Environmental

Assessment United States Department of Agriculture Rangeland Management in the Red Parks Forest Service Analysis Area

September 2010 Hahns Peak/Bears Ears Ranger District, Medicine Bow – Routt National Forests Routt and Moffat Counties, Colorado

For more information contact:

Erik S. Taylor Rangeland Management Specialist Hahns Peak Bears Ears Ranger District Telephone: 970-870-2154 Email: [email protected]

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

Table of Contents

Table of Contents ...... ii List of Tables ...... iii Summary ...... iv Chapter 1 Purpose and need for action ...... 5 Introduction ...... 5 Document Structure ...... 5 Background ...... 7 Proposed Action ...... 7 Area and Scope ...... 8 Purpose and Need for Action ...... 11 Decision Framework ...... 11 Public Involvement ...... 12 Issues ...... 12 Chapter 2 Alternatives Including the Proposed Action ...... 13 Alternatives Considered ...... 13 Alternative 1 – No Action (No Permitted Livestock Grazing) ...... 14 Alternative 2 – Continue Current Management ...... 14 Alternative 3 – Proposed Action ...... 15 Comparison of Alternatives ...... 21 Monitoring ...... 21 Chapter 3 Existing Condition and Environmental Consequences ...... 24 Introduction ...... 24 Rangeland and Forest Vegetation ...... 24 Watershed, Hydrology and Water Quality ...... 27 Soils ...... 34 Cultural Resources ...... 37 Aquatics: Fisheries and Amphibians ...... 39 Wildlife ...... 41 Rare Plants ...... 45 Recreation ...... 49 Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species ...... 50 Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Plant Species ...... 52 Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Aquatic Species ...... 55 Management Indicator Species...... 56 Forest Plan Consistency ...... 58 Inventoried Roadless Areas ...... 58 Social and Economic Analysis ...... 58 Financial and Economic Efficiency ...... 61 Chapter 4 Consultation and Coordination ...... 63 ID TEAM MEMBERS: ...... 63 FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL AGENCIES: ...... 63 TRIBES: ...... 63 OTHERS: See Appendix A ...... 63 Chapter 5 Public Comment/Response...... 64

ii Rangeland Management Plan for the Red Parks Analysis Area Environmental Assessment

APPENDIX A ...... 72 APPENDIX B ...... 76 APPENDIX C – GLOSSARY ...... 78 REFERENCES ...... 89

List of Tables Table 1. Shows how each allotment is currently permitted...... 7 Table 2. Management Area Prescriptions in the RPAA...... 9 Table 3. Roadless Area in the RPAA ...... 10 Table 4. Current permitted use...... 14 Table 5. Proposed permitted use ...... 15 Table 6. Comparison of Alternatives ...... 21 Table 7. Named streams by sixth level watershed in the analysis area...... 28 Table 8. Proper Functioning Condition (PFC) survey results by allotment ...... 29 Table 9. Stream health survey results by allotment ...... 30 Table 10. Summary of activities that may contribute to cumulative effects in the analysis area...... 32 Table 11. Stability class summary for RPAA ...... 35 Table 12. Water erosion hazard ratings for the SCSAA ...... 36 Table 13. Compaction hazard ratings for the RPAA ...... 36 Table 14. Summary of Determinations to TES Terrestrial Animal Species by the Proposed Action. .. 51 Table 15. Summary of Determinations to Sensitive Plant Species...... 52 Table 16. Summary of Determinations to Sensitive Aquatic Species ...... 56 Table 17. Routt National Forest Revised MIS List ...... 56 Table 18. RNF MIS, their presence in the analysis area, and anticipated effects due to implementation of an action alternative...... 57 Table 19. Population statistics for race and ethnicity, and poverty status for Colorado and Routt County ...... 61 Table 20. Efficiency Analysis (Present Net Value in 2010 dollars) ...... 62 Table 21. Public comments received during 30 day comment period ...... 64

iii

Summary The Medicine Bow – Routt National Forest (Forest Service) is analyzing livestock grazing in the Red Parks Analysis Area (RPAA). The analysis area is located in the northern portion of the Hahns Peak/Bears Ears Ranger District, Routt National Forest, approximately 6 miles northeast of Steamboat Lake, Colorado. This action is needed, because the existing allotment management plans are outdated and in need of evaluation and revision. The Routt National Forest proposes to continue to permit livestock grazing within the RPAA under an adaptive management strategy that would move toward Forest Plan desired conditions. This Environmental Assessment (EA) will evaluate the future livestock management of 4 existing sheep grazing allotments. The affected rangeland allotments are as follows: Big Red Park, Summit Creek, Little Red Park, and Middle Fork Circle Bar. The need for this action is to align Forest Plan desired conditions with existing conditions, within the scope of this analysis. This analysis will provide range managers the flexibility to adjust livestock numbers and season of use using forage use thresholds rather than established livestock numbers and dates of permitted use. In addition to the proposed action, the Forest Service also evaluated the following alternatives: A “No Action; No Grazing” alternative which would discontinue domestic livestock grazing in the analysis area. B “Continue Current Management” alternative which would continue existing management. Based upon the effects of the alternatives, the responsible official will decide whether to continue authorizing livestock grazing in the RPAA and, if so, under what terms and conditions.

iv Rangeland Management Plan for the Red Parks Analysis Area Environmental Assessment

CHAPTER 1 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION Introduction The Forest Service has prepared this Environmental Assessment (EA) in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other relevant Federal and State laws and regulations. This EA discloses the possible direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts that may result from the proposed action and alternatives to the proposed action. It provides the responsible official with the information necessary to make an informed decision. The decision will be documented in a Decision Notice (DN) accompanying the final EA. This chapter describes the proposed action, the area and scope, the purpose and need for action, direction from the Routt National Forest Revised Land and Resource Management Plan, as amended, the decisions to be made, public involvement, the key issues associated with the proposed action, and other environmental and social concerns. Additional documentation, including more detailed analyses of project-area resources, may be found in the project administrative record located at the Hahns Peak/Bears Ears Ranger District Office in Steamboat Springs, Colorado. Document Structure The Forest Service has prepared this Environmental Assessment in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other relevant Federal and State laws and regulations. This Environmental Assessment discloses the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts that would result from the proposed action and alternatives. The document is organized into four parts: Introduction: This section includes information on the history of the proposal, the purpose of and need for the analysis, and the agency’s proposal for achieving that purpose and need. This section also details how the Forest Service informed the public of the proposal and how the public responded. Comparison of the No Action Alternative and the Proposed Action: This section provides a more detailed description of the agency’s proposed action as well as alternative methods for achieving the stated purpose. Additional alternatives were not developed because no significant issues were raised by the public and other agencies. This discussion also includes possible design criteria and mitigation measures. Finally, this section provides a summary table of the environmental consequences associated with each alternative. Environmental Consequences: This section describes the environmental effects of implementing the proposed action and no action alternative. This analysis is organized by resource area, i.e. (rangeland vegetation, recreation, wildlife). Within each section, the existing condition is described first, followed by the environmental consequences of the other alternatives. Agencies and Persons Consulted: This section provides a list of preparers and agencies consulted during the development of the environmental assessment. Additional documentation, including more detailed analyses of project-area resources, may be found in the project planning record located at the Hahn’s Peak/Bears Ears Ranger District Office in Steamboat Springs, Colorado.

______5

6 Rangeland Management Plan for the Red Parks Analysis Area Environmental Assessment

Background Livestock grazing within the analysis area began back in the early 1900s. Historically these allotments have always been designated as sheep grazing allotments. In the 1930s this analysis area was divided up into approximately nine individual allotments, with each running one band of sheep. Rangeland managers determined that the permitted livestock numbers were more than the range was capable of supporting, without causing severe degradation of the rangeland resource. Dramatic steps were taken in the 1950s to aid in the recovery of rangelands, which included the removal of 400 acres from grazing and treatment of dense sagebrush communities in Big Red Park. Since the 1960s these allotments have been combined to form larger allotments, followed by large reductions in livestock numbers more capable of meeting Forest Plan direction. Most recently the Farwell Mountain allotment was combined with Big Red Park due to a severe blow-down that made a large portion of capable acres inaccessible by livestock, further reducing livestock numbers from 2 bands to 1 band of sheep. Current rangeland conditions within the RPAA have improved over the years to the point that those areas identified in the early years as being in poor rangeland condition have improved and are now in fair to good rangeland condition (historical records from Hahns Peak/Bears Ears Ranger District 2210 Range Allotment folders).

Table 1. Shows how each allotment is currently permitted.

Livestock Season of NFS Acres (total Capable Allotment Class/Numbers Use AUMs NFS) Acres* 1200 ewe/lamb 7/4-9/25 994 Big Red Park 2 horses 7/4-9/25 7 20,126 8,620 1000 ewe/lamb 7/6-9/15 710 Little Red Park 2 horses 7/6-9/15 6 4,101 3,521 Middle Fork-Circle 1250 ewe/lamb 7/6-9/5 764 Bar 2 horses 7/6-9/5 5 8,714 6,726 1000 ewe/lamb 7/13-9/5 542 Summit Creek 2 horses 7/13-9/5 5 5,835 2,518 Total 3,033 38,776 21,385

*Capability -the potential of an area of land to produce resources, supply goods and services, and allow resource uses under an assumed set of management practices and at a given level of management intensity. Capability depends upon current conditions and site conditions such as climate, slope, landform, soils, and geology. It also includes the application of management practices, such as silviculture, or protection from fires, insects and disease. Proposed Action The proposed action is to continue to permit livestock grazing on four allotments within the Red Parks analysis area under an adaptive management strategy (Forest Service Handbook [FSH] 2209.13, Chapter 90; Quimby 2006) that will meet or move toward Forest Plan desired conditions. The proposal includes the following:
Livestock could enter the allotments as early as July 1 st and remain no later than September 30 th as long as range readiness is reached prior to the entry date and that allowable vegetation use guidelines and other design criteria are not exceeded prior to the removal date.

______7

Dividing the Middle Fork-Circle Bar allotment and combining portions of this allotment with the adjacent Little Red Park and Summit Creek allotments thus creating two larger allotments.
Substituting 100 cow calf pairs for the band of sheep formerly permitted on the Summit Creek allotment, and herding the cattle through the Big Red, Little Red and Circle Bar allotments in a deferred rotation. The cattle grazing would be authorized on a trial basis under a temporary permit and not exceed three years. Management of the cattle would be monitored during this three year period. Approval of extending the cattle grazing beyond the three year trial is contingent on allowable use objectives on vegetation and design criteria for other resources being met.
Stabilize a headcut from Wildlife Pit #1 going into King Solomon Creek The allotment management plans (AMPs) for the analysis area, would be revised and ensure consistency with the Forest Plan. The AMPs will document planned livestock and vegetation management actions that will integrate the management of the rangeland resources for livestock grazing with rangeland condition maintenance and improvement, soil and watershed protection, and wildlife habitat protection. Current management of livestock is defined by a specific number of animals for a specified period of time. There is little flexibility to change the grazing management plan when necessary without going through detailed analysis each time a change is proposed. Adaptive management looks for a specific response to a management action (i.e., grazing yearling cattle instead of sheep to shift selection of forage from tall forbs to grass in order to increase cover of forbs). If monitoring showed that the vegetation was responding favorably then grazing would continue using that strategy. If monitoring showed an undesirable response, then another action could take place, like shortening the time that livestock are in a pasture or putting up electric fence to rest portions of an allotment. This approach can improve both economic efficiency and response to needs on the ground by providing the ability to change management immediately when a desired response is not realized. Area and Scope The analysis area contains approximately 38,776 acres of NFS land and includes four allotments. The affected rangeland allotments are as follows: Big Red Park, Summit Creek, Little Red Park, and Middle Fork Circle Bar. There are 169 acres of private in-holdings in the Big Red Park allotment. This property is neither owned nor leased by the permittee and is not included in the management of the analysis area. The Forest Plan identifies management area prescriptions within the Routt National Forest. These management areas indicate emphasis for a variety of resources, but do not necessarily exclude other uses. For example, an emphasis on Forest Vegetation does not preclude recreation or motorized use. Table 2 depicts the percentage of management area prescriptions in the RPAA. Figure 1 depicts the prescriptions and how they overlay the RPAA.

8 Rangeland Management Plan for the Red Parks Analysis Area Environmental Assessment

Table 2. Management Area Prescriptions in the RPAA. Big Red Little Red Middle Fork Summit Management Area Percent (%) Park Park Circle Bar Creek 1.32 Non-motorized backcountry recreation 3,819 1,999 15% 3.4 Scenic Rivers Designated and Eligible 468 1% 4.3 Dispersed Recreation 557 274 2% 5.11 General Forest, Forest Vegetation Emphasis 8,934 2,952 2,258 36% 5.13 Forest Products 6,898 328 6,180 3,543 44% 7.1 Residential/Forest Interface 264 284 1% Total 20,119 4101 8712 5,826 38,758

Figure 1. Management Prescription Areas in the RPAA

______9

The analysis area is comprised of approximately 15,399 acres (40%) of roadless area. The Forest Service 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule is a conservation policy limiting road construction in certain areas, therefore limiting environmental impacts in designated areas of public land. The Red Parks analysis area contains roadless areas located in the Big Red Park and Middle Fork Circle Bar allotments. Livestock grazing is permitted within these roadless areas. Table 3 depicts the percentage of roadless area contained in the RPAA. Figure 2 depicts the roadless area and how it overlays the RPAA.

Table 3. Roadless Area in the RPAA

Allotment Roadless Name Total Acres

Big Red Park Dome Peak 14,104

Middle Fork Circle Bar Dome Peak 1295 Total 15,399

Figure 2. Roadless Area in the RPAA

10 Rangeland Management Plan for the Red Parks Analysis Area Environmental Assessment

Purpose and Need for Action The purpose of this analysis is to determine if livestock grazing is occurring in a manner that moves toward objectives and desired conditions described in the Routt National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, 1997 Revision (Forest Plan). This analysis is needed on these allotments to evaluate consistency with the following: • Congressional intent to allow grazing on suitable lands where consistent with other multiple use goals and objectives. (Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960, Wilderness Act of 1964, Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974, Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, National Forest Management Act of 1976) • Forest Service policy to make forage available to qualified livestock operators from lands suitable for grazing consistent with land management plans. (FSM 2203.1; 36 CFR 222.2 (c)) • Forest Service policy to continue contributions to the economic and social well being of people by providing opportunities for economic diversity and by promoting stability for communities that depend on rangeland resources for their livelihood. (FSM 2202.1) • Allotments contain lands identified as suitable for domestic livestock grazing in the Forest Plan; Final EIS, Appendix B (pp B-31- B-40). Continued domestic livestock grazing is consistent with the goals, objectives, standards, and guidelines of the Forest Plan (Chapter 1, pp. 9-10). One of the goals of the Forest Plan, which directs the management of lands contained within this project area, is “ecosystem management on the Routt National Forest shall provide for multiple- use outputs and the habitats and processes necessary to maintain the biological diversity found on the Forest”. Although allotment management plans (AMPs) are in place, they need to be reviewed and updated to determine their effectiveness in meeting or moving toward desired conditions. Since these AMPs pre-date the Forest Plan, there is a need to evaluate current management and ascertain whether this management continues to be consistent with Forest Plan standards, guidelines, goals, and objectives. Therefore, it is appropriate to look at these allotments for Forest Plan compliance and any new management opportunities. The purpose of this analysis is to prepare management plans that will guide livestock grazing use on these allotments. An analysis is needed to provide direction on how authorized grazing should be managed to meet Forest Plan standards and guidelines and to comply with laws, regulations and policy. Decisions made based on the analysis may result in permit modification(s) and will be documented in the AMPs. This action responds to the goals and objectives outlined in the Forest Plan, and helps move the analysis area towards desired conditions described in that plan. Decision Framework The District Ranger is the responsible official who will decide whether or not to continue to authorize livestock grazing on all or portions of the four allotments in the RPAA, and if so, under what terms and conditions to meet, or move toward meeting, Forest Plan objectives in a timely manner.

______11

Management on each allotment is implemented through an allotment-specific AMP based on the alternative selected in the NEPA Decision. The AMP is the implementation document which describes the management objectives and planned actions to accomplish those objectives. This environmental assessment (EA) is not a decision document. This EA discloses the environmental consequences of implementing the proposed action and alternatives to that action. The Forest Service decision will be stated and explained in a Decision Notice document. This EA focuses on National Forest System (NFS) lands administered by the Hahns Peak/Bears Ears Ranger District. It does not evaluate livestock grazing activities on other allotments, or other Ranger Districts. This EA does evaluate cumulative effects associated with livestock grazing on both the NFS lands and to the degree feasible, on private land in-holdings. Public Involvement The analysis was listed in the Schedule of Proposed Actions from October 2009 until the present. The analysis was provided to the public and other agencies for comment during scoping April 4 through May 4, 2010. In addition, as part of the public involvement process the agency met with the permittees who are authorized to graze the allotments in the analysis area. Issues Introduction The Forest Service separated the issues into two groups: significant and non-significant issues. Significant issues were defined as those directly or indirectly caused by implementing the proposed action. Non-significant issues were identified as those: 1) outside the scope of the proposed action; 2) already decided by law, regulation, Forest Plan, or other higher level decision; 3) irrelevant to the decision to be made; or 4) conjectural and not supported by scientific or factual evidence. The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) NEPA regulations require this delineation in Sec. 1501.7, “…identify and eliminate from detailed study the issues which are not significant or which have been covered by prior environmental review (Sec. 1506.3…” Significant Issues No significant issues were identified for this analysis.

Non-Significant Issues The following non-significant issues were identified and addressed in this analysis. 1. Change in class of livestock : Concerns include degradation of riparian areas, and ability to keep cattle in permitted grazing areas. 2. Conflicts between livestock on/off dates and recreation : Concerns include livestock entering allotments during July 4 th holiday and extending dates into muzzleloading season. 3. Domestic sheep grazing proximity to Rock Mountain bighorn sheep habitat : Design criteria should be modified to minimize potential contact between bighorn sheep and domestic sheep. 4. Allotment boundaries lines : Concern of impacts to riparian areas where allotment boundary lines follow stream channels.

12 Rangeland Management Plan for the Red Parks Analysis Area Environmental Assessment

CHAPTER 2 ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION Introduction This section describes and compares the alternatives considered for the RPAA. It includes a description of each alternative considered. This section also presents the alternatives in comparative form, defining the differences between each alternative, and providing a basis for choice by the decision maker and review by the public. Other information used to compare the alternatives is based upon the design of the alternative (i.e., grazing a pasture for a short time each year versus resting the pasture from grazing) and some of the information is based upon the environmental, social and economic effects of implementing each alternative (i.e., the cost of improving bank stability in riparian areas by fencing them out versus more intensive herding of livestock). Alternatives Considered Alternative 1: No Action-No Grazing Under Alternative 1, Forest Plan standards and guidelines would still apply for vegetation management; however, no domestic livestock grazing would be authorized. Alternative 2: Continue Current Management Under Alternative 2, livestock would continue to be authorized under current management guidelines. Alternative 3: Proposed Action – Livestock Grazing using Adaptive Management The proposed action is to continue to authorize livestock grazing by incorporating adaptive management strategies in the RPAA. Adaptive management is defined as a process where land managers implement management practices, guided by Design Criteria, which are designed to meet Forest Plan standards and guidelines, and would likely achieve the desired conditions in a timely manner. However, if monitoring shows that desired conditions are not being met, or if movement toward achieving the desired conditions in an acceptable timeframe is not occurring, then an alternate set of management actions, as described and evaluated under this NEPA analysis would be implemented to achieve the desired results. All adaptive actions will be within the scope of effects described in this document, or a supplemental NEPA document and decision will be prepared as appropriate. Design criteria are the constraints or sideboards to the proposed management. They specify, from a management perspective, what is allowed and within what limits. The proposed action is designed to improve trends in riparian condition, increase species composition and diversity in upland vegetation, and sustain or improve habitat for aquatic and terrestrial species by revising the current livestock grazing system. Monitoring would be used to determine what adjustments are needed to ensure adequate progress toward desired conditions. Monitoring methods are discussed on page 21.

______13

Alternatives Considered in Detail Alternative 1 – No Action (No Permitted Livestock Grazing) This alternative proposes to discontinue authorization of livestock grazing within the RPAA. Grazing permits that currently exist for Summit Creek, Little Red Park, Middle Fork Circle Bar, and Big Red Park would be canceled under the time period provisions of FSH 2209.13. The affected allotments would be permanently closed by a separate decision signed by the forest supervisor. Under alternative 1 there would be no direct effects to soils or vegetation from the sheep grazing and trailing that currently occurs on an annual basis. There would be no direct impact from livestock on stream banks in those areas accessible to sheep. There would be no grazing of riparian shrubs (mostly willow) by sheep. Vegetation would continue to be managed toward desired condition including the treatment and eradication of noxious weeds where possible. This alternative would eliminate livestock grazing as a resource tool, therefore limiting flexibility when responding to annual changes in the rangeland resource. There would be no revenue from livestock grazing fees but administration costs would continue.

Alternative 2 – Continue Current Management The permittee's grazing practices will be in compliance with all of the applicable standards and guidelines from the Forest Plan. These standards and guidelines are a part of the current livestock grazing permits.

Table 4. Current permitted use.

Livestock Season of NFS Acres (total Allotment Class/Numbers Use AUMs NFS) Capable Acres* 1200 ewe/lamb 7/4-9/25 994 Big Red Park 2 horses 7/4-9/25 7 20,126 8,620 1000 ewe/lamb 7/6-9/15 710 Little Red Park 2 horses 7/6-9/15 6 4,101 3,521 Middle Fork- 1250 ewe/lamb 7/6-9/5 764 Circle Bar 2 horses 7/6-9/5 5 8,714 6,726 1000 ewe/lamb 7/13-9/5 542 Summit Creek 2 horses 7/13-9/5 5 5,835 2,518 Total 3,033 38,776 21,385 Current Livestock Grazing Permit Terms and Conditions Term Grazing Permit Terms and Conditions: 1. Allowable forage use by livestock and wild herbivores on upland sites is not more than 40%. 2. In riparian areas, residual forage will average six inches in height. 3. Remove livestock from the grazing unit or allotment when further utilization on key areas will exceed allowable use criteria in the forest plan or allotment management plan. 4. Sheep will be salted using loose salt; the use of wooden troughs, etc. is not authorized. 5. Sheep will not be bedded on the same bedground for more than one night. Bedgrounds should be on harder sites such as ridges, outcrops, etc. where possible. Sheep should not 14 Rangeland Management Plan for the Red Parks Analysis Area Environmental Assessment

be bedded within 300 yards of any running stream, spring, lake, trail, campground, or picnic ground. There may be some exceptions due to topography on the allotment. 6. The permittee will inform the Forest Service five days in advance of turning livestock onto the forest, and at the same time, provide an exact count of the number of livestock entering the forest. 7. When an animal covered by this permit dies from any contagious or infectious disease, the carcass must be disposed of in a safe manner and place. The method and location of such disposal must be approved by the Forest Service prior to actual disposal. If an animal dies or is killed from any other cause, the carcass must be removed at least 100 yards and out of sight of any recreational facility system road or trail, or any live or standing water, within 24 hours of discovery, or notification by forest personnel. 8. Camps will be kept clean, litter picked up, and all garbage hauled out or burned. Burying of garbage is prohibited. Burning of garbage is allowed as long as all fire restrictions and guidelines are observed. 9. All fires built for any purpose by the person(s) in charge of livestock covered by this permit will not be left unattended and will be completely extinguished. Each camp must be equipped with a serviceable shovel and ax. During periods the forest has enacted fire restrictions, these restrictions will be observed. 10. The permittee will repair all damage other than ordinary wear and tear to roads and trails in the forest caused by the permittee in the exercise of the privileges granted by this permit. Cooperative trail maintenance opportunities may exist. 11. Use of closed roads and use of motorized equipment in areas designated as non- motorized requires a separate road use permit. This permit must be obtained prior to use and is available through this office. 12. The Routt National Forest is enforcing the Rocky Mountain Regional Weed Free Products Order. Any hay or straw used in association with this permit will be certified and tagged as being free of noxious weeds and/or seeds as directed by this order.

Alternative 3 – Proposed Action Proposed Management The following table summarizes the proposed numbers and season of use following the combination of the Summit Creek allotment with the Little Red Park and Circle Bar allotments:

Table 5. Proposed permitted use

Livestock NFS Acres (total Allotment Season of Use Capable Acres Class/Numbers AUMs NFS) 934 ewe/lamb 7/04-9/30 100 cow/calf 8/22-9/30 994 Big Red Park 2 horses 7/04-9/30 7 20,126 8,620 1109 ewe/lamb 7/01-9/30 100 cow/calf 7/15-8/22 1,175 Little Red Park 2 horses 7/01-9/30 7 8,440 7,614 855 ewe/lamb 7/01-9/30 100 cow/calf 7/01-7/15 841 Circle Bar 2 horses 7/1-9/30 7 10,210 5,151 Total 3,031 38,776 21,385

______15

Term Grazing Permit Terms and Conditions: 1. Allowable forage use by livestock and wild herbivores on upland sites is not more than 40%. 2. In riparian areas, residual forage will average six inches in height. 3. Remove livestock from the grazing unit or allotment when further utilization on key areas will exceed allowable use criteria in the forest plan or allotment management plan. 4. Sheep will be salted using loose salt; the use of wooden troughs, etc. is not authorized. 5. Sheep and cattle must be salted at least ¼ mile from any naturally occurring riparian area where feasible. 6. Sheep will not be bedded on the same bedground for more than one night. Bedgrounds should be on harder sites such as ridges, outcrops, etc. where possible. Sheep should not be bedded within 300 yards of any running stream, spring, lake, trail, campground, or picnic ground. There may be some exceptions due to topography on the allotment. 7. The permittee will inform the Forest Service five days in advance of turning livestock onto the forest, and at the same time, provide an exact count of the number of livestock entering the forest. 8. When an animal covered by this permit dies from any contagious or infectious disease, the carcass must be disposed of in a safe manner and place. The method and location of such disposal must be approved by the Forest Service prior to actual disposal. If an animal dies or is killed from any other cause, the carcass must be removed at least 100 yards and out of sight of any recreational facility system road or trail, or any live or standing water, within 24 hours of discovery, or notification by forest personnel. 9. Camps will be kept clean, litter picked up, and all garbage hauled out or burned. Burying of garbage is prohibited. Burning of garbage is allowed as long as all fire restrictions and guidelines are observed. 10. All fires built for any purpose by the person(s) in charge of livestock covered by this permit will not be left unattended and will be completely extinguished. Each camp must be equipped with a serviceable shovel and ax. During periods the forest has enacted fire restrictions, these restrictions will be observed. 11. The permittee will repair all damage other than ordinary wear and tear to roads and trails in the forest caused by the permittee in the exercise of the privileges granted by this permit. Cooperative trail maintenance opportunities may exist. 12. Use of closed roads and use of motorized equipment in areas designated as non- motorized requires a separate road use permit. This permit must be obtained prior to use and is available through this office. 13. The Routt National Forest is enforcing the Colorado Weed Act. Any hay or straw used in association with this permit will be certified and tagged as being free of noxious weeds and/or seeds as directed by this order. Design Criteria - Livestock Grazing Management - Terms & Conditions

1. Manage sheep grazing for a once over pattern to avoid heavy utilization and trampling of the tall-forbs and young aspen in the aspen tall-forb community.

16 Rangeland Management Plan for the Red Parks Analysis Area Environmental Assessment

2. Manage cattle for a deferred rotation. Cattle would rotate through the allotments in a different pattern in each of three years. 3. Ensure that the more remote areas of the allotments are being used and not the most convenient. This will spread grazing pressure over the allotment rather than concentrate it in higher quality areas. 4. Sheepherders must know where the allotment boundaries are and stay within them. 5. As an average over time, plants would be given the opportunity to reach near full growth prior to grazing (deferment) or to attain substantial regrowth following grazing. 6. In areas where aspen regeneration is occurring as the result of natural or prescribed fire or mechanical treatment, permittees would be instructed to avoid the area until aspen saplings are established. If necessary, the permittee may need to fence the regeneration area using either electric or permanent fencing until such time that the aspen growth is sufficiently tall (normally greater than 4.5 feet on average) before the area may be re- opened to livestock grazing. Design Criteria-Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Species (TES) 1. TES and Raptors : If specific impacts from the permitted activities to raptor species or threatened, endangered, and sensitive species and/or their habitats (e.g. breeding sites) are identified, then management will be adjusted as necessary in annual operating plans to reduce or eliminate those impacts (i.e. no salt placed below northern goshawk nests). Southern Rockies Lynx Amendment (SRLA) Goal : “Conserve the Canada lynx.” All relevant SRLA objectives, standards, and guidelines are addressed below: 2. SRLA Objective: “Maintain or restore lynx habitat connectivity in and between LAUs, and in linkage areas.” Livestock Management: The following objectives and guidelines apply to grazing projects in lynx habitat in lynx analysis units (LAUs) in occupied habitat. They do not apply to linkage areas. 3. SLRA Objective: “ Manage livestock grazing to be compatible with improving or maintaining lynx habitat.” 4. SRLA Guideline: “In fire- and harvest-created openings, livestock grazing should be managed so impacts do not prevent shrubs and trees from regenerating.” 5. SRLA Guideline: “In aspen stands, livestock grazing should be managed to contribute to the long-term health and sustainability of aspen.” 6. SRLA Guideline: “In riparian areas and willow carrs, livestock grazing should be managed to contribute to maintaining or achieving a preponderance of mid- or late- seral stages, similar to conditions that would have occurred under historic disturbance regimes.” 7. SRLA Guideline: “In shrub-steppe habitats, livestock grazing should be managed in the elevation ranges of forested lynx habitat in LAUs, to contribute to maintaining or achieving a preponderance of mid- or late-seral stages, similar to conditions that would have occurred under historic disturbance regimes.”

______17

Design Criteria – Rock Mountain bighorn sheep A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was developed between the Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW) and USFS Medicine Bow-Routt National Forests in 2007 that outlines a feasible strategy for reducing the potential for the interaction of domestic and wild sheep. This MOU specifies the following: A. Forest Service Shall: 1. Assist in the monitoring of rangeland conditions in the release area as they are able. Any efforts and funding for any habitat modification that might be identified will be documented within separate agreements citing the appropriate authorities for the exchange of funds. 2. Require that the current and future grazing permittees manage the sheep on the FS allotments in order to minimize potential contacts and conflict between the wild and domestic sheep. The permittee will be required to have at least one guard dog with the herd. 3. Inform USFS domestic sheep permittees through the annual operating plan of the release and advise them of the agreed-upon protocol for handling any native/domestic sheep contact. 4. Inform CDOW immediately of any bighorn sheep sightings within sheep allotment boundaries in the Parks Range. B. CDOW Shall: 1. Monitor the condition of occupied ranges in an attempt to determine appropriate population levels. The CDOW may also identify opportunities for habitat modification with the goal of increasing the carrying capacity, maintaining existing habitat, or helping to facilitate separation of the species. 2. Consult with the USFS if and when additional releases of Rocky Mountain Bighorn sheep will occur at this site. 3. Not recommend discontinuing domestic sheep grazing on currently active sheep allotment on National Forest System lands within or adjacent to the Parks Range north of Highway 40 and east of the National Forest System road 129. They may recommend that currently vacant domestic sheep and goat allotments be retained in vacant status. 4. Ear tag all bighorn sheep released upon capture for easy identification. A portion of the bighorn rams will be radio collared to establish use patterns and monitor movement. A portion of the younger rams within the herd will be targeted for capture and collaring every other year. Younger rams are anticipated to be more likely to expand beyond the existing use areas, than mature rams. 5. Provide regular updates to the USFS about data collected in this process. 6. Develop a management plan for the Zirkel bighorn sheep as the band of sheep becomes established.

