a123.g.akamai.neta123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic...The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis

United States Department of Agriculture

Forest Service

June 2010

Environmental Assessment Grayback-Pintada Rangeland Analysis Area: Bennett Spring, Burd-Raton, East Pinos, Frisco, Martinez-Underwood, Rock Creek, and West Pinos Allotments

Divide Ranger District, Rio Grande National Forest, Rio Grande County, Colorado

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

Environmental Assessment

i

Environmental Assessment (EA) Grayback-Pintada Analysis Area Divide Ranger District, Rio Grande National Forest, Rio Grande County, Colorado Lead Agency: USDA Forest Service

Responsible Official: Thomas Malecek, District Ranger Divide Ranger District Rio Grande National Forest 13308 W. Highway 160 Del Norte, Colorado 81132 (719) 657-3321

For Further Information: Guy Blackwolf, Interdisciplinary Team Leader Divide Ranger District 13308 W. Highway 160 Del Norte, Colorado 81132 (719) 657-3321

This document is available on the internet: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/riogrande/projects/

ABSTRACT

Environmental Assessment – This environmental assessment (EA) is a public document that provides sufficient evidence and analysis for determining whether to prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) or a finding of no significant impact (FONSI). It reveals the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of a proposed action and alternative actions for permitted domestic livestock grazing management within the Grayback-Pintada Range Analysis Area.

This document follows the format established in the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations (40 Code of Federal Regulations {CFR} §1500-1508). It includes a discussion of the need for the proposal; alternatives to the proposal; the physical, biological, social and economic impacts of the proposed action and alternatives; and a listing of agencies and persons consulted. This EA is tiered to the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) and Record of Decision (ROD) for the 1996 Revised Land and Resource Management Plan, as amended (Forest Plan) for the Rio Grande National Forest.

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/riogrande/projects/�


iii

Table of Contents

Acronyms/Abbreviations viSummary viiCh a p te r 1. Purpose of and Need for Action ................................................................... 1

1.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................ 11.2 Background ........................................................................................................ 11.3 Proposed Action .................................................................................................. 11.4 Area and Scope ................................................................................................... 21.5 Purpose of Action ................................................................................................ 21.6 Need for Action ................................................................................................... 31.7 Relationship to Other Acts, Regulations, Permits, and Plans .................................... 111.8 Decisions to be Made Based on this Analys is ........................................................ 151.9 Public Involvement ............................................................................................ 151.10 Key Issues Associated with the Proposed Action .................................................. 161.11 Other Environmental/Social Concerns ................................................................ 171.12 Concerns Outside the Scope of this Analysis ....................................................... 17

Ch a p te r 2. Alternatives Including the Proposed Action ................................................. 182.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................... 182.2 The Process Used to Develop the Alternatives ....................................................... 182.3 Alternatives Considered ...................................................................................... 182.4 Summary Comparison of Alternatives .................................................................. 252.5 Project Design Criteria ....................................................................................... 292.6 Monitoring Measures ......................................................................................... 31

Ch a p te r 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences .............................. 353.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................... 353.2 General Description of the Analys is Area ............................................................. 353.3 Alternatives and Their Response to Key Issues ...................................................... 353.4 Rangeland Resources ......................................................................................... 393.5 Watershed and Aquatic Resources ....................................................................... 533.6 Soil Resources ................................................................................................... 653.7 Socio-Economics ............................................................................................... 693.8 Wildlife, Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive (TES) Species ............................... 763.9 Management Indicator Species ............................................................................ 783.10 Migratory Birds ............................................................................................... 803.11 Other Wildlife Resources .................................................................................. 813.12 Fisheries ......................................................................................................... 833.13 Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive (TES) Plant Species .................................. 853.14 Wilderness, Recreation, and Travel Management ................................................. 863.15 Heritage Resources .......................................................................................... 913.16 Timber Management/Forest Condition ................................................................ 953.17 Noxious Plants ................................................................................................ 96

Grayback-Pintada Range Analysis

iv

3.18 Other Disclosures ............................................................................................ 983.19 Cumulative Effects Summary ............................................................................ 99

Ch a p te r 4. List of Preparers .....................................................................................1014.1 Interdisciplinary Team ......................................................................................101

Ch a p te r 5. Agencies, Tribal Governments, and Individuals Consulted ...........................1025.1 Federal, State, and Local Agencies .....................................................................1025.2 Tribal Governments ..........................................................................................1025.3 Individuals/Organizations ..................................................................................102

Literature Cited 103Glossary 106APPENDIX A: Forest Plan Desired Conditions, Existing Conditions, and the Need for Action relative to the Analysis Area 115

List of Tables

Table 1.6-1. Resource areas and need for action and monitoring (chapter 2, table 2.6-1) where Forest Plan desired conditions are not being met in the analys is area .............................5

Table 1.6-2. Identified benchmark areas in the allotments ...................................................6Table 1.7-1. Prescription categories in the analys is area showing management areas, theme,

setting, and desired condition ................................................................................. 14Table 2.3-1. Alternative 1 – No Action (No Permitted Livestock Grazing) .......................... 19Table 2.3-2. Alternative 2 – Current Livestock Grazing Management, by allotment1 ............ 20Table 2.3-3. Alternative 2 – Current Livestock Grazing Management, key issues ................. 21Table 2.3-4. Potential adaptive management options (Adaptive Management Toolbox) ........ 23Table 2.3-5. Alternative 3 – Adaptive Livestock Grazing Management

(Forest Service Proposed Action) ............................................................................ 24Table 2.4-1. Key issue comparison of the alternatives ....................................................... 26Table 2.4-2. Comparison of alternatives: Summary of effects on other resources ................. 28Table 2.5-1. Project design criteria to be applied by action alternative ................................ 29Table 2.6-1. Implementation monitoring item, method, frequency ...................................... 33Table 2.6-2. Effectiveness monitoring schedule, frequency, and method ............................. 34Table 3.3-1. How alternatives respond to the key issues .................................................... 37Table 3.4-1. Current allotments, acres, grazing season and current authorized stocking rate ... 42Table 3.5-1. Direct, indirect, and cumulative effects for the analysis area (Watershed and

Aquatic Resources analysis) ................................................................................... 63Table 3.6-1. Estimated effects on soils by alternative ........................................................ 66Table 3.7-1. Efficiency analysis (present net value in 2008 dollars) .................................... 75Table 3.8-1. T&E Species with habitat in the analysis area, and effects determination .......... 77Table 3.8-2. Sensitive wildlife species not present or with no habitat in the

analys is area; the project will have no impact upon these species ................................ 77Table 3.8-3. Sensitive wildlife species present or with habitat in the analys is area,

and effects determination ....................................................................................... 78Table 3.9-1. MIS species evaluated ................................................................................ 79Table 3.9-2. MIS species and effects determination .......................................................... 80Table 3.13-1. Sensitive plants suspected in the project area and the effects

determination by alternative ................................................................................... 86Table 3.14-1. Outfitter/guides, season, activity, location ................................................... 90Table A-1. Forest Plan desired conditions, existing condition, and need for

action (if any)1 .................................................................................................... 116


v

List of Figures

Figure 1.4-1. The analysis area relative to the Rio Grande National Forest and local communities ............................................................................................ 4

Figure 1.6-1. Proposed benchmark sites for the analysis area .............................................. 9Figure 1.7-1 Management areas (MAs) for the analysis area ..............................................13Figure 3.4-1. Analysis area capable-suitable acres ...........................................................43Figure 3.5-1. Streams and watersheds within the analysis area ...........................................54Figure 3.5-2. Range allotments within the Backcountry MA prescription ............................55Figure 3.14-1. Recreational opportunity spectrum for the analysis area ...............................88Figure 3.14-2. Roadless areas within the analysis area ......................................................89


vi

Acronyms/Abbreviations AMP Allotment Management Plan AOI Annual Operating Instructions AOSA Association of Official Seed Analysts APHIS Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service AU Animal Unit AUM Animal Unit Month BA Biological Assessment BCP Colorado Landbird Conservation Plan BCR Bird Conservation Region BE Biological Evaluation BLM Bureau of Land Management CDNST Continental Divide National Scenic Trail CDOW Colorado Division of Wildlife CEQ Council for Environmental Quality CFR Code of Federal Regulations DN Decision Notice EA Environmental Assessment EIS Environmental Impact Statement FEIS Final Environmental Impact Statement FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact FSH Forest Service Handbook FSM Forest Service Manual IDT Interdisciplinary Team LAU Lynx Analysis Unit LTA Landtype Association MA Management Area MU Map Unit NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NFMA National Forest Management Act OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration PDC Project Design Criteria P.L. Public Law PNV Present Net Value RGCT Rio Grande Cutthroat Trout RGNF Rio Grande National Forest RNA Research Natural Area ROS Recreation Opportunity Spectrum SLV San Luis Valley SOPA Schedule of Proposed Actions TES Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species UFB Uncompahgre Fritillary Butterfly USC United States Code USDA United States Department of Agriculture


vii

Summary The Rio Grande National Forest (RGNF) proposes to continue to permit livestock grazing within the Grayback-Pintada Range Analysis Area under an adaptive management strategy that would meet or move toward RGNF Forest Plan and project-specific desired conditions.

The analysis area lies within Rio Grande County, Colorado. The future livestock management of six existing cattle and horse (C&H) allotments and one sheep and goat (S&G) allotment is being evaluated in this EA. Livestock grazing has occurred in this area since the late 1800s.

The need for this action is tied to resolving localized disparities between the Forest Plan desired conditions and the existing conditions for this analysis area, within the scope of this analysis. The analysis area was found to be generally meeting or moving toward the Forest-wide desired conditions with the exception of ecological conditions of certain upland rangelands and specific riparian sections. The scope of this analysis is limited to evaluating the appropriate level of livestock grazing, given considerations of rangeland condition and other Forest Plan goals and objectives.

Three alternatives were developed in detail for this EA. Each action alternative was designed to be viable and consistent with Forest Plan direction. Alternatives developed were based on the following themes: (1) No Action (no permitted livestock grazing), (2) Current Livestock Grazing Management, (3) Adaptive Livestock Grazing Management (Forest Service proposed action).

This EA discloses the environmental consequences of implementing the proposed action and alternatives to that action. Based on the effects of the alternatives, the responsible official will decide whether or not to authorize some level of livestock grazing on all, part, or none of the analys is area given considerations of rangeland condition and other Forest Plan goals and objectives. If the decision is made to authorize some level of livestock grazing, the management framework would be described (including standards, guidelines, grazing management, and monitoring) so that desired condition objectives are met or move toward those objectives in an acceptable timeframe.


1

Chapte r 1. Purpose of and Need for Action

1.1 Introduction The Forest Service has prepared this EA in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other relevant Federal and State laws and regulations. This EA discloses the possible direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts that may result from the proposed action and alternatives to the proposed action. It provides the responsible official with the information necessary to make an informed decision. The decision will be documented in a decision notice accompanying the final EA after receiving and considering public comment.

This chapter describes the proposed action, the area and scope, the purpose of and need for action, direction from the Forest Plan (USDA Forest Service 1996b), the decisions to be made, public involvement, the key issues associated with the proposed action, and other environmental and social concerns.

Additional documentation, including more detailed analyses of project area resources, may be found in the project planning record located at the Divide Ranger District Office in Del Norte, Colorado.

1.2 Background The Grayback-Pintada Range Analys is Area (referred to sometimes as the analysis area) consists of six cattle and horse (C&H) allotments and one sheep and goat (S&G) allotment. The allotments included are: Bennett Spring C&H, Burd-Raton C&H, East Pinos C&H, Frisco C&H, Martinez-Underwood S&G, Rock Creek C&H, and West Pinos C&H.

1.3 Proposed Action The proposed action is to continue to permit livestock grazing within the analys is area under an adaptive management strategy (Forest Service Handbook [FSH] 2209.13, chapter 90; Quimby 2007) that would meet or move toward Forest Plan desired conditions and project-specific desired conditions. The proposed action is designed to:

• Meet or adequately move toward Forest Plan desired conditions, • Provide adaptive management flexibility, • Continue improving resource trends or maintain currently satisfactory resource

conditions as appropriate, and • Contribute to the general economic and social vitality of the local area.

The proposed action would result in the development of a current allotment management plan (AMP) for each allotment of the analysis area. The AMP is simply an implementing document for the alternative selected in the decision notice. Chapter 2 describes the proposed action and alternatives in more detail.

The selected alternative would inc lude a monitoring plan to determine whether actions are being implemented as planned, and if so, if the desired results are being attained. Based on monitoring findings, livestock grazing management may be adjusted within specified adaptive management limits as described in this NEPA analysis and the decision notice.


2

1.4 Area and Scope The analysis area contains approximately 99,094 acres; 26,991 acres (about 27 percent) determined to be suitable for the grazing of cattle and sheep through the Forest Plan suitability determination process1

The allotments are predominately forested, with approximately 28 percent spruce-fir (Picea spp.)/fir (Abies spp.), 21 percent aspen (Populus tremuloides), and 13 percent Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii). Other species include Arizona fescue (Festuca arizonica), Thurber’s fescue (Festuca thurberi), mountain muhly (Muhlenbergia montana), ponderosa pine/Douglas-fir/(Pinus ponderosa/Pseudotsuga menziesii), and Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis). Upper elevations inc lude subalpine wet meadows dominated by sedges (Carex spp.), tufted hairgrass (Deschampsia caespitosa), elephanthead (Pedicularis spp.), kobresia (Kobresia spp.) and willow (Salix spp.).

. Much of what is considered unsuitable within the allotment boundaries is due to topography and cover type. The analysis area lies within Rio Grande County and is approximately 5 to 10 miles south of the communities of South Fork and Del Norte, Colorado (see figure 1.4-1). The future livestock management of the allotments within the analysis area is being evaluated in this EA.

The scope of this analysis is limited to evaluating the appropriate level of permitted livestock grazing, considering rangeland condition and other Forest Plan goals and objectives. The analys is does not address recreation livestock, animals authorized under livestock use permits (where the primary purpose is not livestock production), or outfitter and guide livestock.

1.5 Purpose of Action The purpose of this action is to provide forage for permitted livestock in a manner that maintains or moves conditions toward achieving Forest Plan objectives and desired conditions. Providing forage for permitted livestock is desirable in this analysis area because of the following:

1) Where consistent with other Forest Plan goals and objectives, there is congressional intent to allow livestock grazing on suitable lands (Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960; Wilderness Act of 1964; Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974; Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976; and National Forest Management Act of 1976).

2) The analysis area contains lands identified as suitable for livestock grazing in the Forest Plan, and continued livestock grazing is consistent with the goals, objectives, standards, and guidelines of the Forest Plan (Forest Plan, chapters I, II, and III).

3) It is Forest Service policy to make forage available to qualif ied livestock operators from lands suitable for livestock grazing consistent with land management plans (36 CFR §222.2(c); and Forest Service Manual [FSM] 2203.1).

4) It is Forest Service policy to continue contributions to the economic and social well-being of people by providing opportunities for economic diversity and by promoting

1 Rangeland Suitability Determination Including a Map of Suitable Rangelands and Active Livestock Grazing Allotments on the Rio Grande National Forest – A Report to Address the Deputy Under Secretary’s Discretionary Appeal Review Decision Direction for the Rio Grande National Forest’s 1996 Revised Forest Plan FEIS and ROD (May 2003) (unpublished report on file at the headquarters for the Rio Grande National Forest, Monte Vista, Colorado).


3

stability for communities that depend on rangeland resources for their livelihood (FSM 2202.1; and Forest Plan, pages II-4–II-6).

5) The RGNF Forest Plan, which directs the management of lands contained within this analys is area, has as one of its objectives to: “Supply ample forage to sustain wildlife and permitted-livestock populations without damaging range condition” (Forest Plan, page II-2).

1.6 Need for Action Livestock grazing is a discretionary action by the Forest Service and there is an overall need to analyze the possible effects in order to continue or modify the grazing authorization. There is an overall need for greater management flexibility to cope with fluctuations in environmental and social conditions, including annual changes in weather; visitor-use pattern changes; permittee requests for reasonable operational adjustments; and unforeseen issues. More specifically, the need for this action is tied to any important resource, social, or economic disparity that was found when comparing the existing condition in the analysis area to the Forest Plan desired conditions, as determined by the interdisciplinary team (ID team) and authorized officer on a site-specific basis. The need for action is further defined by the scope of the analysis (the analys is is limited to evaluating the appropriate level of livestock grazing, given considerations of rangeland condition and other Forest Plan goals and objectives).

The ID team reviewed each of the Forest-wide desired conditions from the Forest Plan relative to this analys is area to see if a change in livestock management was needed. These comparisons were evaluated on a resource-specific basis by an ID team (see chapter 4) comprised of ecology, wildlife, hydrology, soils, fisheries, and range management field personnel, and a responsible official from the RGNF.

Next, the ID team reviewed specific rangeland condition and trend information for the analysis area. Rangeland trend was determined where possible by comparing historical data (transects, plots, inspection records, and photographs) with current data to determine if conditions had improved (upward), declined (downward), or remained the same (static). In areas where no historic data were available, trend was approximated based on current information. Riparian areas and streams were evaluated using onsite surveys, evaluation of sedge vegetation within the greenline, and by comparing stream characteristics with reference stream areas. The analysis area is generally meeting or moving toward the Forest-wide desired conditions, except for riparian conditions in selected stream reaches, and ecological condition of certain upland rangelands and soils as shown in table 1.6-1. There were sites identified by the ID team which need management attention. These areas have been identified as “benchmarks” within each pasture. Often, these benchmarks represent areas where there are important disparities between the Forest Plan desired conditions and the existing conditions. In these cases, the existing conditions, desired conditions, and the need for actions have been identif ied. However, in areas where no disparities were identif ied, benchmarks have also been established so that monitoring would verify that over time management continues to meet desired conditions. Benchmark locations are identified in table 1.6-2. Results of specialist analyses are included in the project record.


4

Figure 1.4-1. The analysis area relative to the Rio Grande National Forest and local communities


5

Table 1.6-1. Resource areas and need for action and monitoring (chapter 2, table 2.6-1) where Forest Plan desired conditions are not being met in the analysis area

Forest Plan Desired Condition Existing Condition Need for Action Water and Aquatic Resources Healthy watersheds operate in a dynamic equilibrium between extreme natural events. Stream health is maintained through natural processes. Streams have the expected range of habitat features (for example healthy riparian vegetation, stable banks, over-wintering pools, and healthy aquatic organisms). Riparian areas and floodplains are healthy, fully functioning ecosystems. Vegetation is diverse and generally in a later-seral condition, to provide site stability (Forest Plan, page I-2).

Overall, streambank health is fully functional throughout the analysis area with some decreased streambank stabilization in selected low-gradient stream reaches; there are isolated occurrences of elevated utilization that exceed guidelines in localized riparian areas and meadows.

Manage livestock distribution to reduce streambank hoof shear and to reduce forage utilization to acceptable levels that will meet or move toward Forest Plan guidelines.

Range Resource Vegetation is managed for a mixture of seral stages, with most of the rangelands in mid- to high-seral stages. The specific desired condition is identified in each AMP (Forest Plan, page I-2).

Desirable native forage species are present throughout the analysis area in cover and frequency with some decline in isolated areas. Conditions for less desirable species and weeds exist in isolated locations.

Manage livestock grazing to improve distribution and utilization. Adjust timing and intensity of grazing in pastures to ensure increases in desirable forage species.

Soils Resource Healthy soils provide certain products such as wood, forage for livestock and wildlife, water, recreation, minerals and aesthetic benefits. The benefits can be continued for the long term, provided soil health remains within acceptable limits (Forest Plan, page I-3).

Effective ground cover is present in most of the analysis area. Bare ground cover, at risk for erosive processes, exists in isolated areas along streambanks and some upland areas.

Manage livestock grazing to reduce soil erosion rates within acceptable limits.


6

Table 1.6-2. Identified benchmark areas in the allotments

Pasture/Benchmark Existing Condition Desired Condition Need for Action Bennett Spring Allotment Silver Meeting or moving toward desired conditions South Rock Creek Meeting or moving toward desired conditions Spring Creek Meeting or moving toward desired conditions Burd/Raton Allotment American Gulch/Dry Gulch

Isolated areas of increased utilization along Upper Dry Creek and upper meadows.

Meet Forest Plan or AMP forage utilization guidelines.

Monitor utilization and manage livestock to prevent/reduce impacts to meet Forest Plan guidelines.

Overlap/potential conflicts with sheep trailing in opening above sheep corrals.

Meet Forest Plan or AMP forage utilization guidelines.

Monitor timing/trailing of livestock and grazing.

Inventory and maintenance of all existing fences needed; some fencing left over from past private land exchanges.

Effective livestock control with consideration to wildlife friendly construction or upgrades as needed.

Assign fence repair schedule to permittee in AOI and AMP.

East Pinos Allotment Burro-Bennett Isolated occurrences of

excessive streambank disturbance and upland utilization occur along Burro and Bennett Creeks.

Healthy riparian vegetation contributing to stable streambanks

Manage livestock to reduce potential for streambank disturbance and excess upland utilization

Fuchs Reservoir Increased utilization on benches above creeks.

Healthy riparian vegetation contributing to stable streambanks.

Manage livestock to reduce potential for streambank disturbance and excess upland utilization.

Munger Canyon Inadequate water and fencing for timing of rotation and distribution.

Water and fencing sufficient to hold cattle for time in pasture.

Construct new fencing; reconstruct and build new watering systems to manage livestock.

Frisco Allotment Cherry/Milk/Lower Unit Meeting or moving toward desired conditions East Frisco Uneven riparian area

utilization along localized areas of East Pinos Creek.

Meet Forest Plan or AMP guidelines for forage utilization.

Monitor and manage livestock to prevent/reduce impacts and overutilization.


7

Pasture/Benchmark Existing Condition Desired Condition Need for Action High Country Disproportionate

utilization in meadows and riparian areas near Frisco Lake.



West Frisco Elevated utilization in localized areas of lower Middle and West Frisco Creeks.



Martinez-Underwood S&G Allotment Bonafacio Meeting or moving toward desired conditions Deadman Meeting or moving toward desired conditions Nicomodes Meeting or moving toward desired conditions Upper Limekiln Meeting or moving toward desired conditions Rock Creek Allotment Archery Range Meeting or moving toward desired conditions Lower Rock Creek Isolated areas of

increased utilization along lower North Rock Creek.


Manage livestock to prevent/reduce impacts and overutilization.

Rock Creek Meadow Meeting or moving toward desired conditions Upper Rock Creek Localized elevated

riparian utilization along upper North Rock Creek and meadows.



West Pinos Allotment Sanderson Increased riparian area

utilization along lower Schrader Creek.



Schrader/Horse Canyon Meeting or moving toward desired conditions Shady/Castle Rock Uneven riparian

utilization along upper Shady Creek and meadows.



Upper West Pinos Meeting or moving toward desired conditions Willow Park Isolated areas of soil

erosion due to trailing near water development

Maintain soil and vegetation to reduce localized erosion and compaction

Manage livestock and water sources to reduce potential for advanced erosion near developments

1.6.1 Existing Condition and Proposed Benchmark Areas This section describes the allotment-wide existing conditions, and identif ies proposed benchmark areas for each allotment in the analysis area, including the need for action within the scope of the analysis (see figure 1.6-1). It focuses on identifying on-the-ground existing conditions in an effort to establish issues for each allotment. Information regarding management alternatives to address identif ied issues is included in chapter 2.


8

1.6.1.1 Bennett Spring C&H Allotment Bennett Spring C&H Allotment includes three pastures: Spring Creek, Silver Mountain, and South Rock Creek. Bennett Spring is currently authorized for 234 cow/calf pairs for a season of June 21 to September 20. The majority of the rangeland soils are in properly functioning condition based on observations during site visits, soil examinations, and plant cover evaluations (ocular estimates and Daubenmire cover-frequency analysis). Isolated areas have soil concerns primarily due to livestock trailing. Vegetation standards are meeting or moving toward Forest Plan desired conditions with an overall upward trend. Overall, this allotment is meeting or moving toward Forest Plan standards and guidelines.

1.6.1.2 Burd-Raton C&H Allotment The Burd-Raton C&H Allotment is composed of one major pasture with two primary principal grazing areas in the American Gulch and Dry Gulch areas. This allotment is currently stocked at 60 head of cattle for a period of 42 days (June 11 to July 22). Due to light use by cattle, conditions have improved since the 1950s to 1960s leading to an upward trend in soil and vegetation condition. There is some compaction of soils where bedding grounds for sheep were used in the past, but those areas are recovering. Riparian utilization along upper Dry Creek and upper meadow areas occasionally exceed utilization guidelines in isolated areas. There is an opportunity to increase both time (15 days) and/or livestock number (60 head to 75 head) on this allotment; this is further analyzed in chapter 3 under “Alternative 3 (Adaptive Management).” Any increases in number or season would require meeting or moving toward meeting Forest Plan standards and guidelines as well as any range improvement requirements, prior to permanently lengthening the season, indicated by current monitoring. The final decision will be considered by the Deciding Officer. The allotment carrying capacity (AUM basis) will not be exceeded.

1.6.1.3 East Pinos C&H Allotment The East Pinos C&H Allotment is divided into three pastures: Munger Canyon, Burro-Bennett, and Fuchs Reservoir, and is authorized for 150 cow/calf pairs from June 26 until September 20. There are areas of isolated soil and riparian concerns near Bennett Creek and Burro Creek where utilization occasionally exceeds guidelines; some creek crossings show signs of temporary destabilization. The lack of adequate water and fencing in the Munger Canyon Pasture causes cattle to move out of this pasture and travel along the East Fork Pinos Creek/Burro Creek corridor through private lands ahead of rotation schedule, resulting in areas of bank shear along creeks due to hoof action. The rotation alternates each year and monitoring has shown that recovery is occurring after each grazing period, but plans are being made to mitigate rotation, water, and fencing issues. There is hummocking of meadow soils, some of which may be due to historical grazing. Illegal ATV (all-terrain vehic le) activity near Fitton Guard Station off Trail 873 also contributes to some bank instability and degraded soil conditions in meadows. The forest recreation program is considering options to mitigate damage from illegal ATV activity including fencing off portions near Trail 873, and reconstruction of the corduroy timber crossing along a portion of Trail 328. Some projects were begun in 2009.


9

Figure 1.6-1. Proposed benchmark sites for the analysis area


10

1.6.1.4 Frisco C&H Allotment There are five pastures within the Frisco C&H Allotment: Cherry/Milk, Lower Unit, East Frisco, West Frisco and High Country. The Frisco Allotment is authorized for 130 cow/calf pairs from June 15 to September 15. Isolated occurrences of overutilization occur along riparian and some meadow areas near East Pinos Creek and near the San Francisco Lakes at the southern end of the allotment. Current site visits and observations, plus recent trend analysis, indicate that soil and vegetation parameters are acceptable and static or upward in trend. A consideration to increase time (15 days) on this allotment is analyzed under Alternative 3. Any increases in number or season would require meeting or moving toward meeting Forest Plan standards and guidelines as well as any range improvement requirements, prior to permanently lengthening the season, indicated by current monitoring. The final decision will be considered by the Deciding Officer. The allotment carrying capacity (AUM basis) will not be exceeded.

1.6.1.5 Martinez-Underwood S&G Allotment Martinez S&G Allotment is divided into four pastures: Bonafacio, Deadman, Nicomodes, and Upper Lime Kiln. This allotment has not been grazed for approximately 9 years. The allotment is currently permitted to stock at a rate of 750 ewe/lamb pairs and three horses (May–June) and 1,000 ewe/lamb pairs (October). The grazing periods are divided seasonally between May 21 to June 30 and October 6 to October 30. Impacts due to current grazing are not evident since this allotment has not been grazed since at least 2000. Currently, vegetation and soils are in good condition and trend is considered to be upward. Options to continue grazing or to change the status to a forage reserve allotment are analyzed under Alternative 3.

1.6.1.6 Rock Creek C&H Allotment The Rock Creek C&H Allotment contain four pastures: Rock Creek Meadows (Burnt Gulch), Archery Range, Lower Rock Creek, and Upper Rock Creek. Authorized use for this allotment is 82 cow/calf pairs for a season of June 11 to September 27. Under a low stocking rate, soil and vegetation conditions are meeting or moving toward Forest Plan standards and guidelines. In the Burnt Gulch area water use and availability is a concern because there has been sharing of one water system between the Forest Service permittee and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) permittee, creating a challenge in the timing of use between adjacent pastures and jurisdictions. There are also fencing issues which need to be addressed regarding utilization and boundary trespass between BLM and Forest Service allotments, which could lead to resource concerns in the future. Some instances of overutilization occur in riparian and meadow areas near lower North Rock Creek and Val Verde areas, as well as isolated areas near upper North Rock Creek. The Val Verde area is not a part of the Rock Creek Allotment and may receive grazing by livestock trailing through from Bennett Spring as well as drift from the Rock Creek Allotment due to inadequate fencing.

1.6.1.7 West Pinos C&H Allotment The West Pinos C&H Allotment is composed of five pastures: Sanderson Unit, Schrader/Horse Creek, Willow Park, Shady/Castle Rock, and Upper West Pinos. This allotment is stocked at 330 cow/calf pairs from June 16 to September 30. Local trailing in the Willow Park Pasture has caused soil erosion features in localized areas. There are some isolated areas of concern where poor condition, over-utilized vegetation in riparian and meadow areas along Upper Shady Creek could be improved. The overall allotment is well managed and conditions are meeting or


11

moving toward Forest Plan guidelines. An increase in the season (10 days) for grazing is analyzed in chapter 3. Any increases in number or season would require meeting or moving toward meeting Forest Plan guidelines as well as any range improvement requirements, prior to permanently lengthening the season, indicated by current monitoring. The final decis ion will be considered by the Deciding Officer. The allotment carrying capacity (AUM bas is) will not be exceeded.

1.7 Relationship to Other Acts, Regulations, Permits, and Plans It is Forest Service policy to operate in a manner that ensures the protection of public health, safety, and the environment through compliance with all applicable Federal and State laws, regulations, orders, and other requirements. This EA considers whether actions described under its alternatives would result in a violation of any Federal, State, or local laws or requirements (40 CFR §1508.27); or would require a permit, license, or other entitlement (40 CFR §1502.25). By tier ing this project to the FEIS (final environmental impact statement) and ROD (record of decision) for the Forest Plan, it is expected that all applicable requirements would be met.

1.7.1 Forest Plan This EA is tiered to the FEIS (USDA Forest Service 1996b) and ROD for the Forest Plan2

This project is designed to achieve the Forest Plan’s Forest-wide desired conditions (Forest Plan, pages I-1–I-6) and the Regional and Forest-wide objectives (Forest Plan, pages II-1–II-6). Lands within the RGNF are managed for a particular emphasis or theme known as a management area (MA). Each MA in the Forest Plan has a description of the physical setting for the area, a description of the desired conditions for the area, and a list of the standards and guidelines that apply to the area. The individual MAs for the analysis area are shown in figure 1.7-1 and listed in table 1.7-1.

. All alternatives (presented later in chapter 2) comply with these documents as well, unless specifically noted. The Forest Plan provides guidance for all management activities; establishes management standards and guidelines; and describes resource management practices, levels of resource production, people-carrying capacities, and the availability and suitability of lands for resource management. Additionally, the Forest Plan provides the framework to guide the daily resource management operations of the RGNF, and subsequent land and resource management decisions made during project planning. NFMA requires that resource plans and permits, contracts, and other instruments issued for the use and occupancy of Federal lands be consistent with the Forest Plan. Site-specific project decisions must also be consistent with the Forest Plan, unless the Forest Plan is modified by amendment. This EA is a project-level analys is and evaluates the proposed action’s conformance with the Forest Plan and other regulations.

The Forest Plan aggregates similar MAs into “prescription categories” that have similarities in theme, setting, and desired conditions. The analysis area contains four prescription categories as 2 Forest Plan (includes the ROD) is available online at: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/riogrande/projects/plan/index.shtml. The FEIS is available online at: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/riogrande/projects/feis/index.shtml. These documents are also available for review at the headquarters for the Rio Grande National Forest, Monte Vista, Colorado.

