Final Environmental Agriculture Impact Statementa123.g.akamai.net › 7 › 123 › 11558 › abc123 › forestservic...included in the BCP but found on the RGNF, and their relationship

United States Department of Agriculture

Forest Service

June 2010

Final Environmental Impact Statement

North San Juan Sheep and Goat Allotments

Conejos Peak Ranger District, Rio Grande National Forest Conejos, Rio Grande, and Archuleta Counties, Colorado

For More Information Contact:

Kelly Garcia, Interdisciplinary Team Leader

Rio Grande National Forest, Conejos Peak Ranger District

15571 County Rd. T5

La Jara, Colorado 81140

(719) 274-8971

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.


i



Conejos Peak Ranger District, Rio Grande National Forest Conejos, Rio Grande, and Archuleta Counties, Colorado

Lead Agency: USDA Forest Service

Responsible Official: Andrea Jones, Acting District Ranger Conejos Peak Ranger District

Rio Grande National Forest 15571 County Rd. T5 La Jara, Colorado 81140 (719) 274-8971

For Further Information: Kelly Garcia, Interdisciplinary Team Leader Rio Grande National Forest, Conejos Peak Ranger District 15571 County Rd. T5 La Jara, Colorado 81140 (719) 274-8971

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

ABSTRACT: This final environmental impact statement (FEIS) is a public document that reveals the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of a proposed action and alternative actions for permitted domestic livestock grazing management within the North San Juan Sheep and Goat Allotments analysis area.

This document follows the format established in the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Parts 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. The document is tiered to the FEIS and record of decision (ROD) for the 1996b Revised Land and Resource Management Plan, as amended (Forest Plan), for the Rio Grande National Forest.


ii

Acronyms and 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 BCR Bird Conservation Region BE BHS

Biological Evaluation Bighorn Sheep

CDNST Continental Divide National Scenic Trail CDOW Colorado Division of Wildlife CEQ Council on Environmental Quality CFR Code of Federal Regulations DN DS

Decision Notice Domestic Sheep

EA Environmental Assessment EIS Environmental Impact Statement FEIS Final Environmental Impact Statement FSH Forest Service Handbook FSM Forest Service Manual FSR Forest System Road FTR Forest Trail LAU Lynx Analysis Unit LTA Landtype Association MA Management Area MU Map Unit NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NFMA National Forest Management Act PNV Present Net Value R2 Region 2 of the Forest Service (also called the Rocky Mountain Region) RGCT Rio Grande Cutthroat Trout RGNF Rio Grande National Forest RNA Research Natural Area 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


iii

Table of Contents

Acronyms and Abbreviations ....................................................................................................................... ii Summary .......................................................................................................................................................1 Chapter 1 Purpose of and Need for Action....................................................................................................3

1.1 Introduction .........................................................................................................................................3 1.2 Background .........................................................................................................................................3 1.3 Proposed Action ..................................................................................................................................3 1.4 Area and Scope ...................................................................................................................................4 1.5 Purpose of Action ................................................................................................................................6 1.6 Need for Action ...................................................................................................................................6 1.7 Relationship to Other Acts, Regulations, Permits, and Plans .............................................................8

1.7.1 Forest Plan ....................................................................................................................................8 1.8 Decisions to be Made Based on This Analysis ................................................................................. 11

1.8.1 Implementation (Term Grazing Permits, AMPs, and AOIs) ...................................................... 12 1.9 Public Involvement ........................................................................................................................... 12 1.10 Key Issues Associated with the Proposed Action ........................................................................... 13 1.11 Other Environmental/Social Concerns ............................................................................................ 14 1.12 Concerns Outside the Scope of this Analysis.................................................................................. 15 1.13 Relevant Direction and Memorandum of Understanding ............................................................... 15 1.14 Major Changes to the Draft EIS ...................................................................................................... 16

Chapter 2 Alternatives Including the Proposed Action ............................................................................... 19 2.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 19 2.2 The Process Used to Develop the Alternatives ................................................................................. 19 2.3 Alternatives Considered .................................................................................................................... 19 2.4 Alternatives Considered in Detail ..................................................................................................... 20

2.4.1 Alternative 1 – No Action (No Permitted Livestock Grazing) ................................................... 20 2.4.2 Alternative 2 – Current Livestock Grazing Management (as applied on-the-ground over the past 3 to 5 years) .................................................................................................................................. 22 2.4.3 Alternative 3 – Adaptive Livestock Grazing Management (Forest Service Proposed Action) ........................................................................................................ 27

2.5 Alternatives Considered but Dropped from Detailed Consideration ................................................ 33 2.6 Comparison of Alternatives .............................................................................................................. 33 2.7 Project Design Criteria ...................................................................................................................... 35 2.8 Monitoring Measures ........................................................................................................................ 46

2.8.1 Implementation Monitoring ........................................................................................................ 46 2.8.2 Effectiveness Monitoring ........................................................................................................... 52

Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences ......................................................... 55 3.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 55 3.2 General Description of the Analysis Area......................................................................................... 55 3.3 Alternatives and Their Response to Key Issues ................................................................................ 55 3.4 Effects on Resources and Elements .................................................................................................. 58

3.4.1 Rangeland Resources .................................................................................................................. 58 3.4.2 Wilderness/Recreation/Travel Management .............................................................................. 71 3.4.3 Watershed and Aquatic Resources ............................................................................................. 82 3.4.4 Soil Resources ............................................................................................................................ 92 3.4.5 Economics .................................................................................................................................. 95 3.4.6 Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive (TES) Plant Species ..................................................... 99 3.4.7 Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive (TES) Wildlife Species ............................................. 101 3.4.8 Wildlife ..................................................................................................................................... 113


iv

3.4.9 Fisheries ................................................................................................................................... 124 3.4.10 Heritage Resources ................................................................................................................ 126 3.4.11 Noxious Plants ....................................................................................................................... 129 3.4.12 Social ..................................................................................................................................... 131 3.4.13 Scenic .................................................................................................................................... 136 3.4.14 Other Disclosures .................................................................................................................. 137

3.5 Cumulative Effects Summary ........................................................................................................ 140 Chapter 4 List of Preparers ....................................................................................................................... 148

4.1 Interdisciplinary Team Members ................................................................................................... 148 4.2 Consultant Team Member .............................................................................................................. 148

Chapter 5 Agencies, Tribal Governments, and Individuals Consulted .................................................... 149 5.1 Federal, State, and Local Agencies ................................................................................................ 149 5.2 Tribal Governments ........................................................................................................................ 150 5.3 Individuals/Organizations .............................................................................................................. 151

Chapter 6 Public Comment/Response ...................................................................................................... 153 6.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 153 6.2 Public Comments ........................................................................................................................... 153 6.3 Forest Service Response to Public Comments ............................................................................... 179

References ................................................................................................................................................ 195 Appendix A: Risk Assessment Process—North San Juan Range Analysis ............................................. 203 Appendix B: List of Terms Used .............................................................................................................. 211 Appendix C: Quick-Silver Investment Analysis – Economic Returns Cross-tab Report ......................... 221 Appendix D: Social Demographics .......................................................................................................... 223 Appendix E: Domestic Sheep Terms, Grazing Behavior, and Herding ................................................... 227 Appendix F: SPOT Receivers .................................................................................................................. 231 Appendix G: Potential Impacts to Cultural Resources from Livestock Grazing ...................................... 233

List of Tables

Table 1-1. Forest Plan desired conditions and existing conditions where an important disparity exists for the analysis area, including an associated need for action ..................................... 7

Table 1-2. Prescription categories in the analysis area showing management areas, theme, setting, and desired condition ............................................................................................................. 10

Table 2-1. Alternative 1 – No Action (No Permitted Livestock Grazing) ................................................. 21 Table 2-2. Alternative 2 – Current Livestock Grazing Management ......................................................... 24 Table 2-3. Grazing management toolbox ................................................................................................... 30 Table 2-4. Alternative 3 – Adaptive Livestock Grazing Management

(Forest Service Proposed Action) ....................................................................................................... 31 Table 2-5. Key issue comparison of the alternatives .................................................................................. 34 Table 2-6. Table project design criteria ...................................................................................................... 35 Table 2-7. Implementation monitoring schedule, frequency, responsible party, and

applicable alternative .......................................................................................................................... 48 Table 2-8. Effectiveness monitoring schedule, frequency, and responsible party ..................................... 53 Table 3-1. Response to the key issues by alternative ................................................................................. 56 Table 3-2. Historic livestock numbers and grazing season ........................................................................ 59 Table 3-3. Suitable acres by allotment ....................................................................................................... 63 Table 3-4. Livestock carrying capacity by allotment ................................................................................. 65 Table 3-5. Estimated livestock carrying capacity and suitable acres by alternative ................................... 65 Table 3-6. Effects checklist, watersheds and aquatics ................................................................................ 90 Table 3-7. Major soils/ecological units by allotment ................................................................................. 94 Table 3-8. Estimated effects on soils by alternative ................................................................................... 95


v

Table 3-9. Financial analysis ....................................................................................................................... 96 Table 3-10. Sensitive plant effects determination for the analysis area, by alternative ............................ 100 Table 3-11. Summary of findings for threatened, endangered, or proposed species ................................. 104 Table 3-12. Summary of findings for Region 2 sensitive species ............................................................. 105 Table 3-13. Summary of the MIS evaluation ............................................................................................ 115 Table 3-14. USFWS species of conservation concern for Bird Conservation Region 16 not

included in the BCP but found on the RGNF, and their relationship to the Forest Plan ................... 117 Table 3-15. Migratory birds; priority habitats and associated species relevant to this analysis area ........ 118 Table 3-16. Summary of effects to MIS, by alternative ............................................................................ 120 Table 3-17. Population statistics for race and ethnicity for Colorado, Conejos, and

Rio Grande Counties (2000 Census) ................................................................................................. 132 Table 3-18. Population poverty status for Colorado, Conejos, and Rio Grande Counties

(2000 Census) .................................................................................................................................... 133 Table 6-1. Public comment reference and Forest Service response .......................................................... 179

List of Figures

Figure 1-1. The analysis area relative to the RGNF and local communities (rangeland allotments are delineated and labeled within the analysis area) ..........................................5

Figure 1-2. Management areas for the analysis area .....................................................................................9 Figure 2-1. Trailing routes for alternatives 2 and 3 ..................................................................................... 23 Figure 2-2. Alternative 2 showing allotments (shaded green) currently used in current management

(allotments used in past 3 to 5 years) .................................................................................................. 26 Figure 2-3. Adaptive livestock grazing management alternative showing allotments (shaded)

available for permitted grazing ............................................................................................................ 29 Figure 2-4. Key monitoring areas for the analysis area (identified by a black “M”) .................................. 51 Figure 3-1. Recreation opportunity spectrum (ROS) within the analysis area ............................................ 75 Figure 3-2. Allotment locations within 6th-level watersheds ....................................................................... 83 Figure 3-3. Wilderness, wild rivers, and backcountry areas ....................................................................... 84 Figure 3-4. Analysis area for the Canada lynx effects evaluation ............................................................. 101


1

Summary The Rio Grande National Forest (RGNF) proposes to continue to permit livestock grazing within the North San Juan Sheep and Goat Allotments analysis area (hereafter abbreviated to the “analysis area”) under an adaptive management strategy that would meet or move toward Forest Plan and project-specific desired conditions.

The analysis area contains approximately 47,589 total acres within Conejos County, Rio Grande, and Archuleta Counties, Colorado. The future livestock management of 12 existing sheep and goat allotments is being evaluated in this EIS. Those 12 grazing allotments are: Marble Mtn., Campo-Bonito, Cropsy, Summit, Elwood, Treasure, West Vega, East Vega, Upper Adams, North Fork-Middle Fork, Cornwall Mtn., and Willow Mtn. Livestock grazing has occurred in this area since the late 1800s.

The need for this action is tied to resolving important disparities between the Forest Plan desired conditions and the existing conditions for this analysis area, within the scope of this analysis. 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 analysis area was found to be generally meeting or moving toward the Forest-wide desired conditions. However, two resource areas were judged to have an important disparity—biological diversity and rural development.

The proposed action is expected to result in low impacts on the physical and biological environment; and moderate impacts on the social environment.

Three alternatives were developed in detail for this environmental analysis. 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, and (3) adaptive livestock grazing management (Forest Service proposed action).

This EIS discloses the environmental consequences of implementing the proposed action and alternatives to that action. A separate ROD, signed by the responsible official, will explain the environmental and management reasons for selecting an alternative to be implemented. The ROD 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.

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 analysis 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 will be described (including standards, guidelines, grazing management, and monitoring) so that desired condition objectives are met or that movement occurs toward those objectives in an acceptable timeframe.


3

Chapter 1 Purpose of and Need for Action

1.1 Introduction The Forest Service has prepared this final environmental impact statement (FEIS) in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other relevant Federal and State laws and regulations, and discloses the possible direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts that may result from the proposed action and alternatives to the proposed action. This FEIS provides the responsible official with the information necessary to make an informed decision. The decision will be documented in a ROD accompanying the FEIS 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 RGNF Revised Land and Resource Management Plan, as amended (hereafter referred to as the Forest Plan [USDA Forest Service 1996a]), 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 administrative record located at the Conejos Peak Ranger District Office in La Jara, Colorado.

1.2 Background This NEPA analysis began as an environmental assessment (EA) in 2006, but during interdisciplinary team (ID team) discussions it became apparent that an EIS would be more appropriate. A “Notice of Intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement” was published in the Federal Register on March 11, 2008.

All analysis, scoping, and public comment have been brought forward into this FEIS.

1.3 Proposed Action The proposed action is to continue to permit livestock grazing within the North San Juan Sheep and Goat Allotments analysis area (abbreviated hereafter to the “analysis area”) under an adaptive management strategy (Forest Service Handbook [FSH] 2209.13, chapter 90; Quimby 2007) that will 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

Reduce potential wildlife conflicts (Schommer and Woolever 2001)

Contribute positively to the general economic and social vitality of the local area

Continue improving resource trends or maintain currently satisfactory resource conditions as appropriate

The proposed action will result in the development of new allotment management plans (AMPs) for the allotments in the analysis area. These AMPs are simply implementing documents for the alternative selected in the ROD.


4

The selected alternative will contain 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 ROD.

1.4 Area and Scope The analysis area contains approximately 47,589 total acres and 18,638 acres (39 percent) determined to be suitable for the grazing of domestic sheep through the Forest Plan suitability determination process (USDA Forest Service 2003). Located predominately outside of wilderness with (31 percent) inside the South San Juan Wilderness, the analysis area lies within Conejos, Archuleta, and Rio Grande Counties and is approximately 38 miles west of the community of La Jara, Colorado (see figure 1-1). The future livestock management of 12 existing sheep and goat allotments is being evaluated in this EA. The affected rangeland allotments are: Marble Mtn., Campo-Bonito, Cropsy, Summit, Elwood, Treasure, West Vega, East Vega, Upper Adams, North Fork-Middle Fork, Cornwall Mtn., and Willow Mtn. (figure 1-1).

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. The analysis does not address recreation livestock, animals authorized under livestock use permits (i.e., where the primary purpose is not livestock production), or outfitter and guide livestock. The analysis will not address the appropriateness of livestock grazing in designated wilderness because that has been determined by Congress. Section 4(d)(4)(2) of the Wilderness Act states: “the grazing of livestock, where established prior to the effective date of this Act, shall be permitted to continue subject to such reasonable regulations as are deemed necessary by the Secretary of Agriculture” (Public Law 88-577). Livestock grazing is allowed in the South San Juan Wilderness and the analysis will not address that issue. More discussion on congressional intent relative to livestock grazing in wilderness is presented below. Finally, this analysis did not address changing wilderness management area themes, settings, desired conditions, standards, guidelines, or the allocations themselves since they were decided in the Forest Plan.


5

Figure 1-1. The analysis area relative to the RGNF and local communities (rangeland allotments are delineated and labeled within the analysis area)

Marble Mtn

Campo-Bonito

Cropsy

Elwood

TreasureWest Vega East Vega

Upper Adams

North Fork-Middle Fork

Cornwall Mtn

Willow Mtn

Summit

.

Alamosa

La Jara

Antonito

Monte Vista

South Fork Del Norte

Analysis Area

Rio GrandeNational Forest

Rio GrandeNational Forest

Colorado


6

1.5 Purpose of Action The purpose of this action is to provide forage for permitted domestic livestock grazing in a manner that maintains or moves conditions toward achieving Forest Plan objectives and desired conditions. Providing forage for permitted domestic 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 domestic livestock grazing in the Forest Plan, and continued domestic 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 qualified 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 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 analysis 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).

6) Congressional Grazing Guidelines state, “It is anticipated that the numbers of livestock permitted to graze in wilderness would remain at the approximate levels existing at the time an area enters the wilderness system. If land management plans reveal conclusively that increased livestock numbers or animal unit months (AUMs) could be made available with no adverse impact on wilderness values such as plant communities, primitive recreation, and wildlife populations or habitat, some increases in AUMs may be permissible” (FSM 2323.2–Congressional Grazing Guidelines).

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, but not limited to, annual changes in weather; to be responsive to visitor-use pattern changes; to be responsive to permittee requests for reasonable operational adjustments; and to respond to unforeseen issues. There is a need to have all the allotments available for use to facilitate the management flexibility just mentioned.

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 ID team and authorized officer on a site-specific basis. The need for action is further defined by the scope of the analysis (i.e., the analysis is


7

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 analysis area to see if a change in livestock management was needed. Table 1-1 lists the important disparities between the Forest Plan desired conditions and the existing conditions for this analysis area, and identifies the need for action within the scope of this analysis.

The analysis area is generally meeting or moving toward the Forest-wide desired conditions. Within the scope of this analysis, only two resource areas were judged to have an important disparity—biological diversity and rural development (table 1).

Table 1-1. Forest Plan desired conditions and existing conditions where an important disparity exists for the analysis area, including an associated need for action

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 and regionally 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 (Forest Plan page I-1).

Some domestic sheep allotments in the analysis area are located in and/or near occupied range and suitable range of Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep, a regional sensitive species. There is a potential risk of physical contact occurring between domestic sheep and Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep.

Contact between Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep and domestic sheep would likely be detrimental to the health of the Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep.

Domestic sheep stocking and distribution should be managed to minimize risk of contact with the Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep, to promote healthy, viable populations of bighorn sheep.

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 (Forest Plan, page I-6).

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 expressed the importance of grazing permits in maintaining the viability of their ranching operations.

Determine the appropriate level of livestock grazing to meet Forest Plan desired conditions for the environment and social desires for this analysis area.


8

1.7 Relationship to Other Acts, Regulations, Permits, and Plans

It is Forest Service policy to conduct its operations 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 plan 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 tiering this project to the FEIS and ROD for the Forest Plan, it is expected that all applicable requirements would be met. Finally, the “Wilderness Management Philosophy in the Rocky Mountain Region” (USDA Forest Service 1989) was consulted to ensure consistency with the regional viewpoint.

1.7.1 Forest Plan This FEIS is tiered to the FEIS (USDA Forest Service 1996b) and ROD for the Forest Plan 1. All alternatives (presented later in chapter 2) comply with these documents as well, unless specifically noted otherwise. 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 FEIS is a project-level analysis and evaluates the proposed action’s conformance with the Forest Plan and other regulations.

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 are spatially displayed in figure 1-2 and listed in table 1-2 for the analysis area.

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 follows: (a) prescription category 1 contains Wilderness and Eligible Wild Rivers MAs; (b) prescription category 3 contains the Backcountry and Special Interest Area MAs; (c) prescription category 4 contains the Dispersed and Developed Recreation and Eligible Recreation Rivers MA; and (d) prescription category 5 contains General Forest and Intermingled Rangelands and Forest Products. Table 1-2 aggregates the MA’s theme, setting, and desired condition, by prescription category, in the analysis area.

1 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.


9

Figure 1-2. Management areas for the analysis area


10

Table 1-2. Prescription categories in the analysis area showing management areas, theme, setting, and desired condition

Management Area1 Theme, Setting, and Desired Condition

Pre

scr

ipti

on

Cat

ego

ry 1

1.11 Wilderness, Pristine Ecological processes such as fire, insects, and disease are essentially allowed to operate relatively free from the influence of humans. Diversity resulting from natural succession and disturbances predominates, and nonnative vegetation is rare. Users must be self-reliant and should expect little contact with other people. Few, if any, man-made facilities are present. With rare exceptions, travel is non-motorized. Typical area designations are wilderness and wild rivers.

1.11/ 1.5

Wilderness, Pristine/ Eligible Wild Rivers

1.12 Wilderness, Primitive

1.12/ 1.5

Wilderness, Primitive/ Eligible Wild Rivers

Pre

scr

ipti

on

Cat

ego

ry 3

3.1 Special Interest Area –Use and Interpretation Emphasis

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.

3.3 Backcountry

Pre

scr

ipti

on

Cat

ego

ry 4

4.3 Dispersed and Developed Recreation

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.

4.4 Eligible Recreation Rivers

Pre

scr

ipti

on

Cat

ego

ry 5

5.11 General Forest and Intermingled Rangelands

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.

5.13 Forest Products

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


11

The desired conditions, by prescription category, in table 1-2 complement the Forest-wide desired conditions (Appendix A).

Livestock grazing is appropriate and authorized within each of the MAs shown in table 1-2 (RGNF Forest Plan; chapter IV). Furthermore, the Wilderness Act specifically allows livestock grazing and related activities. Congressional Grazing Guidelines (Forest Service Manual 2323.22, Exhibit 1) state, in part:

The legislative history of this language [Section 4(d)(4)(2) of the Wilderness Act] is very clear in its intent that livestock grazing, and activities and the necessary facilities to support a livestock grazing program, will be permitted to continue in National Forest wilderness areas, when such grazing was established prior to classification of an area as wilderness.

House Committee Report 96-617 states, in part:

There shall be no curtailments of grazing in wilderness areas simply because an area is, or has been designated as wilderness, nor should wilderness designations be used as an excuse by administrators to slowly ‘phase out’ grazing. Any adjustments in the numbers of livestock permitted to graze in wilderness areas should be made as a result of revisions in the normal grazing and land management planning and policy setting process, giving consideration to legal mandates, range condition, and the protection of the range resource from deterioration.

It is anticipated that the numbers of livestock permitted to graze in wilderness would remain at the approximate levels existing at the time an area enters the wilderness system. If land management plans reveal conclusively that increased livestock numbers or animal unit months (AUMs) could be made available with no adverse impact on wilderness values such as plant communities, primitive recreation, and wildlife populations or habitat, some increases in AUMs may be permissible. This is not to imply, however, that wilderness lends itself to AUM or livestock increases and construction of substantial new facilities that might be appropriate for intensive grazing management in non-wilderness areas. [from sec. 108, P.L. 96-560, H.R. Report 96-617 dated 11/14/79.]

Permitted livestock grazing was established in the analysis area well before the December 22, 1980, establishment of the South San Juan Wilderness Area. Therefore, livestock grazing is an allowable use of this wilderness area. The Forest Service acknowledges that the public is not unified in accepting livestock grazing in wilderness (Asmus and Kearney 1990; Mitchell et al. 1996; Johnson et al. 1997; Shields et al. 2002). We also recognize the general public may be unclear that the Wilderness Act allows for the administration of pre-existing livestock grazing permits in wilderness areas, based on visitor perceptions research conducted on the RGNF (Mitchell and Miller 1996).

1.8 Decisions to be Made Based on This Analysis This FEIS will disclose the environmental consequences of implementing the proposed action and alternatives to that action. A separate ROD, signed by the responsible official, will explain the management and environmental reasons for selecting an alternative to be implemented. The ROD 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.


12

The decision that the responsible official will make in the ROD is whether or not to authorize some level of livestock grazing on all, part, or none of the analysis area given considerations of Forest Plan desired conditions, goals and objectives, and public input. If the decision is made to authorize some level of livestock grazing, the management framework will be described (including standards, 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, allotment management plans (AMPs), and annual operating instructions (AOIs) will be issued, provided that they are in compliance with the NEPA-based decision. These documents are simply implementing documents and do not constitute decision points. These items are discussed in the following section.

1.8.1 Implementation (Term Grazing Permits, AMPs, and AOIs) Term Grazing Permits. These 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 a 10-year term. Term livestock grazing permits by themselves do not authorize the permittee to develop water, construct fences, build roads or trails, manipulate vegetation, or do other ground-disturbing activities.

Allotment Management Plans (AMPs). These are administrative documents developed by the Forest Service that incorporate the decisions made in the ROD from the FEIS. The AMP is not a decision document in that it simply documents in a clear format management requirements and actions decided upon in the ROD.

Annual Operating Instructions (AOIs). On an annual basis, these documents provide instructions to the term permit holder (called a permittee) regarding management requirements, projects, agreements, and so forth, for the current grazing season. They are not decision documents in that they simply implement on an annual basis the decision made in the NEPA-based ROD.

Currently, there are four term livestock grazing permits issued that authorize livestock grazing in this analysis area. Current AMPs are either outdated or not in place; the existing management situation is being directed by AOIs.

1.9 Public Involvement In 2006, the RGNF invited public comment and participation regarding this project through:

The schedule of proposed actions (SOPA) (2006 to present)

A public notice in the Valley Courier (January 21, 2006), the newspaper of record

A scoping letter sent to potentially concerned public, tribal governments, and State and other Federal agencies (January 19, 2006)

The Forest received 15 responses to the January 2006 scoping efforts.

This EIS process allowed for another round of scoping in the form of:

A Notice of Intent in the Federal Register (March 11, 2008)

The schedule of proposed actions (SOPA)


13

A public notice in the Valley Courier (March 20, 2008), the newspaper of record

Letters sent to the mandatory list of agencies for distribution of EISs (March 11, 2008)

Letters sent to the original list of potentially interested publics and a few new potentially interested agencies. The original list includes tribal governments and State and Federal agencies (March 11, 2008)

All relevant public, agency, and tribal government input to this project from 2006 to the present time was considered in the formulation of this FEIS.

1.10 Key Issues Associated with the Proposed Action An issue is an effect on a physical, biological, social, or economic resource. An issue is not an activity in itself; instead, it is 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, thus suggesting alternatives. The Forest Service identifies 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 key issues to be analyzed with the proposed action. Three key issues were identified for this analysis area. 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, changes in visitor use patterns and desires, Forest Service management desire to annually minimize resource conflicts, unforeseen changes, and so forth, 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: (a) Adaptability to change (i.e., management flexibility to readily adapt to current environmental and social conditions); and (b) amount of suitable rangeland allocated to permitted livestock grazing.

Two indicators are proposed; one is a qualitative measure for how well an alternative is responsive to the Forest Service’s need to make annual management modifications, and the other a quantifiable measure for how much area is available to disperse livestock and potentially reduce domestic sheep contact with Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep.

Key Issue 2 – Contact between domestic sheep and Rocky Mountain bighorn Sheep

There is a risk of physical contact occurring between permitted domestic sheep and goats and Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep, which likely would be detrimental to the health of the Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep. Domestic sheep grazing in specific areas may increase the risk of interactions with Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep. Various studies have shown that contact between bighorn and domestic sheep can lead to respiratory disease and fatal pneumonia in bighorn sheep (Callan and others 1991; Foreyt 1989, 1992a, 1994; Foreyt and Lagerquist 1996; George et al. 2008; Onderka and Wishart 1988). The disease-related conflict between domestic sheep and bighorn sheep was tested in the U.S. District Court


14

(Oregon) in 1995. The following summarizes U.S. Magistrate Judge Donald C. Ashmanskas’ findings: “Scientific research supports a finding that when bighorn sheep intermingle with domestic sheep, large numbers of bighorn sheep die. While the exact reason for this result may be in question, it is clear that die-offs occur. An incompatibility exists between the two species, and there is no way to avoid the incompatibility other than to keep the domestics and bighorns separate” (Ashmanskas 1995).

Indicators: (a) Predicted risk of domestic sheep and Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep interactions; and (b) actual documented contact between domestic sheep and Rocky Mountain Bighorn sheep over time.

It is a qualitative estimate of where Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep would be expected to encounter domestic sheep in the analysis area and a quantitative evaluation of actual contact over time.

Key Issue 3 – The contribution to the economic and social well being of local people tied to permitted livestock grazing in the analysis area

Several components to the social and economic issues associated with this analysis include:

a) Permitted domestic sheep grazing in this analysis area is valuable to the economy of the permittees, their employees, and the local area.

b) Livestock-based agriculture is socially, historically, and culturally important to the southern San Luis Valley.

c) Some of the permittees currently using the analysis area have requested additional rangeland and livestock numbers to maintain the profitability of their operations while on public lands.

Indicators: (a) Economic impact to the permittees and their employees; (b) economic impact to the local economy; (c) social impact to the permittees and their employees; (d) social impact to the local community, including environmental justice; (e) Financial implications for permittees and for USDA-FS, expressed as present net value (PNV).

The economic and social impacts are qualitative estimates of the impacts to the permittees, their employees, and the local communities. The “Environmental Justice” portion of the social impacts issue is intended to evaluate some selected quantitative demographic indicators of low-income and minority populations of communities for purposes of assessing environmental justice concerns in relation to the proposed Federal action and alternatives. The PNV is a quantitative estimate of the financial efficiency for the permittees and the USDA-FS.

1.11 Other Environmental/Social Concerns Other environmental and social concerns were identified through scoping. Many comments received during the public comment period were not considered key issues because they have been mitigated in the same way in all alternatives, or were not significantly affected by any alternative, or were outside of Forest Service jurisdiction. Some of these concerns were already regulated by Forest Plan standards and guidelines. The resource concerns with the greatest potential to be impacted, while not key issues, are addressed as environmental considerations in chapter 3.


15

1.12 Concerns Outside the Scope of this Analysis Some concerns identified during scoping are beyond the scope of this analysis and are listed as follows:

Management or regulation of recreation visitors (concerns about recreation visitors are not within the scope of this analysis)

Management of pack goats for recreational purposes

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). The concerns above are not within the scope of this analysis.

1.13 Relevant Direction and Memorandum of Understanding

A letter from the Under Secretary to the Chief of the U.S. Forest Service, September 2008, directs the U.S. Forest Service to cooperate with relevant State wildlife agencies to minimize the risk of disease transmission from domestic sheep and goats to wild sheep. The direction also suspends participation in, or support of, efforts to transplant wild sheep onto National Forest System lands in areas where there is a likelihood that wild sheep might come into contact with domestic sheep or goats, until an action plan is developed to address the risk of disease transmission (USDA Office of the Secretary 2008).

A letter from the Chief of the Forest Service to Regional Foresters, November 2008, reiterates the Under Secretary’s direction to suspend participation in, or support of, efforts to transplant wild sheep onto National Forest System land until action plans are developed to address the risk of wild sheep coming into contact with domestic sheep or goats. The direction also encourages cooperation between State and Federal agencies to work together to promote the ecological integrity of wild sheep, as well as support the economic sustainability of sheep producers—all while working closely with the States, tribes, and the public regarding transplant proposals to provide effective separation between domestic sheep and goats and wild sheep to minimize the likelihood of disease transmission to wild sheep (USDA Forest Service 2008).

A memorandum of understanding (MOU) was developed between the Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW), and Colorado Woolgrowers Association (CWA), March 2009, regarding management of domestic sheep and bighorn sheep. The MOU was designed for the goal of minimizing potential interspecies disease transmission by working together, while understanding and respecting the needs of each party (USDA-FS, USDA-BLM, CDOW, and CWA 2009).

USDA Forest Service, Rio Grande National Forest, Supplement to the Forest Plan, Biological Evaluation and Conservation Assessment for Rocky Mountain Bighorn Sheep. This analysis was an update to the Forest Plan BE in sufficient detail to determine whether the selected alternative (Forest Plan alternative G) will contribute toward Federal listing or loss of viability for bighorn sheep within the planning area that comprises the Rio Grande National Forest. This supplement to the Forest Plan outlines measures to be taken at the project level for maintaining viable bighorn sheep populations locally (USDA Forest Service 2010).


16

1.14 Major Changes to the Draft EIS The USFS has changed the North San Juan draft EIS in response to comments or to reflect new information. A brief discussion of the more significant changes is provided below.

The economic analysis was revised for alternative 1, no action (no grazing). Originally, the economic analysis was built with costs and benefits of the permittees using private lands in lieu of public lands. The revised economic analysis removed the assumption that private lands would be used or even be available. The revised economic analysis considered the costs and economic benefits for the no grazing alternative, only on National Forest Service land. The results are more representative of the true economic consequences that would occur if permitted domestic sheep grazing would cease to exist in the analysis area.

The description of key issue 2 (Contact between domestic sheep and Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep) was re-phrased. The issue and intent of the issue remain the same; however, the description of the issue was changed. A decision was made by Judge B. Lynn Winmill, U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho, stating, “Reports outlining the findings and conclusions on the risk of disease transmission from domestic sheep to bighorn sheep submitted by the Risk Assessment Disease Transmission (RADT) Committee and the Payette Principles Committee are not to be used by the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) in making any future agency determinations”. Originally, key issue 2 was described using the Payette Principles. The issue is now described using information from other literature separate from the Payette Principals. Specifically, the issue is now described as follows: “There is a risk of physical contact occurring between permitted domestic sheep and goats and Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep, which likely would be detrimental to the health of the Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep. Domestic sheep grazing in specific areas may increase the risk of interactions with Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep. Various studies have shown that contact between bighorn and domestic sheep can lead to respiratory disease and fatal pneumonia in bighorn sheep (Callan et al. 1991; Foreyt 1989, 1992a, 1994; Foreyt and Lagerquist 1996; George et al. 2008; Onderka and Wishart 1988). The disease-related conflict between domestic sheep and bighorn sheep was tested in the U.S. District Court (Oregon) in 1995. The following summarizes U.S. Magistrate Judge Donald C. Ashmanskas’ findings: “Scientific research supports a finding that when bighorn sheep intermingle with domestic sheep, large numbers of bighorn sheep die. While the exact reason for this result may be in question, it is clear that die-offs occur. An incompatibility exists between the two species, and there is no way to avoid the incompatibility other than to keep the domestics and bighorns separate” (Ashmanskas 1995).

The “Rangeland Resources,” “Economics,” and “Social” sections of chapter 3 were corrected to reflect that there are no significant effects for any of the alternatives (as incorrectly stated in the draft). These sections were partially re-written to better explain the effects in a clearer, more concise format. In the draft, rangeland effects included effects outside of rangeland, so it was narrowed down to strictly rangeland effects. The other effects are discussed in other resource sections.

A description of management flexibility was re-evaluated and more accurately described, taking into consideration the current level of management flexibility that has been practiced.


17

The livestock grazing capacity was reviewed and was found to be incorrect. In the draft EIS, it was listed that the capacity for the 11 allotments was 5,002 AUMs; the correct value should be 5,072 AUMs. The capacity of the entire analysis area (all 12 allotments) was also corrected at 5,438 AUMs instead of 5,437 AUMs.

In “Project Design Criteria” (chapter 2, section 2.7, “Recreational Pack Goats”), “Application for commercial use of pack goats will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Authorization will not occur in any predicted high or moderate risk areas. If authorization is granted, project design criteria will be required to ensure separation between domestic goats and BHS”, “Outreach/education will be implemented by the Forest Service in the form of notices posted at trailheads, informing users and potential users of pack goats of the risks to BHS from contact with DS”, and “Notices will encourage recreational users keep their pack goats from coming into contact with BHS. Recreational users will be encouraged to keep goats in close control, picketed or night-penned to prevent strays. Prompt reporting of potential or observed interaction between BHS and domestic sheep and goats will be encouraged.” were removed. These particular project design criteria were determined to be outside the scope of the analysis for this project. The scope of the analysis is “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. The analysis does not address recreation livestock, animals authorized under livestock use permits (i.e., where the primary purpose is not livestock production), or outfitter and guide livestock....” (chapter 1, section 1.4 “Area and Scope”).

In “Project Design Criteria” (chapter 2, section 2.7), “Domestic sheep and goats used for weed control will only be authorized if mechanisms are in place to achieve effective separation from BHS. Project design criteria listed in this document may also be applicable in these situations. The use of domestic sheep and goats for weed control will not be authorized in areas where contact between BHS and domestic sheep and goats is likely to occur” was changed. This particular project design criteria was determined to be outside the scope of the analysis for this project. The scope of the analysis is “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. The analysis does not address recreation livestock, animals authorized under livestock use permits (i.e., where the primary purpose is not livestock production), or outfitter and guide livestock....” (chapter 1, section 1.4 “Area and Scope”). The project design criteria was changed to only be applicable to permitted domestic sheep and goats as follows, “Permitted domestic sheep and goats used for weed control will only be authorized if mechanisms are in place to achieve effective separation from BHS. Project design criteria listed in this document will also be applicable in these situations. The use of permitted domestic sheep and goats for weed control will not be authorized in areas where contact between BHS and domestic sheep and goats is likely to occur.”

There were several smaller changes made to “Project Design Criteria” (chapter 2, section 2.7). These changes were not major, but nevertheless some changes were made.

A change was made to the implementation monitoring section (chapter 2, section 2.8). “Compliance checks (meeting requirements in AOI/AMP/Term Grazing Permit)” was incorrectly stated as going to occur “Annually”. It was changed to “Variable”, which means, “The Forest Service may vary the frequency of inspections on a case-by-case 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 issues.


18

Non-compliance or issues arising would dictate continuous monitoring until satisfactory compliance is attained. Once compliance or issues are resolved, monitoring would still occur, but the frequency will vary as needed”.

A change was made to the “Implementation Monitoring” section (chapter 2, section 2.8). “Location monitoring of Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep” was changed from “Annually” to “Variable” which means “The Forest Service may vary the frequency of inspections on a case-by-case 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 issues. Non-compliance or issues arising would dictate continuous monitoring until satisfactory compliance is attained. Once compliance or issues are resolved, monitoring would still occur, but the frequency will vary as needed”.

A new monitoring item was added in the “Implementation Monitoring” section (chapter 2, section 2.8). “White-tailed ptarmigan sightings will be recorded and mapped. General resource/management conditions at the site will be recorded”.

A monitoring item was improved in the “Effectiveness Monitoring” section (chapter 2, section 2.8). “Risk Assessment updates, tracking interactions between Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep and domestic sheep (includes all known interactions on private, State, Forest Service and other Federal Lands). The goal is for interactions to be non-existent in the analysis area, including the stock driveways.”

A new monitoring item was added in the “Effectiveness Monitoring” section (chapter 2, section 2.8). This was added in response to external and internal comments on the draft and the need for a feedback loop for adaptive management. “Every 3 years (or sooner if needed) the ID team and the authorized officer will meet to discuss the adaptive management feedback loop for this project. This feedback loop review will include items such as resource monitoring results, management effectiveness, permittee compliance, new resource data, new “best available science”, changed status for threatened, endangered and sensitive species of plants and animals, changed policies and laws, need to adjust management or not, changed public needs, and any other interdisciplinary topic or item that may need discussion.”

Irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources were not identified in the draft EIS. The FEIS identified potential irreversible commitments of resources to both the heritage and TES wildlife (bighorn sheep) resources. These are explained in detail in chapter 3 of the FEIS, sections 3.10 and 3.13.


19

Chapter 2 Alternatives Including the Proposed Action

2.1 Introduction This chapter describes the alternatives developed to meet the purpose of and need for action and address the key issues identified in chapter 1. The proposed action and alternatives, including the no-action alternative, are described and compared. Three alternatives were developed; the no-action alternative and two action alternatives. 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 An ID team (listed in chapter 4) considered the elements listed below when they developed the alternatives for this analysis:

Key issues identified in chapter 1 (section 1.10).

The purpose of and the need for this project identified 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 (sections 1.6 and 1.7).

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 in detail for this environmental analysis process. 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 (Forest Service proposed action/preferred alternative). There were several alternatives considered, but dropped from detailed analysis for this FEIS; they are presented in section 2.5.

The alternatives presented in the next section 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 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.


20

2.4 Alternatives Considered in Detail 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)

2.4.1 Alternative 1 – No Action (No Permitted Livestock Grazing) The CEQ regulations for implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires 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 (USDA Forest Service 1996b; Forest Service Handbook [FSH] 2209.13). The 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. Existing term grazing permits would be cancelled under the time period provisions of FSH 2209.13 and would not be renewed. All of the allotments in the analysis area would be permanently closed by a separate decision signed by the Forest supervisor. Table 2-1 provides a summary of how alternative 1 responds to the key issues (from section 1.10). Some components included in table 2-1 (grazing system, kind of animals, class of animals, season, livestock capacity and suitable rangeland acres available) are built-in components for alternative 1.

Management flexibility would be neutral (key issue 1) and would not support the local economic and social values provided by livestock grazing (key issue 3). This alternative would eliminate the risk of contact between bighorn sheep and domestic sheep permitted in the analysis area (key issue 2).


21

Table 2-1. Alternative 1 – No Action (No Permitted Livestock Grazing)

Component Action

Key Issue 1: Management flexibility

Adaptability to Change Neutral. Alternative 1 is neutral to management flexibility. Alternative 1 would eliminate permitted livestock grazing; therefore, there would be no need for management flexibility in relation to permitted livestock grazing. Permitted livestock management, as a resource tool, would be eliminated. The need to respond to annual changes in biological, physical, and social changes/desires relative to permitted livestock grazing would be nonexistent.

Grazing System None

Kind of Animals None

Class of Animals None

Season None

Livestock Capacity None

Suitable Rangeland Acres Available

None

Key Issue 2: Contact between domestic sheep and Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep

Predicted Risk of Permitted Domestic Sheep and Rocky Mountain Bighorn Sheep Interactions

None; there will be no risk from permitted domestic sheep in the analysis area.

Actual Documented Contact Between Permitted Domestic Sheep and Rocky Mountain Bighorn Sheep, Over Time

None; there will be no risk from permitted domestic sheep in the analysis area.

Key Issue 3: The contribution to the economic and social well being of local people tied to permitted livestock grazing in the analysis area

Economic Impact Economic Impact to the Permittees and Their Employees: High; the cancellation of all the term grazing permits in the analysis area would not support the long-term local economic value provided by livestock grazing.

Economic Impact to the Local Economy: Indirect impacts to the local economy of the San Luis Valley from alternative 1 would be low due to the relatively limited scope of influence the permittees have on the local economy of the San Luis Valley.

Financial Efficiency for the Permittees and the Forest Service; Present Net Value (PNV)

Financial Efficiency for the Permittees and the Forest Service: The PNV is all partners, -$22,691.04; permittee, no costs and no benefits; Forest Service, $22,691.04; (a measure of financial efficiency) for a 10-year period.

Social Impact Social Impact to the Permittees and Their Employees: Alternative 1 could have long-term direct impacts on the permittees who depend on the existing sheep operations to provide a livelihood. The loss of grazing privileges could necessitate the permittees to seek additional employment. Overall, this alternative could have a high direct social impact on the individuals associated with the term grazing permits issued for the analysis area.

Social Impact to the Local Community: There would be an indirect social impact on the local social values or “agricultural way of life” of the San Luis Valley. Overall, social effects to the San Luis Valley agricultural communities


22

would be relatively minor due to the small number of sheep and number of permittees affected.

Environmental justice (high and adverse human health or environmental effects to low-income or minority populations

There will not be high and adverse human health or environmental effects to low income or minority populations from the implementation of this alternative.

2.4.2 Alternative 2 – Current Livestock Grazing Management (as applied on-the-ground over the past 3 to 5 years) The goal of this alternative is to maintain current livestock grazing management. Livestock grazing (as applied on-the-ground over the past 3 to 5 years), in the analysis area, will continue. Forest Plan standards and guidelines, the Watershed Conservation Practices Handbook (FSH 2509.25), and project design criteria (see section 2.7 later in this chapter) are incorporated by reference.

Allotment management plans (AMPs) would be developed for the allotments. Access to the allotments by sheep trailing would be through the Hot Creek and Dry Creek Stock Driveways, and other roads and trails as identified in figure 2-1.

Table 2-2 provides a summary of how alternative 2 responds to the key issues (from section 1.10). Some components included in the table (grazing system, kind of animals, class of animals, season, livestock capacity and suitable rangeland acres available) are built-in components for alternative 2.

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. Conducting new NEPA analysis each time a change is needed involves considerable time and expense.

Overall, this alternative would be flexible in the short-term (key issue 1), would not minimize the risk of contact between bighorn sheep and domestic sheep permitted in the analysis area (key issue 2), and would not support the long-term local economic and social values provided by livestock grazing, because it does not provide the means to make future changes that are needed to respond to new or continuing issues.


23

Figure 2-1. Trailing routes for alternatives 2 and 3


24

Table 2-2. Alternative 2 – Current Livestock Grazing Management

Component Action


Adaptability to Change With alternative 2, management flexibility would remain flexible short term. The current management flexibility would continue, which has been short term in nature with only temporary changes being made. The degree of management flexibility that has been practiced and available has been sufficient to resolve or avoid most rangeland resource issues in this analysis area. The flexibility to deal with larger, more complicated issues such as the separation between bighorn sheep and domestic sheep will fall short without having the ability to make short- and long-term decisions without doing a separate NEPA analysis for these potentially bigger changes. The amount of time it will take to do a NEPA analysis may mean the difference between contact occurring or not between the species (with this issue and potentially other issues, time is of the essence). The higher degree of management flexibility needed would also be desirable to deal with unforeseen issues that may arise in the future. Short-term, minor changes could be made in the AOI.

Grazing System The grazing system would have limited flexibility 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. Minor changes could be made in the AOI.

Kind of Animals The kind of livestock would be constrained to sheep and goats only.

Class of Animals The class of livestock would be constrained to ewes and/or lambs (including dry ewes) and some goats.

Season The grazing season would be somewhat flexible from year to year. Minor changes could be made by exception, in the AOI. The season will be constrained within the following dates: Campo Bonito, 7/6–9/15; Cornwall Mtn./Willow Mtn., Elwood and North Fork/Middle Fork, 7/1–9/15; Cropsy/Summit, 7/8–9/23; East Vega/Treasure, 7/8–9/15; Upper Adams/West Vega, 7/11–9/15; and Marble Mtn., 7/10–8/21. Range readiness would be used to determine livestock turn-on date and allowable use standards and guidelines would be used to determine livestock off-date.

Livestock1 Capacity 5,072 AUMs, would not be exceeded. 5,072 AUMs is the capacity for the 11 allotments as shown in figure 2-2. The capacity of the entire analysis area is 5,438 AUMs.1

Suitable Rangeland Acres Suitable rangeland acres available (area used in the past 3 to 5 years) for permitted livestock would be 17,244 acres. The greater the suitable land base, the greater the opportunity to rotate bands of livestock to reduce or eliminate issues and/or conflicts. Domestic sheep are managed in bands so they are herded (moved as a unit) to a selected location (i.e., livestock are not dispersed equally throughout the entire area).


Permitted Domestic Sheep and Rocky Mountain Bighorn Sheep Potential Interactions

Minor modifications could be made in the AOI. Any of the minor modifications would not be sufficient to effectively minimize or eliminate the risk of contact between bighorn and domestic sheep.

Actual Documented Contact Between

Minor modifications could be made in the AOI. Any of the minor modifications would not be sufficient to effectively deal with actual contact


25

Domestic Sheep and Rocky Mountain Bighorn Sheep, Over Time

between bighorn and domestic sheep.


Economic Impact Economic Impact to the Permittees and Their Employees: Short-term; low economic impact to the permittees and their employees for the short-term due to no change from status quo. Long term; high economic impact. This alternative would not support the long-term local economic value provided by livestock grazing, because it does not provide the means to make future changes that are needed to respond to new or continuing issues.

Economic Impact to the Local Economy: There would be no short-term indirect impacts to the local economy of the San Luis Valley. Long-term indirect impacts to the local economy of the San Luis Valley from alternative 2 would be low due to the relatively limited scope of influence the permittees have on the local economy of the San Luis Valley.


The PNV is all partners, -$189,604.67; permittee, -$155,253.24; Forest Service, -$34,351.43; (a measure of financial efficiency) for a 10-year period.

Social Impact Social Impact to the Permittees and Their Employees: There would be no short-term direct impacts to the permittees and their employees social values or “agricultural way of life” in the San Luis Valley. There may be high long-term impacts to the permittees and their employees social values or “agricultural way of life” because this alternative does not provide the means to make future changes that are needed to respond to new or continuing issues.

Social Impact to the Local Community: Indirect social impacts to the local communities “agricultural way of life” from Alternative 2 would be none in the short term to low in the long term due to the relatively limited scope of influence the permittees have on the local community and the plan for the continuation of domestic sheep grazing.

Environmental Justice; High and Adverse Human Health or Environmental Effects to Low- Income or Minority Populations


1 Livestock grazing carrying capacity is based on recent stocking rates (last 10–15 years). 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).


26

Figure 2-2. Alternative 2 showing allotments (shaded green) currently used in current management (allotments used in past 3 to 5 years)


27

2.4.3 Alternative 3 – Adaptive Livestock Grazing Management (Forest Service Proposed Action) This alternative is based on the principle of applying adaptive management—a process that uses monitoring information to determine if management changes are needed, and if so, what changes, and to what degree. It is a process that allows the Forest Service to cope with uncertainty and changing conditions over time. It provides the authorized officer with “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 analysis; in this case, the analysis is limited to evaluating the appropriate level of livestock grazing, given considerations of rangeland condition and other Forest Plan goals and objectives).

This means that a proposed course of action would be selected as a starting point that is believed to best meet or move toward Forest Plan desired conditions. Monitoring would reoccur over time with evaluation of the results being assessed by the Forest Service to make appropriate adjustments in management, as needed, to ensure adequate progress toward Forest Plan desired conditions. All adaptive management options available would be analyzed under this EIS and adopted for potential future use. All allotments would be active. The allotments available for permitted livestock grazing are shown in figure 2-3. AMPs would be developed to cover the active allotments. The Hot Creek and Dry Creek Stock Driveways would be used for livestock access into and out of the analysis area, along with some system roads and trails as shown in figure 2-1.

A list of possible rangeland management options—called the Grazing Management Toolbox—is presented in table 2-3. This list of management tools is not intended to be all inclusive, but provides a sense for the types of actions available to the Forest Service to maintain or improve resource conditions to meet Forest Plan desired conditions and management objectives. New rangeland management techniques, as they are developed, would be incorporated into this toolbox, to the extent that their implementation is consistent with the effects documented in this FEIS and its accompanying ROD. Forest Plan standards and guidelines, the Watershed Conservation Practices Handbook (FSH 2509.25), and project design criteria (see section 2.7 later in this chapter) 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 FEIS, or a supplemental NEPA document and decision would be prepared. Domestic sheep 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.

The proposed management action is designed to improve the existing condition to meet the Forest Plan desired conditions. Table 2-4 provides a summary of how alternative 3 responds to the key issues (from section 1.10). Some components included in the table (grazing system, kind of animals, class of animals, season, livestock capacity and suitable rangeland acres available) are built-in components for alternative 3.

Livestock are moved by a herder as a unit (called a band) through the allotments. Consequently, livestock are not dispersed equally throughout the entire area. As a result, time and timing, intensity, frequency, and duration of livestock use may be well controlled. Under this alternative, there is greater opportunity (and adaptability) to minimize Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep


28

conflicts since the land area available includes 12 allotments. Appendix E provides background information on domestic sheep terms, grazing behavior, and herding.


