than filing fees and staff time will be required at this time.
Attachments:
• Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Bozeman, Montana and the Gallatin
National Forest (2005)
• Executive Summary on the ROD (Also available at
http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5341009.pdf)
Report compiled on: September 9, 2012
115
FS Agreement No 05 MU ll01100 01 0
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
Between the
CITY OF BOZEMAN MONT ANA
And the
GALLATIN NATIONAL FOREST
This MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING MOD is hereby entered into between
the City of Bozeman Montana hereinafter referred to as the City and the USDA Forest
Service Gallatin National Forest hereinafter referred to as the Forest Service
A PURPOSE
The purpose ofthe MOD is to establish a framework for cooperation between the
parties to maintain in the long term a high quality predictable water supply for
Bozeman through cooperative efforts in implementing sustainable land management
practices This cooperation serves the mutual interest ofthe parties and the public
B STATEMENT OF MUTUAL BENEFIT AND INTERESTS
Whereby the public water supply for the City of Bozeman comes primarily from
watersheds south of Bozeman that are largely National Forest System lands the
Forest Service and the City of Bozeman share a role in ensuring the long term quality
and quantity of water to city residents The following objectives are in the mutual
interest of the parties in order to meet this responsibility
Implement vegetation management projects that will begin to reduce the severity
and extent of wildland fires in the Bozeman and Hyalite Municipal Watersheds
Focus on treatments that will begin to reduce the risk of excess sediment and ash
reaching the municipal water treatment plant in the event of a severe wildland
fire
Provide for firefighter and public safety by beginning to modify potential fire
behavior
Reduce fuels in the wildland urban interface WUI to reduce potential fire spread
and intensity between National Forest System lands and adjacent private lands
C THE CITY SHALL
1 Assign staff to the Bozeman Municipal Watershed project
2 Coordinate regularly with the Forest Service in the development planning and
implementation of any projects in the municipal watersheds
3 Share information in City databases regarding City lands and water treatment
facilities relevant to planning and implementation of projects within the municipal
watershed
Page I of 4
116
FS Agreement No 05 MU ll01100 010
4 Work with the Forest Service to hold public meetings or share information with
the public regarding management activities within the municipal watershed
D THE FOREST SERVICE SHALL
1 Assign staff to the Bozeman Municipal Watershed Project
2 Coordinate regularly with the City in the development planning and
implementation of any projects in the municipal watersheds
3 Develop maps and share information in Forest Service databases for vegetation
fire history wildlife habitat road systems and other relevant National Forest
source material for the planning and implementation of projects within the
municipal watershed
4 Work with the City to hold public meetings or share information with the public
regarding management activities within the municipal watershed
E IT IS MUTUALLY AGREED AND UNDERSTOOD BY BOTH PARTIES
THAT
1 PRINCIPAL CONTACT The principal contacts for this agreement are
Forest Service Project Contact City Project Contact
Jim Devitt Team Leader Ron Brey
Gallatin National Forest City of Bozeman
P O Box 130 P O Box 1230
Bozeman MT 59771 Bozeman MT 59771
Phone 406 587 6749 Phone 406 582 2307
FAX 406 587 6758 FAX 406 582 2323
E Mail jdevittlUfs fed us E Mail rbrey@bozeman net
Forest Service Administrative Contact City Administrative Contact
Frank Preite Administrative Officer Ron Brey Assistant City Manager
Gallatin National Forest City of Bozeman
P O Box 130 P O Box 1230
Bozeman MT 59771 Bozeman MT 59771
Phone 406 587 6757 Phone 406 582 2307
FAJ 406 587 6758 FAX 406 582 2323
E Mail fpreite@fs fed us E Mail rbrey@bozeman net
2 FREEDOM OF INFORMA nON ACT FOIA Any information furnished to
the Forest Service under this agreement is subject to the Freedom ofInformation
Act 5 U S C 552
Page 2 of 4
117
FS Agreement No 05 MU llOllOO 010
3 PARTICIPATION IN SIMILAR ACTIVITIES This MOU in no way restricts
the Forest Service or the City from participating in similar activities with other
public agencies organizations and individuals
4 RESPONSIBILITIES OF PARTIES The Forest Service and the City and their
respective agencies and office will handle their own activities and utilize their
own resources including the expenditure of their own funds in pursuing these
objectives Each party will carry out its separate activities in a coordinated and
mutually beneficial manner
5 NON FUND OBLIGATING DOCUMENT Nothing in this MOU shall obligate