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/riogrande/projects/plan/index.shtml�

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/riogrande/projects/feis/index.shtml�


12

follows (see table 1.7-1): (1) Prescription Category 3 is a Backcountry MA; (2) Prescription Category 4 contains a Dispersed Recreation MA; (3) Prescription Category 5 contains the Winter Range, Forest Products, and General Forest/Rangelands MAs; (4) Prescription Category 6 contains the Grassland Resource Production MA.


13

Figure 1.7-1 Management areas (MAs) for the analysis area


14

Table 1.7-1. Prescription categories in the analysis area showing management areas, theme, setting, and desired condition

Management AreaTheme, Setting, and Desired Condition

by Prescription Category 1

Prescription Category 3 3.3 Backcountry (31%)

Ecological values are in balance with human occupancy, and consideration is given to both. Resource management activities may occur, but natural ecological processes and resulting patterns normally predominate. Although these areas are characterized by predominately natural-appearing landscapes, an array of management tools may be used to restore or maintain relatively natural patterns of ecological process. This results in some evidence of human activities. Users expect to experience some isolation from the sights and sounds of people, in a setting that offers some challenge and risk. Restrictions on motorized travel may vary from area to area, or season to season.

Prescription Category 4 4.3 Dispersed Recreation (2%)

Ecological values are managed to be compatible with recreation use, but are maintained well within the levels necessary to maintain overall ecological systems. Resource use for other values is not emphasized and has little impact on ecological structure, function, or composition. Sights and sounds of people are expected, and may even be desired. Motorized transportation is common.

Prescription Category 5

5.11 General Forest/Rangelands 5.13 Forest Products 5.41 Deer and Elk Winter Range (56%)

These Forest areas are managed for a mix of forest products, forage, and wildlife habitat, while protecting scenery and offering recreation opportunities. Ecological sustainability will be protected, while emphasizing selected biological structures and compositions which consider the range of natural variability. These lands often display high levels of investment, use, and activity; density of facilities; and evidence of vegetative treatment. Users expect to see other people and evidence of human activities. Facilities supporting the various resource uses are common. Motorized transportation is common.

Prescription Category 6 6.6 Grassland Resource Production (11%)

These areas are primarily non-forested ecosystems that are managed to meet a variety of ecological and human needs. Ecological conditions will be maintained while emphasizing selected biological (grasses and other vegetation) structures and compositions which consider the range of natural variability. These lands often display high levels of investment, use and activity; density of facilities; and evidence of human activities. Facilities supporting the various resource uses are common. Motorized transportation is common.

1

Livestock grazing is appropriate and authorized within each of these MAs (per RGNF Fore st Plan, chapter IV).


15

1.8 Decisions to be Made Based on this Analysis This EA discloses the environmental consequences of implementing the proposed action and alternatives to that action. A separate decision notice will explain the management and environmental reasons for selecting an alternative to be implemented. The notice will disclose the rationale for choosing the selected alternative, discuss the rationale for rejecting other alternatives, and disclose how the decision responds to the relevant issues.

The decision the responsible official will make in the decision notice is whether or not to authorize some level of livestock grazing on all, part, or none of the analysis area given considerations of rangeland condition, Forest Plan goals and objectives, and public input. If the decision is made to authorize some level of livestock grazing, the management framework would be described (including standards and guidelines, grazing management, and monitoring) so that desired condition objectives are met or that movement occurs toward those objectives in an acceptable timeframe. Once a decision is made, term grazing permits, AMPs, and annual operating instructions (AOIs) may be issued if compliant with the NEPA-based decision. These documents are simply implementing documents and do not constitute decision points. These items are discussed as follows.

1.8.1 Implementation (Term Grazing Permits, AMPs, and AOIs) Term Grazing Permits ~ authorize a permit holder to graze livestock (specifies numbers, kind, class, and season of use) on specific National Forest System lands. The permit holder is required by the permit to graze under specific terms and conditions designed for resource protection and enhancement, according to the NEPA-based decision. Term livestock grazing permits are typically issued for 10 years. Term livestock grazing permits by themselves do not authorize the permittee to develop water, construct fences, build roads or trails, manipulate vegetation, or otherwise disturb the ground.

Allotment Management Plans (AMPs) ~ an administrative document developed by the Forest Service that incorporates the decisions made in the decision notice from the EA. The AMP is not a decision document, but simply outlines specific management requirements and actions from the decision notice.

Annual Operating Instructions (AOIs) ~ on an annual basis, these documents provide instructions to the term permit holder (called a permittee) regarding management requirements, projects, and agreements for the current grazing season. They are not decision documents, but simply implement the decision made in the decision notice.

Currently, there are seven term livestock grazing permits authorizing livestock grazing in the analys is area. There are no current AMPs for the permits; the existing management protocol is being directed by AOIs.

1.9 Public Involvement The RGNF invited public comment and participation on this project through the schedule of proposed actions (SOPA). This project has remained on the SOPA from July 2008 to the present time. Additional scoping included public notice in the Valley Courier (the newspaper of record), a scoping letter, and posting on the Forest website. A scoping letter was mailed October 28, 2008, to potentially concerned public, Tribal governments, and State and other Federal agencies. The Forest received four responses to the October 2008 scoping letter. Chapter 5 lists the agencies and Tribal governments contacted. The mailing list is available upon request within the


16

project record. Scoping acknowledged concerns about livestock grazing management and economic stability. An EA for comment was made available for public review on March 31, 2010. One letter of support was received within the 30-day comment period.

1.10 Key Issues Associated with the Proposed Action An issue is an effect on a physical, biological, social, or economic resource (and is not an activity in itself, but the projected effects of the activity that create the issue). For example, livestock grazing is an activity, but its effects on a resource can form an issue. A “key” issue suggests different courses of actions, and thus, suggests alternatives. The Forest Service identif ies key issues through contact/discussion (scoping) internally and with other agencies and the general public.

The ID team used scoping comments from the public, Tribal governments, State, and other Federal agencies to identify three “key issues” to be analyzed with the proposed action. The key issues, along with the indicator(s) of each issue, are presented below (a brief explanation of the indicator is also provided).

Key Issue 1: Management Flexibility

Frequently changing environmental and social conditions, including, but not limited to, annual weather fluctuations such as drought, permittee requests for operational flexibility, competition between livestock and wildlife for forage (spatially and temporally), changes in visitor use patterns and desires, Forest Service management desire to annually minimize resource conflicts, and unforeseen changes require the Forest Service to regularly adjust management actions to current conditions and demands. Historically rigid stocking and grazing system regimes inadequately address annual management flexibility needs.

Indicator:

The indicator is intended to provide a qualitative measure for how well an alternative responds to the Forest Service’s need to make annual management modifications.

Adaptability to change (i.e., management flexibility to readily adapt to current environmental and social conditions, including forage availability and current conditions).

Key Issue 2: Riparian Area Health

Livestock grazing may have cumulative effects on riparian areas across the analysis area, through trampling, vegetation loss, reductions in water quality (sedimentation), and increases in erosion potential. Benchmarks (see figure 1.6-1) have been established in specific riparian areas throughout the analysis area.

Indicator:

Key Issue 3: Socio-economic Value of Livestock Grazing

Duration and timing of livestock grazing in benchmarks and key areas identif ied in the analysis area.

Permitted domestic livestock grazing in the analysis area is valuable to the local social and economic vitality. Livestock-based agriculture is historically and culturally important to the San Luis Valley.

Indicator: Present net value (PNV); the indicator is intended to give a quantitative measure of financial efficiency by alternative.


17

1.11 Other Environmental/Social Concerns No other environmental or social concerns were identif ied through scoping. Many comments received from the public during the scoping/comment period were not considered key issues because they are mitigated in the same way for all alternatives, or are not signif icantly affected by any alternative, or are outside of Forest Service jurisdiction. Some concerns are already regulated by Forest Plan standards and guidelines. The resource concerns with the greatest potential to be impacted—while not key issues—are addressed in chapter 3.

1.12 Concerns Outside the Scope of this Analysis The scope of this analysis is limited to evaluating the appropriate level of permitted livestock grazing, given considerations of rangeland condition and other Forest Plan goals and objectives (from section 1.4). No concerns identified during scoping were beyond the scope of this analys is.


18

Chapte r 2. Alternatives Including the Proposed Action

2.1 Introduction This chapter describes and compares the three alternatives—the no-action alternative and two action alternatives—developed to meet the purpose of and need for action and address the key issues identif ied in chapter 1. This chapter also provides a summary of the environmental consequences of the alternatives from chapter 3.

2.2 The Process Used to Develop the Alternatives The ID team (listed in chapter 4) considered the elements listed below when they developed the alternatives for this analysis:

• Key issues identif ied in chapter 1 (section 1.10). • The purpose of and the need for this project identif ied in chapter 1 (sections 1.5 and 1.6). • The goals, objectives, and desired conditions for the analysis area as described in the

Forest Plan for the RGNF (sections 1.6 and 1.7, and appendix A). • Comments made by the public, the State, and other agencies during the scoping process. • The laws, regulations, and policies that govern land management on national forests

(section 1.7). • Site-specific resource information.

2.3 Alternatives Considered Three alternatives were developed for this EA. Each action alternative was designed to be a viable alternative consistent with Forest Plan direction. Alternatives developed were based on the following themes : (1) No Action (no permitted livestock grazing), (2) Current Livestock Grazing Management, and (3) Adaptive Livestock Grazing Management. The alternatives represent a range of reasonable alternatives given the key issues for the proposed action. References to “permitted livestock” apply to animals authorized under a grazing permit (i.e., where the primary purpose is livestock production) and is not intended to be applicable to recreation livestock, animals authorized under livestock use permits (i.e., where the primary purpose is not livestock production), or outfitter and guide livestock.

Three alternatives are described and analyzed in detail as follows:

Alternative 1 – No Action (no permitted livestock grazing)

Alternative 2 – Current Livestock Grazing Management (as applied on-the-ground over the past 3 to 5 years)

Alternative 3 – Adaptive Livestock Grazing Management (Forest Service proposed action)

2.3.1.1 Alternative 1 – No Action (No Permitted Livestock Grazing) CEQ regulations for implementing NEPA require that a no-action alternative be developed as a benchmark from which the agency can evaluate the proposed action. No action in livestock management planning is defined as no permitted livestock grazing (FSH 2209.13). The


19

permitting of livestock grazing has been found by the courts to be a discretionary action that must be evaluated under NEPA, and a NEPA-based decision made to authorize livestock grazing (except as otherwise provided by the Rescissions Act of 1995 and other related legislation). This alternative proposes to discontinue permitted livestock grazing within the analysis area. The term grazing permits would be cancelled and not renewed under the time period provisions of FSH 2209.13; the allotments would become vacant. If deemed appropriate at a future time, a separate decision signed by the authorized officer could permanently close the allotments. This decision would require removal of allotment infrastructure or reassignment of maintenance. Optionally, a future NEPA decision could be made to make the allotments available as forage reserve allotments or as an addition in whole or in part to other allotments. However, these actions would require additional analys is and decisions. Table 2.3-1 provides a summary of how alternative 1 responds to the key issues (from section 1.10).

The alternative would fully resolve livestock grazing impacts to the riparian resources (key issue 2). Management flexibility associated with livestock management would be removed because grazing is one tool that can be used to manage vegetation in order to achieve Forest Plan desired conditions (key issue 1). The alternative would not recognize the socio-economic value of livestock grazing.

Table 2.3-1. Alternative 1 – No Action (No Permitted Livestock Grazing)

Component Action Key Issue 1: Management Flexibility Grazing system None Kind of animals None Class of animals None Season None Livestock numbers None Adaptability to change

Inflexible. Livestock management as a resource tool would be eliminated. The ability to respond to annual changes in biological, physical, and social changes/desires relative to livestock grazing would be non-existent.

Key Issue 2: Riparian Area Health Duration and timing of livestock grazing in benchmarks and key areas identified in the analysis area

None; there would be no permitted livestock grazing.

Key Issue 3: Socio-economic Value of Livestock Grazing Present Net Value (PNV)

-$12,101

2.3.1.2 Alternative 2 – Current Livestock Grazing Management (as applied on-the-ground over the past 3 to 5 years) This alternative would maintain current livestock grazing management practices; all six C&H allotments have been actively stocked and managed over the past 3 to 5 years. Martinez-Underwood S&G Allotment has not been stocked for approximately 9 years. Term grazing permits would continue to authorize livestock grazing. Forest Plan standard and guidelines, the Watershed Conservation Practices Handbook (FSH 2509.25), and existing project design criteria (see section 2.5) are incorporated by reference. An AMP would be developed for each allotment. There would be no changes in permitted numbers of livestock, permitted season of use, kind or


20

class of livestock, or grazing system (other than minor changes made, by exception, in the AOI). Table 2.3-2 shows the current permitted livestock grazing on the analysis area for alternative 2.

Table 2.3-2. Alternative 2 – Current Livestock Grazing Management, by allotment

Allotment

1

Number of Livestock Season Bennett Spring C&H 234 cow/calf pairs (708 HMs)

935 AUMs June 21–September 20

Burd-Raton C&H 60 cow/calf pairs (83 HMs) 109 AUMs

June 11–July 22

East Pinos C&H 150 cow/calf pairs (429 HMs) 566 AUMs

June 26–September 20

Frisco C&H 130 cow/calf pairs (397 HMs) 525 AUMs


Martinez-Underwood S&G 750 ewe/lamb pairs, 3 horses (May–June); 1,000 ewe/lamb pairs (October) (1,837 HMs) 371 AUMs

May 21–June 30; October 6–October 30

Rock Creek C&H 82 cow/calf pairs (294 HMs) 388 AUMs


West Pinos C&H 330 cow/calf pairs (1,160 HMs) 1,531 AUMs


1

Table 2.3-3 provides a summary of how alternative 2 responds to the key issues (from section 1.10).

Common to all allotments: Grazing system is deferred-rotation.

Under this alternative, if monitoring shows that Forest Plan desired conditions are not being met or satisfactory progress is not occurring toward meeting the desired conditions—and all administrative actions have been exhausted—then the Forest Service has limited flexibility to make changes without completing a new NEPA analysis. Overall, this alternative would be relatively inflexible (key issue 1). Existing concerns in selected reaches of riparian areas would be expected to continue and/or may not recover as quickly as desired (key issue 2). This alternative would allow continued economic benefits from livestock grazing (key issue 3).


21

Table 2.3-3. Alternative 2 – Current Livestock Grazing Management, key issues

Component Action Key Issue 1: Management Flexibility Grazing system The grazing system would be inflexible on an annual basis to respond to

biological, physical, and social needs within the constraints of the Forest Plan. A deferred-rotation grazing system would continue to be implemented in each allotment. Minor changes could be made by exception in the AOI.

Kind of animals Livestock will be cattle on all allotments except Martinez-Underwood (which is sheep and 3 head horses).

Class of animals Class of livestock will be cows, calves, or yearlings for six C&H allotments, and ewes, lambs and horses (3head) for one S&G allotment.

Season The grazing season would be relatively inflexible from year to year. Minor changes could be made by exception in the AOI.

Livestock numbers Livestock numbers would be relatively inflexible. A total of 986 cattle (3,072 HMs) and 1,000 head of sheep (1,837 HMs) would be permitted on the allotments. Minor changes could be made by exception in the AOI.

Adaptability to change

1 Relatively inflexible. The ability to change the grazing system, season of use, and livestock numbers is unresponsive to annual changes in biological, physical, and social changes. Annual changes made in the AOI are by exception only.


There would be minimal management options to control permitted livestock use in riparian areas. Previously established moderate to heavy use patterns in key riparian areas may tend to re-occur annually. Riparian areas may improve at a slow rate. Minor modifications to grazing practices could be made by exception in the AOI.

Key Issue 3: Socio-economic Value of Livestock Grazing Present Net Value The present net value would be -$138,324 (a measure of financial efficiency).

1

While current management has changed over time to better address certain resource concerns and known issues, there are places where management is still insufficient in meeting or moving toward desired conditions in acceptable time frames. Under this alternative, if monitoring shows that Forest Plan desired conditions are not being met or satisfactory progress is not occurring toward meeting the desired conditions, and all administrative actions have been exhausted, then the Forest Service has limited flexibility to make changes without completing new NEPA analys is. Conducting new NEPA analys is each time a change is needed requires considerable time and expense. Existing improvements would continue to be maintained as assigned in term grazing permits and may be re-constructed once the useful life has been met and the need identif ied. No new improvements would be developed without conducting a new NEPA analys is.

Livestock grazing carrying capacity is based on historical stocking rates and site-specific project design criteria (section 2.5). Carrying capacity should be based on impacts of historical and current stocking rates, grazing management, and weather. Adjustments in carrying capacity should be made through monitoring over time to ensure progress toward desired resource conditions is accomplished (position statement on grazing capacity adopted by the Society for Range Management, February 1999).

This alternative would be relatively inflexible (key issue 1) and it would only minimally resolve livestock grazing use concerns in certain key riparian areas (key issue 2). It would support the local economic value provided by livestock grazing to the extent that no future changes are needed to respond to new or continuing issues (key issue 3).


22

2.3.1.3 Alternative 3 – Adaptive Livestock Grazing Management (Forest Service Proposed Action) Adaptive management is a process that allows the Forest Service to cope with uncertainty and changing conditions over time, and provides the authorized officer with reasonably constrained flexibility to adapt to change. This alternative strives to resolve the disparity between Forest Plan desired conditions and existing conditions in the analysis area (within the scope of the analys is [i.e., the analysis is limited to evaluating the appropriate level of livestock grazing, given considerations of rangeland condition and other Forest Plan goals and objectives]).

The adaptive management alternative utilizes benchmark monitoring sites to achieve site-specific desired resource conditions that are defined by an ID team (table 1.6-2). If a benchmark is not currently meeting or moving toward desired condition, a proposed course of action is selected as a starting point believed to best meet or move toward the desired condition in an acceptable timeframe.

Typically, the management options would begin with less intensive options before progressing to more intense management or the construction of structures. Some practices alone may not meet the desired condition, but in combination with other practices, desired conditions may be met or moved toward. For example, if cattle were continually located in a riparian area that was not meeting desired conditions, the initial management may require increased riding combined with salt and/or supplement to draw cattle to less utilized areas and prevent cattle from lingering in the riparian area. This may mean daily riding or could be varied depending on the resource needs. If the concern is not resolved with any of these options, the time of year that cattle graze the area may be adjusted based on vegetative goals (i.e., livestock preference for willows or grasses varies by season), or it may be necessary to exclude livestock from an area by fencing. Temporary fencing could be used while cattle are in the pasture, or it may require let-down or permanent fencing. In the most severe cases, the pasture may need to be rested for 1 or more years. The inherent nature of natural resource management makes it impossible to predict all the possible management scenarios; however, this example illustrates how adaptive management might use time/timing, intens ity, and duration/frequency of cattle use to shift an ecosystem towards desired conditions.

Existing pastures could be divided into additional pastures to improve the time/timing, intensity, and duration/frequency of livestock use throughout the allotment. The use of adaptive management would be important for implementation of additional pastures. Placement of additional pasture boundaries would be established based on watering sites, geographic/topographic characteristics, and expected cattle movement behavior. Minor location changes may need to occur when this is done due to terrain or to minimize material cost. It is likely that proposed fences would be short sections, and located where cattle movements prevent proper administration of the allotment. It is difficult to predict where these issues may arise; therefore, changes in the proposed pasture boundaries, fence placement, or additional watering facilities would be adaptively proposed to solve management concerns. Existing fences and water developments could be reconstructed to maximize their effectiveness.

All adaptive management options available would be analyzed under this EA and adopted for potential future use. An AMP would be developed for each allotment.

A list of possible rangeland management options—called the Grazing Management Toolbox—is presented in table 2.3-4. This list of management tools is not intended to be all inclusive, but shows the types of actions available to the Forest Service to maintain or improve resource


23

conditions to meet Forest Plan desired conditions and management objectives. Any new rangeland management techniques would be incorporated into this toolbox, if their implementation is consistent with the effects documented in this EA and its accompanying decision notice. Forest Plan standards and guidelines, the Watershed Conservation Practices Handbook (FSH 2509.25), and project design criteria (see section 2.5) are incorporated by reference. The alternative may, in some cases, restrict the use of a tool or require the use of more than one tool used in conjunction with each other. All proposed adaptive management actions would be within the scope of effects documented in this EA, or a supplemental NEPA document and decision would be prepared.

Table 2.3-4. Potential adaptive management options (Adaptive Management Toolbox)

Use of any tool below must consider rangeland condition and other relevant Forest Plan goals and objectives for the analysis area under study. These tools do not preempt the project design criteria (in section 2.5) or the constraints designed into the alternative. Adjust livestock grazing intensity and/or duration, and/or frequency Adjust livestock numbers; do not exceed estimated AUM capacity Change livestock class; do not exceed estimated AUM capacity Adjust season of use; do not exceed estimated AUM capacity Adjust number of days in pastures Defer livestock turn-out date Adjust livestock herding to manage specific areas of concern Rest or restrict livestock grazing in specified areas for one or more seasons Re-designate allotment as a forage reserve allotment Adjust pasture design Close allotment to livestock grazing (does not apply to recreation and outfitter/guide livestock under this analysis) Use of salt or supplement to modify livestock grazing behavior and distribution patterns Temporarily or permanently combine allotments where management efficiency and effectiveness can occur Construct fence to exclude livestock Construct fence (temporary electric or permanent) to control livestock distribution Modify or remove existing fences and water developments to support livestock management objectives Reseed or plant native grass, shrub, and forb species into areas where appropriate


24

The proposed management action is designed to improve the existing condition to meet the Forest Plan desired conditions. Table 2.3-5 provides a summary of how Alternative 3 responds to the key issues (from section 1.10).

This alternative would address livestock management flexibility (key issue 1), address impacts to riparian conditions (key issue 2), and provide additional opportunities for continued economic benefit from livestock grazing. (key issue 3).

Table 2.3-5. Alternative 3 – Adaptive Livestock Grazing Management (Forest Service Proposed Action)

Component Action Key Issue 1: Management Flexibility Grazing system The grazing system would be flexible and could be readily modified on an

annual basis to respond to biological, physical, and social needs within the constraints of the Forest Plan and this decision.

Kind of animals The kind of livestock would be constrained to cattle on all allotments except Martinez-Underwood (which is sheep and 3 head of horses).

Class of animals The class of livestock would be adaptive to include cow/calf pairs and/or yearlings for C&H allotments and ewes, lambs and 3 head of horses for the S&G allotment, or any combination that meets desired conditions.

Season The grazing season would be flexible, but would be constrained by the dates presented in section 2.5. The AUM capacity would not be exceeded for the analysis area. Resource objectives and goals would be used to determine on-dates, and allowable use standards and guidelines would be used to determine off-dates within the identified available grazing season.

Livestock numbers Livestock numbers would be flexible and could vary from season to season within the estimated carrying capacity for the analysis area. The estimated stocking rate for the analysis area is 6.2 suitable acres per AUM.

Adaptability to change

Highly flexible; if monitoring showed that the Forest Plan desired conditions were not being met, then the Forest Service could implement another tool from the Grazing Management Toolbox (or any other applicable tool or strategy available within the scope of this EA) to adjust management to move conditions toward Forest Plan desired conditions.


There would be greater management options available for immediate use in riparian areas. Management options would be more readily available for immediate use or implementation. Riparian conditions would likely trend upward more quickly than current livestock grazing management to more responsive management.

Key Issue 3: Socio-economic Value of Livestock Grazing Present Net Value (PNV)

-$173,485

Allow continued economic benefits from livestock grazing.

1 Livestock grazing carrying capacity is based on historical stocking rates and site-specific project design criteria (section 2.5). Carrying capacity should be based on impacts of historical and current stocking rates, grazing management, and weather. Adjustments in carrying capacity should be made through monitoring over time to ensure progress toward desired resource conditions (Position Statement on Grazing Capacity Adopted by the Society for Range Management, February 1999).


25

2.4 Summary Comparison of Alternatives Key issues and their indicator(s) by alternative are shown in table 2.4-1. Key issues were previously listed in section 1.10. Table 2.4-2 summarizes effects on other resources by alternative.


26

Table 2.4-1. Key issue comparison of the alternatives

Key Issue Indicators

Alternativ e 1 Alternativ e 2 Alternativ e 3 No Action (No Permitted

Liv estock Grazing) Current Livestock Grazing

Management Adaptive Livestock Grazing

Management 1: Management Flexibility Adaptability to

change None Limited High

2: Riparian Area Health Duration and timing of livestock grazing in benchmarks and key areas identified in the analysis area

None Moderate control Greater control

3: Socio-economic Value of Liv estock Grazing

Present Net Value (PNV)

-$12,101 -$138,324 -$173,485


28

Table 2.4-2. Comparison of alternatives: Summary of effects on other resources Resource and Unit of Measurement

No Action/No Grazing Alternative

Current Management Alternative

Adaptive Management Alternative

Range Resources

No livestock grazing 986 cow/calves on six C&H allotments; 1,000 ew e/lambs on one S&G allotment

Frisco C&H Allotment: Potential to increase season of use by 15 days from 6/15–9/15 to 6/15–9/30 Burd-Raton C&H Allotment: Potential to increase season of use by 15 days from 6/11–7/22 to 6/11–8/6 and increase livestock by 15 head from 60 to 75 head West Pinos C&H Allotment: Potential to increase season of use by 10 days from 6/16–9/30 to 6/16–10/10

Fisheries No change Slight habitat improvement over time

Move tow ard Forest Plan desired condition

Wildlife Habitat No change Slight habitat improvement over time


TES Wildlife Species

No loss of species viability

No loss of species viability No loss of species viability

TES Plant Species

No loss of species viability

No loss of species viability No loss of species viability

Management Indicator Species (MIS)

No change No loss of species viability No loss of species viability

Invasive Species No change No net increase or decrease due to action alternatives

No net increase or decrease due to action alternatives

Soil Resources Eventual recovery where livestock is the contributing factor

Remain at current conditions


Recreation and Transportation System

None No measurable effect in action alternatives

No measurable difference in action alternatives

Heritage Resources

No change No measurable effect in action alternatives


Fuels No change No net increase or decrease due to action alternatives

No net increase or decrease due to action alternatives

Social Individual permit holders: High Impact Agricultural community: Moderate Impact

Individual permit holders: No Impact Agricultural community: No Impact

Individual permit holders: Minor Impact Agricultural community: Minor Impact

Economics -$12,101 -$138,324 -$173,485


29

2.5 Project Design Criteria The Forest Service uses many measures to reduce or prevent negative impacts to the environment in the planning and implementation of management activities. The application of these measures begins at the planning and design phase of a project. The Forest Plan standards and guidelines and the direction contained in the Watershed Conservation Practices Handbook (FSH 2509.25) are the first protection measures to be applied to the project. Both of these sources are incorporated by reference and are not reiterated here. Other project design criteria are developed, as needed.

The project design criteria listed in table 2.5-1 have been used on the RGNF or are commonly used throughout the West to reduce potential impacts. References below to “permittee” include the grazing permit holder, their agent, herder, rider, or employee. References below to “permitted livestock” apply to animals authorized under a grazing permit (where the primary purpose is livestock production) and is not intended to be applicable to recreation livestock, animals authorized under livestock use permits (where the primary purpose is not livestock production), or outfitter and guide livestock. Depending on the alternative selected, the applicable project design criteria become a part of the AMP. Project design criteria are listed by category; each bullet statement applies to a specific action alternative as indicated by an “” in the far right column. The project design criteria listed for alternative 2 and 3 reflect current management requirements; the project design criteria under Alternative 3 expand the requirements to additionally reduce impacts. Effects are expected to be negligible with the implementation of project design criteria.

Table 2.5-1. Project design criteria to be applied by action alternative

Category Alternative

2 3 Livestock Management Keep livestock distributed as evenly as possible throughout suitable rangelands

within pastures or allotments. The Forest Service may, if needed, require a minimum number of days spent moving or herding livestock per week.

Keep livestock in the proper pasture during the time periods specified in the AOI.

Do not graze pastures at the same time each year where feasible, and where it supports other resource management objectives.

As an average over time, plants would be given the opportunity to reach near full growth prior to livestock grazing (deferment) or to attain substantial re-growth following livestock grazing.

Livestock grazing duration would be limited to a 28-day maximum stay in most pastures or livestock grazing management areas so that frequency of livestock grazing individual plants would be four times or less each year. Frequency would be limited to favor maximum plant rest and vigor.

Allowable Use Standards Riparian Utilization: Remove livestock from a pasture when the average stubble

height on riparian grasses and grasslike species in key areas/benchmark sites reaches 3–4 inches before August 1; or 4–6 inches during fall use at the end of the livestock grazing season, or plant growing season, whichever occurs first.

Upland Utilization: Meet Forest Plan guidelines for forage utilization; 45% for rangelands in satisfactory condition, 25% for rangelands in unsatisfactory condition.

Once the utilization standard is reached, livestock must be moved to the next pasture, or in the case of the last pasture, they will be removed from the allotment.


30


2 3 Livestock grazing will be managed in riparian areas and willow carrs (a wetland

willow thicket) to maintain or achieve mid-seral or higher condition to provide cover and forage for prey species within Canada lynx habitat (Ruediger et al. 2000).

Livestock Salting/Supplement Practices Salt or supplement will be placed on rocky knolls, well-drained sites, or in timber

where excessive trampling will not destroy plant growth. As utilization patterns develop, salt will be moved to areas where forage has not been grazed, or where it has been grazed lightly. Salt will be removed from an area after proper use has been achieved. Utilize the minimum amount of salt needed to achieve the distribution objective.

Salt or supplement will not be placed within tree regeneration areas where the smallest trees are less than 3-feet tall.

All salt or supplement will be placed away from benchmark/key areas and available water, in areas where livestock use is usually light.

Salt or supplement will not be placed closer than 0.25 mile to streams, springs, water developments, or other wetlands without prior approval of the Forest officer.

Salt or supplement will not be placed near trailheads; on open roads; in natural travel routes, passes, parks, and meadows; areas of concentrated public use; or in other areas where such placement is likely to result in conflicts with other Forest users.

Avoid salting in areas where soil health can be impacted (such as in riparian areas and areas with shallow soils).

Soil and Wetlands Minimize livestock concentrations on sensitive wetland areas through riding and

herding, and salt or supplement placement. If monitoring indicates unacceptable impacts that cannot be resolved by improved distribution, the Forest Service may require the use of fencing as an adaptive option.

Consider degree of livestock trampling and riparian vegetation utilization on or immediately adjacent to streambanks when timing livestock moves between units.

Implement total rest in riparian pastures with deteriorated habitat conditions that have a downward trend where other livestock management practices are not believed capable of reversing the trend in a reasonable timeframe and where livestock are a key factor in the existing situation.

Disposal of Dead Livestock Dead livestock will be moved to a location greater than 200 feet from water, out of

view of roads or trails, and away from any areas of significant public use.

Animal Damage Management Animal damage management activities will be conducted in accordance with both

Federal regulations and State law. Requests for assistance will be in compliance with the current Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) Animal Damage Management Plan and must be in compliance with the Forest Plan.

Noxious Plants/Invasive Species Consider noxious weed prevention and control practices in the management of

grazing allotments.

1

Any hay, straw, or other feeds used on the allotment will be either certified as being free of noxious plants (also called noxious weeds), or will consist of heat-treated pelletized feeds.

Permittees will make every effort to ensure that livestock do not contribute to the transport of noxious plants onto the allotment(s).

1

o Permittees are asked to help locate and report noxious plant sites to the Forest officer.

Note: In addition to project design criteria, the following are recommended practices that will be discussed with permittees at the time of the AOI meeting with the Forest Service:

o Livestock coming onto the Forest from lands known to contain noxious plants will be held on clean forage or fed weed-free hay for several days to allow the majority of seeds to pass


31


2 3 before turn-on.

o Any equipment used in the transport of livestock, including horse trailers and stock trucks, will be washed before coming onto the allotment if they have been used in areas where noxious plants were present.