29

Figure 2-3. Adaptive livestock grazing management alternative showing allotments (shaded) available for permitted grazing


30

Table 2-3. Grazing 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 2.7 or the constraints designed into the alternative.

Change season of use: Do not exceed the estimated animal unit month (AUM) capacity; use range readiness to determine livestock turn-on date and allowable use standards and guidelines to determine livestock off-date.

Change livestock numbers: Do not exceed the estimated AUM capacity; use allowable use standards and guidelines to determine proper rangeland use and time to move livestock (including off-date).

Change livestock class: Do not exceed estimated AUM capacity.

Adjust livestock grazing intensity and/or duration.

Adjust livestock herding to manage specific areas of concern.

Rest specified areas from livestock grazing.

Restrict livestock grazing in specified areas (does not apply to recreation and outfitter/guide livestock under this analysis).

Adjust livestock trailing time spent on stock driveways.

Install barriers on trails to prevent livestock from cutting switchbacks on the trails.

Use or exclusion of a pasture.

Modify allotment infrastructure.

Adjust allotment boundaries.

Convert from sheep to cattle in areas suitable for cattle grazing (with additional appropriate NEPA to determine the effects of cattle grazing in areas traditionally used by domestic sheep).

This alternative would provide a high level of management flexibility (key issue 1), would minimize risk of contact between bighorn sheep and domestic sheep permitted in the analysis area (key issue 2), and would support the long-term local economic and social values provided by livestock grazing (key issue 3), because it provides the means to make future changes that are needed to respond to new or continuing issues.


31

Table 2-4. Alternative 3 – Adaptive Livestock Grazing Management (Forest Service Proposed Action)

Component Action


Adaptability to Change Highly flexible. Alternative 3 provides a higher degree of management flexibility than is currently practiced. The flexibility to deal with larger, more complicated issues will be available. The ability to effectively deal with the separation issue between bighorn sheep and domestic sheep by making short- and long-term decisions without doing a separate NEPA analysis for these potentially bigger changes will be invaluable in making the quick changes. The amount of time that it will take to do a NEPA analysis may mean the difference between contact occurring on not between the species. Other unforeseen and potentially similar issues may arise, which would require swift action.

If monitoring shows that the Forest Plan desired conditions are not being met, then another tool can be implemented from the Grazing Management Toolbox (or any other applicable tool or strategy available within the scope of this FEIS (see FEIS, table 2-3) to adjust management to move conditions toward Forest Plan desired conditions.

Grazing System A deferred-rotation grazing system would continue to be implemented; however, 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 less constrained to sheep and goats and conversion to cattle where suitable.

Class of Animals The class of livestock would be less constrained to ewes and/or lambs (including dry ewes) and cow/calf pairs, dry cows and yearling cattle if the conversion from sheep to cattle is made.

Season The grazing season would be flexible within constrained on- and off-dates. Livestock would not turn-on before the specified on-date and would leave the analysis area by the specified off-date as follows: Campo Bonito, 7/6–9/15; Cornwall Mtn./Willow Mtn., Elwood, North Fork/Middle Fork, East Vega/Treasure, 7/8–9/22; Cropsy/Summit, 7/8–9/23; Upper Adams/West Vega, 7/11–9/15; and Marble Mtn., 7/10–8/21. If allotments are adaptively readjusted (suitability changes, boundary changes, combinations of allotments, etc.), seasons may also need to be adjusted. Range readiness would be used to determine livestock turn-on date and allowable use standards and guidelines would be used to determine livestock off-date.

Livestock Capacity 5,072 AUMs, would not be exceeded. 5,072 AUMs is the capacity for the 11 allotments as shown in figure 2-3. The capacity of the entire analysis area (12 allotments) is 5,438 AUMs.1 Capacity for alternative 3 is intentionally proposed conservatively to allow for additional flexibility in dealing with the bighorn sheep/domestic sheep separation.

Livestock capacity would be variable and could vary from season to season, but would not exceed the 5,072 AUM limit. If grazing areas become unavailable for domestic sheep use due to managing the separation issue, correspondingly, AUMs tied to those unavailable areas will be subtracted from the capacity.

Suitable Rangeland Acres Suitable rangeland acres allocated to permitted livestock would be 17,925. The greater the suitable land base, the greater the opportunity to rotate bands of livestock and reduce negative livestock/Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep interactions. Domestic sheep are managed in bands so they are


32

herded (moved as a unit) to a selected location (i.e., livestock are not dispersed equally throughout the entire area).


Permitted Domestic Sheep and Rocky Mountain Bighorn Sheep Interactions

Major modifications to the AOIs would be made to minimize or eliminate the risk of contact between bighorn sheep domestic sheep permitted in the analysis area.

Actual Documented Contact Between Domestic Sheep and Rocky Mountain Bighorn Sheep, Over Time

Major modifications to deal with actual documented contact between bighorn sheep and domestic sheep permitted in the analysis area would be made in the AOI.


Economic Impact Economic Impact to the Permittees and Their Employees: Moderate; while this alternative has a higher cost of management and the potential for loss of some grazing areas, overall, it would support the long-term local economic value provided by livestock grazing because it provides the means to make future changes needed to respond to new or continuing issues.

Economic Impact to the Local Economy: Indirect impacts to the local economy from alternative 3 would be low due to the relatively limited scope of influence the permittees have on the local economy.


The PNV is all partners, -$340,031.94; permittee, -$244,414.70; Forest Service, -$95,617.24; (a measure of financial efficiency) for a 10-year period.

Social Impact Social Impact to the Permittees and Their Employees: The direct social impact to the permittees and their employees “agricultural way of life” is moderate because, while this alternative has a better assurance for continued domestic sheep grazing, it also has the potential for change or loss of grazing areas due to project design criteria for key issue 2 (Contact between domestic sheep and Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep). Extensive project design criteria, monitoring measures, and the adaptive management availability for this alternative have reduced the expected impacts from current management impacts, thus ensuring a better likelihood of continued domestic sheep grazing.

Social Impact to the Local Community: Indirect impacts on the social aspects to the local communities “agricultural way of life” from this alternative would be low due to the limited amount of influence the permittees have on the entire community.

Environmental Justice (High and Adverse Human Health or Environmental Effects to Low-Income or Minority Populations)


1 Livestock grazing carrying capacity is based on recent stocking rates (last 10–15 years). 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).


33

2.5 Alternatives Considered but Dropped from Detailed Consideration

Several alternatives were considered but dropped from detailed evaluation (or incorporated into alternatives considered in detail above and so noted below). These alternatives are briefly described below along with the rationale for their disposition.

1. A proposal was suggested to develop an alternative that analyzes closing sheep allotments in wilderness and moving sheep to non-wilderness allotments elsewhere on the Forest.

This proposal does not meet the stated purpose and need for action (see chapter 1, sections 1.5 and 1.6). Alternative 1 partially addressed this proposal by eliminating permitted livestock grazing from the analysis area. There is a lack of available sheep allotments (on the RGNF and BLM in the southern part of the valley) to absorb these sheep as described by ranger district/field office below:

a) Conejos Peak Ranger District: Has no allotments available for relocating sheep.

b) Saguache Ranger District: Has no allotments available for relocating sheep. The only available sheep allotments were in the Sangre de Cristo Wilderness and they were closed in a decision during the revision of the 1996a Forest Plan.

c) Divide Ranger District: Has 18 vacant sheep allotments, but for the following reasons they were dropped from further consideration:

Eleven are located within existing wilderness areas (three of which would have known bighorn sheep conflicts)

Three are outside of wilderness and would have conflicts with bighorn sheep.

One is located within the municipal watershed for the town of Creede.

Three remaining allotments (Ruby, Kitty, and Lost Trail-Carson) could be stocked, but are located approximately 100 miles by road from the home ranches, are difficult to access, and must be accessed by utilizing the Colorado Trail and/or the Continental Divide National Scenic Trail. These trails have been located on historic livestock driveways in whole or in part.

d) La Jara Field office (BLM): Has no allotments available for relocating sheep.

2. A proposal to trap and move any Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep that enter the analysis area.

This proposal does not meet the stated purpose and need for action (see chapter 1, sections 1.5 and 1.6).

2.6 Comparison of Alternatives Key issues and their indicator(s) by alternative are shown in table 2-5. Key issues were previously listed in chapter 1, section 1.10.


34

Table 2-5. Key issue comparison of the alternatives

Indicator(s)

Alternative 1 – No Action (No Permitted Livestock Grazing)

Alternative 2 – Current Livestock

Grazing Management

Alternative 3 – (Adaptive Livestock

Grazing Management)


Adaptability to Change Neutral Flexible short term Highly flexible


Predicted Risk of Permitted Domestic Sheep and Rocky Mountain Bighorn Sheep Interactions

None Minor modifications could be made in the AOI. Any of the minor modifications would not be sufficient to effectively minimize or eliminate the risk of contact between bighorn and domestic sheep.

Major modifications to the AOIs would be made to minimize or eliminate the risk of contact between domestic sheep and bighorn sheep.

Actual Documented Contact Between Domestic Sheep and Rocky Mountain Bighorn Sheep Over Time

None Minor modifications could be made in the AOI. Any of the minor modifications would not be sufficient to effectively deal with actual contact between bighorn and domestic sheep.

Major modifications to deal with actual documented contact would be made in the AOI


Economic Impact Economic impact to the permittees and their employees: High

Economic impact to the local economy: Low

Economic impact to the permittees and their employees: None short term; potential for high impacts long term.

Economic impact to the local economy: None short term, potential for low impacts long term.

Economic impact to the permittees and their employees: Moderate


Financial Efficiency for the Permittees and the Forest Service (PNV)

-$22,691.04 -$189,604.67 -$340,031.94

Social Impact Social impact to permittees and their employees “agricultural way of life”: High

Social impact to the local community “agricultural way of life”: Low

Social impact to permittees and their employees “agricultural way of life”: None short term; potential for high impacts long term

Social impact to the local community “agricultural way of life”: None short term; potential for low

Social impact to permittees and their employees “agricultural way of life”: Moderate

Social impact to the local community “agricultural way of life”: Low


35

impacts long term.

Environmental Justice There are no high and adverse human health or environmental effects to low-income or minority populations from this alternative.

There are no high and adverse human health or environmental effects to low-income or minority populations from this alternative.

There are no high and adverse human health or environmental effects to low-income or minority populations from this alternative.

2.7 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 then developed, as needed.

Some of the project design criteria below have been used for years on the RGNF or are commonly used practices throughout the West and have been found to be effective in reducing 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 (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. There are rangeland improvements proposed in the analysis area. Depending on the alternative selected, the applicable project design criteria become a part of the AMPs.

The list of project design criteria has been organized into logical categories. Each project design criteria bullet statement applies to a specific action alternative as indicated by an “” in the far right column.

Table 2-6. Table project design criteria

Specific Project Design Criteria to Minimize the Potential for Contact Between Rocky Mountain Bighorn Sheep and Permitted Domestic Sheep and Goats

Alter-native

2 3

Risk Assessment

A risk assessment will be conducted for the analysis area, including routes and stock driveways that are used to access the analysis area by permitted domestic sheep and goats (DS). The purpose of the risk assessment is to provide land managers with a tool (based on the best available science and information) that will portray the predicted risk of contact between DS and Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep (BHS). The function of the risk assessment is to provide land managers with information that will be applied to the management of the DS to minimize the potential risk of physical contact occurring between DS and BHS.

The risk assessment fits in well with adaptive management, in that it is a timeless tool that will be updated as monitoring occurs. As new data is collected, resultant updates will display whether there has been a change in the risk throughout the analysis area. If there is a change to the risk or the pattern of bighorn sheep use has changed, then management of DS will be adapted to this change. The Forest Service will use input from CDOW) and the permittees during these updating processes. The frequency of updates into the risk assessment program is based on whether monitoring detects a change on the ground (see section 2.8, “Monitoring Measures” for bighorn sheep monitoring). Updates into the program could occur on an annual basis.


36

The risk assessment will provide three ratings displaying the predicted risk of physical contact (high risk, moderate risk, and low risk). Project design criteria will be applicable in all risk areas where domestic sheep and goats are authorized. (See appendix A for factors that define the risk categories.)

High Risk. Permitted domestic sheep and goat grazing will not be authorized. In most instances, domestic sheep may still be authorized within the allotment, but management will ensure routing and other design criteria to avoid the high risk areas.

Once an area is identified as high risk, several adjustments to DS management will be made (through the project-level decision and subsequent implementation actions such as the term grazing permit, AMP, and AOI):

First, the area of high risk will be extended to the next logical topographical barrier, man-made barrier, or break in the BHS habitat and/or break in the use area of the BHS. This determination will be made by the local Forest Service rangeland, wildlife, and authorized officer in consultation with the Colorado Division of Wildlife and the affected permittees.

The area authorized and currently available for domestic sheep grazing within that allotment will be adjusted, based on the high risk area and logical break-off point as described above. This will be accomplished through the flexibility afforded by adaptive management.

DS management will be adjusted within the remaining suitable grazing area within the allotment. This would include adjusting of routing schedules, timing, and so forth. If these practices are not feasible, DS might be moved to other lower risk allotments (if available) or in worst-case scenarios it may be necessary to adjust permitted numbers, seasons, or AUMs in order to ensure proper management of the rangeland resources while striving to ensure separation. This will also be accomplished through the flexibility afforded by adaptive management.

Moderate Risk. Permitted domestic sheep and goat grazing may be authorized. Design criteria will be implemented to strive to reduce the potential for contact.

Low Risk. Permitted domestic sheep and goat grazing may be authorized. Permitted domestic sheep grazing will be focused towards these areas. However, design criteria should still be implemented to strive to reduce the potential for contact even further.

Stock Driveway Use and the Risk Assessment

High Risk. Permitted domestic sheep and goat trailing will not be authorized in high risk areas, except as follows; trailing through high risk areas can occur under the following conditions:

Permittee will notify the Forest Service of the exact time they wish to trail through the area (at least 1 week prior notice).

The Forest Service will give approval based on the best available information (may include a site check, consultation with CDOW, etc.).

If approval is given, the permittees must trail through the area within the agreed upon timeframe. While trailing through the high risk area, at least three persons will be required (to prevent strays). Sheep must be trailed through high risk areas at a steady pace and will not be allowed to linger in these areas.

Overnight camping while trailing will not normally be allowed; however, if camping cannot be avoided due to unforeseen circumstances, camping will only be allowed in an area specified by the Forest Service and will only be authorized on a site-specific basis.

If BHS are in the area, entry across the high risk area will not be allowed during that time and a different method of entry into the allotment will be arranged.

Moderate Risk. Permitted domestic sheep and goat trailing may be authorized for use on all portions of the stock driveway in areas rated at moderate risk. Camping sites on the stock driveway will be proposed by the permittee and agreed to by the Forest Service in advance of use of the stock driveway. When trailing domestic sheep on stock driveways in moderate risk areas and on major pasture or allotment moves, at least two persons will be required to be present.

Low Risk. Permitted domestic sheep and goat trailing may be authorized for use on all portions of the stock driveway in areas rated at low risk. Camping sites on the stock driveway will be proposed by the permittee and agreed to by the Forest Service in advance of use of the stock driveway. When trailing domestic sheep on stock driveways in low risk areas and on major pasture or allotment moves, at least two persons will be required to be present.

Crossing Permits and the Risk Assessment

Any commercial livestock (sheep and goats) movement across National Forest System lands other than permitted livestock operating within the permitted area must be done under a crossing permit. The crossing permit will not be issued if the route will cross high potential risk areas. Areas identified as moderate potential risk may be authorized under design criteria identified above. Crossing permits will not


37

be issued for alternative 1.

Protocol for Confirmed Contact or Threat of Impending Contact Between Permitted DS and BHS

Follow the response protocol for confirmed contact or threat of impending contact between permitted DS and BHS:

Permittee

The permittee or their agent will notify the Conejos Peak Ranger District range personnel immediately if BHS come into contact or there is a threat of impending contact with DS. Notification information as well as phone numbers will be included in the AOIs.

Permittees authorized to graze in areas rated as “Moderate Risk”, will be required to use a method or device to allow for the immediate notification and location of DS and BHS contact or impending contact due to unforeseen movements of the DS and/or BHS. The method or device will provide a communication link between the herder/s and the permittee. (Methods may include the permittee visiting the sheep camp on a daily schedule, using a satellite phone, cell phone [where applicable], “SPOT satellite messenger” or other methods or devices approved by the Forest Service. (See appendix F for further information on the “SPOT satellite messenger”.)

As an immediate response, the permittee and/or the herders will be authorized to haze BHS that are threatening to make contact with DS. This will be accomplished through an agreement between the grazing permittee and the CDOW. The agreement will include circumstances requiring hazing response, appropriate type of hazing, and reporting requirements.

Forest Service

When informed about potential BHS/DS contact, the Forest Service will contact the permittee immediately notifying them of the situation. At this point, the Forest Service and the permittee will implement other design criteria if needed to prevent or reduce the threat of impending contact. At this time an alternate plan of grazing for the remainder of the season (flexible management) may be implemented to strive to prevent contact from occurring.

Concurrently, as contact or the threat of contact is made known, the Forest Service will notify the CDOW (contact information will be provided to the Forest Service and the permittee prior to the grazing season). Actions that the CDOW will take are at their discretion concerning wildlife health intervention and management of the BHS. The CDOW is committed to addressing these issues. CDOW will inform the Forest Service if the situation is rectified and discussion/planning will occur with the permittee to implement an alternate management strategy if needed. The CDOW may implement post contact monitoring.

The Forest Service will make the particular DS band (and the area) a high priority for monitoring to determine if there is BHS activity in the area and/or if the risk analysis should be revisited.

Enhanced Monitoring of the DS Movements and Locations

The Forest Service will pursue enhanced monitoring of permitted domestic sheep and goat grazing and/or trailing patterns via use of Global Positioning System collars, “SPOT satellite messenger” or other technology that will provide detailed data on movements and grazing patterns of domestic sheep and goats. Implementation will be dependent on the technology used and funding available by the Forest Service. Also dependent on the technology used, the permittee and/or herder/s may be required to participate in the implementation.

Herder Presence

At least one herder is required to be with the sheep. The main flock will never be left unattended, except at night and short periods when the herder is accomplishing other tasks in the immediate area. A herder must remain in the camp during the night.

Sick or Diseased Domestic Sheep and Goats—Post Turnout

Injured, sick, or diseased livestock will not be left behind, but will be removed or terminated and disposed of according to the “Disposal of Dead Livestock” requirements below and in accordance with State statute. Sick or diseased animals will be removed or otherwise eliminated when identified.

Sick or Diseased Domestic Sheep and Goats—Pre Turnout

It is imperative that permittees maintain a high certainty of domestic animal health in their permitted stock. Permittees/herders will take appropriate measures to prevent turnout of sick or diseased domestic sheep and goats on grazing allotments, on trailing routes, or in weed control or pack-stock situations. It should also be recognized that “healthy-appearing” domestic sheep and goats may still


38

carry pathogens (harmless to them) that can be transmitted to BHS.

Sick or Diseased Bighorn Sheep

Sick bighorn sheep or carcasses must be reported as soon as possible to the Conejos Peak Ranger District range personnel. Forest Service personnel will then notify the CDOW as soon as possible.

Salting

Every effort should be made to deny BHS access and consequent attraction to the domestic sheep salting activities. Leaving available salt or excess salt residue in the soil or on rocks or tubs presents a salt source that may attract BHS and may even train BHS to follow the DS bands in search of salt.

It is preferable that only blocks of salt be used. If salt blocks are used, they must be kept with the DS at all times. Salt blocks will not be left behind when the DS are moved. If loose salt is used, it will be kept in a container and kept with the domestic sheep at all times.

See “Heritage Resources” in this same table for additional salting information.

Salt blocks and loose salt in containers will be placed on rocky knolls, well-drained sites, or in timber where excessive trampling will not destroy plant growth. Salt or supplement will not be placed closer than ¼ 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, meadows, in areas of concentrated public use, or in other areas where such placement is liable to result in conflicts with other Forest users. Salt or supplement will not be placed within tree regeneration areas where the smallest trees are less than 3-feet tall.

Avoid salting in areas where soil health issues exist, in riparian areas, and eroded areas.

Herder Education

It is of utmost importance that the permittees spend as much time as necessary teaching the herders the requirements attached to the grazing permit, AOI, and all the applicable project design criteria included here. With the implementation of “adaptive management” areas authorized for grazing as well as routing patterns and schedules may change from year to year and even within the year, along with other management techniques. Following procedures to avoid contact and prompt accurate reporting of BHS/DS contact or impending contact is essential. Herders are crucial to ensuring proper management and in maintaining compliance to an exacting standard. Ultimately, the responsibility rests upon the permittees to ensure compliance is being achieved.

Weed Control with Permitted Domestic Sheep and Goats

Permitted domestic sheep and goats used for weed control will only be authorized if mechanisms are in place to achieve effective separation from BHS. Project design criteria listed in this document will also be applicable in these situations. The use of permitted DS for weed control will not be authorized in areas where contact with BHS is likely to occur.

Public Notices

The Forest Service will post notices at trailheads informing recreationists accompanied by pets (i.e., dogs) to ensure that those dogs remain under their control, and do not disturb or scatter domestic sheep and goats in permitted areas.

Protocol for Management, Retrieval, and Disposition of Non-Permitted Errant Domestic Sheep, Goats and Exotic Breeds

Follow the response protocol for management, retrieval, and disposition of non-permitted errant (e.g., feral, abandoned) domestic sheep, goats, and exotic breeds (e.g., aoudad, Iranian red sheep, urial, argali) for which an owner can be determined and/or no owner can be determined and which threaten to come in contact with wild sheep occurring on Forest Service lands on the Conejos Peak Ranger District or borders with other Forest Service unit jurisdictions and other agencies, Federal and State. This is applicable to all areas, not just areas that are authorized for grazing of DS. The protocols are:

Permittee

The permittee will notify the Conejos Peak Ranger District range personnel immediately if BHS come into contact or there is a threat of impending contact with DS or exotic breeds that are not in their ownership. Contact information as well as phone numbers will be included in the AOIs.

Permittees will require herders to report any instances of DS and/or exotic breeds not in their ownership that have made contact or situations where impending contact with BHS may occur.


39

Permittees will require that the herders use the same urgency and immediate notification as required for the “confirmed contact or threat of impending contact” design criteria discussed earlier.

Forest Service

When contact or the threat of contact is made known, the Forest Service will notify the CDOW (notification information will be provided to the Forest Service and the permittee prior to the grazing season). Actions that the CDOW will take are at their discretion concerning wildlife health intervention and management of the BHS. CDOW will inform the Forest Service if the situation is rectified and discussion/planning will occur to implement the “flexible management” with the permittee if needed. The CDOW may implement post-contact monitoring.

Forest Service law enforcement will be notified if appropriate to the situation. The Forest Service will take timely action in accordance with applicable laws to locate and eliminate the non-permitted animals.

The Forest Service will make the particular area a high priority for monitoring to determine if there are other non-permitted and/or exotic breeds in the area or BHS activity in the area.

General Wildlife Sighting Reporting

Permittees will be required to report wildlife sightings on the annual actual use form that must be turned in each fall to the Forest Service; however, BHS sightings in the proximity of the DS band must be reported immediately. If BHS are seen near or on any Forest Service sheep and goat allotment, follow protocol above.

Planned Domestic Sheep Estrus Cycle

The planned breeding season for the DS operation will not occur during the permitted grazing season. This is to reduce the potential for attraction of BHS rams to domestic sheep ewes in estrus.

Permitted Domestic Sheep Stray Management

Accountability of Domestic Sheep

Extensive efforts will be made by the permittee to remove every authorized DS from the analysis area following the grazing season. All DS must be accounted for (dead or alive) as they enter and exit each allotment, and as they exit the analysis area at the end of the season. Special attention should be given to accounting for DS at all times. If DS are unaccounted for, diligent efforts should be made to locate them as quickly as possible. If the Forest Service feels that appropriate efforts are not being implemented, a count-on/count-off inventory will be required as a condition of operation.

Response to Report of Stray Domestic Sheep

Permittees will be required to respond to reports of stray DS within 24 hours of notice by the Forest Service. A follow-up report (verbal or written) will be provided to the Forest Service on time, date, and action taken to resolve the matter; within 4 days from the notice given by the Forest Service.

Trailing

Random on-site compliance monitoring to minimize strays will be conducted by the Forest Service.

In some cases, trucking of domestic sheep and goats may reduce the chances of stray DS and lessen the chance of opportunistic contact by wandering wild sheep. In other cases, trucking of domestic sheep may actually present a higher risk of contact between DS and BHS for the following reasons:

o In many cases the allotments are remote and there are no roads that reach the allotments.

o In many cases roads that reach or get close to allotments are not accessible to trucks; in these cases, sheep would need to be trailed for some distance anyway. Although the distance would be shorter than the distances of an entire stock-driveway, the location of the drop-off point may actually be in a very high risk area for contact. Most of the accessible roads are in the canyon bottoms of major canyons. These major canyons are where most of the bighorn sheep are now residing. For about the last 15 years, efforts have been made to avoid accessing the sheep allotments from the major canyon bottoms. Aside from dropping off sheep in these major canyons is the fact that an entire band of sheep will need to be trucked in several truck loads which would require that domestic sheep may need to be staged at a trailhead or whatever location for a longer period of time. This itself presents a risk in that there is the possibility of the band being dispersed or scattered due to all the other activities at these areas (e.g., ATVs, motorcycles, cattle, dogs, etc.).

Because there are potential risks to both trailing and trucking, each situation will be dealt with on a


40

case-by-case basis.

DS will be kept in a tight group during trailing.

o The following trail is closed in the analysis area to domestic sheep trailing (see map under “Range Improvements” on page 40): Continental Divide National Scenic Trail (CDNST) # 813 from Blue Lake north to intersection with Trail #712 (Middle Fork).

Domestic Sheep Identification

Permittees will be required to freshly mark (sheep paint) their sheep before they enter onto the National Forest. The Forest Service will coordinate with the permittees annually with specific information regarding color of paint used in marking their sheep, brands used, ear tags used, and colors, earmarks, and other distinguishing marks or characteristics that may be used in identifying their sheep. In the event a permittee does not wish to paint brand their sheep due to conflicts with marketing dye-free wool, that permittee will be assigned a region that they will be responsible for responding to all reports of stray domestic sheep (even if it is not their sheep ). In this case, ear-tags will be required with clear brand or ownership information on the ear-tags.

Permit Action

Repeated non-compliance with domestic sheep stray management project design criteria will result in appropriate permit action. Standard permit administration protocols will be used to in dealing with permit non-compliance.

Livestock Herding a

Livestock will be herded and distributed across the allotment(s) in order to achieve proper grazing utilization of key forage species.

Snow bank areas will be avoided until they are dry enough to prevent livestock trampling impacts.

Permittees will spend as much time as needed to move livestock away from areas of concern (meadows, riparian areas, key areas, and so forth) and into areas of normally light use, provided that such herding does not result in increased potential for BHS/DS contact. This benefits permittees since it allows livestock to make use of forage that otherwise will not be grazed before allowable use standards are met in the key areas and the livestock are required to be removed from a pasture.

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 (from Ruediger et al. 2000).

Livestock will be moved away from water sources after animals have finished drinking.

a Note: See “Project Design Criteria to minimize contact between Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep and domestic sheep”, above for further instructions on herding.

Livestock Bedding

Sheep will be bedded on new ground every night and moved to fresh feed daily in accordance with the current routing schedule.

Sheep will be bedded no closer than 100 feet from the herder’s camp (200 to 300 feet is preferred).

Sheep bedding, salt, or supplement will not be allowed within ½ mile of Lake Ann (see map under “Livestock Exclusion Areas”: on page 42).

Sheep will be bedded on uplands or rocky ground, but not on canyon edges or canyon rims.

Sheep should not be bedded within 300 yards of any running stream, spring, lake, trail, campground, or picnic ground. There may some exceptions due to topography on the allotment, but these will be approved in advance by the Forest officer.

Range Improvements (all related to control of livestock from adjacent cattle allotments) (see map immediately below)

Proposed Fence 1 – 0.91 miles, 4-wire laydown



41





Proposed Cattleguard 1




Note: See map below. These fences and cattleguards will be constructed to prevent unauthorized cattle from entering onto the sheep allotments. Construction and maintenance of these fences and cattleguards will be accomplished by the Divide Ranger District and grazing permittees on the Cattle Mountain and East Pinos C&H Allotments of the Divide Ranger District. Site-specific analysis and clearances will be required prior to these improvements being implemented.

}} }}

}}}}

}}}}

}} }} }}}}}}

}}

á

á

á

á

.Legend

á Proposed cattleguards

}} }} Proposed fences

Proposed Fence 1Proposed Cattleguard 1

Proposed fence 2


Proposed Fence 3


Proposed Fence 4

Proposed Fence 5

Propose Fence 6


Disposal of Dead Livestock

Death by Contagious or Infectious Disease. When permitted livestock die from contagious or infectious disease, the carcass must be buried in a location greater than 200 feet from water, out of view of roads or trails, and away from any areas of significant public use, within 24 hours of discovery, or notification by Forest personnel. Off-road travel or the use of heavy equipment must be authorized by the Forest Service, in advance. The preferred method for burial is simply by the use of a pick and shovel.

Death by Other Causes. If an animal dies or is killed from any other cause, the carcass must 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, within 24 hours of discovery, or notification by Forest Service personnel.


42

Herder Camps

Sheep herder camps will be moved every 5 to 10 days and regularly rotated on an annual basis. By changing camps each year, bed grounds will be used only once every several years.

Camps will be placed at least 200 feet from live water.

Camps will be kept clean and garbage packed out.

Camps will be placed at least 200 feet from any trail.

Camps will be placed at least ½ mile from Lake Ann (see map, next page).

Sheep herders will not be allowed to excavate campsites.

Sheep herders will not be allowed to cut krummholz (dwarf spruce trees at timberline) for firewood.

All fires built for any purpose by the permittee and/or herder will not be left unattended and will be completely extinguished. Each camp must be equipped with a serviceable shovel and ax. Other restrictions may be required during periods when the Forest enacts “Fire Restrictions”. Those restrictions will be identified in the particular “Fire Restriction Order”.

Sheep Herder Working Dogs

Working dogs are used at the discretion of the livestock owner under appropriate State and County laws and regulations. The Forest Service neither permits nor authorizes the use of working dogs. If the livestock owner chooses to use working dogs, the following are best management practices for the livestock operator to avoid conflicts with people:

o Working dogs will be under the herder’s control and must not injure people or wildlife, or damage property.

o Working dogs that do not meet the above requirements should be immediately removed by the permittee from the analysis area.

o The permittee will institute an upper limit on the maximum number of dogs that will be allowed to be used in conjunction with the sheep operation. No more than eight dogs in combination (livestock protection dogs plus border collies or other working dogs) will be allowed per sheep band.

Signs will be placed at trailheads giving public notice of the presence of sheep herder working dogs in the analysis area (posted by the Forest Service).

Animal Damage Management

Animal damage management activities will be conducted in accordance with both Federal regulations and State law. Requests for assistance will be done in compliance with the current Wildlife Services, Wildlife Damage Management Plan and must be in compliance with the Forest Plan

Predator control (i.e., black bears, mountain lions, bobcats, and coyotes) will not be conducted without following the correct State, Wildlife Services, and Forest Service procedures These procedures will be provided to permittees in writing (part of the AOI). Reporting of predator actions taken by the permittee will be provided in the annual actual use report, to the Forest Service annually.

It is illegal to kill a grizzly bear, Canada lynx, wolverine, wolf, or any birds of prey. Publications will be made available to permittees to help distinguish the difference between certain protected species and several look-alike species as follows:

o Grizzly bear and black bear: a bear identification sheet will be given to permittees.

o Canada lynx and bobcat: an identification sheet will be given to permittees.

o Wolves and dogs: an identification sheet will be given to permittees.

Noxious Plants/Invasive Species b

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.

Any seed used on the allotment will be tested for “all states noxious weeds” according to Association of Official Seed Analysts (AOSA) standards and will be certified by a Registered Seed Technologist or Seed Analyst as meeting the requirements of the Federal Seed Act (7 U.S.C. chapter 37: sections 1551-1611) and the Rules and Regulations of the Colorado Seed Act pursuant to 35-27-101 through


43

125, C.R.S. (1993 Supp. as amended by Senate Bill 93-17).

Permittees will make every effort to ensure that livestock do not contribute to the transport of noxious plants onto the allotment(s). Permittees will be given identification information on State of Colorado “noxious weeds” during annual meetings with the Forest Service. The Colorado noxious weed list is available on the internet at: http://www.ag.state.co.us/CSD/Weeds/statutes/weedrules.pdf Noxious plant photos are available at: http://kiowa.colostate.edu/cwis109/noxious_weeds/Noxious_weeds.cfm

b 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:

Permittees are asked to help in locating noxious plant sites and reporting them to the Forest officer. Permittees willing to assist in treating noxious plants should communicate with the Forest officer before taking any action.

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

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

Livestock Exclusion Areas

Permitted sheep will be restricted from grazing within ¼ mile of Lake Ann (see map immediately below).

Permitted sheep will be restricted from grazing the areas above 12,000 feet elevation on the north and east facing slopes of Summit Peak (portions of Treasure Allotment) between June 20 and August 15. If Uncompahgre fritillary butterfly (UFB) are discovered within the analysis area, management of those areas will be re-examined (in cooperation with USFWS) and may be altered to protect UFB. If adequate surveys are conducted in these areas and no UFB are found, then the district biologist may (in cooperation with USFWS) remove this project design criteria.

Permitted sheep will be restricted from grazing immediately adjacent to trails except where infeasible due to terrain.

Permitted domestic sheep trailing will be excluded on the Continental Divide National Scenic Trail (Trail 813), between Blue Lake and Lake Ann (see map, next page).

Lake Ann (circled in red) excluded from sheep grazing activities per the applicable project design criteria


44

Trails closed to domestic sheep trailing in the analysis area (marked with red dotted line)

Access and Travel Management

Permittees are required to abide by all Forest road and trail restrictions and closures. Use of closed roads and use of motorized equipment in areas designated as non-motorized requires a separate road use permit. This permit must be obtained prior to use and is available through this office.

Wilderness

Livestock will be managed within wilderness to minimize impacts on the wilderness environment and to minimize potential conflict with other users of the area.

Information Notifications c

Provide the public information about the presence of working dogs and the “Do’s and Don’ts” when recreating near domestic sheep bands.

Information will be made available at the Conejos Peak Ranger District office about livestock grazing rotation schedules so that those recreation visitors who wish to, may avoid encounters with domestic sheep and the resultant activities.

C Note: See “Project Design Criteria to minimize contact between Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep and domestic sheep”, above for further instructions on Information Notifications.

Permittee Instructions d

AOIs will be provided in English and in Spanish concerning proper management practices, so that this information can be passed on to Spanish-speaking herders (if applicable). Permittees will be responsible for ensuring that their herders understand and comply with Forest Service requirements.

Allowable use guidelines, as referenced in the Forest Plan, will be followed (Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines, section 2, page III-5; section 3, pages III-14, -15).

d Note: See “Project Design Criteria to minimize contact between Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep and domestic sheep”, above for further instructions on Permittee Instructions.

Permittee Monitoring e

Permittees are responsible for monitoring several items (see FEIS, table 2.8.1-1, Implementation Monitoring Schedule and table 2.8.2-1, Effectiveness Monitoring Schedule. 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.

Permittees will keep a weekly log of specific locations where they encounter wildlife and will turn it in to the forest officer upon request or at the end of the grazing season.

e Note: See “Project Design Criteria to minimize contact between Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep and domestic sheep”, above for further instructions on Permittee Monitoring and chapter 2 section 2.8.


45

Heritage Resources

Elwood Allotment: The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA)-eligible Elwood Telephone Line Cabin exists within this allotment. Rangeland managers and permittees must ensure that livestock do not congregate near the structure or impact the fence surrounding the cabin. Moderate disturbance has been noted in the past.

All persons associated with operations under this authorization must be informed that any objects or sites of cultural, paleontological, or scientific value such as historic or prehistoric resources, graves or grave markers, human remains, ruins, 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 Forest authorized officer of the findings. The discovery must be protected until notified in writing to proceed by the authorized officer (36 CFR 800.110 & 112, 43 CFR 10.4).

Salt licks should be moved on a continual basis and located in areas of low site potential and far from significant cultural resources. Range managers should work with archaeologists on selecting the most optimal locations for the protection of unidentified cultural resources, especially in areas that have received no cultural resource inventories.

To mitigate the effects of erosion stemming from livestock grazing on unidentified and potentially significant cultural resources, Forest Service range personnel must report substantial erosion to the Forest heritage program manager.

If any new actions are planned that may have an effect on cultural resources, such as high-tensile fence or water development obliteration/construction, or if grazing patterns change beyond that analyzed in the EIS and adaptive options, additional cultural resource assessment may be required to determine if additional survey and clearance is needed.


46

2.8 Monitoring Measures Monitoring includes 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 EIS. 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 Analysis and Management Training Guide (USDA Forest Service 1996c) would be used as the basis for monitoring vegetation. Techniques for evaluating streambank stability and alteration would follow the Watershed Conservation Practices Handbook (FSH 2509.25).

The administrative structure under which monitoring is conducted can be depicted in the following hierarchical and chronological way:

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

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

o Allotment management plan (AMP) tiered to grazing permit and reflecting decision including details.

o Annual operating instructions (AOI) tiered to AMP and grazing permit, drafted annually to reflect decision and current resource conditions.

o Grazing permit compliance enforcement as needed.

Feedback from monitoring the analysis 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:

o Alternative 2 – flexible short term; changes in management may require new NEPA analysis.

o Alternative 3 – highly flexible; adjust actions adaptively (FSH 2209.13, chapter 90; Quimby 2007) using the Grazing Management Toolbox (table 2-3).

Two basic types of monitoring, discussed in the following section, are expected to occur on the analysis area: (1) implementation monitoring, and (2) effectiveness monitoring.

2.8.1 Implementation Monitoring Implementation monitoring is short-term monitoring 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.

Table 2-7 displays the implementation monitoring schedule that would be followed if an action alternative is selected. Specifically, it focuses on: (1) compliance checks, (2) meeting Forest Plan standards and guidelines for forage utilization and streambank stability and alteration, (3) monitoring domestic sheep movements, (4) monitoring for stray domestic sheep, (5) monitoring Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep locations, and (6) permittee management documentation


47

including a sighting log of wildlife, most importantly Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep. This latter monitoring item is intended to provide the Forest Service with supplemental records of where Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep and other wildlife may be occurring. Ultimately, the Forest Service would use the record to supplement other data collected with the goal of minimizing interactions between bighorn sheep and domestic sheep.

Feedback from monitoring, and any resultant adjustments of management actions, would be dependent 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 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). Initially, a tool would be selected that would be most likely to 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. 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 meet the requirements outlined in table 2-7.

Key areas would be used to inspect relatively small areas of the analysis area and then extrapolated to represent much larger areas (USDA Forest Service 1996c). Key areas are initially delineated on a map (see figure 2-4), but they can change, as needed, depending on annual weather fluctuations, past permittee compliance history, and changes in current resource and/or social issues.


48

Table 2-7. Implementation monitoring schedule, frequency, responsible party, and applicable alternative

Monitoring Item Frequency By Whom Alternative

Rangeland Monitoring

Compliance checks (meeting requirements in AOI/AMP/term grazing permit)

Variable2 Forest Service

2 and 3

Upland forage utilization (Forest Plan; Range, page III-15) Variable2 Forest Service and Permittee

2 and 3

Riparian forage utilization (Forest Plan; Range, page III-15)

Variable2 Forest Service and Permittee

2 and 3

Riparian steambank stability/alteration (Forest Plan, Riparian Areas page III-5)

Variable2 Forest Service and Permittee

2 and 3

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.

Weekly Permittee 2 and 3

Permittees and Forest Service are responsible for monitoring for stray domestic sheep, keeping a log of locations/occurrences, reason for occurrence, and action taken to correct the situation. (This information will be used to determine patterns and reasons for occurrences and used to prevent future occurrences.)

When encountered

Forest Service and Permittee

3

The Forest Service will pursue enhanced monitoring of permitted domestic sheep and goat grazing and/or trailing patterns via use of Global Positioning System collars, “SPOT satellite messenger” or other technology that will provide detailed data on movements and grazing patterns of domestic sheep and goats. Implementation will be dependent on the technology used and funding available by the Forest Service. Also dependent on the technology used, the permittee and/or herder/s may be required to participate in the implementation.

Daily Permittee and Forest Service

3


49

Permittees authorized to graze in areas rated as “Moderate Risk” will be required to use a method or device to allow for the immediate notification and location of DS and BHS contact or impending contact due to unforeseen movements of the DS and/or BHS. The method or device will provide a communication link between the herder(s) and the permittee. (Methods may include the permittee visiting the sheep camp on a daily schedule, using a satellite phone, cell phone (where applicable), “SPOT satellite messenger” or other methods or devices approved by the Forest Service. See appendix F for further information on the “SPOT satellite messenger”).

When encountered

Permittee and herders

3

Permittees will require herders to report any instances of DS and/or exotic breeds not in their ownership that have made contact or situations where impending contact with BHS may occur. Permittees will require that the herders use the same urgency and immediate notification as required for the “confirmed contact or threat of impending contact” design criteria discussed earlier.

When encountered

Permittee and herders

3

The Grazing Response Index, GRI (Rangeland Analysis and Management Training Guide [USDA Forest Service 1996c]) will be applied prior to grazing, during grazing, after grazing and at the end of the growing season. The Forest Service will explain the use of the GRI to the permittee and together initialize the planned grazing scheme for the season. The permittee will then monitor the frequency, intensity, and opportunity for growth or regrowth. The permittee will complete the GRI form as the season progresses. The permittee will be taught a method for determining utilization and determining the opportunity for growth and regrowth. The permittee will work with the Forest Service to make grazing adjustments as needed.

Weekly Primarily Permittee

Spot Check by Forest Service

3

Heritage site monitoring to ensure compliance with allowable impact to heritage sites.


3

Location Monitoring of Rocky Mountain Bighorn Sheep and Other Wildlife

Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep location monitoring to determine extent of range.3 Includes:

Variable spot checks for BHS

Coordinated (CDOW and FS) annual ground count unless uncontrollable circumstances (i.e., inclement weather, etc) preclude implementation.

Adding BHS sightings to a database (GIS coverage). Updating the BHS subpopulation occurrence coverage.

Variable2 Forest Service and CDOW

3

Permittees will be required to report wildlife sightings on the annual actual use form that must be turned in each fall to the Forest Service; however BHS sightings must be reported immediately.

Annual1

BHS daily

Permittee 3

White-tailed ptarmigan sightings will be recorded and mapped. General resource/management conditions at the site will be recorded.


3

1 Permittees are responsible for annually reporting wildlife sightings, but bighorn sheep sightings must be reported immediately.


50

2 The Forest Service may vary the frequency of inspections on a case-by-case 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 issues. Non-compliance or issues arising would dictate continuous monitoring until satisfactory compliance is attained. Once compliance or issues are resolved, monitoring would still occur, but the frequency will vary as needed. Relevant Forest Plan standards and guidelines are available online at: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/riogrande/projects/plan/documents/planchap3.pdf

3 Priority for monitoring: Moderate risk areas where domestic sheep grazing is occurring are the areas of highest priority for monitoring of the presence of bighorn sheep.

Vegetation monitoring would follow the techniques and protocols from the Rangeland Analysis and Management Training Guide (RAMTG) (USDA Forest Service 1996c). Streambank alteration will follow protocol from RAMTG (USDA Forest Service 1996c) or Interagency Bulletin-2008-01(Monitoring Stream Channels and Riparian Vegetation-Multiple Indicators). Streambank stability will follow protocol developed with Region 2 during the 1996b Forest Plan Revision or that in Interagency Bulletin 2008-01.


51

Figure 2-4. Key monitoring areas for the analysis area (identified by a black “M”)

M

M

M

MMM

MM

M

MM

M

M M

M

M


52

2.8.2 Effectiveness Monitoring Effectiveness monitoring is long-term monitoring 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 analysis area is generally meeting or moving toward the Forest Plan desired conditions. Only two resource areas were found to have an important disparity within the scope of this analysis—biological diversity and rural development. Thus, project-level monitoring would specifically focus on these two resource areas if an action alternative was selected. Effectiveness monitoring, as applied here, would center on responding to the “need for action” described in chapter 1, section 1.6, table 1-1 and reiterated below:

Biological Diversity ~ Contact between Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep and domestic sheep would likely be detrimental to the health of the Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep. Domestic sheep stocking and distribution should be managed to achieve separation from the Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep.

Rural Development ~ Determine the appropriate level of livestock grazing to meet Forest Plan desired conditions for the environment and social desires for this analysis area.

Table 2-8 displays the effectiveness monitoring schedule that would be followed if an action alternative is selected. Specifically, it focuses on long-term trends for: (1) overall permittee compliance, (2) meeting or moving toward Forest Plan standards and guidelines relative to vegetation conditions and streambank stability and alteration, (3) maintaining separation between Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep and domestic sheep, and (4) overall compliance with the Forest Plan chapter V monitoring elements to ensure that overall stocking levels are appropriate relative to other resource values.

Feedback from monitoring, and any resultant adjustments of management actions, would be dependent 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 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). Initially, a tool would be selected that would be most likely to 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. 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 meet the requirements outlined in table 2-8.


53

Table 2-8. Effectiveness monitoring schedule, frequency, and responsible party

Rangeland Monitoring Frequency By whom

Trend in overall compliance with AOI, AMP, and term grazing permit (must be static or improving)

5-8 years1 Forest Service

Vegetation trend (must be static or improving) 5-8 years1 Forest Service

Riparian streambank stability/alteration trend (must be static or improving) 5-8 years1 Forest Service

Forest Plan chapter V Monitoring compliance to ensure proper stocking relative to other resource values in the analysis area (must be static or improving)

5-8 years1 Forest Service

Risk assessment updates, tracking interactions between Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep and domestic sheep (includes all known interactions on private, State, Forest Service and other Federal Lands). (The goal is for interactions to be non-existent in the analysis area, including the stock driveways.)

Annually Forest Service

The permittee will be required to implement at least two photo points in each allotment in key areas that need to remain static or need improvement. These photo points will be established by the Forest Service and the permittee, including setting up a method for storage of the data, which will be in the allotment 2210 file located at the Forest Service. The permittee may keep a duplicate file. The Forest Service may establish additional photo points as needed.

2-4 years1 Primarily Permittee with assistance from Forest Service

Every 3 years (or sooner if needed) the ID team and the authorized officer will meet to discuss the adaptive management feedback loop for this project. This feedback loop review will include items such as resource monitoring results, management effectiveness, permittee compliance, new resource data, new “best available science”, changed status for threatened, endangered and sensitive species of plants and animals, changed policies and laws, need to adjust management or not, changed public needs, and any other interdisciplinary topic or item that may need discussion.

3 years or sooner if determined by any of the ID team or authorized officer

Forest Service

1 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

Forest-level monitoring required in chapter V of the Forest Plan is available online at: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/riogrande/projects/plan/documents/planchap5.pdf


55

Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

3.1 Introduction This chapter describes the present conditions of the environment in and around the analysis area. This chapter also discloses the probable consequences (impacts and effects) of implementing each alternative presented in chapter 2 on selected environmental resources. It provides the analytical basis to compare the alternatives.

This chapter begins by briefly describing the location of the analysis area. This is followed by a brief analysis of how each alternative responds to the key issues identified in chapter 1 (section 1.10). Then, the chapter is 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 analysis is located in appendix B of this EIS.

3.2 General Description of the Analysis Area The analysis area is located in the San Juan Mountains of south-central Colorado, west of La Jara (see chapter 1, section 1.4). The size of the analysis area does not vary by alternative. The future livestock management of 12 existing sheep and goat allotments is being evaluated in this EIS. The affected rangeland allotments are as follows: North Fork/Middle Fork, East Vega, West Vega, Treasure, Upper Adams, Elwood, Cropsy, Summit, Campo Bonito, Marble Mtn., Cornwall Mtn., and Willow Mtn. Not every resource area conducts their specific analysis using the same analysis area boundary. Some evaluations focus on the 12 allotments; others might need to use a larger area outside the formal analysis area as shown in chapter 1, section 1.4. For every resource write-up below, the “Scope of the Analysis” 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. Key issues were displayed in chapter 1, section 1.10; the alternatives were displayed in chapter 2, section 2.4. Table 3-1 summarizes key issues and their indicator(s) by alternative.

Alternative 1 (No Permitted Livestock Grazing) Table 3-1 shows how alternative 1 responds to the key issues. Management flexibility (key issue 1) would not be needed in relation to permitted livestock grazing. Alternative 1 would fully resolve livestock grazing and Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep conflicts in the analysis area from livestock permitted in the analysis area (key issue 2). Alternative 1 would not support the economic and social value provided by livestock grazing (key issue 3) for the individuals associated with the term grazing permits (permittees) in the analysis area. Alternative 1 would have a low impact to the economy and social values of the local community.


56

Table 3-1. Response to the key issues by alternative

Key Issues/ Indicator(s)

Alternative 1(No Permitted Livestock Grazing)

Alternative 2(Current Livestock Grazing Management)

Alternative 3(Adaptive Livestock Grazing Management)

1. Management flexibility

Adaptability to change Neutral Flexible, short term Highly flexible

2. Contact between domestic sheep and Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep

Predicted risk of permitted domestic sheep and Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep interactions

None Minor modifications could be made in the AOI; any of the minor modifications would not be sufficient to effectively minimize or eliminate the risk of contact between bighorn and domestic sheep

Major modifications to the AOIs would be made to minimize the risk of contact between domestic sheep and bighorn sheep

Actual documented contact between domestic sheep and Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep, over time

None Minor modifications could be made in the AOI; any of the minor modifications would not be sufficient to effectively deal with actual contact between bighorn and domestic sheep

Major modifications to deal with actual documented contact would be made in the AOI

3. The contribution to the economic and social well being of local people tied to permitted livestock grazing in the analysis area

Economic impact Economic impact to permittees and their employees: High


Economic impact to permittees and their employees: None short term; potential for high impacts long term

Economic impact to the local economy: None short term; potential for low impacts long term

Economic impact to permittees and their employees: Moderate


Financial efficiency for the permittees and the Forest Service

All Partners: -$22,691.04

Permittee: No costs and no benefits


Permittee: -$155,253.24

Forest Service: -$34,351.43


Permittee: -$244,414.70



57


Social impact Social impact to permittees and their employees: High

Social impact to the local community: Low

Social impact to permittees and their employees: None short term; potential for high impacts long term

Social impact to the local community: None short term; potential for low impacts long term

Social impact to permittees and their employees: Moderate

Social impact to the local community: Low

Environmental justice Alternative 1 will not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects to any low-income or minority population within the local area

Alternative 2 will not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects to any low-income or minority population within the local area

Alternative 3 will not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects to any low-income or minority population within the local area


58

Alternative 2 (Current Livestock Grazing Management) Table 3-1 shows how alternative 2 responds to the key issues. 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. Conducting new NEPA analysis each time a change is needed takes considerable time and expense.

