environmental agriculture assessmenta123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic... · 2011....

United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service July 2011

Environmental Assessment

Thunder Trails Project

Norwood Ranger District Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National Forests San Miguel County, Colorado

Environmental Assessment Thunder Trails Project

iii

Table of Contents

INTRODUCTION…………………………………………………………... 1

Background 1

Purpose & Need for Action 2

Proposed Action 3

Decision Framework 4

Public Involvement 5

Issues 5

ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION…............. 6

Alternatives 6

Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study 8

Design Features 9

Comparison of Alternatives 11

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES…………………………………. 12

Range 12

Recreation 17

Wildlife 25

Lands and Minerals 40

Cultural Resources 41

Watershed and Soils 43

Project Cost Estimates 45

CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION……………………………..... 45

APPENDICES……………………………....................................................... 48

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.


1

INTRODUCTION

Document Structure_____________________________________ The Forest Service has prepared this Environmental Assessment in compliance with the National

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other relevant Federal and State laws and regulations. This

Environmental Assessment discloses the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts that

would result from the proposed action and alternatives. It is organized into four parts:

Introduction: This section includes information on the history of the project proposal, the purpose of and

need for the project, and the agency’s proposal for achieving that purpose and need. It also details how the

Forest Service informed the public of the proposal and how the public responded.

Comparison of Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action: This section provides a more detailed

description of the agency’s proposed action as well as alternative methods for achieving the stated

purpose.

Environmental Consequences: This section describes the environmental effects of implementing the

proposed action and other alternatives.

Consultation & Coordination: This section provides a list of preparers and agencies consulted during the

development of the environmental assessment.

Appendices: All of the alternative maps can be found in this section.

Additional documentation can be found in the project planning record located at the Norwood Ranger

District Office in Norwood, Colorado.

Background ___________________________________________

Single Track Trails

In the spring of 2005, the Norwood Ranger District met with a local group of motorcycle and mountain

bike riders to discuss the need for single track trails. The group expressed their desire to create a trail

system in the Norwood area because of the lack of trail opportunities close to town. Although a formal

trail proposal never materialized, local Norwood residents continued to informally discuss the idea

with Forest Service officials. In the summer of 2009, the District Recreation Manager spent time in

the field with several of the original trail advocates, exploring various opportunities in the Thunder

Road (FSR 609) area. They met several more times that fall to develop an initial trail proposal. On

September 24, 2010, the proposal was sent out to the public for a 30-day scoping period. Based on

these public comments and further analysis, the Forest Service interdisciplinary team developed the

Proposed Action that is described in this document.

Travel Management

In March of 2002, the Uncompahgre National Forest Travel Plan decision was signed, establishing route-

by-route travel designations for roads and trails. Per the Travel Plan, six roads (FSR 609, 610.1A, 634,

642, 644 and 651) within the Thunder Trails Project area were designated as Forest System Roads, open


2

to all modes of summer travel. All other existing roads and trails in the area were identified as “nonsystem

routes” to be decommissioned; closing them to all modes of summer travel except by horse and foot. The

rationale for decommissioning these routes was to reduce resource damage to soils and vegetation caused

by unrestricted motorized travel, and to provide wildlife security by reducing the area’s open road density.

In 2004, the Norwood Ranger District began implementing the Travel Plan by decommissioning

nonsystem routes in the Thunder Road area. Several routes were signed as closed and blocked with timber

slash and boulders. Due to the flat terrain and open vegetation pattern, this decommissioning effort was

largely unsuccessful as motorized vehicles and mountain bikes continued to travel on many of the closed

routes. More aggressive closure methods, such as fencing, gates, and route obliteration will be needed to

effectively decommission many of these routes.

Purpose and Need for Action ___________________________

The purpose and need for the Thunder Trails Project is to:

Provide single track trails on National Forest System lands within close proximity to the Town

of Norwood to meet an increasing public demand for motorcycle riding, mountain biking,

hiking, and horseback riding.

Currently, the only place to motorcycle or mountain bike near Norwood is on county and/or forest

roads that are shared with full-sized vehicle traffic. These roads do not provide the challenge or

recreation experience that narrow single track trails can offer. From Norwood, the closest motorcycle

trail is the Wilson Mesa Trail, about a 25-mile drive from Norwood.

The Norwood Ranger District currently lacks single track trails that are geared towards those learning

to ride motorcycles and mountain bikes. For example, the majority of single track trails in the

Telluride region have very steep ascents and descents that are difficult for many riders. The proposed

single track trails would be constructed in rolling terrain that does not have large elevation losses or

gains. Trail design and layout would incorporate natural terrain features that provide different

technical challenges for riders of all abilities. For example, at some technical sections along the trail,

both an easier and a more difficult option would be offered, providing opportunities for beginning

riders to practice and develop their skills. Those interested in learning the sport would have a place to

practice and develop their skills.

Local recreation use of Thunder Road for hiking, dog walking, horseback riding, mountain biking,

and cross-country skiing is increasing, indicating the need for a trail system near the Town of

Norwood. The new trails would be open to all of these uses and would also provide additional foot

access for hunting.

Implement the Uncompahgre National Forest Travel Plan and address resource issues

associated with unmanaged travel by effectively managing travel and dispersed camping in the

project area.

The desired condition is to protect the social and natural resource values of the Thunder Road and

East Naturita areas as a community asset.

Motorized travel remains largely unmanaged in the project area, resulting in ongoing and potential

resource impacts to meadows and riparian habitat, Gunnison sage grouse habitat, and cultural

resource sites. Per the Travel Plan, there are 23 miles of nonsystem routes in the project area


3

(Alternative 1 Map). The majority of these routes are old logging roads that were never effectively

closed to travel. Some of the routes are new tracks that unauthorized vehicles have created.

Many of the nonsystem routes are deeply rutted where vehicles have driven during wet conditions

resulting in soil compaction and damage to vegetation. This is of particular concern in sensitive areas

such as meadows and riparian areas which provide key wildlife habitat. There is a need to obliterate

the nonsystem routes in these sensitive areas and to revegetate them.

Because of Thunder Road’s close proximity to the town, there are numerous law enforcement

concerns in the area that include trash dumping, vandalism of government property, mud bogging,

drinking and driving, underage drinking, resource damage, travel management violations, and

residing on the forest. While law enforcement is critical to resolving these issues, they could also be

addressed by citizen compliance and by restricting full-size and ATV access on Thunder Road.

The project area includes occupied and suitable habitat for the San Miguel Basin population of

Gunnison sage grouse, a species that has been designated as a candidate for federal listing as either

Threatened or Endangered. Many of the nonsystem routes are located in sagebrush parks occupied by

this species. Forest visitors not only drive on many of these established routes but continue to expand

the network of routes through sage grouse habitat as they pursue such activities as dispersed camping,

firewood cutting, and game retrieval during the hunting season. This ongoing disturbance to sage

grouse habitat could hinder grouse from using the habitat. There is a need to manage travel within the

area’s suitable sage grouse habitat by using effective methods such as fencing, road closures, and/or

route obliteration to keep vehicles from traveling on nonsystem routes.

Locations favored for present-day dispersed camping often have similar physical characteristics as

sites used for occupation by aboriginal inhabitants in the area. For this reason, the proliferation of

dispersed camping along Thunder and East Naturita roads and the ongoing motorized use of

nonsystem routes have the potential to impact cultural sites by exposing or damaging known or

undiscovered prehistoric artifacts. Consequently, there is a need to manage dispersed camping and to

decommission nonsystem routes in the area.

Proposed Action________________________________________

Under the Proposed Action, the following actions would be taken:

Trails and Trailhead Parking Area: The Forest Service would construct 17.5 miles of single track

trail in the vicinity of Thunder Road approximately 3.5 miles south of the Town of Norwood. All

trails would have a native surface tread and be 18 – 24 inches in width.

The new trail system would consist of Loops A – D as shown on the Alternative 2 Map. Trail Loop B

travels through several large, open parks within very flat terrain. The east side of Loop B crosses

several active ditches and nonsystem routes that are slated for decommissioning. Keeping

administrative vehicles and motorcycles on the designated roads and trails through this section would

be difficult due to the flat terrain and open vegetation pattern. Consequently, the construction of this

trail segment would be postponed until Forest Service monitoring has shown that travel management

and decommissioning efforts in the area are effective.

A new 1.5-acre graveled trailhead parking area would be constructed along Thunder Road as shown

on the Alternative 2 Map. The site would be designed to accommodate 15 - 20 vehicles and 2-3

trailers. Fifteen to twenty primitive dispersed camping sites would be designated in a two-acre area


4

adjacent to the new parking area. Each campsite would be furnished with a site post and metal fire

ring and a short graveled spur road would be constructed to provide access. Travel management

barriers such as boulders or fencing would be installed around the perimeter of the camping area to

define the site and manage travel. No fee would be charged for camping in this area.

Trail and Road Seasonal Dates: The trail system would be open to motorcycles, mountain bikes,

horse, and foot travel from May 1 to November 15; closed annually to motorcycles and mountain

bikes on November 16. The segment of Thunder Road from CR 41.5Y to the new trailhead parking

area (1.2 miles) would be open to all motorized use during the same period.

Thunder Road: Under this proposal, Thunder Road would be closed to all motorized vehicles

(except for motorcycles) beginning at a point just beyond the new trailhead parking area. This 7.5

mile restricted road segment would be incorporated into the overall trail system and would be open to

motorcyclists, mountain bikers, equestrians, and hikers. Thunder Road would remain open for

motorized administrative use by persons holding a Forest Service permit (e.g. landowners, grazing

permittees, ditch owners).

Designated Camping along East Naturita Road: Camping along East Naturita Road would be

restricted to designated campsites. From 5-10 campsites would be designated adjacent to the existing

East Naturita snowmobile parking area. An additional 15-20 campsites would be designated along

the East Naturita Road corridor. Each campsite would be marked by a numbered site post and road

signs would notify campers about the designated camping restrictions. Travel management barriers,

such as rocks and/or fencing, would be installed around the perimeter of the campsites and along

portions of the road corridor. All barriers would be installed in such as way as to enable livestock

movement and to maintain Forest Service administrative access. No fee would be charged for

camping in this area.

With the exception of Thunder Road and East Naturita Road as described above, dispersed camping

would continue to be allowed along FSR 610.1A, 634, 644 and 651. Motor vehicles would be allowed

to travel up to 300 feet off of these designated routes for the purpose of dispersed camping.

Travel Management and Route Decommissioning: The Forest Service would decommission

approximately 23 miles of nonsystem routes in the project area as shown on the Alternative 1 Map.

The following decommissioning methods would be used: 1) Level 4 methods: signing, installing

physical barricades, seeding, planting, and camouflaging routes with slash; and 2) Level 5 methods:

using an excavator to obliterate existing road beds and to break up compaction, and installing earthen

berms, and water bars.

Travel management barriers, such as rocks and/or fencing, would be installed along portions of the

Thunder Road corridor from its intersection with County Road 41.5Y to the new trailhead parking

area (1.2 miles). Similar barriers would be installed along portions the length of the East Naturita

Road corridor. All barriers would be installed in such a way as to enable livestock movement and to

maintain Forest Service administrative access.

Signs and gates would be installed on the 4.5 miles of administrative routes, as needed. These routes

would remain open for motorized administrative use by persons holding a Forest Service permit (e.g.

landowners, grazing permittees, ditch owners) and by the Forest Service.

Decision Framework ______________________________


5

Given the Purpose and Need for action, the Norwood District Ranger will be the Forest Service official

responsible for making the following decisions:

Whether or not to approve the Proposed Action or any of the alternatives, in part or in their entirety,

and if so, under what terms and conditions.

Determine what mitigation measures, design criteria, and monitoring requirements are necessary for

project implementation.

Public Involvement _____________________________________ A legal notice was published in the Telluride Daily Planet newspaper (paper of record) on September 24,

2010. This notice initiated a 30-day scoping period in which the public could make comments in response

to the Proposed Action. At the same time, scoping letters were mailed to 35 interested and involved

agencies, organizations, and members of the public and the letter was also posted in the Schedule of

Proposed Actions on the GMUG Forest website. An open house was held at the Norwood District office

on October 6, 2010 with over 50 attendees.

Responses from these scoping efforts included letters, e-mails, and open-house comments. More than 130

comments were received by the end of the scoping period.

Using these public comments, the Forest Service interdisciplinary team developed a list of issues to

address.

Issues ________________________________________________ The Forest Service separated the issues into two groups: significant and non-significant issues. Significant

issues were defined as those directly or indirectly caused by implementing the Proposed Action. Non-

significant issues were identified as those: 1) outside the scope of the proposed action; 2) already decided

by law, regulation, Forest Plan, or other higher level decision; 3) irrelevant to the decision to be made; 4)

conjectural and not supported by scientific or factual evidence; or 5) the magnitude, extent, duration,

speed and direction of preliminary effects can also be considered in determining if an issue is non-

significant. A list of non-significant issues and reasons regarding their determination as non-significant

may be found in the Thunder Trails Project files at the Norwood Ranger District.

Issue #1: Loss of Motorized Access and Recreation Opportunities – Restricting full-sized and ATV

vehicle access on Thunder Road beyond the new proposed trailhead would limit opportunities for hunting,

weddings, family gatherings, picnicking and viewing wildlife. It would also eliminate current

opportunities for full-sized driving, ATV riding, firewood gathering, camping, and trailer access. The

development of a designated dispersed camping pod near the new trailhead would eliminate the privacy

many people desire when camping.

Issue #2: Potential Trail Conflicts – Mixing motorcycles, mountain bikes, hiking, and equestrian users

on the new single track trails could create conflicts (e.g. safety, speed, noise) that could negatively impact

the recreation experience for one or more user groups.

Issue #3: Impacts to Permitted Operations - The recreational use of the trails may change livestock use

patterns, resulting in grazing permittees having to spend additional time herding to keep their animals


6

away from heavily-grazed areas and within proximity to foraging areas, salting areas, and water sources.

For example, motorcycles and mountain bikers may inadvertently move livestock down the trail to

locations that cattle would not otherwise travel. Dogs off leash could harass livestock in the area. Trail

users may leave gates in livestock fences open and livestock could escape to an adjacent pasture or

allotment.

Issue #4: Travel Management and Resource Concerns – Motorized and mechanized vehicles are

causing resource damage by driving off of designated routes and damaging vegetation, compacting soils

and degrading wildlife habitat.

Motorized travel remains largely unmanaged in the project area, resulting in ongoing and potential

resource impacts to meadows and riparian habitat, Gunnison sage grouse habitat, and cultural resource

sites. Past efforts to implement the Travel Plan in the Thunder Road area by posting signs and

camouflaging the routes with timber slash have largely been ineffective. Trash dumping, vandalism, and

people residing on the Forest are just a few of the law enforcement issues that occur along Thunder Road.