Access and Travel Management Some travelways are closed to vehicular use or have restricted seasons. Permittees

are required to abide by all Forest road and trail restrictions and closures. Written approval from the District Ranger is required prior to driving off road.

Range Improvements Rangeland improvements are to be maintained to a level that fully serves the

intended purpose and perpetuates the effective life of each improvement.

Prior to construction of any new structural improvement, compliance will be ensured with cultural, botanical, and other required clearances. NEPA compliance will also be reviewed, and if needed an additional NEPA analysis and decision will be completed.

Permittee Instructions AOIs will be provided to the permittee concerning management practices, so that this

information can be passed on to riders (if applicable). Permittees will be responsible for ensuring that their riders understand and comply with Forest Service requirements.

Livestock will be removed from an allotment or the analysis area if resource monitoring or new information suggests this course of action after all management options (i.e., Grazing Management Toolbox) have been exhausted.

Permittee Monitoring Permittees are responsible for monitoring the following: livestock numbers; pasture

entry and exit dates; allotment entry and exit dates; and maintenance activities for assigned improvements. This information will be kept in written format and will be made available to the Forest officer upon request. The Forest officer may provide a reporting form for the permittee’s use and may specify a due date for its return to the Ranger District office.

2.6 Monitoring Measures Monitoring inc ludes both Forest-level and project-level analysis and evaluation. Forest-level monitoring is discussed at length in Chapter V of the Forest Plan and is not reiterated here. Project-level monitoring is the focus of this section of the EA.

Monitoring is intended to be rapid, practical, and cost-effective. Monitoring techniques are designed to be commensurate with the level of livestock grazing use and the complexity of the overall analysis area situation. If initial subjective monitoring techniques prove insufficient, then more objective techniques may be employed with greater precision and confidence limits, as needed (USDA Forest Service 1996c). The techniques and protocols listed in the Rangeland Analys is and Management Training Guide (RAMTG) (USDA Forest Service 1996c) would be used as the basis for monitoring vegetation. Streambank alteration will follow protocol from RAMTG or Interagency Bulletin 2008-01 (Monitoring Stream Channels and Riparian Vegetation-Multiple Indicators). Streambank stability will follow protocol developed with Region 2 (Rocky Mountain Region 2 or R2) during the 1996 Forest Plan revision or that in Interagency Bulletin 2008-01.

The administrative structure under which monitoring is conducted is as follows.

1) Decision made under NEPA; if an action alternative is selected, then:


32

2) Grazing permit (legal authorization to graze livestock) issued with contents reflecting decision:

a) AMP tiered to grazing permit and reflecting decision including details.

b) AOI tiered to AMP and grazing permit, drafted annually to reflect decision and current resource conditions.

c) Grazing permit compliance enforcement as needed.

3) Feedback from monitoring the analys is area and adjustment of actions made, as needed, in order to ensure conditions are meeting or moving toward Forest Plan desired conditions. The flexibility for management adjustment varies by alternative.

“Implementation” and “effectiveness” monitoring, discussed as follows, are expected to occur on the analysis area.

2.6.1 Implementation Monitoring Implementation monitoring is short term and evaluates whether livestock management is being applied as prescribed. The Forest Service conducts this type of monitoring through administration of the grazing authorization (permit), which includes inspection of the analysis area. If an action alternative is selected, the Forest Service would evaluate whether livestock management was in compliance with the grazing authorization, including the AMP and AOI, which are part of the authorization. The permittee is also required to perform certain aspects of this monitoring as described in table 2.6-1.

Key areas/benchmark areas, developed in the AMP planning process with permittees, would be inspected, and then extrapolated to represent much larger areas as appropriate. These key areas can be further refined as needed, depending on such factors as annual weather fluctuations, past permittee compliance history, and changes in current resource and/or social issues.

Table 2.6-1 displays the implementation monitoring schedule that would be followed if an action alternative is selected. Specifically, it focuses on: (1) compliance checks, and (2) meeting Forest Plan standards and guidelines for forage utilization and streambank alteration. Any such strategies would be developed collaboratively with the term permit holder.

Feedback from monitoring, and any resultant adjustments of management actions, would be dependent on the specific action alternative selected. Under alternatives 2 and 3, minor management adjustments could be made, by exception, in the AOI. Changes that cannot be done through the AOI may require new NEPA analysis. Under Alternative 3, management adjustments could be made adaptively (FSH 2209.13, chapter 90; Quimby 2007) using the Grazing Management Toolbox (table 2.3-4). Initially, a tool would be selected that would efficiently solve the concern and also be one that the permittee could readily implement. Ultimately, the tool must solve the concern or another tool or set of tools would be implemented to correct the concern. The point is that there is a suite of available tools that can be used in a hierarchical way (low-intensity to high-intens ity management) to adaptively correct concerns. Compliance success means the monitoring elements meet the requirements outlined in table 2.6-1.


33

Table 2.6-1. Implementation monitoring item, method, frequency

Monitoring Item Method Frequency

Compliance checks (meeting requirements in AOI/AMP/term grazing permit; see the requirements in section 2.5)

■ Site visits Annual and as need indicates1

Upland forage utilization (Forest Plan, Range, page III-16,17)

■ Stubble height ■ Herbage left ungrazed ■ Utilization (paired plot) ■ Ocular estimate ■ Grazing Response Index

Variable2

Riparian residual stubble height (Forest Plan, Riparian Areas, page III-5; Range, page III-16,17)

■ Stubble height ■ Herbage left ungrazed ■ Utilization (paired plot) ■ Ocular estimate ■ Grazing Response Index

Variable2

Riparian streambank alteration and stability (Forest Plan, Riparian Areas, page III-6)

■ Reference stream comparison

Variable2

1 Permittees are responsible for compliance with all relevant terms and conditions associated with the grazing authorization. The Forest Service would make annual compliance checks and report the results to the responsible official for action, if necessary. 2

Note: Vegetation monitoring would follow the techniques and protocols from the Rangeland Analysis and Management Training Guide (USDA Forest Service 1996c). Streambank alteration will follow protocol from RAMTG or Interagency Bulletin 2008-01 (Monitoring Stream Channels and Riparian Vegetation –Multiple Indicators). Streambank stability will follow protocol developed with R2 during the 1996 Forest Plan revision or that in Interagency Bulletin 2008-01.

The Forest Service may vary the frequency of inspections on a case-by-ca se basis for this monitoring item depending on such factors as annual weather fluctuations, past permittee compliance history, and changes in current resource and/or social issue s. Non-compliance would dictate annual monitoring until satisfactory compliance is attained. Relevant Forest Plan standards and guidelines are available online at: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/riogrande/projects/plan/documents/planchap3.pdf

2.6.2 Effectiveness Monitoring Effectiveness monitoring is long term and focuses on determining whether the analysis area is meeting or moving toward desired conditions, and if the rate of change is acceptable. This level of monitoring is intended to ensure that all resource areas are meeting or moving toward desired conditions (within the scope of this analysis). The rate of acceptable change is determined by the responsible official unless expressly directed otherwise in the Forest Plan.

Overall, the analys is area is generally meeting or moving toward the Forest Plan desired conditions. Issues exist in isolated areas of concern on two allotments and are considered benchmarks (see figure 1.6-1). The first location is the East Pinos Allotment at Burro Creek and Bennett Creek near Fitton Guard Station. The second location is on the West Pinos Allotment in the Willow Park Pasture near a stock tank near Del Norte Peak . These issues relate to riparian conditions (key issue 2). Effectiveness monitoring, as applied here, would center on responding to the “need for action” described in section 1.6, table 1.6-1, and reiterated below:

Determine the appropriate level of livestock grazing and management intensity to provide attainment of Forest Plan desired conditions for this analysis area.


34

Table 2.6-2 displays the effectiveness monitoring schedule if an action alternative is selected. The monitoring focuses on long-term trends for meeting or moving toward Forest Plan standards and guidelines relative to vegetation conditions and streambank stability and alteration.

The feedback and any resulting management actions from monitoring would depend on the specific action alternative selected. Under alternative 2, minor management adjustments could be made, by exception, in the AOI. Changes that cannot be done through the AOI may require new NEPA analys is. Under Alternative 3, management adjustments could be made adaptively (FSH 2209.13, chapter 90; Quimby 2007) using the Grazing Management Toolbox (table 2.3-4). Initially, a tool would be selected to both efficiently solve the concern and be easily implemented by the permittee; if the problem is not solved, another tool or set of tools would be implemented. For example, if the trend in upland vegetation is declining per assessment according to the techniques in the Rangeland Analysis and Management Training Guide (USDA Forest Service 1996c), then tool(s) from the Grazing Management Toolbox would be selected to reverse the declining trend. Again, similar to implementation monitoring, there is a suite of available tools that can be used in a hierarchical way (low-intensity to high-intensity management) to adaptively correct concerns. Compliance success means the monitoring elements are meeting or moving toward the desired conditions as outlined in table 2.6-2.

Table 2.6-2. Effectiveness monitoring schedule, frequency, and method

Monitoring Item Method Frequency

Trend in vegetation cover and frequency by plant species, ground cover, and production by life form on key areas/benchmark sites

■ Cover frequency transect ■ Ocular transects ■ Photographs and photo points

5–8 years

Riparian streambank stability trend on key areas/benchmark sites

1

■ Greenline transects ■ Proper functioning condition (PFC) ■ Photographs and photo points

5–8 years1

1

Note: Vegetation monitoring methodology would follow the techniques and protocols from the Rangeland Analysis and Management Training Guide (USDA Forest Service 1996c). Streambank alteration will follow protocol from RAMTG or Interagency Bulletin 2008-01 (Monitoring Stream Channels and Riparian Vegetation –Multiple Indicators). Streambank stability will follow protocol developed with R2 during the 1996 Forest Plan revision or that in Interagency Bulletin 2008-01.

The responsible official would decide if trends are acceptable, whether conditions are moving toward or meeting Forest Plan desired conditions, and whether changes are occurring at an appropriate rate of change. Forest-wide desired conditions are found online at: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/riogrande/projects/plan/documents/planchap1.pdf


35

Chapte r 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

3.1 Introduction This chapter describes the present conditions of the environment in and around the analysis area, and discloses the probable consequences (impacts and effects) of implementing each alternative presented in chapter 2. It provides the analytical bas is to compare the alternatives.

This chapter begins by briefly describing the location of the analysis area, then briefly analyzes how each alternative responds to the key issues identif ied in section 1.10. The chapter is then organized by selected environmental and social resources. Each resource discussion addresses the following components: (1) scope of the analysis, (2) past activities that have affected the existing condition, (3) existing condition, and (4) direct, indirect, and cumulative effects. The time period of consideration for cumulative effects analysis is generally from the late 1800s and continuing two decades into the future. A list of terms and definitions used in the analys is is located in the glossary of this EA.

3.2 General Description of the Analysis Area The analysis area is located in south-central Colorado. It is south of the communities of South Fork and Del Norte, Colorado, as discussed in section 1.4. The size of the analysis area does not vary by alternative. The future livestock management of six cattle and horse (C&H) allotments and one sheep and goat (S&G) allotment is being evaluated in this EA. Not every resource area conducts their specific analysis using the same analysis area boundary. Some evaluations focus on specific resources related to allotments; others might use a larger area outside the formal analys is area as shown in section 1.4. For every resource write-up below, the “Scope of the Analys is” clearly describes the specific analysis area used.

3.3 Alternatives and Their Response to Key Issues This section summarizes how each alternative responds to each key issue (see table 3.3-1). Key issues were displayed in section 1.10; the alternatives were displayed in section 2.3.

3.3.1 Alternative 1 (No Permitted Livestock Grazing) Key Issue 1. There would be no management flexibility relative to livestock grazing since there would be no permitted livestock. This would be a relatively inflexible management scenario for the Forest Service since livestock management, as a resource tool and disturbance factor, would be eliminated. The ability to respond to annual changes in biological, physical, and social changes/desires relative to permitted livestock grazing would be nonexistent. Elimination of livestock grazing could provide added flexibility to manage other resource concerns such as recreational dispersion and related impacts.

Key Issue 2. No impacts from permitted livestock to watershed or stream health would result from this alternative. Vegetation impacted under current livestock management would recover over time with rest. Removing livestock from allotments would eliminate all potential livestock-grazing impacts on stream channels, riparian areas, and associated habitat. Short-term general improvements in ecological conditions of rangelands would be more rapid in the absence of livestock grazing. There would be an increase in forage production, improved plant vigor and


36

diversity, a decrease in bare soil, and increased amounts of litter and decaying organic material. Mechanical impacts associated with livestock grazing, trampling, and trailing would be eliminated with this alternative. However, long-term health and sustainability of the herbaceous resource would be dependent on the existence of non-livestock disturbance factors, such as wildlife or wildfire. The herbaceous plant communities in the project area evolved with periodic disturbance from a variety of sources. Without periodic disturbance these communities tend to become stagnant, display more bare ground between more widely spaced plants, and suppress regeneration.

Key Issue 3. This alternative does not support the local economic value provided by livestock grazing. Alternative 1 would have a social impact to local communities in the form of loss of a traditional and often valued use of the National Forest lands, due to the elimination of livestock grazing on the allotment. Conversely, elimination of livestock grazing would be viewed by some as benefiting social values associated with natural landscapes and solitude, etc.

3.3.2 Alternative 2 (Current Livestock Grazing Management) Key Issue 1. There would be limited management flexibility since the ability of the Forest Service to change the grazing system, season of use, and permitted livestock numbers would continue to be slow to respond to annual changes in biological, physical, and social changes. Annual changes made in the AOI would generally be by exception. The kind and class of livestock would be constrained (i.e., cattle/cows and calves and/or yearlings on C&H allotments or sheep on Martinez-Underwood S&G) (see section 2.4).

Key Issue 2. Watersheds, stream channels, and riparian areas would remain in their existing condition and would be expected to display current trends. Achieving desired conditions in impacted riparian areas would occur slowly, if at all. The effect of current management on rangeland and its associated vegetation would be to sustain current conditions. In less productive or drought years, this could result in a risk that use would either exceed allowable use levels or that the livestock would need to be removed early. The relatively rigid reliance on existing permitted numbers and seasons, along with the standard grazing system, combined with a lack of adaptive options and flexibility, would continue to contribute to the inability to ensure adequate recovery times between grazing treatments to maintain or improve plant species composition and cover.

Key Issue 3. This alternative would continue to generally support the local economic value provided by livestock grazing to the extent that no future changes are needed to respond to new or continuing issues. From the social standpoint, current management is likely to continue to result in impacts to social values such as a natural appearing landscape or backcountry recreational opportunities. Conversely, continued livestock grazing, regardless of management intensity, would contribute to the traditional role of livestock grazing and western culture in the local area.


37

Table 3.3-1. How alternatives respond to the key issues

Key Issue Indicator(s)

Alternativ e 1 – No Action (No Permitted Livestock

Grazing)

Alternativ e 2 – Current Liv estock Grazing

Management

Alternativ e 3 – Adaptive Liv estock Grazing

Management 1. Management Flexibility

Adaptability to change None Limited flexibility High flexibility

2. Riparian Area Health Duration and timing of livestock grazing in benchmark and key areas identified in the analysis area

None Minimal flexibility High Flexibility

3. Socio-economic Value of Livestock Grazing

Present Net Value (PNV) -$12,101 -$138,324 -$173,4851

1

Analyzed assuming the maximum cost of implementing all propos ed adaptive management actions. Actual costs would vary depending upon the effectiveness of initial specific design criteria. To fully disclose the potential economic effects of this alternative, however, the full suite of adaptive management actions and options are assumed to occur immediately. It is unlikely that the full suite of proposed adaptive management options would be needed.


38

3.3.3 Alternative 3 (Adaptive Livestock Grazing Management) Key Issue 1. There would be a high degree of management flexibility because the Forest Service could quickly change the grazing system, season of use, and permitted livestock numbers in response to annual changes in biological, physical, and social changes. If monitoring showed that the Forest Plan desired conditions were not being met or met toward in a timely manner, then the Forest Service could implement another tool or tools from the Grazing Management Toolbox (or any other applicable tool or strategy available within the scope of this EA [see table 2.3-4]) to adjust management. The kind and class of permitted livestock would be constrained (i.e., cattle/cows, yearlings or calves for the six C&H allotments and sheep for Martinez-Underwood).

Key Issue 2. By focusing grazing prescriptions on areas where watershed health conditions are less than satisfactory, more rapid recovery would be expected. Having the flexibility of utilizing options under adaptive management (Grazing Management Toolbox) would allow more responsive adjustment of grazing plans as monitoring determines a need. If initial corrective measures did not improve conditions as expected, additional options are provided. Stream and riparian health can improve quickly with aggressive management to control time and timing, intensity, and duration and frequency of use. Monitoring would strive to ensure that (1) resource conditions were moving toward or meeting Forest Plan desired conditions, and (2) changing resource conditions were tracked and adaptive changes applied.

The adaptive management decis ion-making process assists in analyzing what changes may be necessary when resources are departing from desired conditions. For example, excessive livestock trailing through a stream where bank conditions are unstable and eroding, and vegetation is declining, may be addressed immediately by requiring a herder to move livestock more frequently in a pasture. Another consideration would be distribution of water and mineral supplements to draw livestock away from a stream source. Other possibilities include change in season of use or fencing to protect certain riparian areas in order to restore sustainable conditions. Without the ability to employ adaptive management there is a delay in the decision-making process that typically comes at the end of a grazing season, then only discussed and applied the following grazing season, and new NEPA would be required when changes are required (including range improvements). New NEPA projects are demanding, and while engaged, on-the-ground decisions are deferred that could have been made immediately under a flexible timeline. Adaptive management allows for increased attention to problem areas immediately within the same season and the flexibility to require immediate changes leading to an increase in residual vegetation, a decrease in bare ground, and an increase in the natural propagation and vigor of plants.

Increasing litter and riparian residual stubble height ensures that plenty of material is available for trapping and retaining the sediment in runoff and overland-flow events. In addition, litter material insulates plant crowns and overwintering buds, protects and covers soil, holds moisture in the ground, and allows plants to continue photosynthesis for carbohydrate production and storage. Greater carbohydrate storage results in more roots being produced by each plant. This, in turn, increases the erosion defensibility and moisture-holding capacity of soils. It also provides a buffer to plants in times of stress, such as drought. Less bare ground means more plants holding the soil in place, while lessening the likelihood of invas ion by noxious weeds.

Key Issue 3. Present net value (a measure of financial efficiency) is negative since present value costs exceed present value benefits (see section 3.7). This alternative has a lower present net value than alternative 2 because Forest Service and permittee administration and monitoring


39

costs would be higher considering the full suite of proposed adaptive options that were analyzed. However, it is unlikely that the full suite of proposed adaptive management options would be needed. Therefore, actual present net value is highly likely to be more favorable than estimated under the full implementation scenario. From the social aspect, this alternative will continue livestock grazing, will maintain the culture and tradition of the area, and because this alternative is likely to result in reduced negative effects to riparian areas, the recreational, visual, and social aspects should be improved to at least some extent.

3.4 Rangeland Resources

3.4.1 Scope of the Analysis This section discusses rangeland management in the analys is area (described in section 1.4 and shown in figure 1.4-1).

3.4.2 Past Actions That Have Affected the Existing Condition Livestock (cattle and sheep) have grazed the areas within the current Grayback-Pintada analys is area since at least the late 1800s, with historical indications of livestock use through the early 1900s prior to national forest designation in 1908.

The six C&H allotments included in the analysis area are Bennett Spring, Burd-Raton, East Pinos, Frisco, Rock Creek, and West Pinos (approximately 21,930 suitable acres); they are stocked with approximately 986 cow/calf pairs from early June to late October. The Martinez-Underwood S&G allotment has approximately 5,418 suitable acres and is permitted to stock 1,000 ewe/lamb pairs for bi-seasonal spring and fall use. Spring grazing on Martinez-Underwood is scheduled for May 21 to June 30 (41 days) with 750 ewe/lamb pairs (202 AUMs) and 3 head of horses at 4 head months (5 AUMs). Fall grazing is permitted from October 6 to October 30 (25 days) with 1,000 ewe/lamb pairs. There are an estimated 6.1 suitable acres per AUM over the analysis area including both sheep and cattle.

The known history of grazing within the Grayback-Pintada analysis area can be summarized from two primary sources; appendix A of the 1996 Rio Grande National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS), Revised Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP), and the 1903 Report on the Proposed San Juan Forest Reserve, Colorado, by Coert DuBois.

In the FEIS (1996) there are descriptions of brief pre-historic and historic records of grazing in the San Luis Valley with emphasis to the area between Del Norte, Colorado, to the Continental Divide, and south to the New Mexico border. Part of this broad area approximately corresponds to the modern boundary of the RGNF.

From pre-historic archeological records and descriptions following through to the historic period of early Euro-American and Hispano-American settlement it can be estimated that the Ute Tribe grazed what are thought to be large numbers of horses in the meadows and open parks throughout the foothills and mountains within the current Grayback-Pintada analysis area during the 1630s (Pettit 1982).

Other accounts of grazing during the historic period of settlement are described and include estimates of numbers of cattle and sheep. From the period of 1820 to 1860 there were an estimated 5,000 head of cattle in the San Luis Valley, including land in the current analysis area.


40

There were an unknown number of sheep during the same period, and both cattle and sheep were known to be located mostly in low elevation areas. Other later records became more specific regarding numbers of livestock. For example, around 1870 about 5,000 or more head of cattle were known to occur around Embargo and Baughman Creeks (RGNF records 1934). Apparent sharp increases in both cattle and sheep were observed, and by 1883 there were approximately 10,000 head of sheep and several hundred cattle in the area of Del Norte to Beaver and Cross Creek (RGNF records 1926).

There was an increase in the use of forage in the foothills and high country areas of the mountains. As increases in livestock numbers continued, effects to natural resources would become apparent through 1903.

In 1903, DuBois estimated that there were 268,000 head of sheep and 19,610 head of cattle grazing within the San Luis Valley, including the current Grayback-Pintada analysis area. Numbers of livestock would vary over time with climatic and economic conditions. DuBois mentioned that sheep grazing may have been more of a problem than cattle grazing because of the larger numbers of sheep and due to the nature of their grazing which had an impact on humus and ground cover leading to erosion and reductions in forage species. Maximum numbers of livestock were up to 24,000 head of cattle (up to the 1990s) and 245,000 head of sheep (in 1925), with reductions of sheep down to 104,000 by the 1950s. These numbers remained mostly static in cattle at 24,000 head, but sheep herd reductions down to 48,000 head were reported in RGNF records around 1990.

At present in 2010, the Divide Ranger District carries about 6,000 permitted head of cattle and nearly 5,000 head of sheep across the entire district. There are approximately 986 head of cattle and 1,000 head of sheep permitted to graze within the Grayback-Pintada analysis area.

3.4.3 Existing Condition The analysis area contains approximately 99,094 total acres, of which 26,991 acres (about 27 percent) are suitable (figure 3.4-1) for the grazing of livestock through the Forest Plan suitability determination process, which is the equivalent of 6.1 suitable acres available per authorized AUM (USDA-FS 2003a). Current authorized numbers are 986 cow/calf pairs (3,072 head months [HMs] or the equivalent of 4,055 AUMs). The authorized grazing season is within approximately 112 days for the six C&H allotments, and a 41 day spring/25 day fall split season for the Martinez-Underwood S&G allotment at 1,833 HMs or 367 AUMs plus 5 horse AUMs.

Suitability is a combination of capability and suitability. Capability is an estimate of the ability of the land to support the intended use (e.g., livestock grazing) while sustaining long-term health and productivity. Suitability is an evaluation as to where there are over-riding decisions that a given area should not be authorized for livestock use. The combination of the two is the “suitability determination.” This determination is made at the Forest Plan level and may be brought to, and refined at the project level if the authorized officer determines that doing so would provide value to the analysis and decision. A suitability determination was conducted in 2003 as part of the response to remand of the Forest Supervisor’s ROD. Information from this determination was used at the project level and is discussed below.

Suitable range (e.g., suitable plus capable) is based in part on forage production, water availability, and accessibility to livestock, stable soils, and slope. These areas in the analysis area are highly des irable foraging areas for wildlife and livestock. Estimated grazing capacity of the suitable range is dependent upon existing vegetation composition, the amount of forage


41

production, seasonal desirability of plants, wildlife needs, management objectives, livestock kind and class, grazing system, and management intensity. Estimated grazing capacity of the analysis area varies because of factors previously listed. The total current stocking rate within the analys is area is approximately 4,425 AUMs (4,055 cattle AUMs, 367 sheep AUMs, 5 horse AUMs), and represents only what is currently authorized. Under this consideration, the 4,425 AUMs represent only a portion of what can be potentially stocked in the analysis area. There is some transitory range (areas that produce forage and become accessible as a result of timber management practices or fire) within the analys is area. Transitory range is not included in the suitable acreage or grazing capacity estimates, though limited use by wildlife and livestock occurs. The estimated grazing capacity considers the forage needed for recreation livestock and wildlife.

The analysis area consists of seven allotments defined by fences and natural boundaries (see figure 1.4-1). Natural boundaries are ineffective for livestock control between several pastures on the south end of the East Pinos Allotment. Pastures are of unequal size and grazing capacity, which complicates attempts to manage timing of grazing, rest or deferment, and rotations. There is inadequate water and fencing within the Munger Canyon Pasture of the East Pinos Allotment. Inadequate water and fencing in this pasture leads to cattle leaving the pasture early resulting in extra time and pressure on isolated areas of streambanks and upland vegetation in the higher elevations, especially near Fitton Guard Station at Bennett Peak.

Cattle briefly trail back through pastures at the end of the grazing season. Livestock off-dates range from late July (Burd-Raton C&H) to late September for the C&H allotments, and late October for the Martinez-Underwood S&G Allotment when authorized for stocking. In general, on- and off-dates depend on the current conditions of vegetation, soil and water availability, as well as meeting allowable use design criteria for each pasture and each allotment overall.

Some range improvements such as watering facilities (developed springs, tanks, etc.) and fencing on all allotments within the analys is area are fully functional, and some are continuously under review for reconstruction or replacement as needs dictate per pasture or allotment. Table 3.4-1 displays current allotment size, planned season, and current authorized stocking rate of each allotment of the analys is area.


42

Table 3.4-1. Current allotments, acres, grazing season and current authorized stocking rate

Allotment Name

Acres (GIS)

Suitable/ Capable

Acres Livestock Class/Number Grazing

Season/Days

Estimated Grazing

Capacity (AUMs)

Suitable Acres/

AUM

Bennett Spring

12,296 3,375 Cow/Calf/234 Jun 21-Sep 20/ 92

934 4

Burd-Raton 7,457 2,144 Cow/Calf/60 Jun 11-Jul 22/

42 109 20

East Pinos 20,007 2,664 Cow/Calf/150 Jun 26-Sep 20/

87 566 5

Frisco 13,436 4,312 Cow/Calf/130 Jun15-Sep 15/

93 525 8

Martinez-Underwood

8,685 5,061 Ewe/lamb/750 (May-June) Ewe/lamb/1,000 (October) Horse/3

May 21-Jun 30/ 41

Oct 6-Oct 30/ 25

371 14

Rock Creek 8,606 790 Cow/Calf/82 Jun 11-Sep 27/

109d 388 2

West Pinos 28,607 8,645 Cow/Calf/330 Jun 16-Sep 30/ 107

1,532 6

Totals 99,094 26,991 4,425 6.1


43

Figure 3.4-1. Analysis area capable-suitable acres


44

3.4.3.1 Allotments Bennett Spring C&H. Current management on this allotment is set for a season of 6/21–9/20 (92 days) with 234 cow/calf pairs at 708 HMs (956 AUMs), and in some years may include yearling livestock which may substitute for one cow/calf pair at a ratio of 1:0.7. For example, if a permittee wishes to substitute yearling cattle for 10 cow-calf pairs then the calculation results in 10 ÷ 0.7 or 14 head of yearlings. There are four pastures grazed on a deferred-rotation basis. Access to the allotment is accomplished by driving cattle through a portion of the Bishop Rock BLM (formerly Rock Creek BLM) Allotment along County Road 28, then through a portion of the Rock Creek C&H Allotment. At the end of the season the exit follows the same route. There is potential for cattle to mix with other herds with respect to other boundaries and jurisdictions (i.e., BLM and FS) during access in and out of the allotment. For example, the BLM permittee may have cattle present in the Bishop Rock Pasture at the beginning of the season, or may be just to the south and west in the South Pasture of the BLM permit. Mixing of cattle may occur either at the front of the grazing season (June) or upon exits in September. In order to reduce mixing of livestock it is helpful for permittees to communicate with each other prior to major cattle moves so that information can be shared regarding trailing needs. Information can be included in AOIs to facilitate communication.

Apparent trend for range condition is generally considered upward according to case file records (1965–1977). Since methodology has changed from pace transect frequency counts to ocular plant composition (ocular macroplot) or cover-frequency data (Daubenmire frame), direct comparisons of data cannot be made using different methodologies. When new future readings (5 to 8 years) are made from repeat observations of the same site, it will be possible to compare trend data more directly when the same methods can be employed. This information will apply to discussions of all allotments in the analys is area as follows. When direct comparisons can be made it will be noted in the discussion.

Range Improvements: There are currently six fences and one cattle guard inventoried on the Bennett Spring Allotment. Fence lengths are from 0.1 to 0.75 mile. Fences were constructed between 1977 and 1987, and range from poor to fair condition. Annual maintenance is regularly scheduled and assessments are ongoing to rebuild or replace fencing as necessary. Plans exist to consider installation of a fence in the Deer Gulch area in the eastern portion of the allotment.

Burd-Raton C&H. This allotment has one pasture and is grazed on a deferred-rotation grazing schedule because of the availability of the permittee’s adjacent private land and BLM permit. The season of use is from 6/11–7/22 (42 days) with 60 head of livestock (83 HMs or 109 AUMs). The permittee has access to adjacent BLM land (permit) and private property to supplement grazing livestock. Historically, numbers of livestock have been kept low to facilitate management of the allotment for wintering elk and mule deer.

In 1961 the permit was for 20 head of livestock from 6/11-10/15 (127 days) utilizing 83 AUMs out of a potential of 141 AUMs. Over time the permitted numbers have gradually increased to current levels at 60 head due to an increase in the allotment land base because of a land exchange that occurred with the AMAX Mine in the early 1980s, which then allowed for an increase in available AUMs (139 AUMs). Livestock numbers were increased on a temporary basis in about 1983 to determine the effect of grazing considering vegetation and wildlife needs. Numbers ranged from 20 to 40 head depending on conditions. Because the trend was still considered to be upward with the increased animals, the Forest Service eventually approved a permanent increase to 60 head in the1990s. The change in management from large numbers of sheep in the historic


45

past and the willingness of the cattle permittees to move cattle frequently, use appropriate mineral supplements, and keep a short season according to water needs, helped sustain the upward trend of healthy vegetation with no detriment to wildlife. There is an opportunity to use adaptive management to consider an increase in season for livestock.

The Soil Resource and Ecological Inventory (SREI) of the Rio Grande National Forest, West Part (1996), was used in conjunction with GIS analysis (ArcMap software) to estimate current carrying capacity and potential stocking rates on an AUM basis. Climatic conditions were considered in the analysis regarding the rainshadow effect of the southern San Juan Mountain Range. Using conservative below normal precipitation rates and corresponding forage production values from the SREI, it was possible to estimate that an increase of 15 head of livestock would result in a 26 percent increase in AUMs from the current 109 AUMs to 137 AUMs. This number is still far below the estimated potential maximum GIS modeled carrying capacity of 575 AUMs. Because the Forest Service manages this allotment as winter range for mule deer and elk (MA 5.41), there is no intention to stock the allotment at or near the maximum estimated carrying capacity.

Adaptive management would allow the FS to stock at 137 AUMs and monitor the results. If monitoring determines that trend is downward or resource damage is occurring resulting in a departure from desired conditions, then other options can be considered under adaptive management. Specifically, an option to lengthen the season by 15 days or less with or without a change in livestock number (60-75 head) is possible. In years where rainfall is the limiting factor the current management of 42 days at 60 head would be the baseline management unless drought conditions impose on the vegetation resource. In that case, reductions or resource protection non-use may be employed to defer the allotment until conditions normalize in subsequent years.