Overall, this alternative would be flexible in the short term (key issue 1), would not resolve livestock grazing and Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep conflicts (key issue 2), and would not support the long-term local economic and social values provided by livestock grazing because it does not provide the means to make future changes that are needed to respond to new or continuing issues.

Alternative 3 (Adaptive Livestock Grazing Management) Table 3-1 shows how alternative 3 responds to the key issues. Livestock are moved by a herder as a unit (called a band) through the allotments. Under this alternative, alternatives may be used in various combinations of routing schedules. Consequently, livestock are not dispersed equally throughout the entire suitable rangeland area. Under this alternative, there is greater opportunity (and adaptability) to resolve Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep conflicts since the land area available includes 12 allotments, and thereby provides increased opportunity to alter routing schedules to avoid potential interaction. Appendix E provides background information on domestic sheep terms, grazing behavior, and herding.

This alternative would provide significant management flexibility (key issue 1) and would resolve most permitted livestock grazing and Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep conflicts (key issue 2). This alternative would support the local economic value provided by livestock grazing (key issue 3), because it does provide the means to make future changes that are needed to respond to new or continuing issues.

3.4 Effects on Resources, Social and Economics

3.4.1 Rangeland Resources

3.4.1.1 Scope of the Analysis This section discusses rangeland management in the analysis area (described in chapter 1, section 1.4 and shown in figure 1-1). The analysis area also includes the Hot Creek Stock Driveway, the Dry Creek Stock Driveway, and other access routes as show in chapter 2, figure 2-1.

3.4.1.2 Past Actions that Have Affected the Existing Condition

Historic Livestock Use

The analysis area is comprised of 12 rangeland allotments that have a long history of use by large numbers of domestic sheep. The following summary of the early history of sheep grazing in the analysis area is taken from the historical report titled, “Report on the Proposed San Juan Forest Reserve, Colorado” (Dubois 1903). Livestock grazing of the South San Juan Mountains began in the late 1880s and 1890s by large numbers of domestic sheep. The rapid increase in


59

sheep numbers was the result of the low investment necessary to get into the livestock business and the potential high rate of return (some sheep producers at that time reported annual profits of 100 percent). During this time period it was estimated that approximately 75,000 head of sheep from Colorado and approximately 100,000 head of sheep from northern New Mexico annually grazed through the analysis area on their way to various locations near Pagosa Springs and the Wolf Creek Pass area. Sheep have traditionally entered the analysis area along the same stock driveways; in particular the La Jara, La Manga, and Rio Chama Stock Driveways. Dubois (1903) reported that large numbers of sheep prior to 1903 had already left definite trails through the alpine, especially in topographic constrictions (narrow, steep, or rocky terrain). Undoubtedly, rangeland forage utilization was very heavy during this period.

Dubois (1903) recommended a reduction in sheep from the large numbers mentioned above to approximately 23,000 head within the area roughly covered by the analysis area. After the formation of the San Juan Forest Reserve (1905) and then the formation of the Rio Grande National Forest (1908), the number of sheep authorized to graze the South San Juan Mountain area was greatly reduced. Table 3-2 illustrates the magnitude of the reductions over time.

Table 3-2. Historic livestock numbers and grazing season

Allotment Name

Historic Stocking (Sheep; Ewes/Lambs) Grazing Season

1910–30 1980

Recent Past

(Proper Stocking) 1910–30 1980

Recent Past

North Fork/Middle Fork 3,000 1,000 500 7/01-9/30 7/01-9/15 7/01-9/15

Upper Adams and West Vega

2,258 1,200 1,300 7/01-9/15 7/11-9/15 7/11-9/15

East Vega and Treasure 4,950 827 902 7/01-9/15 7/1-9/15 7/8-9/15

Elwood 4,600 801 801 7/01-9/30 7/01-9/15 7/08-9/15

Cropsy and Summit 4,150 1,582 1,582 7/01-9/307/01-9/15

7/08-9/23 7/08-9/23

Campo Bonito 2,000 1,000 1,000 6/15-9/30 7/6-9/15 7/6-9/15

Marble Mtn. 2,700 300 400 7/01-9/30 7/10-9/5 7/10-8/21

Cornwall Mtn. and Willow Mtn.

4,000 1,000 1,000 7/1-9/30 7/1-9/15 7/1-9/15

Total 27,658 7,710 7,485

Dubois (1903) reported of areas within the current analysis area as being clearly overstocked. This included such factors such as: high utilization, large patches of small timberline willow nibbled nearly to the ground, areas where sheep have eaten and trampled out the feed between the clumps of bunch grass, areas where the humus and ground cover were exposed to the drying effects of the sun from being cut up by the sharp hooves of the sheep, situations in which overuse by trailing sheep obliterated pack trails, and the extensive numbers of sheep that used the stock driveways as described above.


60

Formation of the South San Juan Wilderness in 1980 and Inclusion of Part of the Analysis Area into that Wilderness

Some of the analysis area was included in the South San Juan Wilderness Area after passage of the 1980 Colorado Wilderness Act (see chapter 1, figure 1-1).

The 1980 wilderness designation date is important because of implications from the Congressional Grazing Guidelines and the House Committee Report 96-617. The ramification of each is briefly discussed below:

1) Congressional Grazing Guidelines (Forest Service Manual 2323.22, Exhibit 1) state, in part:

“The legislative history of this language [Section 4(d)(4)(2) of the Wilderness Act] is very clear in its intent that livestock grazing, and activities and the necessary facilities to support a livestock grazing program, will be permitted to continue in National Forest wilderness areas, when such grazing was established prior to classification of an area as wilderness.”

In 1980, at the time of wilderness designation, all allotments in the analysis area were actively being grazed by permitted livestock (i.e., there were no vacant allotments). There were 7,710 sheep (ewes/lambs) grazing the analysis area, with about 3,027 of those sheep in areas that are now wilderness.

2) House Committee Report 96-617 says, in part, “It is anticipated that the numbers of livestock permitted to graze in wilderness would remain at the approximate levels existing at the time an area enters the wilderness system” (see section 1.7 for additional text).

Thus, the date of wilderness designation sets a point of reference for stocking that is meaningful for comparison to current stocking.

No allotments have been administratively closed since wilderness designation.

3.4.1.3 Existing Condition

Rangeland Condition

Current rangeland conditions within the analysis area have improved over the years. Livestock management and sheep herder practices have greatly improved over the last century. Restrictions on sheep herder camps, salting practices, sheep bedding areas, and livestock on-off dates have notably improved the vegetation condition of the rangeland compared to the conditions found in 1903 and on through the 1900s. This reflects a significant improvement in conditions as early stocking caused major and lasting impacts. The area within these allotments is generally higher elevation with a short growing season and shallow soils. Even in the total absence of livestock, recovery from the early conditions noted would have been a long and slow process. The recovery noted reflects significant changes in management and substantial progress.

As noted above in the past actions section, the signs of rangeland degradation were obvious and rampant in the early 1900s. Overwhelmingly, there are not obvious signs of current rangeland degradation. The current rangeland condition is classified as satisfactory. Factors that lead towards this determination are based on the plant community composition, the density of the vegetation, the vigor of the vegetation, the soil condition and the condition of the riparian areas.


61

As outlined in the past actions above, the analysis area has been used for summer grazing by domestic sheep continuously since the mid to late 1800s. Because of this long-term use and overuse in the early days it would not be expected that climax conditions would exist in most of the key areas.

Along with the past and present domestic sheep grazing, there are other factors that have played a natural part in the current state of plant succession. The major suitable grazing areas within the analysis area occur mostly in the alpine zone and the sub-alpine areas immediately below. These high country areas have been heavily influenced by physical and environmental conditions that are unique and severe in some respects. Some of those physical and environmental conditions are: high velocity winds that cause high transpiration rates and snow-blast to plants; snow pockets or areas with lingering snow banks caused by deposition on the lee side of slopes; snow slides or avalanche areas; rock fields, talus fields, talus slides, scree fields, and scree slides; high intensity sunlight; high annual precipitation, heavy snows in the winter, and large amounts of rain in the summer; heavy spring runoff; slow decomposition of organic matter due to the colder temperatures; a short growing season with the possibility of frost even in the summer months; areas where large numbers of congregating elk herds migrate for the summer months and other conditions unique to the analysis area.

All of these factors along with the past and present domestic sheep grazing have shaped the current vegetation condition into a mosaic of different plant communities in different seral stages.

Across the 12 allotments, the plant communities, with the exception of a few localized areas, are primarily in mid- to high-seral stages of the climax community. This meets the desired conditions as set forth in the Forest Plan (USDA Forest Service 1996a), which states “Vegetation is managed for a mixture of seral stages, with most of the rangelands in mid to high seral stages.” Not only is the vegetation in a desired seral stage, but the vegetation is exhibiting high vigor over most of the analysis area. This high vigor of the plant communities is the most obvious factor of the much improved rangeland conditions.

In addition to the herbaceous vegetation communities, the presence and health of the willow communities is considered in determining the rangeland condition. There are many willow carrs across the 12 allotments, including the widespread occurrence of snow willow (Salix reticulata ssp. nivalis). Overwhelmingly, the willow communities are exhibiting obvious health and vigor (see the “Watershed and Aquatic Resources,” section 3.4.3 for further discussion on the current health of the watershed and riparian areas).

The allotments have continuous dense ground cover with only minor areas of soil exposure (see section 3.4.4, “Soil Resources,” for further discussion on the current soil conditions). Stock-driveways and trails with the exception of a minor section of one trail (Treasure Creek trail #710) are in fair to good condition. This minor section of trail in poor condition is primarily the result of too steep a grade without adequate drainage structures, which has resulted in excessive erosion. Correction would occur through trail maintenance/reconstruction, separate from this analysis.

Rangeland Suitability/Capability

The analysis area contains approximately 47,589 total acres; 17,925 acres (38 percent) were determined to be suitable for the grazing of domestic sheep through the Forest Plan suitability determination process.


62

Background. Livestock grazing on the RGNF is governed by both Forest Plan and project-level decisions. The National Forest Management Act (NFMA) and its associated implementing regulations require the Forest Service to integrate individual resource plans into the Forest Plan, including the grazing resource (36 CFR 219.20). The capability of National Forest System lands to producing forage and the suitability (or appropriateness) of allocating it to livestock are determined in the analysis for the Forest Plan.

Once the Forest Plan ROD determines suitable rangeland and designates where and under what restrictions livestock grazing may be permitted, rangeland management prescriptions are developed to address these grazing lands at the project level. The project-level decision then provides for the permitting of the appropriate livestock grazing to achieve desired resource conditions using site-specific grazing systems, appropriate stocking rates, rangeland improvements (structural and non-structural), and coordination with other resources at the AMP level. Rangeland identified as suitable for domestic livestock grazing at the Forest Plan level may include smaller inclusions that are not appropriate for domestic livestock grazing when analyzed at the site-specific level (e.g., some wetlands). Site-specific analysis at the allotment (or multi-allotment scale) provides additional information used in developing an allotment management plan for a given allotment(s). Additional rangeland may be identified as suitable or unsuitable for livestock grazing at this site-specific AMP project-analysis level. Rangeland capability and suitability are closely connected and it is important to understand the distinction between the two terms. Rangeland capability must be analyzed and established first before a rangeland suitability determination can be made. These two terms are defined below as follows:

The definition of rangeland capability is as follows (from 36 CFR 219.3 dated June 2000 and Forest Service Manual (FSM) 1905):

Capability ~ The potential of an area of land to produce resources, supply goods and services, and allow resource uses under an assumed set of management practices and at a given level of management intensity. Capability depends upon current resource conditions and site conditions such as climate, slope, landform, soils, and geology, as well as the application of management practices, such as silviculture or protection from fire, insects, and disease.

Capability is the initial step in the determination of suitability. It is portrayed as a separate step both for reasons of clarity and because the actual product of “capability” often has utility in planning beyond its role in the determination of suitability. For forest planning purposes, rangeland capability does not vary by alternative and is therefore only determined once during the land management planning process.

The definition of rangeland suitability is as follows (from 36 CFR 219.3 dated June 2000 and FSM 1905):

Suitability ~ The appropriateness of applying certain resource management practices to a particular area of land, as determined by an analysis of the economic and environmental consequences and the alternative uses forgone. A unit of land may be suitable for a variety of individual or combined management practices.

Rangeland suitability is a determination of the appropriateness of grazing on capable lands based on economic and environmental consequences and consideration of alternative uses foregone if grazing is allowed. Rangeland suitability may vary by alternative or grouping of


63

similar alternatives being considered in the land management planning process (USDA Forest Service 2003).

Suitable transitory rangeland in this analysis, are lands that have become available for grazing due to timber harvest. After timber harvest, herbaceous vegetation increases due to the removal or opening of the overstory. Many of these sites are very productive and provide additional forage for domestic sheep grazing that was not available if timber harvest had not occurred. These areas although classified as suitable are not used in the calculation of capacity due to their temporary nature. There are instances when grazing is discouraged in these sites to protect tree regeneration from being damaged. Presently, there is a large spruce beetle (Dendroctonus rufipennis) outbreak affecting mature Engelmann spruce (Picea engelmannii) around and within the analysis area. This outbreak is noted here as part of the overall existing condition affecting vegetation and may mimic the effects of timber harvest on the herbaceous vegetation.

Project Specific Suitability Determination

The analysis area contains approximately 47,589 total acres; 18,638 acres (39 percent) are determined to be suitable for the grazing of domestic sheep through the Forest Plan suitability determination process (USDA Forest Service 2003). The pattern of suitable/capable acres as determined by the Forest Plan analysis was verified from past experience of the analysis area. Spot checks and production estimates were also used in comparing the Forest Plan suitability determination to the actual on the ground pattern. It was determined that the Forest Plan suitability/capability analysis was appropriate to utilize as a site-specific suitability/capability analysis. As with transitory rangeland, non-suitable acres are not used in stocking calculations. Table 3-3 shows suitable acres by allotment.

Table 3-3. Suitable acres by allotment

Allotment Total NFS Acres

Total NFS Suitable Acres Non-transitory

Total NFS Suitable Acres Transitory

Campo Bonito S&G 4,875.59 2,453.48 294.65

Cornwall Mtn. S&G 5,622.26 1,690.92 0.00

Cropsy S&G 3,081.15 424.21 310.83

East Vega S&G 2,409.40 846.03 83.83

Elwood S&G 5,363.83 2,536.02 3.92

Marble Mtn. S&G 1,133.59 549.61 3.13

North Fork/Middle Fork S&G 6,905.77 2,508.85 0.00

Summit S&G 3,655.33 2,320.02 14.47

Treasure S&G 3,611.23 1,642.62 0.00

Upper Adams S&G 3,833.21 680.82 0.00

West Vega S&G 4,004.44 1,384.55 0.00

Willow Mtn. S&G 3,092.87 887.87 0.00

Total 47,588.67 17,925.00 710.83


64

Grazing in Wilderness

As outlined in the Wilderness Acts of September 3, 1964 (section 4, paragraph 4, subpart 2), December 22, 1980 (Public Law 96-560, section 108), and August 13, 1993 (Public Law 103-77, section 3, paragraph (2) (b)), livestock grazing is an approved and appropriate use of wilderness if it occurred prior to formal designation. As mentioned above, livestock grazing has been occurring in the analysis area since the late 1800s. Livestock grazing activities have been conducted within the guidelines of the 1964 Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1121 (note), the Wilderness Management Philosophy in the Rocky Mountain Region (USDA Forest Service 1989), the Continental Divide National Scenic Trail Final Environmental Impact Statement (USDA Forest Service 1993), and the Forest Plan standards and guidelines. Four of the 12 allotments in the analysis area are located partially or fully in wilderness which amounts to 31 percent of the analysis area.

Livestock Carrying Capacity

Currently, there are four term grazing permits issued that allow permitted livestock grazing in the analysis area. Domestic sheep are currently trailed along the Hot Creek Stock Driveway and the Dry Creek Stock Driveway. Trucking to a drop-off point near the head of the Conejos Canyon and then trailing from there has occurred in some years for one band of sheep going to the North Fork/Middle Fork Allotment. The domestic sheep carrying capacity estimate within the analysis area is approximately 7,485 sheep (ewes with lambs) or 5,438 AUMs. The estimated carrying capacity considers the forage needed for recreation livestock and wildlife. The estimated carrying capacity is based on about the last 20 years of actual conditions and stocking. This level of stocking is conservative in relation to the actual suitable rangeland available for grazing. There are no animals authorized under livestock use permits and none are expected in the foreseeable future.

The capacity of the entire analysis area (12 allotments) is 5,438 AUMs (see table 3-4). Capacity for alternative 3 is intentionally proposed conservatively to allow for additional flexibility in dealing with the bighorn sheep/domestic sheep separation.

Livestock capacity would be variable and could vary from season to season, but would not exceed the 5,072 AUM limit. If grazing areas become unavailable for domestic sheep use due to managing the separation issue, correspondingly, AUMs tied to those unavailable areas will be subtracted from the capacity.


65

Table 3-4. Livestock carrying capacity by allotment

Allotment AUMs

Campo Bonito S&G 730

Cornwall Mtn. S&G 288

Cropsy S&G 143

East Vega S&G 272

Elwood S&G 624

Marble Mtn. S&G 174

North Fork/Middle Fork S&G 390

Summit S&G 1,090

Treasure S&G 367

Upper Adams S&G 366

West Vega S&G 503

Willow Mtn. S&G 491

Total 5,438

Table 3-5. Estimated livestock carrying capacity and suitable acres by alternative

Measure

Alternative 1 (No Permitted

Livestock Grazing)

Alternative 2(Current Livestock

Grazing Management)

Alternative 3(Adaptive Livestock

Grazing Management)

Suitable Rangeland Acres 0 17,244 17,925

AUMs 0 5,072 5,438 1

1 Available capacity; however, 5,072 AUMs are proposed for alternative 3 stocking.

Grazing System

A deferred-rotation grazing system has been used for the last 10 years or more on these allotments. Grazing is conducted as a once-over system with sheep being bedded and grazed in a different location daily. Herder camps are moved every 7 to 10 days. Trash is hauled out when camps are moved. Herder camps are generally inspected several times a year by Forest Service personnel. The areas used by the herders are presently in good condition. No excavated tent sites are located on these allotments. All of the camps on these allotments are located in the Engelmann spruce-subalpine fir forest zone and near krummholtz (dwarf, timberline forest community).

3.4.1.4 Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects None of the alternatives would be expected to result in significant direct, indirect, or cumulative effects. None of the alternatives would be expected to produce irreversible or irretrievable commitments of the rangeland resources.


66

Alternative 1 (No Permitted Livestock Grazing)

Direct and Indirect Effects

Permitted Livestock Grazing. Alternative 1 will eliminate permitted domestic sheep grazing and its related practices. Alternative 1 also eliminates the possibility of converting to other kinds of permitted livestock grazing such as cattle grazing.

Management Flexibility. Alternative 1 is neutral to management flexibility (key issue 1). Alternative 1 would eliminate permitted livestock grazing; therefore, there would be no need for management flexibility in relation to permitted livestock grazing. The need to respond to annual changes in biological, physical, and social changes/desires relative to permitted livestock grazing would be nonexistent. Permitted livestock management, as a resource tool, would be eliminated.

Rangeland Management to Maintain Separation Between Bighorn Sheep and Permitted Domestic Sheep. Alternative 1 eliminates permitted domestic sheep grazing in the analysis area. Consequently, there would be no need to separate between bighorn sheep and domestic sheep in the analysis area.

Rangeland Vegetation. Rangeland would remain in satisfactory condition. Elimination of permitted livestock grazing would be expected to result in gradual plant community changes over time. Generally, the plant communities most likely to be influenced would be those with the following characteristics: (1) gentle, accessible slopes; (2) areas in close proximity to water; (3) livestock driveways; and (4) those areas grazed early in the season when vegetation is the most palatable. Changes may occur as increases in cover or composition of those plant species most preferred by sheep. Conversely, over many decades, there could be a gradual decrease in relatively unpalatable forbs. Plant community changes in high subalpine and alpine environments occur very slowly (on a time-scale magnitude of decades). If the need arises for controlled vegetation treatments by livestock, this tool will not be available, so maintaining and improving these sites may not occur.

Suitable Rangeland, Season of Use, Grazing System and Carrying Capacity. The entire analysis area would be closed to permitted livestock grazing; therefore, there would be no suitable rangeland, season of use, grazing system, or carrying capacity available for permitted livestock grazing in the analysis area.

Allotments Available for Permitted Livestock Grazing. There would be no allotments in the analysis area available for permitted livestock grazing.

Cumulative Effects

There are no rangeland cumulative effects from alternative 1.

Summary

Overall, this alternative would be expected to meet Forest Plan standards and guidelines and the Forest Plan desired conditions for rangeland resources. This alternative would eliminate the need for rangeland managers to provide separation between bighorn sheep and permitted domestic sheep in the analysis area.


67

Alternative 2 (Current Livestock Grazing Management)


Permitted Livestock Grazing. Alternative 2 will maintain permitted domestic sheep grazing and its related practices. Alternative 2 does not include the possibility of converting to other kinds of permitted livestock grazing such as cattle grazing.

Management Flexibility. Alternative 2 would maintain the current management flexibility. The current degree of management flexibility has been short term, with only temporary changes being made. The degree of management flexibility that has been practiced and available has been sufficient to resolve or avoid most rangeland resource issues in this analysis area. The flexibility to deal with larger, more complicated issues such as the separation between bighorn sheep and domestic sheep will fall short without having the ability to make short and long-term decisions without doing a separate NEPA analysis for these potentially bigger changes. The amount of time it will take to do a NEPA analysis may mean the difference between contact occurring or not between the species (with this issue and potentially other issues, time is of the essence). The higher degree of management flexibility needed would also be desirable to deal with unforeseen issues that may arise in the future.

Rangeland Management to Maintain Separation Between Bighorn Sheep and Permitted Domestic Sheep. Alternative 2 will not provide rangeland managers with a risk assessment to know where there might be risk of contact between bighorn sheep and permitted domestic sheep, and to what degree that risk might be. In addition, alternative 2 will not provide rangeland managers with project design criteria, tools, or monitoring requirements to minimize or eliminate the risk of contact between the two species. Consequently, rangeland management efforts to provide separation between bighorn sheep and domestic sheep in the analysis area will not occur.

Rangeland Vegetation. Rangeland would remain in satisfactory condition. Existing rangeland plant community composition and conditions would be expected to stay relatively similar to existing conditions for the foreseeable future (next two decades). The current spruce beetle outbreak mentioned under the existing condition could ultimately lead to higher spruce mortality and that could create temporary forage availability (this is termed “transitory rangeland”) for sheep.

Suitable Rangeland, Season of Use, Grazing System, and Carrying Capacity. The suitable rangeland within the 11 allotments (current management is only using 11 allotments), except for areas excluded by the project design criteria. Suitable rangeland acres available (area used in the past 3 to 5 years) for permitted livestock would be 17,244 acres. The greater the suitable land base, the greater the opportunity to rotate bands of livestock to reduce or eliminate issues and/or conflicts. Domestic sheep are managed in bands so they are herded (moved as a unit) to a selected location (i.e., livestock are not dispersed equally throughout the entire area).

The grazing season would be somewhat flexible from year to year. Minor changes could be made by exception in the AOI. The season will be constrained within the following dates: Campo Bonito, 7/6–9/15; Cornwall Mtn., Willow Mtn., Elwood, and North Fork/Middle Fork, 7/1–9/15; Cropsy and Summit, 7/8–9/23; East Vega and Treasure, 7/8–9/15; Upper Adams and West Vega, 7/11–9/15; and Marble Mtn., 7/10–8/21. Range readiness would be used to determine livestock turn-on date and allowable use standards and guidelines would be used to determine livestock off-date.


68

A deferred rotation grazing system would continue to be used. The maximum carrying capacity would remain at 5,072 AUMs; 5,072 AUMs is the capacity for the 11 allotments as shown in figure 2-2.

Allotments Available For Permitted Livestock Grazing. There would continue to be 11 allotments in the analysis area available for permitted livestock grazing.

Cumulative Effects

Cumulatively, grazing by large, wild ungulates, permitted outfitter and guide riding and pack stock, recreational user riding and pack stock, prescribed fire and prescribed natural fire, in addition to permitted domestic sheep grazing, constitutes a cumulative effect to rangeland vegetation. Proposed stocking levels are very conservative. There are no known areas where competition for forage between permitted domestic sheep and grazing wildlife have been an issue. There may be minor, highly scattered areas where multiple vegetation uses have created areas of higher utilization, such as near outfitter/guide camps and temporary concentration sites by wildlife.

Stock driveways and other trails used as trailing routes for permitted domestic sheep are not used exclusively for permitted domestic sheep trailing. Although originally most of these trails were created as stock driveways, they have, over time, become system trails for the recreating public. Several of these trails have even been designated to allow motorized use and have seen a substantial increase in use by the current insurgence of all-terrain vehicle (ATV) use. The past, present, and reasonably foreseeable use of these trails by permitted livestock and recreational users (foot and horse), and the addition of motorized use in the recent past and expected increases in the future, constitute a cumulative effect to the stock driveways and trails used as trailing routes. Trail management and maintenance efforts have been taking place to keep up with the increased use of these trails.

Summary

Overall, this alternative would be expected to meet Forest Plan standards and guidelines and the Forest Plan desired conditions for rangeland resources. This alternative would not provide the higher degree of management flexibility needed to deal with larger, more complicated issues such as the separation between bighorn sheep and domestic sheep. Alternative 2 will fall short without having the ability to make long-term changes without doing a separate NEPA analysis for these potentially bigger changes. The amount of time it will take to do a NEPA analysis may mean the difference between contact or not between the species (bighorn sheep and permitted domestic sheep) (with this issue and potentially other issues, time is of the essence). The higher degree of management flexibility needed would also be desirable to deal with unforeseen issues that may arise in the future.

Alternative 3 (Adaptive Livestock Grazing Management)


Permitted Livestock Grazing. Alternative 3 will maintain permitted domestic sheep grazing and its related practices. Alternative 3 includes the possibility of converting to other kinds of permitted livestock grazing such as cattle grazing (with additional appropriate NEPA analysis).

Management Flexibility. Management flexibility would be optimized under this alternative. The Forest Service would be able to more readily adjust management practices to frequently changing environmental and social conditions in order to maintain or move conditions toward


69

Forest Plan desired conditions. Management adjustments based on monitoring findings (i.e., using the Grazing Management Toolbox), within the scope of this EIS, could be made without conducting new NEPA analysis. Some of the flexibility that is lacking is the opportunity to make quick changes in management, utilizing the entire analysis area in response to key issue 2 and other issues. This would include realigning the suitable areas for grazing in response to the risk of contact between bighorn sheep and permitted domestic sheep, mixing and matching allotments, crossing allotment boundaries, changing term grazing permits annually if needed to reflect changes in grazing allotments, etc., without doing a new NEPA analysis.

Rangeland Management to Maintain Separation Between Bighorn Sheep and Permitted Domestic Sheep. The risk of physical contact occurring between permitted domestic sheep and bighorn sheep will be assessed in this alternative through the use of a risk assessment (see appendix A) which may also be modified over time as conditions change. A specific set of project design criteria (chapter 2, section 2.7), was also specifically developed for this alternative to minimize the risk of contact. Having all 12 allotments available for grazing also maximizes the flexibility to move bands of domestic sheep away from “High Risk” areas or allotments to “Lower Risk” areas or allotments. Greater management flexibility under this alternative would allow the Forest Service more options to reduce potential conflicts and more opportunities to allow domestic sheep grazing to continue. Project design criteria (chapter 2, section 2.7) specifies that no domestic sheep grazing will occur in high risk areas. Domestic sheep grazing use will be moved to areas of low or moderate risk, if provided for by project-level NEPA analysis and decisions. If there are no low or moderate risk areas available, that amount of permitted domestic sheep grazing will be eliminated from the analysis area by means of partial or total permit cancellation. The risk assessment will be updated as information becomes available; therefore, the high risk areas may expand or decline in the future.

Rangeland Vegetation. Rangeland vegetation would remain and be maintained in satisfactory condition. Existing rangeland plant community composition and conditions would be expected to stay relatively similar to existing conditions with gradual improvements over time. Some sites may even be improved with controlled grazing treatments. The maintenance and potential improvement of vegetation in this alternative is justified through the availability of adaptive management by having more options available and due to the increased monitor and adjust requirement of adaptive management. The current spruce beetle outbreak could ultimately lead to higher spruce mortality and that could create temporary forage availability (this is termed “transitory rangeland”) for sheep.

Suitable Rangeland, Season of Use, Grazing System, and Carrying Capacity. The suitable rangeland within the 12 allotments, except for areas excluded by the project design criteria, would be available for use. Suitable rangeland acres allocated to permitted livestock would be 17,925. The greater the suitable land base, the greater the opportunity to rotate bands of livestock and reduce negative livestock-Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep interactions. Domestic sheep are managed in bands so they are herded (moved as a unit) to a selected location (i.e., livestock are not dispersed equally throughout the entire area). Areas identified as high risk in the risk assessment process will become “unsuitable rangeland” for permitted domestic sheep grazing, as long as the risk remains “high”. Correspondingly, the suitable land base and the livestock carrying capacity will be adjusted.

The grazing season would be flexible within constrained on- and off-dates. Livestock would not turn-on before the specified on-date and would leave the analysis area by the specified off-date as follows: Campo Bonito, 7/6–9/15; Cornwall Mtn./Willow Mtn., Elwood, North Fork/Middle


70

Fork, East Vega/Treasure, 7/8–9/22; Cropsy/Summit, 7/8–9/23; Upper Adams/West Vega, 7/11–9/15; and Marble Mtn., 7/10–8/21. If allotments are adaptively readjusted (suitability changes, boundary changes, combinations of allotments, etc.), seasons may also need to be adjusted. Range readiness would be used to determine livestock turn-on date and allowable use standards and guidelines would be used to determine livestock off-date.

A deferred-rotation grazing system would continue to be implemented; however, 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.

Available capacity is 5,438 AUMs; however, 5,072 AUMs are proposed for stocking. The capacity of the entire analysis area (12 allotments) is 5,438 AUMs, as shown in figure 2-3. Capacity for alternative 3 is intentionally proposed conservatively to allow for additional flexibility in managing the bighorn sheep/domestic sheep separation issue. Livestock capacity would be variable and could vary from season to season, but would not exceed the 5,072 AUM limit. If grazing areas become unavailable for domestic sheep use due to managing the separation issue, correspondingly, AUMs tied to those unavailable areas will be subtracted from the capacity.

Allotments Available for Permitted Livestock Grazing. There would be 12 allotments in the analysis area available for permitted livestock grazing.

Cumulative Effects

Cumulatively, grazing by large, wild ungulates, permitted outfitter and guide riding and pack stock, recreational user riding and pack stock, wildfire and prescribed natural fire, in addition to permitted domestic sheep grazing, constitutes a cumulative effect to rangeland vegetation. Proposed stocking levels are very conservative. There are no known areas where competition for forage between permitted domestic sheep and grazing wildlife have been an issue. There may be minor, highly scattered areas where multiple vegetation uses have created areas of higher utilization, such as near outfitter/guide camps and temporary concentration sites by wildlife.

Stock driveways and other trails used as trailing routes for permitted domestic sheep are not used exclusively for permitted domestic sheep trailing. Although originally, most of these trails were created as stock driveways, they have, over time, become system trails for the recreating public. Several of these trails have even been designated to allow motorized use and have seen a substantial increase in use by the current insurgence of ATV use. The past, present, and reasonably foreseeable use of these trails by permitted livestock, recreational users (foot and horse), and the addition of motorized use in the recent past and expected increases in the future constitute a cumulative effect to the stock driveways and trails used as trailing routes. Trail management and maintenance efforts have been taking place to keep up with the increased use of these trails.

Summary

Overall, this alternative would be expected to meet Forest Plan standards and guidelines and the Forest Plan desired conditions for rangeland resources. This alternative will provide a risk assessment, project design criteria, and monitoring to give rangeland managers the tools to manage the separation between bighorn sheep and domestic sheep. If monitoring shows that the Forest Plan desired conditions are not being met, rangeland managers can implement another tool from the Grazing Management Toolbox (or any other applicable tool or strategy available within the scope of this EIS; see chapter 2, table 2-3) to adjust management to move conditions


71

toward Forest Plan desired conditions. This alternative would provide the higher degree of management flexibility needed to deal with larger more complicated issues such as the separation between bighorn sheep and domestic sheep. Alternative 3 will make available the ability to make long-term changes without doing a separate NEPA analysis for these potentially bigger changes. The higher degree of management flexibility needed would also be desirable to deal with unforeseen issues that may arise in the future.

3.4.2 Wilderness/Recreation/Travel Management

3.4.2.1 Scope of the Analysis This section addresses wilderness, recreation, trails, and travel management within the analysis area as shown in chapter 1, section 1.4.

Wilderness resources and values are difficult to describe and quantify because of the complexity of the resources and the range and variety of personal feelings about wilderness. This analysis uses the Wilderness Act of 1964, Congressional Grazing Guidelines, the Forest Plan, and the 1989 Rocky Mountain Region Wilderness Management Philosophy (USDA Forest Service 1989) to assess the primary characteristics and values inherent to wilderness.

The national recreational opportunity spectrum (ROS) and the Forest Plan are used to define and manage the expected recreation experience in this analysis. The Forest Plan provides the management framework for the recreation resource. The Forest Plan designated each part of the Forest into management area (MA) prescriptions (see chapter 1, section 1.7.1). These MA include standards and guidelines for managing recreation and other Forest resources. The ROS is an inventory tool used to describe the existing condition of recreation opportunities. The Forest Plan assigned a range of appropriate recreation settings using the ROS. These are used to guide management activities in order to maintain or attain a defined range of recreation opportunities. The ROS classes are defined in detail in appendix B.

3.4.2.2 Past Actions That Have Affected the Existing Condition

Wilderness

The South San Juan Wilderness was formed in 1980 and the inclusion of all or parts of the North Fork/Middle Fork, Upper Adams, West Vega, and Treasure Allotments, with 31 percent of the analysis area falling into that wilderness: On December 22, 1980 the United States Congress designated the South San Juan Wilderness as part of the National Wilderness Preservation System (Public Law 96-560). On August 13, 1993, legislation was enacted enlarging the wilderness (Public Law 103-77).

Both laws establishing the South San Juan Wilderness include, by reference, the Wilderness Act that originally created the National Wilderness Preservation System (Public Law 88-577). The Wilderness Act provides congressional direction for the management of wilderness. The parts of the Wilderness Act which relate to recreation and livestock grazing within the South San Juan Wilderness are provided below.

Section 2. (a) “In order to assure that an increasing population, accompanied by expanding settlement and growing mechanization, does not occupy and modify all areas within the United States and its possessions, leaving no lands designated for preservation and protection in their natural condition, it is hereby declared to be the policy of the Congress to secure for the American people of present and future generations the benefits of an enduring


72

resource of wilderness. For this purpose there is hereby established a National Wilderness Preservation System to be composed of federally owned areas designated by Congress as “wilderness areas”, and these shall be administered for the use and enjoyment of the American people in such manner as will leave them unimpaired for future use as wilderness, and so as to provide for the protection of these areas, the preservation of their wilderness character, and for the gathering and dissemination of information regarding their use and enjoyment as wilderness....”

Section 2. (c) “A wilderness, in contrast with those areas where man and his own works dominate the landscape, is hereby recognized as an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain. An area of wilderness is further defined to mean in this chapter an area of undeveloped Federal land retaining its primeval character and influence, without permanent improvements or human habitation, which is protected and managed so as to preserve its natural conditions and which (1) generally appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature, with the imprint of man's work substantially unnoticeable; (2) has outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation; (3) has at least five thousand acres of land or is of sufficient size as to make practicable its preservation and use in an unimpaired condition; and (4) may also contain ecological, geological, or other features of scientific, educational, scenic, or historical value.”

Section 4. (b) “Except as otherwise provided in this Act, each agency administering any area designated as wilderness shall be responsible for preserving the wilderness character of the area and shall so administer such area for such other purposes for which it may have been established as also to preserve its wilderness character. Except as otherwise provided in this Act, wilderness areas shall be devoted to the public purpose of recreational, scenic, educational, conservation, and historical use.”

Section 4. (d)(4)(2) “the grazing of livestock, where established prior to the effective date of this Act, shall be permitted to continue subject to such reasonable regulations as are deemed necessary by the Secretary of Agriculture.”

In addition, domestic livestock grazing activities are permitted in accordance with the Congressional Grazing Guidelines (reiterated in FSM 2323.2).

Recreation

The analysis area has been a part of the National Forest System for over 100 years and public recreation has been considered an appropriate activity since that time. Popular recreation activities included driving-for-pleasure, viewing scenery and wildlife, camping in campgrounds, backpacking, horseback riding, hiking, picnicking, hunting, or fishing. There are several outfitters who are authorized to provide services to hunters and fishermen on National Forest System land within the analysis area.

The small mountain village of Platoro is only occupied when snow levels allow driving access, usually less than 6 months of the year. Platoro serves as a base for those wishing to visit the National Forest and includes rental cabins, a small lodge, outfitter-guide services, and horseback rides.

Because grazing has been a historic use in the South San Juan Wilderness and surrounding areas that serve as recreational bases, over time, recreational use has evolved and has occurred concurrently with livestock grazing.


73

Trails/Travel Management

People have historically accessed the analysis area by trail and primitive road. The La Manga Stock Driveway was a trail along with other stock driveways to facilitate sheep grazing before the RGNF was established. Later, trails and primitive roads were developed throughout the area for recreation purposes. Until 1980 and the wilderness designation, there was motorized access into the analysis area on these trails and primitive roads. These now form the basis for the designated trail system which no longer allows motorized or mechanical means of access.

3.4.2.3 Existing Condition

Analysis Area-Wide—South San Juan Wilderness

The South San Juan Wilderness covers approximately 158,790 acres and extends onto both the Rio Grande and San Juan National Forests. Approximately 31 percent of the analysis area occurs within the South San Juan Wilderness (see chapter 1, section 1.4, figure 1-1). The South San Juan Wilderness is an outstanding example and important component of the National Wilderness Preservation System. Although much of the area is at high elevation, it has relatively modest terrain. However, this relatively gentle terrain is also sharply down-cut by the South Fork of the Conejos River, Elk Creek, and other tributaries of the Conejos River main branch, creating rugged topography with dramatic vistas of mountain valleys with cliffs, waterfalls, and diverse alpine and subalpine vegetation. The Forest Plan identified Hansen Creek as an eligible “wild river” and the East Fork of the Rio Chama as an eligible “scenic river” within the South San Juan Wilderness. The analysis area also includes various high elevation peaks, the Continental Divide, and many alpine lakes. The South San Juan Wilderness continues to be a source of clean air and water. It is relatively free of landscape modifications with the exception of minor recreation improvements.

Livestock grazing has occurred in the analysis area and the South San Juan Wilderness for over the past 100 years. Because permitted livestock grazing was established in the analysis area well before Congress designated the South San Juan Wilderness area in 1980, livestock grazing is an allowable use of this wilderness area (also see chapter 1, section 1.7). The Forest Plan also allows for domestic livestock grazing within the wilderness (chapter 1, section 1.7.1).

This historical livestock grazing (see section 3.4.1 in this chapter for historic stocking levels), along with wildlife foraging, have shaped the vegetation conditions within the wilderness. These vegetation conditions were considered, along with other factors, and were found to meet the wilderness character by Congress when the South San Juan Wilderness was included into the National Wilderness Preservation System. At the time of wilderness designation in 1980, stocking levels were over 7,000 sheep with no vacant allotments. Since wilderness designation, there has been no degradation in the vegetation condition due to livestock grazing. Vegetation conditions have been improving over most of the analysis area (see section 3.4.1, this chapter). The wilderness values and characteristics existing at the time the South San Juan was designated as wilderness in 1980 have been maintained and are still available today.

While allowed by the Wilderness Act, there are no livestock structural improvements within the analysis area to affect wilderness characteristics.

Recreation in the South San Juan Wilderness and Analysis Area

The analysis area is popular for public recreation. The South San Juan Wilderness is a favorite destination for those seeking the pristine scenery associated with the southern Colorado Rocky Mountains. There are abundant opportunities for solitude and a primitive recreation experience.


74

Most visitors to the area participate in one of the following activities: hiking, horseback riding, hunting, fishing, viewing nature, camping, and seeking solitude. Almost all recreation occurs during the snow-free and low-snow periods. The Fourth of July weekend is the first major time of use; use generally decreases after Labor Day. Hunting becomes the primary activity during the fall hunting seasons. The amount of recreation use by the public in winter is very small. Unauthorized, illegal motorized access by motorcycles, ATVs, and snowmobiles occurs occasionally within the wilderness, with the primary illegal use by snowmobiles in winter.

There are a great number and variety of recreation opportunities within the analysis area. Forest Service Roads #250, #247, #257, #380, #243,#244, #245, and #330 provide major transportation corridors and are by themselves opportunities for driving-for-pleasure and for viewing scenery and wildlife. A more primitive, but important recreation travel corridor exists along the Treasure Creek Road #243 and #257 Road. The Rito Gato Road (#245) provides local, but important access. The Conejos River and its tributaries are nationally important sport fisheries. Throughout the analysis area, big game hunting opportunities are nationally important.

Outfitter/guides are authorized to provide services within the analysis area. The majority (95 percent) of the permitted use is for big game hunting during September and October, and is spread evenly throughout the entire analysis area. The remainder of the outfitter/guide use is summer backpacking, horse packing, and fishing trips.

Recreation use is restricted within the South San Juan Wilderness. The following special restrictions apply:

Party size limit is 15 people; a combined people/livestock party size limit is 25.

Hitching or tethering livestock is prohibited where posted.

Camping within 100 feet of any lake or stream is prohibited except in designated areas.

Campfires within 100 feet of any lake or stream are prohibited.

Dogs must be on a leash or under voice control.

Only certified noxious weed-free hay and straw is allowed.

No camping and camp fires within 200 feet of the lake.

o No hitching, tethering or otherwise restricting a horse or other saddle or pack animal within 200 feet of the lake.

o No grazing within 200 feet of the lake.

The ROS classes for the analysis area are shown below in figure 3-1. Based on GIS information, the majority of the area (approximately 14,881 acres) falls into a ROS of “primitive wilderness pristine”, which has been further subdivided into two subcategories labeled as PRS and PRM shown in figure 3-1. The rest of the analysis area contains estimated acre amounts of the following ROS delineations: (a) 13,863 acres of “roaded natural” (MR); (b) 10,815 acres of “semi-primitive non-motorized” (SPNM); and (c) 7,818 acres of “semi-primitive motorized” (SPM).

The Forest Plan allows livestock grazing as an appropriate and authorized use in all ROS classes including the primitive ROS within the analysis area. Therefore, recreation visitors can expect to encounter domestic livestock at times as part of their experience in these settings. The ROS classes are defined in detail in appendix B.


75

Livestock grazing is permitted within the South San Juan Wilderness and the analysis area. It is common for visitors to encounter a herd of domestic sheep either along the trail network or at or near the visitor’s destination point. Grazing within the analysis area may affect the recreation experience in that visitors may see, hear, and smell sheep and the associated livestock. A visitor may encounter droppings, odors, bleating, working dogs, sheep herders, and their horses and camps.

Figure 3-1. Recreation opportunity spectrum (ROS) within the analysis area


Motorized travel is allowed within the analysis areas to areas that are outside the South San Juan Wilderness boundary. Within the South San Juan Wilderness, travel is restricted to primitive

non-mechanized means; typically riding and pack stock or foot traffic. Within the Backcountry and Forest Products MA prescriptions in the analysis area outside of the wilderness, general Forest travel restrictions apply which limit vehicular motorized travel to designated roads and trails.

There are portions of nine major trails that are included in the analysis area: The Continental Divide National Scenic Trail (CDNST) #813, The Middle Fork Trail #712.1, North Fork Trail #714, North Fork Cutoff #714.1, Adams Fork Trail #713, Treasure Creek trail #710, Crater Lake Trail #707, Dry Creek Trail #700, and Willow Mtn. Trail #737 (see chapter 2, figure 2-1) for livestock trailing routes. Portions of the Willow Mtn. (Hot Creek Stock Driveway) and Dry Creek stock driveways are open to motorized use. Treasure trail # 710 as discussed in the section 3.4 (Range Resources), is planned for maintenance/reconstruction.


76

The Three Forks, Middle Fork, and Adams Fork trails are all used to some extent to trail (move livestock from one area to another) within the grazing pasture. In some locations livestock trailing can only occur in the same location where hiking trails are located because steep or rocky terrain blocks alternative routes. In areas where terrain and vegetation are favorable it may be feasible to keep livestock away from the trail system.

Grazing is permitted within the South San Juan Wilderness and the analysis area. It is common for visitors to encounter a herd of domestic sheep either along the trail network or at or near the visitor’s destination point. Grazing within the analysis area may affect the recreation experience in that visitors may see, hear, and smell sheep and the associated livestock. A visitor may encounter droppings, odors, bleating, working dogs, sheep herders, and their horses and camps.

3.4.2.4 Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects None of the alternatives would be expected to result in significant direct, indirect, or cumulative effects to the recreation resource, trail/travel system and wilderness designation within the analysis area. None of the alternatives would be expected to produce irreversible or irretrievable commitments of the recreation resource, trail/travel system, or wilderness designation.

Livestock grazing is a historical and legal use of the analysis area allotments and for the allotments that fall within the South San Juan Wilderness Area, and creates only short-term minor impacts to the vegetation and other resources. These minor impacts have not impaired the wilderness characteristics or diminished the opportunity for future use as wilderness.

Effects of livestock grazing on wilderness characteristics are presented in detail by specific resource in the different resource sections of this chapter. The effects on plant communities and wildlife, the resources most likely to be impacted, are presented in more detail within those resource sections.

The Forest Service is committed to providing a quality recreation experience to the visitor within the context of the Forest Plan and this analysis provides alternatives with different strategies to minimize the impacts of livestock grazing on the recreation experience.

Visitor knowledge of grazing activities is important in defining recreation expectations. Some people may have expectations of a recreation experience with no encounters with domestic livestock. Conflicts can arise when people encounter livestock and their expectations are not met. However, the Forest Plan allows livestock grazing as an appropriate and authorized use in all ROS classes including the primitive ROS within the analysis area. Therefore, recreation visitors should expect to encounter domestic livestock at times as part of their experience in these settings. If visitors have provided information about livestock grazing activities within the analysis area before they encounter livestock, they can make their plans accordingly or they can go to areas where they will not encounter livestock.

It is common for visitors to encounter a band of domestic sheep either along the trail network or near the visitor’s destination point. Some visitors have commented that they feel livestock encounters diminish the quality of their recreation experience. Others visitors are neutral, or enjoy the pastoral/western-heritage experience of seeing livestock. The Forest Service acknowledges that the public is not unified in accepting livestock grazing in wilderness (Asmus and Kearney 1990; Mitchell et al. 1996; Johnson et al. 1997; Shields et al. 2002). National Forest visitor perceptions gathered by Mitchell and Miller (1996) on the Rio Grande and Uncompahgre National Forests in Colorado acknowledge that many wilderness visitors feel that domestic livestock tend to detract from their visit. We also recognize the general public may be


77

unclear that the Wilderness Act allows for the administration of pre-existing livestock grazing permits in wilderness areas, based on visitor perceptions research conducted on the RGNF (Mitchell and Miller 1996).

Permitted livestock grazing within the analysis area may affect the recreation experience in that visitors may see, hear, and smell sheep and the associated livestock. A visitor may encounter droppings, odors, bleating, working dogs, sheep herders, and their horses and camps when sheep are present. Visitor encounters with individual sheep are rare since sheep are managed in bands. Encounters with sheep are usually in bands and therefore the number of sheep in a band is less of a factor than the number of sheep bands in an area, or the amount of area a sheep band can be dispersed into. Management flexibility can, at times, provide for minimizing the potential for interaction between sheep bands and the visiting public.

It should be noted that recreation visitors also can have an adverse impact on livestock grazing. Livestock can be harassed, harmed, or stolen by recreationists and their pets. Working dogs have been taken because they were mistakenly thought to be lost from their owners.

Livestock grazing can have an adverse impact on the operation and maintenance of a trail system if not conducted properly. Trails are designed and maintained to reduce loss of fine surface material by erosion and to encourage foot and horse traffic to stay on the trail. Livestock grazing operations tend to impact such design features as water bars, switchbacks, and the overall alignment of the trails, and thus, can impair proper functioning of the trail system.

In some locations sheep trailing can only occur in the same location where hiking trails are located because steep or rocky terrain blocks alternative routes. In areas where terrain and vegetation are favorable it may be feasible to keep sheep away from the trail system.


Wilderness

Permitted livestock grazing has occurred within portions of the wilderness area for over a century and has become part of and shaped the wilderness character. Because the effects of grazing on wilderness characteristics are limited, there would be little noticeable change to the wilderness characteristics of the South San Juan Wilderness if grazing was no longer permitted.

Cumulatively, the Wilderness would still generally have the appearance of being affected primarily by the forces of nature and would continue to provide opportunities for solitude and a primitive recreation experience. Elimination of livestock grazing would not be expected to change recreation use or patterns sufficiently to significantly change wilderness character (also see “Recreation” subtopic immediately below).

Recreation

Alternative 1 would not allocate any acres to permitted livestock. Therefore, under this alternative, there would be no recreation visitor and livestock interactions. The possibility of negative interactions between permitted livestock and recreation visitors would be eliminated.

The expected ROS experience would remain unchanged.

Cumulatively, there are no known future proposed actions in the foreseeable future (next two decades) that would significantly change recreation use or patterns. Elimination of livestock would not be expected to create dramatic shifts in recreation use. Recreation use in this area is


78

expected to grow somewhat commensurate with population growth. Colorado is expected to grow at a rate of 2 percent per year over the next several decades. A smaller rate of growth is expected for the San Luis Valley (1 percent per year) over this same time period (see appendix D).

For recreation livestock, cumulative effects of this alternative could see a potential increase in the number of recreation livestock use within the South San Juan Wilderness and analysis area.


This alternative would have no effect on trails or travel management. The existing trails maintenance program would continue. The minor amount of additional trail maintenance currently attributed to livestock impacts would be eliminated. Cumulatively, no additional infrastructure is proposed in the foreseeable future (next two decades). Elimination of livestock grazing would not be expected to change recreation use or patterns sufficiently to significantly affect travel management (also see “Recreation” subtopic immediately above).

Alternative 2 (Current Livestock Grazing Management) Alternative 2 would not result in significant direct, indirect, or cumulative effects to the wilderness, recreation resource, or trail system within the analysis area.

Wilderness

Alternative 2 would not result in significant direct, indirect, or cumulative effects to the South San Juan Wilderness. The direct and indirect effects when combined with the cumulative effects would be minor and insignificant.