Issue #5: Motorcycle disturbance to big game that travel through the project area during the fall

months. Each fall, elk and deer migrate through the project area from the Lone Cone area down to lower

elevation winter ranges. The Goshorn Creek drainage is a known big game travel corridor. There is a

concern that the noise from motorcycles using the new trails might disrupt some animals, resulting in at

least a temporary displacement to big game.

ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION This chapter describes and compares the alternatives considered for the Thunder Trails Project. It includes

a description and references a map of each alternative considered. Table 1.1 provides a comparison of the

alternative components.

Table 1.1: Comparison of Alternatives Components

Alternative Components Measure Alt. 1 Alt 2. Alt. 3 Alt. 4

Single Track Trails Miles of Trail 0 17.5 17.5 17.5

Trailhead Parking Area # of Facilities 0 1 1 1

Thunder Road: Camping Pod Y/N No Yes Yes Yes

Thunder Road: Designated

Dispersed Campsites Y/N (# sites) No No Yes (5-10) Yes (5-10)

East Naturita Road: Designated

Dispersed Campsites Y/N (# sites) No

Yes (20-

30)

Yes (20-

30) Yes (20-30)

Seasonal Restriction on Trails Open Dates N/A 5/1 - 11/15 5/1 - 11/15

Loops A & B: 5/1 – 11/15

Loops C & D: 5/1 – 10/31

Decommission Nonsystem

Routes

Miles of

Routes 23 mi. 23 mi. 23 mi. 23 mi.

Alternative 1: No Action

The primary objective of this alternative is to provide a basis of comparison to the action alternatives.

Under this alternative (Alt. 1 Map):

New Trails and Trailhead Parking Area: There would be no construction of new trails or

associated trailhead facilities within the project area.


7

Road Seasonal Dates: Thunder Road would be open to all motorized uses from May 31 to November

15.

Thunder Road: Thunder Road would be open to all motorized use (8.7 miles).

Camping: Dispersed camping would continue to be allowed on all National Forest System lands

within the project area. Motor vehicles would continue to be allowed to travel up to 300 feet off of

designated routes for the purpose of dispersed camping.

Travel Management and Route Decommissioning: Travel management and route decommissioning

would be the same as described under the Proposed Action (Alt. 3) except that only Level 4 methods

would be used, such as signing, installing physical barricades, planting, and camouflaging routes with

slash. These actions were approved in the 2002 Uncompahgre Travel Plan decision.

Alternative 2 (Modified Proposed Action)

See the description of this alternative under the Purpose and Need and Proposed Action headings above

(Alt. 2 Map).

Alternative 3: (Thunder Road Stays Open)

The primary objective of this alternative is to meet the trail and travel management objectives described

under Alternative 2 while keeping Thunder Road open to all motorized vehicles. This alternative

addresses Issues #1 and 4. The following actions would be taken:

New Trails and Trailhead Parking Area: Same as described under Alternative 2.

Trail and Road Seasonal Dates: The trail system would be open from May 1 to November 15;

closed annually to motorcycles and mountain bikes on November 16. The entire length of Thunder

Road (8.7 miles) would be open to all motorized uses during the same period.

Thunder Road: Thunder Road would be open to all motorized use (8.7 miles). A road closure gate

would be installed at a defensible location at the southern terminus of the road, about .3 of a mile

north of where the road currently ends.

Camping along a two-mile segment of the Thunder Road corridor, from the new trailhead south to the

Mexican Spring area, would be restricted to designated campsites. Five to ten campsites would be

designated along the road corridor.

Designated Camping along East Naturita Road: Under Alternative 3, dispersed camping along the

East Naturita Road would be the same as described under the Proposed Action (Alt. 2).

Travel Management and Route Decommissioning: This would be the same as described under the

Proposed Action (Alt. 2) except that the entire length of Thunder Road (compared to just 1.2 miles)

would require travel management barriers to keep vehicles from traveling off road.

Alternative 4 (Emphasize Big Game Security)

The primary objectives of this alternative are to: 1) meet the trail and travel management objectives

described under Alternative 2, 2) strike a compromise between Alternatives 2 and 3 by keeping Thunder

Road open to all motorized use to the Portis private land as shown on the Alternative 4 Map, and 3) adjust

the seasonal dates for trail loops D and C to enhance big game security during the fall months. This

alternative addresses Issues #1, 4, and 5. The following actions would be taken:


8

New Trails and Trailhead Parking Area: Same as described under Alternative 2.

Trail and Road Seasonal Dates: Trail Loops A and B would be open from May 1 to November 15;

closed annually to motorcycles and mountain bikes on November 16.

Trail Loops C and D would be open from May 1 to October 31, closing annually to motorcycles and

mountain bikes on November 1.

Thunder Road: Under this proposal, Thunder Road would be open to all motorized use from CR

41.5Y to a location just south of the Portis private land as shown on the Alternative 4 Map (5.5 miles).

A road closure gate would be installed at this location.

The 3.5 miles of Thunder Road south of the road closure gate would be incorporated into the trail

system and would be open to motorcycles, mountain bikes, horse, and foot travel. This restricted

segment of Thunder Road would remain open for motorized administrative use by persons holding a

Forest Service permit (e.g. landowners, grazing permittees, ditch owners).

Camping along a two-mile segment of the Thunder Road corridor, from the new trailhead south to the

Mexican Spring area, would be restricted to “designated” campsites as described under Alternative 3.

Designated Camping along East Naturita Road: Under Alternative 4, dispersed camping along the

East Naturita Road would be the same as described under the Proposed Action (Alt. 2).

Travel Management and Route Decommissioning: This would be the same as described under the

Proposed Action (Alt. 2) except that portions of a 5.5-mile segment of Thunder Road (compared to

just 1.2 miles) would require travel management barriers to keep vehicles from traveling off road.

Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study ___ The Forest Service interdisciplinary team considered an alternative that included the construction of an

additional eight miles of single track trail in the vicinity of the East Naturita Road. The trails would have

started at the existing East Naturita snowmobile parking area and connected through the Goshorn Creek

drainage to Trail Loop D near Thunder Road. This alternative was dismissed because it would have had

unacceptable impacts to Gunnison sage grouse nesting habitat and to big game travel through the

Goshorn Creek drainage.

Design Features _______________________________________

Design features are actions or characteristics built into an alternative that are taken to avoid, minimize,

reduce or eliminate adverse effects. The following measures and features are common to Alternatives 2,

3, and 4.

1. Forest Service permit holders will be provided administrative access to roads and trails behind the

locked gates in accordance with the terms and conditions of their permit.

2. Provide periodic maintenance of the gates, control fences, and trail cattle guards in combination with

maintenance of the overall trail system in cooperation with interested public user groups.


9

3. All heavy equipment used for road decommissioning will be washed and inspected. This will occur

prior to entering National Forest administered lands, and after leaving National Forest administered

lands as to meet the State of Colorado Class A invasive species management regulations, and to

prevent the spread of Class A, B and C weeds. Pre and post inspections will be conducted by a

qualified Forest Service invasive species program personal.

4. Where ground disturbing activities occur, broadcast seed with a Pine/Sage mix provided in the Range

Specialist report located in the project planning record filed at the Norwood Ranger District Office.

5. Consult with the Norwood District Rangeland Management Specialist and Fire Management Officer

prior to installation of barriers along Thunder Road and East Naturita Road. Barriers cannot limit or

change livestock or wildlife behavior to the extent that would result in a downward trend in vegetative

condition or prohibit access to water sources. They must also be designed to include gates or other

locked access points along their length to ensure adequate access for Forest Service for wildfire

suppression. The location and number of access point will vary depending on fuel composition, fire

risk in the area, and proximity to value at risk. This design feature addresses Issue #3.

6. Install bypass gates for stock animals and single track specific cattleguards at every location where a

trail segment crosses a pasture or allotment fence line. Post signage on all gates to assist in education

for the users to close gates. This design feature addresses Issue #3.

7. There are thirteen, vegetation Condition and Trend permanent plot clusters established within the

projects boundaries. These plots must not be disturbed. Trail systems must be re-routed around these

areas. If disturbances result from motorized uses, actions must be taken to protect these sites. The

Rangeland Management Specialist must be consulted when planning actions to protect these sites. A

map of these sites has been included in the Range Specialist report located in the project planning

record filed at the Norwood Ranger District Office.

8. Some areas within the planning area are designated Management Prescription 6B, designated to

maintain soil and vegetation condition and to provide forage for livestock production and wildlife.

Under this management prescription, range non-structural improvement mechanisms to achieve

desirable vegetative condition can include seeding, planting, burning, fertilizing, pitting, furrowing,

spraying, crushing and plowing. Cutting of encroaching trees can also occur. These types of activities

would continue as needed even if a trail is located next to or lies within a specific project area.

Structural improvements such as ponds, wells, spring developments, fence and corral construction

will continue to be developed as needed to meet the objectives outlined in the 1991 Amended Land

and Resource Management Plan and the 2007 Naturita Landscape Rangeland Analysis decision.

9. New trail construction will stay at least 100 feet from existing populations of Sulfur cinquefoil, an

invasive plant species. This will provide a buffer to prevent windblown seed dispersal onto disturbed

areas along the trail. Wind dispersal is one strategy the plant uses to propagate, however, once

established in disturbance corridors it rapidly increases its spread rates.

10. New trail systems and Goshorn Draw will be monitored annually for Sulfur cinquefoil and Class A

and Class B invasive species spread. If there is a new population of a currently unknown Class A or

Class B species discovered it will be treated using appropriate tools. If Sulfur cinquefoil is found on

the trail system or in the Goshorn riparian area, this will be of highest priority to keep populations

from spreading into Naturita Canyon.

11. If the spread of invasive species (especially the known population of Sulfur cinquefoil) is shown to be

expanding along trail systems, or the Goshorn riparian zone, area motorized closures under special


10

order may be put into place until the populations can be treated and eliminated along the travel

corridors. These closures may be localized to minimize recreational effects.

12. If livestock impacts to the single track trails become unacceptable, fences or some other effective

barrier may be installed along trail segments to prevent livestock damage.

13. Install a kiosk(s) at the new trailhead parking facility that provides information on travel management

and trail etiquette.

14. Use trail design and construction techniques to reduce the encroachment of larger vehicles onto the

single track trails. For example, use full bench construction to install an 18-24 inch tread on steep

hillsides to prohibit travel by a wider vehicle. This technique will be utilized as much as the

topography allows. Where topography is too flat for the full bench technique, natural obstacles such

as rocks, trees and dense vegetation will be incorporated into the trail design to discourage

encroachment from larger vehicles.

15. Use fencing and chokepoints at trailheads and other strategic locations to reduce trail encroachment

by larger vehicles. Choke points are constructed features, usually made from wood or steel, which

will only have an opening wide enough to allow a motorcycle, mountain bike, horse or hiker to pass

through.

16. Any barriers or chokepoints placed adjacent to Thunder Road or East Naturita Road will be

constructed in a manner that will not interfere with winter grooming operations. Barriers will be

placed off of the road prism and will be wide enough to accommodate a snow cat with a grooming

implement.

17. Under the Programmatic Agreement (Travel PA) between the GMUG National Forest and the

Colorado State Historic Preservation Officer, inventories will occur prior to all ground disturbing

actions and for all dispersed campsite designations. Any significant cultural sites and/or historic

properties will be treated according to a group of options. Any option other than complete avoidance

of historic properties by all ground disturbing construction activities will require additional SHPO

consultation. It is expected that all such sites will be avoided during construction on this project.

18. An archaeologist will accompany Forest Service recreation and road personnel during trail layout and

nonsystem route decommissioning, as needed, to ensure that identified cultural sites are adequately

protected.

19. Use an excavator or a similar piece of equipment (not a dozer with a ripper) to break up soil

compaction and eliminate the road bed. The objective is to minimize ground disturbance.

20. Project monitoring will be conducted per the monitoring plan displayed in Appendix D.


11

Comparison of Alternatives ______________________________

This section provides a summary of the effects of implementing each alternative.

Table 1.2: Comparison of Alternative Effects

Description of Issue or

Resource Affected Measure Alt. 1 Alt 2. Alt. 3 Alt. 4

Thunder Road: Loss of

Access For Full-Sized

Vehicles & ATVs

Miles of Thunder Road

Closed to full-sized

vehicles/ATV's 0 mi. 7.5 mi. 0 mi. 3.2 mi.

Livestock Displacement Due

to Encounters With Trail

Users

Potential for Livestock - Trail

User Encounters N/A Low Low Low

Effect of Trail Construction

and Road Decommissioning

on Invasive Species

Populations Acres of Ground Disturbance 17 ac. 6 ac. 17 ac. 16 ac.

Potential Trail Conflicts

Between Trail Users

Low, Moderate, High

Potential N/A Low Low Low

Potential for ATV

Encroachment on Trails

Low, Moderate, High

Potential N/A Low High Mod.

No. of chokepoints needed to

prohibit ATV intrusion 0 2 10 6

Provide for Big Game

Security

Trail Closure Dates N/A Nov. 15 Nov. 15

Oct. 31

(Loops C

& D)

Miles of Thunder Road

Closed To Full-sized

vehicles/ATVs 0 7.5 mi. 0 3.2 mi.

Potential Unregulated

Camping Impacts to Cultural

Sites Along Thunder & East

Naturita Roads

Miles of Thunder &

E.Naturita Roads Without

Designated Dispersed

Campsites 11.2 mi. 1.2 mi. 9.2 mi. 6.0 mi.

Low, Moderate, High Impact Mod Very Low Mod. Low

Access to Private Lands Status of Access

No

Change No Change No Change

No

Change

Access for Permitted

Activities (e.g. grazing,

ditches, etc.) Status of Access

No

Change No Change No Change

No

Change

Estimated Cost to Implement

Alternative Dollars $63,350 $126,920 $177,350 $156,080


12

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES This section summarizes and compares the physical, biological, social and economic environments of the

affected project area and the potential changes to those environments due to implementation of the

alternatives.

Additional documentation, including complete copies of each Forest Service specialist report, can be

found in the project planning record located at the Norwood Ranger District Office in Norwood,

Colorado.

Rangeland Resources & Invasive Species___________________

EXISTING CONDITIONS

Rangeland and Vegetative Resources

Multiple disturbances have occurred in and around the project area over the recent years. Perhaps the

most obvious was the Burn Canyon Wildfire. In 2002, a large stand replacing wildfire burned about

31,616 acres of National Forest, Bureau of Land Management, and privately controlled lands. About

10,982 acres were burned on the National Forest. As a result of this disturbance rangeland condition

changed dramatically within both burned and unburned landscapes.