Range trend is considered static to upward based on some historical data and current site visits (2006-2009). Vegetation cover is above average on all key sites with no apparent increase in bare ground. Plant vigor and plant production have been above average since 2003. There is no apparent increase in noxious weed populations.

Range Improvements: There are approximately 4 miles of boundary fencing that separates BLM and FS public lands along the eastern boundary of the Burd-Raton Allotment. This fencing was built by the FS in 1955, then rebuilt by the BLM in 1968, and is currently assigned to the FS permittee of the Burd-Raton Allotment. The fencing is in poor condition due to a combination of factors such as snow, elk/deer crossing, and vandalism by hunters and recreationists. It is critical to repair and maintain the fence to prevent trespass of cattle between FS and BLM land. Permittees have been cooperative in responding to movements of cattle across the boundary. There is a gap at the FS/BLM boundary where FS Road 264 begins in the area of the Dry Creek Corrals on the allotment. The gap had a gate at one time, but was damaged and has not been rebuilt since. Proposals to reinstall a gate or a cattleguard are being considered. Some minor modifications would need to be made to correctly fit the span between the fence posts.

The Dry Creek Corrals are available, but have mostly been unused for several years, for sheep gathering by a permittee that crosses both the Bishop Rock BLM (formerly Rock Creek BLM) and the Divide Ranger District on the Burd-Raton Allotment. This crossing is completed by starting along County Road 28, then accessing a portion of Bishop Rock BLM along the Dry Creek Road on the way to the Dry Creek Stock Driveway beginning at the Dry Creek Corrals. The corrals are constructed of wire and were installed in 1958. From the corrals, the permittee follows the stock driveway through a portion of the Rock Creek and Bennett Spring Allotments


46

to access the Marble Mountain/Campo Bonito allotments administered by the Conejos Peak Ranger District in La Jara. The current condition of the corrals is poor and plans to reconstruct or repair are being considered depending on availability of funding and materials. Maintenance is currently assigned to the sheep permittee who has use of the corrals.

There are three water systems on the Burd-Raton Allotment built between 1967 and 1979. Ongoing assessments are being made about overall condition of pipelines, troughs, and springs. Water distribution on the Burd-Raton Allotment is focused on the eastern portion of the allotment where the concentration of AUMs is optimum for livestock.

East Pinos C&H. Five pastures are grazed on a deferred-rotation basis with 150 cow/calf pairs and a season of 6/26–9/20 (87 days) for 429 HMs or 566 AUMs. Access to this allotment is through the permittee’s private property nearby and adjacent to the allotment. Water and fencing in the Munger Canyon Pasture is not adequate to hold cattle, resulting in livestock leaving the pasture early. The cattle trail out onto adjacent private land then follow the East Fork of Pinos Creek and trail along Burro Creek to settle at Fitton Guard Station. Planned days in the rotation of each pasture are shortened and extra time is utilized in the Burro-Bennett Pasture. Along isolated areas of Burro Creek and Bennett Creek there are points along the creeks where banks are unstable and show hoof shear caused by cattle crossing. Wildlife and illegal ATV activity also add to the disturbance. To mitigate these isolated occurrences of riparian disturbances, plans have been made to add a short section of new fencing (less than 0.1 mile) in Munger Canyon and rebuild one water spring near the south end of the pasture. Additionally, a new spring requiring minimal disturbance will be completed by the 2010 grazing season. With additional water distribution and fencing in Munger Canyon, pasture rotations will be normalized and monitoring will continue to determine if resource conditions and riparian guidelines are being met.

Rangeland apparent trend is static to upward based on photographs, and data from the late 1990s and more recent data from 2008. Data between two transects from 2008 cover-frequency studies indicate no increase in bare ground or decrease in litter production. From historical photos in 1997 and 1998 there are isolated instances of utilization exceeding 50 percent (54 to 66 percent) on upland benches near Fuchs Reservoir. Meadow areas near Fitton Guard Station and Burro Creek utilizations were about 43 percent in 1997 and 36 to 38 percent in 1998. Photos and data from 1998 at Bennett Creek near the base of Bennett Peak indicate low utilization (17 percent) and riparian areas are intact, stable, and show minimal signs of erosion along 0.25-mile segments with isolated areas of disturbance from crossings which recover after the season. In 1999 utilization data was down from >50 percent to 38 to 40 percent on benches near Fuchs Reservoir. Overall the allotment is meeting or moving toward Forest Plan standards, and monitoring is ongoing for all riparian areas and meadows near Burro and Bennett Creeks. With changes in rotation due to addition of new fencing and water systems to the Munger Canyon area, monitoring will continue to assess changes in isolated areas of heavier use throughout the allotment (these areas are considered benchmarks).

Range Improvements: The Colorado Water Resources Division was contacted to ensure proper water rights status for development of a new spring, and necessary cultural clearances were obtained to facilitate implementation and completion of the project in 2010 for new fencing and spring development. An existing stock tank is planned for rebuilding in 2010 in the south end of the pasture, plus the new development near the northern end of the pasture as mentioned previously. Most water sources are small creeks, streams, and natural springs. Other fences on the allotment (combined) make up approximately 5 miles of boundary and interior fencing,


47

including drift fences. Fences range in length from 0.1 to 0.75 miles, and current condition ranges from poor to good. Fencing along the south boundary between Conejos and Divide Ranger Districts is largely buck and pole and has deteriorated leaving uncontrolled access by East Pinos cattle onto the Campo Bonito and Marble Mountain S&G Allotments on the Conejos Peak Ranger District. This access has been discussed with East Pinos permittees and strategies are being developed to stop access. One possible solution includes asking for permittee-permittee compensated assistance from the sheep herder (S&G allotments, Conejos Peak Ranger District) to drive cattle back to East Pinos. Other options include fencing and additional herding when cattle are in this vicinity. Salt and minerals may also be employed to redistribute cattle away from the boundary.

Frisco Cattle C&H. There are five pastures on the Frisco Allotment grazed on a deferred-rotation basis. Currently, there are 130 cow/calf pairs, though in some seasons yearling cattle are present as part of the operation. The allotment is grazed from June 15 to September 15 (93 days) and there are 396 HMs or 523 AUMs. Access to the Frisco Allotment is gained by trucking cattle to the San Francisco Creek trailhead vic inity then driving them into the East Frisco (East Fork) pasture to begin the rotation. In the fall cattle are rounded up and exit from the Lower Unit Pasture near the West Fork of Pinos Creek and County Road 14.

A carrying capacity study (see discussion under Burd-Raton C&H) was done on this allotment to consider potential changes in season of grazing. Specifically, there is a proposal to add 15 days to the season from June 15–September 15 to June 15–September 30. Addition of 15 days adds 84 AUMs to the grazing season (or about a 16 percent increase in AUMs). This is well within the lower range of potential maximum carrying capacity given the modeled GIS estimation. Management has been satisfactory or above satisfactory and rangeland trend is upward. Native grasses show signs of increase, weeds are not increasing, and bare ground does not show sign of increase. Good plant canopy cover exists to help reduce the risk of erosion. Under adaptive management if monitoring shows that standards and guidelines are not being met, then action will be taken to correct deficiencies until guidelines are met or moving toward forest plan goals and objectives.

Range Improvements: Fencing on the allotment inc ludes about 4 miles of poor to satisfactory fencing built variably between 1952 and 1990. Water developments include four pit tanks (earthen, built in 1970) and two springs with metal stock tanks, built in 1970 and 1972. Assessments for condition of improvements are ongoing as for all allotments and maintenance is regularly scheduled in the AOIs each year during the grazing season.

Martinez-Underwood S&G. The allotment is permitted for grazing with four pastures on a deferred rotation basis and a split spring/fall season. Spring grazing is permitted from 5/21–6/30 (41 days) with 750 ewe/lamb pairs and 3 head horses (5 AUMs) for 1,011 HMs or 202 sheep AUMs. The fall season is permitted for 1,000 ewe/lamb pairs from 10/6–10/30 (25 days). There are 822 HMs or 164 sheep AUMs currently permitted for this allotment during the fall period. A total of 371 AUMs is permitted for this allotment including both seasons of grazing. Martinez-Underwood S&G Allotment falls entirely under the FS management area (MA) prescription for deer and elk winter range (MA 5.41).

This allotment has not been grazed since about the year 2000. A period of extended resource and personal convenience non-use has occurred through 2009. Long term stocking plans will be dependent upon the current term permit holders’ ability to actively stock the allotment. Should term permit holders change, under the adaptive management alternative, two options are being considered for the Martinez-Underwood Allotment. The first option would be to continue to


48

graze the permit as it stands with current season, livestock class, and number. The second option would be to designate this allotment as a forage reserve allotment. A forage reserve allotment would be utilized when emergencies exist for grazing livestock under special conditions. A major challenge on this allotment is water distribution. Available water exists in the early spring corresponding to the sheep grazing season already in place, and the fall period. Considerations of sheep grazing in the winter (December/January) are possible, except during deep snows which tend to be rare. A change of livestock class was considered; however, cattle grazing would be less than optimal because the season would be restricted to summer/early fall grazing when water would have to be hauled regularly to supplement scant seasonal rains from thunderstorm activity. High intens ity-short duration thunderstorms punctuate this area in the summer which affects infiltration and erosion rates making a split season sheep grazing regimen a better opportunity for resource conservation.

Range condition and trend was recorded as static and in fair to good condition through the 1970s to 1980s. Site visits were conducted from 2006 to 2008. Current photos of long-term trend sites and professional judgment from site visits during the 2006 to 2009 seasons indicate a static to upward trend with bare soil, litter production, vegetation classification, and population being considered. The species community (proportion of native grasses and forbs expected on range sites/ecological sites) represented currently is within no less than a fair rating with an upward trend when compared to Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) soil surveys for range sites where Forest Service trend studies were completed. When historical photos (1958 to 1970) were compared to current photos (2008 to 2009) bare soil has decreased in plots, and vegetative characteristics show signs of improvement in plant vigor and population dynamics, and less weed spread can be observed. Some weed patches (thistle and whitetop) exist near the water tank/spring system on BLM land adjacent to the Gopher Gulch/Nicomodes Gulch area east of the Nicomodes Pasture on the east side of the allotment (with ongoing monitoring and plans for treatment by the BLM).

Range Improvements: There are approximately 3.25 miles of total fencing on the Martinez-Underwood S&G Allotment. Fencing condition ranges from critical to satisfactory. There has been no documented evidence of current maintenance since prior to 2000. Construction of fencing on the allotment occurred between 1962 and 1981. Whether the allotment is restocked with the current active permit, or reclassification to forage reserve takes place, all range improvements must be assessed and will be a priority to consider for reconstruction or replacement as needs dictate. There are a number of springs, tanks, and pipelines on the allotment which need assessment for location and condition. The water systems were constructed between 1948 and 1990.

Rock Creek C&H. Rock Creek C&H is grazed using four pastures on a deferred-rotation basis with 82 cow/calf pairs from 6/11–9/27 (109 days). There are 294 HMs or 388 AUMs.

Range condition is fair to good; soil and vegetation characteristics are showing upward trends. Site vis its conducted from 2006 to 2009 and comparison of historical photos with current photos, indicate plant canopy cover is good and weed spread is very low. Native desirable species appear to be increasing since 2002 with improved annual precipitation in the area. Data collected prior to the 1970s indicated some isolated areas that were in poor or fair condition with trends either upward or downward. These areas have benefitted from occasional rest from grazing since that time and have recovered. Current conditions are static to upward in trend over the majority of the allotment. Monitoring along riparian areas (Upper and Lower Rock Creek)


49

will continue in an effort to ensure guidelines are being met for utilization and that erosion or streambank instability is not occurring.

Range Improvements: There are approximately 9 miles of fencing throughout the Rock Creek C&H Allotment. Fences were constructed between 1932 and 1984. Most of the fencing is in satisfactory to good condition with some areas in poor condition that need to be repaired to avoid boundary trespass between FS and BLM. A 0.5 mile of buck-and-pole fence needs to be assessed for condition as well as a 0.3 mile boundary fence segment near Pintada Mountain. There are three cattleguards assessed each year for condition and to make sure they are not being filled-in with soil from rains, which, over time, can be walked over by cattle. Watering systems are present and include springs, troughs, and pipelines installed between 1948 and 1986. Current condition is considered less than satisfactory. These systems are monitored for condition and scheduling of maintenance and replacement is needed.

The water system near the Burnt Gulch/Rock Slide area also serves water to the adjacent BLM allotment through an overflow process from the FS side. There is an existing pipeline at this site that needs to be assessed for replacement and subsequent burial to prevent pipe segments from becoming disconnected from animal, recreation, or heat-induced contraction/expansion disturbances. In addition, there are considerations to assess the tanks at the location and install a pipeline “Y” with two valves in order to facilitate water availability to both the FS and BLM permittees in order to reduce impact on permittee scheduling when water is needed for the adjacent pastures using the same water source. Other solutions may be considered, but FS and BLM permittees and range staff for both agencies will meet to discuss options in 2010.

West Pinos C&H. This allotment is composed of five pastures and is utilized on a deferred-rotation basis. There are 330 cow/calf pairs with some yearlings substituted for cow/calf pairs in some years. The current grazing season is from 6/16–9/30 (107 days) maintaining a total of 1,160 HMs or 1,531 AUMs. Access to the allotment is primarily by cattle drive through adjacent private and public lands where permissions for crossing have been given.

Carrying capacity was estimated using the SREI and GIS software to determine the number of AUMs that could be supported. A consideration to add 10 days to the season is being engaged by lengthening the end of the season. The additional 10 days would increase the AUMs by about 9 percent, giving a total of 1,676 AUMs from the current 1,532 AUMs. Management has been better than satisfactory on the allotment and improvements are well maintained. The increase is well below the maximum estimated carrying capacity and would not impact wildlife or other resources because the allotment is very productive in terms of forage resources and water availability.

Range trend is considered to be static to upward based on site visits, photos and professional judgment from 2006-2009. Bare ground does not appear to be increasing and there is no increase detected in noxious weed spread. Vegetation appears to be vigorous with some desirable natives showing an increase in production.

Range Improvements: There are five cattle guards installed between 1968 and 1980; they are monitored for condition annually. There are approximately 11 miles of fencing on the allotment ranging from mostly satisfactory to good condition. Condition of fencing is assessed annually and plans to replace or re-build poor condition fences are ongoing. Water distribution is very good with many natural sources of water and several tanks to supplement water needs. These


50

supplements also assist with wildlife needs. Most of the tanks are filled by natural springs and were installed variably between 1968 and 2003. As with fencing, water systems are assessed annually with replacement or re-building ongoing as needs dictate.

The Willow Park Pasture is a benchmark/key area and includes a livestock watering facility that needs maintenance. Specifically, erosion is occurring around the tank and spreading to a small wetland between the tank and a small tributary to Willow Creek. Currently, there is no structure that prevents water from draining around the tank. An outlet line that would run to the tributary would control the erosion immediately around the tank. Temporarily fencing the small wetland would be an additional method of reducing impact, although an outlet line directly returning overflow from the tank to the tributary would be sufficient to allow recovery of the wetland and assist with reducing erosion immediately adjacent to the tank.

3.4.4 Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects None of the alternatives would be expected to result in significant direct, indirect, or cumulative effects.

Alternative 1 (No Permitted Livestock Grazing)

Under this alternative, permitted livestock grazing would not occur so there would be no direct or indirect livestock-induced effects on the vegetation and ground cover of the project area (key issue 1). Grazing by recreational livestock and wildlife would continue and may even increase. The vegetation types of the project area may benefit from reduced livestock grazing intensity (Holechek 1981; McNaughton 1983), which is defined by Holechek et al. (1998) as the cumulative effects grazing animals have on rangelands during a particular time period. The native graminoids in the vegetation types and other forage species would likely increase in abundance and distribution (provided there is enough available moisture) since they would not be grazed by livestock, allowing them to display greater leaf areas for photosynthesis and attain a competitive advantage (Heitschmidt and Stuth 1993). Greater leaf areas for photosynthesis would allow these species to increase in vigor and build up their root reserves, which would increase their chances for survival by increasing their ability to reproduce and withstand drought, disease, fire, insect impacts, and grazing impacts from wildlife. These changes would have positive effects on the ecological processes of nutrient cycling, hydrologic function, and succession. As vegetation conditions improve and bare soil is reduced, there would be less opportunity for invasive species and undesirable native species to increase, and a chance for these species to decrease due to competition from desirable species.

Under this alternative, short- and long-term ecological conditions in all the herbaceous vegetation types of the project area are likely to improve which would include an increase in the abundance and distribution of native graminoids. Increases in cover or composition of those plant species most preferred by cattle would likely occur. Plant community changes occur very slowly (on a time-scale magnitude of decades). Upland sites would improve at a slower rate than mesic meadows and parks, because these sites lack the natural productivity and resiliency of sites with greater moisture availability. Because of past practices and impacts, it is doubtful these plant community changes would occur on all sites across the landscape. These predictions are based on analysis of the present condition of other sites in and adjacent to the planning area.

Under this alternative, the desired Forest Plan direction of “all rangelands…managed for a mixture of seral stages, with most of the rangelands in mid to high seral stages” may be attained. Areas in the project area in which the native graminoids are totally absent or are too low in


51

abundance for successful reproduction may have lost the potential to attain the long-term desired condition of mid- to high-seral even if livestock are removed. When grazing pressure is reduced or removed from a poor condition site, the rate of succession or change back to a previous condition or to a desired condition is generally much slower than desired for management purposes (Archer and Smeins 1993).

Management flexibility (key issue 1) as it relates to livestock management as a resource tool would be eliminated under this alternative. The ability to respond to annual changes in biological, physical, and social changes/desires relative to livestock grazing would be nonexistent. Other means of managing rangeland resources in the analysis area to meet Forest Plan desired conditions without domestic livestock grazing would be difficult.

Riparian area health (key issue 2) would be mitigated in part under this alternative. Specifically, there would be less potential impacts directly from livestock due to their absence. Riparian areas currently impacted would recover slowly over time. Continued impacts from native populations of wildlife (e.g., deer and elk) would be occasional and compounded by years with high-intens ity thunderstorms and years with rapid snow melts. Additionally, impacts from recreation, especially ATV use, four-wheel vehicles, and recreational or commercial (outfitter-guide) horse traffic would continue to have some effect.

There would be local economic impacts due to the elimination of permitted livestock grazing (key issue 3). No livestock grazing would forgo an opportunity granted in the Forest Plan (pages IV-3 and -4); this would have a direct economic impact on the individuals associated with the term grazing permit issued for the analysis area. There would also be a resultant non-signif icant indirect and cumulative economic impact on the local economy of the San Luis Valley (see the economic analysis presented in section 3.7).

Alternative 2 (Current Livestock Grazing Management)

Levels of use by livestock and wildlife, in terms of timing, intensity, and duration/frequency, are directly related to seral condition, forage value, and rangeland health. Areas with historic heavy use have lower seral condition and lower cover and forage values. Forage availability (type, amount, condition, divers ity, density) may change annually, depending on environmental factors, management, and human and natural events. Grazing prescriptions that are formulated before the grazing season and applied without regard to a changing environment throughout the season may fail to achieve desired results.

The current livestock grazing management system is fairly static from year to year, and is functioning to fully meet or move toward desired conditions and direction in the Forest Plan on rangelands within the analysis area. Under this alternative, livestock would graze forage species in certain vegetation types of the project area, which when compared to ungrazed plants (alternative 1), would decrease the photosynthetic abilities of the plants by decreasing the leaf areas necessary for performing this function (Heitschmidt and Stuth 1993; Caldwell et al. 1981). A reduction in photosynthesis decreases the vigor and root reserves of these plants, and decreases their chances for survival by decreasing their ability to reproduce, compete, and withstand drought, disease, fire, insect impacts, and grazing. A decrease in the abundance, distribution, and vigor of plant species due to livestock grazing decreases the amount of ground cover (vegetation and litter) and soil organic matter, and increases the amount of bare soil, which has the potential to reduce infiltration (Lull 1959; Smith 1967; Dadkhah and Gifford 1981), increase runoff and erosion (Lull 1959; Orr 1975; Dunford 1954; Smith 1967), and increase compaction (Dadkhah and Gifford 1980; Lewis 1980; Packer 1953; Balph and Malechek 1985).


52

Livestock grazing impacts to all the vegetation types of the project area are likely to be greater under this alternative compared to Alternative 3, because management would be less flexible (key issue 1) and responsive. Under this alternative, short-term and long-term ecological conditions in all the vegetation types are likely to remain similar to current conditions. The abundance and distribution of native graminoids are likely to remain the same or increase minimally.

Management flexibility (key issue 1) would be somewhat limited. The ability to change grazing system, season of use, and livestock numbers would be somewhat unresponsive to annual changes in biological, physical, and social changes. Annual changes made in the AOI to permittees would generally be by exception. Possible management adjustments needed in the future could require a new NEPA analys is. Any infrastructure changes (such as water improvements and fencing) would require new NEPA analys is.

Overall, this alternative would not be expected to meet Forest Plan standards and guidelines and the Forest Plan desired conditions for rangeland resources (Forest Plan, appendix A, table A-1). Forage vegetation (quality, quantity, condition, diversity, and density) changes depending on environmental factors, management, human and natural events. Hence, management that is formulated prior to the grazing season and applied without regard to changing forage availability and other factors may hinder achievement of Forest Plan desired conditions.

The local economic impact of livestock grazing would be neutral, since current management would continue (see the economic analysis in section 3.7).

Alternative 3 (Adaptive Livestock Grazing Management)

Under this alternative, adaptive management options would be available to help improve rangeland conditions and livestock management within the project area. Specific management changes and adaptive options would be implemented in areas where desired conditions are not being met, including areas where trends may be downward. Under this alternative, livestock would graze forage species in the vegetation types of the project area, as described in alternative 2, but the potential adverse effects of livestock grazing, as described in alternative 2, are less likely to occur because adaptive options for correcting problems and improving range conditions could be implemented. This increases the chances for desirable forage plants to photosynthesize, survive, and increase in abundance, distribution, and vigor by increasing their ability to reproduce, compete, and withstand drought, disease, fire, insect impacts, and grazing. The adaptive options analyzed are intended to improve rangeland conditions. Their implementation is not expected to cause adverse ecological effects, but if this occurs this practice may be modified and another option substituted to achieve the desired results consistent with Forest Plan desired conditions.

Under this alternative, short- and long-term ecological conditions in all the herbaceous vegetation types are more likely to improve compared to alternative 2, which would include an increase in the abundance and distribution of native graminoids. Per this alternative, attainment of the Forest Plan desired condition “all rangelands…managed for a mixture of seral stages, with most of the rangelands in mid to high seral stages” is likely because new adaptive tools are available and could be implemented to improve conditions to “Achieve or maintain satisfactory range conditions on all rangelands.”


53

The objective for most of the vegetation types to attain their specific desired conditions for bare soil and canopy cover of native graminoids is likely to be met; again, because adaptive tools are available to improve conditions and meet those targets.

Management flexibility (key issue 1) would be optimized under this alternative. The Forest Service would be able to adjust management practices to respond to changing environmental and social conditions in order to move conditions toward Forest Plan desired conditions. Management adjustments (i.e., using the Grazing Management Toolbox) within the scope of this EA could be made without conducting new NEPA analysis.

Grazing capacity would be based on the assignment of allowable use criteria (see section 2.5) on key areas/benchmark sites. By enforcing allowable use design criteria, cattle would be moved when the criteria are met. Over time, this would help refine an estimated grazing capacity for a given area or pasture. Grazing capacity is not a set number; it varies depending upon management effectiveness and environmental factors. Allowable use criteria and applied management tied to long-term effectiveness monitoring would allow changes as needed to respond to changing conditions.

The local economic impact of livestock grazing would be positive, since this alternative allows livestock grazing (see the economic analysis in section 3.7).

3.5 Watershed and Aquatic Resources

3.5.1 Scope of the Analysis This section discusses watersheds and the aquatic environment for the Grayback-Pintada Analys is Area. Streams and watersheds in the analysis area are shown in figure 3.5-1. Sixth-level watersheds were selected for analysis. Major stream channels shown on U.S. Geological Survey Quad maps are shown. Riparian areas and aquatic life are associated with many of the streams.

3.5.2 Past Actions That Have Affected the Existing Condition Several of the watersheds within these rangeland allotments are within Backcountry Forest Plan MA designation, so surface disturbing activities have been limited. The East Pinos, Frisco, Burd-Raton, Bennett Spring, and Rock Creek Allotments have significant acres within Backcountry (figure 3.5-2). Known watershed disturbances include timber harvest areas, outdoor recreation sites, and roads.

Historical livestock grazing affected existing conditions in 6th level watersheds that contain area allotment lands. Impacts were high in the early 1900s, and have slowly improved over time. In most areas these impacted areas have healed well with improved management. The watersheds have had disturbances associated with timber harvest areas, outdoor recreation sites, and roads. A listing of these disturbances by 6th

level watershed is provided in an attachment to the Watershed Specialist Report. Refer to the glossary in this EA for definitions regarding Rosgen classifications I and II.


54

Figure 3.5-1. Streams and watersheds within the analysis area


55

Figure 3.5-2. Range allotments within the Backcountry MA prescription


56

3.5.3 Existing Condition State of Colorado water quality regulations protect streams in this analysis area for cold-water aquatic life, recreation, water supply, and agricultural uses. None of these stream uses were reported as impaired under Colorado water quality regulations.

The Forest Plan also requires that watershed and stream health be assessed (see Forest Plan FEIS, pages 3-265 through 3-270). Watershed health is considered at risk when total disturbance exceeds concern levels established in the Forest Plan. Total disturbance is below Forest Plan concern levels for all watersheds.

Stream/riparian health assessments were conducted by Forest Service personnel. Previously collected information from recent timber sale analyses was also utilized. Details of stream and riparian health are found in the Watershed Specialist Report prepared for this project. The analys is area has healthy watersheds and stream channels. Localized stream-health concerns exist, however, on particular reaches of the following streams:

• Burro Creek/Bennett Creek near the Fitton Guard Station Area • Burns Creek • Small perennial tributary to Burro Creek • Small perennial tributary to Rock Creek

The following is a summary of conditions documented in that report. A few photographs have been included to show conditions on selected reaches. Stream reaches, riparian, and meadow areas likely utilized by livestock were chosen with the assistance of range specialists.

East Pinos Allotment The main streams in this allotment include East Fork Pinos, Burro, and Bennett Creeks. Larger meadows include those along Bennett and Burro Creeks. Much of the riparian vegetation zone along creeks is narrow due to topography and steep gradients. A description of stream and riparian health conditions follows.

East Fork Pinos Creek. This creek was found to be an E/B-3 (see glossary under Rosgen) stream on most reaches with healthy riparian and stable banks. Photo 1 shows an upper reach of East Fork Pinos with narrow stream width and a bedload with few fines. Stream health is robust. Downstream, stream and riparian conditions around Fuchs Reservoir remain good. Some old beaver dam breaches and livestock hoof shear at crossings have resulted in unstable bank but these impacts are localized.

Tributary to East Fork Pinos. In upper reaches of the east main tributary to East Pinos, stream health is robust. Riparian was found to be in proper functioning condition, with heavy willow in many areas and sedge the main bank stabilizing vegetation in others. Slope areas in uplands in this watershed were also found to be stable, with no gully or other erosion features noted (photo 2).


57

Burns Creek/Burro Creek. Burns Creek is a tributary to Burro Creek, and flows through a large meadow area above the Fitton Guard Station. Conditions on this stream are robust on upper reaches above the main meadow areas, although hummocky banks are a common feature. As one traverses downstream toward the Fitton Guard Station area, streambank and adjacent area conditions still display the effects of heavy historical use and current use appears to be slowing recovery in some locations. Width on the stream increases and hummocky areas are present (photo 3).

One cumulative factor in stream health in the Fitton Guard Station is an ATV trail. At one point where two old cabins are located, ATVs have caused damage to Burro Creek’s streambank and trailing/erosion impacts on a short route to the cabins. On one localized reach of a small unnamed perennial tributary that flows northward to Burro Creek at Fitton Guard Station, unstable streambank is present and stream width is more than expected for a stream of this type (photo 4). Bank shear and hummocky bank areas are present. Upstream and to the south on these drainages, stream health improves markedly with less unstable bank (photo 5), well within Forest guidelines. Stream type varies between E-3 and B-3, depending on gradient.

Upper Burro Creek. Upper parts of Burro Creek watershed were recently evaluated for the Burro/Blowout timber sale project. Stream health was found to be robust, with stable stream banks and riparian areas in proper functioning condition. Previous timber harvest areas are stable with good grass, shrub, and tree cover (photo 6). Small, wet meadow areas are present in several of these small perennial tributaries to Burro Creek.

Bennett Creek. Upper reaches of Bennett Creek are stable with willow and sedge holding stream banks. Some hummocks are present, but hoof shear and other unstable bank areas were not common. Downstream, however, historical impacts still linger. Much of the meadow area is hummocked and this characteristic is not limited to streambank areas but extends away from the channel (photo 7). However, streambanks have stability well within Forest guidelines. Stream health is also affected by an ATV trail that contributes fine sediments during runoff due to connected drainage.

Photo 1: Upstream; UTM 364130/4147367 Photo 2: Downslope; UTM 365150/4146390


58

Photo 3: Upstream; UTM 369942/4149933 Photo 4: Upstream; UTM 370083/4149867

Photo 5: Upstream; UTM 370101/4149442 Photo 6: UTM 369423/4148973

Photo 8: Upstream; UTM 371037/4149705



59

In one lower reach where gradient increases, some incision has occurred over the years and the stream has several outside meanders that are bare and lack deep rooted vegetation to stabilize slumping. With time, these steep banks will eventually recede to the angle of repose and revegetate, but this will be a slow process. Downstream, gradient is less and stream width narrows and depth increases (photo 8). In this reach, sands make up a large part of bedload due to the erosion upstream. The stream incisement may be partially due to a stream crossing downstream where base level was slightly lowered. The outer meander erosion upstream is due to the stream adjusting, and not the direct result of current livestock grazing.

West Pinos Allotment West Fork Pinos Creek/Bear Creek. Reaches of West Fork of Pinos Creek in the southern part of the allotment were found to be in robust stream health (photo 9). Riparian vegetation is in proper functioning condition and livestock use appeared light. Unstable bank areas were at sites where old beaver dams had breached and the stream was readjusting and healing. Stream health in Bear Creek was also found to be robust. In Ruston Park, healthy streams are stabilized by thick sedge (photo 10).

Willow Park. Willow Park is a large meadow area that is the upper watershed for Willow Creek (photo 11). For the most part in this meadow, streams are ephemeral or intermittent. Stream channels are primarily grass and rock-lined swales. There are short, intermittent reaches where sedge is present. These short reaches with water are utilized by livestock, resulting in some unstable bank. One stock tank in the upper part of this watershed was non-functional, probably resulting in the heavier use along several of these short reaches where water was flowing.

Photo 10: Downstream; UTM 362373/4153540


Photo 11: Downstream; UTM 360421/4160706


60

Bennett Spring Allotment South Fork Rock Creek. The Bennett Spring Allotment includes South Fork Rock Creek in the north and tributaries to Alamosa River in the south. In 2005, the upper part of South Fork was included in a proposed beetle salvage timber sale. Field evaluations found that stream health on the main stem and small intermittent and perennial tributaries was robust.

Stream health in upper South Fork Rock Creek is also robust. Heavy riparian vegetation along the creek protects and stabilizes stream banks (photo 12). Smaller tributary streams were also in good stream health. Some grazing impacts, notably some hummocky areas along the stream were present, but bank stability is still well within Forest Plan guidelines. Downstream on the South Fork, stream conditions remain adequate to robust with healthy riparian and stable banks. One small tributary to South Fork Rock Creek exhibited hummocky banks. Exposed bank sediments were limited, and stability was well within standards.