18 Rangeland Management Plan for the Red Parks Analysis Area Environmental Assessment

Recommended best management practices for grazing domestic sheep on public lands where contact with bighorn sheep may occur were developed in October 2009 by the United States Animal Health Association Joint Working Group Committee of Wildlife Diseases & Committee on Sheep and Goats. The BMPs are as follows: 1. Use pregnant domestic ewes or ewe-lamb pairs (i.e., ewes with lambs) for grazing near occupied bighorn sheep habitats; avoid grazing open ewes, yearling replacement ewes and ewes that have lost their lambs because ewes in estrus attract bighorn rams. 2. Recommend instruction/training and supervision for ranch (i.e. camp tenders and sheepherders) and agency staff members and frequent instructions to the sheepherders concerning recognizing bighorn sheep and allowable methods for preventing contact between bighorn sheep and domestic bands. 3. Place more experienced, informed, and responsible sheepherders on allotments located nearest to bighorn sheep habitats. 4. Place mature and effective guard dogs and herding dogs with domestic sheep (at least 2 of each per band). Female dogs in heat should not be placed on allotments. 5. Maintain an appropriate ratio of marker sheep within bands; depending on local needs and conditions, ratios should be no fewer than 1 marker for every 100 adult sheep. More markers may be required when dictated by local conditions. 6. Place bells on at least 1 in every 100 mature ewes to serve as warning, and for identification and location of sheep relative to other sheep. 7. Remove sick or physically disabled domestic sheep from the band. 8. Aquatics: If breeding sites are found for any of the sensitive amphibian species and it is determined that the proposed actions would negatively affect the site, then operations would cease in that area until site specific mitigations can be implemented.

9. Botany: If specific impacts from the permitted activities to threatened, endangered, and sensitive species and/or their habitats are identified, then management will be adjusted as necessary in annual operating plans to avoid or reduce those impacts (USFS 1998). If at a later date, other populations of threatened, endangered or sensitive plant species are found within the analysis area and it is determined that they are negatively affected by the proposed action, then appropriate measures would be taken to reduce impacts to the occupied habitat and population. Livestock shall not be trailed through or allowed to congregate within 300 feet of any current or future populations. Exclosures for livestock would be constructed, if needed, to maintain viable populations. 10. Cultural Resources-Discovery and Education: All persons associated with operations under this authorization must be informed that any objects or sites of cultural, paleontological, or scientific value such as historic or prehistoric resources, graves or grave markers, human remains, ruins, cabins, rock art, fossils, or artifacts shall not be damaged, destroyed, removed, moved, or disturbed. If in connection with operations under this authorization any of the above resources are encountered, the proponent shall immediately suspend all activities in the immediate vicinity of the discovery that might further disturb such materials and notify the Medicine Bow-Routt

______19

National Forest authorized officer of the findings. The discovery must be protected until notified in writing to proceed by the authorized officer (36 CFR 800.110 & 112, 43 CFR 10.4). Design Criteria The following design criteria are required in order to prevent effects to significant cultural resources: • All National Register of Historic Places listed eligible or unevaluated sites that could be adversely affected by project activities would be removed from the Area of Potential Effects. The Project Archaeologist and range staff would design protection measures to remove the sites from the Area of Potential Effects. These protection measures would take into consideration the site type, environmental setting, and anticipated effects of grazing activities. • Previously undiscovered sites encountered during the course of project activities would be avoided until they can be evaluated by an archaeologist. If affected properties are discovered after project activities are completed, the Forest would document any damage and consult with SHPO and Council pursuant to 800.13(b). 11. Recreation: To minimize potential effects of livestock grazing on the recreation resource, the following need to be considered: • Season of Use – Since the proposed action is to allow sheep to enter allotments before the July 4 th holiday, livestock operations should be kept from the popular dispersed camping areas along the open FS roads. In the 4.3 MA, no grazing until after the July 4 th holiday weekend, annually. • Extending the season into September – Information needs to be made available to the public so that hunters are made aware of possible encounters with livestock grazing during archery and muzzle loading seasons. This can be done by posting trailheads and other information signs for the first 2-3 years of implementation. Proposed Range Improvement Restoration There is one range improvement that is not functioning properly and has created a headcut going into King Solomon Creek. In addition to the proposed change in livestock management the following action is proposed to stabilize the headcut. Wildlife pit #1 downstream of Forest Road 503 adjacent to King Solomon Creek was built in the 1980's for livestock watering, and to provide habitat for sandhill cranes and waterfowl. Water flowing out of the pit into King Solomon Creek has created a 2-3 foot high headcut for a length of approximately 10 feet. The headcut threatens to migrate through the downstream bank of the pit causing loss of storage capability of the pit. The proposed action is to stabilize the headcut to maintain pit function, and stabilize streambanks that have been affected by the headcut along King Solomon Creek. Stable streambanks will: 1) improve water quality by reducing erosion and sedimentation during high flow events, 2) improve aquatic habitat by reducing sedimentation, 3) maintain stream width/depth ratios that will maintain and improve stream health, and 4) improve riparian ecosystem condition by allowing for riparian revegetation.

20 Rangeland Management Plan for the Red Parks Analysis Area Environmental Assessment

A small track-hoe could be used to create a smooth transitional drop for water flowing out of the pit into to King Solomon Creek. The transitional drop would then be stabilized with 12-18 inch rock and native vegetation (willows and sedge mats) to prevent further headcutting. Beetle kill logs are available to stabilize the remaining 20-30 feet of streambank adjacent to the headcut. A log wing deflector placed in the stream just above the project site would direct flows into the center of the stream and away from the unstable banks and project area. All necessary permits including US Army Corps 404 approval would be obtained prior to implementation. Fencing out the project area for two to five years following bank stabilization would ensure that livestock grazing would not inhibit recovery of the site. Any equipment used would be free of fluid leaks (hydraulic fluid etc) and cleaned for noxious weeds. Work would occur after July 15, 2010 to ensure low flows and minimize disturbance to nesting sandhill cranes. Comparison of Alternatives This section provides a summary of the effects of implementing each alternative. Information in the table is focused on activities and effects where different levels of effects or outputs can be distinguished quantitatively or qualitatively among alternatives.

Table 6. Comparison of Alternatives

Continue Current No Action Management Proposed Action

Alternative 1 Alternative 3 Alternative 2

Yes Yes Yes Consistency with Forest Plan

No Yes Yes Meet Purpose and Need?

Monitoring Introduction Monitoring and evaluation leads to improved management and informed management decisions. Monitoring helps determine how the Forest Plan and NEPA Decisions are being implemented, whether AMP implementation is achieving desired outcomes, and whether assumptions made in the planning process are valid. Monitoring and evaluation are key elements in adaptive management to determine if management is effective in moving toward desired conditions within the appropriate timeframes. Budgets and personnel will determine what limitations will be placed on rangeland monitoring activities. The following monitoring methods would be used solely or in combination as needed. The technique and methods are described in: USFS Rocky Mountain Region Rangeland Analysis and Management Training Guide 1996, Rosgen 1996, Rosgen 2001, Winward 2000, Harrelson et al. 1994. Permittee participation is strongly encouraged prior to turn-out, during the grazing season, and post grazing season to understand the location of monitoring sites. In addition the types of indicators that will be evaluated and overall goal of the monitoring program.

______21

Common Monitoring Techniques Implementation Monitoring: Implementation monitoring is short-term monitoring and evaluates whether livestock management is being applied as prescribed. The Forest Service conducts this type of monitoring through administration of the grazing authorization (permit). Administration includes inspection of the analysis area. If an action Alternative is selected, the Forest Service would evaluate whether livestock management was in compliance with the grazing authorization, including the AMP and AOI, which are part of the authorization. Rangeland Readiness : Indicators used to determine rangeland readiness are soil and vegetation conditions. Rangeland is generally ready for grazing when soil has become firm after winter and spring precipitation, and when plants have reached the defined stage of growth at which grazing may begin under the specific management plan without long-lasting damage. Allowable Use Guidelines: These guidelines are designed to ensure that short-term effects of grazing activities are able to provide for the long-term health and sustainability of rangeland resources. There are a variety of allowable use guidelines that may be employed on any key area depending on the resource concerns. The most commonly used include stubble height, residual stubble height (occurring at the end of the grazing season or the end of the growing season, whichever occurs later), riparian shrub utilization, stream-bank impacts, and so forth. Production-Utilization Surveys: Production of forage in pounds per acre can be measured by using a control (utilization cage) which protects vegetation from being grazed. Samples of vegetation can be collected from inside and outside the cage and a comparison made of each to determine what percent of the forage has been utilized during any period of time. This method can be used to determine percent utilization by weight at various locations and vegetation types throughout a management unit or an allotment. This information also indicates where animals are concentrating their foraging. Adjustments in management can be made based on whether forage is over-utilized or underutilized.

Riparian Monitoring Circle Bar Basin, Upper King Solomon Creek tributary in the Little Red Park allotment, and Silver City Creek in the Big Red Park allotment all show signs of past downcutting, widening, and bank instability. These streams are showing signs of recovery with establishment of sedges and other hydric vegetation that act to stabilize streambanks and trap sediment to narrow stream channels. There is a concern that changing the class of livestock use to include cattle could hinder recovery and increase bank instability through bank trampling and grazing of sedges and other hydric species critical for maintaining stable banks and stream health. In order for recovery to continue and riparian and stream health to remain on an upward trend, the long-term and annual monitoring items listed below are recommended to be included in the Proposed Action. Key Areas: Circle Bar Basin, Upper King Solomon Creek near Little Red Park, Silver City Creek in Big Red Park and Summit Creek above and below where it crosses County Road 129. Long-term Monitoring 1. Photo Points: Establish photo points at each of the key areas to visually identify changes in bank stability, vegetative cover and composition, and stream channel condition. a. First set of photos should be taken pre-livestock grazing the first season that cattle are grazed on the allotments. b. Subsequent photos should be taken when possible, but at least once a year.

22 Rangeland Management Plan for the Red Parks Analysis Area Environmental Assessment

c. At a minimum, photos should be repeated in September three years after cattle grazing is initiated. 2. Bank stability: Baseline bank stability measurements should be taken at each of the key areas prior to the initiation of cattle grazing. Subsequent bank stability measurements should be taken in the third year at the end of the grazing season. 3. Greenline: The vegetative composition of the greenline plays a key role in stabilizing streambanks and resisting the erosive forces of high water flows. a. Greenline composition should be measured prior to the initiation of cattle grazing in each of the key areas. b. Greenline composition should be measured three years after the initiation of cattle grazing. A decline of more than 15 percent in the greenline rating at the end of the monitoring period would indicate unacceptable impacts from cattle grazing. 4. Cumulative width/depth ratios: Bank alteration from livestock could result in widening of the stream channel and a decline in stream health. Measuring multiple width/depth ratios and to calculate an average will help determine if there has been an overall change in stream morphology. a. Measure ten cross-sections at riffle cross-over locations in each key area prior to the initiation of cattle grazing. b. At the end of three years, measure ten riffle cross-sections in the same areas to determine and average width/depth ratio and compare to pre-cattle grazing data. Annual Monitoring 1. Bank trampling/alteration: Annual bank alteration monitoring will help to determine if livestock grazing is affecting bank stability. 2009 photos and field surveys indicate little to no livestock bank trampling has occurred. In the absence of measurements, the current degree of bank trampling is estimated to be zero to five percent. This low percent of current bank alteration is believed to be one reason the key areas are continuing to recover from past impacts. a. Bank trampling/alteration measurements should be taken in the first year prior to cattle grazing to determine a baseline in each key area. b. Subsequent bank trampling measurements should be taken at the end of each grazing season in each of the key areas. c. Per the Region 2 Rangeland Analysis and Management Training Guide, bank alteration should not exceed 20 percent in any one year. Alteration of 15-20 percent should be compared to photo points to see if noticeable changes in stream channel condition and bank stability are occurring. 2. Sedge stubble height: Sedge stubble height measurements will determine the extent to which livestock grazing is affecting sedge vigor, ability to trap sediments to continue to narrow the channel, and maintain resistance to peak flows. a. Stubble height should be measured prior to the initiation of cattle grazing to determine potential effects of wildlife and other species on sedge utilization. b. Stubble height should be measured annually at the end of the grazing season to determine if adequate stubble is present to maintain plant vigor and as an indicator of riparian vegetative use by livestock. c. Per the R2 Rangeland Analysis and Management Training Guide, and Watershed Conservation Practices handbook (FSH 2509.25, see Appendix B), average stubble height should be six inches or greater at the end of the grazing season.

______23

CHAPTER 3 EXISTING CONDITION AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES Introduction This section summarizes the physical, biological, social and economic environments of the project area and the potential changes to those environments due to implementation of the alternatives. Cumulative effects describe the collective past, present and reasonably foreseeable actions conducted within or near the RPAA. Individually these actions may have relatively little impact to the environment, but when combined with the rest of the known past, present, and proposed actions, the impacts could be magnified. The analysis also includes social and economic effects. The area of influence of effects is not limited to the RPAA or NFS lands, but also includes private land. Assessment of existing condition assumes livestock grazing as an ongoing activity. Livestock grazing has been documented on these allotments since the 1920’s. Rangeland and Forest Vegetation Existing Condition The analysis area is represented by a wide variety of vegetation types. These types include: aspen/tall forbs, aspen/grass, grass/forb, sagebrush/grass, conifer with and without forage, riparian grassland, spruce-fir, wet and dry meadows, and willow/sedge communities. A large portion of the RPAA can be characterized as high elevation; comprised of open parks and meadows with moderate to steep aspen and conifer slopes. One exception is the Big Red Park allotment which is mainly comprised of steep slopes and conifer dominated by lodgepole pine. The open parks and meadows are comprised of sagebrush/grass and grass/forb communities which include Idaho fescue, tufted hairgrass, Kentucky bluegrass, timothy, needle and thread, and bent grass; dominant shrub species include silver sagebrush and shrubby cinquefoil; forbs species include clover, buttercup, yarrow, beardstongue, tarweed, and Northern bedstraw. The dominant understory in the aspen/tall forb-grass communities includes aspen peavine, Western yarrow, larkspur, slender wheatgrass, Idaho fescue, blue wildrye. Highly palatable forbs include: lovage/osha, sweet cicely, and cow parsnip. Currently the Routt National Forest is experiencing a Bark Beetle outbreak that is causing lodge pole pine mortality at a historically unprecedented scale and affecting the quality of transitory range. Transitory range is considered as a special short term instance where suitability occurs, for instance because of the removal of overstory vegetation (i.e. fire, harvest, disease). As conifer stands diminish in size these areas would likely transition into a more grass/forb dominant community. However, the long term site potential is considered moderate to dense canopy with little understory production. These areas would only be suitable for grazing during the lifespan of time conifers need to regain their dominance and the canopy closes back in. Desired Condition The desired condition is for rangelands to be in satisfactory condition. The desired plant community includes species composition, structure, and pattern plus desired soil characteristics based on the potential for each range site. Plant species that normally increase under poor range management practices will be limited. Noxious weeds would not be present in the desired plant

24 Rangeland Management Plan for the Red Parks Analysis Area Environmental Assessment community. Non-native invasive species, planted in the past, will probably remain, but at reduced population levels. Rangeland vegetation will be managed for a mixture of seral stages. Most of the rangelands will be in upper mid seral to late seral stages of development. Those vegetative communities in early to mid seral will be in a natural stage of ecological development and not held in a low seral status as a result of adverse grazing practices. Aspen communities are retained even at the expense of spruce/fir communities in order to promote regeneration. The understory is diverse and dominated by forbs, and to a lesser extent grasses and shrubs.

Environmental Consequences Alternative 1: No Action-No Grazing Direct Effects: There would be no direct effects to soils or vegetation from the sheep grazing and trailing that currently occurs on an annual basis. There would be no direct impact from livestock on stream banks in those areas accessible to sheep. There would be no grazing of riparian shrubs (mostly willow) by sheep. Vegetation would continue to be managed toward desired condition including the treatment and eradication of noxious weeds where possible.

Indirect Effects: The overall effect of no livestock grazing on rangeland condition would be beneficial for the first few years. Indirectly, those areas in poor to fair condition would experience increases in litter accumulation and decreases in bare ground. This matting and accumulation of dead plant material would insulate the ground, providing some water-holding capacity and a decrease in surface soil movement and erosion. The removal of livestock grazing and the activities associated with it (i.e. the presence of riders, herders, dogs, noise from sheep etc.) could change elk grazing patterns. However, this analysis area is known to experience high levels of recreational use which could deter the increase in elk and deer grazing pressure that is common with the removal of livestock; including associated livestock protection dogs and people. Recreational activities occur year round and include dispersed camping sites, motorized activities, and hiking trails. The absence of grazing by large ungulates could transition open parks and meadows from a mix of upper mid to late seral stage sagebrush/grass communities to a late seral stage community with minimal encroachment by conifers. Big Red Park sagebrush/grass community would likely move towards a more dominant sagebrush composition similar to pre 1950s, before spraying. Cumulative Effects: Past, present and reasonably foreseeable future activities in the RPAA that affect rangeland vegetation include: past spraying of sage brush; livestock grazing regimes; wildlife populations and movements; noxious weed control; road and trail development; range restoration projects, watershed improvement projects, timber sales; prescribed and wildfire; permitted and public recreational activities and human population and social dynamics. This alternative would not contribute negatively or positively to these effects. Social and Economic Resources: The elimination of livestock grazing would have negative effects on permittees and local communities dependent on their historical connection and economic input. Some ranches would likely go out of business and be sold for development. Even though it might be a small number of total jobs lost, those losses combined with other dependent economic losses in the area could have multiple effects. Ranching contributes to local economies directly through sales, job creation, support services and businesses, but also by supplying secondary markets such as hunting, fishing, food processing and sales. If the number ______25

of people recreating or working on the National Forest increases, this could bring additional money to the local economy As circumstances such as drought, recession, and higher fuel prices occur, even more agricultural producers could be forced out of business. If a substantial number of agricultural producers go out of business, people could move out of the area. Without those businesses and residents contributing to the local economy, real estate and retail sales could decrease which would create additional job losses. A chain of events such as this could be economically and socially devastating to local communities. Alternative 2: Continue Current Management Direct Effects: In general, current management has been consistent with meeting Forest Plan objectives. Suitable range would continue its upward trend towards desired condition. Sheep grazing impact to riparian areas would continue to be minimal, while continuing an upward trend towards proper functioning condition. Stream reaches that are showing signs of downcutting are likely the result of historical overgrazing. These areas are recovering under current management. In part, current management has contributed to the good condition of riparian and upland vegetative communities seen today.

The effect of current management on uplands and their associated vegetation would be to sustain some of the current conditions. This would be positive for mid- to late-seral upland plant communities and riparian plant communities with heavy willow cover, saturated soils or armored banks which are not heavily utilized. Riparian areas already in poor condition would continue to improve. Current management would not benefit early seral plant communities (often perpetuated by repetitive use). The result is that livestock stay too long in certain areas and do not provide enough use to stimulate production and vigor of the vegetation in others. The risk of noxious weed expansion or invasion would remain unchanged by current grazing pressure. Current management has limited disturbance to rangeland condition, such as increasing the percentage of bare soil, which is advantageous to the spread of noxious weeds. Noxious weeds would continue to be monitored, treated, and eradicated where possible. Indirect Effects: Current management is inadequate for responding to changes in environmental conditions and events on a year-to-year basis. Changes in weather patterns effect the timing of vegetative growth and therefore livestock grazing should be as flexible as changes in rangeland conditions. The pine beetle outbreak and the resulting lodgepole pine mortality would increase the number of suitable acres in the short term. Rangeland managers must assess how variable environmental factors (past and current) affect forage plants each year. Applying the same management throughout the analysis area, without regard to the changing conditions of vegetation, would not achieve desired results. Cumulative Effects: The cumulative effect of continuing current management would likely result in a static or upward trend for upland, riparian and forested (aspen) vegetative condition in some areas, which would be consistent with Forest Plan direction. Alternative 3: Proposed Action--Adaptive Management Direct & Indirect Effects: The implementation of adaptive management will provide flexibility when adjusting the number of livestock or length of grazing period as the amount and quality of transitory range changes. For example, the bark beetle epidemic will transition large portions of land that was previously designated as unsuitable for grazing to open areas that would provide valuable forage for livestock. 26 Rangeland Management Plan for the Red Parks Analysis Area Environmental Assessment

Combining Allotments: The management of livestock grazing on these allotments has already transitioned from grazing one band of sheep on each allotment to grazing one band of sheep between two allotments; in response to drought and insufficient number of suitable acres. The combining of three allotments into two larger allotments and the removal of one band of sheep will increase the capable acres while decreasing grazing pressure. This will provide opportunity for vegetative re-growth and rest in the aspen/forb, grass/forb and riparian communities. Extending Grazing Dates: The extension of grazing periods is a valuable tool used to provide flexibility of on/off dates with respect to range readiness. Livestock will not enter the allotments until range readiness is sufficient for grazing and will leave before allowable vegetation use guidelines and other design criteria are exceeded. This will allow for more efficient use of rangelands with ever changing environmental conditions. It will allow permittees a more productive grazing period for livestock by utilizing forage during its more palatable and nutritional state of growth. Addition of Cattle: There is the potential for over utilization of riparian areas but this could be avoided through intensive management by herders and by following the terms and conditions included in the permit. The addition of cattle will require extensive monitoring of riparian and other key areas. Monitoring will be used to determine riparian vegetation utilization and changes in streambank stability during the three year trial basis. The addition of cattle could potentially stimulate growth on stagnant or decadent forage species previously not utilized or preferred by sheep. For example grazing of bunchgrass is known to reduce dead plant material and stimulate growth of green plant tissue high in nutrients as compared to ungrazed bunchgrasses. Sheep and cattle differ in their dietary and topographic preferences. Cattle are grazers with diets primarily composed of grasses, while sheep diets are comprised of a higher percentage of forbs. Selective grazing by one species could provide a competitive advantage to least desirable species. Expanding grazing pressure over a larger variety of plants could reduce the likelihood of lesser grazed species to gain a competitive advantage; affectively improving overall rangeland biodiversity. Noxious Weeds : The proposed action should have no effect on establishment of noxious weeds. Increased potential for establishment is usually associated with increase in bare soil. Noxious weeds would continue to be monitored, treated, and eradicated where possible. Cumulative Effects: Cumulatively, existing rangeland plant community composition and conditions would be expected to stay relatively similar to existing conditions with gradual improvements over time. The current pine beetle outbreak has led to high lodgepole pine mortality that could increase forage availability. Watershed, Hydrology and Water Quality Methods Assessment of the existing condition and environmental effects included field observations, Proper Functioning Condition surveys (BLM, 1993; BLM 1998), stream health and riparian surveys (Harrelson et al 1994; Winward 2000), and photos. Office procedures included data compilation, GIS mapping and analysis, and literature review.

______27

Affected Environment The Red Parks analysis area lies predominantly within the Hinman Creek, Little Snake River- Whiskey Creek, and King Solomon Creek sixth level watersheds. Small portions of the Big Red Park allotment are in the North Fork Elk River and Lower Willow Creek watersheds. The Hinman Creek, North Fork Elk River, and Lower Willow Creek watersheds are tributary to the Yampa River. The Little Snake-Whiskey Creek and King Solomon Creek are tributary to the Middle Fork Little Snake River in the Little Snake River basin. Named streams in the analysis area within the predominant sixth level watersheds (Hinman Creek, Little Snake River-Whiskey Creek, and King Solomon Creek) are listed in Table 7.

Table 7. Named streams by sixth level watershed in the analysis area. Sixth level watershed Named streams within name and Hydrologic Unit Allotment sixth level watershed Code (HUC) Hinman Creek; Scott Run Hinman Creek Big Red Park Creek; Farwell Creek Little Snake River- Middle Fork Little Snake Big Red Park Whiskey Creek River; Silver City Creek

King Solomon Creek; Circle Middle Fork Circle Bar; Little King Solomon Creek Bar Basin; Summit Creek Red Park; Summit Creek

Water Quality State water quality classified uses in the analysis area include aquatic life cold 1, recreation existing and potential, water supply, and agriculture. None of the streams in the analysis area have been listed as impaired on the Colorado 303(d) list (CDH, 2010). No water quality concerns were noted on any of the allotments. Community water supply source areas have been identified on parts of the Big Red Park allotment. Best Management Practices and Design Criteria developed to maintain and improve riparian condition and stream health will also protect water quality. Watershed Condition All of the watersheds in the analysis area have been affected by the 2002 Hinman Fire and/or are experiencing high timber mortality as a result of an extensive mountain pine beetle epidemic. Loss of forested vegetation due to timber harvest, fire, or beetles increases water yields which have the potential to affect stream health as more energy is available for channel erosion. Streams in the Hinman Creek watershed are at greatest risk of increased water yield affecting stream health with an estimated loss of 40% of the basal area from timber harvest, fire, and beetles. The Little Snake-Whiskey Creek has an estimated 29% timber mortality while cumulative timber mortality in the King Solomon Creek is approximately 22%. The upper portion of the King Solomon Creek watershed in the analysis area contains a high percent of the total timbered area in the watershed. As a result, water yield increases on affected streams likely will exceed current range of natural variability for peak flows. The Hinman Creek watershed is considered to be in Condition Class 3 (FSM 2521.1), which is due largely to the combined effects of the 2002 Hinman Fire, past timber harvest, and mountain pine beetle mortality as well as road construction and some water diversions. The Little Snake-

28 Rangeland Management Plan for the Red Parks Analysis Area Environmental Assessment

Whiskey Creek and King Solomon Creek watersheds are considered to be in Condition Class 2 (FSM 2521.1) due to past include timber harvest, road construction, and motorized trails. Riparian Ecosystem Health Where appropriate, Proper Functioning Condition (PFC) surveys (BLM, 1993) were conducted to assess riparian health. PFC survey results are summarized in Table 8.

Table 8. Proper Functioning Condition (PFC) survey results by allotment

Allotment Stream reach surveyed PFC survey results

Big Red Park Silver City Creek Proper Functioning Condition

Big Red Park Middle Fork Little Snake Proper Functioning Condition

Big Red Park Scott Run Creek Proper Functioning Condition

Middle Fork Circle Bar King Solomon Creek Proper Functioning Condition

Little Red Park/Middle Circle Tributary to King Solomon Creek Proper Functioning Bar Condition

Middle Fork Circle Bar Circle Bar Basin Creek Proper Functioning Condition

Summit Creek Independence Creek Proper Functioning Condition

Summit Creek Summit Creek Proper Functioning Condition

Stream Health Past management impacts on stream health were assessed through stream health surveys on stream reaches considered to be the most susceptible or responsive to changes in the hydrologic and/or sediment regime, and often referred to as ‘the sensitive stream reach’ (R2-FSH 2509.25). Past beaver activities affects stream dynamics and needs to be taken into consideration when analyzing stream health surveys which are summarized in Table 9.

______29

Table 9. Stream health survey results by allotment

Allotment Stream reach surveyed Stream health rating

Big Red Park Middle Fork Little Snake Robust

Big Red Park Silver City Creek At-risk

Little Red Park/ Middle Fork Circle King Solomon Cr At-risk-Robust Bar tributary

Summit Creek Summit Creek At-risk-Robust

Summit Creek Independence At-risk-Robust

Wetlands and riparian areas occur throughout the analysis area. The Routt Riparian Inventory (RNF, 1992) was used to identify wetland and riparian locations. For the purpose of this analysis, wetlands are considered a subset of riparian areas. Existing Condition by allotment Big Red Park Hinman Creek Watershed : This watershed reflects various past management and natural impacts including the 2002 Hinman Fire which affected the middle and western portion of the Hinman Creek watershed. Burned areas are recovering to provide increased groundcover and protection from surface erosion resulting in improved channel stability and riparian condition. The Hinman Fire also burned portions of the Scott Run subwatershed. Direct effects to the stream channel and riparian ecosystem were minimal, and field reconnaissance found streams in this watershed to be in proper functioning condition. No direct or indirect impacts from livestock grazing were noted. Little Snake River—Whiskey Creek Watershed: Within the analysis area, the Middle Fork Little Snake River is considered a reference reach. Management effects have been minimal in this subwatershed, consisting mostly of a motorized trail and minor road construction and timber harvest. A stream health survey on a lower reach in Big Red Park indicates robust stream health. The Silver City Creek subwatershed has been affected by multiple past management activities including hydraulic mining, high severity fires, road construction, timber harvest, and most recently the Rainbow Family gathering. A stream health survey on lower Silver City Creek in Big Red Park indicates shallower pools and lower bank stability than reference conditions. A second stream health survey upstream near the area of the Rainbow gathering showed lower sinuousity, shallower pools, and fewer pools than reference conditions. This stream health survey also showed a lower greenline rating, and a high percent of unstable streambanks. All of these factors indicate at risk stream health in Silver City Creek. This is likely the cumulative effect of past fires, hydraulic mining, livestock and wildlife grazing, and possibly the Rainbow gathering. Middle Fork Circle Bar Allotment This allotment encompasses the headwaters and tributaries to King Solomon Creek, as well as the mainstem of King Solomon Creek as it flows through the analysis area. The Circle Bar Basin area is also part of this allotment. A stream health survey on a sensitive stream reach of a tributary to King Solomon Creek on the border with the Little Red Park allotment indicates at- 30 Rangeland Management Plan for the Red Parks Analysis Area Environmental Assessment risk to robust stream health. Pools were shallower than reference conditions, but all other metrics other than a riparian vegetation cross-section were within the range of reference conditions. The lower rating for the riparian vegetation cross-section is likely due to historic downcutting, widening, and bank instability. The current greenline rating is good to high indicating robust riparian vegetation with extensive root networks that protect and stabilize streambanks during high flow events. This has resulted in a narrowing of the stream channel, widening of the riparian area, and improved stream health. However, the historic downcutting is evident, and areas of bare ground susceptible to erosion and instability during high flows exist immediately adjacent to the greenline as reflected in the riparian cross-section. This indicates that if impacts to the greenline occur through hoof shear or a decline in riparian vegetation composition (loss of sedges), the improved stream condition will rapidly decline back to at risk or diminished stream health. No impacts to streambanks or riparian vegetation from livestock grazing were noted during field reconnaissance in 2009. Circle Bar Basin shows similar characteristics to the stream reach surveyed on the tributary to King Solomon Creek. Historic past downcutting has resulted in a lowering of base level and development of a new stream channel within the downcut area. Areas of bare ground susceptible to erosion and instability during high flows are evident immediately adjacent to the greenline. Proper functioning condition surveys found adequate riparian vegetative cover present on the streambanks to protect the banks during high flows. The riparian vegetation has been acting to trap sediment which narrows the stream channel and improves stream health. While Circle Bar Basin appears to be on an upward trend, impacts from hoof shear and/or a decline in riparian vegetation composition and vigor would result in a decline in stream health to at risk or diminished. No impacts to streambanks or riparian vegetation from livestock grazing were noted during field reconnaissance in 2009. Wildlife pit #1 downstream of Forest Road 503 adjacent to King Solomon Creek was built in the 1980's for livestock watering, and to provide habitat for sandhill cranes and waterfowl. Water flowing out of the pit into King Solomon Creek has created a 2-3 foot high headcut for a length of approximately 10 feet. The headcut threatens to migrate through the downstream bank of the pit causing loss of storage capability of the pit. The current headcut is destabilizing the banks of King Solomon Creek and which is degrading stream health at this location. Measures to address this are included in the Proposed Action. Little Red Park Allotment No specific concerns relative to livestock grazing were noted in this allotment during 2009 field surveys. The tributary to King Solomon Creek discussed under the Middle Fork Circle Bar allotment is on the boundary with this allotment. As noted above, while this tributary is on an upward trend from historic downcutting and widening, this trend could easily be reversed with extensive hoof shear and/or change in riparian vegetation composition and vigor. The stream draining Little Red Park is a stable E channel (Rosgen,1994) that is protected by thick sedge mats and shows minimal signs of livestock impacts. Summit Creek Allotment No specific concerns were noted in this allotment during 2010 field surveys. Both Independence Creek and Summit Creek rated as properly functioning.

______31

Desired Condition The desired condition is to maintain favorable conditions of flow, and to preserve the physical, chemical, and biological integrity of streams and wetlands, and maintain properly functioning riparian areas. For all streams and riparian areas surveyed, this means maintaining or improving current riparian ecosystem and stream health conditions.

Environmental Consequences Direct and Indirect effects applicable to all alternatives: Increases in bacterial concentrations (fecal coliform, E. coli) can result from intensive grazing in riparian systems (Binkley and Brown, 1993). The Clean Water Act recognizes BMPs as the primary mechanism to control nonpoint sources, as supported in EPA memo NPS: FY-87-49 dated August 19, 1987. The Forest Service must apply BMPs, considering local factors, to control nonpoint source pollution and meet water quality standards and be consistent with the Clean Water Act (Sections 208, 303, and 319). The Colorado Nonpoint Source Management Plan identifies voluntary use of BMPs to control nonpoint sources. Several court cases have ruled that livestock grazing is not considered a point discharge, but rather a nonpoint source (Carlson, 2010). BMPs to address water quality concerns including E.Coli are the same as those used to maintain and improve riparian condition and stream health. These BMPs have been incorporated into to the Proposed Action Design Criteria and monitoring plan to ensure consistency with the Clean Water Act, Forest Plan, and the Region 2 strategy (Carlson, 2010) to address water quality concerns associated with livestock grazing. Based on the Region 2 strategy and direction from the EPA memo, if BMPs are properly applied, and if riparian conditions are being maintained and improved, then water quality should be maintained or improved. Cumulative effects: Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future management activities that may contribute to cumulative watershed effects in the area are listed in Table 10.

Table 10. Summary of activities that may contribute to cumulative effects in the analysis area.

Activity Past, Present or Future Livestock Grazing Regimes Past, present and future Wildlife Population and Movements Past, present and future Noxious Weed Control Past, present and future Road and Trail Development Past, present and future Historic and future wildfire Past and future Recent Wildfire: 2002 Hinman Fire Past Water Diversions and Developments Past, present and future 2006 Rainbow Family Gathering Past Roadside and Trail Hazard Clearing Present and future Timber Harvest Past , present and future Mountain Pine Beetle Epidemic Present, future The effects of past and present management actions are accounted for in the existing condition. None of the present management actions are expected to contribute to cumulative effects beyond the existing condition, except for possibly significant water yield increases affecting channel stability. For this reason is it critical that good riparian vegetation vigor and composition along the greenline be maintained, particularly in stream reaches recovering from past downcutting,

32 Rangeland Management Plan for the Red Parks Analysis Area Environmental Assessment widening, and channel instability. None of the future management activities are expected to significantly contribute to cumulative effects. Alternative 1: No Action-No Grazing Direct and indirect effects: Under this alternative, there would be no potential for impacts to riparian or wetland areas, stream health, or water quality from livestock grazing. Riparian areas currently at PFC would remain at PFC. Areas recovering from past downcutting and channel instability would continue to recover. Stream health would be expected to continue to improve in Silver City Creek. There would be no potential for livestock impacts to wetlands. However, the headcut from Wildlife Pit #1 would not be addressed and would continue to locally affect stream health and streambank stability in King Solomon Creek. Cumulative effects: There would be no additional adverse cumulative effects. There would be no potential for livestock grazing to affect stream health, riparian condition, wetlands, or water quality. However, human, wildlife, and other livestock sources such as horses used for hunting etc. would still be present in the watershed, and may continue to affect stream health, water quality, wetlands, and riparian condition. Streams would be in the best condition possible to accommodate increased water yields resulting from the beetle epidemic and/or future wildfires and timber harvest. Forest Plan direction for the water, riparian, wetland, and floodplain resources would be met, and there would be no irreversible or irretrievable commitment of resources. Alternative 2: Continue Current Management Direct and indirect effects: Under this alternative, conditions would be similar to the existing condition. Reaches currently in proper functioning condition would be expected to remain at PFC. Areas currently on an upward trend would be expected to remain on an upward trend. The headcut from Wildlife Pit #1 would remain, and continue to have localized effects on stream health and streambank stability on King Solomon Creek. No water quality issues were identified, and as long as riparian areas remain in good condition, no effects to water quality would be expected. Cumulative effects: Livestock grazing is not expected to increase the adverse effects of increased water yields from the beetle epidemic, past timber harvest, or past and future wildfires on channel stability or stream health. Riparian vegetation along the greenline would be expected to provide the best possible protection for streambanks during peak flows; however, some channel instability may still occur. Forest Plan direction for the water, wetland, and riparian resources would be met, and no irreversible or irretrievable commitment of resources would be expected. Alternative 3: Proposed Action-- Adaptive Management Direct and indirect effects: The change in class of livestock from sheep to a mix of sheep and cattle has the potential to increase streambank trampling and hoof shear, and to cause a change in greenline composition and riparian vegetation vigor. Increases in streambank trampling and/or change in riparian vegetation composition and/or vigor have the potential to reduce streambank stability, and degrade riparian ecosystem and stream health. This could also result in a decline in water quality as direct physical impacts to riparian areas and streambanks from livestock also increases the potential for direct deposition of E.Coli to the stream system. Strict adherence to the proposed design criteria and monitoring plan will be critical to ensuring that these adverse effects do not occur.

______33

Fixing of the headcut associated with Wildlife Pit #1 will improve stream health and streambank stability on King Solomon Creek in this location. Cumulative effects: The cumulative effects of water yield increases are highly dependent on maintaining streambank stability and greenline composition. If these metrics are maintained in their current state or improved, there would be no additional adverse cumulative effects from livestock grazing with respect to water yield increases or water quality. However, if these metrics are not maintained, the potential for adverse cumulative effects from livestock grazing coupled with water yield increases could result in a significant decline in stream health. This would not be consistent with the Forest Plan Standard “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.” Strict adherence to the proposed monitoring with necessary adjustments to livestock grazing based on the monitoring is critical to ensuring that significant adverse cumulative effects do not occur. If the proposed design criteria and monitoring is strictly adhered to, and management adjustments are made accordingly, then Forest Plan direction for the water, riparian, wetland, and floodplain resources would be met, and there would not be an irreversible or irretrievable commitment of resources. Soils Existing Condition Loam surface textures are dominant within these allotments. Loam textures contain relatively equal and moderate portions of sand, silt, and clay particles. Coarse fragments in surface horizons are fairly common. The dominant soil depth class is very deep (> 150 cm). Recreation use (hiking, hunting, horseback riding, motorized) is popular in this area. Overall, soil quality in these allotments is high and soil condition is satisfactory. Soil compaction is present in isolated areas of park and floodplain landforms. These areas of compaction are localized to watering areas, congregation areas, and heavily used trails. Soil erosion associated with small areas of bare soil-dominated conditions is found throughout the allotments. With the exception of Big Red Park allotment, RPAA did not exhibit detrimental soil impacts in excess of Forest Plan standards nor were soil conditions identified as a concern in this analysis area. Within the Big Red Park allotment there have been two major fires since the 1890s. The most recent is the Hinman fire of 2002, for which revegatation is progressing well with no long term effects to soil productivity. This is not the case for the Farwell Fire of the late 1890s which left severely burned soils in a area located in the northeast corner of the Big Red Park allotment, and in scattered smaller areas throughout the east side of this allotment. The topsoil in these areas has eroded leaving mineral soils that are not conducive to revegetation. However, livestock grazing is not contributing to the degradation of these areas. Sheep are being considered as a tool to assist in the re-establishment of vegetation in severely burned soils. Landscape Stability Landscape stability is a product of geologic, geomorphic, soil, and environmental factors. Stability can be viewed as a particular landform’s resistance to slope failure or mass wasting. Landscape stability for the RPAA is inferred from the geologic hazard map of the Routt National Forest. Stability category definitions, as adapted from Miller (1977), are as follows:

34 Rangeland Management Plan for the Red Parks Analysis Area Environmental Assessment

Most Stable Areas – Contains the fewest stability problems. Disturbance will result in the least adverse affect on land stability. Geologic hazard types include Bedrock and Surficial Deposits. Intermediate Stability Areas – Geologic hazards present should allow more activity by reacting less to disturbance than Least Stable Areas. Activities such as road building and timber harvest will require additional design considerations. Geologic hazard types include Slope Failure Complexes, Inactive Landslides, Unstable Slopes, and Bedrock – unstable. Least Stable Areas – Ground disturbing activities such as road building or timber harvest will probably have an adverse effect on slope stability. These areas need to be avoided or will require the highest degree of engineering. Geologic hazard types include Active Landslides, Mudflow, and Earthflow. The dominant stability class within the RPAA is Most Stable. Geologic hazards for the RPAA are summarized in Table 11.

Table 11. Stability class summary for RPAA

Hazard Code Description Stability Class Acres % BR Bedrock Most Stable 24,292 62.6% SD Surficial Deposits Most Stable 7,846 20.2% BR-US Bedrock-Unstable Intermediate Stability 3,459 8.9% IL Inactive Landslides Intermediate Stability 962 2.5% SFC Slope Failure Complex Intermediate Stability 1,041 2.7% US Unstable Slopes Intermediate Stability 633 1.6% AL Active Landslides Least Stable 432 1.1% EF Earthflow Least Stable 111 0.3% Most Stable 32,138 82.9% Intermediate Stability 6,095 15.7% Summary Least Stable 543 1.4% Total 38,776 100.0%

Erosion Erosion is the detachment and removal of soil material. Soil structure, texture class, and moisture content determine susceptibility to erosion. Potential water erosion hazard ratings are assigned to all Soil Management Units in the forest soil resource inventory report. Erosion hazard is the inherent susceptibility of a soil to erosive forces such as raindrop impact or overland flow. These ratings are based on the risk of soil loss after disturbances that result in 50 to 75 percent exposed, roughened mineral soil. These hazards are defined as follows: Slight – Little or no erosion is likely. Moderate – Some erosion is likely; occasional maintenance may be needed; simple erosion control measures needed. Severe – Significant erosion can be expected; roads require frequent maintenance; costly erosion measures are needed (USDA Forest Service 2003a). The dominant erosion hazard class for the RPAA is moderate. Water erosion hazard ratings for the allotments within the RPAA are summarized in Table 12.

______35

Table 12. Water erosion hazard ratings for the SCSAA

Water Erosion Hazard Rating Acres % Moderate 29691 77% Severe 6525 17% Slight 2557 7% Total 38773 100% Compaction Compaction hazard is the risk of inducing soil compaction through timber harvest, livestock grazing, or recreation activities. These ratings assume moist or wet soils. These hazards are defined as follows:

Slight – Little or no compaction is likely. Moderate – Some compaction is likely. Severe – Significant compaction can be expected. Restrictions on use may be required during high moisture conditions (USDA Forest Service 2003). The dominant compaction hazard class for the RPAA is slight. Compaction hazard ratings for the allotments within the RPAA are summarized in Table 13.

Table 13. Compaction hazard ratings for the RPAA

Compaction Hazard Rating Acres % Moderate 11,947 31% Severe 12,935 33% Slight 13,892 36% Total 38,774 100%

Soil compaction alters the physical arrangement of soil particles, resulting in an increase in soil bulk density. The increased soil density is largely at the expense of soil macropores, and adversely affects soil, air, water, and thermal regimes. Increased density reduces water infiltration, increases runoff, and can accelerate soil erosion rates on surrounding areas. Variables which may influence the degree and area extent of changes increases in soil bulk density include grazing distribution, stocking rates, site conditions during operation, and soil texture. Large animal trampling can introduce soil compaction through the exertion of high pressures on the soil surface. These pressures result from the support of large body weights by relatively small hooves. With large animal stocking the depth of compaction is usually limited to a zone from the soil surface to six inches in depth. Desired Condition Soil quality should be maintained or improved to ensure proper ecosystem function. The desired condition is to maintain the physical, biological, and chemical integrity of the soil resource. Soil quality will be maintained or improved if impacts such as detrimental erosion, compaction, displacement, puddling, and severe burning are kept within allowable limits.

36 Rangeland Management Plan for the Red Parks Analysis Area Environmental Assessment

Healthy soils:  Have adequate vegetative cover commensurate with site capabilities  Have functioning nutrient cycles through natural decay or periodic burning  Do not have significant nutrient drains through excess organic removals  Have good infiltration (soil structure) and do not have hydrophobic conditions from burning  Have healthy populations of soil microorganisms  Have the capability of maintaining the original potential ecosystem for the long-term

Environmental Consequences Alternative 1: No Action-No Grazing Direct and Indirect Effects: This alternative would have the least impact on the soil resource within both allotments. Soil compaction in areas impacted primarily by permitted livestock would gradually diminish over time. Livestock-created bare areas would re-vegetate. Soils with high moisture content would recover most quickly. Since there would be no livestock impacts to soils, there would be an improvement in satisfactory soil conditions across the allotments. Soil conditions would still be impacted by elk use in some of the wetlands, riparian, and uplands, resulting in limited localized disturbance to soil in these areas. Improvements to soil condition would include reductions in soil bulk density in compacted areas, reductions in soil erosion through the establishment of additional effective ground cover, and greater organic material contributions through higher rates of surface litter potential. Recreation disturbances would continue across both allotments. This alternative would improve soil condition in areas of localized impacts and is consistent with Forest Plan direction for the soil resource. Alternative 2 & 3: Continue Current Management & Proposed Action Direct and Indirect Effects: The soils in riparian and upland areas, not subjected to localized impacts, would likely continue to meet Forest Plan standards. Cumulative Effects for both Alternatives: Cumulative impacts are similar for both alternatives and differ only in degree with relation to future domestic livestock impacts. With Alternative 3, the resulting soil condition would be less productive than the no action alternative, but would still meet desired condition. Recreation activity, such as dispersed camping, creates bare or compacted soil, making it more susceptible to erosion and affecting nutrient cycling and productivity. These areas generally tend to be less than several hundred square feet and well dispersed throughout the area, but are often very close to streams or riparian areas. In areas where this activity might overlap with current livestock use, it was difficult to separate the source of the impacts. Cultural Resources Existing Condition The Red Parks Allotment Management Plan Project is located in an area that has had a large amount of previous cultural resource inventories. A total of 7042 acres have been previously surveyed for cultural resources. The project area contains one listed site, five previously recorded eligible sites, ten unevaluated or needs data sites, and sixty previously recorded sites that have been determined not eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Numerous

______37

sites that have been determined eligible or needs data for the NRHP are associated with historic cattle and sheep grazing activities. These sites include 5RT.520.5 (the Fireline driveway), 5RT.344.2 (the Ellis Trail), 5RT.805.2 (the Nipple Peak Trail), 5RT.802 (the Elkhorn Stock Driveway), 5RT.624 (sheep corrals), 5RT.430 (The Dead Mexican Grave Site) and 5RT.2496 (a stock pond, dam and aspen carvings). The area has also been utilized prehistorically, several small lithic scatters and a prehistoric stone quarry in the project area. Historically the area has been used for tie hack logging, mining, and recreation.

Environmental Consequences Alternative 1: No Action-No Grazing If there is no federal action, then there is no undertaking, as defined in 36 CFR 800.2(o), for Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 470f). In general, the ‘no grazing’ alternative has no potential to affect cultural resources. Alternative 2: Continue Current Management The current management alternative is to continue to authorize grazing of sheep in the Red Parks grazing allotments without the addition of cattle. There would be similar effects to the proposed action such as compaction, trampling or erosion of soils, and breakage or movement of artifacts. There is less potential to effect historic structures, since sheep do not rub against structures as cattle do. Alternative 3: Proposed Action-- Adaptive Management Direct Effects: The direct effects of livestock grazing to archaeological sites have been well documented. Impacts include compaction that may alter site contexts and trampling that can result in the movement and breakage of artifacts on the surface that can undermine future artifact analysis. Historic structures can also be impacted when cattle rub against them, walk on them, or through them. In the Red Parks Analysis area of potential effect, the greatest concern of archaeologists is the possibility of adverse effects to unidentified and potentially eligible historic properties before they are properly documented. Not all areas of potential direct effect were surveyed for cultural resources. Unidentified sites may exist in these unsurveyed areas. Most of the unsurveyed portions of the allotment are less likely to be grazed, or are grazed much less intensively, thereby reducing the potential to affect cultural resources. If grazing patterns change, livestock numbers increase, or ground disturbance becomes necessary for range improvements, an additional cultural resource assessment is required to determine if additional survey is needed prior to implementation. The discovery and education stipulation placed in grazing permits helps mitigate direct effects to unidentified cultural resources in unsurveyed areas, or unidentified deposits in surveyed areas, by requiring that all persons associated with operations under the authorization be informed that cultural resources cannot be damaged or moved and must be reported when found. Indirect Effects: Potential indirect impacts from the proposed action may include the destruction of archaeological contexts due to erosion created from livestock grazing, particularly to unidentified sites in unsurveyed areas. To mitigate the effect of erosion to sites, Forest Service range personnel will let archaeologists know of any areas of substantial erosion caused by intensive livestock use.

38 Rangeland Management Plan for the Red Parks Analysis Area Environmental Assessment

Potential indirect impacts from the proposed action, such as artifact collection, site vandalism, and erosion, on the unsurveyed portion of the project area are not expected to increase. The discovery and education stipulation requires all persons associated with operations under the authorization to be informed that cultural resources cannot be collected, damaged, or moved. When placed in contracts and permits, the stipulation may help reduce potential indirect effects and may protect unidentified buried deposits during project implementation. Cumulative Effects: Cultural resources are non-renewable. The loss of archaeological resources has occurred in the past and will continue to occur in the future through both natural and human causes. Although efforts have been made to locate cultural resources within the project area, it is possible that there are undiscovered cultural resources that may be affected by project activities. The accumulated loss of individual cultural resources has the potential to limit our ability to understand broad patterns of human history as well as local historical events. Over time, fewer cultural resources would be available for study and interpretation. Although individual cultural resources may be impacted by proposed activities the potential to significant effects is considered low. According to the 2001 revised regulations [36 CFR 800.4(d)(1)] for Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 470f) the determination for the proposed action is no historic properties affected. Since no specific effects on significant cultural resources were identified, expected effects are minimal. The proposed action complies with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. Aquatics: Fisheries and Amphibians Existing Condition by Allotment Big Red Park Allotment The Big Red Park Allotment includes the Middle Fork Snake River, Silver City Creek, Hinman Creek, Scotts Run and North Fork Elk River. The North Fork Elk River was historically occupied by Colorado River cutthroat trout which have since been extirpated by the introduction of non-native trout. All streams sampled contain low to moderate numbers of brook trout with the exception of a robust population in Scotts Run. The North Fork Elk River also contains rainbow trout. Tiger salamanders and chorus frogs were observed within the allotment. Current grazing use along these streams does not appear to be negatively impacting aquatic species, with high quality habitat found in many locations. Conversely, some areas along Silver City Creek continue to display impacts (high width:depth ratio, streambank instability, high fine sediment) from past fires, livestock grazing and other management activities. These areas are improving (see Water, Riparian and Wetlands Specialist Report) but are still sensitive to additional disturbance. Circle Bar Allotment The Circle Bar Allotment includes portions of Circle Bar, Independence, King Solomon, and Summit Creeks. These streams contain low numbers of brook trout as well as several species of fish that prefer warmer water and higher fine sediment loads than trout. Tiger salamanders and chorus frogs were observed within the allotment. Current grazing use along these streams does not appear to be negatively impacting aquatic species, with moderate quality habitat found in many locations. Some reaches along King Solomon Creek and in Circle Bar basin continue to display impacts (high width:depth ratio, entrenchment and streambank instability) from past management activities. These areas are improving but are still sensitive to additional

______39

disturbance. Independence and Summit Creek are receiving limited livestock use due to the extensive network of beaver ponds. Little Red Park Allotment The Little Red Park Allotment includes headwater tributaries of King Solomon Creek. These streams contain low numbers of brook trout, tiger salamanders and chorus frogs. Current grazing use along these streams does not appear to be negatively impacting aquatic species, with moderate to high quality habitat found in most locations. Desired Condition The desired condition is to maintain favorable conditions of flow, preserve the physical, biological, and chemical integrity of the streams, and maintain properly functioning riparian areas. Healthy vegetation would reduce soil erosion, maintain soil productivity, and reduce delivery of fine sediment to stream channels. Healthy watersheds exhibit desirable qualities that support productive, diverse, and stable populations of all aquatic species such as fish, amphibians and insects. Healthy watersheds also have a natural range of habitat features, such as depth of pools, composition of substrate and sequence of pools and riffles. The streams and wetlands within these allotments are managed to promote healthy populations of fish and amphibians. The streams and riparian areas show minimal impacts from current livestock grazing and habitat is in moderate to excellent condition. The desired condition would primarily be to maintain existing habitat conditions in reaches in good condition. The desired condition along portions of Circle Bar basin, King Solomon, and Silver City Creeks would be the continued recovering of historically degraded reaches. Implementation of Forest Plan standards and guidelines (USDA 1997) and Design Criteria in the Watershed Conservation Practices Handbook (FSH 2509.25) would help attain and maintain the desired condition.

Environmental Consequences Alternative 1: No Action-No Grazing Direct and Indirect Effects: Analysis of the effects of Alternative 1 considers the potential future condition of aquatic habitat if all domestic livestock grazing was removed from the project area. Under this alternative, there would be no potential for impacts to riparian areas or water quality from livestock grazing. Fish and amphibian habitat in good condition would be maintained while the areas with moderate habitat conditions would likely improve. Based on current conditions within the project area, little change would be expected except along portions of Circle Bar Basin, King Solomon and Silver City Creeks. Cumulative Effects: There would be no additional adverse cumulative effects as livestock would be removed. Recovery of areas impacted by historic grazing would be expected to improve. Conversely, impacts from wild ungulates, recreation activities and the mountain pine beetle epidemic would still be present within the watershed. Forest Plan direction for aquatic resources would be met, and there would be no irreversible or irretrievable commitment of resources. Alternative 2: Continue Current Livestock Grazing Management Direct and Indirect Effects: Re-authorization of existing livestock grazing permits is proposed under Alternative 2. The condition of fish and amphibian populations and aquatic habitats within most areas in the allotments would remain stable reflecting the effects of all past and current range management activities. Habitat conditions would be expected to remain in good 40 Rangeland Management Plan for the Red Parks Analysis Area Environmental Assessment condition along most steams, whereas disturbed areas along Crowner Creek, its tributaries, and several springs would not move towards desired conditions. Cumulative Effects: The cumulative effects from livestock grazing and other existing activities would generally result in maintaining the current conditions of fish and amphibian habitats. Forest Plan direction for the aquatic resources would continue to be met within the analysis area. Alternative 3: Proposed Action-- Adaptive Management Direct and Indirect Effects: The consolidation of four allotments into three and the increase in season of use is not expected to change the conditions of fish and amphibian populations or their habitats. The reduction in the number of bands of sheep from four to three would be expected to improve the condition of aquatic resources by decreasing use in riparian areas thereby speeding the recovery of reaches impacted by historic management activities. The change in class of livestock from sheep to a mix of sheep and cattle has the potential to increase streambank trampling and hoof shear, and to cause a change in greenline composition and riparian vegetation vigor. Increases in streambank trampling and/or change in riparian vegetation composition and/or vigor have the potential to reduce streambank stability, and degrade riparian ecosystem and stream health. This potential decline in aquatic habitat conditions could negatively impact fish and amphibian populations. Strict adherence to the proposed design criteria and monitoring plan will be critical to ensuring that these adverse effects do not occur. Cumulative Effects: The cumulative effects from livestock grazing and other existing activities would generally result in maintaining and possibly improving the current conditions of fish and amphibian habitats. Forest Plan direction for the aquatic resources should be met, and there should be no irreversible or irretrievable commitment of resources. Wildlife Existing Condition Forest Cover The Red Parks Analysis area is comprised of approximately 38,776 acres and is located in the northern portion of the Hahns Peak/Bears Ears Ranger District of the Routt National Forest. The allotments contain cover types typical of the forested portions of the Forest, however, for the most part they lack the lodgepole pine component present across other parts of the Routt National Forest. Forests in the analysis area are dominated by a mix of spruce-fir (TSF) and aspen (TAA). There is a significant grass component (GRA), as well as forb component (FOR), and small amounts of rock (NRK), shrubs (SHR), rushes and wet sedge species (GWE), Gambel oak (SGO), willows (SWI), lodgepole pine (TLP), Douglas Fir (TDF), and water (WAT). Wildlife Animal species that occur in the cover types found in the analysis area are typical for those cover types on the Routt National Forest. A wide range of taxa occur in the analysis area including mammals, birds, amphibians, fish and probably at least one species of reptile. A brief summary of the animals that occur in the Red Parks analysis area are listed below. More detail on some of these species can be found in the BE and BA. Animals known to occur in the analysis area include:

______41

Mammals: American marten, wolverine, bighorn sheep Birds: greater sandhill crane, boreal owl, brewer’s sparrow, northern goshawk, olive-sided flycatcher, Wilson’s warbler, three-toed woodpecker, Cooper’s hawk, golden-crowned kinglet, northern saw-whet owl, long-eared owl, brown creeper, brown-capped rosy-finch, flammulated owl. Amphibians: tiger salamander Reptiles : There are no records of reptiles occurring in the analysis area although it is likely that the common garter snake and possibly the smooth green snake occur within the analysis area.

Environmental Consequences This section will discuss the predicted effects of continuing to authorize grazing in the RPAA on wildlife resources. The effects of the alternatives to wildlife will vary greatly depending upon the species, type of activity/disturbance and the scale (time and/or landscape level), that the effects are measured against. The effects of the alternatives on wildlife are evaluated as positive or negative and as direct, indirect, and cumulative. Effects of the no-action alternative, as well as the existing condition or current management (Alternative 2) are compared in order to evaluate the change in condition. Two types of actions primarily influence wildlife: disturbance actions and changes to habitat. Either of these actions may result in multiple types of effects that may influence individual species or populations. Effects include: immediate, short-term, mid-term and long-term. Although this section touches on threatened, endangered, proposed, candidate and sensitive species (TEPCS), a more detailed discussion on the effects of implementation of the project to TEPCS species can be found in the animal BE and BA prepared for this project. Alternative 1: No Action-No Grazing Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects to Wildlife: With the ‘no-action’ alternative, livestock grazing in the Red Parks Analysis Area would cease. This would reduce impacts to areas where livestock would otherwise be present, including riparian areas, upland areas, and the aspen tall-forb community. Many native wildlife species would benefit from the reduced impact, although the degree of this benefit is unknown. The allotments would maintain its normal ecological processes in the absence of domestic grazing activities. In the absence of additional domestic grazing pressure, more plants are allowed to mature, flower, and propagate. Energy can then be stored in the root systems for future use. This strategy allows for better protection against disturbance and ensures energy for growth and reproduction in the following growing season. Vegetation resiliency to disturbance should improve. In turn, the habitat would be more favorable for native wildlife, improving aspects such as nesting cover and foraging habitats. The absence of domestic livestock grazing would eliminate the potential for conflict with predatory wildlife species in the allotment area and populations of coyotes, bears, and lions could increase due to lack of need for predator management from Wildlife Services. Livestock grazing in riparian, upland and aspen-tall forb communities would be eliminated in the no-action alternative and habitat for sensitive species that may be present in the allotments such as Brewer’s sparrow, Northern harrier, and pygmy shrew would improve. Impacted riparian areas would move towards a proper functioning condition more rapidly. This would improve habitats for wildlife species associated with riparian areas. Wildlife species associated with upland areas would also benefit from increased available habitat and increased residual forage. 42 Rangeland Management Plan for the Red Parks Analysis Area Environmental Assessment

Forbs in the aspen-tall forb community would have reduced pressure and should recover more quickly. This alternative likely would not increase elk populations, as their populations are not limited by summer range, but rather winter range and hunting success. A “no grazing” alternative, would result in the least amount of negative effects to wildlife of the two alternatives. Any direct effects from livestock resulting in disturbance to wildlife would be eliminated. Currently disturbance is not known to be a problem in the Red Parks analysis area, however, this potential for an effect would be eliminated. There are no anticipated cumulative effects caused by this action. Alternative 2 & 3: Continue Current Management & Proposed Action Management Indicator Species (MIS) The MIS analysis prepared for this project indicates that implementation of an action alternative may impact habitat for two terrestrial Routt National Forest MIS: Wilson’s warbler and vesper sparrow. The action alternatives are anticipated to have no impact to the other two Routt National Forest terrestrial MIS (golden-crowned kinglet, northern goshawk). Impacts to the Wilson’s warbler and vesper sparrow from implementation of the proposed action are not anticipated to affect the forest-wide population trend. Impacts to both species’ habitats are considered within the range of natural variability. Please refer to the MIS report prepared for this project for more detail. Sensitive Species Implementation of the proposed action may impact individuals, but is not likely to cause a trend toward federal listing or a loss of viability for the pygmy shrew, Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep, Brewer’s sparrow, northern harrier, and white-tailed ptarmigan. The proposed action would have ‘No impact’ on all other Region 2 terrestrial animal sensitive species.

The following is a more detailed description of the occurrences of Rocky Mountain Bighorn Sheep within the RPAA and the potential for contact with domestic sheep. It is often younger lone ram bighorns that will travel long distances searching for new territory that encounter domestic herds. After mingling with the domestics and possibly picking up Pasteurella, the bighorn ram may return to the wild herd and spread the disease to the rest of the wild group. The USFS does not recognize any single buffer distance but prefers to evaluate each situation on a case-by-case basis. The distance from the eastern edge of the Big Red Park allotment to the western edge of the occupied summer range of the Red Canyon herd in the Dome Peak area, is approximately 6 miles. It is also about 6 miles from the northern boundary of the analysis area to the occupied summer range of the Sierra Madre herd in Wyoming. However, the eastern edge of the allotment is not utilized by the permittee due to inaccessibility and lack of suitable forage areas. It is about 17 miles from the mid-point of the analysis area to the mid-point of the summer range of the Red Canyon herd. The distance from the mid-point of the analysis area to the mid-point of the summer range of the Sierra Madre herd in Wyoming is approximately 16 miles. The eastern edge of the Big Red Park allotment is about 4 miles to the Sawtooth Range which is potential bighorn habitat for the Red Canyon herd, although this is speculative at this point because since reintroduction to the Zirkels, this herd has remained in the same area without moving to the north. However, there is potential for them to move north as suitable habitat exists there. It is also possible that a ram bighorn (often a younger male) could break from the herd and travel to the Big Red Park allotment, the nearest of the 3 allotments in the Red Parks analysis area, and return to the wild herd in a few days.

______43

Within the Red Parks analysis area, a small amount of bighorn sheep habitat does exist. However, these areas are small and disjunct from the occupied area of the Mount Zirkel Wilderness. The probability of contact between bighorn sheep and domestic sheep in the Big Red Park allotment is unlikely but there is potential due to the ability of young rams to travel far distances. Any contact would likely be incidental and rare. There is one documented incidental observation in the NRIS Wildlife database, from 1976, of 2 bighorn sheep in the analysis area. Additional detail on these findings can be found in the Biological Evaluation (BE) prepared for this project.

Threatened and Endangered Species A Biological Assessment (BA) was prepared for federally listed species for Alternative 2. The BA reached the following determinations for listed terrestrial species: • Canada lynx – May affect, but is not likely to adversely affect • Yellow-billed cuckoo – No Impact (Animal Biological Evaluation determination) The BE prepared for this project reached a conclusion of “no impact” for the western yellow- billed cuckoo based on the criteria that the project area has a lack of available habitat. Canada lynx habitat exists in the project area and would be affected by implementation of Alternative 2. This project has been designed in association with the SRLA (USDA Forest Service 2008) and is consistent with the SRLA guidance. Potential impacts to lynx habitat could occur as a result of implementation as described in the BA. However, project implementation should not adversely affect the ability of an individual lynx to survive within the Upper Elk River, Little Snake River, and Sand Mountain LAUs. Please refer to the BA for additional detail regarding the project’s effects to threatened and endangered species. Raptors The Routt National Forest Plan directs that all raptor nest sites should be protected. Several raptor species are documented as occurring in the analysis area, they include: the boreal owl, Cooper’s hawk, northern saw-whet owl, long-eared owl, flammulated owl, and northern goshawk. The proposed action is not expected to impact either of these species. However, in the past, a herder was found to be salting his herd just below a goshawk nest. The project design criteria will ensure that should a similar incident occur, it will be promptly remedied. The northern harrier was not detected during surveys, but suitable habitat exists and this ground- nesting species may be present in the allotments and could be impacted by hoof action. Project design criteria have been developed to ensure protection of raptor nest areas should any be discovered during the implementation of the proposed action. Elk The proposed action has the potential to affect elk summer range in the analysis area because of competition for forage with livestock. Livestock grazing does not occur during the seasons when winter range and calving areas are needed by elk, so issues related to seasonal restrictions on use of travelways are not necessary. Two Forest Plan standards address habitat effectiveness for native ungulates. TES Standard #3 states: “Provide adequate cover to maintain screening, through time, along roads where timber management activities are taking place to minimize disturbance and harassment of deer and elk”. TES Standard #10 states: “In forested ecosystems, maintain habitat effectiveness for deer and elk at 50% or greater, as measured at the Geographic Area scale”. Elk habitat effectiveness is

44 Rangeland Management Plan for the Red Parks Analysis Area Environmental Assessment driven by changes in the hiding cover index as well as the road density index. The proposed action will not affect either of these variables. Birds In 2008, the Forest Service Chief signed an MOU with the Fish and Wildlife Service to promote the conservation of migratory birds. This MOU was pursuant to Executive Order 131866, 66 Fed. Reg. 3853 (2001), Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds. The Executive Order directs agencies to take certain actions to further comply with the migratory bird conventions, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGPEA) and other pertinent statutes. The purpose of the MOU is to strengthen migratory bird conservation by identifying strategies that promote conservation and avoid or minimize adverse impacts on migratory birds. The MOU outlines that the Forest Service shall: Evaluate the effects of agency actions on migratory birds within the NEPA Process with a focus on species of management concern along with their priority habitats and key risk factors. The evaluation of agency actions should: balance long-term benefits against any short- or long- term adverse effects; pursue opportunities to restore or enhance the composition, structure, and juxtaposition of migratory bird habitats in the project area; consider approaches to the extent practical for identifying and minimizing take that is incidental to otherwise lawful activities including: 1. Altering the season of activities to minimize disturbances during the breeding season. 2. Retaining snags for nesting structures where snags are underrepresented. 3. Retaining the integrity of breeding sites, especially those with long histories of use. 4. Giving due consideration to key wintering areas, migration routes and stop-over sites. 5. Minimizing or preventing the pollution or detrimental alteration of environments utilized by migratory birds; and coordinate with FWS when planning projects that are likely to have a negative effect on migratory bird populations and cooperate in developing approaches that minimize negative impacts and maximize benefits to migratory birds. An evaluation of effects of the proposed action to bird species of management concern is included in the Biological Evaluation and Management Indicator Species report prepared for this project. The project has been designed to the extent practical to minimize incidental take through project design criteria. These criteria protect raptor breeding sites that may be discovered. Cumulative Effects: Implementation of the proposed action will add to the other activities and actions affecting wildlife in the analysis area. The cumulative nature of these effects is currently not anticipated to significantly affect wildlife populations. Rare Plants Existing Condition Elevation in the analysis area ranges from 8,000 to 10,700 feet. Area vegetation is comprised of lodgepole pine and aspen in the lower and mid elevations, with Engelmann spruce-subalpine fir forests in the upper elevations. Spruce–fir is also present in the drainages and north slopes in the lower elevations. There are many mixed species stands in the area. Understory vegetation is a mix of forbs, grasses, and shrubs. Some stands also have an understory of fir with some spruce and lodgepole pine.

______45

Environmental Consequences No Threatened or Endangered species are carried forth in the analysis. Thus, the following effects section applies only to Forest Service R2 sensitive species and species of local concern (see table 15). Alternative 1: No Action-No Grazing Direct Effects: Under the No Action Alternative, the Forest Service would not issue a new permit and would suspend domestic sheep grazing on all of the allotments in the analysis area. Forest succesional processes would proceed without direct management intervention. Assuming presense, sensitive plant species in the analysis area would no longer be subject to consumption or trampling from livestock. In the absence of grazing pressure habitat for sensitive plant would be expected to improve. Indirect Effects: Under the No Action alternative, range vegetation would be expected to transition from early seral towards mid and late seral conditions. Removal of livestock would eliminate a significant vector in the spread of non-native invasive species, many of which pose a threat to sensitive species. Alternative 2 & 3: Current Management & Proposed Action The following effects are common to the continue current management and proposed action alternatives for all terrestrial and aquatic plant species evaluated. Direct Effects: Terrestrial Plant Species Under this alternative, the Forest Service would issue a new permit to allow continued grazing of domestic sheep on all of the allotments in the analysis area. Assuming presence, sensitive terrestrial species would continue to experience consumption and trampling. These impacts can physically damage individuals, populations, and/or the habitat where they grow. This may reduce growth, development and/or seed set. Such impacts may also cause mortality of individuals. These impacts to individual plants can reduce population size, change metapopulation structure, and potentially affect viability of the species on the planning unit or across the species’ range.

Whether the effects of grazing and trampling is positive, negative, or neutral depends on the species’ biology, type of grazer, timing of grazing, intensity of grazing, habitat type, and site conditions (Beatty et al. 2003a). Timing, duration and intensity are especially important factors to consider when assessing risk of impacts or the severity of effect to population viability. Assuming grazing and trampling were to occur while plants are biologically active the action alternative could interrupt reproduction cycles including loss of that year’s contribution to the seed bank, loss of that year’s contribution to starch reserves needed for overwintering, disruption of seedling establishment and impacts to potential pollinators. Aquatic Plant Species No significant direct effects are expected for aquatic or submerged species because domestic livestock are not known to graze under water. Because domestic livestock generally prefer overland travel, trampling of aquatic species is considered a remote possibility. Indirect Effects: Terrestrial Plant Species Concentrated use by livestock can alter soil conditions. Soil compaction hampers seedling emergence (Thill et al. 1979). Erosion removes nutrients, and exposes lower soil horizons which are unsuitable for colonization by most rare species. These soil disturbances will likely be 46 Rangeland Management Plan for the Red Parks Analysis Area Environmental Assessment detrimental to mycorrhizal relationships needed by some rare plant species (Goss & Varennes, 2002). Concentrated use in wet or mesic habitat can alter site hydrologic function could potentially impact species inhabiting ponds, fens, or other wetlands. Heavy soil disturbance exacerbates soil erosion and sedimentation. A more open environment with increased runoff could increase upland erosion in peak flows, scouring, and soil cover leading to changes in microclimates. Increased stream flows result in stream down-cutting and the subsequent drying of adjacent areas. Sedimentation affects seed germination and recruitment . Invasive species can be introduced and spread by forest management activities including livestock grazing. Introduction of invasive plant species poses a negative impact to all species (and their habitats) evaluated in this report. Noxious weeds can adversely impact rare plant species through allelopathy (the production and release of plant compounds that inhibit the growth of other plants) (Ridenour & Callaway, 2001), changing fire regimes, and increased competition for light, nutrients, or water. Subsequent weed control efforts (hand pulling, hoeing, mowing, or herbicide application) could also negatively impact rare plant species by uprooting, clipping, or killing them. Aquatic Plant Species If concentrated use on the uplands degrades soil conditions, aquatic plant species may be adversely affected by increased sediment delivery which could alter water quality and lead to habitat degradation. Cumulative Effects: Because no Threatened or Endangered species are analyzed in the document, ESA cumulative effects are not evaluated. Cumulative impacts, as define by NEPA are discussed below. Numerous past and on-going activities within the project area have resulted in the current conditions. These activities include vegetation management projects, recreational use and the creation and maintenance of an extensive road system. Creation of new roads in the area is current and on-going, primarily the result of unmanaged, illegal recreation activity by off-road vehicle users. Other activities include: livestock grazing, timber harvest and thinning, insect and disease outbreaks, fire suppression, prescribed fire, mining, motorized and non-motorized recreational use, road construction, urban development (sub-dividing and development of private land), and noxious weed infestation. The effects of these types of activities on TES, R2 Sensitive, Local Concern plants species are as follows: • Grazing leads to biomass removal and trampling. It has led to changes in species composition, compaction of soils, changes in fuel loading and the fire regime, downcutting of riparian areas with subsequent drying of adjacent meadows, and noxious weed invasion. With riparian areas and wet meadows livestock grazing has led to churning of the soil and hummocking. • Timber harvest and thinning has led to a more open canopy with additional light reaching the forest floor (which may be beneficial or detrimental depending on the species), soil disturbance and compaction, development of skid roads, and noxious weed invasion. Changes in forest composition, structure and fire frequency have also taken place.

______47

• Insect and disease outbreaks are natural events that occur periodically, although current levels are more intense than in recent memory. Such outbreaks lead to tree mortality, creation of forest-gap habitats, opening of meadow habitats, and potentially to stand- replacing fires. • Fire suppression has led to increased fuel loading, canopy closure, and higher intensity wildfire. • Motorized and non-motorized recreational use (including OHV use, camping, horseback riding, mountain biking, hiking, hunting, and fishing) has led to the development of non- system roads and trails, development of dispersed campsites, erosion, and the vectoring of noxious weeds in previously uninfected areas. • Road construction causes soil disturbance and erosion, destruction of habitat, and noxious weed invasion. It also increases the impacts from recreational activities by allowing improved access for those activities. • Urban development destroys plant habitat, fragments populations, and increases the risk of weed invasion and fire. • Non-native plant invasion is often the result of the ground disturbing activates listed above. These non-native species displace native plants, mostly through direct competition. In some cases highly competitive non-native species have been used in revegetation efforts, and these species are potent competitors for light, nutrients, and water. In considering the cumulative impact of a proposed action one must consider past management activities and their impacts to these plant species. Current management direction is designed to eliminate or reduce negative cumulative impacts by protecting TES plant species from direct and indirect impacts. MacDonald (2000) reports that a critical step in cumulative effects analysis is to compare the current condition of the resource (in this case TES plants) and the projected changes due to management activities with the natural variability over time in the resources and processes of concern. This approach is difficult for these plants since long-term data are usually lacking, and many TES plant habitats have a long history of disturbance (i.e. an undisturbed reference is often lacking). For some species, particularly those that do not tolerate disturbance or are found under dense canopy conditions, minimizing on-site changes to TES plants is an effective way of reducing cumulative impacts. MacDonald (2000) states, "If the largest effect of a given action is local and immediate, then these are the spatial and temporal scales at which the effect would be easiest to detect. If one can minimize the adverse effects at this local scale, it follows that there would be a greatly reduced potential for larger-scale [cumulative] effects". Even though the cumulative effects analysis for TES plants is hampered by the absence of historic data and the lack of an undisturbed reference, cumulative effects may be minimized by reducing the local (direct and indirect) effects. For other species, particularly those that are disturbance tolerant or fire-followers, minimizing on-site changes can be detrimental. These species tolerate or benefit from on-site changes, which result in opening the stand, reducing the potential for catastrophic fire, and increasing light reception in the understory. Thus, the response to the management activities is species-dependent. If adverse effects are not minimized at the local level, cumulative effects may result. Past and present forest management activities have caused changes in plant community structure and composition across the forests. These management activities have altered the present landscape to various degrees and have had direct, indirect, and possibly cumulative effects on these plant

48 Rangeland Management Plan for the Red Parks Analysis Area Environmental Assessment species. These effects can be minimized by implementing integrated design features or mitigation measures to monitor or offset impacts to these plant species. With these protective measures in place, cumulative effects are less likely to occur. For these plant species analyzed in this document, historical population data is unavailable. It is unknown whether these species have always been rare or if management activities have made them less common across the landscape due to cumulative effects. By performing botanical surveys and protecting or enhancing known populations of these species, cumulative effects will be minimized. The actions and effects described above can be both additive and interactive to each other and to the direct and indirect effects described above. Because there are policies, standards and guidelines that limit effects to their habitat, the cumulative effects are not expected contribute to any change in status or viability. Also, the cumulative effects are not expected contribute to an increase in any current or predicted downward trend in population numbers or density or to current or predicted downward trends in habitat capability that would reduce the existing distribution of any of the R2 sensitive plant species carried forward into this analysis. Recreation Existing Condition Recreation emphasis in the analysis area is classified as dispersed, and includes camping, hunting, fishing, hiking, and motorized trail use. The only recreation facilities include trailheads for motorized trails. This area has the highest density of motorized use on the District, and coupled with dispersed camping, these two summer activities account for most of the recreation occurring in the area from Mid-June to mid-September, when the big game hunting season becomes the primary recreational activity. Main concentration areas for dispersed camping are in Little and Big Red Parks, along FSR 500, and near the trailheads. Dispersed recreation activities and livestock grazing in the area have coexisted for a long time with minimal issues. Some sporadic site specific issues include sheep bedding near dispersed camping areas, and herd dogs appearing to be aggressive towards recreationists and their pets (dogs). These instances are relatively rare, and occur during busier times, including holiday weekends such as July 4 th and Labor Day weekends, when the area is near capacity for recreationists. With the season of use starting after July 4th in the Little Red Park, Summit Creek and Middle Fork-Circle Bar allotments conflicts have been minimal, less than during other busy weekends in the area.

Environmental Consequences Alternative 1: No Action-No Grazing Direct, Indirect, & Cumulative Effects: This alternative could have some socially related effects on those who recreate in this area. Northwest Colorado hosts one of the largest herds of elk in North America and elk hunting is tremendously popular both for recreation and economic reasons. Nearby communities rely on big game hunting for sustaining many retail, service and outfitting businesses. Some visitors, particularly elk hunters, have commented that the grazing of cattle and sheep and the presence of guard dogs negatively affect their hunting success. Other visitors have expressed an appreciation of the western heritage associated with ranching and enjoy seeing livestock grazing on public land.

______49

If livestock are not allowed to graze, the quality of experience for hunters may improve, resulting in increased hunting activity in this area. Other recreational uses such as hiking and camping outside of hunting seasons may increase. An increase in any recreational activity is an increase in all types of human use. This may result in conflicts with wildlife. More dispersed camping may occur since campers or hunters would not be encountering livestock during their stay. Increased recreation may cause increased conflicts within and between users resulting in more enforcement and compliance with NFS land use. Alternative 2 & 3: Continue Current Management & Proposed Action Direct, Indirect, & Cumulative Effects: Of the changes proposed for management of livestock in this analysis, proposed changes of the season of use have the greatest potential to affect the recreation resource, mostly in the vicinity of the heavy dispersed campsites along FSR 500. Moving the start date of the season of use to before the July 4 th holiday for sheep in the Little Red Park and Circle Bar allotments will increase the potential for conflict with recreationists. This weekend is the first holiday weekend of the summer the area is open to motorized travel and is the busiest weekend of the season. Currently, these areas do not have grazing until after the busy July 4 th weekend. By extending the season of use to September 30, annually, active grazing will be occurring during the archery and muzzleloading hunting season. The current season of use impacts only the first week of archery season, and does not overlap with the muzzleloading season. While these changes to the season of use are consistent with the Forest Plan, the perception of livestock grazing on the forest will upset some sportsmen who feel the two resources should not occur at the same time. Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species The effects of implementing an action alternative to Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Species have been evaluated and are documented in the following three documents: 1. Plants Biological Evaluation and Assessment 2. Aquatic Animal Biological Evaluation 3. Terrestrial Animal Biological Evaluation and Assessment These documents are incorporated by reference and can be found in the project record for this EA.

50 Rangeland Management Plan for the Red Parks Analysis Area Environmental Assessment

The conclusion of the Terrestrial Animal Biological Evaluation for the analysis is presented in Table 14 and determinations are contingent upon incorporation of TES project design criteria.

Table 14. Summary of Determinations to TES Terrestrial Animal Species by the Proposed Action.

SPECIES APPLICABLE DOCUMENTED BIOLOGICAL COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME EVAL. HABITAT (S) IN PROJECT DETERMINATION CRITERIA AREA? MAMMALS American marten Martes americana YES 4, 5 No Impact Canada Lynx (T) Lynx Canadensis SF, AS, LPP, RIP NO Refer to BA Fringed myotis Myotis thysanodes RO, PP NO 4, 5 No Impact Pygmy shrew Sorex hoyi (syn. May impact Microsorex hoyi) SF, LPP, RIP, individuals, but is not NO likely to cause a trend WET, FM toward federal listing or a loss of viability River otter Lontra canadensis WET, RIP NO 1, 6 No Impact Rocky Mountain bighorn Ovis canadensis May impact sheep individuals, but is not RO YES likely to cause a trend toward federal listing or a loss of viability Townsend’s big-eared bat Plecotus townsendii RO, PP, MS NO 4, 5 No Impact Wolverine Gulo gulo SF, AL, AS, LPP, No Impact NO 6,7 RO BIRDS American peregrine Falco peregrinus anatum No Impact NO 4, 5 falcon RO American three-toed Picoides dorsalis No Impact NO 4, 5 woodpecker SF, AS, LPP Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus RIP, AQ NO 4, 5 No Impact Black swift Cypseloides niger AQ, RO No Impact NO 1, 4, 5 (waterfalls) Black-backed Picoides arcticus No Impact NO 4, 5 woodpecker SF, LPP Boreal owl Aegolius funereus SF, LPP NO 4, 5 No Impact Brewer’s sparrow Spizella breweri May impact individuals, but is not MS, S NO likely to cause a trend toward federal listing or a loss of viability Columbian sharp-tailed Tympanuchus phasianellus No Impact NO 6 grouse columbianus MS, S Flammulated owl Otus flammeolus PP, AS NO 4, 5 No Impact Grasshopper sparrow Ammodramus savannarum S, MS NO 2 No Impact Greater sage-grouse Centrocercus No Impact NO 1, 6 urophasianus MS, S Lewis’s woodpecker Melanerpes lewis RIP, AS, PP, No Impact NO 1, 6 FM Loggerhead shrike Lanius ludovicianus MS, FM, RIP NO 4, 5 No Impact Northern goshawk Accipiter gentilis SF, AS, LPP YES 4, 5, 8 No Impact Northern harrier Circus cyaneus May impact MS, RIP, WET, individuals, but is not NO likely to cause a trend G toward federal listing or a loss of viability Olive-sided flycatcher Contopus cooperi SF, AS, LPP, No Impact NO 4, 5 RIP, WET, FM Purple martin Progne subis AS, RIP NO 4, 5 No Impact Sage sparrow Amphispiza bellii MS, S NO 1, 4, 5 No Impact

______51

SPECIES APPLICABLE DOCUMENTED BIOLOGICAL COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME EVAL. HABITAT (S) IN PROJECT DETERMINATION CRITERIA AREA? White-tailed ptarmigan Lagopus leucurus May impact individuals, but is not AL, SA NO likely to cause a trend toward federal listing or a loss of viability Yellow-billed cuckoo Coccyzus americanus RIP, WET NO 1, 4, 5, 6 No Impact

Key: SF =Spruce/Fir; AS =Aspen; LPP =Lodgepole Pine; MS = Mountain Shrub; FM =Forest Meadows; AL =Alpine; RIP =Riparian; WET =Wetland; AQ =Aquatic; RO =Rock/Cliff/Cave/Canyon/Mines; PP =Ponderosa Pine; GO =Gambel Oak; PJ =Pinyon-Juniper; D=Desert; G=Grassland; SA =Sub-alpine; S=Sagebrush For Federally listed terrestrial animal species the action alternatives associated with the RPAA will have “No impact” for the western yellow-billed cuckoo or their associated habitats and is “NOT LIKELY TO ADVERSELY AFFECT” the Canada lynx. Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Plant Species Introduction The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Colorado Field Office updated its list of threatened and endangered species by county in January 2010. No federally listed plant species are known to occur in Routt County. No federally Threatened, Endangered or Proposed (TES) plant species or habitats were expected or found in the project area. No consultation with the US Fish and Wildlife Service has been initiated for the proposed action.

Summary of findings for Region 2 Sensitive Plant Species and species of local concern Twenty-three Region 2 sensitive species and 66 species of local concern were analyzed in this document. Determinations are summarized in provided in Table 15. Rationales for these determinations follow the table. These analyses assume the proposed action adheres to the design criteria presented in this document.

Table 15. Summary of Determinations to Sensitive Plant Species.

No Continue Proposed Species Common name Rank Action Current Mgmt Action Astragalus leptaleus Park milkvetch R2 Sens. BE MAII-A MAII-A Botrychium “furcatum” Forkleaf moonwort R2 Sens. BE MAII-A MAII-A Narrowleaf B. lineare R2 Sens. BE MAII-A MAII-A moonwort Lesser panicled Carex diandra R2 Sens BE MAII-AD MAII-AD sedge Carex livida Livid sedge R2 Sens BE MAII-AD MAII-AD Lesser yellow lady’s Cypripedium parviflorum R2 Sens. BE MAII-AD MAII-AD slipper orchid Drosera rotundifolia Roundleaf sundew R2 Sens. BE MAII-AD MAII-AD Eriophorum altaicum var. Altai cottongrass R2 Sens. BE MAII-A MAII-A neogaeum Eriophorum gracile Slender cottongrass R2 Sens. BE MAII-AD MAII-AD Festuca hallii Hall’s fescue R2 Sens. BE MAII-A MAII-A Ipomosis aggregata ssp. weberi Rabbit Ear’s gilia R2 Sens. BE MAII-DS MAII-DS Kobresia simplicosa Simple bog sedge R2 Sens. BE MAII-A MAII-A Machaeranthera coloradoensis Colorado tansy aster R2 Sens. NE NE NE 52 Rangeland Management Plan for the Red Parks Analysis Area Environmental Assessment

No Continue Proposed Species Common name Rank Action Current Mgmt Action White adder’s mouth Malaxis brachypoda R2 Sens. BE MAII-A MAII-A orchid Rocky Mountain Mimulus gemmiparus R2 Sens. NE NE NE monkeyflower Harrington’s Penstemon harringtonii R2 Sens BE MAII-A MAII-A penstemon Potentilla rupinocola Rock cinquefoil R2 Sens NE NE NE Rubus arcticus ssp. acaulis Northern blackberry R2 Sens. BE MAII-AD MAII-AD Salix candida Sageleaf willow R2 Sens. BE MAII-AD MAII-AD Salix serrissima Autumn willow R2 Sens. BE MAII-AD MAII-AD Sphagnum angustifolium Peat moss R2 Sens. BE MAII-AD MAII-AD Utricularia minor Lesser bladderwort R2 Sens. NE NE NE Viola selkirkii Selkirk’s violet R2 Sens. BE MAII-A MAII-A Adoxa moshcatellina Moshatel SOLC NE NE NE Agoseris lackshewitzii Mill Creek agoseris SOLC BE MAII-AD MAII-AD Allium shoenoprasum var. Wild chives SOLC BE MAII-AD MAII-AD sibiricum Aralia nudicaulis Wild sasparila SOLC BE MAII-4 MAII-4 Aspelenium septentrionale Forked spleenwort SOLC NE NE NE Athyrium filix-femina Common lady fern SOLC BE MAII-AD MAII-AD Besseya wyomingenis Wyoming besseya SOLC BE MAII-AD MAII-AD Botrychium echo reflected grapefern SOLC BE MAII-AD MAII-AD Botrychium hesperium western moonwort SOLC BE MAII-AD MAII-AD Botrychium lanceolatum lanceleaf grapefern SOLC BE MAII-AD MAII-AD Botrychium lunaria common moonwort SOLC BE MAII-AD MAII-AD Botrychium minganense Mingan moonwort SOLC BE MAII-4 MAII-4 Botrychium multifidum leathery grapefern SOLC BE MAII-AD MAII-AD Botrychium pallidum pale botrychium SOLC BE MAII-4 MAII-4 Botrychium pinnatum northern moonwort SOLC BE MAII-4 MAII-4 Botrychium simplex little grapefern SOLC BE MAII-A MAII-A Northern water Callitriche hermaphroditica SOLC NE MAII-AD MAII-AD starwort Two-headed water Callitriche heterophylla SOLC MAII-AD MAII-AD startwork NE Carex buxbaumii Buxbaum ’s sedge SOLC BE MAII-AD MAII-AD Carex concinna Low northen sedge SOLC BE MAII-A MAII-A Carex hallii Deer sedge SOLC BE MAII-A MAII-A Carex lasiocarpa Woollyfruit sedge SOLC BE MAII-AD MAII-AD Carex limosa Mud sedge SOLC BE MAII-AD MAII-AD Carex magellanica var. irrigua Boreal bog sedge SOLC BE MAII-AD MAII-AD Carex stenoptila Riverbank sedge SOLC BE MAII-A MAII-A Carex viridula Little green sedge SOLC BE MAII-A MAII-A Comarum palustre Marsh cinquefoil SOLC BE MAII-AD MAII-AD Cornus canadensis Bunchberry SOLC BE MAII-AD MAII-AD Cryptogramma stelleri Fragile rockbrake SOLC BE MAII-A MAII-A Purple lady ’s Cypripedium fasciculatum SOLC BE MAII-DS MAII-DS slipper Draba spectabilis var. oxyloba Showy draba SOLC BE MAII-A MAII-A Huperzia haleakalae Pacific clubmoss SOLC BE MAII-A MAII-A Crandall ’s wild Illamnia crandalli SOLC BE MAII-A MAII-A hollyhock Large flower Illamnia grandiflora SOLC BE MAII-AS MAII-AS globemallow

______53

No Continue Proposed Species Common name Rank Action Current Mgmt Action Streambank wild Illamnia rivularis SOLC BE MAII-A MAII-A hollyhock Juncus filiformis Tread rush SOLC BE MAII-AD MAII-AD Juncus vaseyi Vasey bulrush SOLC BE MAII-A MAII-A Lesquerella parvula Pigmy bladderpod SOLC BE MAII-2 MAII-2 Lewisia rediviva Bitterroot SOLC BE MAII-AD MAII-AD Rocky Mtn Liatris ligulistylis SOLC BE MAII-A MAII-A Blazingstar Broad-leaved Listera convallariodes SOLC BE MAII-AD MAII-AD twayblade Lomatium bicolor var. Wasatch desert SOLC BE MAII-A MAII-A leptocarpum parsley Lomatogonium rotatum Marsh felwort SOLC BE MAII-A MAII-A Lycopodium annotinum Stiff clubmoss SOLC BE MAII-AD MAII-AD Mentzelia multicaulis var. Manystem SOLC BE MAII-A MAII-A multicaulis blazingstar Mentzelia rubsbyi Ruby ’s blazingstar SOLC BE MAII-A MAII-A Menyanthes trifoliata Buckbean SOLC BE MAII-AS MAII-AS Packera crocata Saffron groundsel SOLC BE MAII-A MAII-A Packera pauciflora Alpine groundsel SOLC BE MAII-A MAII-A Sagebrush Penstemon cyathophorus SOLC BE MAII-A MAII-A beardtongue Penstemon radicosus Matroot penstemon SOLC BE MAII-A MAII-A Arrowleaf sweet Petasites frigidus var . sagittatus SOLC BE MAII-AD MAII-AD coltsfoot Plantanthera sparsiflora var. Sparse-flower bog SOLC BE MAII-AD MAII-AD ensifolia orchid Rocky Mountain Polypodium saximontanum SOLC NE NE NE polypody Polysticum lonchitis Northern hollyfern SOLC BE MAII-AD MAII-AD Whiteveined Pyrola picta SOLC BE MAII-DS MAII-DS wintergreen Curlyhead Pyrrocoma crocea SOLC BE MAII-AS MAII-AS goldenweed Rhododendron abliflorum var. Cascade azalea SOLC BE MAII-A MAII-A warrennii Sagittaria calycin var calycina Hooded arrowhead SOLC NE NE NE Scipus microcarpus Panicled bulrush SOLC BE MAII-A MAII-A Sisyrinchium pallidum Pale blue-eyed grass SOLC BE MAII-A MAII-A Sparganium natans Small bur-reed SOLC BE MAII-AD MAII-AD Trichorphorum pumilum Rolland’s bulrush SOLC BE MAII-A MAII-A Triglochin palustre Marsh arrowgrass SOLC BE MAII-A MAII-A Trillium ovatum Western wakerobin SOLC BE MAII-AS MAII-AS Viburnum edule Squashberry SOLC BE MAII-AD MAII-AD

Rationale for Determinations No Action Alternative A determination of “Beneficial Effect” ( BE ) was given for species that grow in habitat known to be or potentially used by livestock for grazing or travel. Removal of livestock would significantly reduce the risk of consumption and/or trampling, as well as habitat degradation through soil alterations and introduction of non-native invasive species.

54 Rangeland Management Plan for the Red Parks Analysis Area Environmental Assessment

A determination of “No Effect” ( NE ) was given for species that inhabit cliffs or rocky areas and for submerged aquatic species. Livestock generally do not access these areas. Removal of livestock is unlikely to have significant effects to these species. Continue Current Management & Proposed Action Alternatives Determinations were not significantly different between these two alternatives. Rationale for determinations on these alternatives follows. A determination of “No Effect” ( NE ) was given for species that inhabit cliffs or rocky areas and for submerged aquatic species. Livestock generally do not access these areas. Renewal of livestock permit is unlikely to have significant effects to these species.

A determination of “May adversely impact but not likely to result in a loss of viability on the planning unit, nor cause a trend towards federal listing or a loss of species viability range wide” (MAII-A) was given for species that occur in habitat known to be or potentially used by livestock for grazing or travel. Species with this designation are assumed present in the project areas (per R2 FSM 2672.43). A determination of “May adversely impact individuals but not likely to result in a loss of viability on the planning unit, nor cause a trend towards federal listing or a loss of species viability range wide” ( MAII-AD ) was given for species that occur in habitat known to be or potentially used by livestock for grazing or travel. Species with this designation are assumed present in the project area (per R2 FSM 2672.43) and have 10 or fewer documented occurrences on the planning unit. A determination of “May adversely impact individuals but not likely to result in a loss of viability on the planning unit, but would not cause a trend towards federal listing or a loss of species viability range wide” ( MAII-AS ) was given for species that occur in habitat known to be or potentially used by livestock for grazing or travel. These species have not been documented in the project area but have more than 10 known populations on the unit. A determination of “May adversely impact individuals but not likely to result in a loss of viability on the planning unit, but would not cause a trend towards federal listing or a loss of species viability range wide” ( MAII-DS ) was given for species that occur in habitat known to be or potentially used by livestock for grazing or travel. These species were documented in the project area and have more than 10 known populations on the unit. Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Aquatic Species The FWS believes that one of the major causes for the decline of these species is the effect of impoundments and water depletions. There is no water depletions associated with this project and the project would not have any net effect on downstream habitats. Therefore there would be no direct, indirect or cumulative effects associated with the proposed action to the endangered downstream fish populations or habitat. There would be no effect to the Colorado pikeminnow, bonytail chub, humpback chub or razorback sucker from the proposed action. The rationale for this determination is because the endangered fish or its habitat is not present on the Medicine Bow - Routt National Forests or Thunder Basin National Grassland and no water depletions are associated with this project. Consultation with the Fish and Wildlife Service is not required for these species. Summary of findings for Sensitive Aquatic Species Three Region 2 sensitive aquatic species or potential habitat are known or thought to occur within the Red Parks Range Analysis Area. Rangeland management activities would occur near

______55

known and potential habitat for these species. Based on the effects analysis, some individuals may be 1) directly crushed by trampling and 2) indirectly affected by modified habitat conditions. Therefore, 1) the Proposed Action may adversely impact individuals, but not likely to result in a loss of viability in the Planning Area, nor cause a trend toward federal listing for the boreal toad and Northern leopard frog, and 2) will have no impact for the Colorado River cutthroat trout.

Table 16. Summary of Determinations to Sensitive Aquatic Species

Determination of Effects Common Name Scientific Name Status Alternatives 2 and 3 Alternative 1 (Proposed Action) No Action Boreal Toad Anaxyrus boreas MAII 1 NI 2 Sensitive boreas Northern Leopard Lithobates pipiens MAII NI Sensitive Frog Colorado River Oncorhyncus NI NI Sensitive cutthroat trout clarkii plueriticus

Key: MAII 1 = May adversely impact individuals, but not likely to result in a loss of viability in the Planning Area, nor cause a trend toward federal listing. NI 2 = No Impact. Management Indicator Species A complete terrestrial wildlife MIS analysis and an aquatic wildlife MIS analysis can be found in the project record. Introduction The National Forest Management Act directs National Forests to identify Management Indicator Species (MIS). MIS are chosen as species representative of certain habitat conditions important to a variety of other species. MIS are generally presumed to be sensitive to habitat changes. By monitoring and assessing populations of MIS, managers can determine if management actions are affecting species populations. According to the Routt National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan amendment #4 (USDA Forest Service, 2007), MIS for the Routt National Forest (RNF) include the 6 wildlife species found in Table 17. Table 18 outlines RNF MIS, their presence in the analysis area, and anticipated effects due to implementation of an action alternative.

Table 17. Routt National Forest Revised MIS List

Routt National Forest Revised MIS List Common Name Scientific name Golden-crowned kinglet Regulus satrapa Northern goshawk Accipiter gentilis

Vesper sparrow Pooecetes gramineus Wilson's warbler Wilsonia pusilla Colorado River cutthroat trout Oncorhynchus clarki pleuriticus Brook trout Salvelinus fontinalis

56 Rangeland Management Plan for the Red Parks Analysis Area Environmental Assessment

Table 18. RNF MIS, their presence in the analysis area, and anticipated effects due to implementation of an action alternative.

Species Habitat Present Common Name Management Present in Summary of Anticipated Effects From Implementation of in of MIS Issue Analysis the Proposed Action to MIS Analysis Area? Area? The species was documented in the pre-field review with 13 observation records composed of 19 individuals. Spruce-fir Implementation of the proposed action will have no impact Golden- timber Yes Yes on the spruce-fir forests and thus no impact to the golden- crowned Kinglet management crowned kinglet or its habitat. Domestic sheep/cattle grazing will not affect the mature spruce-fir forest type that this species utilizes for nesting and foraging. The species was documented in the pre-field review with 41 observation records composed of 63 individuals and 6 known nest sites and 4 suspected nest sites. Implementation of the Lodgepole Northern proposed action will not affect northern goshawk habitat, pine timber Yes Yes goshawk however disturbance to nesting goshawks could occur if management sheep/cattle grazing occurred near a nesting site. Domestic sheep/cattle grazing tends to occur outside of goshawk primary nesting habitat type, lodgepole pine. There are no records of the species in the project area. The Rangeland analysis area has vesper sparrow habitat in the grass, forb and No Vesper sparrow residual Yes shrub cover type. Grazing of domestic sheep/cattle could Records forage affect the vesper sparrow habitat therefore this species is evaluated in more detail in this analysis. The species was documented in the pre-field review with 10 observation records of 13 individuals. The project area has Wilson’s warbler habitat. Domestic sheep tend to avoid wet areas, so impacts to riparian areas from them are not anticipated to be significant enough to affect Wilson’s Wilson’s Herbivory in Yes Yes warbler habitat within the allotment. However, cattle tend to warbler riparian areas frequent wet areas and impacts to riparian areas may affect Wilson’s warbler habitat within the allotment. Implementation of watershed conservation design criteria and best management practices should reduce impacts to riparian areas and aquatic habitats. Colorado River cutthroat trout were historically absent from streams within the Circle Bar, Little Red and northern portions of the Big Red allotments. Colorado River cutthroat Aquatic trout historically occupied the North Fork Elk River and habitat some of its tributaries but have been extirpated by introduced Colorado River fragmentation trout. All fish-bearing streams in the project area contain cutthroat trout & brook trout and the habitat is suitable. The action alternative & sedimentation No/yes Yes/Yes has watershed design criteria incorporated that are likely to Brook of riparian minimize any impacts to trout habitat and in particular the Trout areas & potential for sedimentation of riparian areas, as well as aquatic aquatic habitat fragmentation. Therefore, the implementation habitats of an action alternative is anticipated to reduce impacts to these species, suitable habitat or forest-wide population trends.

______57

Forest Plan Consistency The proposal to continue to authorize grazing in the RPAA is consistent with the intent of the long term goals and objectives listed on pages 1-1 and 1-2 in the Forest Plan. This project was designed in conformance with land and resource management plan standards and incorporates appropriate land and resource management plan guidelines for rangelands with desired plant communities. These include aspen/forb, aspen/grass, sagebrush/shrub, sagebrush/grass, and coniferous vegetative communities. All plant communities in the analysis area will be managed to be free of noxious weeds as much as is feasible (Land and Resource Management Plan, page 2-42). See table 6 in this document for a comparison of Forest Plan consistency between alternatives. Inventoried Roadless Areas Alteration of the roadless character of the RPAA was not identified as an issue. None of the alternatives has the potential to affect roadless character. The Dome Peak roadless area occurs within the analysis area ( see figure 2 ). Social and Economic Analysis This analysis describes the financial and economic effects on 1) the livestock grazing permittees of the project area and 2) the ranching communities and economy of Routt County. The social analysis describes effects on groups of individuals, communities, community institutions, and groups of communities. Affected Environment Unlike much of Colorado, which was founded on the mining of gold and silver, the settlement of Routt County was based almost entirely on agriculture, an industry that few thought possible in the region during the initial days of the Colorado Gold Rush. Given the level of social and economic change that has occurred in the region over the last decade, the citizens of northwestern Colorado have become increasingly aware of the fundamental values and cultural themes which have historically formed their communities. Ranching continues to be important and significant to the economy of Routt County. Out of 610 farms and ranches throughout Routt County in 2007, 33 were involved in sheep ranching industry. Inventories of sheep and lambs in 2007 totaled 8,903 head. Assuming a full 12 months for each head, 106,836 head months (HMs) was estimated for Routt County in 2007. Grazing on the four allotments analyzed in this document represents .09% of county-wide totals for sheep and lambs. Perspectives on the Importance of Grazing NFS Lands Although most ranches in the West are only partially dependent on federal grazing land for forage, this forage source is often a critical part of their livestock operation. Greer (1994) and Taylor et al (1992) both found that while the reliance of ranchers on forage from federal land grazing can appear relatively unimportant when calculated on an acreage or animal-unit-month (AUM) basis, they become quite important when calculated on a seasonal dependency basis. The rigidity of seasonal forage availability means that the optimal use of other forages and resources are impacted when federal AUMs are not available. Dozens of researchers over the last 25 years have found that potential reductions in income and net ranch returns are greater than just the direct economic loss from reductions in federal grazing. Because ranching operations have

58 Rangeland Management Plan for the Red Parks Analysis Area Environmental Assessment economic linkages with other sectors of the area’s economy, changes in federal grazing can also have implications for the overall economy.

Results from ranch level analyses suggest that there are at least three possible approaches to evaluating the economic importance of federal grazing to local communities: 1) evaluating federal AUMs only, 2) evaluating federal AUMs and the effects on total ranch production, and 3) evaluating federal AUMs and their effect on the economic viability of the ranch operation. Taylor, et al (2005) found in Park County, Wyoming that the effects of federal grazing to the local economy were roughly twice as large when considering total ranch production compared to federal AUMs only. From the perspective of ranch viability, effects to the local economy were roughly twice as large compared to total ranch production, or four times larger than federal AUMs only. Which of these approaches is the most relevant in a particular situation depends on a number of factors including the individual ranch’s level of dependency on federal grazing, the magnitude of the proposed change in grazing, the financial solvency of the ranch, the availability of alternative sources of forage, and the desire of the rancher to remain in ranching. Limited information regarding some of these factors is available and discussed below. Other information is unavailable or beyond the scope of this analysis. Many ranch operations in Northwest Colorado have built their operation with reliance upon federal grazing permits. Private grazing land is generally not available for replacement of federal permits, due in part to high land values in Routt and adjacent Moffat County. Consequently, permittee operations are quite vulnerable to changes in Federal grazing. Should these ranches cease operation, land values suggest that residential development would likely replace agricultural use of these private lands. Although a definitive assessment is not possible for this analysis, it is recognized that adjustments to federal grazing, whether in terms of AUM reductions or cost increases to permittees, can have important consequences to individual ranch operations and ranch viability, as well as implications to families, social structure, lifestyle, local economies, and land use.

Social Effects Common to All Alternatives No social group would be made vulnerable by Forest Service actions related to the issuance of livestock grazing permits. Participation by permittees and others in the ranching business in a variety of community, charitable, social, church, and school groups would be expected to remain high. Social associations among ranchers would be expected to remain in place under both alternatives. Some organizations and informal gatherings might experience minor changes in participation under these alternatives, but this may be more attributable to ongoing changes in cultural and population makeup in Routt County, rather than a consequence of any alternative. Finally, the alternatives would have no effect on public health and safety.

Alternative 1: No Action – No Grazing The elimination of grazing on these allotments would significantly affect permittee operations, and possibly ranch viability. Some operations could be shut down. The sale of ranch properties in Colorado often invites development and changes in land use; such changes could be expected in this part of Routt County. Families and groups in the smaller communities could experience a variety of lifestyle changes.

______59

Those publics preferring sheep and cattle free areas would be positively affected by the implementation of this alternative.

Alternative 2 & 3: Continue Current Management & Proposed Action Because this alternative retains forage opportunities for permittee operations, there would be no broad-scale changes expected in the social demographics of the area. Those in the area who would like to see an end to grazing in the area will continue to have concerns associated with the use of forage on National Forest lands.

Economic Effects Alternative 1: No Action – No grazing The economic impacts of this alternative would be the greatest for permittees and to a limited extent, the local economy. Because all livestock grazing would cease in these allotments, some jobs could be directly affected. Because this analysis does not consider the permittees’ personal business and financial information (i.e., profit margin, real estate, equipment, other personal property investments, total debt, etc.), it is difficult to assess whether a ranch would become unviable under this alternative.

It could compel the permittees to rent or buy additional pasture or purchase additional feed to maintain their current livestock numbers. Although this would be an additional expense for the permittees, it may create economic opportunity for the suppliers of these products and/or needs. Under this alternative, any operation forced to sell, and therefore go out of business, would be perceived by local residents as directly caused by the elimination of livestock grazing on Federal land. When working ranches have ceased operations during the past decade, vacant ranchland has sometimes been sold to developers, thereby potentially increasing sub-divisions and the loss of open space.

Alternative 2 & 3: Continue Current Management & Proposed Action

No change to permittee operations or the local economy will result under these alternatives.

Environmental Justice This analysis is intended to evaluate some selected quantitative demographic indicators of minority populations and low-income populations of communities for purposes of assessing environmental justice (EJ) concerns in the project area. The following analysis only addresses indicators to determine the presence or absence of minority and/or low-income communities in a study area. Concern for environmental justice stems from Executive Order 12898, “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations,” signed February 11, 1994 by President Clinton. In this order (Section 1-101), “each Federal agency shall make achieving environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the United States.”

60 Rangeland Management Plan for the Red Parks Analysis Area Environmental Assessment

Table 19 Summarizes key demographic indicators of minority populations and low-income populations. While these indicators or the associated thresholds are not formally identified in federal codes and regulations, they serve as reasonable predictors of minority and low-income population status.

Table 19. Population statistics for race and ethnicity, and poverty status for Colorado and Routt County (2008 estimates from US Census Bureau)

Income in 2008 below 2008 Population Estimates poverty level

Percent of population Percent American Hispanic for whom of Indian Native Two or poverty Families Black or and Hawaiian and or Latino status is in Geographic 2008 Total African Alaska Other Pacific more (of any determined, poverty Area population White American Native Asian Islander races race) all ages status Colorado 4,939,456 89.9 4.2 1.2 2.7 0.1 1.9 19.9 11.5 11.4 Routt County 22,980 97.1 0.6 0.5 0.7 0.1 1.1 4.4 5.8 6.1

Minority Population About 7 percent of Routt County is non-white minority (or Black, Hispanic, Asian, Alaska Native, Native American, or some other race) and about 4.4 percent of the population is Hispanic or Latino. This is less than the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) threshold value of 50.0 percent, and less than the State of Colorado average population. It is unlikely that either alternative would have disproportionately negative impacts on any minority population. Low-Income Population The percent of individuals and families at or below the poverty level in Routt County are both less than the CEQ threshold value of 20 percent and within 6 percent of the State of Colorado averages. It is unlikely that either alternative would have disproportionately negative impacts on any low-income populations.

Conclusion Based upon the review of demographic characteristics of the population of Routt County and how they compare with suggested threshold levels for concern, there is no indication that the project area includes minority or low-income populations that should be considered under the provisions of Executive Order 12898. No further Environmental Justice analysis was completed for this project. Financial and Economic Efficiency The financial and economic efficiency analyses were conducted over the initial life of this decision, a period of ten years. All parties with identifiable costs and benefits (or revenues) were included. The scope of this analysis is the analysis area, consisting of four allotments.

The main criterion in assessing the financial and economic efficiency is Present Net Value (PNV). Present Net Value is the current value of future benefits and costs over the life of the project discounted at the agency-established rate of four percent. These figures are derived by an

______61

economic efficiency program called Quick-Silver. Table 20 displays the PNV for each alternative. Cost Efficiency Cost efficiency is an analysis approach that uses the monetary expression of some benefits and costs, while recognizing that other benefits and costs are best expressed in other terms. Costs expressed in dollar terms here include labor, materials, and expenses. Benefits expressed in dollar terms here include grazing fees and the value of the grazing permit. Other costs and benefits, such as watershed and riparian health or scenic quality, have not been assigned dollar values; therefore, they are expressed using other quantitative and qualitative terms in the EA and project record.

Table 20. Efficiency Analysis (Present Net Value in 2010 dollars)

Financial

Economic Forest Service Permittee Alternative 1 -$147,914 -$1,369 -$146,545 Alternative 2 $132,582 $1,028 $131,554 Alternative 3 (PA) $132,074 $790 $131,284 Alternative 1: No Action – No Grazing For the Forest Service, Alternative 1 is negative, given that no revenue will be collected, yet modest administrative costs to manage the land will continue. Alternative one would likely have long-term impacts on individual ranch operations. The loss of grazing privileges would require a reduction in livestock numbers and adjustments to ranch production. Private grazing lands, normally sought under these conditions, are difficult to acquire in this part of Routt County. Where such lands are available, they tend to be expensive. Some operators may adapt to the loss of the Federal rangeland currently available to them, but a more likely result would be the sale of livestock and ranch properties. Residential development is the likely successor under this scenario. Alternative 2: Continue Current Management Alternative two shows the highest PNV since Present Value Benefits are the greatest, less Present Value Costs, under current management stocking. Revenues are generated with no appreciable increased cost to the Forest Service to administer and monitor the allotments. Alternative 3: Proposed Action -- Adaptive Management Alternative three reflects proposed operational costs and income. The financial analysis shows that agency income from grazing permit fees does offset its costs of annual maintenance and permit administration (i.e. inspections). Grazing fees are set based on a formula established by Congress and Presidential Executive Order. The formula is not subject to change by the Forest Service. Permittee operations show a net profit for grazing on federal lands. Permittee costs include their annual operation and maintenance costs (e.g. transport of livestock and meetings with the Forest Service). The economic analysis includes the benefits and costs of both parties. When both agency and permittee benefits and costs are considered, the PNV is positive. All reports associated with the Quick-Silver anal ysis can be found in the project file at the Ranger District office. 62 Rangeland Management Plan for the Red Parks Analysis Area Environmental Assessment

CHAPTER 4 CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

The Forest Service consulted the following individuals, Federal, State, and local agencies, tribes and non-Forest Service persons during the development of this environmental assessment:

ID TEAM MEMBERS: Erik Taylor - Rangeland Management Specialist Pete Sargent – Rangeland Management Specialist Robert Skorkowksy - Wildlife Biologist Becky Jones – Wildlife Technician Liz Schnackenberg - Hydrologist Rick Henderson - Fisheries Biologist Lawrence Fullenkamp - Archeologist Kent Foster - Recreation Marti Aitken - Botanist

FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL AGENCIES: USDI Bureau of Land Management Colorado Division of Wildlife Colorado State Forest Service Colorado State Parks City of Steamboat Springs

TRIBES: Southern Ute Tribal Council Ute Mountain Ute Tribal Council Ute Tribal Business Committee Northern Arapaho Business Council OTHERS: See Appendix A

63

CHAPTER 5 PUBLIC COMMENT/RESPONSE Introduction This chapter displays the letters received during the 30-day public comment period and the Forest Service response to those letters received during that period. The legal notice announcing the availability of the scoping letter for Comment was published 3/28/10 in the Steamboat Pilot.

Table 21. Public comments received during 30 day comment period From: Wendell Funk To- Erik Taylor Comment April 5, 2010 Rangeland Management Specialist # Comment (C) and Response (R) WF-1 C: “F.S. policy- Make forage available to livestock operators.” Why not a greater concern for forage availability for wildlife and recreation?

R: There a variety of laws that require the Forest Service to manage the land for multiple uses, particularly the Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960. In accordance with these laws we try to provide equal opportunity on National Forests for wildlife watchers, recreation, and ranching. WF-2 C: Wouldn’t economic diversity and community stability be best provided through wildlife and recreation.

R: Thank you for your comment. Refer to WF#1. WF-3 C: If continued domestic livestock grazing is consistent with current Forest Plan guidelines, is that justification for no change within them?

R: Making changes to the Forest Plan guidelines is outside the scope of this analysis. WF-4 C: Proposed Action Design Criteria Since sheep are more damaging to rangeland than cattle, why not eliminate sheep grazing? Cow/Calf pairs does this.

R: The Forest Service manages public lands to meet Forest Plan direction which is meant to protect the valuable rangeland resource. We do not anticipate there to be any permanent degradation of any lands. Refer to Alternative 3 proposed action design criteria (page 16-20). WF-5 C: Why not alter allotment use timing to: 9,500 feet or greater elevation – August 31 less than 9,500 feet – September 15

R: We provide annual operating instructions that include instructions to permittees on how to rotate grazing use every year. The intent is to alternate the timing of grazing on portions of the allotment to allow grass communities to reach different stages of their life cycle.

64 Rangeland Management Plan for the Red Parks Analysis Area Environmental Assessment

WF-6 C: Bighorn Sheep: ELIMINATE, not just minimize potential contacts and conflicts between wild and domestic sheep! Cattle substitution does this! Currently vacant domestic sheep and/or goat allotments should be permanently withdrawn from grazing by domestic livestock. This best cares for the land and best serves the national public.

R: Thank you for your comment and concern. Refer to Alternative 3 design criteria (18-19), Wildlife Environmental Consequences (43-44), and Animal Biological Evaluation & Assessment (18-23). WF-7 C: Aquatics: If any sensitive amphibian sites are negatively affected by proposed actions, cease those operations. Forget mitigation. Let nature restore.

R: If breeding sites are found for any of the sensitive amphibian species and it is determined that the proposed actions would negatively affect the site, then operations would cease in that area until site specific mitigations can be implemented. WF-8 C: Botany: Don’t just reduce impacts, eliminate them! Sustainability of a healthy and evolving ecosystem must be given first consideration.

R: To fully reduce impact to the plant communities we would have to eliminate recreation, grazing, timber and all other National Forest programs. This would have a substantial social/economic impact to local communities. WF-9 C: Range Improvements Dugout pits? Eliminate, restoring to their original landscape. As the climate warms they will fail and be useless, they will always have associated erosion and sedimentation problems and they are costly.

R: There are no plans for the construction of any range improvements within this document. There are plans to restore one dugout pit to prevent erosion and sedimentation problems. These pits are used as a management tool to reduce use on riparian areas. We cannot address your concern of climate change because it is outside the scope of this analysis. WF-10 C: Noxious Weeds- use non-chemical methods.

R: We do use mechanical and biological methods when feasible. Unfortunately these methods do not eliminate all species of noxious weeds. WF-11 C: Monitoring – ANNUALLY!

R: Thank you for your comment. Annual monitoring procedures are outlined in the Monitoring section of this EA (page 21).

65

WF-12 C: Roadless Area- Fully protect their character!

R: The Forest Service 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule is a conservation policy limiting road construction in certain areas, therefore limiting environmental impacts in designated areas of public land. Currently permittees can only utilize existing roads and no road construction is proposed within this document. From: Jonathan Ratner To- Erik Taylor Western Watershed Rangeland Management Specialist Comment April 14, 2010 # Comment (C) and Response (R) JR-1 C: Stocking rates vs. suitable lands current productivity – Stocking was generally set in the 40-60’s and things have changed significantly since then. A far larger area was considered as forage base back then than now. Often FS NEPA just puts current permitted AUM’s into capable acres without determining what current productivity is and then subtracting wildlife (big game down to insects), soil building and maintenance and watershed protection needs. Given the Bighorn is the heaviest stocked Forest, this is critical.

R: Thank you for your comment. The scope of this analysis does not include the Bighorn National Forest. JR-2 C: Cap Suit – In addition to the above, the Forest needs to bring the general Cap/suit analysis at the Forest Plan level to the site-specific level as recent case law found.

R: Currently suitability and capability are addressed at the forest plan level. The time to address this is during the Forest Plan revision.

66 Rangeland Management Plan for the Red Parks Analysis Area Environmental Assessment

JR-3 C: Fair range condition is a very low bar for ‘satisfactory’. Also “desired conditions” need to be quantifiable and defined at the site and pasture level. The broad FP desired conditions are far too general to be useful in guiding allotment direction.

R: The desired conditions we describe provide a mix of resource values and ecological functionality that meet Forest Plan goals, objectives, standards and guidelines for upland shrublands, aspen stands and riparian areas/wetlands. In this way we avoid using parameter values that are either unobtainable or that under- or over-estimate the potential for a given site. A more general desired condition description also takes into account the natural changes in plant communities over time, such as natural successional changes and influences of wildfire, insect and disease, and wildlife impacts. Otherwise, a range of desired conditions would need to be created to address natural changes in plant communities.

Regarding the comment that “fair range condition is a very low bar for satisfactory, the interdisciplinary team guidance is provided by the Region 2 Rangeland Analysis and Management Training Guide (RAMTG) (USDA 1996, pp. 3-10 to 3-14). JR-4 C: I urge you to implement MIM as the riparian monitoring protocol because of its statistically valid results, defensible suite of parameters and cost/time effectiveness. A simple decision-tree for setting MIM parameter objectives was developed on the Caribou NF and provides an easy to implement, scientifically defensible process. See attached.

R: The Forest Service is currently working with the BLM to evaluate Multiple Indicators Monitoring (MIM) for potential adoption by the Forest Service. In the meantime, the method is used in some Forest Service regions and is available for optional use in Region 2 where the interdisciplinary team determines that it can provide value beyond existing approved methodologies. The interdisciplinary team determined that other available methods described in the RAMTG (USDA 1996) and listed in the monitoring section on pages 21 of the EA were sufficient to respond to concerns within the project area. The Forest and the interdisciplinary team are aware of the Caribou National Forest Riparian Grazing Implementation Guide (GIG), and much of the guidance is similar to that found in other literature sources on riparian management. The interdisciplinary team consulted a variety of publications in developing the proposed action and the monitoring plan. Riparian management and effects literature consulted are listed in the references section of this EA.

67

JR-5 C: Adaptive Management – The way the FS implements AM does not even come close to the requirements of an AM process as laid out in the literature. Chuck at the RO has provided the Forests direction (see attached) that at least comes close to a defensible AM process. Unfortunately, Forests cite it in their NEPA docs but fail to actually read and follow it. Please don’t make the same mistake. It needs to have clear measurable objectives, timelines, methods, locations, frequency, responsibilities and fully binding commitment to do the monitoring that AM requires.

R: The Proposed Action p. 13 states: “However, if monitoring shows that desired conditions are not being met, or if movement toward achieving the desired conditions in an acceptable timeframe is not occurring, then an alternate set of management actions, as described and evaluated under the NEPA analysis, would be implemented to achieve the desired results”. Monitoring methods in this document include both short- and long-term methods, as described in the Region 2 Rangeland Analysis and Management Training Guide (1996). Short-term monitoring will include forage utilization, streambank alteration, and compliance with annual operating instructions. Long-term monitoring includes periodic reassessment of soil stability and plant species composition on rangelands, and hydrologic function of streams and wetlands, and will be used to determine whether management is successful at continuing to move riparian and upland rangelands toward desired conditions. Please see section on monitoring beginning on page 21 for monitoring methods, frequency/timing of monitoring. We expect to fully and properly implement the monitoring schedule. An Environmental Analysis is not the appropriate instrument for securing funding needs Your comment does not specifically say what has failed and what actions are needed now. Overall, the existing condition reports show that management has been successful. However, there are some small areas that we would like to see improvement. They are discussed in the monitoring section of this document beginning on page 21.

JR-6 C: Do you already have a copy of RMRS-GTR-209? This is very useful for riparian management decisions.

R: Since RMRS-GTR-209 titled “A Review of Disease Related Conflicts Between Domestic Sheep and Goats and Bighorn Sheep” incorporates the principles developed by the Payette Principles Committee, it would not be appropriate for the Forest Service to use this publication in future agency decisions or policy development in light of the July 1, 2009, decision (Idaho Wool Growers Assoc. v. Schafer). Given these circumstances, the agency has retracted RMRS-GTR-209.

68 Rangeland Management Plan for the Red Parks Analysis Area Environmental Assessment

JR-7 C: An honest NEPA process that does not downplay the impacts.

R: Please see pages 24 to 62 of the EA for a full, honest disclosure of the potential impacts of the proposed actions. For example, in the MIS report the wildlife biologist identifies the potential effects of grazing impacts to habitat (p. 56-57). Specific impacts to threatened, endangered, sensitive species and species of local concern can be found on pages 50 through 56. In the BE, she identifies impacts to individually sensitive species throughout the document, including current unsatisfactory conditions, general impacts to sensitive species, and impacts to individual species. Peer reviewed literature on grazing and wildlife interactions are incorporated throughout the wildlife reports (MIS, BE, BA). Agencies are expected to reduce excessive paperwork by discussing only briefly issues other than significant ones [40 CFR 1500.4(c)].

JR-8 C: A process that actually uses/gathers data to show accurately current conditions and potential.

R: Since the EA is a concise document, it should not contain long descriptions or detailed data which the agency may have gathered. Rather, it should contain a brief discussion of the need for the proposal, alternatives to the proposal, the environmental impacts of the proposed action and alternatives, and a list of agencies and persons consulted [40 CFR 1508.9(b)].

JR-9 C: Data and science based decision-making not faith-based land management (act now-think never).

R: The interdisciplinary team did use data collected over the years and a variety of scientific papers, research, articles, and publications in the development of the specialists’ reports and proposed management actions. Literature is cited throughout the EA and specialists’ reports to support statements and conclusions. The project record also includes electronic and hard copy references provided by Western Watersheds Project that are available for the specialists to review and consider.

69

JR-10 C: Clear accountability – Let’s say you lived in Chicago (and happened to have dark skin) and you walked into a store and walked out with a $2 box of cookies and you broke the glass in the door on your way out. You would be spending 5-15 years in prison for that $50 of private property. But for some reason when it comes to public property, what do we do when a permittee steals, violates his contract damages public property? We pat him on the back and give him more money. A permit is a contract with the American public. There must be clear accountability so if a permittee violates his contract, there are clear repercussions laid out in the permit and AMP. Anything less is failing to uphold your public trust responsibilities.

R: It is well settled in both statutory and case law that a term grazing permit represents a privilege, not a right, to use National Forest System lands and resources (FSH 2209.13.11.1). Grazing permits are subject to administrative actions such as partial or total suspension or cancellation for violations of terms and conditions of the permit, which are found in parts 1, 2 and 3 of the grazing permit with term status and set forth at 36 CFR 222.4 (FSH 2209.13.16.2). JR-11 C: The NEPA document MUST examine past performance of (without such an analysis the NEPA document will be baseless): a. The FS b. The permittees c. Previous NEPA documents and their assumptions. For instance if you have a NEPA document that implemented all kind of “range improvements” 20 years ago to supposedly fix riparian issues, then you must answer, were they built? Maintained? Were the NEPA assumptions accurate, etc, did they actually improve riparian conditions and to what degree.

R: An EA must include the need for the proposal, the proposed action and alternatives, environmental impacts of the proposed action and alternative(s), and agencies and persons consulted. The EA shall briefly provide sufficient evidence and analysis, including the environmental impacts of the proposed action and alternative(s), to determine whether to prepare either an EIS or a FONSI (40 CFR 1508.9). JR-12 C: AM is not just listing a bunch of potential actions (nearly all of which the FS has already had for tools for decades) it must lay out clear decision trees for each issue with triggers, timelines and action taking if triggers exceeded.

R: Thank you for your comment (see JR-5). JR-13 C: The attached Writing Refuge Management Goals and Objectives provide excellent step by step instructions for implementing adaptive management.

R: See JR-5 for response on Adaptive management.

70 Rangeland Management Plan for the Red Parks Analysis Area Environmental Assessment

JR-14 C: Implement MIM and GIG (see attached) MIM is by far the most efficient and statistically valid method for riparian issues out there. GIG, (attached) is the best literature review on riparian grazing done anywhere, then the second half of the document translates that research into a decision- tree for making site specific objectives for riparian areas based on stream type, species etc.

R: Thank you for your comment (see JR-4). JR-15 C: Any cattle conversion must factor in that cattle graze very differently than sheep and spend most of their time in and near riparian (despite permittee promises to herd) A 7-1 or 10-1 conversion is closer to an actual AUM conversion.

R: Design criteria for the monitoring of riparian areas begin on page 21 and explain the extra protocol implemented for the introduction of cattle. AUM conversions are as follows: 1-one thousand pound cow equals one AUM. This information can be found in the Rangeland Analysis and Management Training Guide on page 3-18. JR-16 C: “If breeding sites are found” this assumes someone is actually looking. This is not sensitive species protection.

R: Information on sensitive species and protection can be found on pages 17-19, and 50-56. Also more information is available in the MIS and BABE. JR-17 C: The FS needs to rethink the permitting of sheep at all in these allotments since they are certainly within the 8 mile buffer required under WAFWA guidelines and Payette Principles.

R: Thank you for your comment and concern. Refer to Alternative 3 design criteria (18-19), Wildlife Environmental Consequences (45), and Animal Biological Evaluation & Assessment (18-23).

71

APPENDIX A

Biodiversity Conservation Alliance Biodiversity Conservation Alliance Chew Ranch Colorado Mountain Club Colorado Mountain College Colorado State Representative Craig City Council Duncan Livestock Company Fetcher Ranch Little Snake Motorcycle Club Look Ranch Needmore Ranch Peroulis Bros Ltd Partnership Poulter Camps Rocky Mountain Recreation Initiative Routt Powder Riders Sheep Mountain Partnership Strawberry Park Group Thompsen Family Limited Partnership Vista Verde Ranch Weatherly-White Family Partnership Westland Holdings Inc Wiregrass West Ltd Director State Planning Office Jerry Abboud Colorado OHV Coalition Sue Applegate Steamboat Lake Outfitters Julie Arington Steamboat Lake State Park Bill Atkins CDOW John Bartmann Mike Bauman Colorado Division of Wildlife Andy Bennett Bryan Bird Forest Guardians Richard Blackmore Dee Bolton Routt County Historic Preservation Gilbert Brady Northern Cheyenne Commission Richard Brannan, Sr Northern Arapahoe Tribe Karl Bunker Steamboat Lake Marina Doug and Jean Marie Button Doug Carlson Clark Ranch Partnership William Chair Northern Arapaho Tribe Betty Chapoose Norther Ute Tribal Council Eastern Shoshone Cultural Delphine Clair Committee NAGPRA Coordinator, Southern Ute Neil Cloud Tribal Council

72 Rangeland Management Plan for the Red Parks Analysis Area Environmental Assessment

Neil Cloud Southern Ute NAGPRA Coordinator Steve Coolidge Ray Corbett Megan Corrigan Center for Native Ecosystems Christina Currie Craig Chamber of Commerce Brad Cusenbary Routt County Riders Luke Danielson National Wildlife Federation Jim Darlington Inyan Kara Grazing Association Dan Davidson Museum NW Colo Historical Society Melissa Decker Land and Water Fund of the Rockies Danielle Domson CDOW Dan Ely Zirkel Air Quality Gary Erickson Bighorn Lumber Co Inc Jim Espy Steamboat Chamber Resort Sandra Evans-Hall Association Lyman Fancher Columbine Cabins Inc Cowboy Fisher Northern Cheyenne Tribe Mike Flanders Southern Cheyenne and Southern Darrell Flying-Man Arapaho Tribes Kevin Ford Elkridge Homeowners Clement Frost Southern Ute Tribal Council Wilderness Society, Wildland Fire Tom Fry Pgm Coordinator Wendell Funk Dave Garner John Geddie Frank Gerken Pablo Geronimo William and Ramona Green Jamin Grigg CDOW Rick Hammel Trout Unlimited Dave Harrison Cyclone Creek LLC Randy Harrison Intermountain Resources LLC Jim Haskins Colorado Division of Wildlife Jon Hawes Dutch Creek Guest Ranch Manuel Heart Ute Mountain Tribal Council Kim Hedberg Backcountry Snowsports Alliance Ray Heid Dels Triangle 3 Ranch Bill Hiss Black Mountain Trails Committee Wendy Holden Brian Holmes Colorado Division of Wildlife Diane Hoppe John Husband BLM, Little Snake Field Ofc Burton Hutchison Sr Northern Arapaho Business Council Charles Juare Stratton Sheep CO Ivan Kawcak John Keslick Terry Knight, Sr Ute Mountain NAGPRA Rep Judy Knight-Frank Ute Mountain Ute Tribal Council

73

Joe Lake FirstName LastName OrganizationName Brett Lee Straightline Rich Levy Sierra Club, Trappers Lake Chapter Tom and Patricia Anne Lindley Circle Four Lodge Toni Louder Colorado OHV Coalition Patrick Lynch Jones and Lynch Logging Stuart Macdonald Colorado State Parks Tom Maneotis Bick Marsh John Mason David May May S-S Ranch LLLP J N May Roland McCook Ute Tribal Business Committee Michael McGowan Ancient Forest Rescue Spike Meyring Mike Middleton Colorado Division of Wildlife Libby Miller CDOW Routt County Cattleman's Larry Monger Association CJ Mucklow Routt County CU Extension Office Maxine Natchees Northern Ute Tribal Council Terry Nelson State Historic Archaeology Edward Nichols Preservation Office George Nickas Wilderness Ranch David Nickum Colorado Trout Unlimited Mike Nottingham Nottingham Land & Livestock Patrick and Sharon O'Toole Banjo Sheep Company Chad Phillips Routt County Planning Commission Ivan Posey Shoshone Business Council Craig Preston Stagecoach State Park Steve and John Raftopoulos Dick Ramsey Walden Mayor John Randolph Jonathan Ratner Western Watersheds Project Allan Reishus Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation Holly Richter Liza Rossi Colorado Division of Wildlife Susan Saari Clark Store John Salazar US Representative Historic Preservation, Laureen Schaffer Intergovernmental Services Shirley Seely City Clerk Kirk Shiner Egeria Land and Cattle Bradford Smith Smith Rancho Ltd John Smith Morgan Creek Rocky Smith Colorado Wild Inc Ron Snowden Dan Souders Round Mountain Ranch John Spezia Nancy Stahoviak Routt County Commissioners

74 Rangeland Management Plan for the Red Parks Analysis Area Environmental Assessment

State Planning Director, Office Herschler Bldg 1E Robert Stickler Timberline Trailriders Inc Wyoming Game and Fish Rick Straw Department Jack Taylor Richard Teck Darrel Teter R & T Land and Cattle Northwest Colorado Snowmobile Joe and Jenny Tonso Club Tom Troxel Intermountain Forest Association John Twitchel Colorado State Forest Service Senator Mark Udall Senate Office Building Karen Vail Yampatika Gretchen Van De Carr Rocky Mountain Youth Corps William Van Straaten Anne Vickery Colorado Mountain Club Don Vogel William Walksalong Northern Cheyenne Tribal Council Jack Welch Blue Ribbon Coalition Jack White Joann White Tribal Historic Preservation Jamie Williams The Nature Conservancy City of Steamboat, Parks and Chris Wilson Recreation Eastern Shoshone Tribe Cultural Haman Wise Committee James Wolf Continental Divide Trail Society Don Woster Grand County Historical Association Jeff Yost CDOW Steve Znamenacek CDOW

75

APPENDIX B

The following are Forest Plan Standards (RNF, 1997) and WCP Management Measures with the associated Design Criteria the Watershed Conservation Practices Handbook (FSH 2509.25) which are pertinent to range management. These practices are proven to protect soil, water, aquatic, and riparian ecosystems (see FSH, 2509.25 for references).

RNF Water and Aquatic Guideline 1: Incorporate appropriate practices and design criteria from the Watershed Conservation Practices Handbook (FSH 2509.25) into all project design, analysis, and decision documents.

RNF Water and Aquatic Standard 3; WCP management measure (2): Manage land treatments to maintain enough organic ground cover in each activity area to prevent harmful increased runoff.

Design Criteria .

• Maintain the organic ground cover of each activity area so that pedestals, rills, and surface runoff from the activity area are not increased. The amount of organic ground cover needed will vary by different ecological types and should be commensurate with the potential of the site.

• Restore the organic ground cover of degraded activity areas within the next plan period, using certified local native plants as practicable; avoid persistent or invasive exotic plants.

RNF Water and Aquatic Standard 4; WCP 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.

Design Criteria .

• Allow no action that will cause long-term change to a lower stream health class in any stream reach. In degraded systems (at-risk or diminished stream health class), progress toward robust stream health within the next plan period.

• Allow no action that will cause long-term change away from desired condition in any riparian or wetland vegetation community. Consider management of stream temperature and large woody debris recruitment when determining desired vegetation community. In degraded systems, progress toward desired condition within the next plan period.

• Manage livestock use through control of time/timing, intensity, and duration/frequency of use in riparian areas and wetlands to maintain or improve long- term stream health. Exclude livestock from riparian areas and wetlands that are not meeting or moving towards desired condition objectives where monitoring

76 Rangeland Management Plan for the Red Parks Analysis Area Environmental Assessment

information shows continued livestock grazing would prevent attainment of those objectives.

• Keep stock tanks, salt supplements, and similar features out of the WIZ if practicable and out of riparian areas and wetlands always. Keep stock driveways out of the WIZ except to cross at designated points. Armor water gaps and designated stock crossings where needed and practicable.

• Manage dry meadow and upland plant communities, including Kentucky bluegrass types that have invaded into wetland /riparian areas in a manner that will contribute to their replacement over time by more mesic native plant communities to the extent practicable. Develop site-specific riparian stubble height standards or use the following default levels for carex and juncos species: 3-4 inches in spring-use pastures and 4-6 inches in summer or autumn use pastures; leave adequate residual stubble height to retain effective ground cover.

• Do not allow livestock grazing through an entire growing season in pastures that contain riparian areas and wetlands. Apply short-duration grazing as practicable (generally less than 20 days) to minimize re-grazing of individual plants, to provide greater opportunity for regrowth and to manage utilization of woody species and reduce soil compaction. During the hot season (mid-to-late summer) manage livestock herds to avoid concentrating in riparian areas and wetlands. Apply principles of the Grazing Response Index to livestock management (USFS, 1996a).

• Design grazing systems to limit utilization of woody species. Where woody species have been historically suppressed, or where the plant community is below its desired condition and livestock are a key contributing factor, manage livestock through control of time/timing, intensity, and duration/frequency of use so as to allow for hardwood growth extension and reproduction. Manage woody species in riparian areas to provide for stream temperature, bank stability and riparian habitat.

• Maintain the extent of stable banks in each stream reach at 74% or more of reference conditions. Consider degree of livestock trampling and riparian vegetation utilization on or immediately adjacent to stream banks, when timing livestock moves between units.

• Adjust management in riparian areas and wetlands to improve detrimental soil compaction whenever it occurs.

• Do not excavate earth material from, or store excavated earth material in, any stream, swale, lake, wetland, or WIZ.

• Emphasize natural stabilization processes consistent with the stream type and capability (Rosgen and Proper Functioning Condition processes) when restoring damaged stream banks. Use native vegetation for stream bank stabilization whenever practicable.

77

APPENDIX C – GLOSSARY

Active Nest – A nest that is still structurally sound and could reasonably be expected to be occupied in the future; the period of time that a nest can be unoccupied but still classified as active varies and is dependent on the characteristics of the species most likely to use the nest in the future. Adaptive Management - A type of natural resource management in which decisions are made as part of an ongoing process. Adaptive management involves testing, monitoring, evaluating, and incorporating new knowledge into management approaches based on scientific findings and the needs of society. Results are used to modify management policy. Adaptive Management (as defined in this EA) - Adaptive management is defined as a process where land managers implement management practices that are designed to meet Forest Plan standards and guidelines, and would likely achieve the desired conditions in a timely manner. If monitoring shows that desired conditions, as described by Forest Plan Direction, are not being met, then an alternate set of management actions, the effects of which are analyzed in this EA, would be implemented to achieve the desired results. Adverse Determinations - Please refer to the definition as found in the Biological Assessment and Evaluation (Biological Report) appendix. Adverse Effects (Heritage Resources) - Any effect on a heritage resource that would be considered harmful to those characteristics that qualify the property for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Affected Environment - The biological and physical environment that may be changed by proposed actions and the relationship of people to that environment. Allocation - The assignment of a land area to a particular use or uses to achieve management goals and objectives. Allotment - A designated area of land available for livestock grazing upon which a specified number and kind of livestock may be grazed under a range allotment management plan. It is the basic land unit used to facilitate management of the range resource on National Forest System lands, including national grasslands. Allotment Management Plan (AMP) - The document containing the action program needed to manage the range resource for livestock utilization, and possibly wildlife utilization, while considering the soil, watershed, wildlife, recreation, timber, and other resources in a range allotment. Allowable Use – 1) The degree of utilization considered desirable and attainable on various parts of a ranch or allotment considering the present nature and condition of the resource, management objectives, and levels of management. 2) The amount of forage planned to be used to accelerate range improvement. Alternative - A combination of management prescriptions applied in specific amounts and locations to achieve a desired management emphasis as expressed in goals and objectives. One of several policies, plans, or projects proposed for decision-making. An alternative need not substitute for another in all respects. Analysis Area - One or more capability areas combined for the purpose of analysis in formulating alternatives and establishing various impacts and effects. Animal Unit Month (AUM) - The amount of feed or forage required by an animal-unit for one month. Animal-Month - A month's tenure upon the rangeland by one animal. Must specify kind and class of animal. Note: This term is not synonymous with animal unit month (AUM).

78 Rangeland Management Plan for the Red Parks Analysis Area Environmental Assessment

Animal-Unit - Considered to be a mature 1,000-pound cow or the equivalent, based on an average daily forage consumption of 26 pounds dry matter per day. Annual (plant) - A plant that completes its life cycle and dies in one year or less. Aquatic Ecosystem - An ecosystem (biological and physical components and their interactions) in which water is the principal medium. Examples include wetlands, streams, reservoirs, and areas with plants or animals suited to either permanently or seasonally inundated soils. Archeological Resource - Any physical remains of past human life or activities. Available Forage - That portion of the forage production that is accessible for use by a specified kind or class of grazing animal. Available Lands - Those portions of the national forest or national grassland not administratively excluded from timber harvest or livestock grazing. Best Management Practices (BMPs) - Land management methods, measures or practices intended to minimize or reduce water pollution as well as practices that result in healthy ecosystems. Usually, BMPs are applied as a system of practices rather than a single practice. BMPs are selected based on site-specific conditions that reflect natural background conditions and political, social, economic, and technical feasibility. Big Game - Certain wildlife that may be hunted for sport under state laws and regulations, including elk, pronghorn antelope, mule and white-tail deer, turkey, and bighorn sheep. Biological Diversity - The full variety of life in an area, including the ecosystems, plant and animal communities, species and genes, and the processes through which individual organisms interact with one another and their environments. Emphasis is on the diversity of native or endemic species. Browse - Twigs, leaves, and young shoots of trees and shrubs upon which animals feed: in particular, those shrubs that are utilized by some livestock and big game animals for food. ‘C’ channel - C type channels have a well developed floodplain (slightly entrenched), are relatively sinuous with a channel slope of 2% or less and a bedform morphology indicative of a riffle/pool configuration. From: Rosgen, 1996 Candidate Species – Species for which the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has on file sufficient information on biological vulnerability and threat(s) to support issuance of a proposed rule to list the species for protection un the Endangered Species Act. Capable Rangeland - The potential of an area of land to produce resources, supply goods and services and allow resource uses under an assumed set of management practices and at given levels of management intensity. Capability depends on current conditions and site conditions such as climate, slope, landform, soils, and geology, as well as the application of management practices such as silviculture or protection from fire, insects, and disease. Carrying Capacity - The maximum possible stocking rate that is consistent with maintaining or improving vegetation or related resources. It may vary from year to year in the same area due to fluctuating forage production. Also called grazing capacity. Carrying Capacity (Wildlife and Livestock Grazing) - The maximum number of animals that can be supported in a given environment without deteriorating that environment. Climax - 1) The final or stable biotic community in a successional series that is self-perpetuating and in dynamic equilibrium with the physical habitat. 2) The assumed end point in succession. Cold-water Fishery - Steam and lake waters that support predominately cold-water species of game or food fishes, which have maximum, sustained water-temperature tolerances of about 70 degrees Fahrenheit in the summer. Conservation Practices - Required land use practices on the national grasslands that are imposed upon the persons or organizations holding grazing permits (including grazing agreements) in order to protect, improve, develop, and administer the land and thus assist in furthering the program of land conservation and good land utilization.

79

Consultation – 1) An active, affirmative process that (a) identifies issues and seeks input from appropriate American Indian governments, community groups, and individuals and (b) considers their interests as a necessary and integral part of the BLM and Forest Service decision-making process. 2) The legal obligation requiring the federal government, through consultation, to consider the interests of American Indian tribes and account for those interests in the decision-making process. This legal obligation is based in laws and numerous Executive Orders and statutes. 3) A process that involves discussions between a federal agency and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or the National Marine Fisheries Service under Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, regarding potential impacts on a species or critical habitat listed under Section 4 of the act. Continuous Grazing - The grazing of a specific unit by livestock throughout a year. Cumulative Impact - The impact on the environment that results from the incremental effect of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of the source (federal or nonfederal agencies, individuals). Cumulative effects can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over time. Deferment - Delay of livestock grazing on an area for an adequate time to allow plant reproduction, establishment of new plants, or restoration of vigor of existing plants. Deferred Rotation - To discontinue grazing on various parts of a range in succeeding years, allowing each part of the range to rest successively during the growing season to permit seed production, establishment of seedlings, or restoration of plant vigor. Each rested part of the range is grazed during the year. At least two, but usually three or more, separate grazing units are required. Desired Plant Community - A plant community that produces the kind, proportion, and amount of vegetation necessary for meeting or exceeding the land use plan/activity plan objectives established for an ecological site. The desired plant community must be consistent with the site's capability to produce the desired vegetation through management, land treatment, or a combination of the two. Desired Plant Species - Species that contribute positively to the management objectives. Degraded Range - Range where vegetation and soils have significantly departed from the natural potential. Corrective management measures, such as seeding, would change the designation from deteriorated range to some other term. Developed Recreation - This type of recreation is dependent on facilities provided to enhance recreational opportunities in concentrated use areas. Examples include campgrounds and picnic areas. Facilities in these areas might include roads, parking lots, picnic tables, toilets, drinking water and buildings. Direct Effects - Environmental effects caused by an action and that occur at the same time and place. Dispersed Recreation - This type of recreational use requires few, if any, improvements and may occur over a wide area. This type of recreation involves activities related to roads, trails and undeveloped waterways, and beaches. The activities do not necessarily take place on or adjacent to a road, trail, or waterway, only in conjunction with them. Activities are often day-use oriented and include hunting, fishing, boating, off-road vehicle use, hiking, and others. Disturbance - A discrete event, either natural or human induced, that causes a change in the existing condition of an ecological system. Diversity - Diversity refers to the distribution and abundance of different plant and animal communities and species within the area covered by land and resource management plans. This term is derived from the National Forest Management Act (NFMA). This term is not synonymous with biological diversity. Domestic - Refers to those animals and plants that are under the control of humans throughout their life cycle. Animals whose breeding is controlled by humans.

80 Rangeland Management Plan for the Red Parks Analysis Area Environmental Assessment

Drought – Any year or sequence of years when annual precipitation amounts are less than 75 percent below average. Ecosystem Management - Scientifically based land and resource management that integrates ecological capabilities with social values and economic relationships to produce, restore, or sustain ecosystem integrity and desired conditions, uses, products, values, and services over the long term. Effects - Physical, biological, social, and economic results (expected or experienced) resulting from achievement of outputs. Effects can be direct, indirect, and cumulative. Eligible (Heritage Resources) - Indicates that a specific heritage resource qualifies for or is already listed in the National Register of Historic Places. Endangered Species - Any species of animal or plant in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range and so designated by the Secretary of Interior in accordance with the 1973 Endangered Species Act. Endangered Species Act of 1973 - An act to conserve ecosystems for endangered species and threatened species, to conserve the endangered species and threatened species themselves, and to take appropriate steps to achieve the purposes of the (relevant) treaties and conventions. Eradication (Plant) - Complete killing or removal of a noxious plant from an area, including all plant structures capable of sexual or vegetative reproduction. Erosion - The wearing away of the land surface by running water, wind, ice, gravity, or other geological activities. ‘F’ channel - F type channels are the classic entrenched meandering channels working towards re- establishment of a functional floodplain inside the confines of a channel that is consistently increasing its width within the valley. The F stream systems are characterized by very high width/depth ratios at the bankfull stage, and bedforms features occurring as a moderated riffle/pool sequence. From: Rosgen, 1996 Fauna – All vertebrate and invertebrate animal species. Fire Suppression - All the work and activities connected with fire-extinguishing operations beginning with discovery and continuing until the fire is completely extinguished. Floodplain - The area adjacent to a stream/river channel effective in carrying flow, within which carrying capacity must be preserved and where the flood hazard is generally highest; that is, where flood depths and velocities are the greatest (FSH 2520). Flora – All plant species. Forage - Vegetation used for food by wildlife and livestock, particularly ungulate wildlife and domestic livestock. Forage Production - The weight of forage that is produced within a designated period of time on a given area. The weight may be expressed as green, air dry, or oven dry. The term may also be modified as to time of production such as annual, current year, or seasonal forage production. Forbs - Any herbaceous plant other than those in the grass, sedge, and rush families. For example, any non grass-like plant that has little or no woody material. Forest Development Roads - A Forest road under the jurisdiction of the Forest Service. Forest Development Roads are not intended to meet the transportation needs of the public at large. Generally, these are roads constructed to a standard to serve expected traffic generated by resource management. Although generally open and available for public use, the Forest Service may restrict or control use to meet specific management direction. Forest Development Trails - As defined in 36 CFR 212.1 and 261.2, those trails wholly or partly within or adjacent to and serving national forests and national grasslands that have been included in the Forest Development Transportation Plan. A trail is a pathway for purposes of travel by foot, stock, or trail vehicle.

81

Forest Plan (Forest Land and Resource Management Plan) - A document that guides natural resource management and establishes standards and guidelines for a national forest or national grassland. Required by the National Forest Management Act. Forest System Roads - Roads that are part of the Forest Development Transportation System, which includes all existing and planned roads, as well as other special and terminal facilities designated as part of the Forest Development Transportation System. FSH - Forest Service Handbook FSM - Forest Service Manual Geographic Information System (GIS) - A spatial type of information management system that provides for the entry, storage, manipulation, retrieval, and display of spatially oriented data. Graminoid - Grass or grass-like plant, such as Poa , Carex , or Juncus species Grass - A member of the grass family, Poaceae. Grazing - The act of animals consuming plants on range or pasture. Grazing Capacity - The maximum number of livestock under management that a given range area is capable of supporting within guidelines found in the allotment management plan. Grazing Distribution - Dispersion of livestock or wild herbivores grazing within a given area. Grazing Permit - Official, written permission to graze a specified number, kind, and class of livestock for a specific period on a defined range allotment. Grazing Season – 1) A period of grazing to obtain optimum use of the forage resource. 2) On public lands, an established period for which grazing permits are issued. Grazing System - A specialization of grazing management that defines systematically recurring periods of grazing and deferment for two or more pastures or management units. Some examples are: deferred grazing, rotation grazing, deferred-rotation grazing, and short-duration grazing. Green Line - The first perennial band of vegetation nearest the water’s edge. Riparian areas that are in high seral status with stable stream banks will exhibit a continuous line of vegetation at the bankfull discharge level. Rocky stream types may have a significant amount of rock causing breaks in the vegetation; rock is considered part of the green line. Other breaks may occur in the first perennial band of vegetation. Ground Cover - The percentage of material, other than bare ground, covering the land surface. It may include live and standing dead vegetation, litter, cobble, gravel, stones, and bedrock. Ground cover plus bare ground would total 100 percent. Growing Season - In temperate climates, that portion of the year when temperature and moisture permit plant growth. Guideline - Advisable actions that should be followed to achieve grassland or forest goals and objectives. Deviations from guidelines must be analyzed during project-level analysis and be documented in a project decision document but do not require management plan amendments. Habitat – The sum total of environmental conditions of a specific place occupied by a wildlife species or a population of such species. Habitat Capability – The capacity of a vegetative community to support selected wildlife and fish species for all or a part of its life cycle. Habitat capacity is normally expressed as projected populations or densities of animals. Habitat Suitability – A measure of current habitat quality relative to the local biological potential of an area to provide habitat for a species. Habitat suitability is usually expressed as low, moderate or high or is quantitatively presented as an index value scaled from 0 (unsuitable) to 1.0 (optimum habitat). Hardened Sites (Recreation) - Developed recreation sites where techniques have been used to protect natural resources (soil, water, vegetation, etc.) from overuse. For example, vehicles may be

82 Rangeland Management Plan for the Red Parks Analysis Area Environmental Assessment confined to roads by barriers or gravel, pavement, or soil additives may be placed on roads, walkways, and under picnic tables. Heritage Resources - The physical remains and conceptual content or context of an area. Physical remains may include artifacts, structures, landscape modifications, rock art, trails, or roads. Conceptual content/context includes the setting for legendary, historic, or prehistoric events, such as a sacred area for American Indians. Increaser (Plant) - Plant species of the original vegetation that increase in relative amount, at least for a time, under continued disturbance (heavy defoliation, fire, drought) to the norm. Indirect Effects - Environmental effects caused by an action but resulting later in time or farther away in place, yet which are still reasonably foreseeable. In-holdings - Lands within the proclaimed boundaries of a national forest or national grassland that are owned by some other agency, organization, or individual. Instream Flows - The minimum water volume (cubic feet per second) in each stream necessary to meet seasonal stream flow requirements for maintaining aquatic ecosystems, visual quality, recreational opportunities, and other uses. Intensive Grazing Management – Grazing management that attempts to increase production or utilization per unit area or production per animal through a relative increase in stocking rates, forage utilization, labor, resources, or capital. Intensive grazing management is not synonymous with rotation grazing. Grazing management can be intensified by using any one or more of a number of grazing methods that use relatively more labor or capital resources. Intermittent Stream – 1) A stream that flows only 50 to 90 percent of the year when it receives water from some surface source, such as melting snow. 2) A stream that does not flow continuously, as when water losses from evaporation or seepage exceed the available stream flow. Introduced Species - A species not a part of the original fauna or flora of the area in question. Irretrievable Commitments - Applies to losses of production or use of renewable natural resources for a period of time. For example, road construction leads to an irretrievable loss of the productivity of the land under which the road is located. If the road is later obliterated, the land may eventually become productive again. The production lost is irretrievable, but the action is not irreversible. Irreversible Commitments - Decisions causing changes that cannot be reversed. For example, if an area is mined, that area cannot, at a later date, be allocated to some other resource activities, such as Wilderness. Once mined, the ability of that area to meet Wilderness criteria, for instance, has been irreversibly lost. Irreversible commitments often apply to some non-renewable resource, such as minerals and heritage resources. Key Area - 1) An area selected to monitor the effects of management activities on ecosystem health. Examples may include, but are not limited to, uplands, riparian areas, and valley bottoms. 2) That portion of a pasture or grazing unit which is selected as a monitoring point because of its location, use, or grazing value. Listed Species - Any species of fish, wildlife, or plant officially designated as endangered or threatened by the Secretary of the Interior or Commerce. Litter - A surface layer of loose organic debris consisting of freshly fallen or slightly decomposed organic materials. Management Area – Area of the grassland that are managed for a particular emphasis. These areas have common management direction and may be non contiguous on the national forest or national grassland. Management Indicator Species – A plant or animal species selected because their status is believed to (1) be indicative of the status of a larger functional group of species, (2) be reflective of the status of a key habitat type, or (3) act as an early warning of an anticipated stressor to ecological

83

integrity. The key characteristic of a MIS species is that its status and trend provide insights to the integrity of the larger ecological system to which it belongs. Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) - A legal agreement between the Forest Service, other agencies, private parties, or individuals resulting from consultation between them that states specific measures they will follow to accomplish a project. A memorandum of understanding is not a fund- obligating document. Monitoring and Evaluation - The sample collection and analysis of information regarding LRMP management practices to determine how well objectives have been met, as well as the effects of those management practices on the land and environment. Motorized Recreation - A recreational opportunity provided through the use of a motorized vehicle. This includes travel on and off highways, Forest roads, and four-wheel-drive primitive roads and trails. Travel regulations may be established to protect forest and grassland resources, to minimize use conflicts, and to promote user safety. Multiple Use - According to the Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960, multiple use is the management of all the various renewable surface resources of the National Forest System, including national grasslands, so that they are utilized in the combination that will best meet the needs of the American people. Such management makes the most judicious use of the land for some or all of these resources or related services over areas large enough to provide sufficient latitude for periodic adjustments in use to conform to changing needs and conditions. Some lands will be used for less than all of the resources. Harmonious and coordinated management of the various resources is employed, each with the other, without impairment of the productivity of the land. Consideration is given to the relative values of the various resources and not necessarily the combination of uses that gives the greatest dollar return or the greatest unit output. National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) - An act declaring a national policy to encourage productive harmony between people and their environment, to promote efforts that will prevent or eliminate damage to the environment and the biosphere and stimulate the health and welfare of people and to enrich the understanding of the ecological systems and natural resources important to the nation and to establish a Council on Environmental Quality. National Forest Management Act (NFMA) - A 1976 law that amended the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act and requires the preparation of Regional and Forest Plans and regulations to guide forest plan development. National Forest System (NFS) Lands - Federal lands designated by Executive Order or statute as national forests, national grasslands, or purchase units, or other lands under the administration of the U.S. Forest Service. National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) - A list of heritage resources that have local, state, or national significance maintained by the Secretary of the Interior. Native - A plant or animal indigenous to a particular locality. Native Seed - Seeds of plants considered indigenous to the Northern Great Plains. Non-point Source Pollution - Pollution whose source is not specific in location. The sources of the pollutant discharge are dispersed, not well-defined or constant. Examples include sediments from logging activities and runoff from agricultural chemicals. Noxious Weeds - Those plant species designated as weeds by federal or state laws. Noxious weeds generally possess one or more of the following characteristics: aggressive and difficult to manage, poisonous, toxic, parasitic, a carrier or host for serious insects or diseases, and generally non-native. Overgrazing - Continued heavy grazing that exceeds the recovery capacity of the community and creates a deteriorated range. Perennial (plant) - A plant that lives for two or more years. Perennial Streams - Streams that flow continuously throughout most years.

84 Rangeland Management Plan for the Red Parks Analysis Area Environmental Assessment

Permitted Grazing - Use of a National Forest System range allotment under the terms of a grazing permit. Permittee (Grazing) - One who holds a permit to graze livestock on state, federal, or certain privately owned lands. Plant Associations - A grouping of plants that have reached dynamic equilibrium with the local environmental conditions; equivalent to climax. On site, there is no evidence of replacement by other dominant plant species, and there is no evidence of serious disturbances. Plant Communities - Assemblages of plant species living in an area. A plant community is an organized unit to the extent that it has characteristics in addition to the individuals and populations and functions as a unit. Point Bar - The deposit formed around and against the convex bank in a stream channel bend. From: Dunne, Thomas, and Luna B. Leopold, 1978: Water in Environmental Planning. Copyright 1978 by W.H. Freeman and Company . Potential Natural Community (PNC) - A taxonomic unit of vegetation classification. The biotic community that would be established under present environmental conditions if all successional sequences were completed without additional human-caused disturbances. Natural disturbances, such as drought, flood, wildfire, grazing by native fauna, and insect and disease infestations, are inherent in the development of potential natural communities, which may include naturalized, non- native species. Proper Functioning Condition (PFC) - Riparian/wetland areas achieve proper functioning condition when adequate vegetation, landform, or large woody debris is present to dissipate stream energy associated with high water flows. This reduces erosion; improves water quality; filters sediment; captures bed load; aids floodplain development; improves floodwater retention and groundwater recharge; develops root masses that stabilize stream banks against cutting action; develops diverse ponding and channel characteristics to provide habitat and water depth, duration, and temperature necessary for fish production, waterfowl breeding, and other uses; and supports greater biodiversity. The functioning condition of riparian/wetland areas is a result of the interaction among geology, soil, water, and vegetation. Range - Any land supporting vegetation suitable for grazing including rangeland, grazeable woodland, and shrubland. Range Allotment - A designated area of land available for livestock grazing upon which a specified number and kind of livestock may be grazed under a range allotment management plan. It is the basic land unit used to facilitate management of the range resource on National Forest System lands, including national grasslands, and other associated lands administered by the Forest Service. Range Analysis - Systematic acquisition and evaluation of rangeland resources data needed for allotment management planning and overall land management. Range Betterment Funds - Funds established by Title IV, section 401 (b)(1), of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 to be used for range improvement. This consists of 50 percent of all money received by the United States as fees for grazing livestock on the national forest and national grasslands in the 16 contiguous western states. Range Condition – 1) A rangeland is considered to be in satisfactory condition when the desired condition is being met or short-term vegetative objectives are being achieved to move the rangeland toward the desired condition or trend. Unsatisfactory condition is when the desired condition is not being met and short-term vegetative objectives are not being achieved to move the rangeland toward the desired condition or trend. 2) Historically, range condition usually has been defined in one of two ways: (a) a generic term relating to present status of a unit of range in terms of specific values or potentials. Specific values or potentials must be stated or (b) the present state of vegetation of a range site in relation to the climax (natural potential) plant community for that site. It is an

85

expression of the relative degree to which the kinds, proportions and amounts of plants in a plant community resemble that of the climax plant for the site. Range Development, Nonstructural - Any practice designed to improve range condition or facilitate more efficient utilization of the range. Range Development, Structural - Any structure or excavation to facilitate management of range or livestock. Range Management - A distinct discipline founded on ecological principles and dealing with the use of rangelands and range resources for a variety of purposes. These purposes include use as watersheds, wildlife habitat, grazing by livestock, recreation, and aesthetics, as well as associated uses. Two kinds of range management can be described: • Extensive range management carries the goal to control livestock numbers within the present capacity of the range, but little or no attempt is made to achieve uniform distribution of livestock. Range management investments are minimal and only to the extent needed to maintain stewardship of the range in the presence of grazing. Past resource damage is corrected and resources are protected from natural catastrophes. • Intensive range management carries the goal to maintain full plant vigor and to achieve full livestock utilization of available forage. This goal is achieved through implementation of improved grazing systems and construction and installation of range improvements. Cultural practices, such as seeding and fertilizing, to improve forage quality and quantity may be used. Rangeland - Lands on which the native vegetation is predominately grasses, grass-like plants, forbs, or shrubs suitable for grazing or browsing usage. Includes lands revegetated naturally or artificially to provide a forage cover that is managed like native vegetation. Rangeland Health - The degree to which the integrity of the soil, the vegetation, the water, and air as well as the ecological processes of the rangeland ecosystem is balanced and sustained. Integrity is defined as: Maintenance of the structure and functional attributes characteristic of a particular locale, including normal variability. Rare Communities - A ranking system used by The Nature Conservancy to assess relative endangerment. Community types are ranked on a global, national, and state scale of 1 to 5. A rank of G1 (Global 1) indicates that a community type is critically imperiled globally to rarity, endemism, and/or threats. A rank of G5 indicates little to no risk of global elimination. Similar definitions apply to national and state rankings. Regeneration - The renewal of a tree crop, whether by natural or artificial means. This term may also refer to the crop itself. Renewable Resources - Resources that can be used indefinitely when the use rate does not exceed the ability to renew the supply. However, in the RPA program, the term is used to describe those matters within the scope of the responsibilities and authorities of the Forest Service as required by the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974. Consequently, the renewable resources include: timber, range, minerals, wildlife and fish, water, recreation, and Wilderness. Residual Cover – Standing or lodged herbaceous vegetation left after livestock grazing and killing frost. Rest - To leave an area of rangeland ungrazed by livestock or unharvested by mechanical methods for at least one year (12 consecutive months). Restoration – Prescribing natural or mechanical actions to modify an ecosystem to achieve desired, healthy, and functioning conditions and processes. Generally refers to the process of enabling the system to resume its resiliency to disturbances.

86 Rangeland Management Plan for the Red Parks Analysis Area Environmental Assessment

Revegetation - The reestablishment and development of plant cover. This may take place naturally through the reproductive processes of the existing flora or artificially through reforestation or reseeding. Riparian Area - Areas of the aquatic and riparian ecosystems with distinctive resource values and characteristics that are geographically delineated (FSM 2526). Ecological units with distinctive vegetation, landform, soil, and water regimes consisting of the aquatic ecosystem and wet-to-moist areas located between aquatic ecosystems and adjacent terrestrial ecosystems. Includes floodplains and wetlands. Riparian ecosystems are distinguished by soil characteristics and distinctive existing or potential vegetation communities that are adapted to soils with consistently high levels of moisture. Riparian Communities - Repeating, classified, defined and recognizable assemblages of plant or animal communities associated with riparian areas. Riparian Ecosystem - A transition between the aquatic ecosystem and the adjacent upland terrestrial ecosystem. It is identified by soil characteristics and by distinctive vegetative communities that require free or unbounded water. Runoff - The total stream discharge of water, including both surface and subsurface flow, usually expressed in acre-feet of water yield. Sediment - Material suspended in water or deposited in streams and lakes. Sediment Load - The solid material transported by a stream and expressed as the dry weight of all sediment that passes a given point in a given period of time. Sensitive Species - Those plant and animal species identified by Regional Foresters for which population viability is a concern, as evidenced by the following: • Significant current or predicted downward trends in population numbers or density. • Significant current or predicted downward trends in habitat capability that would reduce a species' existing distribution. Seral (Ecology) - A biotic community that is in a developmental, transitory stage in an ecological succession. Seral Stages (Ecology) - The sequence of a plant community's successional stages to potential natural vegetation. Significant Archeological Sites - Sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places as determined by the Forest Service in consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer. Soil Compaction - A physical change in soil properties that results in a decrease in porosity and an increase in soil bulk density and strength. Soil Erosion - The detachment and movement of soil from the land surface by water or wind. Soil erosion and sediment are not the same. Soil Productivity - The inherent capacity of a soil to support the growth of specified plants, plant communities, or a sequence of plant communities. Soil productivity may be expressed in terms of volume or weight/unit area/year, percent plant cover, or other measures of biomass accumulation. Soil Profile - A vertical section of the soil from the surface down through all of its layers into the parent material. Soil Survey - A general term for the systematic examination of soils in the field and in laboratories; their description and classification; the mapping of soil types; the interpretation of soils according to their adaptability for various crops, grasses, and trees; their response to treatment for plant production or for other purposes; and their productivity under different management systems. Species Composition – The proportions of various plant species in relation to the total on a given area. It may be expressed in terms of cover, density, weight, etc.

87

Species Diversity - A measurement that relates the density of individuals of a species in a habitat to the number of different species present in the habitat. The number of different species in a given habitat. Stabilization (Heritage Resources) - Arresting the deterioration of a damaged heritage resource in order to prevent further damage from occurring. Stabilization may include reconstructing portions of the heritage resource. Standard - Actions that must be followed or are required limits to activities in order to achieve grassland or forest goals and objectives. Site-specific deviations from standards must be analyzed and documented in management plan amendments. State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) - A person appointed by a state's governor to administer the State Historic Preservation Program. Static – staying the same. Stocking Rate (Livestock Management) - The actual number of animals, expressed in either animal units or animal unit months, on a specific area for a specific time. Streambank Alteration -The compromise of streambank stability, as a result of trampling vegetation and compacting soils by livestock, humans and wildlife. Stream Health - The condition of a stream, relative to robust health, for that stream type and landscape, considering indicators such as channel pattern, slope, particle size, pool frequency and depth, bank vegetation, and woody debris, which reflect the stability and habitat quality of the stream. Stream Type - A class of stream reach having a discrete combination of valley geomorphology and climate, flow regime, stream size, and channel morphology, which differs from other stream types in its ability to support biota and respond to management. Succession - The progress of vegetation development where different plant communities successively occupy an area. Successional Stages (Seral Stages) - The relatively transitory communities that replace one another during development toward a potential natural community. Terrestrial - A land-based ecosystem. (See ecosystem). An interacting system of soil, geology, and topography with plant and animal communities. Threatened Species - Any species likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range and that has been designated in the Federal Register by the Secretary of Interior as such. TMDL – Total Maximum Daily Load Trampling - Treading underfoot. The damage to plants or soil brought about by movements or congestion of animals. Trespass - The act of going on another's land or property unlawfully. Understory (Vegetation) - The lowest layer of vegetation in a forest or shrub community composed of grass, forbs, shrubs and trees less than 10 feet tall. Vegetation growing under the tree canopy. Undesirable Species - 1) Species that conflict with or do not contribute to the management objectives. 2) Species that are not readily eaten by animals. Ungulate - A hoofed animal, including ruminants (cattle, but also horses, tapirs, elephants, rhinoceroses, and swine). Utilization Levels (Livestock Grazing) - The portion of the current year's forage production by weight consumed or trampled by livestock. Utilization levels are usually expressed as a percentage. Vegetation Structure – The vertical characteristics of vegetation. Vegetation Treatment - Any activities undertaken to modify the existing condition of the vegetation.

88 Rangeland Management Plan for the Red Parks Analysis Area Environmental Assessment

Vegetative Management - Any activities undertaken to modify the existing condition of the vegetation. Water Development - A facility constructed or placed to hold water for livestock use. Watershed - The area of land, bounded by a divide, that drains water, sediment, and dissolved materials to a common outlet at some point along a stream channel (Dunne and Leopold, 1978), or to a lake, reservoir, or other body of water. Also called drainage basin or catchment. Weed - Any plant growing where unwanted and having a negative value.

REFERENCES

Rangeland and Forest Vegetation 36 CFR 222.2(c). Code of Federal Regulations, Volume 36, Section 222.2 (c), 7-1-2004 Edition. “Forage producing National Forest System lands will be managed for livestock grazing and the allotment management plans will be prepared consistent with land management plans”. CNHP, 2003. Field Guide to the Riparian Plant Associations of Colorado, and Geographical Information System Shapefile developed in conjunction with this contract. FSM 2202.1. USDA Forest Service Manual Directive. “Authority to protect, manage, and administer the National Forest System, and other lands under Forest Service administration for range management purposes”. GTR-RM 119. Aspen: Ecology and Management in the Western United States. N. DeByle and R. Winokur. Forest Service General Technical Report RM-119 Mueggler. 1988. Aspen Community Types of the Intermountain Region; Walter F. Mueggler. Dec. 1988. Pages 50-57. USDA, 1997. USDA Routt National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 1997 Revision. USDA-Geographical Information System, 1997. Inventoried Roadless Areas from Forest Plan Revision 1997 . USDA-Geographical Information System, 2003. Medicine Bow-Routt National Forest Geographical Information System Library. USDA-R2VEG Geospatial Database, 2005. R2 VEG IRI Geospatial database, version 4/1/2005. USDA-Forest Service Region 2-Routt National Forest Vegetation Geospatial Database.

Watershed Binkley, D., and T.C. Brown 1993: Management impacts on water quality of forests and rangelands. USDA Forest Service Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station General Technical Report RM-239. 114 pp. BLM, 1993: Riparian area management: process for assessing proper functioning condition. U.S. Dept. of Interior, Bureau of Land Management Service Center, Denver CO. TR 1737-9 1993. 51 pp. BLM, 1998: Riparian area management: a user guide to assessing proper functioning condition and supporting science for lotic areas. U.S. Dept. of Interior, Bureau of Land Management Service Center, Denver CO. TR 737-15, 1998. 126 pp.

89

CDH, 2008: Section 303(d) list water quality-limited segments requiring TMDLs. 5 CCR 1002-93, Regulation #93. Colorado Dept. of Public Health and Environment, Water Quality Control Division. Effective April 30, 2008. EPA, 1987: Nonpoint source controls and Water Quality Standards. Letter from Carl F. Myers, Chief Nonpoint Source Branch to All Regional Water Quality Branch Chiefs. US Environmental Protection Agency NPS: FY-87-49.

RNF, 1992: Routt Riparian Inventory contract.

RNF, 1997: Routt National Forest land and resource management plan 1997 revision. USDA Forest Service Rocky Mountain Region, Routt National Forest.

Soils Miller, Allan E. 1977. Descriptive text for landform and geologic hazard maps for Routt National Forest, Colorado. Copies available at Medicine Bow-Routt National Forests Supervisor’s Office, Laramie, WY. USDA Forest Service. 1992. Soil Management Handbook, Chapter Two. USDA Forest Service Handbook FSH 2509.18, Region 2 Supplement.. USDA Forest Service. 1994. Soil Resource Inventory Report, Routt National Forest. USDA Forest Service Rocky Mountain Region, Routt National Forest. Draft Publication. USDA Forest Service. 1997: Routt National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 1997 Revision. USDA Forest Service Rocky Mountain Region, Routt National Forest. USDA Forest Service. 2006. Watershed Conservation Practices Handbook, USDA Forest Service Region 2, Forest Service Handbook. USDA Forest Service. 2003b. Rocky Mountain Region Soils Group Interpretation Rating Guide. USDA Forest Service Rocky Mountain Region.

Cultural Resources Bonnifeld, Juanita 1996 A Cultural Resource Inventory for the Elkhead Mountains Timber Sale, Hahns Peak/Bears Ears Ranger District, Medicine Bow-Routt National Forest, Moffat County, Colorado. Ms. on file at the Routt National Forest Supervisor's Office, Steamboat Springs, Colorado. Brown, Heather 1993 A Cultural Resource Inventory for the Black Mountain Salvage Sale, Bears Ears Ranger District, Routt National Forest, Moffat County, Colorado. Ms. on file at the Routt National Forest Supervisor's Office, Steamboat Springs, Colorado. Evans, R. 1980 “Mechanics of Water Erosion and their Spatial and Temporal Controls: An Empirical Viewpoint.” In Soil Erosion , M.J. Kirby and R.P.C. Morgan (eds.), John Wiley and Sons, New York. Horne, Stephen and Janine McFarland 1993 Impacts of Livestock Grazing on Cultural Resources . Ms. on file at the Routt National Forest Supervisor's Office, Steamboat Springs, Colorado. Knudson, Ruthann

90 Rangeland Management Plan for the Red Parks Analysis Area Environmental Assessment

1979 Inference and Imposition in Lithic Analysis. In Lithic Use Wear Analysis, edited by Brian Hayden. Academic Press, New York. Krall, Angie 1994 A Cultural Resource Inventory for the Black Mountain Divide Timber Sale, Bears Ears Ranger District, Routt National Forest. Ms. on file at the Routt National Forest Supervisor's Office, Steamboat Springs, Colorado. Marlow, C. C., T. M. Pogacnik, and S. D. Quinsey 1987 “Streambank Stability and Cattle Grazing in Southwestern Montana.” Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 42(4):291-296.

McCarty, M. K. and A. P. Mazurak 1976 “Soil Compaction in Eastern Nebraska after 25 Years of Cattle Grazing Management and Weed Control.” Journal of Range Management 29(5):384-386. Nykamp, Robert 1990 A Cultural Resource Inventory for the West Prong Timber Sale, Bear’s Ears Ranger \District, Routt National Forest, Moffat County, Colorado. Ms. on file at the Routt National Forest Supervisor’s Office, Steamboat Springs, CO. Osborn, A. et al. 1987 Impacts of Domestic Livestock Grazing on Archaeological Resources of Capitol Reef National Park, Utah . Midwest Archaeological Center Occasional Studies in Anthropology, No. 20. Roney, John 1977 Livestock and Lithics: The Effects of Trampling on a Lithic Scatter . Ms. on file at the Los Padres National Forest Supervisor's Office, Goleta, California. Shea, John J. and Joel D. Klenck 1993 “An Experimental Investigation of the Effects of Trampling on the Results of Lithic Microwear Analysis.” Journal of Archaeological Science 20:175-194. Shelley, Barry 1988 A Level III Cultural Resource Survey of the Black Mountain Timber Sale in Moffat County, Colorado. Ms. on file at the Routt National Forest Supervisor's Office, Steamboat Springs, Colorado. Struthers, E. Susan 1989 A Cultural Resource Inventory for the Sandpoint Timber Sale, Bears Ears Ranger District, Routt National Forest. Ms. on file at the Routt National Forest Supervisor's Office, Steamboat Springs, Colorado. Trook, Jason 2003 An Intensive Cultural Resource Inventory for the West Prong Watershed Improvement Projects, Hahns Peak/ Bears Ears Ranger District, Routt County, Colorado. Ms. on file at the Routt National Forest Supervisor's Office, Steamboat Springs, Colorado. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1990 “Impacts of Domestic Livestock Grazing on Archaeological Resources.” Archaeological Sites Protection and Preservation Notebook : Technical Notes ASPRN 1-15. U.S.D.A. Forest Service 1996 Memorandum of Understanding Among the Rocky Mountain Region of the U.S.D.A. Forest Service and the State Historic Preservation Offices of Colorado, Wyoming, South Dakota, and Nebraska Regarding Rangeland Management Activities . On file with the Medicine Bow-Routt National Forest, Steamboat Springs, CO. Weltz, M., et al.

91

1989 “Flash Grazing and Trampling: Effects on Infiltration Rates and Sediment Yield on a Selected New Mexico Range Site.” Journal of Arid Environments 16(1):95-100.

Aquatics Behnke, R. J. 1992. Native Trout of Western North America. American Fisheries Society Monograph 6. Bjornn, T. C., and six coauthors. 1977. Transport of Granitic Sediment in Streams and it’s Effects on Insects and Fish. College of Forestry, Wildlife and Range Sciences, Unversity of Idaho, Moscow, Bulletin Number 17, Research Technical Completion Report, Project B-036-IDA. Burton, T. A, S. J. Smith and E. R. Cowley. 2008. Monitoring stream channels and riparian vegetation – multiple indicators. Unpublished Report. Bureau of Land Management, Idahow State Office. Boise, ID. Chapman, D. W. and K. P. McLeod. 1987. Development of Criteria for Fine Sediment in the Northern Rockies Ecoregion. EPA, Report 910/9-87-162, Seattle, Washington. Cowley, E. R. 2004. Monitoring the current year streambank alteration by large herbivores. Unpublished Report. Bureau of Land Management, Idaho State Office. Boise, ID. CDOW (Colorado Division of Wildlife). 2006. Pioneer Brookies. Colorado Division of Wildlife Outdoor Journal. http://wildlife.state.co.us/NewsMedia/OutdoorsJournal/PioneerBrookies.htm CDOW (Colorado Division of Wildlife). 2007. 2007 Colorado Fishing: Fishing Regulations and Property Directory Brochure. Located at CDOW offices or at website: http://wildlife.state.co.us/NR/rdonlyres/6DE0299B-B621-4248-B56A- 00DFF8A66BB3/0/07fishingbrochure.pdf Hirsch, C. L., S. Q. Albeke, and T. P. Nesler, and. 2006. Range-wide status of Colorado River cutthroat trout. ( Oncorhynchus clarkii pleuriticus ): 2005. Colorado Division of Wildlife, Denver, Colorado. Colorado River cutthroat trout Conservation Cordination Team Report. Craig, Colorado. Lisle, T. E. 1989. Sediment Transport and Resulting Deposition in Spawning Gravels, North Costal California. Water Resources Research 25(6):1303-1319. Marcus, M. D., M. K. Young, L. E. Noel, and B. A. Mullan. 1990. Salmonid Habitat Relationships in the Western United States: A Review and Indexed Bibliography. USDA Forest Service, Rocy Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, Colorado. General Technical Report RM-188. Page, L.M. and B.M. Burr. 1991. Freshwater fishes. Peterson Field Guides. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, MA. 432 pages. Platts, W. S. 1991. Livestock grazing. American Fisheries Society Special Publication 19:389-423. Rosgen, D.L. 1994: A classification of natural rivers. Catena 22(3): 169-199. Saunders, W. C., and K. D. Fausch. 2006. Improved grazing management increases terrestrial invertebrate inputs that feed trout in Wyoming rangeland streams. Final report to Natural Resources Conservation Service, Cooperative Agreement NO. 68-7482-3-131. Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado. 79 pages.

92 Rangeland Management Plan for the Red Parks Analysis Area Environmental Assessment

USDA Forest Service. 1997. Routt National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 1997 Revision. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region (R-2), Lakewood, Colorado. Also included is the Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). USDA Forest Service 2007. Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact for the Management Indicator Species Forest Plan Amendment 04 to the Routt National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan – 1997 Revision, January 2007.

93

Wildlife USDA Forest Service. 2008. Southern Rockies Lynx Amendment. USDA Forest Service National Forests in Colorado & southern Wyoming. Available on-line: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/lynx/documents/volume-1.pdf Apps, C. D. 2000. Space-use, diet, demographics, and topographic associations of lynx in the southern Canadian Rocky Mountains: a study. Chapter 12 In Ruggiero, L.F., K. B. Aubry, S. W. Aubry, K. B., G. Koehler, and J. R. Squires. 2000. Ecology of Canada lynx in southern boreal forests. Pages 373-396 In Ruggiero, L. F., K. B. Aubry, S. W. Buskirk, G. M. Koehler, C. J. Krebs, K. S. McKelvey, and J. R. Squires. (Tech. Eds.) Ecology and conservation of lynx in the United States. Univ. Press of Colorado. Boulder, CO. 480 pp. Beauvais, G.P. and J. McCumber. (2006, November 30). Pygmy Shrew (Sorex Hoyi): a technical conservation assessment [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/pygmyshrew.pdf [May 31, 2007]. Brand, C. J. and L. B. Keith. 1979. Lynx demography during a snowshoe hare decline in Alberta. J. Wildl. Manage. 43(4):827-849. Brand, C. J., L. B. Keith, and C. A. Fischer. 1976. Lynx responses to changing snowshoe hare densities in Alberta. J. Wildl. Manage. 40:416-428. Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW). 1995. Fisher, lynx, and wolverine: observations and records for Colorado. Compiled by Gene Byrne, Wildlife Biologist, CDOW, Glenwood Springs, Colorado. Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW). 2005. Colorado Listing of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife Species and Species of Special Concern - Internet website. http://wildlife.state.co.us/wildlife/T&E/list.asp (Accessed: March 28, 2005). Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW). 2008. Colorado Listing of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife Species and Species of Special Concern - Internet website. http://wildlife.state.co.us/wildlife/T&E/list.asp (Accessed: November 5, 2008). Eisenberg, J. F. 1986. Life history strategy of the Felidae: variations on a common theme. Pages 293-303 In S. D. Miller and D. D. Everett. Cats of the world: biology, conservation, and management. National Wildlife Federation, Washington, D.C. Fitzgerald, J.P., C.A.Meaney and D.M.Armstrong. 1994. Mammals of Colorado. Den.Mus. Nat. Hist., Univ. Press Colo., 467p. Holmes, J. A. and M. J. Johnson (2005, January 13). Brewer’s Sparrow ( Spizella breweri ): a technical conservation assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/brewerssparrow.pdf Accessed July 15, 2009. 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. 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: American marten, fisher, lynx, and wolverine in the Western United States.

94 Rangeland Management Plan for the Red Parks Analysis Area Environmental Assessment

General Technical Report RM-254. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. Fort Collins, CO. 184 pp. Lewis, L. and C.R. Wenger. 1998. Idaho's Canada lynx: pieces of the puzzle. Idaho Bureau of Land Management, Technical Bulletin No. 98-11. 21 pp. Livo, L.J. 1998. Identification Guide to Montane Amphibians of the Southern Rocky Mountains. State of Colorado, Department of Natural Resources, Division of Wildlife. 25 p. McCord, C. M. and J. E. Cardoza. 1982. Bobcat and lynx. Pages 728-766 In J. A. Chapman and G. A. Feldhamer (eds.). Wild Mammals of North America. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD. McKelvey, K.S, K.B. Aubry, and Y.K. Ortega. 2000. History and distribution of lynx in the contiguous United States. Chapter 8 in Ruggiero, L. F., K. B. Aubry, S. W. Buskirk [and others]. Ecology and conservation of lynx in the United States. University Press of Colorado, Boulder, CO. 480 p. Mowat, G, K., G. Poole, and M. O'Donoghue. 2000. Ecology of lynx in northern Canada and Alaska. Chapter 9 in Ruggiero, L. F., K. B. Aubry, S. W. Buskirk [and others]. Ecology and conservation of lynx in the United States. University Press of Colorado, Boulder, CO. 480 p. NatureServe. 2006. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 4.2. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. (Accessed: July 16, 2009). Nellis, C. H., S. P. Wetmore, and L. B. Keith. 1972. Lynx-prey interactions in central Alberta. J. Wildl. Manage. 36(2):320-329. O’Donoghue, M., S. Boutin, C. J. Krebs, G. Zuleta, D. L. Murray, and E. J. Hofer. 1998. Functional responses of coyotes and lynx to the snowshoe hare cycle. Ecology 79(4):1193-1208. Quinn, N. W. S. and G. Parker. 1987. Lynx. Pages 683-694 In Novak, N. and M. Obbard (eds.). Wild furbearer management and conservation in North America. Ministry of Natural Resources, Toronto, Ontario. Ruediger, Bill, Jim Claar, Steve Gniadek, Bryon Holt, Lyle Lewis, Steve Mighton, Bob Naney, Gary Patton, Tony Rinaldi, Joel Trick, Anne Vandehey, Fred Wahl, Nancy Warren, Dick Wenger, and Al Williamson. 2000. Canada lynx conservation assessment and strategy. 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. Ruggiero, L.F., K.B. Aubry, S.W. Buskirk, G.M. Koehler, C. J. Krebs, K. S. McKelvey, and J. R. Squires. 1999. Ecology and Conservation of Lynx in the United States. General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-30WWW. Saunders, J. K., Jr. 1963. Food habits of the lynx in Newfoundland. J. Wildl. Manage. 27(3):384- 390. Shenk, T.M. 2001. Post-Release Monitoring of Lynx Reintroduction to Colorado, Annual Progress Report for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Colorado Division of Wildlife. Fort Collins, Colorado.

95

Skorkowsky, R. C. 2003. Routt National Forest rationale for the designation of lynx analysis units and lynx habitat mapping criteria. USDA Forest Service, Medicine Bow-Routt National Forest. Hahns Peak/Bears Ears R.D. Steamboat Springs, CO. 17pp. Skorkowsky, R. C. 2006 Medicine Bow Routt National Forest Revised Canada Lynx Habitat Models. USDA Forest Service, Medicine Bow-Routt National Forest. Hahns Peak/Bears Ears R.D. Steamboat Springs, CO. Slater, G.L. and C. Rock. (2005, September 30). Northern Harrier (Circus cyameus): a technical conservation assessment [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/northernharrier.pdf [August 28, 2007]. Slough, B. G. and G. Mowat. 1996. Lynx population dynamics in an untrapped refugium. J. Wildl. Manage. 60:946-961. Spencer, A.W. and D. Pettus. 1966. Habitat preferences of five sympatric species of long-tailed shrews. Ecology 47: 677-683. Squires, J. R. and T. Laurion. 2000. Lynx home range and movements in Montana and Wyoming: Preliminary Results. Chapter 11 in Ruggiero, L. F., K. B. Aubry, S. W. Buskirk [and others]. Ecology and conservation of lynx in the United States. University Press of Colorado, Boulder, CO. 480 p. Staples, W. R. 1995. Lynx and coyote diet and habitat relationships during a low hare population on the Kenai Peninsula, Alaska. M.S. Thesis, Univ. of Alaska, Fairbanks. Tolbert, C. 2008. Documentation of R2VEG Lodgepole Pine Mortality Process for Lynx Calculations. USDA Forest Service, Medicine Bow-Routt National Forests. Laramie, WY. USDA Forest Service. 2001. Region 2 Sensitive Species Evaluation Form (Sorex hoyi). Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/evalrationale/evaluations/mammals/pygmyshrew.pdf USDA Forest Service. 1998a. Routt National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan - 1997 Revision. USDA Forest Service Medicine Bow-Routt National Forest. Steamboat Springs, Colorado. USDA Forest Service. 2008. Southern Rockies Lynx Amendment. USDA Forest Service National Forests in Colorado & southern Wyoming. Available on-line: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/lynx/documents/volume-1.pdf

Van Zyll de Jong, C. G. 1966. Food habits of the lynx in Alberta and the Mackenzie District, Northwest Territories. Can. Field-Nat. 80:18-23. Wilcove, D.S. 1985. Nest predation in forest tracks and the decline of songbirds. Ecology. 66:1211- 1214.

96 Rangeland Management Plan for the Red Parks Analysis Area Environmental Assessment

Botany Adams, C. C. 1905. The Post Glacial Dispersal of the North American Biota. Biological Bulletin 9 (1905): 53-71. Available at: http://www.wku.edu/~smithch/biogeog/ADAM1905.htm . Adams, P.W. and H.A. Froehlich. 1981. Compaction of Forest Soils. Pacific Northwest Extension Publication PNW 217, Oregon, Washington and Idaho Extension Service. Corvallis, OR. 13 pp. Ahlgren I.F. and C.E. Ahlgren. 1965. Effect of Prescribed Burning on Soil Microorganisms in a Minnesota Jack Pine Forest. Ecology 46:304-310. Ahlenslager, K. 2004. Botrychium lineare e-mail to Kathy Roche of 07/02/04. On file at Medicine Bow – Routt National Forests and Thunder Basin National Grassland Forest Supervisor’s Office, Laramie, WY. Ahlenslager, K. 1996. Drs. Herb and Florence Wagner Visit the Colville National Forest. Botanical Electronic News BEN # 141, 20-August-1996. Dr. A. Ceska, editor, Victoria, B.C. Canada. Anderson, D.G. (2006, November 15). Festuca hallii (Vasey) Piper (Hall’s fescue): a technical conservation assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/festucahallii.pdf [Feb 27, 2007]. Arditti, J. and A. K. A. Ghani. 2000. Numerical and physical properties of orchid seeds and their biological implications. Tansley Review No. 110. New Phytol. (2000), 145, 367-421. Atchely, K. 2005. Personal Communication regarding Carex diandra found at Turret Creek, White River National Forest. Barneby, R. C. 1964. Atlas of North American Astragalus . Memoirs of the New York Botanical Garden 13(II): 1-1188. Barton, D. and S. Crispin. 2004. Conservation Status of Botrychium lineare (slender moonwort) in Montana. Montana Natural Heritage Program Natural Resource Information System Montana State Library, Helena, MT. Beatty, B.L., W.F. Jennings, and R.C. Rawlinson (2003, November 12). Botrychium ascendens W.H. Wagner (trianglelobe moonwort), B. crenulatum W.H. Wagner (scalloped moonwort), and B. lineare W.H. Wagner (narrowleaf grapefern): a technical conservation assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/botrychiums.pdf [Feb 27, 2007]. Broderdorp 2006. memo to Kimberley D. Vogel regarding current list of threatened and endangered species by Allan R. Pfister Assistant Colorado Field Supervisor, Colorado State Office USDOI Fish and Wildlife Service. Copy on file at Parks District, Medicine Bow-Routt NFs and Thunder Basin NG, Walden CO. Updated 09/15/2006. Brouillet, L. and R. D. Whetstone. 2000. Chapter 1 Climate and Physiography of North America. In: Flora of North America Editorial Committee. Flora of North American North of Mexico. Vol. 1. Oxford Univ. Press, New York. Available at: http://www.fna.org/FNA/Volume/V01/Chapter01.shtml . Buell, K. 2001. Breckenridge Ski Resort 2001 – Moonwort Survey Report. Unpublished report. On file at Medicine Bow-Routt NFs and Thunder Basin NG Supervisor’s Office, Laramie, WY.

97

Cameron, G. 2003. Monitoring Botrychium lineare on Pikes Peak, 2003. Unpublished report on file at Medicine Bow – Routt National Forests and Thunder Basin National Grassland Forest Supervisor’s Office, Laramie, WY. Carpenter, A. 1996a. Monitoring plan for the rare fern, Botrychium lineare , on the Pikes Peak Ranger District, Pike-San Isabel National Forest, El Paso County, Colorado. Dated May 14, 1996. The Nature Conservancy, Boulder, CO. 6 pages. Carpenter, A. 1996b. Annual report of monitoring of the rare fern, Botrychium lineare , on the Pikes Peak Ranger District, Pike-San Isabel National Forest, El Paso County, Colorado. Dated August 27, 1996. The Nature Conservancy, Boulder, CO. 3 pages + figures. Chadde, S. and G. Kudray. 2001. Conservation Assessment: Botrychium hesperium (Western Moonwort). Unpublished report prepared for the USDA Forest Service, Region 9, Milwaukee, WI. Chumley, T.W., B.E. Nelson, and R.L. Hartman. 1998. Atlas of the Vascular Plants of Wyoming. University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY. Available at: http://www.sbs.utexas.edu/tchumley/wyomap/atlas.htm [11/12/05]. Cochran, P.H. and T. Brock. 1985. Soil Compaction and Initial Height Growth of Planted Ponderosa Pine. PNW-RN-434 USDA Forest Service Pacific Northwest Research Station. Portland, OR. Colorado Natural Heritage Project (CNHP) Database. Accessed 2006. Fort Collins, CO. Colorado Natural Heritage Project (CNHP) Database. Accessed 2002. Fort Collins, CO. Cook, M.B. 2004. Botrychium lineare e-mail to Kathy Roche of 05/26/04. On file at Medicine Bow – Routt National Forests and Thunder Basin National Grassland Forest Supervisor’s Office, Laramie, WY. Curtis, J.T. 1943. Germination and seedling establishment in five species of Cypripedium L. American Journal of Botany 30. p. 199-206. Daddow, R.L. and G.E. Warrington. 1983. Growth-limiting soil bulk densities as influenced by soil texture. WSDG Report WSDG-TN-0005, January 1983. Watershed Systems Development Group, USDA Forest Service, Fort Collins, CO. Dorn, R.D. 2001. Vascular Plants of Wyoming, third edition. Mountain West Publishing, Cheyenne,WY. Dyer, A.F. 1994. Natural soil spore banks – can they be used to retrieve lost ferns? Biodiversity and Conservation 3:160-175. Evert, E. F. 1991. Annotated checklist of the vascular plants of the North Fork Shoshone River Drainage area, northwestern Wyoming. Unpublished report. 64 pp. Farrar, D.R. and J. Nason. 2006. Restricted migration in an intragametophytic selfing species – an analysis of genetic structure in Botrychium simplex at Grass Lake, CA. Botany 2006. Botanical Society of America. Abstract 428. Available at: http://www.botanyconference.org/engine/search/index.php?func=detail&aid=428 [06/05/06]. Farrar, D.R. 1998. Population genetics of moonwort Botrychiums . Pp. 109-113 in N. Berlin, P. Miller, J. Borovansky, U. S. Seal, and O. Byers, eds. Population and habitat viability assessment

98 Rangeland Management Plan for the Red Parks Analysis Area Environmental Assessment

(PHVA) for the goblin fern ( Botrychium mormo ) Final Report. Conservation Biology Specialist Group, Apple Valley, MN. Farrar, D. 2005. Illustrated treatments Botrychium species. In: Botrychium Inventory and Monitoring Protocol. Draft in preparation. M. Stensvold ed. USDA FS Region 10, Juneau, AK. Farrar, D. 2003a. Don Farrar (North American Botrychium expert) personal communication with Deanna Reyher (ecologist Black Hills NF) of July 8, 2003. On file at Medicine Bow – Routt National Forests and Thunder Basin National Grassland Forest Supervisor’s Office, Laramie, WY. Farrar, D, 2003b. Historic Botrychium Collections in Utah. On file at Medicine Bow – Routt National Forests and Thunder Basin National Grassland Forest Supervisor’s Office, Laramie, WY. Fernald, M.L. 1950. Gray’s Manual of Botany, 8th edition. Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, New York, NY. 1632 pp. Fertig, W. 2001a. State Species Abstract –Wyoming Natural Diversity Data Base – Rubus acaulis Nagoonberry, Family Rosaceae. Wyoming Natural Diversity Database, Laramie, WY. Fertig, W. 2000c. State Species Abstract Festuca hallii Hall’s Fescue, Family Poaceae. Wyoming Natural Diversity Database, Laramie, WY. Fertig, W., C. Refsdal, and J. Whipple. 1994. Wyoming Rare Plant Field Guide. Wyoming, Rare Plant Technical Committee, Cheyenne, WY. Flowers, S. 1973. Mosses: Utah and the West. Brigham Young University Press, Provo, UT. 1-567 pp. Foley, G. 2003. Boulder-White Clouds a haven for rare plants. Idaho Mountain Express, Ketchum, ID. From: http://www.mtexpress.com/2003/03-07-30/03-07-30bwcflora.htm [11/30/05]. Gage, E. and D. Cooper. 2005. Carex diandra Schrank (lesser panicled sedge): A technical conservation assessment. Prepared for the USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region, Species Conservation Project. February 8, 2005. Department of Forest, Rangeland and Watershed Stewardship. Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO. 80523. Gill, D.E. 1989. Fruiting failure, pollinator inefficiency, and speciation in orchids. Pages 458-481 in D. Otte, and J. A. Endler, eds. Speciation and its consequences. Sinauer Associated, Sunderland, Massachusetts. USA. Gleason, H.A. and A.C. Cronquist. 1991. Manual of Vascular Plants of Northeastern United States and Adjacent Canada, 2nd edition. The New York Botanical Garden, Bronx, NY. 910 pp. Glenne, G. 2004. Moonwort Workshop Agenda. E-mail on file at Medicine Bow – Routt National Forests and Thunder Basin National Grassland Forest Supervisor’s Office, Laramie, WY. Glisson, B. 2002. Conservation Assessment of Hoary willow ( Salix candida Fluegge ex. Willd.). In the Black Hills National Forest. Unpublished report prepared for the Black Hills National Forest. Grant, V. and D. H. Wilken. 1986. Taxonomoy of the Ipomopsis aggregata group (Polemoniaceae). Bot. Gaz. 147(3): 359-371.Griggs, R.F. 1940. The Ecology of Rare Plants. Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club, Vol 67, No 7, 575-594.

99

Grant, K.A. and V. Grant. 1968. Hummingbirds and their Flowers. Columbia University Press, New York, NY. Griggs, R.F. 1940. The Ecology of Rare Plants. Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club, Vol 67, No 7, 575-594. Gruber, C.L. 1937. An unusual Botrychium station. American Fern Journal 27(1): 28-30. Handley, J. B Heidel and S. Laursen. 2002. Evaluation of Carex diandra / Lesser Panicled Sedge for Inclusion on the Region 2 Regional Forester's 2003 Sensitive Species List. Unpublished report on file at Medicine Bow Routt National Forest and Thunder Basin National Grassland Supervisor's Office, Laramie, WY. Haines, A. 2001. Taxonmoy of the Cypripedium parviflorum complex in Maine. Botanical Notes, No 6, August 2001. Woodlot Alternatives Incorporated Environmental Consultants, Topsham, ME. Available online at http://www.woodlotalt.com/publications/publications.htm . Harper, J.L. and White, J. 1974. The demography of plants. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 5:419-463. Hartman, R. and B.E. Nelson. 2002a. General Floristic Plant Species Survey of the Laramie Peak and Pole Mountain areas of the Medicine Bow National Forest, Wyoming. Report submitted to the Medicine Bow-Routt National Forests. On file at Medicine Bow-Routt NFs and Thunder Basin NG Supervisor’s Office, Laramie, WY. Hartman, R. and B.E. Nelson. 2002b. General Floristic Plant Species Survey of the Snowy Range of the Medicine Bow National Forest, Wyoming. Report submitted to the Medicine Bow-Routt National Forests. On file at Medicine Bow-Routt NFs and Thunder Basin NG Supervisor’s Office, Laramie, WY. Hartman, R. and B.E. Nelson. 2002c. General Floristic Plant Species Survey of the Sierra Madre Medicine Bow National Forest, Wyoming. Report submitted to the Medicine Bow-Routt National Forests. On file at Medicine Bow-Routt NFs and Thunder Basin NG Supervisor’s Office, Laramie, WY. Hartman, R.L and B.E. Nelson. 2001. Final report: General floristic/sensitive plant species survey of the Routt National Forest, Colorado. Department of Botany, University Wyoming, Laramie WY.Helms, J.A., C. Hipkin and E.B. Alexander. 1986. Effects of Soil Compaction on Height Growth of California Ponderosa Pine Plantation. WJAF 1(4)1986.Hitchcock, C.L. and A. Cronquist. 1961. Vol. 3. Saxifragaceae to Ericaceae. In: C.L. Heidel, B. and S. Laursen 2003. Botanical and Ecological Inventory of Peatland Sites on the Medicine Bow National Forest. Wyoming Natural Diversity Database. University of Wyoming. Laramie, WY. FS Agreement No. 02-CS-11021400-012. Helms, J.A. 1983. Soil compaction and Stand Growth, final Report to the USDA Forest Service, Amendment to Supplement 42, Master Agreement 21-395. Helms, J.A. 1982. Effects of Soil Bulk Density on Growth Rate of Young Ponderosa Pine. Univ. of California, Berkeley, CA. Hitchcock, C.L. and A. Cronquist. 1961. Pt.3. Saxifragaceae to Ericaceae. In: C.L Hitchcock, A. Cronquist, M. Ownbey, and J.W. Thomas. Vascular Plants of the Pacific Northwest. University of Washington Publication in Biology 17(12): 1-597.

100 Rangeland Management Plan for the Red Parks Analysis Area Environmental Assessment

Hustafa, J. 1999. Biological assessment for sensitive plants, Lostine Recreation Facilities Project, Eagle Cap Ranger District, Wallowa-Whitman National Forest. Oregon Natural Heritage Program. 1999. Element occurrence records for Botrychium lineare . Idaho Fish and Game. 2003. Botrychium lineare W.H. Wagner Slender Moonwort; Linear Leaf Moonwort Ophioglossaceae (Grape fern family). Available at: http://www2.state.id.us/fishgame/info/cdc/plants/plants_A-D/botlin.htm . Isley, D. 1985. Leguminosae of United States. Astragalus L.: III. Species Summary F-M. Iowa State Journal of Research. 60: 183-320. Jacqeumyn, H., R. Byrs, M. Hermy and J.H. Willems. 2005. Does nectar reward affect rarity and extinction probabilities of orchid species? As assessment using historical records from Belgium and the Netherlands. Biological Conservation 121(2005):257-263. Johnson-Groh, C.L. and J.M. Lee. 2002. Phenology and demography of two species of Botrychium (Ophioglossaceae). American Journal of Botany 89:1624-1633. Johnson-Groh, C., C. Reidel, L. Schoessler and K. Skogen. 2002. Belowground distribution and abundance of Botrychium gametophytes and juvenile sporophytes. Amercan Fern Journal 92(2): 80-92. Kolb, A. and T. Spribille. 2001. Population and habitat characteristics of rare moonworts (Botrychium subg. Botrychium ) in Summit County, Colorado Final Report Submitted to the Dillon Ranger District White River National Forest, Glenwood Springs, CO. 25 September 2001. Unpublished report on file at Medicine Bow-Routt NFs and Thunder Basin NG Supervisor’s Office, Laramie, WY. Kull, T. and Kull, K. 1991. Preliminary results from a study of populations of Cypripedium calceolus in Estonia. pp. 69-76 in T.C.E Wells and J.H. Willems, eds. Population ecology of terrestrial orchids. SPB Academic Publishing. The Netherlands. Ladyman, J.A.R. (2006, February 24). Astragalus leptaleus Gray (park milkvetch): a technical conservation assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/astragalusleptaleus.pdf [Feb 27, 2007]. Ladyman, J.R.A. (2004, December 9). Ipomopsis aggregata (Pursh) V. Grant ssp. weberi V. Grant and Wilken (scarlet gilia): a technical conservation assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/ipomopsisaggregatasspweberi.pdf [Feb 27, 2007]. Ladyman, J.A.R. (2006b, October 18). Rubus arcticus L. ssp. acaulis (Michaux) Focke (dwarf raspberry): a technical conservation assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/rubusarcticussspacaulis.pdf [Feb 27, 2007]. Lesica, P. and B.M. Steele. 1994. Prolonged Dormancy in Vascular Plants and Implications for Monitoring Studies. Natural Areas Journal 14:209-212. Lloyd, R.M. and E.J. Klekowski. 1970. Spore germination and viability in Pteridophyta: evolutionary significance of chlorophyllous spores. Biotropica 2:129-13. Magee, D.W., and H.E. Ahles. 1999. Flora of the Northeast. University of Massachusetts Press, Amherst, MA. 1213 pp.

101

Marie-Victorin, Frere. 1938. Phytogeographical Problems of Eastern Canada. American Midland Naturalist, Vol 19, No 3, 489-558. McQueen, C.B. 1990. Field guide to the peat mosses of boreal North America. University Press of New England. Hanover, NH. 1-138 pp. Mergen, D.E. 2006. Cypripedium parviflorum Salisb. lesser yellow lady’s slipper: a technical conservation assessment. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available at: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments[11/21/06 ]. Miller, J.H. 1968. Fern gametophytes as experimental material. Bot. Rev. (Lancaster) 34:361-440. Montana Natural Heritage Program (MTNHP). 2004. Montana Plant Field Guide Botrychium lineare. Linearleaf moonwort Ophioglossaceae. Montana Natural Heritage Program. Helena, MT. Muller, S. 2000. Assessing occurrence and habitat of Ophioglossum vulgatum L. and other Ophioglossaceae in European forests. Significance for nature conservation. Biodiversity and Conservation 9: 673-681. NatureServe. 2006. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 4.6. NatureServe, Arlington, VA. Available at: http://www.natureserve.org/explorer [Accessed: 11/01-22/06]. Neely. B. 1990. A Biological Reconnaissance of Big Creek Lakes and Arapho lakes Areas. Unpublished Document Prepared for North Park Ranger District, Routt National Forest, Walden CO. The Nature Conservancy. 1244 Pine Street, Boulder CO. 80302. Nelson, K. 2004. Botrychium lineare e-mail to Kathy Roche of 06/12/04 regarding populations in Inyo, Fresno and Tulare counties, California. On file at Medicine Bow – Routt National Forests and Thunder Basin National Grassland Forest Supervisor’s Office, Laramie, WY. O’Dea, K. and W. Fertig. 2000. State Species Abstract Cypripedium parviflorum var. pubescens Large Yellow Lady's-Slipper Family: Orchidaceae. Wyoming Natural Diversity Database, Laramie, WY. Ode, D. J. 2001b. Evaluation of Cypripedium calceolus L. subsp. parviflorum (Salisb.) Hulten / small yellow lady's-slipper for Inclusion on the Region 2 Regional Forester's 2003 Sensitive Species List. Unpublished report on file at Medicine Bow-Routt National Forests and Thunder Basin National Grassland Supervisor's Office, Laramie, WY. Available at: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/evalrationale/index.shtml [11/24/06]. Olson, S. 2005. Effects Matrix for Astragalus leptaleus . Forest Botanist - PSICC. Unpublished report on file at Parks RD. Walden, CO. Peck, J.H., C.J. Peck, and D.R. Farrar. 1990. Influences of life history attributes on formation of local and distant fern populations. Amer. Fern J. 80:126-142.Popovich, S. 2006. e-mail on Botrychium phenology. On file at Medicine Bow – Routt National Forests and Thunder Basin National Grassland Forest Supervisor’s Office, Laramie, WY. Popovich, S. 2006. e-mail on Botrychium phenology. On file at Medicine Bow – Routt National Forests and Thunder Basin National Grassland Forest Supervisor’s Office, Laramie, WY.Popovich, S. 2005. Forest Botanist - ARP. Effects matrix for B. lineare . Unpublished report on file at Parks RD. Walden, CO.

102 Rangeland Management Plan for the Red Parks Analysis Area Environmental Assessment

Popovich, S. 2005. Effects Matrix for Botrychium lineare. Unpublished report on file at Parks RD, Walden CO. Popovich, S. 2004a. Botrychium lineare Population Status in Colorado: Clarifications and Suggested Species Assessment Update and Erratum. (04/12/04). On file at Medicine Bow – Routt National Forests and Thunder Basin National Grassland Forest Supervisor’s Office Laramie, WY. Popovich, S. 2004b. Comments on More review of Botrychium lineare -- possibly suitable for an update to SCP and Summary of Extant and Historical Botrychium lineare populations (05/24/04). E-mail on file at Medicine Bow – Routt National Forests and Thunder Basin National Grassland Forest Supervisor’s Office, Laramie, WY. Popovich, S. 2004c. New B. lineare site found? E-mail on file at Medicine Bow – Routt National Forests and Thunder Basin National Grassland Forest Supervisor’s Office, Laramie, WY. Popovich, S. 2004d. ARP Forest Botanist. Personal Communications. New C. diandra sites found on ARP. Popovich, S. 2003. Steve Popovich’s (Arapaho-Roosevelt National Forests and Pawnee National Grassland Botanist) discussions of a possible habitat filter with Peter Root for Botrychium lineare of July 11 2003. Unpublished document on file at the Parks RD, Medicine Bow-Routt National Forest. Walden CO. Prendusi, T. 2001. Article on Moonworts Botrychiums, Accompanying e-mail message. On file at Medicine Bow – Routt National Forests and Thunder Basin National Grassland Forest Supervisor’s Office, Laramie, WY. Proctor, J. 2003. Botanical Survey Field notes for 2003. Unpublished report on file at Parks Ranger District Office, Walden CO. Proctor, J. 2006. Pre-field review for Williams Fork Analysis Area. Unpublished document on file at Parks RD. Medicine Bow-Routt NF and Thunder Basin NG. Walden CO. 80480. Proctor 2007a. Survey documentation for TES and Plant Species of Local Concern for Williams Fork Domestic Sheep Grazing Analysis Area. Forest Botanist. Medicine Bow-Routt NF and Thunder Basin NG. Walden, CO. On file at Parks RD. Walden Colorado. Proctor, J. 2007b. Plant Species of Local Concern Report for Williams Fork Domestic Sheep Grazing Analysis Area. Unpublished Report. Forest Botanist. Medicine Bow-Routt NF and Thunder Basin NG. On file at Parks RD. Walden Colorado. Proctor, J. 2005b. Personal observations of dwarf raspberry ( Rubus articus spp. acaulis) . Proctor, M. 1972. The Pollination of Flowers. Taplinger Publishing Co., New York, NY. Reyher, D. 2004a. Botrychium lineare (Narrowleaf grapefern) confirmed in Wyoming. Castilleja, Vol 3, No. 1. (March 2004). Available at: http://uwadmnweb.uwyo.edu/wyndd/wnps/Newsletters_pdf/Mar04Castilleja.pdf [11/18/05]. Reyher, D. 2004b. Comments on More review of Botrychium lineare -- possibly suitable for an update to SCP and Summary of Extant and Historical Botrychium lineare populations (05/24/04). E-mail on file at Medicine Bow – Routt National Forests and Thunder Basin National Grassland Forest Supervisor’s Office, Laramie, WY.

103

Reyher, D. and B. Burkhart. 2003. Additional information and determination for the Cement Project Area and Biological Evaluation based on new species information. On file at Medicine Bow – Routt National Forests and Thunder Basin National Grassland Forest Supervisor’s Office, Laramie, WY. Riordan, K (for R.D. Cables). 2005. Memo of 04/28/05 to Forest Supervisors Revised Sensitive Species List, File code 2670. Roche, K. 1995. Moonwort Grapefern Botrychiums. E-mail on file at Medicine Bow – Routt National Forests and Thunder Basin National Grassland Forest Supervisor’s Office, Laramie, WY. Roche, K. 2005. Forest Ecologist – MBRTB. Effects Matrix for Festuca hallii . Unpublished report on file at Parks RD, Walden CO. Roche, K. 2007. Forest Ecologist – MBRTB. Personal communications to author regarding pressed specimens of Cypripedium parviflorum found in storage at MBRTB supervisor’s office. Root, P. 1999. A survey of possible additional populations of the narrow leaf moonwort on Pikes Peak (order number 43-82BH-8-0096). Prepared for the Pikes Peak Ranger District, U.S. Forest Service, Colorado Springs, CO. 3 pages + figures. Root, P. 2005. Personal communication to Peter Root regarding Botrychium ( moonwort) disturbance and habitat timelines. Shaw, A.J. and B. Goffinet. 2000. Bryophyte biology. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge, United Kingdom. Shefferson, R.P., B.K. Sandercock, J. Proper and S.R. Biessinger. 2001. Estimating dormancy and survival of a rare herbaceous perennial using mark-recapture models. Ecology 82(1):145-156. Sheviak, Charles J. 1994. Cypripedium parviflorum Salisb. 1: The small-flowered varieties. American Orchid Society Bulletin 63(3): 664-669. Schoessler, L.C. 1999. The Distribution of Underground Gametophytes in Botrychium virginianum (rattlesnake fern). Gustavus Adolphus College, Sigma Xi Research Symposium 1999. Available at: http://www.gustavus.edu/oncampus/academics/sigmaxi/SXiSymp99.htm [05/21/06]. Smith, S. 2006. e-mail on Botrychium phenology. On file at Medicine Bow – Routt National Forests and Thunder Basin National Grassland Forest Supervisor’s Office, Laramie, WY. Smithson, A. 2005. Pollinator limitation and inbreeding depression in orchid species with and without nectar rewards. New Phytologist. Research 1-12. Spackman, S., B. Jennings, J. Coles, C. Dawson, M. Minton, A. Kratz, and C. Spurrier. 1997. Colorado Rare Plant Field Guide. Prepared for the Bureau of Land Management the U.S. Forest Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service by the Colorado Natural Heritage Program. Species Conservation Project (SCP) Website 2003: Individual Species Evaluations. USDA Forest Service, Region 2 - Rocky Mountain Region. Golden, Colorado. Sussman, A.S. 1965. Physiology of dormancy and germination in the propagules of cryptogamic plants. Pp. 297-315 in W. Ruhland ed. Handbuch der Pflanzenphysiologie XV. Springer- Verlag, Berlin. University and Jepson Herbaria. 2003. County-Level Distribution Results, University of California, Berkeley, CA. Available at: http://www.mip.berkeley.edu/www_apps/smasch/ .

104 Rangeland Management Plan for the Red Parks Analysis Area Environmental Assessment

USDA Forest Service. 1998. Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Routt National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan - 1997 Revision. USDA Forest Service Medicine Bow- Routt National Forest. Steamboat Springs, Colorado. USDA NRCS. 2004. The PLANTS Database, Version 3.5 (http://plants.usda.gov). National Plant Data Center, Baton Rouge, LA USA. USDI FWS. 2004. 50 CFR Part 17 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Review of Species That Are Candidates or Proposed for Listing as Endangered or Threatened; Annual Notice of Findings on Resubmitted Petitions; Annual Description of Progress on Listing Actions; Notice of Review; Proposed Rule. Federal Register Tuesday, May 4, 2004. USGPO, Washington, DC. USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2003. Candidate assessment and listing priority assignment form for Botrychium lineare . USDI FWS Snake River Basin Field Office, Boise, ID. Online at: http://permanent.access.gpo.gov/websites/fwsgov/ecos.fws.gov/docs/candforms_pdf/r1/botlin.pd f [11/30/05]. USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002. 50 CFR Part 17 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Annual Notice of Recycled Petition Finding for Slender Moonwort. Federal Register 06/06/02 Vol. 67 No 109 pp. 39035-39037. USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2001. 50 CFR Part 17 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Finding for a Petition To List the Plant Botrychium lineare (Slender Moonwort) as Threatened. Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 109 / Wednesday June 6, 2001 / Proposed Rules. Pp: 30368-30372. USDI Fish and Wildlife Service USDI Bureau of Land Management, USDA Forest Service, USDC National Marine Fisheries Service. 2000. Memorandum of Agreement Endangered Species Act Section 7 Programmatic Consultations and Coordination among Bureau of Land Management, Forest Service, National Marine Fisheries Service and Fish and Wildlife Service. Copy on file at Medicine Bow – Routt National Forests and Thunder Basin National Grassland. Forest Supervisor’s Office. Laramie,WY. Online: http://www.fs.fed.us/biology/resources/ pubs/tes/MOA-final_000830.rtf [11/30/05]. USDI FWS. 2004. 50 CFR Part 17 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Review of Species That Are Candidates or Proposed for Listing as Endangered or Threatened; Annual Notice of Findings on Resubmitted Petitions; Annual Description of Progress on Listing Actions; Notice of Review; Proposed Rule. Federal Register Tuesday, May 4, 2004. USGPO, Washington, D.C. Wyoming Natural Diversity Database (WYNDD) Accessed 2006. Laramie, WY. Vanderhorst, J. 1997. Conservation Assessment of Sensitive Moonworts (Ophioglossaceae; Botrychium Subgenus Botrychium ) on the Kootenai National Forest. Agreement No. 11011454002, report prepared for: Kootenai National Forest Supervisors Office, Libby, MT. Available at: http://nhp.nris.state.mt.us/plants/reports/botry.pdf [11/11/05]. Vitt, D.H., J.E. Marsh, R.B. Bovey. 1988. Lone Pine Publishing. 1-296 pp. Vizgirdas, E. R 2001a. Idaho Moonworts. Sage Notes Winter 2001. Vizgirdas E. R. 2001b. Oct 29. Idaho Moonworts. Unpublished document. USDA Forest Service. Boise National Forest, Boise, ID.

105

Wagner, W.H. and F.S. Wagner. 1994. Another widely disjunct, rare and local North American moonwort (Ophioglossaceae: Botrychium subg. Botrychium ). American Fern Journal 84(1):5- 10. Wagner, W.H. Jr. and F. S. Wagner. 1993. Ophioglossaceae Agardh Adder's tongue Family. In: Flora of North America Editorial Committee, eds. 1993. Flora of North America North of Mexico. 12+ vols. Oxford Univ. Press. New York and Oxford. Available at: http://www.efloras.org/florataxon.aspx?flora_id=1&taxon_id=10634 [02/05/07]. Waser, N. M. 1983. The adaptive nature of floral traits: ideas and evidence. In: L. Real, ed. Pollination Biology. Academic Press, Orlando, FL. Whittier, D.P. 2000. Gametophyte and young sporophyte development in the Ophioglossaceae. Symposium: Biology and Conservation of the Ophioglossaceae-A Tribute to Warren "Herb" Wagner. Available at: http://www.ou.edu/cas/botany- micro/botany2000/sympos5/abstracts/1.shtml [04/1406]. Williams, R. L., W. Haas and B. Mountain. 1992. (Partial) Plant List for the Medicine Bow/Routt National Forest and Thunder Basin National Grassland. On file at Medicine Bow-Routt NFs and Thunder Basin NG Supervisor’s Office, Laramie, WY. Williston, P. 2003a. Botrychium lineare (Slender Moonwort): A new fern for Alberta. BEN Botanical Electronic News ISSN 1188-603X, Dr. A. Ceska, editor, Victoria, B.C. Canada V8W 3S2. Williston, P. 2003b. Linear leaf Moonwort: a New Fern for Alberta. Iris: winter 2003. Page 12. Williston, P. 2002. The Botrychiaceae of Alberta, a survey of element occurrences of the genera Botrychium and Sceptridium in Alberta. A Report by Patrick Williston of Mnium Ecological Research to Resource Data Division Alberta Sustainable Resource Development. Available at: http://www.cd.gov.ab.ca/preserving/parks/anhic/reports.asp [12/16/05]. Williston, P. 2001. The Ophioglossaceae of Alberta. Alberta Environment, Edmonton, Alberta, CAN. 61p. Windham, M.D., P.G. Wolf, and T.A. Ranker. 1986. Factors affecting prolonged spore viability in herbarium collections of three species of Pellaea. Amer. Fern J. 76:141-148. With, K.A. 2002. The landscape ecology of invasive spread. Conservation Biology 16(5): 1192- 1203. Wooten, G. 1993. Region 6’s BOT.NEWS. Okanogan NF (Oregon), reports in the September 1993 issue on results and management implications of a three year monitoring study of Botrychium minganense and B. montanum. WYNND. 2002. Species Abstracts and Township/ Range List, Species of Special Concern, Medicine Bow National Forest. Wyoming Natural Diversity Database, University of Wyoming. Laramie, WY. Wyoming Natural Diversity Database (WYNDD) Accessed 2002. Laramie, WY. Wyoming Natural Diversity Database (WYNDD) Accessed 2006. Laramie, WY. Zika, P.F., R. Brainerd and B. Newhouse. 1995. Grapeferns and moonworts ( Botrychium , Ophioglossaceae) in the Columbia Basin. A report submitted to the Eastside Ecosystem Management Project, U.S. Forest Service Walla Walla, Washington. Pages 1, 20, and 26.

106 Rangeland Management Plan for the Red Parks Analysis Area Environmental Assessment

Anderson, J., and L. Jordan. 1993. Dudley Bluffs bladderpod ( Lesquerella congesta ), Dudley Bluffs twinpod ( Physaria obcordata ) recovery plan. US Fish and Wildlife Service. Region 6. Grand Junction, Colorado. 15 pp. http://ecos.fws.gov/recovery_plan/pdf_files/1993/930813a.pdf Colorado Natural Heritage Project (CNHP) Database. Accessed 2008. Fort Collins, CO. Fertig, W., C. Refsdal, and J. Whipple. 1994. Wyoming Rare Plant Field Guide. Wyoming Rare Plant Technical committee, Cheyenne Wyoming. NRIS-TESP-geo spatial database 2009. National Resource Information Systems geo spatial database to track surveys for Threatened, Endangered, Sensitive, Proposed and Plant Species and Plant Species of Concern. Spackman, S., B. Jennings, J. Coles, C. Dawson, M. Minton, A. Kratz, and C. Spurrier. 1997. Colorado Rare Plant Field Guide. Prepared for the Bureau of Land Management, the U.S. Forest Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service by the Colorado Natural Heritage Program Species Conservation Project (SCP) Website 2003: Individual Species Evaluations. USDA Forest Service, Region 2 - Rocky Mountain Region. Golden, Colorado. Kovacs, K. 2009. Plant Species of Local Concern Report for Flat Tops Domestic Sheep Grazing Analysis Area. Unpublished Report. Biological Science technician. Medicine Bow-Routt NF and Thunder Basin NG. On file at Parks RD. Walden Colorado. USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002. 50 CFR Part 17 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Annual Notice of Recycled Petition Finding for Slender Moonwort. Federal Register 06/06/02 Vol. 67 No 109 pp. 39035-39037. USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2009. Species profile for Spiranthes diluvialis on FWS website. (http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/SpeciesReport.do?spcode=Q2WA50 ). Accessed April 13, 2009.

107