Tenderfoot Mountain Motorcycle Trail System Environmental Assessment
October, 2013
USDA Forest Service White River National Forest Dillon Ranger District
Tenderfoot Mountain Motorcycle Trail System Environmental Assessment
October 2013
White River National Forest, Dillon Ranger District Summit County, Colorado
For more information about this project contact:
Jan Cutts, Dillon District Ranger PO Box 620 Silverthorne, Colorado 80498 970.262.3451 Email: [email protected]
This project is subject to Objection pursuant to 36 CFR 218, subparts A and C.
The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, and marital or family status. (Not all prohibitions apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact the USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD).
To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 14th and Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (202) 720-5967 (voice and TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.
Tenderfoot Mtn. Trail System Environmental Assessment October 2013
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER 1.0 PROPOSED ACTION AND ITS PURPOSE AND NEED 1.1 INTRODUCTION 1.2 BACKGROUND 1.3 PROJECT AREA DESCRIPTION 1.4 SUMMARY OF THE PROPOSED ACTION 1.5 PURPOSE AND NEED 1.6 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND ISSUES 1.7 FOREST PLAN CONSISTENCY 1.8 TRAVEL MANAGEMENT PLAN 1.9 DECISION TO BE MADE 1.10 OTHER REQUIRED PERMITS AND APPROVALS
CHAPTER 2.0 ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION 2.1 INTRODUCTION 2.1.1 FORMULATION OF ALTERNATIVES 2.2 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT NOT ANALYZED IN DETAIL 2.3 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED IN DETAIL 2.3.1 ALTERNATIVE 1: NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE 2.3.2 ALTERNATIVE 2: PROPOSED ACTION 2.4 DESIGN CRITERIA 2.5 MONITORING REQUIREMENTS 2.6 COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES 2.7 PROACTIVE AND ADAPTIVE MANGEMENT 2.8 IMPLEMENTATION
CHAPTER 3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS 3.1 WATER RESOURCES 3.2 WETLANDS 3.3 AQUATIC RESOURCES
Table of Contents Page i Tenderfoot Mtn. Trail System Environmental Assessment October 2013
3.4 VEGETATION 3.5 RECREATION 3.6 SCENERY RESOURCES 3.7 CULTURAL RESOURCES 3.8 NOISE 3.9 SOCIO-ECONOMICS 3.10 WILDFIRE 3.11 WILDLIFE
LIST OF TABLES Table 2.0 Areas Suggested by the Tenderfoot Task Force to be considered for a Motorized Trail System 2.1 List of Trail Segments - Alternative 2 2.2 Summary of No Action and Proposed Action Alternatives 2.3 Comparison of Alternatives 3.1 Stream health ratings for project area streams 3.2 Connected Disturbed Areas in the Frey Gulch Watershed 3.3 Summary of ground-disturbing activities in the proposed action 3.4 Summary of Connected Disturbed Area associated with the proposed action 3.5 Summary of WEPP analysis for the proposed action, and water quality and stream health implications 3.6 Wetlands Mapped in the Study Area 3.7 Slope Wetlands in the Study Area 3.8 Riverine Wetlands in the Study Area 3.9 Fish Species listed under the Endangered Species Act on or downstream of the White River National Forest. 3.10 Stream health ratings for Frey Gulch 3.11 Connected Disturbed Areas in the Frey Gulch Watershed 3.12 Stream health classification for Straight Creek 3.13 Summary of ground-disturbing activities in the proposed action in Frey and Straight Creek.
Table of Contents Page ii Tenderfoot Mtn. Trail System Environmental Assessment October 2013
LIST OF TABLES (continued) Table
3.14 Forest Service Sensitive Fish and Amphibian Species that occur on the White River National Forest.
3.15 Summary of impacts to Sensitive Species within the project area. 3.16 Typical Noise Levels 3.17 Summary of Average Measured Noise Levels
3.18 Species listed under the Endangered Species on the Dillon Ranger Dist.
3.19 Lynx habitat within the Snake River LAU
3.20 Lynx habitat within the Blue River LAU. 3.21 Lynx habitat within the project area 3.22 Motorized route density in the project area 3.23 R2 Sensitive species evaluation 3.24 Sensitive species determination summary 3.25 WRNF MIS Analysis
LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1.1 Vicinity Map 2.0 Potential Areas on the Dillon Ranger District Considered for a Single-Track Motorized Trail System 2.1 Existing Condition Map 2.2 Frey Gulch Road Crossing Photograph 2.3 Proposed Action Map – Alternative 2 2.4 Proposed Action Map (with no topography) 2.5 Proposed Action Map (Final design) 2.6 New and Existing Culverts Map – Alternative 2 2.7 Frey Gulch Trailhead Design 2.8 Seasonal Opening Dates 2.9 Example of Desired Future Condition Photograph 3.1 Watersheds That Would Be Affected By the Proposed Trail System 3.2 Connected Disturbed Area in the Lower Portion of the Frey Gulch Watershed.
Table of Contents Page iii Tenderfoot Mtn. Trail System Environmental Assessment October 2013
LIST OF FIGURES (continued) Figure 3.3 Connected Disturbed Area Near The Camping Area Adjacent To Frey Gulch. 3.4 Connected Disturbed Area associated with jeep roads adjacent to Frey Gulch. 3.5 Results from genetic analysis on 25 cutthroat trout collected from Frey Gulch in 2006 3.6 Results from genetic analysis on 20 cutthroat trout collected from Frey Gulch in 2011 3.7 Example of Thinned Areas Photograph 3.8 Photograph of existing trail. 3.9 Photograph of view of Keystone 3.10 Photograph of view of Tenderfoot Mountain 3.11 Photograph of view of Tenderfoot Mountain 3.12 Photograph of view from Summerwood Subdivision (west) 3.13 Photograph of view from Summerwood Subdivision (east) 3.14 Photograph of the Incline Trail. 3.15 Photograph of recently closed trail. 3.16 Sound Testing Locations 3.17 Motorcycle Trails within the Blue River and Snake River LAUs 3.18 Mapped Lynx Habitat with the Project Area 3.19 Designated Connectivity Corridors within the Project Area 3.20 Motorized Trails in the 5.5 MA and Loveland Pass Linkage Area 3.21 Routes to be Decommissioned 3.22 Elk Habitat within the Proposed Project Area LIST OF PREPARERS AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS, TRIBAL GOVERNMENTS, AND PERSONS CONTACTED REFERENCES APPENDIX A – CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE PLAN APPENDIX B – EDUCATION AND ENFORCEMENT PLAN APPENDIX C – REHABILITATION PLAN APPENDIX D – SUMMARY OF SCOPING COMMENTS AND RESPONSES APPENDIX E – TASK FORCE PROACTIVE AND ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT PLAN APPENDIX F – TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS APPENDIX G – TENDERFOOT AREA DEVELOPMENT MAP
Table of Contents Page iv Tenderfoot Mtn. Trail System Environmental Assessment October 2013
CHAPTER 1.0 PROPOSED ACTION AND ITS PURPOSE AND NEED
1.1 INTRODUCTION
The White River National Forest (WRNF) has accepted a proposal from the Summit County Off Road Riders (SCORR) to initiate a review under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for a proposal to construct, operate, and maintain a single-track motorized trail system in the Tenderfoot/Frey Gulch area on National Forest System (NFS) lands. This Environmental Assessment (EA) discloses the environmental effects associated with the construction, operation, and maintenance of the proposed Tenderfoot Mountain trail system.
This chapter summarizes the proposal and presents the purpose and need for this action. It also provides a description of the project location, background information, public involvement, and issues identified. This chapter concludes with a summary and consistency analysis of Forest Plan direction as well as a brief description of required permits and agency approvals.
1.2 BACKGROUND
Summit County Off-Road Riders SCORR is a 501(c)3 non-profit organization that consists of approximately 350 members who promote and practice responsible off-road motorcycle recreation. Based on this interest, SCORR initially developed and submitted a proposal for a motorized trail system in the Tenderfoot/Frey Gulch area in 2007. Over the past few years the proposal has been modified in response to public and agency input. It has also been modified to further avoid and minimize impacts to natural resources. The Proposed Action was developed in conjunction with the Dillon Ranger District staff.
The following is a chronological description and explanation of the events and decisions leading up to the initiation of the NEPA process.
From the 1970s through the 1990s, motorcycle use was generally unmanaged on the WRNF. Local riders were given little information about where to ride so the use became widespread. The Tenderfoot area was one of the areas where this use was concentrated. Without management (education and enforcement), user-created routes expanded over time.
The White River National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Plan) was completed in 2002. The Plan provides guidance for how National Forest lands should be managed. The Plan included some travel decisions, but most were deferred to a separate Travel Management Plan (TMP) process. The Forest Plan decision included a regulation of motorized use on designated routes only. Prior to the Plan decision, this use was not “illegal”. Implementation of this restriction was deferred until after the TMP decision.
In 2002, a Forest-wide route inventory was conducted for the TMP. A great deal of non- system (user-created) non-motorized and motorized routes was found to exist on the Dillon Ranger District. The goal of TMP was to provide for a balance of uses and to determine
Chapter 1.0 – Proposed Action and Its Purpose and Need Page 1-1
Tenderfoot Mtn. Trail System Environmental Assessment October 2013 which non-system routes should be added to the managed travel system. District staff reviewed the local opportunities for OHVs. At that time, the only existing system motorized trails were the Oro Grande and Straight Creek trails (both of which are administrative roads that were open to ATVs, motorcycles and non-motorized uses. All of the single-track motorcycle trails on the District were non-system. The interim policy was to allow this use (and all other motorized and mountain bike use on non-system routes) to continue until the TMP was completed.
During the TMP analysis period, a local planning process for the Golden Horseshoe area (east of Breckenridge) was conducted. It involved a community working group with representatives of all recreation users working together to make a recommendation for the National Forest and Town of Breckenridge/ Summit County-owned trails. The travel plan for the area included 6 miles of motorized single track in the short term and some additional trails in the future.
In the rest of the District, the few isolated trails were deemed unmanageable because of the lack of connectivity with other motorized routes. The TMP maintained the Straight Creek Trail open to OHVs, but closed the Oro Grande Trail to OHVs because Summit County and the Town of Dillon closed the motorized access.
In 2009, Summit County Government amended its Snake River Master Plan for this area by recommending that all trails and roads be closed to Off-Highway Vehicles. The Snake River Planning Commission and the County planning staff accepted information about the Tenderfoot Mountain project from the Forest Service, but this process was not conducted in the same manner as the Golden Horseshoe planning process when the agencies worked together to create a travel plan. Issues raised during the County planning process are addressed in this document. The Forest Service does make an effort to follow local master plans, but the agency also needs to consider more than local issues when making decisions about National Forest.
In May of 2011, the Record of Decision for the White River National Forest Travel Management Plan was signed by the Forest Supervisor. When taking into consideration the adoption of trails into the travel system, the TMP only considered adding existing, user- created, and inventoried routes to the Forest system. New construction and reconstruction of unsustainable trails was outside the decision space of the TMP. The TMP incorporated 115 miles of new non-motorized trails and 6 miles of motorized trails on the Dillon district. The TMP has been identified as a baseline for travel management and acknowledges that additional travel proposals will be considered. It is a working document that is adaptive and evolving.
The trails in the Tenderfoot area were not considered for adoption into the system because they were unsustainable, not inventoried and/or involved new construction or reconstruction. During the TMP analysis, the deciding official decided to separate the Tenderfoot proposal from the Forest-wide TMP so a more comprehensive plan could be brought forward including the need for construction and reconstruction of routes. Separating the decision allowed the Forest Service to present a more complete plan for this area. The TMP would consider the roads that had been inventoried and a separate EA
Chapter 1.0 – Proposed Action and Its Purpose and Need Page 1-2
Tenderfoot Mtn. Trail System Environmental Assessment October 2013 would consider the trails. Therefore the TMP designated the Tenderfoot/Frey Gulch area as primarily for non-motorized use on trails and for full sized vehicle use on roads as an interim decision until a more comprehensive study could be conducted.
Many comments were received during the scoping period for this project that maintained the TMP decision precluded motorcycle use in the Tenderfoot area. By not adopting the motorized trails, the perception was that the TMP found the area unsuitable for motorized use; therefore, a new trail system should not be constructed because the Forest Supervisor already made a decision to manage the area for non-motorized uses. This proposal has been in the planning stages for five years and the TMP decision was not meant to preclude it.
1.3 PROJECT AREA DESCRIPTION
The project area consists of approximately 1,800 acres of NFS lands managed by the Dillon Ranger District (DRD), on the WRNF adjacent to the town of Dillon. The legal description for the project area is Township 5S, Range 77W, Sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15.
The project area is located in the Southern Rocky Mountain eco-zone at elevations ranging from 9,600 near the existing power substation to 11,300 feet at the summit of Tenderfoot Mountain. The dominant vegetation community is lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta). Although there are some intervening lands, Interstate 70 (I-70) and Highway 6 essentially form the western and southern boundaries of the project area, respectively. The project area is primarily within National Forest System lands managed by the WRNF to the north and east. Refer to Figure 1.1
The amount of existing development in the area was considered (see Appendix G – Tenderfoot Area Development Map). In terms of development, the Tenderfoot area is already impacted by: ◦ I-70 and Hwy 6 ◦ Summit County Landfill ◦ Powerlines ◦ Shooting range ◦ Clearcuts (historic and recent) ◦ Tenderfoot Motorcycle track ◦ Dispersed camping
Chapter 1.0 – Proposed Action and Its Purpose and Need Page 1-3
Tenderfoot Mtn. Trail System Environmental Assessment October 2013
Figure 1.1 - Vicinity and Location Map
Dillon, Colorado
Chapter 1.0 – Proposed Action and Its Purpose and Need Page 1-4
Tenderfoot Mtn. Trail System Environmental Assessment October 2013
1.4 SUMMARY OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
The Proposed Action would create a network of approximately 21 miles of trails and approximately 10 miles of roads. Because the proposed trail system connects with the Straight Creek Trail (a five-mile trail which is currently open to motorcycles), the total length of the trail system would be approximately 31 miles. This would include approximately 13.1 miles of new trail construction and the adoption of 7.9 miles of non-system trails or roads. Because the reconstruction of non-system trails would include re-routes around steep sections, the actual mileage of reconstructed trails could actually be an estimated 25% longer. Concurrent with the project would be closure of at least 22 miles of non-system trail in the area, which would be decommissioned and rehabilitated. The decision to close those trails has already been made in the TMP. The proposed trail system would be managed for all non-motorized uses (hiking, horseback, and mountain bikes) as well as for single-track motorized uses. All trails would be closed to four-wheeled vehicles (with one exception - 66.2A – see below). Those uses would continue to be permitted on two existing roads throughout the summer within the area. A 1-mile section of the Tenderfoot Mountain Road (66.2B) would be closed to all uses and rehabilitated, primarily to improve water quality and fisheries habitat. In the same area, a l-mile non-motorized loop trail would be constructed. This is necessary in order to permit a long-term outfitter who has used this road for several years for guided horseback rides. The Tenderfoot Mountain Trail system would only be open to motorized uses during the summer months with restrictions in the spring and fall seasons.
Route 66.2A is an old road with the exception of the upper ½ mile which is single-track. The lower portion of this route would be designated as open to full-sized vehicles, but only during big game hunting season (September through November). The upper single-track portion would be converted to an ATV trail, but also only open to that use during hunting season. The entire route would be open to motorcycles from July 1 to October 10*1, annually. This route was designated as open to all non-motorized uses in the White River TMP.
A trail construction and maintenance plan is incorporated into the proposal to ensure proper trail construction, meeting current trail design standards. All trails would be constructed or reconstructed using techniques that ensure trail sustainability. They would be low grade (0% to approximately 5% steepness) and would incorporate dips and reverse-in-grades to minimize water flow and erosion. Some trails would be constructed with small, mechanized equipment. Most trails would be constructed with hand tools.
The trails would be in close proximity to each other resulting in a high density (miles per square mile). Motorcycle trails in a forested environment are not necessarily intended to lead to a destination. The desire is for “saddle time” – time spent riding. The proposed trail system appears to be sending the rider in circles, but that is acceptable to off-road motorcycle enthusiasts.
Access to the trail system would be via the Straight Creek Road or Frey Gulch Road. The
1 Throughout the document, * indicates a change in the proposal or analysis as recommended by the Tenderfoot Task Force. Chapter 1.0 – Proposed Action and Its Purpose and Need Page 1-5
Tenderfoot Mtn. Trail System Environmental Assessment October 2013
Straight Creek trailhead already exists and requires no modification. Its current capacity is ten to fifteen vehicles. From Highway 6, access to the Frey Gulch area is via the Landfill Road to Forest Service Road 66 (FSR). A 1/2 acre* trailhead and parking area would be constructed on NFS lands approximately 0.25 mile beyond the gate on FSR 66. Its capacity would be for ten vehicles with trailers or twenty standard vehicles (e.g., pickup trucks). The trailhead would be for day uses only.
Design Features have been incorporated into the proposal to protect natural resources. Additionally, the proposal includes an education and enforcement plan to enhance the recreation experience, safety, environmental protection, and operational efficiency. If the deciding official chooses the proposed action for implementation, a portion of the trail system would be open to public use immediately. Additional project implementation would be anticipated to take three to six years, however, as new sections are constructed, they would be open and available to the recreating public.
1.5 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE ACTION
1.5.1 Purpose
The purpose of the proposal is to create a designated single-track trail system that is open to non-motorized uses but is managed specifically for motorcycle use while improving trail sustainability and providing for natural resource protection.
1.5.2 Need
The TMP did not address the majority of this project area because most trails were not inventoried. This oversight resulted in a need to create a framework for the integrated management of roads and trails in this area by designating roads and trails that would be part of a system.
There is a need for the Forest Service to provide for a balanced level of opportunities on the WRNF. Specifically, this proposal would address the Forest-wide objective “to improve the capability of the national forests and grasslands to provide diverse, high quality outdoor recreation opportunities”. Motorized use is a legitimate use of National Forest lands, where appropriate.
The Forest Service has identified a need and public demand for a designated motorized trail system within the Dillon Ranger District primarily to accommodate local recreational needs. Currently there are only 6 miles of designated motorized single-track on the district, compared to over 350 miles of designated non-motorized trails. While there are hundreds of miles of roads in the District open to motorcycles, what roads do not provide is the single- track experience motorcyclists seek. As with other uses, most similarly mountain biking, certain recreation experiences can only be achieved by providing unique facilities and forest settings. This project offers a single-track trail experience that is limited in Summit County and on the White River National Forest. The demand for this type of recreational opportunity is demonstrated by the motorized use in the Tenderfoot/Frey Gulch area that has occurred for the past several decades as well as requests from user groups to provide more trails.
Chapter 1.0 – Proposed Action and Its Purpose and Need Page 1-6
Tenderfoot Mtn. Trail System Environmental Assessment October 2013
Forest-wide, there are 2,172 miles of trail open to mountain bikes and 3,592 miles open to hiking. There are 40 miles of trail Forest-wide open to motorcycles. In additional to two isolated trails (total of 7 miles), there are four motorcycle trail systems that vary in total length from 4 to 13 miles. Included is the Golden Horseshoe which is 6.1 miles total. Forest-wide, there are 1,026 miles of road open to off-highway motorcycles. This project offers an opportunity to ride on trails.
It is becoming more and more difficult for local individuals and families to find appropriate places to ride motorcycles. Creating a well-managed and sustainable motorcycle trail system would respond to the increasing number of local OHV enthusiasts.
1.6 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND ISSUES TO BE ADDRESSED
The idea of continuing to manage this area for motorcycle use was introduced in public scoping for the White River TMP EIS. Many people submitted written comments during the scoping period for that planning process as well as letters to the Dillon District Ranger and letters to the Summit Daily News editor over the past several years about land use in this project area. Informal public involvement has been ongoing for several years. Newspaper articles, editorials, neighborhood presentations, and public hearings provided numerous opportunities for the public to become familiar with the proposal. Several issues were raised consistently and the proposal was amended substantially to address these issues, which include wetlands, wildlife and fisheries, user conflicts, enforcement, wildfire safety, noise, and air pollution. The following issues were addressed in the development of the proposed action as described during scoping (10/11/11): To address concerns about impacts to wetlands, the project was located outside of the area of influence to the Dillon Reservoir fen wetland. Wildlife issues were addressed by eliminating any motorized use during the elk calving season and by decommissioning and consolidating trails in sensitive areas (including Canada Lynx habitat). Additionally, trails within the Forested Landscape Linkages management Areas (MA 5.5) were minimized The project area includes Frey Gulch Creek which is habitat for a threatened fish species. Closing and rehabilitating the Tenderfoot Mountain Road (66.2B) would improve this habitat. User conflicts were addressed by separating motorized and non-motorized uses in the area. Non-motorized trails are located immediately adjacent to the Dillon and Keystone residential areas and motorized trails will be located to the north and west of those areas. The Oro Grande Trail was removed from the proposal. To address concerns with off-trail riding, a volunteer patrol program would be initiated to assist with education and a law enforcement plan has been prepared. To address wildfire concerns, all motorcycles would be required to have Forest Service-approved spark arresters and these would be inspected in all visitor contacts. Two noise studies were conducted to demonstrate that there would be minimal noise impacts to local residents.
Chapter 1.0 – Proposed Action and Its Purpose and Need Page 1-7
Tenderfoot Mtn. Trail System Environmental Assessment October 2013
The concern that the trails would be within close proximity to homes and would create unacceptable noise was addressed by maximizing as much as practicable the distance and line of sight between the trails and residences.
NEPA requires that Federal agencies provide the public and other agencies the opportunity to be involved in agency decision-making. An important part of this process is called “scoping.” Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) Regulations refers to scoping as an internal and public involvement process to determine the “scope of the issues to be addressed and for identifying the significant issues related to a proposed action” (40 CFR 1501.7). This section describes the scoping process to date and the issues to be addressed within this EA.
The proposal for the Tenderfoot Mountain Trails System Project was first listed in the January 2011 Schedule of Proposed Actions for the White River National Forest. A scoping letter for the proposed project was mailed to a list of 41 interested and affected parties on October 11, 2011. The October 12, 2011 issue of the Summit Daily News had an article about the project. A public meeting was conducted at the Dillon Ranger Station in Silverthorne, Colorado on October 19, 2011. Seven people attended this open house. Ninety-one written comment letters were received offering support, opposition, and/or potential issues for the proposed project.
At the conclusion of the scoping period, the Forest Service Interdisciplinary Team (ID Team) reviewed the comments and compiled a list of issues to be used in the development of alternatives and design criteria and to assist in the focus of the analysis. The issues were first determined to be key or non-key. Non-key issues are those that are outside the scope of the proposal, have already been decided by existing law, regulation, and policy, or are addressed in other decision documents, such as the Forest Plan. Key issues are relevant concerns about the proposal that can be addressed by developing specific project design criteria, by tracking the issue through the analysis in the EA, or by developing alternatives to the Proposed Action.
Based on interdisciplinary review of all information received from the scoping process, the project ID Team determined that all key issues for the project, including resource concerns and impacts, could be resolved or mitigated through project design and proper implementation of the Proposed Action. The proposed action was again modified to respond to issues that were identified during the scoping period.
To respond to concerns from the Colorado Parks and Wildlife Department to facilitate big game hunter access, the proposal was modified to include ATV and full size motor vehicle access to higher elevations in the fall months. The initial proposal included existing routes in the 5.5 management area. Because of the need to have minimal impact on the lynx movement corridor in that area, all routes but one were deleted in this management area. Because of potential impacts to the Keystone Stables horseback riding operations, the proposal was modified to allow for a one mile loop in the Frey Gulch area.
Chapter 1.0 – Proposed Action and Its Purpose and Need Page 1-8
Tenderfoot Mtn. Trail System Environmental Assessment October 2013
The draft Environmental Assessment (EA) was published for a 30-day public comment period on November 15, 2012. Two hundred and ninety-seven comments were received, with about half of those in support of the project and half with concerns to be addressed.
In March of 2013, in response to the substantial public comment to the Draft Environmental Assessment on the proposal, the Forest Service and Summit County jointly convened a Task Force comprised of stakeholders with interests in the trail system, including county and state officials, HOA representatives, trail users and environmental advocates. The 21-member Task Force, many of whom submitted detailed letters requesting clarification and oftentimes stated opposition during the EA public comment period, held 5 five-hour meetings between March and June 2013. Their charge was to deliberate and negotiate on the issues brought forth in the public comment period of the EA and if possible develop a consensus-based recommendation to White River National Forest Supervisor Scott Fitzwilliams, the deciding official. These issues included:
Potential impacts to the environment including wildlife, fisheries and area cultural sites; Potential noise impacts to residents’ property values and quality of life; Concerns with the accuracy of the EA’s use estimates and subsequent analyses; Concerns with user conflicts and management and development of the trail system; and Concerns with wildfire and education on, and enforcement of, laws and regulations.
The Task Force Recommendations and Proactive and Adaptive Management Plan are included as Appendix F and G, respectively. Some of the more substantial changes to the proposed action that were made in response to these recommendations include*:
The section of trail directly north of the top of the non-motorized Tenderfoot Trail was moved slightly to increase the distance between these trails, decreasing the occasional noise impact to hikers and mountain bikers. The size of the Frey Gulch trailhead parking area was reduced to approximately ½ acre. To reduce impacts to big game rifle hunting, the trail system would be closed to motorized uses starting October 10. The roads in the area and an ATV route to Tenderfoot Mountain would remain open. To reduce impacts to elk calving, approximately one-third of the trail system would be closed to motorized uses until July 1 annually. The remainder of the system would open June 21. The seasonal closure of the Frey Gulch Road (66) and one spur (66.2C) to motorized uses would be extended from June 20 to June 30. To prevent overnight camping, the Frey Gulch Trailhead would be for day use only. To reduce noise impacts to local residents, the trail system would only be open to motorized uses between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. daily. To reduce potential noise impacts there would be “Closed Throttle Zones” in proximity to the two trailheads to reduce speeds near the trailheads.
Chapter 1.0 – Proposed Action and Its Purpose and Need Page 1-9
Tenderfoot Mtn. Trail System Environmental Assessment October 2013
To reduce environmental impacts, recreation events (such as motorcycle, mountain bike, or running races) would be limited to 50 participants and there would be no more than two events per year.
1.7 FOREST PLAN DIRECTION AND CONSISTENCY
The 2002 WRNF Land and Resource Management Plan (as amended) provides Forest-wide goals and objectives as well as specific management area direction. Relevant Forest-wide direction, goals, and objectives are presented below. This section also briefly describes Management Areas 5.41, 5.43, and 5.5 that occur within the project area. Specific standards and guidelines are addressed in the proposal and design criteria to ensure consistency with the Forest Plan. The interdisciplinary analysis demonstrates that the proposal would be consistent with the Forest Plan.
Forest-wide Goals and Objectives
Goal 2 Multiple Benefits to People (Page 1-10) Objective 2a - Improve the capability of the national forests and grasslands to provide diverse, high quality outdoor recreation opportunities. Objective 2a.6 - Through the active promotion of partnerships with state and local governments, private parties, and organizations, encourage, establish, and sustain a diverse and well-balanced range of recreational services and facilities on the Forest. Forest-wide standards and guidelines
Guidelines (Page 2-37): Emphasize providing a wide range of motorized, mechanized, and non-motorized recreation opportunities and difficulty levels.
Emphasize maintenance and reconstruction of the existing road and trail system to standard.
Maintain the following strategy for trail construction: Construct near human populations; Construct loop trails where feasible; Protect habitats and wilderness; Feature attractions or interpretive opportunities; Look for accessibility or universal design opportunities; and Coordinate with trail systems developed by municipalities, counties, states, other federal agencies, and partners.
Management Area Direction The project area consists of three management areas: 5.41 – Deer and Elk Winter Range, 5.43 – Elk Habitat, and 5.5 – Forested Landscape Linkages. Figure 2.4 identifies the management areas relevant to the proposal and their boundaries.
Chapter 1.0 – Proposed Action and Its Purpose and Need Page 1-10
Tenderfoot Mtn. Trail System Environmental Assessment October 2013
5.41 Deer and Elk Winter Range
These are areas where multiple-use principles are applied to emphasize habitat management for deer and elk. They include lands classified as winter ranges and areas used during average winters. These areas consist of both forested and non-forested habitats, generally in the lower elevation fringes of the forest. Many areas are south-facing slopes where snow melt and green-up occur earlier in the spring, and snow accumulation does not occur until late autumn. Human activities are managed so that deer and elk can effectively use the area. Population herd objectives are established in coordination with the Colorado Division of Wildlife. Opportunities to view wildlife are high, especially in the winter; however, such use is not encouraged. All activities should limit disturbance so that deer and elk may use the area during the winter and spring. Road systems and trails are relatively undeveloped. Motorized traffic, including over-the-snow vehicles, is restricted during winter and spring. Camping is restricted during the winter. The recreation opportunity spectrum (ROS) for this management area is semi-primitive non- motorized or semi-primitive motorized in the winter/spring and semi-primitive non- motorized or semi-primitive motorized in the summer/fall. Scenery is managed to provide a range of scenic integrity objectives from low to moderate.
5.43 Elk Habitat
These areas contain important elk habitat, including incidental winter range. Evidence of human activity related to wood fiber production may be present. Roads used for timber harvesting provide limited access for hikers, mountain bikers, horseback riders, and other non-motorized travelers and hunters. Trails may also be present, providing access to these areas. Non-motorized recreational activities are provided, including hiking, mountain biking, horseback riding, hunting, and cross-country skiing. Motorized opportunities are limited. Travel closures may exist based on elk habitat objectives. The recreation opportunity spectrum (ROS) for this management area is semi-primitive non- motorized or semi-primitive motorized year-round. Scenery is managed to provide a range of scenic integrity objectives from low to moderate. The portion of the project area that is in this management area is managed specifically for spring elk calving (not for summer concentration of elk).
5.5 Forested Landscape Linkages
These areas are managed as key landscape linkages. They provide areas for landscape-scale movement, migration, and dispersal of forest carnivores and other wide-ranging wildlife species. These areas provide safe travel connections between large blocks of forested landscapes across the forest. They provide security from intensive recreational and other human disturbances.
Chapter 1.0 – Proposed Action and Its Purpose and Need Page 1-11
Tenderfoot Mtn. Trail System Environmental Assessment October 2013
These areas are generally found in areas of conifer cover types adjacent to natural or human- created constrictions of forested ecosystems. They may be designed to provide movement pathways through areas with adjacent high human development or disturbances. There is light or minimal impact from human use in these areas. Habitat management activities are based on the best scientific information available. The desired vegetation condition is generally dense, interconnected blocks of late successional conifer cover types (primarily spruce and fir species) intermixed with patches of seedling to pole-sized trees (mainly lodgepole pine). The maintenance and protection of security habitats is emphasized in all management activities. Roads and trails exist to provide resource management and recreational access. Road densities and motorized and mechanized uses are managed at or below current levels to reduce disturbances. These areas provide mostly non-motorized, backcountry recreation opportunities. Motorized portions may include some seasonal travel restrictions. Dispersed recreation may be regulated in the area to maintain use at or below current levels and patterns. The recreation opportunity spectrum (ROS) for this management area is primitive, semi- primitive non-motorized, or semi-primitive motorized year-round. Scenery is managed to provide a range of scenic integrity objectives from moderate to very high.
1.8 DECISION TO BE MADE
This EA is not a decision document. Its main purpose is to disclose the potential consequences of implementing the Proposed Action and alternatives to that action. The EA is prepared in order to provide the deciding official the necessary information needed to make decisions and any decision is documented in a Decision Notice (DN). The DN documents the selection of an alternative, which could be No Action, the Proposed Action, an alternative to the Proposed Action, or a combination of the three. This EA focuses on providing analysis sufficient for the Forest Service to make the following decision: Whether or not to construct, operate, and maintain all or part of a motorized single-track trail system in the Tenderfoot/Frey Gulch area as described in this EA
1.9 OTHER REQUIRED PERMITS AND APPROVALS
The following permits, approvals, and consultations are required prior to project construction: Construction plan review USFS review for consistency with operating plan standards and with the terms of the decision notice. Consultation with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service – Endangered Species Act compliance For potential impacts to Threatened and Endangered species. Consultation with State Historic Preservation Office – Section 106 compliance For protection of cultural resources
Chapter 1.0 – Proposed Action and Its Purpose and Need Page 1-12
Tenderfoot Mtn. Trail System Environmental Assessment October 2013
CHAPTER 2.0 ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION
2.1 INTRODUCTION
This analysis considers in detail a No Action alternative and the Proposed Action. The intent of this chapter is to describe and compare the differences between the alternatives, especially how the environmental effects of each differ. This chapter also briefly describes alternatives considered but not analyzed in detail and the criteria used to screen alternatives. This chapter contains a summary of the effects that are described in Chapter 3. This comparison clearly frames the issues, informs the public, and provides a clear basis for choice among options for the decision maker.
2.1.1 Formulation of Alternatives
The scoping process resulted in key issues that were grouped by common resource. These issues, described in Chapter 1, are:
Stream Health Wetlands Aquatic Resources Vegetation and Weeds Recreation and law enforcement User conflicts Scenery Resources Cultural Resources Noise Socio-economics Wildfire Wildlife (Elk, deer, and Canada lynx)
The ID Team determined that no other action alternatives were necessary to respond to key issues. The ID Team provided design criteria to achieve Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines. Some alternatives were eliminated from detailed study because they did not meet the purpose and need or were infeasible, speculative, or not able to be achieved.
2.2 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT NOT ANALYZED IN DETAIL
The NEPA process requires that alternatives evaluated in detail be reasonable. Reasonable alternatives include those that are practical or feasible from a technical and economic standpoint and those that use common sense. A discussion of the alternatives not considered in detail and the rationale for eliminating them are presented below.
The intent of both the Travel Management Plan and the Tenderfoot Mountain proposal is to try to manage the existing motorized use and not to introduce it to an area where it does not already occur. Forest Plan direction prohibits this use on about 80 percent of the Dillon Chapter 2.0 – Alternatives Including the Proposed Action Page 2-1
Tenderfoot Mtn. Trail System Environmental Assessment October 2013
Ranger District. In the remaining areas where motorized use could be allowed, it either does not occur presently, is close to other residential areas, has a high amount of non-motorized recreation use, and/or would negatively affect wildlife. Ski areas are not an option because the Forest Plan management prescription for those areas is for non-motorized recreation uses (both winter and summer). Other districts on the White River were not considered because it would not meet the local need and the other districts are already considering other proposals for single-track motorized trails.
The Tenderfoot area is in Management areas 5.43 (Elk Calving Habitat), 5.41(Elk and Deer Winter Range), and 5.5 (Forested Landscape Linkages). The proposal encompasses about 1,800 acres.
Management Areas eliminated from consideration because of Forest Plan Direction:
Management areas 1.11, 1.12, & 1.13 are in wilderness where motorized use is prohibited. Management areas 1.2, 1.31, & 3.32 are managed for non-motorized uses. Management area 2.1 is managed for minimal use. Management area 5.5 allows for no net increase in motorized routes. Management area 7.1 on the Dillon RD is the Golden Horseshoe area which is covered under a master development plan that was jointly agreed upon by the Forest Service and Summit County Government. No additional motorized trails beyond what has already been identified would be considered at this time. Management area 8.25 is managed for ski resorts (non-motorized recreation).
The management areas listed above are identified in Figure 2.0 (crosshatched). The area represented by these management areas eliminates about 80% of the Dillon Ranger District for possible new motorized use.
Motorized use is allowed in the following management areas: 4.3, 5.4, 5.41, and 5.43. The following areas that were considered for motorized use are identified on the attached map.
Area #1 – MA 4.3 (Dispersed Recreation). Bounded by Whale Peak, Decatur Mtn., Chihuahua Gulch, and Montezuma. Approximately 16,000 acres. There is a great deal of private property in this area making a continuous trail system very difficult to create. The only areas with a lower density of private property are above timberline and are very open where high density motorcycle trails would impact alpine vegetation and mountain goat habitat. Compliance of staying on trails would be difficult in the alpine areas because it is so open (as opposed to forested). There would be significant visual and noise impacts from a trail system because of the lack of any screening from trees. This area already has a network of four-wheel drive roads that are open to motorcycles and ATVs. The trailheads could be the Peru Creek/Montezuma Road junction (assuming a connection could be built); Tiger Road TH, or Middle Fork Swan River Road.
Area #2 – MA 3.31 (Backcountry Recreation, Year Round Motorized). Approximately 3,500 acres. Bounded by Pennsylvania Creek, Indiana Creek. This area is a known
Chapter 2.0 – Alternatives Including the Proposed Action Page 2-2
Tenderfoot Mtn. Trail System Environmental Assessment October 2013 movement corridor and possibly residential area for Canada lynx. There would be no trailhead access because of private property.
Area #3 – MA 4.3 (Dispersed Recreation). Bounded by Spruce Creek, Mohawk Lake, and Crystal Lake. Approximately 5,500 acres. The only trailhead would be the Spruce Creek Trailhead. The Spruce Creek and Mohawk Lakes Trails are two of the most popular hiking trails in the District. Introducing a high density motorized trail system in this area would negatively affect and displace this use. This is also a known area that resident lynx have been moving through and have even denned in the recent past.
Figure 2.0
Chapter 2.0 – Alternatives Including the Proposed Action Page 2-3
Tenderfoot Mtn. Trail System Environmental Assessment October 2013
Area #4 – MA 5.43 (Elk Habitat – Spring Calving) and MA 4.3 (Dispersed Recreation). Approximately 7,000 acres. Bounded by Peak 1, Miners Creek, Highway 9, and Middle Barton Creek. Adjacent to Frisco, the High School, the Hospital, and Farmer Corners There currently is no motorcycle use in this area. This area includes the Peaks, Gold Hill, and Miners Creek Trails. Introducing motorized use into this area would be controversial as it would impact use on well-established non-motorized trails. Potential trailheads: Gold Hill Trailhead, Miners Creek Trailhead (on Summit County land), and the Iron Springs Road.
Area #5 - MA 5.43 (Elk Habitat – Spring Calving and Winter Range) and MA 5.41 (Elk and Deer Winter Range). Approximately 14,500 acres. Bounded by Summit Cove, Sapphire Point, Tiger Road, and Keystone. Adjacent to residences on Tiger Road and Summit Cove. There currently is no motorcycle use in this area. This area includes the Colorado Trail and the Swan Mountain Recpath. Introducing motorized use into this area would be controversial. From the Swan forks up to the alpine is good lynx habit and it is likely that they move through this area. Road and trail density is already high in this area. Potential Trailheads: Blue River Inlet (Steep access), Tiger Road, and Keystone Gulch.
Area #6 - MA 5.4 (Forested Flora and Fauna Habitats). Approximately 11,500 acres. Bounded by Eagles Nest Wilderness and private property. This MA has a Forest Plan standard of no more than 2 miles of motorized routes per square mile. This would preclude a concentrated motorcycle trail system. Dice Hill OHV use is nearby. Potential Trailhead: Spring Creek Road.
The area known as the Golden Horseshoe (east of Breckenridge) is managed jointly with the Town of Breckenridge and Summit County. A master travel plan for this area has been prepared which includes some motorcycle trails. There are six miles of trail that currently are used by motorcycles. An additional five miles of motorcycle trail may be added in the near future. A system the size of the Tenderfoot proposal would not be considered by Summit County or the Town of Breckenridge.
As part of a collaborative public process that occurred in the spring of 2013, eight areas were presented to the Forest Service for consideration as alternative locations for a motorcycle trail system. The following table lists those areas and the rationale for not initiating a new planning process and abandoning the Tenderfoot Mountain project.
Table 2.0 Areas Suggested by the Tenderfoot Task Force to be considered for a Motorized trail System Location Rationale Lake Hill (Near Dillon Reservoir and Frisco) Close to Heaton Bay campground. Very small area (1200 acres). Current high use non- motorized area. Part of a current proposal to relocate the Dillon Ranger District administrative compound. Vail Pass (Eagle-Holy Cross Ranger District) Forest Plan Guideline of no more than 2
Chapter 2.0 – Alternatives Including the Proposed Action Page 2-4
Tenderfoot Mtn. Trail System Environmental Assessment October 2013
miles/square mile summer motorized route. High quality lynx habitat with resident lynx in adjacent drainages. Multiple stream crossings and resource issues. The main road has had dangerous full size vehicle and OHV interactions in the past. West Sheephorn (Eagle-Holy Cross Ranger Potential goshawk habitat. Native upper District) Colorado basin cutthroat trout habitat. 1.5 hour drive from Summit County. Three Licks Creek (Eagle-Holy Cross Ranger Summer elk concentration and spring calving. District) Forest Plan Guideline of no more than 0.5 miles/square mile motorized routes. 1.5 hour drive from Summit County. Spring Creek (north end of Summit County) Forest Plan Guideline of no more than 2 miles/square mile summer motorized route. Fairly intact wildlife habitat with very little disturbance currently. Potentially part of Canada Lynx home range. High quality elk habitat. Substantial amount of potential boreal toad habitat. Lots of possible wetlands. Several cutthroat populations, including one upper Colorado basin native (lineage GB). Climax Mine (private property near Highway 91). Area was included in the WRNF lynx study. This area reaches above timberline and falls within lynx linkage corridors. There is likely a resident lynx. The area is habitat for bighorn sheep and mountain goat. Includes open, alpine habitat. Not public land and subject to management by the land owner. Liability would be an issue. Mine tailings may pose a health hazard. Montezuma Area (East side of Summit County) May be an important movement area for Canada Lynx and wolverine. This area has more of a pinch point for dispersing animals which limits where they can travel. Above tree line trails would be unacceptable due to sensitive habitat for multiple species (including big horn sheep and mountain goat). There are both historic and current populations of boreal toads as well as numerous areas of private property. Wolford Mountain An OHV trail system already system exists around the entire mountain and a motorized play area has been established. This would not be a new OHV area. Colorado Parks and Wildlife would not support more trails in this area.
2.3 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED IN DETAIL
2.3.1 Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative
Chapter 2.0 – Alternatives Including the Proposed Action Page 2-5
Tenderfoot Mtn. Trail System Environmental Assessment October 2013
The "No Action" alternative is required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (40 CFR 1502.12). This alternative provides a point of reference for evaluating the environmental effects of Alternative 2.
The No Action alternative represents the current condition (as identified in the TMP). Only the existing 6.2 miles of roads in the Frey Gulch area and the 5 miles in the Straight Creek area (these trails are not connected) would provide motorcycle opportunities. All trails would be closed to all uses with the exception of 66.2A, 65 (Oro Grande), 66W2C, 66W.2T, 1024.1, and 76 (Tenderfoot). The six trails listed here would be open to non-motorized uses only. The closure and rehabilitation of approximately 22 miles of user-created motorcycle trails would occur in this alternative. The decision to close them was identified in the TMP. Implementation of the rehabilitation of these trails would occur over a long period of time as funding allows. Figure 2.1 identifies the roads and trails designated in the TMP.
2.3.2 Alternative 2 – Proposed Action
Chapter 2.0 – Alternatives Including the Proposed Action Page 2-6
Tenderfoot Mtn. Trail System Environmental Assessment October 2013
The project is summarized in Chapter 1. The following describes different aspects of the proposed project in more detail including the existing and proposed trail network, trail construction and maintenance techniques, and an education and enforcement plan. Design features to be incorporated into the proposal to achieve consistency with the Forest Plan are included in section 2.4 and monitoring requirements are included in section 2.5. The resources affected by this proposal are discussed in detail in Chapter 3 including the existing conditions and the environmental consequences if this project is approved.
Figure 2.2 - The road crossing on Frey Gulch Creek during spring run-off. This would be closed to all uses and rehabilitated.
The project area encompasses approximately 1,800 acres of NFS lands in the Dillon Ranger District, adjacent to the town of Dillon. The proposed trail system uses a combination of existing roads and trails as well as proposed new trails. The trails in this system would be designated as motorized travelways on the WRNF. Additionally, a number of user-created trails and portions of roads would be decommissioned as part of the proposal. The net result is a trail system that would be managed for non-motorized uses (hiking, mountain biking, and horseback riding) as well as for single-track motorcycle use. The existing Frey Gulch Creek crossing on the Tenderfoot Mountain Road (66.2B) would be closed and rehabilitated. Other drainages would have small culverts. Figure 2.3 identifies existing trails and roads to be included in the system and proposed new trails.
The total number of miles of motorcycle routes in the proposed system would be 31, which is comprised of 21 miles of trails (13.1 miles of new construction, 7.9 miles of existing Chapter 2.0 – Alternatives Including the Proposed Action Page 2-7
Tenderfoot Mtn. Trail System Environmental Assessment October 2013 routes) and 10 miles of roads (Table 2.1). Table 2.1 does not include the 5 miles of Straight Creek trail which currently is open to motorcycles. Routes 66.2A and 66.2B would be 50 inches wide for 1.4 miles to accommodate ATVs in the hunting season. Trails would be constructed to meet industry standards and to require as little maintenance as possible. This includes using reverse-in-grades and/or drain dips. Some trails would be constructed with mechanized equipment, such as a SWECO trail builder or mini-excavator. Most trails would be constructed with hand tools.
Existing user-created trails, constructed roads, and trail segments not used in the trail system would be closed and rehabilitated. This would involve placing debris at junctions with designated trails, scarification of compacted trail tread, and installation of drainage structures (waterbars and check dams) where erosion is likely to occur. Scarified trails in the area historically have revegetated, however, if vegetation does not naturally re-occur on the closed trail tread within two years, then grass seed (native species) would be used. “Closed for Restoration” signs would be posted. Approximately 22 miles of trail have been identified for active rehabilitation, with a target of rehabilitating five miles of trails per year. For more detail on the trail construction and maintenance plan, see Appendix A. For more detail on the trail and road rehabilitation, see Appendix C.