Martinez-Underwood and Burd-Raton Stream health in these two allotments is robust, with excellent riparian areas along small drainages including Nicomodes Gulch (photo 13) and Dry Creek. Little or no use was evident in areas visited. Streambank stability was excellent and riparian vegetation was in proper functioning condition.

Rock Creek This allotment has two areas, one in the North Fork of Rock Creek watershed and the other to the east that includes Burnt Gulch and several small upper tributaries to Rock Creek. Stream health in these areas is for the most part robust, but some areas of high livestock use were noted, especially in the east allotment area that has less water available. Along the small tributaries that do carry water southward, bank alteration was high (photo 14). Reducing pressure along these small tributaries by collecting water and piping to a tank would benefit stream health.

Frisco Major drainages in this allotment includes the Middle and West Fork of San Francisco Creek, Little Bennett Creek, and Milk Creek. These streams are high gradient in upper parts of the watershed and are confined within steep, narrow drainages. Stream health is robust along these streams, and high lake areas at San Francisco Lakes are in good stream and riparian health. One large meadow area called Horseshoe Park was also in excellent vegetative condition when visited in 2009 (photo 15).


61

Photo 12: Upstream; UTM 374130/4147497 Photo 13: Upstream; UTM 383686/4159296

Photo 14: Upstream; UTM 385886/4147181 Photo 15: Downstream; UTM 374678/4157432


62

3.5.4 Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects None of the alternatives would be expected to result in significant direct, indirect, or cumulative effects. All alternatives are expected to meet condition requirements provided by the Forest Plan. Table 3.5-1 summarizes the expected effects based on the watershed and aquatic resources analys is.

Potential impacts of livestock grazing on stream/riparian health and fish habitat are described in the Revised Forest Plan FEIS, pages 3-274 and 3-202. Actual impacts of past activities are described in the previous “Past Actions That Have Affected the Existing Condition” section. Stream health is directly related to fish habitat. If streams are healthy, fish habitat is also generally healthy. Improvements of stream health also improve fish habitat.

The Clean Water Act requires that the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of all waters, stream channels, and wetlands be protected. Normal standards and guidelines, plus some additional mitigation, will provide that protection. By following these mitigation measures, we expect the impacts on streams and fish habitat to be minimal and ins ignificant. No alternative is expected to change the chemical quality of water noticeably. Temperature changes are also expected to be undetectable.

Effects Common to all Action Alternatives. The Clean Water Act of 1987 requires that chemical, physical, and biological integrity of all waters, stream channels, and wetlands be protected. Implementation of Forest Plan standards and guidelines, including the Watershed Conservation Practices, are normally expected to provide that protection. Alternative 3 provides some additional resource protection where determined to be appropriate. By following these design criteria, impacts to stream channels, riparian areas, and associated aquatic habitat would be expected to be minimal and insignificant.


63

Table 3.5-1. Direct, indirect, and cumulative effects for the analysis area (Watershed and Aquatic Resources analysis)

Effects Analysis

Alternative 1 – No Action (No Permitted Livestock Grazing)

Alternative 2 – Current Livestock Grazing

Management

Alternative 3 – Adaptive Livestock

Grazing Management

Aquatic Ecosystems

Phy

sica

l Sediment NE ME 1 ME

Bed/bank stability NE ME ME

Flow regimes NE NE NE

Che

mic

al Temperature NE NE NE

Water purity NE ME ME

Bio

logi

cal Aquatic life NE ME ME

TES species NE ME ME

Special Areas

Riparian ecosystems NE ME ME

Wetlands NE ME ME

Floodplains NE ME ME

Cumulative Effects

Aquatic ecosystems NE ME ME

Riparian ecosystems NE ME ME

1

Note: This checklist ensure s that all required effects are analyzed, gives a snapshot of all effects, and identifies items to dismiss from rigorous analysis.

NE = no effect; ME = minor effect; SE = substantial effect.


No impacts from permitted livestock to watershed or stream health would result from this alternative. Vegetation that has been impacted under current management would recover over time with rest. Cumulatively, existing good watershed and stream conditions would be expected to slightly improve over time.

Removing livestock from all allotments would eliminate all potential livestock-grazing impacts on stream channels, riparian areas, and associated habitat. This would produce the quickest recovery of reaches affected by livestock grazing.


Watersheds, stream channels and riparian areas would be left in their existing condition. Concern areas on creeks noted above could be dealt with through annual operating plans, but are not as likely to achieve desired conditions without flexibility afforded by the adaptive management alternative. Plants could be grazed too early under current management, because the grazing season is somewhat inflexible. There is also the potential for the same areas to be


64

used year after year, which could reduce plant vigor in small areas. These impacts have a small indirect effect on watershed condition, but do not appear to have noticeable effects on stream channels at present.


By focusing grazing prescriptions on areas where current range and watershed health conditions are less than satisfactory, such as the Fitton Guard Station area, more rapid recovery would be expected than under current management, although not as quickly as with the no-grazing alternative. Having the flexibility of utilizing options under adaptive management (Grazing Management Toolbox) would allow more rapid adjustment of grazing plans if initial corrective measures did not improve conditions as expected. Stream and riparian health can improve quickly with aggressive management to control use.

On three allotments, changes in numbers and/or days of use have been requested by permittees. These include Burd-Raton, West Pinos, and Frisco. On the Burd-Raton, an increase of up to 15 head of livestock (60 to 75) has been requested. Current stream health is robust and no areas of concern were noted during field evaluation, except for isolated areas where historical grazing had an impact and current use may be slowing recovery as noted in key areas/benchmarks (figure 1.6-1). These potential increases would result in an AUM increase from 109 to about 137, as a maximum, with adjustment of head number. However, this is well below the 575 AUM capacity calculated from range site information. On the West Pinos Allotment, an increase of 10 days is possible. Stream and watershed health on this allotment is currently robust. This increase in days would change AUMs from about 1,532 to 1,676. The AUM capacity from range site information is 3,514. The small increase in AUMs utilized is well under this potential. In the Frisco Allotment, an increase of 15 days is requested. This would result in an increase in AUMs from 525 to 609, an increase of about 16 percent. The calculated maximum AUMs from range site information are 1,403.

The proposed changes in extension of season of use on the West Pinos and Frisco C&H allotments should be within the forage base that is available. However, due to localized elevated use in several areas noted in several drainages, any increases on the West Pinos and Frisco allotments will be predicated on monitoring demonstrating compliance with use guidelines. With adaptive management, adjustments could be made to reduce pressure in any areas that may get more utilization than Forest standards and guidelines allow from these changes. Impact to watershed resources resulting from these changes should be acceptable.

The adaptive management allows “tools” such as season of use, numbers, pasture exclusion, and others to be utilized in a more responsive manner without additional NEPA. Monitoring would ensure that watershed resource conditions were moving toward or meeting Forest Plan desired conditions and to ensure changing resource conditions were tracked and changes applied. Direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts would not be expected to threaten existing overall good conditions.

Cumulative Effects

Future activities in these watersheds include timber sale projects (see section 3.16 “Timber Management/Forest Condition”). Watershed impacts due to these sales vary with management prescription and will be evaluated on a watershed and local scale when analyzed. Roads associated with these projects usually have the greatest potential to impact watershed health, but compliance with Forest standards and guidelines minimizes impacts.


65

Impacts due to ATV trailing near Fitton Guard Station (off Trail 873) that were noted during field evaluation have been mitigated by addition of fencing at the site. A portion of Trail 328 where an old corduroy timber crossing was in disrepair has been replaced in the summer of 2009 with geotextile and gravel hardening, reducing sediment impacts there.

The accumulation of watershed disturbances from past activities does not exceed Forest Plan concern levels for the 6th

Stream and riparian health is robust throughout the analysis area with isolated concern areas that would improve most rapidly under Alternative 3 (when comparing the action alternatives).

level watersheds included in this analysis. Forest Plan standards and guidelines will be used to prevent additional disturbances associated with timber harvest or other activities from having impacts on channels. No alternative should add more stress to stream channels or riparian areas.

3.6 Soil Resources

3.6.1 Scope of the Analysis This scope of this analysis is for the assessment of the effects on soil health (as defined in the Forest Plan) in the grassland/riparian soils/ecosystems where permitted livestock grazing would occur in the analysis area (shown in section 1.4). The desired condition is that soils are maintained or improved to healthy conditions so that erosion and compaction are kept within allowable limits. Allowable limits state that no more than 15 percent of an activity area (like a pasture, ecological unit, riparian area) may be compacted, displaced, eroded or severely burned (FSH 2509.18; USFS 1992; USFS 1996). For a soils analysis, an ecological unit is the analys is unit or key area within a pasture. An assessment of the effects on soil health (as defined in the Forest Plan) is the focus of this analysis. Table 3.6-1 shows the expected outcomes and effects of the three alternatives on soil health.

3.6.2 Past Actions That Have Affected the Existing Condition Past actions that have affected the existing condition have been discussed in the rangeland, watershed, recreation, and timber management sections

3.6.3 Existing Condition The allotments contain typical mountain valleys, canyons, and ridges of the San Juan Range. The landforms are riparian valley bottoms and floodplains, steep-sided valley walls, flat or gentle to steeply sloping meadow areas, alluvial fans, landslide slopes, glacial moraines, and mountain slopes. Soils in the allotments are primarily of volcanic origin. Volcanic rocks such as basalt, andesite, or rhyolitic break down and form clays. Volcanic ash also has been a source of soil parent material, forming fine silt soils. There are also inclusions of glacial till throughout the allotments.

Soils that support grasses and other forage species in the Soil Resource Ecological Inventory (SREI) of the RGNF (USDA Forest Service 1996a) units on the allotments generally consist of loamy surface horizons, with increasing amounts of clay in deeper layers, and often increasing cobbles with depth. They tend to be relatively deep and well drained.


66

Table 3.6-1. Estimated effects on soils by alternative

Alternative 1 – No Action (No Permitted

Livestock Grazing)

Alternative 2 – Current Livestock Grazing

Management

Alternative 3 – Adaptive Livestock Grazing

Management

Healthy soils maintained; soils not meeting standards move toward healthy conditions over the long term – most rapid rate of recovery

Healthy soils would maintain health; soils not meeting standards be maintained in the current condition, or where there are headcuts and a lowering water table, they may degrade over both the short and long term

Healthy soils maintain health; soils not meeting standards would improve through proper adaptive management; and improved application and compliance with design criteria; vegetation and soil conditions would improve over time; monitoring and compliance is essential

A summary of all sampled SREI units on the Grayback-Pintada allotments is located within the project record. This includes surface structure, potential plant association, erosion hazard, range site, landform, and condition rating. Soils in these key areas/benchmark sites are representative of the soils that are most susceptible to detrimental effects from grazing in each allotment, but are not representative of the entire allotment.

Most of the SREI units appear to be near their ecological potential for vegetation. However, at some key areas native fescue species have been selectively grazed leading to gradual conversion in plant species composition. Often, increasing amounts of Poa spp., early- to mid-seral species, and other increaser plant species were encountered. Changes in grass species are probably the result of past selective grazing by cattle and/or other herbivores such as elk. At this time it is not thought that soil impacts such as compaction have led to changes in vegetation patterns, especially changes from more desirable species, such as fescues, to Poa spp.

Standardized methodologies were used to analyze the Grayback-Pintada allotments by a qualif ied soil scientist. The methods used were adapted from the USFS Region 3 Soil Management Handbook (USDA Forest Service, 1999), and include parameters used to measure Forest Plan soil management compliance. This handbook uses a standardized checklist (available in the project record) to rate 17 key soil indicators as: satisfactory, impaired, or unsatisfactory. A summary of this checklist as well as professional knowledge, photos, and field notes were used to assign a final rating for each soil unit examined. A summary of soil ratings as well as soil function and stability rankings, trend, slope, aspect, pasture, and percent ground cover is located in the project record.

A watershed is considered to be in an unsatisfactory condition when a signif icant proportion of the watershed is exceeding soil loss tolerance levels or if the hydrologic function is unstable (USDA Forest Service 1999). If soil losses and hydrologic function exceed tolerances, soil productivity will be lost.

Soils units were examined based upon the accessibility of key areas/benchmark sites to cattle grazing. Soil survey information was gathered at allotment key areas, which were thought to represent conditions on the allotments or pastures. Soil Resource Ecological Inventory (SREI) of the RGNF (USDA Forest Service 1996a) was used as a guideline for reference conditions. When performing field sampling, all sites were located in key areas where there was evidence of past or current grazing (site location maps are located in the Soil Resource Report within the project record).


67

At each sampling point, an area of 3 to 4 acres was walked and observations made. A representative center point was selected, pictures taken, evaluation form tallied, and field notes were taken. In addition, ground cover percentage was estimated for the following categories : bare soil, basal vegetation, litter/duff, rock cover, and coarse wood.

Five sites were sampled on the West Pinos Allotment. Four sites were found to be satisfactory, and one was impaired. The impaired site was in the Sanderson Unit Pasture. The reason for impairment was due primarily to the formation of soil pedestals and visible soil erosion. The effects were not severe enough to rate the site as unsatisfactory for soil function. All sites were found to have a desirable mixture of plant species by the range conservationist. This was true for all the allotments in this analysis. Sites 2 and 4 had 50 percent ground cover. This is the primary reason site 4 was ranked as impaired. Site 2 did not display the same types of widespread erosion as site 4.

The West Pinos site where soil function was rated as impaired was located in SREI unit 114. SREI unit 114 is a drier, shallow soil with a potential vegetation of Arizona fescue/mountain muhly habitat. This site showed some increase of pinyon pine which could potentially be a sign of site conversion to drier species. This area also showed signs of widespread erosion/deposition and soil pedastalling. Minor concerns were found in other SREI units, but overall they were in satisfactory condition.

Two sites were sampled on the East Pinos Allotment, both located in the Fitton Guard Station meadow. Both sites were found to be satisfactory. Ground cover was at least 95 percent at each of the sampled sites. Existing plant communities were desirable at both sites. Both sites were rated satisfactory for soil stability.

Two sites were sampled on the Martinez/Underwood Allotment. These sites were both satisfactory and ground cover was at least 70 percent at both of the locations.

Three sites were sampled in the Bennett Springs Allotment and were all in satisfactory condition for soil function and stability. Site vegetative communities were generally in satisfactory condition and ground cover was at least 95 percent in each of the sampling sites.

Two sites were sampled in the Rock Creek Allotment and were found to be in satisfactory condition for soil function and stability. Vegetative communities were in satisfactory condition and ground cover was at least 85 percent at both sampling locations.

3.6.4 Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects The Forest Plan describes the effects of livestock grazing on soil health (FEIS, page 3-292). Livestock grazing can adversely influence soil properties such that watershed function as a whole can be affected (Brooks et al. 2003). Water infiltration into soils can be affected by vegetative cover. Generally, when vegetative cover decreases, soil infiltration decreases and runoff increases which in turn increases waterflow patterns, erosion, and often leads to sheet flow, and rill and gully development. This increases even on well-drained, alluvial, valley bottom soils (Malchus 1996). Livestock grazing can reduce infiltration capacities by removing plant material, exposing mineral soil to raindrop impact, compacting the soil surface, and removing soil biological crusts (Platts 1991). Infiltration improves when grazing management allows for the accumulation of grass litter on rangelands (Malchus 1996). These effects on the soil resource may alter soil productivity, nutrient cycling, and soil hydrologic function. Negative


68

impacts to productivity and hydrologic function result in long-term changes in forest resources such as forage production.

Forest Plan (including Watershed Conservation Practices) soil standards and guidelines are expected to be implemented in all alternatives. More site- or situation-specific design criteria are developed for action alternatives. Where conditions do not meet, or are not moving toward meeting desired conditions, the objective is to move toward achieving desired conditions by consistently meeting applicable design criteria (and LRMP standards and guidelines). None of the alternatives would be expected to result in significant direct, indirect, or cumulative effects.


Under the no action alternative, SREI unit 114, which is impaired due to soil effects, will remain in an impaired state for some time. This SREI unit will eventually move towards a satisfactory condition with abundant plant growth and a subsequent build-up of stabilizing ground cover. The cessation of grazing alone will result in satisfactory conditions without additional restorative activities. Satisfactory SREI units will remain in that state and likely improve. There are no additional detrimental soil effects such as compaction or displacement expected from implementation of the no-grazing alternative.

Alternative 2 (Current Management)

Soils are in overall satisfactory conditions and would remain that way with a continuation of current management. Under alternative 2, SREI unit 114, which is impaired due to soil effects, will remain in an impaired state. Plant re-growth and ground cover accumulation will be slower than the no-grazing alternative. Impaired sites may recover with current grazing; the timeline to meet satisfactory conditions is unknown. The SREI units currently in satisfactory condition for soil function and stability will remain that way under alternative 2.

There are no additional soil effects such as detrimental compaction or displacement expected from implementation of alternative 2.

Alternative 3 (Adaptive Management)

This alternative allows managers to focus on areas with resource concerns. Under the adaptive livestock management alternative, SREI unit 114, which is impaired due to soil effects, will recover as the ID team identifies this area as a benchmark and adapts management toward improving conditions. This SREI unit will move towards a satisfactory condition for soil function at a faster rate than under current grazing.

The SREI units currently in satisfactory condition for soil function and stability will remain that way under the proposed action.

Plant succession from early to mid to late successional species and plant re-growth will be slower than under the no-grazing alternative, but could be accelerated under this alternative. An adaptive management grazing strategy will result in satisfactory conditions in most areas without additional restorative activities. Impaired sites appear to already be in recovery with current grazing, but current grazing will slow recovery, and it is not clear how long it will take to get to satisfactory conditions. An adaptive management strategy will allow for faster recovery.

The identif ied Bennett Creek area of special interest would move quickly towards satisfactory conditions as grazing can be manipulated in the meadow area affecting the stream channel.


69

There are no additional detrimental soil effects such as detrimental compaction or displacement expected from implementation of the proposed action.

Cumulative Effects

Past, current and potential future activities in the project area include: road construction and maintenance, timber harvesting, mining, and recreation. Added to any potential effects from grazing activities, there is the potential for cumulative effects in the project area.

It should be noted that when there are no anticipated direct or indirect detrimental effects from the proposed activity, there are no anticipated cumulative effects on soil function or soil stability. One of the main soil measures for cumulative impacts is determining whether the 15 percent detrimental soil disturbance threshold is met.

As there are no detrimental direct effects from alternatives 2 or 3, there are no anticipated cumulative effects on soil function or soil stability. The proposed activities in Alternative 3 will improve soil function. There will remain to be isolated areas that have reduced soil productivity. These will be concentrated on fence lines, corrals, salt sites, and water tanks. However, this constitutes a very small portion of the allotments, less than the regional standard of 15 percent reduced productivity.

3.7 Social-Economic

3.7.1 Past Actions That Have Affected the Existing Condition See the other resource sections in this chapter under the same heading for a brief overview of past activities in the analysis area. Over time, the cost of doing business on NFS lands has increased for livestock operators. For example, operating costs have increased to ensure compliance under stricter grazing permit requirements. Increased recreational use, along with an increase in the number of other uses and activities occurring on the allotment, has also increased costs.

3.7.2 Existing Condition The social and economic implications of Forest resource management are of interest to local residents surrounding the Forest, Forest users, and other people throughout the San Luis Valley region which include: Alamosa, Conejos, Costilla, Mineral, Rio Grande, and Saguache Counties. Residents in the San Luis Valley (SLV), and specifically Alamosa and Rio Grande Counties, would be the most likely to experience the direct social and economic impacts of the decision resulting from this analysis. Because ranching operations have economic linkages with other sectors of the area’s economy, changes in Federal grazing can also have implications for the overall economy.

Many ranch operations in the SLV area are reliant upon Forest Service grazing allotments. Private grazing land is generally not available for replacement of Federal allotments, due in part to high land values throughout SLV. Consequently, permittee operations can be vulnerable to changes in Federal grazing.

The analysis area contains approximately 99,000 acres in Rio Grande County. One term permit holder lives in Conejos County, five term permit holders are based in Rio Grande County, and one term permit holder is based in Saguache County. All utilize the analys is area allotments to complement their ranching and farming operations. The communities most likely to be impacted


70

are those in which the permittees live and do business. Agriculture ranks as the number one source of base employment in the SLV. Agricultural jobs account for 41.5 percent for all base employment in the SLV. Average income is quite low because of highly competitive conditions and strong national pricing forces.

Inventories of beef cows in 2008 totaled 40,000 head of beef cattle for Conejos, Rio Grande, and Saguache Counties (NASS 2008). Sheep inventory by county from 2007 lists 20,000 head of sheep in all three counties. Grazing on the analysis area allotments represents 2.5 percent of county-wide totals for beef cows, and 5 percent for sheep.

The regional economy surrounding livestock grazing includes more than just livestock production. The related economics of pasture rental and hay sales currently also play a role in the regional economy as a whole.

Demographic Information. The communities of the SLV are experiencing changes in population growth and in the nature of their economics. Using U.S. Census data from the past six decades, including the 2000 Census (Colorado State Demography Office 2005) (http://dola.colorado.gov/demog/demog.cfm), gives an indication of the population trends within each county in the SLV (see FEIS for the Forest Plan, page 3-366, figure 3-67). The figure from the FEIS shows that the SLV’s population steadily decreased through the 1950s and 1960s to a low point in the 1970 census. Since the 1970s, the SLV’s population has increased. Approximately a 10 percent increase occurred in the last two decades, yet the current population level is still below the 1950 level. In contrast, the State's population has increased almost 250 percent during the past five decades, with a 13.2 percent increase in the past decade.

Alamosa County contains the city of Alamosa (the largest community in the SLV) and a regional trade center. Service and manufacturing companies are the largest employers along with retail trade and government (Federal, State, county, and local). According to the 2000 Census data, Alamosa County has a population of 14,966 residents.

Conejos County contains the communities of La Jara, Manassa/Romeo, Antonito, Sanford, and Capulin, and is the third most populated county in the SLV with 8,400 residents. Ranching, farming, and tourism are the major industries.

Mineral County contains the community of Creede and is the least populated county in the SLV with 831 residents. Real estate and tourism account for the majority of the economy in this county. Federal land comprises nearly 95 percent of the land base.

Rio Grande County contains the communities of Monte Vista, Del Norte, South Fork, and is the second most populated county in the SLV with 12,413 residents. These communities are located along US Highway 160 and rely heavily on the tourism industry. Other important contributors to the local economy include, ranching, agriculture, government, services-oriented industry, and timber. Rio Grande County has the largest livestock auction barn in the region.

Saguache County contains the communities of Saguache, Moffat, Villa Grove, and Center and has a population of 5,917 residents. The leading occupations are ranching agriculture, timber, and tourism.

Employment and Income. In the SLV, Alamosa, Monte Vista, and South Fork have diversified economies that include traditional and newer industries (such as telecommunications, four-season resorts, light manufacturing, and secondary or tertiary health care), while the towns of


71

Del Norte, Saguache, Ft. Garland, San Luis, Antonito, La Jara, and Manassa/Romeo have economies still generally focused on ranching and agriculture.

In some of the SLV communities whose population is shrinking, ranching is becoming the remaining primary economic activity. However, the structure of the economy in these areas is changing signif icantly. Merchants who provide the ranchers with goods and services are relocating to larger towns with larger potential for customer bases. So economies (Saguache, La Jara, Manassa/Romeo, and Antonito) may be more sensitive to changes in Forest Service permits.

The per capita personal income level is one indicator of the overall wealth and health of the local economy. The agriculture and service sectors are predominant in the SLV, and generally do not have high wages, before deductions for personal income taxes. Per capita income for the SLV counties is well below the State average (Forest Plan).

Social Factors. For the six-county region of the San Luis Valley, the 2000 U.S. Census reported approximately 45 percent of the residents were of Hispanic origin. Further review of the census data reveal that the percentage of people of Hispanic origin varies greatly, from Mineral County’s 2 percent to Costilla County’s 68 percent. The 2000 census information indicates the racial composition of the six-county region of the San Luis Valley as White, 78 percent; American Indians, 9.2 percent; Asian, 0.5 percent; Black, 0.2 percent; and other Race, 12.1 percent.

The importance of the ranching sector is an important part of the people’s heritage in the San Luis Valley. Ranching operations in the area often operate at a loss or close to the margin and their profitability can be substantially affected by a variation of market conditions. If access to Federal lands for livestock grazing is altered appreciably, this change would affect ranching profits and possibly overall business viability.

Cultural patterns also are an important facet of the communities in these areas. “Culture” generally refers to ways of thought and life, and to the social identities people develop in certain communities. Most people belong to or adopt a culture as they mature, and preserve the community culture and pass it along to their children.

In the SLV, some communities have strong traditional cultures (often based on ranching/or agriculture in particular), while others are beginning to experience change from the impact of new residents with different values, social norms, and attitudes toward land and the environment. In general, the cultures of communities with strong ties to ranching and agriculture are fairly robust.

Social associations and organizations are an important part of community and cultural life in this area, particularly in rural areas. The important formal and informal associations which unite people of diverse backgrounds, occupations, and cultures are the various grazing associations, special interest and civic groups, and religious organizations.

There is a high level of dependency on the Forest by SLV residents for subsistence. Because of high unemployment, low per capita income, and strong multi-generational ties to the region, the RGNF is used extensively as a source of fuel and food. Hunting, fishing, trapping, and firewood gathering are important uses of the Forest by local residents. These uses are difficult to quantify and qualify.


72

Cost efficiency is a measure of how well inputs (activities) are used in a production process to produce a fixed set of outputs. It is only a partial measure because not all benefits and costs to society can be quantified. Revenues from grazing have been assigned dollar values based on current markets and are quantifiable. Other resources, such as watershed health, riparian health, wildlife diversity, or scenic quality have not been assigned dollar values; therefore, they are considered qualitatively. This economic efficiency analysis does not consider ecosystem services or non-market goods that are not required at the project level by NFMA. Ecosystem services and non-market goods are addressed in the Forest Plan (see pages 3-445–3-469 of the FEIS). Alternatives that meet the requirements and intent of the Forest Plan achieve net public benefits as stated in NFMA.

3.7.3 Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects—Social In those counties where the general population is increasing—Alamosa, Rio Grande, and Mineral counties—employment by ranching is becoming less significant. However, in Conejos and Costilla counties, the population is projected to increase by less than 1 percent in any 5-year period between 2000 and 2030. The major industries within these counties include ranching, commodity farming, and services-related. Thus, ranching remains a major source of employment.

No social group would be made vulnerable by Forest Service actions related to the issuance or non-issuance of a livestock grazing permit associated with this analysis and decision. Participation by permittees and others in the ranching business in a variety of community, charitable, social, church, and school groups, etc., would be expected to remain high. Social associations among ranchers would be expected to remain in place under all the alternatives. Some organizations and informal gatherings may experience minor changes in participation under these alternatives, but this may be more attributable to ongoing changes in cultural and population makeup in the San Luis Valley rather than a consequence from any alternative. During the course of this analysis, no alternative considered resulted in any identif iable effects or issues specific to any minority group or low-income population or community. The Forest Service considered all input from persons or groups regardless of age, race, income status, or other social and economic characteristic. None of the alternatives have any civil rights-related effects because consideration of permitted livestock grazing has no effect on rights protected under civil r ights law. Finally, the actions proposed in the alternatives of this EA would have no effect on public health and safety. None of the alternatives would be expected to result in signif icant direct, indirect, or cumulative effects due to the relatively limited scope of the proposed actions.


The no-action alternative would reduce public land available for livestock grazing by approximately 99,000 acres. From a regional perspective, this loss of public livestock grazing acreage would not be significant. However, locally this acreage is important because it contributes to the viability of seven ranches. This alternative would result in the loss of 987 cattle and 1,000 sheep from the analysis area. In most cases, private ranch lands are not economic units in themselves and high land prices prohibit the addition of more lands for ranching. Besides the obvious value to the ranching families, the viability of the ranches is valuable to the community at large for open space, wildlife habitat, and other amenities. The lost contribution to counties in real dollars of economic impact could be substantial as well.


73

Overall, social effects to the San Luis Valley agricultural community would be relatively minor. However, loss of income would be the greatest to the affected families under this alternative. The overall operation would probably require changes in lifestyle, decreased spending, and greater diversification of the overall ranch operations. This analysis does not have access to the permittee’s personal business and financial information (i.e., profit margin, real estate, equipment, other personal property investments, total debt, etc.) to consider, so it is difficult to assess whether the ranches would remain viable under this alternative. It could require the permittees to rent or buy additional pasture or purchase additional feed to maintain their current livestock numbers. Additional pasture is generally not available within Conejos, Rio Grande, and Saguache counties. While this would be a substantial additional expense for the permittee, it would create economic opportunity for the suppliers of these products and/or needs. Under this alternative, any operation forced to sell and therefore go out of business, would be perceived by local residents as directly caused by the elimination of livestock grazing on Federal lands.

This alternative does not support the local economic value provided by livestock grazing. Alternative 1 would have the greatest social impact to local communities as the elimination of livestock grazing on the allotments would likely cause the dependent ranching operations to go out of business or drastically lower their current level of operation. If individuals and families move from the area, communities may lose their leaders, volunteers, participants, or other types of community energy and capacity in terms of residents. In addition to loss of human resources, selling of ranches often results in the splitting and subdivision of value-rich lands. However, cumulatively, this alternative would not be expected to have signif icant social impacts on the affected local communities due to the relatively limited scope of the proposed actions.


Continuation of the current situation would not create any short-term further risk to the permittee operations on national forest system lands. Outside forces, such as interest rates or fuel prices or weather related events, could change the margin of profit for the operation regardless of AUMs grazed on national forest system lands. Profit margins could become too small for the permittee to remain in business. There would likely be no change from the current situation due to Forest Service actions. However, over time, a continued inability to meet design criteria and/or desired conditions would be expected to result in reductions in stocking rate. These actions would then have an impact on the economic viability of the permit holder.


Changes in management would occur to address changing environmental and ecological conditions. Enhanced ecosystem conditions may mean increased nutritive value of forage which could result in higher weight gains on livestock, especially calves, which would likely increase rancher profit margins depending on market activity.

Due to the changes in monitoring, starting and ending dates for livestock grazing, requirements for moving livestock, possible boundary or classification changes, and other mitigation measures, it is difficult to predict the impact to the ranching operation and AUM levels. Outside forces play a large role in the ability for ranchers to maintain an operation’s profitability. The operator may not be able to adopt different management practices and/or profit margins could become too small to remain in business. Investments in replacing existing improvements and new improvements would be an additional cost. The ranching operation may benefit from new management practices as a result of increased land performance and vegetation health.


74

Cumulative Effects

These alternatives are not expected to make any important changes within the San Luis Valley agricultural community. There are no long-term cumulative effects predicted, since there would be no impact on the permittee (and thus no impact on local communities). These alternatives support the local economic value provided by livestock grazing. Cumulatively, these alternatives would not be expected to have signif icant social impacts on the affected local communities due to the relatively limited scope of the proposed actions.

3.7.4 Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects—Financial Efficiency The scope of this economic analysis focuses on the financial efficiency associated with the alternatives presented in this EA. The area covered is the analysis area that was shown in chapter 1, section 1.4. The computer model used to generate PNV figures is the Forest Service Regionally-approved program called Quick-Silver (version 6.00.0001, July 2008). Quick-Silver is a project analysis tool to determine the economic performance of long-term investments. All reports associated with the Quick-Silver analys is are located in the project file at the Divide Ranger District Office. Reports associated with the Quick-Silver analysis are available in the project record located in the Divide Ranger District office, Del Norte, CO.