Drought has probably been the second most major effect in the project area. While the 2006 – 2010 years

yielded above average precipitation, many of the last ten years prior have been below or well below

average. The last four years of increased precipitation has increased annual production of herbaceous

grasses and forbs, especially warm season grasses. It is important to note that precipitation patterns have

changed as well, and are trending towards increased mid-summer to early fall rains, rather than mid-

spring to mid-summer. Mean annual precipitation stands at 15.79 inches. Precipitation is slightly higher

in the project area and increases as elevation increases

Timber harvest and fuel treatments occur in the project area periodically and are planned for the future.

These treatments attempt to maintain an open understory setting in the Ponderosa Pine plant communities.

These periodic disturbances have influence over the production, form, diversity and richness of plant

communities which exist within the project area. All of these disturbances influence ungulate

management (wild or domestic) as it relates to effects on plant and soil health, animal behavior, spatial

patterns of grazing, distribution of grazers, plant selection, and carrying capacity.

Each grazing allotment is fully stocked as an annual spring, summer and fall range. There are a total of

three permittees in the project area each having additional base property to support their operations.

Management situations vary by allotment and by permittee.

Handling techniques have been updated on the Portis and East Naturita allotments and include low-stress

livestock movement. Open herding is commonly used and is a method in which the individuals in a herd

are allowed to spread naturally for grazing under a more relaxed control by the herder and dogs, but are

kept within a prescribed area. High stress situations cause cattle to leave the herd and are difficult to

control.

Invasive Species


13

In 2007, Sulfur cinquefoil (Potentilla recta) was discovered in abundance both to the east and west of

Thunder Road and non-system arterial routes. In working with San Miguel County, extensive survey and

treatment commenced. Adjacent private lands along with NFS lands were severely infested. A total of

2,413 acres of NFS lands were infested to varying degrees. Where this species occurred in abundance,

very little species diversity and richness existed, and the plant exhibited almost complete plant community

dominance. These discoveries were followed by a declaration as a State of Colorado Class A weed in San

Miguel County. This designation requires the treatment of this species with the goal of complete

eradication.

Treatment has been quite effective on NFS parcels, and by the fall of 2010 the population had been

reduced by about 95% from its original extent. While it is expected this population will not be fully

eradicated at this time, the threat of large scale population expansion is currently under control.

Other Colorado Class B species of concern exist within the project area and include Whitetop (Cardaria

draba), Bull thistle (Cirsium vulgare), Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense), spotted knapweed (Centaurea

maculosa), and Russian knapweed (Acroptilon repens). These species are currently being treated along

with Sulfur cinquefoil and have seen reductions in their overall populations.

Currently, primary mechanisms of spread in this area can be attributed to vehicular travel (both on

designated and nonsystem route) corridors, ditches and associated right-of-ways, and livestock and

wildlife trail systems. Moderate to heavy ungulate use in poor to fair rangeland condition areas also seem

to be a vector for spread. These areas center near limited water sources where disturbance is high.

ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS

Alternative 1 (No Action Alternative)


Direct and Indirect Effects:

No road Level 5 road decommissioning would be conducted. Roaded areas of rangeland affected by

compacted soil conditions and early seral vegetative states would remain in their existing condition.

Given observed current use rates by unauthorized travelers, these conditions are likely to remain in the

short term. Compaction and disturbances on some roads will improve over time and other roaded area

conditions may remain indefinitely as they currently are.

No new trails would be constructed. Rangeland disturbances as a result of trail construction would not

occur. Stock bypass gates and cattleguards would not be installed.

No change to livestock management or behavior would be observed or needed. There would be no effect

to domestic livestock operations. Available ungulate forage would remain under its current condition and

trend in the short term. In the long term due to adaptive management practices currently in place,

condition and trend of vegetative resources would improve to desired conditions. Behavioral use patterns

by both domestic livestock and wildlife would not see change as a result of this alternative. Effects of

illegal motorized use would continue.

Cumulative Effects:

Rangeland resources would not see any measurable change to condition or trend in the short term, but

vegetatively condition and trend would improve to meet desired future conditions for the resource in the


14

long term. Furthermore, permitted operations would not see any change as a result of this alternative.

Both public and private lands would likely remain in current condition. Wildlife and livestock use

patterns would not change from the existing condition. More wild ungulates could be expected to utilize

forage resources on public lands within the project area.

Invasive Species


Existing invasive species populations would continue to decline at current levels and trends. New

infestations would likely be limited to disturbances related to existing uses and would be small and

isolated in scale. Existing populations would see no new, purposeful, creation of potential spread

corridors.

Cumulative Effects:

National Forest System lands would see persistent populations of certain invasive species. However,

species targeted for management would see declines over the landscape as a whole. Spread potential into

new areas in and out of NFS lands as a result of motor vehicle traffic would be low to non-existent. Other

mechanisms of spread would remain (such as wind, livestock and wildlife) although new travel corridors

would not be created, linking potential unknown populations with new safe seed bed sites.




Identified roads would be decommissioned. This would cause temporary disturbances to existing

vegetation in the short term (one to three years), but soil compaction would be improved, likely allowing

the eventual establishment of desirable native vegetation. Seeding would improve the probability of

establishment of desirable vegetation. On the roadbed, site conditions would improve vegetative

condition and trend. This effect would be very minor and would be difficult to measure. New trails

would add to soil compaction where located, preventing establishment of late seral native vegetation.

Here too, this effect would be very minor and would be difficult to measure. Taken as a whole, there

would be no measurable net increase or decrease to vegetative condition and trend, as a result of both road

decommissioning and trail construction.

Livestock and wildlife behavior would change in two ways, and each would have measurable influences

on herbaceous vegetative condition and trend. First is due to new trail construction. These trails would

likely become new travel corridors for both livestock and wildlife. Livestock and wildlife would develop

side trails leading to water, forage, and mineral sources, and allow for ease of movement. Over time, and

more likely in open parks, some trail systems could begin to look like two track roads where livestock are

more likely to move two abreast. Permanent vegetation disturbance patterns would be created in these

new travel corridors. If livestock impacts to the single track trails become unacceptable, fences or some

other effective barrier may be installed along trail segments to prevent livestock damage. (See Design

Feature #12, page 10).

Another part of this behavioral change is related to direct contact and management of livestock. Cattle, for

example, commonly spend seven to twelve hours a day grazing. Each grazing period is remarkably

consistent with minimal change given no disturbance. Hours spent grazing occurs mainly during the


15

daylight. This would be the same time recreational users would normally utilize trail systems in the

project area. Because of this, there is an increased opportunistic potential for direct conflicts between

grazing livestock and recreational users. Livestock and recreational users may come into direct contact.

For example, motorcycles may run into, or more likely move livestock down the trail, dogs may chase

livestock, or people may scare or move cattle to locations they would not otherwise travel.

Other factors, which may influence management is the location of the trails in relation to available water

sources, shading areas, salting areas, and foraging areas. Of large concern is the ability to move livestock

away from heavily overgrazed areas. These behavioral changes can become permanent in a herd

situation. It is likely that permittees will have to spend additional time on the allotment herding to get the

same effect on management, as prior to this alternative being implemented.

The second behavioral change would be associated with grazing patterns over the entire landscape. Local

populations of wild herbivores may move to more secluded environments. Livestock and wildlife can be

scared or moved into ecologically sensitive areas where they would not otherwise enter, or be prevented

from using desirable range and foraging areas. The effect to rangeland vegetative resources could see an

increase in use to localized areas causing increased grazing related effects to those areas. Because of

these likely changes to behavioral patterns, both vegetation species diversity and richness would be

affected. The degree of change is unknown and would occur on a site specific basis. For this reason,

project monitoring will be essential to determine if trail use directly affects livestock grazing behavior,

resulting in unacceptable impacts to rangeland condition and trend.

If unacceptable impacts cannot be mitigated, ungulate management would need to be adjusted. This

would add to management costs both to permittees and the local Forest Service unit. In addition, there is

a potential that some future permanent condition and trend transect data would be greatly influenced by

these behavioral changes because these changes can be measured.

Direct and indirect economic costs associated with the alternative can be measured by estimating and

analyzing both expenditures of time spent in additional management and revenues or production of

pounds produced. As grazing time increases from greater manipulation of behavior, more energy is used

for activity and less for production. Usual and expected increased costs associated with lower livestock

weights are twofold, both in increased expenditure and lower revenue. Motorized trail density of this

project will likely cause some additional herding and management of permit duties, such as assuring gates

are closed and maintaining fence lines.

Permittees on the East Naturita cattle and horse allotments rely on some level of special herding technique

called open herding, which includes low stress management. There would likely be some level of

disturbance to this handling technique as a result of motorized use in this alternative. Livestock may end

up in undesirable locations away from the herd or specific management unit. Some duties that can be

disrupted include salting, health care, dispersing of bulls for adequate breeding service, and repairing of

fences and stockwater facilities. Units One and Two would be most affected because they are located

within the project area.

To address these potential impacts, project monitoring will be a required component in this alternative as

described in the monitoring plan (Appendix D). Monitoring will be conducted in the project area to

determine if trail use directly affects livestock grazing behavior to the extent that there are unacceptable

impacts to rangeland condition and trend.

Cumulative Effects:


16

Dependent upon variable future disturbances, vegetation condition could see localized changes to plant

community composition and structure. In some cases downward trends may occur to localized areas.

The Naturita Division Environmental Assessment which was developed a few years ago is still being

implemented. In it, there are constraints regarding livestock permitted operations that pertain to

rangeland health, sage grouse, and timber management. These constraints will continue to be in effect.

Permittees may find it difficult to get livestock to utilize forage resources in specific areas along

motorized trails if those trails are used frequently. Livestock would then spend most of their grazing time

away from moderately or heavily utilized trail systems. The range analysis which took place factored in

all available forage resources at that time. Desired vegetative conditions were found to be insufficient;

therefore a reduction of livestock numbers was initiated and continues. As a result of the added

behavioral effects of this alternative, future reductions of use in permitted time, numbers or both may be

necessary to achieve the stated desired future conditions in the Naturita Rangeland Environmental

Assessment.

Units One and Two within the East Naturita allotment would likely see less uniform grazing disturbances

from both wildlife and domestic livestock. This would translate into increased grazing pressure into the

rest of the management units within the allotment and the private lands located to the south of the project

area just off NFS lands.

Currently both the Cy Orr and Portis allotments are operating at what is considered to be marginal in

terms of permitted numbers. As permittee operational costs increase due to greater herding responsibility

resulting from the project, there could be a point at which it becomes no longer viable or desirable to

conduct ranching operations on these two allotments.

Historically in this area when permits are vacated, the base property has been broken up and sub-divided.

This has caused fractured habitat and increased uses by wildlife on public lands. These effects are

considered undesirable due to increased conflicts between private landowners and wildlife.

Invasive Species


Disturbances would occur as a result of this alternative, causing conditions highly favorable to the

establishment of undesirable invasive species. These conditions would decline with time and seeding

operations in areas were road prisms are decommissioned. These conditions would persist wherever trail

systems are located but can be mitigated through annual monitoring and subsequent treatment as

described in Design Feature #10 and 11, Pages 9 & 10).

Motorized uses are a contributor to spread of invasive species. Often equipment is not washed prior to

entering NFS lands. Most local trail systems on public lands at similar elevation and precipitation

gradients have existing populations of state listed invasive species present. These species will have the

opportunity to gain a foothold on the trail system due to the favorable micro-site, climatic, and

geographical, conditions which exist.

Cumulative Effects:

Invasive species have been battled in the area for four years. Costs associated with the treatment area are

approaching $250,000 when adding in San Miguel County’s efforts of treatment both on Federal and

private lands located in and around the project area. These investments could see some devaluation if new

species are introduced or existing populations spread to both Federal and private lands.


17

Under this alternative, trail systems would be linking areas and specific grazing allotments with known

infestations of Sulfur cinquefoil to areas and specific grazing allotments known to be without Sulfur

cinquefoil. There is some increased probability of spread of this species into new areas because of the

travel corridor and spread vectors associated with the alternative. Once this species is found within the

south half of the project area the probability of contamination of private lands is very seriously increased.

The Forest Service has limited control to containing invasive species once they spread beyond

administered boundaries. There would be an increased cost to manage and monitor for Sulfur cinquefoil

spread into the East Naturita area.

Alternative 3 (Thunder Road Stays Open)



Same effects as described for Alternative 2.

Cumulative Effects:


Invasive Species



Cumulative Effects:

Invasive species have been battled in the area for four years. Costs associated with treatment area

approaching $250,000 when adding in San Miguel County’s efforts of treatment both on Federal and

private lands located in and around the project area. These investments could see some devaluation if

new species are introduced or existing populations spread to both Federal and private lands.




There is no measureable difference in the effects to rangeland resources or invasive species management

based on this alternative description compared with Alternative 3.

Recreation ____________________________________________

EXISTING CONDITIONS

Current recreation use in the Thunder Trails analysis area includes big game hunting, hiking, mountain

biking, horseback riding, driving for pleasure in full-size vehicles, riding all terrain vehicles (ATVs),

camping, wildlife viewing, firewood gathering and picnicking. All activities are generally dispersed in

nature since there are no developed opportunities such as campgrounds, designated trails or unique


18

destinations of interest. The project area offers convenient recreation opportunities for the Town of

Norwood and residents living in close proximity to town. The area receives sporadic recreational use

during the summer and the heaviest use occurs during the fall big game hunting season.

The popularity of the area during hunting season has posed a number of management challenges due to

the increase in motor vehicle use and dispersed camping. The 2002 Uncompahgre National Forest Travel

Plan requires motorized vehicles to stay on designated routes and does not allow for motorized game

retrieval. During hunting season, motorized vehicle violations, especially from ATVs, increase

significantly from vehicles driving off-road or on closed routes that are not designated open to motorized

travel. The relatively flat open terrain and lack of funding makes it difficult to effectively close

nonsystem routes.

During hunting season, dispersed camping is popular throughout the project area with East Naturita Road

seeing the heaviest concentration of camps and impacts. Dispersed camping outside of the hunting season

is minimal with the exception of East Naturita Road. This road is popular during the summer because of

the higher elevation and cooler temperatures in comparison to Thunder Road, where it is rare to see a

camp during the summer months. Ed Joe and Stockdale areas similarly receive very little dispersed

camping use. Impacts associated with dispersed camping include the creation of unauthorized roads

which can lead to erosion and loss of vegetation, trash dumping, sanitation issues and residing on the

forest.