Livestock management in wilderness requires special consideration of wilderness values.

Livestock grazing is a legal use of the South San Juan Wilderness and would continue under this alternative. The existing wilderness condition, which includes livestock grazing, would continue. Livestock would be managed within wilderness to minimize impacts on the natural environment and to avoid conflict with other users of the area. Grazing has occurred within portions of the wilderness area for over a century and has become part of and shaped the wilderness character. The wilderness characteristics of the South San Juan Wilderness would remain unchanged and intact. No livestock structural improvements would occur.

Recreation

Alternative 2 would not result in significant direct, indirect, or cumulative effects to the recreation resource. Under this alternative, the recreation conditions described under “Existing Conditions” above would continue. Grazing within the analysis area may impact the recreation experience in that:

Visitors may see, hear, and smell sheep and the associated livestock.

A visitor may encounter droppings, odors, bleating, working dogs, sheep herders, and their horses and camps.

There would be fewer management restrictions to livestock grazing to reduce the effects on the recreation resource.

Less management flexibility to resolve livestock/visitor conflicts.

Interactions between livestock and recreation visitors would continue with recreation visitor and sheep interactions predicted to be relatively low to moderate in nature in suitable areas. The


79

most probable areas of interaction would continue to be the gentle topography, areas close to water, and areas close to the Dry Creek Stock Driveway and the Hot Creek Stock Driveway. Sheep are actively managed in bands so they are regularly herded as a unit to different locations. Therefore, livestock and the potential for interaction with visitors are not dispersed equally over time or throughout the whole analysis area.

There is less flexibility to move livestock to other areas to reduce the level of recreation encounters with this alternative relative to alternative 3. Alternative 2 would be less responsive to limiting negative interactions between permitted livestock and recreation use. Annual changes made in the AOI would generally be by exception.

The expected ROS experience would remain unchanged. Cumulatively, there are no known future proposed actions in the foreseeable future (next two decades) that would significantly change recreation use or patterns. Current livestock use would not be expected to create dramatic shifts in recreation use. Recreation use as well as the use of recreational livestock in this area is expected to grow somewhat commensurate with population growth.


Alternative 2 would not result in significant direct, indirect, or cumulative effects to the trails system. The direct and indirect effects when combined with the cumulative effects would be minor and insignificant. The existing trails maintenance program would continue.

This alternative could have a minor impact on trails and travel management in the following ways:

There would be fewer restrictions on livestock grazing to reduce the effects on trails relative to alternative 3.

The trail conditions described under “Existing Conditions” above would continue.

Livestock impacts to water bars, switchbacks, and the overall alignment of the trails could impair the proper functioning of the trail system and could result in additional trail maintenance to correct problems.

Interactions on the trails between permitted livestock and visitors would tend to continue.

There would be no additional management restrictions above and beyond those currently implemented to livestock grazing to reduce the effects on the recreation resource.

There would be less management flexibility to resolve livestock/visitor conflicts, especially on the Middle and North Fork trails where livestock and visitor interactions occur more often.

Cumulatively, there would be an increase in trail maintenance needed relative to alternative 1 due to livestock impacts to the trails. No additional infrastructure is proposed in the foreseeable future (next two decades). Current livestock grazing would not be expected to change recreation use or patterns sufficiently to significantly affect travel management.

Alternative 3 (Adaptive Livestock Grazing Management) Alternative 3 would not result in significant direct, indirect, or cumulative effects to the wilderness, recreation resource, or trail system within the analysis area.


80

Wilderness

Alternative 3 would not result in significant direct, indirect, or cumulative effects to the South San Juan Wilderness. The direct and indirect effects to wilderness when combined with the cumulative effects would be minor and insignificant.

Livestock management in wilderness requires special consideration of wilderness values.

Livestock grazing is a legal use of the South San Juan Wilderness and would continue under this alternative. The existing wilderness condition which includes grazing would continue. Livestock would be managed within wilderness to minimize impacts on the natural environment and to avoid conflict with other users of the area. Grazing has occurred within portions of the wilderness area for over a century and has become part of and shaped the wilderness character.

The wilderness characteristics of the South San Juan Wilderness would remain unchanged and intact. No livestock structural improvements would occur. Approximately 39 percent of the analysis area would be suitable for livestock grazing, while the remaining 61 percent of the analysis area would be unsuitable for grazing and unlikely to be directly affected by livestock grazing.

Appropriate livestock grazing creates only minor short-term impacts to vegetation and other resources. Because the effects of grazing on wilderness characteristics are limited, there would be no change to the existing wilderness characteristics of the South San Juan Wilderness. These minor impacts would not impair the wilderness character or diminish the opportunity for future use as wilderness.

Cumulatively, the wilderness would still generally have the appearance of being affected primarily by the forces of nature and would continue to provide opportunities for solitude and a primitive recreation experience. Adaptive livestock grazing management would not be expected to change recreation use or patterns sufficiently to significantly change wilderness character.

Recreation

Alternative 3 would not result in significant direct, indirect, or cumulative effects to the recreation resource. The direct and indirect effects when combined with the cumulative effects would be minor and insignificant. Grazing within the analysis area may affect the recreation experience in that visitors may see, hear, and smell sheep and the associated livestock and encounter droppings, odors, bleating, working dogs, sheep herders, and their horses and camps when sheep are present. This alternative would result in fewer effects to the recreation resource than alternative 2, but more than alternative 1. This alternative provides the most management restrictions to livestock grazing to reduce the effects on the recreation resource and the most flexibility to resolve livestock/visitor conflicts. Under alternative 3, recreational users would most likely be impacted in the following ways:

Visitors may see, hear, and smell sheep and the associated livestock.

A visitor may encounter droppings, odors, bleating, working dogs, sheep herders, and their horses and camps.

Alternative 3 provides the most livestock grazing management restrictions to reduce effects to recreation. The livestock effects to recreation would be minimized by the application of the project design criteria for this alternative described in detail in chapter 2, section 2.7.


81

There would be greater management restrictions to livestock grazing which could greatly reduce the effects on the recreation resources.

More management flexibility allows greater resolution between livestock and visitor conflicts in areas where interaction is common such as the Middle Fork and North Fork Trails.

Preventing livestock from entering bighorn/domestic sheep high interaction zones would greatly reduce recreational and livestock interactions, resulting in a greater outdoor experience for recreational users.

Outreach/education will be implemented by the Forest Service in the form of notices posted at trailheads, informing users and potential users of pack goats of the risks to bighorn sheep from contact with domestic sheep and goats.

Notices will encourage recreational users keep their pack goats from coming into contact with bighorn sheep. Recreational users will be encouraged to keep goats in close control, picketed or night-penned to prevent strays. Prompt reporting of potential or observed interaction between bighorn sheep and domestic sheep and goats will be encouraged.

Information would be made available at the Conejos Peak Ranger District office about livestock grazing rotation schedules so that recreation visitors who desire to avoid encounters with livestock may use this information to plan their trips to avoid areas of active grazing (see chapter 2, section 2.7.14, “Information Notifications”). People with appropriate knowledge of grazing activities will not have recreation expectations which fall outside of the ROS class.

Alternative 3 has the greatest amount of flexibility with grazing management and provides the most opportunities to reduce the effects of livestock grazing to recreation. Alternative 3 is based on adaptive livestock grazing management which provides the ability to relatively easily change grazing systems, seasons of use, and livestock numbers on an annual basis to respond to potential site-specific areas of conflict with recreation or changes in recreation use, provided such adaptive modifications are covered with this NEPA analysis and decision. If needed, this alternative would use the list of management techniques (chapter 2, section 2.4, table 2-3, Grazing Management Toolbox) to separate livestock grazing activities from areas where the public concentrates. This is envisioned for most of the trail system and for most of the principle lakes.

When sheep bands are successfully herded away from people, or when people have the knowledge to plan their travels to avoid sheep, the consequences of direct interactions between visitors and sheep bands described under “Existing Conditions” above, would be reduced.

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 the flexibility to make timely changes. 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 EIS) to adjust management to move conditions toward Forest Plan desired conditions.

The expected ROS experience would likely remain unchanged under this alternative. Cumulatively, there are no known future proposed actions in the foreseeable future (next two decades) that would significantly change recreation use or patterns. Livestock use would not be expected to create dramatic shifts in recreation use. Recreation use in this area is expected to grow somewhat commensurate with population growth.


82

Cumulatively, alternative 3 would have minimal impact to recreational livestock use other than pack goat use. Because pack goats can transmit disease between themselves, domestic livestock, and bighorn sheep, the encouragement to avoid camping with pack goats in high risk areas could have a negative cumulative impact on recreational users that use pack goats. However, the analysis area has very few recreationists that use pack goats; therefore, cumulative impacts would be minimal.


Alternative 3 would not result in significant direct, indirect, or cumulative effects to the trails. The direct and indirect effects when combined with the cumulative effects would be minor and insignificant. The existing trails maintenance program would continue.

This alternative could have a minor impact on trails and travel management in the following ways:

There would be greater restrictions on livestock grazing to reduce the effects on trails relative to alternative 2.

The trail conditions described under “Existing Conditions” above would continue.

Interactions on the trails between permitted livestock and visitors could decline in high to moderate risk sheep/bighorn interaction areas.

Adjust livestock trailing time and could eliminate trailing on driveways, roads, and trails that fall within the moderate risk sheep/bighorn interaction area which would greatly reduce livestock and recreation interactions on access routes, especially on the Middle and North Fork trails where livestock and visitor interactions occur more often.

Cumulatively, there could be a decrease in trail maintenance needed relative to alternative 2 due to the removal of livestock impacts to trails in designated high sheep/bighorn interaction areas. Livestock grazing would not be expected to change recreation use or patterns sufficiently to significantly affect travel management.

3.4.3 Watershed and Aquatic Resources

3.4.3.1 Scope of the Analysis This analysis discusses watersheds and the aquatic environment. Sixth-level watersheds have been selected for analysis. Streams and watersheds in the analysis area are shown in figure 3-2. All streams shown on U.S. Geological Survey Quad maps plus all additional channels that can be recognized from topography at 1:24,000-scale are on the map. Riparian areas and aquatic life are associated with most channels shown. The 12 allotments are spread out over portions of 11 different watersheds. Main streams within the analysis area are also shown.


83

Figure 3-2. Allotment locations within 6th-level watersheds

3.4.3.2 Past Actions that Have Affected the Existing Condition Portions of the watersheds affected by these rangeland allotments have been given wilderness and backcountry designation (figure 3-3), so surface disturbing activities have been very limited in those areas. Recreation in those areas has caused minimal disturbance. The non-wilderness portions of some watersheds have also 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.

Historical livestock grazing affected existing conditions in 6th-level watersheds that contain North San Juan allotment lands. Impacts were high in the early 1900s, and have slowly improved over time. All watersheds have had some road construction in the past, but it has not been unusually excessive. Previous mining activity in the Alamosa drainage (Summitville) continues to impact water quality. Other past activities include Platoro Reservoir and associated residential area.


84

Figure 3-3. Wilderness, wild rivers, and backcountry areas

3.4.3.3 Existing Condition A summary of stream and riparian health on streams within grazing allotments follows. Additional photos and details are provided in the Watershed Specialist Report included in the project record. Rosgen’s classification system is used to describe stream channel types (Rosgen 1996).

Campo Bonito Allotment

Upper East Fork Pinos Creek. Upper reaches of East Fork Pinos Creek near Hutchison Corral are deeply incised E-channels within large, wet sedge meadows (photo 3-1). These channels have stable channel banks with only minor exceptions. Some small “potholes” are present along these channels, mainly the result of seepage into the stream. Livestock did not appear to utilize this area to any extent. Downstream to the north, E-channels are not as entrenched and have angular small-medium cobble and coarse gravel substrate. Riparian vegetation was healthy.

Upper East Fork of Pinos Creek also has healthy E-stream reaches. Stream width is about 1.5 feet. Tributaries that flow south from Bonito Mountain have similar healthy conditions. Narrow, deep E-channels have robust sedge that stabilizes banks.

Cropsy and Summit Allotments

Wightman Fork Tributary/Big Hollow. Stream reaches in this upper watershed area of Wightman Fork are healthy and have good riparian vegetation (willow/sedge) and stability. Stream type is narrow B-3 (photo 3-2).


85

Upper Big Hollow stream channel is lined with thick willow and stream type is B2/3. Near the upper end of the drainage willow is less prevalent. In upper reaches of Big Hollow, stream types are A-3 with some E-3. Some local trailing impact is present, but overall stream health is robust.

Sawmill Creek: Upper tributaries to Sawmill Creek are within sedge meadow, and vegetation is healthy. Channels are swale type in uppermost areas, and distinct channels are developed down gradient. Stream types downstream are E-3/4. Banks are stable with a low percentage of exposed soil.

Thick, short willows cover much of upper Sawmill drainage. Above one short reach where a livestock crossing had caused bare bank areas, stream health is robust with healthy sedge. Downstream from this area stream health is also good, with thick willow cover. This cover protects the stream, and much of this upper meadow area is a discharge zone (photo 3-3). Below the sedge meadow, a narrow B2/3 with robust stream health channel flows through timber.

Tributary to Sawmill-North Elephant Mountain: A small meadow lies on the northwest side of Elephant Mountain. This area is tributary to Sawmill Creek. The sedge meadow has healthy vegetation, and impacts by wildlife and livestock use was light.

Cornwall Mtn. Allotment

Upper Robinson Gulch/Upper Fisher Gulch. Several tributaries to Conejos River are located on south slopes of Cornwall Mtn. Upper stream reaches are wide swales that are grass and cobble-lined or on bedrock. One small watering pond was noted that has habitat for amphibians. Channel health in these upper tributaries is robust. Sedge along channels stabilizes banks and bedload consists of coarse gravel. Several spring areas are on the south face of Cornwall Mtn. Small A-2/3 streams have stable banks and healthy riparian, although small, localized areas were noted with short stubble height. Bank stability was well within Forest guidelines.

Along these perennial and intermittent tributaries, livestock use appears to be more common along the stream, where they favor riparian plants. However, banks remain stable and stubble height is adequate overall (photo 3-4). Coarse cobble alluvium and bank sediments help limit impact by livestock.

(Left) Photo 3-1. Upstream, UTM 363797/414654; (Right) Photo 3-2. Upstream UTM 357681/4144337.


86

Upper Robinson Gulch. In upper Robinson Gulch, meadow vegetation is healthy, and livestock do not appear to impact stream health to any degree. Healthy B-2/3 streams are below zones of spring discharge. Areas on the south slopes of Cornwall Mtn. have been logged in the past. These areas have good regeneration and growth of shrubs.

East Vega Allotment

Rito Gato. The main stem Rito Gato is in robust condition and has stable banks with little exposed bare soil. The Hilman Park area is a wet sedge meadow. Several small tributaries to main Rito Gato channel are present and coarse cobble lines these stable channels. The main Rito Gato stream is somewhat entrenched in some areas and is a B-3 or E-3 stream type. The lower reach where gradient increases sharply and becomes more confined in a narrow valley is a B-3 or A-3 type. Some natural bare slopes are present along the lower reach of Rito Gato. Within the main meadow area, Rito Gato is mainly an E-3/4 stream that in some areas is more entrenched and may fall into a B stream type (photo 3-5). This may be due to the stream channel being somewhat unstable some time ago when G-channel morphology developed and has since healed well. Stream stability today is very good, with healthy sedge along the channel. Bedload coarsens upstream into large cobble and small boulder. Stream type becomes A-3 with a few small boulders. Seepage from the adjacent meadow area emanates from banks along this creek.

(Left) Photo 3-5. Downstream, UTM 359373/4134598; (Right) Photo 3-6. Upstream; UTM 356255/4140957

(Left) Photo 3-3. Upstream, UTM 360096/4145188; (Right) Photo 3-4. Downstream; UTM 366875/4136356


87

On the upper reach of Rito Gato, some unstable bank is present on outside meanders, but percent unstable bank is well within Forest guidelines. This exposed bank appears to be due to seepage discharge zones and not livestock related. Upstream, stream width decreases and bedload becomes more coarse, being small boulder and large cobble. Stream stability is excellent and vegetation was robust when the site was visited in 2005.

Elwood Allotment

Iron Creek. Iron Creek and its tributaries drain Schinzel Flats. This high meadow area just south of Elwood Pass is predominately a large wet sedge meadow. Stream health on small E-stream type tributaries is robust, with little livestock use along channels. Some localized cut bank is present, but it is minor.

On the main stem of Iron Creek, stream type remains E with healthy sedge (photo 3-6). Sediment load within Iron Creek is high, with abundant medium to coarse gravel that forms bars. Although a lot of sediment is moved, banks are for the most part very stable. Numerous trout were observed along this stream. Iron Creek appears to be slightly wider than it should be, but banks are currently stable. This could be due to historic impacts that widened this stream channel. Upstream on Iron Creek toward the middle of Schinzel Flats, reaches have recovered from heavy historic use, as shown by good vegetation and E-channel development within an incised G channel shape. One reach in this area still has a lot of bare soil exposed and is a source of part of the sediment in Iron Creek. This reach that extends upstream was an historic heavy use area and has not recovered well. This reach is approximately 300-yards-long, and an old roadbed crossed at one point. Current grazing does not appear to be a major contributor to bank instability, but healing is slow due to high, dry bank erosion and coarse soils. This reach is trending to a C-3/4 stream type due to widening and shallow depth. A stream flow gage site is just upstream from this area. There is a geomorphic nick point in stream grade here, with steeper grade below and more gentle upstream.

Tributary to Iron Creek. A small tributary to Iron Creek flows from the north part of Schnizel Flats. Stream bank stability and vegetation are excellent. Stream type is E/B-3 with some sand. A small percentage of outer meander bare soil areas is present, but well within Forest guidelines. On Iron Creek just downstream from the junction of this tributary and Iron Creek, stream health remains robust. Sedge dominates, although some willows are present. Stream type is mainly A-2/3. On upper Iron Creek in photo 3-7, stream type is E-4 with some cobble. This channel is stable with healthy sedge. Further upstream on Iron Creek, width narrows and depth increases. Stream health is also excellent on this reach.

Prospect Creek. Prospect Creek is a B-3 stream type with stable banks and healthy riparian vegetation. Some E-3 stream reaches are present where width narrows. Some log structures have been placed in the stream to create pools. Upstream, the channel has the appearance of a stream that was wider and possibly had more of a G-type channel at some time in the past, but since has healed well and is stable (photo 3-8). Short willow and sedge stabilize banks. Unstable bank percentage is low. Bedload is medium to small cobble with some coarse gravel. The stream appears to carry quite a bit of bedload naturally, and the streambed is somewhat ridged.


88

Treasure Allotment

Tributary to Treasure Creek. The south tributary to upper Treasure Creek is a B-2/3 stream that lies within a narrow, steep valley. Riparian vegetation is healthy, with only localized trailing/crossing impacts. Where the valley walls are steep and eroded into bedrock, livestock use is restricted.

Above this canyon on stream reaches adjacent to a large meadow area, stream types are B-3 and E-3, with some C-3 (photo 3-9). Bedload is mainly large to medium cobble with some coarse gravel. Stream banks are stable and riparian vegetation is in excellent health in this upper watershed area.

West Vega Allotment

Gold Creek. Gold Creek is a tributary to upper Alamosa River. Above Hilman Lake, the stream is an A-3 stream with some gravel. Some naturally bare soil/weathered bedrock areas are steep and add some fine sediment to the stream. Many of these lower reaches are high energy A-stream types. Upstream as gradient decreases, stream type becomes E-3 (photo 3-10). Bedload is mainly large cobble with some small boulder. Riparian is comprised of thick, healthy willow and sedge. A minor amount of localized outer meander bend erosion has occurred on one upstream reach where gradient increases. However, overall stability on these E-reaches is well within Forest guidelines. Some upper reaches of Gold Creek are within a rocky, narrow stream valley. Stream reaches within the uppermost reaches observed are in robust stream health, with only minor/localized outer meander erosion.

Overall, livestock impacts are light in this drainage and bare, unstable bank is localized and located on reaches where gradient increases or where seepage from the sedge meadow enters the stream.

(Left) Photo 3-7. Upstream, UTM 355183/4140639; (Right) Photo 3-8. Upstream, UTM 353787/4139358


89

North Fork-Middle Fork Allotment

North Fork and Middle Fork. The North Fork (photo 3-11) and Middle Fork (photo 3-12) of Conejos River are stable B channels, with healthy sedge keeping unstable bank percentage low. Impacts by livestock are minimal and overall stream health is robust.

Upper Adams Allotment

Upper Adams Fork. This drainage is a large A/B-3 stream (photo 3-13) with some E-3 reaches in upper parts of the watershed. Stream health is robust, with clean substrate and stable banks with minor exceptions. In the upper meadow area, grazing may have contributed to a short section of stream where willows are not as plentiful. One cumulative effect in this upper watershed is a slide/debris flow that has deposited coarse material into the stream. However, material is coarse and fines have not been introduced that would harm fish or other aquatic life.

(Left) Photo 3-9. Upstream, UTM 351792/4135427; (Right) Photo 3-10. Upstream, UTM 357717/4134849

(Left) Photo 3-11. Downstream, UTM 353566/4128345; (Right) Photo 3-12. Downstream, UTM 351552/4126449


90

3.4.3.4 Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects None of the alternatives would be expected to result in significant direct, indirect, or cumulative effects. No alternative is expected to change the temperature or chemical quality of water. All alternatives are expected to meet condition requirements provided by the Forest Plan. Table 3-6 summarizes the expected effects based on the watershed and aquatic resources analysis. None of the alternatives would be expected to produce irreversible or irretrievable commitments of the watershed and aquatic resources.

Table 3-6. Effects checklist, watersheds and aquatics




Aquatic Ecosystems

Physical

Sediment x x

Bed/bank Stability x x

Flow Regimes x x

Chemical

Temperature x x

Water Purity x x

Biological

Aquatic Life x x

TES Species x x

Special Areas

Riparian Ecosystems x x

Photo 3-13. Upstream, UTM 355589/4131893


91

Wetlands x x

Floodplains x x

Cumulative Effects

Aquatic Ecosystems x x

Riparian Ecosystems x x

Note: This checklist ensures that all required effects are analyzed, gives a snapshot of all effects, and identifies items to dismiss from rigorous analysis. Blank means no effect; "x" means minor effect; "xx" means substantial effect.

Alternative 1 (No Permitted Livestock Grazing) No impacts to watershed or stream health from livestock grazing would result from this alternative. Vegetation that has been impacted under current management would recover with rest, although timeframes would continue to be long as vegetative changes at this elevation occur very slowly. Existing good watershed and stream conditions should improve slightly over time. This alternative would be expected to produce the fastest recovery of impacted areas.

Effects Common to All Action Alternatives Typical environmental effects from livestock grazing are described in the Revised Rio Grande Forest Plan FEIS, pages 3-274 through 3-275 and 3-207. For more information on how these effects can influence fish and fish habitat, please see the section 3.4.9, “Fisheries” and the BA/BE (available in the project record).

The Clean Water Act requires that chemical, physical, and biological integrity of all waters, stream channels, and wetlands be protected. Standards and guidelines that have proven effective will provide that protection. By following these standard measures and design criteria, impacts are expected to be minimal and insignificant for stream health. By protecting stream health, fish habitat should also be protected.

Alternative 2 (Current Livestock Grazing Management) Current management would continue. No new surface disturbances would occur in any watersheds. Watersheds, stream channels, and riparian areas would be left in their existing condition. Impacts to problem 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 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.

Alternative 3 (Adaptive Livestock Grazing Management) By focusing grazing prescriptions on areas where range conditions are less than satisfactory, more rapid recovery would be expected than under current management, although not as quickly as under the no grazing alternative. This improvement in range vegetative and soil condition would benefit watershed health in the long term. Having flexibility in timing and duration of grazing and other options under adaptive management (Grazing Management Toolbox) will allow more rapid adjustment of grazing plans if problems are found through monitoring to persist on particular stream reaches or watersheds. Livestock numbers would be variable but


92

would not exceed estimated carrying capacity. This would lead indirectly to improvement in overall watershed health as plant and stream riparian conditions remain healthy or improve in areas where they have been impacted by grazing. Monitoring will ensure changing resource conditions are tracked and changes applied.

Cumulative Impacts The accumulation of watershed disturbances from past activities does not threaten watershed health. As explained above under “Existing Conditions”, total disturbance levels are below concern levels established in the Forest Plan for all watersheds except the Conejos River composite watersheds. This watershed includes Platoro Reservoir and the town of Platoro, which are the biggest contributors to watershed disturbance. Platoro Reservoir is authorized by legislation with conditions to provide minimum stream flows. Stream restoration projects completed downstream of Platoro Reservoir have improved over-wintering habitat conditions for fish. No alternative proposes to add disturbances to any watersheds.

Future activities in these watersheds include potential timber sale projects. 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.

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). No alternative should add more stress to stream channels or riparian areas.

3.4.4 Soil Resources

3.4.4.1 Scope of the Analysis This analysis focuses on rangeland soils used for livestock grazing. The desired condition is that soils are maintained or improved to healthy conditions so that erosion and compaction are kept within allowable limits as defined by the Forest Plan and the Watershed Conservation Handbook. Allowable limits state that no more than 15 percent of an activity area (e.g., a pasture, ecological unit, riparian area) may be compacted, displaced, eroded or severely burned. Rangeland soils and ecological units in the Treasure, Campo Bonito, Upper Adams, Marble Mtn., Willow Mtn., North Middle Fork, East Vega, West Vega, Cropsy, Summit, Cornwall, Elwood allotments are analyzed here.

The RGNF Forest Plan has direction that protects soil productivity. The Forest Plan standards are consistent with similar standards from the FSH 2509.18–Soil Management Handbook, R2 Supplement No. 2509.18-92-1, Effective August 15, 1992 (the R2 Supplement), and FSH 2509.25–Watershed Conservation Practices Handbook, 2509.25-2006-2, (May 5, 2006). The following discussions are based on the best available science.


93

3.4.4.2 Past Actions that Have Affected the Existing Condition Compaction and erosion are the primary soil impacts evaluated in a livestock grazing proposal. An historic livestock driveway passes through the Marble Mtn. and Campo Bonito allotments, and is still actively used today. Historic records and photographs show that past livestock numbers were significantly higher on the Rio Grande Forest in the 1880s to the 1920s. That period of high use and uncontrolled seasons and numbers resulted in erosion in some locations. Evidence of historic overuse is found in the impacted sod, and rill and gully development in some minor locations. Current use in some areas may affect soil conditions as well, but in general, soil and vegetation conditions have improved since the 1920s. Some of the allotments are in wilderness where there are also isolated impacts from recreational livestock and camping. Roads, firewood gathering, fuels treatments, timber harvest and off-highway vehicle uses have caused scattered minor impacts to the soil resources throughout the analysis area in the non-wilderness areas.

3.4.4.3 Existing Condition Alpine ecosystems dominate these high-elevation sheep allotments. Table 3-7 shows the major soils/ecological units by allotment.

Photo 3-14. Soil conditions have improved in the allotments since the 1920s.


94

Table 3-7. Major soils/ecological units by allotment

Allotment Name

Dominant Soil Map Units in the

Allotment2

Has Stock

Driveway Dominant Range Sites1

Campo Bonito 128, 154 Yes Mountain Meadow #241, Shallow Alpine #308

Cornwall 129 Yes Shallow Alpine #308

Cropsy, Summit 129, 154 No Shallow Alpine #308

East Vega 124, 154 Yes Mountain Meadow #241, Shallow Alpine #308

Elwood 124, 128, 129, 154 No Mountain Meadow #241, Shallow Alpine #308

Marble Mtn. 129, 153 Yes Shallow Alpine #308

North Fork Middle 124, 153, 154 No Mountain Meadow #241, Shallow Alpine #308

Treasure 124, 154 No Mountain Meadow #241, Shallow Alpine #308

Upper Adams 124, 129, 154 Yes Mountain Meadow #241, Shallow Alpine #308

West Vega 124, 129, 154 Yes Mountain Meadow #241, Shallow Alpine #308

Willow Mtn. 124, 154 Yes Mountain Meadow #241, Shallow Alpine #308

1 Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS).

2 Refer to the USDA (1996f) Draft Soil Resource and Ecological Inventory for the Rio Grande National Forest-West Part for complete unit descriptions and interpretations.

Most of these soils are sensitive to soil erosion and include some wet soils, including fens (organic soils) that occur in some of the swales, drainage bottoms, and basins.

Soil health assessments have been completed during a number of field visits. All of the allotments have soils that are in properly functioning condition and meet soil health standards. This demonstrates that there has been marked improvement in the soil and vegetative health since the 1920s due to improved range management and reduced livestock numbers. However, there are minor localized areas that would be considered “at-risk” due to a deteriorated vegetative condition or existing soil conditions. Soils with more than 15 percent impacts (area extent) are considered impaired. Soil standards are being met on the majority of the allotment areas.

3.4.4.4 Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects The Forest Plan describes the effects of livestock grazing on soil health (FEIS, page 3-292). Soil health can be maintained under proper grazing management; however, soil erosion and compaction can result if livestock use is not properly managed. Soil standards and guidelines shall be implemented in all alternatives. Where conditions do not meet standards, the desired condition is to move toward achieving standards. The best method to improve soil health is by maintaining or re-establishing a healthy and diverse community of desirable plants. Table 3-8 shows estimated effects of the alternatives. None of the alternatives would be expected to result in significant direct, indirect, or cumulative effects to the soil resources. None of the alternatives would be expected to produce irreversible or irretrievable commitments of the soil resources.


95

Table 3-8. Estimated effects on soils by alternative




All allotments from table 3-3

Healthy soils maintained. Soils not meeting standards move toward healthy conditions over the long term.

Healthy soils would be maintained. Soils not meeting standards may or may not improve over the short and long term.

Healthy soils maintain health. Soils not meeting standards would improve through proper adaptive management. Vegetation and soil conditions would improve over time.

Soil health would improve under the no-action alternative 1, but compaction and erosion may take many years to recover to natural reference conditions. Where sod has historically been lost, recovery may not occur over many decades. Erosion would be reduced as a variety of desirable native plants establish on sites that are exposed. Returning litter to the soil is an important function to restoring soil cover, nutrients, reducing erosion, and conserving soil moisture. Recovery may take decades due to the high elevations, short growing season, and relatively shallow soils. Alternative 2 would not likely improve known impact areas under current management, but would also likely not cause further impact. With alternative 3, and adaptive management, soils in known problem areas would improve over time, although timeframes would likely be long. Alternative 3 provides for adaptive management where livestock numbers, seasons of use, and other associated tools can be adapted to meet resource needs. With adaptive management and the toolbox, resource conditions would be monitored.

Cumulative effects to soils include improved infiltration and less flashy runoff under adaptive management. Less runoff means erosion is reduced and water entering soils is available for plant use or stream recharge. Elk use and periodic concentrations along with minor recreation livestock use may contribute some to soil issues. Soil recovery from impacts would be quickest on riparian soils with water tables, though recovery on any soils will be slow.

3.4.5 Economics

3.4.5.1 Scope of the Analysis The scope of this economic analysis focuses on the impact that permitted domestic sheep grazing in the analysis area has on the economy of the local area and the financial efficiency associated with the alternatives presented in this EIS. The area covered is the analysis area that was shown in chapter 1, section 1.4. Software called Quick-Silver (Version 6.0) was used to conduct the financial efficiency analysis. Quick-Silver is a project analysis tool used to estimate financial costs and benefits over the long term of each alternative. It has been adapted and developed for use in the Forest Service and was used in this analysis.

3.4.5.2 Past Actions that Have Affected the Existing Condition There have been past activities in the analysis area. See the other resource sections in this chapter under the same heading for a brief overview. Over time, the costs of doing business on NFS lands has increased for livestock operators as other uses expanded. For example, increased recreation activity has resulted in increased operating costs related to animal loss and additional work to ensure compliance with stricter grazing permit requirements. A combination of


96

changing consumer preferences for meat and wool following World War II, added to increased costs for herders and difficulty in finding qualified help, has challenged many sheep operators to remain economically viable, especially in remote locations.

3.4.5.3 Existing Condition Economic 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. This economic efficiency analysis does not consider ecosystem services or non-market goods that are not required at the project level by the NFMA. Ecosystem services and non-market goods are addressed in the Forest Plan (see FEIS, pages 3-445 through 3-469). Alternatives that meet the requirements and intent of the Forest Plan achieve net public benefits as stated in NFMA.

3.4.5.4 Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects An economic analysis was conducted for each of the three alternatives. Table 3-9 displays the estimated present net value (PNV) for each alternative (includes all partners over a 10-year period). Appendix C contains the Economic Returns Cross-tab Report from the Quick-Silver analysis which shows a summary of the present value benefits and the present value costs, by alternative. None of the alternatives would be expected to result in significant direct, indirect, or cumulative effects. There are no cumulative effects expected for any of the alternatives.

Table 3-9. Financial analysis

Economic Measure: Present net Value




All Partners -$22,691.04 -$189,604.67 -$340,031.94

Permittees No costs, no

benefits -$155,253.24 -$244,414.70

USDA-FS -$22,691.04 -$34,351.43 -$95,617.24

Public land forage values include both traditional livestock production values and other quality-of-life values important to permittees (Bartlett 2002). Only traditional livestock production values have been captured in the benefit estimates provided by the Agency and used in this efficiency analysis. Permittee desires to maintain and/or expand operations on NFS lands coupled with negative PNV results shown above for alternative 3 suggest that agency-prescribed benefit values may understate the total value of forage and may understate the production value of forage alone. Although the action alternatives all show negative PNV for permittees, PNV can be used as an index for assessing the relative efficiency of each.

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


97

Alternative 1 (No Permitted Livestock Grazing) From a PNV viewpoint, alternative 1 is the highest, due to no revenue generated but continued administrative costs for the Forest Service to manage the lands within the analysis area.

Alternative 1 eliminates permitted domestic sheep grazing in the analysis area.

Economic

Economic Impact to Permittees and Their Employees. No livestock grazing would forgo an opportunity granted in the Forest Plan (pages IV-3 and -4); the 1989 Wilderness Management Philosophy in the Rocky Mountain Region (page 19, paragraph 10); the 1964 Wilderness Act (page 30, 4(2)); and the 1980 Colorado Wilderness Act (section 108) that formally designated the South San Juan Wilderness. This would have a high direct economic impact on the permittees and their employees associated with the term grazing permits issued for the analysis area.

Economic Impact to the Local Economy. There would also be a resultant low indirect economic impact on the local economy of the San Luis Valley as a whole, due to the relatively limited scope of influence the permittees grazing within the analysis area have on the local economy of the San Luis Valley.

Financial Efficiency for the Permittees and the Forest Service. Present net value (a measure of financial efficiency) is all partners, -$22,691.04; permittee, no costs and no benefits; Forest Service, -$22,691.04. There would be no net revenue, but there would still be Forest Service administrative costs tied to managing lands in the analysis area.

Overall, this alternative would not be expected to meet Forest Plan standards and guidelines and Forest Plan desired conditions for rural development over the long term (chapter 1, section 1.6).

Alternative 2 (Current Livestock Grazing Management) Alternative 2 shows the second highest PNV since present value benefits are the greatest, less present value costs, under current management stocking. Revenues are generated with no appreciable increased cost to the Forest Service or the permittees to administer and monitor the allotments.

Alternative 2 will maintain permitted domestic sheep grazing and its related practices.

Economic

Economic Impact to Permittees and Their Employees. The direct economic impact to the permittees and their employees may range between low and high. In the short term, alternative 2 would be no change to the permittees and their employees associated with the term grazing permits issued for the analysis area, since status quo will be maintained. This alternative may not support the long-term local economic value provided by livestock grazing, because it does not provide the means to make future changes that are needed to respond to new or continuing issues. In the long term, there is the potential for economic impacts to occur to the permittees and their employees associated with the term grazing permits issued for the analysis area. Alternative 2 takes no steps or provides no means to minimize or eliminate contact between bighorn sheep and domestic sheep. Not dealing with the issue, does not make it go away. In the event contact occurred resulting in a proven or perceived domestic sheep caused die-off of bighorn sheep, the State wildlife agency and/or public concern may weigh heavily on the Forest Service to eliminate domestic sheep grazing in the entire analysis area. Extensive project design criteria and adaptive management will not be available to adapt to changing conditions.


98

Economic Impact to the Local Economy. Indirect impacts to the local economy from alternative 2 would be low due to the relatively limited scope of influence the permittees grazing within the analysis area have on the local economy of the San Luis Valley as a whole, and the plan for the continuation of domestic sheep grazing.

Financial Efficiency for the Permittees and the Forest Service. Currently (short term) the present net value (a measure of financial efficiency) is all partners, -$189,604.67; permittee, $155,253.24; Forest Service, -$34,351.43 (see section 3.8 and appendix C of the FEIS). This alternative has the second highest present net value.

Overall, this alternative would not be expected to meet Forest Plan standards and guidelines and Forest Plan desired conditions for rural development over the long term (chapter 1, section 1.6), because it does not provide the means to make future changes that are needed to respond to new or continuing issues.

Alternative 3 (Adaptive Livestock Grazing Management) Alternative 3 has the lowest PNV due to additional operating, administration, and monitoring costs.

Economic Impact to Permittees and Their Employees. This alternative would allow changes in management to occur to better address changing conditions. This alternative would best maintain permitted domestic sheep grazing and its related practices. The direct economic impact to the permittees and their employees is moderate because while this alternative has a better assurance for continued domestic sheep grazing, it also has the potential for change or loss of grazing areas due to project design criteria associated with key issue 2 (Contact between domestic sheep and Rocky Mountain Bighorn Sheep). The increased cost to the permittees to implement alternative 3 also has a direct effect in the moderate range.

Economic Impact to the Local Economy. Indirect impacts to the local economy from the selected alternative would be low due to the relatively limited scope of influence the permittees grazing within the analysis area have on the local economy of the San Luis Valley as a whole, and the plan for the continuation of domestic sheep grazing.

Financial Efficiency for the Permittees and the Forest Service. Present net value (a measure of financial efficiency) is all partners, -$189,604.67; permittee, -$155,253.24; and Forest Service, -$34,351.43 (see FEIS, chapter 3, section 3.8 and appendix C). The selected alternative has a slightly lower present net value than alternative 2 because Forest Service administration and monitoring costs would be higher as would the permittee costs in implementing the numerous additional project design criteria.

This alternative would support the long-term local economic value provided by livestock grazing, because it does provide the means to make future changes that are needed to respond to new or continuing issues.

Overall, this alternative would be expected to meet Forest Plan standards and guidelines and Forest Plan desired conditions for rural development (chapter 1, section 1.6).


99

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

3.4.6.1 Scope of the Analysis The scope of this analysis discusses plants that are threatened, endangered, proposed, or Forest Service designated sensitive. The analysis is restricted to the analysis area shown earlier in chapter 1.

3.4.6.2 Past Actions that Have Affected the Existing Condition There have been previous activities in this analysis area that may have affected TES plants and habitats. See the “Rangeland Resources” and the “Wilderness/Recreation/Travel Management” sections in section 3.4, or a description of previous actions relative to this analysis area.

3.4.6.3 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. There are also no plants proposed for listing by the USFWS that occur on the RGNF.

The analysis area does contain one documented sensitive plant—Machaeranthera coloradoensis. Overall, there are 15 sensitive plants either known (1) or suspected (14) to occur in this analysis area based on documented occurrence or habitat affinity (see table 3-10).

3.4.6.4 Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects The analysis below is a summary from a Biological Assessment/Biological Evaluation (BA/BE) for plants that was prepared specifically for this project and is part of the administrative record. None of the alternatives would be expected to result in significant direct, indirect, or cumulative effects to TES plant species. None of the alternatives would be expected to produce irreversible or irretrievable commitments of TES plant species.

Alternative 1 (No Permitted Livestock Grazing) 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 were 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 known or suspected sensitive plant species or their habitats (table 3-10).


100

Table 3-10. Sensitive plant effects determination for the analysis area, by alternative

Scientific Name

Determination1

Alternative 1 Alternatives 2 and 3

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 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 NI = No impact; MAII = may adversely impact individuals, but not likely to result in a loss of viability on the planning area, nor cause a trend to Federal listing or a loss of species viability range-wide.

Effects Common to All Action Alternatives Since both action alternatives propose some level of permitted livestock grazing, the effects are considered equivalent for this analysis (i.e., there is no real distinction of effects between alternatives for this particular analysis area). However, alternative 3 does provide added flexibility to respond if monitoring or new information indicates unacceptable effects might occur to any sensitive species or their habitat. Known or potential habitat exists for 15 sensitive plants in the analysis area. Four species were judged to be at such low risk from the proposed actions that there would be no direct, indirect, or cumulative effect (table 3-10).

Thus, potentially 11 species were judged to be directly, indirectly, or cumulatively affected. Direct effects could be from livestock directly grazing 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 (camping, hiking, etc.), fuels or timber management, big game populations, and livestock grazing on both private and Federal lands. However, the overall impact under the Forest’s current land management is much less severe 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 3-10 summarizes the effects determination made, by alternative, for these species. Cumulatively, there are no projects planned in the foreseeable future (next decade) in this analysis area that would be expected to significantly 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.


101

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

3.4.7.1 Scope of the Analysis The scope of this analysis discusses threatened, endangered, proposed, or Region 2 (R2) designated sensitive terrestrial wildlife. Aquatic wildlife species are addressed in section 3.4.9 (note: the tables showing the summary of effects determinations below include all terrestrial and aquatic wildlife species). The analysis was conducted for various wildlife species at the appropriate scale as follows:

Canada lynx: The analysis area is the Alamosa, Conejos Canyon, La Jara, Pinos Rock, and Trout-Handkerchief Lynx Analysis Units (LAUs) (figure 3-4).

Figure 3-4. Analysis area for the Canada lynx effects evaluation


102

Rocky Mountain Bighorn Sheep: The analysis area in addition to consideration of bighorn sheep occurring outside of the analysis area (within the S29, S30, and S31 game management units (GMUs)), that could be impacted by or have an impact on management within the analysis area.

GMU S29-Alamosa Canyon: Unit S29 encompasses RGNF, BLM, Colorado State, and privately owned lands within Conejos, Mineral, and Rio Grande Counties. It is bounded on the north by US 160; on the east by Colorado 15; on the south by USFS Roads 255, 240, and 259, USFS Trail 706, USFS Roads 260, 250, and 380; and on the west by the Continental Divide (CDOW 2009). Prominent features for bighorn sheep in this unit include the Alamosa Canyon and Chiquito Peak.

GMU S30-Conejos River: Unit S30 encompasses RGNF, BLM, Colorado State, and privately owned lands. The unit occurs within Archuleta, Conejos, and Rio Grande Counties. It is bounded on the north by USFS roads 380, 250, and 260, USFS Trail 706, USFS Roads 259, 240, and 255, and Colorado 15; on the east by US 285; on the south by NM and Rio Grande National Forest boundary, and on the west by the Continental Divide (CDOW 2009). Prominent features for bighorn sheep in this unit include the main Conejos Canyon, the South Fork of the Conejos Canyon, and La Jara Canyon.

GMU S31-Blanco River: Unit S31 encompasses San Juan National Forest, RGNF, BLM, and privately owned lands. The unit occurs within Archuleta, Conejos, and Rio Grande Counties. It is bounded on the north and east by the Continental Divide; on the south by New Mexico; and on the west by US 84 and US 160. Prominent features for bighorn sheep include the Blanco River Basin, the Navajo Basin, and the Fish Lake area.

All other terrestrial TES wildlife species: Due to limited habitat effects expected from any of the alternatives, all other species were analyzed within the boundaries of the analysis area shown in chapter 1, section 1.4, figure 1-1.

This section summarizes a more detailed analysis contained in a wildlife BA/BE, which is part of this project’s administrative record.

3.4.7.2 Past Actions that Have Affected the Existing Condition Livestock grazing, recreation activities, and timber harvest are the primary past actions that affect the existing condition (see summary of past, present, and reasonably forseeable future actions in project record). Rangeland activities include domestic sheep grazing (see “Rangeland Resources” in section 3.4 for more detail). Recreation activities include hunting, fishing, hiking, backpacking, and horseback travel and packing. Most of these recreation activities occur primarily within close proximity of existing Forest Service trails (see “Wilderness/Recreation/Travel Management/Trails” under this same heading for more information). Timber harvest has also occurred (and continues to occur) in some portions of the analysis area (primarily the Cornwall, East Vega, and Marble Mtn. Allotments).

3.4.7.3 Existing Condition The analysis area consists of 12 grazing allotments on approximately 47,589 acres; 18,638 acres (39 percent) are determined suitable for grazing by domestic sheep. The analysis area is predominantly above 11,000 feet in elevation and contains extensive alpine vegetation, with Engelmann spruce/subalpine fir (spruce/fir) dominating the forested portions. Overall, the analysis area is in good resource condition with minimal evidence of past overgrazing or willow


103

and riparian impacts (see “Rangeland Resources” in section 3.4.1). There is one localized stretch of stream along the Adams Fork that shows some widening; however, the stream in general is still considered to be robust (see “Watershed and Aquatic Resources” in section 3.4.3).

Current rangeland conditions within the analysis area have improved over the years to the point where those areas identified in the early years as being in poor rangeland condition have improved and are currently in satisfactory condition (see “Rangeland Resources” in section 3.4.1). Within the analysis area, domestic sheep grazing occurs largely in open parks and meadows.

Portions of the analysis area (Upper Adams, North-Middle Fork, and portions of Treasure and West Vega allotments) were included in the South San Juan Wilderness after passage of the 1980 Colorado Wilderness Act. Marble Mtn., Campo Bonito, Summit, Cropsy, Elwood, East Vega, Cornwall, Willow, and portions of Treasure and West Vega allotments are located outside the wilderness boundary (see chapter 1, figure 1-1). The analysis area consists of ten different MA designations ranging from Wilderness to Forest Products. The analysis area contains active roads and motorized vehicle use. Numerous dispersed recreation sites occur within the analysis area.

Livestock grazing capacity, discussed in “Rangeland Resources” in section 3.4, considers the forage needed for permitted livestock, recreation livestock, and wildlife as well as insuring the needs of soil and plant community health and sustainability.

Known occurrences of TES wildlife in the analysis area include Canada lynx, Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep, pine martens, northern goshawks, peregrine falcons, white-tailed ptarmigans, and Rio Grande cutthroat trout, although habitat may exist for others.

Some of the common wildlife expected in the analysis area include the following: black bear (Ursus americana), elk (Cervus canadensis), mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus), coyote (Canis latrans), deermouse (Peromyscus maniculatus), yellow-bellied marmot (Marmota flaviventris), pika (Ochotona princeps), gray jay (Perisoreus canadensis), and dark-eyed junco (Junco hyemalis). This information helps describe the existing condition within the analysis area; however, most of these species were not analyzed for this project.

3.4.7.4 Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects The analysis below is a summary from a BA and BE for wildlife and a BE for fisheries that were prepared specifically for this project and are part of the administrative record.

None of the alternatives would be expected to result in significant direct, indirect, or cumulative effects to TES wildlife species, except for the potential for significant impacts to bighorn sheep from the action alternatives and alternative 2 in particular. None of the alternatives would be expected to produce irreversible or irretrievable commitments of TES wildlife species, except for the potential of irreversible adverse effects to any native populations of bighorn sheep within or near the analysis area from the action alternatives and alternative 2 in particular.

Table 3-11 is a summary of the findings for threatened, endangered, or proposed wildlife species. Table 3-12 is a summary of the findings for Region 2 sensitive species.


104

Table 3-11. Summary of findings for threatened, endangered, or proposed species

Species Habitat

Alternative 1 (No Permitted

Livestock Grazing)

Alternative 2(Current

Livestock Grazing

Management)1

Alternative 3 (Adaptive Livestock Grazing

Management)

Canada lynx Spruce fir and moist mixed conifer forests and aspen/willow/shrub-steppe

No Effect MANLAA2 MANLAA

Mexican spotted owl

Steep canyons with a Douglas-fir, white fir, ponderosa pine/pinyon-juniper component

No Effect No Effect No Effect

Southwestern willow flycatcher

Riparian habitats along rivers, streams or other wetlands, where dense growths of willows or other shrub and medium-sized trees are present

No Effect No Effect No Effect

Uncompahgre fritillary butterfly

Alpine habitat above 11,000 feet with a snow willow component

No Effect MANLAA MANLAA

1 If Alternative 2 is selected, consultation with USFWS would be required for concurrence with this determination.

2 MANLAA = May affect, not likely to adversely affect.


105

Table 3-12. Summary of findings for Region 2 sensitive species

Species Habitat

Alternative 1 (No

Permitted Livestock Grazing)

Alternative 2 (Current

Livestock Grazing

Management)

Alternative 3 (Adaptive Livestock Grazing

Management)

Insects

Great Basin silverspot butterfly Speyeria nokomis nokomis

Low elevation wetlands

NI1 NI NI

Amphibians/Fish

Western boreal toad Bufo boreas boreas

Riparian NI MI MI

Northern leopard frog Rana pipiens

Riparian NI MI MI

Rio Grande cutthroat trout Oncorhynchus clarkia virginalis

Riparian NI MI MI

Rio Grande chub Gila pandora

Riparian NI NI NI

Rio Grande sucker Catostomus plebeuis

Riparian NI NI NI

Birds

Bald eagle Halieetus leucocephalus

Nests and roosts are usually found in open-branched trees near larger lakes, streams, rivers and reservoirs

NI NI NI

Northern goshawk Accipiter gentiles

Forests NI NI NI

Ferruginous hawk Buteo regalis

Grassland NI NI NI

Northern harrier Circus cyaneus

Marshes, meadows, grasslands

NI NI NI

American peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus anatum

Cliff NI NI NI

Boreal owl Aegolius funereus

Snag NI NI NI

Flammulated owl Otus flamineolus

Snag NI NI NI

Sage sparrow Amphispiza belli

Grassland NI NI NI

Brewer’s sparrow Spizella breweri

Sagebrush NI NI NI

Lewis' woodpecker Melanerpes lewis

Snag NI NI NI

Olive-sided flycatcher Contopus borealis

Snag NI NI NI

American three-toed woodpecker Picoides tridactylus

Snag NI NI NI

Loggerhead shrike Lanius ludovicianus

Heavily grazed pastures

NI NI NI

Yellow-billed cuckoo (FC)2 Coccyzus americanus

Deciduous riparian NI NI NI

Gunnison sage-grouse (FC) Centrocercus minimus

Shrubland NI NI NI


106

White-tailed ptarmigan Lagopus leucurus

Alpine tundra NI MI MI

Mountain plover Charadrius montanus

Prairie NI NI NI

Burrowing owl Aegolius funereus

Grassland NI NI NI

Black swift Cypseloides niger

Cliff NI NI NI

Mammals

American marten Martes americana

Forested NI NI NI

Wolverine Gulo gulo

Remote subalpine and spruce/fir forested

NI NI NI

Townsend's big-eared bat Corynorhinus townsendii townsendii

Cave NI NI NI

Fringed myotis Myotis thysanodes

Desert, grassland, woodland

NI NI NI

Gunnison’s prairie dog Cynomys gunnisoni

High mountain valleys and plateaus

NI NI NI

Rocky mountain bighorn sheep Ovis canadensis

Open areas next to steep escape cover (low elevation to alpine)

MI MI MI

1 NI = No Impact; MI = May impact individuals, but is not likely to cause a trend towards Federal listing or result in loss of viability in the planning area; BI = Beneficial Impact; LI = Likely to result in a trend towards Federal listing or loss of viability in the planning area.