Financial efficiency is a comparison of those costs and revenues that can be quantified in terms of actual dollars spent or received on the project. The main criterion in assessing the financial efficiency is present net value (PNV). PNV is an economic measure that accounts for all current and future costs and revenues for the proposed project in a single dollar figure. It is only a partial measure because not all benefits and costs to society can be quantified. Revenues from grazing have been assigned dollar values based on current markets and are quantifiable. To simplify the discussion here, the costs and benefits that are included in the PNV analys is are revenues to the Forest Service from grazing fees, the market value of forage to the permittee, annual maintenance to current range improvements (fencing and water developments) any new range improvements projected over the life of the project, annual monitoring of vegetation, and annual program costs to the Forest Service. This type of analysis does not account for non-market benefits, opportunity costs, individual values, or other values, benefits (i.e., water), and costs that are not easily quantifiable. Other resources, such as watershed health, riparian health, wildlife diversity, or scenic quality have not been assigned dollar values; therefore, they are considered qualitatively. Future costs and benefits are estimated and discounted into today’s dollars and added to the current project costs and revenues. The result is a figure that can be compared across alternatives representing the total financial impact over the life of the project. The financial and economic efficiency analysis covers a period of 10 years of costs, revenues, and benefits. This financial efficiency analys is does not consider ecosystem services or non-market goods that are not required at the project level by NFMA. Ecosystem services and non-market goods are addressed in the Forest Plan (see pages 3-445–3-469 of the FEIS). Alternatives that meet the requirements and intent of the Forest Plan achieve net public benefits as stated in NFMA.

Table 3.7-1 displays a summary of the financial efficiency analysis for quantifiable costs and benefits by alternative for all partners.


75

Table 3.7-1. Efficiency analysis (present net value in 2008 dollars)

Alternative Economic

Financial

Forest Service Permittee

Alternative 1 – No Permitted Livestock Grazing

-$12,101 -$12,100 $0

Alternative 2 – Current Livestock Grazing Management

-$138,324 -$56,235 -$82,089

Alternative 3 – Adaptive Livestock Management

-$173,485 -$78,969 1 -$94,515

1

The financial efficiency analysis is strictly a dollar-value computation. This type of analysis does not account for non-market benefits, opportunity costs, individual values, or other values, benefits (such as watershed health), and costs that are not easily quantif iable. For this reason, the PNV calculation is only one tool that is used to compare the alternatives and is not a deciding factor in the decision to be made.

Analyzed assuming the maximum cost of implementing all adaptive management actions. Actual costs would vary depending upon the effectiveness of specific design criteria. To fully disclose the potential economic effects of this alternative, the full suite of adaptive management actions and options are assumed to occur immediately, although all actions may not be needed.

Alternative 1 (No Livestock Grazing)

Under alternative 1 livestock operations on the analysis area would cease after one year; therefore, the term permit holders would not incur any costs or derive any future income after that time from Federal grazing. For the Forest Service, alternative 1 is negative, given that no revenue will be collected after one year, yet modest administrative costs to manage the land will continue.

Alternative 2 (Current Livestock Grazing)

Alternative 2 reflects current operational costs and income. The financial analysis shows that Agency income from grazing permit fees does not fully offset its costs of annual maintenance and permit administration (i.e., inspections). Grazing fees are set based on a formula established by Congress and Presidential Executive order. The formula is not subject to change by the Forest Service. Permittee operations show a net loss for grazing on Federal lands. Permittee costs include their annual operation and maintenance costs related to allotment management. The economic analysis includes the benefits and costs of both parties. When both agency and permittee benefits and costs are considered, the PNV is negative.

Alternative 3 (Adaptive Livestock Grazing)

Alternative 3 has been analyzed from the perspective of maximum implementation conditions and responses to management actions. This alternative assumes, for both the permittee and Forest Service, the cost of implementing all proposed adaptive management actions including additional operating, administration, and monitoring costs. In practice, these costs would vary depending upon the effectiveness of initial specific design criteria. Should monitoring during the life of the analysis reveal that not all actions are required, options would be implemented only to the extent that they are actually needed.


76

The Forest Service revenue flow under Alternative 3 decreases as compared to alternative 2. Additional costs incurred by the Forest Service and permittee under this alternative inc ludes respective share of costs to maintain or replace existing fences, build new fences, construct new spring developments, reconstruct nonfunctional spring developments, and an increase in administration and monitoring. The purpose for these actions and improvements is to maintain or improve rangeland conditions in the most cost-efficient manner possible over a reasonable period of time, while maintaining livestock grazing and generally contributing to ranch viability in the area. As stated in the purpose and need (sections 1.5 and 1.6), grazing on national forest system lands is an intended use of suitable rangelands, while maintaining and/or improving conditions in order to meet Forest Plan objectives and desired conditions.

3.8 Wildlife, Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive (TES) Species

3.8.1 Scope of the Analysis This analysis brief ly discusses and summarizes the potential impacts of the alternatives upon threatened, endangered and sensitive (TES) species and their habitat. The analysis was conducted for TES species at the following scale:

Canada lynx: The analysis area includes the Pinos-Rock Lynx Analys is Unit (LAU).

All other terrestrial TES species: Due to limited habitat effects expected from any of the alternatives, all other species were analyzed within the boundaries of the Grayback/Pintada Analys is Area.

3.8.2 Past Actions Affecting the Existing Condition The existing habitat conditions for TES species are the result of natural disturbances and past management activities within the allotments which are variable depending upon the Forest MA prescription. Several of the allotments are moderately roaded and accessible, mainly due to past timber harvesting activities. However, within these allotments, areas classified as roadless are present, offering seclusion for those wildlife species not tolerant of human activities. Several of the allotments are relatively inaccessible and have had few vegetative activities occurring.

Natural disturbances such as fire, wind events, and spruce beetles have and are impacting the vegetative conditions within the allotments. In general, the analysis area is much more forested now compared to 100 years ago due to fire suppression activities and decreases in domestic livestock numbers.

3.8.3 Existing Condition Habitat diversity and conditions for TES species are generally good throughout the analysis area. The large size and range of vegetative diversity within the allotments provides for a wide range of vegetation types for TES species ranging from a shrub-steppe community in the lower elevation allotments to mixed conifer/aspen and spruce-fir to above alpine.

Tables 3.8-1 and 3.8-2 summarize TES species within the analys is area. The wildlife reports (Biological Assessment and Biological Evaluation) describe species habitat, life histories, and effects and are available in the project’s administrative record.


77

3.8.4 Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects

3.8.4.1 T&E Species In this section, a tabular summary of the potential effects determination is displayed, but the reader is referred to the BA for more specific information regarding direct and indirect effects of each alternative.

T&E species with no suitable habitat in the analysis area: The project will have No Effect

• Mexican spotted owl

upon the following species.

• Uncompahgre fritillary butterfly • Southwestern willow flycatcher

Table 3.8-1. T&E Species with habitat in the analysis area, and effects determination Species Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Canada Lynx NE NLAA NLAA

NE – No Effect.

NLAA – May Effect, but Not Likely to Adversely Affect.

3.8.4.2 Sensitive Species In this section, a tabular summary of the potential effects determination effects determination is displayed, but the reader is referred to the BE for more specific information regarding direct and indirect effects of each alternative.

Table 3.8-2. Sensitive wildlife species not present or with no habitat in the analysis area; the project will have no impact upon these species

Great Basin silverspot butterfly American peregrine falcon Burrowing owl Yellow-billed cuckoo Ferruginous hawk Gunnison’s prairie dog Northern harrier Gunnison sage grouse Bald eagle Mountain plover Lewis’s woodpecker Townsend’s big-eared bat Black swift Fringed myotis New Mexico jumping meadow mouse


78

Table 3.8-3. Sensitive wildlife species present or with habitat in the analysis area, and effects determination

Species Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Boreal toad NI MI MI Northern leopard frog NI MI MI Boreal owl NI NI NI Flammulated owl NI NI NI Northern goshawk NI NI NI Olive-sided flycatcher NI NI NI Three-toed woodpecker

NI NI NI

Wolverine NI NI NI American marten NI NI NI Sage sparrow NI MI MI Brewer’s sparrow NI MI MI Loggerhead shrike NI MI MI White-tailed ptarmigan NI MI MI Bighorn sheep NI NI NI

*NI – No Impact.

**MI-May Impact individuals but not l ikely to cause a trend towards Federal Listing within the planning area.

3.9 Management Indicator Species

3.9.1 Scope of the Analysis This analysis brief ly discusses and summarizes the potential impacts of the alternatives upon Management Indicator Species (MIS) and their habitat.

3.9.2 Past Actions Affecting the Existing Condition The past actions described in the TES section are also relevant to MIS species.

3.9.3 Existing Condition The existing condition described in the TES section is also relevant to MIS species.

3.9.4 Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects Table 3.9-1 summarizes the rationale for the selection of the MIS evaluated for the Grayback/Pintada Range Analys is. Table 3.9-2 provides a summary comparing the potential effects of each alternative upon MIS. A MIS report has been completed as part of the analysis and can be found in the planning record. A complete description of the rationale for the MIS species evaluated as well as potential impacts, habitat needs, and Forest-wide trend information is detailed in the MIS report.


79

Table 3.9-1. MIS species evaluated

Species Evaluated Rationale Rio Grande Cutthroat Trout (or proxies (brood, rainbow, or brown trout)

Indicator of the health of montane aquatic ecosystems. Sensitive to management activities that increase sediment, reduce stream cover, create barriers to movement, or impact stream flows or water quality.

Wilson’s Warbler Indicator of the health of willows and riparian communities. Riparian species tied to different structural elements susceptible to grazing and other activities within riparian areas.

Lincoln’s Sparrow Indicator of the health of willows and riparian communities. Riparian species tied to different structural elements susceptible to grazing and other activities within riparian areas.

Vesper Sparrow Indicator of the health of upland bunch grass and shrub communities. Utilizes a narrow set of habitat conditions for nesting such as sparsely or patchily distributed shrubs with abundant grass cover, may be affected by grazing.

Elk Indicator of road density and other related forest disturbances. A portion of the analysis area also contains elk winter range.

Mule Deer Indicator of road density, early successional vegetative conditions and other related forest disturbances.


80

Table 3.9-2. MIS species and effects determination

Species Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Rio Grande Cutthroat Trout (Brook Trout and/or Brown Trout)

Will improve habitat conditions, trout density/biomass and population numbers.

Standards and guidelines and habitat conditions will remain as is or demonstrate slight improvement, with corresponding stable to increasing trout density, biomass and population trend.

Best opportunity to improve upon habitat conditions/population parameters by greater flexibility in cattle distribution and timing of pasture use.

Wilson’s Warbler

Potential for providing optimum habitat for Wilson’s warbler exists.

As long as existing standards and guidelines are being met, this alternative should not result in any change in habitat condition or population trend.

Provides an opportunity to improve upon habitat conditions by greater flexibility in cattle distribution and timing of pasture use.

Lincoln’s Sparrow

Potential for providing optimum habitat for Lincoln’s sparrow exists.



Vesper’s Sparrow

Potential for providing optimum habitat for Vesper sparrow exists.



Elk Potential for improved habitat conditions and decreased disturbances should maintain or improve population trend.



Mule Deer Potential for improved habitat conditions and decreased disturbances should maintain or improve population trend.



3.10 Migratory Birds Current Forest Service Region 2 guidance for landbird conservation is to coordinate with the State and Bird Conservation Region (BCR) working groups for actions and objectives to pursue migratory bird conservation. For the purpose of this analysis, migratory birds were analyzed within the analysis area by tiering to the Forest’s migratory bird report (USDA FS 2005a) and referencing the Colorado Landbird Conservation Plan (BCP).


81

None of the alternatives would be expected to have any direct, indirect or cumulative effects on the migratory birds assessed for this analysis. Each allotment was reviewed and analyzed to ensure necessary design criteria and conservation measures are in place so as to minimize site-specific impacts. Forest-level monitoring of TES and MIS species and their habitats should be sufficient to determine if undesirable cumulative effects are occurring. A more complete description of the Birds of Conservation Concern with priority habitats of the Southern Rocky Mountains, as well as potential impacts and habitat needs, is detailed in the Migratory Bird Report completed as part of this analysis

3.11 Other Wildlife Resources

3.11.1 Scope of the Analysis This analysis discusses general wildlife (non-TES/MIS) and wildlife habitat found within the scope of the analysis, which is confined to the Grayback/Pintada Analysis Area.

3.11.2 Past Actions That Have Affected the Existing Condition The past actions described in the TES section are also relevant to other wildlife species.

3.11.3 Existing Condition The existing condition described in the TES section is also relevant to other wildlife species. Common other species of wildlife found in the analysis area include coyote, black bear, red squirrels, cottontail rabbit, snowshoe hare, marmots, and numerous bird species and small mammals.

3.11.4 Direct and Indirect Effects No specific other wildlife-related issues were identif ied as part of the analysis. In general, cattle grazing could result in limited and temporary impacts upon riparian areas and uplands and limited and temporary displacement for those species of wildlife not tolerant of cattle presence. Increase human disturbance resulting from herding and salting activities could also temporary displace some species. The direct impact of livestock use on the allotments is relatively of low degree and temporary in nature. Localized r iparian impacts may occur, but in most cases, the conditions of these impacted areas have improved over time, with improved livestock management.

All AMPs incorporate standards and guidelines within the Forest Plan pertaining to allowable forage utilization by livestock. In addition, specific Forest-wide objectives with respect to big game are in place (i.e., “supply ample forage to sustain wildlife and permitted-livestock populations without damaging range condition”). These standards and guidelines will be met under all alternatives.

Alternative 1 (No Livestock Grazing)

Under this alternative there will be no potential for wildlife disturbance as a result of cattle grazing and activities associated with livestock management (such as herding and salting). Forage for wildlife will be more abundant, although forage availability is not limited under any of the alternatives. This alternative would provide the quickest recovery of riparian areas impacted by livestock grazing.


82

Overall, this alternative offers wildlife the best habitat conditions. However, there are no signif icant general wildlife-related reasons why cattle should not graze in the analysis area. A positive result of selecting this alternative would be a decrease in disturbance to wildlife, but this improvement is currently not quantifiable nor has it been raised as a significant issue.

Alternative 2 (Current Livestock Grazing)

This action alternative would provide for less flexibility in grazing patterns, and herd management would be less likely to improve upon vegetation complexity and structure. Under this alternative, standards and guidelines would be met in most years, but occasional occurrences of cattle concentrating in riparian areas would most likely continue to occur.

Alternative 3 (Adaptive Livestock Grazing)

Of the two action alternatives, this alternative offers the best opportunity to increase and improve upon overall vegetation complexity and structure in the analysis area, which would benefit wildlife species. It provides for a better opportunity to continue to meet Forest standards and guidelines and better manage cattle to prevent isolated occurrences of cattle concentrating in riparian areas.

Grazing and grazing activities associated with the allotments within the Grayback/Pintada Range Analys is Area are not expected to signif icantly impact the quality or quantity of habitats, nor their spatial distribution over the Forest, and population trends are not expected to be affected.

As part of Alternative 3 (adaptive management), a number of tools listed in the adaptive management toolbox (chapter 2) are available for use. These tools may include adjusting livestock numbers and season. Specifically for this analysis, slight increases in season and/or livestock numbers may occur on several allotments. Any changes in season and or livestock numbers will not exceed the estimated AUM capacity of the individual allotment. Monitoring is key, and would ensure that resource conditions were moving toward or meeting Forest Plan desired conditions and to ensure changing resource conditions are tracked and changes applied.

Cumulative Effects

The cumulative effects discussion is the same for TES, MIS, migratory bird, and other wildlife species. Sometimes the combined effects of several projects are more substantial and of a different nature than the incremental impact of each project viewed separately. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor, but collectively signif icant actions taking place over time. Potential sources of cumulative effects are:

Natural Trends: These are naturally occurring changes in existing physical and biological systems. Natural trends may have the effect of compounding the effects caused by the proposed action and may include such things as vegetative changes (conifer encroachment…).

Proposed Federal Actions: federal actions are analyzed according to the appropriate level of risk by NEPA. Direct, indirect and cumulative potential impacts are analyzed to help determine management actions.

Reasonably Foreseeable Future Private Actions: Known or foreseeable private actions are analyzed as part of the cumulative effects.


83

Within the Analys is Area, the combination of natural trends, proposed Federal actions, and foreseeable future private actions when analyzed as a whole, are not expected to exceed Forest Plan standards and guidelines for wildlife.

3.12 Fisheries

3.12.1 Scope of the Analysis The scope of this analysis discusses the fishery resources within the Grayback/Pintada C&H Analys is Area. The analysis is restricted to the analysis area shown earlier in chapter 1, section 1.4.

3.12.2 Past Actions That Have Affected the Existing Condition See the “Rangeland Resources” (section 3.4), “Wilderness/Recreation/Travel Management” (section 3.14), and the “Watershed and Aquatic Resources” (section 3.5) sections, under the same heading, for a description of previous actions relative to this analysis area.

Stocking of nonnative trout has had the most impact on native Rio Grande cutthroat trout and largest influence on the species found within the analysis area. The first documented nonnative trout stockings on the Forest occurred in 1891 (USDA Forest Service 1936). Forest-wide, introduced trout have reduced pure Rio Grande cutthroat trout populations to approximately 12 percent of their estimated historical range. Brook trout, brown trout, rainbow trout, and Snake River cutthroat trout have been historically stocked in streams throughout the analysis area.

3.12.3 Existing Condition Overall stream health is currently adequate-to-robust with only a few short stream reaches affected by recreation and/or livestock grazing activities (see the “Watershed and Aquatic Resources” [section 3.6] and the “Recreation, and Travel Management” [section 3.14] topics in this chapter). Streams within the analysis area are generally stable, with well-developed riparian areas, and are capable of supporting wild populations of native and desirable nonnative trout species. Impacts to fish populations attributed to livestock grazing activities have not been documented.

Perennial streams and lakes within the analysis area support self-sustaining populations of nonnative cutthroat trout, brook trout, brown trout, and/or rainbow trout. Core conservation populations of Rio Grande cutthroat trout are found in Upper West San Francisco Lake, Middle Fork San Francisco Creek, East Fork to Middle Fork San Francisco Creek, and West Fork to Middle Fork San Francisco Creek.

3.12.4 Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects Improper livestock management can potentially degrade r iparian and aquatic habitats in a variety of direct and indirect ways (Platts 1991). However, none of the alternatives would be expected to result in signif icant direct, indirect, or cumulative effect on the existing fish populations within the analysis area. A Biological Evaluation addressing Forest sensitive fish species has been prepared and placed in the administrative record for this project.

Effects Common to Action Alternatives. Since both action alternatives propose some level of permitted livestock grazing, the effects are considered equivalent for this analysis. Direct effects to fish include stocking of various species of competing nonnative fish and/or permitted


84

livestock directly stepping on individual fish or destroying trout redds. Indirect effects could result from a change in riparian canopy (through livestock grazing and/or trampling) that could reduce shade or escape cover, to degrading stream banks resulting in loss of spawning or pool habitat due to increased sedimentation. Cumulative effects could be a variety of management practices such as timber harvest, road building, improper livestock grazing, recreational use, etc., that individually could impact fish, but when all combined could have a much larger impact.

Implementing any livestock grazing action alternative would have a minimal impact on fish populations when project design criteria (chapter 2, section 2.5), along with Forest Plan standards and guidelines and Water Conservation Practices Handbook management measures are fully implemented. Specific project design criteria would manage livestock activity near lakes, streams, wet meadows, and riparian areas. Project design criteria would also help ensure that stream health was maintained or improved and that Forest-wide desired conditions and objectives would be met. Cumulatively, most fishery habitat concerns within the analys is area tend to be minor and would not threaten the viability of fish populations.


There would be no impacts from permitted livestock to stream health from this alternative. Vegetation that has been impacted under current management would recover with rest. Existing watershed and stream conditions should improve over time. Most fish populations would remain stable or show improvements in population parameters (i.e., age structure, density, biomass, population numbers) as they near stream carrying capacities.


This alternative would provide for less flexibility in livestock grazing distribution patterns and herd management than Alternative 3, and would be less likely to improve vegetation complexity and structure in a timely manner. Stream channels and riparian areas would be left in their existing condition. Habitat issues would be managed through AOIs with minor habitat improvements expected through time. Most streams within the analys is area are in good condition with stable banks. Direct, indirect, and cumulative effects would not threaten existing overall good stream conditions. Therefore, fish populations would be expected to remain stable or show slight improvements as isolated concern areas in some stream reaches began to slowly improve.


By applying adaptive livestock grazing management on areas where current range conditions are less than satisfactory, more rapid recovery would be expected than under current management (alternative 2), although not as quickly as the no permitted livestock grazing alternative (alternative 1). Applying flexibility in timing and duration of permitted livestock grazing, as well as other options identif ied in the Grazing Management Toolbox, would allow more rapid adjustment of livestock grazing plans if impacts were found for a particular stream or stream reach. This alternative would provide for a better opportunity to manage livestock to prevent isolated occurrences of permitted livestock impacting stream health. Monitoring would ensure that resource conditions were moving toward or meeting Forest Plan desired conditions or would identify problem areas so corrective actions could be implemented in a timely manner. In areas where stream health conditions were less than satisfactory, more rapid recovery would be expected with Alternative 3 than under current management. Improvements in stream condition will also lead to improvement in fish population parameters within the impacted stream reaches.


85

3.13 Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive (TES) Plant Species

3.13.1 Scope of the Analysis The scope of this analysis discusses TES (threatened, endangered, proposed, or Forest Service-designated sensitive) plants. The analysis is restricted to the analysis area shown in section 1.4. The effects analysis focuses on the rangeland suitable for cattle grazing (project area).

3.13.2 Past Actions That Have Affected the Existing Condition See the “Rangeland Resources” (section 3.4) and the “Recreation, and Travel Management” (section 3.14) sections for a description of previous actions in the analysis area.

3.13.3 Existing Condition There are presently no reported records or suspected occurrences of threatened or endangered plants on this Forest. Threatened and endangered plants in Colorado have unique habitats or ranges that do not occur on this Forest, and there are no plants proposed for listing by the USFWS that occur on the RGNF. There are 19 sensitive plants known or suspected to occur in this project area based on documented occurrence or habitat affinity (see table 3.13-1).

3.13.4 Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects A detailed analys is would be documented in a biological assessment/biological evaluation (BA/BE) for plants and included in the project record. None of the alternatives would be expected to result in signif icant direct, indirect, or cumulative effects.


This alternative proposes no permitted livestock grazing or associated rangeland actions in support of livestock grazing permits. There would be no new management actions and foreseeable future actions would be expected to have negligible effects on sensitive plants. There are no current activities that are known to be detrimentally impacting documented sensitive plant species. Therefore, there would be no direct, indirect, or cumulative effect anticipated on any sensitive plant species or their habitats (table 3.13-1).

Alternatives 2 and 3 (Action Alternatives)

Since both action alternatives propose some level of permitted livestock grazing, there is no real distinction of effects between alternatives for this particular project area. Known or potential habitat exists for 19 sensitive plants in the project area. Five species were judged to be at such low risk from the proposed actions that there would be no direct, indirect, or cumulative effect (table 3.13-1).

Thus, 14 species were judged to be potentially directly, indirectly, or cumulatively affected. Direct effects could be from livestock directly foraging and/or trampling individual plants. Indirect effects could result from a change in surrounding forage canopy (through livestock grazing and/or trampling) that could be detrimental to individuals. Cumulative effects consider a combination of effects such as recreation (such as camping and hiking), fuels or timber management, big game populations, and livestock grazing on both private and Federal lands. The overall cumulative impact under the Forest’s current land management is much less severe


86

today than it was historically (see “Rangeland Resources,” “Watershed and Aquatic Resources,” and the “Wilderness/Recreation/Travel Management” sections presented earlier in this chapter). Table 3.13-1 summarizes the effects determination made, by alternative, for these species. Cumulatively, there are no projects planned in the foreseeable future (next decade) in this project area that would be expected to signif icantly impact these sensitive plants. Implementing any livestock grazing action alternative would likely have a minimal impact on these plants by following project design criteria (chapter 2)—including Forest Plan standards and guidelines and Watershed Conservation Handbook practices pertinent to livestock grazing and rangelands.

Table 3.13-1. Sensitive plants suspected in the project area and the effects determination by alternative

Scientific Name

Determination1

Alternative 1 Alternatives

2 and 3

Aquilegia chrysantha var. rydbergii NI MAII Astragalus ripleyi NI MAII Botrychium furcatum NI MAII Cypripedium parviflorum NI MAII Draba grayana NI NI Draba smithii NI NI Eriophorum altaicum var. neogaeum NI MAII Eriophorum chamissonis NI MAII Eriophorum gracile NI MAII Gilia sedifolia NI NI Machaeranthera coloradoensis NI MAII Neoparrya lithophila NI NI Penstemon degeneri NI MAII Ranunculus karelinii (R. gelidus ssp. grayi) NI NI Salix arizonica NI MAII Salix serissima NI MAII Sphagnum angustifolium NI MAII Sphagnum balticum NI MAII Utricularia minor NI MAII

1

3.14 Recreation and Travel Management

NI = No impact; MAII = May adversely impact individuals, but not likely to result in a loss of viabil ity on the planning area, nor cause a trend to Federal listing or a loss of species viability rangewide.

3.14.1 Scope of the Analysis This section addresses recreation, trails, and travel management within the analysis area as shown in section 1.4.

3.14.2 Past Actions That Have Affected the Existing Condition Refer to section 3.4 (Rangeland Resources) for past activities affecting the existing condition.


87

3.14.3 Existing Condition Dispersed Recreation. A diverse array of dispersed recreation opportunities occur within the Grayback-Pintada Analysis Area. These opportunities include, but are not limited to, hiking, horseback riding, sightseeing, fishing, dispersed camping, picnicking, hunting, firewood gathering, wildlife view ing, cross-country skiing, snowshoeing, and snowmobiling.

Developed Recreation Facilities/Sites. There are two developed campgrounds within the analys is area, Rock Creek Campground and Comstock Campground near the Bennett Spring and Rock Creek Allotments. The Rock Creek Picnic Ground and Val Verde Group Use area are nearby; all are accessed by County Road 14.

Recreation Opportunity Setting (ROS). The analysis area is located in roaded natural (RN), semi-primitive non-motorized (SPNM), and semi-primitive motorized (see figure 3.14-1).

Inventoried Roadless Areas and Research Natural Areas. The analysis area includes Beaver Mountain/Bennett Mountain, Blowout/Willow, Creek/ Greeley and Wightman Fork/Upper Burro Roadless areas (see figure 3.14-2). This project is consistent with management area prescription 3.3 Backcountry (Forest Plan, chapter 4, page IV-17), and therefore, will not result in signif icant inventoried roadless area-related impacts. There is one research natural area (RNA) adjacent to north side the Frisco Allotment.

System Trails and Roads. There are 131 miles of system trails and roads available for visitor use. Type of use ranges from all-terrain vehicle (ATV), pack and saddle routes, motorcycle, foot; and includes some access by two- or four-wheel drive vehicles depending on season and condition of roads.

Travel Management. The major travel corridors which provide access to the analysis are include a total of 74 miles of roads consisting of several different travel levels according to road conditions. Specifically, level 1 roads are closed and used only for basic custodial care. Level 2 roads require high clearance vehicles. Within the analysis are there are approximately 27 miles of level 3 and level 5 roads, which are suitable for all passenger vehicles. Almost 30 miles of these roads are level 1 basic custodial care roads which are closed and only used for timber operations and/or FS administrative purposes.

General travel management policy on the Forest limits vehicular motorized travel to designated roads and trails. System roads are open to motorized uses including off-highway vehicles (OHVs), and off-road travel by OHVs is allowed only for game retrieval per the Forest order regarding travel.

There are networks of high clearance roads that were constructed for accessing past timber sales within this analysis area. Many are open to motorized use and some have gates or earthen barriers, which restrict the use of motorized vehicles but are open to non-motorized user.

Fishing Sites. East and West Pinos Creek, Rock Creek, North and South Rock Creek, Frisco Creek, Bennett and Burro Creeks are all available during spring, summer, and fall.

Outfitter and Guides. There are four outfitter/guides with authorized activities within the analys is area. Table 3.14-1 provides general information regarding outfitters/guides.


88

Figure 3.14-1. Recreational opportunity spectrum for the analysis area


89

Figure 3.14-2. Roadless areas within the analysis area


90

Table 3.14-1. Outfitter/guides, season, activity, location

Outfitter/Guide Season Activity General Location Jim Schaffer Fall Hunting Frisco C&H Allotment Spikes Outfit Fall Hunting Bennett Spring, West Pinos, East Pinos

C&H Allotments Fishtail Ranch Fall Hunting Rock Creek C&H Allotment Mike Truitt Summer Progressive Backpacking Frisco and Rock Creek C&H Allotments

3.14.4 Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects None of the alternatives would be expected to result in significant direct, indirect, or cumulative effects.


Under this no-grazing alternative, no livestock grazing is planned, and therefore, there would be no direct or indirect effects to the recreation resources. There would be no change in the developed and dispersed recreation opportunities provided during the summer and fall within the analys is area.

The no-grazing alternative would eliminate grazing from the analysis area, which eliminates the impacts associated with livestock use. Recreation use is expected to remain the same. This alternative will eliminate encounters with domestic livestock on the allotment. There will continue to be recreation pack-stock impacts.

Under this alternative, travel management restrictions and regulations would not change. Motorized travel will remain restricted to designated roads and trails.

All Action Alternatives

Recreation use and presence of livestock will overlap from June to October within the allotment boundary. This may create conflicts because some users have had very little exposure to livestock, and feel uncomfortable or intimidated. Factors affecting recreation user experiences (camping, fishing, hiking, and hunting, driving for pleasure, participating in a guided service) when livestock use is encountered include frequency of these encounters, duration of the encounters, noise, and site condition left by livestock (urine and manure).

Given these factors, there are management actions (such as grazing season adjustment, number adjustment, herd management, infrastructure maintenances and construction, and rotating livestock between pastures based upon established standard and guideline within these pastures) that can help lessen the recreation experience impacts associated with livestock use.

Under the grazing alternatives, travel management restrictions and regulations would not change. Motorized travel will remain restricted to designated roads and trails. Existing closed roads and maintaining gates would improve hunting and wildlife viewing opportunities and enhance the hiking and horseback riding opportunities within these restricted areas.

Cumulative Effects

Interactions between livestock use and recreation users within the Bennett Spring, Burd/Raton, Frisco, East Pinos, Martinez/Underwood, Rock and West Pinos Allotment occur mainly at


91

developed recreation sites and within travel ways (dispersed recreation activities within road and trail corridors). By implementing the recommended mitigation measures, Forest wide, MA recreation standards and guidelines will mitigate these impacts. There are no cumulative impacts to the recreation resources or users within the Bennett Spring, Burd/Raton, Frisco, East Pinos, Martinez/Underwood, Rock and West Pinos Allotments.

3.15 Heritage Resources

3.15.1 Scope of the Analysis The analysis area includes the area of potential effect (APE) for the Grayback-Pintada Area Range Analysis. The analysis for heritage resources is drawn from a summation of archival records, site visits, and a class III heritage resource inventory conducted in 2008 and 2009. During this effort, Forest Service archeologists inventoried 283 acres for heritage resources in high site potential areas within the APE within the Grayback-Pintada Range Analysis projects. The analysis area includes seven allotments: Bennett Spring Cattle and Horse (C&H), Burd-Raton C&H, East Pinos C&H, Frisco C&H, Martinez/Underwood Sheep & Goat (S&G), Rock Creek C&H and West Pinos C&H Allotments. The APE is defined as those areas requiring intensive class III inventories where there is a high probability of locating heritage resources and a moderate to high potential for livestock grazing impacts. A total of approximately 18,584 acres have been previously surveyed for heritage resources within the project area.

3.15.2 Past Actions That Have Affected the Existing Condition A pre-field literature search indicated that there have been 19 previous heritage resource inventories conducted within the project area totaling 18,584 acres (Frye 1993, 2002, 2003; Post 1990; Quintana 1990, 1993, 1994; Spero 1981, 1982a, 1982b, 1985, 1986, 1987, 1988, 2000a, 2000b, 2001, 2006a, 2006b). These surveys indicate a moderate to high site density within the analys is area, the higher potential site dens ity being in the lower elevations. The most notable past action that has affected heritage resources within the analys is area was the intense sheep grazing that occurred in the past 100 years. Other actions that have impacted heritage resources include illegal use of closed roads, illegal collection, and vandalism. Access to archaeological sites is easy as much of the analysis is close to the town of Del Norte, Colorado.