The trail system would be accessible from two locations. Access to the western portion of the trail system would be from Straight Creek. The Straight Creek trailhead exists currently and would need no modification. It has a capacity of ten to fifteen vehicles. The Frey Gulch trailhead would be accessed via the Landfill Road. This proposed trailhead would be constructed 0.25 miles east of the existing Forest Service gate on Frey Gulch Road (66). It would be underneath and adjacent to the powerline and would be in the area that is mostly cleared of large trees. It would be approximately 1/2 acre and would have a capacity of about ten vehicles with trailers or 20 standard vehicles. The constructed surface would be aggregate/gravel. Future expansion of the trailhead could occur if the capacity is insufficient. The estimated expansion would be about 10,000 square feet to the east of the proposed location. Figure 2.7 shows the trailhead layout.
Chapter 2.0 – Alternatives Including the Proposed Action Page 2-8
Tenderfoot Mtn. Trail System Environmental Assessment October 2013 Miles Existing Segment Trail/Road Miles New Trail 2-10 1.64 2-15 0.11 Table 2.1 – List of Trail 4-5 0.75 Segments 4-20 0.14 T 5-7 0.33 Segments are identified by athe 5-8 0.19 beginning and ending pointsb 8-9 0.06 l 9-10 0.17 labeled on the Proposed Action 9-61 0.14 map (Figure 2.3) e 9-85 0.35 2 10-85 0.38 . 11-27 1.2 3 13-67 1.86 L 13-85 0.6 i 15-77 0.24 19-21 0.44 s 19-32 0.03 t 20-22 0.44 o 30-33 0.32 f 31-30 1 T 32-63 0.16 r 35-11 0.25 a 35-27 0.46 35-34 0.11 il 36-37 0.22 S 36-59 0.51 e 38-75 0.27 g 42-67 1.17 m 51-19 0.28 e 51-60 0.06 n 52-42 0.36 60-61 0.28 t 60-63 0.22 s 61-51 0.36 A 63-13 0.55 lt 66-83 0.37 e 67-72 0.57 r 73-72 0.62 74-75 0.28 n 75-49 0.67 a 76-3 0.24 ti 77-3 0.2 v 78-2 0.28 Total Trail Miles 20.99e 78-76 0.11 ATV Trail (89-21) 1.42 79-84 0.06 81-84 0.1 Road Miles 5.08 82-79 0.07 Total Routes 27.47S 82-81 0.07 e 83-82 0.08 Road Segment g 84-78 0.18 32-31 0.48m 90-91 0.72 1-89 1.1e 92-93 0.72 46-48 3.5n t TOTAL 7.87 13.12 Total Roads 5.08 s Chapter 2.0 – Alternatives Including the Proposed Action Page 2-9 a r e i d Tenderfoot Mtn. Trail System Environmental Assessment October 2013
Chapter 2.0 – Alternatives Including the Proposed Action Page 2-10
Tenderfoot Mtn. Trail System Environmental Assessment October 2013
Chapter 2.0 – Alternatives Including the Proposed Action Page 2-11
Tenderfoot Mtn. Trail System Environmental Assessment October 2013
Chapter 2.0 – Alternatives Including the Proposed Action Page 2-12
Tenderfoot Mtn. Trail System Environmental Assessment October 2013
Chapter 2.0 – Alternatives Including the Proposed Action Page 2-13
Tenderfoot Mtn. Trail System Environmental Assessment October 2013
Chapter 2.0 – Alternatives Including the Proposed Action Page 2-14
Tenderfoot Mtn. Trail System Environmental Assessment October 2013
For Table 2.1 and Figures 2.3 through 2.7: These maps and figures are reproduced from geospatial information prepared by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. GIS data and product accuracy may vary. They may be: developed from sources of differing accuracy, accurate only at certain scales, based on modeling or interpretation, incomplete while being created or revised, etc. Using GIS products for purposes other than those for which they were created, may yield inaccurate or misleading results. The Forest Service reserves the right to correct, update, modify, or replace, GIS products based on new inventories, new or revised information, and if necessary in conjunction with other federal, state or local public agencies or the public in general as required by policy or regulation.
All trails would be closed to four-wheeled vehicles (ATVs and full sized vehicles). ATVs would be permitted on Route 66.2A and the upper section of 66.2B during hunting season. All four wheeled vehicles would continue to be permitted on three roads in the area: Frey Gulch (66), Frey Gulch Spur (66.2C), and Straight Creek (51.1). Route 66.2A would be open to full-sized vehicles during hunting season (September-November). This proposal does not include any changes in winter travel. The trail system would be closed to motorized uses annually starting October 10*. In the spring, part of the system would be open to motorized uses starting June 21. The rest of the system would be open starting July 1*. The Frey Gulch Road (66.2B) seasonal motorized restriction would be extended from June 21 to July 1. The 66.2C spur road would also be included in this restriction. Figure 2.8 identifies the opening dates for each route. The spring closure is intended to protect elk calving habitat. This restriction is only required for the 5.43 management area, however, it would be applied to the whole trail system. In the past, motorcycle use ended with the first snowstorm (usually in mid-October) because trail surfaces are slick and unsafe to ride. Under this proposal, the single-track trails would be closed to motorized uses annually starting October 10th to reduce impacts to big game hunting (rifle season).
Chapter 2.0 – Alternatives Including the Proposed Action Page 2-15
Tenderfoot Mtn. Trail System Environmental Assessment October 2013
One mile of the Tenderfoot Mountain Road (66.2B) would be closed and rehabilitated.
The section of Road 66.2B from Point 24 to 21 would be maintained as a trail. The road is currently open to all uses. Vehicle access to several campsites along the first ½ mile of this road would be lost. There is a Forest Plan standard to prohibit camping within 100 feet of a stream (which is the case for all of these sites). The first 0.2 miles (59-16) would be converted to single track trail and open to hiking, horseback, mountain bike, and motorcycles. The next 0.4 miles (16-69) would be open to hiking and horseback only as would Sections 59-70 and 69-88. All of these trails are used by the Keystone Stables as part of their guided horseback riding operation.
Motor vehicle traffic on Highway 6 (between Dillon and Keystone) typically is less in the early morning and late evening. Background highway noise was identified as the primary reason why noise from motorcycles would not be heard in nearby residential subdivisions. For this reason, motorcycle use on trails would be prohibited between 8:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m*.
Because some of the trail system relies on existing roads and trails, some of those segments would be opened to public use immediately. Approximately 4 miles of trail would be opened following a decision to implement the proposed action. These routes are identified in Appendix A. Some of the existing trails (or portions of them) would need to be reconstructed to meet industry standards and achieve a sustainable condition. As crews reconstruct portions of these trails, they would be closed temporarily.
A minimal number of trees would be cut during construction and reconstruction of trails. The intent is for the trails to wind through narrow openings in the trees as adding turns slows motorcycles down which minimizes erosion Trees would be cut in the following circumstances:
Where small trees cannot be avoided Where the density of trees is too thick to circumvent Hazard trees exist (e.g., dead, leaning trees)
A maximum total of 2 acres would be cut. Most would be 1-3 inches in diameter. Anything larger would be avoided. The slash would be lopped and scattered. At the Frey Gulch Road trailhead, an estimated 0.01 acres would be cut which would involve about 50 1-2” diameter lodgepole trees, about 10 3-6” diameter aspen, and about 100 1-2” aspen.
The proposal also includes an education and enforcement plan to be implemented by the Forest Service (Appendix B). The program includes construction of kiosks at both trailheads. Messages would emphasize staying on the trails as well as information about wildfire safety (e.g., spark arresters), trail ethics, wildlife (especially elk habitat), and littering (pack in/pack out). A trail map would identify the designated trails and indicate that only those trails may be used. The map would also include all the information described on the trailhead kiosks. An important component of the education and enforcement plan is the Trail Ambassador program to be employed by SCORR in conjunction with the Friends of the Dillon Ranger District Forest Stewards Program. Volunteers would patrol the trails by
Chapter 2.0 – Alternatives Including the Proposed Action Page 2-16
Tenderfoot Mtn. Trail System Environmental Assessment October 2013 motorcycle and contact motorcycle riders and provide verbally the same key messages. Trail ambassadors would be identified with a placard on the motorcycle handlebars and with name tags on their shirts. A target of a minimum of eight patrols of the entire trail system per month throughout the summer season would be set (June 21-September 30).
Figure 2.9 - The desired future condition is for low grade trails winding through the trees like this existing user-created trail near Tenderfoot Mountain.
2.4 Design Features
Design features are specific project design components that are incorporated within the Proposed Action and alternatives. They provide specific guidance on project implementation above and beyond Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines and other required regulations that must be met and which become part of the decision made and the project implementation plan. Project-specific design criteria include:
All boundaries of riparian areas with new culverts would be flagged prior to construction to ensure proper placement.
Chapter 2.0 – Alternatives Including the Proposed Action Page 2-17
Tenderfoot Mtn. Trail System Environmental Assessment October 2013
Best Management Practices (BMPs) would be used during all phases of construction to reduce impacts from sedimentation and erosion, which may include berms, brush barriers, check dams, erosion control blankets, filter strips, sandbag barriers, sediment basins, sheet mulching, silt fences, straw-bale barriers, erosion logs, surface roughening, and/or diversion channels. Trail locations would avoid all wetlands. No equipment or construction materials (including fill) would be staged or stored within 100 feet of wetlands or other water features. No chemicals, such as soil stabilizers, dust inhibitors or fertilizers would be used within 100 feet of wetlands or other water features. Equipment would be refueled in designated contained areas, at least 100 feet away from wetlands or other water features. At all stream crossings, gravel would be placed on the tread 100 feet prior to the crossing to reduce sedimentation and dust. Approaches to stream crossings would include turns to ensure slow speeds to reduce dust. Connected Disturbed Areas and sediment delivery to streams would be minimized by ensuring that roads, road ditches, and other disturbed areas drain to undisturbed soils rather than directly to streams. Manipulate drainage from disturbed areas as necessary using natural topography, rolling dips, waterbars, ditch-relief culverts, etc., to disconnect disturbed areas from streams. Source: WCPH Management Measures 1 and 10. Connected Disturbed Area in the Straight Creek watershed and sediment delivery to Straight Creek would be minimized by applying a course of 3” angular rock to the trail tread within 100 feet on either side of any tributaries of Straight Creek. Source: WCPH Management Measures 1 and 10; ID Team. Heavy equipment would be kept out of streams and swales except to cross at designated points, build crossings, or do restoration work. Source: WCPH Management Measure 3. Culverts would be sized to maintain the bankful width, depth, and slope, of the natural stream channel, and to easily pass sediment and debris transported by the stream to be crossed. Do not use culverts less than 18” in diameter to cross any stream channel. Source: WCPH Management Measure 4. Ground vehicles would be kept out of wetlands. Do not disrupt water supply or drainage patterns into wetlands. Source: WCPH Management Measure 6. Trails would be outsloped where practical to shed water rather than concentrating water on the trail surface. Install cross drains to disperse runoff into filter strips. Design trails to drain water to undisturbed soils rather than retaining water, or draining to streams. Locate and construct trails in such a way as to minimize the amount of excavation needed and to reduce the potential for soil erosion. Source: WCPH Management Measure 9. Culverts would not be installed during spring runoff, or during periods of heavy precipitation. WCP Management Measure 9. trails would not be located on slopes that show signs of instability, such as slope failure, mass movement, or slumps. Source: WCPH Management Measure 9.
Chapter 2.0 – Alternatives Including the Proposed Action Page 2-18
Tenderfoot Mtn. Trail System Environmental Assessment October 2013
Vehicle service and fuel areas would be located on gentle upland sites at least 100 feet away from streams to prevent pollutants from contaminating water. Source: WCPH Management Measure 15. There would be a maximum of 5% gradient at stream crossings with a goal of 0%. Signs directing users to stay on the trail would be installed at both trailheads and where new and/or improved trails pass within 75 feet of potential peatlands. If illegal motorized use extends into those wetlands, then physical barriers (e.g., fences) would be constructed. In order to prevent noxious weed transport, all equipment to be used during construction would be thoroughly washed prior to mobilization to the site. Native seed would be used for re-vegetation and topsoil removed during construction would be saved for revegetating adjacent surfaces. For re-vegetation, a native grass seed mix would include Tufted Hair-grass (Deschampsia cespitosa), Idaho Fescue (Festuca idahoensis), Alpine Fescue (Festuca saximontana/Festuca brachyphylla) and Slender Wheatgrass (Agropyron trachycaulum). Volunteer maintenance projects would include invasive weed pulling. Where conifer trees seedlings are removed during trail construction and reconstruction, they would be transplanted adjacent to the trail. If any trees need to be moved during trailhead construction, a tree spade would be used to relocate them to adjacent areas. Rehabilitation of the Tenderfoot Mountain Road would include compost material (which is available at the nearby Summit County landfill). All trails constructed or reconstructed would be designed to be sustainable. Most would follow the contour or have a gentle grade. Motorcycle tires lose traction and spin which creates erosion on steep grades, therefore, the new trail grades would be low (between 0 and approximately 5%). Some sections may be greater than 5% where erosion can be deterred with structures or other design features. Trails would have dips or reverse-in-grade sections to deter water movement and erosion. The trail tread would also be outsloped 5%. The tread width would be 18 inches. The requirement for spark arresters would be promoted and enforced. To deter possible noise impacts to local residents, motorized use of the trail system would be limited to 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.* Sound testing would be conducted at trailheads several weekends during the summer to ensure compliance with the maximum allowable noise level for motorcycles. Recreation events using the trail system would be limited to no more than 50 participants and no more than two events per season. This includes non-motorized activities as well. * To minimize impacts to elk winter and calving habitat, the project area would be closed to motorized use from October 10 to June 20, annually. Additionally, one- third of the trail system would be closed to motorized use through June 30, annually.* Known active and inactive raptor nest areas would be protected. The extent of protection would be based on proposed management activities, human activities existing before nest establishment, species, topography, vegetation cover and other
Chapter 2.0 – Alternatives Including the Proposed Action Page 2-19
Tenderfoot Mtn. Trail System Environmental Assessment October 2013
factors. A no-disturbance buffer around active nest sites will be required from nest- site selection to fledging (generally March through July). Exceptions may occur when individuals are adapted to human activity. During construction activities, if a raptor nest or cavity nest is found in a tree that has been designated to be felled, the removal of the tree with the nest shall not occur until after nesting season is completed as determined by the district biologist. If a raptor nest is found during construction activities, the district biologist will be contacted to determine appropriate buffers to place around nest. No cutting of active nest trees will occur. To prevent road density from increasing within MA 5.5, no construction or use of routes should take place within MA 5.5 until decommissioning of designated routes within MA 5.5 has taken place. The district biologist would be contacted before implementation of construction activities begin each season, annually. Where possible, felling spruce and fir trees would be avoided during construction and decommissioning activities.
Many of the design criteria are included in the Construction/Maintenance and Education/Enforcement plans (Appendices A and B).
2.5 Monitoring Requirements
Pre-project data has been collected on the resources evaluated in this document. Some post- project monitoring would be required. Appendix E* contains a comprehensive list of monitoring items, and adaptive management actions that are incorporated as a crucial component of this proposed action.
Perform periodic sound testing on motorcycles throughout the summer to ensure compliance with the state statute. Any motorcycles found not to be in compliance would be required to leave immediately and not return until corrections are made to reduce the noise to at or below the maximum allowed. Monitor trails to ensure compliance with regulations: Perform periodic patrols by Forest Protection Officers and volunteers. The effectiveness of trail and campsite closures and the success of rehabilitation efforts would be monitored. Monitor number of vehicles in the Frey Gulch Trailhead to determine if there is adequate parking to accommodate demand. Monitor compliance with regulations to determine if additional management actions are necessary. Monitoring would occur during construction to ensure that the desired scenery conditions are being met. Post-construction monitoring should occur at least once within three years following project completion. Monitor invasive weeds to determine actions needed to deter infestations and stop the spread. Monitor existing recorded historic sites for evidence of disturbance. If unacceptable resource damage occurs and it cannot be mitigated through management, then the trails would be closed until the damage can be mitigated. Chapter 2.0 – Alternatives Including the Proposed Action Page 2-20
Tenderfoot Mtn. Trail System Environmental Assessment October 2013
District resource specialists would monitor impacts and make recommendations to the District Ranger if restrictions
2.6 Comparison of Alternatives
Tables 2.2 and 2.3 include descriptions and comparisons of the alternatives discussed in this EA.
Table 2.2. Summary of No Action and Proposed Action Alternatives. Alternative Alternative Description No changes to the current travel system in the project area would occur. Motorized use would only be allowed on 6.2 miles of existing system 1. No Action roads in Frey Gulch and 5 miles of road in Straight Creek. Closure and rehabilitation of all non-system trails in the area would proceed as funding is available. A total number of 21 miles of single-track motorized trail would be 2. Proposed added to the area’s motorized travel system. The system would include Action 10 miles of road, 7.9 miles of reconstructed trail and 13.1 miles of new trail. One mile of Road 66.2B would be closed and rehabilitated.
Table 2.3 Comparison of Alternatives. Impact Indication Alt 2 - Resource Alt 1 - No Action Proposed Action Stream Health Net reduction in 400 square feet 119,854 square feet CDA
Net reduction in 14 lbs/year sediment 338 lbs/year Wetlands Net benefit No net benefit or loss Aquatic Resources No Impact R2 fish species; No Impact May Adversely Impact Individuals but R2 Sensitive Species will not lead to loss of viability for R2 amphibian species May affect, not likely to adversely Lineage GB No change, adverse effects affect in the short term; Cutthroat trout continue Long term benefits to population MIS No Impact No Impact Vegetation R2 Sensitive Species No impact No impact Potential for weed introduction but Noxious weeds No additional weed introduction minimal with design criteria in place. Motorcycle use on a 31-mile system; Recreation Motorcycle use on roads only 10 miles of roads and 21 miles of trail. Motorized rec 0 miles of trail 21 miles of trail opportunities User conflicts
Chapter 2.0 – Alternatives Including the Proposed Action Page 2-21
Tenderfoot Mtn. Trail System Environmental Assessment October 2013
Conflicts with motorcycles minimized No conflicts with motorcycles on Hiking by reduced riding season and trails separating uses No conflicts with motorcycles on Conflicts with motorcycles minimized Hunting trails by early fall closure Traffic on Landfill Average <20 vehicles per day for 105 No additional traffic Rd days/year No change in full-sized motorized Reduction in full-sized motorized Hunting vehicle access. vehicle access (1.3 miles less) No effect to the form, line, color, No effect to the form, line, color, or Scenery Resources or texture of the natural appearing texture of the natural appearing character of the landscape. character of the landscape. No effect to historic properties Cultural Resources No effect to historic properties. because of avoidance. Noise No measurable noise impacts to No additional noise impacts to residents over ambient noise. impacts to residents residents. Motorized closure after 8 p.m. when ambient (highway) noise is lower. impacts to non- Additional noise impacts to non- No additional noise impacts to motorized trail motorized trail users for less than 4 non-motorized trail users. users months/yr. Socio-Economics Quality of life No change No measurable change. Property values No change No measurable change. County services No change No measurable change. Business revenues No change No measurable change. Wildfire No change in wildfire risk No measurable change in wildfire risk Wildlife Canada lynx Net benefit May Affect, Likely to Adversely Affect R2 Sensitive No Impact MAII Species Net benefit at local level Local impacts to herd MIS No Impact at DAU and Forest No Impact at DAU level DAU and level Forest level
2.7 Proactive and Adaptive Management
In addition to the design features and monitoring requirements identified in sections 2.4 and 2.5 (respectively), the Proactive and Adaptive Management Plan* (Appendix E), developed by the Tenderfoot Task Force, would be implemented. This plan identifies desired conditions, proactive recommendations, monitoring protocols, thresholds, and management actions.
2.8 Implementation
If this project were to be approved, construction would likely begin in July of 2015. Implementation would be dependent on available funding. A Colorado State Parks OHV grant would not be available until 2015. Although grants are not guaranteed, this program has been in existence in Colorado and many other states for several years. This project will not proceed without grant funding. Initial implementation would be small scale and would Chapter 2.0 – Alternatives Including the Proposed Action Page 2-22
Tenderfoot Mtn. Trail System Environmental Assessment October 2013 concentrate on closures. With all necessary funding, the project could be completed within three years, however, it may take up to six years to complete. As individual trail segments are completed, they would be opened for use. Until the Frey Gulch trailhead is constructed and the trail segments adjacent to the Straight Creek trailhead are constructed, trailer vehicles would continue to park in wide spurs and spurs along Frey Gulch Road.
Chapter 2.0 – Alternatives Including the Proposed Action Page 2-23
Tenderfoot Mtn. Trail System Environmental Assessment October 2013
CHAPTER 3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
This section summarizes the physical, biological, and social environments of the affected project area and the potential changes to those environments due to implementation of the alternatives. It also presents the scientific and analytical basis for comparison of alternatives presented in Chapter 2. All alternatives are consistent with the Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines. Technical reports for each resource were prepared to analyze effects associated with the alternatives as well as identified issues. These specialist’s reports are located in the project record and hereby incorporated by reference. The reports are summarized by topic in this section.
3.1 WATER RESOURCES
3.1.1 Issues and Indicators
Trail construction, maintenance, decommissioning, and management has the potential to affect water quality, stream health, and riparian area conditions, particularly by affecting erosion rates and creating pathways that can deliver sediment to streams. Indicators used in assessing the effects of the proposed project include: disturbance to the Water Influence Zone (acres), increases/ decreases in the number of stream crossings, increases/ decreases in Connected Disturbed Area (length and acres), increases/ decreases in sediment delivered to streams, and stream health.
3.1.2 Affected Environment
This analysis focuses on a timeframe ranging from 2006 to 2020. This timeframe allows the analysis to incorporate information from recent monitoring studies and extends into the reasonably foreseeable future.
The geographical scope for the watershed resources analysis is defined by a group of 2nd, 3rd, and 5th order watersheds, comprising 18,790 acres in the Blue River valley near Dillon, CO. The analysis is focused primarily on the Straight Creek and Frey Gulch Watersheds. This analysis also considers effects to three watersheds with small (second-order) tributaries draining to the Snake River, and four watersheds drained by very small (first- and second- order) tributaries on slopes adjacent to Dillon reservoir (Figure 3.1).
Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects Page 3-1 Tenderfoot Mtn. Trail System Environmental Assessment October 2013
Figure 3.1: Watersheds that would be affected by the proposed Tenderfoot Mountain trail system
There are three municipal water supplies located within or just downstream from the project boundary. Dillon Reservoir is a 257,000 acre-foot municipal water supply operated by the Denver Water Department and Straight Creek is a municipal water supply for the Town of Dillon and Dillon Valley. Groundwater in the Snake River Valley is the water supply for Keystone. A Source Water Protection Plan (SWPP) for these municipal water supply watersheds was completed in 2010 with input from the White River National Forest. BMPs developed for the SWPP include protecting water supply infrastructure, managing sediment inputs to Straight Creek, and preventing unwanted ignition of fire. Additionally, in 2009 the US Forest Service signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment that emphasizes source water protection.
The surface waters in the project area are assigned the following beneficial uses by the Colorado Water Quality Control Commission:
Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects Page 3-2 Tenderfoot Mtn. Trail System Environmental Assessment October 2013
Aquatic life - Class 1 Cold Water Water Supply Recreation 1a (including primary contact use through activities such as swimming) Agriculture
CURRENT CONDITIONS
Water Quality Due to concerns about nutrient enrichment, a special water quality standard for total phosphorus has been assigned to Dillon Reservoir. Waste-load allocations for total phosphorus have been established for all point source discharges in the Dillon Reservoir watershed. “Point sources” are defined in section 502(14) of the Clean Water Act as “discernible, confined, and discrete conveyance, including but not limited to any pipe, ditch, channel, tunnel, conduit,” etc., “from which pollutants are or may be discharged.” The allowed point source allocations are based on the assumption that best management practices would result in pound for pound mitigation of all new non-point sources of phosphorus (CDPHE Reg. No. 71). Non-point sources are defined by the US EPA to mean any sources of water pollution that are not “point sources.” All watersheds in the project area have existing non-point sources due to disturbance by past management -existing sources include soil erosion along roads, trails, dispersed campsites and off-road vehicle tracks. Urban development located adjacent to the project area is a major contributor of phosphorous loading in Dillon Reservoir (Lewis, et al, 1983 and 2001). There are very few natural disturbances such as landslides as past wildfires have not burned hot enough to consume ground cover. Soil erosion from human disturbances is a potential non-point source because phosphorus is adsorbed onto sediment particles (EPA 1991). Disturbed areas are a source of phosphorus only if they are located next to streams and the eroded sediment can be transported into a channel.
Water quality in Straight Creek is regulated by Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) regulations established in 2000 (CDPHE 2000). The Colorado Water Quality Control Commission has determined that aquatic life in Straight Creek is impaired by sediment and is listed on Colorado’s 303(d) list of impaired waters (CDPHE 2010). A study by the Colorado Division of Wildlife showed that habitat in Straight Creek does not support the designated use for Aquatic Life Cold Water Class 1 due to sediment deposition on the channel bed (Woodling 1991). Fish populations have been reduced by infilling of pool habitat and burial of the natural stream substrate. The primary source of sediment is from traction sand applied to interstate I-70 and erosion from cut and fill slopes.
Stream health Stream health is defined as the condition of a stream compared to the condition of a minimally disturbed reference stream (FSH 2509.25 zero code; CDPHE, 2002). Stream health is categorized as robust, at-risk, or diminished using numerical criteria for fine sediment loading, percentage of unstable banks, residual pool depths and wood loading.
To evaluate stream health in the project area, stream channel conditions were evaluated using a standard Forest Service physical habitat survey method. Relevant data were available
Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects Page 3-3 Tenderfoot Mtn. Trail System Environmental Assessment October 2013 for Straight Creek from a monitoring effort required by the TMDL described below (Table 3.1). Data were available for Frey Gulch from a 2006 survey, however, Frey Gulch was surveyed again in September of 2011 to bring data up to date (Table 3.1). Quantitative stream health surveys are not routinely conducted on second order and smaller streams due to high natural variability in bed and bank characteristics.
Table 3.1: Stream health ratings for project area streams
Stream Health Classification by individual metrics
Stream / Reach Fine sediment Residual pool Bank Wood depth stability frequency Straight Creek Diminished Diminished No data No data
Frey Gulch Diminished Diminished Robust Robust Reach 1 (2006) Frey Gulch Diminished At-risk Robust Robust Reach 2 (2011)
Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects Page 3-4 Tenderfoot Mtn. Trail System Environmental Assessment October 2013
Figure 3.2: Connected Disturbed Area in the lower portion of the Frey Gulch Watershed.
Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects Page 3-5 Tenderfoot Mtn. Trail System Environmental Assessment October 2013
Figure 3.3: Connected Disturbed Area near the camping area adjacent to Frey Gulch.
Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects Page 3-6 Tenderfoot Mtn. Trail System Environmental Assessment October 2013
Figure 3.4: Connected Disturbed Area associated with jeep roads adjacent to Frey Gulch.
Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects Page 3-7 Tenderfoot Mtn. Trail System Environmental Assessment October 2013
Connected Disturbed Area and stream crossings Connected Disturbed Areas (CDA) include high run-off areas such as roads, trails, and other disturbed sites that discharge surface run-off directly into a stream or lake (FSH 2509.25 zero code). Connected Disturbed Areas readily route water and sediment to streams via overland flow during rain storms and spring runoff. The design criteria for WCP standard 1 specifies a maximum allowable length of connected disturbed area:
In each 3rd order and larger watershed, limit connected disturbed area so that the total stream network is not expanded by more than 10%. Progress towards zero connected disturbed area as much as feasible (FSM 2521, as cited in FSH 2509.25).
For this project, the analysis of CDA was conducted by first evaluating maps and aerial photography, then by verifying results with field surveys and additional on-the-ground delineation where needed.
A detailed inventory of CDA was not completed for Straight Creek because it is clear that the existing CDA associated with the I-70 corridor far exceeds desired conditions. The TMDL for Straight Creek identifies 358 acres of disturbance associated with cut and fill slopes adjacent to I-70. Much of this is considered hydrologically connected to Straight Creek.
For this analysis, CDA in Frey Gulch was mapped meticulously because previous observations indicated that jeep roads in Frey Gulch were the primary sediment sources contributing to the “diminished” stream health classification rating for fine sediment (Table 3.2, Figure 3.2, Figure 3.3, Figure 3.4). Detailed inventories of existing CDA were not conducted for small watersheds drained by first- and second-order tributaries to the Snake River and Dillon Reservoir; however, proposed CDA that would occur in these watersheds is quantified in the effects analysis section.
Table 3.2: Connected Disturbed Areas in the Frey Gulch Watershed
CDA Source CDA: acres CDA: length of CDA: length as a proportion linear features of total stream length in (ft) watershed (%) Trails 0.36 7,902 24.7 Roads 1.28 1,791 5.6 4X4 roads 1.52 3,770 11.8 Camping areas 1.59 NA NA Total 4.75 13,462 42.1
Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects Page 3-8 Tenderfoot Mtn. Trail System Environmental Assessment October 2013
3.1.3 Environmental Effects by Alternative
3.1.3.1 Alternative 1 – No Action
Under the no-action alternative, the proposed trail construction and reconstruction would not occur. Road 66.2B would remain open. Existing conditions, as described above would persist for the foreseeable future except where trail rehabilitation would occur as funding becomes available. An extensive network of user-created trails would be rehabilitated including one trail that crosses a headwater tributary of Frey Gulch. This rehabilitation work would result in a decrease in CDA in the Frey Gulch watershed of 200 square feet and a resulting decrease of 14 pounds per year of sediment delivered to Frey Gulch (additional information provided below and in Tables 3.4 and 3.5). Under the no action alternative the jeep roads that drain to Frey Gulch and constitute the major anthropogenic sediment sources would not be closed or rehabilitated.
3.1.3.2 Alternative 2 – Proposed Action
The proposed action would include trail construction, reconstruction, and maintenance within the project area as described in Chapter 2. Road and trail rehabilitation would occur concurrently with the construction.
Direct and Indirect effects
Road/ trail closure and rehabilitation The proposed action includes 22 miles of trail rehabilitation. Additionally, Parts of Road 66.2B and other jeep roads that constitute the major anthropogenic sediment sources to Frey gulch would be closed and rehabilitated. Also, under the proposed action an additional portion of Forest Road 66.2B running between the Frey Gulch Road and the Frey Gulch crossing (on FR66.2B) would be closed and converted to single track. Rehabilitation techniques would vary from minimal measures that rely on effective closure and natural vegetative regeneration to more aggressive rehabilitation involving earth work, soil amendment, and direct seeding or planting. The rehabilitation of the jeep roads along Frey Gulch would have the greatest potential to benefit water quality and stream health and would also require the most aggressive techniques. Road gradients are at or near 20% on open jeep roads and up to 45% on a user-created jeep road that drain to Frey Gulch. Some of the jeep roads and trails are also incised to depth up to two feet making it very difficult to route water away to prevent future erosion. Rehabilitation on steeper roads and trails and on those that are incised would require effective closure, earth work, soil amendment, and seeding or planting. Finally, monitoring would be required to assess rehabilitation success and to determine whether follow up work is needed. Road rehabilitation is discussed further in the following sections. Table 3.3 summarizes how the proposed action would affect the number of stream crossings in each watershed.
Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects Page 3-9 Tenderfoot Mtn. Trail System Environmental Assessment October 2013
Table 3.3: Summary of ground-disturbing activities in the proposed action
Watershed New stream Closed stream crossings crossings Straight 2 0 Creek Frey Gulch 0 1 Snake River 2 0 tributaries Dillon Res. 2 0 Tributaries Total 6 1
WIZ disturbance and Connected Disturbed Area Under the proposed action, the construction of new trails would require disturbance to the Water Influence Zone (WIZ) where trails would approach and cross streams. The WIZ is the land next to water bodies where vegetation plays a major role in long-term integrity of aquatic ecosystems (FSH 2509.25). It includes the valley bottom, riparian ecosystem, and the inner gorge. The width of the WIZ is 100 feet, or the mean height of mature dominant late-seral vegetation, whichever is greatest. In the lodgepole pine-dominated slopes where new trail crossings would occur within the project area, the WIZ is considered to be 200 feet wide, plus the width of the stream (100 feet from each stream bank). Because trails approach streams at oblique angles, this analysis assumes that trail crossings would disturb vegetation for a linear distance of 200 feet on either side of a stream crossing. The vegetation disturbance corridor for the trail is assumed to be three feet wide. This analysis assumes that connected disturbed areas (CDA) associated with stream crossings would extend 100 feet on either side of the stream and have a width of 2 feet. This assumption is reasonable because for properly designed stream crossings, ground disturbance and the amount of disturbed ground that drain directly to streams is less than the extent of vegetation disturbance within the WIZ. The proposed action would require WIZ disturbance and CDA within the project area watersheds as described in Table 3.4.
In the Frey Gulch Watershed, rehabilitation of Road 66.2B and jeep roads would greatly reduce the amount of connected disturbed area (Table 3.4). While this would eventually be very beneficial to the condition of Frey Gulch, it is important to note that the benefits of rehabilitation would not be immediate. Rather, conditions in rehabilitation areas would improve markedly over a period of five years then continue to improve marginally over a period of decades. Eventually, vegetation density, levels of organic matter, and soil infiltration rates in rehabilitation areas would resemble that in undisturbed soils. When this occurs, the areas would no longer be considered “disturbed” for the purpose of this analysis.
Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects Page 3-10 Tenderfoot Mtn. Trail System Environmental Assessment October 2013
Table 3.4: Summary of changes in Connected Disturbed Area associated with Alternative 2 – the proposed action, and rehabilitation associated with Alternative 1 (No Action) where specified.
Watershed New Disturbance New CDA New Rehabilitated Net change in stream to vegetation (linear CDA CDA (square CDA* (sq. ft.) crossings within the feet) (square feet) WIZ (square feet) feet) Straight 2 2,400 400 800 0 800 Creek Frey 0 0 0 0 400 (Alt 1) -400 (Alt 1) Gulch 122,254 (Alt 2) -122,254 (Alt 2) Snake 2 2,400 400 800 0 800 River tributaries Dillon 2 2,400 400 800 0 800 Res. Tributaries Total 6 7,200 1,200 2,400 400 (Alt 1) -400 (Alt 1) 122,254 (Alt 2) -119,854 (Alt 2)
*This considers the long-term change in CDA, assuming fully-successful rehabilitation.
Water quality This analysis makes use of the WEPP-road, a model developed by the USDA to predict sediment production associated with roads (USDA National Soil Erosion Research Laboratory, 1995). The Water Erosion Prediction Project (WEPP) model is a process-based, distributed parameter, continuous simulation, erosion prediction model. The model allows calibration based on climate, soil texture, road design, surface design, traffic volume, road gradient, and side slope characteristics. This project proposes to build trails, not roads, however, trails and roads have similar physical characteristics. For the purpose of evaluating sediment production, proposed trails were analyzed as very small roads. For this analysis, trails approaching streams were modeled as a 200-foot long, two-foot wide, out-sloped surface approaching and departing a stream on a 10% gradient (thus over-estimating the sediment) on a 25% side slope characterized by a sandy loam with 20% rock fragment. Thus calibrated, the model indicates that each stream crossing is expected to produce approximately 14 lbs of sediment per year. Sediment production from such stream crossings can essentially be eliminated by applying very coarse gravel, as is proposed on the stream crossings in the Straight Creek watershed. Overall, stream crossings included in the proposed action would be expected to generate a total of about 56 pounds of sediment per year across the entire project area (Table 3.5). This assumes that the approaches to stream crossings in the Straight Creek Watershed would be armored during construction by applying a course of 3” angular rock to prevent the mobilization of sediment from the trail tread (see design criteria).
Under the proposed action, jeep roads that drain directly to Frey Gulch would be closed and rehabilitated. The jeep roads are a concern because they are immediately adjacent to the
Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects Page 3-11 Tenderfoot Mtn. Trail System Environmental Assessment October 2013 stream, they are steep, and the roads cross soils characterized by deeply weathered granitic material that crumbles to easily-mobilized sand. WEPP was used to analyze the amount of sediment that could be produced from the jeep roads. This analysis indicates that the jeep roads produce 386 lbs/year of sediment (Table 3.5). Because of the proximity of the jeep roads to water and the steep gradients, all of the sediment produced from these roads is assumed to be delivered to Frey Gulch. Under both the no-action alternative and the proposed action one stream crossing on an unauthorized trail in the headwaters for Frey Gulch would be closed and rehabilitated, which would prevent an additional 14 lbs of sediment per year from entering Frey Gulch (Table 3.5).
Table 3.5: Summary of WEPP analysis for the proposed action and water quality and stream health implications
Watershed Net new New Offset credit Water Quality Long term stream sediment from rehab. restriction/ Water Quality/ x-ings inputs (lbs/year) Existing Stream Stream Health from x- Health issue effect and trend ings (lbs/year) Straight 2 0* 0 Sediment inputs No effect Creek limited by TMDL Frey Gulch 0 0 386 (roads, Alt 2 Diminished Beneficial ( long only) stream health due term); trend to- 14 (trail, Alts 1 to fine sediment wards and 2) improvement Snake 2 28 0 Phosphorous in Minor negative River Dillon Reservoir effect; Possible tributaries (a short distance trend towards downstream) worsening conditions Dillon Res. 2 28 0 Phosphorous in No effect Tributaries Dillon Res. Total 6 56 400 (Alt 2) -- --
* This assumes that the approaches to stream crossings in the Straight Creek Watershed would be armored during construction by applying a course of 3” angular rock to prevent the mobilization of sediment from the trail tread (see design criteria).
As noted above, the mainstem of Straight Creek is listed on the Colorado 2010 303(d) List for impairment by sediment. No specific numerical standard for sediment has been set. Rather, the Total Maximum Daily Load Assessment (TMDL) approved by the EPA sets water quality goals for Straight Creek that pertain to the median size of bed material, the volume of sediment stored in pools, stream morphology, and fish population age class distribution. These goals have not yet been met. Because of this, specific design criteria incorporated into the proposed action call for the approaches to stream crossings in the Straight Creek Watershed to be armored during construction by applying a course of 3”
Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects Page 3-12 Tenderfoot Mtn. Trail System Environmental Assessment October 2013 angular rock to prevent the mobilization of sediment from the trail tread. The construction and maintenance of rock-armored approaches in the Straight Creek Watershed are expected to prevent 28 lbs per year of sediment from entering tributaries of Straight Creek. As such, the proposed action would not affect sediment loading in Straight Creek and would be consistent with the water quality goals defined in the TMDL and approved by the Environmental Protection Agency.
The proposed action calls for the rehabilitation of the jeep roads adjacent to Frey Gulch and also one stream crossing associated with a user-created trail in the headwaters of Frey Gulch (Table 3.5). The rehabilitation effort would improve the long-term sediment loading in Frey Gulch, so long as the rehabilitation is effective and the closure of this area is effectively enforced.
Two new stream crossings on tributaries of the Snake River would add a small amount of sediment that would eventually move towards Dillon Reservoir, where sediment has been specifically identified as a water quality concern (Table 3.5). However, Frey Gulch is also a tributary to Snake River and the reduction in sediment loading associated with rehabilitation along Frey Gulch would lead to a net reduction in sediment delivered to the Snake River and Dillon Reservoir. New stream crossings on tributaries draining slopes adjacent to Dillon Reservoir are not expected to affect water quality in Dillon Reservoir because these streams flow sub-surface before reaching the reservoir.
There is a concern that an indirect effect of the proposed trail system would be increased use of the Frey Gulch area for camping and other associated activities such as human waste disposal. Under the proposed action, this concern would be addressed by closing and rehabilitating camping areas that are within 100 feet of Frey Gulch. So long as these areas are effectively closed and rehabilitated and closures are effectively enforced, the disposal of human waste is not expected to affect water quality in Frey Gulch.
Because of phosphorous limitations in Dillon Reservoir, rehabilitation of areas adjacent to Frey Gulch would need to be accomplished without introducing phosphorous into the water. Under the proposed action, this would be accomplished by using compost rather than fertilizer. This would avoid the possibility of adding phosphorous to Dillon Reservoir because compost is very low in phosphorous, especially when compared with pelletized fertilizer.
Stream Health Under the proposed action, the effects to stream health would be associated primarily with changes to sediment transport and delivery to streams. Rehabilitation of the jeep roads adjacent to Frey Gulch would benefit stream health, whereas new stream crossings in tributaries of Straight Creek could contribute to worsening conditions. Both Frey Gulch and Straight Creek have “diminished” stream health due to fine sediment (Table 3.1). Fine sediment settles out in pools, thereby reducing the residual depth of pools. Stream health ratings for residual pool depth in both Straight Creek and Frey Gulch - Reach 1 are “diminished” and “at-risk” in Frey Gulch - Reach 2. Under the proposed action, stream health in Frey Gulch would improve as conditions improve on rehabilitation areas that are currently sediment sources to Frey Gulch. It is important to note that improvements in stream health would not be immediate. Even after sediment sources are eliminated, excess
Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects Page 3-13 Tenderfoot Mtn. Trail System Environmental Assessment October 2013 fine sediment that is already in Frey Gulch would move downstream over a period of years. An improvement in fine sediment levels and residual pool depths in the surveyed reaches of Frey Gulch is expected to take five to ten years. Straight Creek can be expected to remain diminished due to fine sediment and residual pool depth primarily due to sediment inputs from I-70. The proposed action would not contribute to sediment loading in Straight Creek.
Stream health ratings are currently “robust” for bank stability and wood frequency in Frey Gulch (Table 3.1). There is a concern that an indirect effect of the proposed trail system would be increased use of the Frey Gulch area for camping and other associated activities such as fishing, firewood gathering, human waste disposal, etc., which in turn may lead to soil compaction along the stream banks. Under the proposed action, this concern would be addressed by closing and rehabilitating camping areas that are within 100 feet of Frey Gulch that are contributing sediment to Frey Gulch. New stream crossings associated with the proposed action would not be expected to reduce bank stability. Properly installed bridges and culverts affect only small sections of stream banks, not enough in this case to negatively affect the overall bank stability in these streams. Bank stability would remain “robust” in Frey Gulch so long as stream crossings are properly designed and maintained and stream- side camping areas are effectively closed and rehabilitated. The proposed action is not expected to affect wood loading in any streams. The stream health rating for wood loading in Frey Gulch would remain “robust.”
Cumulative Effects
The direct and indirect effects of the proposed action, described above, are primarily related to sediment in streams. Sediment-related effects associated with the project would be in addition to past, ongoing and future sediment-related effects in the affected watersheds. There has been recent logging in both the Frey Gulch and Straight Creek Watersheds and along the small tributaries of the Snake River. Ongoing operations such as hauling timber on the road crossing Frey Gulch and the Snake River tributaries and the continued application of traction sand on I-70 will continue to cause sediment-related effects in the project area streams. Additional measures to prevent sediment from I-70 reaching Straight Creek have been identified and improvements can be expected as these measures are implemented.
Rehabilitation of jeep roads adjacent to Frey Gulch are expected to greatly improve long- term stream health in Frey Gulch. Additionally, rehabilitation of these areas would reduce overall sediment delivery (and therefore phosphorous delivery) to Dillon Reservoir.
3.1.4 Monitoring Recommendations
The proposed action includes rehabilitation of an extensive network of user-created trails, jeep roads, and camping areas. There are several challenges to rehabilitating these areas. Some of the most impacted areas would require aggressive rehabilitation techniques. Therefore rehabilitation efforts would need to be monitored to ensure long-term success. Monitoring would need to evaluate the effectiveness of trail and camp closures and the success of rehabilitation efforts.
3.1.5 Forest Plan Consistency.
Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects Page 3-14 Tenderfoot Mtn. Trail System Environmental Assessment October 2013
Forest-wide standards for the management of soil and water resources were published in the Land and Resources Management Plan for the White River National Forest (USDA Forest Service, 2002). An amendment published in 2005 (USDA Forest Service, 2005) removed standards that were already covered under the Watershed Conservation Practices Handbook (FSH 2509.25). The discussion below demonstrates how the proposed project would comply with remaining Standards for Soil, Water, and Riparian resources in the Forest Plan, and the Management Measures described in the Watershed Conservation Practices Handbook.
Water and Riparian Resources
Standard 1: Please refer to the Aquatics Section for a discussion of the effects of the project on fish habitat.
Standards 2, 3, and 5-13 were removed from the Forest Plan by amendment (USDA Forest Service, 2005).
Standard 4 would be met. No wood or debris would be removed from stream channels.
Watershed Conservation Practices Handbook (WCPH) Management Measure 1 would be met. The overall goal of the management measure – to protect long-term stream health from damage by increased runoff – would be met. Furthermore, constructing and maintaining rock-armored stream approaches in the Straight Creek Watershed would ensure that the total connected disturbed area would not be expanded in Straight Creek.
WCPH Management Measure 2 would be met. Adherence to project design criteria would ensure adequate levels of organic ground cover would be retained through slash retention and dispersal.
WCPH Management Measure 3 would be met. Rehabilitation plans incorporated into the proposed action and design criteria for the proper construction and maintenance of stream crossings would ensure consistency with direction to “allow only those actions that maintain or improve long-term stream health and riparian ecosystem condition”, within the water influence zone.
WCPH Management Measure 4 would be met. Adherence to project design criteria would ensure that culverts would be sized properly to pass expected flood flows and sediment and allow for passage of aquatic organisms.
WCPH Management Measure 5 would be met. No actions would occur that would alter the overall stream pattern or geometry in project area streams.
WCPH Management Measure 6 would be met. Wetlands would be avoided completely. Long-term ground cover, soil structure, water budgets, and flow patterns would be maintained.
Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects Page 3-15 Tenderfoot Mtn. Trail System Environmental Assessment October 2013
WCPH Management Measure 7 would be met. This project would not cause changes in stream flow that would harm fish and wildlife habitat, or scenic and aesthetic values.
WCPH Management Measure 8 would be met. This project would not affect any water- use facilities.
WCPH Management Measure 9 would be met. Under the proposed action the USFS would “design, construct, and maintain recreational travelways for proper drainage,” as indicated by FSH 2509.25.
WCPH Management Measure 10 would be met. This management measure calls for constructing roads and other disturbed sites to minimize sediment discharge into streams, lakes, and wetlands. The proposed action achieves this by identifying specific design criteria for minimizing sediment effects, and by identifying rehabilitation opportunities to reduce the overall sediment production within the project area.
WCPH Management Measure 11 would be met. Road and trail maintenance would occur according to specified maintenance plans.
WCPH Management Measure 12 would be met. This management measure calls for reclaiming roads and other disturbed sites when use ends, as needed, to prevent resource damage. The proposed action would take advantage of the opportunity to address overall access needs and close jeep roads adjacent to Frey Gulch that have become chronic sediment sources affecting stream health.
WCPH Management Measure 13 would be met. The sum of detrimental soil impacts would be limited to less than 15 percent of the activity area.
WCPH Management Measure 14 would be met. Organic ground cover would be retained except within narrow trail corridors.
WCPH Management Measure 15 would be met. Closure of camping areas within 100 feet of Frey Gulch and enforcement of closures would address the need to manage disposal of human waste, wastewater, and garbage.
WCPH Management Measures 16 and 17 are not applicable to this project.
Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects Page 3-16 Tenderfoot Mtn. Trail System Environmental Assessment October 2013
3.2 WETLANDS
3.2.1 Issues and Indicators
This section uses acres of wetlands impacted as an indicator for the amount of impact and compensatory mitigation required.
3.2.2 Forest Plan Direction
Forest Plan Standards related to wetlands are found in the Forest Service Handbook, Rocky Mountain Region, FSH 2509.15 (Watershed Conservation Practices Handbook). Management measures (analogous to standards) related to wetlands include:
MM 3 In the water influence zone next to perennial and intermittent streams, lakes, and wetlands, allow only those actions that maintain or improve long-term stream health and riparian ecosystem condition.
MM 6 Maintain long-term ground-cover, soil structure, water budgets, and flow patterns of wetlands to sustain their ecological function.
MM 7 Manage stream flows under appropriate authorities to minimize damage to scenic and aesthetic values, fish and wildlife habitat, and to otherwise protect the environment.
MM 10 Construct roads and other disturbed sites to minimize sediment discharge into streams, lakes, and wetlands.
MM 12. Reclaim roads and other disturbed sites when use ends, as needed, to prevent resource damage.
MM 15. Place new sources of chemical and pathogenic pollutants where such pollutants will not reach surface or ground water.
MM 16 Apply runoff controls to disconnect pollutant sources from surface and ground water.
MM 17. Apply chemicals using methods that minimize risk of entry to surface and ground water.
3.2.3 Introduction
Claffey Ecological Consulting, Inc (CEC) evaluated the wetlands at the project site and within the project area in 2008. This work included delineation of all wetlands potentially directly affected by the project using the US Army Corps of Engineers 1987 Wetland Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987). Wetlands were flagged in the field and surveyed with GPS.
Wetlands delineated in the project area are shown in the Wetlands Report. This report includes areas that were originally part of the proposed action, but later dropped.
3.2.4 Affected Environment
3.2.4.1 General Description
Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects Page 3-17 Tenderfoot Mtn. Trail System Environmental Assessment October 2013
The study area is situated just north of Lake Dillon and US 6, and it varies in elevation from 9,200 to 11,300 feet above mean sea level. It is dominated by lodgepole pine forest with areas of quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides) forest at middle and lower elevations and mixed conifer forest at higher elevations. Subalpine fir (Abies lasiocarpa), Englemann spruce (Picea engelmanni) and lodgepole pine comprise the mixed conifer forest. Much of the lodgepole pine areas have been heavily impacted by the mountain pine beetle infestation; some areas were logged in fall 2009 as part of the Keystone Stewardship contract, which was awarded after the decision was issued on the Dillon Reservoir Forest Health and Fuels (DRFHF) project. The study area is in the Sedimentary Subalpine Forest Ecoregion (EPA 2010), which is characterized by glaciated high mountains with steep, high-gradient perennial streams surrounded by extensive forests. There are numerous small drainages within the study area; the largest and only named drainage is Frey Gulch. All drainages are tributaries to the Snake River.
The study area contains an extensive network of off-road trails, four-wheel drive roads, a large powerline, and extensive areas that have been recently logged. There is no other development or recent ground disturbance present.
3.2.4.2 Wetlands in the Study Area
A total of 20 wetlands, encompassing 3.68 acres, were mapped within the study area. An additional 5 wetlands were identified as “nearby wetlands” and are within approximately 75 feet of the proposed trails. Maps of these wetlands are located in the project file. The nearby wetlands were not mapped and are represented by only a symbol on the maps.
The wetlands in the study area can be placed into two main groups and their position in the landscape: slope and riverine. Slope wetlands are those that are situated on a topographic slope (or hillside) and mainly supported by groundwater. Riverine wetlands are those that are associated with a stream channel with their primary water supply derived from overbank flow and subsurface connections to the channel.
The wetlands can then be further grouped based on their dominant vegetation type according to Cowardin, et al. (1979) into palustrine emergent (PEM) and palustrine scrub-shrub (PSS). PEM wetlands are those dominated by herbaceous vegetation (grasses, grass-likes, and forbs) and PSS wetlands are those dominated by woody vegetation less than 20 feet tall (shrubs). Table 3.6 lists the acres of wetlands present by wetland type.
Table 3.6 Wetlands Mapped in the Study Area Number of Area Wetland Type Wetlands (acres) Slope PEM 10 0.14 PSS 2 0.04 Subtotal 12 0.18
Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects Page 3-18 Tenderfoot Mtn. Trail System Environmental Assessment October 2013
Riverine PEM 3 0.10 PSS 5 3.40 Subtotal 8 3.50 Total 20 3.68
3.2.4.3 Slope Wetlands
Most of the wetlands in the study area are slope wetlands (12 of 20 wetlands), although they only encompass a total of 0.19 acre (5 percent of the wetland area). Most of the slope wetlands are classified according to Cowardin, et al. (1979) as PEM with only two classified as PSS. Table 3.7 provides a summary of the slope wetlands.
Table 3.7 Slope Wetlands in the Study Area Wetland Type Area Potential Map Tile2 and ID (square feet)1 Peatland3 Slope PEM 17-2 469 7 No 24-1 92 2 No 40-1 1,265 4 No 67-1 637 5 No 72-1 449 5, 6 Yes 75-3 183 10 No 86-1 603 1 No 91-1 205 3 No 91-2 1,854 3 Yes 91-3 465 3 No Subtotal 6,222 Slope PSS 13-1 1,210 3 No 75-2 683 10 No Subtotal 1,893 Total 8,115 1 Only includes the portion of the wetland within the study area 2 Refers to Figures 1 through 12 in specialist report 3 Based on informal observations (no soil analyses were conducted) and only includes the area within 75 feet of the proposed trail.
Typical vegetation within the 10 PEM slope wetlands consists of mostly water sedge (Carex aquatilis), beaked sedge (Carex utriculata), bluejoint reedgrass (Calamagrostis canadensis), arrowleaf ragwort (Senecio triangularis), heartleaf bittercress (Cardamine cordifolia), white marsh marigold (Caltha leptosepala), and tall fringed bluebells (Mertensia ciliata), with widely scattered willow (Salix spp.) and thinleaf alder (Alnus incana). Most wetlands are bordered by lodgepole pine, mixed conifer, and/or quaking aspen forest.
Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects Page 3-19 Tenderfoot Mtn. Trail System Environmental Assessment October 2013
The two PSS slope wetlands are generally dominated by thinleaf alder and/or various willow species, including park willow (Salix monticola), Drummond’s willow (S. drummondiana), and diamondleaf willow (S. planifolia). These areas typically have an understory comprised of plant species commonly found in the PEM slope wetlands andare also usually bordered by lodgepole pine, mixed conifer, and/or quaking aspen forest.
Although slope wetlands are primarily supported by groundwater, most in the study area are supplemented by saturated surface flows (Hauer et al 2002) associated with precipitation (mainly snowmelt). All of the slope wetlands mapped in the study area were saturated to the surface and/or inundated with several inches of water during the field survey. This suggests a prolonged hydroperiod and long-term saturation during the growing season in most locations.
Several of the slope wetlands in the study area are likely peatlands or “fens.” These wetlands are supported primarily by groundwater and contain organic soils. Although the presence of organic soils was not formally confirmed, Wetlands 72-1 and 91-2; and Nearby Wetlands 72-1, 75-1, and 86-1 (Table 3, Figures 1-6 and 10) are expected to contain organic soils. These wetlands are of especially high quality and were given special consideration during project planning.
3.2.4.4 Riverine Wetlands
Although there are only eight riverine wetlands in the study area, they encompass over 3.49 acres (or 95 percent of the wetland area). This includes one very large wetland (Wetland 33-1) which encompasses 2.98 acres. Three of the eight wetlands are classified according to Cowardin, et al. (1979) as PEM and five are PSS (including Wetland 33-1). Table 3.8 provides a summary of the riverine wetlands.
Table 3.8 Riverine Wetlands in the Study Area Wetland Type Area Potential Map Tile2 and ID (square feet)1 Peatland3 Riverine PEM 24-2 715 2 Yes 75-1 2,993 10 No 75-4 445 10 No Subtotal 4,153 Riverine PSS 33-1 130,477 8 Yes 34-1 12,345 8 Yes 67-2 2,954 5 No 92-1 1,533 9 No 92-2 629 9 No Subtotal 147,938 Total 152,091 1 Only includes the portion of the wetland within the study area 2 Refers to Figures 1 through 12 in specialist report
Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects Page 3-20 Tenderfoot Mtn. Trail System Environmental Assessment October 2013
3 Based on informal observations (no soil analyses were conducted) and only includes the area within 75 feet of the proposed trail.
The vegetation found within and around the five PEM riverine wetlands is very similar to that found in PEM slope wetlands, and the dominant vegetation in the PSS riverine wetlands is very similar to that found in PSS slope wetlands (with thinleaf alder and various willows dominating all sites).
All of the riverine wetlands are found in drainage bottoms or along small streams, most of which flow year-round with peak flows during snowmelt. The flows in the drainages provide the primary source of water for the wetlands. These flows originate upstream of the wetlands (higher in the watershed) and are a result of the concentration of precipitation (mainly snowmelt) and groundwater discharge. Most of the riverine sites were saturated to the surface or contained flowing water during the field survey. In some cases these riverine wetlands are actually a combination of riverine and slope wetlands as the water supply was also derived from true groundwater. Hauer et al (2002) discusses this type of wetland.
Three of the riverine wetlands in the study area are likely peatlands or are associated with nearby peatlands. Although the presence of organic soils was not formally confirmed, Wetlands 24-2, 33-1, and 34-1 (Table 3, Figures 2 and 8) are expected to contain organic soils (see Section 4.0 Methods). These wetlands are of especially high quality, generally perform functions at a high level, and were given special consideration during project planning.
3.2.4.5 Dillon Bay Fen Conservation Area
Dillon Bay Fen is a large fen wetland in Denver Water Department lands adjacent to U.S. Highway 6 on the southern edge of the study area. The Conservation boundary was developed by the Colorado Natural Heritage Program to protect this valuable resource. The boundary encompasses the entire drainage. The trail segments in the proposal are almost a mile from the fen. Between the fen and the trail segments are a road (the Oro Grande Trail) and a 20 foot wide ditch.
3.2.4.6 Jurisdictional Status under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
The majority of the wetland resources in the study area would likely be considered jurisdictional under the Clean Water Act; however, some wetlands present may not be considered jurisdictional due to the U.S. Supreme Court Cases in U.S. v. Rapanos, and U.S. v. Carabelle (Raponas Guidance 2008). However, all areas are biologically wetlands regardless of jurisdictional status, and as such provide ecosystem functions which can be managed and protected under the Forest Plan and the appropriate standards and guidelines.
3.2.5 Environmental Effects by Alternative
3.2.5.1 Alternative 1 – No Action
Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects Page 3-21 Tenderfoot Mtn. Trail System Environmental Assessment October 2013
Under the No Action alternative, the TMP would be implemented with no changes. There would be motorcycle use on 6.2 miles of roads in the Frey Gulch area and 5 miles in the Straight Creek area. Aall trails in the area would be open to non-motorized uses only.
Direct and Indirect effects The implementation of the proposed action would not result in any direct impacts to inventoried wetlands. Indirect or secondary effects could occur as a result of the project. Direct and indirect effects are discussed below.
Under this alternative trail segments would be closed in conformance with the TMP that are located adjacent to and up gradient of wetlands. Closure of those trails through the TMP would have a net benefit to wetlands and their functions.
3.2.5.2 Alternative 2 – Proposed Action
The implementation of the proposed action could result in direct and/or indirect effects to wetlands. Direct effects would be the result of earthwork, including cut and fill areas for new and/or improved trails, and/or the installation of rock or other materials. Indirect or secondary effects could occur as a result of the project. Both types of impacts are discussed below.
Direct and Indirect Effects
Under the proposed action all trails would be aligned to completely avoid wetlands, except for the stream banks that would be affected at six new stream crossings. Although trails would avoid inventoried and mapped wetlands, effects to stream banks at locations where trail cross streams would be unavoidable. The effects to riparian areas at stream crossings would be minimized by locating crossings where wetland soils and vegetation are minimal or non-existent. The installation of culverts at stream crossings would be subject to permitting requirements set by the US Army Corps of Engineers. Rehabilitation of the existing four- wheel drive vehicle ford across Frey Gulch would benefit wetlands adjacent to the channel in this location.
Indirect effects to wetlands as a result of the proposed action could include sedimentation/ erosion during trail construction and impacts from unauthorized vehicle access. These impacts are not quantifiable and are briefly discussed below.
Adverse impacts to wetlands as a result of sedimentation would be avoided during and after construction activities by making trails low grade and sustainable. These areas would be stabilized properly so that they would not be eroded by precipitation events and would not cause the loss of soil and/or the accumulation of sediment. These effects would be avoided and/or minimized by using proper trail construction techniques and implementing the best management practices (BMPs) discussed in Section 3.2.7 Mitigation Recommendations.
The proposed action would result in the construction or improvement of trails that are in close proximity to many wetlands. This includes numerous potential peatlands which were essentially inaccessible before. Although off-trail use is illegal, it is possible that on occasion, a user could use these new and/or improved trails to access these wetlands with their
Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects Page 3-22 Tenderfoot Mtn. Trail System Environmental Assessment October 2013 vehicles, causing rutting and other erosion/sedimentation problems. This illegal activity would be deterred by Forest Service and volunteer patrols as well as other education tools (Appendix B, Enforcement and Education Plan). The most important message would be to “stay on the trail.” It is expected most users will use the dedicated trail system.
Impacts to Dillon Bay Fen Conservation Area
The conservation area protects water quality and function of the Dillon Bay Fen. There are no anticipated impacts to the Dillon Bay Fen as the water supply for fens is groundwater, and trail construction and use would not impact groundwater quantity or quality. There are no aspects of the project that would affect groundwater supply to the fen or mire wetland surrounding the fen.
Cumulative Effects Since there are no direct losses of wetlands as a result of the proposed action, the project would not contribute to the cumulative loss of wetlands.
3.2.6 Monitoring Recommendations
Since there are no direct impacts to wetlands, no compensatory mitigation would be required. However, it is recommended that monitoring of off-trail illegal use be conducted in the vicinity of the peatland wetlands; and if motorized use extends into those wetlands, then physical barriers (e.g., fences) would be constructed.
3.2.7 Forest Plan Consistency
Both the proposal and the No Action alternative are consistent with Forest Plan direction as stated in Section 3.2.2.
Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects Page 3-23 Tenderfoot Mtn. Trail System Environmental Assessment October 2013
3.3 AQUATIC RESOURCES
Aquatic resources analyzed in this section include fisheries and macroinvertebrates and their habitats. The Proposed Action could potentially impact aquatic resources
3.3.1 Issues and Indicators
Trout abundance (# trout / 100m) and macroinvertebrate metrics were used as indicators to evaluate the effects of forest management and public use activities on stream health and riparian area condition.
3.3.2 Forest Plan Direction
--Management Area Prescription: 5.4 Forested Flora and Fauna Habitats Guideline 1. Protect, enhance, and restore habitat for native fishes.
--Forest Plan Goals and Objectives – Sensitive fish and amphibian species Objective 1a Improve and protect watershed conditions to provide the water quality and quantity and soil productivity necessary to support ecological functions and intended beneficial uses. Objective 1a.4 Over the life of the plan, move at least 20 percent of degraded watersheds towards positive conditions. This will be accomplished either by modifying management activities that may further compromise the health of a degraded watershed or by rehabilitating degraded resources in the watershed.
White River National Forest standards and guidelines, as amended, applicable to Colorado River cutthroat trout, boreal toads, northern leopard frogs, and their habitat are listed below. This direction would be followed for the proposed action analyzed in this document. The activities proposed in this permit are analyzed against the standards, guidelines, and management measures listed below. Note: only those standards and guidelines most germane to this analysis are included herein. -- Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines – Water and Riparian Resources Standard 1. In each stream currently supporting a self-sustaining fish population, ensure that projects maintain sufficient habitat, including flow, for all life history stages of native and desired non-native aquatic species. Guideline 2. Keep vehicles and equipment out of streams, lakes, and wetlands except to cross at designated points, build crossings, do restoration work, or where protected by one foot of snowpack or frozen soil.
-- Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines – Colorado River Cutthroat Trout
Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects Page 3-24 Tenderfoot Mtn. Trail System Environmental Assessment October 2013
Standard 1. For management activities that have potential to impact occupied cutthroat trout habitat, tributaries of occupied cutthroat trout habitat, or identified reintroduction areas, maintain or enhance existing cutthroat trout habitat. At minimum and where necessary: Reduce sediment from existing roads and trails Maintain pool depths Maintain riparian vegetation. Retain large woody debris in streams.
-- Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines – Boreal Toad and Northern Leopard Frog Standard 1. Allow no loss or reduction in habitat quality of occupied or known historic boreal toad or leopard frog habitat.
3.3.2.1 Watershed Conservation Practices Handbook Direction In addition to the above Forest Plan direction, the following direction contained within the USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region Watershed Conservation Practices Handbook (FSH 2509.25, effective May, 2006) is applicable to the proposed permit activities as well. This direction requires that land management actions that may shift watershed conditions out of a dynamic equilibrium, may worsen natural disturbances, or that do not assist in watershed recovery, are avoided (FSH 2509.25 zero code section 06.2). Management measures and design criteria listed in the WCP handbook guide all land management activities. The management measures and design criteria most applicable to this analysis include (FSH 2509.25 zero code): Management Measures – “Management measures are environmental goals to be attained using one or more design criteria (EPA 2005). The management measures are performance expectations consistent with applicable laws and regulations. Attainment of management measures will ensure that management actions comply with applicable federal and state laws and regulations. Alternative management measures can be proposed for a project, however, the project NEPA document must demonstrate that the alternative management measure will ensure compliance with applicable federal and state laws and regulations.”
Design criteria – “The design criteria are specific practices to be used in project design and implementation to attain the management measure using current knowledge and technology. They may be revised as knowledge and technology improve. Other methods may be used if they result in the same outcome directed by the management measure, but the project NEPA document must tell why these other methods will be as effective.”
Rocky Mountain Region Watershed Conservation Practices Handbook Management Measures and associated Design Criteria:
Management Measure 1: Manage land treatments to conserve site moisture and to protect long-term stream health from damage by increased runoff.
Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects Page 3-25 Tenderfoot Mtn. Trail System Environmental Assessment October 2013
o Design Criteria a. In each watershed containing a 3rd order and larger stream, limit connected disturbed areas so that total stream network is not expanded by more than 10%. Progress toward zero connected disturbed area as much as practicable. Where it is impossible or impracticable to disconnect a particular connected disturbed area, minimize the aerial extent of the individual connected disturbed area as much as practicable. In watersheds that contain stream reaches in diminished stream health class, allow only those actions that will maintain or reduce watershed-scale connected disturbed area.
Management Measure 2: Manage land treatments to maintain enough organic ground cover in each activity area to prevent harmful increased runoff.
o Design Criteria a. Maintain the organic ground cover of each activity area so that pedestals, rills, and surface runoff from the activity area are not increased.
Management Measure 3: In the water influence zone next to perennial and intermittent streams, lakes, and wetlands, allow only those actions that maintain or improve long-term stream health and riparian ecosystem condition.
o Design Criteria a. Allow no action that will cause long-term change to a lower stream health class in any stream reach. In degraded systems (that is At-risk or Diminished stream health class) progress toward robust stream health within the next plan period.
o Design Criteria c. Keep heavy equipment out of streams, swales, and lakes, expect to cross at designated points, build crossings, or do restoration work, or if protected by at least 1 foot of packed snow of 2 inches of frozen soil. Keep heavy equipment out of streams during fish spawning, incubation, and emergence periods.
o Design Criteria l. Adjust management in riparian areas and wetlands to improve detrimental soil compaction wherever it occurs.
o Restoration. Avoid new disturbance until vegetation recovers. Stabilize stream and lake banks with certified local native plants as practicable; avoid persistent or invasive exotic plants. Restore aquatic habitat. Relocate heavy-use sites. Disconnect or armor disturbed areas. Rest degraded areas from disturbance if needed. Management Measure 6: Maintain long-term ground cover, soil structure, water budgets, and flow patterns of wetlands to sustain their ecological function. o Design criteria a) Keep ground vehicles out of wetlands unless protected by at least 1 foot of packed snow or 2 inches of frozen soil. Do not disrupt water supply or drainage patterns to wetlands. o Design criteria b) Keep roads and trails out of wetlands unless there is no other practicable alternative. o Design criteria c) Avoid long-term reduction in organic ground cover and organic soil layers in any wetland (including peat in fens).
3.3.3 Geographic and Temporal Scope
Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects Page 3-26 Tenderfoot Mtn. Trail System Environmental Assessment October 2013
The geographical scope for the analysis is defined by a group of 2nd, 3rd, and 5th order watersheds, comprising 18,790 acres in the Blue River valley near Dillon, CO. The analysis is focused primarily on the Straight Creek and Frey Gulch Watersheds. This analysis also considers effects to three watersheds with small (second-order) tributaries draining to the Snake River, and four watersheds drained by very small (first- and second-order) tributaries on slopes adjacent to Dillon reservoir.
3.3.4 Affected Environment
3.3.4.1 THREATENED, ENDANGERED, AND PROPOSED FISH SPECIES CONSIDERED AND ANALYZED On September 22, 2011, an updated list of threatened, endangered, and proposed species that may be present in the action area was received from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The following list includes threatened, endangered, and proposed aquatic species, or their habitats, that are located on the White River National Forest, or that are located 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 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.
Endangered or threatened aquatic species considered in this document (Table 1) include the bonytail chub (Gila elegans), Colorado pikeminnow (Ptychocheilus lucius), humpback chub (Gila cypha), razorback sucker (Xyrauchen texanus), and (Lineage GB cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarkii stomias). The first four species all occur more than 100 miles downstream of the action area in the Colorado River. Potential effects to these species from activities occurring on the White River National Forest involve changes in water quality or quantity flowing to downstream occupied reaches.
There would be no water depletions and/or decreases in water quantity associated with this project. Any changes to water quality are expected to be localized and of short duration and would not influence downstream occupied or designated critical habitat for these species. Because there would be no changes to water quality or quantity in occupied or critical habitat downstream, the proposed action would have NO EFFECT on Colorado pikeminnow (Ptychocheilus lucius) , razorback sucker (Xyrauchen texanus), humpback chub (Gila cypha), or bonytail chub (Gila elegans). These species will not be discussed further in this document.
Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects Page 3-27 Tenderfoot Mtn. Trail System Environmental Assessment October 2013
Lineage GB cutthroat trout are not believed to be native to the Colorado River basin. However, recent developments in genetic analysis have identified cutthroat populations on the west slope which appear to be Lineage GB cutthroat trout, these populations are referred to as lineage GB cutthroat. Three such populations have been identified on the Dillon Ranger District. These populations are located in Laskey Gulch, Frey Gulch and Spruce Creek. Because Lineage GB cutthroat trout are known to exist near and within the action area, this species will be considered in detail within this analysis. 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.
Table 3.9 - Species listed under the Endangered Species Act on or downstream of the White River National Forest. Endangered (E) or Threatened (T) status given in parenthesis. Rationale if Suitable Common Scientific Known/suspected not carried Status habitat Name Name to be present? forward for present? analysis No water depletions Bonytail Gila elegans Endangered No No associated chub with permit activities No water depletions Colorado Ptychocheilus Endangered No No associated pikeminnow lucius with permit activities No water depletions Humpback Gila cypha Endangered No No associated chub with permit activities No water depletions Razorback Xyrauchen Endangered No No associated sucker texanus with permit activities Lineage GB Oncorhynchus Analyzed in cutthroat Threatened Yes Yes clarkii stomias detail. trout
3.3.4.2 Consultation History A letter of concurrence (ES/CO: FS/WRNF/Dillon RD/Lynx TAILS 65413-2010-I-0073) for informal consultation was received from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) on
Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects Page 3-28 Tenderfoot Mtn. Trail System Environmental Assessment October 2013
April 9, 2010 for the renewal of Keystone Stables 5-year special-use-permit (SUP). The project concluded that the proposed action “may affect, not likely to adversely affect” the Lineage GB cutthroat trout. The above project is within the Frey Gulch watershed. No other consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has occurred regarding Lineage GB cutthroat trout in Frey Gulch, Laskey Gulch or Spruce Creek.
3.3.4.3 SPECIES INFORMATION
Lineage GB cutthroat trout Oncorhynchus clarkii stomias The Lineage GB cutthroat trout is endemic to the headwaters of the South Platte and Arkansas River drainages. Loss of high-quality stream habitat from historic logging activities, livestock grazing, water diversions, mining, and water pollution contributed to the decline of this subspecies during the late 1800’s and early 1900’s. Unregulated fishing and competition from nonnative, introduced salmonids further accelerated the extirpation of this species and led to their “endangered” listing in 1973. Lineage GB cutthroat trout were downlisted to “threatened” in 1978 and monitoring of recovery efforts initiated in the Lineage GB Cutthroat Trout Recovery Plan (USFWS, 1998) continues and has been recently updated (USFWS, 2009).
Lineage GB cutthroat trout inhabit well oxygenated, cold water streams and lakes that exhibit adequate spring spawning habitat (riffles with clean gravels). Spawning begins in early spring once water temperatures have reached 5˚- 8˚C, with fry emerging in mid to late summer. Late fry emergence (as compared to other trout species that spawn in the fall and emerge in the spring) enables nonnative species to outcompete Lineage GB for common food sources and facilitates interspecies predation upon Lineage GB trout. The pervasiveness of nonnative species throughout the historic range of Lineage GB cutthroat trout continues to challenge recovery efforts to this day.
LINEAGE GB CUTTHROAT TROUT
Existing Conditions Frey Gulch, which is within the action area, holds a population of lineage GB cutthroat trout (98% pure, see Figure 3.5) as identified in an August 2006 survey (WRNF data). Laskey Gulch, a tributary to Straight Creek, also holds a population of lineage GB cutthroat trout (100% pure, see figure 3.6) as identified in an August 2011 survey (WRNF data).
Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects Page 3-29 Tenderfoot Mtn. Trail System Environmental Assessment October 2013
Figure 3.5 - Results from genetic analysis on 25 cutthroat trout collected from Frey Gulch in 2006. Samples analyzed in 2007. Samples were found to be 98% Lineage GB lineage and 1% Colorado River lineage.
Frey Gulch Individual Sample Admixture Proportions
100% 90% 80% 70% qCRR 60% qYSCT 50% qRGCT 40% qGBCT 30% qCRCT 20%
10%
0%
… … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … …
------
FRE FRE FRE FRE FRE FRE FRE FRE FRE FRE FRE FRE FRE FRE FRE FRE FRE FRE FRE FRE FRE FRE FRE FRE FRE
Figure 3.6 - Results from genetic analysis on 21 cutthroat trout collected from Laskey Gulch in 2011. Samples analyzed in 2011. Samples were found to be 100% Lineage GB lineage.
Laskey Gulch Individual Sample Admixture Proportions
100% 90% 80% 70% qRBT 60% qYSCT 50% qRGC 40% T qGBCT 30% 20% 10%
0%
112742 112743 112744 112745 112746 112747 112748 112749 112750 112751 112752 112753 112754 112755 112756 112757 112758 112759 112760 112761 112762
------
LAS LAS LAS LAS LAS LAS LAS LAS LAS LAS LAS LAS LAS LAS LAS LAS LAS LAS LAS LAS LAS
Frey Gulch Headwaters of Frey Gulch are found on the east aspects of Tenderfoot Mountain. The stream flows predominantly south and is conveyed through a culvert (effective barrier to upstream immigration) beneath US Highway 6 prior to its confluence with the Snake River. The area is heavily used by forest visitors mainly drawn to accessible car camping and the
Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects Page 3-30 Tenderfoot Mtn. Trail System Environmental Assessment October 2013 extensive network of roads throughout the watershed. Recreational activities include but are not limited to hiking, horseback riding, dispersed camping, hunting, and mountain biking. Habitat for Lineage GB cutthroat trout (e.g., pools) is not optimal throughout the stream due to fine sediment deposition (Healy 2007). This area receives high visitation when the road opens in the spring and continues through summer and concludes with the end of hunting season and road closure in the winter. As a result, disturbed soils created by motorized/non-motorized use and dispersed camping contribute to the overall degradation of the stream through sediment loading.
3.3.4.4 Frey Gulch Stream Health and Water Quality Existing Conditions Stream health is defined as the condition of a stream compared to the condition of a minimally disturbed reference stream (FSH 2509.25 zero code; CDPHE, 2002). Stream health is categorized as robust, at-risk, or diminished using numerical criteria for fine sediment loading, percentage of unstable banks, residual pool depths, and wood loading. To evaluate stream health in the action area, stream channel conditions were evaluated using a standard Forest Service physical habitat survey method. Data were available for Frey Gulch from a 2006 survey, however, Frey Gulch was surveyed again in September of 2011 to bring data up to date (Table 10).
Table 3.10: Stream health ratings for Frey Gulch
Stream Health Classification by individual metrics
Stream / Reach Fine sediment Residual pool Bank Wood depth stability frequency
Frey Gulch Diminished Diminished Robust Robust Reach 1 (2006)
Frey Gulch Diminished At-risk Robust Robust Reach 2 (2011)
Frey Gulch Connected Disturbed Area and Stream Crossings Connected Disturbed Areas (CDA) include high run-off areas such as roads, trails, and other disturbed sites that discharge surface run-off directly into a stream or lake (FSH 2509.25 zero code). Connected Disturbed Areas readily route water and sediment to streams via overland flow during rain storms and spring runoff. The design criteria for Forest Plan standard 2 (WCP standard 1) specifies a maximum allowable length of connected disturbed area:
Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects Page 3-31 Tenderfoot Mtn. Trail System Environmental Assessment October 2013
In each 3rd order and larger watershed, limit connected disturbed area so that the total stream network is not expanded by more than 10%. Progress towards zero connected disturbed area as much as feasible (FSM 2521, as cited in FSH 2509.25). For this project the analysis of CDA was conducted by first evaluating maps and aerial photography, then by verifying results with field surveys and additional on-the-ground delineation where needed. CDA in Frey Gulch was mapped meticulously because previous observations indicated that jeep roads in Frey Gulch were the primary sediment sources contributing to the “diminished” stream health classification rating for fine sediment. CDA surveys indicated that the linear length of disturbed areas (roads and trails) that drain directly to streams is 42% of the total length of natural stream channel in the watershed which means the total length of the stream network has been expanded by 42%. As a result, Frey Gulch is being negatively impacted by unnatural rates of sediment.
Table 3.11: Connected Disturbed Areas in the Frey Gulch Watershed
CDA Source CDA: acres CDA: length of CDA: length as a proportion of linear features total stream length in (ft) watershed (%)
Trails 0.36 7,902 24.7
Roads 1.28 1,791 5.6
4X4 roads 1.52 3,770 11.8
Camping areas 1.59 NA NA
Total 4.75 13,462 42.1
Frey Gulch Biological Existing Conditions Trout abundance (# trout / 100m) and macroinvertebrate metrics were used as indicators to evaluate the effects of forest management and public use activities on stream health and riparian area condition. Surveys conducted in 2005 and 2006 in Frey Gulch (single pass, no block net) might suggest diminished stream health with respect to trout abundance. As compared to reference streams (similar geology, drainage area, and stream gradient) on the White River National Forest, Frey Gulch (12 trout / 100m) falls below the robust stream health threshold of 34 trout / 100m. However, more data is needed before making this conclusion (i.e., comparable survey methodology). As compared to reference conditions, macroinvertebrate metrics sensitive to excessive fine sediment deposition do indicate diminished stream health in Frey Gulch (Healy, 2007). Increases in runoff and sediment as a result of past and ongoing soil disturbances in the Frey Gulch drainage are the most likely source of impacts upon stream health metrics. The primary disturbances include motorized and non-motorized routes. As previously stated,
Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects Page 3-32 Tenderfoot Mtn. Trail System Environmental Assessment October 2013
CDA surveys indicated that Frey Gulch is being negatively impacted by unnatural rates of sediment and as a result the Lineage GB cutthroat trout population is being adversely impacted by the existing conditions. Effects of sediment to fish are based on two key components, the concentration of the sediment and the duration of exposure (Macdonald and Newcomb, 1991). The most sensitive life stage for salmonids is the egg and fry stage during the incubation period, juvenile and adult life stages are more resilient to sediment effects (Anderson, 1996). Current sediment being generated from existing conditions is most likely having the largest impact to the incubating process of the Lineage GB cutthroat trout. Impacts could generate a loss of interstitial space and fine sediment deposition which would affect egg-fry survival in redds, and cause juvenile entrapment in channel substrate.
The Lineage GB cutthroat trout population in Frey Gulch is also considered to be bottlenecked from a genetic perspective as there is no new outside recruitment from other populations. Population bottlenecks reduce the genetic variation and, therefore, the population's ability to adapt to new selective pressures, such as climatic change or shift in available resources. Genetic drift can eliminate alleles that could have been positively selected on by the environment if they had not already drifted out of the population.
Population bottlenecks increase genetic drift, as the rate of drift is inversely proportional to the population size. The reduction in a population's dispersal leads, over time, to increased genetic homogeneity. If severe, population bottlenecks can also markedly increase inbreeding due to the reduced pool of possible mates. Although there is no data to support this theory in Frey Gulch, it can be considered viable as the Frey Gulch population has been isolated from other populations for a considerable amount of time.
Laskey Gulch
Laskey Gulch is a tributary to Straight Creek and is not directly within the action area, although the confluence of Laskey Gulch is directly upstream and adjacent to action area. Laskey Gulch flows predominantly south and is found on the east aspect of Ptarmigan Mountain. It flows through a long culvert that crosses Interstate 70 before it goes into a diversion pond and then into Straight Creek. The Laskey Gulch watershed is almost entirely within the boundaries of the Ptarmigan Wilderness and it is estimated that only the bottom 3% of the watershed is actually not within the wilderness. The proposed action has absolutely no causal mechanism to have any impact to water resources or stream habitat within Laskey Gulch watershed and as a result there will be no further discussion about existing conditions within Laskey Gulch. However, it is possible that a fish out-migrating from Laskey Gulch could be present in Straight Creek which is directly adjacent to the proposed action and within the action area. Impacts to lineage GB fish from Laskey Gulch will be determined at an individual fish level as if they are present in Straight Creek. Straight Creek is dominated by a strong presence of non-native brook trout. If a lineage GB cutthroat is present within Straight Creek it is not able to migrate back into Laskey Gulch due to the diversion pond and I-70 culvert both acting as fish barriers. It is believed that there is no self-sustaining population or sizeable population of lineage GB cutthroat in Straight Creek because of the presence of non-native brook trout.
Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects Page 3-33 Tenderfoot Mtn. Trail System Environmental Assessment October 2013
3.3.4.5 Straight Creek Stream Health and Water Quality Water quality in Straight Creek is regulated by Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) regulations established in 2000 (CDPHE 2000). The Colorado Water Quality Control Commission has determined that aquatic life in Straight Creek is impaired by sediment, and is listed on Colorado’s 303(d) list of impaired waters (CDPHE 2010). A study by the Colorado Division of Parks and Wildlife showed that habitat in Straight Creek does not support the designated use for Aquatic Life Cold Water Class 1 due to sediment deposition on the channel bed (Woodling 1991). Fish habitat has been reduced by infilling of pool habitat, and burial of the natural stream substrate. The primary source of sediment is from traction sand applied to interstate I-70, and erosion from cut and fill slopes.
Table 3.12: Stream health classification for Straight Creek.
Stream Health Classification by individual metrics
Stream / Reach Fine sediment Residual pool Bank Wood depth stability frequency
Straight Creek Diminished Diminished No data No data
Straight Creek Connected Disturbed Area and Stream Crossings Connected Disturbed Areas (CDA) include high run-off areas such as roads, trails, and other disturbed sites that discharge surface run-off directly into a stream or lake (FSH 2509.25 zero code). Connected Disturbed Areas readily route water and sediment to streams via overland flow during rain storms and spring runoff. The design criteria for Forest Plan standard 2 (WCP standard 1) specifies a maximum allowable length of connected disturbed area:
In each 3rd order and larger watershed, limit connected disturbed area so that the total stream network is not expanded by more than 10%. Progress towards zero connected disturbed area as much as feasible (FSM 2521, as cited in FSH 2509.25). For this project the analysis of CDA was conducted by first evaluating maps and aerial photography, then by verifying results with field surveys and additional on-the-ground delineation where needed. A detailed inventory of CDA was not completed for Straight Creek because it is clear that the existing CDA associated with the I-70 corridor far exceeds desired conditions. The TMDL for Straight Creek identifies 358 acres of disturbance associated with cut and fill slopes adjacent to I-70. Much of this is considered hydrologically connected to Straight Creek.
3.3.5 Direct and Indirect Effects
Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects Page 3-34 Tenderfoot Mtn. Trail System Environmental Assessment October 2013
3.3.5.1 No Action Under the no-action alternative, the proposed trail construction and reconstruction would not occur. The closure and rehabilitation of approximately 22 miles of user-created motorcycle trails would occur in this alternative, as decided in the TMP. These trail closures would have little to no impacts to the Lineage GB habitat as most of them are not in close proximity to Lineage GB habitat. Existing conditions as described above would persist for the foreseeable future and the Lineage GB cutthroat trout population in Frey Gulch would continue to be adversely impacted. Impacts would be primarily generated from the continued use of FS Road 66.2B. Under the no-action alternative, all other recreational and management activities, and any consequent sediment contributions to Frey Gulch, would continue. Existing conditions to lineage GB that may be present in Straight Creek from Laskey Gulch would also continue.
3.3.5.2 Proposed Action The proposed action would include trail construction, reconstruction, maintenance, and rehabilitation within the action area watersheds as described in Table 3.13.
Table 3.13: Summary of ground-disturbing activities in the proposed action Watershed New stream Closed stream crossings crossings Straight 2 0 Creek Frey Gulch 0 1 Snake River 2 0 tributaries Dillon Res. 2 0 Tributaries Total 6 1
The proposed action calls for the rehabilitation of the jeep roads adjacent to Frey Gulch and also one stream crossing associated with a user-created trail in the headwaters of Frey Gulch. The rehabilitation effort would improve the long-term sediment loading in Frey Gulch. In the short term, decommissioning the one stream crossing directly in Frey Gulch may cause short-term impacts to water quality and any fish that inhabit the impacted reach. Impacts to fish may include a very short-term increase in turbidity that may impact their ability to feed. Potential impacts are not expected to have a measurable affect to any individual or to the population. In the Frey Gulch Watershed, decommissioning and rehabilitation of jeep roads would occur on 66,146 square feet of connected disturbed area. While this would eventually be very beneficial to the condition of Frey Gulch, it is important to note that the benefits of rehabilitation would not be immediate. Rather, conditions in rehabilitation areas would improve markedly over a period of five years then continue to improve marginally over a
Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects Page 3-35 Tenderfoot Mtn. Trail System Environmental Assessment October 2013 period of decades. Eventually, vegetation density, levels of organic matter, and soil infiltration rates in rehabilitation areas would resemble that in undisturbed soils. When this occurs the areas would no longer be considered “disturbed” for the purpose of this analysis. There is a concern that additional indirect effects of the proposed trail system would be increased public use of the Frey Gulch area for camping and other associated activities such as human waste disposal. Additional effects from off-trail use and user created trails are also a concern. Under the proposed action, these concerns would be addressed by closing and rehabilitating camping areas that are within 100 feet of Frey Gulch and by implementing a monitoring patrol program to prevent off-trail use. So long as these areas are effectively closed and rehabilitated, and monitoring is effectively enforced, the disposal of human waste and user created trails is not expected to affect water quality and impact the Lineage GB cutthroat trout population in Frey Gulch. Under the proposed action, stream health and water quality in Frey Gulch would improve as conditions improve on rehabilitation areas that are currently sediment sources to Frey Gulch. As a result, the Lineage GB cutthroat trout population would also benefit from stream habitat improvements. Water quality analysis done in the hydrology report for this project indicated that there would be two new stream crossings within the Straight Creek watershed. Design features for these new crossings would prevent sediment increases to Straight Creek because the approaches to the crossings will be heavily rocked and would filter disturbed soils from entering a live stream. Therefore, because no new sediment is expected to reach potential or occupied habitat, there would be no impact to lineage GB cutthroat trout from Laskey Gulch they may be present in Straight Creek.
3.3.5.3 Cumulative Effects The Endangered Species Act (ESA) defines cumulative effects as those impacts resulting from future activities on state, tribal, local, and private lands that are reasonably certain to occur within the action area. The spatial bounds for this cumulative effects analysis are defined by the Frey Gulch and Straight Creek (including Laskey Gulch) watersheds within Summit County, Colorado. The temporal bounds are defined as three to five years for short term effects, and ten to twenty years for long term effects. At this time there are no foreseeable future activities planned on non-federal lands within the Frey Gulch or Straight Creek watersheds. As portrayed in the accompanying figure, only the southern-most margin of the Frey Gulch and Straight Creek watersheds falls on non-Forest Service lands; all of Laskey Gulch is NFS lands. These private lands are zoned as planned unit development (PUD) and non-residential (NR), with the majority of the land unavailable for future development (i.e. PUD at maximum density and NR not open to development). It is expected that there would be no cumulative effects from other activities within the action area.
3.3.5.4 Determination of Effect and Rationale The proposed action is expected to have no long term negative, measurable effect upon stream health or water quality in Frey Gulch, Laskey Gulch or Straight Creek. The potential for future, detrimental impacts upon Lineage GB cutthroat trout from sediment
Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects Page 3-36 Tenderfoot Mtn. Trail System Environmental Assessment October 2013
loading would be significantly reduced through the decommissioning and rehabilitation of multiple roads and trails within the Frey Gulch watershed. Short-term impacts from sediment may occur from the decommissioning of one stream crossing in Frey Gulch. With implementation of all design criteria, potential impacts on Lineage GB cutthroat trout resulting from the proposed action would be minimal. Therefore, the proposed action “May affect but is not likely to adversely affect” Lineage GB cutthroat trout. In the long term, the proposed action would have a positive effect to the population.
3.3.6 SENSITIVE SPECIES CONSIDERED IN THE ANALYSIS The following list includes sensitive species, or their habitats, that are located on the White River National Forest, or that are located 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. Forest Service Rocky Mountain Region (Region 2) sensitive fish and amphibian species that are considered in this report include: Colorado River cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarkii pleuriticus), roundtail chub (Gila robusta), bluehead sucker (Catostomus discobolus), flannelmouth sucker (C. latipinnis), mountain sucker (C. platyrhynchus), boreal toad (Anaxyrus boreas boreas), and Northern leopard frog (Lithobates pipiens). Effects to all Forest Service sensitive aquatic species designated on the White River National Forest were considered in preparation of this document. Of the species listed in Table 5, only potential effects to the Colorado River cutthroat trout, boreal toad, and northern leopard frog are evaluated in detail in this document. The other sensitive species have no potential habitat in or near the project area as determined by Forest Service fisheries biologist (Corey Lewellen). The implementation of this project would have NO IMPACT to bluehead sucker, flannelmouth sucker, mountain sucker, and roundtail chub since they do not occur within or immediately downstream of the project area. See the “Effects of Alternatives” section for effects analysis and determinations for Colorado River cutthroat trout, boreal toad, and northern leopard frog. 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 potential effects are evaluated. Table 3.14. Forest Service Sensitive Fish and Amphibian Species that occur on the White River National Forest. Rationale if Suitable Common Scientific Known/suspected not carried Status habitat Name Name to be present? forward for present? analysis Bluehead Catostomus Not known Sensitive No No sucker discobolus to occur in
Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects Page 3-37 Tenderfoot Mtn. Trail System Environmental Assessment October 2013
Rationale if Suitable Common Scientific Known/suspected not carried Status habitat Name Name to be present? forward for present? analysis this area. Not known Flannelmouth Catostomus Sensitive No No to occur in sucker latipinnis this area. Not known Mountain Catostomus Sensitive No No to occur in sucker platyrhynchus this area. Not known Roundtail chub Gila robusta Sensitive No No to occur in this area. Oncorhynchus Colorado River Analyzed in clarkii Sensitive No Yes cutthroat trout detail. pleuriticus Anaxyrus Analyzed in Boreal toad Sensitive Yes Yes boreas boreas detail. Northern Lithobates Analyzed in Sensitive No Yes leopard frog pipiens detail.
3.3.6.1 SENSITIVE SPECIES INFORMATION
Colorado River cutthroat trout Oncorhynchus clarkii pleuriticus Colorado River cutthroat trout (CRCT) have been eliminated from approximately 85 percent of their historic range (Hirsch et al. 2006). They are currently found mainly within headwater streams isolated from lower reaches by impassable barriers to upstream fish movement. Stocking of non-native trout species and impacts to physical stream habitat, such as sedimentation of streams and water withdrawals, have led to fragmentation of habitat and the extirpation of Colorado River cutthroat trout from much of its former range. Colorado River cutthroat trout spawning begins following peak runoff flows and ends prior to the end of runoff in spring or early summer (summarized in Young 1995). Fry emerge from spawning gravels in late summer to early fall (summarized in Young 1995), but timing of fry emergence varies depending on elevation and water temperature. A detailed description of life history, habitat, and rangewide population trends is given in the BE for the final environmental impact statement for the 2002 Forest Plan revision (Appendix N, page N-107 through N-111). To date, no Colorado River cutthroat trout conservation populations have been documented within the Snake River watershed or Straight Creek watershed. Headwater streams to the Snake River, as well as the Snake itself, may be inhospitable to CRCT due to water quality impacts.
Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects Page 3-38 Tenderfoot Mtn. Trail System Environmental Assessment October 2013
Boreal toad Anaxyrus boreas boreas Distribution of boreal toads is restricted to areas with suitable breeding habitat in lodgepole pine, spruce-fir forests, and alpine meadow areas. It is commonly found in shallow water or among sedges and shrubby willows where the micro-climate is moist. Breeding habitat includes lakes, marshes, ponds, bogs, and wet meadows with sunny exposures and quiet, shallow, perennial water. The full elevational range for this species within the southern Rocky Mountains is between 7,000 and 12,900 feet. There are 18 known breeding populations on or adjacent to the White River National Forest which are currently monitored, 8 of which are in Summit County. In the past 30 years, boreal toads have disappeared from many previously occupied sites. Dominant risk factors for this species include habitat loss and chytrid fungus disease (Chytridiomycosis). To date, USFS personnel have conducted presence/absence surveys for boreal toads in the area. The nearest known breeding populations of boreal toads occur in Straight Creek and the North Fork Snake River. Since the project area is within the elevation range of this species, contains perennial water, and suitable habitat exists, there is a possibility that other unknown boreal toads populations may occur.
Northern leopard frog Lithobates pipiens Life history and general distribution information was summarized from “Amphibians and Reptiles in Colorado” (Hammerson 1999). The northern leopard frog ranges across much of northern United States and southern Canada. It occurs throughout Colorado except in the southeast portion of the state. The northern leopard frog ranges to 11,000 feet in elevation and has been documented in 8 different locations on the White River National Forest, primarily on the Blanco and Rifle Ranger Districts. Formerly abundant in Colorado, the northern leopard frog is declining and has become scarce in many areas. One of the main reasons for the decline is believed to be attributable to a fungal disease (Chytridiomycosis, or chytrid), among other factors (WRNF Forest Plan BE, Appendix N). Northern leopard frogs inhabit a wide range of aquatic habitats associated with perennial water. They are typically found along the banks and shallow portions of ponds, lakes, wetlands, reservoirs, beaver ponds, and streams. Preferred habitat contains rooted aquatic vegetation. They are also occasionally found in irrigation ditches and wet meadows. Breeding occurs in shallow non-flowing areas of perennial water and also seasonally flooded areas adjacent to permanent water bodies. The breeding pools typically contain aquatic vegetation, algae and clean water. Breeding season varies depending on elevation and latitude with populations above 6,000 ft. breeding from late May to early June. Egg masses are attached to aquatic vegetation typically 15 cm. deep. The eggs hatch approximately 4-15 days after being laid and metamorphosis occurs from July to September. To date, USFS personnel have conducted presence/absence surveys for Northern leopard frogs in the area. No populations have been documented within the project area. Since the project area is within the elevation range of this species, contains perennial water, and suitable habitat exists, there is a possibility that northern leopard frogs may occur.
Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects Page 3-39 Tenderfoot Mtn. Trail System Environmental Assessment October 2013
3.3.6.2 EFFECTS OF ALTERNATIVES Alternatives analyzed in this document include the “No Action” (i.e., no trail construction or reconstruction) and the Proposed Action. Effects of the No Action would be consistent with ongoing management activities and reasonably foreseeable future management actions as well as natural conditions that may be realized in the future. The no action does include implementation of the TMP which would result in the closure and rehabilitation of approximately 22 miles of user-created motorcycle trails in this alternative. To determine the effects of the proposed action on Sensitive Species, changes to stream health and water quality were considered. The scope of the analysis for direct, indirect, and cumulative effects to boreal toads and Northern leopard frogs focuses on impacts within the entire project area.
COLORADO RIVER CUTTHROAT TROUT
Determination of Effect and Rationale Colorado River cutthroat trout are not present within or near the project area. The no action and proposed action alternatives have no casual mechanism to impact CRCT and as a result the no action and proposed action will have no direct, indirect or cumulative effects Because no Colorado River cutthroat trout populations are found in or near the project area they will not be consider further in this report. There would be No Impact for Colorado River cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarkii pleuriticus) or its habitat from implementation of the proposed action or the no action.
BOREAL TOAD AND NORTHERN LEOPARD FROG
Existing Conditions To date, USFS personnel have conducted surveys for boreal toads and northern leopard frogs in the area. The nearest known breeding populations of boreal toads occur in Straight Creek and the North Fork Snake River. The only documented populations of northern leopard frog on the White River National Forest are found on the Rifle and Blanco Ranger Districts (more than 90 miles west of the permit area). However, because the project area is within the elevation range of both species, contains perennial water, and suitable habitat exists, there is a possibility that either/both species may occur in the project area. The amphibian habitat in the project area consists of beaver complexes located upstream from FDR 66.1 (Frey Gulch Road), upland wetlands within the Frey Gulch and Straight Creek Watershed, and wetlands in small order drainages that flow directly into Dillon Reservoir. Certain habitats are being minimally impacted by road-generated sediment, however most habitat within the project area is properly functioning. A significant threat to amphibian populations on nearly every continent is the fungal disease commonly known as chytrid fungus (Chytridiomycosis). Chytrid fungus infects the skin and kills frogs/toads within 10 to 18 days. The fungus can exist in, and is spread by, water and mud clinging to boots/waders, vehicles, and livestock/animals moving through aquatic sites (GISD 2006). As no recent stream surveys and/or testing have been performed, the existence of this Aquatic Nuisance Species (ANS) within the project area cannot be confirmed at this time. Direct and Indirect Effects
Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects Page 3-40 Tenderfoot Mtn. Trail System Environmental Assessment October 2013
No Action Under the no-action alternative, the proposed trail construction and reconstruction would not occur. The closure and rehabilitation of approximately 22 miles of user-created motorcycle trails would occur in this alternative due to TMP implementation. However, these changes would be beneficial at the site scale and not have a measurable impact to amphibian habitat. As a result, existing conditions, as described above would persist for the foreseeable future. The no action alternative would have “no impact to boreal toads or Northern leopard frog.”
Proposed Action Impacts to amphibian habitat are expected to be minimal because the required conservation measures (Section XII below) are designed to minimize potential negative impacts upon riparian-area health and, as a result, would maintain potential frog/toad habitat. Further, decommissioning and rehabilitation of jeep roads in Frey Gulch would improve stream health and wetland habitat. Under the Proposed Action, the possibility of individual amphibians being crushed or trampled due to motorcycle operations in watersheds throughout the project area would likely increase. However, it is expected that toads/frogs would not be utilizing motorcycle trails as habitat and would only be present on a trail during migration periods, which would help decrease the probability of being crushed or trampled by a motorcycle. Sediment inputs to wetlands and amphibian habitat is expected to be minimal as the majority of the trail system is outside of the Water Influence Zone (WIZ).
Cumulative Effects Cumulative effects, as defined by the National Environmental Policy Act, are those that result from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. The following cumulative effects analysis is bound to the project area and addresses short-term (3-5 years) and long-term (10-20 years) effects. Ongoing timber activity and timber hauling within Frey Gulch is not expected to have any impacts to individual toads/frogs as hauling locations are outside the normal distance of migration of known populations. Timber hauling may generate small increases of sediment in nearby wetlands and potential amphibian habitat; however generated sediment is not expected to be of a measurable amount and therefore would have little impact of potential habitat. Furthermore, Frey Gulch is also a location for the Keystone Horse Stables to operate horse guided tours through a special use permit. Analyses done for this action determined that it would have little to no effect to amphibian habitat and as a result there are no cumulative effects expected to occur in conjunction with the Tenderfoot Mountain Trail System proposed action. Cumulative impacts to boreal toads and Northern leopard frogs are expected to be minimal and mitigated by project design criteria.
Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects Page 3-41 Tenderfoot Mtn. Trail System Environmental Assessment October 2013
Determination of Effect and Rationale The proposed action is expected to have little to no effect upon amphibian habitat or aquatic nuisance species within the project area drainages. The potential for future, detrimental impacts upon boreal toad (Anaxyrus boreas boreas) and northern leopard frog (Lithobates pipiens), including greater risk of trampling and/or crushing from increased motorized traffic, is expected to be negligible. With implementation of all design criteria and considering no impacts to potential habitat, potential vectors for ANS introduction would be minimal, and either/both species may not occur in either drainage, potential impacts resulting from motorcycle use over time would be minimal. Therefore, the proposed action may adversely impact individuals, but is not likely to result in a loss of viability in the Planning Area, nor cause a trend toward federal listing or a loss of species viability for boreal toad (Anaxyrus boreas boreas) and northern leopard frog (Lithobates pipiens).
Table 3.15: Summary of impacts to Sensitive Species within the project area. Determinations of Common Name Scientific Name Status Effects A1t 1 Alt 2 Colorado River Oncorhynchus clarkii Sensitive No No cutthroat trout pleuriticus Impact Impact Boreal toad Anaxyrus boreas boreas Sensitive No MAII Impact Northern leopard frog Lithobates pipiens Sensitive No MAII Impact
3.3.7 MANAGEMENT INDICATOR SPECIES The WRNF began monitoring management indicator species (MIS) in 2003, per guidance provided in the 2002 Forest Plan Revision. The White River National Forest has two aquatic Management Indicator Species, namely trout and macroinvertebrates. Common trout species were selected to determine whether forest management protects and improves aquatic habitat. Aquatic macroinvertebrate communities were selected to determine whether forest management maintains or improves water quality (including fine sediment). Trout occur in most of the perennial water bodies on the White River National Forest, including streams, rivers, lakes, and reservoirs. Trout may be excluded from some areas due to chemical contamination below mines or by natural or human-caused barriers. At high elevations, trout may be absent due to water temperature. Common trout, such as brook trout have been documented in Straight Creek and is the only known MIS trout within the project area. The timing of flow, water quality, and availability of various habitat features such as deep pools, cover, and spawning gravels influence trout abundance. Geology, elevation, temperature, gradient, and substrate distribution are other factors that commonly influence trout abundance. As habitats are degraded, either by chemical pollutants, increased sediment, or unfavorable changes in flow (especially severe reductions), trout typically respond with lower abundance and poor year class distribution.
Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects Page 3-42 Tenderfoot Mtn. Trail System Environmental Assessment October 2013
Aquatic macroinvertebrates are those invertebrates that spend at least part of their life cycle in water. These include worms, mollusks, mites, and insects. Insects are by far the most common. Most insect species spend just the immature phase (larval or nymph phase) in water. Macroinvertebrate communities occur in all water bodies on the White River National Forest, including ponds, lakes, reservoirs, wetlands, rivers, perennial streams, and intermittent streams. Even degraded systems usually contain aquatic macroinvertebrates; however these communities are composed of very different assemblages of species than those in pristine systems. Because of their wide distribution and their sensitivity to disturbance and pollutants, macroinvertebrates are widely used to monitor the health of streams and rivers. Macroinvertebrates can be found in most perennial streams or lake environments throughout the project area. Macroinvertebrate communities are influenced by the timing of flow and water quality in the streams in which they live. Geology, elevation, temperature, gradient, and substrate distribution are other factors that commonly influence macroinvertebrate communities. As habitats are degraded, either by chemical pollutants, increased sediment, or unfavorable changes in flow (especially severe reductions), the response of the macroinvertebrate community is typically a reduction in the number of species which occur there and especially the number of sensitive species.
Trend for Forest Wide Management Indicator Species Limited information is available to assess trend of Management Indicator Species (MIS) within the project area and across the Forest. The WRNF began monitoring the MIS designated in the 2002 Forest Plan Revision in 2003. For aquatic MIS, there are approximately 50 long-term monitoring sites which are being monitored on a 5-year rotation. As such, baseline data has been collected, but few of the sites have been repeated. A trend cannot be determined by just using two data points, and therefore it cannot be determined yet from the MIS monitoring. However, a summary of the information collected to date will be described. For aquatic macroinvertebrates, eight of the original Forest wide 2003 sites were re-sampled in 2008. Using the number of taxa in the sensitive orders of Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Tricoptera (EPT) as an indicator, the sites had approximately 18 EPT taxa in both 2003 (averaged 18.1) and 2008 (averaged 17.9). Individual sites each varied slightly. Four sites declined by 2 to 4 taxa and four sites increased by 1 to 5 taxa. Trout densities were more varied, with three sites remaining the same or increasing slightly, three sites declining significantly, and one site increasing significantly. One of the declining sites had been dewatered by a ditch upstream at the time of the survey and likely influenced the results. High spring flows were common in many streams during the spring of 2008. It is possible that these flows depressed fish populations in many streams across the Forest. Effects to aquatic management indicator species Aquatic MIS occur throughout the project area. Potential effects to aquatic MIS would be the same effects as described for the species and habitat discussed previously in this document. As a result, it is likely that no measurable effects and therefore no change to macroinvertebrate communities or trout populations would occur as a result of implementing the no action or the proposed action, both at the site-scale and Forest level.
Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects Page 3-43 Tenderfoot Mtn. Trail System Environmental Assessment October 2013
3.3.8 REQUIRED CONSERVATION MEASURES TO AVOID, MINIMIZE, OR MITIGATE ADVERSE EFFECTS Design criteria are specific practices applied in land management activities to maintain compliance with Forest Plan, ESA, and WCP handbook direction (FSH 2509.25 chapter 10), and minimize direct and indirect effects. In parentheses, after each mitigation measure, are the WCP handbook management measures and/or Forest Plan standards the mitigation was developed for to ensure compliance. Design criteria are components of the Proposed Action and shall be incorporated as terms and conditions for the special use permit. Terms and conditions of the permit are subject to revision as knowledge and technology improve. Through coordination with WRNF resource specialists, all road decommissioning within Frey Gulch would be completed by early summer of 2016. Decommissioning would occur prior to any additional trail construction (WCPH management measures 1,3, 4, and 6; Forest Plan CRCT Standard 1). Please refer to the Appendix C, the closure and rehabilitation plan for this project. WRNF resource specialists would implement long-term monitoring of trail widening, trail erosion, and CDA associated with motorcycle use operations in Frey Gulch. Monitoring would commence during the first year of implementation and would continue annually for the duration of project. Monitoring should be conducted to accordance to the direction discussed in the hydrology report for this project.
3.3.9 Monitoring Recommendations
There are no monitoring recommendations.
3.3.10 Forest Plan Consistency
Both the proposal and the No Action alternative are consistent with Forest Plan direction as stated in Section 3.2.2. .
Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects Page 3-44 Tenderfoot Mtn. Trail System Environmental Assessment October 2013
3.4 VEGETATION
The specialist report for vegetation is in the project file.
3.4.1 Issues
Issues pertaining to vegetation were raised by the Forest Service with respect to threatened and endangered plants.
3.4.2 Forest Plan Direction
There is no applicable Forest wide direction for vegetation resources.
Applicable 5.41 Management Area direction includes:
Standard 1. Vegetation composition and structure are managed to meet the needs of deer, elk, and other species on their winter ranges within the constraints of the conservation of biological diversity and the maintenance and enhancement of sensitive habitats.
Standards 1. These areas are not part of the suitable timber land base. 2. Vegetation management will be designed to maintain or improve deer and elk habitat objectives.
Applicable 5.43 Management Area direction includes:
Standards 1. These areas are part of the suitable timber land base and they contribute to the allowable sale quantity. 2. Vegetation management practices will be used to maintain or improve elk habitat.
Applicable 5.5 Management Area direction includes: N/A
3.4.3 Geographic and Temporal Scope
The geographic scope is the project area boundary (about 1,800 acres).
3.4.4 Affected Environment
Botanical Information
This section describes the dominant plant communities surveyed in this specific sub-alpine, Southern Rocky Mountain life zone.
Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects Page 3-45 Tenderfoot Mtn. Trail System Environmental Assessment October 2013
Sub-Alpine Forest The Lodgepole Pine/Grouse Whortle berry, (Pinus contorta /Vaccinium scoparium), plant community is the most widespread forest community in the sub-alpine zone and it is characterized by long winter snow duration on cold, dry excessively well-drained slopes on all aspects. The soils range from sandy loam to silty loam. This type of forest is found in north and central Colorado from 8,000 feet to 10,500 feet. This community has aspens (Populus tremuloides) as the secondary species. (Johnson, pg.107) Plants include: fireweed (Chamerion angustifolium), lupine (Lupinus argenteus), subalpine goldenrod (Solidago spathulata) geyers sedge (Carex geyeri), ross sedge, (Carex rossii), nodding bluegrass (Poa reflexa), and a few sunflowers, as leafy anica (Arnica latifolia), heartleaf arnica (Arnica cordifolia), and Colorado columbine (Aquilegia coerulea). The community is of fire origin.
Most of the project area is a sub-alpine forest of lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta) with aspen (Populus tremuloides) as the secondary species. The forest is of fire origin and after regeneration this species can become dense, even aged, and single storied. The forest looks like a tree farm or called a "dog-hair" forest with a sparse or absent understory. A thick layer of acidic pine-needle litter accumulated on the forest floor limits plant species only to those that will tolerate this type of soil. Thinning of the "dog-hair" lodgepole trees is found on many acres of proposed trails creating an absent understory of plants, and hundreds of downed trees. The trees cover the understory like toothpicks making plant growth through most areas impossible (Figure 3.7). Most new proposed trails are in the lodgepole forest. Trails through the "dog-hair" lodgepole forest would create small openings in the forest allowing new understory species to pioneer into the existing densely forested areas, but only immediately adjacent to the trail tread.
Aspen, like lodgepole pine, is a succession tree species. Aspens require optimal moist soil as a pioneer species, and can be a self-perpetuating stand. In the project area, Frey Gulch has the most areas of aspen. Two of the proposed trails are close to aspen groves. No uncommon or sensitive plant species were found in these areas.
The Englemann spruce/grouse whortle-berry (Picea engelmannii/Vaccinium myrtillus) forest occurs in a few areas in the project area. The community is found at 9,400 to 11,900 feet on northern slopes with a surface grade of 5 to 70%. The soils are slightly drier with metamorphic substrates and standstones. The surface is rocky with cobbly soils. This community has subalpine fir as the secondary species with a few aspens (Populus tremuloides) and lodge poles. (Johnson, pg.88) Common plants include a few sunflowers as leafy arnica (Arnica latifolia), a few bushes of gooseberry current (Ribes montigenum), ross sedge, (Carex rossii), the dominant ground cover of a grouse whortleberry (Vaccinium myrtillus ssp. oreophilum) and creeping wintergreen (Gaultheria humifusa). This spruce/fir community is young with a few mature trees near Tenderfoot Mountain. A few of the trails are proposed in the spruce/fir forest ecosystem.
Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects Page 3-46 Tenderfoot Mtn. Trail System Environmental Assessment October 2013
Figure 3.7 – Example of thinned areas that occur on Trail Segments 42-67, 11-27, 78-2, and 78- 76.
There is a small community of Mountain sagebrush/Thurber Fescue (Artemisia tridentate ssp. vaseyana/Festuca thurberi) on the lower slopes of the project area near existing trails. The slope is moderate to steep with a southwest exposure. Plants in the area are common to this community. Rabbit-brush (Chrysothamnus viscidiflorus) is the co-dominant species with the mountain sagebrush.
Trees
Many of the lodgepole pine trees in the project area have parasites and damage. Mountain pine beetle is at an extreme epidemic stage in lodgepole stands throughout the Dillon Ranger District. This area had a large percentage of trees killed by mountain pine beetles. Additionally lodgepoles throughout the Dillon Ranger District have American mistletoe (Arceuthobium americanum). Scattered conifer trees have scars from porcupine (Erethizon dorsatum) activity of removing bark to digesting the cambium (inner bark) of these trees. A common snow mold or a black fungus (Herpotrichia ssp.) was found on the lower branches close to the ground of the few common juniper bushes in this area.
Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects Page 3-47 Tenderfoot Mtn. Trail System Environmental Assessment October 2013
Wetlands
Shrub wetlands composed of willows are found along rivelets and drainages in the project area. Planeleaf willow (Salix planifolia), mountain willow (Salix monticola), and gray leaf willow (Salix glauca) were the three common willows present. These willows occur in this area because of the peat or mineral soils and deep clay loams or sandy clay loams, derived from geological glacial till typical of Summit County. The most common sedges are in hair sedge (Carex capillaries) and beaked sedge (Carex utriculata). The Frey Gulch area has existing roads that have been established through wetlands. No uncommon or rare plants are found in the few wetland areas.
Weeds
Noxious (or invasive) weeds occur along the roads in the project area. On the proposed single-track trail alignment, only a few plants of mayweed chamomile (Anthemis cotula) are present. Significant areas of musk thistle (Carduus nutans), mayweed chamomile (Anthemis cotula), and Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense) occur along the Frey Gulch Road. A new invading plant on the Dillon Ranger District is America dragonhead (Dracocephalum parviflorum). A small population of this plant was found along an existing 4-wheel road in the project area.
Threatened Plant Species
All plants inventoried in the area were typical of the specific ecosystems found. Plants listed on the threatened, endangered, and sensitive species lists require specific habitat and areas of minimal disturbance. Established trails have no habitat for rare plants in the bareground trail tread. The lodgepole forests in this area range from no understory to sparse understory with no liklihood for rare plants.
Few proposed trails were located in vegetative areas that had not been disturbed by tree cutting, existing undeveloped trails, or crossed by existing developed trails. The lodgepole forests in this area have no understory or sparse understory with few plants typically found in this habitat. Intense surveys were conducted to discover species of moonworts (Bryophytes). No moonworts were found on proposed trails. Near the top of Tenderfoot Mountain the common moonworts, (Botrychium lunaria) and (Boytrychium laceolatum) were found in an area without a forest canopy, and a few feet from proposed trails. Miles were surveyed for the clustered brown lady slipper orchid, (Cypripedium fasciculatum) with no success. The areas surveyed did not include alpine tundra or dense old growth spruce/fir which are required habitat for many listed plant species.
Only one of the 13 threatened and endangered plants federally listed for Colorado (USFWS 1993) has been documented in Summit County, and located on the Dillon Ranger District. The threatened plant is penland alpine fen mustard (Eutrema penlandii), specifically found in Summit County. There is no habitat in the project area that duplicates areas on Hoosier Ridge for this endemic plant.
Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects Page 3-48 Tenderfoot Mtn. Trail System Environmental Assessment October 2013
3.4.5 Environmental Effects by Alternative
3.4.5.1 Alternative 1 – No Action
With the implementation of the TMP and closure of all motorized trails in the area, there would be less impact to vegetation from recreation activities compared to current conditions.
3.4.5.2 Alternative 2 – Proposed Action
The proposed new trails have minimum impact to obligate plant species of wetlands. The proposal includes minimal cutting of trees (less than 2 acres total). Those that would be cut would mostly be 1-3” in diameter and only where absolutely necessary because of tree density. Seedlings less than 2 feet tall would be transplanted.
Intense surveys were conducted to discover species of moon-worts (Bryophytes), however, none were located. Few of the proposed trails occur in vegetative areas that have not been already disturbed by tree cutting or crossed by existing roads or trails. The few areas of trails proposed in any undisturbed pristine areas do not have exact microhabitats for listed plants. There is no alpine tundra or dense old growth spruce/fir required habitat for many listed plant species.
Direct and Indirect Effects
Impacts are defined as those actions that could potentially affect plant populations, and habitat functions. The magnitude of potential impacts was assessed based on the number and status of species involved. Impacts on plants can be direct with a structure replacing ground vegetation. Construction can have direct and indirect impacts on plants. Direct impacts examples are microhabitats removed by equipment causing plants to die from lost habitat, trees and bushes removed, and dirt roads replacing vegetation. Indirect impacts can be from structures creating new water channels, areas receiving more or less sunlight, and noxious weeds introduced. Recreational camping, fires and creating non-sustainable trails caused impacts in the Frey Gulch area of Tenderfoot Mountain for some plant habitats.
The construction of single track-trail through an even-aged lodge-pole forest habitat would have minimum impacts to the few specific plant species. A dirt trail would replace common vegetation and in some areas no vegetation would be disturbed. No impacts can be defined or analyzed about a specific plant species or an irreplaceable habitat in the surveyed areas of Tenderfoot Mountain. An estimated 2 acres total of tree clearing would occur. Because over 22 miles of trail in the project area would be rehabilitated, this equates to about 4 acres of area that would be re-vegetated (including tree species). The result would be a net increase in about 2 acres of vegetated area.
The majority of plants listed as threatened, endangered, or sensitive are in the alpine ecosystem, fen wetlands, or other unique microhabitats not found near proposed trails. Established trails had few habitats for common plants and principally no habitats for rare or sensitive plants. In an uncommon circumstance a rare plant might be found in the lodge pole
Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects Page 3-49 Tenderfoot Mtn. Trail System Environmental Assessment October 2013 forest habitat, but during months of surveys not one unusual plant was detected or found. No new unique plant record was made to the White River National Forest or the Colorado Natural Heritage Program. All other plants in the surveyed areas were common to Colorado, and not restricted to a diminutive unique habitat. All other plants scrutinized for potential impacts have sizable populations in the surrounding area, and in the surrounding forest of the Dillon Ranger District. All plant species in this area would continue to have viable populations due to the minimal impacts of disturbance by the proposed project.
Invasive weeds could be introduced by motorcycles. Education efforts would include encouraging washing motorcycles prior to riding and volunteer maintenance projects would include weed pulling. Volunteer crew leaders would be trained in invasive weed identification and would assist with locating new populations before they grow to an untreatable size. The District has both an invasive weed crew (located in Minturn) and partnership resources for spraying weeds.
The mountain pine beetle epidemic in this specific area is tapering off because mostly small diameter lodgepole pine trees are all that remain. It is not anticipated that large corridor clearing would be necessary to address hazard trees along the trail.
Cumulative Effects Since the direct effects to vegetation resources are minimal, the cumulative effects would also be minimal.
3.4.6 Monitoring Recommendations
Monitor invasive weeds to determine actions needed to deter infestations and stop the spread.
3.4.7 Forest Plan Consistency
The project is consistent with the Forest Plan direction listed in Section 3.5.2
Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects Page 3-50 Tenderfoot Mtn. Trail System Environmental Assessment October 2013
3.5 RECREATION
3.5.1 Issues and Indicators
During public scoping, the issue of conflicts with other trail users was raised. Several indicators help frame this issue and the impacts of the proposal, including miles of trails designated for non-motorized use within the project area (e.g., 1024.1W) and trail system design (ie twists, turns, and loops) to encourage slower speeds and reduce user conflicts.
3.5.2 Forest Plan Direction
The 2002 White River National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, as amended (Forest Plan), provides Forest-wide and specific management area direction. The following information is summarized from the Forest Plan. It is presented here because it is relevant and has been considered in the development of the proposal and this recreation analysis. Applicable forest-wide direction includes:
Forest-wide Guideline (page 2-31): Management activities should be consistent with guidance in the ROS User’s Guide for the adopted summer and winter ROS classes on the ROS maps.
Forest-wide Guidelines (Page 2-37): Emphasize providing a wide range of motorized, mechanized, and non-motorized recreation opportunities and difficulty levels. Emphasize public safety in the development and use of the travel system.
Applicable 5.41 Management Area direction includes: Human activities are managed so that deer and elk can effectively use the area. Motorized traffic is restricted during winter and spring. ROS is semi-primitive non- motorized and motorized. Scenery is managed to provide a range of scenic integrity objectives from low to moderate.
Infrastructure Standard 2. All new roads passing through this area will avoid important forage, cover, and birthing areas.
Infrastructure Guideline 1. Roads and trails needed to implement management in the area should be low-standard, single-purpose roads.
Recreation Guideline 1. Restrict recreation activities that would disturb deer and elk during winter and spring periods.
Applicable 5.43 Management Area direction includes: Non-motorized recreational activities are provided, including hiking, mountain biking, horseback riding, hunting, and cross- country skiing. Motorized opportunities are limited. Travel closures may exist based on elk habitat objectives. The ROS for this management area is semi-primitive non-motorized or semi-primitive motorized year-round. Scenery is managed to provide a range of scenic integrity objectives from low to moderate.
Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects Page 3-51 Tenderfoot Mtn. Trail System Environmental Assessment October 2013
Wildlife Guideline 2. The following dates may be used for restrictions of activities, depending upon the objectives for which the area was established: Calving, May 15 to June 20 Winter, November 22 to April 14
Applicable 5.5 Management Area direction includes: These areas are intended to provide landscape-level linkages between forested landscapes across the White River National Forest. They are generally found in areas of conifer cover types adjacent to natural or human- created constrictions of forested ecosystems. There is light or minimal impact from human use in these areas. Roads and trails exist to provide resource management and recreational access. Road densities and motorized and mechanized uses are managed at or below current levels to reduce disturbances. The ROS for this management area is primitive, semi-primitive non-motorized, or semi-primitive motorized year-round. Scenery is managed to provide a range of scenic integrity objectives from moderate to very high.
Infrastructure Guideline 2. Development of new recreation facilities and expansion of existing facilities will be discouraged.
Guideline 3. Open motorized and mechanized travelway density will not increase.
Recreation Guideline 2. Potential security habitats will be protected from intensive recreational use or development.
3.5.3 Geographic Scope
The geographic scope of the project for recreation is the project area. This is defined as the Tenderfoot Mountain/Frey Gulch area, which encompasses approximately 1,800 acres of National Forest System (NFS) lands in Summit County, Colorado. The area is bound by Highway 6 to the south and I-70 to the West.
3.5.4 Affected Environment
Introduction The Tenderfoot / Frey Gulch area has been used for decades for dispersed recreation. The area provides opportunities for hiking, mountain biking, and recreational use of four-wheel drive vehicles, motorcycles, and ATVs. Some dispersed camping occurs during the summer in areas along the Frey Gulch Road and Tenderfoot Mountain Road. There are currently approximately 25 undeveloped campsites along Frey Gulch Road (66) and the Tenderfoot Mountain Road (66.2B). Elk and deer hunting are popular in this area. Hunters also camp in these undeveloped campsites.
The Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) class for the project area is semi-primitive motorized for the summer and fall. This generally means that there is a low level of development, and the environment appears natural, with subtle management activities visible. There is enough land (more than 1,000 acres) to experience a sense of remoteness. There are opportunities for low to moderate levels of social interaction.
Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects Page 3-52 Tenderfoot Mtn. Trail System Environmental Assessment October 2013
Trails There are many miles of trails throughout the project area. The Forest Service has not inventoried all of the existing routes. Many of the trails in this area were created by motorcycle riders. This occurs when riders take their vehicles off of existing trails and pioneer routes to link with other trails. As more and more motorcycles were ridden on these routes, they became well-established trails. There are also many routes in this area that were not created by users. These routes include parts of old roads that originated with early logging in the area. One route is part of a road that was built to construct a microwave tower.
Motorized Use Riding motorcycles and other OHVs is one of the fastest growing outdoor sports across the nation. According to the Motorcycle Industry Council, OHV annual sales more than tripled to over 1.1 million vehicles between 1995 and 2003. In Colorado, 27% of adults participate in OHV recreation (Off-Highway Vehicle Recreation in the United States and its Regions and States, 2008). They recreate with snowmobiles, ATVs, motorcycles, and/or jeeps. In Summit County, there are 1,025 registered ATVs and motorcycles (Personal communication with Ryan Crabb, Colorado State Parks and Wildlife). Locally, demand for motorcycle trails is increasing; however, riding opportunities are decreasing.
This area has been receiving an increasing amount of motorcycle use in the past ten years even though it is not managed or promoted by the Forest Service for this use. Popularity has resulted primarily through word-of-mouth. ATV use has increased since 2007 when a local unpermitted outfitter began renting and delivering ATVs to the area. This ended with the County closure of the landfill property to ATV use. Many of the single track trails developed into double-track trails from this increased ATV use.
Tenderfoot Track Club The track area is not located on NFS land and is not part of the Tenderfoot Mountain proposal, however, it is included here to more thoroughly explain motorized recreation opportunities available in this area. The original track area, located on Summit County property adjacent to the Dillon Cemetery, had been used for approximately 30 years by off- highway motorcycle enthusiasts. It was accessed via the Cemetery Road off of Highway 6. The larger track area had consistent use annually and experienced increasing numbers of users over the past few years. The area had become problematic because it was not managed. Adjacent landowners raised concerns over visual resources, noise, and wetlands. The area was closed by the County in January 2010, and resources were allocated to research and review potential solutions to the issues. There were several stakeholder meetings, including a sound test performed on site. At the conclusion of the planning process, the County agreed to re-open a portion of the track and assist with access to and enforcement of the area. In June 2010, construction began on the new access road and parking area.
Today, the Tenderfoot Track Club includes 1.2 miles of track and a learning area for kids. There is a gate with a combination lock to ensure that only club members or day users who pay can access the area. A season pass costs $75 for adults and includes membership in the Summit County Off Road Riders (SCORR) association. The operating season is weather dependent but typically runs from April through November. Because there is no longer a
Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects Page 3-53 Tenderfoot Mtn. Trail System Environmental Assessment October 2013 connection to the larger trail network on Tenderfoot Mountain, riders can only access the track from this location, and user conflicts are avoided.
Non-Motorized Use The Oro Grande Trail is a route that runs from the Dillon water tank to the landfill. It has been a main connector route for motorcycles and ATVs between the Frey Gulch area and the Straight Creek Trail for at least two decades. This trail passes through land administered by Summit County, the Town of Dillon, Denver Water, and the Forest Service. The name has changed over the years as the section from the water tank to the cemetery is a road that is used by full sized vehicles for administrative use. It had been known as the “Tenderfoot Road Trail”. The trailhead at the water tank is signed as the “Tenderfoot Trailhead,” so many people believe that the Oro Grande Trail and the Tenderfoot Trail are one and the same. The Tenderfoot Trail is a 0.8-mile spur that originates from the Oro Grande Trail. The Oro Grande Trail was designated for non-motorized uses in the TMP, which is consistent with recent direction by the Town of Dillon and Summit County that changed the designation of this route across their respective property to non-motorized. As a result of this change in designation, several user conflict issues were addressed. The Oro Grande Trail and the Tenderfoot trails now offer non-motorized routes in close proximity to the homes in Corinthian Hills for those wishing to hike, run, or walk their dogs and avoid motorized vehicles.
Other than the Oro Grande Trail and the Tenderfoot Trail, there is little use on the roads and non-system trails by hikers and mountain bike riders. During the planning and design of this project over the last four years, there have been no hikers or mountain bike riders observed on any of these trails with the following few exceptions:
Some mountain bike riders and hikers have been observed on the Frey Gulch Road and Tenderfoot Mountain Road. Mountain bikers pass through from the Incline Trail to the Oro Grande trail. Some hikers have been observed on the trails in the area of points 81, 78, and 3. These trails are accessed by trespassing through private property near the Dillon Water Tank or by traveling past the end of the Tenderfoot Trail. The existing trails in this area are primarily old skid trails from the time it was logged. None of these trails were adopted in the Travel Management Plan and therefore were not planned for providing non-motorized opportunities. These trails are rarely used by hikers and mountain bikers.
Access Until 2010, the trailhead adjacent to the Dillon Cemetery was the main motorcycle and ATV access to the Tenderfoot/Frey Gulch area. Riders would park their trailers and use the connector trail to access the project area. In January of 2010, Summit County designated the access from the Landfill property as non-motorized, therefore, riders can no longer access the trails from the trailhead at the cemetery. Riders can access the Tenderfoot Track Club from Cemetery Road, however, there is no access to NFS lands from this location.
Another access to the trail system is the Straight Creek trailhead and parking area. Access to this area is off County Road 51, near the intersection of Highway 6 and Evergreen Road. It
Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects Page 3-54 Tenderfoot Mtn. Trail System Environmental Assessment October 2013 is approximately 0.6 miles to the Town of Dillon’s water tank facility and then another 0.6 miles to the trailhead and parking area. There are multiple pull-offs along this road to accommodate vehicles, however, not all pull-offs can accommodate vehicles with trailers. Regardless, these pull-offs are occasionally used for parking. There is existing parking for up to ten to fifteen vehicles at the Straight Creek trailhead, however, OHV users cannot currently access the Frey Gulch trails from this area due to the closure of the Oro Grande Trail to motorized uses. The Straight Creek trailhead also allows access to the five-mile Straight Creek Trail, which parallels I-70 and is open to ATVs and motorcycles.
Other OHV users park near the shooting range on the landfill property or along the Frey Gulch Road (also known as Forest System Road 66) to unload their motorcycles or ATVs. This is currently the only viable way to access the existing trail system with an OHV. From Highway 6, access to the Frey Gulch area is via Landfill Road, along which vehicles travel approximately 0.6 miles to the landfill entrance and another 0.6 miles to the Forest Service gate. The Landfill Road is approximately 30 feet wide and capable of accommodating very large vehicles (e.g., garbage trucks). It is regularly maintained by the County, and the posted speed limit is 25 mph. Beyond the gate, FSR 66 is an unimproved dirt road with numerous bumps and ruts, however, it is regularly used by two wheel drive vehicles.
Hunters traditionally use the main roads with full-sized vehicles and there is some ATV use during the fall season. The Tenderfoot Mountain Road (66.2B) is very steep, however, it is accessible to high-clearance four-wheel drive vehicles. This road allows for motorized access to higher elevations.
A seasonal closure for elk calving to motorized use in the Frey Gulch area has been in place since 1990. Motor vehicles are prohibited between April 1 and June 20. This is enforced by a gate on the Forest Service boundary just past the landfill.
In addition to the three points of access above, there are a number of other access points available to non-motorized trail users. The Oro Grande Trail terminates at the landfill. Two trails from the Keystone area (Incline Trail and 1024.1W) also provide access to the eastern portion of the project area to non-motorized users. There is one trail designated for horseback riding and hiking only, providing specific access for the Keystone Stables.
Hunting Big game (deer, elk and bear) and bird hunting (grouse) occurs in the area in the fall (September through November), although the use is relatively low. During bird hunting seasons, anecdotal evidence suggests that there are about 5 hunters per weekend day observed. During big game seasons, anecdotal evidence suggests that there are 20-30 hunters per weekend day observed during open seasons. Some are camping for a few days to a week in the area, others might just be hunting in the area for a day. All hunters use the roads to access the area by motor vehicle, then travel farther on foot.
Traditional and Current Use of the Area Tenderfoot Mountain has been a popular destination for motorcycle riders for over 20 years, however, it is difficult to estimate the number of motorcycle riders on the trails in this area. Anecdotal evidence demonstrates that there were rarely more than five vehicles with trailers at the Cemetery Trailhead prior to the trail closures (pre-2009). Straight Creek also provided
Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects Page 3-55 Tenderfoot Mtn. Trail System Environmental Assessment October 2013 access to these trails prior to the closures and it likely received the same or less use. Frey Gulch Road beyond the landfill is currently the only access to motorized trails in this area. It is more difficult to access and has no designated parking, therefore, it is assumed that it also experiences fewer than five vehicles with trailers per weekend day and far fewer during the week.
Law Enforcement In 2002, the WRNF Forest Plan included a restriction of OHVs to designated routes only. The TMP process was initiated and was expected to be completed within a few years. Throughout the Dillon Ranger District, but specifically in the Tenderfoot/Frey Gulch area, there existed a large number of non-system (undesignated) routes that were receiving OHV use. The 2002 Forest Plan and a Forest-wide special order made this use illegal. The Forest chose to let the use continue until the TMP could be completed and districts were prohibited from implementing any closures until that time. The user-created motorcycle trails in the Tenderfoot/Frey Gulch area continued to grow in number. District Forest Protection Officers (FPOs) and the Zone Law Enforcement Officer were unable to take any law enforcement actions for riding on these trails. The public perceived this inaction by the Forest Service as an inability to catch these violators when in fact, no law enforcement action could be taken. The implementation of the TMP now makes this possible.
3.5.5 Environmental Effects by Alternative
3.5.5.1 Alternative 1 – No Action
Direct and indirect effects Under the No Action alternative, the project area would be subject to the current designations in the TMP, which designates all trails included in this proposal as closed. The only exceptions are sections 24-57, 57-73, 73-72, and 42-67, which are part of a route that was designated as open to mountain bikes, horseback riding, and hiking. The roads that provide connections in the trail system all were designated in the TMP as open to all motorized and non-motorized travel to allow for continued hunting and dispersed recreation. With these designations, there would be a complete loss of trails open to motorized uses in the area. All of the existing trails would be closed and re-habilitated. This would preclude any non-motorized use of these trails, as well. Forest Service law enforcement officers and FPOs would issue violation notices to those using any wheeled vehicle on these trails.
Cumulative effects Across the Dillon Ranger District (DRD), demand for motorcycle riding continues to grow, while opportunities are limited. Closure of motorized routes in the Golden Horseshoe planning process has reduced single-track riding opportunities in that area to approximately 6 miles. Adding an additional four miles is currently being considered. As designated by the TMP, the Tenderfoot/Frey Gulch area is closed to motorized trail uses. Although the opening of the Tenderfoot Track Club has provided a short track area, it does not provide the single-track experience many riders are seeking. The cumulative effects of the No Action alternative would be the continuation of reduced opportunities to ride motorcycles on single-track trails across the DRD and White River National Forest. The trail system in the
Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects Page 3-56 Tenderfoot Mtn. Trail System Environmental Assessment October 2013
Golden Horseshoe and the road network on the east end of the county would be the only motorcycle opportunities and would represent an imbalance between the demands for motorized and non-motorized opportunities.
3.5.5.2 Alternative 2 – Proposed Action
Direct and indirect effects
Introduction Selection and implementation of the Proposed Action would result in the development of a comprehensive motorized trail system in the project area. The system would include a new trailhead on Frey Gulch Road with parking for ten vehicles with trailers or twenty standard vehicles*. This area would provide extensive signage and an opportunity to educate trail users. It would also provide a staging area for enforcement of spark arrestors and mufflers as well as for construction and maintenance days with volunteers. The proposal would offer a single-track experience, with opportunities to ride in the forest and enjoy the scenery. It would also offer more challenge for both mountain bikers and motorcycle riders than riding on a 4-wheel drive road.
Trails The system would include approximately 19.9 miles of single-track trails, 1.1 miles of ATV trail, and 10.1 miles (includes Straight Creek) of roads designated for motorized use. The proposed system would create low-maintenance trails that would result in an improved condition on the project area for many resources. Periodic maintenance would still be needed. Trail sections created from old road beds would most likely be reconstructed with a combination of a SWECO trail cat and/or a rubber-track mini-excavator. A total of 1.5 miles of trail may be reconstructed with equipment. The remainder of the trail system would be constructed or reconstructed using hand tools. Closures would also be accomplished by both equipment and hand tools. The historic type of riding opportunity (steep, eroding, and rocky trails) would be replaced with a more sustainable opportunity and a different kind of challenge with this proposal.
Use It is anticipated that use levels would increase a small amount upon completion of the trail system. Although many users would be from Summit County and adjacent areas, it is reasonable to assume that some people would also travel from the Front Range. It is not anticipated that this trail system would attract riders from distances further than the Front Range3. Although use levels are difficult to predict, it is assumed that local riders would access the trail system every day of the week throughout the summer to some degree.
A typical OHV trail system includes at least 60 miles of trail. This 31-mile trail system would be considered small in comparison and would typically provide a half day experience. Because of the small size and the limited number of other opportunities (Golden Horseshoe and the four-wheel drive roads on the east end of the county) it is not expected that use would grow substantially above levels that occurred when the Tenderfoot area trail system was open to motorized use.
3 The Tenderfoot Task Force agreed that this would not likely be a regional destination.
Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects Page 3-57 Tenderfoot Mtn. Trail System Environmental Assessment October 2013
It is reasonable to assume that destination riders would primarily use the area on the weekends. The entire trail system would be open from July 1 (the end of the seasonal closure for elk calving) until October 10* which is typically when the first snowfalls occur. This is approximately 16 weekends. Based on research of other single-track motorcycle trail systems in Colorado, an average of 20* OHV motorcycle riders per day is expected, and the Tenderfoot Task Force agreed that this number should be used in the analysis in this EA. Systems of this size are used primarily by local motorcycle riders. For the purposes of disclosure, this proposal could result in approximately 2,100 total riders on the proposed trail system over the course of the riding season.
During the scoping period, some people commented that there would be an expectation that if Colorado State OHV grant funds were used, the area would have to be promoted statewide for OHV use. The only expectation from Colorado State Parks is to include Summit County in an annual brochure entitled “Colorado OHV Opportunities Map.” Summit County is already listed and the OHV opportunities are described in this brochure.
Experience The proposed system would offer about half a day of single-track motorcycle riding, with opportunities to view and experience a natural setting. The system would offer some technical challenges to advanced riders, but it would also accommodate beginner and younger riders. The system was developed and designed by trail riders in conjunction with Forest Service technical specialists, so it is anticipated that it would meet the desires of these riders. Additionally, it is anticipated that this increase in designated trails that are well- designed, managed, maintained, signed, and enforced would improve the recreation experience for motorcycle riders.
The trail system was designed by identifying what sections of existing roads and user-created trails could be made sustainable through reconstruction. In order to provide for loops, segments of new trails to connect those existing segments were identified. An emphasis was made to avoid any wetlands, riparian areas, streams, lakes, and cultural resources. Geographic restrictions were determined by management area prescriptions and by maximizing distances to residential areas. The new segments were designed to be low grade (0 to 5%). At low grades, motorcycle tires maintain traction and do not spin so there is less rutting and erosion. The entire trail system was examined by a professional Forest Service OHV trail engineer and deemed to be sustainable while providing a good motorcycle experience.
Although the system would have a motorized designation, it would be open to non- motorized uses as well. The proposed trails would offer more single-track riding opportunities to mountain bikers in this area. Mountain bikers may choose not to use these trails because some of the steeper sections may have a tread that is not compacted enough for enjoyable bike riding. Hikers would also have an increase in system trails available, but they also may choose to avoid the area because of the potential to be on the trails with motorcycles and their experience would be impacted by noise. This designated trail system does not preclude opportunities for non-motorized recreationists, however, they would likely choose to avoid this area and recreate on other trails designated for non-motorized
Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects Page 3-58 Tenderfoot Mtn. Trail System Environmental Assessment October 2013 uses in the area and across the District. Non-motorized uses would likely occur in the project area during the spring before the trails are open to motorized use June 21 or July 1.
Since this area would be managed for motorized recreation, the non-motorized users who choose to recreate on these trails would expect the motorized use. They would be aware of any safety concerns and would be aware of approaching motorcycles well in advance because of the sound. Motorcycle riders would be educated to approach slowly and with care when encountering other users. The main Frey Gulch Road would be posted with SHARE THE ROAD signs and cautionary speed limit signs*. The exact speed limit would be determined by an engineering study.
The non-mechanized trails that originate at the Keystone Stables are used for guided horseback rides. The outfitter has been using these trails for many years with the concurrent OHV use without substantial conflict. By allowing for the non-motorized trails between Points 53 and 16, the outfitter use should continue with no impacts to their operation. There is one 0.1 mile section of the Frey Gulch Road that would be shared by horse and motorcycle use (between points 52 and 1). This location would be signed with a Horse symbol and a SHARE THE ROAD sign*. Additionally, education efforts would include slow speeds on this section.
Dispersed Camping The closure of the Tenderfoot Mountain Road would eliminate full sized vehicle and ATV access to 10 inventoried campsites. Campers would be displaced to other existing campsites along the Frey Gulch Road and new sites would likely be created by campers where there is vehicle access. These would provide the forest setting that campers desire, but they would not be along a creek. A special order was signed by the Forest Supervisor in 2011 that prohibits camping within 100 feet of streams in the Dillon Ranger District, therefore, the sites on the Tenderfoot Mountain road will be closed anyway.
As in the past, some motorcycle riders may camp in dispersed sites in the area. Because the trail system would only offer a half day’s riding opportunity, there would not be a lot of multi-day overnight camping associated with the trail system. Some riders could camp in the Frey Gulch area and also spend a two days riding in the Golden Horseshoe and the 4-wheel drive roads in the east end of the District. Riders could camp anywhere camping is allowed in the District to use as a base camp. They could even stay at developed campgrounds or local hotels. Currently, camping is allowed anywhere within 300 feet of the roads in the Frey Gulch area. The Education and Enforcement Plan outlines resources to be used to manage dispersed camping as well as a monitoring process*.
Hunting The closure of the Tenderfoot Mountain Road would eliminate full sized vehicle access to Tenderfoot Mountain, however, the proposed action specifically included leaving Route 66.2A as open to all motorized uses for the first mile, then open to ATVs from that point to Tenderfoot Mountain. Converting the single track trail to a road between points 57 and 24 was not considered because there is a Forest Plan standard that prohibits new road construction in a Lineage GB Cutthroat Trout watershed. ATV and full size vehicle use would only be allowed during hunting season (September through November). The opportunities for hunting would be somewhat negatively impacted by this reduced access
Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects Page 3-59 Tenderfoot Mtn. Trail System Environmental Assessment October 2013 because most hunters desire full-sized motor vehicle access. There would be a need to educate hunters about the environmental damage that the Tenderfoot Mountain Road was having on water quality and fish habitat and that closure was necessary to protect an endangered species. The opening of Route 66.2A to motorized use represents a compromise. This route was intended to be motorized single-track. Even though ATV and full size vehicles would only be present on this route during the fall, it would be 6 to 10 feet wide on the lower section and 50 inches wide on the upper section, which does not meet the need for a single-track motorized experience.
The trail system would be closed annually to motorized use October 10*. This is the typical start of rifle season; therefore impacts to hunting during this season would be mitigated. Motorized access to Tenderfoot Mountain would be similar to the existing condition. The motorcycle use during the archery and muzzleloader seasons (in September) would be expected to be low. This small amount of use may displace big game to adjacent areas. Because motorized use would be confined to the trail system, impacts to big game in the adjacent areas would be low. Even though motorcycle use in the project area has been uncontrolled in the past, big game would be expected to occupy the areas that are now closed.
Access/traffic There would be a small amount of additional traffic on the Landfill Road as vehicles transporting motorcycles to the trailhead would use this route. Conflicts with landfill vehicles would not be an issue on the weekends as the landfill is closed on those days. During the week, additional traffic accessing Frey Gulch is expected to be low (less than twenty vehicles per day), therefore, no measurable effects are expected (e.g., an increase in motor vehicle accidents or road maintenance needs). Data from the Summit County landfill indicates an average of about 150 vehicles per day which equates to about 39,000 vehicles per year. There is additional traffic (not associated with motorcycle use) that accesses the shooting range and the Frey Gulch Road. There would be less than 20 vehicles transporting motorcycles (the estimated average use is 20 motorcycles per day, from both trailheads combined, with more on weekends than week days, with some vehicles transporting two motorcycles) to the trailhead on a weekday. Not only would this not constitute a measurable increased likelihood of accidents, but the small annual increase in traffic (3%4) would not result in undue road damage since this road is 30 feet wide, mostly paved, and engineered to accommodate garbage trucks and trucks with trailers. This is a Summit County road, however, the Forest Service has an easement on this road that allows for public access.
Because two trailheads would be provided, the number of vehicles parked in pull-offs on the Frey Gulch Road is expected to be very small. One public comment to the EA suggested that vehicles would block the road and pose a safety hazard. This could happen, but it is likely to be rare and full size vehicle traffic on the road has been and is anticipated to continue to be very low.
Compared to the existing condition, there would be additional parking at the Straight Creek Trailhead. If the parking area is full, vehicles would either be driven to the Frey Gulch
4 Assumptions: Trails are open approximately 105 days per year, average 20 motorcycles per day, 75% of users access via Landfill Road, 25% of vehicles carry two motorcycles.
Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects Page 3-60 Tenderfoot Mtn. Trail System Environmental Assessment October 2013
Trailhead or they would be parked in pull-offs along the Straight Creek Road. This situation is very common at Dillon Ranger District trailheads (e.g., Spruce Creek, McCullough Gulch, and Quandary Peak). Overflow parking has occurred at those trailheads for many years without negative effects.
Law Enforcement The education / enforcement plan for this area would be implemented (Appendix B). SCORR would begin a volunteer patrol program. Many comments were received that a volunteer patrol program would be ineffective. This type of patrol program has been very successful at OHV areas throughout the county. Friends of the Dillon Ranger District and Friends of the Eagles Nest Wilderness already have a very successful program patrolling non-motorized trails on the District. For example, wilderness patrols have resulted in much higher compliance of the requirement for dogs to be on leash. Compliance of other wilderness regulations has also improved with volunteer patrols. Volunteers would not perform law enforcement, but would provide information about the rules. They would report violations to the district FPOs and LEO. Forest Service FPOs would be the primary resource for performing education and law enforcement. No Summit County Sheriff assistance is anticipated to be required in order to be successful at enforcing compliance with the rules.
Cumulative effects It is difficult to quantify a net gain or loss of trails in the Tenderfoot area with this proposal because many un-inventoried trails in this area are unaccounted for, however, this proposal would result in a designated single-track motorized road and trail system of approximately 26 miles at a time when motorized trails are being closed to this use across the District and the Forest. With the trail system in the Golden Horseshoe and the road network on the east end of the county, there would be a better balance of motorcycle opportunities.
Some comments were received which identified the possibility that an increase in this type of motorized use would have impacts beyond the project area and possibly throughout the county. Use is not expected to rise substantially above historic levels. By providing a legal, managed motorized single-track opportunity at this location, there would likely be a reduction in illegal off-trail incidents in other areas. Regardless, any increase in use beyond the Tenderfoot area would likely be small and immeasurable.
3.5.6 Monitoring Recommendations
Monitor number of vehicles in the Frey Gulch Trailhead to determine if there is adequate parking to accommodate demand. Monitor compliance with regulations to determine if additional management actions are necessary. Appendix E - Tenderfoot Mountain Motorcycle Trail System Proactive and Adaptive Management Plan* has a complete list of monitoring requirements.
3.5.7 Forest Plan Consistency
The management activities and motorized use would be consistent with guidance in the ROS User’s Guide for the adopted summer semi-primitive motorized ROS class.
Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects Page 3-61 Tenderfoot Mtn. Trail System Environmental Assessment October 2013
The project emphasizes providing a wide range of motorized, mechanized, and non- motorized recreation opportunities and difficulty levels and emphasizes public safety in the development and use of the travel system. Recreation activities would be restricted during deer and elk winter and spring periods. There would be no motorized use between October 10* and June 20th annually.
Regarding the 5.5 Management Area guideline, “Development of new recreation facilities and expansion of existing facilities will be discouraged,” this project could be considered a new facility in that some user-created trails are being replaced with new, more sustainable trails, however, by having a very small amount of trails on the border of the 5.5 management area prescription, there would be a limited amount of use, especially when compared to historic use in the area. The open motorized and mechanized travelway density would not increase because the proposal will close section 55-69 and will add 71-19. Both of these segments are 0.2 miles in length.
Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects Page 3-62 Tenderfoot Mtn. Trail System Environmental Assessment October 2013
3.6 SCENERY RESOURCES
3.6.1 Issues and Indicators
The Tenderfoot Mountain trails project area is used primarily in summer and fall by the recreating public. Foreground and middleground views along travel routes and adjacent to the recreation site are important for users of travel corridors in the area (Highway 6). The project is in an area of high visibility used by recreationists and adjacent to residential areas.
The issue of the visibility of the trails was raised during scoping. The indicators for this issue are the Scenic Integrity Objectives (SIOs) and whether project implementation would maintain those objectives.
3.6.2 Geographic and Temporal Scope
The viewshed analysis includes four points identified by the Forest Service representing the views from Highway 6 in the foreground and middleground. Due to topography, there is little background scenery visible from Highway 6. These points were selected because they are along Highway 6 and adjacent to public areas that experience many visitors throughout the year. The analysis considers the current condition and the proposed condition with implementation of the Tenderfoot Mountain trails project.
3.6.3 Affected Environment
There is a high level of recreation use throughout the year in Summit County. Within the project area, the users are primarily motorcycle and ATV riders, dispersed campers, and hunters. The project area is comprised of three different management areas. For MAs 5.41 and 5.5, scenery is managed to provide a range of SIOs from low, which refers to landscapes where the character appears moderately altered, to moderate, which refers to landscapes where the character appears slightly altered. For MA 5.5, which overlaps a small portion of the project area to the northeast, the SIOs range from moderate to very high, which refers to areas in which the landscape charater is intact and allows for low scenery impact recreation facilities. Highway 6 is a Concern Level 1 travel corridor due to high levels of use. The Concern Level for this area is high because it receives high use, is visible, is scenic, and is valued by the public.
The project is in an urban area with views of private residences, commercial facilities, a landfill, a high-tension powerline, a cemetery, a cyclocross track and other recreation facilities in close proximity (see Appendix G – Tenderfoot Area Development Map). This area has also been logged in the past, approximately 30 years ago, with large patches of trees 15-20’ tall. Foreground and middleground views along Highway 6 and adjacent to recreation sites are important for users of these travel corridors and recreation facilities. This area provides scenic benefits to the adjacent highway users and provides a scenic setting for the Town of Dillon, Summit Cove, Keystone, and their residents. The trend appears to be increased recreational use.
The existing condition of the project area and the entire viewshed is that a large percentage of the lodgepole pine is infested with mountain pine beetle (MPB). The landscape character
Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects Page 3-63 Tenderfoot Mtn. Trail System Environmental Assessment October 2013 of the area has been changed due to the MPB epidemic. This area will continue to change with the tree removal associated with the Dillon Reservoir Forest Health and Fuels (DRFHF)Project. Implementation of the Keystone Stewardship contract began in 2009 and is now complete. This contract includes timber units south of the project area, closer to Highway 6 and along Straight Creek.
The southeastern portion of the project area is traversed by a transmission line operated and maintained by Xcel Energy. The transmission line has an associated Right-of-Way (ROW), which varies in width but averages 100 feet. This ROW is managed so that incompatible vegetation (tall trees) are removed when they reach a certain height. The existing condition is one of a low-lying grass, forb, and shrub community under the powerline, resulting in a linear feature across the landscape with minimal remaining trees.
From within the project area, recreationists can experience a feeling of remoteness, with quality scenic views of Buffalo and Red Mountains. Dillon Reservoir and the ski trails of Keystone Resort are also visible from many vantage points within the project area. Figure 3.8 on the left, below, depicts an existing trail within the project area. Figure 3.9 is what the observer sees (Keystone) while coming down Tenderfoot Mountain Road from the top of Tenderfoot Mountain.
Figure 3.8 - Existing trail within project area Figure 3.9 - View of Keystone from Tenderfoot
A viewshed analysis was conducted from four viewpoints representing the foreground and middleground to demonstrate the current condition and the proposed condition with implementation of the Tenderfoot Mountain trails project. Figures 3.10 through 3.15 depict these images.
Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects Page 3-64 Tenderfoot Mtn. Trail System Environmental Assessment October 2013
Foreground
Two observation points were selected by the Forest Service to represent the foreground views of the proposed project. The photos were taken from the parking area for the recreation path at the intersection of Tenderfoot Road in Dillon and across Highway 6 from the second entrance to Corinthian Hills.
Figure 3.10 - Tenderfoot Mountain from rec path parking area; intersection of Highway 6 and Tenderfoot Road.
In Figure 3.10, the observer is looking northeast at Tenderfoot Mountain. The Tenderfoot Addition to Dillon Subdivision and a transmission line that traverses the ridge are visible from this viewpoint. The MPB infestation is evident in the lodgepole pines, and the aspen are quite colorful in September. The Oro Grande trail is behind these homes, but it is not visible from this vantage point. The closest trails in the project area are approximately 0.2 miles beyond the foreground in this photo.
Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects Page 3-65 Tenderfoot Mtn. Trail System Environmental Assessment October 2013
Figure 3.11 Tenderfoot Mountain from across Highway 6 at Corinthian Hills (second entrance).
In Figure 3.11, the observer is looking northeast at Tenderfoot Mountain. The Corinthian Hills subdivision is the predominant feature in this photo, but the Oro Grande trail is visible on the right side of the photo above the homes. It is evidenced as a darker horizontal line on the landscape. This is a two-track dirt trail that averages 15 feet in width. The MPB infestation is evident in this photo as well. The closest trails in the project area are approximately 0.2 miles beyond what is visible in the foreground in this photo.
Middleground
Two observation points were selected by the Forest Service to represent the middleground views of the proposed project. The photos were taken from the recreation path at the entrance to Summerwood (two views) and from the Lakeside Lodge at Keystone.
Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects Page 3-66 Tenderfoot Mtn. Trail System Environmental Assessment October 2013
Figure 3.12 From Summerwood entrance (west) Figure 3.13 From Summerwood entrance (east)
In Figures 3.12 and 3.13, the observer is looking north at Tenderfoot Mountain. Figure 3.12 is looking slightly northwest and Figure 3.13 is looking slightly northeast. The Dillon Cemetery is visible in Figure 3.12 as well as the road to the microwave tower on NFS lands on Tenderfoot Mountain. This road is approximately 15 feet wide; it appears as a lighter diagonal line through the middle of the photo. Figure 3.13 depicts the project area above the Tenderfoot Track Club, which is on County property. The MPB infestation is evident in these photos as well. A small portion of the project area is visible in Figure 3.13, however, most of the proposed trails are beyond the foreground in this photo.
Figure 3.14 - View of Incline Trail from Lakeview Lodge
Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects Page 3-67 Tenderfoot Mtn. Trail System Environmental Assessment October 2013
In Figure 3-14, the observer is looking north at the Frey Gulch area above Keystone. Several condos are evident as well as a parking lot. The MPB infestation is evident in these photos as well. The Incline Trail, which facilitates access to the Roberts Tunnel and averages 10 feet wide, is visible as a lighter colored horizontal line above the buildings. In this particular shot, there is no vegetative screening of the Incline trail; however, just west of this photo, there is denser and more mature vegetation that screens the trail completely. The project area is not visible from this vantage point due to the natural topography.
Due to the topography in the project area, no photos could capture background views (beyond four miles) of the project area from Highway 6.
3.6.4 Environmental Effects by Alternative
3.6.4.1 Alternative 1 – No Action
Direct and indirect effects
Under the No Action alternative, there would be no construction of new trails. The existing trails would be closed to motorized users per the TMP. Rehabilitation would take many years and would be dependent on funding availability. This would not affect the scenic integrity of the project area.
3.6.4.2 Alternative 2 – Proposed Action
The Proposed Action includes construction of approximately 13 miles of new trails within the project area. The trails would be 18 inches wide and mostly built by hand. Section 24-57 would be reconstructed to be 50 inches wide, but there would be no difference when viewed from the selected viewpoints. Figure 2-9 provides an example of what the new trail construction would look like. For comparison, Figure 3-12 depicts the road to the microwave tower, which is approximately 15 feet wide and has no vegetative screening along a portion of the road visible from Highway 6. The proposal incorporates design considerations which are included to avoid and minimize impacts to scenic resources from the proposed project. These include an average trail width of 18 inches, using available openings to limit tree clearing, and avoidance of clearing large, mature trees. These criteria are discussed in more detail in Chapter 2.
Direct and indirect effects
The project area is not visible from three of the selected viewpoints. The proposed trails are at least 0.2 miles from what is visible in the foreground in Figures 3-10 through 3-14 and topography limits the ability to see these areas. Figure 3-13, from the Summerwood entrance depicts a portion of the project area in which a segment of a new trail would be constructed. In this area, as with all new trail construction, openings in the trees would be used to route the trail, and tree removal would be minimal, if at all. The trail would be hand cut to a width of 18 inches. It is not anticipated that the proposed trail construction would
Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects Page 3-68 Tenderfoot Mtn. Trail System Environmental Assessment October 2013 be visible. The proposed trail construction is not anticipated to affect the form, line, color, or texture of the natural appearing character of the landscape.
From within the project area, the existing landscape character would be sustained, and there would be opportunities to restore the scenic integrity. For example, one side of braided segments of roads and/or trails would be closed and rehabilitated. This would enhance the recreation experience by creating a single-track trail and improve the scenic quality by decommissioning unnecessary trails. Implementation of the proposed action would include the funding and effort necessary to physically close and rehabilitate additional trails closed to motorized users in the TMP and not included in this proposal. Figure 3.15 depicts a trail near the gate on Frey Gulch Road recently closed and rehabilitated by a Rocky Mountain Youth Corps crew.
Figure 3.15 - Recently closed and rehabilitated trail
The proposed Frey Gulch trailhead and parking area would use an area adjacent to the transmission line ROW, which has been recently cleared through the project area. The area is currently level and has positive drainage. The proposed area would be approximately 1/2 acre*, to accommodate ten vehicles with trailers or twenty standard vehicles (e.g., pickup trucks).
Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects Page 3-69 Tenderfoot Mtn. Trail System Environmental Assessment October 2013
The overall scenic effect of the project would be minimal to negligible because of screening from topography and vegetation. Integration of the recommended design criteria would further minimize the scenery impact. The project area would continue to achieve the SIO for the affected MAs and would be consistent with Forest Plan direction.
Cumulative effects
Past Actions
The area surrounding Tenderfoot Mountain and Frey Gulch and within the viewing area has been managed by the Forest Servce for timber harvesting and a variety of dispersed and developed recreational activities, including alpine skiing. Other non-Forest Service activities and developments which have occurred within the viewing area include the operation and maintenance of the county landfill, road construction, I-70 and Hwy 6, powerline and utility corridors, communication sites, marinas, a shooting range, a motorcycle track, a cemetery, bike paths, hiking trails, private residences and commercial developments (see Appendix G – Tenderfoot Area Development Map). This area has become a regional recreation resource for many recreational activities occurring year around and a destination for tourists mainly visitng the ski towns. The large number of man-made disturbances in this area has a scenery impact on the users who visit this area.
Present Actions
The Tenderfoot Mountain trails project area is within treatment units 101-104, 123-126, 128, and 509 as designated in the Dillon Reservoir Forest Health and Fuels EA. These units have been logged and this activity is complete. In summary, the number of acres visually affected by that project would be approximately 3,300 from vegetation management activity.
Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions No reasonably foreseeable future actions have been identified for this resource.
The minimal effects of the Proposed Action when added to the extensive effects of the past and present actions discussed above would not significantly impact the scenic viewshed.
3.6.5 Monitoring Recommendations
Monitoring would occur during construction to ensure that design criteria and the desired condition are being met. Post-construction monitoring should occur at least once within three years following project completion.
3.6.6 Forest Plan Direction and Consistency
The Revised Land and Resource Management Plan for the White River National Forest (WRNF, 2002 Forest Plan Revision - Record of Decision 4/2/02) establishes acceptable limits of change for Scenic Resources. The acceptable limits are the Scenic Integrity Objectives (SIOs).
Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects Page 3-70
Tenderfoot Mtn. Trail System Environmental Assessment October 2013
The overall scenic effect of the project would not raise the scenery impact to an unacceptable level long-term. Integration of the recommended design criteria would further minimize the scenery impact. The project area would continue to achieve the SIO for the affected MAs and would be consistent with Forest Plan direction. Both the proposal and the No Action alternative are consistent with Forest Plan standards and guidelines.
Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects Page 3-71
Tenderfoot Mtn. Trail System Environmental Assessment October 2013
3.7 CULTURAL RESOURCES
3.7.1 Issues and Indicators
Cultural resources are a non-renewable resource and are threatened by development, public access, illegal collection, vandalism, natural weathering, erosion and fire to list a few examples. Forest management activities, also, have potential to adversely impact the cultural landscape.
3.7.2 Forest Plan Direction
Forest Plan direction for cultural resources includes:
Conduct all land management activities in such a manner as to comply with all applicable federal, state, and local regulations. Many heritage resources values can be protected effectively through the application of the provision of the regulations listed in part 2.
Other applicable Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines include:
Standards: The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (P.L. 89-665 as amended), the Native American Grave Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), (P.L. 101-601), the American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978 (P.L. 96-341), and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (P.L. 1-3-141).
Guidelines: Proactive consultation with American Indian people occurs to help ensure the protection, preservation, and use of areas that are culturally important to them.
Heritage resources are protected from damage by project activities or vandalism through project design, specified protection measures, monitoring and coordination.
3.7.3 Geographic and Temporal Scope
The geographic scope for this resource is the project area. The temporal scope is the time it would take to construct the proposed project elements. After that, it is unlikely that operation and maintenance of the project would result in additional impacts to cultural resources.
3.7.4 Affected Environment
Prior to initiation of cultural surveys, a literature review was conducted with the State of Colorado and at the White River National Forest offices in Glenwood Springs, Colorado. A total of 219 acres was inventoried for the current project. All work was completed under the guidance of Andrea Brogan, White River National Forest Archaeologist. Six archaeological sites and two isolated finds were encountered during the surveys. One previously recorded site that was identified as possibly in the project area during the records review was found to be well outside the project area and is not discussed further here.
Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects Page 3-72
Tenderfoot Mtn. Trail System Environmental Assessment October 2013
No prehistoric archaeological sites were encountered during the inventory. It is likely that the extreme slopes of the project location, coupled with limited resources were not attractive to prehistoric settlement. Some limited use of the upper slopes may have occurred but no trace of such use is likely to have survived. Historic era sites were encountered. The entire mountain appears to have been logged at various times and according to literature resources the area was used to graze cattle. Placer mining claims do not appear to have reached the elevations of the current project area, but are known to have been present on the lower slopes outside of the survey area.
The sites encountered during the project appear to be associated with logging and/or ranching activities. Three of these sites are habitations and three are linear segments of transportation corridors identified as logging roads. The first habitation site is in the general Frey Gulch portion of the project and appears to have been occupied well into the modern era. It includes the remains and outlines of at least two buildings, several outhouse depressions and a scatter of historic artifacts. The materials noted suggest that the main occupation of the site took place between 1920 and 1960. The second habitation site is roughly in the north-central portion of the project area and includes a collapsed cabin, what appears to be a tent platform, and a very light artifact scatter. Based on the artifacts present it is believed that this site was used between about 1900 and 1930. The final habitation appears to already be known by the project proponents as the field flagging identifies the trail as “Cabin Loop.” As the name implies the site consists of a nearly completely collapsed cabin, outhouse trench depression, and light scatter of artifacts. Artifacts indicate that the site was used between 1900 and 1940. Isolated artifacts were also historic and included a bottle dating to the early 1900s, and a single white ware dinner plate fragment of unknown age.
It was determined that none of the cultural materials or properties encountered during the current project are eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places and that no specific protection is needed.
3.7.5 Environmental Effects by Alternative
3.7.5.1 Alternative 1 – No Action
Direct and indirect effects
There would be no direct or indirect effects to cultural resources from the No Action alternative.
3.7.5.2 Alternative 2 – Proposed Action
Direct and indirect effects The proposed project would result in no effect to historic properties because of avoidance. This was confirmed by the Colorado State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO).
Cumulative effects
Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects Page 3-73
Tenderfoot Mtn. Trail System Environmental Assessment October 2013
The project poses no threat to eligible sites from the Proposed Action; therefore, there is no cumulative effect to cultural resources.
3.7.6 Monitoring Recommendations
Monitor existing recorded historic sites for evidence of disturbance.
3.7.7 Forest Plan Consistency
Selection and implementation of the proposed Action would be consistent with Forest Plan direction for cultural resources.
Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects Page 3-74
Tenderfoot Mtn. Trail System Environmental Assessment October 2013
3.8 NOISE
3.8.1 Issues and Indicators The issue of noise and the potential for increased noise associated with the proposed motorized trail system was a concern raised by many people. A common indicator of noise is the decibel level at residential properties and State or local noise code allowances.
3.8.2 Forest Plan Direction
There is no Forest Plan Forest-wide or management area direction relating to noise.
3.8.3 Geographic Scope
The geographic scope of analysis for noise includes the residences adjacent to the project area which could be affected. Monitoring and measurements occurred at several subdivisions near Tenderfoot Mountain to address the concerns about noise raised by the public including the East Dillon Subdivision, Summerwood, Summit Cove, and several neighborhoods in Keystone.
3.8.4 Affected Environment
Introduction
Noise generally is defined as unwanted or annoying sound that is typically associated with human activity and interferes with or disrupts normal activities. The typical human response to environmental noise is annoyance, however, the level of annoyance is based on the individual and a number of factors including the perceived importance of the noise and its appropriateness in the setting, the time of day and the type of activity during which the noise occurs, and the sensitivity of the individual. The “A-weighted” noise scale, measured in decibels and typically written as dBA, weights the frequencies to which humans are sensitive. It refers to sound measured in decibels on the A scale of a standard sound level meter having characteristics defined by the American National Standards Institute. Average noise levels over a period of time are typically expressed as dB Leq. For reference, Table 3.16 provides examples of common activities and the sound levels associated with those activities.
Table 3.16. Typical Noise Levels Common Noise Level (dBA) Common Indoor Outdoor Activities Activities Jet fly-over at 1,000ft 100 Gas lawn mower at 10 ft 90 Diesel truck at 50ft at 50mph 80 Food blender at 3ft Garbage disposal at 3ft Noisy urban area (daytime) 70 Vacuum cleaner at 10ft Gas lawn mower at 100ft Commercial area 60 Normal speech at 3ft Heavy traffic at 300ft Quiet urban daytime 50 Large business office Dishwasher in next room Quiet urban nighttime 40 Theater Large conference room Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects Page 3-75
Tenderfoot Mtn. Trail System Environmental Assessment October 2013
(background) Quiet suburban nighttime 30 Library Quiet rural nighttime 20 Bedroom at night Concert hall (background) 10 Broadcast/recording studio Lowest threshold of human hearing 0 Lowest threshold of human hearing SOURCE – CAL TRANS, 1998
From the source to the receiver, noise changes both in level and frequency spectrum. The most obvious change is the decrease in noise as the distance from the source increases. The manner in which noise reduces with distance depends on many factors including ground absorption, atmospheric effects and refraction, shielding by natural and man-made features, noise barriers, diffraction, and reflection.
Residential Sound Testing for Tenderfoot On June 10, 2009 Geiler and Associates, LLC performed environmental noise testing for the Tenderfoot Mountain project in Dillon, Colorado. The goal was to measure and record noise levels at residential areas associated with: Background sources including Highway 6 traffic, local traffic, and air traffic Baseline motorcycle use Motorcycle use of proposed trails (at close, mid-range, and long range receptor locations)
The first set of testing was conducted to establish a baseline noise level for the motorcycles to be used in the acoustic testing procedure. Six motorcycles were randomly selected and tested one at a time at a distance of 25 feet from the microphone. The resultant maximum noise levels (Lmax) were recorded; the loudest machine was the 2008 Honda CRF450R, which was recorded at a level of 89 dBA. This motorcycle was outfitted with an aftermarket exhaust, which produces a noise level at the maximum permitted by the State of Colorado (CRS, section 5, Article 12 of Title 25).
Human noise-sensitive receptors are generally considered persons who occupy areas where noise is an important attribute of the environment. Testing was conducted at several subdivisions near Tenderfoot Mountain to address the concerns about noise raised by the public. The sound setting of all of the residences tested is under the influence of the noise from Highway 6. At each location, data was recorded both with and without motorcycles operating on the portions of trails closest to the test locations. The motorcycles were operated in a manner to represent normal riding. A summary of the results is presented in Table 3.17.
Table 3.17 - Summary of Average Measured Ambient Motorcycles Distance to Noise Levels Noise (dBA) In Use (dBA) Trails (Miles)
Location Test 1 – Tenderfoot Addition to Dillon 60 60 0.5
Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects Page 3-76
Tenderfoot Mtn. Trail System Environmental Assessment October 2013
Test 2 – Corinthian Hills 48 48 0.5 Test 3 – Summerwood Clubhouse 53 53 1.6 Test 4 – Summit Cove 43 43 1.8 Test 5 – Tennis Townhomes 45 45 0.4 Test 6 – Saints Johns Condominiums 47 47 0.4 Test 6a – Pierringer Residence, Sts. Johns 43 43 0.4 Condos Test 7 – Enclave Subdivision 46 46 0.6
This test was repeated on June 21, 2012. The persons who commented during the scoping period were notified of the test in advance. Residents were advised to listen from their homes during specific 15 minute intervals. At test location #1 (Figure 3.16), the motorcycles were ridden up the Tenderfoot Trail to access the test area. Unfortunately, the motorcycle riders were behind schedule and were riding on the Tenderfoot Trail during the first 10 minutes of the test period. The Tenderfoot Trail is not part of the proposal. Only the last 5 minutes of the first test period was applicable. Forest Service personnel were stationed at 3 locations in each subdivision to monitor the results using only the human ear. No sound at all was detected over the ambient sound (Highway 6, wind, etc.) at test locations 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. At locations 6 and 7, there were short periods when motorcycle noise was barely detectable. Again, this would only be noticed if someone was listening for it and was much quieter than the ambient noise.
Figure 3.16 – Sound Testing Locations
These points represent where the sound tests were measured and where motorcycles were ridden.
Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects Page 3-77
Tenderfoot Mtn. Trail System Environmental Assessment October 2013
On May 9, 2013, the Tenderfoot Task Force conducted a field trip in the project area to see for themselves where the trails would be in relation to residences and to get an idea of the ambient noise. It was discussed that the trails would be a good distance away and that there is substantial ambient noise from Hwy 6, the Landfill Road, the shooting range (see Appendix G – Tenderfoot Area Development Map) and even from within the subdivisions themselves (chainsaws, dogs, vehicles). The Task Force did not believe that performing another sound test would be of any value to the analysis. Instead, it was agreed that if the trail system should be approved and implemented, mitigations to noise complaints should be addressed on a case-by-case basis.
3.8.5 Environmental Effects by Alternative
3.8.5.1 Alternative 1 – No Action
Direct and indirect effects Under the No Action alternative, the project area would be subject to the designations in the TMP, which designated all trails included in this proposal as closed. The only exception is section 1-24, which was designated as open to mountain bikes, horseback, and hiking in the TMP. The roads that provide connections in the trail system were designated in the TMP as open to all motorized and non-motorized travel to allow for continued hunting and dispersed recreation. With these designations, there would be no change in noise associated with the No Action alternative.
Motorcycle use of the Tenderfoot Track Club would continue and would contribute to the noise level in the area.
Indirect noise impacts are related primarily to vehicles on Highway 6 adjacent to the project area. Noise levels on this road would continue. Future growth and increased use of the highway is not anticipated to substantially increase noise levels.
3.8.5.2 Alternative 2 – Proposed Action
Direct and indirect effects The Proposed Action would result in the development of a 31 mile road and single-track motorized trail system. SCORR and the Forest Service would offer sound testing at trailheads several weekends during the summer to ensure compliance with the maximum allowable noise level for motorcycles.
Residential Areas As the environmental noise testing results indicate, there were no instances where motorcycle noise was clearly audible and measurable at nearby residences (Geiler and Associates 2009). The closest distance between the residential test location and the trail was approximately 0.4 miles. There were two locations where motorcycle noise was barely audible to the human ear (Tennis Townhomes and the Enclave), however, it was not measureable above ambient sound levels (e.g., highway noise). At these levels, the noise
Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects Page 3-78
Tenderfoot Mtn. Trail System Environmental Assessment October 2013 from motorcycles could possibly be detected if a person listens very carefully. At most locations, no motorcycle noise was audible to the human ear.
Colorado State Statute requires a maximum residential daytime property line noise level of 55 dBA. This level was exceeded at one location: The Tenderfoot Addition to Dillon, which is located closest to Highway 6, where the noise level was associated with highway traffic. At all other test locations, motorcycle noise was not measurable above ambient noise levels. It is reasonable to assume that noise from motorcycles on the existing and proposed trails within the Tenderfoot system, which are all more than 0.3 miles from the test locations, would not be audible or measurable from these locations. By restricting motorcycle use between 8:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m.* (when highway traffic use is typically less), there will be even less possibility of noticeable noise during those times.
There would be an increase in motorcycle noise audible to those dispersed recreationists using the trails in the Tenderfoot and Frey Gulch areas. This is discussed more in the recreation section of this document.
The Forest Service does not have standards for noise. Colorado State statutes applicable to noise were amended on June 3, 2008 by the addition of text applicable to off-highway vehicles. OHVs manufactured after January 1, 1998 operated within the state of Colorado must not emit more than 96 dbA (CRS, section 5, Article 12 of Title 25). Maximum permissible noise levels per Summit County regulations are 55 dbA at the property line between 7am and 7pm and 50 dbA between 7pm and 7am. The Proposed Action is consistent with both state and local regulations.
Newer motorcycles are quieter than older ones. Because the trails are not steep, there would be less noise typical of hill climbing. Additionally, because the trails would be built with turns and narrow openings, speeds would be less resulting in less noise.
Non-Motorized Trails Users of the non-motorized trails in the area would be affected on portions of these trails for short periods of time. The effect would be from noise heard in the distance. As motorcycles pass through an area, they would be heard by people on nearby non-motorized trails. This noise would be in addition to the noise from Highway 6, I-70 and from periodic gun shots at the shooting range.
The Oro Grande is the most heavily used non-motorized trail in the area. Ninety percent of this trail is between ½ and 1 mile from any motorcycle trail. There would likely be no motorcycle noise detected on this section of trail. The east end of the Oro Grande Trail is within 1/3 mile of some motorcycle trails and some noise would be detected when motorcycles pass through this area. This impact would be expected to be of a short duration, but would occur periodically throughout the day. This trail is also impacted by noise from Highway 6.
The Tenderfoot Trail is very locally popular as it is close to Dillon and provides for excellent views. Hikers on this trail would also be exposed to periodic noise from nearby motorized trails. Point 3 is approximately 600 feet from the end of the Tenderfoot Trail. The proposed action was modified to increase this distance, but it still would have an impact to Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects Page 3-79
Tenderfoot Mtn. Trail System Environmental Assessment October 2013 those non-motorized users for the short period of time they are at the end of the trail Because of the close proximity and density of trails, this would be the most impacted non- motorized trail. This impact could result in less enjoyment and therefore reduced use. Some of this use would be displaced to the other 350 miles of non-motorized trail in the District. This trail is impacted by noise from Highway 6 and I-70. Several sections of the trail are in direct line of sight of I-70 and are especially impacted by noise from trucks descending the steep hill. A future opportunity has been identified to construct a new trail that begins at the end of the Tenderfoot Trail, heads southeast, and terminates at the county landfill.
The Incline Trail originates near the Keystone Center. It is a very locally popular short hike. It terminates at the Frey Gulch Road. Most people turn around at this point, but some hike or ride their mountain bike on the Frey Gulch Road. Those hiking on the trail would be exposed to noise on the upper section of the trail system. Because of topography, they would only hear noise on the last 0.2 miles. Because there would be an increase in OHV traffic on this road, the quality of the hiking or mountain bike riding experience on this road would be reduced. Just like the other shared use routes in the proposal, persons using this road would be aware of the periodic motorized use and use the road or turn around at the junction.
The other trail that originates in the Keystone area and terminates at Point 48 is used very little because there is no trailhead. It originates in a neighborhood. The few people hiking this trail would not likely be exposed to any noise because of the topography.
Cumulative effects No cumulative effects to noise are anticipated to occur as a result of selection and implementation of the Proposed Action beyond those already discussed in the No Action.
3.8.6 Monitoring Recommendations Periodic sound testing on motorcycles will be conducted throughout the summer to ensure compliance with the State noise statute.
3.8.7 Forest Plan Consistency
There is no Forest Plan Forest-wide or management area direction relating to noise.
Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects Page 3-80
Tenderfoot Mtn. Trail System Environmental Assessment October 2013
3.9 SOCIO-ECONOMICS
This section deals with the social and economic issues related to the project.
3.9.1 Issues and Indicators There is a local concern that quality of life and property values could be affected, mainly due to noise. Noise, measured in decibels, is analyzed in the previous section. There is a concern about potential impacts to local services (ambulance, search and rescue, and Sheriff’s Department). These impacts could be estimated from the past number of responses to the area by County resources for law enforcement or medical emergencies. Local OHV businesses are concerned about the lack of OHV opportunities and how that may affect their business.
3.9.2 Forest Plan Direction
Forest Plan direction for socio-economic issues includes:
Goal 3 Scientific and Technical Assistance - Develop and use the best scientific information available to deliver technical and community assistance to support ecological, economic, and social sustainability.
Strategy 3a.1 - Encourage participation of Forest personnel in community and other government projects that involve management of natural resources. Invite state and local government personnel to become more involved in the design and analysis of Forest Service projects that may affect economic and social elements of the community.
3.9.3 Geographic Scope
The adjacent subdivisions that could be directly affected by the proposal include: Tenderfoot Addition to Dillon, Corinthian Hill, Summerwood, Summit Cove, Antlers Gulch, Tennis Townhomes, Saints John Condominiums, and the Enclave. Indirect effects could also reach throughout the County.
3.9.4 Affected Environment
The Tenderfoot Addition and Corinthian Hill subdivisions are immediately adjacent to the national forest and the Oro Grande Trail. Up until 2009, this trail was open to ATVs and motorcycles. Residents of these homes were exposed to noise and user conflicts because of the mixed use on this trail. Understandably, this experience has led them to believe that all motorcycle trails would result in a negative impact to the setting of their neighborhood and would result in lower property values. Residents of the Summerwood Subdivision also experienced motorcycle use near their neighborhood up until 2009. Use on the Oro Grande Trail and the wide, open sagebrush area could be both seen and heard from their homes. Summit County closed this use in 2009, but re-opened a small area in 2010 (the Summit
Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects Page 3-81
Tenderfoot Mtn. Trail System Environmental Assessment October 2013
County motocross track). Because of past experiences, these residents also have reasons to believe that a motorcycle trail system could affect the tranquility of their neighborhood. The subdivisions in the Keystone area have not been affected by motorcycle use in the past because motorcycles have only been ridden north of the Frey Gulch road and they could not be heard at the homes in this neighborhood. Residents who hike the traditionally non- motorized trails into the area would have encountered motorcycles on the Frey Gulch Road and beyond. Residents in Summit Cove live at a greater distance and have only been impacted by noise from the track on the Summit County Landfill property. All residences are affected by noise from Highway 6.
There are two local businesses that cater specifically to OHVs (including motorcycles). They are Moto Breck (Farmers Corner) and Silverthorne Powersports (Silverthorne). They sell off-highway motorcycles and accessories and service OHVs. They report that their customers are locals, second home owners and tourists. The business owners have reported that Summit County is gaining a reputation as having few OHV opportunities. With few places to ride motorcycles, there are fewer motorcycle sales.
3.9.5 Environmental Effects by Alternative
3.9.5.1 Alternative 1 – No Action
There would likely be no measureable change in the local community and economy if this project is not implemented. Any change in property values would not be attributable to motorized trails in the area. Under the no action alternative, the two local OHV businesses could see a slight to immeasurable decline in sales and service business. With no trail system, there would be no additional responses to law enforcement or medical emergencies.
3.9.5.2 Alternative 2 – Proposed Action
Quality of Life As indicated in the Noise section, the setting at the homes in the adjacent subdivisions would experience little impact by noise from motorcycles on the trail system because there would be no measurable sound detectable at the residences above the ambient noise level. The trail system has been designed to keep a low speed which reduces noise impacts. Trails have been located to maximize topographic and vegetative screening which reduces noise impacts. In addition, the hours of operation would be limited to 8:00 am – 8:00 pm* to maintain the “quiet hours” during the summer when highway traffic and other ambient noise is lower.
Property Values As indicated above, the setting at the homes in the adjacent subdivisions would experience little impact by noise from motorcycles on the trail system because there would be no measurable sound detectable at the residences above the ambient noise level. Effects to property values are subjective. There is no evidence to suggest a definite indirect effect on residential property values from the proposal. The past OHV use in the Tenderfoot Mountain area has not been demonstrated to have resulted in lower property values. The Tenderfoot Task Force agreed that it would be nearly impossible to isolate the effects of
Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects Page 3-82
Tenderfoot Mtn. Trail System Environmental Assessment October 2013 motorized trail noise from the effects of the recession and the mountain pine beetle epidemic on property values in this area. Therefore this analysis will not attempt to make any conclusions about the impact of noise on these property values, other than it is immeasurable.
County Services Because the area has been used by motorcycle riders in the past and not a large increase in use is expected, no substantial increase in injuries needing county medical resources is anticipated. There has been no documented need for ambulance or search and rescue services in the past in this area when motorized use had occurred (pers. comm. Mark Watson) and this situation would be expected to continue. There would not likely be any searches as use would be limited to the trail system where it would be extremely difficult to get lost. There is no documented need for searches, rescues, and ambulance assistance in the Golden Horseshoe even though a large amount of motorcycle trail use has occurred there in the past. There could be medical emergencies in the future, but they would be rare. For the purposes of this analysis, it will be disclosed that there would be no measurable change in the need for local search and rescue resources.
The Forest Service is not anticipating the need for law enforcement assistance from the County Sheriff Department. Most regulations involved with this trail system are misdemeanors that can be handled by Forest Protection Officers.
Business Economy Because the proposed trail system is not large in size for a motorcycle riding opportunity, there would not likely be a large increase in sales or service at local businesses. There may be some increase, but it would difficult to measure and attribute directly to the project. The business owners report that any local OHV opportunities that add to the question from customers “Where can I ride locally?” contributes to business. They believe that the establishment of the Motocross track resulted in better business (pers. comm. Mike Stoveken, Silverthorne Power Sports).
Cumulative effects
Because there would be no measurable impacts to socio-economic resources, there would be no cumulative impacts.
3.9.6 Monitoring Recommendations
There are no socio-economic monitoring recommendations made by the Tenderfoot Task Force.
3.9.7 Forest Plan Consistency
The best scientific information available was used in the development of this proposal.
Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects Page 3-83
Tenderfoot Mtn. Trail System Environmental Assessment October 2013
3.10.1 Wildfire
3.10.1 Issues and Indicators
Many comments were received regarding the perception that wildfire risk would be increased with the proposed action. An indicator for this issue would be the number of wildfire incidents started by motorcycles at similar locations
. 3.10.2 Forest Plan Direction
There is no applicable wildfire Forest-wide or management area direction relative to this project.
3.10.3 Geographic Scope
A wildfire started in the project area could spread to adjacent land which includes residential areas. The closest residential areas include: Dillon Valley, Corinthian Hill, Tenderfoot Addition, Summerwood, Summit Cove, and Tennis Townhomes.
3.10.4 Affected Environment
As described in the vegetation section, most of the project area is a sub-alpine forest of lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta) with aspen (Populus tremuloides) as the secondary species. The forest is of fire origin and after regeneration this species can become dense, even aged, and single storied. The forest looks like a tree farm or called a "dog-hair" forest with a sparse or absent understory. A thick layer of acidic pine-needle litter accumulated on the forest floor limits plant species only to those that will tolerate this type of soil. Thinning of the "dog-hair" lodgepole trees is found on many acres of proposed trails creating an absent understory of plants, and hundreds of downed trees. The trees cover the understory like toothpicks making plant growth through most areas impossible. Most new proposed trails are in the lodgepole forest. Trails through the "dog-hair" lodgepole forest would create small openings in the forest allowing new understory species to pioneer into the existing densely forested areas, but only immediately adjacent to the trail tread.
3.10.4 Environmental Effects by Alternative
3.10.4.1 Alternative 1 – No Action
If no motorcycle trail system is established, there would be no change in wildfire probability. Potential wildfire starts in the area would originate from existing sources including: Unattended / abandoned campfires, lightning, chainsaws, fireworks, and cigarettes. Lightning is by far the most common cause of wildfires.
3.10.4.2 Alternative 2 – Proposed Action
Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects Page 3-84
Tenderfoot Mtn. Trail System Environmental Assessment October 2013
Direct and Indirect effects
A wildfire could (though extremely unlikely) be ignited by:
The exhaust of a motorcycle A motorcycle crashes and the hot engine ignites vegetation Careless tossing of a cigarette. A campfire left unattended or abandoned.
Wildfire risk is high during the Pre-Green Up season (April to June). During this time, light fuels (especially grasses) are dry and have yet to begin the new growing cycle and therefore can easily carry a ground fire. The trail system would be closed to motorized use during this season, therefore, the only possible situation of a motorcycle igniting a wildfire would be if there was a violation of the closure. Compliance with the spring elk calving closure to motorized use in the past has been very good and it is expected that will continue, therefore, it is extremely unlikely a wildfire would be caused by motorized use during this time.
During the Early to Mid-Summer Season (late June to Mid-August), fine fuels (grasses and forbs) are typically too green to burn and sustain a wildfire. Most wildfire starts would likely smolder giving suppression resources sufficient time to respond before the fire grows to an unmanageable size. This period of relatively low wildfire risk represents fifty percent of the 105-112 day season that the trail system would be open to motorcycles.
The highest wildfire risk occurs in the Mid-Summer to Fall Season (Mid-August to November 22. Both fine and heavy fuels are relatively dry and more likely to sustain a wildfire. The trail system would be open to motorized use for 56 days during this period (ending October 10). To mitigate the wildfire potential, the following prevention efforts would occur: Information sources (kiosks, websites, and brochures) would include fire safety recommendations Patrol crews would include fire prevention as a topic in all visitor contacts Motorcycles are required to have a Forest Service-approved spark arrester. These screens in the exhaust mufflers are effective in preventing the emission of sparks. These would be inspected in all visitor contacts. Education and enforcement of this regulation is included as a design criteria
If a wildfire were to be ignited in this area (from any source), it would be detected early because most of the trail system is on mountainsides where smoke would be highly visible from nearby communities and travelways. Suppression resource response would be rapid because of the easy access provided by the road system. Even though Route 66.2A is closed to full-sized vehicles during the summer, it would provide additional wildland fire engine access. Because of recent vegetation management in the area, good fuel breaks exist between the area and nearby residences. Because of the proximity to residential areas, retardant aircraft would be ordered immediately. It is Forest Service policy to use this suppression tactic whenever structures are threatened. Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects Page 3-85
Tenderfoot Mtn. Trail System Environmental Assessment October 2013
During periods of extreme fire danger, the following would occur: Additional patrols would occur. The Tenderfoot area would be included in a District- wide patrol effort. When fire danger reaches a certain level regionally, OHV use is prohibited in the national forest. This restriction would close the Tenderfoot Mountain trail system to motorcycle use.
It must be reiterated that the likelihood of a wildfire started by off-highway motorcycle use is extremely small. Nationally, the number of wildfires started by motorcycles is extremely small. The national database lumps motorcycles with all equipment, so it is impossible to isolate motorcycles as a unique cause of wildfires. Locally, motorcycles have been ridden on trails in the Tenderfoot and Golden Horseshoe areas for decades with no record of wildfires resulting from that use. There are no records of wildfires started by motorcycles in the White River National Forest in the last 10 years.
3.10.4.3 Cummulaitve Effects
In considering the other sources of wildfires (unattended / abandoned campfires, lightning, chainsaws, fireworks, and cigarettes), and because of the immeasurable probability of the use of the proposed trail system to potentially cause a wildfire, there would be no cumulative effect.
Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects Page 3-86
Tenderfoot Mtn. Trail System Environmental Assessment October 2013
3.11 WILDLIFE
This section describes the effects of the project on wildlife resources.
3.11.1 THREATENED AND ENDANGERED TERRESTRIAL WILDLIFE SPECIES
3.11.1.1 Affected Environment
On March 13, 2013, a list of threatened, endangered, and proposed species that may be present in the action area was received from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS).
The following list includes threatened, endangered, and proposed terrestrial species that are located on the Dillon Ranger District. 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, state wildlife agency information, and published research.
Candidate species have sufficient information on their biological status and threatens 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.
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.
Table 3.18. Federally listed and proposed terrestrial animal species known to occur or potentially affected by management decisions on the Dillon Ranger District that may be affected by Tenderfoot Motorcycle Trails Project. Common and Scientific Name Status Rationale for Occurrence a (Habitat) North American wolverine, Gulo gulo Historic range (remote mountains and alpine P luscus areas) Canada lynx, Lynx canadensis Present in AA, potential forage/ travel T habitat (montane and subalpine forests)
Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects Page 3-87
Tenderfoot Mtn. Trail System Environmental Assessment October 2013 a In Action Area (AA). Note: Other federally listed and proposed species are not listed in this table because the project area is outside of the species' range, their habitats do not occur in the project area, they have no affinities to project area habitats, and the management decisions associated with the proposed action would have “no effect” on the species, on their habitats, or on designated critical habitat. Federal status, listed after species, is as follows: E = Endangered, T = Threatened, P = Proposed. Candidate species are addressed in the Biological Evaluation. Source: List: USFWS March 13, 2013
CONSULTATION TO DATE
There has been informal consultation on this project between U.S. Forest Service personnel and USFWS (Kurt Broderdorp) numerous times over the past several years (2011, 2012, and 2013). Consultations included phone calls and emails. This project was also presented on three occasions at various Northwest Level 1 Team meetings in 2012 and 2013 in order to gain guidance and informal consultation on the project. The group agreed on the effects determination for Canada lynx in the BA.
A letter of concurrence (ES/CO: FS/WRNF/Dillon RD/Lynx TAILS 65413-2010-I-0073) for informal consultation was received from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) on April 9, 2010 for the renewal of Keystone Stables 5-year special-use-permit (SUP). The project concluded that the proposed action “may affect, not likely to adversely affect” the Canada lynx. The above project is within the Frey Gulch watershed and the Snake River LAU.
SPECIES INFORMATION
North American Wolverine (Gulo gulo luscus)
On February 4, 2013, the FWS published a proposed rule to list the distinct population segment (DPS) of the North American wolverine occurring in the contiguous United States, as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2013a). The DPS evaluation in the proposed rule concerns the segment of the wolverine species occurring within the contiguous 48 states, including the northern and southern Rocky Mountains, Sierra Nevada Range, and North Cascades Range (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2013a). The proposed rule did not propose any critical habitat for the species.
There are numerous historical records of North American wolverines from the Colorado Rocky Mountains; however, the species is believed to have been extirpated from the Southern Rocky Mountains in Colorado, New Mexico, and Wyoming by the early 1900s (Aubrey et al. 2007 cited in USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2013b).
The proposed action is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of North American wolverine, as there is currently no wolverine population in the State of Colorado. The
Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects Page 3-88
Tenderfoot Mtn. Trail System Environmental Assessment October 2013 available scientific and commercial information does not indicate that other potential stressors such as land management, recreation, infrastructure development, and transportation corridors pose a threat to the DPS (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2013a). Section 7 (a) (4) of the ESA requires conferencing with FWS when a proposed action is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a proposed species or destroy or adversely modify proposed critical habitat. Because the proposed action is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of North American wolverine, conferencing is not required.
Canada Lynx (Lynx canadensis)
The pre-field review process included compiling species status, distribution and ecology data. Resources used include U. S. Fish and Wildlife recovery plans, Colorado Natural Heritage Program database maps and reports, Colorado Division of Wildlife habitat maps, Forest Service Region 2 Vegetation (R2 VEG) and snow compaction geographic information system (GIS) databases, and scientific publications.
The Canada Lynx Conservation Assessment and Strategy (Ruediger et al. 2000) and the lynx science report (Ruggiero et al. 2000) were also used to gather information on Canada lynx status, distribution, and ecology.
For the purpose of this proposed action, information regarding natural history, status, distribution, and ecology of Canada lynx tiers to the SRLA BO (USFWS 2008).
Natural History
Canada lynx occupy boreal, sub-boreal, and western montane forests (Ruediger et al. 2000). Lynx occur in mesic coniferous forests that have cold, snowy winters and provide a prey base of snowshoe hare (Ruggiero et al 2000). In the western United States, they are associated with subalpine fir, Engelmann spruce, mesic lodgepole pine and aspen cover types mixed with subalpine fir habitat types. Snowshoe hare are the primary prey of lynx (Koehler and Aubrey 1994), but red squirrels (Tamiasciurus hudsonicus) are an important alternative prey species (Koehler 1990, Ruediger et al. 2000). Shenk (2009) indicated that among her reintroduced radio-collared lynx in Colorado, 69% of their diet comprised of snowshoe hare, and 27% of their diet was red squirrel, with other mammals and birds comprising a minor dietary component.
Primary lynx habitat in Colorado is found roughly between 10,000 and 12,000 feet elevation (Ruediger et al. 2000). Lower montane forests are likely important for movement and dispersal.
Foraging habitat for lynx is generally in mixed conifer (Spruce-fir) cover types with abundant prey species. Densely regenerating conifer forests typically produce the highest densities of snowshoe hares (Koehler 1990, Koehler and Aubry 1994). Conifer-aspen forests with dense regeneration or with an extensive shrub and woody debris understory may be important for snowshoe hare or other prey species (Ruediger et al. 2000), especially during the summer months. Extensive stands of pure aspen are likely poor lynx foraging habitat, unless intermixed with Spruce-fir or young lodgepole pine stands. Regenerating burns are often Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects Page 3-89
Tenderfoot Mtn. Trail System Environmental Assessment October 2013 quite productive for prey species due to the mixed deciduous/conifer forests, multiple age classes, shrub layer, dense herbaceous layer, and extensive downed woody debris. Sagebrush communities at higher elevations and in proximity to subalpine and upper montane forests may be important foraging areas for lynx due to high prey abundance (Squires and Laurion 2000), especially during the summer months. Other foraging habitats that may be important for foraging include large and medium willow carrs, beaver pond complexes, and shrub dominated riparian communities (Ruediger et al. 2000).
The common component of den sites appears to be widespread and large woody debris, including downed logs and/or root wads (Koehler 1990, Mowat et al. 2000, Squires and Laurion 2000). The dense woody debris and closed-canopy stand structure appears to be more important than forest cover type (Mowat et al. 2000). Denning habitat in the southern Rockies is likely to occur in late-successional Spruce-fir forests primarily on north aspects (Ruediger et al. 2000, Shenk 2009). For denning habitat to be functional, it must be in close proximity to large acres of foraging habitat.
As a forest interior species, lynx generally confine their movements to forested or densely wooded habitats, rarely venturing far from cover, which provides not only foraging opportunities, but also concealment from potential predators (including coyotes and mountain lions). Suitable travel habitat may be defined as vegetation greater than six feet in height that supports a closed canopy. This definition could include densely regenerating aspen, riparian corridors and tall willow stands, as well as conifer forests. For optimum habitat effectiveness, travel habitats should connect foraging, denning and security habitats within an animal’s home range.
Throughout North America, lynx do cross broad openings in order to effectively and efficiently utilize their environment. These openings include broad mountain shrub habitats, mountain valleys, and rugged alpine zones. These movements through unforested habitats are likely necessary in order for lynx to access forest interiors that provide optimal lynx habitat, particularly with respect to prey availability, hunting strategy, predator avoidance, and optimization of other life-history requisites. How, and to what extent, lynx cross fragmented habitat is related to their status, their gender, whether they are residents, transients, dispersing, or recently released (Mowat et al. 2000).
For this document, security habitat is defined as those areas providing cover values that are also relatively isolated from and unaffected by, human developments and their activities. These are areas where largely nocturnal and crepuscular lynx can rest during the day without being regularly displaced or harassed by humans or exposed to other risk factors (Ruediger et al. 2000). Denning habitat is sometimes used as a surrogate for security habitat, but security habitat is more widespread because it generally includes a greater variety of forest structural stages and aspects, smaller habitat patch sizes, and less isolation from risk factors. The structural cover component of security habitat is not as important as that associated with denning. It is likely that most forested habitats that provide adequate cover and diurnal seclusion from human activities, predators, and competitors support potential security habitat. Relatively non-forested habitats can also provide effective diurnal security areas (Thompson and Halfpenny 1989), depending on the level of human activity and a host of other factors. Security habitats are likely to be most effective if they are sufficiently large to
Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects Page 3-90
Tenderfoot Mtn. Trail System Environmental Assessment October 2013 provide visual and acoustic insulation from winter [and other seasonal] human activity and to easily allow movement away from infrequent human intrusion” (Ruediger et al. 2000). Habitat block size, buffer zones and other variables cannot be stated in general terms since site specific factors such as stand structure and potentially disruptive use patterns need to be taken into account.
Lynx Distribution and Utilization of Habitats Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) began a Canada lynx reintroduction program in 1999 (reintroduction effort was initiated in 1997 with the first lynx reintroduced in 1999). Since the start of the program, 218 captured lynx from Alaska, Manitoba, Quebec, British Colombia and the Yukon were released in Colorado. The CPW has documented survival, movement patterns, reproduction, and broad-scale habitat-use through aerial and satellite tracking. Using the data from the reintroduced lynx, CPW has developed a lynx use map (Theobald and Shenk, 2011) for the state of Colorado. These maps display areas throughout Colorado that lynx have used the most over the last 10 years. CPW then developed a predictive map of where lynx could go based on the habitats they have used for the past 10 years: http://wildlife.state.co.us/SiteCollectionDocuments/DOW/Research/Mammals/Publicatio ns/CPWPredictiveLynxMapReport.pdf.
CPW lynx data indicated that southern Summit County is regularly used by dispersing lynx. In addition to these maps, CPW used documented data to create a map displaying movements across I-70 in Colorado. This map indicates that lynx have been moving across I-70 regularly on the east side of Summit County and Loveland Pass and to a lesser degree on Vail Pass: http://wildlife.state.co.us/SiteCollectionDocuments/DOW/Research/Mammals/Publicatio ns/LynxMovementsacrossI-70inColorado.pdf.
In order to understand the number and distribution of resident lynx in the area the Rocky Mountain Research Station (RMRS), in cooperation with the White River National Forest, conducted a lynx and winter recreation study in Summit and Eagle Counties. The study documented the distribution of lynx movements in the Vail Pass Recreation Area (and surrounding areas) using both GPS telemetry and non-invasive snow-track surveys. This final report for data collected during this study is still in progress, but has also indicated that there are lynx present in Summit County.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
To determine the effects of the proposed action on Canada lynx, current LAU conditions were considered. The scope of the analysis for direct, indirect, and cumulative effects to Canada lynx focuses on the Snake River LAU and Blue River LAU.
The WRNF GIS Lynx Habitat Interim Mapping dataset, created on March 21, 2011, is an updated version of the WRNF GIS Lynx Habitat dataset. This dataset was created to reflect current conditions of forested habitats, which have been heavily affected by the MPB epidemic. The process used to update this data involved the conversion of all lodgepole pine stands, lodgepole pine/aspen stands, and lodgepole pine stands mixed with less than 40
Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects Page 3-91
Tenderfoot Mtn. Trail System Environmental Assessment October 2013 percent other coniferous trees to "Currently Unsuitable" lynx habitat. This dataset also includes habitat updates that occurred within the Swan River and Snake River LAUs since 2002.
Both the R2 VEG and the lynx habitat datasets were created forest-wide using very coarse habitat classifications. These datasets have not been entirely ground-truthed and they therefore, are not one hundred percent accurate. However, they are the best available data and since lynx habitat surveys were not completed for this project and mapped lynx habitat could not be verified, lynx habitat could not be updated according to SRLA guidelines.
Baseline Lynx Habitat Conditions and Lynx Analysis Units
A Lynx Analysis Unit (LAU) is a project analysis unit upon which direct, indirect, and cumulative effects analyses are evaluated for Canada lynx. LAUs were established to approximate the size of a typical lynx home range; however, they do not represent the home range of an actual animal. An LAU provides a constant area for comparison of effects to lynx over time. The current forest health conditions and functionality of LAUs in southern Summit County presents difficulties in managing Canada lynx habitat. The mountain pine beetle epidemic in addition to human use and development, forest management activities, and a high quantity of poor or unsuitable lynx habitat have resulted in fragmented habitat blocks and impaired habitat connectivity in southern Summit County for lynx (Roberts et. al, 2012). Data used to assess baseline lynx habitat conditions included: Mountain pine beetle affected areas Current lynx habitat suitability classifications Dominant vegetation cover type
The proposed Tenderfoot Motorized Trails area occurs primarily within the Snake River LAU and a very small portion within the far south end of the Blue River LAU on the WRNF (Figure 3.17).
Snake River LAU The Snake River LAU is located in the eastern portion of the WRNF. It is 75,747 acres in size and contains the Porcupine Peak roadless area, which is approximately 8,745 acres in size, and approximately 5,660 acres of the Tenderfoot Mountain Roadless area (8,380 total acres). The towns of Frisco, Dillon, Keystone, and Montezuma; approximately 95 miles of maintained Forest Service trails; and numerous Forest Service campgrounds, picnic areas, and trailheads are located within the borders of this LAU. Additionally, the Snake River LAU contains the Dillon Reservoir Recreation Area, Keystone Ski Area, and Arapahoe Basin Ski Area, and is adjacent to the Loveland Basin Recreation Area. The major roadways in the area include Interstate 70, which crosses the northwestern border of the LAU and US Highway 6, which crosses the northern section of the LAU and extends from the town of Dillon to Loveland Pass.
According to the WRNF GIS Lynx Habitat Interim Mapping dataset, within the Snake River LAU there are approximately 5,807 acres of Denning habitat, 8,241 acres of Winter Foraging habitat, 5,200 acres of Other habitat, 21,015 acres of Currently Unsuitable habitat, 24,221 acres of Non-habitat, and 11,263 acres of private lands (Table 3.19).
Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects Page 3-92
Tenderfoot Mtn. Trail System Environmental Assessment October 2013
Table 3.19 Lynx Habitat within the Snake River LAU. Total Total Habitat Winter Currently Private Non - Denning Other Lynx LAU Type Foraging Unsuitable Land Habitat Habitat Acres Acres* 5,807 8,241 5,200 21,015 40,263 11,263 24,221 75,747 Percent Lynx 14% 21% 13% 52% 100% - - - Habitat *Data Source: WRNF GIS Lynx Habitat Interim Mapping dataset
Blue River LAU
The Blue River LAU is located on the eastern portion of the White River National Forest. It is 158,654 acres in size and contains the Ptarmigan Wilderness, Eagles Nest Wilderness, and Green Mountain Reservoir areas. The town of Silverthorne and the community of Heeny at Green Mountain Reservoir are located within this LAU. There are numerous Forest Service trails, campgrounds, picnic areas, and trailheads located within the borders of this LAU. Major roadways in the area include Interstate 70, which crosses the southern border of the LAU and US Highway 9, which bisects the entire LAU from north to south.
According to the WRNF GIS Lynx Habitat Interim Mapping dataset, within the Blue River LAU there are approximately 14,447 acres of Denning habitat, 7,185 acres of Winter Foraging habitat, 15,337 acres of Other habitat, 34,218 acres of Currently Unsuitable habitat, 56,301 acres of Non-habitat, and 31,166 acres of private lands (Table 3.20).
Table 3.20. Lynx Habitat within the Blue River LAU. Total Total Habitat Winter Currently Private Non - Denning Other Lynx LAU Type Foraging Unsuitable Land Habitat Habitat Acres Acres* 14,447 7,185 15,337 34,218 71,187 31,166 56,301 158,654 Percent Lynx 20% 10% 22% 48% 100% - - - Habitat *Data Source: WRNF GIS Lynx Habitat Interim Mapping dataset
Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects Page 3-93
Tenderfoot Mtn. Trail System Environmental Assessment October 2013
Figure 3.17
Figure 3.17: Tenderfoot Motorcycle Trails project within the Blue River LAU and Snake River LAU
Habitat Types within the Proposed Project Area
For the purpose of analysis for Canada lynx, lynx habitat was considered for the project area (1,800 acres) plus the surrounding area that includes trails to be decommissioned and also habitat that could potentially be disturbed by activities within the project area. According to the WRNF GIS Lynx Habitat Interim Mapping dataset, within the entire proposed project area there are approximately 84 acres of Denning habitat, 275 acres of Winter Foraging habitat, 320 acres of Other habitat, 3,629 acres of Currently Unsuitable habitat, 567 acres of Non-habitat, and 43 acres of private lands (Table 3.21 and Figure 3.18).
Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects Page 3-94
Tenderfoot Mtn. Trail System Environmental Assessment October 2013
Table 3.21 Lynx Habitat within the Proposed Project Area
Lynx Habitat Type Acres Denning 84 Winter Foraging 275 Other 320 Currently Unsuitable 3629 Total Lynx Habitat 4,308 Non - Habitat 567 Private Land 43 Subtotal 610 Total Acres = 4,918 *Data Source: WRNF GIS Lynx Habitat Interim Mapping dataset
Figure 3.18: Mapped lynx habitat within the proposed project area
Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects Page 3-95
Tenderfoot Mtn. Trail System Environmental Assessment October 2013
Habitat Connectivity
Because of the patchy, discontinuous distribution of lynx habitat in Colorado, maintaining landscape-level habitat connectivity may be paramount to maintaining a viable population. Colorado lynx habitats are not only constrained by broad alpine zones and non-forested valleys, but also by towns, reservoirs, highways, and other human developments that fragment and isolate montane and subalpine lynx habitats. Any continuously forested corridor between mountain ranges supporting lynx habitat that is relatively free of human development has the potential to be an important landscape linkage.
Southern Summit County, which includes the proposed Tenderfoot Motorcycle Trails project area, is relatively well connected with forested habitats in adjacent mountain ranges to the south and west, the main sources of lynx entering the County via dispersal from the two Cores Areas (San Juans and Taylor Park).
Recent lynx movements have also occurred across the alpine of the Tenmile Range (L. Roberts, USFS, pers. comm., Jan. 11 and May 4, 2011). The closest, highly functional connectivity corridor extends through the upper forks of French Gulch and the Swan River, through Keystone Resort, across Montezuma Road between Keystone and Arapahoe Basin Ski Areas, then either (1) over Loveland Pass and across I-70 east of the Johnson/ Eisenhower Tunnel (Tunnel), (2) across Highway 6 in the vicinity of Porcupine Gulch, then northwest through the Tenderfoot Mountain habitat block to I-70 west of the Tunnel, or (3) or over the Johnson/ Eisenhower Tunnel. This southern Summit County linkage facilitates lynx movements from South Park and areas to the west (including Lake and Eagle Counties) into Grand and Clear Creek Counties and other large habitat blocks beyond, in the northern end of the Southern Rockies Ecosystem. This corridor consists of WRNF designated Forested Landscape Linkages (MA 5.5) and the Georgia Pass Lynx Linkage and the Loveland Pass Lynx Linkage (LPLL).
More recently, Roberts et al. (2012) analyzed and defined a Lynx Conservation Corridor within southern Summit County where the USFS can promote and implement lynx habitat conservation. That conservation corridor, addressed in greater detail below, contains a broader variety of management areas that are largely compatible with resident and dispersing lynx movements than previous analyses.
This landscape linkage through the southeastern corner of Summit County is the most eastern of a limited number of such movement linkages available on the West Slope. This landscape linkage may also be the most valuable linkage for conducting lynx movements to northern Colorado (i.e., north of I-70) when continuous habitat connectivity and large blocks of lynx habitat to the north are considered (see Figs. 1 and 2 in Ivan [2012] and Figs. 2 and 3 in Ivan et al. [2012], both appended to Roberts et al. 2012 and referenced above as hyperlinks). The other most viable linkages include the east and west slopes of Vail Pass and Tenmile Canyon. Movement constraints (the most significant of which is I-70) occur in all of these linkages, but these four linkages remain the most viable for connecting large habitat blocks in Colorado's northern and southern mountains
Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects Page 3-96
Tenderfoot Mtn. Trail System Environmental Assessment October 2013
Linkage areas are areas of movement opportunities. More specifically, they are broad areas of habitat where animals can find food, shelter and security (USFS 2004). In addition, Forested Landscape Linkages (Management Area 5.5) are areas intended to provide landscape-level linkages between forested landscapes across the WRNF (USFS 2002 a,b,c). These areas provide security from intensive recreational and other human disturbances. According to the WRNF Forest Plan, these areas are found adjacent to human-created constriction and should provide secure movement zones to connect portions of the forest that have land allocations providing a high level of habitat protection or security. In addition, these areas may be designed to provide movement pathways through areas with adjacent high human development or disturbances (USFS 2002a,b,c). The desired condition of Forested Landscape Linkages is to maintain dense, undisturbed, closed canopy conifer stands that provide security habitats for landscape-scale forest carnivore movement, migration, and dispersal between forested landscapes.
The Tenderfoot Motorized Trails Project area occurs within the Loveland Pass Lynx Linkage (LPLL) and a small portion also occurs in Forest Service Management Area (MA) 5.5, Forested Landscape Linkages (Figures 3.19 and 3.20). The LPLL is approximately 22,900 acres in size and is located on the far eastern portion of the Dillon Ranger District. It is bound by Interstate 70, state highway 6 and extends south to Jones Gulch (just east of Keystone Ski Resort) and east across the Continental Divide toward the town of Bakerville. This linkage area provides for north-south movements near I-70 at the Continental Divide, Peru Creek, Loveland Pass, Laskey Gulch and Jones Gulch. It includes portions of the White River National Forest and the Arapaho-Roosevelt National Forest. Some portions of the linkage are highly developed, with 1-70, ski areas and towns. The entire proposed project area lies within the western most side of the LPLL.
The small portion of the MA 5.5 that overlaps the proposed project area would have one motorized route going through it that would connect the proposed trail system from the north-west end to the south-east end. This route is approximately 1.5 miles in length. This is an existing user-created route that has been in use for at least 10 years and if this project were to be approved, the use of this trail would be made legal for ATVs and motorcycles. ATV use would be for hunter access during fall months. There are about 15 miles of trail within the 5.5 MA that would be decommissioned upon approval of the proposed project. It is important to note that trails would eventually be decommissioned even without approval of the proposed project through TMP direction. The proposed project would speed up the pace at which trails would be decommissioned through grant monies that would be applied for.
Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects Page 3-97
Tenderfoot Mtn. Trail System Environmental Assessment October 2013
Figure 3.19: Designated connectivity corridors within the proposed project area
Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects Page 3-98
Tenderfoot Mtn. Trail System Environmental Assessment October 2013
Proposed Action
Figure 3.20: Management Area 5.5 and the LPLL
Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects Page 3-99
Tenderfoot Mtn. Trail System Environmental Assessment October 2013
Existing Human Activity within the Tenderfoot Mountain Area
Over the last few decades, motorcycle and ATV users have created an estimated 29 miles of new trails by riding off of existing routes. Although motorized use has not been prohibited in the Tenderfoot Mountain area in the past, these trails were not managed or maintained by the Forest Service. Past use in this area includes motorcycles, ATVs, full sized vehicles during snow free months and snowmobiles during the winter. Additionally, there has always been a moderate amount of non-motorized recreation including hiking, mountain biking and snowshoeing. The trails being proposed would be much less than the amount of trails that have been used in the past. In May of 2011, the Record of Decision for the White River National Forest Travel Management Plan (TMP) was signed by the Forest Supervisor. The Tenderfoot/Frey Gulch area was designated primarily for non-motorized use on trails and allows for full sized vehicle use on roads. Motorized use of the Tenderfoot Mountain area had been occurring for many years. Since the summer of 2012, non-motorized use of the Tenderfoot area has been enforced with signage and maps and this area has not been used for motorized recreation since then with the exception of an occasional illegal off-road rider. Historically, trails persisted as far up on the mountain as the alpine habitat and the Continental Divide, with many trails occurring in the MA 5.5. It is important to note that the use being proposed for this project is not a new use in this area; it simply has never been analyzed in the past.
Mountain Pine Beetle Effects on Lynx Habitat
A MPB epidemic (now ebbing) recently advanced through Summit County and is thought to have appreciably impaired lynx foraging values in lodgepole pine forests within and beyond the Snake River LAU. Within forests dominated by lodgepole pine, MPB-induced lodgepole pine mortality will alter lynx prey species abundance and lynx habitat use. Reduced foraging habitat in the lodgepole zone could further impair the ability of lynx to maintain a home range within the LAU and connected LAUs over the moderate term (approx. 25-40 years) until adequate forest cover redevelops. Untreated (where dead trees fall and jackstraw) lodgepole stands will have offsetting regeneration effects. Unless the jackstrawed layer is removed regeneration can be sparse and patchy. Conversely, the jackstrawed trees reduce deer and elk access resulting in better seedling/sapling survival and growth. With moderate levels of natural lodgepole germination, lodgepole stands can develop hare winter foraging values from approximately 10-40 years after mortality/treatment. Young, dense lodgepole stands can support some of the highest hare densities of any forest type/ structural stage. Thus, in the moderate-term, conditions will improve to provide high quality foraging values along with security habitat values that facilitate habitat connectivity. After 40-60 years, the live lodgepole canopy tends to lift beyond the year-round range of snowshoe hare foraging and the relative foraging values of the stand decreases for hares and increases for red squirrels. Mountain pine beetle effects in mixed conifer (spruce-fir dominated with a subdominant lodgepole pine component) stands could cause minor to moderate long-term increases in the primary lynx prey base, while year-round habitat connectivity through affected areas would not be meaningfully affected. Mountain pine beetles have affected a majority of the lodgepole pine stands within the project area, which is the primary vegetation component of the proposed project area.
Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects Page 3-100
Tenderfoot Mtn. Trail System Environmental Assessment October 2013
3.11.1.2 Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative 1: No Action
Under the no-action alternative, the proposed trail construction and reconstruction would not occur. The White River National Forest Travel Management Plan would be implemented designating the Tenderfoot Mountain area as non-motorized with the exception of Tenderfoot Mountain Road and Frey Gulch Road which would remain open to full size vehicles. Decommissioning of inventoried and non-inventoried routes could begin as soon as funding is available. The direct and indirect effects of closing summer travel routes have been discussed in the SRLA Biological Opinion and the White River National Forest Travel Management Plan Biological Assessment and have been summarized here. Forest conditions due to the mountain pine beetle epidemic would persist for the foreseeable future and the Canada lynx population would be negatively impacted from a reduction in quality habitat until the beetle epidemic ceases and forests regenerate to become quality lynx habitat (20-40 years).
Habitat modification or tree removal would not occur with the No Action alternative, therefore there would be no further reduction of suitable lynx habitat from the proposed project in the Snake River and Blue River LAUs.
Reduction of motorized use in the proposed project area would benefit Canada lynx by reducing disturbance to individuals that may use the area for security habitat or connectivity. Habitat connectivity and movement corridors would be enhanced in the Management Area 5.5 and the Loveland Pass Lynx Linkage Area through reduced road and trail density and also through decommissioning and rehabilitation of routes, which would increase the amount of suitable lynx habitat in both the Snake River and Blue River LAUs as trees begin to regenerate.
The decommissioning of approximately 22 miles of user created trails that have been used illegally by motorcyclists would have some benefit to lynx and lynx prey species once these routes revegetate by promoting conservation of the species.
Road and trail use impacts to lynx prey species such as human disturbance and access into wildlife habitats as well as the potential for collisions between vehicles and wildlife would substantially disappear immediately upon closure of summer routes. Habitat effectiveness would be restored along all routes that would be decommissioned/naturalized. The decommissioning/naturalization of trails and user created routes that currently bisect large areas of effective habitat would particularly benefit many lynx prey species. Although lynx do not appear to alter their behavior to avoid human activities, the reduction of collision risk, however small, with motorcycles and improvement of habitat effectiveness (including for lynx denning) contributes to the conservation of lynx.
Implementation of the No Action alternative (TMP) would likely result in beneficial changes for lynx by eliminating the majority of human use in the Tenderfoot area, with the exception of hunters and vehicles on the two roads that would remain open. Daytime security habitat effectiveness and secure travel habitat would be enhanced for lynx. For lynx prey species, the disturbance would be reduced by closing the proposed project area to motorized uses as
Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects Page 3-101
Tenderfoot Mtn. Trail System Environmental Assessment October 2013 directed in the Travel Management Plan (noise from motorized vehicles creates a wider zone of disturbance than non-motorized use).
Road and trail decommissioning and user created route naturalization operations are not expected to impact any lynx that may be in the proximity of local activities. Lynx prey species may respond with a short term avoidance of decommissioning/naturalization sites when work is occurring, but are expected to return to local sites and normal behavior patterns once operations are completed. These short term human disturbances are expected to last only one day in localized work sites, during the summer or fall season. Typical progress for road decommissioning with heavy equipment is one mile per day. Some limited tree felling is likely to aid in effective trail and user created route obliteration. Many of these trees are likely to be trees that have been killed by mountain pine beetle where they are available. This practice is unlikely to result in impacts to lynx habitat due to the limited amount of tree felling expected. Because of the short term duration and small areas of temporarily impacted vegetation, decommissioning and naturalization activities are considered to be a discountable effect to any lynx that might be present in work areas.
The No Action alternative would include decommissioning of nearly all routes in the Tenderfoot Mountain area and a dramatic decrease in human presence in the area as the Travel Management Plan was implemented. The effects of mountain pine beetle would continue for quite some time into the future, further affecting lynx habitats. For these reasons, the No Action alternative would have No Effect on lynx or lynx habitat.
3.11.1.3 Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative 2: Proposed Action
Direct and Indirect Effects The proposed action would include trail construction, reconstruction, maintenance, and rehabilitation within the project area. The direct and indirect effects of motorized use on summer travel routes have been discussed in the SRLA Biological Opinion and in the White River National Forest Travel Management Plan Biological Assessment and have been summarized here. For more in depth discussion, please see those documents.
Denning Habitat Although most studies have shown that lynx do not alter their behavior to avoid human activities, Ruggiero et al. (2000) identified the possibility that some human activities could affect lynx that are denning, possibly causing abandonment of den sites and potentially affecting kitten survival.
The interiors of large blocks of lynx denning habitat are generally secure from substantial impacts of motorized use because of high levels of tree downfall, which restricts human access by motorized vehicles, mechanized uses, and often horse and foot travel. Recreation and other travel occur on well-established roads and trails, where human use is predictable. If human disturbance is excessive, it is unlikely that lynx would den near these areas. Within the proposed project area, there is very little, if any, suitable denning habitat available. Lynx habitat mapping shows that there are 84 acres of denning habitat within the project area which occurs in the small area of spruce/fir stands on the east side of the project area in Management Area 5.5. This area consists of a meadow surrounded by spruce and fir that, Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects Page 3-102
Tenderfoot Mtn. Trail System Environmental Assessment October 2013 through the proposed action, would have one travel route going between the two small blocks of mapped denning habitat. Because of the large amount of lodgepole pines that have died and fallen over, it is possible that more denning habitat has been created within the project area that has not yet been incorporated into the lynx habitat map. If a lynx den was adjacent to a motorized trail it is unlikely that people would notice it as lynx dens are difficult to detect, even more so at higher rates of speed.
It is not unusual for lynx to move their kittens several times from multiple natal and rearing den sites. If a potential denning site receives too much disturbance from a road, trail, or associated human uses along those routes, lynx could easily move kittens to alternate sites and avoid busy sites in the future. Denning habitat is limited within the Snake River and Blue River LAUs. With the expansion of the mountain pine beetle epidemic it is expected that denning habitat will substantially increase as trees die and fall. The likelihood for motorized trail use to impact denning lynx is very low and considered discountable largely due to the low likelihood of lynx using this particular block of habitat in the proposed project area for denning. Larger, more contiguous blocks of higher quality denning habitat persist elsewhere on Tenderfoot Mountain that would likely be more desirable for lynx to use as for denning. However, at least one resident lynx in Summit County has denned successfully in an area that is quite close to several Forest Service roads in southern Summit County (pers. comm. Roberts, 2011). Therefore, motorized use near the mapped denning habitat of the project area may not have much of an effect on lynx that may be in the area; rather, the small amount of suitable denning habitat is probably the limiting factor that would preclude lynx from denning within the project area. Motorized use has been occurring in this area for at least 10 years. Several user created trails in the same location would be decommissioned through the proposed action and motorized use in the mapped lynx denning polygons would decrease compared to historical use. Therefore, no additional impacts to lynx denning habitat are expected from the proposal.
Winter Foraging Habitat As shown on Figure 3.18, mapped lynx winter foraging habitats are quite limited in and around the proposed project area. They occur nearby mapped denning habitats, primarily in the spruce and fir timber stands. As stated previously, the majority of the project area occurs within lodgepole pine and some aspen stands, which are not considered to be high quality foraging habitats. The removal of trees associated with trail construction will not affect lynx foraging values to any discernible level. Spruce and fir trees will be avoided to every extent possible when trail construction begins. Old clear cuts (20-30 year old lodgepole pine regeneration) within the project area may serve as emerging pockets of winter foraging opportunities for lynx. A very small amount of tree removal may occur where trails are constructed in these areas and small trees cannot be avoided. This amount of habitat removal is not expected to have a noticeable effect on snowshoe hare habitat since the width of the trails would only be 18”. Lynx using the MA 5.5 and Loveland Pass Lynx Linkage as a travel corridor may use small parts of the proposed project area for foraging while traveling through but it is unlikely that a lynx would take up residence in this area due to lower quality foraging conditions that primarily consist of dead lodgepole pine stands. The proposed project area would serve as a summer foraging opportunity when food supplies are not as limited as during the winter.
Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects Page 3-103
Tenderfoot Mtn. Trail System Environmental Assessment October 2013
Habitat Effectiveness Roads and trails (whether Forest Service system or user created routes) can affect habitats for lynx and lynx prey species. Direct habitat degradation occurs primarily from vehicle impacts, most noticeably in riparian and meadow habitats. Although vegetation loss or damage and soil compaction caused by vehicles typically do not make up large acreages along narrow travel corridors, such degradation of limited habitats such as riparian areas may impact important habitats for snowshoe hares and other wildlife species that provide prey resources for lynx. Roads, trails, and user created routes can also serve as vectors for invasive weeds in all habitat types which out-compete native plants and often do not provide adequate habitat for prey species. Design criteria have been incorporated to prevent the spread of noxious weeds. Very few riparian areas are part of the proposed project area and where they do occur; trails are routed away from them.
Although summer use trails and user created routes have not been shown to drastically affect lynx movements or use of suitable habitats, lynx prey species may be impacted. For prey species, such impacts result primarily from human disturbance and access into wildlife habitats such as mortality by vehicular/motorcycle collisions and habitat degradation.
Road and trail use and high open road/trail density makes wildlife habitat less desirable and less effective for many species. Roads and trails allow increased access by people into wildlife habitats. Disturbance by humans and vehicles/motorcycles on roads and trails make habitats less secure for wildlife. Habitat which is available for wildlife therefore becomes less effective. Effective wildlife habitat is considered to be mostly undisturbed habitat which is buffered from regularly used roads and trails (both motorized and non-motorized travel). The proposed action would result in a net increase of 21 miles of motorized routes, the majority of which would be in the Snake River LAU. A total of 22 miles of user created routes would be closed to use and naturalized. The route density in the Snake River LAU through the proposed action would increase from 0.94 to 1.08 miles per square mile. In the Blue River LAU, route density would increase from 0.35 to 0.37 miles per square mile. Any increase in road density will continue to negatively affect habitat effectiveness but because this is a relatively small increase compared to baseline, the degree of impacts to habitat are unknown. Implementation of the Travel Management Plan began in the summer of 2012. In the proposed project area, this included closing the area to all motorized uses, with the exception of the Frey Gulch Road and Tenderfoot Mountain Road. Currently, the baseline of route density in the Snake River and Blue River LAUs is 0.99 and 0.33 respectively. These numbers reflect the pre-TMP implementation, which means that although the routes in the proposed project area still exist, they have not been used since fall of 2011. These numbers are summarized in Table 3.22. Although road density does not appear to influence lynx habitat selection (McKelvey et al. 2000), reduction in route density contributes to conservation of the species.
Lynx linkages are important areas delineated by the Forest Service and US Fish and Wildlife Service to manage lynx movement corridors between larger blocks of lynx habitat. These linkages are also important to other wildlife species to provide landscape connectivity. The entire proposed project is within the Loveland Pass Lynx Linkage which also envelopes Management Area 5.5 designated by the White River Forest Plan. Those route densities are in Table 3.22 below.
Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects Page 3-104
Tenderfoot Mtn. Trail System Environmental Assessment October 2013
Table 3.22. Motorized route density (miles per square mile) in the Tenderfoot Project Area. Current Condition No Action Proposed Action (includes un-inventoried (implementation of (+21 miles) routes that were not TMP) reflected in the TMP) Blue River LAU 0.33 0.35 0.37 Snake River LAU 0.99 0.94 1.08 Loveland Pass 1.23 1.18 1.82 Linkage Area MA 5.5 1.20 0.78 0.83
Habitat Connectivity The noise and human activity disturbances associated with the proposed construction of trails and motorcycle use in the project area may cause lynx to avoid the area or change movement patterns around the proposed project area. If a lynx occurrence coincided with construction activities or motorized use, it is reasonable to assume the animal would leave the area due to the species natural avoidance of loud noise and human disturbance.
Dispersing lynx do not restrict their movements to forest cover and have been documented crossing large areas of grassland, desert, agricultural lands, large rivers and lakes, and other unsuitable habitat (Squires and Laurion 2000). In contrast, lynx moving within their home range are generally searching for food, and are strongly associated with forest cover (Brand et al. 1976). The proposed project would not involve creating large openings that would prevent a lynx from crossing through them; however, the noise disturbance associated with the proposed project may alter the path a lynx would take in order to disperse north into the Blue River LAU or further south in the Snake River LAU by avoiding the proposed project area. Lynx movement through the area may already be affected by these factors because motorized use in the proposed project area has been occurring for at least 10 years up until the summer of 2012. The proposed project area may see increased and regular use by motorcyclists which would continue to affect lynx movement through the area. User created routes that currently extend across the movement corridor from west to east up to the Continental Divide would be decommissioned through the proposed action; therefore connectivity for lynx may be improved from historical use. The proposed action is not expected to have any additional impacts on lynx connectivity than historical use already has, but movement opportunities are likely already pinched between trails and alpine areas.
The Loveland Pass Lynx Linkage provides a movement corridor from the east side of the Keystone Ski Area over Loveland Pass and north into the Blue River LAU. The north-south movement within the Loveland Pass Lynx Linkage Area and within the Snake River LAU is already impeded by the Interstate 70 and Highway 6 corridors and the multiple towns and subdivisions associated with these areas, which are an existing threat to successful lynx dispersal and establishment of a home range in this area. The proposed project occurs in an area where motorized use has occurred historically up until recently. The proposed
Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects Page 3-105
Tenderfoot Mtn. Trail System Environmental Assessment October 2013 motorcycle trails are not expected to create new movement barriers but will continue to be somewhat of an impediment for lynx dispersing from south to north as lynx will likely avoid the proposed project area when dispersing or moving through. The proposed action would occur only during daylight hours so a lynx in the project area could still hunt and move through the project area during nighttime hours.
As previously stated, the Biological Opinion for the Southern Rockies Lynx Amendment all but dismisses effects of recreation on lynx. However, concentrated use may affect lynx use of habitat and how they move through the habitat. Within the Loveland Pass Lynx Linkage, the proposed project may affect lynx movements during the day. Available travel habitat would be pinched and lynx would be pushed further towards the east where there would be a narrow forested area that they could travel through between the project area and timberline. If lynx learn, or have already learned, to avoid the proposed project area during summer months when they are dispersing, then the effectiveness of the Loveland Pass Lynx Linkage would continue to be reduced through proposed project implementation.
Trail/Route Decommissioning Road and trail decommissioning and user created route naturalization operations are not expected to impact any lynx that may be in the proximity of local activities. Lynx prey species may respond with a short term avoidance of decommissioning/naturalization sites when work is occurring, but are expected to return to local sites and normal behavior patterns once operations are completed. These short term human disturbances are expected to last only one day in localized work sites, during the summer or fall season. Typical progress for road decommissioning with heavy equipment is one mile per day. Some limited tree felling is likely to aid in effective road, trail, and user created route obliteration. Many of these trees are likely to be trees that have been killed by mountain pine beetle where they are available. This practice is unlikely to result in impacts to lynx habitat due to the limited amount of tree felling expected. Because of the short term duration and small areas of temporarily impacted vegetation, decommissioning and naturalization activities are considered to be a discountable effect to any lynx that might be present in work areas. Decommissioning of routes would increase habitat effectiveness for lynx prey species and lynx. Decommissioning would lead to reduced disturbance and higher quality forest conditions once trees have regenerated and are large enough to provide cover. The acreage of trails and roads that would be decommissioned is summarized below. These acres will, in the long-term, be added to the amount of suitable lynx habitat in the Snake River and Blue River LAUs. See Figure 3.21 below for trails to be decommissioned.
Trails and roads that would be decommissioned and rehabilitated total 22 miles. These are user-created trails that are typically much narrower than properly constructed trails. Below is a summary of the acreage of trails that would become rehabilitated.
1 mile of trail at 12” wide already completed in 2011 – 0.12 acres 2 miles of trail at 12” wide to be completed in 2012 – 0.24 Total acres of trails decommissioned – 0.36 prior to any decision on the proposed project 19 more miles to be completed with an average width of 12” – 2.3 acres Total amount of habitat to be restored through decommissioning – 2.7 acres
Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects Page 3-106
Tenderfoot Mtn. Trail System Environmental Assessment October 2013
Figure 3.21: Proposed motorcycle trails (shown in red, pink, and blue) and trails to be decommissioned (shown in purple).
Habitat/Tree Removal
Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects Page 3-107
Tenderfoot Mtn. Trail System Environmental Assessment October 2013
Removal of trees to create new trails or to reconstruct existing trails would need to occur in areas where tree density is higher in order to accommodate the width of a motorcycle. In many cases, the proposed trails would occur in areas that are relatively open and no tree clearing would be necessary. There are a few trails that are proposed to go through old clear cuts where regeneration is still considered currently unsuitable lynx habitat but is approximately 25 years old. In these dense areas, some regeneration would need to be removed to accommodate a motorcycle trail. Examples of the types of timber stands that proposed trails would occur in is located in Appendix A, the Construction and Maintenance Plan.
Trail width for motorcycle trails would be 18 inches. There are 21 miles of trails proposed to be constructed or reconstructed. There is also one section of trail 1.4 miles long that would be 50 inches wide to accommodate ATVs during hunting season. To account for the total footprint of habitat loss, 25% has been added to the original number of acres affected to account for curves and turns in trail construction. The ½ acre proposed parking lot plus the potential expansion of an additional 10,000 square feet would involve removal of an extremely minimal amount of habitat because the majority of this area occurs under the powerline which has already been permanently cleared of vegetation. This was analyzed in a separate BA. The total amount of lynx habitat that would be permanently lost would be less than 7 acres. Although not a large amount, this habitat loss would further reduce the amount of available lynx habitat in both the Snake River and Blue River LAUs. Given the current condition of these two LAUs, due to the effects of the mountain pine beetle, infrastructure, highways, towns, and ski resorts, this loss of habitat adds to the already minimal amount of suitable lynx habitat available. Any loss of habitat will continue to negatively affect lynx habitat but because this is a relatively small decrease compared to baseline, the degree of impacts to habitat are unknown.
The following is a summary of the acreage of permanent habitat loss associated with construction of the trails. This includes an additional 25% to account for curves in the trails. - 21 miles of singletrack at 18” wide – 4.77 acres lost - 1.4 miles of ATV trail at 50” wide – 0.89 acres lost - 0.5 acre parking lot plus 0.23 (10,000 sq. ft.) acres potential expansion – 0.73 acres lost - Total acres of lynx habitat that would be converted to non-habitat – 6.39 acres
Snow Compaction Snow compaction is an issue for lynx because coyotes and other competing predators are thought to use compacted trails to travel more effectively. The proposed project would only occur during summer months and would remain a non-motorized area during winter months. Therefore, there would be no increase in snow compaction from this project in the proposed action area.
Cumulative Effects The Endangered Species Act (ESA) defines cumulative effects as those impacts resulting from future activities on state, tribal, local, and private lands that are reasonably certain to Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects Page 3-108
Tenderfoot Mtn. Trail System Environmental Assessment October 2013 occur within the action area. The spatial bounds for this cumulative effects analysis are defined by Snake River LAU and the greater connectivity corridor through Summit County, Colorado. The temporal bounds are defined as three to five years for short term effects, and ten to twenty years for long term effects.
Continued residential build-out of areas in and around southern Summit County will be analyzed as a reasonably certain action warranting consideration for this section 7 analysis.
As of February 27, 2013, towns and unincorporated areas in southern Summit County were approximately 80% built-out (pers. comm. between J. Marks, SE Group, and K. Berg, Senior Summit County Planner). Summit County planners estimate that there are approximately 13,000 entitled/ approved units that could be built in the Upper Blue River, Breckenridge, and southern Summit County areas, without considering the implementation of strategies that would reduce the development potential. The majority of this additional development would occur over many years, virtually all well beyond full build-out of the Proposed Action. All of this development would occur on private lands, so LAU statistics would be unaffected. Most of this development would be in-fill projects, where additional residences are built on vacant lots within existing subdivisions. With respect to lynx, most of these subdivisions are not in primary lynx habitat and most are within existing development areas outside of lynx habitat. However, some of this future development, particularly those in unincorporated areas, has the potential to affect the margins of lynx habitat. Potential additive effects include habitat conversion and fragmentation and reduced habitat effectiveness and habitat connectivity. Some of these effects and additional risk factors will extend onto adjacent NFS lands, further impairing habitat effectiveness and habitat connectivity and the ability of the Snake River LAU to support a lynx home range. As of February 27, 2013, there are no new, planned, or foreseeable residential development proposals warranting consideration in this analysis (pers. comm. between J. Marks, SE Group, and K. Berg, Senior Summit County Planner).
3.11.2 CONSISTENCY WITH SOUTHERN ROCKIES LYNX AMENDMENT
Southern Rockies Lynx Amendment (SRLA) - Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines In the following section, the Tenderfoot Motorcycle Trails Project is evaluated for consistency with the SRLA Standards for Human Use Projects (HU) and Linkage Areas (LINK) and Habitat Connectivity (USFS 2008c).
All Management Practices and Activities
Objective All O1: Maintain or restore lynx habitat connectivity in and between LAUs, and in linkage areas.
Consistency Evaluation:
Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects Page 3-109
Tenderfoot Mtn. Trail System Environmental Assessment October 2013
The proposed project is located within the Loveland Pass Lynx Linkage on the western-most side and north to I-70. Motorized recreation during the summer months could cause a lynx dispersing through the area to use a travel route further to the east than the project area. Motorized use has ceased in the proposed project area since May 2012 but the footprint of user created routes still exists. This proposed action would decommission those user created routes that have historically extended all the way across the linkage area to the alpine of Loveland Pass. After trees begin to regenerate, suitable lynx habitat would increase along these routes within the linkage area. This would provide a larger area of secure habitat for lynx to move through than the current condition allows. Human disturbance from the proposed motorcycle use may cause dispersing lynx to learn to avoid the proposed project area, thereby decreasing the effectiveness of the linkage. The proposed project is not expected to create any movement barriers within the Snake River LAU or Blue River LAU; however, habitat connectivity between the Snake River LAU and the Blue River LAU may become reduced if lynx avoid the project area due to disturbance. The project is not expected to have additional effects on lynx connectivity than have already occurred in the past with user-created routes and use of this area. Decommissioning of routes will serve to improve connectivity in the area to the east of the proposed trails when compared to past use, but the trail system has likely already reduced the effectiveness of this area as a connectivity corridor.
Standard All S1: New or expanded permanent developments and vegetation management projects must maintain habitat connectivity in an LAU and/or linkage area.
Consistency Evaluation: The proposed trail system is considered a permanent development and does occur within the Loveland Pass Lynx Linkage on the western-most side and north to I-70. Motorized recreation during the summer months could cause a lynx dispersing through the area to use a travel route further to the east than the project area. Motorized use has ceased in the proposed project area since May 2012 but the footprint of user created routes still exists. This proposed action would decommission those user created routes that have historically extended all the way across the linkage area to the alpine of Loveland Pass. After trees begin to regenerate, suitable lynx habitat would increase along these routes within the linkage area. This would provide a larger area of secure habitat for lynx to move through than the current condition allows. Human disturbance from the proposed motorcycle use may cause dispersing lynx to learn to avoid the proposed project area, thereby decreasing the effectiveness of the linkage. The proposed project is not expected to create any movement barriers within the Snake River LAU or Blue River LAU; however, habitat connectivity between the Snake River LAU and the Blue River LAU may become reduced if lynx avoid the project area due to disturbance. The project is not expected to have additional effects on lynx connectivity than have already occurred in the past with user-created routes and use of this area. Decommissioning of routes will serve to improve connectivity in the area to the east of the proposed trails when compared to past use, but the trail system has likely already reduced the effectiveness of this area as a connectivity corridor. Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects Page 3-110
Tenderfoot Mtn. Trail System Environmental Assessment October 2013
Human Use Management Activities and Practices
Objective HU O2: Manage recreational activities to maintain lynx habitat and connectivity.
Consistency Evaluation: Approximately 15 miles of user created trails currently exist within the Loveland Pass Lynx Linkage and the 5.5 Management Area and extend across important connectivity habitat east of the project area. As part of the proposed project, these routes would be decommissioned and naturalized so that they become part of the forest again and would not be open to any kind of recreational use. An education and law enforcement plan (Appendix B) is in place to prevent as much off trail use as possible. Connectivity would still be maintained but may be reduced if lynx learn, or have already learned, to avoid the proposed project area due to associated human disturbance from the proposed action.
Objective HU O3: Concentrate activities in existing developed areas, rather than developing new areas in lynx habitat.
Consistency Evaluation: The recent White River National Forest Travel Management Plan (TMP) made a decision to designate the Tenderfoot Mountain area as non-motorized with the exception of two roads. The current condition of the area is a user created system of motorcycle trails that extend across important resource areas. The TMP has been in place since the May of 2012 and the proposed project area has since been closed to motorized use with the exception of two roads in the area since this time. This project proposes to use many of the existing user created trails to create a sustainable and legal system of trails that can be monitored and enforced to prevent off trail use and damage to other resources. Therefore, this objective would be met.
Objective HU O4: Provide for lynx habitat needs and connectivity when developing new or expanding existing developed recreation sites or ski areas.
Consistency Evaluation: The proposed project would occur primarily in mature single story lodgepole pine where winter foraging and denning habitat is limited. The small amount (84 acres) of spruce/fir that occurs in the proposed project area would have one route going between the two mapped polygons of denning habitat, where use is predictable. The habitat in the project area would best provide cover and summer foraging habitat for dispersing lynx in the area.
Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects Page 3-111
Tenderfoot Mtn. Trail System Environmental Assessment October 2013
Through the proposed action, some routes in areas of quality connectivity habitat would be decommissioned and naturalized (in MA 5.5). Therefore, motorcycle use would be concentrated in areas west of the MA 5.5 but within the Loveland Pass Lynx Linkage. Habitat modification or removal would be minimal and lynx would still be able to use the project area for habitat connectivity, although the functionality of the movement corridor may be reduced.
Guideline HU G3: Recreation development and recreational operational uses should be planned to provide for lynx movement and to maintain the effectiveness of lynx habitat.
Consistency Evaluation: Lynx habitat in the proposed project area generally does not provide many quality opportunities for winter foraging or for denning due to the majority of forests being mountain pine beetle infested lodgepole pine. However, lynx will use these habitat types to travel through and to provide daytime security cover while making long-distance dispersal movements. Connectivity and habitat effectiveness in the Management Area 5.5 would likely be maintained, but connectivity and habitat effectiveness in the Loveland Pass Lynx Linkage may be reduced due to human disturbance from the proposed action. Lynx would still be able to move through the 5.5 management area relatively undisturbed, but lynx dispersal movements in the western portion of the LPLL may be negatively affected if lynx learn, or have already learned, to avoid the proposed project area and associated human disturbance.
Guideline HU G7: New permanent roads should not be built on ridge-tops and saddles, or in areas identified as important for lynx habitat connectivity. New permanent roads and trails should be situated away from forested stringers.
Consistency Evaluation: The proposed motorcycle routes would not be built on ridge-tops, saddles, or forested stringers. The routes typically follow the contour of the hillside and stay within the interior of the forest. These trails would be constructed within the Loveland Pass Lynx Linkage which serves as a connection corridor between larger blocks of suitable habitat. Although routes would be condensed to the western most portion of the linkage area, lynx movement and connectivity through this area may be reduced due to human disturbance associated with the proposed project, however, movement opportunities for lynx may already be impaired due to historic use of this area.
Linkage Areas
Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects Page 3-112
Tenderfoot Mtn. Trail System Environmental Assessment October 2013
Objective LINK O1: In areas of intermingled land ownership, work with landowners to pursue conservation easements, habitat conservation plans, land exchanges, or other solutions to reduce the potential of adverse impacts on lynx and lynx habitat.
Consistency Evaluation: There is a 75 acre piece of private property that occurs on the northern most end of the project area boundary and is surrounded by National Forest. This piece of land is owned by the Denver Water Board but has not been developed and it is not foreseeable that it would be developed in the near future. The Town of Dillon occurs to the west of the proposed project area to Highway 6 along with small portions of Summit County land, but all other land nearby is under jurisdiction of the National Forest. Therefore, this objective would be met.
Standard LINK S1: When highway or forest highway construction or reconstruction is proposed in linkage areas, identify potential highway crossings.
Consistency Evaluation: There is no proposed highway construction or reconstruction associated with this project, therefore this standard would be met.
Summary of Effects Research shows that it appears that lynx do not alter their behavior to avoid human use. Although it is possible that lynx could get hit by vehicles/motorcycles on Forest Service system roads and motorized trails, due to the relatively slow travel speeds and low traffic volumes (in comparison to highways), collisions with lynx are unlikely. Because collisions between lynx and vehicles on Forest Service roads are so infrequent and unpredictable, this is considered a discountable effect. Because traffic volumes on roads on the White River National Forest under Forest Service jurisdiction are well below the level thought to cause barriers to lynx movements, habitat connectivity is likely to be maintained. Habitat connectivity for dispersing lynx would be maintained by still allowing for movements to occur in the MA 5.5, but the effectiveness of the Loveland Pass Lynx Linkage may be reduced if lynx learn to avoid the proposed project area and human disturbance associated with those activities. The proposed project has likely already caused the movement corridor for lynx to become pinched between trails and the alpine which reduces the amount of available habitat to use for travel. Lynx would still be able to use the project area at night after use has ceased and during the nine months when motorized use is not allowed. Larger blocks of foraging habitat occur east of the project area towards Loveland Pass which lynx would need access to while traveling through the area.
Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects Page 3-113
Tenderfoot Mtn. Trail System Environmental Assessment October 2013
Disturbance by humans and vehicles/motorcycles on roads and trails make habitats less secure for wildlife. Habitat which is available for wildlife therefore becomes less effective. Effective wildlife habitat is considered to be mostly undisturbed habitat which is buffered from regularly used roads and trails (both motorized and non-motorized travel). The proposed Tenderfoot Motorcycle Trails project would degrade habitat effectiveness for lynx and lynx prey species in the area of the proposed motorcycle trails but because this is a relatively small increase compared to baseline, the degree of impacts to habitat are unknown.
Degradation of habitat from motorized use can occur along narrow travel corridors. Although vegetation loss or damage and soil compaction caused by vehicles typically do not make up large acreages along narrow travel corridors, such degradation of limited habitats such as riparian areas may impact important habitats for snowshoe hares and other wildlife species that provide prey resources for lynx.
The permanent loss of just less than 7 acres of lynx habitat, given the current condition of the Snake River and Blue River LAUs due primarily to the mountain pine beetle, will further reduce the amount of suitable habitat that is available for lynx. About 6 acres of habitat lost would occur in the Snake River LAU and the other 1 acre lost would occur in the Blue River LAU. Of the entire Snake River LAU acres (79,008) only 36,409 acres are considered lynx habitat. Due largely to old clear cuts that have not regenerated to the point of providing winter cover and the effects of the mountain pine beetle, 52% of these acres are currently unsuitable for lynx. In the Blue River LAU (158,654 acres), only 71,187 acres are considered lynx habitat. Due largely to the effects of the mountain pine beetle, 48% of these acres are currently unsuitable for lynx. In 20-30 years these stands will regenerate and provide suitable habitat for lynx again, however until that happens there is a further reduction of available habitat for lynx within the LAU. Lynx habitat and connectivity opportunities within the Dillon Ranger District and Summit County are affected by highways, towns, ski resorts, and infrastructure in addition to natural disturbances.
Road decommissioning and naturalization of 22 miles of routes would have an indirect beneficial effect. The habitat along these road segments will not become functional lynx habitat for 20 or 30 years, or perhaps longer depending on site conditions. The routes that would be closed do not immediately offset the effects of permanent habitat loss.
Past and ongoing summer projects that also occur within the Snake River LAU and Blue River LAU include timber harvesting, hazard tree removal, horseback riding, mountain biking, and hiking. The proposed Tenderfoot Motorcycle Trails project would add to the effects that these projects have on lynx by further reducing available lynx habitat and by degrading habitat effectiveness for lynx in the proposed project area. Additionally, the mountain pine beetle epidemic has greatly affected lynx habitat across the landscape by considerably reducing the amount of suitable habitat available for lynx. The effects of this
Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects Page 3-114
Tenderfoot Mtn. Trail System Environmental Assessment October 2013 will continue until the forest has regenerated enough to begin to support snowshoe hares and lynx (20-30 years). Meanwhile, any project within these types of landscapes that further reduces available lynx habitat will have negative impacts on lynx.
While decommissioning and naturalizing routes may have a small beneficial impact to lynx in the future, these effects do not offset the immediate permanent loss of lynx habitat in the Snake River LAU and Blue River LAU. Although habitat connectivity would be maintained and lynx would not be entirely prevented from making long-range exploratory movements, the proposed project may reduce the effectiveness of the Loveland Pass Linkage if lynx learn or have already learned to avoid the project area due to human disturbances associated with the proposed recreational activities. The available travel corridor habitat would become pinched and narrower with the implementation of the proposed project.
It is important to understand that human use including motorcycles has been occurring on Tenderfoot Mountain along many of these same trails for at least 10 years. Animals, including lynx, have already been affected by use in this area. The proposed project would be an improvement for wildlife over what type of use has occurred historically, but obviously, having no motorized use in this area would be the best option for wildlife. Additional impacts to lynx are not expected to occur from this project. Because there has not been motorized use since May of 2012 and none is expected to begin until June of 2014 (if project is approved), animals may have adjusted and begun utilizing larger portions of the proposed project area. If the project is approved, animals would again be impacted and displaced to some degree.
There would be a permanent loss of lynx habitat in these LAUs with the proposed project which would add to the amount of non-lynx habitat in the Snake River and Blue River LAUs. This project would reduce the effectiveness of the Loveland Pass Lynx Linkage and availability of connectivity opportunities in the proposed project area. Human disturbance and access into habitats from recreationists will reduce habitat effectiveness for lynx and lynx prey. The baseline conditions of the Snake River and Blue River LAUs are very poor due to effects of recreation, development, ski areas, infrastructure, and population growth. The proposed project would further add to degradation of the quality of these LAUs. For these reasons, the proposed Tenderfoot Motorcycle Trails project May Affect, Likely to Adversely Affect Canada lynx. .
3.11.3 SENSITIVE SPECIES CONSIDERED IN THE ANALYSIS All species listed on the WRNF Sensitive Species list, which was updated in June 10, 2011, were considered for this analysis (Table 3.23). Species were excluded from further consideration if the proposed project area did not contain suitable habitat for the species or was outside the known elevation range of the species. Six WRNF Sensitive species (three mammals and three avian) are known to occur, likely to occur, or suspected to occur on or
Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects Page 3-115
Tenderfoot Mtn. Trail System Environmental Assessment October 2013
near the proposed project area, and have been carried into the analysis section of this document (Table 3.23).
Table 3.23. Region 2 Sensitive Species Evaluated in this Biological Evaluation.
Species known Habitat Rationale for or suspected to Surveys Species Name Habitat Description present in inclusion/exclusion from occur in Conducted? project area? analysis project area?
Mature dense forests of American marten Not Excluded, discussed mixed Douglas fir, Yes Yes No (Martes americana) further in this analysis. lodgepole and spruce.
Low elevation conifer, oakbrush, Low elevation conifer, shrublands, caves, and mines are Fringed myotis oakbrush, shrublands, No No No not located within or near the (Myotis thysanodes) caves, mines, building project area and would not be roosts impacted by the proposed action.
Secluded spruce- North American fir/lodgepole pine, heavy Not Excluded, discussed No Yes No wolverine (Gulo gulo) timber areas, high further in this analysis. elevation
Wet conifer forests, Pygmy shrew (Sorex bogs, marshes, dense Not Excluded, discussed Yes Yes No hoyi) stream networks- further in this analysis. wetlands
Rivers, lakes, or reservoirs are Marine coasts, lakes, River otter (Lontra not located within or near the reservoirs, rivers, any No No No canadensis) project area and would not be permanent water source impacted by the proposed action.
Rocky outcrops, cliffs, slopes, Rocky Mountain bighorn Rocky outcrops, cliffs, canyons are not located within or sheep (Ovis canadensis slopes, canyons adjacent No No No near the project area and would canadensis) to rivers and forests not be impacted by the proposed action.
Caves, mines, steep canyons, Caves, mines, steep rock bluffs and canyons, rock bluffs, Spotted bat sagebrush/pinyon-juniper are not sagebrush/pinyon-juniper No No No (Euderma maculatum) located within or near the project surrounded by cliffs and area and would not be impacted near a water source. by the proposed action.
Semidesert shrublands, pinyon- juniper, caves and abandoned Semidesert shrublands, Townsend’s big-eared bat mine roosts are not located pinyon-juniper, caves and No No No (Plecotus townsendii) within or near the project area abandoned mine roosts. and would not be impacted by the proposed action.
Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects Page 3-116
Tenderfoot Mtn. Trail System Environmental Assessment October 2013
Species known Habitat Rationale for or suspected to Surveys Species Name Habitat Description present in inclusion/exclusion from occur in Conducted? project area? analysis project area?
Any habitat with trees; wide ranging across Hoary bat (Lasiukus Not Excluded, discussed most states. In No Yes No cinereus) further in this analysis. Colorado, occurs from plains to timberline
Open spaces associated Cliffs, caves and bluffs which American peregrine with high cliffs, caves, peregrine falcons require for falcon (Falco peregrinus and bluffs overlooking Yes No No nesting are not present in the anatum) rivers, sagebrush and project area and would not be shrub habitats impacted by the proposed action.
Rivers, lakes, and reservoirs are Bald eagle (Haliaeetus Roosts above rivers, not located within the project No No No leucocephalus) lakes, reservoirs area and would not be impacted by the proposed action.
High cliffs near waterfalls are not Black swift (Cypseloides Cliff ledges, waterfall located within or near the project No No No niger) cliffs area and would not be impacted by the proposed action.
Sub-alpine spruce-fir, Boreal owl (Aegolius Not Excluded, discussed mixed conifer, and Yes Yes No funereus) further in this analysis. lodgepole pine forests.
Sagebrush dominated shrublands, Sagebrush shrublands, mountain parks and alpine Brewer’s sparrow mountain parks; may be willow are not located within or No No No (Spizella breweri) found in alpine willow near the project area and would stands. not be impacted by the proposed action.
Columbian sharp-tailed Sagebrush/grassland habitat does grouse Mid elevation mountain not occur within or near the (Tympanachus sagebrush/grassland No No No project area and would not be phasianellus habitat. impacted by the proposed action. columbianus) Pinyon/juniper, grasslands and Shrub-steppe foothills, shrub-steppe foothill habitat are Ferruginous hawk (Buteo roosts/pinyon- juniper, No No No not located within or near the regalis) grasslands project area and would not be impacted by the proposed action.
Old-growth ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir are not located Flammulated owl (Otus Old-growth ponderosa No No No within or near the project area flammeolus) pine and Douglas-fir. and would not be impacted by the proposed action.
Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects Page 3-117
Tenderfoot Mtn. Trail System Environmental Assessment October 2013
Species known Habitat Rationale for or suspected to Surveys Species Name Habitat Description present in inclusion/exclusion from occur in Conducted? project area? analysis project area?
Large sagebrush shrublands are Greater sage-grouse Large sagebrush not located within or near the (Centrocercus No No No shrublands project area and would not be urophasianus) impacted by the proposed action.
Ponderosa pine Ponderosa pine with open Lewis’s woodpecker does not occur within the project canopy and brushy No No No (Melanerpes lewis) area and would not be impacted understory by the proposed action.
Sagebrush, semi-desert Sagebrush, short grass shrublands, and open shortgrass Loggerhead shrike steppe, and semi-desert No No No prairies do not occur within the (Lanius ludovicianus) shrublands project area and would not be impacted by the proposed action.
Northern goshawk Old growth mature and Not excluded, discussed further Yes Yes Yes (Accipiter gentilis) even-aged stands in this analysis
Wetlands, wet and dry grasslands, and cold desert Open wetland and upland Northern harrier (Circus shrub-steppe does not occur habitats, prairies No No No cyaneus) within the project area and would grasslands not be impacted by the proposed action.
Mixed-coniferous Olive-sided flycatcher Not excluded, discussed further forests, and forest edges, Yes Yes No (Contopus cooperi) in this analysis. especially disturbed forest edges
Old growth aspen forests near Old growth aspen forests meadows and open water do not Purple martin near meadows and open No No No occur within the project area and (Progne subis) water would not be impacted by the proposed action.
Sagebrush shrublands do not Sage sparrow occur within the project area and Sagebrush shrublands No No No (Amphispiza belli) would not be impacted by the proposed action.
Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects Page 3-118
Tenderfoot Mtn. Trail System Environmental Assessment October 2013
Species known Habitat Rationale for or suspected to Surveys Species Name Habitat Description present in inclusion/exclusion from occur in Conducted? project area? analysis project area?
Alpine areas above tree line, Alpine areas above tree rocky areas and snowfields do White-tailed ptarmigan line, rocky areas, No No No not occur within the project area (Lagopus leucurus) snowfields and would not be impacted by the proposed action.
Spring fed and/or The proposed project area occurs Great Basin silverspot subirrigated wetlands at between 9,200 and 11,300 feet (Speyeria nokomis No No No low (7,500 ft. or less) and is outside the known Nokomis) elevation elevation range for this species.
Hoary bat (Lasiukus cinereus) Occurrence within Proposed Project Area No surveys have been completed for this species in the project area. Information on the hoary bat still has large data gaps and through the recent listing of this species on the R2 Sensitive Species List more data should begin to be collected. The project area does have potential habitat for this species.
Direct and Indirect Impacts No Action Under the no-action alternative, the proposed trail construction and reconstruction would not occur. The current White River National Forest Travel Management Plan would be implemented designating the proposed project area as non-motorized. The existing trails in the area would be decommissioned and rehabilitated with the exception of a couple of roads in the Frey Gulch area. Human disturbance would dramatically decrease in and near the proposed project area. Natural processes would continue to affect the forest in and around the proposed project area. The No Action alternative would have No Impact on hoary bats.
Proposed Action There would be some removal of trees in the proposed project area that could support this species; however it is most likely that the trees to be felled for this project would be dead or dying lodgepole pine trees that do not provide the foliage cover necessary for summer roosts. The use of the trails would likely not affect the species since bats would be roosting during the day when trails are being used and would still be able to forage in the evenings and at night once use has ceased.
Determination and Rationale The proposed project does have the potential to affect this species through habitat modification; however, this is a relatively small amount of habitat compared to available habitat near the proposed project area. The proposed project would not prevent a bat from using the area for foraging. For these reasons, the proposed project may adversely impact
Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects Page 3-119
Tenderfoot Mtn. Trail System Environmental Assessment October 2013 individuals, but is not likely to result in a loss of viability in the planning area, nor cause a trend toward Federal listing.
Boreal owl (Aegolius funereus) Occurrence within the Proposed Action Area Boreal owls have an average home range size of approximately 2,900 acres; however, they are not known to defend this area (Hayward and Hayward 1993). Within the project area, suitable habitat for the species would be found in the spruce and fir components of the stands. No surveys were conducted for boreal owls, and although mature spruce/fir forest is limited to the upper elevations of the project area, it is assumed boreal owls could use part of the project for foraging and possibly nesting in the upper elevations. The even-aged lodgepole pine stands within the project area are not characteristic of having snags and large trees with cavities that are suitable for nesting purposes. However, there is potential for these stands to be used for foraging purposes.
Direct and Indirect Impacts No Action Under the no-action alternative, the proposed trail construction and reconstruction would not occur. The current White River National Forest Travel Management Plan would be implemented designating the proposed project area as non-motorized. The existing trails in the area would be decommissioned and rehabilitated with the exception of a couple of roads in the Frey Gulch area. Human disturbance would dramatically decrease in and near the proposed project area. Natural processes would continue to affect the forest in and around the proposed project area. The No Action alternative would have No Impact on Boreal owls.
Proposed Action Only one route is located in spruce/fir and since this is an existing route, there would be little if any vegetation removal; thus there would be very little if any direct loss of nesting or foraging habitat. It is unlikely the motorcycle use would degrade habitat values substantially as boreal owls tolerate human activity and machine noise (Hayward and Verner 1994), including frequent (every 4-5 days) direct nest inspections of artificial nest boxes. However, boreal owls could be negatively affected by these activities if they occurred adjacent to a roost/nest site. There is no evidence that human disturbance is an important factor in nest loss or owl movements (Hayward and Verner 1994). Boreal owls are tree roosting and nesting owls that have not been documented to be detrimentally affected by general use of roads or trails.
Determination and Rationale This project is expected to modify little if any potential boreal owl habitat (spruce/fir). There is only one route going through potential habitat which has been in use for at least 10 years and likely any individuals in this area have adapted to the disturbance. For the reasons stated above the project may adversely impact individuals, but is not likely to result in a loss of viability in the planning area, nor cause a trend toward Federal listing.
Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects Page 3-120
Tenderfoot Mtn. Trail System Environmental Assessment October 2013
Northern Goshawk (Accipiter gentilis) Occurrence within the Proposed Action Area Broadcast Acoustical Surveys were conducted in the proposed project area in accordance with protocol to determine if occupied nests were present in the project area. Call stations were set up across the project area and were spaced 250 meters apart with 100 meter off-sets for stations on adjacent transects. A total of 213 call stations were established and surveyed. Transects were oriented east-west and included sampling in a buffer area 300 meters outside of the project area as defined by the proposed trail routes. Electronic goshawk alarm calls were broadcast through speakers for 5 minutes at each call station with surveyors listening for responses between calls and while walking between call stations. There were no positive responses to the Broadcast Acoustical Survey. There was also no evidence that goshawks were using the project area, or that an occupied nest was present in the surveyed area. A negative response does not preclude goshawk use of the project area due the lack of call response at failed next sites (no fledglings), and the fact that non-breeding adults may not respond. Potential nesting habitat does occur within the proposed project area since most Colorado goshawks breed in conifer forests and apparently do not discriminate among tree species (Kingery 1998). It is known through recent surveys that goshawks nest in other areas on the Dillon Ranger District (DRD), and there have been winter sightings of goshawks in the Straight Creek drainage reported on several occasions. These sightings are probably migrant goshawks that move from breeding grounds to various areas during the non-breeding seasons and are not likely to be using the proposed project area for breeding.
Direct and Indirect Impacts No Action Under the no-action alternative, the proposed trail construction and reconstruction would not occur. The current White River National Forest Travel Management Plan would be implemented designating the proposed project area as non-motorized. The existing trails in the area would be decommissioned and rehabilitated with the exception of a couple of roads in the Frey Gulch area. Human disturbance would dramatically decrease in and near the proposed project area. Natural processes would continue to affect the forest in and around the proposed project area. The No Action alternative would have No Impact on Northern Goshawks.
Proposed Action Although the project area may not currently support nesting goshawks, the habitats present could be occupied in the future or be part of a home range from goshawks nesting outside of the proposed project area and could be used for foraging habitat. Motorcycles have historically used the existing user created trail system for at least 10 years up until the past summer of 2012. If goshawks have been or are in the proposed project area, they have likely adapted to the noise disturbance or have nested in areas that are not impacted by the recreation in the area. The proposed action would result in a increase of motorized use in the project area which could have some additional impact on breeding goshawks in the project area. Individuals may have to expand or change their home range and nesting territories to avoid increased disturbance. Prey species may be additionally impacted by increased and regular disturbance in the proposed project area but very little habitat for prey species would be modified. Squirrels, birds, and snowshoe hares would still be able to use the project area and goshawks could hunt, although the foraging area would probably shift to further away from the disturbance associated with the proposed project. Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects Page 3-121
Tenderfoot Mtn. Trail System Environmental Assessment October 2013
If in the future, an occupied nest is found, seasonal closures or trail closures could be implemented to protect nesting habitat. The Forest Plan (2002) has specific standards for raptor nest protection, and design criteria to implement that protection. Specifically:
Protect know active and inactive raptor nest areas. The extent of protection will be based on proposed management activities, human activities existing before nest establishment, species, topography, vegetation cover and other factors. A no-disturbance buffer around active nest sites will be required from nest-site selection to fledging (generally March through July). Exceptions may occur when individuals are adapted to human activity.
Determination and Rationale The proposed project has the potential to disturb nesting goshawks and to impact foraging habitat. The project area has been surveyed for goshawks with no positive responses but there is a potential that goshawks have moved into the area or could move into the area in the future. For these reasons, the project may adversely impact individuals, but is not likely to result in a loss of viability in the planning area, nor cause a trend toward Federal listing.
Olive-sided flycatcher (Contopus borealis) Occurrence within the Proposed Action Area No surveys for this species were conducted. Limited habitat for this species is present in the project area but there would be little, if any, direct loss of physical habitat.
Direct and Indirect Impacts
No Action Under the no-action alternative, the proposed trail construction and reconstruction would not occur. The current White River National Forest Travel Management Plan would be implemented designating the proposed project area as non-motorized. The existing trails in the area would be decommissioned and rehabilitated with the exception of a couple of roads in the Frey Gulch area. Human disturbance would dramatically decrease in and near the proposed project area. Natural processes would continue to affect the forest in and around the proposed project area. The No Action alternative would have No Impact on olive- sided flycatchers.
Proposed Action There would be very little, if any, habitat modification to potential nesting or perching trees that this species may use within the proposed project area. Habitat for this bird is limited in the proposed project area as much of the forest is dry lodgepole pine. The areas that are near riparian areas or boggy areas would not have trails going directly through them. Noise disturbance from motorcycles has been ongoing in the proposed project area for at least 10 years up until the past summer of 2012 and it is not expected that the proposed project would have any additional effects on olive-sided flycatchers.
Determination and Rationale
Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects Page 3-122
Tenderfoot Mtn. Trail System Environmental Assessment October 2013
The use of trails may disturb nesting pairs if they use habitats in vicinity of the existing or proposed trails; however, there are still large blocks of habitat without trails and or in areas where existing trails will be closed. The project may adversely impact individuals, but is not likely to result in a loss of viability in the planning area, nor cause a trend toward Federal listing.
American Marten (Martes americana) Occurrence within the Proposed Action Area Martens are present within the Dillon Ranger District, but are uncommon and utilize the late successional subalpine forests in Summit County. Although late successional forest habitat is limited in the project area, it is likely martens are present on portions of Tenderfoot Mountain, or at least use habitats in the project area for foraging. In total, there are approximately 84 acres of potential marten habitat within the project area. No surveys for marten have occurred as part of this project.
Direct and Indirect Impacts No Action Under the no-action alternative, the proposed trail construction and reconstruction would not occur. The current White River National Forest Travel Management Plan would be implemented designating the proposed project area as non-motorized. The existing trails in the area would be decommissioned and rehabilitated with the exception of a couple of roads in the Frey Gulch area. Human disturbance would dramatically decrease in and near the proposed project area. Natural processes would continue to affect the forest in and around the proposed project area. The No Action alternative would have No Impact on the American marten.
Proposed Action There would be little, if any, habitat modification of the trails proposed to occur in spruce and fir habitats. Trail re-routes may occur in steep sections but it would not involve tree removal. There is a remote chance that a marten or marten prey species could be affected by the motorcycle use of the trails but it is not expected that this would occur at a large enough scale to prevent a marten from using the proposed project area for hunting or denning. Martens using Tenderfoot Mountain would likely avoid trails when motorcycles are present but would still be able to use the entire proposed project area during nighttime hours and during the winter.
Determination and Rationale Martens and their prey may be affected by motorized use when motorcycles are in the area. The proposed project would not likely involve modification of marten habitat and martens could still use the proposed project area at night and during the winter, the proposed project may adversely impact individuals, but is not likely to result in a loss of viability in the planning area, nor cause a trend toward Federal listing.
North American wolverine (Gulo gulo) Occurrence within the Proposed Action Area
Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects Page 3-123
Tenderfoot Mtn. Trail System Environmental Assessment October 2013
The proposed project area is adjacent to alpine habitat areas and therefore provides potential habitat and foraging opportunities for wolverine. However, the majority of the project area occurs just to the east of the Town of Dillon and has an historical high level of human use. Wolverines are generally very sensitive to human intrusion and seek more remote areas; however wolverines may use the alpine areas above the project area to travel through and to hunt. One male wolverine has been confirmed in Colorado and moves along the Continental Divide between Rocky Mountain National Park and Leadville. His tracks have been observed in an avalanche chute near Montezuma on Sts. John Road. Other observations of this individual wolverine have been confirmed in several areas along the Continental Divide.
Direct and Indirect Impacts No Action Under the no-action alternative, the proposed trail construction and reconstruction would not occur. The current White River National Forest Travel Management Plan would be implemented designating the proposed project area as non-motorized. The existing trails in the area would be decommissioned and rehabilitated with the exception of a couple of roads in the Frey Gulch area. Human disturbance would dramatically decrease in and near the proposed project area. Natural processes would continue to affect the forest in and around the proposed project area. The No Action alternative would have No Impact on the wolverine.
Proposed Action If present, implementation of the proposed action would affect the potential wolverine habitat within the project area. Wolverines would be excluded from hunting the proposed project area during the daytime in summer months. Prey may be displaced due to disturbance causing wolverine to travel further to hunt. The alpine environment and travel corridor that wolverine may use would not be affected by the motorcycle trails. Wolverines have very large home ranges (Ruggiero et al. 1994) and this project area is very small when compared to their home range. Therefore, potential impacts would only affect a minute portion of an individual animal’s home range.
Determination and Rationale The project area contains potential habitat as it is a high elevation coniferous forest, and is connected via relatively undisturbed habitats (Management Area 5.5) to the continental divide to the northeast with the Eisenhower Tunnel nearby providing a substantial land bridge over Interstate 70. Existing development on private lands to the west and south would degrade habitat values for wolverines, as well as the close proximity of I-70 to the north. Any dispersing individuals from the north may be moving in terrain east-northeast of the project area and in the winter and early spring, elk, elk carrion and/ or mule deer carrion would be available as forage. It is unlikely that a wolverine would enter the project area during the summer months due the amount of recreational activity and adjacent development including noise at the Summit County landfill. A dispersing individual could utilize habitats within the project area at night. The project may adversely impact individuals, but is not likely to result in a loss of viability in the planning area, nor cause a trend toward Federal listing.
Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects Page 3-124
Tenderfoot Mtn. Trail System Environmental Assessment October 2013
Pygmy shrew (Sorex hoyi) Occurrence within the Proposed Action Area Preferred habitat for the pygmy shrew is abundant across the WRNF. The species is known to occur on the Dillon Ranger District. During a survey project that occurred in 2009, one shrew was found in the northern portion of the District by Elliot Ridge and two shrews were identified in the southeastern portion of the District at Peru Creek near Montezuma (Siemers 2009). In 2012, another pygmy shrew was captured at Bear Mountain near Marlin Mine along Saints John Creek in Montezuma. The average home range size for this species is estimated to be 0.25 acres (Beauvais and McCumber 2006). Within the project area, potential habitat for this species is found in wet boggy, marsh like areas. The most likely place to find shrews would be the small area of spruce/fir and meadow in the uppermost portion of the project area.
Direct and Indirect Impacts No Action Under the no-action alternative, the proposed trail construction and reconstruction would not occur. The current White River National Forest Travel Management Plan would be implemented designating the proposed project area as non-motorized. The existing trails in the area would be decommissioned and rehabilitated with the exception of a couple of roads in the Frey Gulch area. Human disturbance would dramatically decrease in and near the proposed project area, thereby lessening the potential of a shrew being crushed by a motorcycle. Natural processes would continue to affect the forest in and around the proposed project area. The No Action alternative would have No Impact on Pygmy shrews. Proposed Action No additional impacts to the shrew would be likely to occur because these trails have been used for at least 10 years and there will be little, if any, tree removal or habitat modification associated with the project. The project area only contains a small amount of the spruce fir component of habitat needed, much of which occurs in riparian areas where motorcycle trails would not occur. The ability of a shrew to cross trails used by the motorcycle riders may be impacted temporarily while riders pass by the animal attempting to cross the trail. If pygmy shrews do occur in the project area, it is unlikely that they will be on or near the road or trails being used. Crushing of individuals could occur if a shrew was to cross a trail or road while in use by motorcycles, but it is unlikely that they will actually occur on or near the road being used.
Determination and Rationale The likelihood of pygmy shrews occurring in the proposed project area is remote. Although there is potential low quality habitat for the animal and individuals could be impacted, it is unlikely that a local population of shrews would be impacted. The proposed project may adversely impact individuals, but is not likely to result in a loss of viability in the planning area, nor cause a trend toward Federal listing.
Cumulative Effects for R2 Sensitive Species Cumulative effects, as defined by the National Environmental Policy Act, are those that result from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and
Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects Page 3-125
Tenderfoot Mtn. Trail System Environmental Assessment October 2013 reasonably foreseeable future actions. The following cumulative effects analysis is bound by the proposed project area on Tenderfoot Mountain.
The proposed Tenderfoot Motorcycle Trails project may add cumulatively to the following project which may further increase human disturbances for forest interior species including birds and mammals during the summer months in the proposed project area. This project is ongoing and will continue to add cumulatively annually:
Keystone Stables – horseback riding operation that uses Frey Gulch area The proposed project would add cumulatively to the following projects by further reducing the amount of potential habitat available for forest dwelling sensitive species including birds and mammals through tree removal in the proposed project area. Most of these projects have a timeline of 3-10 years for completion but hazard tree removal could continue farther into the future depending on need and funding:
Dillon Reservoir Forest Health – removal of approximately 2,300 acres of dead lodgepole pine stands around the Dillon Reservoir. Hazard tree removal along roads and trails – this is occurring forest-wide and the exact acreages are unknown. Timber treatments on adjacent private and county lands – this is occurring county wide and the exact acreages are unknown.
Determination Summary Table 3.24 is a summary of determinations under the proposed action alternative for Sensitive species considered in this analysis.
Table 3.24. Determination Summary for R2 Sensitive Species within and Near the Proposed Project Area. Common Name Scientific Name Status Determination Mammals Hoary bat Lasiurus cinereus Sensitive MAII* American marten Martes americana Sensitive MAII North American wolverine Gulo gulo Sensitive MAII Pygmy Shrew Sorex hoyi Sensitive MAII Birds Boreal owl Aegolius funereus Sensitive MAII Northern Goshawk Accipiter gentiles Sensitive MAII Olive-sided flycatcher Contopus cooperi Sensitive MAII *MAII – “may adversely impact individuals, but not likely to result in a loss of viability on the planning area, nor cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of species viability range-wide.”
3.11.4 MANAGEMENT INDICATOR SPECIES ANALYSIS FOR TERRESTRIAL WILDLIFE Management indicator species (MIS) are species selected to serve strong roles as indicators of major management activities’ effects or of ecosystem change. These species are selected to act as indicators of particular activities or habitats. Table 3.25 lists the terrestrial MIS species for the Forest.
Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects Page 3-126
Tenderfoot Mtn. Trail System Environmental Assessment October 2013
Table 3.25. WRNF Management Indicator Species and their Potential for Occurring within the Tenderfoot Motorcycle Trails project.
Species Common Habitat and/or Will the Proposed Action affect MIS Community Name Characteristics habitat populations or habitat? present?
The proposed action would have minor impacts on elk habitat and Motorized and Non- Woodland displacement of individuals or American Elk motorized recreation habitats and groups due to noise disturbance Yes (Cervus elephus) management effects on meadows adjacent along trails during the summer. This big game distribution to woodland areas project would also have beneficial impacts to elk habitat by decommissioning 22 miles of trails. American Arctic tundra Management of alpine The type of habitat utilized by this Pipit (breeding), grasslands/forb No species would not be impacted by this (Anthus grasslands, and communities project. rubescens) riparian areas Caves, mines, and The type of habitat utilized by this Cave habitats for cave cliffs for roosting, Cave Bats No species would not be impacted by this bats forage habitat project. along forest edges Brewers Management of The type of habitat utilized by this Sparrow sagebrush ecosystems Sagebrush, shrub No species would not be impacted by this (Spizella to maintain sage- steppe habitats project. breweri) dependant wildlife Virginia’s Managementspecies of Pinyon-juniper, This species nests primarily in oak Warbler shrubland ecosystems adjacent to and mountain shrub habitat. This No (Vermivora to maintain dependant coniferous forests, project would not influence this type virginiae) wildlife species dry dense shrub of habitat. cover
ELK
Elk were chosen as an MIS species for this project since they occur on the entire project area and also have specific management designations that will affect elk management in the project area.
Forest-wide Goals, Objectives, Standards and Guidelines for Elk Management
Objective 1b. Provide ecological conditions to sustain viable populations of native and desired nonnative species and to achieve objectives for Management Indicator Species (MIS) and focal species (USFS 2002b, Page 1-3).
Strategy 1b.4. Within 15 years, demonstrate positive trends in habitat availability, habitat quality, or other factors affecting sensitive species and Management Indicator Species.
Management indicator species objective for elk. Manage motorized and non-motorized travel and recreation management to maintain effective use of habitat by large wild ungulates.
Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects Page 3-127
Tenderfoot Mtn. Trail System Environmental Assessment October 2013
Wildlife Standard 1. Seasonal restrictions will be applied to reduce disturbance in key wildlife habitats.
Wildlife Standard 7. Vegetation treatments and new roads and trails will not reduce the elk habitat effectiveness index below 0.40 by data analysis unit (DAU), or further reduce effective habitat in DAUs that are already at or below 0.40 on National Forest System lands.
Infrastructure Standard 2. Close and rehabilitate temporary roads when no longer needed for project purposes.
Infrastructure Guideline 1. Consider seasonal restrictions for travelways if: use causes unacceptable damage to soil and water resources due to weather or seasonal conditions; use causes unacceptable wildlife conflict or habitat degradation; use results in unsafe conditions due to weather conditions; the area accessed has a seasonal need for protection or non-use; or it is necessary to resolve conflicts between users.
Infrastructure Guideline 4. Consider road decommissioning: when there is no longer any need for the road; when environmental degradation is occurring; when the cost of continued maintenance exceeds available funding; when alternative routes may be available; and to protect natural or cultural resources.
Elk were selected as a MIS (USFS 2002c) to answer the question “Does Forest motorized and non-motorized travel and recreation management result in effective use of habitat by ungulates?” Forest-wide, the elk population is increasing, but the population is decreasing in some areas as a result of intentional management (e.g., DAU E-13, USFS 2002c). Under the Forest Plan, elk habitat quantity across the WRNF is expected to remain stable, habitat quality is expected to remain stable or increase, and the future elk population trend is unknown. The main MIS concern for elk is habitat effectiveness and their ability to disperse across the Forest (USFS 2002c, p. 3-115, 3-271). The protocol for monitoring elk uses population components such as cow-calf ratios to indicate production and bull-cow ratios to indicate balance in the population as the triggers that would initiate review of the management direction. The above components of population modeling are readily available from data and have a strong relation to habitat quality and quantity. The monitoring is not done as a strict population number since there are other influences such as annual weather cycles and hunting season regulations that could and are at times intended to reduce or increase population numbers (Phinney 2007).
Elk Life History Information Rocky Mountain Elk inhabit the central and northern Rocky Mountains, including western Canada, south through eastern Oregon and Washington, Idaho, western Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, Nevada, New Mexico and Arizona. Colorado supports the largest elk population of any state or province where they range over much of the western two-thirds of the state. Elk range over most of the WRNF and use essentially all habitats.
In Colorado, the breeding season for elk begins in early September, peaks during the last week of September and first week of October, and is over by late October (Boyd and Ryland 1971, Fitzgerald et al. 1994). Mature bulls compete for females and gather harems of adult Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects Page 3-128
Tenderfoot Mtn. Trail System Environmental Assessment October 2013 cows and calves. Most of the breeding is done by bulls three years of age or older (Freddy 1987). Other bulls continually attempt to usurp cows in the harem. As a result of this constant activity of protecting the harem, herd bulls lose considerable weight during this time of the year. Harem size typically ranges between 15 and 20 cows (Boyd 1978, Thomas and Towell 1982). Elk have a 240-255 day gestation period and most calves are born in late May or early June, with the peak of calving from June 4-6. Yearling cows can breed in Colorado, but less than one third of them are successful at producing offspring that survive into the fall, compared to about three fourths of adult cows (Freddy 1987).
Calving grounds are carefully selected by the cows and are generally in locations where cover, forage and water are in close proximity (Seidel 1977). Calving sites occur in the middle to upper portions of summer range and often occur in the same general area each year. Although selected sites are used for a brief period in the spring there are some key characteristics required for optimum reproductive success. Sites must provide security from harassment and be within or adjacent to high-quality summer range. They can occur in any forest type on gentle slopes, given that cover, food, and water are nearby. The aspen habitat association is often regarded as the most productive type for elk reproduction in Colorado and in the San Juan Mountains. Cows with calves isolate themselves from the herd for two to three weeks or until the calves are large enough to travel. Then they begin to gather up into nursery groups. By mid-July, herds of several hundred animals are common on some summer ranges.
Hiking and other recreational activities in or near elk calving areas can have a significant impact on reproductive success. Phillips and Alldredge (2000) studied reproductive success of elk following disturbance by humans during calving seasons in central Colorado. They reported that human disturbance during the calving season resulted in a significant drop in reproductive success below that of an undisturbed control group.
During the winter, spring, and summer adult bulls usually segregate from cows, calves and younger bulls and remain alone or form small herds of five or six animals. Younger bulls are usually mixed with cow-calf herds (Fitzgerald et al. 1994). While the bulls may control the harem, the older cows are the true leaders of the herd. Cows usually give the alarm and lead the rest of the herd away from real or imagined danger (Boyd 1978).
Elk inhabit higher elevations during spring and summer and migrate to lower elevations for winter range. The length of seasonal migration varies from just a few miles to nearly 50 miles in some cases. When early winter snows begin to accumulate, cows, calves and younger bulls begin to move down to winter ranges, where they usually remain from December through March (Boyd 1978). During winter, elk form large, mixed herds on favored winter range and more than 1,000 animals may be observed together. Mature bulls typically winter at higher elevations than cows and are found in small bachelor groups. As winter moderates in late March, elk start a gradual movement back up to their summer ranges and the cycle begins again (Boyd 1978). Winter range availability and habitat effectiveness may be the most critical seasonal range for elk survival. The project area is not part of, and is somewhat separated from, the Front Range endemic area where chronic wasting disease has been detected in deer and, to a lesser extent, elk by the CPAW (Colorado Parks and Wildlife) (CPAW 2004).
Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects Page 3-129
Tenderfoot Mtn. Trail System Environmental Assessment October 2013
Elk studies have consistently demonstrated that they avoid roads (Lyon 1979, 1983, Thomas et al. 1979, Christensen et al. 1993, Rowland et al. 2000, and Lyon and Jensen 1980). The amount of vehicular travel on roads appears to be the key factor that causes avoidance. A study by Lyon (1983) demonstrated that elk habitat effectiveness decreases by approximately 25% with a density of one mile of road per square mile of land, and by at least 50% with a density of 2 miles of road per square mile. The same research concluded that the best method of maximizing elk habitat effectiveness is by closing and obliterating roads. Road closure needs should be assessed on a site-specific basis to determine the limiting habitat conditions in each area.
The CPAW manages elk to provide healthy populations capable of supporting both significant harvests and opportunities for nonconsumptive uses (Freddy et al. 1993, CDOW 2002). Elk license sales account for a large percentage of all license revenue, indicating the importance of elk herd management and population viability in the state.
Forest level information: Elk habitat on the WRNF includes all of the dominant vegetation types, and most of the other types found in the Southern Rocky Mountains. The WRNF provides most of the summer range for the herds in the general area. Certain areas in the extreme lower elevations of the Forest are used as winter or transitional range, but the vast majority of the winter range occurs off the Forest. Winter range is considered to be the most limiting seasonal range for most elk populations on the Forest (CDOW 2002). Approximately 10% of the winter range is found on NFS lands for the populations of elk that spend the summer on the WRNF. The remaining 90% is located on either Bureau of Land Management lands or private lands surrounding the Forest.
The State of Colorado has responsibility for the management of wildlife populations. The CPW has specific elk management goals and objectives that have been developed in cooperation with landowners, the public and federal land management agencies. These plans help guide the States direction in the management of elk. Periodically these plans are updated to cover land management changes, new social perspectives, and changes in elk populations. The CPW estimates population numbers of elk and sets management objectives for elk in units referred to as Data Analysis Units (DAUs). The CPW publishes a disclaimer with its population estimates noting “estimating populations’ numbers of wild animals over large geographic areas is an inexact science.”
The WRNF contains portions of the following elk DAUs: E6, E12, E13, E14, E15, and E16. These DAUs are located in the northwestern part of Colorado, and cover 10,873 square miles. Approximately 3,853 square miles (2,465,920 ac; 35%) of these DAUs are found within the proclaimed boundary of the WRNF.
Project-Level Information: The elk habitat in and around the project area is summer range, winter range and elk production. The project area is designated 5.43 in the Forest Plan which is Elk Habitat and 5.41, Elk and Mule Deer Winter Range. Motorized use in the project area prior to implementation of the TMP had been restricted from December 1 to June 20 to protect winter range habitat values and protect calving habitat in the spring. There has not been Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects Page 3-130
Tenderfoot Mtn. Trail System Environmental Assessment October 2013 motorized use of the project area since the summer of 2012. Elk use a variety of habitats on the project area, generally tending to move in late spring from winter and production habitats in the project area north-northeast to higher elevations away from human activity and development, and moving back into those winter habitats in the late fall. Figure 3.22 depicts elk habitats in the Tenderfoot Mountain area.
Effects Analysis No Action Through the No Action alternative, implementation of the White River National Forest Travel Management Plan would occur. The entire proposed project area would be designated as non-motorized with the exception of the Tenderfoot Mountain Road and Frey Gulch Road. Route decommissioning could begin at any time but may take many years to complete, dependent on funding. Human disturbance from motorized use would drastically decrease. This would increase habitat effectiveness for elk in the area for most of the year. The Tenderfoot Mountain Road would still be open to vehicles of all sizes which would allow access to the upper habitats for hunters. Overall, the No Action alternative would benefit elk in the Tenderfoot and Frey Gulch areas by limiting motorized use and decommissioning trails that have historically been used. The No Action alternative would not be expected to have any impact on the elk population at the DAU or Forest levels.
Proposed Action There is a herd of elk consisting of 200-400 individuals that are present in the project area year round (Schwab, pers. comm. 2012). During winter months, however, all motorized use would be restricted in elk winter range and calving areas from December 1 to June 30* to prevent disturbance to elk. Single-track trails would be closed to motorized uses annually starting October 10th* to reduce impacts to big game hunting (rifle season). The Frey Gulch area has been open to snowmobiles in the past, but that use was eliminated by the White River National Forest Travel Management Plan (2010) when the Frey Gulch and Tenderfoot Mountain areas were designated as non-motorized. Some disturbance may occur by non- motorized recreation such as hikers and snowshoers in the area and elk may be somewhat habituated to this type of disturbance since it occurs annually during the winter months. The proposed motorcycle trails would not impact elk during winter and spring months because use would not be allowed until July 1, annually.
Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects Page 3-131
Tenderfoot Mtn. Trail System Environmental Assessment October 2013
Figure 3.22: Elk habitat within the proposed project area
The Forest Plan does not designate the proposed project area as an elk summer concentration area; however, CPAW shows the project area in an elk summer concentration area. The entire proposed project does occur in elk summer range. In general, elk move to higher elevations during summer months following new vegetative growth and there are fewer numbers of animals in the area of the proposed project where motorcycle trails would occur. However, since the project area has been closed to motorized use since the summer of 2012, elk have been observed regularly in the proposed project area by hunters and recreationists. The elk herd on Tenderfoot Mountain is considered a resident herd because Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects Page 3-132
Tenderfoot Mtn. Trail System Environmental Assessment October 2013 they stay on Tenderfoot Mountain year round and do not cross over Interstate 70 to mix with the herd there. Some of the herd moves south over the Continental Divide into South Park but the majority stay on Tenderfoot. This elk herd may be getting pinched from the high amount of activities occurring south of I-70, therefore making available summer range more important to this herd locally. The proposed action may add to the current activities and further reduce available summer habitat on Tenderfoot Mountain.
This project proposes to decommission and rehabilitate about 22 miles of trails, many of which extend east onto Tenderfoot Mountain and higher in elevation toward alpine where elk spend more time during the summer. The proposed education and enforcement program would maintain that closure thereby increasing cover and hiding habitat for elk in the area east of the proposed project area. Decommissioning and naturalization of these routes will improve habitat effectiveness on the Tenderfoot Mountain and decrease stress to elk that has historically occurred from motorized recreation higher on the mountain. Additionally, Tenderfoot Mountain Road would be fully decommissioned so motorized vehicle access would be prohibited. There would be full size vehicle access during hunting season only allowed on one route leading from the Frey Gulch Road partway up Tenderfoot Mountain. From this point, ATV access would be allowed to the top of Tenderfoot Mountain for hunter access only during hunting season.
Use on proposed new trails and existing routes would be signed and would likely increase motorized use along these designated routes. The elk herd in the area of the proposed motorized trails would likely be displaced to the Straight Creek drainage on the north side of the project area where habitat is comprised of dark and dense lodgepole pine and is less desirable habitat for elk (Schwab, pers. comm. 2012). Animals being displaced during the day due to motorized use would still be able to use the project area for foraging during evening and morning hours when recreationists area not in the area since this is the more preferred habitat for elk. Displacement can affect cow:calf ratios, but measuring these impacts are very difficult at a local herd level.
The CPAW was consulted on the Proposed Action. In addition to the maintenance of refuge habitat within the project area without trails or off trail use by motorcycle riders, the CPAW was concerned with how the proposed project would affect hunting opportunities on Tenderfoot Mountain due to the proposed closure of upper Tenderfoot Road to full size vehicles and ATVs. The proposed access would limit hunter access and opportunities in the fall to users with full size vehicles. Other FS System roads in the area would be closed by the WRNF 2010 Travel Plan which may also limit hunter access. Through the proposed action, hunters would have access by full size vehicle partially up the Tenderfoot Mountain at which point only ATV access would be allowed past to the top of Tenderfoot Mountain. Full size vehicle and ATV access would be allowed only during hunting season. Single-track trails would be closed to motorized uses annually starting October 10th to reduce impacts to big game hunting (rifle season). The remainder of the summer, this route would be open only to motorcycle riders and non-motorized use. The more limited access to the top of Tenderfoot Mountain may affect how hunters access the area; however it would benefit elk use of the area during the summer and fall.
Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects Page 3-133
Tenderfoot Mtn. Trail System Environmental Assessment October 2013
Cumulative Effects The Tenderfoot Motorized Trails project may add cumulatively to the disturbance impacts to the local elk herd that are already occurring from the Keystone Stables horseback riding operations and other recreation in the area. Elk in the proposed project area may be affected by displacement during summer months to less desirable habitat, but the exact effects are unknown at the local herd level. This is an ongoing project and effects will continue to occur annually during summer months. Elk winter range and calving habitat would be protected from December 1 to June 30 annually. Human population growth and land development would continue to be two of the largest influences on elk management. Although the local herd on Tenderfoot-Frey Gulch ranges may be affected by the proposed project, the effects of the proposed action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions in the analysis area would not impair the ability of elk survive in the DAU, or degrade long-term habitat effectiveness at the local or Forest level. The proposed action’s incremental effects, considered individually and cumulatively, would be offset by the Forest-wide implementation of more conservative standards and guidelines associated with the revised Forest Plan (USFS 2002b), other habitat protection measures, the implementation of the Travel Management Plan, and ongoing monitoring and management that is expected to remain stable or improve overall habitat quality (USFS 2002c).
Elk Summary The proposed action would affect elk use of the project area but not likely more the historical use of the area has already affected them. Traditional recreational use of the project area which included motorcycles, four-wheel drive vehicles, hiking, camping and hunting affect how elk use the project area, therefore increased and regular use of the area may have some additional effects to the local elk herd. Seasonal closures would be in place for motorized from December 1 to June 30 to protect elk winter range and production habitats. Single-track trails would be closed to motorized uses annually starting October 10th to reduce impacts to big game hunting (rifle season). Elk would likely be displaced to the Straight Creek area due to disturbance associated with the proposed motorcycle trails but the long term effects to the herd from this are not known. The proposed decommissioning and rehabilitation of trails in the project area would increase habitat effectiveness to the east of the proposed project area on Tenderfoot Mountain. The education and enforcement program to be implemented by the Forest Service but with field presence and assistance of Summit County Off-Road Riders (SCORR) members would benefit elk and other wildlife species in the project area.
There may be some localized impacts to elk that use habitats in the project area during the summer and early fall. The proposed action could result in indirect impacts such as displacement and decreased habitat effectiveness in the proposed project area. The ability of elk to disperse at the Forest level would not be affected.
OTHER WILDLIFE SPECIES Other important species could include regionally or locally important species, species on the periphery of their range, or species with geographically isolated populations. Many species that occur in the greater project area are habitat generalists, such as red fox (Vulpes vulpes), coyote (Canis latrans) and moose (Alces alces). These species are able to utilize many different Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects Page 3-134
Tenderfoot Mtn. Trail System Environmental Assessment October 2013 habitat types including habitats that are used heavily by recreationists. Habitat generalists are not an issue for this project because their population levels are considered high, and habitat modifications would have little impact on their life history requirements.
Mule Deer also occur in the proposed project area. This species is slightly more adaptable than elk are and will calve in any habitat. Their summer ranges are often separated from their summer range and often the limiting factor for mule deer in Colorado is adequate winter range. The proposed project area has a small portion that is designated as Management Area 5.41, Elk and Mule Deer Winter Range. The seasonal restriction from December 1 to June 20 for the entire project area would also apply here so mule deer would not have disturbance during the winter months. Mule deer are not expected to incur any additional impacts due to the proposed project.
The proposed project would involve the removal of about 12 acres of habitat which would occur during summer months. This potential nesting habitat for migratory birds could be impacted from the habitat modification but design criteria are in place that would prevent any occupied nest tree from being until after nesting season is over, therefore impacts are expected to be minimal if at all.
Design Criteria for Wildlife Protect known active and inactive raptor nest areas. The extent of protection will be based on proposed management activities, human activities existing before nest establishment, species, topography, vegetation cover and other factors. A no- disturbance buffer around active nest sites will be required from nest-site selection to fledging (generally March through July). Exceptions may occur when individuals are adapted to human activity.
No motorized use in Management Areas 5.41 and 5.43 from December 1 through June 30, annually to protect elk and deer winter range and elk calving grounds. Single-track trails would be closed to motorized uses annually starting October 10th to reduce impacts to big game hunting (rifle season).
During construction activities, if a raptor nest or cavity nest is found in a tree that has been designated to be felled, the removal of the tree with the nest shall not occur until after nesting season is completed as determined by the district biologist. If a raptor nest is found during construction activities, the district biologist will be contacted to determine appropriate buffers to place around nest. No cutting of active nest trees will occur.
To prevent road density from increasing within MA 5.5, no construction or use of routes should take place within the 5.5 until decommissioning of designated routes within the 5.5 has taken place. The district biologist will be contacted before implementation of construction activities begin each season, annually.
Where possible, avoid felling spruce and fir trees during construction and decommissioning activities. Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects Page 3-135
Tenderfoot Mtn. Trail System Environmental Assessment October 2013
LIST OF PREPARERS
FOREST SERVICE ID TEAM
Jan Cutts District Ranger, Dillon RD
Ken Waugh ID Team Leader, Dist. Recreation Staff Officer, Dillon RD
Justin Anderson Hydrology Technician, Forest Supervisor’s Office
Andrea Brogan Forest Archaeologist, Forest Supervisor’s Office
Donna Graham Forest Landscape Architect, Forest Supervisor’s Office
Peech Keller NEPA Coordinator, Dillon RD
Corey Lewellen District Fisheries Biologist, Dillon RD
Rick McNeil East Zone Botanist, Eagle/Holy Cross RD
Ashley Nettles District Wildlife Biologist, Dillon RD
Paul Semmer Community Planner, Dillon RD
CONSULTANT TEAM
Lisa Sakata, Inc. Lisa Sakata
Claffey Ecological Consulting, Inc. Michael Claffey Andy Herb
Nancy Redner
Aztec Archaeological Consultants, Inc. John Cater elev8, Inc. Zach Perdue
Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects ListPage of Preparers 3-136
Tenderfoot Mtn. Trail System Environmental Assessment January 2012
AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS, TRIBAL GOVERNMENTS, AND PERSONS CONTACTED
FEDERAL AGENCIES
US Army Corps of Engineers US Fish and Wildlife Service
STATE GOVERNMENT
Colorado Division of Wildlife Colorado Department of Transportation
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
Summit County BOCC Summit County Open Space Town of Dillon Snake River Planning Commission Upper Blue Planning Commission
TRIBAL GOVERNMENTS
Southern Ute Indian Tribe Ute Indian Tribe Ute Mountain Indian Tribe
OTHER AGENCIES, BUSINESSES, AND ORGANIZATIONS Tenderfoot Task Force Mountain bikers & Hikers COHVCO Keystone Citizens' League Keystone Owners' Assoc Quiet Use Coalition Rocky Mtn Recreation Initiative Colorado Mtn Club Summerwood HOA Summit County Off Road Riders Tenderfoot Track Club
OTHER INTERESTED INDIVIDUALS
See Project file and Appendix D, Response to Comments for a list of individuals who commented
Agencies, Organizations, Tribal Governments, and Persons Contacted Tenderfoot Mtn. Trail System Environmental Assessment January 2012
REFERENCES
Anderson, J. 2011. Watershed Resources Report for the Tenderfoot Mountain Trails Project.
Anderson, P.G. 1996. Sediment generation from forestry operations and associated effects on aquatic ecosystems. Proceedings of the Forest-Fish Conference: Land Management Practices
Aubry, K. B., K. S. McKelvey, and J. P. Copeland. 2007. Distribution and broadscale habitat relations of the wolverine in the contiguous United States. Journal of Wildlife Management 71:2147–2158.
Banci, V. 1994. Wolverine Chapter 5 pages 99-127. In Ruggiero, LF., K.B. Aubry, S. W. Buskirk, L.J. Lyon and W.J. Ziellinski (tech eds.), The Scientific basis for conserving forest carnivores: American marten, fisher, lynx and wolverine in the Western United States. General Technical Report RM-254. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. Fort Collins, CO 184 pp.
Beauvais, G.P. and J. McCumber. (2006, November 30). Pygmy Shrew (Sorex hoyi): a technical conservation assessment. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Web published: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/pygmyshrew.pdf
Benedict, A.D. “A Sierra Club naturalist’s guide to the Southern Rockies”. Sierra Club Books, San Francisco, CA. 1991, 578 pp.
Berglund, J. and McEldowney, R. 2008. MDT Montana Wetland Assessment Method. Prepared for the Montana Department of Transportation and Morrison-Maierle, Inc. March.
Boyd, R.J. 1978. American elk. Pp. 11-29 in J.W. Schmidt and D.L. Gilbert. Big Game of North America. Stackpole Books. Harrisburg, PA. 494 pp.
Boyd, R.J. and E.E. Ryland. 1971. Breeding dates of Colorado elk as estimated by fetal growth curves. Colorado Div. Wildl. Info. Leaf. No. 88. 2 pp.
Brinson, M. M., Hauer, F. R., Lee, L. C., Nutter, W. L., Rheinhardt, R. D., Smith, R. D., and higham, D. (1995). “A guidebook for application of hydrogeomorphic assessments to riverine wetlands,” Technical Report WRP-DE-11, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
Brinson, M. M., Hauer, F. R., Lee, L. C., Nutter, W. L., Rheinhardt, R. D., Smith, R. D., and Whigham, D. (1995). “A guidebook for application of hydrogeomorphic assessments to riverine wetlands,” Technical Report WRP-DE-11, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
References Tenderfoot Mtn. Trail System Environmental Assessment January 2012
Brogan, Andrea, and Rodney Denardo. 2006. Colorado Cultural Resource Survey form for 5ST936. USDA Forest Service, White River National Forest. On file, White River National Forest Supervisors Office, Glenwood Springs, CO.
Bunnell, K. D., J. T. Flinders, M. L. Wolfe. 2006. Potential impact of coyotes and snowmobile on lynx conservation in the Intermountain West. Wildlife Society Bulletin 34: 828-838.
Buskirk, S. and W. Zielinski. 2003. Small and mid-sized carnivores. In Mammal Community Dynamics. Management and Conservation in the Coniferous Forest of Western North America. Edited by C. Zabel and R. Anthony. Cambridge University Press. 709 pp.
CRCT GIS. 2007. Colorado River cutthroat trout range-wide database. Updated through 2006. Colorado River Cutthroat Trout Conservation Team database.
Chimner, R., J Lemly and D. Cooper. 2010. Mountain Fen Distribution, Types and Restoration Priorities, San Juan Mountains, Colorado USA. Wetlands Vol. 30, Number 4. August 2010.
Christensen, A.G., L.J. Lyon and J. Unsworth. 1993. Elk management in the Northern Region: considerations in forest plan updates or revisions. USDA Forest Service, Intermtn. Res. Stn. GTR INT-303. Missoula, MT. 33 pp.
Colorado Division of Wildlife. 2010. [online]. http://wildlife.state.co.us
Colorado Division of Wildlife. 2002. Draft White River elk herd data analysis unit plans. Unpublished draft documents.
Colorado Division of Wildlife. 2004. Prevalence and distribution of chronic wasting disease in Colorado 2003-2004. Colorado Div. Wildlife, Denver. 5 pp.
Colorado Natural Heritage Program. 1997, 2005, Targeted species list for Summit County and for the Summit county Open Space and Trails Department. Fort Collins, CO
Copeland, J. P., J. M. Peek, C. R. Groves, W. E. Melquist, K. S. McKelvey, G. W. McDaniel, C. D. Long, and C. E. Harris. 2007. Seasonal habitat associations of the wolverine in central Idaho. Journal of Wildlife Management 71:2201–2212.
“Colorado Rare Plant Field Guide”, prepared by The Colorado Rare Plant Technical Committee, 1997.
Cooper, D.J. 1989, A handbook of wetland plants of the Rocky Mountain region, EPA Region VIII
Corps of Engineers. 2008. Interim Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region, ed. J. S. Wakeley, R. W. Lichvar, and C. V. Noble. ERDC/EL TR-08-13. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center.
References Tenderfoot Mtn. Trail System Environmental Assessment January 2012
Cowardin, L., Carter, V., Golet, F. and LaRoe, E. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, FWS/OBS-79/31.
Curtis, James D., and Donald W. Lynch. 1965. Ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa Laws.). In Silvics of forest trees of the United States. p. 417-431. H. A. Fowells, comp. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agriculture Handbook 271. Washington, DC.
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical Report Y-87-1. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2010. Website: ftp://ftp.epa.gov/wed/ecoregions/nd_sd/ndsd_front.pdf. Accessed in October. Hauer, F.R., B.J. Cook, M.C. Gilbert, E.J. Clairain, and R.D. Smith. 2002. A regional guidebook for applying the ydrogeomorphic approach to Assessing the wetland functions of riverine wetlands in the Northern Rocky Mountains.
ERDC/EL Technical Report 02-21. Us Army Corps of Engineers, environmental Lab, Vicksburg, MS
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers wetlands delineation manual. Technical Report Y-87-1. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station.
Fitzgerald, J.P., C.A. Meaney, and D.M. Armstrong. 1994. Mammals of Colorado. Denver Mus. Nat. Hist. and Univ. Press of Colorado. Niwot, CO. 467 pp.
Freddy, D.J. 1987. The White River elk herd: a perspective, 1960-85. Tech. Publ., Colorado Div. Wildl., Denver, CO. 37:1-64.
Forest Service. 2006. Watershed Conservation Practices Handbook. US Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region (Region 2). Amendment Number: 2509.25-2006-1
Forest Service. 1998. Peatlands on the National Forests of the Northern Rocky Mountains: Ecology and Conservation. US Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-11.
Global Invasive Species Database (GISD). 2006. Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis (fungus). Available from: http://www.issg.org/database/species/ecology.asp?fr=1&si=123 [Accessed 5 Jan 2010].
Gustafson, Alice, and Andele Worthington. 1997. Colorado Cultural Resource Survey form for 5ST648. USDA Forest Service, White River National Forest. On file, Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Denver.
Hall, E. R. 1981. The Mammals of North America. John Wiley, New York.
Hammerson, G.A. 1999. Amphibians and reptiles in Colorado, second edition. University Press and Colorado Division of Wildlife. Niwot, Colorado. 484 p.
References Tenderfoot Mtn. Trail System Environmental Assessment January 2012
Hauer, F. R., Cook, B. J., Gilbert, M. C., Clairain, E. J., Jr., and Smith, R. D. (2002). “A regional guidebook for applying the hydrogeomorphic approach to assessing wetland functions of riverine floodplains in the northern Rocky Mountains,” ERDC/EL TR-02-21, U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS
Hayward, G. D., and P. Hayward. 1993. Boreal Owl. in A. Poole, P. Stettenheim, F. Gill, editors. The birds of North America. Academy of Natural Science, Philadelphia; American Ornithologists’' Union, Washington, DC, USA.
Hayward, G.D. (2008, September 22). Response of Boreal Owl to epidemic Mountain Pine Beetle-Caused Mortality under a No-Action Alternative. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region, Lakewood, CO. 9 pp
Hayward, G.D. and Verner, J. (eds.) 1994. Flammulated, boreal, and great gray owls in the United States: A technical conservation assessment. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-253. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department Of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 214pp.
Healy, B. 2007. Fisheries Biological Evaluation for the Dillon Reservoir Forest Health and Fuels Project. White River National Forest, Dillon, CO.
Hermann, F.J. 1970 Manual of the Carices of the Rocky Mountains and Colorado Basin. Agriculture Handbook No. 374 U.S. Govt. Print. Off., Washington D.C.
Hirsch, C.L., T.P. Nesler, and S.E. Albeke. 2006. Range-wide status of Colorado River Cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarkii pleuriticus): 2005. Colorado River Cutthroat Trout Conservation Team Report. Craig, Colorado.
Hitchcock, A.S., 1971 “Manual of grasses of the United States”. Dover Publications, Inc. New York, NY.
Johnson, B. 2001. Documentation of reference conditions in the slope wetlands of the southern Rocky Mountains: reference database, site descriptions, and revised functional models. US Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8 and the Colorado Department of Natural Resources, Fort Collins, CO.
Johnstone, B.C. 1987 Plant associations of Region Two, Edition 4 USDA Forest Service Rocky Mountain Region, Lakewood, Co Publ. R2-ECOL-87-2. 429 pp.
Kennedy, P.L. (2003, January 2). Northern Goshawk (Accipiter gentiles atricapillus): a technical conservation assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Web Published: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/northerngoshawk.pdf
Kingery, H. 1998. Colorado Breeding Bird Atlas. Colorado Bird Atlas Partnership and Colorado Division of Wildlife. 636 pp.
References Tenderfoot Mtn. Trail System Environmental Assessment January 2012
Koehler, G.M. 1990. Population and habitat characteristics of lynx and snowshoe hares in north central Washington. Canadian Journal of Zoology. 68:845-851.
Koehler, G.M. and K.B. Aubry. 1994. Lynx Chapter 4 pages 74-98 In: Ruggiero, L.F., K.B. Aubry, S. W. Buskirk, L.J. Lyon and W.J. Ziellinski (tech eds.), The Scientific basis for conserving forest carnivores. In American marten, fisher, lynx and wolverine in the Western United States. General Technical Report RM-254. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. Fort Collins, CO 184 pp.
Laurie, G.J.; 2007. Stream Conditions and Water Quality. Dillon Reservoir Forest Health and Fuels Project. Environmental Assessment. Dillon Ranger District, White River National Forest.
Lorch, Brian. Director of Open Space, Summit County. Personal communication.
Lyon, L.J. 1979. Habitat effectiveness for elk as influenced by roads and cover. J. Forestry. 77:658-660.
Lyon, L.J. 1983. Road density models describing habitat effectiveness for elk. J. Forestry. 81:592-595.
Lyon, L.J. and C. E. Jensen. 1980. Management implications of elk and deer use of clear-cuts in Montana. J. Wildl. Manage. 44:352-361.
Macdonald, D.D. and C.P. Newcombe. 1991. Effects of suspended sediments on ecosystems. North American Journal of Fishereis Managemnt 1991; 11:72-82.
Magwire, Hirsch, and Proctor. 2010. Revised Biological Assessment for the Travel Management Plan. Glenwood Springs, CO.
McKelvey, K.S., Y.K. Ortega, G. Koehler, K. Aubry, and D. Brittell. 2000. Canada lynx habitat and topographic use patterns in north central Washington: a reanalysis. Chapter 10 in Ruggiero, L. F., K. B. Aubry, S. W. Buskirk, et al. tech. eds. 2000. Ecology and conservation of lynx in the United States. Univ. Press of Colorado, Boulder. 480 pp.
McNerty, Ryan. Forester, Colorado State Forest Service. February 8, 2011.
Mowat, G., Poole, K.G., O’Donoghue, M., 2000. Ecology of lynx in northern Canada and Alaska. In: Ruggerio, L.F., Aubry, K.B., Buskirk, S.W., Koehler, G.M., Krebs, C.J., McKelvey, K.S., Squires, J.R. (Eds.), Ecology and Conservation of Lynx in the United States. University of Colorado Press, Boulder, Colorado, pp. 265–306.
National Resource Conservation Service. 1996. Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States. USDA, NRCS, Ft. Worth, TX.
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2010. Plants Database, website: http://plants.usda.gov/plants/index.html. Accessed in October.
References Tenderfoot Mtn. Trail System Environmental Assessment January 2012
Natural Resources Council Service and Wildlife Habitat Council. 1999. American Elk (Cervus elaphus). Fish and Wildlife Habitat Management Leaflet. [accessed online]. ftp://ftp-fc.sc.egov.usda.gov/WHMI/WEB/pdf/amerELK.pdf
NatureServe. 2010. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. http://www.natureserve.org/explorer.
Naylor, L.M., M. J. Wisdom, R.G. Anthony. 2009. Behavioral Responses of North American Elk to Recreational Activity. Journal of Wildlife Management. Vol. 73, Issue 3. April 2009.
Off-Highway Vehicle Recreation in the United States and its Regions and States: A National Report from the National Survey on Recreation and the Environment (NSRE), February, 2008, H. Ken Cordell, Carter J. Betz, Gary T. Green, Becky Stephens
Phillips, G.E. and A.W. Alldredge. 2000. Reproductive success of elk following disturbance by humans during calving season. J. Wildl. Manage. 64:521-530.
Phinney, V. 2007. White River National Forest, Dillon Ranger District, Dillon Reservoir Forest Health Project. Wildlife Specialist’s Report.
Proctor, John, 6/11/2009, USFS White River National Forest Management Status Plant Species List
Rapanos Guidance. 2008. Clean Water Act Jurisdiction, Following the U.S. Supreme Court’s Decision in Rapanos v. Untied States & Carabell v. United States. December 2, 2008.
Redner, Nancy. 2007 Biological assessment, biological evaluation and specialist report for Avalanche #7 Mining Operation, Black Gulch, Breckenridge, CO 80424 15 pp.
Seidel, J.W. 1977. Elk calving behavior in west central Colorado. Pp. 38-40, in Proc. Western States Elk Workshop, Colorado Div. of Wildl., Denver, CO. 64 pp.
Redner, Nancy. 2009 Biological/Botanical assessment and specialist report for repairs of Excel Energy Gas Pipe Line, USFS, Dillon Ranger District, Silverthorne, CO 80498. 13 pp. Righter, R., R. Levad, C. Dexter, and K. Potter. 2004. Birds of Western Colorado Plateau and Mesa Country. Grand Valley Audubon Society, Grand Junction, Colorado.
Roberts. E. 2010. Biological Assessment for Federally Listed Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed Species for Vail Pass Winter Recreation Area, Holy Cross and Dillon Ranger Districts, White River National Forest, Eagle & Summit Counties, Colorado. On file and the White River National Forest Supervisor’s Office in Glenwood Springs, CO.
Roberts, John. Summit County Planner. Personal communication.
Roberts, L. US Forest Service. Personal communication, April 8, 2010.
References Tenderfoot Mtn. Trail System Environmental Assessment January 2012
Roe, A.N., K.G. Poole, and D.L. May. 1999. A review of lynx behavior and ecology and its relation to ski area planning and management. Unpublished report, IRIS Environmental Systems. Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Rowland, M.M., M.J. Wisdom, B.K. Johnson and J.G. Kie. 2000. Elk distribution and modeling in relation to roads. J. Wildl. Manage. 64:672-684.
Ruediger, B., J. Claar, S. Gniadek, B. Holt, L. Lewis, S. Mighton, B. Naney, G. Patton, T. Rinaldi, J. Trick, A. Vandehey, F. Wahl, N. Warren, D. Wenger, and A. Williamson. 2000. Canada lynx conservation assessment and strategy (2nd. Edition). USDA Forest Service, USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, USDI Bureau of Land Management, and USDI National Park Service. Forest Service Publication #R1-00-53, Missoula, MT. 142 pp.
Shenk, T.M. 2009. Post release monitoring of lynx (Lynx canadensis) reintroduced to Colorado. Colorado Division of Wildlife, Ft. Collins, CO. (Used with permission).
Shepherd S., Schwab S.. Colorado Parks and Wildlife. Personal communication, December 2009.
Siemers, J.L. 2009. Pygmy Shrew (Sorex hoyi) survey on the White river National Forest. Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Colorado State University. 19pp.
Squires, J. R. and T. Laurion. 2000. Lynx home range and movement in Montana and Wyoming-preliminary results. In Ruggiero, L. F., K. B. Aubry, S. W. Buskirk, et al. tech. eds. Ecology and conservation of lynx in the United States. Univ. Press of Colorado, Boulder. 480 pp.
Squires, J.R. and R.T. Reynolds. 1997. Northern goshawk (Accipiter gentilis). In: Poole, A. and F. Gill (eds.), The birds of North America, No. 298. The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, PA, and American Ornithologists’ Union, Washington, DC, USA
Squires, John. US Forest Service. Personal communication, August 31, 2010.
Staples, W.R. 1995. Lynx and coyote diet and habitat relationships during a low hare population on the Kenai Peninsula, Alaska. Unpublished M.S. Thesis, Univ. of Alaska, Fairbanks.
Stone, T. 2007. Species Fact Sheet, California Wolverine. Umpqua National Forest, Roseburg Oregon. Date Completed: 26 September 2007
Thomas, J.W. and D.E. Toweill, eds. 1982. Elk of North America: ecology and management. Stackpole Books, Harrisburg, PA. 698 pp.
Thomas, J.W., H. Black, Jr., R. J. Scherzinger and R. J. Pedersen. 1979. Deer and elk. pp 104- 127. in: J. W. Thomas, ed. Wildlife habitats in managed forests: the Blue Mountains of Oregon and Washington. USDA Forest Service. Agricultural Handbook No. 553. Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. Portland, OR.
References Tenderfoot Mtn. Trail System Environmental Assessment January 2012
Thompson, R.W. and N. Redner. 1999 Biological assessment, biological evaluation and specialist report for the Summit County Land Exchange, Summit County, Colorado. Western Ecosystems, Inc. Boulder, CO 80 pp.
Thompson, R.W., and J.C. Halfpenny. 1989. Canada lynx presence on Vail ski area and proposed expansion areas. Prepared for Vail Associates, Inc., Vail, CO.
Thompson, R.W. and N. Redner 1997 Biological assessment, biological evaluation and specialist report for the Slate Creek Land Exchange, Summit County, Colorado. Western Ecosystems, Inc. Boulder, CO 62 pp.
US Army Corps of Engineers. 2008. Interim Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region, ed. J. S. Wakeley, R. W. Lichvar, and C. V. Noble. ERDC/EL TR-08-13. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center.
USDA Forest Service. 2002. Final environmental impact statement, appendix N: Biological evaluation of the land and resource management plan 2002 revision for the White River National Forest. Prepared by Crites, M.J., B.C. Johnston, and C. Hirsch. White River National Forest, Glenwood Springs, CO. 253 pp. plus appendices.
USDA Forest Service. 2005. Research for the Development of Best Management Practices to Minimize Horse Trail Impacts on the Hoosier National Forest. Prepared by Aust, Michael W., J.L. Marion, and K. Kyle. Virginia Tech, Department of Forestry, Blacksburg, VA. 58 pp. plus appendices.
USDA Forest Service Handbook 2509.25 – Watershed Conservation Practices Handbook, zero code, Ch. 10, and Ch.20. Region 2 Amendment No. 2509.25 – 99 – 1. Effective March 22, 1999.
U.S. Census Bureau. [online] http://www.census.gov/ [accessed May 2011] Fuels
U.S Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1995. Landscape Aesthetics, A Handbook for Scenery Management, U.S. Dep. Agric., Agric. Handbook 701.
U.S. Dept. Interior. and. Plant taxa for listing as endangered or threatened species. 50 CFR Part 17. Fed. Register. Vol. 55, No. 35.
USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2013a. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Threatened Status for the Distinct Population Segment of the North American Wolverine Occurring in the Contiguous United States. Federal Register/Vol. 78, No. 23, February 4, 2013. Pages 7864-7890.
USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2013b. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Establishment of a Nonessential Experimental Population of the North American
References Tenderfoot Mtn. Trail System Environmental Assessment January 2012
Wolverine in Colorado, Wyoming, and New Mexico. Federal Register/Vol. 78, No. 23, February 4, 2013. Pages 7890-7905.
US Fish and Wildlife Service. 1998. Greenback cutthroat trout recovery plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver, CO.
US Fish and Wildlife Service. 2009. Greenback cutthroat trout 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Colorado Field Office, Lakewood, CO.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 2008. Biological Opinion for the Southern Rockies Lynx Amendment. ES/LK-6-CO-08-F-024. Lakewood, CO.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1994. Uncompahgre Fritillary Butterfly Recovery Plan. Prepared by the Uncompahgre Fritillary Butterfly recovery Team For Region 6 Fish and Wildlife Service.
U.S. Forest Service. 2005 -2011 White River National Forest PETS species lists. Glenwood Springs, CO. 10pp.
U.S. Forest Service (USFS), 2002a. Final environmental impact statement, appendix N: Biological evaluation of the land and resource management plan 2002 revision for the White River National Forest. Prepared by Crites, M.J., B.C. Johnston, and C. Hirsch. White River National Forest, Glenwood Springs. CO. 253 pp. plus appendices.
U.S. Forest Service (USFS), 2002d. Lynx habitat parameters, White River National Forest. Unpub. Forest Service document, White River National Forest, Glenwood Springs. CO. 3pp. plus LAU spreadsheet (subject to further revision-last available update 01/29/2002).
U.S. Forest Service (USFS), 2008. Southern Rockies Lynx Management Direction or Amendment (SRLA). Record of Decision for Final Environmental Impact Statement: October 2008. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Lakewood, Colorado.
U.S. Forest Service. 2002. Record of Decision for the White River National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 2002 Revision. Glenwood Springs, CO.
U.S. Forest Service. 2002b. Land and resource management plan-2002 revision for the White River National Forest. Glenwood Springs. CO.
U.S. Forest Service. 2002c. Final environmental impact statement, Volume 1, for the White River National Forest land and resource management plan 2002 revision. White River National Forest, Glenwood Springs. CO.
USDA Forest Service. 2008a. Regional Sensitive Species List. Region 2 Office, Lakewood CO.
U.S. Forest Service. 2004. Final Environmental Impact Statement: Upper Blue Stewardship Project. Dillon Ranger District, White River National Forest, Summit County, CO
References Tenderfoot Mtn. Trail System Environmental Assessment January 2012
U.S. Forest Service. 2011. Final Environmental Impact Statement for the White River National Forest Travel Management Plan. Glenwood Springs. CO. 47 pp.
USDA Forest Service, 2006. Watershed conservation practices handbook, FSH 2509.25 – R2 amendment 2509.25-96-1. Rocky Mountain Region (R2), Denver, CO.
USDA National Soil Erosion Research Laboratory, 1995. USDA Water Erosion Prediction Project (WEPP). NSERL Report No. 10. West Lafayette, IN.
US Forest Service (USFS). 2006. Watershed Conservation Practices Handbook. US Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region (Region 2). Amendment Number: 2509.25-2006-1
Watershed Conservation Practices Handbook. Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 2509.25, R2 Amendment 2509.25-96-1, United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service.
Weber, W.A. 1989. “Colorado flora: western slope”. University Press Colorado. Boulder, CO.
Weber, William A., Wittmann Ronald C. “Bryophytes of Colorado, Mosses, Liverworts, and Hornworts”, Pilgrims Process, Inc. Boulder, CO 2007 pp 231.
White River National Forest. 2002. Revised Land and Resource Management Plan, 2002.
White River National Forest. 2003. Stream Monitoring Protocol, Draft. August, 2003.
White River National Forest. 2008. Dillon Reservoir Forest Health and Fuels Project Environmental Assessment.
Wildlife Conservation Society 2009, 2300 Southern Boulevard, New York, NY 10460. Website: http://www.wcs.org/
Young, M. K. 1995. Conservation assessment for inland cutthroat trout. General Technical Report RM-256. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, Colorado. 61 pages.
Ziemke, Laura. 2001. Colorado Cultural Resource Survey re-evaluation form for 5ST648. Science Applications International Corp. On file, Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Denver
Zimdahl, R.L. 1983. “Weeds of Colorado”. Bulletin 521A. Colorado State University Coop. Extension, Ft. Collins, CO. Andrews, R. and R. Righter. 1992. Colorado Birds, A reference to their distribution and habitat. Published by the Denver Museum of Natural History. 442 pp.
References Tenderfoot Mtn. Trail System Environmental Assessment January 2012
References