2 FC = Federal candidate species.

Alternative 1 (No Permitted Livestock Grazing) No herbivory or other disturbance by permitted sheep grazing and associated activities would occur. Under this alternative, herbivory would primarily come from recreation livestock, outfitter and guide livestock, and wildlife. Because of the currently good condition of the analysis area, wildlife habitat for most species would not be expected to significantly change with discontinued grazing, and implementation of alternative 1 would be expected to have overall minor, positive effects on most terrestrial threatened, endangered, proposed, or designated R2 sensitive wildlife species and their habitats over time.

Potential habitat for Uncompahgre fritillary butterfly (UFB) within the analysis area would not be disturbed by permitted sheep (UFB are not known to occupy potential habitat within the analysis area). Suitable habitat within this analysis area has not been surveyed as it was not considered the best potential site in the area; however, there are plans to survey for species in the near future.

Riparian vegetation important to Canada lynx prey, boreal toads, and northern leopard frogs would not be grazed by domestic sheep permitted within the analysis area. Willow carrs and forbs preferred as forage by the white-tailed ptarmigan would not be grazed by domestic sheep permitted within the analysis area.

Trampling of soil by domestic sheep would not occur, eliminating potential effects to boreal toad and northern leopard frog habitat (i.e., burrows, etc.). The potential for permitted livestock operations (domestic sheep, herders, working dogs and/or horses) disturbing or causing mortality


107

to some TES species—boreal toads, northern leopard frogs, white-tailed ptarmigan, and/or their eggs—would be eliminated. Currently, no boreal toads or northern leopard frogs are known to occur within the analysis area.

Under this alternative, there would be no threat of non-target carnivore mortality to Canada lynx in efforts to control predation on permitted livestock.

This alternative would be the most favorable for bighorn sheep as the risk of contact between domestic and bighorn sheep would be virtually eliminated within the analysis area. Risk of contact with other sources (i.e. other infected bighorn sheep; or domestic animals on private, State, BLM, or Forest Service lands outside of this analysis area) would still exist. Therefore, this alternative would eliminate most, but not all, of the risk to bighorn sheep.

Although historic (early 1900s) grazing did have negative effects on soils and vegetation within the analysis area, current data and information show that most of these effects have healed. Grazing from recreational pack stock would be expected to be limited in most parts of the analysis area, except concentrated areas where heavier recreational use occurs. Recreation has occurred in the past, and would be expected to continue within the analysis area. Much of the use in the area is concentrated around designated roads and trails; therefore, these activities would be expected to have minor effects to TES and their habitat within the analysis area. Under this alternative, there would be no impacts from livestock crossing permits, as they would not be allowed. These effects, in addition to minor positive effects of alternative 1, would be expected to have no notable cumulative effects on most TES species (with the exception of bighorn sheep) or their habitats.

Forest Service records indicate that the Banded Peaks Ranch, adjacent to the west side of the analysis area, was heavily grazed by domestic sheep prior to 1946 (Conejos Peak Ranger District 2210 Files). From 1946 to 1962, there was no sheep grazing on the ranch; as of 1998, there is thought to be no domestic sheep grazing occurring on the Banded Peaks Ranch (Petersen 1998). However, it is privately owned, therefore future management could change and domestic sheep grazing could occur. Bighorn sheep (likely primarily from the Blanco River Herd) are thought to winter in portions of the Banded Peaks Ranch (Garcia, A., 2005, personal communication).

Cumulatively, domestic sheep allotments have been vacated in recent years on the Pagosa Springs Ranger District adjacent to the analysis area. Although they have not been closed to grazing, there is currently no domestic sheep grazing occurring on those allotments. If the analysis area was not grazed, this would increase the total amount of currently vacant domestic sheep range, improving the overall quality of bighorn sheep summer habitat within the San Juan Mountain Range, by adding cumulatively to a decreased chance of contact and potential disease contraction from domestic sheep. In the near future, domestic sheep grazing allotments adjacent to the analysis area will be analyzed on the Pagosa Springs Ranger District. Decisions regarding livestock grazing management will be made, which may have the potential to affect these bighorn sheep herds. Any new information about bighorn sheep will be used in these future analyses as will available herd management plans and other input from CDOW. This could impact local bighorn sheep herds. Livestock crossing permit (domestic sheep permitted to trail across a portion of the analysis area) issuance would not be allowed under this alternative. This would even further decrease the risk of contact between bighorn and domestic sheep. Cumulatively, the less concurrent domestic sheep grazing that occurs in bighorn sheep habitat, the less chance of contact and resultant disease transmission.


108

With implementation of alternative 1, in addition to current management conditions, there would be a positive cumulative effect to bighorn sheep. This would be the result of increased area having no domestic sheep grazing (in addition to allotments on the Pagosa Ranger District and the Banded Peaks Ranch), which would greatly reduce the probability of disease contraction and resultant bighorn sheep herd-die offs from diseases carried by domestic sheep. This beneficial cumulative effect would be reduced with the possible future authorization of domestic sheep use in bighorn sheep habitat on any of the land areas discussed.

Overall, this alternative would be expected to have the least potential for negative direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts to bighorn sheep and would be the most beneficial for bighorn sheep.

Alternative 2 (Current Livestock Grazing Management) Forest Plan standards and guidelines and project design criteria (chapter 2, section 2.7), would help ensure Forest-wide desired conditions and objectives for terrestrial wildlife habitat (including alpine tundra and riparian), in addition to other resources, would be met. Spruce/fir habitat would not be grazed by permitted sheep, unless the stand is open with ample forage in the understory. As indicated by the observed resource conditions as a result of current management, only minor effects on some TES species and/or their habitat would be expected.

Under this alternative, the potential could exist for non-target carnivore mortality to Canada lynx. However, in recent years, no known predator control (by USDA_APHIS-Wildlife Services) has occurred within the analysis area (USDA 2009; Ghormley, 2005, personal communication). There are currently no known Canada lynx mortalities as a result of non-target carnivore mortality within the analysis area for lynx (Shenk, 2006, personal communication). In addition, project design criteria (see chapter 2, section 2.7) include educational information to be provided to the permittee and herders on distinguishing the differences between carnivores. Therefore, the threat of non-target carnivore mortality to Canada lynx as a result of predation control for permitted domestic sheep would be expected to be negligible.

The possibility of domestic sheep affecting UFB habitat would be low, since the area having potential habitat is properly utilized for grazing and Forest Plan standards are in place to protect UFB and their habitat (RGNF 2006). At this time, there are no UFB known to occupy potential habitat within the analysis area. This area is beginning to be a focus area for annual UFB survey efforts. These survey efforts will determine whether UFB occupy this area or not.

There is the possibility that some TES species—boreal toads, northern leopard frogs, or white-tailed ptarmigans—could be disturbed, trampled, or their eggs could be damaged by permitted sheep and associated activities. Currently, no boreal toads or northern leopard frogs are known to occur within the analysis area. Riparian habitat for boreal toads and northern leopard frogs could also be affected by certain levels of livestock grazing. The chance of riparian or herbaceous vegetation being grazed to the point that boreal toad, northern leopard frog, or Canada lynx prey base species habitat is detrimentally affected, would be extremely low. Under current management, Forest Plan standards and guidelines are being met and riparian habitats are in good condition. Soil could be trampled, impairing habitat features such as boreal toad burrows if they are present. However, these impacts would be expected to be minimal due to implementation of Forest Plan standards and guidelines and project design criteria (see chapter 2, section 2.7).


109

White-tailed ptarmigan habitat would be conserved by adhering to the Forest Plan for vegetation utilization (Forest-wide standards and guidelines for riparian areas, range, and wildlife). Willow carrs and forbs preferred as forage by white-tailed ptarmigan could be negatively affected by domestic sheep grazing permitted in the active allotments within the analysis area, although judging from current conditions, this would not be expected. Considering the relatively low stocking rate proposed in this alternative, and the currently good condition of the analysis area, overall effects to white-tailed ptarmigan would be expected to be fairly low.

Contact with permitted domestic sheep has the potential to severely impact bighorn sheep populations. Bighorn sheep have persisted in the area despite the fact that domestic sheep grazing has occurred to varying extents in the analysis area since the 1800s (in the late1800s and early 1900s at much higher stocking rates). This alternative would be expected to pose the greatest risk of contact between bighorn and domestic sheep. Under this alternative, potential interaction between bighorn and domestic sheep is not being addressed and there are no management practices in place to prevent domestic and bighorn sheep from coming into contact (increasing the risk of disease transmission and resultant potential impacts to bighorn sheep, see the Biological Evaluation in the administrative record for further details). Along with potential impacts to bighorn sheep in general, there is the potential for irreversible adverse effects to any native populations of bighorn sheep within or near the analysis area. The Colorado Division of Wildlife has identified the Blanco River Bighorn Sheep Herd as “native” (CDOW 2009). The Blanco River Bighorn Sheep Herd core area is partly within the analysis area. In the event that an entire die-off of this native population of bighorn sheep occurred, there would be a loss of genetics and survival adaptations. “Conservation genetics theory predicts that specific, isolated populations of a species may be better adapted to surviving in their local environments. These populations may have a genetic makeup differing from other populations of the same species and may be better able to survive and reproduce in their respective environments. In support of this theory, genetic studies of bighorn sheep have indicated that genotypes of populations in close proximity are more similar than populations separated by larger distances” (CDOW 2009).

Overall effects of alternative 2 to all other TES species would be expected to be minimal with implementation of Forest Plan standards and guidelines and project design criteria (see chapter 2, section 2.7). Under this alternative, flexibility to change livestock grazing management, as a result of resource monitoring or new information, would be somewhat limited. This could be disadvantageous if new information surfaces indicating that specific management practices should be implemented to conserve/protect a TES species.

Although historic overgrazing (early 1900s) did have negative effects on soils and vegetation within the analysis area, current data and information show that most of these effects have healed. Implementation of this alternative, in addition to other activities (primarily recreation and in some areas, timber) occurring or expected to occur within the analysis area, would be expected to have limited cumulative effects to terrestrial TES species or their habitats. General cumulative effects could include trampling of individuals or eggs, disturbance of individuals, or possible degradation of riparian and/or upland areas which supply habitat elements critical to TES. Despite some of these cumulative effects having occurred under current management, Forest Plan standards and guidelines have continued to be met and overall TES habitat within the analysis area remains in good condition. Potential cumulative effects to Canada lynx are tracked by lynx analysis unit (LAU), and annually reported to the USFWS. Under current management, there would be no notable cumulative effects to most TES species within the analysis area.


110

Cumulatively, there would also be a chance of disease transmission from domestic sheep and possibly goats (permitted and recreational stock) to bighorn sheep under this alternative. In addition, domestic sheep and goats grazing on adjacent Forest Service allotments, BLM, Colorado State, and private lands could pose a risk of contact (and potential resultant disease transmission) to bighorn sheep. There is also a risk of disease transmission from bighorn sheep currently infected with Pasturella spp. (such as bighorn sheep in the Alamosa Canyon Herd). The combination of permitted and recreational stock, as well as domestic sheep and goats grazing on lands outside of this analysis area, in addition to already infected bighorn sheep, could increase the chances of healthy bighorn sheep being exposed to disease. This could increase the chances of bighorn sheep herds becoming ill and/or experiencing a die-off. Livestock use permits (i.e., livestock crossing permits) could be issued under this alternative. This could allow temporary trailing of additional domestic sheep through the analysis area. Under this alternative (unlike alternative 3), the crossing permit would not be restricted (excluded from use in areas posing a high risk of contact). Therefore, although the type of use allowed by these permits is extremely limited, this could result in cumulative impacts (of the crossing permit and normal permitted grazing) to white-tailed ptarmigan and bighorn sheep. Impacts to white-tailed ptarmigan would still be expected to remain fairly minimal, as most of the analysis area would remain free of utilization even with normal grazing in addition to occasional crossing of additional livestock through the area. A temporary crossing permit could potentially add to the cumulative risk to bighorn sheep, since the probability of contact would be increased by having more domestic sheep in more locations at one time. That said, no crossing permits have been or would be expected to be issued within the analysis area. Therefore, effects from temporary crossing permits (although they could cumulatively impact bighorn sheep) would be expected to remain fairly unlikely.

Cumulatively, sheep grazing activities associated with alternative 2 in addition to recreation activities within the analysis area could result in a higher chance of disturbance of bighorn sheep (and some avoidance of habitat use) than in alternatives 1 or 3.

Overall, Forest Plan standards and guidelines and project design criteria (see chapter 2, section 2.7) are in place to minimize most impacts to most TES individuals and habitat.

Alternative 3 (Adaptive Livestock Grazing Management) Forest Plan standards and guidelines and project design criteria (chapter 2, section 2.7), would help ensure Forest-wide desired conditions and objectives for terrestrial habitat (including alpine tundra and riparian) in addition to other resources would be met. Spruce/fir habitat would not be grazed by permitted livestock unless it is an open stand with ample forage in the understory. Only minor effects to some TES species and/or their habitat would be expected under this alternative.

The possibility of domestic sheep affecting UFB habitat would be less than those anticipated under alternative 2. The area having potential habitat is properly utilized for grazing and Forest Plan standards are in place to protect UFB and their habitat (RGNF 2006). In addition, alternative 3 includes a project design criteria excluding UFB habitat within the analysis area from being grazed until sufficient surveys have been done to determine presence/absence of UFB. At this time, there are no UFB known to occupy potential habitat within the analysis area. Future surveys will determine whether they occur there.

Under this alternative, the allotments would be stocked at a capacity equal to or less than current stocking. In addition, greater management flexibility would be available to implement rapid


111

changes to livestock grazing management in response to resource monitoring or new information, which would benefit TES species.

The possibility of permitted sheep grazing and associated activities impacting TES species remains for boreal toad, northern leopard frog, white-tailed ptarmigan, and rocky mountain bighorn sheep. Currently, no boreal toads or northern leopard frogs are known to occur within the analysis area. Conversely, ptarmigans are known to occur there. Trampling of individuals or eggs, or disturbance of individuals could occur. Increased trampling could occur depending on factors such as the location of domestic sheep grazing, stocking rate of domestic sheep, and locations of important wildlife habitats. Riparian and other habitat used by boreal toads, northern leopard frogs, white-tailed ptarmigan, and Canada lynx prey could be impacted. Some of these impacts could be expected to increase with potential utilization of currently ungrazed areas, and/or with the potential increase in the number of domestic sheep permitted to graze in certain areas. Conversely, if ungrazed areas were utilized, this would probably result in resting other areas, reducing potential impacts in those areas.

Soil could be trampled, impairing habitat features such as boreal toad burrows if they are present. However, these impacts would be expected to be minimal due to implementation of Forest Plan standards and guidelines, project design criteria (see chapter 2, section 2.7), and potential adaptive management changes as a result of monitoring. If boreal toads or northern leopard frogs were discovered within the analysis area, reasonable modifications to management would be implemented, as needed, in accordance with Forest Plan wildlife standards.

If there were indications that ptarmigan or lynx prey species were being impacted by domestic sheep grazing, adjustments in management would be made as well. Therefore, the risk of trampling or disturbance to these species could be more intensively managed (if necessary) under alternative 3. Willow carrs and forbs preferred as white-tailed ptarmigan forage could be affected by permitted domestic sheep grazing, although domestic sheep grazing has occurred to varying extents in the analysis area since the 1800s (many times at high stocking rates) and ptarmigans are persistent and a fairly commonly occurring species. Vegetation in these areas would still be required to meet Forest Plan standards and guidelines, which should prevent utilization to the extent that permitted domestic sheep grazing would affect white-tailed ptarmigan populations. Under this alternative, monitoring for ptarmigan has been included, to help assess whether they are being impacted by domestic sheep grazing in this area.

Bighorn sheep have persisted in the area despite the fact that domestic sheep grazing has occurred to varying extents in the analysis area since the 1800s (in the late 1800s-early 1900s at much higher stocking rates). Contact with permitted domestic sheep has the potential to severely impact bighorn sheep populations. There is also the potential for irreversible adverse effects to any native populations of bighorn sheep within or near the analysis area. The Colorado Division of Wildlife has identified the Blanco River Bighorn Sheep Herd as “native” (CDOW 2009). The Blanco River Bighorn Sheep Herd core area is partly within the analysis area. In the event that an entire die-off of this native population of bighorn sheep occurred, there would be a loss of genetics and survival adaptations. “Conservation genetics theory predicts that specific, isolated populations of a species may be better adapted to surviving in their local environments. These populations may have a genetic makeup differing from other populations of the same species and may be better able to survive and reproduce in their respective environments. In support of this theory, genetic studies of bighorn sheep have indicated that genotypes of populations in close proximity are more similar than populations separated by larger distances” (CDOW 2009). This alternative is designed to minimize the potential for interactions between domestic and bighorn


112

sheep. Under this alternative, a risk analysis (appendix A) would be applied to provide a logical means to determine the risk of contact between domestic and bighorn sheep. The risk assessment would be re-evaluated before changes in management and/or as a result of new information. This risk analysis would assist in determining how to manage the domestic sheep grazing to decrease risk of contact between domestic and bighorn sheep at any given time, which would be beneficial to bighorn sheep (Schommer and Woolever 2001, Wyoming State-wide Bighorn/Domestic Sheep Interaction Working Group 2004, Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies 2007). In addition, project design criteria and monitoring will be in place to restrict domestic sheep from areas of high risk of contact as well as design criteria to avoid stray domestic sheep, quicker methods of communication, monitoring for bighorn sheep numbers, monitoring bighorn sheep movements and ranges, and many other design criteria to minimize the potential for contact. Adaptive management will be in place to allow for changes to be made in domestic sheep management if bighorn sheep movements or ranges change from the current status or to adapt to other unforeseen circumstances.

This alternative was designed to decrease the risk of contact between bighorn and domestic sheep. Therefore, this alternative would be expected to benefit bighorn sheep more than current management, although it would not likely be as beneficial as alternative 1.

Overall effects of alternative 3 to all other TES species would be expected to be minimal with implementation of Forest Plan standards and guidelines and project design criteria (see chapter 2, section 2.7). Under this alternative, flexibility to change livestock grazing management, as a result of resource monitoring or new information, would be improved. This would allow for rapid management changes if new information surfaces indicating that specific management practices should be implemented to conserve/protect a TES species.

Although historic overgrazing did have negative effects on soils and vegetation within the analysis area, current data and information show that most of these effects have healed. Implementation of this alternative, in addition to other activities (see summary of past, present, and reasonably forseeable actions in project record) occurring or expected to occur within the analysis area, would be expected to have limited cumulative effects to terrestrial TES species or their habitats. Effects could include cumulatively increased trampling of individuals or eggs, disturbance of individuals, or possible degradation of riparian and/or upland areas which supply habitat elements critical to TES. Despite some of these cumulative effects likely having occurred under current management, Forest Plan standards and guidelines have continued to be met and overall TES habitat within the analysis area remains in good condition. Potential cumulative effects to Canada lynx are tracked by LAU, and annually reported to the USFWS.

Cumulatively, there would also be a chance of disease transmission from domestic sheep and possibly goats (permitted and recreational stock) to bighorn sheep under this alternative. In addition, domestic sheep and goats grazing on adjacent Forest Service allotments and Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Colorado State, and private lands could pose a risk of contact (and potential resultant disease transmission) to bighorn sheep. There is also a risk of disease transmission from bighorn sheep currently infected with Pasturella spp. (such as bighorn sheep in the Alamosa Canyon Herd). The combination of permitted and recreational stock, as well as domestic sheep and goats grazing on lands outside of this analysis area—in addition to already infected bighorn sheep—could increase the chances of healthy bighorn sheep being exposed to disease. This could increase the chances of bighorn sheep herds becoming ill and/or experiencing a die-off.


113

Under this alternative, crossing permits would not be issued for high risk areas and could be issued for moderate or low risk areas (with implementation of project design criteria and if the trailing of domestic sheep into a moderate risk area did not increase the risk to high). The type of use allowed by these permits is extremely limited, but could result in cumulative impacts (of the crossing permit and normal permitted grazing) to white-tailed ptarmigan and bighorn sheep. Impacts to white-tailed ptarmigan would still be expected to remain fairly minimal, as most of the analysis area would remain free of utilization even with normal grazing in addition to occasional crossing of additional livestock through the area. If a temporary crossing permit was issued, the presence of domestic sheep could pose a disease risk to bighorn sheep if they were present in the area. A temporary crossing permit could potentially detrimentally impact bighorn sheep, since the probability of contact would be increased by having more domestic sheep in more locations at one time, increasing the risk of disease transmission and/or die-offs. Exclusion of these “additional” temporarily permitted sheep from areas that would result in high risk of contact would reduce the likely-hood of potential negative impacts. No temporary crossing permits have been or are expected to be issued for this analysis area. Therefore, effects from temporary crossing permits (although they could cumulatively impact bighorn sheep) would be expected to remain fairly unlikely.

Alternative 3 includes a risk analysis, project design criteria, and additional management flexibility to reduce risk of contact between domestic and bighorn sheep. Therefore, the cumulative impacts of alternative 3 in addition to other factors considered would be expected to be less than cumulative impacts of alternative 2.

Cumulatively, sheep grazing activities associated with alternative 3, in addition to recreation activities within the analysis area, could result in a higher chance of disturbance of bighorn sheep (and some avoidance of habitat use) than in alternative 1. However, under this alternative, areas most frequently used by bighorn sheep would likely be excluded from domestic sheep grazing as a result of the risk assessment process (which excludes domestic sheep grazing from areas having the highest risk of contact between bighorn and domestic sheep).

For most TES species, cumulative impacts of this alternative would be similar to alternative 2. Overall, this alternative would be expected to fall in between alternatives 1 and 2 in regards to direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts to bighorn sheep.

Forest Plan standards and guidelines and project design criteria (see chapter 2, section 2.7), and increased management flexibility are in place to minimize impacts to most TES and their habitat.

3.4.8 Wildlife

3.4.8.1 Scope of the Analysis This section addresses non-TES wildlife and is organized into two discussions as follows: (1) management indicator species (MIS), and (2) migratory birds. This section is a summary of more detailed analysis contained in separate reports as categorized above. Each report is part of the project administrative record. MIS are more thoroughly addressed at the Forest level, due to limited habitat effects expected from any of the alternatives. Migratory birds are addressed within the analysis area. Direction concerning landbird conservation in Forest Service Region 2 is to reference the 2002 Birds of Conservation Concern list produced by the USFWS for Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) when completing NEPA evaluations for project activities. Furthermore, Forest Service units are encouraged to interface with the State and bird conservation region working groups for actions and objectives to pursue concerning migratory


114

bird conservation. Potential influences on migratory birds were tiered to conservation objectives at the Forest-wide scale and the Southern Rockies Colorado Plateau Bird Conservation Region (BCR) 16 (additional information on BCR 16 is available online at: http://www.nabci-us.org/bcrs.html).

3.4.8.2 Past Actions that Have Affected the Existing Condition See section 3.4.7, “Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive (TES) Wildlife Species” under this same heading since that description applies here as well.

3.4.8.3 Existing Condition See 3.4.7, “Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive (TES) Wildlife Species” under this same heading since that description applies here as well.

Management Indicator Species

Table 3-13 is a summary of the Forest MIS species and the rationale for the detail in which they were analyzed for this project. Six MIS were evaluated in detail for this analysis: (1) elk, (2) mule deer, (3) Rio Grande cutthroat trout, (4) Lincoln’s sparrow, (5) Wilson’s warbler, and (6) Vesper sparrow.


115

Table 3-13. Summary of the MIS evaluation

MIS Habitats Represented Rationale for Selection inForest Plan

Rationale for Detailed Evaluation for the analysis area

Rationale for Dismissal From Detailed Analysis

Brown creeper Mature to late successional spruce/fir and mixed conifer (LTAs

1 1, 3, 13; Structure

Class 5) 2

Species has a close association with structural elements that occur under older forest conditions, including large tree diameters and older snag component. May respond to certain threats, management, and conservation activities in spruce/fir forests (Colorado Bird Conservation Plan). Resident bird less affected by management activities outside of breeding range.

None of the alternatives are expected to substantially affect spruce/fir habitat.

Hermit thrush Mature to late successional spruce/fir and mixed conifer (LTAs 1, 3, 13; Structure Class 5)

Species primarily associated with spruce/fir and is commonly associated with, but not restricted to, older forest structure. May respond to certain threats, management, and conservation activities in spruce/fir forests (Colorado Bird Conservation Plan). Tied to complex structural forest elements; may represent mature to late successional forest floor characteristics. Timber and/or fire management may affect quantity and/or quality of habitat, such as coarse woody debris.

None of the alternatives are expected to substantially affect spruce/fir habitat.

Elk Forest-wide (All LTAs) Special interest locally (i.e., economic and recreational value). May be competing with other native ungulates and livestock. Sensitive to roads and related disturbance.

Analysis area provides elk summer habitat, area of concentrated summer use, and elk production areas. Indicator of possible forage competition, and/or disturbance by livestock grazing and associated activities. Sensitive to roads and related disturbance.

Mule deer Forest-wide (All LTAs) Special interest locally (economic and recreational value). Sensitive to roads and related disturbance. A habitat generalist but also associated with

Analysis area provides mule deer summer habitat and areas of summer concentration. Indicator of possible forage competition, and/or


116

early successional stages for forage. disturbance by livestock grazing and associated activities. Sensitive to roads and related disturbance.

Rio Grande cutthroat trout

Riparian (LTA 10, Forest-wide aquatic)

Management indicator of the health of montane aquatic ecosystems. Most sensitive of the salmonid species to management activities that increase sediment, reduce stream cover, create barriers to movement, or impact stream flows or water quality.

Recreation populations within the project analysis area.

Will assist in monitoring whether Forest Plan standards and guidelines are being met, with an emphasis on how grazing activities are managed in relation to stream habitat.

Pygmy nuthatch Mature to late successional ponderosa pine (LTA 5; Structure Class 5)

Cavity nester; timber and/or fire management may affect quantity and/or quality of habitat, including snags; may represent effects to other primary and secondary cavity nesters.

No habitat within analysis area.

Lincoln’s sparrow Riparian (LTA 10, willow) Riparian species tied to different structural elements susceptible to grazing and other activities within riparian areas; monitored as a group with Wilson’s warbler due to close habitat associations with willow communities at various elevations.

Will assist in monitoring whether Forest Plan standards and guidelines are being met, with an emphasis on willow habitat.

Wilson’s warbler Riparian (LTA 10, willow) Riparian species tied to different structural elements susceptible to grazing and other activities within riparian areas; monitored as a group with Lincoln’s sparrow due to close habitat associations with willow communities at various elevations.

Will assist in monitoring whether Forest Plan standards and guidelines are being met, with an emphasis on willow habitat.

Vesper sparrow Grasslands (LTAs 8, 9, and 12)

Uses a narrow set of habitat conditions for nesting – sparsely or patchily distributed shrubs with abundant grass cover on the Forest; may be affected by grazing activities. Indicator of upland bunchgrass/shrub communities.

Will assist in monitoring whether Forest Plan standards and guidelines are being met, with an emphasis on grassland habitat.

1 LTA = Landtype association (defined in EIS, appendix B, and in the Forest Plan FEIS, page 3-41).

2 Structure class (defined in EIS, appendix B, and in the Forest Plan FEIS, page 3-43).


117

Migratory Birds

For the purposes of this analysis (and in accordance with the memorandum of understanding signed in 2009 by the Forest Service and the USFWS), migratory birds were analyzed within the analysis area by tiering to the Forest’s migratory bird report (USDA Forest Service 2005) and reference to the 2002 Birds of Conservation Concern list produced by the USFWS and to the Colorado Landbird Conservation Plan (BCP).

Table 3-14 shows USFWS migratory bird species of conservation concern that occur within the habitat types associated with the analysis area (based on RGNF GIS data). Table 3-14 also includes the Forest Service Rocky Mountain Region (R2) conservation recommendations and the relevant Forest Plan standards and guidelines that address conservation of these species.

Table 3-14. USFWS species of conservation concern for Bird Conservation Region 16 not included in the BCP but found on the RGNF, and their relationship to the Forest Plan

Species Habitat Type (Forest LTAs)

Region 2 Conservation Recommendation

Forest Plan Wildlife Standards

Swainson’s hawk Grasslands (LTAs 8, 9, 12)

Consider as emphasis species; protect nest sites

5, 10, 21

Golden eagle Grasslands/Shrublands (LTAs 8, 9, 12/6, 7)


5, 10, 21

Prairie falcon Grasslands (LTAs 8, 9, 12)


5, 10, 21

Williamson’s sapsucker Mixed Conifer/Aspen (LTAs 3/2)

Common breeder on R2 units; no specific recommendation

21

LTAs 1, 2, 3, 4, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12 are shown (by RGNF GIS coverage) to occur within the analysis area. Although Forest GIS data include those LTAs, the associated species are not expected to commonly occur within the analysis area. According to RGNF GIS coverage, most of the analysis area is above the elevation range of the Williamson’s sapsucker, which ranges from approximately 7,000 to 10,700 feet (Kingery 1998), and there is little to no suitable habitat in the analysis area for this species. There is no mixed conifer (LTA 3), or ponderosa pine (LTA 5). Therefore, species listed in association with those LTAs are not expected to commonly utilize the analysis area. There is limited aspen habitat within the analysis area (LTA 2) and livestock grazing will not occur in this habitat; therefore, priority species occurring in this habitat were not assessed at the fine-filter scale.

Table 3-15 summarizes the priority habitats and species of birds (from the BCP) that are relevant to this analysis area. It includes the priority species and potential issues as identified in the BCP, a description of the level of assessment done for the priority species listed, and Forest Plan standards that will be applied as required for conservation of these species. Species assessed at the fine-filter level were analyzed in the BA, BE, or MIS reports prepared for this project’s administrative record.


118

Table 3-15. Migratory birds; priority habitats and associated species relevant to this analysis area

Priority Habitat Type

(LTA)1

Colorado Landbird Conservation Plan

(BCP) Priority Species BCP Potential Issues(s) Type of Assessment2 Forest Plan Standards

Alpine Tundra (LTA 4)

White-tailed ptarmigan American pipit Brown-capped rosy finch

Fragile habitats; specialized species

Coarse-filter assessment. No MIS selected. One priority species assessed at fine-filter.

Wildlife standards 7, 21

Grasslands (LTAs 8, 9, 12)

Burrowing owl Ferruginous hawk Loggerhead shrike

Not identified as a priority habitat type in Physiographic Area 62

MIS assessment: Vesper sparrow representative species.

Wildlife standards 3, 20, 21

Cliff/Rock (LTA 11)

Peregrine falcon Black swift

Rock climbing; mining Coarse-filter assessment. No MIS selected. Both priority species assessed at fine-filter.

Wildlife standards 5, 7, 11, 12, 21

High Elevation Riparian (LTA 10)

Cordilleran flycatcher American dipper MacGillivray’s warbler Wilson’s warbler

Livestock grazing; recreation impacts

MIS selected: Wilson’s warbler and Lincoln’s sparrow representative species. One priority species assessed at fine-filter.

Wildlife standards 20, 21 Riparian area standards 6, 8

Spruce/Fir (LTA 1/13)

Boreal owl Olive-sided flycatcher Hammond’s flycatcher

Timber management, snags, altered disturbance regimes

MIS assessment: Brown creeper and hermit thrush representative species. Two priority species assessed at fine-filter.

Wildlife standards 7, 20, 21

1 LTA = Landtype association (defined in appendix B of this EIS and in the Forest Plan FEIS, page 3-41). 2 The “coarse filter” assessment indicates that a broad-scale analysis and monitoring of a particular habitat type is assumed to be sufficient for species viability. Any species mentioned as federally listed, R2 sensitive, or as assessed under MIS proposals indicates additional analysis at the “fine filter” scale.

Source: Migratory Bird Assessment for the Rio Grande National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, as amended (7/2005) (USDA Forest Service)


119

3.4.8.4 Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects None of the alternatives would be expected to result in significant direct, indirect, or cumulative effects to management indicator species or migratory birds. None of the alternatives would be expected to produce irreversible or irretrievable commitments of management indicator species or migratory birds.

Management Indicator Species

Table 3-16 is a summary of the MIS evaluated in detail for this project and the predicted effects to habitat by alternative.


120

Table 3-16. Summary of effects to MIS, by alternative




Rio Grande Cutthroat Trout (including proxies—rainbow, brown, and brook trout)

Estimated miles of stream inhabited Forest-wide is 1,050 miles, and >1,200 lake surface acres.

Should maintain or gradually improve habitat conditions, trout density/ biomass, and population numbers expected to remain fairly stable.

Maintenance or minor habitat improvements expected over time resulting in fairly stable trout density/biomass, and population numbers.

Should provide response to habitat improvement needs more rapidly than current management, resulting in stable to increasing trout density/biomass and population numbers.

Elk

Population estimates obtained from CDOW indicate that there are currently 23,270 elk within the four data analysis units (DAUs) on the RGNF, which greatly exceeds the current objective for this area of approximately 15,700 (CDOW unpublished data 2007).

Would not result in any substantial change in habitat conditions or population trend.



Mule Deer

There are four DAUs on the RGNF, with a population objective of 25,500 mule deer. The mule deer population has fluctuated above and below this objective since the late 1980s with a current mean population estimated at 16,840 animals (CDOW unpublished data 2007).




Wilson’s Warbler

Partners in Flight total score indicates a decrease in population trend for this species (Rich et al. 2004). Population trend information from the Breeding Bird Surveys also shows a decrease for this species in Colorado (Sauer et





121

al. 2005). The Natural Heritage Ranking for this species is G5 (demonstrably secure globally) (Colorado Natural Heritage Program 1997).

Lincoln’s Sparrow

The Colorado Breeding Bird Atlas documented Lincoln’s sparrow as breeders in a high percentage of the survey blocks in the mountainous areas of the state (Kingery 1998). The Natural Heritage ranking for this species is demonstrably secure globally (Nature Serve 2005). Breeding Bird Survey data shows a fairly high upward trend of almost 3 percent per year for this species with a smaller upward trend established for Colorado and the area which encompasses the RGNF (Kingery 1998; USDA Forest Service 2005a).




Vesper’s Sparrow

Population estimates obtained from the Colorado Breeding Bird Atlas estimate a minimum relative density of 1,015–4,110 pairs of vesper sparrows occurring on the RGNF. Locations are spread across 27 of 60 atlas blocks (quadrangle maps) that occur or partially occur on the RGNF.

Population is expected to increase over-time in response to improvements in the quality and distribution of preferred habitat.

Should slowly improve vegetation conditions in grassland and shrubland habitat.


Habitat should remain effective throughout the analysis area.


Should slowly improve habitat conditions in grassland and shrubland habitat.



122

Alternative 1 (No Permitted Livestock Grazing) Implementation of alternative 1 would be expected to have positive effects on trout habitat conditions, resulting in maintenance of density/biomass and population numbers. Due to the currently good condition of the analysis area, alternative 1 would be expected to have no substantial change in overall habitat conditions or in population trends for elk, mule deer, Wilson’s warbler, Lincoln’s sparrow, or Vesper sparrow.

Alternative 2 (Current Livestock Grazing Management) Implementation of alternative 2 would be expected to result in maintenance of trout habitat over time, resulting in trout density/biomass and population number stability. For elk, mule deer, Wilson’s warbler, Lincoln’s sparrow, and Vesper sparrow; implementation of alternative 2 would not be expected to result in any substantial change in habitat conditions or population trends. Alternative 2 does not include the management flexibility inherent in alternative 3, thereby somewhat decreasing the ability to manage for favorable habitat conditions. Elk and mule deer could be temporarily displaced by domestic sheep grazing operations; however, this would have little to no impact on them due to the abundance of available habitat.

Alternative 3 (Adaptive Livestock Grazing Management) Implementation of alternative 3 would be expected to maintain or improve trout habitat conditions, maintaining or slightly increasing trout density/biomass and population numbers. This alternative would be expected to result in no noticeable change in habitat or population trends for elk, mule deer, Wilson’s warbler, Lincoln’s sparrow, or Vesper sparrow. Alternative 3 would provide greater management flexibility to prevent potential negative effects to MIS habitat than alternative 2. Elk and mule deer could be temporarily displaced by domestic sheep grazing operations; however, this would have little to no impact on them due to the abundance of available habitat.

Cumulative Effects Common to All Action Alternatives Past and current recreation activities include hiking, hunting and fishing, and packing. Timber activities have occurred and resulted in impacts to some areas (see summary of past, present and reasonably forseeable future actions in project record). Some areas could receive negative impacts to riparian vegetation/habitat from permitted livestock in addition to recreation and/or timber activities. Trampling and grazing of this vegetation may occur. Also, disturbance or trampling of individuals or their eggs could occur as a result of recreation, timber, and/or domestic sheep presence and associated activities. However, these impacts would be expected to be minimal. Forest Plan standards and guidelines, as well as project design criteria (see chapter 2, section 2.7), would be applied throughout the area under both action alternatives, which would help minimize effects to MIS or their habitat.

Alternatives 2 and 3, and their associated livestock grazing activities, would not automatically trigger other actions, and thereby, would not trigger other effects to MIS in this area. Any future actions that may be proposed by the Forest Service, would be evaluated and an independent assessment would be made of the cumulative effects of those actions. Because of the low impact of these alternatives upon MIS in this analysis area, there are no other known or anticipated proposed projects in the general area, which when combined with any of these action alternatives, would be expected to impact MIS or their habitat.


123

Cumulative Effects Common to all Alternatives Although historic (early 1900s) overgrazing had negative effects on soils and vegetation within the analysis area, current data and information show that most of these effects have healed. The cumulative effects of any of the alternatives when added to past, ongoing, and future activities, is expected to result in minor effects to the environment.

Monitoring of population and habitat trends is more appropriate at the Forest level than at the scale and extent of the North San Juan project analysis area. The potential effects from proposed grazing upon the six MIS evaluated in detail are judged to be minimal in their impacts to the populations as a whole. Because habitat effectiveness would be expected to be maintained and there should be relatively minor disturbance to individuals, species viability at the Forest-level should not be impacted. Forest-level monitoring of cumulative effects is judged to provide a more appropriate scale of analysis for MIS population and habitat trend across the Forest.

Migratory Birds

Alternative 1 (No Permitted Livestock Grazing) Alternative 1 would be expected to have minor direct, indirect, or cumulative effects on the migratory birds assessed for this analysis. Habitat within the analysis area is currently in good condition. Although vegetation conditions would be expected to slightly improve over time, overall effects on migratory birds would not be expected to be noticeable. Under this alternative, there would be no potential for displacement or mortality from permitted sheep presence and associated livestock management activities. Although minor effects from recreation activities, timber, and possible livestock crossing via temporary crossing permits (disturbance, trampling of individuals or eggs, or habitat impacts) could still occur within the analysis area, implementation of alternative 1 would be expected to have no cumulative effects on migratory birds. Under this alternative, crossing permits will not be issued.

Alternative 2 (Current Livestock Grazing Management) Alternative 2 could have limited direct and indirect, or cumulative effects on some of the migratory bird species analyzed. These effects could include disturbance; direct mortality from crushing; or degradation of breeding, nesting, or foraging habitat from livestock grazing and associated activities. Cumulatively, effects from present and future recreation, in addition to sheep grazing, and possible temporary livestock crossing permits, could intensify these effects. If a temporary crossing permit was issued, the result would be more domestic sheep in different portions of the analysis area at the same time, resulting in slightly greater potential for disturbance or trampling. Currently there are no crossing permits issued within the analysis area nor are there expected to be.

Currently, these activities are not known to have detectable detrimental impacts to migratory bird populations within the analysis area. Overall, effects of alternative 2 would be expected to have little to no impact on the migratory birds analyzed (see the associated BE and MIS reports in the administrative record). Forest Plan standards and guidelines for both wildlife and vegetation utilization would be adhered to, helping to conserve migratory birds and their habitats within the analysis area. This alternative would not be as responsive and flexible as alternative 3 to possible management changes needed to conserve migratory birds.


124

Alternative 3 (Adaptive Livestock Grazing Management) Alternative 3 could have limited direct and indirect, and cumulative effects on some of the migratory bird species analyzed. These effects could include disturbance; direct mortality from crushing; or degradation of breeding, nesting, or foraging habitat from livestock grazing and associated livestock management activities. Cumulatively, effects from present and future recreation, in addition to permitted sheep grazing, could intensify these effects. Possible effects from temporary livestock crossing permits would be virtually eliminated due to a project design criteria (chapter 2, section 2.7) limiting these types of permits, although currently they are not commonly issued within the analysis area. Direct, indirect, and cumulative effects to migratory birds would be expected to be similar to those in alternative 2. Possible increases in the number of domestic sheep grazed, and possible grazing of currently vacant allotments, could increase the likelihood of trampling. However, this would not be expected to a high degree, since the actual capacity would be equal to or less than current management. Forest Plan standards and guidelines would be adhered to, which would help to limit possible negative effects to migratory birds and/or their habitat. Additional project design criteria (see chapter 2, section 2.7), as well as flexibility provided by adaptive livestock grazing management, would provide greater protection for migratory birds and their habitat than would alternative 2. This alternative would increase management responsiveness if changes were needed based on new information. Overall, the effects of alternative 3 would be expected to have little to no impacts on the migratory birds analyzed.

3.4.9 Fisheries

3.4.9.1 Scope of the Analysis The scope of this analysis discusses the fishery resources within the North San Juan Sheep and Goat analysis area. The analysis is restricted to the analysis area shown earlier in chapter 1, section 1.4.

3.4.9.2 Past Actions that Have Affected the Existing Condition See the “Rangeland Resources” (section 3.4.1), “Wilderness/Recreation/Travel Management” (section 3.4.2), and the “Watershed and Aquatic Resources” (section 3.4.3) 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 native 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.

3.4.9.3 Existing Condition Overall stream health is currently adequate-to-robust with only a few, short stream reaches, primarily near trail crossings, impacted by recreation and/or livestock grazing activities (see “Watershed and Aquatic Resources” [section 3.6] and “Wilderness/Recreation/Travel Management” [section 3.5] 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


125

native and desirable nonnative trout species. Impacts to fish populations attributed to livestock grazing activities have not been documented.

Today, streams and lakes within wilderness areas are only stocked with native fish (Rio Grande cutthroat trout), although most streams also support self-sustaining populations of nonnative cutthroat, brook trout, brown trout, and/or rainbow trout. Recreation populations of Rio Grande cutthroat trout are found in Lake Ann, Cliff Lake, Prospect Creek, Treasure Creek and the upper reaches (above Platoro Reservoir) of Adams Fork, North Fork, and Middle Fork Conejos River. Recreation populations are hatchery-supported populations managed for sportfish recreation and typically inhabit high lakes and streams where restoration (the removal of all nonnative fish) is unlikely due to physical restrictions and public desires. These populations are maintained with periodic hatchery stockings by CDOW. There are no known self-sustaining genetically pure populations of native Rio Grande cutthroat trout within the analysis area.

3.4.9.4 Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects Improper livestock management can potentially degrade riparian and aquatic habitats in a variety of direct and indirect ways (Platts 1991). However, none of the alternatives would be expected to result in significant direct, indirect, or cumulative effect on the existing fish populations within the analysis area.

None of the alternatives would be expected to produce irreversible or irretrievable commitments of the fisheries resources.

A BE addressing Forest sensitive fish species has been prepared and placed in the administrative record for this project.

Alternative 1 (No Permitted Livestock Grazing) There would be no impacts from permitted livestock to stream health from this alternative. Vegetation impacted under historic or current management would recover with rest. Existing watershed and stream conditions should improve slightly over time as conditions are already fair to good. 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.

Effects Common to All 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 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 likely have a minimal impact on fish populations if project design criteria (chapter 2, section 2.7), along with Forest Plan standards and guidelines and Water Conservation Practices Handbook management measures and design criteria are fully implemented. Specific project design criteria in alternative 3 would manage livestock activity near lakes, streams, wet meadows, and riparian areas; as well as


126

require herding livestock away from these areas of concern. The 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 analysis area tend to be minor and would not threaten the viability of fish populations.

Alternative 2 (Current Livestock Grazing Management) 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 analysis 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 slowly improve.

Alternative 3 (Adaptive Livestock Grazing Management) By applying adaptive livestock grazing management on those limited 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 identified 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 sheep 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.

3.4.10 Heritage Resources

3.4.10.1 Scope of the Analysis This analysis discusses cultural resources within the North Fork-Middle, Upper Adams, Treasure, West Vega, East Vega, Cornwall, Willow, Elwood, Cropsy, Summit, Campo Bonito, and Marble Mtn. Sheep and Goat Allotments. Cultural resources include prehistoric and historic archaeological sites, features, and values having scientific, historical, educational, and/or cultural significance. The focus of this analysis is on the area of potential effect (APE) defined in chapter 1, section 1.4 and began with a literature search of existing information pertinent to the APE and a review of local and Colorado State Historic Preservation Office (COSHPO) files and databases for previously recorded cultural resources and previously conducted cultural resource inventories.

The project area includes 44,692 acres encompassing the 11 sheep and goat allotments mentioned above. 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. Approximately 3,898 acres have been previously surveyed for cultural resources within the project area, and a total of 916 acres have been surveyed within the defined APE for this analysis. The defined APE areas were identified within Elwood,


127

Cropsy/Summit, Campo Bonito, Treasure, Upper Adams, Willow Mtn., and North Fork Middle Allotments.

3.4.10.2 Past Actions that Have Affected the Existing Condition The class I literature search for the allotments within the analysis area indicate that 13 previous cultural resource inventories have been completed on approximately 3,898 acres resulting in the identification of 10 sites within or directly adjacent to the project area (5CN.89, 5RN.327, 5RN.328, 5RN.329, 5CN.531, 5CN.532, 5CN.533, 5RN.354, 5RN.417 (Elwood Cabin), and 5RN.465. One isolate (5CN.449) has been previously documented; however, there are potentially others within the analysis area that did not receive Smithsonian numbers for older projects. Site 5CN.89 is unevaluated, but during this analysis was determined to be outside the APE. Sites 5RN.327 and 5RN.328 are listed in the OAHP Compass database as ‘need data,’ but a 1981 SHPO concurrence letter for the Cornwall Timber Sale shows that the SHPO at the time concurred that they were not eligible.

3.4.10.3 Existing Condition New cultural resource inventories were completed for the Upper Adams, Treasure, Willow Mtn., North Fork Middle, Elwood, Cropsy/Summit, and Campo Bonito Allotments totaling approximately 916 acres. During these inventories, 6 sites (5RN.1009, 5RN.1012. 5RN.1013, 5RN.1027, 5CN.1405, 5CN.1408.1) and 11 isolated finds (5RN.1003, 5RN.1004, 5RN.1010, 5RN.1011, 5RN.1014, 5RN.1025, 5CN.1406, 5CN.1409, 5CN.1410, 5CN.1411, 5CN.1412) were identified and recorded (appendix B: Site Forms). Site 5RN.1012 is recommended as eligible to the NRHP, while 5RN.1009, 5RN.1013, 5RN.1027, 5CN.1405, and 5CN.1408.1 are recommended as not eligible to the NRHP. Unevaluated sites 5CN.531, 5CN.532, and 5CN.533 are within the APE and were re-evaluated and recommended as ‘not eligible’ to the National Register of Historic Places.

According to the 2001 revised regulations [36 CFR 800.4(d) (1)] for Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 470f) the recommended determination for the proposed action is “no historic properties affected.” Under the implementing regulations of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (36 CFR 800), sites considered not eligible to the NRHP may be directly affected once adequately recorded, evaluated, and concurrence is received from the SHPO regarding NRHP eligibility.

3.4.10.4 Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects 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.

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. Cultural resource inventory, recording, evaluating and archiving basic information


128

about each site for future reference serves to partially mitigate potential effects to cultural resources. Recreation activities, logging and livestock grazing has the potential to cause substantial ground disturbance and lead to cumulative, long-term, irreversible adverse effects to cultural resources. While it is hard to determine cumulative effects on unidentified archaeological sites, livestock grazing at adequate stocking rates that adhere to proper grazing management should not increase the potential for cumulative effects within the North San Juan Analysis Area.

Alternative 1 (No Permitted Livestock Grazing) Under the no-grazing alternative, 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, 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 12 allotments.

Effects Common to All Action Alternatives Livestock grazing and associated activities would not be expected to significantly impact the eligible, unevaluated, and otherwise undocumented cultural resources; due to the apparent low site density within the analysis area; the fact that sheep are moved frequently; and for the fact that sheep bed down in upland zones generally away from higher site density areas near the riparian. These factors work in the favor of the protection of cultural resources, therefore decreasing the potential for adverse affects to cultural resources in most places. Compliance with specific project design criteria (chapter 2, section 2.7) will help ensure Forest-wide desired conditions and objectives and the intent of section 106 of the NHPA would be met. The COSHPO has provided concurrence for this project.

Alternative 2 (Current Livestock Grazing Management) 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 cultural deposits and site matrices.

Alternative 3 (Adaptive Livestock Grazing Management) 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 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


129

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.

3.4.11 Noxious Plants

3.4.11.1 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, shown in chapter 1, section 1.4.

3.4.11.2 Past Actions that Have Affected the Existing Condition Past ground-disturbing activities such as road construction and maintenance, trail construction and maintenance, timber sales, wildfire, livestock grazing, wildlife grazing, recreation activities, etc., disturbed the ground and presented a niche for noxious plant establishment. Wildlife, livestock, machinery, recreational vehicles, people, wind, and water, transport seeds from existing infestations to new sites. Most of the analysis area is predominately remote or wilderness; therefore, many of these establishment and transport mechanisms are minimized. Portions of the analysis area have a road and trail network that can potentially facilitate the transport of invasive plants by people or animals (wildlife or livestock). Disturbance associated with past timber sales has contributed to noxious weed infestations. For more information on past activities relevant to ground disturbance and noxious plants, see the “Rangeland Resources” (section 3.4.1) topics in this chapter under the same heading.

3.4.11.3 Existing Condition Noxious plants occur within the RGNF and within Conejos County. Known noxious plants occur within the analysis area at the following sites:

Past “Klondike” Timber Sale – Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense) on the East Vega and West Vega Allotments.

Past “Miles North” Timber Sale – Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense) on the Cornwall Mtn. Allotment.

Past “Mary J’s” Timber Sale – Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense) on the Cornwall Mtn. Allotment.

Roadside on FSR 380 at Elwood Pass – Yellow toadflax (Linaria vulgaris) on the Elwood Allotment.

Trailside on Trail 713 – Yellow toadflax (Linaria vulgaris) on the Upper Adams Allotment.

The following noxious plant species are found near the analysis area and have the potential to move into the analysis area: Hoary cress (also known as whitetop) (Cardaria draba), perennial pepperweed (also known as tall whitetop) (Lepidium latifolium), oxeye daisy (Chrysanthemum leucanthemum) and Chamomile (Matricaria perforata). All of the known noxious plant occurrences are located in disturbed areas or in fire-sterilized ground. These occurrences are along the sides of roads, burn piles, at trailheads, or along recreation trails where past ground disturbance has occurred. Thus, the known infestations appear to be the result of recreation livestock or motorized vehicle activities and not associated with sheep grazing activities. The


130

most common noxious plant outside the analysis area is Canada thistle, and it is predominately found in disturbed sites within past timber sale areas.

Within the analysis area, there are known populations of Canada thistle and yellow toadflax. Noxious weed treatment has been occurring within the analysis area for years. Project design for past timber sales has included funding for preventative noxious weed treatment. There is one known infestation of yellow toadflax in wilderness within the analysis area.

3.4.11.4 Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects Noxious plants are a concern on the RGNF because they aggressively compete with native plants for sunlight, water, nutrients, and space, and have the potential to displace native plants and animals. Noxious plants can reduce forage for livestock and wildlife, degrade wildlife habitat, and negatively affect recreation opportunities. In extreme situations with certain weeds, there is a corresponding impact to soil health since the weeds provide little effective cover and the soil is exposed 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 effects of any infestations that become established 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 known, existing infested areas inside and outside of the analysis area continue, as part of the long-term unified management of the South San Juan Wilderness.

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. None of the alternatives would be expected to produce irreversible or irretrievable commitments concerning noxious weed management.

Alternative 1 (No Permitted Livestock Grazing) 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. However, to date, sheep grazing operations in the project area have not been a factor in spreading noxious plants. Recreation activities may continue to present a seed transport and disturbance factor in the analysis area along with road maintenance activities and timber harvest operations. In recent times, noxious weed awareness has changed the way activities are conducted. There are weed free hay and feed requirements for recreational users. Timber sales and road maintenance activities now incorporate mitigation to prevent and treat noxious weed infestations. Land reclamation activities require weed free mulch, straw, and seed. Therefore, this is not expected to be a significant impact over the next two decades (based on the current state of awareness that has been afforded to preventing and treating noxious weeds).

Effects Common to All Action Alternatives Under alternatives 2 and 3, domestic sheep would access the analysis area mainly through the Hot Creek Stock Driveway and the Dry Creek Stock Driveway, along with other trails and roads (see chapter 2, figure 2-1). Although permitted livestock have the potential to be a vector for the


131

spread of noxious plants, sheep operations have not been a known factor to date. Furthermore, proper livestock grazing is designed and intended to minimize niches for noxious plants. The continued spread of noxious plant infestations will likely be associated with ground disturbing activities and recreational livestock use.

Cumulatively, past, present and reasonably foreseeable actions such as permitted livestock grazing, timber harvest, road building and maintenance, trail building and maintenance, and recreation activities all contribute to creating possible niches and seed transport mechanisms to allow for the establishment and spread of noxious plants within the analysis area. However, this is not expected to be a significant impact over the next two decades as described above. The Forest would continue to vigilantly monitor and control noxious weeds.

3.4.12 Social

3.4.12.1 Scope of the Analysis This section describes the potential social effects on the livestock grazing permittees of the analysis area and the ranching communities of the San Luis Valley (SLV) region which include: Alamosa, Conejos, Costilla, Mineral, Rio Grande, and Saguache Counties. In analyzing social effects, we have attempted to emphasize groups of individuals (those holding Forest Service grazing permits in the area and those in this area engaged in some related way in ranching-based agriculture), communities and community institutions, and group of communities in this area.

3.4.12.2 Past Actions that Have Affected the Existing Condition Considerably more sheep grazed the analysis area prior to 1930. See “Rangeland Resources”, section 3.4.1, in this chapter under the same heading for more information. Appendix D briefly summarizes the demographic characteristics of the people who live in the towns and counties of the SLV; recent patterns of demographic change, occupation, industry and employment; cultural patterns; and the general size and level of activity for association, organizations, and local government.

3.4.12.3 Existing Condition A county-by-county description of the major industries, towns, population, and number of Forest Service grazing permit holders is also provided in appendix D. The four term grazing permit holders authorized to use the analysis area allotments reside near the following towns and/or counties: (1) Capulin (Conejos County), (2) Monte Vista (Rio Grande County), (3) La Jara (Conejos County), (4) and Manassa (Conejos County). Three of the permittees also have grazing permits on BLM allotments in Colorado. One permittee has grazing permits on the Carson National Forest in New Mexico.

Environmental Justice: Executive Order 12898 for Minority Populations. This analysis evaluates selected quantitative demographic indicators of minority populations of communities to assess environmental justice concerns in relation to the proposed Federal action and alternatives. The following analysis only addresses indicators to determine the presence or absence of minority communities that may be affected by the proposed Federal action and alternatives. Conejos and Rio Grande Counties were the only counties analyzed for environmental justice, since those are the counties in which the permittees reside.

Concern for environmental justice stems from Executive Order 12898, “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations,” signed


132

February 11, 1994, by President Clinton. In this order (section 1-101), “each Federal agency shall make achieving environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the United States.”

In the memorandum to heads of departments and agencies that accompanied Executive Order 12898, the President specifically recognized the importance of procedures under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for identifying and addressing environmental justice concerns. The memorandum states that “each Federal agency shall analyze the environmental effects, including human health, economic and social effects, of Federal actions, including effects on minority communities and low-income communities, when such analysis is required by [NEPA]. ”

Table 3-17 summarizes key demographic indicators of minority populations. While these indicators or the associated thresholds are not formally identified in Federal codes and regulations, they serve as reasonable predictors of minority population status.

Table 3-17. Population statistics for race and ethnicity for Colorado, Conejos, and Rio Grande Counties (2000 Census)

Percent of 2000 Total Population

Geo-graphic

Area

2000 Total Pop-

ulation White

Black or African

American

American Indian

and Alaska Native Asian

Native Hawaiian

and Other

Pacific Islander

Some Other Race

Two or

More Races

His-panic

or Latino (of any race)

Colorado 4,301,261 82.8 3.8 1.0 2.2 0.1 7.2 2.8 17.1

Conejos County

8,400 72.8 0.2 1.7 0.2 0.1 21.5 3.6 58.9

Rio Grande County

12,413 73.9 0.3 1.3 0.2 0.0 21.4 2.8 41.7

Minority Population. About 17 percent of Colorado is non-white minority (or Black, Hispanic, Asian, Alaska Native, Native American, or some other race) and about 17 percent of the minority population is Hispanic or Latino.

About 27 percent of Conejos County is non-white minority (or Black, Hispanic, Asian, Alaska Native, Native American, or some other race) and about 59 percent of the minority population is Hispanic or Latino. This is less than the CEQ threshold value of 50.0 percent, but more than the State of Colorado average population.

About 26 percent of Rio Grande County is non-white minority (or Black, Hispanic, Asian, Alaska Native, Native American, or some other race) and about 42 percent of the minority population is Hispanic or Latino. This is less than the CEQ threshold value of 50.0 percent, but more than the State of Colorado average population.


133

Environmental Justice: Executive Order 12898 for Low Income Populations. This analysis evaluates selected quantitative demographic indicators of low-income populations of communities to assess environmental justice concerns in relation to the proposed Federal action and alternatives. The following analysis only addresses indicators to determine the presence or absence of low-income communities that may be affected by the proposed Federal action and alternatives. Conejos and Rio Grande Counties were the only counties analyzed for environmental justice, since those are the counties in which the permittees reside.

Table 3-18 summarizes key demographic indicators of low-income populations. While these indicators or the associated thresholds are not formally identified in Federal codes and regulations, they serve as reasonable predictors of low-income population status.

Table 3-18. Population poverty status for Colorado, Conejos, and Rio Grande Counties (2000 Census)

Income in 1999 Below Poverty Level

Geographic Area 2000 Total Population

Percent of Population for Whom Poverty Status Is Determined, All Ages

Percent of Families in Poverty Status

Colorado 4,301,261 9.3 6.2

Conejos County 8,400 23.0 18.6

Rio Grande County 12,413 14.5 11.3

Low-Income Population. The percent of individuals at or below the poverty level in Conejos County is higher than the CEQ threshold value of 20 percent, and is not within 5 percent of the State of Colorado averages. The percent of families at or below the poverty level in Conejos County is less than the CEQ threshold value of 20 percent, but is not within 5 percent of the State of Colorado averages.

The percent of individuals and families at or below the poverty level in Rio County is both less than the CEQ threshold value of 20 percent, and within 5 percent of the State of Colorado averages.

3.4.12.4 Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects The social effects considered for this environmental assessment are related to the potential consequences of changes in grazing permits which would alter the way people in the San Luis Valley live, work, relate to one another, organize to meet their needs, and generally function as members of society.

We paid particular attention to groups of socially vulnerable people, such as the poor, the elderly, adolescents, the unemployed and marginally-employed, and members of groups that are ethnically or culturally distinctive. We also paid close attention to occupational, cultural, and value-based groups for whom the community, area, or use of the National Forest System lands in the San Luis Valley are particularly important.

In those counties where the general population is increasing, employment by ranching is becoming less significant. These include: Alamosa County, Rio Grande County, and Mineral County. However, in Conejos and Costilla Counties, the population is projected to increase by


134

less than a 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.

Most social groups would not be made vulnerable by Forest Service actions related to the issuance or non-issuance of livestock grazing permits. 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. Finally, the actions proposed in the alternatives of this FEIS would have no effect on public health and safety.

Effects Common to All Alternatives Environmental Justice: Executive Order 12898 for Minority Populations. Based upon the review of demographic characteristics of the population of Conejos and Rio Grande Counties and how they compare with suggested threshold levels for concern, there is no indication that any of the alternatives will impact minority populations under the provisions of Executive Order 12898 for Rio Grande or Conejos Counties.

Environmental Justice: Executive Order 12898 for Low Income Populations. The “Environmental Justice” analysis presented under “Existing Conditions,” indicates that there may be low-income populations that should be considered under the provisions of Executive Order 12898 for Conejos County. The percent of individuals at or below the poverty level in Conejos County are higher than the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) threshold value of 20 percent, and are not within 5 percent of the State of Colorado averages. It was determined that there would not be disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects to the low-income population in Conejos County from any of the alternatives.

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

Alternative 1 (No Permitted Livestock Grazing) This alternative would result in the loss of permitted domestic sheep grazing in the analysis area allotments. Loss of income would be the greatest to the affected permittees and their employees under this alternative. The direct social impact to the permittees “agricultural way of life” would be expected to be high. Their overall operations would probably require major changes in lifestyle, decreased spending, and greater diversification of their overall ranch operations. Because this analysis does not have access to the permittees’ personal business and financial information (i.e., profit margin, real estate, equipment, other personal property investments, total debt, etc.) to consider, it is difficult to assess whether a ranch would become unviable under this alternative. It could require the permittees’ to rent or buy additional pasture or purchase additional feed to maintain their current livestock numbers. 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.

Social Impact to Permittees and Their Employees. Alternative 1 could have long-term direct impacts on the permitees and their employees who depend on the existing sheep operations to provide a livelihood. The loss of grazing privileges could necessitate the permittees and their


135

employees to seek additional employment. Overall, this alternative could have a high direct social impact on the permittees and their employees associated with the term grazing permits issued for the analysis area.

Social Impact to Local Communities. There would also be a resultant indirect social impact on the local social values or “agricultural way of life” of the San Luis Valley. Overall, social effects to the San Luis Valley agricultural communities would be relatively minor due to the small number of sheep and number of permittees affected.

Alternative 2 (Current Livestock Grazing Management) Alternative 2 will maintain permitted domestic sheep grazing and its related practices.

Social Impact to Permittees and Their Employees. There would be no broad-scale changes expected in the social demographics within the San Luis Valley as a result of this alternative. The direct social impact to the permittees and their employees “agricultural way of life” may range between low and high. In the short term, alternative 2 would be no change to the individuals associated with the term grazing permits issued for the analysis area and the local area of influence on the present social status, since status quo will be maintained. This alternative may not support the long-term local social value provided by livestock grazing, because it does not provide the means to make future changes that are needed to respond to new or continuing issues. In the long term, there is the potential for social impacts to occur to the permittees and their employees associated with the term grazing permits issued for the analysis area. Alternative 2 takes no steps or provides no means to minimize or eliminate contact between bighorn sheep and domestic sheep. Not dealing with the issue, does not make it go away. In the event contact occurred resulting in a proven or perceived domestic sheep caused die-off of bighorn sheep, the State wildlife agency and/or public concern may weigh heavily on the Forest Service to eliminate domestic sheep grazing in the entire analysis area. Extensive project design criteria and adaptive management will not be available to adapt to changing conditions.

Social Impact to Local Communities. Indirect social impacts to the local communities “agricultural way of life” from alternative 2 would be low due to the relatively limited scope of influence the permittees grazing within the analysis area have on the San Luis Valley as a whole and the plan for the continuation of domestic sheep grazing.

Overall, it is not expected to meet Forest Plan standards and guidelines and Forest Plan desired conditions for rural development over the long term (chapter 1, section 1.6).

Alternative 3 (Adaptive Livestock Grazing Management) This alternative would allow changes in management to occur to better address changing conditions. This alternative will best maintain permitted domestic sheep grazing and its related practices.

Social Impact to Permittees and Their Employees. There would be no broad-scale changes expected in the social demographics within the San Luis Valley as a result of this alternative. The direct social impact to the permittees “agricultural way of life” is moderate because while this alternative has a better assurance for continued domestic sheep grazing, it also has the potential for change or loss of grazing areas due to project design criteria for key issue 2 (Contact between domestic sheep and Rocky Mountain Bighorn Sheep).


136

Social Impact to Local Communities. Indirect impacts to the local communities “agricultural way of life” from alternative 3 would be low due to the relatively limited scope of influence the permittees grazing within the analysis area have on the local communities of the San Luis Valley as a whole, and the plan for the continuation of domestic sheep grazing.

Overall, this alternative would be expected to meet Forest Plan standards and guidelines and the Forest Plan desired conditions rural development over the long term (chapter 1, section 1.6).

3.4.13 Scenic

3.4.13.1 Scope of the Analysis In general, scenery is the combination of visual, auditory (noise), and holistic features (such as a “sense of place”, landscape character, viewer’s feelings, and attachment to an area) that give character to the landscape. The scope of this analysis focuses on the effects to the scenic resources within the analysis area that might be reasonably expected from each alternative.

3.4.13.2 Past Actions that Have Affected the Existing Condition The human presence in the landscape has affected the surrounding landscape character and scenic resource of the National Forest System lands to some degree in the analysis area. Private property within and surrounding National Forest System lands tends to alter the characteristic natural landscape appearance greater depending on how much infrastructure and human activity is present. Mining activity, especially around Summitville, on private property is visually dominant on the landscape. This area produces noise and light pollution which extends to the adjacent National Forest System lands in the analysis area. Non-wilderness areas within the analysis area have a road and trail network where people and their activities (motorized and non-motorized) have been present for over 100 years. In contrast, the wilderness area within the analysis area has a trail network and people and their non-motorized activities are less dominant on the landscape, but still present. Sheep grazing and the related support activities (i.e., herder, working dogs, herder camps, etc.) have been a part of this analysis area since the late 1800s and have been part of the characteristic landscape.

3.4.13.3 Existing Condition Lands administered by the Forest Service are managed in order to achieve a specific level of visual or scenic quality through the scenery management system. The analysis area is comprised of forested slopes and grassland expanses that afford vistas of the San Juan Mountains. Views offer expansive vistas of the San Luis Valley and portions of New Mexico. There are human-made architectural elements and human-caused vegetation deviations evident in and around the analysis area associated with historical mining and ranching, but most do not dominate the landscape (with the exception of Summitville). These have become an element of the characteristic landscape because they are considered part of the essential “landscape character” that contributes to the “sense of place.”

The Continental Divide National Scenic Trail, which runs through the western portion of the analysis area, has critical viewing angles along the trail (i.e., visitors see this area as the primary focal point while using the trail).


137

3.4.13.4 Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects None of the alternatives would be expected to result in significant direct, indirect, or cumulative effects. None of the alternatives would be expected to produce irreversible or irretrievable commitments of scenic resources.

Alternative 1 (No Permitted Livestock Grazing) This alternative would have no adverse impacts to scenic resources since there would be no permitted livestock grazing. There would continue to be very little to limited impacts to scenic resources from existing outfitter guides and recreation visitors in the analysis area viewsheds. Viewers could expect to see outfitter guide camps, other recreation visitor camps and activities, and recreation livestock only. Cumulatively, it is expected that the characteristic landscape would remain intact with minor insignificant deviations based on viewshed perspectives concerning the aforementioned users. The scenic integrity objective would not change.

Effects Common to All Action Alternatives Domestic sheep and sheep herder activities would be visible for short periods of time in alternatives 2 and 3. However, given that domestic livestock grazing has occurred in this area for over 100 years, grazing is considered part of the cultural element of the analysis area. Livestock grazing would be considered a positive cultural element since there are no significant impacts to ecological resources. Project design criteria (chapter 2, section 2.7) were designed to minimize resource impacts. The action alternatives discussed in the analysis area would have no significant cumulative impacts to concern areas such as trails, other forest visitors (including outfitter and guides), and domestic sheep operations. The scenic integrity objective in wilderness would remain “very high.” In non-wilderness, the inventoried or adopted scenic integrity objective would be met.

Alternative 2 (Current Livestock Grazing Management) In alternative 2, viewers could expect to see conditions as they currently exist including minor variation on the landscape associated with domestic sheep, stock driveways, sheep herder camps, and outfitter and guides and recreation visitors within the viewsheds. It is expected that the characteristic landscape would remain intact.

Alternative 3 (Adaptive Livestock Grazing Management) Alternative 3 is similar to alternative 2 from a scenic resource standpoint. There are several proposed fences that would be visible by a viewer in relatively close proximity to the proposed fences. These range improvements would become part of the characteristic landscape.

3.4.14 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 alternative 2 or 3 (i.e., continuation of domestic sheep grazing within the analysis 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 EIS would have no effect on park lands or prime


138

farmlands, rangeland, and forest land as defined in FSH 1909.15 section 65.2. These kinds of land allocations or land capability either do not exist in the analysis area or would be unaffected by the proposed activities in the alternatives.

The actions proposed in the alternatives of this EIS would have no effect on ecologically critical areas. Ecologically critical areas have not been formally recognized and designated within the analysis area. However, 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 EIS would be expected to have no significant effect on the overall fire regime in this environment. The suitable rangeland in the analysis area occurs in primarily the upper subalpine and alpine life zones. These environments are wet, cold, and have relatively short growing seasons. The upper subalpine zone has an infrequent fire frequency that may exceed 500 years (South San Juan EA, 2006; communication with Dr. Phil Omi, Colorado State University, 1992). The alpine zone may have a fire frequency as infrequent as 2000 years (South San Juan EA, 2006; communication with Dr. William Romme, Colorado State University, 1993). Although historic livestock grazing forage utilization was heavy and widespread, it probably has not had a significant effect on altering the fire regime in these environments at large geographic scales. Current grazing practices are significantly less severe and are designed to meet or move conditions toward Forest Plan desired conditions.

The actions proposed in the alternatives of this EIS would be in compliance with the desired conditions relative to prescribed fire and wildland fire use for the applicable MAs in this analysis area. The Forest has a prescribed fire plan in place that covers the RGNF, including the analysis area (USDA Forest Service 1997).

The action alternatives are consistent with the Forest Plan. Alternative 1 is mostly consistent except it does not fully address the desired conditions for rural development (Forest Plan, page I-6).

Applicable laws and regulations were considered in this EIS. 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, NFMA, and wildlife (USDA Forest Service 1996d). Finally, general issues regarding biological diversity (biodiversity) were judged to be outside the scope of this analysis, more appropriately analyzed at the Forest scale (USDA Forest Service 1996a). This project-level EIS tiers to the biodiversity assessment completed for the revised Forest Plan FEIS (USDA Forest Service 1996a).

There are no civil rights 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. Finally, there were no identifiable effects or issues specific to consumers or women.

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). Inventoried roadless areas occur on the northern and southern portion of the analysis area (see MA 3.3 in chapter 1, section 1.7, figure 1-2).

A certain amount of the risk and effects to the permittees, their employees, and the community are uncertain.


139

The proposed action may establish a precedent for future actions.

There is scientific controversy concerning the transmission of disease between domestic sheep and bighorn sheep. A certain amount of the risk and effects to bighorn sheep are uncertain. The proposed action may have significant impacts and possibly cumulative significant impacts to bighorn sheep.

3.4.14.1 Global Climate Change

The Forest Service acknowledges that global climate change is an important emerging concern worldwide. However, there is no established scientific 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

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 intensity 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.

3.4.14.2 Summitville Mine The Summitville Mine site is located 25 miles south of Del Norte, Colorado, at an elevation of 11,500 feet above sea level in the San Juan Mountains of southwestern Colorado (within the analysis area). The mine site is situated south of Wightman Fork, a tributary of the Alamosa River, about 2 miles east of the Continental Divide. Mountain peaks surrounding the mine site range between 12,300 and 12,700 feet elevation. The historic town of Summitville is just to the north of the mine site on the other side of Wightman Fork. The area is traditionally subject to severe winters with heavy snowfall accumulating on steep slopes. Snow may often remain on the ground until late spring or early summer providing water in quantities sufficient to keep streams, including Wightman Fork, flowing year-round, and acting as a continual source of water entering the soil.

Since 1992, EPA and the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment have initiated several interim projects designed to slow the amount of acid mine drainage coming from the site. These interim projects have included detoxifying, capping, and revegetating the heap leach pad; removing waste rock piles and filling the mine pits; plugging the adits or underground mine


140

entrances; and expanding the water runoff holding ponds, as well as operating a water treatment plant onsite.

3.4.14.3 Irreversible and Irretrievable Resource Commitments This section describes the irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources associated with implementation of the proposed action or alternatives.

The Heritage analysis identified “recreation activities, logging and livestock grazing has the potential to cause ground disturbance and lead to cumulative, long term, irreversible adverse effects to cultural resources”. None of the alternatives is expected to cause substantial ground disturbance nor contribute to an increase in the potential for cumulative effects within the North San Juan Analysis Area. The selected alternative is not expected to cause substantial ground disturbance. Project design criteria are designed to prevent substantial ground disturbance from occurring, and monitoring is designed to provide notification to the heritage specialist immediately. Although not likely, if substantial ground disturbance does occur, appropriate measures will be taken to correct the situation.

The Wildlife analysis identified potential irreversible adverse effects to any native populations of bighorn sheep within or near the analysis area, from the action alternatives and alternative 2 in particular. The Colorado Division of Wildlife has identified the Blanco River Bighorn Sheep Herd as “native” (CDOW 2009). The Blanco River Bighorn Sheep Herd core area is partly within the analysis area. In the event that an entire die-off of this native population of bighorn sheep occurred, there would be a loss of genetics and survival adaptations. “Conservation genetics theory predicts that specific, isolated populations of a species may be better adapted to surviving in their local environments. These populations may have a genetic makeup differing from other populations of the same species and may be better able to survive and reproduce in their respective environments. In support of this theory, genetic studies of bighorn sheep have indicated that genotypes of populations in close proximity are more similar than populations separated by larger distances” (CDOW 2009). Alternative 3 is designed to minimize the potential for interactions between domestic and bighorn sheep. Project design criteria, a risk assessment, and monitoring will be in place to restrict domestic sheep from areas of high risk of contact as well as design criteria to avoid stray domestic sheep, quicker methods of communication, monitoring for bighorn sheep numbers, monitoring bighorn sheep movements and ranges and many other design criteria to minimize the potential for contact. Adaptive management will be in place to allow for changes to be made in domestic sheep management if bighorn sheep movements or ranges change from the current status or to adapt to other unforeseen circumstances.

3.5 Cumulative Effects Summary 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 significant 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


141

in the late 1800s and projecting proposed actions into the future roughly two decades. Cumulative effects were determined based on a list of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions in the analysis area developed by the ID team and recorded in the project record.

None of the alternatives are precedent setting. Cumulative effects are summarized by alternative, effects common to all alternatives, and effects common to all action alternatives.


Wilderness

Cumulatively, the wilderness would still generally have the appearance of being affected primarily by the forces of nature and would continue to provide opportunities for solitude and a primitive recreation experience. Elimination of livestock grazing would not be expected to change recreation use or patterns sufficiently to significantly change wilderness character (also see “Recreation” subtopic immediately below).

Recreation

Cumulatively, there are no known future proposed actions in the foreseeable future (next two decades) that would significantly change recreation use or patterns. Elimination of livestock would not be expected to create dramatic shifts in recreation use. Recreation use in this area is expected to grow somewhat commensurate with population growth. Colorado is expected to grow at a rate of 2 percent per year over the next several decades. A smaller rate of growth is expected for the San Luis Valley (1 percent per year) over this same time period (see appendix D).

For recreation livestock, cumulative effects of this alternative could see a potential increase in the number of recreation livestock use within the South San Juan Wilderness and analysis area.

Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive (TES) Wildlife Species

Cumulatively, domestic sheep allotments have been vacated in recent years on the Pagosa Springs Ranger District adjacent to the analysis area. Although they have not been closed to grazing, there is currently no domestic sheep grazing occurring on those allotments. If the analysis area was not grazed, this would increase the total amount of currently vacant domestic sheep range, improving the overall quality of bighorn sheep summer habitat within the San Juan Mountain Range, by adding cumulatively to a decreased chance of contact and potential disease contraction from domestic sheep.

Livestock crossing permit (domestic sheep permitted to trail across a portion of the analysis area) issuance would not be allowed under this alternative. This would even further decrease the risk of contact between bighorn and domestic sheep. Cumulatively, the less concurrent domestic sheep grazing that occurs in bighorn sheep habitat, the less chance of contact and resultant disease transmission.

With implementation of alternative 1, in addition to current management conditions, there would be a positive cumulative effect to bighorn sheep. This would be the result of increased area having no domestic sheep grazing (in addition to allotments on the Pagosa Ranger District and the Banded Peaks Ranch). This would greatly reduce the probability of disease contraction and resultant bighorn sheep herd-die offs from diseases carried by domestic sheep.


142

Heritage

In the absence of livestock grazing, cumulative effects would decrease for all 12 allotments.

Scenic

Viewers could expect to see outfitter guide camps, other recreation visitor camps and activities, and recreation livestock only. Cumulatively, it is expected that the characteristic landscape would remain intact with minor insignificant deviations based on view-shed perspectives concerning the aforementioned users. The scenic integrity objective would not change.


Recreation

The expected ROS experience would remain unchanged. Cumulatively, there are no known future proposed actions in the foreseeable future (next two decades) that would significantly change recreation use or patterns. Current livestock use would not be expected to create dramatic shifts in recreation use. Recreation use as well as the use of recreational livestock in this area is expected to grow somewhat commensurate with population growth.

Trails

Cumulatively, there would be an increase in trail maintenance needed relative to alternative 1 due to livestock impacts to the trails. No additional infrastructure is proposed in the foreseeable future (next two decades). Current livestock grazing would not be expected to change recreation use or patterns sufficiently to significantly affect travel management.

Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive (TES) Wildlife Species

Implementation of this alternative, in addition to other activities (primarily recreation and in some areas, timber) occurring or expected to occur within the analysis area, would be expected to have limited cumulative effects to terrestrial TES species or their habitats. General cumulative effects could include trampling of individuals or eggs, disturbance of individuals, or possible degradation of riparian and/or upland areas which supply habitat elements critical to TES. Despite some of these cumulative effects having occurred under current management, Forest Plan standards and guidelines have continued to be met and overall TES habitat within the analysis area remains in good condition. Potential cumulative effects to Canada lynx are tracked by lynx analysis unit (LAU), and annually reported to the USFWS. Under current management, there would be no notable cumulative effects to most TES species within the analysis area.

Cumulatively, there would also be a chance of disease transmission from domestic sheep and possibly goats (permitted and recreational stock) to bighorn sheep under this alternative. In addition, domestic sheep and goats grazing on adjacent Forest Service allotments, BLM, Colorado State, and private lands could pose a risk of contact (and potential resultant disease transmission) to bighorn sheep. There is also a risk of disease transmission from bighorn sheep currently infected with Pasturella spp. (such as bighorn sheep in the Alamosa Canyon Herd). The combination of permitted and recreational stock, as well as domestic sheep and goats grazing on lands outside of this analysis area, in addition to already infected bighorn sheep, could increase the chances of healthy bighorn sheep being exposed to disease. This could increase the chances of bighorn sheep herds becoming ill and/or experiencing a die-off. Livestock use permits (i.e. livestock crossing permits) could be issued under this alternative. This could allow temporary trailing of additional domestic sheep through the analysis area. Under this alternative (unlike alternative 3), the crossing permit would not be restricted


143

(excluded from use in areas posing a high risk of contact). Therefore, although the type of use allowed by these permits is extremely limited, this could result in cumulative impacts (of the crossing permit and normal permitted grazing) to white-tailed ptarmigan and bighorn sheep. Impacts to white-tailed ptarmigan would still be expected to remain fairly minimal, as most of the analysis area would remain free of utilization even with normal grazing in addition to occasional crossing of additional livestock through the area. A temporary crossing permit could potentially add to the cumulative risk to bighorn sheep, since the probability of contact would be increased by having more domestic sheep in more locations at one time. That said, no crossing permits have been or would be expected to be issued within the analysis area. Therefore, effects from temporary crossing permits (although they could cumulatively impact bighorn sheep) would be expected to remain fairly unlikely.

Cumulatively, sheep grazing activities associated with alternative 2 in addition to recreation activities within the analysis area could result in a higher chance of disturbance of bighorn sheep (and some avoidance of habitat use) than in alternatives 1 or 3.


Wilderness

Cumulatively, the Wilderness would still generally have the appearance of being affected primarily by the forces of nature and would continue to provide opportunities for solitude and a primitive recreation experience. Adaptive livestock grazing management would not be expected to change recreation use or patterns sufficiently to significantly change wilderness character.

Recreation

The expected ROS experience would likely remain unchanged under this alternative. Cumulatively, there are no known future proposed actions in the foreseeable future (next two decades) that would significantly change recreation use or patterns. Livestock use would not be expected to create dramatic shifts in recreation use. Recreation use in this area is expected to grow somewhat commensurate with population growth.

Cumulatively, alternative 3 would have minimal impact to recreational livestock use other than pack goat use. Because pack goats can transmit disease between themselves, domestic livestock and bighorn sheep, the encouragement to avoid camping with pack goats in high risk areas could have a negative cumulative impact on recreational users that use pack goats. However, the analysis area has very few recreationists that use pack goats; therefore cumulative impacts would be minimal.

Trails

Cumulatively, there could be a decrease in trail maintenance needed relative to alternative 2 due to the removal of livestock impacts to trails in designated high sheep/bighorn interaction areas. Livestock grazing would not be expected to change recreation use or patterns sufficiently to significantly affect travel management.

Soils

Cumulative effects to soils include improved infiltration and less flashy runoff under adaptive management. Less runoff means erosion is reduced and water entering soils is available for plant use or stream recharge. Elk use and periodic concentrations along with minor recreation


144

livestock use may contribute some to soil issues. Soil recovery from impacts would be quickest on riparian soils with water tables, though recovery on any soils will be slow.

Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive (TES) Wildlife Species

Implementation of this alternative, in addition to other activities (see summary of past, present, and reasonably forseeable actions in project record) occurring or expected to occur within the analysis area, would be expected to have limited cumulative effects to terrestrial TES species or their habitats. Effects could include cumulatively increased trampling of individuals or eggs, disturbance of individuals, or possible degradation of riparian and/or upland areas which supply habitat elements critical to TES. Despite some of these cumulative effects likely having occurred under current management, Forest Plan standards and guidelines have continued to be met and overall TES habitat within the analysis area remains in good condition. Potential cumulative effects to Canada lynx are tracked by LAU and annually reported to the USFWS.

Cumulatively, there would also be a chance of disease transmission from domestic sheep and possibly goats (permitted and recreational stock) to bighorn sheep under this alternative. In addition, domestic sheep and goats grazing on adjacent Forest Service allotments, BLM, Colorado State, and private lands could pose a risk of contact (and potential resultant disease transmission) to bighorn sheep. There is also a risk of disease transmission from bighorn sheep currently infected with Pasturella spp. (such as bighorn sheep in the Alamosa Canyon Herd). The combination of permitted and recreational stock, as well as domestic sheep and goats grazing on lands outside of this analysis area, in addition to already infected bighorn sheep, could increase the chances of healthy bighorn sheep being exposed to disease. This could increase the chances of bighorn sheep herds becoming ill and/or experiencing a die-off.

Under this alternative, crossing permits would not be issued for high risk areas and could be issued for moderate or low risk areas (with implementation of project design criteria and if the trailing of domestic sheep into a moderate risk area did not increase the risk to high). The type of use allowed by these permits is extremely limited, but could result in cumulative impacts (of the crossing permit and normal permitted grazing) to white-tailed ptarmigan and bighorn sheep. Impacts to white-tailed ptarmigan would still be expected to remain fairly minimal, as most of the analysis area would remain free of utilization even with normal grazing in addition to occasional crossing of additional livestock through the area. If a temporary crossing permit was issued, the presence of domestic sheep could pose a disease risk to bighorn sheep if they were present in the area. A temporary crossing permit could potentially detrimentally impact bighorn sheep, since the probability of contact would be increased by having more domestic sheep in more locations at one time, increasing the risk of disease transmission and/or die-offs. Exclusion of these “additional” temporarily permitted sheep from areas that would result in high risk of contact would reduce potential negative impacts. No temporary crossing permits have been or are expected to be issued for this analysis area. Therefore, effects from temporary crossing permits (although they could cumulatively impact bighorn sheep) would be expected to remain fairly unlikely.

Alternative 3 includes a risk analysis, project design criteria, and additional management flexibility to reduce risk of contact between domestic and bighorn sheep. Therefore, the cumulative impacts of alternative 3, in addition to other factors considered, would be expected to be less than cumulative impacts of alternative 2.

Cumulatively, sheep grazing activities associated with alternative 3, in addition to recreation activities within the analysis area, could result in a higher chance of disturbance of bighorn sheep


145

(and some avoidance of habitat use) than in alternative 1. However, under this alternative, areas most frequently used by bighorn sheep would likely be excluded from domestic sheep grazing as a result of the risk assessment process (which excludes domestic sheep grazing from areas having the highest risk of contact between bighorn and domestic sheep).

Cumulative Effects Common to All Alternatives

Wildlife

The cumulative effects of any of the alternatives when added to past, ongoing, and future activities, is expected to result in minor effects to the environment.

Monitoring of population and habitat trends is more appropriate at the Forest level than at the scale and extent of the North San Juan Project analysis area. The potential effects from proposed grazing upon the six MIS evaluated in detail are judged to be minimal in their impacts to the populations as a whole. Because habitat effectiveness would be expected to be maintained and there should be relatively minor disturbance to individuals, species viability at the Forest level should not be impacted. Forest-level monitoring of cumulative effects is judged to provide a more appropriate scale of analysis for MIS population and habitat trend across the Forest.

Cumulative Effects Common to All Action Alternatives

Rangeland

Cumulatively, grazing by managed large wild ungulates, permitted outfitter and guide riding and pack stock, recreational user riding and pack stock, prescribed fire and prescribed natural fire in addition to permitted domestic sheep grazing constitutes a cumulative effect to rangeland vegetation. Current stocking levels (last 3 to 5 years) have been very conservative. There are no known areas where competition for forage between permitted domestic sheep and grazing wildlife have been an issue. There may be minor, highly scattered areas where multiple vegetation uses have created areas of higher utilization, such as near outfitter/guide camps and temporary concentration sites by wildlife.

Stock-driveways and other trails used as trailing routes for permitted domestic sheep are not used exclusively for permitted domestic sheep trailing. Although originally, most of these trails were created as stock driveways, they have, over time, become system trails for the recreating public. Several of these trails have even been designated to allow motorized use and have seen a substantial increase in use by the current insurgence of ATV use. The past, present, and reasonably foreseeable use of these trails by permitted livestock, recreational users (foot and horse), and the addition of motorized use in the recent past and expected increases in the future, constitute a cumulative effect to the stock driveways and trails used as trailing routes. Trail management and maintenance efforts have been taking place to keep up with the increased use of these trails.

Watershed

The accumulation of watershed disturbances from past activities does not threaten watershed health. As explained above under “Existing Conditions”, total disturbance levels are below concern levels established in the Forest Plan for all watersheds except the Conejos River composite watersheds. This watershed includes Platoro Reservoir and the town of Platoro, which are the biggest contributors to watershed disturbance. Platoro Reservoir is authorized by legislation with conditions to provide minimum stream flows. Stream restoration projects


146

completed downstream of Platoro Reservoir have improved over-wintering habitat conditions for fish. No alternative proposes to add disturbances to any watersheds.

Future activities in these watersheds include potential timber sale projects. 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.

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). No alternative should add more stress to stream channels or riparian areas.

TES Plant Species

Cumulative effects consider a combination of effects such as recreation (camping, hiking, etc.), fuels or timber management, big game populations, and livestock grazing on both private and Federal lands. However, the overall impact under the Forest’s current land management is much less severe 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 3-10 above summarizes the effects determination made, by alternative, for these species. Cumulatively, there are no projects planned in the foreseeable future (next decade) in this analysis area that would be expected to significantly 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.

Wildlife

Past and current recreation activities include hiking, hunting and fishing, and packing. Timber activities have occurred and resulted in impacts to some areas (see summary of past, present and reasonably forseeable future actions in project record). Some areas could receive negative impacts to riparian vegetation/habitat from permitted livestock in addition to recreation and/or timber activities. Trampling and grazing of this vegetation may occur. Also, disturbance or trampling of individuals or their eggs could occur as a result of recreation, timber, and/or domestic sheep presence and associated activities. However, these impacts would be expected to be minimal. Forest Plan standards and guidelines, as well as project design criteria (see chapter 2, section 2.7), would be applied throughout the area under both action alternatives, which would help minimize effects to MIS or their habitat.

Because of the low impact of these alternatives upon MIS in this analysis area, there are no other known or anticipated proposed projects in the general area, which when combined with any of these action alternatives, would be expected to impact MIS or their habitat.

Fisheries

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 likely have a minimal impact on fish populations if project design criteria (chapter 2, section 2.7), along with Forest Plan


147

standards and guidelines, and Water Conservation Practices Handbook management measures and design criteria are fully implemented. Specific project design criteria in alternative 3 would manage livestock activity near lakes, streams, wet meadows, and riparian areas; as well as require herding livestock away from these areas of concern. The 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 analysis area tend to be minor and would not threaten the viability of fish populations.

Heritage

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. Cultural resource inventory, recording, evaluating, and archiving basic information about each site for future reference serves to partially mitigate potential effects to cultural resources. Recreation activities, logging and livestock grazing has the potential to cause substantial ground disturbance and lead to cumulative, long-term, irreversible adverse effects to cultural resources. While it is hard to determine cumulative effects on unidentified archaeological sites, livestock grazing at adequate stocking rates that adhere to proper grazing management should not increase the potential for cumulative effects within the North San Juan Analysis Area.

Noxious Plants

Cumulatively, past, present and reasonably foreseeable actions such as permitted livestock grazing, timber harvest, road building and maintenance, trail building and maintenance and recreation activities all contribute to creating possible niches and seed transport mechanisms to allow for the establishment and spread of noxious plants within the analysis area. However, this is not expected to be a significant impact over the next two decades as described above. The Forest would continue to vigilantly monitor and control noxious weeds.

Scenic

The action alternatives discussed in the analysis area would have no significant cumulative impacts to concern areas such as trails, other forest visitors (including outfitter and guides), and domestic sheep operations. The scenic integrity objective in wilderness would remain “very high”. In non-wilderness, the inventoried or adopted scenic integrity objective would be met.


148

Chapter 4 List of Preparers This chapter identifies the individuals on the North San Juan EIS Sheep and Goat Allotment team who were responsible for preparing this EIS.

4.1 Interdisciplinary Team Members Jeremiah Martinez Recreation, Wilderness, Travel, Trails, Roads, Facilities

Dean Erhard Ecologist

Andrea Jones Wildlife Biologist (prior to March 29, 2010)

Doug Simon GIS

Phil Reinholtz Hydrologist

Angie Krall Archeologist

Barry Wiley Fisheries Biologist

Jack Lewis Silviculturist

Kelly Garcia Rangeland Management Specialist/Interdisciplinary Team Leader

Christopher Boone Wildlife Biologist

4.2 Consultant Team Members Anthony Garcia Wildlife Biologist (Pagosa Ranger District, San Juan National Forest)

Randy Ghormley Rio Grande National Forest, Wildlife Program Lead

Gary Snell Rio Grande National Forest, Range Program Lead


149

Chapter 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 EIS.

5.1 Federal, State, and Local Agencies

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation

USDA Animal & Plant Health Inspection Service PPD/EAD

Rural Utilities Service

NRCS National Environmental Coordinator

USDA, National Agricultural Library

USDA Office of Civil Rights

National BLM Office

BLM Arizona State Office

BLM California State Office

BLM Colorado State Office

BLM Eastern States Office

BLM Idaho State Office

BLM Montana/Dakota State Office

BLM Nevada State Office

BLM New Mexico State Office

BLM Oregon State Office

BLM Utah State Office

BLM Wyoming State Office

NOAA Office of Policy and Strategic Planning

National Marine Fisheries Service, Habitat Conservation Division, Northeast Region

National Marine Fisheries Service, Habitat Conservation Division, Southeast Region

National Marine Fisheries Service, Habitat Conservationists Division, Northwest Region

National Marine Fisheries Service, Habitat Conservationists Division, Southwest Region

National Marine Fisheries Service, Protected Resources Management Division, Alaska Region

Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (E)

U.S. Air Force, Air Force Civil Engineer

Army Corps of Engineers

U.S. Army Engineers Mississippi Valley Division

U.S. Army Engineers Northwestern Division

U.S. Army Engineers North Atlantic Division

Northwest Power Planning Council

Ohio River Basins Commission, c/o University of Kentucky

Manager, NEPA Administration. Tennessee Valley Authority

U.S. Coast Guard, Environmental Impact Branch, Marine Environmental and Protection Division

National Park Service, Headquarters

Federal Aviation Administration

Federal Highway Administration

San Juan National Forest, Pagosa Springs Ranger Station

Colorado Division of Wildlife, Rick Basagoitia

Colorado Division of Wildlife, SW Region Service Center

SLV Water Conservancy District

CSU Cooperative Extension

Conejos County Land Use

Natural Resource Conservation Service, Monte Vista

Rio Grande County Commissioners

Farm Bureau, Alamosa

Conejos County Commissioners

Alamosa County Commissioners

Conejos Water Conservancy District

USFWS Western CO Field Office

Natural Resource Conservation District, La Jara

CSU Cooperative Extension

Conejos County Land Use

Farm Bureau, Alamosa

Director, Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance, U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Department of Energy, Director, Office of NEPA Policy & Compliance


150

5.2 Tribal Governments Santa Clara Pueblo, Governor

San Idelfonso Pueblo, Governor

Pueblo Of Nambe, Governor

Southern Ute Indian Tribe, NAGPRA Representative

Acting Chair, Harold Cuthair

Ute Mountain Ute Tribe, NAGPRA Coordinator

Jicarilla Apache Tribe, Chairman

Hopi Tribe, NAGPRA Representative

Northern Ute Tribe, Historic Preservation Officer

Navajo Nation Historic Preservation Department

Pueblo Of Santa Ana, Governor

Santo Domingo Tribe, Governor

Mr. Neil Cloud, NAGPRA Representative, Southern Ute Indian Tribe

Chairman Mattew Box, Southern Ute Indian Tribe

Chairman Ernest House, Sr., Ute Mountain Ute Tribe

Ute Mountain Ute Tribe, Mr. Terry Knight, Sr.

President Levi Pesata, Jicarilla Apache Tribal Council

Ms. Lorene Willis, Director, Office of Cultural Affairs, Jicarilla Apache Tribe

Chairman Ben Nuvamsa, The Hopi Tribe

Mr. Leigh Kuwanwisiwma, Director, Hopi Cultural Preservation Office

Mr. Lee Wayne Lomayestawa, Repatriation Coordinator

Chairman Curtis Cesspooch, Uintah & Ouray Tribal Business Committee

Ms. Betsy Chapoose, NAGPRA Representative, Northern Ute Tribe

President Joe Shirley, Navajo Nation

Mr. Alan S. Downer, Historic Preservation Officer, Navajo Nation Historic Preservation Department

Governor Ronald Montoya, Pueblo of Santa Ana

Mr. Ben Robbins, Tribal Resource Administrator, Pueblo of Santa Ana

Governor Nelson Pacheco, Santo Domingo Pueblo

Governor James Mountain, San Ildefonso Pueblo

Mr. Erik Fender, Second Lieutenant Governor/Director of Natural Resources, San Ildefonso Pueblo

Governor Dennis F. Vigil, Pueblo of Nambe

Mr. Ernest Maribal, Councilman/NAGPRA Representative, Pueblo of Nambe

Governor Earl Salazar, Ohkay Owingeh

Mr. Herman Agoyo, NAGPRA Representatives, San Juan Pueblo

Governor Joseph Michael Chavarria, Santa Clara Pueblo

Mr. Jason Garcia (NAGPRA), Land Claims Office, Santa Clara Pueblo

Governor Gilbert Suazo, Sr., Taos Pueblo

Mr. Donovan Gomez, Tribal Administrator, Taos Pueblo


151

5.3 Individuals/Organizations

Last Name First Name OrganizationSchmidt Louis and Jerry Gallegos George, Jude and Veronica Valdez Lionel and Michelle Thomas Brandon and Jaime Crowther. Lonell, Leona and Leon Zukoski Ted Land and Water Fund Mackey Gilbert Pearson Mark San Juan Citizens Alliance Edward Rob Sinapu Redding Carol SLV Water Conservancy District Martin Dwight Stockwell Rick Canaly Christine San Luis Valley Ecosystem Council SO Rockies Ecosystem Project Berdie Joanie Carson Forest Watch Corriagan Megan Colorado Wild Forest Conservation Council Corrigan Megan Colorado Wild Bidwell Ryan Demmy Colorado Wild Rosmarino Nicole Forest Guardians Brown Howard Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation Lobato Anthony San Luis Valley Cattleman’s Association Fankhauser Terry Colorado Cattleman’s Assoc., Executive Vice Pres. Rizzi Ben Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation Lester Freeman Sierra Club Smith Rocky Shawcroft Smiley SLV Grazing Association Braiden Jim Braiden Cattle Co. Shawcroft John Barr Todd V Heart Cattle Co. Coleman Jim Shawcroft Gary Shawcroft Darrell Crowther Mark and Marlene Sowards Kelly Sowards Jack & Coral Maunchen Brandt Schmidt JD Paine Jim Vance James & Beryle Wilhelm Chris Ratner Jonathan Director - WWP Wyoming Office Bagwell Tom & Doug Off Island Ranch Rocky Mountain Bighorn Society Wild Sheep Foundation Colorado Wool Growers Association Colorado Sheep & Wool Authority


153

Chapter 6 Public Comment/Response

6.1 Introduction This chapter displays the letters received during the 45-day public comment period and the Forest Service response to those letters. The legal notice announcing the Notice of Availability of the Draft EIS for Comment was published July 9, 2009, in the Valley Courier. The Notice of Availability was published by the Environmental Protection Agency on July 10, 2009.

6.2 Public Comments We received nine timely letters in response to the draft EIS during the 45-day comment period. These letters are included in their entirety below. To facilitate the response to these comments, each comment letter was assigned a number (labeled in the upper right-hand corner of the letter), and each comment was consecutively numbered (in the extreme right-hand margin). The numbering system used the following format: 1-1 means letter number one, comment number 1; 1-2 means letter number one, comment number two; and so forth. Enumerated comments that extend from one page to the next are marked with a downward facing arrow.

Additionally, we received three letters postmarked, hand delivered, or emailed to our office after the close of the 45-day public comment period. Therefore, there is no formal response to these letters in this section. However, these letters were reviewed by the ID team and considered in the development of the final EA. These letters are included in the administrative record for this project.


154


155


156


157


158


159


160


161


162


163


164


165


166


167


168


169


170


171


172


173


174


175


176


177


178


179

6.3 Forest Service Response to Public Comments The comment numbering scheme was described earlier in this chapter. The Forest Service responded to each substantive comment in table 6-1 below. Responses that reference the EA are specifically to the April 21, 2006, EA for comment unless noted otherwise.

Table 6-1. Public comment reference and Forest Service response

Com-ment

Number Forest Service Response

1-1 The Forest Service intends to continue to work with the CDOW and other partners to identify high value bighorn sheep areas. If alternative 3 is selected, the Forest Service will also conduct annual monitoring for bighorn sheep, to be used in the adaptive management process. Annual ground counts will be conducted if at all possible, and assistance from experienced volunteers (such as RMBS members) is a critical component to implementation of these annual counts.

1-2 If alternative 3 is selected, adaptive management will be utilized to reduce the risk of contact between domestic and rocky mountain bighorn sheep. Based on your comment on defined separation requirements, we plan to re-examine the language in the draft EIS to determine if further clarification on this topic is needed.

1-3 Most of the project design criteria pertaining to wild sheep were included for the purpose of designing a successful adaptive management alternative and addressing the key issue of risk of contact between domestic and wild sheep. Also, the flexibility afforded by adaptive management would allow greater ability to implement project design criteria required in alternative 3. In addition, through the adaptive management afforded in alternative 3, project design criteria not currently proposed for alternative 3 may be added or improved as needed in subsequent years. Many of these project design criteria would not apply to alternative 1 (no grazing) or alternative 2 (current management).

1-4 Under alternative 3 (adaptive management), domestic sheep grazing would be excluded from high risk areas. Domestic sheep grazing may be allowed in moderate risk areas. If there is a moderate risk area where wild sheep are found to be living (not just passing through), that would become a high risk area and would become unavailable for domestic sheep grazing. All identified high risk areas would be extended to the next logical topographical barrier, man-made barrier, break in bighorn sheep habitat, and/or break in bighorn sheep use area. This would provide a logical “buffer zone” between high risk areas and domestic sheep grazing. If alternative 3 is selected, the overlay risk maps will be reviewed and modified every 5 to 8 years (more often if risk factors or the management and/or management environment changes). Field observations providing new/different information could constitute a change in risk factors, in which case the risk assessment would be updated. Adaptive management (alternative 3) would facilitate more responsive management driven by monitoring information.

1-5 The comment has been noted.

2-1 This NEPA analysis was conducted in a manner that considered the needs of the resources and the public in the management of the National Forest in a multiple use fashion. Alternative 3 in particular is the best attempt at meeting the multiple needs of the resources and the public.

The commenter’s long ties and caring for this particular area of National Forest for maintenance of your wholesome way of life through generations and the building of the local communities is noted.

2-2 Reference to overgrazing in this analysis is described as a “Past Action that has affected the Existing Condition” (chapter 3, section 3.4 “Rangeland Resources”, “Past Actions that have affected the Existing Condition”). The overgrazing and rangeland degradation described in this section occurred in the late 1880s to the early 1900s. Past actions that have occurred must be disclosed in an analysis of this sort because it has bearing on the current state of the


180

Com-ment


resources. Changes to plant communities and other resources that occurred during that period of time, depending on the severity, help explain the condition of those resources today. Chapter 3, section 3.4 “Rangeland Resources”, “Existing Condition”, tells a different story of much improved conditions and rangeland management from those early years. With the much lower stocking rates and much improved rangeland management that has occurred and improved since the early 1900s, overgrazing has not been a widespread issue nor is it an issue in this analysis.

2-3 The outcome of this analysis will be the development of an allotment management plan (AMP). The AMP is the implementation plan for the actions analyzed in the NEPA process and selected in the decision document. The AMP is the implementation document by which the Forest Service communicates to the permittee and others: management objectives, planned actions to accomplish those objectives, and monitoring necessary to determine if progress towards objectives is being made.

We currently have an annual meeting with the permittees to plan the grazing year and construct annual operating instructions (AOIs). Every year the permittee knows ahead of time what the rotation will be and what improvements will be reconstructed, etc.

In last few years we have implemented some degree of flexibility into our management, but alternative 3, if chosen, will implement an even higher degree of flexibility into our management. Adaptive management by definition is management that has the ability to adapt to and change as conditions change as long as it is within the scope of the original analysis. This means that in an ever changing environment our plan is likely to change many times to accomplish our management objectives.

The commenter’s desire for a continuous plan to depend on year after year seems understandable; however, grazing on the National Forest amid all the other uses does not afford us that luxury.

2-4 The Forest Service is required to consider the “best available science” per 1920/1950 memo dated May 2, 2007 from our Washington Office. When valid information reveals that there is a conservation concern for a species, we are obligated to mitigate actions that may be detrimental to that species. We certainly understand the concern that arises when a changed condition affects National Forest users. We collaborate with the public to find solutions that conserve species while maintaining multiple uses on National Forest System lands consistent with the Forest Plan. Soliciting public involvement in this EIS is part of that collaboration.

3-1 Reiteration of the Forest Plan and the Watershed Conservation Practices Handbook (WCPH) would unnecessarily lengthen and burden NEPA documents. The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) says, “Tiering is a procedure which allows an agency to avoid duplication of paperwork through the incorporation by reference of the general discussions and relevant specific discussions from an environmental impact statement of broader scope into one of lesser scope or vice versa.”1 In this case, the North San Juan Sheep and Goat EIS tiers to the EIS done for the Forest Plan and its accompanying Record of Decision. We mentioned this in the draft EIS, chapter 1, section 1.7.1 (first paragraph).

The Forest Service Directives System (i.e., Forest Service Manuals and Handbooks) is incorporated into the Forest Plan by reference (see Forest Plan, appendix B, page B-1). This includes the Watershed Conservation Practices Handbook (Forest Service Handbook 2509.25). The ID team checks to see that the project is in compliance with the Forest Plan, which includes the Forest Service Directives System.

The proposed action (see chapter 1, section 1.3) is compatible with the Forest Plan management direction (see chapter 1, section 1.7.1) pertinent to this analysis area and this was validated by the ID team. 1 From: Council on Environmental Quality – Forty most asked questions concerning CEQs NEPA regulations (40CFR 1500-1508) available online at: http://ceq.eh.doe.gov/nepa/regs/40/40p3.htm

3-2 The best available science has been incorporated into this analysis for the management of bighorn sheep. Current science suggests that a 9-mile buffer can be effective in some


181

Com-ment


situations. Under alternative 1, (no grazing), the entire analysis area would serve as a "buffer", having no domestic sheep grazing. The same document that suggests using a 9-mile buffer in some cases, also suggests, "Topographic features or other natural or man-made barriers (e.g., fenced, interstate highways) can also be effective in minimizing the likelihood of physical contact between wild sheep and domestic sheep and goats. Site-specific risk assessments should be completed, to evaluate the efficacy using natural barriers, defined buffer zones and other preventive actions to minimize risk. Given the wide range of circumstances across jurisdictions, buffer zones may not be needed in all situations; conversely, buffer zones should not be precluded as an effective strategy to address this issue” (WAFWA 2007). Under alternative 3 (adaptive management), a risk assessment has been developed to determine areas having high risk of contact between bighorn sheep and domestic sheep and goats. These high risk areas would then be extended to a logical place on the ground (providing a "buffer" between high risk areas and grazing areas). Therefore, in this analysis, we are considering management of the entire analysis area as a no grazing "buffer" (alternative 1), as well as delineating high risk areas and extending them to a logical place on the landscape, creating a "buffer".

The designated polygons (resident subpopulation areas) represent areas in which bighorn sheep are known or thought to live or use on a fairly regular basis and include the habitat connecting these areas. The risk analysis considers that bighorn sheep may use areas outside of the polygons delineated in appendix A. Those polygons are based on current information, but can be changed based on new information. For the most part, these are thought (based on current information) to be the areas that bighorn sheep use most (approximately 95%) of the time. We acknowledge that bighorn sheep may move outside of these areas designated by the polygons, but for the purposes of this risk analysis, the delineated areas were not meant to capture the movements of dispersing/wandering bighorn sheep. Dispersing/wandering bighorn sheep are also a critical piece of this management issue and will be addressed through management such as: further monitoring (see section 2.8) where bighorn sheep are found outside of the delineated resident subpopulation areas, and implementation of project design criteria (see section 2.7).

In relation to this project, potential impacts to viability and population trends were discussed in the Biological Evaluation for the North San Juan Sheep and Goat Allotments EIS (see project record). However, bighorn sheep viability must logically and legally be analyzed at a much larger scale, and therefore, is beyond the scope of this analysis. The Forest-wide supplemental Biological Evaluation addresses bighorn sheep viability at a more appropriate scale (see Wildlife Specialist Report).

3-3 3-3a

The commenter alleges the EIS has failed to analyze the “validity of assumptions from previous NEPA processes.”

We disagree. Fundamentally, this EIS tiers to the EIS for the Forest Plan and its accompanying Record of Decision. The proposed action has been validated by the ID team to be consistent with the Forest Plan. See our response to comment 3-1 regarding “tiering” relative to incorporation by reference and not reiterating previous analysis and discussions. The Forest Service uses monitoring at the broader Forest level to validate assumptions and predictions made in the Forest Plan (see Forest Plan, chapter V). A Forest-level report is produced every year summarizing results and is posted on the Forest’s web site. Then, the Forest Service relies on extensive monitoring at the project level to ensure that management is being applied as prescribed and that the project analysis area is meeting or moving toward desired conditions—including whether the rate of change is acceptable. A detailed monitoring plan has been developed for this project (see FEIS, chapter 2, section 2.8).

3-3b

The commenter alleges the EIS has failed to analyze the “accuracy of predictions from previous NEPA processes.”

See our response to comment 3-3a.


182

Com-ment


3-3c

The commenter alleges the EIS has failed to analyze the “adequacy of Forest Service implementation of previous decisions.”

See our response to comment 3-3a. Our implementation monitoring (EIS, chapter 2, section 2.8) is designed to benefit from past experience. Previous experience helps us design monitoring that is practical, cost effective, and efficiently addresses the monitoring question at hand.

3-3d

The commenter alleges the EIS has failed to analyze the “permittee compliance with permit terms and conditions, AMP’s, AOIs, and other requirements.”

Permittee compliance is an administrative matter and is addressed on a case-by-case basis according to guidance provided in the Grazing Permit Administration Handbook (FSH 2209.13). Implementation monitoring (EIS, chapter 2, section 2.8) articulates and focuses on the requirements that permittees must abide by, and states that any non-compliance will be reported to the responsible official for possible administrative action (see FEIS, table 2-7, footnote 1). Under NEPA, we want the public to provide comment on the proposed monitoring plan. Administrative actions are not appropriately analyzed under the NEPA.

3-3e

The commenter alleges the EIS has failed to analyze the “effectiveness of actions taken in previous decisions.”

See our response to comment 3-3a and 3-30. The commenter specifically questions effectiveness of fencing riparian areas and developing water to solve riparian concerns. The EIS does not propose water developments and the proposed fences are intended to solve cattle drift into the analysis area from adjacent allotments (see draft EIS chapter 2, section 2.7, figure 2.7-1).

3-4 The two resource areas identified in the EIS with important disparities between current conditions and Forest Plan desired conditions were biological diversity and rural development (draft EIS, section 1.6). Desired conditions for stream health were not discussed in the “Need for Action” section of the EIS nor was the use of PFC as a desired condition.

The commenter is correct in stating that robust stream health is the goal for all streams within the Forest. General water and aquatic resources are described in the Forest-wide desired conditions on page I-2 in the Record of Decision for the Revised Land and Resource Management Plan. In the Forest Plan standard and guidelines section on page III-5 under “Riparian Areas, Standard 1” states that “allow no land treatments that will cause long-term change to a lower-stream-health class in any stream reach. In degraded systems, progress toward robust stream health within the next plan period.”

With regard to the commenter’s suggestion that the Forest utilize MIM monitoring protocol, RGNF personnel have recently taken training in this technique and will utilize the method on a case-by-case basis on the project level.

3-5 We cannot locate the specific quote you are referring to. However, many management actions will be implemented based on in-season monitoring, particularly under selection of alternative 3 (adaptive management).

3-6 See our response to comment 3-1. By tiering this project to the Forest Plan’s FEIS and its accompanying Record of Decision (ROD), it is expected that all applicable legal requirements would be met (see chapter 1, section 1.7). Furthermore, specialists reference legal, regulatory, and policy compliance in their detailed resource analysis, where appropriate. The commenter does not identify any specific violations.

3-7 Livestock grazing on the RGNF is governed by both Forest Plan and project-level decisions. The National Forest Management Act (NFMA) and its associated implementing regulations require the Forest Service to integrate individual resource plans into the Forest Plan,


183

Com-ment


including the grazing resource (36 CFR 219.20). The capability of National Forest System lands to producing forage and the suitability (or appropriateness) of allocating it to livestock were determined in the analysis for the Forest Plan.

There will be clarification in the final document concerning suitability/capability and the items of concern. The site-specific suitability/capability analysis verified the pattern of suitable/capable acres as determined by the Forest Plan analysis. The pattern of suitable/capable acres as determined by the Forest Plan analysis were verified from past experience of the analysis area. Some spot checks and production estimates were also used.

3-8 See response to comment 3-7

3-9 Figure 2.4.2-1 (draft EIS) illustrates the current (historic) and proposed trailing routes. Chapter 3, section 3.4 describes the condition of these stock driveways and trails. See comment 3-19 for discussion on why trucking is not required or recommended in all cases.

3-10 The appropriateness of livestock grazing in wilderness was addressed in the North San Juan DEIS and it was tiering to the (FEIS) (USDA Forest Service 1996b) and Record of Decision for the Forest Plan. Lands within the RGNF are managed for a particular emphasis or theme known as a management area (MA) (see figure 1.7.1-1 and table 1.7.1-1 of the North San Juan Sheep and Goat Allotments DEIS). Livestock grazing is appropriate and authorized within each of the MAs shown in table 1.7.1-1 (RGNF Forest Plan; chapter IV). The ID team also reviewed the Forest’s rangeland suitability analysis and found the analysis area to contain lands suitable for livestock grazing (see chapter 1, section 1.5, bullet number 2). Since the revision of the RGNF Forest Plan in 1996, management practices within these allotments have not changed substantially in any of the MAs, that would lead to curtailments of grazing in wilderness areas simply because an area is, or has been designated as wilderness, nor should wilderness designations be used as an excuse by administrators to slowly ‘phase out’ grazing. For more information on the appropriateness of grazing in wilderness areas, please refer to chapter 1, section 1.7 in the North San Juan Sheep and Goat Allotments draft EIS.

3-11 Chapter 1, section 1.5 states “ There is an overall need for greater management flexibility to cope with fluctuations in environmental and social conditions, but not limited to, annual changes in weather; to be responsive to visitor-use pattern changes; to be responsive to permittee requests for reasonable operational adjustments; and to respond to unforeseen issues”. Although the Forest Service has had many tools available for many years, this analysis proposes an unprecedented need for tools and flexibility to deal with the bighorn sheep-domestic sheep separation issue. Chapter 3, section 3.4, Alternative 2 states, “Some of the flexibility that is lacking is the opportunity to make quick changes in management, utilizing the entire analysis area in response to key issue 2 (separation issue) and other issues. This would include, realigning the suitable areas for grazing in response to the risk of contact between bighorn sheep and permitted domestic sheep, mixing and matching allotments, crossing allotment boundaries, changing term grazing permits annually if needed to reflect changes in grazing allotments, etc., without doing a new NEPA analysis”.

Draft EIS, chapter 2, table 2.4.3-2 (Alternative 3 – Adaptive Livestock Grazing Management (Forest Service Proposed Action) lists under suitable rangeland acres, “The greater the suitable land base, the greater the opportunity to rotate bands of livestock and reduce negative livestock – Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep interactions”. This would be the rational basis for having all the allotments available for use.

3-12 The statement in key issue 3, “The permittees currently using the analysis area have requested additional rangeland and livestock numbers”, is part of the issue as a descriptor of the economic importance and necessity that livestock grazing provides for the economic and social well being of local people. Draft EIS chapter 1, section 1.6, table 1.6-1 illustrates that Rural Development is a Forest Plan Desired Condition and states the following: “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


184

Com-ment


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 (Forest Plan, page I-6)”. The issue is not necessarily crafted on the need to provide more rangeland and more numbers of livestock, but on the need to provide an opportunity for rural development that is dependent on the National Forest to continue, as the Forest Plan requires.

This analysis and in particular alternative 3 proposes to address all the issues and not any one issue to the detriment of the others. Simply put, alternative 3 proposes to allow domestic sheep grazing to occur, but not where the bighorn sheep are.

3-13 Draft EIS table 2.4.1-1 (Alternative 1 – No Action, no permitted livestock grazing) displays a component of “Adaptability to Change” in reference to livestock grazing as a tool. This component is not a comparison of effects of grazing (that is located in chapter 3 “Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences”).

3-14 Information is provided on how alternative 3 would be more flexible than the current flexibility. This is located in draft EIS chapter 3, section 3.4, Alternative 2 states, “Some of the flexibility that is lacking is the opportunity to make quick changes in management, utilizing the entire analysis area in response to key issue 2 (separation issue) and other issues. This would include, realigning the suitable areas for grazing in response to the risk of contact between bighorn sheep and permitted domestic sheep, mixing and matching allotments, crossing allotment boundaries, changing term grazing permits annually if needed to reflect changes in grazing allotments, etc., without doing a new NEPA analysis”. As you mention we have had many tools available, but they have all been for short-term changes. To deal with some of the issues we would prefer to make some longer-term changes. Alternative 3 proposes that high risk areas for contact between domestic sheep and bighorn sheep are not suitable for domestic sheep grazing. Changing the suitability of locations like this is not possible now as a management tool unless we do another NEPA process every-time we need to update the suitable land base. Permanently moving a permittee to a “low risk” area for contact is also not available as a tool without doing another NEPA process, and many more scenarios known and unknown at this time.

The seasons of use in alternatives 2 and 3 are not identical (see draft EIS tables 2.4.2-1 and 2.4.3-2. Alternative 3 proposes to align several allotments to a later on-date that corresponds better with range readiness. Alternative 2 will be reviewed for the final.

The AUMs proposed for alternatives 2 and 3 are the same, but the capacities are not the same. Alternative 3 has a larger capacity but the Forest Service is more interested in having the land base available in this area to rotate bands of sheep away from high risk areas. The additional acres does provide some opportunity to deal with the issue, but obviously there are many other management needs that are proposed that will also need to be implemented to effectively deal with the separation issue ( see chapter 2 , section 2.7 “Project Design Criteria.”

3-15 Having all 12 allotments available for use does not increase the opportunity for interactions with Rocky Mountain big horn sheep, because, according to project design criteria (chapter 2, section 2.7) domestic sheep will not be allowed to graze in high risk areas. The additional acreage available will not be used if it is a high risk area. As explained above, additional acreage on which to move sheep bands is not the total answer. Many other project design criteria are proposed to deal with the issue.

3-16 See our response to comment 3-1.

3-17 We use Arc Map software to display spatial attributes; however, we are not implying that bighorn sheep actually "... live within Arc View" or are limited to small polygons of modeled "suitable habitat". The risk assessment is not a model (that generates any definite answer,


185

Com-ment


but a tool to help determine where we have overlap in factors that would increase the risk of contact between bighorn sheep and domestic sheep and goats. See response to comment 3-2 in regards to a buffer.

3-18 The risk assessment (project design criteria) does not fail to deal with the reality of placing the same number of livestock in a smaller area, because it does not propose to do so. The risk assessment in fact states: “Domestic sheep management will be adjusted within the remaining suitable grazing area within the allotment. This will often take the form of adjustment of routing schedules, timing, and so forth. If these practices are not feasible, DS might be moved to other lower risk allotments (if available) or in worst-case scenarios it may be necessary to adjust permitted numbers, seasons, or AUMs in order to ensure proper management of the rangeland resources while striving to ensure separation. This will also be accomplished through the flexibility afforded by adaptive management.”

The DEIS does propose to have the flexibility to make changes to allotment boundaries to exclude areas of bighorn sheep overlap. See table 2-3 ,Grazing Management Toolbox, “Adjust allotment boundaries” as a possible tool for adaptive management.

3-19 See response to comment 3-2 in regards to the project design criteria and 9-mile buffer. Trucking is a tool that can be implemented (under selection of alternative 3) in some cases; however, it is not feasible or desirable in others. Some of the trucking drop-off locations are in high risk areas and would increase the risk of contact, especially where livestock holding facilities are not available and multiple truckloads would be required. This could result in domestic sheep being staged or trailed for a longer distance in high risk areas.

3-20 “Heritage sites will be monitored "to ensure compliance with allowable impact" but nowhere in the DEIS is it provided what these "allowable impacts" are.”

In general, allowable impacts to eligible and significant cultural resources would include negligible superficial disturbance to the upper horizon of the site matrix. If it appears that livestock impacts are significantly undermining potentially buried cultural deposits, then impacts would then be beyond the ‘allowable impacts’ threshold. Variables such as soils, vegetation, wildlife impacts, and other cumulative effects are also taken into account when monitoring cultural resources.

Examples of allowable impacts include light trampling and trailing of livestock moving across sites. Examples of impacts that are unacceptable are heavy trampling, congregation, compaction, obliteration, or displacement of artifacts or features.

3-21 See the definition of adaptive management, section 2.4.3. The purpose of adaptive management is to have flexibility to make changes in response to resource monitoring. Defining a specific grazing system would unnecessarily constrain this process. Under adaptive management you choose a starting point that could be similar to the current management grazing system, then changes could be made.

The appropriate stocking rates are listed in draft EIS tables 2.4.2-2 and 2.4.3-2. See response to comment 3-7. There are no lands in the analysis area that currently are in unsatisfactory condition and in need of a restoration plan.

3-22 Table 3.4-2 mistakenly occurs in two places. The second table should be labeled table 3.4-3. Table 3.4-3 contains the AUMs that correspond to the acres in table 3.4-2. This will be corrected in the final document. See section 3.4 for discussion on productivity.

3-23 Alternative 2 does not address the issue of potential contact between bighorn and domestic sheep and therefore may not be sustainable in the long-term. This will be clarified if needed in the final document.

3-24 This statement is referring to meeting the Forest Plan desired conditions, specifically rural development, see chapter 1, section 1.6.

3-25 The North San Juan DEIS does not portray that there will be no impacts from livestock grazing. The alternatives, including project design criteria (chapter 2, section 2.7) were specifically designed to minimize resource impacts and to sustain the values of this analysis


186

Com-ment


area. An important distinction is made between “absolute wilderness” and “legal wilderness.” In absolute wilderness, there is totally no human influence. Forest Service Manual (FSM) 2320.6 states that it is unlikely this condition exists anywhere on earth (e.g., there are significant elevated CO2 emissions today since Euro-American settlement). The Wilderness Act defines wilderness at some point below absolute wilderness, and it varies by wilderness area. The Act also permits certain activities and contains prerogatives that also tend to lessen the opportunities to reach absolute wilderness. Livestock grazing is one example of a modification allowed by Congress that defines legal wilderness. Remoteness, primitive recreation challenge, outstanding solitude, and inherent wilderness values and character are maintained within the allowable uses for “legal wilderness” within this analysis area and within the scope of this analysis (i.e., evaluating the appropriate level of livestock grazing, given considerations of rangeland condition and other Forest Plan goals and objectives).

3-26 As discussed in the response to comment 3-4, the PFC methodology is not used to determine overall stream health on Forest lands. Robust stream health is defined in the Watershed Conservation Practices Handbook as “Stream exhibits high geomorphic, hydrologic and/or biotic integrity relative to its natural potential condition (as represented by a suitable reference condition). For a quantitative analysis, high integrity is indicated by conditions that are 74 to 100% of a reference condition (after Plafkin et al. 1989; EPA 1999; CDPHE 2002). Physical, chemical and/or biologic conditions suggest that State assigned water quality (beneficial, designated or classified) uses are supported.”

Stream health on the RGNF during field reviews is determined by using reference streams for comparison to streams being evaluated. As described in the WCP, those conditions can be established using a combination of methods: single or multiple reference sites; historical data; simulation models; and/or expert opinion/professional judgment. During field review of allotments within the North San Juan Analysis Area, stream characteristics such as stream bank stability, width/depth, riparian vegetative health, pH, temperature, and bed load composition were determined at many stream locations and this information is provided in the Watershed Specialist Report. With some localized exceptions, streams exhibit stable banks, healthy riparian, and characteristics within the definition of “robust”.

3-27 Chapter 3 of the EIS is a summary of a more detailed analysis conducted in the respective Biological Evaluations (BEs) that were developed for terrestrial wildlife, fish, and plants to support this project. The BEs provides the detailed evaluation in order to support a viability affirmation. In the case of plants, there are no sensitive species meeting the following two criteria: (1) the known species occurrence is primarily restricted to the analysis area, and (2) there is a high vulnerability of detrimental impact from the proposed actions. The sensitive plant species evaluated for this project occur in habitats known to exist across a much larger geographic area than just the analysis area. Known sensitive plant occurrence data are presented in the BE and these occurrences are typically over multi-county areas. There is no information known specifically for the sensitive plants evaluated in the BE to indicate that infrequent impacts (clipping or trampling) would clearly lead to a species viability concern. Thus, we reasoned that individual plants may, if at all, be affected at times by the proposed actions, but it was unlikely these effects would be of sufficient magnitude to cause an overall loss of species viability on the Forest. Project design criteria are specifically developed to reduce plant utilization and trampling impacts.

Actually, the determination for many species was "May Impact Individuals, but is not likely to cause a trend towards Federal listing or result in loss of viability in the planning area" (see draft EIS table 3.10-2). Impacts to individuals may or may not be adverse as you have stated in your comment. Details supporting these calls can be found in the BE for the North San Juan Sheep and Goat Allotments EIS (see project record). Based on species needs and expected impacts to the species and its habitat within the analysis area, a logical determination can be made as to whether the species is at risk for loss of viability within the analysis area as a result of any of the alternatives. Overall species viability must logically and legally be analyzed at a much larger scale, and therefore, is beyond the scope of this analysis. The rationale for a “No Impact” call to wolverine can be found in the BE for this project (see Wildlife Specialist Report).


187

Com-ment


3-28 The commenter makes a general allegation that the EIS inadequately defines adaptive management, but does not provide specific examples of deficiencies. The proposed action in the EIS (see chapter 1, section 1.3) references our strategy to use adaptive management and we are in compliance with Forest Service Handbook 2209.13, chapter 90 and Quimby (2007). The commenter further suggests that we review an untitled document purportedly written by the USFWS on how to write goals and objectives. However, the document mentioned by the commenter was not attached to their comment letter, so we could not review it.

3-29 Chapter 2, section 2.7 (Project Design Criteria) addresses salting to prevent the attraction of other animals. Using block salt serves to keep most salt residue out of the soil. Current management and most sheep operators use salt in loose form, which more readily incorporates into the soil. Tubs are included as an option.

“Project Design Criteria”, section 2.7, has a section on “Enhanced monitoring of DS movements and locations.” The Forest Service will pursue enhanced monitoring of permitted domestic sheep and goat grazing and/or trailing patterns via use of Global Positioning System collars or other technology that will provide detailed data on movements and grazing patterns of domestic sheep and goats. Permittees authorized to graze in areas rated as “Moderate Risk”, will require herders to carry and use the “SPOT satellite messenger” to daily relay their location to the Forest Service. The Forest Service will purchase the units and the service to accomplish this high-tech monitoring (see “Monitoring Measures”, section 2.8). Note: This will be on a trial basis; as technology and funding develops, other methods may be tried in the future. See appendix F for more information on the “SPOT” satellite messenger.” Radio collars may be an option if funding allows.

3-30 The possible management actions are listed in the Grazing Management Toolbox (see draft EIS chapter 2, section 2.4.3, table 2.4.3-1). These practices are well-established and commonly known to mitigate livestock impacts. They are known to be effective based on extensive research. There are no practices in table 2.4.3-1 that would be commonly held in the scientific community to be considered experimental or untested. These practices are commonly accepted actions used on rangelands throughout the West. These practices are universally found in introductory rangeland management textbooks (such as Rangeland Management by Heady (1975)). Monitoring is addressed in chapter 2, section 2.8 in considerable detail for both implementation monitoring (section 2.8.1) and effectiveness monitoring (section 2.8.2). These sections address the specific monitoring component, the frequency of monitoring, and the responsible party to conduct the monitoring. The EIS makes a strong commitment to monitoring.

3-31 Draft EIS figure 2.8.1-1 is a map of key monitoring areas for the analysis area. Since sheep are herded, nearly all of the suitable range could be considered a key area. Allowable use standards were used in this analysis and will be added to the project design criteria for the final document.

3-32 Section 2.8 (Monitoring Measures) of the document is devoted completely to monitoring. This section is divided into two sub-sections (“Implementation Monitoring” and “Effectiveness Monitoring”). Draft EIS table 2.8.1-1 in the “Implementation Monitoring” section clearly displays all the short-term monitoring measures that will be implemented, by alternative. Draft EIS table 2.8.2-1 in the “Effectiveness Monitoring” section clearly displays all the long-term monitoring measures that will be implemented, by alternative. For certain monitoring items, the triggers are also included in the description of the monitoring item. For some monitoring items, triggers are not needed (monitoring that will need to occur regardless of changes in conditions). A map of key monitoring sites to monitor is displayed in draft EIS figure 2.8.1-1 (key monitoring areas for the analysis area). Since sheep are herded, nearly all of the suitable range could be considered a key area. Allowable use standards were used in this analysis and were incorporated by reference.

3-33 The MIS analysis (available in the project record) is in compliance with all applicable laws and regulations.


188

Com-ment


3-34 “The analysis of impacts to and cumulative effects on cultural resources is insufficient. (1) The document says that most of the suitable range areas have not been surveyed but that the (2) few cultural resources known in suitable areas are being impacted. (3) In addition the document states that continued livestock grazing "should not increase the potential for cumulative effects" which is of course not true.”

(1) Since the draft specialist report, new cultural resource inventories were completed within the Area of Potential Effect (APE) for the Upper Adams, Treasure, Willow Mtn., North Fork Middle, Elwood, Cropsy/Summit, and Campo Bonito Allotments totaling approximately 916 acres. During these inventories, 6 sites (5RN.1009, 5RN.1012. 5RN.1013, 5RN.1027, 5CN.1405, 5CN.1408.1) and 11 isolated finds (5RN.1003, 5RN.1004, 5RN.1010, 5RN.1011, 5RN.1014, 5RN.1025, 5CN.1406, 5CN.1409, 5CN.1410, 5CN.1411, 5CN.1412) were identified and recorded. According to the 2001 revised regulations [36 CFR 800.4(d) (1)] for section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 470f) the recommended determination for the proposed action is “no historic properties affected.” (2) Unevaluated sites 5CN.531, 5CN.532, and 5CN.533 are within the APE and were originally documented as having been impacted by livestock in the early 1980s. Since the draft specialist report, these sites were revisited, re-evaluated, and recommended as “not eligible” to the National Register of Historic Places. No livestock impacts were noted during the site revisits in 2009.

(3) Livestock grazing at adequate stocking rates that adhere to proper grazing management should not increase the potential for cumulative effects within the North San Juan Analysis Area.

3-35 The commenter states that 3 to 5% of the employment and income for the area is from agriculture and ranching is a percentage of that. These percentage figures were not part of this analysis and seem to be the commenter’s own analysis. The exact percentage for the area is not known; however, the area is rural and is dominated by ranching and farming operations as a whole.

4-1 Your comment has been noted.

5-1 There are three management alternatives being analyzed in the North San Juan EIS (see section 2.4). Alternative 1 (no grazing) would provide the most benefit to bighorn sheep, but would be detrimental to livestock grazing (see table 2.4.1-1 and chapter 3 of the draft EIS). Alternative 2 (Current Management), would be most beneficial to the producers (in the short-term), but may not provide the flexibility needed to sustain long-term grazing and provides little in the way of bighorn sheep management (see table 2.4.2-1 and chapter 3 of the draft EIS). The adaptive management alternative (3) is largely designed so that all parties must work together to minimize the risk of contact between domestic sheep and goats and bighorn sheep, with the ultimate goal of being able to manage for both domestic sheep grazing and bighorn sheep habitat across the analysis area (see table 2.4.3-2 and chapter 3 of the draft EIS).

5-2 The 2009 ruling of the U.S. District court of Idaho did rule that reports outlining the findings and conclusions on the risk of disease transmission from domestic sheep to bighorn sheep submitted by the Risk Assessment Disease Transmission Committee and the Payette Principals Committee are not to be used by the U.S. Forest Service in making any future agency determinations. Accordingly, reports from these committees will not be used to support this analysis. However, information regarding management issues on the Payette National Forest may still be considered for the purposes of analyzing management of the North San Juan Analysis Area.

5-3 Some clarification is necessary. The commenter is correct, finalization or a decision has not been made on the EIS. The commenter has continually been involved in this EIS analysis and the commenter is making reference to some of the information that was presented at one or more of those meetings with the Forest Service. In particular the commenter is making reference to the project design criteria and the risk assessment. With the current data, the risk assessment is displaying a portion of the East Vega Allotment as high risk. The project design criteria states that domestic sheep grazing will not be allowed to graze in high risk


189

Com-ment


areas. At one or more of the meetings the commenter was informed of how the project design criteria and the outcome of the risk assessment may affect the East Vega Allotment. This was presented to keep the commenter informed of the components of alternative 3 and what management changes would need to be made. Again, a decision has not been made, but if alternative 3 is selected in its current form, the commenter (permittee) would not be able to graze domestic sheep in any high risk areas (per the current risk assessment).

A great amount of thought and work was put into alternative 3 to produce an alternative that the Forest Service feels is the best compromise to deal with all the issues. Basically, alternative 3 proposes to continue allowing the grazing of domestic sheep, but not where the bighorn sheep are. Alternative 3 proposes to make every effort to find other grazing allotments to move permittees to, if their current permitted allotment becomes unavailable for use due to high risk of contact between bighorn sheep and domestic sheep”. In the worst case scenario—where there is no allotment or portion of an allotment available to move to—the permit would be cancelled.

5-4 The Rocky Mountain Research Station conducts research that contributes to “best available science” that the Forest Service must consider when it is relevant to a project under analysis. See our response to comment 2-4. However, the specific mission, vision, values, motto, strategic guidelines, and purpose of the Rocky Mountain Research Station are outside the scope of this project.

5-5 The Forest Service faces the task of managing the National Forest (public lands) for all the public and for multiple uses (resources). Multiple use management must occur. Alternative 3 is proposing to continue the use of domestic sheep grazing while making changes to ensure that the wildlife resource is also taken care of. This will not be the last time changes will need to be made; in fact the adaptive management part of alternative 3 is designed to allow changes to be made in a timely manner.

Future generations who choose sheep production as a livelihood will hopefully have the opportunity to utilize the National Forest as part of their operation. The continuation of your care and stewardship of this public land will help sustain domestic sheep grazing for future generations.

The management of roads, campgrounds, and trails are other resources that are also managed in this multiple use system. These uses and resources are not always compatible everywhere.

Grazing is a tool that can be used for many purposes. As you know, your sheep band has been used for the control of noxious weeds in an area that the use of chemicals for weed control is not desired by some of the public. Grazing to prevent wildfires can also be used as a tool. Much has been learned about fire and its effects. For many years the Forest Service suppressed every fire that occurred. The newer thought in management is that fire is a natural part of the forest and naturally occurring fires should be allowed to burn and rejuvenate the forests and rangelands just as grazing is used to rejuvenate the rangelands. In most instances the prevention or suppression of naturally occurring fire is no longer desired by the Forest Service, unless communities or other resources are at risk of being damaged.


5-7 To the extent possible, the grazing permittees have and will continue to be involved in guidance and direction that the Forest Service will take regarding rangeland and grazing.

6-1 The Forest Service proposed action is to continue domestic sheep grazing in the analysis area. It is acknowledged that grazing has occurred in the analysis area since the late 1800s and that the number of sheep authorized to graze in the analysis area were greatly reduced in the early 1900s. The commenter is correct in saying that the reductions were taken to ensure health of the rangeland and the wildlife.

6-2 We acknowledge your statement that there are no recorded incidents of domestic sheep coming into contact with bighorn sheep since 1968. Actual documented contact between


190

Com-ment


domestic sheep and Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep over time is an indicator of the successful management of key issue 2 (contact between domestic sheep and Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep) (see section 1.10 of the EIS), and therefore, will be monitored (see section 2.8.2 of the EIS).

6-3 The Forest Service acknowledges the economic dependency of rural communities on National Forest System lands and resources. This is acknowledged in the Forest Plan desired conditions, draft EIS chapter 1, section 1.6, table 1.6-1 and in the key issues section 1.10, key issue 3.

6-4 Alternative 3 is also the preferred alternative of the Forest Service which is designed to:

Meet or adequately move toward Forest Plan desired conditions

Provide adaptive management flexibility

Reduce potential wildlife conflicts

Contribute positively to the general economic and social vitality of the local area

Continue improving resource trends or maintain currently satisfactory resource conditions as appropriate

6-5 Draft EIS chapter 2, section 2.4.3 “Alternative 3 “, table 2.4.3-2 states “5,002 AUMs will not be exceeded”. Conversely, chapter 2, section 2.7 “Project Design Criteria” under Risk Assessment discusses management changes that will occur in high risk areas. This section explains that domestic sheep grazing will not be allowed in high risk areas. The section then goes on to explain the management that will occur in the remaining suitable areas that are not high risk as follows:

”Domestic sheep management will be adjusted within the remaining suitable grazing area within the allotment. This will often take the form of adjustment of routing schedules, timing, and so forth. If these practices are not feasible, domestic sheep might be moved to other lower risk allotments (if available) or in worst-case scenarios it may be necessary to adjust permitted numbers, seasons, or AUM’s in order to ensure proper management of the rangeland resources while striving to ensure separation. This will also be accomplished through the flexibility afforded by adaptive management”.

In order to ensure that overgrazing or overstocking does not occur due to the loss of available rangeland, the option to reduce AUMs is necessary.

6-6 Project design criteria listed in FEIS table 2.7 explains the protocol for confirmed contact or threat of impending contact between permitted domestic sheep and bighorn sheep. According to the protocol, the domestic sheep may or may not need to be moved, (depending on the situation). If the domestic sheep are moved, it will only become permanent, if further information shows that the bighorn sheep are actually living in that area, not just traveling through.

6-7 The U.S. Forest Service has no authority regarding regulation of wildlife releases by the CDOW. However, CDOW has indicated a strong desire to prevent contact between bighorn and domestic sheep. One clause of the 2009 Memorandum of Understanding between the U.S. Forest Service Rocky Mountain Region, Colorado State Office of the Bureau of Land Management, CDOW, Colorado Department of Agriculture, and the Colorado Woolgrowers Association states: "CDOW will inform land management agencies and domestic sheep industry representatives of proposals for transplants of bighorn sheep and will afford an opportunity for comment on translocation proposals prior to animals being released. Bighorn translocation proposals will include disease transmission risk and habitat evaluations consistent with existing CDOW guidelines and directives. In general, transplants will not occur in proximity (e.g., probable travel distance of dispersing bighorn sheep) to occupied domestic sheep allotments unless physical barriers to movement or other mitigating circumstances exist. Furthermore, CDOW assumes the risk of potential respiratory disease transmission from domestic sheep operations that are within proximity (probable travel distance of dispersing bighorn sheep) of the transplant location" (Memorandum of


191

Com-ment


Understanding for Management of Domestic Sheep and Bighorn Sheep, March 2009). The Forest Service fully expects that the CDOW will fulfill this commitment to afford an opportunity for comment from both this agency and domestic sheep industry representatives before transplants of bighorn sheep occur.

6-8 The application of alternative 3 would be no different than current management in terms of authority. The district ranger (authorized officer) is granted the authority by law to manage these term grazing permits. That authority cannot be relinquished to a permittee. However, in rangeland management, the grazing permittee has always been and will continue to be an integral part of rangeland planning. Just the fact that the commenter had the opportunity to provide input in this very letter is proof of permittee involvement.

7-1 For the North San Juan Analysis Area, we are considering a "no grazing" alternative (1) (see section 2.4). If selected, this alternative would provide the best opportunity for preventing contact (within the analysis area) between bighorn sheep and domestic sheep or goats. The grazing alternative which addresses the issue of potential contact between the species is "adaptive management" (alternative 3) (see section 2.4). Under this alternative, management would be implemented to reduce the risk of contact (i.e. risk analysis, not grazing in high risk areas, project design criteria, and follow-up monitoring). The deciding officer will weigh and consider these two alternatives when he/she makes a decision regarding management of this analysis area.

7-2 Exclusion of grazing of domestic sheep or goats within this analysis area is being considered under alternative 1 (no grazing). Exclusion of grazing from occupied habitat (high risk areas) is being considered under alternative 3 (adaptive management). Historic habitat for bighorn sheep in this area is not clearly defined, although currently suitable habitat exists throughout the analysis area (see appendix A, Bighorn Sheep Habitat Map). Habitat is a factor being considered in the risk analysis process being used in alternative 3.

7-3 Under alternative 1, the entire analysis area would become a “no grazing zone” or "buffer" area. Under alternative 3, high risk (no grazing) areas would be extended to a logical place on the ground (see section 2.7, “Project Design Criteria”). Therefore, grazing would not be allowed right up to the edge of the highest risk areas (and portions of moderate and/or low risk areas would be excluded as a "buffer"). Under alternative 3, unoccupied areas of suitable habitat (moderate risk areas) may be grazed by domestic sheep and goats. However, project design criteria would be implemented to reduce the potential for contact (see section 2.7, “Project Design Criteria”).

7-4 Two alternatives (1 and 3) are being considered which would be beneficial to bighorn sheep in this analysis area. We acknowledge your support for recovery and dispersal of bighorn sheep throughout their suitable historic habitats.


8-1 We share your concern expressed in this comment. This concern was the driver for key issue 2 (see section 1.10) in this EIS. The die-offs that you mention are extremely unfortunate, and are exactly the situation that we are trying to avoid under alternative 3 and its corresponding management.

8-2 The commenter made reference to two specific areas as examples of where domestic sheep and bighorn sheep may be sharing the same range. Chapter 2, section 2.7 (“Project Design Criteria”), risk assessment and corresponding map appendix A has identified these same locations and others that may be overlapping. Project design criteria are proposed to minimize or eliminate this overlap.

8-3 In this analysis area, domestic sheep stocking has been reduced from approximately 27,658 domestic sheep in the early 1900s, to approximately 7,710 in 1980, and 7,485 in the recent past (see draft EIS table 3.4-1). This would indicate that over the past 100 years, less and less bighorn sheep habitat has been utilized by domestic sheep. Under alternative 1 (no grazing), the entire analysis area would be closed to domestic sheep grazing. If domestic sheep grazing is continued within the analysis area (alternative 2 or 3), then social avoidance


192

Com-ment


of domestic sheep by bighorn sheep would help mitigate key issue 2 (see section 1.10), and decrease risk of contact between the two species. The concern of contact between bighorn and domestic sheep has been addressed in alternative 3 (“Risk Analysis Process” [see appendix A]) to help determine appropriate management strategies, monitoring (see section 2.8), and implementation of project design criteria (section 2.7).

8-4 The Forest Service also anticipates a continued working relationship with both CDOW, sheep grazing permittees, and other interested parties. These working relationships are critical to achieving successful multiple use of the analysis area. A critical part of alternative 3 is gaining and incorporating new information into the risk analysis process. Therefore, the Forest Service is also interested in exploring research opportunities. Also, under alternative 3, if new mitigation techniques (beyond what has already been incorporated into this analysis) become available to help decrease risk of contact between bighorn and domestic sheep, they will likely be pursued.

8-5 Alternative 3 of this analysis considered both and left the option to do both, but did not require trucking. Trucking domestic sheep to an allotment theoretically would be a lower risk method of gaining access to the allotments since the sheep would be delivered to the allotment boundary and would not need to be trailed for long distances. However, during the analysis, we determined that trucking may in some cases present a higher risk of contact between domestic sheep and bighorn sheep for the following reasons:

In many cases the allotments are remote and there are no roads that reach the allotments;

In many cases roads that reach or get close to allotments are not accessible to trucks; in these cases, sheep would need to be trailed for some distance anyway. Although the distance would be shorter than the distances of an entire stock driveway, the location of the drop-off point may actually be in a very high risk area for contact. Most of the accessible roads are in the canyon bottoms of major canyons. These major canyons are where most of the bighorn sheep are now residing. For the last 15 years or so, efforts have been made to avoid accessing the sheep allotments from the major canyons. Aside from dropping off sheep in these major canyons is the fact that an entire band of sheep will need to be trucked in several truck loads which would require that domestic sheep may need to be staged at a trailhead or whatever location for a longer period of time. This itself presents a risk in that there is the possibility of the band being dispersed or scattered due to all the other activities at these areas (e.g., ATVs, motorcycles, cattle, dogs, etc.).

If alternative 1 is selected the entire analysis area would be closed to grazing and trailing. Because there are potential risks to both trailing and trucking, each situation will be dealt with on a case-by-case basis.

8-6 See comment 8-3

8-7 All identified high risk areas would be extended to the next logical topographical barrier, man-made barrier, break in bighorn sheep habitat and/or break in bighorn sheep use area. This would provide a logical “buffer zone” (encompassing moderate and/or low risk areas) between high risk areas and domestic sheep grazing. In addition, if selected, alternative 1 (no grazing) would effectively turn the entire analysis area into a no grazing, or "buffer zone".

8-8 This is addressed in “Project Design Criteria”, chapter 2 section 2.7.

8-9 The possibility of converting the North Fork/Middle Fork S&G Allotment (and other allotments in the analysis area) from domestic sheep/goat grazing to cattle only is an option in the Grazing Management Toolbox, draft EIS chapter 2, section 2.4.3, table 2.4.3-1. Converting sheep and goat allotments to cattle allotments, however, may not always be feasible or desirable due to other factors such as rangeland suitability, recreation conflicts, etc. This type of conversion would probably require additional scoping and some level of NEPA analysis to better understand the possible impacts in some locations.

The selected alternative provides the project design criteria, measures, and monitoring to effectively manage this area just like any other high risk area. The most current risk assessment results using the most current data, shows the Upper Middle Fork and North


193

Com-ment


Fork as high risk. According to project design criteria in the selected alternative, “Permitted domestic sheep grazing will not be allowed in “high risk” areas. The commenter has identified this location as a high risk of contact area and desires that domestic sheep not be allowed in this area. Alternative 3 has identified the same area as a high risk of contact area; project design criteria from alternative 3 states that “Permitted domestic sheep and goat grazing will not be authorized, in high risk areas”. This provides testament to the fact that the risk assessment and the project design criteria from alternative 3 is accurate and functional in dealing with the separation between bighorn sheep and domestic sheep issue.

8-10 The EIS (section 3.10) and BE for this project (available in the project record) support your conclusion that alternative 1 is the most favorable alternative for bighorn sheep. We acknowledge your support of the adaptive management alternative (alternative 3) and your concern for protecting the bighorn sheep population.

9-1 This project incorporates a decision tree and thresholds which are built into the design of adaptive management. In dealing with natural ecosystems, management must be flexible if it is to respond to changing conditions and uncertainty, and to be able to make progress on the ground over time. The decision tree and thresholds could be interpreted as “an adaptive management feedback loop into the NEPA process whereby an interdisciplinary team: defines the desired conditions and objectives for a specific land area; defines the science based design criteria that are believed to be necessary to move resource conditions toward the desired condition; builds in adaptive flexibility to respond to changed conditions or applications that do not work out exactly as planned; and then develops a clean, simple, interdisciplinary monitoring program that will allow the team to determine if adaptive changes are needed over time and if so, which ones”, (Quimby 2007). This allows the authorized officer to implement changes should the monitoring and feedback loop demonstrate the need to change management.

Adaptive management, by design, strives to avoid committing to rigid plans that could not be adjusted without extensive NEPA processes.

Due to this commenter and other commenter’s suggestions that thresholds in this project are not clear enough and in the spirit of adaptive management, an additional monitoring item (see directly below) was included which should ease concerns and ensure the follow thru of the adaptive management feedback loop.

Table 2.8.2-1. Effectiveness monitoring schedule, frequency, and responsible party

Monitoring Item Frequency By whom

Interdisciplinary Team and Authorized Officer Adaptive Management Feedback Loop Review

Every three years (or sooner if needed) the interdisciplinary team and the authorized officer will meet to discuss the adaptive management feedback loop for this project. This feedback loop review will include items such as resource monitoring results, management effectiveness, permittee compliance, new resource data, new “best available science”, changed status for threatened, endangered and sensitive species of plants and animals, changed policies and laws, need to adjust management or not, changed public needs, and any other interdisciplinary topic or item that may need discussion.

3 years or sooner if determined by any of the ID team or authorized officer.

Forest Service

9-2 See comment 9-1. This monitoring item will also serve as the protocol that will be used to ensure that the thresholds are being met.

9-3 See comment 9-1. This monitoring item also provides the forum for the commitment of specific action if thresholds are not being met.

9-4 A substantial amount of thought went into the design of the monitoring program. Monitoring items and frequencies of monitoring were very strongly influenced by our best estimate of


194

Com-ment


how much monitoring we could accomplish given other workloads and budget constraints. This monitoring plan is the most conservative plan that we could devise at this point in time while still addressing those items that must be monitored to meet all of the desired conditions, objectives and standards and guidelines.

9-5 Again, workload and budget constraints are the major reason for the conservative, but adequate monitoring plan. Higher intensity monitoring as suggested may indeed need to occur if the basic monitoring reveals issues are not being adequately dealt with, the level of monitoring is not adequate, there are other items that need to be monitored, information is not available in a timely manner, or any other unknown that may come up. If needed, a commitment for a higher intensity of monitoring will be made as a result of the new monitoring item “Interdisciplinary Team and Authorized Officer Adaptive Management Feedback Loop Reviews” that will occur periodically to assess the current status and future needs.

The fact that the analysis area is generally in such good condition overall was another factor used in determining the level or intensity of monitoring needed.


195

References Alves, J.E. 2003. Fisheries inventories Rio Grande River Basin. Report, Colorado Division of

Wildlife, Denver. 243 p.

Ashmanskas, D.C. 1995. United States District Court proceedings and summary judgment. Portland, OR.

Asmus, G.; Kearney, M. 1990. Are forests the answer? Proceedings of the 1990 Society of American Foresters National Convention, Washington, D.C. July 29–August 1.

Bartlett, E.T.; Torrell, L.A.; Rimbey, N.R.; [and others]. 2002. Valuing grazing use on public land. Journal of Range Management 55: 426–438.

Biedleman, C. 2000. Partners in Flight land bird conservation plan, Colorado. http://www.blm.gov/wildlife/plan/pl-co-10.pdf. Estes Park, CO. 320 p.

Callan, R.J.; Bunch, T.D.; Workman, G.W.; Mock, R.E. 1991. Development of pneumonia in desert bighorn sheep after exposure to a flock of exotic wild and domestic sheep. Journal of American Veterinary Medical Association 198(6): 1052–1056.

Center for Wildlife Information. 2006. Who's who? Know your bears! http://www.centerforwildlifeinformation.org/Publications/Whos_Who_for_web_2005.pdf. Missoula, MT. [Accessed 7/26/2006]

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

CDOW. 2004b. Post hunt elk and mule deer population estimates for DAU’s E34, E32, E26, E11, D36, D35, D26, and D37. Unpublished data on file at the Headquarters for the Rio Grande National Forest, Monte Vista, CO.

CDOW. 2005a. Grizzly bear. Information available online at: http://www.wildlife.state.co.us/.

CDOW. 2005b. Post-hunt population estimates for bighorn sheep available online at: http://www.wildlife.state.co.us/. [Accessed December 2005].

CDOW. 2005c. Guidelines for response to gray wolf reports in Colorado. Colorado Division of Wildlife, Denver. Available online at: http://wildlife.state.co.us/species_cons/GrayWolf/graywolfguidelines.pdf

CDOW. 2007. Post season population estimates. Unpublished data, Conejos Peak Ranger District, Wildlife files.

CDOW. 2009. Colorado bighorn sheep management plan, 2009–2019. Special Report No. 81, Denver, CO. February.

Colorado Natural Heritage Program. 1997. Conservation status of the rare and imperiled vertebrates of Colorado. Ft. Collins, CO.


196

Council on Environmental Quality. 1997. Environmental justice guidance under the National Environmental Policy Act. Executive Office of the President, Old Executive Office Building, Room 360, Washington, D.C. 20502. Available online at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/CEQ/

Council on Environmental Quality. 2009. Forty most asked questions concerning CEQs NEPA regulations (40CFR 1500-1508). Available online at: http://ceq.eh.doe.gov/nepa/regs/40/40p3.htm

Dubois, C. 1903. Report on the proposed San Juan Forest Reserve, Colorado. Unpublished manuscript on file at the Headquarters for the Rio Grande National Forest, Monte Vista, CO.

Evans, R. 1980. Mechanics of water erosion and their spatial and temporal controls: An empirical viewpoint. In: Soil erosion. M.J. Kirby and R.P.C. Morgan (editors), John Wiley and Sons, New York.

Foreyt, W.J. 1989. Fatal Pasteurella haemolytica pneumonia in bighorn sheep after direct contact with clinically normal domestic sheep. American Journal of Veterinary Research 50 (3): 341–344.

Foreyt. W.J. 1992. Experimental contact association attached laboratory report on Hells Canyon between bighorn sheep, elk, and deer with known rams # BR95013 and BR95014: Pasteurella haemolytica infections. Biennial Symposium. Jaworski, M.D.; Ward, A.C.; Hunter, D.L.; North, I.V.; eds. Wild Sheep and Goat Council 8: 213–218.

Foreyt, W.J. 1994. Effects of controlled contact exposure between healthy bighorn sheep and llamas, domestic goats, mountain goats, cattle, domestic sheep, or mouflon sheep. Biennal Symposium Northern Wild Sheep and Goat Council 9: 7–14.

Foreyt, W.J.; Lagerquist, J.E. 1996. Experimental contact of bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis) with horses and cattle, and comparison of neutrophil sensitivity to Pasteurella haemolytica cytotoxins. Journal of Wildlife Diseases 32: 594–602.

Frye, K.; Spero, V. 2006a. A class III CRI for the Cropsy/Summit Livestock Grazing Allotment. Rio Grande National Forest, Conejos Peak Ranger District, Rio Grande County, Colorado. Ms. on file at the San Luis Public Lands Center, Monte Vista, CO.

Frye, K.; Spero, V.2006b. A class III CRI for the Campo Bonito Livestock Grazing Allotment. Rio Grande National Forest, Conejos Peak Ranger District, Rio Grande County, Colorado. Ms. on file at the San Luis Public Lands Center, Monte Vista, CO.

Garcia, A. 2005. Personal communication regarding wintering of bighorn sheep on the Banded Peaks Ranch.

George, J.L.; Martin, D.J.; Lukacs, P.M.; Miller, M.W. 2008. Epidemic Pasteurellosis in a bighorn sheep population with the appearance of a domestic sheep. Colorado Division of Wildlife, Denver, CO.

Ghormley, R. 2009. Personal communication regarding predator control by USDA-APHIS Wildlife Services.

Heady, H.F. 1975. Rangeland management. McGraw and Hill Book Co., New York, NY.


197

Horne, S.; McFarland, J. 1993. Impacts of livestock grazing on cultural resources. Ms. on file at the Routt National Forest Supervisor's Office, Steamboat Springs, CO.

Johnson, L.C.; Wallace, G.N.; Mitchell; J.E. 1997. Visitor perceptions of livestock grazing in five U.S. wilderness areas–A preliminary assessment. International Journal of Wilderness 3(2): 14–20

Kingery, H.E. 1998. Colorado breeding bird atlas. Colorado Bird Atlas Partnership and Colorado Division of Wildlife, Colorado Springs, CO. 636 p.

Krausman, P.R., editor. 1996. Rangeland wildlife. The Society for Range Management, Denver, CO. 440 p.

Landres, P.; Boutcher, S.; Merigliano, L.; [and others]. 2005. Monitoring selected conditions related to wilderness character: A national framework. USDA-Forest Service, General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-151, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, CO. 38 p.

Marlow, C.C., Pogacnik, T.M.; Quinsey, S.D. 1987. Streambank stability and cattle grazing in Southwestern Montana. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 42(4): 291–296.

Martin, K.D.; Schommer, T.J.; Coggins, V.L. 1996. Literature review regarding the compatibility between bighorn and domestic sheep. Northern Wild Sheep and Goat Council Proceedings 10: 72–77.

McCarty, M.K.; Mazurak, A.P. 1976. Soil compaction in Eastern Nebraska after 25 years of cattle grazing management and weed control. Journal of Range Management 29(5): 384–386.

Mitchell, J.E.; Miller, S. 1996. A study of visitor perceptions about livestock grazing on the Canon Allotment, Divide Ranger District, Rio Grande National Forest. Unpublished manuscript on file at the Headquarters for the Rio Grande National Forest, Monte Vista, CO. 15 p.

Mitchell, J.E.; Wallace, G.N.; Wells, M.D. 1996. Visitor perceptions about cattle grazing on national forest lands. Journal of Range Management 49(1): 81–86.

National Agricultural Statistical Service (NASS). 2006. Sheep and goats. USDA Agricultural Statistics Board, Washington D.C. Report released January 27, 2006. Available online at: http://www.nass.usda.gov/.

National Forest Management Act of 1976 (NFMA).

NatureServe. 2005. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 4.5. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. [Accessed September 23, 2005].

Onderka, D.K., Rawluk, S.A.; Wishart, W.D. 1988. Susceptibility of Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep and domestic sheep to pneumonia induced by bighorn and domestic livestock strains of Pasteurella haemolytica. Canadian Journal of Veterinary Research 52: 439–444.

Petersen, D. 1998. Ghost grizzlies. Johnson Printing, Boulder, CO. 280 p.


198

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 2/10/2006 manuscript on file at Rocky Mountain Region of the Forest Service, Lakewood, CO. 28 p.

Rich, T.D.; Beardmore, C.J.; Berlanga, H.; [and others]. 2004. Partners in Flight North American Landbird Conservation Plan. Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY. Partners in Flight website: http://www.partnersinflight.org/cont_plan/ [Version: March 2005].

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.

Sauer, J.R.; Hines, J.E.; Fallon, J. 2005. The North American Breeding Bird Survey, results and analysis, 1966–2004. Version 2005.2, USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, MD.

Schommer, T.; Woolever, M. 2001. A process for finding management solutions to the incompatibility between domestic and bighorn sheep. Region 2, USDA Forest Service, Lakewood, CO.

Shea, J.J.; Klenck, J.D. 1993. An experimental investigation of the effects of trampling on the results of lithic micro-wear analysis. Journal of Archaeological Science 20: 175–194.

Shenk, T. 2006. Personal communication regarding non-target carnivore mortality of lynx (on June 27).

Shields, D.J.; Martin, I.M.; Martin, W.E.; Haefele, M.A. 2002. Survey results of the American public’s values, objectives, beliefs, and attitudes regarding forests and grasslands: A technical document supporting the 2000 USDA Forest Service RPA Assessment. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-95, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Ft. Collins, CO. 111 p.

Spero, V. 1977. A class III CRI for the Lilly Pond Stunner Timber Sale. Rio Grande National Forest, Conejos Peak Ranger District, Conejos County, Colorado. Ms. on file at the San Luis Public Lands Center, Monte Vista, CO.

Spero, V. 1978. A class III CRI for the Hillman Lake Timber Sale. Rio Grande National Forest, Conejos Peak Ranger District, Conejos County, Colorado. Ms. on file at the San Luis Public Lands Center, Monte Vista, CO.

Spero, V. 1981. A class III CRI for the Cornwall Timber Sale. Rio Grande National Forest, Conejos Peak Ranger District, Conejos County, Colorado. Ms. on file at the San Luis Public Lands Center, Monte Vista, CO.


199

Spero, V.; Burns, G.; Kyle, S. 1976. A class III CRI for the Hillman Lake Timber Sale. Rio Grande National Forest, Conejos Peak Ranger District, Conejos County, Colorado. Ms. on file at the San Luis Public Lands Center, Monte Vista, CO.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1990. Impacts of domestic livestock grazing on archaeological resources. Archaeological Sites Protection and Preservation Notebook: Technical Notes ASPRN 1-15.

USDA-APHIS. 2009. Animal damage management (ADM) plan for the Rio Grande National Forest and San Luis Valley Resource Area Bureau of Land Management, January 1, 2009 to December 31, 2009. USDA-APHIS, Colorado Wildlife Services Program. February 2, 2009.

USDA-Forest Service. 1936. Forest Service Rocky Mountain Region Bulletin. Rio Grande National Forest Special Number 19(3): March.

USDA-Forest Service. 1989. Wilderness management philosophy in the Rocky Mountain Region. USDA-Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region, Lakewood, CO.

USDA Forest Service. 1993a. Final environmental impact statement for the Continental Divide National Scenic Trail in Colorado and Wyoming. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region, Lakewood, CO.

USDA-Forest Service. 1993b. Regional Forester letter to concerned publics regarding protection of grizzly bear habitat in the San Juan Mountains. Unpublished internal document, Conejos Peak Ranger District 2670 files, La Jara, CO.

USDA-Forest Service. 1996a. Revised land and resource management plan. USDA-Forest Service Rocky Mountain Region, Rio Grande National Forest, Monte Vista, CO.

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 analysis and management training guide. USDA-Forest Service Rocky Mountain Region, Denver, CO.

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.

USDA-Forest Service. 1996f. Draft soil resource and ecological inventory for the Rio Grande National Forest-West Part.

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. 1998. Wilderness management direction–Decision notice, finding of no significant impact, and final environmental assessment amending the land and resource


200

management plans San Juan and Rio Grande National Forests. USDA-Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region, San Juan-Rio Grande National Forests.

USDA-Forest Service. 2000. South San Juan analysis area environmental assessment (Pre-decisional Document). Rio Grande National Forest, Monte Vista, CO.

USDA-Forest Service. 2003. Rio Grande NF, rangeland suitability determination. USDA-Forest Service 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.

USDA-Forest Service. 2005b. Rio Grande National Forest avian management indicator species monitoring baseline. Unpublished report on file at the Headquarters for the Rio Grande National Forest, Monte Vista, CO.

USDA-Forest Service. 2006. Annual report to USFWS. Unpublished internal document, Rio Grande National Forest, Monte Vista Supervisor’s Office (March).

USDA Forest Service. 2008. Letter from the Chief of the Forest Service to Regional Foresters. November 2008.

USDA Forest Service. 2010. Supplement to the Forest Plan, biological evaluation and conservation assessment for Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep. Rio Grande National Forest, Monte Vista, CO. March 2010.

USDA Forest Service Handbook FSH 2509.18 - SOIL MANAGEMENT HANDBOOK, 13 pages.

USDA Forest Service FSH 2509.18 - SOIL MANAGEMENT HANDBOOK, R2 Supplement No. 2509.18-92-1. August 15, 1992. USDA Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 2209.13. USDA Forest Service. 2006. Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 2509.25. Watershed Conservation Practices Handbook. USDA Forest Service. 1996. USDA-Forest Service; USDI-Fish and Wildlife Service. 2008. Memorandum of understanding

between the U.S. Forest Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to promote the conservation of migratory birds.

USDA-FS, USDI-BLM, CDOW and CWA. 2009. Memorandum of understanding between the Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, Colorado Division of Wildlife, and Colorado Woolgrowers Association. March 2009.

USDA Office of the Secretary. 2008. Letter from the Under Secretary to the Chief of the U.S. Forest Service. September 2008.

USDI-BLM; USDA-Forest Service. 2008. Monitoring stream channels and riparian vegetation-multiple indicators. Idaho State Office, BLM and Intermountain Region; USDA-Forest Service, Interagency Technical Bulletin, Version 5.0, April 2008. BLM/ID/GI-08/001+1150.


201

USDI-Fish and Wildlife Service. 1993. Grizzly bear recovery plan. Missoula, MT. 181 p.

USDI-Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002. Birds of conservation concern. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Division of Migratory Bird Management. Arlington, VA.

USDI-Fish and Wildlife Service. 2003. How to avoid incidental take of lynx while trapping or hunting bobcats and other furbearers. USDI-Fish and Wildlife Service. Available online at:http://wildlife.state.co.us/hunt/Small_Game/AvoidLynxTake.pdf

Weltz, M.; Wood, M.K.; Parker, E.E. 1989. Flash grazing and trampling: Effects on infiltration rates and sediment yield on a selected New Mexico range site. Journal of Arid Environments 16(1): 95–100.

Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (WAFWA). 2007. Recommendations for domestic sheep and goat management in wild sheep habitat. Wild Sheep Working Group, Initial Subcommittee, June 21.

Wyoming State-wide Bighorn/Domestic Sheep Interaction Working Group. 2004. Final report and recommendations.

1981 A Class III CRI for the Cornwall Timber Sale. Rio Grande National Forest, Conejos Peak Ranger District, Conejos County, Colorado. Ms. on file at the San Luis Public Lands Center, Monte Vista, Colorado.

36 CFR 219.20. TITLE 36--Parks, Forests, and Public Property. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)


203

Appendix A: Risk Assessment Process—North San Juan Range Analysis

Introduction The Forest Service is preparing an EIS for 12 domestic sheep grazing allotments. The analysis area for this group of allotments includes 47,589 acres, and falls within or near three of the Colorado Division of Wildlife bighorn sheep management units. Unit S29 is known as the Alamosa Canyon Herd, unit S30 is known as the Conejos Canyon Herd, and unit S31 is known as the Fish Lake or Blanco Herd.

Domestic sheep have grazed in the project area for well over 100 years. Bighorn sheep are native to the area. The primary management concern associated with domestic sheep grazing in the analysis area is the potential for interaction between bighorn and domestic sheep, and the potential risks associated with physical contact. Best available science indicates a potential for increased risk of disease transmission when there is physical contact between the two species. Various research studies have demonstrated that physical contact can result in the transmission of diseases from domestic sheep to bighorn sheep. This disease transmission has been implicated as a key causal factor in a number of die-offs in the bighorn population throughout the West. The science is held by some parties to be inconclusive, but it is definitive and presumptive enough to indicate a concern relative to increased disease transmission risk. Therefore, prudent mangers will consider the risk and develop appropriate management practices to strive to ensure separation of the species in time and space (Schommer and Woolever 2001; Wyoming State-wide Bighorn/Domestic Sheep Interaction Working Group 2004; Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies 2007).

As part of the analysis process for this project, a risk assessment tool was developed to help evaluate the potential for risk of contact between Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep and domestic sheep. This risk assessment will be re-evaluated every 5 to 8 years and/or as new information is acquired.

Process Rangeland management specialists, wildlife biologists, line officers, and GIS Specialists from the Rio Grande and San Juan National Forests and the Monte Vista, and La Jara Field Offices of the BLM were involved in the development of this risk assessment. Also involved were the local terrestrial biologists and district wildlife managers of the CDOW offices in Monte Vista and Durango. Most of the domestic sheep grazing permittees from the Conejos Peak Ranger District were informed during the development of this risk assessment process as well (all were invited to participate). Individuals from the Rocky Mountain Region rangeland and wildlife management programs have been consulted and involved throughout this process.

This analysis is focused on the “risk of contact” between wild and domestic sheep. No presumption is made that contact will lead to disease transmission or bighorn sheep die-off. However, the assumption is made that physical contact between the species may result in increased risk to the bighorn sheep, and therefore, it is prudent to work to ensure separation. The overall goal is to provide decision makers with a method to help evaluate risk of contact. The land managers will then use the risk assessment as a primary planning tool for determining appropriate management of permitted domestic sheep in the project area.


204

A summary of the process is as follows:

Step 1 – Develop Baseline Data/Maps

1. Bighorn sheep habitat: (CDOW habitat model) (Note: This information is proprietary in nature and was made available by CDOW only for use by the Conejos Peak Ranger District as part of this risk assessment and project-level planning process ).

The following are the parameters used in this model: Land areas with slopes ≥60 percent (e.g., escape terrain), plus the contiguous land within 300 meters; plus land within 1,000 meters if escape terrain is present on at least two sides. Areas of dense vegetation, human developments, or blocked by man-made or natural barriers were removed. These parameters were derived from several published papers including:

Smith, T.S., J.T. Flinders, and D.S. Winn. 1991. A habitat evaluation procedure for Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep in the Intermountain West. Great Basin Naturalist 51: 205–225.

Johnson, T.L., and D.M. Swift. 2000. A test of a habitat evaluation procedure for Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep. Restoration Ecology 8(4S): 47–56.

Zeigenfuss, L.C., F.J. Singer, and M.A. Gudorf. 2000. Test of a modified habitat suitability model for bighorn sheep. Restoration Ecology 8(4S): 38–46.

2. Bighorn sheep resident subpopulation areas: (based on verifiable sightings including lambing areas and associated canyons/escape cover). These areas have been delineated by Forest Service personnel in coordination with local CDOW personnel and have been reviewed and commented on by current permitted domestic sheep grazing permittees. This coverage describes where the bighorns are thought to live most of the time during the late spring, summer, and early fall months (within all available habitat), based on the most current available information.

As mentioned, the subpopulation areas are based on verifiable sightings. Any sightings that include ewe/lamb pairs or lambing areas will trigger a change to the subpopulation boundary based on a single sighting. Single sightings of a single bighorn sheep, other than lambs, will need to have at least three sightings (on separate years) over a 10-year period to cause a change to the subpopulation configuration. Group (other than two young rams) sightings will trigger a subpopulation boundary change. Groups of two young rams will need to have at least three sightings (on separate years) over a 10-year period to cause a change to the subpopulation configuration.

Conversely, if bighorn sheep abandon use of certain areas, those areas may be removed from the subpopulation configuration areas; however, removing areas of bighorn sheep use from the subpopulation configuration will require 5 years of thorough surveys in a 10-year period to unequivocally show the bighorns are no longer present or using the area.

While bighorns feed in open areas, they are rarely found more than 400 meters from escape cover, where they have an advantage over most predators (Oldemeyer et al. 1971; Erickson 1972; Pallister 1974; Krausman and Leopold 1986; Krausman and Bowyer 2003). At least 95 percent of bighorn sheep activity for the sheep studied on Bear Mountain of the Flaming Gorge Recreational Area in Utah occurred within 300 meters of escape cover (Smith 1991) (although extensive movement patterns by male bighorn sheep during the rutting season may


205

increase their risk of coming into contact with domestic sheep) (Beecham et al. 2007). Therefore, this portion of the risk analysis was kept very focused. These resident subpopulation areas may change in the future based on new information.

3. Domestic sheep use/distribution: (USFS data; including domestic sheep grazing allotments and stock driveways). It should be noted that within allotments, domestic sheep are never found everywhere within the landscape at any given time, nor do they make use of the entire landscape. Domestic sheep are herded in bands and there is a strong desire on the part of the permittee to keep the bands together and to prevent straying. Domestic sheep are only grazed within suitable and capable rangeland and follow a pre-determined routing system (with some flexibility to respond to needs or opportunities). This means that on a landscape basis, the risk of domestic sheep bands coming into physical contact with bands of bighorn sheep can be reduced if domestic sheep are managed closely including straying identified and addressed immediately. Adaptive flexibility can be designed and implemented to reduce this risk even further. The primary risk factors are associated with stray domestic sheep, with areas where bighorn are known to occur during specific times of year, and with bighorn sheep rams which can wander widely looking for breeding opportunities.

Step 2 – Evaluate Information

1. The three sets of information were then overlaid using GIS technology to create a set of maps.

An interdisciplinary team then evaluated the extent, scope, and geographical location of the various polygons created. This step identified areas where one, two, or all three risk factors were present.

Step 3 – Rate the Risk of Overlap/Contact

See “Project Design Criteria” (section 2.7) for general management of these areas depending on perceived risk of contact.

The analysis area was divided by the GIS mapping into three categories as follows:

Areas having bighorn habitat, with a resident subpopulation and an area of domestic sheep use, would be considered a high risk area.

Areas having only two of the three factors would be considered moderate risk.

Areas with only one factor would be considered low risk.

Step 4 – Preliminary Results

The draft of the individual overlays (based on current information) and all three factors overlaid together is attached. On the attached overlay map; red indicates highest risk, yellow indicates moderate risk, and green indicates lowest risk.

References Beecham, J.J., Jr.; C.P. Collins, and T.D. Reynolds. (2007, February 12). Rocky Mountain

bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis): A technical conservation assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/rockymountainbighornsheep.pdf [June 2009].


206

Erickson, G.L. 1972. The ecology of Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep in the Sun River area of Montana with special reference to summer food habits and range movements. Federal Aid Wildlife Restoration Project, W-120-R-2 and R-3, Montana Fish and Game Department, Helena.

Krausman, P.R. and R.T. Bowyer. 2003. Mountain sheep. Pages 1095–1115 In: G.A. Feldhamer, B.C. Thompson, and J.A. Chapman, editors. Wild Mammals of North America. The John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD.

Krausman, P.R. and B.D. Leopold. 1986. The importance of small populations of desert bighorn sheep. Transactions from the North American Wildlife and Natural Resource Conference 51: 52–61.

Oldemeyer, J.L., W.L. Marmore, and D.L. Gilbert. 1971. Winter ecology of bighorn sheep in Yellowstone National Park. Journal of Wildlife Management 35: 257–269.

Pallister, G.L. 1974. The seasonal distribution and range use of bighorn sheep in the Beartooth Mountains, with special reference to West Rosebud and Stillwater herds. Montana Fish and Game Department, Federal Aid Wildlife Restoration Project W-120-R-5. Helena.

Schommer, T. and M. Woolever. 2001. A process for finding management solutions to the incompatibility between domestic and bighorn sheep. USDA Forest Service, Washington, D.C. 62 p.

Smith, T.S., J.T. Flinders, and D.S. Winn. 1991. A habitat evaluation procedure for Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep in the Intermountain West. Great Basin Naturalist 51(3): 205–225.

Wyoming State-wide Bighorn/Domestic Sheep Interaction Working Group. 2004. Final Report and Recommendations.

WAFWA. 2007. Wild Sheep Working Group initial subcommittee recommendations for domestic sheep and goat management in wild sheep habitat.


207

WILLOWMOUNTAIN

WESTVEGA

UPPER ADAMS

TREASURE

NORTH FK‐MIDDLE

MARBLE MOUNTAIN

ELWOOD

EAST VEGA

CROPSY

SUMMIT

CORNWALLMTN

CAMPOBONITO

ATTENTION This product is reproduced fro m geospatial information prepared b y the U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management and the United States Forest service. By removing the contents of this package or taking receipt of th ese files via electronic file transfer methods, you understand that the data stored on this media is in draft condition. Represented features may not be in an accurate geographic location . Geospatial data accuracy varies by theme on the map. Using this map for other than their intended purpose may yield inaccurate or misleading results The Bureau of Land Management and US Forest Service make no expressed or implied warranty, inclu din g warranty of merchantability and f itness, with respect to the character, function, or capabilities of the data or their approp riateness for any user’s purposes. The Bureau of Land Managemen t or US Forest Service reserves the right to correct, update, modify or replace this geospatial information without notification. For more information, contact the San Luis Valley Public Lands Center at (719) 852-6200. Map Created 03/25/2009 by D. Simon

0 3 61.5Miles

1:262,797

Map Scale

Rio Grande National ForestNorth San Juan Analysis Area Allotments

and Stock Driveways

Forest Boundary

RGNF Allotment Boundaries

San Juan Allotments

North San Juan Analysis Area Allotments

and Stock Driveways


208

WILLOWMOUNTAIN

PLATORO

TRIANGLE

JACOB'SPASTURE

BENNETTSPRING

ROCKCREEK

BURD/RATON

MARTINEZ/UNDERWO

WESTPINOS

CHURCH

HOPE‐

GIBBS

HANDERCHIEFMESA

FRISCO

EASTPINOS

DECKER

CROSS‐RACE

CATTLEMOUNTAIN

LAKEFORKTOBACCO

DIABLO

BLUELAKE

EASTFORK

TRAILLAKE

GREEN LAKE

4THMEADOWS

WOLFCREEK

TWINLAKES

ROUGHCREEK

ROARINGFORK

MESA

JAROSAMESA

GLACIER

DIPPINGLAKES

BANCOSALAZON

LONGPARK

FOXCREEK

CUMBRES

CONEJOSCANYON

BIGMEADOWS

ARCHULETA

WESTVEGA

UPPER ADAMS

TREASURE

NORTH FK‐MIDDLE

MARBLE MOUNTAIN

ELWOOD

EAST VEGA

CROPSY

SUMMIT

CORNWALLMTN

CAMPOBONITO

LA JARA

JIMCREEK

HOTCREEK

CATCREEK

BANCOS

ALAMOSA

ATTENTION This product is reproduced fro m geospatial information prepared b y the U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management and the United States Forest service. By removing the contents of this package or taking receipt of th ese files via electronic file transfer methods, you understand that the data stored on this media is in draft condition. Represented features may not be in an accurate geographic location . Geospatial data accuracy varies by theme on the map. Using this map for other than their intended purpose may yield inaccurate or misleading results The Bureau of Land Management and US Forest Service make no expressed or implied warranty, inclu din g warranty of merchantability and f itness, with respect to the character, function, or capabilities of the data or their approp riateness for any user’s purposes. The Bureau of Land Managemen t or US Forest Service reserves the right to correct, update, modify or replace this geospatial information without notification. For more information, contact the San Luis Valley Public Lands Center at (719) 852-6200. Map Created 03/25/2009 by D. Simon

Bighorn Sheep Habitat

Forest Boundary

All RGNF Allotment Boundaries

San Juan Allotments0 3 61.5

Miles

1:262,797

Map Scale

Bighorn Sheep Habitat


209

ALAMOSA

BANCOS

CAT CREEK

HOT CREEKJIM CREEK

LA JARA

CAMPOBONITO

CORNWALLMTN

CROPSY

SUMMIT

EAST VEGA

ELWOOD

MARBLE MOUNTAIN

NORTH FK‐MIDDLE

TREASURE

UPPER ADAMS

WEST VEGA

ARCHULETA

BIG

MEADOWS

CONEJOS CANYON

CUMBRES

FOX CREEK

LONGPARK

BANCOSALAZON

DIPPING

LAKES

GLACIER

JAROSA

MESA

MESA

ROARINGFORK

ROUGH CREEK

TWINLAKES

WOLFCREEK

4TH

MEADOWS

GREEN LAKE

TRAILLAKE

EASTFORK

BLUE

LAKE

DIABLO

TOBACCO

LAKE FORK

CATTLE MOUNTAIN

CROSS‐RACE

DECKER

EAST PINOS

FRISCO

HANDERCHIEFMESA

HOPE‐

GIBBS CHURCH

WEST PINOS

BURD/RATON

ROCK CREEK

BENNETTSPRING

JACOB'S

PASTURE

TRIANGLE

PLATORO

WILLOW

MOUNTAIN

ATTENTION This product is reproduced from geospatial information p repared by the U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management and the United States Forest serv ice. By removing the contents of this package or taking receipt of these files via electronic file transfer methods, you understand that the data stored on this media is in draft condition. Represented features may not be in an accurate geographic location . Geospatial data accuracy varies by theme on the map. Using this map for other than their intended purpose may yield inaccurate or misleading results The Bureau of Land Management and US Forest Service make no expressed or implied warranty, including warranty of merchantability and f itness, with respect to the character, function, or capabilities of the data or their appropriateness for any user’s purposes. The Bureau of Land Management or US Forest Service reserves the r ight to correct, update, modify or replace this geospatial information without notification. For more information, contact the San Luis Valley Public Lands Center at (719) 852-6200. Map Created 03/25/2009 by D. Simon

BHS Resident Sub‐Population Area

BHS Sightings

RGNF Allotments

San Juan Allotments

Forest Boundary 0 3 61.5Miles

1:262,797

Map Scale

Bighorn Sheep Resident Sub‐Population Areas


210

ALAMOSA

BANCOS

CAT CREEK

HOT CREEKJIM CREEK

LA JARA

CAMPOBONITO

CORNWALLMTN

CROPSY

SUMMIT

EAST VEGA

ELWOOD

MARBLE MOUNTAIN

NORTH FK‐MIDDLE

TREASURE

UPPER ADAMS

WEST VEGA

ARCHULETA

BIG

MEADOWS

CONEJOS CANYON

CUMBRES

FOX CREEK

LONGPARK

BANCOSALAZON

DIPPING

LAKES

GLACIER

JAROSA

MESA

MESA

ROARINGFORK

ROUGH CREEK

TWINLAKES

WOLFCREEK

4TH

MEADOWS

GREEN LAKE

TRAILLAKE

EASTFORK

BLUE

LAKE

DIABLO

TOBACCO

LAKE FORK

CATTLE MOUNTAIN

CROSS‐RACE

DECKER

EAST PINOS

FRISCO

HANDERCHIEFMESA

HOPE‐

GIBBS CHURCH

WEST PINOS

BURD/RATON

ROCK CREEK

BENNETTSPRING

JACOB'S

PASTURE

TRIANGLE

PLATORO

WILLOW

MOUNTAIN

ATTENTION This product is reproduced from geospatial information p repared by the U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management and the United States Forest serv ice. By removing the contents of this package or taking receipt of these files via electronic file transfer methods, you understand that the data stored on this media is in draft condition. Represented features may not be in an accurate geographic location . Geospatial data accuracy varies by theme on the map. Using this map for other than their intended purpose may yield inaccurate or misleading results The Bureau of Land Management and US Forest Service make no expressed or implied warranty, including warranty of merchantability and fitness, with respect to the character, function, or capabilities of the data or their appropriateness for any user’s purposes. The Bureau of Land Managemen t or US Forest Service reserves the r ight to correct, update, modify or replace this geospatial information without notification. For more information, contact the San Luis Valley Public Lands Center at (719) 852-6200. Map Created 03/25/2009 by D. Simon

0 ‐ No Values

1 ‐ Low Risk

2 ‐ Moderate Risk

3 ‐ High Risk

Forest Boundary

RGNF Allotments

San Juan Allotments 0 3 61.5Miles

1:262,797

Map Scale

Summation of Risks


211

Appendix B: List of Terms Used Term Definition/Description

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, and agreements for the current grazing season.

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

Band Any number of sheep handled as a unit attended by a herder.

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.

Bleat The cry of a sheep, goat, or calf.

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.

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

Concern levels A measure of the degree of public sensitivity to landscapes viewed from travelways and recreation use areas. Concern levels are divided into three categories as follows:

Level 1: (High)—heavily used travelways and use areas where viewers have a high concern for the scenery in the surrounding landscapes.


212

Term Definition/Description

Level 2: (Moderate)—moderately used travelways and use areas where viewers have a moderate concern for the scenery in the surrounding landscapes.

Level 3: (Low)—-little used travelways or areas where there is little or no concern for the scenery in the surrounding landscapes.

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 significant 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.

Distance zones Distance zones from the viewing platform (road, trail, use area, etc.). There are four categories of distance zones as follows:

Immediate Foreground—0' to 300'

Foreground—300' to 1/4 mile.

Middleground—1/4 mile to 4 miles.

Background—4 miles to the horizon.

Docking To shorten an animal’s tail by cutting.

Dry ewe A ewe without a lamb(s).

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.

Existing scenic integrity

An inventory that represents the status of the landscape and the degree to which it has been altered. This is a baseline measurement for scenic resources. The following is a list of the scenic integrity levels:

Type I (Natural Appearing Landscapes): areas in which an ecological change has taken place except for trails needed for access. They appear untouched by human activities. This includes designated wilderness and backcountry areas.

Type II (Slightly Altered Appearing Landscapes): areas where some human activity has occurred. Usually these areas can be described as near natural appearing or slightly altered as a result of human activity.

Type III (Altered Appearing): areas where human modification has occurred and is obvious. Usually these areas can be described as altered (modified).

Type IV (Heavily Altered): a viewshed or an area within a viewshed where


213


25% or greater is in a disturbed condition of modification, maximum modification, or unacceptable modification. It appears as a drastic change to the landscape in comparison to the characteristic landscape.

Ewe Female sheep of breeding age.

Ewe lamb Immature female sheep.

Flock A group of sheep on a farm or range managed in fenced pastures and not herded.

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 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.

Habitat structural stage

A tree size and canopy closure classification for forested cover types, defined as follows:

StructureClass

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" diameter at breast height—4.5’ (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 5 sheep or


214


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 significance. 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 identified in such inventories are recorded on State of Colorado cultural resource site forms which includes a determination of the significance of individual sites.

Inherent scenic attractiveness

An inventory that refers to the level of diversity that a landscape has. There are three categories of attractiveness as follows:

Class A: (High) landforms are classified as distinctive.

Class B: (Typical) landforms are classified as common.

Class C: (Indistinctive) landforms are missing variety.

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

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.

Krummholtz Dwarf, timberline forest composed of Engelmann spruce.

KV funds Funds derived from the sale of National Forest timber authorized for use in reforestation and timber stand improvement work on areas cut by timber sales.

Lamb Newborn sheep.

Lamb crop The number of lambs produced by a given number of ewes, usually expressed in a percent of lambs weaned of ewes bred.

Lambing Act of parturition (giving birth).

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.

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 (MA)

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


215


area prescription.”

Management-ignited fire

Obsolete term; see “Prescribed fire.”

Mass movement hazard

The assessment of risk of landmass failure or slumping.

Pastoralist A social and economic system based on the raising and herding of livestock.

Pasturella A bacterial disease that can manifest as an upper respiratory (nose and lungs) disease, causing coughing, sneezing, runny eyes, and runny nose; or it can manifest as a dermatologic (skin) disease, causing abscesses and sores. It is extremely contagious.

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.

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 threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act.

Ram Male sheep of breeding age.

Ram lamb Immature male sheep.

Recreation opportunity spectrum (ROS)

This is an inventory process that results in an allocation that identifies 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 density 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


216


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 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 signs 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 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.

Semi-Primitive Motorized (SPM): Moderate probability of experiencing isolation from the sights and sounds of humans, independence, closeness to


217


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.

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, aggregated continuously, intermittently, or simultaneously, 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; identified 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:

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 plan 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 sinuosities 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.


218


Salting Providing salt as a mineral supplement for animals. Placing salt on the rangeland in such a manner as to improve distribution of livestock.

Scenic integrity objectives

The result of an inventory process that measures how much human alteration can deviate from the existing landscape character being viewed. Scenic integrity objectives include the following:

Very High: (Preservation) refers to landscapes where the valued landscape character is intact with only minute, if any, deviations.

High: (Retention) refers to landscapes where the valued landscape character appears intact. Deviations may be present but must repeat the form, line, color, texture, and pattern common to the landscape character so completely and at such scale that they are not evident.

Moderate: (Partial Retention) refers to landscapes where the valued landscape character appears slightly altered. Noticeable deviations must remain visually subordinate to the landscape character being viewed.

Low: (Modification) refers to landscapes where the valued landscape character appears moderately altered but they borrow valued attributes such as size, shape, edge effect, and pattern of natural openings, vegetative type changes or architectural styles in the surrounding landscapes.

Very Low: (Maximum Modification) refers to landscapes where the valued landscape character appears heavily altered but may not borrow from valued attributes such as size, shape, edge effect, and pattern of natural openings, vegetative type changes or architectural styles within or outside the surrounding landscapes.

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.

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 identified as evidenced by: (1) significant 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 Based on current research, a 15% reduction in productivity is allowed, and


219


significant changes 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).

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.

Threatened species A species that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant 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 impact remains 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.

Wether Castrated male sheep.

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.


220


Wildland fire Any non-structure fire, that occurs in the wildland. Three distinct types of wildland fire have been defined—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.”


221

Appendix C: Quick-Silver Investment Analysis – Economic Returns Cross-tab Report The Economic Returns Cross-tab Report from the Quick-Silver analysis is displayed below and shows a summary of the present value benefits and the present value costs. The shaded values below were displayed in section 3.4, table 3-9. The discount rate used was 4.0 percent.

Alternative 1(No Permitted

Livestock Grazing)

Alternative 2 (Current

Livestock Grazing Management)

Alternative 3(Adaptive

Livestock Grazing Management)

All Partners B/C Ratio 0.00 0.64 0.50

Cash Flows (number) 20 404 404

Composite Rate of Return (percent) N/A -0.95 -3.65

Internal Rate of Return (percent) N/A N/A N/A

Investment Length (years) 9 9 9

Net Annual Equivalent ($) -$3,051.79 -$25,500.50 -$45,731.91

Present Net Value ($) -$22,691.04 -$189,604.67 -$340,031.94

PV-Benefits ($) $0.00 $343,906.04 $343,906.04

PV-Costs ($) -$22,691.04 -$533,510.71 -$683,937.98

Range Permittees

B/C Ratio N/A 0.67 0.56




Investment Length (years) N/A 9 9

Net Annual Equivalent ($) N/A -$20,880.47 -$32,872.06

Present Net Value ($) N/A -$155,253.24 -$244,414.70

PV-Benefits ($) N/A $316,991.65 $316,991.65

PV-Costs ($) N/A -$472,244.89 -$561,406.35

USDA Forest Service

B/C Ratio 0.00 0.44 0.22




Investment Length (years) 9 9 9

Net Annual Equivalent ($) -$3,051.79 -$4,620.03 -$12,859.85

Present Net Value ($) -$22,691.04 -$34,351.43 -$95,617.24

PV-Benefits ($) $0.00 $26,914.39 $26,914.39

PV-Costs ($) -$22,691.04 -$61,265.81 -$122,531.63


223

Appendix D: Social Demographics

Introduction This appendix briefly summarizes the demographic characteristics of the people who live in the towns and counties of this area; recent patterns of demographic change, occupation, industry and employment; cultural patterns; and the general size and level of activity for association, organizations, and local government. The general role and position of groups of ranchers who hold Forest Service grazing permits in the San Luis Valley (SLV) communities are described next. Finally, the current grazing permit holders in the analysis area are briefly described in terms of where they live and operate.

Social Assessment for the SLV The communities of the SLV are experiencing notable 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), gives an indication of the population trends within each county in the SLV. See final environmental impact statement (hereafter referred to as FEIS) for the Forest Plan, page 3-366, figure 3-67 (USDA Forest Service 1996b). 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.

From 1980 to 1990, the SLV’s population increased, with most counties showing an increase. The exceptions are Conejos County with a 341-person decline and Mineral County with a 246-person decline. The drop in the Mineral County population was due to the closure of the Homestake Silver Mine. From 1990 to 2000 the SLV population increased in all counties. The largest increases were in Mineral (+4 percent) and Saguache County (+2.5 percent).

The U.S. Census Bureau projects growth in Colorado to increase by nearly 2 percent per year in the next three decades. The growth increase will probably occur along the Front Range, I-70 corridor, Gunnison/Delta corridor, and the Four Corners region. This growth will most likely come from in-migration of people from the South and Southwest regions of the Nation.

Growth projections for the SLV indicate a positive, but smaller rate of growth than that projected for the State over the same period of time. Projections indicate a 1 percent increase per year for the next three decades. This will bring the population of the SLV up to its 1950 level in 5 to 10 years. The SLV’s growth will also be caused from in-migration from the South and Southwest regions of the Nation. These people may bring with them different values, expectations and needs than the current populace.

These changes are important because these demographic movements are changing the communities of this area, which include Alamosa, Monte Vista, South Fork, Creede, Del Norte, Saguache, San Luis, Ft. Garland/Blanca, Antonito, La Jara, Sanford, and Manassa/Romeo, and the roles and relative position of ranchers and ranching-based agriculture in the communities. In the towns which are experiencing population growth, ranchers are slowly becoming a smaller fraction of the community, and the communities are becoming more socially diverse as a whole. In the towns and rural areas that are shrinking in population, ranchers are becoming a more


224

significant factor in the community. Many of the historic ranches within the SLV have been subdivided for summer home use. Efforts within the SLV by several individuals and groups have been undertaken to develop conservation easements to preserve as much of the remaining privately owned ranches as possible.

The economy of the communities in this area (and generally the Rocky Mountain and Northern Great Plains regions as well) was based on mining, agriculture (including ranching) and military operations from the 1850s to the 1950s. That is, people who engaged in mining and agriculture generally exported their products out of the region. These exports brought outside dollars back into the regions, and allowed people earning them to buy goods and services they needed from within the region. In essence, these outside dollars formed the foundation of the economy; other people were able to settle here only because they could provide goods and services to people working in the base industries. Over time, each community developed an economy consisting of many layers, but the base industries continued to be those which exported goods or services to other regions.

Sometime in the 1950s, the base export industries of the region began to change to include a significant amount of tourism and recreation. That is, visitors earned their dollars in other regions, but came to these regions to spend them.

As a result, many towns in Colorado, Yellowstone National Park area in Wyoming, and the Black Hills of South Dakota began to diversify, while other towns in the region continued with ranching as a significant portion of their base export industry. 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 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. But the structure of the economy in these areas is changing significantly. 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.

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 will work hard to 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 significant change under impact of immigrants 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. A common observation for the Mountain and Plains States areas is that immigrants to these areas often adopt part or all of the set of local cultural mores within a generation. Only truly significant numbers of immigrants or relatively complete withering away of the population of small towns appears to bring about much cultural change in these communities.


225

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 tie together people of diverse backgrounds, occupations, and cultures are the various grazing associations (e.g., Cumbres, Saguache Park, Conejos Canyon, and Meyers Creek), special interest and civic groups (e.g., People for the West and Rotary Club), and religious organizations (e.g., the Catholic Church and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints).

We have paid particular attention to the groups of vulnerable people in these communities. The 2000 census 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.

According to the U.S. Census, persons of Hispanic origin may be of any race. Origin is viewed as the ancestry, nationality group, lineage, or country of birth of a person or their relatives before arrival in the United States.

In the 2000 U.S. Census, people of Hispanic origin included Mexicans, Puerto Ricans, South and Central Americans, and Spaniards. The census also included Native Indians from those same lands.

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 per capita personal income level is one indicator of the overall wealth and health of the local economy. It is calculated by taking the total personal income from an area and dividing the income by the estimated July 1 resident population.

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 (USDA Forest Service 1996b).

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 tie 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 are very difficult to quantify and qualify.

SLV County-by-County Descriptions Alamosa County contains the city of Alamosa—the largest community in the SLV and a regional trade center. Service and manufacturing companies are their 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. The majority of the Forest Service livestock permittees live in Conejos County.


226

Costilla County lies on the eastern end of the SLV and contains the communities of Blanca, Ft. Garland, and San Luis. It is the second least populated county in the SLV with 3,663 residents. Ranching, agriculture, and gold mining are the major industries.

Mineral County contains the community of Creede and the least populated county in the SLV with 831 residents. Real estate and tourism account for the majority of the economy in this county.

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.

Permittees in the Analysis Area There are four term grazing permits authorized to use the North San Juan Analysis Area allotments (residence shown in parenthesis): (1) Brandon and Jamie Thomas (Manassa); (2) Louis and Jerry Schmidt (Monte Vista); (3) George, Veronica, and Jude Gallegos (La Jara); and (4) Lionel and Michelle Valdez (Capulin). The residences for these permittees are located in Conejos and Rio Grande Counties. The Thomas’ also graze sheep on the Carson National Forest in New Mexico. The Schmidt’s and Gallegos’s graze sheep on the Bureau of Land Management allotments in Colorado.

Literature Cited Colorado State Demography Office. 2005. http://dola.colorado.gov/demog/demog.cfm

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.


227

Appendix E: Domestic Sheep Terms, Grazing Behavior, and Herding Adapted from: USDA Forest Service. 1996c. Rangeland Analysis and Management Training Guide. USDA-Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region, Denver, CO.

Domestic sheep and cattle differ in their behavior and how they are effectively managed and handled. This appendix provides the reader with some background information on domestic sheep terms, grazing behavior, and herding. Domestic sheep are gregarious animals (i.e., they prefer to be with a group). It is rare to see a sheep by itself. Sheep are also relatively defenseless animals. They are subject to predation by many animals including coyotes, eagles, bobcats, lions, bears, and domestic dogs. Project design criteria (see section 2.7) were specifically designed with domestic sheep behavior and known effective herder and herding practices in mind.

Domestic Sheep Terminology The following list defines many of the common terms applicable to domestic sheep and their management. Each of these terms is also be found in appendix B (List of Terms Used).

Band ~ Any number of sheep handled as a unit attended by a herder.

Bed ground ~ An area where animals sleep and rest.

Bleat ~ The cry of a sheep, goat, or calf.

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

Docking ~ To shorten an animal’s tail by cutting.

Dry ewe ~ A ewe without a lamb(s).

Ewe ~ Female sheep of breeding age.

Ewe lamb ~ Immature female sheep.

Flock ~ A group of sheep on a farm or range managed in fenced pastures and not herded.

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.

Lamb ~ Newborn sheep.

Lamb crop ~ The number of lambs produced by a given number of ewes, usually expressed in a percent of lambs weaned of ewes bred.

Lambing ~ Act of parturition (giving birth).

Ram ~ Male sheep of breeding age.

Ram lamb ~ Immature male sheep.

Stock driveway ~ A strip of land specifically designated for he controlled movement of livestock.


228

Trailing ~ Controlled directional movement of livestock.

Wether ~ Castrated male sheep.

Sheep Grazing Habits Sheep have a split in their upper lip, so they are adept at picking the preferred leaves off of plants. They are finicky feeders in the morning and choose only tidbits of the choicest plants. They settle down and feed better in the evening, and are not nearly as selective in their choice of forage. The less the herder handles the herd, the better the animals thrive. However, in order to systematically graze an allotment, checks and controls must be applied by the herder.

Sheep prefer fresh feed each day. However, elapsed time will allow the feed to freshen up, particularly after a rain. Open herding results in less travel. If use is forced, the herder must tighten the spread of the herd resulting in trampling damage to the range and adverse effects on the sheep.

Sheep Movement and Herding Moderate topography is best for ease of handling. Thick brush acts as a barrier to grazing sheep even though there are trails through the brush. On most summer allotments, sheep will graze upslope after leaving their afternoon watering and bedding site. They will then regroup and bed down for the night on a ridge top or some other high vantage point. They instinctively use these high points for protection and vantage. Sheep do not like to night bed in thick trees or in the bottom of basins, or depressions. From the high points, they will usually begin grazing at daybreak.

It is very important the herder be with the flock to influence the direction when they begin to graze. The sheep will otherwise often graze the same direction as they did the previous day, watering at the same site, and bedding down on the same bed ground. This results in poor lambs and excessive trampling along the persistent routes of travel. When sheep leave the shade-up area during warm weather, they tend to graze on the shady side of the canyon and avoid open slopes. Sheep will usually not graze downhill in the evening.

It is difficult to force sheep to shift from succulent forage, such as shifting from forbs to mature grass. Feed is generally more succulent on cooler north and east aspects. During warm weather, sheep make good use of aspen and similar range. They prefer to graze in the shade of the trees in the afternoon after leaving the shade-up area.

During cool or stormy weather, sheep have a tendency to travel. During warm summer days, sheep shade-up from mid-morning to late-afternoon. Under these conditions, sheep begin grazing at daylight and again from late afternoon until dark.

Water distribution and location are important to sheep. The ideal situation is to have water available in the bottom of every canyon. It is difficult to force sheep to use the slopes below available water on hillsides. Watering sites should be close enough so excess trailing is unnecessary. Sheep should not be required to go more than a mile to water. Doubling the distance sheep travel to water increases the grazing use adjacent to the water source several times.


229

It is difficult to get sheep off steep slopes once they are established there. The herd will delay going to water until they are very thirsty. They will then trail (often on a run) off the slope with resulting damage to the range and slopes.

Sheep will tend to follow the path of least resistance. The most accessible and easily herded portions of the range will tend to be grazed heavier unless the herder is diligent in following recommended management practices. Areas adjacent to water, especially if water is scarce, can receive heavier grazing pressure unless carefully managed by the herder. If shade-up areas are limited, the available shady areas will receive heavy use during warm weather. Shading up too often in one place is as damaging as repetitive use of bed grounds.

Sheep also prefer the upper half of slopes and ridge tops. These areas, particularly ridge tops, should be closely watched and evaluated. On the other hand, some portions of the range tend to be underutilized. Small isolated corners, slopes cut up or isolated by rocks or brush, the lower portions of long slopes, slopes below available water, steep, rough country, and some of the timbered areas fit into this category.

Sheep should be managed on the basis of “once-over” grazing under rest-rotation or deferred rotation management. Cattle are placed in a pasture or grazing unit and confined there until the desired degree of use is obtained; this approach is undesirable with sheep.


231

Appendix F: SPOT Receivers SPOT is a brand name for a GPS based satellite messenger. “SPOT satellite messenger” units are handheld devices that use the GPS satellite system to determine a user’s location and the commercial satellite network to transmit that location and user’s status. The SPOT satellite network is a commercial satellite network with a proven 99.4 percent reliability rate while processing over 6 million messages a month—the equivalent of 2.3 messages per second (SPOT 2009).

The SPOT satellite messenger will deliver a message to the appropriate recipient via text message, email, or emergency service notification (SPOT 2009).

SPOT satellite messengers will be used to make notifications between herders and the permittee and/or the local rangeland manager of the Forest Service. This technology will make it possible for herders to relay their daily location and make notifications concerning the need for immediate action in the event of contact or impending contact between bighorn sheep and domestic sheep.

Equivalent technology as approved by the Forest officer may be used instead of the SPOT system.

Source: SPOT 2009: www.findmespot.com


233

Appendix G: Potential Impacts to Cultural Resources from Livestock Grazing Prehistoric and historic sites in the Rocky Mountains are subject to destruction or alteration by a variety of activities, including recreational camping, timber harvesting, and livestock grazing. Livestock grazing has been an ongoing activity in the high mountain terrain of south-central Colorado since its inclusion into the Forest Service System. The impacts of these grazing activities on cultural resources have not been adequately studied to date, although there is a growing body of research that is attempting to quantify the effects. A recent issue paper prepared by the heritage program of the Los Padres National Forest attempted a summary and synthesis of the effects of grazing on prehistoric sites (Horne and McFarland 1993). In their paper, Horn and McFarland present some of the data which has been accumulated on the subject.

Impacts to prehistoric archaeological sites from livestock grazing can be divided into two categories: impacts to site matrices (e.g., soil) and impacts to artifacts and other cultural remains (Horne and McFarland 1993:2). Soil impacts are difficult to quantify because different soils are highly variable in their susceptibility to erosion due to differences in such factors as vegetative cover, slope, precipitation, soil particle size, porosity, aggregation, and moisture. Although the relationship between grazing and soil impacts is complex, there are several consequences of grazing that have potentially adverse effects upon archaeological sites. The matrix of archaeological sites is directly affected by livestock in the form of "chiseling" in damp soils and sloughing or collapse of stream banks (Marlow et al. 1987). Such effects are highly likely in the West, since both archaeological sites and areas of cattle congregation tend to be located near limited sources of water. Additional indirect effects of livestock include removal of vegetation (Evans 1980) and trampling-induced compaction (McCarty and Mazurak 1976; Weltz et al. 1989). Such indirect effects reduce infiltration and increase runoff, thus promoting erosion (Horne and McFarland 1993:2).

Impacts to actual artifacts, sites, and other cultural materials are not well-documented in the literature; however, there have been a few good studies on the subject. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (1990) summarized several studies dealing indirectly with livestock impacts on archaeological sites. Impacts discussed included biomass reduction leading to increased erosion, stream-bank destabilization, and downhill transport of artifacts. A separate monitoring study conducted by the BLM established a close link between reduction of vegetation through grazing and an increase in site vandalism and artifact collection (Horne and McFarland 1993:2). The effects of livestock trampling on artifact microwear were studied by Shea and Klenck (1993). In their experimental research, a blind test was conducted in which the effects of trampling on the preservation of use wear traces were measured. The results of this study indicate that even moderate trampling may significantly alter the appearance of lithic micro-wear traces.

Impacts to historic structures can also occur when livestock congregate for shade. Compaction around the base of a structure can lead to the degradation of the soil matrix which can lead to negative effects to the structure’s foundation. Rubbing on buildings can also modify the exteriors. Livestock can also do great harm when allowed into the interiors of historic buildings.

Impacts to sites tend to be near riparian areas where animals concentrate on the soft surfaces, churning the soil and thus destroying site integrity. Animals also tend to gather on ridges where salt licks have been placed. High dry areas where there is a great deal of livestock activity are susceptible to severe erosion which can also destroy the integrity of a site. Other grazing impacts


234

include erosion from cattle trails, decreased vegetation which causes erosion, and the development of livestock wallows.

Documents

Final Environmental Agriculture Impact Statementa123.g.akamai.net › 7 › 123 › 11558 › abc123 › forestservic...included in the BCP but found on the RGNF, and their relationship