Bennett Spring Allotment: One undertaking had been previously implemented and two sites have been previously identified and recorded in the Bennett Springs Allotment (Spero 1986). Site 5RN.415 was recorded and left unevaluated for significance and site 5RN.416 is not eligible to the NRHP.

Burd/Raton Allotment: Before this analysis, no cultural resource inventories had been undertaken in the Burd/Raton Allotment, but site potential is considered moderate to high.

East Pinos Allotment: Within the East Pinos Allotment, two undertakings have been previously implemented and four sites have been identif ied and recorded (Spero 1982). Site 5RN.314 consists of the eligible Fitton Guard Station (5RN.314) and its associated barn. Site 5RN.315 consists of the eligible Off Cow Camp that consists of a cabin and a barn. The 1982 recording for the Fitton and Off structures noted light livestock disturbance (Spero 1982). Site 5RN.317 consists of an historic lumber mill cabin and site 5RN.322 consists of the ruins of an historic cabin. Both are ineligible to the NRHP.


92

Frisco Allotment: The Frisco Allotment has had seven previous undertakings with no previously identif ied or recorded heritage resources. This is possibly due to its higher elevation and the fact that most of the undertakings were small in nature.

Martinez/Underwood Allotment: This allotment is known to have a high site density and a fair amount of livestock impact previously noted during earlier undertakings. The allotment has experienced 3 previous heritage resource surveys and contains 13 previously identified sites. Site 5RN.330 is the eligible Dog Mountain petroglyph and rock shelter (Spero 1987). No grazing impacts were noted at time of initial recording. Site 5RN.488 consists of an eligible rock art panel, known as the Lizard Man pretroglyph, and associated stone structures. The site has been vandalized and the first site form noted moderate grazing impacts (Frye 1993). Site 5RN.636 is an eligible multi-component site with a Ute component. Moderate cow-trailing was noted in the northern portion of the site on the original site form (Spero 2001). Sites 5RN.637 and 5RN.643 are multi-component sites and are not eligible to the NRHP. Site 5RN.644 is an eligible prehistoric open architectural site that was noted as having heavy grazing impacts to the southwestern portion of the site (Spero 2001). Site 5RN.645 is an eligible prehistoric open camp site that was also noted as having heavy grazing impacts to the southwestern portion of the site (Spero 2001). Site 5RN.675 is a prehistoric open lithic site that is not eligible to the NRHP. Site 5RN.676 is an eligible rock art and rock shelter site. No grazing impacts were noted at time of initial recording. Site 5RN.677 consists of an eligible historic limekiln and calcite pit with no grazing impacts noted, but the site was vandalized in the past. Site 5RN.678 is also an eligible rock art site with an associated rock shelter. Archaeologists previously noted that active erosion in middle portion of site was possibly accelerated from overgrazing (Spero 2001). Site 5RN.686 is an eligible prehistoric open architectural site with some grazing impacts in the northern portion of the site (Spero 2001). Site 5RN.687 consists of an eligible rock art site and associated stone foundation. No grazing impacts were noted at time of initial recording.

Rock Creek Allotment: The allotment has experienced four previous heritage resource surveys and contains four previously identified sites. Site 5RN.18 is an eligible prehistoric open lithic site with no livestock grazing disturbance noted on a revisit in 2006 (Spero 2006a). Site 5RN.424 consists of the Rock Creek Ranger Station. The structure has collapsed since its initial recording and is a health and safety concern (Spero 1988). Site 5RN.432 consists of the ineligible Fassett Cabin and Barn. Site 5RN.769 is an eligible and very complex multi-component site that was noted, in the initial recording, to be experiencing heavy disturbance from road closures, recreation, and grazing impacts. Livestock trailing was noted through upper portion of site (Frye 2002).

West Pinos Allotment: This allotment has had two previous heritage resource surveys and contains seven previously identified sites. Site 5RN.170 consists of an eligible prehistoric open lithic site. The initial site recordation indicated moderate disturbance (Spero 1981). It was then monitored in 1995 as having heavy compaction, severe gully washing in the southwestern portion of site, and a trail through the center of the site. A broken biface fragment found in middle of trail near datum and a salt block had been placed in the middle portion of the site. The permittee for the allotment was asked to move the salt block. Sites 5RN.177 and 5RN.178 consist of ineligible historic cabin ruins. Site 5RN.267 consists of an unevaluated prehistoric open lithic site. No grazing impact noted at time of recordation, but a cow trail was noted in the eastern portion of the site with light disturbance in 1995. Sites 5RN.831 and 5RN.832 both consist of eligible prehistoric open camps with some livestock impacts noted in the initial recording (Frye 2003). Finally, site 5RN.833 is an eligible prehistoric open camp with no signs of livestock in the area (Frye 2003).


93

3.15.3 Existing Condition No adverse direct or indirect effects to heritage resources from livestock and current management were witnessed during this analysis. However, the cumulative effects of past grazing practices through space and time are evident on several sites. Disturbances noted on previous site forms often did not take into account the historic grazing effects, nor did they highlight the array of cumulative impacts inflicted on archaeological sites from other threats such as roads, trails, natural erosion events, and other recreational activities. Overall, the majority of archaeological sites is stable or is in better condition than their previous recordings.

3.15.4 Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects All Alternatives

Livestock grazing has the potential to directly impact cultural resources of the types mentioned in the scope of analysis section through trampling, compaction, obliteration, or displacement of artifacts or features. Any cultural resources located near watering areas, salt or mineral block areas, along fence lines, and where livestock congregate, are considered the most vulnerable to impacts from grazing activities. Potential indirect impacts from the proposed action may include the destruction of archaeological contexts due to erosion created from livestock grazing, particularly to unidentified sites in unsurveyed areas with high potential. Potential indirect impacts from the proposed action, such as artifact collection, site vandalism, on the unsurveyed portions of the project area are not expected to increase. Indirect effects from project activities can include the erosion of unidentified buried cultural depos its, especially precipitated by high severity or high intensity burns and temporary road construction. Design criteria could include spot checking of roads and heavily burned areas for severe erosion subsequent project activities.

The loss of archaeological resources has happened in the past and will happen in the future. The cumulative effect is that over time fewer archaeological resources will be available to learn about past human lifeways, to study changes in human behavior through time, and to interpret the past to the public. Heritage resource inventory, recording, evaluating and archiving basic information about each site for future reference serves to partially mitigate potential effects to heritage resources. In conjunction with the proposed project, recreation activities, previous logging activities and historic sheep grazing has the potential to cause ground disturbance and lead to cumulative, long-term, irreversible adverse effects to heritage resources.

Alternative 1 – No Action (No Permitted Livestock Grazing)

Under the no-grazing alternative, the potential for direct effects to cultural resources from livestock grazing would be eliminated within the allotments in the analysis area because there would be no livestock to incur trampling, compaction, obliteration, or displacement of artifacts or features. If there is no Federal action, then there is no undertaking, as defined in 36 CFR 800.2(o), for Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 470f). Under the no-grazing alternative, the potential for indirect effects to cultural resources would be eliminated within the allotments because there would be no new erosion caused by livestock grazing and no potential for the destruction of archaeological contexts due to erosion created from livestock grazing, particularly to unevaluated sites and unidentified sites in unsurveyed areas. In the absence of livestock grazing, cumulative effects would decrease for all seven allotments.


94

Alternative 2 – Current Livestock Grazing Management (As Applied On-the-ground Over the Past 3 to 5 Years)

No new surface disturbances would occur in the analysis area and no new stresses would be placed on riparian areas where site potential is the highest. Therefore, there would likely be no increases in direct, indirect, or cumulative impacts to cultural resources. However, this alternative would provide for less flexibility in livestock grazing distribution patterns and herd management, and would be less likely to improve vegetation complexity and structure which is important in the protection of buried archaeological deposits and site matrices. Compliance with specific project design criteria would help ensure Forest-wide desired conditions and objectives, and the intent of section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) would be met.

Alternative 3 – Adaptive Livestock Grazing Management (Forest Service Proposed Action)

By applying adaptive livestock grazing management in areas where current range conditions are less than satisfactory, more rapid recovery would be expected than under current management, although not as quickly as the no permitted livestock grazing alternative. This improvement in range condition would benefit undocumented, unevaluated and eligible sites that require stable soil and vegetation regimes for their protection. Applying flexibility in timing and duration of permitted livestock grazing or specific mitigation measures (i.e., fencing) under adaptive management would allow more rapid adjustment of livestock grazing plans if impacts were found on specific archaeological sites. Monitoring would ensure that resource conditions were moving toward or meeting Forest Plan desired conditions. In areas where site context conditions were less than satisfactory, more rapid recovery would be expected with Alternative 3 than under current management. Compliance with specific project design criteria would help ensure Forest-wide desired conditions and objectives and the intent of section 106 of NHPA would be met.

3.15.5 Design Criteria ARRA Projects. In 2010, an American Reinvestment and Recovery Act (ARRA) project is planned that will address all impacts to the Fitton Barn, as well as the Off Cow Camp and Barn effects from livestock grazing in the East Pinos Allotment. The fence around the Fitton Barn will be repaired, the Off Cow Camp and Barn will be restored and a fence will be constructed around the whole Off Complex to protect it from livestock. The Fitton and Off historic complexes will be continuously monitored for livestock impacts.

Monitoring. Recent monitoring at eligible sites 5RN.170, 5RN.267, 5RN.330, 5RN.488, 5RN.636, 5RN.644, 5RN.645, 5RN.678, 5RN.686, 5RN.687, 5RN.741, 5RN.769 5RN.831 and 5RN.832 reveal that no adverse impacts are occurring from livestock grazing within the Grayback/Pintada Analysis Area. However, monitoring will continue at these sites to ensure that remains the case.

Revegetation. It is recommended that revegetation efforts should occur at site 5RN.170 to impede the erosion still occurring from a salt block that was placed at the site in the past.

Travel Management. While outside of the scope of this analysis, efforts should be made to enforce the road closure proximate 5RN.769.

Discovery and Education Stipulation. All persons associated with operations under this authorization must be informed that any objects or sites of cultural, paleontological, or scientif ic value such as historic or prehistoric resources, graves or grave markers, human remains, ruins,


95

cabins, rock art, fossils, or artifacts shall not be damaged, destroyed, removed, moved, or disturbed. If in connection with operations under this authorization any of the above resources are encountered, the proponent shall immediately suspend all activities in the immediate vicinity of the discovery that might further disturb such materials and notify the Rio Grande National Forest authorized officer of the findings. The discovery must be protected until notif ied in writing to proceed by the authorized officer (36 CFR 800.110 & 112, 43 CFR 10.4).

3.16 Timber Management/Forest Condition

3.16.1 Scope of the Analysis This section addresses timber management/forest condition within the analysis area as described in chapter 1, section 1.4. Approximately 20,000 acres of the analysis area (see chapter 1, figure 1.7-1) are delineated as MA 5.13, and approximately 10,600 acres are delineated as MA 5.11, both of which allow timber harvest. The scope of this analysis focuses on the approximately 30,600 acres designated as MA 5.13 and 5.11.

3.16.2 Past Actions Affecting the Existing Condition Past timber sales, primarily within MA 5.13, have occurred within the analysis area in the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s. Silvicultural prescriptions, including shelterwood preparatory cuts and group selection cuts, guided the implementation of these sales. The desired conditions of the prescriptions were to maintain healthy stands of Engelmann spruce and subalpine fir, dominated by spruce in the overstory and understory. The past timber sales opened the stands up enough (removing about one-third of the basal area) to allow the present abundant natural regeneration of spruce and fir to become established. Some clear cuts from the 1970s and early time periods are evident; they have regenerated well. Limited firewood gathering and commercial interest has occurred in the past along the existing road system.

3.16.3 Present Condition Spruce/fir stands within the analysis area that have not had prior harvest activities are estimated to be 180 to 250 years old. Stands that are old and dense are generally more susceptible to bark beetles. Spruce beetle is a native insect and generally occurs at endemic levels in all spruce stands. The extent of recent spruce beetle caused mortality in and around the analysis area indicates that spruce beetle populations have been at a generally elevated level for the past 5 to 10 years.

The Marble Mountain Beetle Salvage Timber Sale is ongoing within the East Pinos Allotment. Approximately 85 acres of stands affected with spruce beetle are being treated with a sanitation/salvage prescription in an effort to improve the forest health of these stands. Harvest activities were completed in 2009.

The Rock Creek Beetle Salvage Timber Sale is ongoing within the Bennett Spring Allotment. Approximately 335 acres of stands affected with spruce beetle are being treated with a sanitation/salvage prescription in an effort to improve the forest health of these stands. Harvest activities are expected to be completed by March 2011.

The Burro/Blowout Spruce Beetle Vegetation Management Project is currently planned and may affect approximately 2,000 acres on the southern end of the East Pinos Allotment. This project is planned to address the current spruce beetle outbreak west of Bennett Peak by salvaging and regenerating stands affected by spruce beetles.


96

Within the West Pinos Allotment, the Ruston Aspen Timber Sale is ongoing. This timber sale will clear cut approximately 87 acres to promote aspen regeneration and healthy stands of young aspen. Harvest activities are expected to be completed by December 2010.

The analysis area is currently being utilized for commercial firewood purposes. Limited firewood gathering and commercial opportunities will continue along the existing road system within and around the analysis area.

3.16.4 Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects No-Action Alternative

Under this alternative, there would be no permitted livestock grazing. Harvest operations would continue and future management of timber resources would continue to be considered and appropriately analyzed. Regeneration of harvested areas would not be affected by livestock grazing activities and any increase in grass cover would not be utilized by domestic livestock. There is some potential for noxious weed infestation to occur with harvest related ground-disturbing events, but the potential is limited to existing roads and skid trails that are already planned for treatment. Limited f irewood gathering and commercial opportunities would continue along the existing road system within and around the analysis area. All Action Alternatives

Under all action alternatives, some level of livestock grazing would be permitted. Harvest operations would continue and future management of timber resources would continue to be considered and appropriately analyzed. Livestock grazing activities could incidentally affect regeneration of harvested areas, but any effects are anticipated to be minor and not affect the overall ability of the harvested areas to meet stocking requirements. Livestock could benefit from an increase in grass cover due to reduced canopy cover within harvested areas, but overall livestock grazing capacity would not increase. There is some potential for noxious weed infestation to occur with harvest related ground-disturbing events, but the potential is limited to existing roads and skid trails that are already planned for treatment. Limited firewood gathering and commercial opportunities would continue along the existing road system within and around the analysis area.

Cumulative Effects

There are no foreseen cumulative effects associated with the timber resources.

3.17 Noxious Plants

3.17.1 Scope of the Analysis This section discusses invasive plants that have been designated as “noxious weeds” by the State of Colorado (available on the internet at: http://www.ag.state.co.us/CSD/Weeds/statutes/weedrules.pdf ). The focus of this analysis is on the analysis area (see section 1.4).

3.17.2 Past Actions That Have Affected the Existing Condition Past ground-disturbing activities have allowed noxious plants an opportunity to establish and spread. Construction, travel routes, recreation activities, and grazing (primarily livestock and wildlife), all have the potential to disturb the ground. Ultimately, wildlife, livestock, machinery,


97

recreational vehicles, people, wind, and water transport seeds from existing infestations to new sites. The analysis area has a trail and road network that can potentially facilitate the transport of invas ive plants by people or animals (wildlife or livestock). For more information on past activities relevant to ground disturbance and noxious plants, see sections 3.4 (Rangeland Resources), 3.5 (Watershed and Aquatic Resources), 3.6 (Soil Resources), and 3.14 (Recreation and Travel Management).

3.17.3 Existing Condition Noxious plants occur within the RGNF and Rio Grande County. The following noxious plant species are found within the analysis area: Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense); Acosta (Centaurea) spp. (knapweed), ox-eye daisy (Leucanthemum vulgare), and whitetop (Cardaria draba). The majority of the known noxious plant occurrences are located in disturbed areas, including along the sides of roads, at trailheads, along recreation trails and handling facilities (e.g., corrals). The most common noxious plant outside the analysis area is Canada thistle, which is predominately found in disturbed sites within past timber sale areas.

3.17.4 Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects Noxious plants are a concern on the RGNF because they compete with native plants for sunlight, water, nutrients, and space (safe-sites). They have the potential to displace native plants and animals. They can reduce forage for livestock and wildlife, degrade wildlife habitat, and negatively affect recreation opportunities. Weeds that provide little cover can impact soil health by exposing the soil to rainfall impacts, overland flow, and higher temperatures than would occur in the natural plant community. Many noxious plants are also injurious or poisonous to both wildlife and to humans and their animals.

The long-term cumulative effects of any infestations that become established or expand within the analysis area would result in the reduction of species diversity within the native plant community. Therefore, it is necessary that on-going noxious plant inventories continue and treatment of existing infested areas within the analysis area continue.

Noxious plants are usually systematically listed and targeted for priority management by the Forest Service on an annual basis according to the Forest’s noxious plant programmatic EA (USDA Forest Service 1996e). The direct or indirect effect of the presence of these plants is detrimental to the environmentally sound management of natural ecosystems.

None of the alternatives would be expected to result in significant direct, indirect, or cumulative effects.


Permitted livestock exclusion would eliminate one potential vector for seed transport and one disturbance factor that has the potential to create a niche for possible noxious plant infestations. Cumulatively, other activities may cause seed transport and disturbances in the analysis area; however, this is not expected to be a significant impact over the next two decades (based on past experience).

Alternatives 2 and 3

Permitted livestock have the potential to spread noxious plants. It is more likely, based on existing noxious plant occurrence, spread would come from other human activities.


98

Cumulatively, livestock grazing, recreation activities, and motorized travel present possible seed transport and disturbance factors in the analysis area. However, this is not expected to be a signif icant impact over the next two decades (based on past experience). As mentioned above, the Forest would continue to monitor and control noxious weeds.

3.18 Other Disclosures All alternatives comply with the Clean Air Act. The Forest Plan FEIS (USDA Forest Service 1996b) explains on pages 3-151 through 3-154 that air quality in the RGNF is good for all air pollutants; that the entire Forest meets National Ambient Air Quality Standards; and that nothing proposed in the Forest Plan would substantially change existing air quality. The selection of alternatives 2, 3, or 4 (i.e., continuation of livestock grazing within the analys is area) would not noticeably alter air quality and, therefore, would be expected to be in full compliance with the Clean Air Act.

There are no adverse effects expected to public health or safety under any of the alternatives. The actions proposed in the alternatives of this EA would have no effect on park lands or prime farmlands. These kinds of land allocations or land capability do not exist in the analys is area.

The actions proposed in the alternatives of this EA would have no effect on ecologically critical areas (no such areas have formally recognized and designated within the analys is area and there are no activities proposed that would alter the natural appearance or function of landscapes in this area).

The actions proposed in the alternatives of this EA would not be expected to significantly affect the overall fire regime in this environment. The actions proposed in the alternatives of this EA would be in compliance with the desired conditions relative to prescribed fire and wildland fire use for the applicable MAs in this analys is area. The Forest has a prescribed fire plan that covers the RGNF, including the analysis area (USDA Forest Service 1997).

The action alternatives are consistent with the Forest Plan; and applicable laws and regulations were considered in this EA. The proposed actions in the alternatives are consistent with Federal, State, and local laws and requirements for the protection of the environment. The proposed actions are consistent with the Regional Forester’s direction relative to water, the National Forest Management Act (NFMA), and wildlife (USDA Forest Service 1996d). Finally, general issues regarding biological diversity (biodiversity) were judged to be outside the scope of this analysis. They are more appropriately analyzed at the Forest scale (USDA Forest Service 1996d). This project-level EA tiers to the biodiversity assessment done for the revised Forest Plan FEIS (USDA Forest Service 1996b).

Executive Order 12898 (February 11, 1994) mandates Federal agencies to identify and address disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority and low-income populations (known as Environmental Justice). During the course of this analysis, no alternative considered resulted in any identif iable effects or issues specific to any minority group or low-income population or community. The Forest Service considered all input from persons or groups regardless of age, race, income status, or other social and economic characteristic. There are no civil r ights issues, and none of the alternatives have any civil rights-related effects because consideration of permitted livestock grazing has no effect on rights protected under civil rights law.


99

There are no adverse effects expected on inventoried roadless areas under any of the alternatives (i.e., there is no road construction or reconstruction proposed under any alternative that would alter the roadless characteristics).

The effects on the human environment are not highly uncertain, are very unlikely to involve unique or unknown risks, and are not likely to be highly controversial because there is no scientific controversy on the impacts of the proposed actions in the alternatives. The effects analys is in this chapter show the effects are not uncertain, and do not involve unique or unknown risk. The proposed actions are not likely to establish a precedent for future actions with signif icant effects. The predicted cumulative impacts are not signif icant.

Global Climate Change The Forest Service acknowledges that global climate change is an important emerging concern worldwide. However, there is no established scientif ic methodology to measure the effects of small-scale projects such as this project on global climate. This analysis briefly addresses global climate change in two ways: (1) effects of climate change on a proposed project, and (2) effects of a proposed project on climate change. Each of these is briefly discussed below relative to this project.

Effects of climate change on a proposed project. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) does not specifically require analysis of how environmental factors, such as global climate change, might impact a proposed action. Any differences in effects of climate change on the project between alternatives (including no action) would be negligible.

Effects of proposed project on climate change. The proposed activities are extremely small in scope and magnitude relative to a planetary scale. Although it may be possible to quantify a project’s direct effects on carbon sequestration and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, there is no certainty about the actual intens ity of individual project indirect effects on global climate change. Cumulative effects would be a consideration of GHG emissions affecting climate from multiple projects over time. But, as GHG emissions are integrated across the global atmosphere, it is not possible to determine the cumulative impact on global climate from emissions associated with any number of particular projects. Nor is it expected that such disclosure would provide a practical or meaningful effects analysis for project decisions. Any differences between alternatives (including no action) would be negligible at a global scale.

3.19 Cumulative Effects Summary The Council for Environmental Quality (CEQ) defines cumulative impacts as, “the impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable further actions regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively signif icant actions taking place over a period of time.” In other words, cumulative effects are simply the sum total of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable environmental, social, and economic effects of land management activities which, when taken in context of this specific project, affect the conditions and trends of resources and values within the project area and adjacent area of influence. For the purposes of our analysis, we considered impacts spatially in and around our analysis area, including affected local communities. Temporally, we considered impacts starting in the late 1800s and projecting proposed actions into the future roughly two decades. Cumulative effects, addressed previously under individual resource write-ups, were determined based on a list of past, present, and


100

reasonably foreseeable actions in the analysis area developed by the ID team and recorded in the project record (i.e., actions included livestock grazing, recreation, trails, wildlife populations, private land/open space, specially designated areas, and socio-economics).

There are no large timber sales or other large-scale vegetation treatment proposals known that would affect the analysis area in the foreseeable future. The actions proposed in the alternatives of this EA would be expected to have no effect on the overall fire regime in this environment since the regime at these upper elevations is believed to be extremely infrequent. There are no known activities proposed that would change recreation use or patterns. There are no large-scale recreation improvements or infrastructure proposed. None of the alternatives are precedent setting.


101

Chapte r 4. List of Preparers This chapter identif ies the individuals on the Grayback-Pintada analys is team (ID team) who were responsible for preparing this EA.

4.1 Interdisciplinary Team The team members are listed below.

Team Member Title

Gilbert Becenti Staff Officer for Recreation, Wilderness, Travel, Trails, Roads, & Facilities

Guy Blackwolf Interdisciplinary Team Leader/Rangeland Management Specialist

Dean Erhard Ecologist

Jody Fairchild Recreation and Wilderness

Dale Gomez Wildlife Biologist

Paul Hancock Timber

Angie Krall Archeologist

Tristram Post Staff Officer/Rangeland Management Specialist

Phil Reinholtz Hydrologist

Gary Snell Rangeland Management Specialist

Dustin Walters Soil Scientist/TEAMS Enterprise

Barry Wiley Fisheries Biologist


102

Chapte r 5. Agencies, Tribal Governments, and Individuals Consulted The Forest Service consulted the following Federal, State, and local agencies; Tribal governments; and individuals/organizations during the development of this environmental assessment.

5.1 Federal, State, and Local Agencies Name Colorado Division of Wildlife Rio Grande County Commissioners U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

5.2 Tribal Governments Name Jicarilla Apache Tribe The Hopi Tribe Navajo Nation Uintah and Ouray Tribal Business Committee Pueblo of Santa Ana Pueblo of Santo Domingo Pueblo of Nambe San Ildefonso Pueblo San Juan Pueblo Santa Clara Pueblo Southern Ute Indian Tribe Taos Pueblo Ute Mountain Ute Tribe

5.3 Individuals/Organizations Mailing lists are part of the project record and are available upon request from the Divide Ranger District, Del Norte, CO.


103

Literature Cited Archer, S.; Smeins, F.E. 1993. Ecosystem-level processes. In: Grazing management – An

ecological perspective, edited by Heitschmidt, R.K. and Stuth, J.W., Timber Press Inc.

Balph, D.F.; Malecheck, J.C. 1985. Cattle trampling of crested wheatgrass under short-duration grazing. Journal of Range Management 38: 226–227.

Belsky, A.J.; Blumenthal, D.M. 1997. Effects of livestock grazing on stand dynamics and soils in upland forests of the Interior West. Conservation Biology 11(2): 315–327.

Bonham, C.D. 1989. Measurements for terrestrial vegetation. Colorado State University, John Wiley and Sons.

Burton, T.A. ; Smith, S.J.; Cowley, E.R. 2008. Monitoring Stream Channels and Riparian Vegetation – Multiple Indicators. Interagency Technical Bulletin (Version 5), BLM/USFS.

Caldwell, M.M., Richards, J.H.; Johnson, D.A., Nowak, R.S.; Dzurec, R.S. 1981. Coping with herbivory: Photosynthetic capacity and resource allocation in two semiarid Agropyron bunchgrasses. Oecologia 50: 14–24.

Clary, W.P.; Webster, B.F. 1989. Managing grazing of riparian areas in the Intermountain Region. General Technical Report INT-263, USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station.

Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW). 2004a. Conservation plan for Rio Grande cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki virginalis) in Colorado. CDOW, Denver. 70 p.

Dadkhah, M.; Gifford; G.M. 1980. Influence of vegetation, rock cover and trampling on infiltration rates and sediment production. Water Resources Bulletin 16: 979–986.

Dunford, E.G. 1954. Surface runoff and erosion from pine grasslands of the Colorado front range. Journal of Forestry 52: 923–927.

Flather, C.H.; Joyce, L.A.; Bloomgarden, C.A. 1994. Species endangerment patterns in the U.S. General Technical Report RM-241, USDA Forest Service. 42 p.

Fleischner, T.L. 1994. Ecological costs of livestock grazing in western North America. Conservation Biology 8: 629–644.

GAO. 1988. Rangeland management, more emphasis needed on declining and overstocked grazing allotments. GAO/RCED-88-80. Gaithersburg, MD.

Hanley, T.A.; Page, J.L. 1981. Differential effects of livestock use on habitat structure and rodent populations in great basin communities. California Fish and Game 68: 160–174.

Heitschmidt, R.K.; Stuth, J.W. 1993. Grazing management-an ecological perspective. Timber Press, Inc.

Holechek, J.L. 1981. Livestock grazing implications on public lands; a viewpoint. Journal of Range Management 34: 251–254.

Holechek, J.L.; Gomes, H.; Molinar, F.; Galt, D. 1998. Grazing intensity: Critique and approach. Rangelands 20(5).


104

Joyce, L.A. 1989. An analysis of the range forage situation in the U.S.: 1989-2040. General Technical Report RM-180, USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station.

Lewis, C.E. 1980. Simulated cattle injury to planted slash pine: Combination of defoliation, browsing and trampling. Journal of Range Management 33: 340–345.

Lull, H.W. 1959. Soil compaction on forest and range lands. Miscellaneous publication 769, USDA.

McNaughton, S.J. 1983; Compensatory plant growth as a response to herbivory. Oikos 40: 329–336.

Orr, H.K. 1975. Recovery from soil compaction on bluegrass range in the Black Hills. Transactions of the American Society of Agricultural Engineers18: 1076–1081.

Packer, P.E. 1953. Effects of trampling disturbance on watershed conditions, runoff, and erosion. Journal of Forestry 51: 28–31.

Platts, W.S. 1991. Livestock grazing. In: Meehan, W.R. 1991. Influences of forest and rangeland management on Salmonid fishes and their habitats (pages 389-423). American Fisheries Society Special Publication 19, Bethesda, MD. 251 p.

Quimby, C. 2007. A practical approach to adaptive management with a specific focus on livestock management NEPA based decisions (draft). Unpublished manuscript on file at Rocky Mountain Region of the Forest Service, Lakewood, CO (draft dated 9/7/2007). 29 p.

Rangeland Technical Advisory Council. 2001. Assessment of U.S. Forest Service methods for determining livestock grazing capacity on national forests in Arizona: Report to Governor Jane D. Hull. University of Arizona.

Rosgen, D.L. 1996. Applied river morphology. Wildland Hydrology Books, Pagosa Springs, CO. 390 p.

Ruediger, B.; Claar, J.; Gniadek, S.; [and others]. 2000. Canada lynx conservation assessment and strategy (as amended). USDA Forest Service, USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, USDI Bureau of Land Management, and USDI National Park Service. Forest Service Publication #R1-00-53, Missoula, MT. 142 p. Available online at: http://www.fs.fed.us/r1/planning/lynx/reports/lcas.pdf

Lamar, S.; Ruyle, G..; Maynard, J.; Barker, S. Meyer, W.; Stewart, D.; Coulloudon, B.; Williams, S.; Dyess, J. 2005. Principles of obtaining and interpreting utilization data on southwestern rangelands. AZ1375, University of Arizona Cooperative Extension.

USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS). 2005. Animal damage management (ADM) plan for the Rio Grande National Forest and San Luis Valley BLM Resource Area, January 1, 2005 to December 31, 2005. APHIS, Colorado Wildlife Services Program.

USDA Forest Service. 1936. Forest Service Rocky Mountain region bulletin. Rio Grande National Forest, Special Number 19(3) (March).

USDA Forest Service. 1996a. Environmental assessment for the term grazing permit decision for the Weminuche Wilderness Area, including Sulphur, Decker, and Roaring Fork allotments. San Juan-Rio Grande National Forests, Monte Vista, CO.

http://www.fs.fed.us/r1/planning/lynx/reports/lcas.pdf�


105

USDA Forest Service. 1996b. Final environmental impact statement for the revised land and resource management plan. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region, Rio Grande National Forest, Monte Vista, CO.

USDA Forest Service. 1996c. Rangeland analys is and management training guide. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region, Denver, CO (August).

USDA Forest Service. 1996d. NEPA streamlining memo (1920/1950) from the regional forester to forest supervisors, May 24, 1996. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region, Lakewood, CO.

USDA Forest Service. 1996e. Environmental assessment for the management and control of noxious plants on the San Juan/Rio Grande National Forests. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region, Lakewood, CO.

USDA Forest Service. 1997. Prescribed-fire plan – Management-ignited fire/prescribed natural fire environmental assessment. USDA Forest Service, San Juan-Rio Grande National Forests.

USDA Forest Service. 2003. Rio Grande National Forest rangeland suitability determination report. Rocky Mountain Region, Rio Grande National Forest, Monte Vista, CO.

USDA Forest Service. 2005a. Migratory bird assessment for the Rio Grande National Forest land and resource management plan, as amended. Unpublished report on file at the Headquarters for the Rio Grande National Forest, Monte Vista, CO.


106

Glossary Allotment ~ A designated area of land available for livestock grazing.

Allotment, active ~ An established allotment that has a grazing permit (as defined under FSM 2200) currently issued to permit livestock grazing on that area. This also includes those situations where a permit has expired and the Forest Service is working on the issuance of a new permit (e.g., the transition period caused by permits expiring 12/31 and not getting the new permit issued for a few months).

Allotment, closed ~ An allotment that no longer has grazing permits issued, and where a decision has been made to close that allotment area to permitted livestock grazing.