either the Forest Service or the City to obligate or transfer any funds Specific
work projects or activities that involve the transfer of funds services or property
among the various agencies and offices ofthe Forest Service and the City will
require execution of separate instruments and be contingent upon the availability
of appropriated funds Appropriate statutory authority must independently
authorize such activities This MOU does not provide such authority
Negotiation execution and administration of each such instrument must comply
with all applicable statues and regulations
6 ESTABLISHMENT OF RESPONSIBILITY This MOU is not intended to and
does not create any right benefit or trust responsibility substantive or
procedural enforceable at law or equity by a party against the United States its
agencies its officers or any person
7 COMMENCEMENT EXPIRATION TERMINATION This MOU takes effect
upon the signature of the Forest Service and the City and shall remain in effect for
five years from the date of execution This MOU may be extended or amended
upon written request of either the Forest Service or the City and the subsequent
written concurrence ofthe other s Either the Forest Service or the City may
terminate this MOU with a 30 day written notice to the other s
8 AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVES By signature below the City certifies
that the individuals listed in this document as representatives of the City are
authorized to act in their respective areas for matters related to this agreement
The authority and format of this agreement have been reviewed and approved for
signature
Isl Danielle L Price March 4 2005
Danielle L Price FS Agreements Specialist Date
Ph 406 683 3919
Page 3 of 4
118
FSAgreementNo05MUII01100010InwitnesswhereofthepartiesheretohaveexecutedthisagreementasofthelastdatewrittenbelowCQctorCHRISKUKULSKICityManagerDateCityofBozemanOeLlDSREBECCAHEATHForestSupervisorDateGallatinNationalForestPage4of4
119
Bozeman Municipal Watershed Project
Executive Summary of the ROD
1 November 2011
Bozeman Municipal Watershed Fuels Reduction Project
Executive Summary of the Record of Decision
1 Introduction
The Bozeman Municipal Watershed Fuels Reduction Project is located in the northern Gallatin
mountain range near the city of Bozeman, Montana. Fuel reduction treatments will occur on
about 4,700 acres in the 50,000 acre project area. The project area is focused in the lower one-
third of Bozeman Creek and Hyalite Creek drainages. A portion of the Gallatin Fringe
Inventoried Roadless Area is in the project area. The entire project area is considered wildland
urban interface (WUI), with many homes and subdivisions within one-half mile of the Forest
boundary. The area provides over the majority of the municipal water supply for the city of
Bozeman. The water treatment plant is located just outside the Forest boundary on Bozeman
Creek.
2 Background
On March 11, 2005, the Forest Service and the City of Bozeman signed a Memorandum of
Understanding to maintain a high-quality, predictable water supply for Bozeman. Three different
assessments conducted by the Forest Service, the Bozeman Creek Watershed Council, and the
City of Bozeman all concluded that fuel conditions within the municipal watershed posed risks to
the municipal water supply in the event of a wildfire.
The Gallatin National Forest first sought public comments on this project in September 2005.
The Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was published in August 2007, and analyzed
five alternatives. A sixth alternative was added and analyzed in the Final EIS.
The Final EIS was published in March 2010 and a supplement to the FEIS was provided for
public review in May 2011. The Final Supplement with a response to comments was published
in November 2011 and a Record of Decision was signed in November 2011.
3 Purpose and Need for Action
The purpose of this project is to reduce the risk of severe and extensive wildfire on National
Forest System lands within the BMW, thereby reducing risk to life and property in and adjacent
to the project area. The project also responds to policies directing the Forest Service to take
action to protect municipal watersheds and wildland urban interface (WUI) areas from wildfire
(e.g., National Fire Plan of 2000, Healthy Forests Initiatives of 2004, Healthy Forests
Restoration Act 2004).
Protection of the Municipal Water Supply for Bozeman. The project will begin to
modify vegetative fuel conditions using thinning and prescribed fire to lower the risk of
severe, extensive wildfires in the BMW, thereby reducing the risk of excess sediment
and ash reaching the municipal water treatment plant. A large or severe wildfire in the
Hyalite and Bozeman watersheds could result in a loss of water supply to Bozeman
lasting from a few days to several weeks.
Reduce Fuels Along Road Corridors to Provide Safer Conditions for Fire Fighting
and Evacuations in the Event of a Wildfire. The primary roads in both drainages,
heavily used by the recreating public, are one-way routes during an emergency.
120
Bozeman Municipal Watershed Project
Executive Summary of the ROD
2 November 2011
Reduce the Risk of High Intensity Wildfire Spreading From Forest Service Lands
onto Private Lands that Border these Watersheds. The entire analysis area is
delineated as WUI. Fuels reduction in the WUI will improve the chances of successful
control and suppression of wildfires, which produce the embers and firebrands that are
the primary cause of home ignition.
4 Proposed Action
Reduce potential fire severity and extent by reducing the density and/or continuity of overstory
and understory forest vegetation. Maintain existing meadows and natural openings through use
of prescribed fire. Specific proposed treatments are described below.
Thinning and partial harvest in mature timber stands. Treatments include
mechanical and hand thinning. Yarding systems include tractor, skyline (cable), and
helicopter. Treatments will reduce fuel loads, total crown density and ladder fuels, and
surface fuels. About 50 percent of the existing tree canopy within a unit would be
removed. Fuels will be burned at specific landings or removed as biomass; where this
isn’t possible, fuels will be removed by piling and burning, jackpot burning, or understory
burning.
Shaded fuel breaks. Where thinning units contain ridgelines important for fire
suppression, 60-70 feet will be left between tree trunks.
Thinning in previously harvested small diameter stands. Mechanical or hand
thinning will be used in these areas. If markets allow, some commercial products such
as post and poles or biomass may be removed.
Prescribed burning in thinned stands. Broadcast burning or burning of piles will take
place after thinning to further reduce ground fuels.
Prescribed burning. Where units have natural openings or sparse tree cover,
prescribed burning will be used.
5 Decision, Issues, and Alternatives Considered
5.1 Decision and Rationale
The decision for the Bozeman Municipal Watershed Project is to implement a modified
Alternative 6 with its associated mitigation and monitoring commitments. This alternative was
developed between the Draft and Final EIS to respond to public comments and address
evolving economic realities. Alternative 6 reduces the amount of helicopter harvest and the level
of mechanical treatment in the Gallatin Fringe Inventoried Roadless Area (IRA) in response to
public comments and financial limitations. This alternative was designed to meet the purpose
and need in a manner that is less costly, and thus more realistic in terms of being able to secure
the funding to complete the work. The modifications in my decision from Alternative 6 include
eliminating a prescribed burning unit (#22C) and expanding water quality mitigation and
monitoring. Alternative 6 and the decision weigh the short term effects from implementation
against the long-term benefits that would be realized by this project.
The Importance of Protecting Community Water Supply
The importance of clean municipal water in the long term was the most important consideration
in this decision. The perspectives of the City of Bozeman heavily influenced the decision to
select Alternative 6 and the decision complements the plans the City is developing for fuel
reduction treatments on city properties in the Bozeman Creek drainage.
121
Bozeman Municipal Watershed Project
Executive Summary of the ROD
3 November 2011
Sedimentation Concerns From Our Actions or No Action
As noted in the Final EIS, modeling for these two drainages showed that a wildfire in average
humidity and wind conditions could generate an increase in sediment of 250 percent over
natural conditions. A wildfire in more extreme weather conditions would cause even higher
increases.
Vegetation treatments in Alternative 6 are expected to reduce potential fire size by 54 percent
when a wildfire occurs in the project area. Models showed that a 4,000 acre fire in the project
area after implementation of Alternative 6 would likely increase sediment by only 30 percent
above natural sedimentation levels in the Hyalite Creek drainage, and 54 percent in the
Bozeman Creek drainage. The same size fire, if it were to occur pre-treatment, would produce
sediment increases of 54 percent and 105 percent in those same drainages, respectively. This
analysis convinced the Forest Supervisor that Alternative 6 will be effective in meeting the
purpose and need, and that the No Action alternative is not acceptable when the majority of a
community’s water supply is at stake. The City of Bozeman has verified that the amount of
sediment produced in the implementation of Alternative 6 will not adversely affect the water
treatment facilities and their ability to supply domestic water for Bozeman residents.
Economic Realities, Helicopter Yarding, and Addressing Purpose and Need
In today’s depressed timber market and with the high cost of fuel, there is a high cost
associated with the use of a helicopter for removing logs. As disclosed in the Final EIS, this cost
is justified in some areas because of the benefits related to scenery and water quality. For this
reason, Alternative 6 retains helicopter-yarded units in these key areas, in addition to a mix of
prescribed burning and mechanical treatments. In the event that the timber market recovers
enough to substantially reduce the cost of helicopter use, the decision includes the flexibility to
use helicopters rather than skyline yarding to treat some units identified in Alternative 6.
To compensate for the loss of overall treated acres relative to Alternative 5, Alternative 6
includes fuel breaks on ridgelines to serve as important fire suppression control points.
Roadless Area Values
Alternative 6 was developed in part to respond to public comments and concerns about
treatments within the Gallatin Fringe IRA. This alternative reduces the number of acres to be
treated mechanically by one-third from Alternative 5 (from over 600 to 200 acres), and increases
the number of acres to be prescribed burned (from over 900 to over 1,300 acres). The
treatments in the IRA are near the boundary with private land, near the city’s water facilities, and
in areas where dense vegetation makes it difficult to conduct a prescribed burn. No road
construction will occur in the IRA.
Need for a Forest Plan Amendment
Alternative 6 includes four treatment units totaling 300 acres that will not meet the Forest Plan
scenery standard of Partial Retention in the short term. The trees in these units, which can be
seen from various viewpoints between Bozeman and the National Forest boundary, will be
yarded with a skyline or cable system. These systems can leave pathways that, until they re-
establish vegetation, can appear as unnatural corridors. Should the economy improve, the
decision retains the option of using helicopters to treat these areas to reduce the visual impacts.
122
Bozeman Municipal Watershed Project
Executive Summary of the ROD
4 November 2011
5.2 Consideration of the Issues
Implementing Alternative 6 represents a balance between the purpose and need of the project,
an evaluation of short-term and long-term risks, and the need to protect. Below is a list of the
issues analyzed in the EIS.
Fire and Fuels
Water Quality
Fisheries
Scenery
Inventoried Roadless Lands
Recreation
Air Quality
Forest Vegetation
Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat
Snags
Soils
Weeds
Economics
5.3 Action Alternatives Studied in Detail
Action Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5 Alternative 6
Prescribed
burning –
no pre-thinning
850 acres 1,100 acres 3,982 acres 950 acres 1,575 acres
Mechanical and
hand cutting,
thinning, and
piling of young
trees
1,150 acres 1,150 acres 1,250 acres 1,150 acres 1,100 acres
Partial harvest
and % by harvest
system
1,926 acres
ground based
(23%)
skyline (32%)
helicopter (45%)
3,600 acres
0 3,700 acres
ground based
(21%)
skyline (12%)
helicopter (67%)
2,045 acres
ground based
(37%)
skyline (24%)
helicopter (39%)
Forest Plan
amendment for
visuals
Yes Yes No Yes Yes
Temporary road
construction
7.2 miles 13.5 miles 0 6.9 miles 7.1 miles
Re-opening
existing roads
3 miles 5.4 miles 0 1.7 miles 1.7 miles
Activities within
Gallatin Fringe
IRA
460 acres
helicopter
partial cutting
680 acres
prescribed
burning
740 acres
helicopter
partial cutting
890 acres
prescribed
burning
0 acres
helicopter
partial cutting
1,140 acres
prescribed
burning
660 acres
helicopter
partial cutting
940 acres
prescribed
burning
220 acres
helicopter
partial cutting
1,330 acres
prescribed
burning
123
Bozeman Municipal Watershed Project
Executive Summary of the ROD
5 November 2011
Alternative 1, No Action. No fuels reduction activities would be implemented.
Alternative 2, Proposed Action. A more detailed version of the proposed action
presented to the public during scoping in 2005. Reflects priority treatment areas and one
treatment scenario to address the purpose and need.
Alternative 3. Designed to achieve the desired conditions more aggressively than
Alternative 2.
Alternative 4, No Logging/Prescribed Burning. Combines an effort to meet purpose
and need without thinning large trees using logging methods. This is the agency
response to the request received during scoping to consider an alternative limited only to
prescribed burning with no additional road building.
Alternative 5, Preferred in Draft EIS. Designed to mitigate impacts to scenery,
watershed, and westslope cutthroat trout. Incorporates additional treatment areas in and
near the WUI.
Alternative 6, Selected in Final EIS. Developed after interdisciplinary team reviewed
public comments and further economic analysis was completed.
5.4 Alternatives Considered but not Studied in Detail
Scoping Alternative. This was the original proposal the Forest Service presented
during scoping, containing broad descriptions of treatment areas and treatment types.
Alternative 2 is a more detailed description of this conceptual alternative.
Water Treatment Facility Improvements Alternative. This alternative focused
mitigation on City facilities themselves rather than treatments on National Forest System
lands. Recommendations such as building sediment traps and upgrading the treatment
plant were shared with the City of Bozeman, but as these options are not within the
decision authority of the Forest Service, this is not a viable alternative.
Wildland Fire Use Alternative. This alternative considers using natural fire ignitions to
achieve the project’s purpose and need. Managing fire for resource benefits in this area
would be outweighed by the risks posed by having fire in a municipal watershed
bordered by subdivisions and which received heavy recreation use. The planned ignition
portion of this alternative is included within the alternatives in the EIS.
Wildland Urban Interface/Homes Alternative. Consider fuel reduction treatments only
in the WUI immediately around homes. This alternative did not meet the purpose and
need to reduce fire risk to the municipal watershed and protection of water treatment
facilities.
Climate Change. Comments were received requesting an alternative that addressed
the impacts of the proposal on climate change. However, meaningful and relevant
conclusions on the effects of a relatively minor land management action such as this on
global greenhouse gas emissions or global climate change is neither possible nor
warranted in this case. The affected forests will remain forests, not converted to other
land uses, and long-term forest services and benefits will be maintained.
6 Public Involvement
A public scoping document was sent to agencies and interested individuals on September 19,
2005. This document described the project and identified some preliminary issues. Twenty-nine
comments were received in response to the Notice of Intent for this project, published in the
Federal Register on October 18, 2005, which asked for public comments. The Forest Service
worked closely with the City of Bozeman in developing the purpose and need.
After release of the Draft EIS (August 2007), an open house and two public tours of the project
area were held. The Forest Service received 43 letters from agencies, organizations, groups,
124
Bozeman Municipal Watershed Project
Executive Summary of the ROD
6 November 2011
and individuals. The Forest briefed the Bozeman City Commissioners and continued working
closely with City of Bozeman staff. Another field trip was held in August 2009 for city staff and
interested members of the public. Another public involvement opportunity was provided with the
publication of a supplement to the FEIS. Appendix C of the Final EIS, Appendix B of the
Supplemental FEIS and page 45 of the Record of Decision contain a summary of public
comments and the Forest Service responses to the comments.
7 Determination of Non-significant Forest Plan Amendment
Alternative 6 includes a site-specific Forest Plan amendment to modify the visual quality
standards in the short term for some project units. The only way to economically treat these
units and help meet the purpose and need is to use cable logging. The locations of these units
are on slopes highly visible from the Gallatin Valley. Cable drag corridors tend to appear
unnatural, especially when there is snow on the ground.
This site-specific amendment is not significant, as outlined in Forest Service Handbook 1926.51.
This amendment modifies these standards only for this time and place.
8 Findings Required by Other Laws, Regulations, and Policies
This decision is in compliance with the applicable federal laws and Forest Service regulations
and policies listed below.
National Forest Management Act of 1976
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (of 1969) as amended
Endangered Species Act of 1973
Migratory Bird Treaty Act
Environmental Justice (E.O. 12898)
National Historic Preservation Act
Clean Air Act
Clean Water Act
Gallatin National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan)
Forest Service Manual (FSM) 5150 Fuel Management Policy
9 Implementation
Implementation of the project is expected to begin in 2012 and is expected to take three to five
years to complete.
10 Contact Person
For additional information concerning this decision or the Forest Service appeal process,
contact Teri Seth, Team Leader, Bozeman Ranger District, Gallatin National Forest, 3710
Fallon, Bozeman, MT, 59718, (406) 522-2520.
125