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum

The Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) is a system for planning and managing recreational

resources that categorizes recreational opportunities into eight classes. Each class is defined in terms of

the degree to which it satisfies certain recreational experience needs based on the extent to which the

natural environment has been modified, the type of facilities provided, the degree of outdoor skills needed

to enjoy the area, and the relative density of recreation use.

The ROS spectrum ranges from Primitive to Urban. The ROS for the project area is Roaded Natural. The

definition of Roaded Natural is as follows:

The area is characterized by predominately natural-appearing environments with moderate evidence of

the sights and sounds of people. Such evidence is usually harmonious with the natural environment.

Interaction between users may be moderate to high, with evidence of other users prevalent. Resource

modification and utilization practices are evident but compatible with the natural environment.

Conventional motorized use is allowed and incorporated into construction standards and design of

facilities.


Alternative One (No Action Alternative)

Alternative Description and Rationale:

Recreation opportunities would continue to exist in the current state and use would remain low. The

Forest Service would not develop any single track trails or new recreation facilities within the project

area. No motorized or non-motorized single track opportunities would be offered in close proximity to

the Town of Norwood. The existing marginal recreation opportunities for motorcycles, mountain bikes,


19

hiking and horseback would remain unchanged and public demand for these opportunities would not be

addressed. Members of the Norwood community seeking a single track experience would be required to

drive at least 45 minutes to Telluride, the Uncompahgre Plateau, Dolores or Moab. Motorcycles and

mountain bikes would be restricted to designated roads which do not provide an acceptable level of

challenge or satisfaction for those seeking a single track experience.


Since public demand for single track trails would not be addressed under this alternative, it is reasonable

to speculate that single track trails might be illegally constructed. Unauthorized trails are usually

constructed in an unsustainable manner, receive no maintenance and tend to deteriorate quickly, causing

erosion and safety concerns. In contrast, trails that are designed, engineered and constructed in

accordance with Forest Service specifications (FSH 2309.18 & EM-7720-103) are sustainable long term,

have reduced maintenance costs and are designed to avoid sensitive areas such as valuable wildlife

habitat. Unauthorized trails often exasperate existing resource concerns by not avoiding sensitive areas

such as those infested with noxious weeds. Due to their unsustainable construction, these trails can be

very costly to restore back to a natural state, particularly if they are located in sensitive habitat such as a

riparian area.

Issue #1: Loss of Motorized Access and Recreation Opportunities

There would be no change to current public access on Thunder Road. This road would remain the only

designated route for motorized vehicles and mountain bikes. Those recreational opportunities currently

available to the public in the Thunder Road area would remain unaffected. Camping would be restricted

to within 300 feet of designated routes per the Travel Plan. Dispersed campsites in the analysis area

would continue to increase as would unauthorized connector roads.

Issue #2: Potential Trail Conflicts

Trail conflicts and safety concerns between user groups would not be an issue because there would not be

any designated single track trails. Conflicts that may currently occur between full-size vehicles and other

recreational users on system roads would continue. Those individuals seeking a dispersed recreation

experience without trails or developed facilities of any kind would be well served.

Alternative Two (Modified Proposed Action)


Motorized single track trails would be constructed. Recreation opportunities would be enhanced and

recreation use would increase to a moderate level. The purpose and need of the project to meet public

demand by providing motorized single track trails in close proximity to the Town of Norwood would be

accomplished. The Forest Service would develop a 25-mile trail system with 17.5 miles of single track as

funding becomes available. The existing marginal recreation opportunities for motorcycles, mountain

bikes, hiking and horseback would be enhanced. The Forest Service would provide single track

enthusiasts in the local community and the region with a challenging trail system that would provide a

high level of satisfaction.

The trails would be designed in a series of loops that are interconnected. This configuration would allow

trail users to ride the trails loops in a number of different ways which could add to the long term

enjoyment of the trail system. The loop configuration would allow for longer or shorter rides depending

on time and physical fitness. By mixing up portions of the different loops, users could keep the trail


20

experience new and interesting versus riding the same trails the same way every time. The trails would

not be directional and users could ride the loops as they see fit.

The trails would be multi-use trails open to motorcycles, mountain bikes, hikers and horseback riders.

They would also benefit those interested in trail running, dog walking and would provide additional foot

access for hunting. The trails would benefit a large number of trail users interested in a single track trail

experience.

The trail system would be located 3.5 miles from the Town of Norwood. The close proximity to town

would provide the community with easy access to the trail system. The trails would be able to be utilized

after work in the evening or as time permits. Local riders would not need to trailer their motorcycles to

the proposed trail system because of its close proximity to town and because both the Town of Norwood

and San Miguel County allow the use of unlicensed motorcycles on town streets and County roads that

connect to the trails. In addition, the trails would have a long riding season due to the moderate elevation

and generally mild climate. On typical years the trails would open to the public from May 1 to November

15 in accordance with the proposed seasons of use.


Because of the relatively flat and open terrain in the Thunder Road area, encroachment from ATVs and

UTVs may pose a significant management concern. The tread on a single track trail is generally 18-24

inches and clearing limits for the corridor vary based on the type of use projected for the trail. A

motorized single track trail is a narrow corridor that provides a tight winding experience that is

challenging for the rider. The tread on an ATV trail is generally a 50-inch two track with a much wider

trail corridor to accommodate the larger size vehicle. Once an ATV encroaches on a single track it can

change the trail experience very quickly. If the single track receives repeated use from an ATV it will

become a two track in a short amount of time. Depending on the soil type and vegetation cover on the

ground, an ATV can degrade the single track trail after just a few passes. It is not uncommon that once a

single track is widened by an ATV, it is a matter of time before a full size vehicle drives the trail,

ultimately creating a road.

The Proposed Action alternative is designed to provide the most effective way to ensure that unauthorized

vehicles do not degrade the single track trail experience by restricting full-size vehicles on Thunder Road

at the proposed northern trailhead. By placing this restriction on the road, the Thunder Road area would

become a recreation emphasis area managed for a high quality trail experience.


Thunder Road would remain intact, but would become part of the single track trail system. Full size

vehicles and ATVS would be able to drive one mile to the northern trail but would be prohibited beyond

that point. This travel restriction would eliminate about 7.5 miles of historical access that is currently

available. It would also eliminate opportunities for road hunting, driving for pleasure, firewood gathering

and dispersed camping. Other activities such as hunting, picnicking and hiking would have reduced

access; but those activities would continue.

Under this alternative, the easy access enjoyed by the local community would be affected. Thunder Road

is close to town and provides the quickest and most direct access to public lands for those living in

Norwood. Because of its close proximity to an urban center, there are numerous management problems

associated with the convenient access to the National Forest. The law enforcement concerns in the

Thunder Road area include trash dumping, vandalism of government property, mud bogging, drinking


21

and driving, underage drinking, resource damage, travel management violations, and residing on the

forest. Under this alternative, these detrimental activities would be reduced because the public would

only have one mile of access before the road is restricted at the northern trailhead.

Group activities such as weddings and family reunions would still be able to occur along Thunder Road

even though full size vehicles and ATVs would be restricted. The Norwood Ranger District has the ability

to issue special use permits that would allow full size vehicle access behind the closed gate for weddings,

family gatherings and other appropriate recreation activities. Special use permits would be issued on a

limited basis for non-commercial group use.

Thunder Road is a dead end road and does not have any unique destinations such as a body of water, a

geological feature or a specific recreation site. It provides many opportunities for dispersed activities, but

all of those same activities are offered at other areas in close proximately to Norwood. Restricting this

road would displace some recreationists who currently utilize the area such as those interested in driving

the dead end road. Those who are displaced would still have the same recreation opportunities on public

lands at their disposal in a number of other locations close to Norwood such as McKee Draw, Mailbox

Park, East Naturita, Stockdale Point, Ed Joe and Beaver Park.

Residents in the Norwood area have access to hundreds of miles of dirt roads that are managed by San

Miguel County, Montrose County, Dolores County, Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service.

Some of these alternative areas offer an improved experience and more opportunities for certain activities

like riding ATVs. For example, for those interested in riding ATVs, the McKee draw area offers 19 miles

of challenging dirt roads, multiple loop opportunities and is just six miles from Norwood. In comparison,

Thunder Road is nine miles long, located 3.5 miles from Norwood and is a relatively flat, dead end road

that offers very little challenge.

Currently, under the Travel Plan, dispersed camping is allowed within 300 feet of system roads as long as

there is no resource damage associated with the activity. Unfortunately, resource damage has occurred

along the East Naturita Road where many of the unauthorized roads were created by individuals accessing

camping sites. Under this alternative, dispersed camping would change to designated dispersed camping

along East Naturita Road. Camping along the road would be restricted to 15-20 designated dispersed

campsites that would have a primitive development level. The camping would remain free and a fee

would not be charged. Campsites would be numbered and marked and might have a fire ring or a picnic

table, but would not offer any other amenities. Furthermore, in order to discourage unauthorized camping

along the East Naturita Road, barriers would be placed along the entire length of the road corridor.

The change in management would alter the current opportunities for dispersed camping along 2.5 miles of

the East Naturita Road. The public would no longer have the ability to camp anywhere they desire within

300 feet of the main road. Those seeking a true dispersed camping experience in that general area would

be required to travel 1-5 miles further to FSR 610.1A or to FSR 634.

Designated dispersed campsites would not be close together, so opportunities for privacy and solitude

from other campers would still be possible. Campsites would be sized differently to accommodate larger

or smaller groups. Wherever it is feasible, existing campsites along the road would become the

designated campsites.

Camping along Thunder Road would be restricted to the new designated dispersed camping loop at the

northern trailhead. The camping pod would have 15-20 primitive campsites that would offer camping

close to the trailhead. Dispersed camping opportunities along 7.5 miles of the road would be lost because

the road would be restricted at the trailhead. The development of a camping loop at the trailhead would


22

eliminate the privacy many desire while camping. Those seeking more private, dispersed camping

opportunities close to Norwood would be required to travel a greater distance then is currently necessary.

The other locations that offer camping close to Norwood are McKee Draw, Ed Joe and Beaver Park.

BLM offers dispersed camping at Mailbox Park and along the San Miguel River canyon.


The Forest Services has a multiple-use mandate on designated trails and rarely are trails only open to a

specific user group. One of the concerns with mixing different user groups is the potential for conflicts

among users or a diminished recreation experience.

All of the motorcycles trails on the Uncompahgre National Forest are also open to mountain bikes, horses,

and foot travel per a use hierarchy established in the Travel Plan. Hikers and horseback riders are allowed

to travel anywhere on the Forest and are not required to stay on designated trails. Motorcycles and

mountain bikes are required to stay on designated trails.

Similarly, Thunder Trails would be a motorized single track trail system open to motorcycles, mountain

bikes, hiking and horseback. There are a wide spectrum of expectations and needs within the different

groups. Because of these different expectations, it would not be uncommon that conflicts between the

groups may arise. For instance, a motorcycle and a hiker are moving at very different rates of speed and

because of that one factor there could be a conflict or a safety concern between the two activities. Another

example could be that an individual hiking on a designated motorcycle trail may have their trail

experience diminished by the noise generated from a motorcycle. In general, motorcycles and mountain

bikes coexist very well on the same trail because both groups have similar wants and needs when it comes

to the desired trail experience.

There is a potential that there would be conflicts between different users groups on the trail system. The

projected use on these trails is not high and many user conflicts and safety concerns would be addressed

through trail design, signing, awareness and education. It is important that individuals are tolerant of

other user groups and understand that expectations and experiences differ from activity to activity. The

potential for user conflicts should not discourage the development of new trail opportunities.



The 17.5 miles of trails would be constructed and the purpose and need to provide motorized and non-

motorized single track trail opportunities close to Norwood would be realized. Because demand for

single track trails would be addressed, it is reasonable to speculate that unauthorized single track trails

would not be constructed by the public. Thunder Road would remain open to full size vehicles and

existing dispersed recreation opportunities would remain relatively unchanged. Dispersed camping on

this road would be restricted to designated dispersed sites adjacent to the road for two miles past the

northern trailhead. Dispersed camping along the remainder of the road would be allowed and monitored.

If dispersed camping sites increase along the southern half of the road, designated dispersed management

may be required in the future. Dispersed camping along East Naturita Road would be restricted to

designated dispersed sites consistent with Alternative 2.

Managing travel on the single track trails would be more difficult under this alternative because travel on

Thunder Road would not be restricted in any manner. Encroachment by larger vehicles on the trails

would be likely and difficult to manage because of the numerous locations where the trail system


23

connects to the main road. It is very likely that over time the single track trails may be degraded by larger

vehicles. There are 10 locations where the trails would tie into Thunder Road and at each one of these

intersections chokepoints and fencing would be required to discourage encroachment from larger

vehicles. The relatively flat topography and sparse vegetation would make it very difficult in some

locations to discourage encroachment. Trail intersections would have chokepoints and fencing, but that

fencing would only extend so far before it terminates. A vehicle traveling around the fencing would only

have to follow the fencing or barriers until they end and then will be able to access the single track. This

alternative does not do an adequate job of addressing encroachment concerns.



Loss of access under this alternative is no longer an issue because full size vehicles and ATV’s would not

be restricted on Thunder Road. Recreation opportunities would be enhanced with the addition of

motorized single track trails. Dispersed camping opportunities along Thunder Road would be affected,

but the changes are minor in nature compared to Alternative 2. The ability to disperse camp anywhere

along the East Naturita Road would no longer be available to the public. Access for dispersed camping in

this area would be affected and visitors would be required to camp in designated dispersed sites. Those

seeking a dispersed camping experience would be displaced to other areas such as FSR 610.1A, FSR 634

or to Beaver Park where opportunities for dispersed camping are numerous. The overall experience

between designated dispersed camping and dispersed camping is very similar.

Law enforcement violations that currently exist on Thunder Road would persist. If the road stays open,

vandalism, resource damage from full size vehicles, trash dumping, partying and residing on the forest

would demand management actions.


Concerns and mitigations regarding potential trail conflicts are the same as described in Alternative 2.



The 17.5 miles of single track trails would be constructed and the purpose and need for the project would

be accomplished. The trail system would be a total of about 21 miles including 3.2 miles of the southern

section of Thunder Road. The road would be restricted just south of the Portis Place to full size vehicles.

This scenario would provide full-size vehicle access to 5.5 miles on Thunder Road and traditional

dispersed activities such as driving for pleasure, road hunting and firewood gathering would continue.

From a recreation experience, Alternative 4 provides a compromise between the Proposed Action that

restricts the majority of Thunder Road and Alternative 3 that leaves the road open.


Encroachment of larger vehicles onto the single track trails would be easier to manage under this

alternative than compared to Alternative 3 where Thunder Road would remain open to all motorized

Vehicles, but effects would remain unacceptable. There would be six locations that would require

chokepoints and fencing to discourage encroachment from vehicles not designated to use the trails.

Encroachment would still likely occur when trying to ensure that the trails stay single track into the

future.


24


Public access for recreation on Thunder Road would be altered. Full size vehicle access on this road

would be reduced from 8.7 miles to 5.5 miles. The public would still have the ability to access the area,

but not as many miles of road would be available. As stated earlier, Thunder Road is a dead end road and

does not provide access to any unique recreation destination such as a body of water or a unique

geological formation of interest. From a recreation experience standpoint, the impact is not as

comparable as if the last 3.2 miles of the road are open to full-size vehicles or not because there is not a

specific destination.

Those interested in driving for pleasure on Thunder Road would be affected since they are used to driving

the full length of the road. However, hundreds of miles of dirt roads exist in the Norwood area that are

managed by San Miguel County, Montrose County, Dolores County, the Bureau of Land Management

and the Forest Service. Many of these dirt roads provide an improved recreation experience for those

interested in driving for pleasure because they offer loops and connections instead of a dead end road.

Although some recreational opportunities would be affected or eliminated, other activities would

potentially benefit from restricting vehicles on the southern half of Thunder Road. It is reasonable to

predict that hunting opportunities in the southern half of Thunder Road would improve if the road is

restricted south of the Portis Place. Thunder Road would be open until November 15th and trail loops C

while D would be closed to motorcycles and mountain bikes on November 1st. The hunting experience

would be enhanced for those individuals seeking an area where animals are not being displaced by motor

vehicles. Hunters willing to hike in on foot would have access to a relatively large area that would

provide enhanced hunting opportunities compared to the current situation.

Dispersed camping opportunities along 3.2 miles of Thunder Road would be eliminated if the road was

restricted to full size vehicles. The majority of the dispersed camping that occurs along Thunder Road is

consolidated to the first three miles of the road and that is evident by the existing sites. Since the majority

of dispersed camping does not occur along the southern end of the road, the restriction would not have a

measurable impact on those camping opportunities. Dispersed camping along Thunder Road is sporadic

during the spring and summer and increases to a moderate level during the fall hunting season. The other

options for dispersed camping on public lands close to Norwood are plentiful and were identified in the

Alternative 2 discussion on camping.

Dispersed camping along the East Naturita Road would be as described in Alternative 2 and Alternative 3.


Concerns and mitigations regarding potential trail conflicts are the same as described in Alternative 2 and

Alternative 3.

Cumulative Effects:

Past projects such as timber sales and prescribed burning in the project area have had very little impact on

recreation activities or opportunities. Recreation opportunities are currently dispersed in nature and

developed improvements like trails or campgrounds do not exist. If the trails are constructed, any future

projects would need to mitigate impacts to the trails and be sensitive of the single track trail experience

and not widen or alter the narrow trail corridor. Mitigating impacts to the trail system would be relatively

easy through design criteria and the involvement of recreation personnel when future projects are being

proposed or implemented.


25

Wildlife ______________________________________________

Introduction

The purpose of this section of the document is to present the analysis and determination of effects of the

alternatives on federally listed species (endangered, threatened, and proposed), Forest Service sensitive

species (FSM 2670.31-2670.32) and Management Indicator Species (1982 Planning Rule 36 CFR

219.19(a) (6)). The objective is to establish a standard format to complete required analysis for these

species or species groups.

This biological evaluation report (BE) conforms to legal requirements set forth under section 7 of the

Endangered Species Act (ESA) (19 U.S.C. 1536 (c), 50 CFR 402.12 (f) and 402.14). Section 7(a) (1) of

the ESA requires federal agencies to use their authorities to further the conservation of listed species.

Section 7(a) (2) requires that federal agencies ensure any action they authorize, fund, or carry out is not

likely to jeopardize the continued existence of federally-listed species, or destroy or adversely modify

designated critical habitat.

Forest Service policy requires that a review of programs and activities, through an effects analysis

document (referred to in current Forest Service policy as a biological evaluation or BE), be conducted to

determine their potential effect on threatened and endangered species, species proposed for listing, and

Regional Forester-designated sensitive species (FSM 2670.3). Under the ESA, the effects analysis report

is called a biological assessment (BA) and must be prepared for federal actions that are “major

construction activities” to evaluate the potential effects of the proposal on listed or proposed species and

critical habitats. The contents of the BA are at the discretion of the federal agency, and will depend on the

nature of the federal action (50 CFR 402.12(f)). A BE may be used to satisfy the ESA requirement to

prepare a Biological Assessment. Preparation of a Biological Evaluation as part of the NEPA process

ensures that Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, and Sensitive (TEPS) species receive full consideration

in the decision-making process.

The 1982 Planning Rule 36 CFR 219.19(a) (6) related to Management Indicator Species (MIS) requires

the Forest Service to produce a unique list of species to represent Forest communities or ecosystems.

These species and the ecosystems in which they represent must be considered for each project to evaluate

consistency with the Forest Plan. MIS and ecosystems they represent are listed on Page 38.

This document is also intended to display types of information specific to analyzing projects under the

Southern Rockies Lynx Management Direction (SRLA). The aim is to help ensure that the appropriate

information is used in the effects analysis and provided to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service that leads to

streamlined consultations on SRLA projects.

The current Colorado Field Office County List (US Fish and Wildlife Service), updated 1/18/201, has

been reviewed. This document lists the threatened, endangered, proposed, and candidate species that are

present or within the historical range of Montrose County. The Rocky Mountain Region Endangered,

Threatened, Proposed, and Sensitive Species list (US Forest Service) has also been reviewed. This

document lists species that are known or likely to occur on the GMUG National Forest.

Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed Species and Designated Critical Habitat Consider And

Analyzed

The following list includes threatened, endangered, and proposed species, and/or designated critical

habitat that are located on the Norwood Ranger District for the GMUG National Forest, or that are located


26

adjacent to or downstream of the project and could potentially be affected. A pre-field review was

conducted of available information to assemble occurrence records, describe habitat needs and ecological

requirements, and determine whether field reconnaissance is needed to complete the analysis. Sources of

information included Forest Service records and files, the State Natural Heritage Program database, state

wildlife agency information, and published research.

Candidate species have sufficient information on their biological status and threats to warrant a proposal

to list as Endangered or Threatened, but development of a listing regulation is precluded by other higher

priority listing activities. Species that are candidates for listing under the ESA are automatically placed on

the Region 2 Regional Forester’s sensitive species list. The analysis and determination of effects for

candidate species are included as part of the biological evaluation for sensitive species (the next section of

this document).

No further analysis is needed for species that are not known or suspected to occur in the project area, and

for which no suitable habitat is present. The following table documents the rationale for excluding a

species. If suitable but unoccupied habitat is present, then additional survey is needed, or presence can be

assumed and potential effects evaluated.

Common

Name

Scientific

Name Status

Known or

Suspected

to be

present?

Suitable

habitat

present?

Designated Critical

Habitat present or

could be affected?

Rationale if not

carried forward

for analysis

Mexican

spotted owl

Strix

occidentalis

lucida

Threatened Yes Yes No

Uncompahgre

Fritillary

butterfly

Boloria

acrocnema Endangered No No

Occurs at high

elevation/ tundra

habitat. No habitat

in or near project

area.

Canada lynx Lynx

canadensis Threatened No No No

No LAUs or

linkage habitat in

or near the project

area

North

American

wolverine

Gulo gulo Candidate No No No

Not known to occur

in or near the

project area

Gunnison

sage grouse

Centrocercus

minimus Candidate Yes Yes No

Gunnison's

prairie dog

Cynomys

gunnisoni Candidate No No No

Not known to occur

in or near the

project area

Consultation To Date

There is no consultation history in association with this project.

SPECIES INFORMATION

Mexican Spotted Owl Strix occidentalis lucida


27

The Mexican spotted owl currently occupies a broad geographic area, but it does not occur uniformly

throughout its range. The overall distribution includes portions of Utah, Colorado, New Mexico, and

Arizona in the United States, and the central mountains of northern Mexico. Within this geographic area,

the Mexican spotted owl occurs in disjunct localities that correspond to isolated mountain systems and

canyons.

Mexican spotted owls nest, roost, forage, and disperse in a wide variety of habitat types. Habitat-use

patterns vary throughout the range with respect to owl activity. In the northern portion of the range,

including southern Utah, southern Colorado, and far northern Arizona and New Mexico, owls occur

primarily in steep-walled, rocky canyons.

Suitable habitats in and around the GMUG National Forest are associated with the larger canyon systems

of the Uncompahgre Plateau and Naturita Division. Beginning in 1990, systematic surveys were

conducted on State and federal lands to locate Mexican spotted owls. Much of the suitable canyon habitat

was completely surveyed at that time but no owls were located. Since then, the GMUG National Forest

has continued to conduct project level surveys according to established protocol to search for the presence

of Mexican spotted owls. None have been located on or adjacent to the Forest. The closest known

populations are in Mesa Verde National Park.

Suitable canyon habitat is located on the eastern edge of the Burn Canyon fire. This suitable habitat

includes the Naturita Canyon from the upper forks to the Forest boundary. This canyon has been

repeatedly surveyed for the presence of Mexican spotted owls since 1993. The latest survey period was

the 2001 and 2002 field seasons. No Mexican spotted owls were located before, during, or after the fire

in 2002.

EXISTING CONDITIONS

Suitable habitat exists in Naturita Canyon from the upper forks to the Forest boundary. The project area

is primarily a ponderosa pine eco-type with some oak and sage brush as understory vegetation. The

project area is on a plateau above Naturita Canyon.

Thunder Road goes through the northern portion of the project area and the East Naturita Road bisects the

southern portion of the project area. Currently non-system roads stem off of these two system roads and

are being accessed by unauthorized users. Due to topographical boundaries, unauthorized motorized

access does not occur in Naturita Canyon. Access to the canyon is primarily on horseback or via foot

travel.


Alternative 1 (No Action)

Direct Effects and Indirect Effects:

Implementing travel management in the area would help reduce the risk of motorized vehicles eventually

accessing Naturita Canyon and having a direct effect on Spotted owl habitat.

It is possible that unauthorized motorized use could eventually make it into Naturita Canyon and affect

spotted owl habitat. Over time this has not occurred as of yet. Access to the canyon would continue via

horseback and foot travel. There would be no indirect effects associated with this alternative on the

spotted owl or its habitat.


28



The effects will be broken down into proposed management actions associated with this alternative

including: creating single track trails, implementing levels 1-5 of road decommissioning, dispersed

camping, Thunder Road and East Naturita Road and the proposed trailhead parking/ camping pod.

Single Track Trails

The proposed network of single track trails would be located near Thunder Road and on the top of the

bench and out of Naturita Canyon. It is possible that some disturbance could occur to Mexican spotted

owls in relation to noise from motor bikes using the trail system along the edge of the canyon.

Thunder Road

Thunder Road is on the bench above Naturita Canyon and does not affect Spotted owl habitat. There

would be no direct or indirect effects associated with this portion of the alternative.

Trailhead Parking Area and Camping Pod

The parking area and camping pod would be on the bench above Naturita Canyon and near Mexican

Draw on Thunder Road. There would be no direct or indirect effects to Mexican spotted owls or its

habitat.

Travel Management and Route Decommissioning

Implementing travel management in the area would help reduce the risk of motorized vehicles eventually

accessing Naturita Canyon and having a direct effect on Mexican spotted owl habitat.


The primary objective of Alternative 3 is to meet the trail and travel management objectives described

under Alternative 2 while keeping FSR 609 open to all motorized vehicles to address public concerns.

Single Track Trails

Same as described under Alternative 2.

Thunder Road

The effects to the spotted owl would be similar to Alternative 2. This road is above Naturita Canyon and

out of potential habitat.

Trailhead Parking Area

A new trailhead parking area and dispersed camping pod would be constructed as described under

Alternative 2.

Thunder Road and East Naturita Road Camping

Designating dispersed camping sites would reduce any possible impacts from campers dispersing further

from the system roads and camping along the canyon rim.



Alternative 4 (Enhance Big Game Security)


29

Single Track Trails


.

Thunder Road

Each fall, elk and deer migrate from the Lone Cone area down to lower elevation winter range in the

Naturita Division. Many animals travel through the project area to reach Naturita Canyon. Under

Alternative 4, closing 3.5 miles of Thunder Road would reduce disturbance to migrating big game,

enhancing their habitat security.

Thunder Road and East Naturita Road Camping




All activities with this alternative will occur above Naturita canyon rim and will not hinder or threaten

habitat in the canyon bottom.

Cumulative Effects:

Cumulative effects associated with the Mexican spotted owl and its habitat would be minimal. No current

management activities would occur in Naturita Canyon. Some access via horseback and foot travel does

occur and more so occurs during the fall hunting season. Some livestock grazing does occur in and

around the canyon but other activities are limited due to limited access. Naturita canyon is a roadless area

but the benches are not.

Determinations Of Effect and Rationale:

Based on the direct, indirect and cumulative impacts, it is the Wildlife Biologist’s determination that this

project will have No Effect on the spotted owl or its potential habitat. This determination is the same for

all four alternatives. Nothing in any of the alternatives will change the impacts to this species. Surveys

have been conducted in the identified Mexican spotted owl habitat and no individuals have been

identified. The Southern portion of the GMUG National Forest is the extreme Northern portion of its

potential range.

SENSITIVE SPECIES CONSIDERED IN THE ANALYSIS:

The following list includes sensitive species, or their habitats, that are located on the GMUG National

Forest. A pre-field review was conducted of available information to assemble occurrence records,

describe habitat needs and ecological requirements, and determine whether field reconnaissance is needed

to complete the analysis. Sources of information included Forest Service records and files, the State

Natural Heritage Program database, state wildlife agency information, and published research.

No further analysis is needed for species that are not known or suspected to occur in the project area, and

for which no suitable habitat is present. Please refer to the table shown in Appendix B that documents the

rationale for excluding a species. In the table, if suitable but unoccupied habitat is present, then potential

effects are evaluated.


30

Sensitive Species Information

Northern Goshawk Accipiter gentilis

Goshawks utilize primarily coniferous and deciduous forest habitat, especially in mountains. In the West,

goshawks commonly nest in the lower portions of mature Douglas-fir, ponderosa pine, lodgepole pine, or

aspen canopies, and prefer old-growth structure. Preferred habitat on the Uncompahgre National Forest

appears to be large blocks of mature and old growth aspen, mixed aspen and spruce-fir, spruce-fir with

remnant open crowned aspen trees, lodgepole pine, or ponderosa pine. Nesting and post fledgling habitat

areas are most dependent upon large un-fragmented blocks of mature or old growth forest. Nest trees are

large, opened crowned trees with large limbs which can provide a base for their stick nest. Nests are

typically two to four feet in diameter, located against the trunk 30 to 60 feet above the ground, and consist

of small to large twigs. The same nest may be used for several seasons.

Local Forest and Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory data include the occasional presence of nesting

goshawks within and adjacent to the project area. Following the 2002 Burn Canyon fire, surveys

documented nesting goshawks in unburned areas of ponderosa pine forest. An active and successful nest

was located east of Naturita Canyon in 2005 and again in 2009.

The project area is comprised primarily of ponderosa pine forest of varying age classes. Some aspen

patches to occur amongst the ponderosa. Sage brush openings and meadows are common in the project

area. The pine understory is mostly open and free of dense brush and so would provide adequate for

hunting of prey.

Additional surveys will be conducted during the FY 11 field season. Known nest territories will be

surveyed for activity and any reports of goshawk nests or individual sightings will be further surveyed to

confirm.

Sage Sparrow Amphispiza belli

Sage sparrows winter in the southwestern United States and adjacent Mexico, in creosote bush and

saltbrush habitats. They breed in the Great Basin from the Columbia and Snake Rivers to southern

Nevada, east to the Continental Divide and Four Corners. Records from the Colorado Breeding Bird

Atlas show that sage sparrows occur on the western edge of the State, and in the San Luis Valley. It

indicates that sage sparrows do not nest as high as their obligate plant, sagebrush, grows. Extensive

sagebrush in Middle Park, North Park, the Roan Plateau, and upper Glade Park do not support breeding

populations. Breeding bird surveys on the GMUG National Forest document their occurrence in

sagebrush plant communities. There are no site-specific records of this species within the project area.

The sage sparrow is a sagebrush obligate species, selecting only sizeable, low-elevation stands of big

sagebrush or mixed sagebrush and greasewood. Atlas records reveal that high-country sagebrush and

plains sandsage, plentiful in Colorado, do not make suitable nesting habitat, nor do sagebrush parks of 30

acres or less.

Sage sparrows begin to return to Colorado in February and reach full numbers in Mid-April. Unusual

among songbirds, they arrive on the nesting territory in pairs. Males with mates defend larger territories

that unpaired males. Courtship continues into early June, followed by nest building and egg laying. A

cup-nest is built around the mid-section of a sagebrush plant.

Gunnison sage grouse Centrocercus minimus

The Gunnison sage grouse is a unique species of sage grouse that occurs in nine highly fragmented

populations in scattered locations in southwest Colorado and southeast Utah. The largest area of


31

contiguous distribution and, consequently, population size of this species is in the Gunnison Basin. The

other larger populations are located in the San Miguel Basin, the Crawford area, and the Glade

Park/Pinyon Mesa area. Smaller populations are located on Sims Mesa, Poncha Pass, Dove

Creek/Monticello, and Cimarron.

Sage grouse are dependent upon sagebrush (Artemesia spp.), primarily subspecies of big sagebrush

(Artemesia tridentata), and do not occur throughout the year where an abundance of this shrub are absent.

The trend in habitat quality has declined over time on both public and private lands. In many locations,

key components of the sagebrush ecosystem are either insufficient or have been altered. Over the years

many factors have had a role in affecting sage grouse habitat conditions. The general trend in untreated

sagebrush ecosystems has been an increase in the age and density of sagebrush, and a corresponding

decrease in grass and forb cover. Livestock grazing on these sites often removes the available herbaceous

vegetation and results in a lack of residual cover for nesting hens and their broods.

Wet meadows and riparian areas used for brood rearing are also primary foraging areas for livestock.

Concentrated grazing use has caused a downward trend in vegetative composition and productivity.

Those sites with springs have commonly been developed as stock ponds removing native habitat and

attracting additional livestock grazing use.

Populations of Gunnison sage grouse occur primarily on private lands and public lands administered by

the Bureau of Land Management. Populations of the Gunnison sage grouse in the Gunnison Basin and

San Miguel Basin utilize portions of the GMUG National Forest. The project area includes occupied and

suitable habitat for the San Miguel Basin population of Gunnison sage grouse.

Sage grouse lek counts conducted in the San Miguel Basin are sporadic and inconsistent from 1976 to

1998. The data available does indicate that the present distribution of sage grouse has decreased

dramatically from the historic distribution. During the last several years, the population trend seems to be

declining. Survey efforts since 1997 have increased. Surveys in 2010 indicate that Gunnison sage grouse

are now known to occur on twelve lek sites within the San Miguel Basin but only five showed signs of

activity. During the spring of 2010, a high count of 25 males was recorded on five of the known lek sites.

Just 5 years ago in 2005 a high count of 68 males was recorded on 9 of the known lek sites.

Olive-sided flycatcher Contopus cooperi

Olive-sided flycatchers breed in the boreal forests from Alaska to Newfoundland, and in the mountains of

the western United States. They winter from Mexico south to Peru. In Colorado they breed in the western

mountains from 7,000 to 11,000 feet. District breeding bird surveys have documented the presence of

olive-sided flycatchers within the project area.

Olive-sided flycatchers commonly breed in the solitude of the forests where two basic components are

present: snags and conifers. They often inhabit parts of the forest with natural clearings, bogs, stream and

lake shores with water-killed trees, and logged areas with standing dead trees. In much of their range

these flycatchers breed in old growth coniferous forests with nearby water. They occur less frequently

and less abundantly in deciduous or mixed aspen/conifer forests. Records in the Colorado Breeding Bird

Atlas confer a preference for conifer-dominated habitats, followed by aspen, ponderosa pine, and

pinyon/juniper woodland. Breeding Bird records seem to suggest that olive-sided flycatchers depend

more on forest structure than on tree species composition. They appear to prefer tall exposed perches

near openings.

Olive-sided flycatchers typically arrive on their breeding territories in late May. Once established, the

breeding territory is aggressively defended by the male. Nests are generally located high in the trees, and


32

hid among the clusters of needles and twigs. Incubation takes 16-17 days and young fledge in 21-24

days.

Lewis’ Woodpecker Melanerpes lewis

Strictly a species of western North America, the Lewis’ woodpecker breeds from Colorado west to the

Pacific and from southern British Columbia to Arizona and New Mexico. In Colorado the Lewis’

woodpecker currently occupies the southern portion of the State and along the edge of the Front Range

from Denver to Wyoming. Surveys on the GMUG National Forest have documented their occurrence on

the Uncompahgre Plateau and portions of the Gunnison dominated by ponderosa pine forest habitat.

Local Forest and Colorado Natural Heritage Program data does not include records of Lewis’ woodpecker

within the project area.

During the breeding season Lewis’ woodpeckers feed almost exclusively on emergent insects rather than

on the grubs other woodpeckers normally eat. As woodpeckers that specialize in flycatching, they need

open habitats for foraging. They prefer open-grown ponderosa pine forests, burnt-over areas with

abundant snags and stumps, riparian and rural cottonwoods, and pinyon/juniper woodlands.

Preferred nesting sites are soft snags that can be easily excavated. This species nests in colonies, sharing

the same nest tree with several other nesting pairs. They form permanent pair bonds and show strong nest

fidelity. Lewis’ woodpeckers do not migrate to warmer climates but rather move to different localities.

Their diet shifts from insects to berries, seeds, and acorns which they cache in holes and crevices near

their nest sites.

Brewer’s Sparrow Spizella breweri

The distribution of the Brewer’s sparrow is roughly correlated to the North American range of big

sagebrush. The winter range of Brewer’s sparrows spans from Death Valley to west-central Texas, and

south through western Mexico to Jalisco and Guanajuato. Immediately north of this, their sagebrush

summer range reaches into three western provinces of Canada. In Colorado they are concentrated in the

State’s greatest sagebrush counties, Moffat, Rio Blanco, Jackson, and Gunnison. Breeding Bird Atlas

records document the presence of this species in Montrose County as well. There are no site-specific

records of Brewer’s sparrows within the project area.

The Brewer’s sparrow is a sagebrush obligate species. Habitat characteristics correlated with dense

populations include a dominance of stands of moderate-density big sagebrush of mid-height, with high

forb cover, low grass cover, and some horizontal diversity. In this sagebrush community, Brewer’s

sparrows feed in the foliage of the shrubs.

Brewer’s sparrows start to arrive in Mid-April with full numbers at the end of the month. Prolific singing

occurs until pair bonding, then singing decreases. Depending on weather conditions, they begin nesting

late (mid-May to late June) and nest only once each season. The female lays 3-5 eggs in a ground nest.

Incubation takes 16-17 days and young fledge in 21-24 days.

EXISTING CONDITIONS

The project area includes NFS lands within the boundaries of the Naturita Division of the Norwood

Ranger District, east of Naturita Creek canyon. This portion of the District is dominated by ponderosa

pine forest, Gambel oak, and some Pinyon and Juniper woodland. There are also areas of sagebrush

adjacent to the Forest that extend into the National Forest, as well as inclusions of sagebrush or grass

meadows in the ponderosa pine, pinyon-juniper, and oak.


33

Most of the project area is dominated by ponderosa pine with a oak/ mountain brush understory. Portions

have been treated with under burning and some timber harvest.

Only six system roads (FSR 609, 610.1A, 634, 642, 644 and 651) are identified in the project area. Many

nonsystem roads are present off of these system roads including the base transportation system and

numerous collector and local roads used for timber harvest, structural range improvements, and used by

hunters during hunting season.

The 2002 Record of Decision for the Uncompahgre National Forest Travel Management Plan includes a

seasonal area closure for the entire Naturita Division that is designed to protect big game on their winter

range. This seasonal restriction has only been partially implemented and inconsistently managed. The

area is usually open to public travel for most of the year. Snow and mud conditions primarily determine

public use. This use is typically with full-size vehicles and ATV’s. A gate on Thunder Road is in place

and is closed around the 1st of December and remains closed until road conditions improve and the

roadbed is dry enough to sustain full-sized vehicle use in the spring. There are very limited snowmobile

opportunities in the project area. Road #609 and #642 are identified as open for snowmobile use but

snowmobiles are not allowed off the road for cross country travel due to the winter range restrictions.


Direct and Indirect Effects

All Alternatives

None of the alternatives identified in the proposed action would have any direct or indirect effects on

Lewis’ Woodpecker or the Olive-sided flycatcher. These habitats are currently not be affected by current

use and would not likely be effected in the near future by any activities associated with this project.

Snags and standing trees are not going to be affected or removed unless they are identified as a hazard to

public health and safety in which case it would be necessary to remove.

Alternative One (No Action)

This alternative could possibly impact the local population of Gunnison sage grouse in the identified

habitat along and near the East Naturita Road. Dispersed camping could occur and may likely extend

beyond the 300 ft zone and into some of the sage parks. This disturbance could hinder any sage grouse

from using that habitat. Some non-system routes go through the sage brush habitat and without the use of

level 5 decommissioning the unauthorized use of these routes would likely continue to occur which could

impact any ground nesting birds and impact local populations.

If any use occurred on the non-system routes this could impact Goshawks during nesting season.

Goshawks are susceptible to human disturbance during nesting and have abandoned nests in other areas

due to disturbance. Without being able to use level 5 decommissioning on some of the non-system

routes, unauthorized use would likely occur.


Though Thunder Road would be closed to full sized vehicles (aside from any administrative use or

authorized use for access to private lands) the road would still be available and become a portion of the

single track trail system. Impacts to wildlife would be similar to Alternative 1 in relation to this road and

noise disturbance would continue. With the construction of the single track trail, noise disturbance would


34

increase as motorcycle use increases. This could potentially affect nesting birds (raptors and neo-tropical

migratory birds) that utilize the various habitats in the project area. Nesting of most birds occurs from

May 1 through June. By the end of June, most juveniles have fledged and are able to fly to avoid any

disturbances.

Dispersed camping would only be allowed in the designated dispersed cluster near the trailhead on

Thunder Road. This would reduce the effects of any camping that may extend beyond the 300 ft corridor

along system roads. Many non-system roads in the area were created by dispersed camping.

Decommissioning of these roads and others would increase habitat effectiveness and use for a variety of

wildlife species.

Along the East Naturita Road, dispersed camping would only be allowed in designated areas. Non-

system routes would be decommissioned. This would increase habitat effectiveness and use in this area

by a variety of wildlife species. Protecting the larger portions of sage brush in the vicinity is important

because it serves as brood rearing habitat for local Gunnison sage grouse. Brewer’s Sparrows and Sage

Sparrows also nest in sagebrush and are highly dependent on this ecotype.


The only differences between this alternative and alternative 2 are as follows. Thunder Road would

remain open to full-sized vehicles to the end where a road barrier would be placed to restrict unauthorized

use of/or the creation of nonsystem routes at the end. The road would still remain closed from November

16 through April 30 for soft road bed and wildlife protection. Dispersed camping would only be allowed

in designated areas along road Thunder Road. All other aspects and effects are the same as Alternative 2

described above.

Full-sized vehicles are currently allowed on Thunder Road and have pushed beyond the identified

terminus of the road. Constructing a barrier at the identified terminus of the road would reduce impacts of

unauthorized routes beyond the end point.

Dispersed camping would be allowed in “designated” areas only along the first two miles of Thunder

Road beyond the new trailhead parking area. This would reduce the impacts of campers driving beyond

300 feet from the road. Designated dispersed camping would reduce impacts to wildlife in the area caused

by disturbance.

Alternative 4: (Emphasize Big Game Security)

All portions of this alternative are the same as alternative #2 except that the Thunder Road closure gate

would be located just beyond the Portis private land. In addition, Trail loops C and D would have an

earlier closure date (November 1) with the objective of helping to protect migrating and wintering wildlife

in the area.

The entire Naturita division is identified as big game winter range. Elk and mule deer migrate through the

project area and some reside there during the winter months. As snow recedes in the spring, the elk and

deer move up in elevation to summer range. The earlier seasonal restriction for Trail Loops C and D

would not only benefit big game but would also benefit other wildlife species that are susceptible to

disturbance.

Disturbance from the motorized single track trail system would be the same as describe in alternatives 2

and 3. This disturbance could displace individual species from a given distance of the trail. Nesting birds


35

would likely avoid close proximity to the trail system, thus reducing the effectiveness of some habitats in

the project area.

Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects include the incremental impacts of the action when added to other past, present, and

reasonably foreseeable actions.

The project area is entirely on NFS lands. San Miguel County does maintain the base transportation

system within the project area for the Forest Service under an agreement. The County road crew

maintains these roads according to USFS specifications.

Adjacent to the project area is the Dan Noble State Wildlife Area. The Miramonte Reservoir receives the

primary use. This reservoir provides fishing, water skiing, and overnight camping. The State Wildlife

Area contains suitable habitat for the Gunnison sage grouse, including a primary lek area for the San

Miguel Basin population. The CDOW emphasizes research and habitat protection for this species on the

property.

Private lands adjacent to the project area are primarily used as rangeland for larger cattle operations in the

area. Some private home development is occurring near the south end of the Forest. No new homes are

under construction in this area at this time.

Vegetation treatments are likely to occur in and near the project area on NFS lands. Treatments would

include but not be limited to: timber harvest, prescribed burning, mechanical treatments of understory

vegetation and seeding with native seeds to enhance some habitats. These projects would be analyzed

according to NEPA and the public would be able to comment on each project as it is identified.

The Naturita Division has received numerous wildfires in the past and that is likely to continue. These

fires effect habitats based on severity and duration of the fire. Several fires have been managed for

resource benefit and have improved portions of habitat in the area. Managed wildfires will continue to be

a component in the vegetation management on forest system lands.

Determination of Effect and Rationale


This alternative may adversely impact individuals, but would not be likely to result in a loss of viability in

the Planning Area, nor cause a trend toward federal listing for the following species: Northern Goshawk,

Sage Sparrow, Gunnison sage grouse and Brewer’s Sparrow.

Rationale

Habitats for the identified species could be impacted by unauthorized use of non-system roads and trails

in the project area. Levels 1-4 decommissioning have been used in the past in the area and have not

proven to be effective in preventing use of these routes. As use increases, more non-system routes would

likely be created or existing ones extended further into the habitats reducing effectiveness in the area.


This alternative would have no impact on Gunnison sage grouse. This alternative may adversely impact

individuals, but it would not be likely to result in a loss of viability in the Planning Area, nor cause a trend

toward federal listing for: Northern Goshawk, Sage Sparrow and Brewer’s Sparrow.


36

Rationale

Gunnison sage grouse habitat has been identified and design features have kept any trail development

from occurring in these areas. Also with road decommissioning, any non-system route that may be in

sage grouse habitat would be closed to further protect the area from disturbance.

Northern Goshawks, Sage Sparrows and Brewer’s Sparrows are likely to nest in and near the project area.

Some sage parks that are not Gunnison sage grouse habitat are still considered to be Sage and Brewer’s

Sparrow habitat. The design features of the trail prevent it from crossing through open meadows to keep

users on the trail system. However any sagebrush areas adjacent to the trail system could be impacted by

noise disturbance.

Disturbance associated with Thunder Road would occur because even though it would be closed to full-

sized vehicles, administrative use and motorcycle use would still be allowed. Thunder Road would still

be considered a motorized route in association to impacts on wildlife.

Northern Goshawks have been identified as nesting in the area and in ponderosa pine stands. Noise

disturbance associated with the new trail system could impact nesting birds and cause them to avoid

certain areas and habitat.

Dispersed camping would occur in designated areas only and would reduce impacts to less desirable sites

that could have a greater impact on habitat effectiveness.

Road decommissioning associated with this project would be of benefit to all wildlife species. Reducing

impacts from unauthorized use of non-system routes would improve habitats and habitat use by various

species.





Rationale

The impacts associated with this alternative are the same as alternative 2 for sensitive species. Even

though Thunder Road would be opened to full-sized vehicles, the impacts would be similar because

nonsystem routes would be decommissioned. Thunder Road would remain as a motorized route.





Rationale

The impacts associated with this alternative are the same as alternative 2 for sensitive species. Even

though a portion of Thunder Road would be opened to full-sized vehicles, the impacts would be similar

because nonsystem routes would be decommissioned. Thunder Road would remain as a motorized route.


37

MANAGEMENT INDICATOR SPECIES

The 1982 Planning Rule 36 CFR 219.19(a) (6) related to Management Indicator Species (MIS) requires

the Forest Service to produce a unique list of species to represent Forest communities or ecosystems.

These species and the ecosystems in which they represent must be considered for each project to evaluate

consistency with the Forest Plan. MIS and ecosystems they represent include:

Common trout (aquatic and riparian ecosystems)

Abert’s squirrel (ponderosa pine ecosystems)

American Marten (late seral spruce-fir and lodgepole pine ecosystems)

Northern goshawk (aspen, aspen w/ conifer and mixed conifer)

Rocky Mountain elk (gambel oak/pj ecosystems and road/transportation impacts)

Red-naped sapsucker (aspen ecosystems)

Merriam’s turkey (gambel oak/pj ecosystems)

Brewer’s sparrow (sagebrush ecosystems)

Species or Species Groups Identification

Two MIS were analyzed in the sensitive species section and further analysis will not be necessary for the

Brewer’s Sparrow and the Northern Goshawk. Because this project does involve transportation impacts,

further analysis for Rocky Mountain elk is necessary. Forest-level species assessments were completed

for all MIS. The assessments determined what is known about a species on a forest-wide scale.

Rocky Mountain elk are a prized game species and hunted by sportsmen. The project area is within GMU

(Game Management Unit) #70 and offers a wide variety of hunting opportunities for elk and other

species. GMU #70 is a general opportunity unit and is very popular for sportsmen for hunting

opportunities from turkey in the spring to elk in the fall. The project area is identified as big game winter

range but a smaller resident population of elk does occur in and around the project area.

EXISTING CONDITIONS

The project area is within Management prescription area 7A which primarily focuses on wood fiber

production. Semi-primitive motorized and non-motorized recreation is also a focus of this prescription.

Forest direction for management indicator species in prescription 7A states to manage for MIS habitat.

General forest plan direction for MIS in particular mule deer and elk states to, “provide hiding cover

within 1000 feet of any known calving/fawning areas.”

The forest plan also states that, “ In forested areas, maintain deer or elk cover on 60 percent or more of the

perimeter of all natural and created openings, and along at least 60 percent of each arterial and collector

road that has high levels of human use during the time deer and elk would be expected to inhabit an area.”

The project area is not within 1000 feet of a known calving or fawning area. Fawning and calving is

likely to occur on the Naturita division but not in the immediate vicinity of the proposed project area.

Current travel management direction protects known fawning and calving areas with seasonal closures

and motorized restrictions. This will not change with the implementation of this project.

A seasonal restriction is in place along roads #609 and #642, which allows for full sized vehicles to access

these routes from April 15th through December 1st. Snowmobiles are allowed during this period but only

on the designated routes.



38

Direct and Indirect Effects


Under this alternative a trail system would not be constructed and travel management would be limited to

levels 1-4 for decommissioning. Decommissioning of non-system routes has occurred in and near the

project area using levels 1-4 with mixed results. Some routes have been effectively closed but others

remain open and seem to be expanding. The use of level 5 decommissioning would help decrease the rate

of use of these non-system routes. This alternative would not make level 5 decommissioning available.

This would have a direct effect to habitat effectiveness for elk and other species in the area.

The current seasonal restriction would still be in place to reduce impacts to wintering big game species.


A new single track trail system would be constructed around road #609 and that road would become a

portion of the single-track trail. The route would also be maintained as an administrative use route. A

total of 17.5 miles of single-track trail would be available from May 1st through November 15th. This

additional trail does not exceed the travel route densities identified in the forest plan for habitat

effectiveness. The seasonal restriction on the travel system in the project area is longer than currently

identified. This would help with impacts and pressures associated with hunting in the fall as well as

during the winter months and early spring. With the longer closure, elk would remain on public lands

longer and not be pressured to private lands as early in the winter.

It is difficult to predict the level of use this new trail system would have. As popularity for the system

grows, so will its use. As use of the trail system increases, so will the impacts to habitat effectiveness to

the resident populations.

Dispersed camping would be restricted to designated areas only, which would reduce the number of

campers in the area at any given time and would reduce impacts from ever expanding non-system routes

that lead to dispersed camping areas.

Level 5 road decommissioning would be available for use on frequently used non-system routes. This

would help increase security habitat and reduce impacts to elk.


This alternative is similar to alternative 2 except that Thunder Road would remain open to full-sized

vehicles during the season of use (May 1- November 15). This route would still be considered a

motorized route. Habitat effectiveness thresholds would not be exceeded with this alternative.


With this alternative only 5.5 miles of Thunder Road would remain open to full-sized vehicles. Closing

the main road to full-sized vehicles would decrease the amount of use of the road thus increasing habitat

security in the project area. The remainder of the road system would still be available to single-track

motorcycles and also for administrative use. There would be no reduction in system routes with this

alternative but like the other action alternatives, non-system routes would be decommissioned using levels

1-5 as appropriate. Habitat effectiveness thresholds would not be exceeded with this alternative.


39

The longer seasonal restriction (November 1st through May 1st) on the travel system south of the Portis

Property (Trail Loops C and D) would increase big game security and animals would be more likely to

stay on public lands longer during the early winter months which would reduce impacts from big game to

adjacent landowners. This closure would include motorized and mechanized vehicles. Foot and horse

traffic would be the only things allowed. More winter use occurs further west on the Naturita Division

where the Burn Canyon fire occurred. More suitable winter range exists in this area. Migrating

populations do move through the project area to more suitable winter range to the west. A small portion

of animals do remain in the project area and winter there or on adjacent private lands.

Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects include the incremental impacts of the action when added to other past, present, and

reasonably foreseeable actions.

The project area is on NFS lands. San Miguel County does maintain the base transportation system

within the project area for the Forest Service under an agreement. The County road crew maintains these

roads according to USFS specifications.

Adjacent to the project area is the Dan Noble State Wildlife Area. The Miramonte Reservoir receives the

primary use. This reservoir provides fishing, water skiing, and overnight camping. The State Wildlife

Area contains suitable habitat for the Gunnison sage grouse, including a primary lek area for the San

Miguel Basin population. The CDOW emphasizes research and habitat protection for this species on the

property.

Private lands adjacent to the project area are primarily used as rangeland for larger cattle operations in the

area. Some private home development is occurring near the south end of the Forest. No new homes are

under construction in this area at this time.

Vegetation treatments are likely to occur in and near the project area on NFS lands. Treatments would

include but not be limited to: timber harvest, prescribed burning, mechanical treatments of understory

vegetation and seeding with native seeds to enhance some habitats. These projects would be analyzed

according to NEPA and the public would be able to comment on each project as it is identified.

The Naturita division has received numerous wildfires in the past and that is likely to continue. These

fires effect habitats based on severity and duration of the fire. Several fires have been managed for

resource benefit and have improved portions of habitat in the area. Managed wildfires will continue to be

a component in the vegetation management on forest system lands.

Consistency with Forest Plan Direction

This project falls primarily within management prescriptions 7A which manages for wood fiber

production but also allows for semi-primitive motorized and non-motorized recreation. Road and trail

densities will not increase to threshold levels for the area under the proposed action. This project is a

means for managing motorized recreation in the project area and increasing single-track trail experiences

closer to the town of Norwood. Recreation opportunities are being improved through this project but

overall the management aspect is of higher value.

Responsibility For a Revised Biological Evaluation

This Biological Evaluation was prepared based on presently available information. If the action is

modified in a manner that causes effects not considered, or if new information becomes available that

reveals that the action may impact endangered, threatened, proposed, or sensitive species that in a manner

or to an extent not previously considered, a new or revised Biological Evaluation will be required.


40

Lands and Minerals ____________________________________

EXISTING CONDITIONS

In the Thunder Trails project area, the lands and minerals resource area manage the following:

Private land access - Currently there are two private landowners that cross NFS lands to access their

private property within the project area. Both landowners are eligible for access easements.

Lone Cone Ditch complex - There are three ditches in this complex. The Lone Cone Ditch, the

Skinner & Hills lateral of the Lone Cone Ditch, and the Reams lateral of the Skinner & Hills lateral.

All three ditches cross NFS lands and private lands in the project area. All three ditches are authorized

under an 1891 Act Easement.

Access to the Lone Cone Ditch complex – Currently there is motorized access to various points of the

ditch complex. These access routes will be authorized in an Operation and Maintenance Plan.

Mineral leases and associated access – Currently there are several sold gas leases within the project

area, all of which would need access to the leases. To date, none of the leases have been developed.

In the future, if these leases are developed, they will be granted motorized access to their leases.


Regardless of the alternative chosen, the private land owners and the ditch company would be afforded

motorized access to their private land or facilities. Since these entities would be using the administrative

roads differently than the general public, they would be authorized to do so under easements and

operating plans.


Private land access would continue under the current situation. Motorized easements would be issued for:

Thunder Road (FSR 609), from the Forest Boundary to the Portis property;

Administrative road, off of Thunder Road, running west to east to the private land. This road is due

north of the Portis property.

Landowners are authorized to place their locks on the existing gate for their access.

The Lone Cone Ditch complex would continue to operate in its current state regardless of the alternative

chosen. This ditch complex is authorized to reside on NFS lands via an 1891 Act Easement.

Access to the Lone Cone Ditch complex would continue. An Operation and Maintenance Plan would be

issued authorizing motorized access to the ditch complex on the administrative routes shown on the

Alternative 1 Map. Motorized access would allow 4x4 vehicles, ATVs and mini excavators for ditch

maintenance. The ditch owners would be authorized to place their lock on the new gate for their access.

Mineral leases and associated access would continue unaffected under this alternative. The mineral leases

and their associated access would be analyzed in a site specific NEPA analysis once an Application for

Permit to Drill was submitted to the Norwood Ranger District office. At that point, the placing of the drill

site and access would be closely analyzed.


41

Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) Same as described under Alternative 1.

Alternative 3 (Thunder Road Stays Open) Same as described under Alternative 1.

Alternative 4 (Emphasize Big Game Security) Same as described under Alternative 1.

In conclusion, none of the alternatives will adversely impact access to private land, permitted ditches or

mineral leases.

Cultural Resources _______________________________

EXISTING CONDITIONS

Significant prehistoric sites are located in this part of the Norwood District along Naturita Canyon. These

sites contain archaeological data relating to prehistoric and Native American use of the area, a use which

began in the Paleo-Indian times 10,000 years ago and continued until after Ute occupation in the 1800’s.

Scarred ponderosa pine trees (resulting from peeling and harvest of pine cambium), stone tools, scatters of

chipping debris, Ute brownware pottery, hearths, and rarely, brush or stone structures have been found.

The numerous small springs in the drainages that enter Naturita Canyon appear to have been important to

human activity through all the ages of occupation of the area.

The Ute frequented this area in recent centuries, likely using sites near major horse travel trails leading

south. The Uncompahgre Valley was the location of the Ute agency in the 1870’s and there is evidence

this area was used for hunting and gathering forays in the late 1800’s and early 1900’s, although the Utes

were supposed to have been forcibly relocated to Utah in 1881. More recent land uses on NFS lands in the

vicinity of the project area include timber harvesting, homesteading, cattle ranching (since the 1870’s),

and recreational uses such as camping, picnicking, and fishing in nearby reservoirs. A Forest Service

administrative site or ranger station from 1912 is located in the project area as is a standing, roofless log

cabin associated with a cowboy employed by a local ranch.

The project area has been inventoried for cultural resources. “Historic properties" as defined in the

implementing regulations for the National Historic Preservation Act were found within the proposed trail

and nonsystem route corridors (known as the “Area of Potential Effect”). In June 2011, the Colorado

State Historic Preservation office (SHPO) concurred with the inventory results and finding of No Adverse

effect for the trail construction. Native American tribal consultation is ongoing and no specific concerns

have been identified during scoping regarding this proposal. The tribes have identified all sites containing

Ute pottery and features as important to their history.

For Travel Plan implementation activities including designation of campsites and closing of nonsystem

roads, a Programmatic Agreement (PA) between the Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison Forest

and SHPO was established in 2010 to provide inventory and site treatment protocols covering travel

activities. Under this Travel PA, inventories must occur prior to all ground disturbing actions and for all

dispersed campsite designations. Any significant sites/historic properties would be treated according to a

group of options. Any option other than complete avoidance of historic properties by all ground

disturbing construction activities would require additional SHPO consultation. It is expected that all such

sites would be avoided during construction on this project.


42



With No Action, unregulated motorized travel in and around Naturita Canyon and adjacent areas would

continue.

Locations favored for present-day dispersed camping often have similar physical characteristics as sites

used for occupation by aboriginal inhabitants in this area. For this reason, the proliferation of dispersed

camping at present, as well as off highway vehicles (OHV) staging and four-wheeled vehicle use, have

the potential to impact prehistoric and Ute occupation sites in this area. Specifically, these activities could

impact sites by causing soil compaction and erosion of surface soils which could expose or damage

unrecorded or undiscovered prehistoric artifacts or evidence of cultural resources. Past unregulated

motorized use and the site disturbance associated with dispersed camping has had direct impacts on sites

in the area. These impacts would continue under the No Action Alternative.

Visitors also may visit highly visible sites such as standing cabins or other kinds of visible sites near

access routes. Visitors may create wear and tear in fragile site features, and some visitors may remove

artifacts or other keepsakes. This kind of indirect visitor impacts to sites throughout the project area

would continue. The extent of these impacts has not been analyzed and is dependent on many social,

economic, and physical variables.


Under this alternative, the construction and designation of a formal trail would cross several historic

properties. Because the site loci would be avoided by construction equipment, the new trail construction

and/or designation would be designed to have no new impacts on the sites. The funneling of single track

traffic on clearly designated routes would likely reduce off-trail use and the proliferation of unauthorized

trails seen in the area now. The posting and enforcement of off-road travel restrictions as a result of this

travel implementation would also reduce OHV use by an unquantified amount on sites in the project area.

Restricting full-sized vehicle and ATV use on Thunder Road would cut off dispersed vehicle-based

camping on 3-5 sites that show evidence of camping impacts from past visitors. New dispersed campsites

and nonsystem route closure methods would be designed to avoid historic properties and significant

archaeological sites. Road decommissioning actions would have no adverse impacts based on the

protocols of the Travel PA.

In portions of the project area, archaeological site boundaries are difficult to identify due to dense

vegetation and hazardous fuel accumulations. It is recommended that route closures be accompanied by

an archaeologist to aid in locating and protecting significant sites in the area. Identification of sites and

features that need protection and avoidance would be more effective if fuels and dead vegetation could be

reduced prior to the inventories for those travel planning activities.

Indirect impacts from visitors to visible sites along the new single track trail would be either the same as

No Action or might increase if the new trail attracted additional users to the area.



43

Under this alternative, the designation and construction of the single track trails would have the same

impacts as described in Alternative 2. The new trails would likely concentrate travel on the designated

route, thus reducing some off-road and unauthorized cross-country travel.

With Thunder Road open to all vehicle use, unauthorized off-road use by full-sized vehicles and dispersed

camping impacts to sites in the project area would be similar to those described in Alternative 1, No

action. Indirect impacts from visitors to visible sites along either Thunder Road or the new single track

trail would be either the same as No Action or might increase if the new trails attracted additional users to

the area. Road decommissioning actions would have no adverse impacts based on the protocols of the

travel PA.


Under this alternative, the designation and construction of the single track trails would have the same

impacts as described in Alternative 2. The new trails would likely concentrate travel on the designated

route, thus reducing some off-road and unauthorized cross-country travel.

With part of Thunder Road open to all vehicle use, unauthorized off-road use by full-sized vehicles and

dispersed camping impacts to sites near the open road would be similar to those described in Alternative

1, No action. Indirect impacts from visitors to visible sites along either Thunder Road or the new single

track trails would be either the same as No Action or might increase if the new trails attracted additional

users to the area. However, sites located near the part of Thunder Road to be closed would be better

protected from indirect and dispersed visitor impacts as described in Alternative 2(b). This would affect

2-3 cultural resource sites/historic properties. Road decommissioning actions would have no adverse

impacts, based on the protocols of the Travel PA.

Watershed and Soils _______________________________

EXISTING CONDITIONS

The project area is within the Naturita Creek watershed (5th level HUC) that is tributary to the San Miguel

River. The roads and trails affected by this proposed action and alternatives are all located on the bench

located east of the Naturita Creek canyon. Runoff from all of the lands affected by the Proposed Action

and alternatives would drain back to the west into Naturita Creek.

The Forest Service has recently completed the Watershed Condition Classification rating for all sub-

watersheds (6th level HUC) on the GMUG National Forests. That classification system is a way to

describe watershed conditions in three discrete categories (i.e., good, fair, and poor) that reflect the level

of watershed health and integrity. The Naturita Creek sub-watershed was rated as being in fair condition.

This rating defines the physical conditions of the landscape, hydrology and biology for this sub-watershed

relative to “potential natural conditions” and relates this to functionality of the watershed, which when

rated as fair implies the watershed may be functioning at risk.

The indicators of watershed condition that have contributed to the fair condition classification are related

to non-native aquatic species in the streams, vegetative cover, insects and disease, and presence of

invasive plants species. While invasive plant species are not desirable with respect to rangeland health

and proper biological function, they do provide important cover and tend to minimize surface erosion.

The impaired conditions relating to vegetation and weeds are believed to be an effect of a past wildfire

(2002) that affected other areas of the watershed outside the project area. The watershed conditions


44

within the project area, which is a smaller area, are more consistent with a good watershed condition

classification.

The Naturita Creek sub-watershed has several distinct landforms (e.g., canyon slopes, upland benches,

stream channels) that inherently have a range of soils and soil characteristics. The Uncompahgre Soil

Survey identifies seven different soil map units in the project area all formed from sandstone, inter-

bedded sandstones, and shales that comprise the parent geology of the area. Soils on the steeper canyon

landscapes tend to be medium textured and shallow, while the soils on the bench areas or flatter areas tend

to be finer textured and deeper. The project area is completely on the bench area and is relatively flat and

not susceptible to erosion and there is essentially no potential for sediment reaching Naturita Creek from

travel activities on the bench area. Overall, the erosion potential for soils within the project area is not

particularly high because of the topography, rainfall intensity, and vegetative cover.

Water quality in the streams draining the project area is considered to be good. None of the streams are

rated as impaired or in need of further study based on the State’s water quality standards.

ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS (Alternatives 2, 3, and 4)


Under this scenario the existing forest system roads in the project area would remain open to public

travel. These roads allow for travel by all forms of motorized vehicles and, based on the evaluations done

for the Watershed Condition Classification, have a calculated road density of one mile/square mile of area

or less. The Forest Service believes the existing roads are adequately maintained with respect to road

drainage and stream crossings based on its Watershed Condition Classification evaluations.

The running surfaces of the existing roads have compacted soils with little productivity. Because the

existing roads are located on the flatter, bench topography there is little evidence of overland erosion and

little increase in drainage density within the sub-watershed due to road side ditches and road runoff.

There are about 25 miles of user created or old non-system timber roads that have not been effectively

been closed to public travel. These roads would most likely continue to be used on occasion and would

not revegetate naturally. Under the existing travel management decision, the Forest Service could take

steps to close these non-system routes and those disturbed areas would most likely revegetate either

naturally or as a result of active management to restore those disturbed areas.

Alternatives 2, 3, and 4

The development of new single track trails for use by motorcycles and mountain bikes would create new

disturbed areas with no vegetative cover. The proposed action and alternatives would result in about 6

acres of soils that will have no vegetation and be compacted or disturbed from trail use. Under the same

proposed action and alternatives, the Forest Service would close off about 23 miles of existing nonsystem

road from public travel and take steps to restore those travel routes to more natural conditions. These

actions would potentially restore about 24 acres of disturbed and impacted soils. The newly disturbed

acreage created by the development of the single-track trails would be offset by the closure and

restoration of the existing closed routes. These actions would have minimal to no adverse effect on

erosion because of the very flat topography of the project area. The minimal lose of soil productivity

caused the development of new single track trails would not have an adverse effect on the overall

watershed function in the project area or within the sub-watershed.


45

No new trails would cross any ephemeral or perennial streams so there are no expected impacts to water

quality.

Closing routes generally has little impact on soils and erosion. Closing travel routes is generally

considered to have a long-term beneficial effect on watershed conditions.

There are some methods used to close travel routes that involve the use of heavy equipment to place rocks

as barriers, install posts and gates or construct water control structures such as berms and waterbars.

These actions would disturb soils and create some bare ground susceptible to erosion, but the long term

benefit of controlling runoff from the road surfaces far exceeds the short term impacts associated with

disturbed soils. The relatively flat topography helps to naturally minimize the erosion process associated

with disturbed soils.

Some of the closure methods are meant to decommission the travel route, meaning to return the area to

more natural conditions. These decommissioning efforts often include removal of cross drain culverts,

ripping of the compacted soils, and re-contouring the side slopes of the road to more natural gradients.

All of these more intensive closure methods associated with decommissioning have result in more

disturbed soils and bare ground. Again the potential for short term erosion is greater, but the long term

impact of decommissioning travel routes has benefit to watershed condition and should help to restore

watershed function. Under all action alternatives, disturbed soils will be reseeded and natural re-

vegetation will occur when compacted soils are restored to more natural infiltration and productivity

conditions. There are no long-term adverse effects expected with respect to erosion and soil productivity

from the road closure and decommissioning activities.

Cumulative Effects:

The project area is open to active resource management and could experience vegetation management

activities in the future as have occurred in the past. Removal of timber and treatment of vegetation for

fuels management has the potential to disturb soils and leave soils bare and susceptible to erosion. These

actions along with continued motorized travel have the potential to impact soils and soil productivity.

Because of the relatively flat topography erosion is expected to be minimal for the proposed action and

other possible land management activities. Cumulative effects on watershed conditions are not expected

to be adverse and well within the range of natural variability.

Project Cost Estimates ___________________________________

An estimate of project costs for each alternative is displayed in Appendix C. These estimates are based

on a combination of actual and projected costs for similar projects that have been implemented on

Norwood Ranger District.

CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

The Forest Service consulted the following individuals, Federal, State, and local agencies, tribes and non-

Forest Service persons during the development of this environmental assessment:

INTERDISCIPLINARY TEAM MEMBERS Eric Brantingham, Fire Management Officer

Dave Closson, Law Enforcement Officer


46

Dee Closson, Lands and Minerals Program Manager

Brian Hoefling, Rangeland Program Manager

Luke Holguin, Wildlife Biologist

Leigh-Ann Hunt, Cultural Resources Program Manager

Curtis Keetch, Wildlife Program Manager

Bob McKeever, Road and Facilities Manager

Kathy Peckham IDT Leader

Gary Shellhorn, Special Projects Planner, Water Resources

Scott Spielman, Recreation Manager

FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL AGENCIES

Bureau of Land Management, SW Colorado District

Colorado Division of Wildlife

San Miguel County, Board of County Commissioners

Town of Norwood

TRIBES

Southern Ute Indian Tribe

Ute Mountain Ute Indian Tribe

Ute Tribe of the Uintah & Ouray Reservation

OTHERS:

San Miguel Bike Alliance

West End Sledders

Colorado Wild

Sheep Mountain Alliance

Motorcycle Trail Riders Association

Thunder Mountain Wheelers

Public Access Preservation Association

West End Mountain Bike Alliance

Colorado Plateau Mountain Bike Trail Association

Uncompahgre Valley Trail Riders

Western Slope Fourwheelers

Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation

Hi Country Motorsports

Bookcliff Rattlers Motorcycle Club

Grazing Permittees

Private Landowners

Literature Cited and Forest Service Specialist Reports

Brantingham, E. 2011. Fuels Management and Fire Suppression for the Proposed Thunder Trails

Environmental Assessment. This specialist report can be found in the project planning record

located at the Norwood Ranger District Office in Norwood, Colorado.


47

Closson, D. 2011. Lands and Minerals Report for the Proposed Thunder Trails Environmental

Assessment. This specialist report can be found in the project planning record located at the

Norwood Ranger District Office in Norwood, Colorado.

Hoefling, B. 2011. Rangeland and Invasive Species Report for the Proposed Thunder Trails



Hunt, L. 2011. Cultural Resources Report for the Proposed Thunder Trails Environmental Assessment.

This specialist report can be found in the project planning record located at the Norwood Ranger


Keetch, C. 2011. Wildlife Report and Biological Assessment for the Proposed Thunder Trails



Martin, S. C. 1975. Stocking Strategies and Net Cattle Sales on Semi-Desert Range. USDA, For. Serv.

Res. Paper RM-146. 10 pp.

Shellhorn, G. 2011. Watershed and Soils Report for the Proposed Thunder Trails Environmental

Assessment. This specialist report can be found in the project planning record located at the

Norwood Ranger District Office in Norwood, Colorado.

Spielman, S. 2011. Recreation Report for the Proposed Thunder Trails Environmental Assessment. This

specialist report can be found in the project planning record located at the Norwood Ranger


USDA Forest Service. 2004. Rocky Mountain Region – TEPS Species. Regional and Unit species

lists of TEPS species. Published in Regional Supplement to FSM 2670.

USDA Forest Service. 2005. Management Indicator Species of the Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and

Gunnison National Forests. Species Assessment, Version 1.0. Delta, Colorado. November

2005.

USDA Forest Service. 2005. R2 Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species. Published in Regional

Supplement to FSM 2670.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010. Unit Species List for the Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and

Gunnison National Forests.


48

Appendix A – Alternative Maps

environmental agriculture assessmenta123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic... · 2011....

Documents