Allotment, vacant ~ An allotment that does not have a grazing permit (under FSM 2200) issued to permit livestock grazing on that area.

Allotment management plan (AMP) ~ A document that specifies the program of action designated to reach a given set of objectives.

Allowable use ~ The degree of utilization considered desirable and attainable on various specific parts of an allotment considering the present resource condition, management objectives, and management level.

Analysis area ~ The area under study.

Animal unit (AU) ~ Considered to be one mature (1,000 pound) cow or the equivalent based on average daily forage consumption of 26 pounds dry matter per day.

Animal unit month (AUM) ~ The amount of feed or forage required by an animal unit for one month; not synonymous with head month.

Annual operating instructions (AOI) ~ A document that provides instructions from the Forest Service to the term permit holder (called a permittee) regarding management requirements, projects, agreements, and other information for the current grazing season.

Aquatic ecosystem ~ The stream channel; lake, or estuary bed, water, biotic communities, and the habitat features that occur therein.

Bed ground ~ An area where animals sleep and rest.

Benchmark ~ Representative, often permanent, reference sites that reflect the results of management actions in the shortest time frames; may be associated with key areas.

Browse ~ The part(s) of shrubs, woody vines, and trees available for animal consumption.

Capable rangeland ~ Rangeland that is accessible and used by domestic livestock, has inherent forage producing capabilities, and can be grazed on a sustained yield basis without damage under reasonable management goals. Non-capable rangeland has no current grazing value for domestic livestock or should not be used for grazing because of physical or biological restrictions, or lacks improvements that would allow use.

Carr ~ A wetland willow thicket.


107

Class of livestock ~ Age and/or sex group of a kind of livestock.

Cover type ~ A taxonomic unit of vegetation classification referencing existing vegetation. Cover type is a broad taxon based on existing plant species that dominate, usually within the tallest layer.

Cumulative effects/impacts ~ The impacts or effects on the environment that result from the incremental impact of an action when added to other past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively signif icant actions taking place over a period of time. The time period of consideration for cumulative effects analysis is generally from the late 1800s and continuing two decades into the future, unless stated otherwise in this document.

Death loss ~ The number of animals in a herd that die from various natural and accidental causes; usually expressed as a percentage.

Direct effects ~ Direst effects are those occurring at the same time and place as the triggering action.

Ecological status ~ The degree of similarity between the existing vegetation (all components and their characteristics) and existing soil conditions compared to the potential natural community and the desired soil condition on a site.

Endangered species ~ A species that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range.

Environmental justice ~ The fair treatment of people of all races, cultures, and incomes with respect to the development, adoption, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies.

Forage ~ Browse and herbage that is available and may provide food for grazing animals or be harvested for feeding.

Forb ~ Any herbaceous plant other than those in the Poaceae (grass), Cyperaceae (sedge), and Juncaceae (rush) families.

Grass ~ A member of the Poaceae family.

Grass-like plant ~ A plant of the Cyperaceae (sedge) or Juncaceae (rush) families that vegetatively resemble a true grass of the Poaceae family.

Grazing permit ~ A document authorizing livestock to use national forest system lands or other lands under Forest Service control for livestock production.


108

Habitat structural stage ~ A tree size and canopy closure classification for forested cover types and is defined as follows:

Structure Class

Habitat Structural Stage Description

1 1 & 2 Grass/Forb/Shrub/Seedling. Stand dominance by grasses, forbs (broad-leaved herbaceous plants), shrubs and/or tree seedlings up to 1" DBH, 4.5 feet DBH for softwoods, and 2" DBH for hardwoods.

2 3a Sapling-Pole. Stand dominance by trees in the majority of the 1–8.9" DBH size for softwoods and 2–8.9" DBH for hardwoods with a canopy closure of less than or equal to 40%.

3 3b & 3c Sapling-Pole. Same as Structure Class 2 except canopy closure is 41–100%.

4 4a Mature. Stand dominance by trees in the majority of the 9" or larger DBH size and tree age under 200 years for softwoods and under 100 years for hardwoods. Canopy closure is 40% or less.

5 4b, 4c, & 5 Late-Successional Forest. Two conditions are possible for meeting this category:

a) Stand dominance by trees in the majority of the 9" or larger DBH size and tree age under 200 years for softwoods and under 100 years for hardwoods. Canopy closure is greater than 40%. b) Stand dominance by trees in the 5" DBH or greater size with a tree age over 200 years for softwoods and over 100 years for hardwoods. Tree crown cover is over 70 percent.

Head month ~ One month's use and occupancy of the range by one animal. For grazing fee purposes, it is a month's use and occupancy of range by one weaned or adult cow with or without calf, bull, steer, heifer, horse, burro, or mule, or five sheep or goats.

Herd ~ An assemblage of animals usually of the same species.

Herder ~ One who tends livestock on rangeland (usually applied to the person herding a band of sheep or goats).

Herding ~ The handling or tending of a herd.

Heritage resources ~ These consist of sites, features, and values having scientific, historical, educational, and/or cultural signif icance. They include concentrations of artifacts, structures, landscapes, or settings for prehistoric or historic events.

Heritage resource inventory ~ A systematic, on-the-ground search designed to identify the locations of heritage resources. Heritage resources identif ied in such inventories are recorded on State of Colorado cultural resource site forms which includes a determination of the signif icance of individual sites.

Indirect effects ~ Indirect effects are those occurring at a later time or distance from the triggering action.


109

Interdisciplinary team (ID team) ~ A group of individuals from different resource backgrounds assembled to solve a problem or perform a task.

Irretrievable commitments of resources ~ These are losses that are in effect for a period of time. An example is a grazing allotment that is managed to remain in poor condition. The gap between its current condition and its potential productivity is an on-going irretrievable loss.

Irreversible commitments of resources ~ These are changes that cannot be reversed, except in the extreme long term. An example is when a species becomes extinct; this is an irreversible loss.

Key area ~ A portion of rangeland selected because of its location, grazing or browsing value, or use. It serves as a monitoring and evaluation point for range condition, trend, or degree of grazing use. Properly selected key areas reflect overall acceptability of current grazing management over the rangeland; may be associated with benchmarks.

Landscape character ~ The overall visual and cultural impression of landscape attributes. The physical appearance and cultural context of a landscape that gives it an identity and a "sense of place". It includes existing land use patterns, ecological unit descriptions, and existing landscape character descriptions.

Landtype association (LTA) ~ An ecological mapping unit based on similarities in geology, soils, and plant associations. Repeatable patterns of soil complexes and plant communities are useful in delineating map units. LTAs are an appropriate ecological unit to use in Forest- or area-wide planning and watershed analysis. (On the RGNF, soil mapping units were aggregated into 13 distinct LTAs.)

Livestock use permit ~ A permit issued when the primary purpose of grazing use on national forest system lands or lands controlled by the Forest Service for reasons other than livestock production.

Management area ~ An area that has common direction throughout that differs from neighboring areas. The entire forest is divided into management areas, with each area described, and policies and prescriptions relating to their use listed. Also called management-area prescription.

Management-ignited fire ~ Obsolete term; see Prescribed fire.

Mass movement hazard ~ The assessment of risk of landmass failure or slumping.

Permitted livestock ~ Livestock presently being grazed under a permit or those that were grazed under a permit during the preceding season, including their offspring retained for herd replacement.

Permittee ~ Any entity that has been issued a grazing permit.

Permitted use ~ The number of animals, period of use, and location of use specified in part 1 of the grazing permit (see also definition for authorized use).

Plant association ~ A potential natural plant community of definite floristic composition and uniform appearance, represented by stands occurring in places with similar environments.


110

Plant community ~ An assemblage of plants living and interacting together in a specific location. No particular ecological status is inferred. Plant communities may include exotic or cultivated species.

Prescribed fire ~ Any fire ignited by management actions to meet specific objectives. A written, approved prescribed fire plan must exist, and NEPA requirements (where applicable) must be met, prior to ignition. Formerly called management-ignited fire.

Prescribed natural fire ~ Obsolete term; see Wildland fire use.

Present net value ~ An economics term which considers the present value of the cash inflows less the present value of the cash outflows (it considers the time value of money).

Proposed species ~ A species that has been officially proposed by the USFWS for listing as

Recreation opportunity spectrum (ROS) ~ This is an inventory process that results in an allocation that identif ies a variety of recreation experiences which are categorized by classes. Each class is defined in terms of: (1) the degree to which it satisfies certain recreation needs, (2) the extent to which the natural environment has been modified, (3) the type of facilities provided, (4) the degree of outdoor skills needed, and (5) the relative dens ity of recreation use. The recreation classes associated with this process include the following:

Primitive (P) ~ Extremely high probability of experiencing isolation from the sights and sounds of humans, independence, closeness to nature, tranquility, and self-reliance in an environment that offers a high degree of challenge and risk. On the RGNF, the Primitive ROS category was further subdivided for wilderness into the following subcategories:

Wilderness-Pristine (PRS) ~ Human influence on vegetation is minimal. These areas are managed for solitude; visitors are expected to use primitive skills often, in an environment which offers a high degree of risk and challenge. Success or failure is directly dependent on the ability, knowledge, and initiative of the visitor. Contact with other users or Forest Service wilderness personnel is infrequent. Encounters with large groups are rare, and infrequent with small groups or individuals. There is no lasting evidence of commercial activities; these areas are used primarily as pass-through travel zones for commercial groups. There is no lasting evidence of camping activity or human impacts on wilderness conditions. An element of discovery is maintained. There are no interpretive signs, markers, or posts, just historical cairns. Evidence of cultural and historic sites may exist, but is not signed. Structures or facilities may be present only as necessary for resource protection, when less obtrusive measures have been unsuccessful. Constructed trails are absent. User created trails or game trails may exist, but are not maintained or designated on maps or trail guides. Travel is primarily cross-country. Livestock grazing is appropriate and authorized and past mining activity may be evident but rare.

Wilderness-Primitive (PRM) ~ Human influence on physical features such as soils and geologic materials is unnoticeable in most areas. These areas are managed for a primitive and unconfined recreation experience, with a high degree of solitude. There is little contact with individuals or groups when traveling cross-country. When on trails, encounters with large groups are infrequent, with some encounters with small groups or individuals. Campsites are dispersed, with minimal sight and sound effects from adjacent campsites. There is evidence of established campsites. Established commercial


111

base camps may exist. Permits for day-use activities are limited for high-use areas. There are signs at trail intersections to indicated trail routes, but no destination sings or mileage markers. Management information and administrative signs are used when necessary for resource protection. Evidence of cultural and historic sites may exist, but is not interpreted on the ground. Structures and facilities exist for resource protection and administration of the wilderness. Trail systems are maintained to minimize damage or loss of the trail tread. Cross-country travel occurs. User-established trails are evident. Bridges may be present, when needed for user protection or user safety. Livestock grazing is appropriate and authorized.

Wilderness-Semi-Primitive (SPRM) ~ Human influence on vegetation is minimal. Contact with other users or Forest Service wilderness personnel is frequent. Encounters with large and small groups are likely. Campsites are limited and may be designated. There is evidence of established campsites. Sites may be visible or audible from adjacent sites. There are no established commercial base camps. Permits for day-use activities are limited to high-use areas. These areas are primarily used as pass-through travel zones for commercial groups. There are signs at the trail intersections to indicate trail routes. Boundary signs, trailhead signs, and other information are appropriate to educate and inform wilderness users. Evidence of cultural and historic sites may exist, but is not interpreted on the ground. There are structures and facilities for resource protection and administration of wilderness. Travel is primarily along trails. Trail systems are predominantly maintained. Bridges may be present when needed for resource protection, or where no safe opportunity exists to cross a stream during periods of normal water flow. Livestock grazing is appropriate and authorized.

Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized (SPNM) ~ High, but not extremely high, probability of experienc ing isolation from the sights and sounds of humans, independence, closeness to nature, tranquility, and self-reliance in an environment that offers a high degree of challenge and risk.

Semi-Primitive Motorized (SPM) ~ Moderate probability of experienc ing isolation from the sights and sounds of humans, independence, closeness to nature, tranquility, and self-reliance in an environment that offers challenge and risk. Opportunity to have a high degree of interaction with the natural environment and use motorized equipment while in the area.

Roaded Natural (RN) ~ Equal probability to experience affiliation with other user groups and for isolation from sights and sounds of human. Opportunity to have a high degree of interaction with the natural environment. Challenge and risk opportunities associated with more primitive type of recreation are not important. Practice and testing of outdoor skills might be important. Opportunities for both motorized and non-motorized forms of recreation are possible. Modified Roaded means the same.

Rural (R) ~ Probability for experiencing affiliation with individuals and groups is prevalent, as is the convenience of sites and opportunities. These factors are generally more important than the setting of the physical environment. Opportunities for wildland challenges, risk taking, and testing of outdoor skills are generally unimportant except for specific activities like downhill skiing, for which challenge and risk-taking are important elements.


112

Urban (U) ~ Probability for experiencing affiliation with individuals and groups is prevalent, as is the convenience of sites and opportunities. Experiencing natural environments, having challenges and risks afforded by the natural environment, and the use of outdoor skills are relatively unimportant. Opportunities for competitive sports and for passive uses of highly human-influenced parks and open spaces are common.

Recreation visitor day (RVD) ~ Twelve visitor hours, which may be aggregated continuously, intermittently, or simultaneous ly, by one or more persons.

Riparian area ~ Geographically delineable area with distinctive resource values and characteristics that are comprised of the aquatic and riparian ecosystems.

Riparian ecosystem ~ A transition between the aquatic ecosystem and the adjacent terrestrial ecosystem; identif ied by soil characteristics or distinctive vegetation communities that require free or unbound water.

Rosgen stream classification ~ A widely-used method for classifying streams and rivers based on common patterns of channel morphology as follows: (Level I Classification)

Aa+ = Very steep, deeply entrenched, debris transport, torrent streams.

A = Steep, entrenched, cascading, step/pools streams. High energy/debris transport associated with depositional soils. Very stable if bedrock or boulder dominated channel.

B = Moderate entrenched, moderate gradient, riffle dominated channel with infrequently spaced pools. Very stable plane and profile. Stable banks.

C = Low gradient, meandering, point-bar, riffle/pool, alluvial channels with broad, well defined floodplains.

D = Braided channel with longitudinal and transverse bars. Very wide channel with eroding banks.

DA = Anastomosing (multiple-channels) narrow and deep with excessive, well vegetated floodplains and associated wetlands. Very gentle relief with highly variable sinuos ities and width/depth ratios. Very stable streambanks.

E = Low gradient, meandering riffle/pool stream with low width/depth ratio and little deposition. Very efficient and stable. High meander width ratio.

F = Entrenched meandering riffle/pool channel on low gradients with high width/depth ratio.

G = Entrenched “gully” step/pool and low width/depth ratio on moderate gradients.

Rosgen Level II Classification:

1-Bedrock; 2-Boulders; 3-Cobble; 4-Gravel; 5-Sand; 6-Silt Clay

Salting ~ Providing salt as a mineral supplement for animals. Placing salt on the rangeland in such a manner as to improve distribution of livestock.

Scoping ~ Contact/discussion with the public, internally, and with agencies and tribal governments over a proposed action to determine the scope of issues to be addressed.


113

Secondary range ~ Secondary range is that part of the range which is suitable for livestock use, but is used very little or not at all because of accessibility, lack of water, management system, or combination of these. Livestock use is normally minimal or nonexistent until the primary range has reached or exceeded allowable use levels.

Sensitive species ~ A species that is not presently listed as threatened or endangered by the USFWS, but a population viability concern has been identif ied as evidenced by: (1) signif icant current or predicted downward trends in population numbers or density, and/or (2) significant current or predicted downward trends in habitat capability that may reduce a species' existing distribution.

Seral community ~ Any community that is not at potential. A relatively transitory community that develops under ecological succession, toward, or away from a potential natural community.

Seral stage ~ Successional plant communities are often classified into quantitative seral stages to depict the relative position on a classical successional pathway.

Stock driveway ~ A strip of land specifically designated for he controlled movement of livestock.

Stocking density ~ The relationship between number of animals and area of land at any instant of time. It is typically expressed as animals per acre.

Soil compaction~ Soil that has a 15% increase in bulk density over natural undisturbed conditions.

Soil erosion hazard ~ A rating of a soil's potential to erode.

Soil health ~ An assessment of soil physical, biological, and chemical conditions related to growing plants (forests and grasslands) over the long term.

Soil productivity significant changes ~ Based on current research, a 15% reduction in productivity is allowed, and serves as an early warning system of reduced productive capacity.

Soil standards ~ A requirement that no more than 15% (area extent) of an activity area may be compacted, eroded, displaced, puddled, or severely burned. In addition, in order to maintain soil fertility, organic matter must be maintained on soils with little organic matter reserves.

Stream health ~ This is assessed by comparing characteristics of streams in the analysis area to the same characteristics for a reference stream of the same classification (using Rosgen's Stream Classification [Rosgen 1996]).

Structure class ~ A classification of forested cover types which aggregates habitat structural stage into broader categories. Each category is defined in the table shown under habitat structural stage.

Succession ~ The process of vegetative and ecological development whereby an area becomes successively occupied by different plant communities.

Suitable rangeland ~ Areas where grazing is appropriate considering economics, environmental consequences of livestock grazing, rangeland conditions, and the other uses or values of an area.


114

Threatened species ~ A species that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a signif icant portion of its range.

Trailing ~ Controlled directional movement of livestock.

Transitory rangeland ~ This is suitable range which comes into being as a result of partial or complete removal of forest cover by logging, fire, insects, or disease for which the management objective is to reestablish the tree cover as soon as possible. These areas may be grazed so long as soil is not damaged and the grazing impacts remain compatible with requirements and use of other resources.

Travel management ~ Providing for safe, environmentally responsible and customer-responsive movement of vehicles and people to and through Forest lands.

Unauthorized livestock ~ Any cattle, sheep, goat, hog, or equine not defined as a wild free-roaming horse or burro by 36 CFR §222.20(b)(13), which is not authorized by permit (or bill for collection) to be upon the land on which the livestock is located and which is not related to use authorized by a grazing permit (livestock owned by other than a national forest grazing permit holder). Noncommercial pack and saddle stock used by recreationists, travelers, other forest visitors for occasional trips, as well as livestock to be trailed over an established driveway when there is no overnight stop on Forest Service administered land, do not fall under this definition.

Water influence zone (WIZ) ~ The land next to water bodies where vegetation plays a major role in sustaining long-term integrity of aquatic systems. It includes the geomorphic floodplain, riparian ecosystem, and inner gorge. Its minimum horizontal width (from top of each bank) is 100 feet or the mean height of mature dominant vegetation, whichever is most.

Watershed condition ~ Watershed condition is assessed by calculating the acreage of all surface disturbances that have occurred over time within each watershed area. Acreages for each kind of disturbance are adjusted to get an equivalent roaded area and then added together to get an accumulated total disturbed area. Watershed disturbance is compared to concern levels established in the Forest Plan to determine whether cumulative watershed disturbances are likely to pose a threat to watershed health.

Wildfire ~ An unplanned, unwanted wildland fire, including unauthorized human-caused fires, escaped wildland fire use events, escaped prescribed fire projects, and all other wildland fires where the objective is to put the fire out.

Wildland fire ~ Any non-structure fire that occurs in the wildland. Three distinct types of wildland fire have been defined and include wildfire, wildland fire use, and prescribed fire.

Wildland fire use (WFU) ~ The application of the appropriate management response to naturally-ignited wildland fires to accomplish specific resource management objectives in predefined designated areas outlined in fire management plans and accomplished under the confines of a wildland fire implementation plan (WFIP). Formerly called prescribed natural fire.


115

APPENDIX A: Forest Plan Desired Conditions, Existing Conditions, and the Need for Action relative to the Analysis Area The need for this action is tied to any important resource, social, or economic disparities that were found when comparing the existing condition in the analys is area to the Forest Plan desired conditions, as determined by the ID team and authorized officer on a resource-specific basis. The need for action is further constrained by the scope of the analysis (i.e., the analysis is limited to evaluating the appropriate level of livestock grazing, given considerations of rangeland condition and other Forest Plan goals and objectives).

The ID team reviewed each of the Forest-wide desired conditions from the Forest Plan relative to this analys is area to see if a change in livestock management was needed. The result of this analys is is displayed as follows in table A-1. This table reveals the important disparities between the Forest Plan desired conditions and the existing conditions for this analysis area; it also identif ies the need for action within the scope of this analysis.

The analysis area is generally meeting or moving toward the desired conditions established for the MAs. One resource area, rangeland resource, was found to have an important disparity within the scope of this analysis.


116

Table A-1. Forest Plan desired conditions, existing condition, and need for action (if any)1

Forest Plan Desired Condition Existing Condition Need for Action

Biological Diversity ■ Habitat composition (including seral stage), structure, pattern (including connection), and disturbance frequencies similar to those that result from natural disturbances (insects, disease, and fire) are maintained to the extent possible, given legal and policy limitations, and the desired condition for the area.

■ Viable populations of existing native and desired nonnative vertebrate species are sustained with sufficient numbers of reproductive individuals. Native species are favored over nonnative species.

■ Habitats for federally listed threatened, endangered, and proposed endangered species and regionally listed sensitive species are protected, restored, and enhanced. Habitat on national forest system lands is managed to help assure that those species whose viability is a concern survive throughout their range, and that habitat conditions improve or stabilize.

Overall, the analysis area is meeting or moving toward the Forest-wide desired conditions. See section 3.13 (Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive (TES) Plant Species), section 3.8 (Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive (TES) Wildlife Species), and section 3.12 (Fisheries).

None

Air Resources ■ Air quality remains excellent. It is better than State and Federal standards. Visibility distances are among the best in the country. Forest activities do not affect long-term changes or contribute to off-Forest problems.

Overall, the analysis area is meeting or moving toward the Forest-wide desired conditions. See section 3.18 (Other Disclosures).

None

Timber Resources ■ The vegetative structure on the RGNF is capable of sustaining timber harvesting that supplies wood products for humankind while providing for the biological diversity of those forested areas. Harvest operations are designed to emulate smaller-scale disturbance events or processes.

This desired condition is outside the scope of this analysis.

None

Range ■ Vegetation is managed for a mixture of seral stages, with most of the rangelands in mid- to high-seral stages. The specific desired condition is identified in each allotment management plan.

Overall, the analysis area is meeting or moving toward the Forest-wide desired conditions. See section 3.4 (Rangeland Resources).

Many primary rangelands are in mid- to high-seral stages; satisfactory range conditions are being maintained.

Fire ■ Fire’s role in ecosystem dynamics is recognized and sponsored when and where it does not threaten human life, property, or resources. Prescribed natural fire is common in MA prescriptions 1.11-1.13 (Wilderness), 3.3 (Backcountry),

Overall, the analysis area is meeting or moving toward the Forest-wide desired conditions. See section 3.18 (Other

None


117


4.3 (Dispersed Recreation). ■ The amount, arrangement, and continuity of live and/or dead material, which would contribute to fire spread (fuel profiles), are consistent with land uses and estimates of historic fire regimes.

Disclosures).

Noxious Weeds ■ Noxious weeds are managed using an integrated pest management approach. All control methods, such as physical removal, prescribed fire, mechanical devices, biological treatments, or chemical applications, will be evaluated to reduce potential adverse effects on human health and the environment, and designed to meet management objectives.

Overall, the analysis area is meeting or moving toward the Forest-wide desired conditions. See section 3.17 (Noxious Plants).

None

Water And Aquatic Resources ■ Healthy watersheds operate in a dynamic equilibrium between extreme natural events. Surface-disturbing activities are managed so that floods, droughts, sediment loads, bank erosion, rills, gullies, and landslides are not markedly increased. ■ Water quality is maintained or improved, with all stream segments having a near reference-stream appearance. Water is suitable for municipal water supplies after normal treatment, including those using shallow alluvial aquifers. Chemical, physical, and biological attributes are improved and maintained in a healthy condition, ensuring future use.

■ Stream health is maintained through natural processes without artificial controls. Streams have the expected range of habitat features, (for example, healthy riparian vegetation, stable banks, over-wintering pools and healthy aquatic organisms). ■ Riparian areas and floodplains are healthy, fully functioning ecosystems. Vegetation is diverse and is generally in a later-seral condition, to provide site stability.

■ Fish thrive in Forest lakes and streams due to adequate habitat and water quality. Natural fish habitat is preferred and promoted over human-made habitat.

Overall, the analysis area is meeting or moving toward the Forest-wide desired conditions. See section 3.5 (Watershed and Aquatic Resources) and section 3.12 (Fisheries).

None

Soils ■ Soils are maintained, or improved to healthy conditions, so that the ecosystems they support can flourish. Healthy soils and ecosystem

Overall, the analysis area is meeting or moving toward the Forest-wide desired

None


118


sustainability will be assured if soil damages, such as erosion, displacement, compaction, scorching, and nutrient drains, are kept within allowable limits.

■ Ecosystem management activities are harmonious with soil capabilities, potentials, and limitations.

■ Soils may be periodically disturbed by management activities, but are restored and reclaimed to original potentials after activities have been completed. ■ Where fire is used to perpetuate an ecosystem, it is done in a way that accomplishes resource objectives without unnecessarily risking or jeopardizing the site's ability to sustain ecosystems.

■ Healthy soils provide certain products such as wood, forage for livestock and wildlife, water, recreation, minerals, and aesthetic benefits. These benefits can be continued for the long term, provided soil health remains within acceptable limits.

conditions. See section 3.6 (Soil Resources).

Minerals ■ Mineral development is compatible with ecosystem capabilities and resource values. Balanced use and development of mineral resources are allowed, while protecting other resource values with stipulations, mitigation, and careful monitoring. Problems caused by historic mining are corrected.


None

Special Forest Products ■ Special forest products, such as firewood, building rock, herb and vegetable products, medicinal and pharmaceutical products, wild edible mushrooms, wild berries and fruit, landscaping products, craft products, and floral and greenery products, continue to be available from the Forest. Plants include trees, shrubs, water plants, forbs, grasses, mosses, lichens, and fungi. Plant parts that are used include leaves, boughs, bark, bulbs, corms, seeds, nuts, and fruits.

■ The gathering of such products depends on the sustainable limits of the resource. In addition, permits may be required for some of these products.

■ The RGNF recognizes the needs of people from the San Luis Valley and surrounding areas, and strives to meet their needs for forest and wood products, while protecting those resources for future generations.

Overall, the analysis area is meeting or moving toward the Forest-wide desired conditions. Small amounts of personal use are insignificant in the analysis area. Commercial use, if any, is only allowed under a permit.

None

Research Natural Areas ■ Several research natural areas (RNAs) represent a variety of ecosystems in This desired condition is outside the None


119


the Sangre de Cristo and San Juan Mountains. Ecosystems represented are typical plant associations found on the Forest, from the lowest elevations up through the alpine zone.

scope of this analysis.

Unroaded Areas ■ Maintain selected unroaded areas to offer nonmotorized or limited-motorized recreation opportunities outside wilderness. Ecologic composition, structure, pattern, and natural processes (fire, insects, disease, floods, etc.) are maintained, where feasible, to perpetuate biological diversity.

Overall, the analysis area is meeting or moving toward the Forest-wide desired conditions. See section 3.14 (Wilderness, Recreation, and Travel Management).

None

Wild and Scenic Rivers ■ The outstandingly remarkable resources and values of selected rivers and their adjacent corridors are managed to protect their existing conditions for the benefit and enjoyment of present and future generations.


None

Wilderness ■ Designated wilderness is managed to: retain its pristine character and natural processes, with minimal evidence of human influence; offer opportunities for solitude; and retain its ecological, scientific, educational, scenic, and historical values.


None

Special Interest Areas ■ The Forest has several special interest areas managed to protect or enhance their unique botanical, archeological, geological, or other values. Some areas offer interpretative sites and educational opportunities.


None

Heritage Resources ■ Heritage resources supply information about the Nation's heritage, offer quality recreation opportunities for the public, and contribute information that aids management of other Forest resources.

■ Proactive consultation with American Indian peoples helps ensure the protection, preservation, and use of areas that are culturally important to them.

■ Heritage resources are systematically evaluated and nominated for the National Register of Historic Places when they meet eligibility criteria.

■ Heritage resources are protected from damage by project activities or vandalism through project design, specified protection measures, monitoring, and coordination.

Overall, the analysis area is meeting or moving toward the Forest-wide desired conditions. See section 3.15 (Heritage Resources).

None


120


Recreation ■ Management of the Forest's recreation programs: offers opportunities for motorized and nonmotorized recreation within appropriate settings; is responsive to visitors’ desires and increases service to the public; maintains a broad range of quality developed recreation facilities; features traditional and nontraditional dispersed-recreation opportunities; showcases scenic byways and landscape; expand our interpretative services; and allows for current areas used as summer homes, resorts, and youth camps to continue to be managed as recreation special-use development areas.

Livestock may encounter people using system trails and camping areas during the peak summer recreation season (4th of July through Labor Day).

Manage livestock distribution during peak summer recreation season to reduce interaction with hikers and campers.

Scenery ■ The outstanding scenery of the RGNF is a major attraction for visitors. Management is focused on maintaining this high scenic quality, especially of areas seen from road and trail corridors, developed recreation sites, administrative sites, and towns and cities near the Forest. ■ Encourage vegetative diversity and feature scenic attractions.

■ Areas exceeding unacceptably low scenic integrity levels are rehabilitated to a higher scenic integrity objective.

Overall, the analysis area is meeting or moving toward the Forest-wide desired conditions. This desired condition is outside the scope of this analysis.

None

General Infrastructure ■ Reservoirs and Ponds: All dams on national forest system lands are inspected to ensure public safety and comply with all appropriate laws and regulations.

High- and moderate-hazard dams shall have current emergency preparedness plans (EPPs).

■ Facilities: Safe, accessible, functionally efficient, aesthetically pleasing, energy-efficient, and cost-effective buildings and related facilities (owned, operated, occupied, or authorized by the Forest Service) needed to achieve resource management objectives are maintained or constructed.

■ Drinking Water: The Forest Service will test water at facilities under special-use-permit, to ensure that human health is protected according to the Safe Drinking Water Act.

■ Waste Water: Discharge or infiltration of pollutants from all wastewater disposal facilities owned and operated by the Forest Service, or that are under special-use permit from the Forest Service, do not create health hazards or nuisance conditions. This discharge does not alter the quality or characteristics


None


121


of ground water and surface water beyond applicable federal or state water-quality and effluent-discharge standards.

■ Roads: The road system continues to serve as adequate access for the public to enjoy the Forest. Road construction is limited, and the amount of reconstruction has decreased. Road closure is emphasized in some areas to enhance wildlife habitat, soil, and water resources.

Real Estate ■ Develop a landownership pattern that improves our ability to meet Forest needs and public objectives. ■ Land adjustments through purchases, exchanges, and donations include an array of unique plant and animal habitats, riparian areas, geologic features, heritage resources, and recreational opportunities.


None

Health And Safety ■ The Forest Service is responsive to public needs in emergencies, and supports and enters into cooperative agreements with local officials. ■ Forest work programs are conducted within the guidelines of the National Health and Safety Codes and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration.


None

Rural Development ■ Recognizing the economic dependency of rural communities on national forest system lands and resources, Forest managers cooperate with local rural communities to develop sustainable enterprises that contribute to the general economic and social vitality of the area. Forest managers also give sufficient advance notice to rural communities about potential changes that may affect local economies. ■ Forest managers cooperate with local, county, State, and American Indian partners to meet rural-community needs. Forest managers strive to improve rural conditions by helping to solve local problems in ways that enhance environmental quality according to existing authorities and laws.

The Forest Service is contributing to the economic and social well being of local people by authorizing livestock grazing in the analysis area. Permittees’ have requested additional livestock use/season within the analysis area.

Determine the appropriate level of livestock grazing to meet Forest Plan desired conditions for the environment and social effects for the analysis area.

1

Desired conditions from the Rio Grande National Forest’s Forest Plan, pages I-1 through I-6.

Documents

a123.g.akamai.neta123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic...The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis