United States Environmental Assessment Department of Agriculture Rampart Range Recreation Area Forest Motorized Roads and Trails Plan Service

July 2005

South Platte Ranger District Pike and San Isabel National Forests Douglas County, Colorado

For more information contact: John R. Kirkaldie, Interdisciplinary Team Leader 303-275-5610 Scott Dollus, Recreation Planner South Platte Ranger District 303-275-5610 Randy Hickenbottom, District Ranger South Platte Ranger District 303-275-5610

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Person with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audio tape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W, th Whitten Building, 14 and Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (202) 720-5964 (voice and TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

Environmental Assessment Rampart Range Recreation Area Motorized Roads and Trails Plan

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER 1. PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION

A. Introduction ...... 1-1 B. Location and Setting ...... 1-1 C. Background ...... 1-1 D. Purpose ...... 1-4 E. Need ...... 1-4 F. Proposed Action ...... 1-5 G. Decisions Framework ...... 1-5 H. Public Involvement ...... 1-6 I. Key Issues ...... 1-8 J. Issues Not Selected for Detailed Analysis ...... 1-9

CHAPTER 2. ALTERNATIVES

A. Introduction...... 2-1 B. Actions Common to All Alternatives...... 2-1 C. Alternatives Considered in Detail ...... 2-1 1. Alternative A -No Action Alternative...... 2-1 2. Alternative B...... 2-2 3. Alternative C – Proposed Action ...... 2-4 D. Mitigation Measures ...... 2-11 1. Water Quality and Aquatic Resources...... 2-11 2. Wildlife ...... 2-11 3. Heritage...... 2-12 4. Noxious Weeds ...... 2-13 5. General...... 2-13 E. Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study ...... 2-14 1. Rampart Range Road ...... 2-14 2. Regional Motorized Trail Connections...... 2-14 3. Elements Not Addressed in the Purpose and Need...... 2-14 F. Comparison of Alternative Effect...... 2-14

CHAPTER 3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

A. Background ...... 3-1 B. Physical Resources...... 3-1 1. Hydrology ...... 3-1 2. Soils...... 3-10 3. Floodplains, Wetlands and Riparian Areas...... 3-14 4. Heritage Resources ...... 3-18 5. Air Quality ...... 3-21 6. Fire ...... 3-26

Table of Contents i-i Rampart Range Recreation Area Motorized Roads and Trails Plan Environmental Assessment

C. Biological Resources...... 3-28 1. Terrestrial Wildlife ...... 3-28 2 Fisheries and Aquatic Resources ...... 3-35 3. Vegetation and Timber Management...... 3-43 4. Noxious Weeds ...... 3-46 D. Economic and Social...... 3-48 1. Recreation ...... 3-48 2. Land Use ...... 3-56 3. Noise ...... 3-59 4. Transportation System ...... 3-64 5. Social and Economic...... 3-68 E. Effects Summary ...... 3-71 1. Irretrievable and Irreversible Commitment of Resources...... 3-71 2. Reasonable Foreseeable Future Actions ...... 3-72

CHAPTER 4. LIST OF PREPARERS AND CONTRIBUTERS

A. ID Core Team Members ...... 4-1 B. Extended ID Team Members...... 4-1 C. Federal, State and Local Agencies...... 4-2 D. Tribes ...... 4-2 E. Others...... 4-3

APPENDICES

Appendix A – Glossary Appendix B – References Appendix C – Roads Analysis Appendix D – Parking Area Concepts Appendix E – Cost/Benefit Spreadsheets

MAPS

Map 1-1 – Project Area...... 1-2 Map 2-1 – Alternative A...... 2-5 Map 2-2 – Alternative B ...... 2-7 Map 2-3 – Alternative C ...... 2-9 Appendix C - Map 1 – Existing Roads ...... C-71

TABLES

Table 1-1 – Management Areas...... 1-7 Table 2-1: Comparison of Alternatives by Road and Trail Miles ...... 2-2 Table 2-2: Comparison of Parking Area Facilities Improvements ...... 2-3 Table 2-3: Comparison of Alternative Effect ...... 2-15 Table 3-1: Sixth-Level Watersheds ...... 3-2

i-ii Table of Contents Environmental Assessment Rampart Range Recreation Area Motorized Roads and Trails Plan

Table 3-2: Road and Trail Crossings of Intermittent and Perennial Streams ...... 3-5 Table 3-3: Length within the Water Influence Zone ...... 3-6 Table 3-4: Acres of Riparian Habitat...... 3-15 Table 3-5: Roads and Trails in Riparian Habitat ...... 3-18 Table 3-6: National Ambient Air Quality Standards ...... 3-22 Table 3-7: Nonattainment Classifications...... 3-23 Table 3-8: Species Selected for Analysis...... 3-29 Table 3-9: Cover Types and Habitat Structural Stages ...... 3-29 Table 3-10: Wildlife Habitat Affected...... 3-31 Table 3-11: Acres of Impact to Plant Communities ...... 3-44 Table 3-12: Motorized Trail by Alternative...... 3-51 Table 3-13: Motorized Trail Modifications by Management Area ...... 3-52 Table 3-14: Subdivisions ...... 3-56 Table 3-15: Subdivisions Proximity Alternative B...... 3-58 Table 3-16: Subdivisions Proximity Alternative C...... 3-59 Table 3-17: Typical Noise Levels...... 3-60 Table 3-18: Proximity of Existing Trails to Residential Subdivisions ...... 3-61 Table 3-19: Roads and Trails...... 3-65 Table 3-20: Transportation System...... 3-66

Table of Contents i-iii

This page intentionally left blank

Environmental Assessment Rampart Range Recreation Area Motorized Roads and Trails Plan

CHAPTER 1. PURPOSE AND NEED

A. Introduction

This chapter summarizes the purpose and need for this action. This includes describing the location, project area, public involvement activities, and key issues.

B. Location and Setting

The U.S. Forest Service (Forest Service), Pike National Forest (Forest), South Platte Ranger District manages the 91,000 acre planning area, referred to as the Rampart Range Motorized Recreation Area (RRMRA) (Recreation Area). As illustrated in Map 1-1, the project area is located in Douglas County, approximately 15 miles southwest of the City of Denver. The area is bounded to the north by the Pike National Forest, to the east by the Pike National Forest, to the south by the Pikes Peak Ranger District Boundary, South Platte River and State Highway 67. The highest point is Devils Head at 9,748 feet; the lowest point is along the South Platte River at an elevation of 5,600 feet. The project is located on the South Platte Ranger District.

C. Background

In 2004, a roads and trails assessment was initiated on the Rampart Range Motorized Recreation Area. The assessment began with an inventory of roads and trails in the project area. The motorized road and trail system was assessed for consistency with current policies, recreational experience, maintenance, safety and environmental considerations. Each road and trail was evaluated to determine whether it should remain, be modified, or be removed from the designated Forest Service travel system. Project initiation letters were sent to Tribal Governments and Certified Local County Governments to solicit input and associated information. Agency and public input was collected at two public scoping meetings held in the summer of 2004 and two public workshops held in fall of 2004. Based on this evaluation and public input, alternatives were defined to improve the road and trail system within the project area. The alternatives are described in Chapter 2.

For this project, a road is defined as a vehicle travel-way greater than 50 inches wide and is classified by the following Maintenance Levels (ML):

• Maintenance Level 1: These roads are closed. Some intermittent use may be authorized. When closed, they must be physically closed with barricades, berms, gates, or other closure structures. Closures must exceed one year. When open, it may be maintained at any maintenance level. When closed to vehicular traffic, they may be suitable and used for non-motorized uses, with custodial maintenance.

• Maintenance Level 2: Roads open for use by high-clearance vehicles. Passenger car traffic is discouraged. Traffic is minor administrative, permitted, or dispersed recreation. Non-traffic generated maintenance is minimal.

Chapter 1 1-1 Rampart Range Recreation Area Motorized Roads and Trails Plan Environmental Assessment

Map 1-1: Project Area.

1-2 Chapter 1 Environmental Assessment Rampart Range Recreation Area Motorized Roads and Trails Plan

Maintenance Level 3: Roads open and maintained for travel by a prudent driver in a standard passenger car. User comfort and convenience are not considered priorities. Typically low speed, single lane with turnouts and native or aggregate surfacing.

• Maintenance Level 4: Roads that provide a moderate degree of user comfort and convenience at moderate speeds. Most are double lane and aggregate surfaced. Some may be single lane. Some may be dust abated.

• Maintenance Level 5: Roads that provide a high degree of user comfort and convenience. Normally they are double lane, paved facilities, or aggregate surface with dust abatement. This is the highest standard of maintenance.

Additional information can be found in the Roads Analysis in Appendix C.

For the purposes of this analysis and on-the-ground implementation, a motorized trail is less than 50 inches in width and is classified for off-highway vehicles (OHV) use such as all- terrain vehicles (ATV) and single-track. An ATV trail is wider and accommodates 3-4 wheeled vehicles. A single-track trail is a narrow trail that can accommodate two wheeled motorized vehicles such as motorcycles. See Appendix A for a glossary of road and trail related terms.

The existing trail system was assessed against three tiers of information:

Tier One – Forest Plan Goals. The Pike and San Isabel National Forests; Comanche and Cimarron National Grasslands (PSICC) Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) as amended (October, 1984) provides long-term management direction for the entire project area. Trails were assessed against Forest Plan direction, such as the protection of natural resources especially as it relates to impacts to sensitive areas, watersheds, critical wildlife habitat, riparian areas and wetlands.

Tier Two – Management Area Direction. The Forest Plan provides guidance for sub-unit management, called Management Areas. Management area direction provides guidance on management emphasis including the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS), resource protection, and the level and type of motorized use. Based on existing guidance, trails inconsistent with Management Area direction were identified.

Tier Three – Operational and Safety Concerns. The Forest Plan also promotes the need to manage the transportation system for increased cost-effectiveness, efficiency, safety and utility. The trail system was assessed against these factors and issue areas were identified.

The resulting roads and trails system is described in the Proposed Action addressed in this Environmental Analysis (EA) and the Road Analysis found in Appendix C.

Chapter 1 1-3 Rampart Range Recreation Area Motorized Roads and Trails Plan Environmental Assessment

D. Purpose

The purpose of the proposed action is to improve the safety, maintenance and recreational experience of the designated motorized road and trail system within the Rampart Range Motorized Recreation Area. Historically, many motorized trails were developed solely and independently by users without considering environmental impacts, safety or the quality of the recreation experience. Consequently, many of these trails do not meet current trail design standards. Erosion from improperly located, designed, and constructed trails can cause environmental impacts, decrease safety, provide for a poor recreation experience and increase maintenance costs. Designating specific uses, realigning, adding, and decommissioning certain trails would address many of these concerns.

Action by the Forest Service is needed at this time since motorized use continues at an ever increasing rate and the trail system continues to degrade. The proposed action would create a motorized travel system that enhances recreation experience, safety, environmental protection and operational efficiency.

E. Need

The Rampart Range Motorized Recreation Area Roads and Trails Plan is needed to:

• Create a framework for the integrated management of roads and trails

• Designate roads and trails that will be part of the designated transportation system

• Reduce the proliferation of user-created roads and trails

• Provide trails for a variety of user types and skills

• Provide access to key recreational amenities

• Eliminate or reconstruct poorly designed and located roads and trails that have resulted in indirect impacts such as erosion and direct effects such as riparian habitat degradation

• Identify a travel system that can be efficiently maintained

• Ensure adherence to the Forest Plan and other State and Federal Policies

• Manage the increasing number of users, especially ATV’s

• Address increasing traffic volume on trails and roads which has resulted in increased accidents and safety problems

• Improve education of users through parking area and signage improvements.

1-4 Chapter 1 Environmental Assessment Rampart Range Recreation Area Motorized Roads and Trails Plan

F. Proposed Action

This alternative provides a motorized road and trail system that includes a broad spectrum of OHV opportunities while also enhancing resource protection, operational efficiency, and safety. Specific management recommendations include the following elements:

• Designation of a formal system of roads and trails

• Removal of non-system roads and trails

• Development of looped trail systems

• Rerouting and closure of non-compliant trails

• Creation of new trail connections

• Development of new trails designed for each user type and skill level

• Construction of new signage and kiosks that designate trails by difficulty and use type

• Parking area improvements and expansion

• Facility expansion and improvement

G. Decisions Framework

The South Platte District Ranger is the official responsible for this decision. The District Ranger may decide to select the no action alternative, to defer action, or to select an action alternative. The 1984 Land and Resource Management Plan for the Pike and San Isabel National Forests and Comanche and Cimarron National Grasslands (Forest Plan), provides long-term programmatic forest-wide goals and objectives (USDA Forest Service, 1984). Forest Plan goals include:

• Provide a broad spectrum of developed and dispersed recreation opportunities in accordance with identified needs and demands.

• Maintain approximately the current ratio of Recreation Opportunity Spectrum classes for dispersed recreation.

• Enhance and/or preserve scenic values along heavily traveled roads, use areas, and trails through management activities.

• Protect riparian areas and wetlands from degradation.

• Manage the transportation system for increased cost-effectiveness, efficiency, and utility.

Chapter 1 1-5 Rampart Range Recreation Area Motorized Roads and Trails Plan Environmental Assessment

These objectives are the basis for the management requirements listed in the Forest Plan and Management Area Directions. The Forest-wide management requirements set the baseline conditions that must be maintained throughout the Forest in order to implement the Forest Plan as it was intended. They establish the environmental quality and natural resource requirements and mitigating measures that apply to all areas of the Forest. The Forest Plan divides the Forest into individual Management Areas (MAs), each of which has an emphasis that directs management activities within the MAs borders. The Forest Plan designates specific direction, goals, and standards and guidelines to be used in the management of these areas to more completely meet the MA emphasis. Each MA is described by its management emphasis, or general direction and goals, and specific standards and guidelines to help achieve those goals for the MA. There are 6 MAs in the Project Area; 2A (Semi-Primitive Motorized Recreation Opportunities), 2B (Rural and Roaded-Natural Recreation Emphasis), 4B (Management Indicator Species), 7A (Wood Fiber Production Utilization), 7D (Wood Fiber Production Utilization for Products other than Sawtimber) and 9A (Riparian Management). Additional guidance is described in Table 1-1.

This EA is a project-level analysis that considers all applicable Forest Plan management direction (goals, standards, guidelines and MA direction). Where appropriate, this EA tiers to the Forest Plan and is hereby incorporated by reference, as encouraged by 40 CFR 1520.20.

In addition the National Forest System lands will be managed to comply with laws, regulations, Executive Orders, direction in the Forest Service Manual, and Regional Acceptable Work Standards (Forest Plan, III-11). The Plan will also consider and directly incorporate information from the Hayman Fire Roads Management Project Environmental Assessment and Roads Analysis Report, which coincides with the project area. On September 9th, 2004, the Pikes Peak Ranger District signed a Decision Notice to implement the roads management plan. The decision resulted in closed roads, converted roads to trails, restricted access and decommissioned all unclassified roads.

H. Public Involvement

Project initiation letters were sent to tribal governments and Certified Local County Governments to solicit input and associated information. Scoping for the current proposal was initiated with notification in local newspapers, notification on the website and a mailing to over 300 persons either known to be interested in similar projects or who had asked to be informed of such projects or of the proposed project. Over 300 people attended two open houses that were held in July of 2004. The open houses provided the public an opportunity to gain information on the project and to share information and their concerns and ideas. As a result of the open houses and subsequent public input, more than 500 comments were received. The majority of the comments received focused on enhancing the existing trail system and protecting environmental resources. Based on comments received and internal ID team workshops, three road and trail concepts were developed.

1-6 Chapter 1 Environmental Assessment Rampart Range Recreation Area Motorized Roads and Trails Plan

Table 1-1: Management Areas.

Existing Motorized Use Management Description Motorized Guidance Area Trails/Roads 2A Management emphasis is for semi-primitive motorized 18.13 miles of – Low to moderate Semi-Primitive recreation opportunities, such as snowmobiling, four- trail use Motorized wheel driving, and motorcycling, both on and off roads 2.13 miles of – No new roads Recreation and trails. Range resource management provides road – Closure of Opportunities sustained forage yield. Visual activities are managed unsuitable roads so that management activities are not evident or 11,654 acres Low to moderate remain visually subordinate. 18.2 sq. miles – contact with other groups and individuals 2B This Management Area provides opportunity for 47.66 miles of – Moderate to high Rural and outdoor recreation in roaded natural and rural settings, trail use Roaded – including developed recreational facilities and year- 64.39 miles of – Designated routes Natural round motorized and non-motorized recreation. road only Recreation Motorized and non-motorized recreation activities, – Additional routes Emphasis such as driving for pleasure, viewing scenery, 32,849 acres feasible picnicking, fishing, snowmobiling, and cross-country 51.33 sq. miles Roaded natural and skiing, are possible. Conventional use of highway- – rural type vehicles is provided for in facility design and construction. Motorized travel may be prohibited or – Moderate to high restricted to designated routes to protect physical and incident of contact biological resources. Visual resources are managed with other groups so that management activities maintain or improve the and individuals quality of recreation opportunities 4B Wildlife management indicator species with 6.2 miles of – Low to moderate Management compatible habitat needs are selected for an area. road use Indicator Vegetative characteristics and human activities are 3.9 miles of trail – No new roads Species managed to provide optimum habitat for the selected – Closure of Habitat species or to meet population goals jointly agreed to 16,212 acres unsuitable roads Emphasis with the State Fish and Wildlife agencies. Recreation 25.33 sq. miles Manage for indicator and other human activities are regulated to favor the – species needs of the designated species. Roaded natural recreation opportunities are provided along Forest – Semi-primitive non- arterial and collector roads. Semi-primitive motorized motorized /semi- recreation opportunities are provided on those local primitive motorized roads and trails that remain open, semi-primitive non- motorized opportunities are provided on those that are closed. 7A Emphasizes productive tree stand management on 33.33 miles of – Moderate to high Wood Fiber lands available, capable, and suitable for production of trail use Production a variety of commercial and noncommercial wood 9.53 miles of – Semi-primitive non- Utilization products. Roaded natural recreation opportunities are road motorized, semi- (saw logs) provided along Forest arterial and collector roads. primitive motorized Semi-primitive motorized recreation opportunities are 18,161 acres – Low to moderate provided on those local roads and trails that remain 28.38 sq. miles incidence of contact open, semi-primitive non-motorized opportunities are provided on those that are closed. 7D Management emphasis is on production and utilization 39.12 miles of – Moderate to high Wood Fiber of small roundwood of a size and quality suitable for trail use Production products such as fuel wood, posts, poles and props. 12.85 miles of – Low to moderate Utilization for Semi-primitive non-motorized, semi-primitive road incidence of contact Products Other motorized, roaded natural and rural recreation – Semi-primitive non- than opportunities can be provided. 12,367 acres motorized, semi- Sawtimber 19.32 sq. miles primitive motorized 9A Management emphasis is on all the component 15.55 miles of – Semi-primitive non- Riparian ecosystems of riparian areas. This area can occur trail. motorized. Management within other management areas. 25.7 miles of road

Chapter 1 1-7 Rampart Range Recreation Area Motorized Roads and Trails Plan Environmental Assessment

An additional mailing, notifications in local newspapers, and postings on the Pike National Forest website were used to advertise two additional public workshops held in Denver and Douglas County in October of 2004. The purpose of these workshops was to discuss and refine concepts for enhancing the road and trails system. Approximately 120 people attended the workshops and comments were received following the meetings. Comments on these Planning Concepts were subsequently incorporated, as appropriate, into the three draft alternatives presented in Chapter 2. The majority of the comments received supported a road and trail concept that created trails for different user types, provided for more trail loops and enhanced resource protection (Alternative C). Based on comments received and subsequent internal Forest Service team workshops, the three project alternatives presented in Chapter 2 were developed, made available in hardcopy and posted on the website. The draft Alternatives were made available for public review and comment on November 23, 2004.

At the request of the public, the U.S. Forest Service extended the comment period until March 22, 2005 to provide additional opportunity for citizens to give comment on draft Alternatives. The extension of the comment period results from a desire to ensure all interested segments of the public have had a fair opportunity to review the project and the associated draft Alternatives, and to provide input. Additional comments were considered and the Alternatives refined. Based on the final Alternatives, the Environmental Assessment, Biological Assessment, Biological Evaluation and Roads Analysis were completed.

I. Key Issues

Several key issues were identified during scoping. Additional information on issues identified can be found in Appendix C. Issues include:

Hydrology The potential closure, decommission, rerouting or the creation of new trails may alter water quality if trails modify riparian condition or contribute to sedimentation.

Soils The potential closure, decommission, rerouting or the creation of new trails may affect soil erosion depending on condition, location and construction standards.

Floodplains, Wetlands and Riparian Areas The potential closure, decommission, rerouting or the creation of new trails may affect floodplains, wetland and riparian areas if trails are located directly within these areas or contribute to soil erosion.

Terrestrial Wildlife The potential closure, decommission, rerouting or the creation of new trails may affect areas managed primarily for wildlife including areas managed for threatened and endangered species.

1-8 Chapter 1 Environmental Assessment Rampart Range Recreation Area Motorized Roads and Trails Plan

Aquatic Resources The potential closure, decommission, rerouting or the creation of new trails may affect aquatic resources due to changes in riparian condition or sedimentation.

Recreation The potential closure, decommission, rerouting or the creation of new trails may affect motorized recreation access and recreational experience. Changes may also reduce conflicts with areas managed primarily for non-motorized recreation.

Land Use The potential closure, decommission, rerouting or the creation of new trails may affect private in-holdings within the project area.

Noise The potential closure, decommission, rerouting or the creation of new trails may affect noise levels in the area.

Other relevant issues that will be addressed in this EA include heritage resources, air quality, fire, vegetation, noxious weeds, transportation and social economics conditions.

J. Issues Not Selected for Detailed Analysis

The following elements are not carried forward into the analysis for the reasons described below:

Prime and Unique Farmlands No prime or unique farmlands are present in the project area.

Range No livestock grazing occurs in the project area.

Hazardous Waste No hazardous waste occurs in the project area.

Environmental Justice Executive Order 12898, “General Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low Income Populations, requires all Federal agencies to incorporate environmental justice into their mission. The proposed action would not disproportionately affect minority or low-income populations. Therefore, an environmental justice analysis is not triggered and the concept is not discussed further in this document.

Special Management Areas There are no existing or proposed wilderness areas or wilderness study areas in the project area.

Chapter 1 1-9

This page intentionally left blank

Environmental Assessment Rampart Range Recreation Area Motorized Roads and Trails Plan

CHAPTER 2. ALTERNATIVES

A. Introduction

An Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) representing various resources and uses of the Forest developed a range of reasonable alternatives to the Proposed Action. The IDT identified relevant issues that were presented during public scoping and formulated alternatives to the Proposed Action in response to these issues. The Forest Plan goals and objectives for the project area were also considered. Chapter 3 of this report describes the affected environment and the likely environmental effects associated with implementation of each alternative.

B. Actions Common to All Alternatives.

The road system is common to all concepts. The core road system consists of access points and roads connecting to recreational amenities, assisting in Forest operations, and providing for public safety and law enforcement. This core system is considered vital to the operation of the Forest and is included in all concepts. All ML 1, non-system and unclassified roads on Forest Services Lands would be decommissioned. In addition, all non-designated trails will be closed and restored. Additional information on the road system can be found in Appendix C – Road Analysis.

C. Alternatives Considered In Detail

The Forest Service developed three alternatives to cover the broad range of issues, including No Action (Alternative A). Alternative A is based on the continuation of existing management practices. Alternative B focuses on enhancing access for motorized user groups. Alternative C is based on enhancing the quality of the recreational experience and operational efficiency of the motorized travel system. Table 2-1 provides a comparison of Alternatives. It is important to note the amount of system roads do not vary by Alternative. Table 2-2 outlines proposed parking area improvements that will compliment the road and trail system. Features shown in Table 2-2 are additive, therefore all facility components in Alternative A are found in Alternative B, and all facility components found in Alternatives A and B are found in Alternative C. Table 2-3 provides a summary of effects by Alternative.

1. Alternative A - No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, current motorized road and trail management direction would continue to guide management of the project area. As illustrated in Map 2-1 and Table 2-1, the existing 16 miles of Maintenance Level (ML) 1 would be decommissioned. The remaining approximately 92 miles of ML 2, 3 and 4 Roads would remain open.

The existing 120 mile motorized trail system would continue to be maintained as funding permits. Many of the trails currently closed under this Alternative would require extensive repair and rehabilitation to get them back to an acceptable level of safety and resource sustainability. Depending on the extent of rehabilitation work required, current closures would remain in place until the long-term feasibility of the trail is determined and resources

Chapter 2 2-1 Rampart Range Recreation Area Motorized Roads and Trails Plan Environmental Assessment

are obtained to correct issues based on the determined action. Future trails inconsistent with USFS policies would be closed to ensure safety or avoid resource damage. As described in Table 2-2, small improvements to parking areas would continue according to existing direction; however no large-scale expansion would occur.

2. Alternative B

Under Alternative B, the roads system would remain as described in the No Action Alternative. The approximately 125 mile motorized trail system would be managed to provide high levels of access by all OHV users on a trail system similar to the present configuration. Approximately 26 miles of trails inconsistent with USFS policies (safety, environmental impacts etc.) would be closed. As described in Table 2-1 and Map 2-2, approximately 20 miles of rerouted and new trails would be constructed. Approximately 7 miles of road would also be reopened to OHV use. All trails would permit use by both single and double tracked OHV vehicles, thereby providing greater degrees of access by all user types. As described in Table 2-2, parking area improvements would occur in all parking areas to provide basic services. Improvements could include kiosks, dumpsters and restrooms. No large-scale parking area expansions would occur.

Table 2-1: Comparison of Alternatives by Road and Trail Miles.

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C MOTORIZED CLASS (miles) (%) (miles) (%) (miles) (%) Roads

Maintenance Level 2 Roads* 22 24% 22 24% 22 24% Maintenance Level 3 Roads* 42 46% 42 46% 42 46% Maintenance Level 4 Roads 28 30% 28 30% 28 30% Total Roads (Excludes Level 1 Roads) 92 100% 92 100% 92 100% Maintenance Level 1/ Re-vegetated Roads* 16 NA 16 NA 16 NA Trails Existing Full Size Vehicle, ATV and Single Track Trail* 11 9% 11 9% 11 7% Existing ATV Trail (allows single track use)** 84 70% 87 70% 48 32% Existing Single Track 24 20% 0 0% 8 5% New Full Size Vehicle, ATV and Single Track Trail* 0 0% 7 5% 7 5% New ATV Trail (includes realignments)** 0 0% 20 16% 34 23% New Single Track Trail (includes realignments) 0 0% 0 0% 41 28% Total Trails * 120 100% 125 100% 149 100% Closed Trail 11 NA 26 NA 45 NA

* Note: Includes roads serving a trail function ** Note: Permits use by single track vehicles *** Note: Maps and spreadsheets show the approximate location, length and figures associated with the proposed management recommendations. The exact locations and lengths would be determined before the implementation phase of the project. Minor variations may occur due to: 1) changes in on-the-ground conditions, 2) use of more accurate measuring techniques, or 3) the occurrence of unforeseen obstacles and opportunities. Any trail location, reroute or repair should occur within a 1,320 ft corridor. Location, repair or relocation work that is required outside of this corridor may require additional NEPA analysis.

2-2 Chapter 2 Environmental Assessment Rampart Range Recreation Area Motorized Roads and Trails Plan

Table 2-2: Comparison of Alternatives by Parking Area Facilities Improvements.

FACILITIES ENTRANCE ROAD 1.5 MILE POINT GARBER SUNSET POINT FLATROCK DAKAN JACKSON CREEK DUTCH FRED CABIN RIDGE Alternative A (No Action) Kiosk • • • • Vault Toilet (Single) • • Vault Toilet (2 Hole) • • • • Ramps • • • Dumpster • • • • • Parking • • • • • • • Existing Campsite Nearby • • • Kiddie Corral • Fence • • • • • • • • • Barriers/Bollards • • • Access Gates • • • • • • • Fee Tube • Pay Phone • Trails Access • • • • • • Existing Site Area (s.f.) 38,000 9,500 14,370 31,500 26,500 14,000 4,800 23,000 98,000 Alternative B (Includes all Elements in Alternative A) Kiosk • × × • × × × NA • Vault Toilet (Single) • • × NA Vault Toilet (2 Hole) • • NA • Lighting NA Ramps • • • NA Dumpster • • • • NA Fence • • • • • • • NA • Barriers/Bollards • • NA Access Gates • • • • • NA • Fee Tube • NA Pay Phone • NA Signage × × × × × × × NA × Asphalt Pavement × NA Electrical Utility NA Potable Water NA Trails Access • • • • NA • Picnic Area × NA Alternative C – (Includes all Elements in Alternatives A and B) Kiosk • × × • × × × NA • Vault Toilet (CXT - Single) • • × × × NA Vault Toilet (CXT - 2 Hole) × × • • NA • Lighting × NA Ramps • • × • × × × NA × Dumpster • • × • • × × NA × Fence × × × × × × × NA × Barriers/Bollards • × × × • × × NA × Access Gates • • × • • × • NA • Fee Tube • × × × × × × NA × Pay Phone • × × NA Signage × × × × × × × NA ×

Chapter 2 2-3 Rampart Range Recreation Area Motorized Roads and Trails Plan Environmental Assessment

FACILITIES ENTRANCE ROAD 1.5 MILE POINT GARBER SUNSET POINT FLATROCK DAKAN JACKSON CREEK DUTCH FRED CABIN RIDGE Asphalt Pavement × × × × × × × NA × Electrical Utility × NA Potable Water × NA Trails Access • • × • • × NA • Picnic Area × × × × × × × NA × Visitor Information Center × NA Access Improvements ■ ■ ■ NA ■ Parking Expansion (s.f.) 80,000 5,000 4,800 15,000 16,000 6,000 7,000 NA 5,000 Key • Existing Element, × Proposed Element, ■ Existing Element that needs additional expansion

3. Alternative C – Proposed Action

Under Alternative C, the proposed action, the roads system would remain as described in the No Action Alternative. The approximately 149 mile trail system would be managed to provide a broad spectrum of OHV opportunities while also enhancing resource protection, operational efficiency, and safety. The functionality of the system and experience of trail users, would be improved by developing looped trails, rerouting non-compliant trails, providing longer trails, creating new trail connections, and providing trails designed for each user type and skill level. As described in Table 2-1 and Map 2-3, approximately 75 miles of rerouted and new trails would be constructed. New trails would be constructed for specific user types including single track, ATV and technical riders. Approximately 7 miles of road would also be reopened to OHV use. Approximately 45 miles of trails inconsistent with USFS policies (safety, environmental impacts etc.) would be closed. The result would be large continuous areas with limited motorized use consistent with Forest Plan objectives.

Wayfinding on the trail system would also be improved through new signage and strategically placed kiosks that designate trails by difficulty and use. As described in Table 2-2, this signage would be complimented by parking area improvements, including the expansion of parking areas and enhancements such as a visitor station, new restrooms, dumpsters, and other facilities focused at improving visitor experience, managing increasing number of users and public education about trail use.

Map 2-3 also depicts a future connection to the Pikes Peak Ranger District, which would be addressed as part of a separate planning and NEPA assessment.

2-4 Chapter 2 Environmental Assessment Rampart Range Recreation Area Motorized Roads and Trails Plan

Map 2-1 – Alternative A

Chapter 2 2-5 Rampart Range Recreation Area Motorized Roads and Trails Plan Environmental Assessment

2-6 Chapter 2 Environmental Assessment Rampart Range Recreation Area Motorized Roads and Trails Plan

Map 2-2 – Alternative B

Chapter 2 2-7 Rampart Range Recreation Area Motorized Roads and Trails Plan Environmental Assessment

2-8 Chapter 2 Environmental Assessment Rampart Range Recreation Area Motorized Roads and Trails Plan

Map 2-3 – Alternative C

Chapter 2 2-9 Rampart Range Recreation Area Motorized Roads and Trails Plan Environmental Assessment

2-10 Chapter 2 Environmental Assessment Rampart Range Recreation Area Motorized Roads and Trails Plan

D. Mitigation Measures Common to All Alternatives

1. Water Quality and Aquatic Resources

• Best Management Practices (BMPs) for water quality protection as indicated in the Forest Service Handbook (FSH 2509.25-2001-1) would be applied to all proposed activities.

• The effectiveness of BMPs and other measures would be monitored to ensure compliance with the Forest Plan and Clean Water Act. The monitoring program would measure the success of BMPs and help improve future mitigation methods. The monitoring program would also identify unforeseen problems that require remedial measures. This monitoring would involve field measurements and inspections.

2. Wildlife

• Prior to any ground disturbing activity in areas affected by the selected alternative, a habitat assessment for the Pawnee montane skipper, Preble’s meadow jumping mouse, and Mexican spotted owl would be conducted to determine if potential habitat exists in the impact area. If so, the area would be considered occupied for the skipper and Preble’s meadow jumping mouse. Surveys would be conducted for the Mexican spotted owl.

• The action alternatives would be designed to achieve an overall reduction in adverse impacts to Pawnee montane skipper habitat. Skipper habitat would be avoided in all trail re-locations and site improvements. Where this is not possible, the extent of disturbance would be minimized. All ground disturbing activity in skipper habitat would be conducted during the skipper flight period (August through September) to minimize potential impacts. Closed routes in skipper habitat would be decommissioned and revegetated using native vegetation (e.g. blue grama and Liatris).

• The action alternatives would be designed to achieve an overall reduction in adverse impacts to Preble’s meadow jumping mouse habitat. Preble’s habitat would be avoided in all trail re-locations and site improvements. Where this is not possible, the extent of disturbance would be minimized. All ground disturbing activity in Preble’s habitat would occur after the mouse’s primary breeding season, but before hibernation (August 1 to September 1). Closed routes in Preble’s habitat may be decommissioned and revegetated using native vegetation.

• The Mexican spotted owl PAC would be avoided in all trail re-locations and site improvements. Trail re-locations and site improvements in other protected or restricted habitats as defined by the Recovery Plan for the Mexican Spotted Owl (USFWS 1995) would be avoided or minimized, as would areas that meet the

Chapter 2 2-11 Rampart Range Recreation Area Motorized Roads and Trails Plan Environmental Assessment

critical habitat definition. All ground disturbing activity in these areas would occur from October 1 through March 1 to avoid the Mexican spotted owl breeding season.

• Prior to any ground disturbing activity in areas affected by the selected alternative, surveys would be conducted for selected Forest Service Sensitive plant and animal species (bristly-stalked sedge, lesser yellow-lady’s-slipper, white adder’s-mouth orchid, Rocky Mountain monkeyflower, rock cinquefoil, narrowleaf grapefern, Selkirk’s violet, northern leopard frog, northern goshawk, peregrine falcon). Steps would be taken to avoid and minimize impacts to these species.

• The action alternatives would be designed to reduce adverse impacts in riparian habitats, including both direct and indirect effects resulting from damage to vegetation, increased erosion, increased sedimentation, and disturbance.

• The action alternatives would be designed to avoid or reduce disturbance in 4B management areas, where the emphasis is on management indicator species.

3. Heritage

• Prior to constructing, rerouting or decommissioning a road or trail, an archaeological survey will be conducted to identify historic and prehistoric sites and evaluate them according to the National Historic Preservation Act. If heritage resources are discovered during project implementation, all operations must cease within a 100-foot radius of the site location. Any heritage resources located would be protected based on the recommendations of the forest archaeologist and the Colorado State Historic Preservation Officer.

• Heritage resources may be present in the subsurface with no visual evidence or surface manifestation. Therefore, if additional heritage resources are discovered during project implementation, all operations must cease within a 100-foot radius of the site location and a forest archaeologist notified immediately. Any heritage resources located before or during project implementation would be protected based on the recommendations of the forest archaeologist and the Colorado State Historic Preservation Officer.

• Provide project managers and contract inspectors with maps and GPS readings indicating locations and extent of all significant or potentially significant cultural properties. Provide direction to avoid these locations and their near vicinities. Provide barriers and/or wrapping for vulnerable cultural properties. Inspect these locations during the progress of the proposed activities to assure significant cultural sites are protected.

• Before road and trail management activities, inspect significant and potentially significant cultural sites to identify erosion vulnerability. To prevent erosion at vulnerable sites, increase the protected area and place soil barriers if necessary.

2-12 Chapter 2 Environmental Assessment Rampart Range Recreation Area Motorized Roads and Trails Plan

Install straw bales, wattling or other suitable material if water channeling is a possible threat. Monitor erosion during the road management activities.

4. Noxious Weeds

• Incorporate weed prevention into road and trail maintenance and decommission projects. Consider treating weeds in roads to be decommissioned before roads and trails are made undrivable. Monitor and re-treat if needed.

• Inventory roads and trails for noxious weeds and maintain records of weed species and their locations so that planning for road and trails maintenance can include mitigation measures.

• Minimize the transport of seed and vegetative propagules within a road corridor.

• Avoid working in weed infested areas if possible. Postpone work until weeds have been eliminated from the site.

• Perform road maintenance such as road grading and ditch cleaning from uninfested areas to infested areas to the extent possible. This will help prevent moving weed propagules from infested areas to adjacent uninfested areas.

• Clean all heavy equipment before entering and exiting Forest Service system lands to minimize transporting weed seed. Remove all mud, dirt, and plant parts.

• Clean all equipment prior to leaving project site. Remove all mud, dirt, and plant parts.

• Wash road graders and other equipment immediately after operating in infested areas. Clean all mud, dirt and plant parts from the undersides.

• Reseed after construction, heavy maintenance, and other soil disturbing activities. Where roads are graded once a year or less, seed the roadways’ shoulders after grading. Only use weed free seed and desirable native species.

• Minimize sources of weed seed. If straw is used for road stabilization and erosion control, it must be certified weed-free or weed-seed free.

• Use only clean fill material from a weed-free source rather than borrowing fill from a weed-infested stockpile, road shoulder, or ditch line.

5. General

• Construct routes according to Forest Service trail design standards so that damage to soil, water and other resources is avoided.

• Motorized travel will only occur on designated roads and trails.

Chapter 2 2-13 Rampart Range Recreation Area Motorized Roads and Trails Plan Environmental Assessment

• Informal and non-designated roads and trails should be immediately closed and restored.

• Strictly enforce regulations and the closure of roads and trails.

• Thoroughly sign trails that are open and closed, their permitted use and difficultly.

• Provide clear maps of the trail system, permitted uses and difficultly.

• Educate the public on how to use the designated road and trail system and protect natural resources.

E. Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study

During the scoping process suggestions for elements to include within Alternatives were made. In most cases suggestions were incorporated into an Alternative for analysis. Suggested elements inconsistent with Forest policies, they were dismissed. Key alternatives not being considered are discussed below:

1. Rampart Range Road

The option to open Rampart Range Road to unlicensed OHV vehicles was considered and dismissed. High rates of speed and the mixing of full size and OHV vehicles poses serious safety concerns. Therefore an alternative with this option was not considered.

2. Regional Motorized Trail Connections

Regional motorized trails located primarily outside of the planning area that were closed through other decision processes were not considered in this EA. These trails, including the “Top of the World” trail, are outside the project area and scope of this analysis.

3. Elements not Addressed in the Purpose and Need

Elements not outlined in Chapter 1, are not included in an Alternative. These include, but are not limited to camping, fire, fees, winter use, hiking, non-motorized use and other recreation activities. These elements are outside the scope of this assessment.

F. Comparison of Alternative Effect

The following table provides a general summary comparison of effect by alternative. More information can be found in Chapter 3.

2-14 Chapter 2 Environmental Assessment Rampart Range Recreation Area Motorized Roads and Trails Plan

Table 2-3. Comparison of Alternative Effects.

Issues Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Hydrology Due to the location of Due to the relocation of Alternative C would present a high existing trails, Alternative existing trails, Alternative B degree of protection to hydrologic A would continue to would have a benefit to resources due to the reduction of trail in negatively affect water water quality. Trails within sensitive areas. Trails within 100 feet of quality. Trails within 100 100 feet of streams: over 7 streams: over 8 miles - primarily due to feet of streams: over 14 miles. perpendicular crossings. miles. Soils Erosion and compaction Erosion and compaction will be reduced will be reduced compared compared to Alternatives A and B with Erosion and compaction to Alternative A, as trails removal of trails from sensitive areas, will continue in areas are reconstructed and new trail construction practices due that are poorly designed according to new to the amount of trail removed from or located. construction practices and drainages or realigned due to their poor realignments occur. location. Riparian Greatest length of trail in Reduction in the amount of Reduction in the amount of trail in these Floodplain these systems. trail in these systems (least systems. Perpendicular crossings of Wetland amount). streams favored. Heritage Existing trails and Some conditions would be Some conditions would be improved; no Resources converted roads would improved; no anticipated anticipated impacts to cultural resource if deteriorate. Increased impacts to cultural mitigation measures are followed. and expanded erosion resource if mitigation might affect measures are followed. archeological deposits. Air Quality There would be There would be negligible There would be negligible differences in negligible differences in differences in emissions emissions from recreational vehicle emissions from from recreational vehicle operations for all three alternatives. recreational vehicle operations for all three Temporary increase in emissions from operations for all three alternatives. Temporary trail construction. alternatives. increase in emissions from trail construction. Fire Least access for Moderate access for Most access for firefighters, most area firefighters, least area firefighters, moderate area open to human-caused fires. Least open to human-caused open to human-caused danger to motorists due to trail closures fires. fires in burned areas. Wildlife Alternative A would Provide similar Reduce the overall foot-print of activity in continue the current improvements as in the project area and create three large pattern of recreational Alternative C, but to a areas of non-motorized habitat. As a use, resulting in minor lesser degree without the result, improve more acres of wildlife beneficial and adverse creation of large non- habitat than the other alternatives. New effects to wildlife habitat. motorized areas. trail construction would impact more acres; however, trail closures would provide improvements to some of the most sensitive habitats (aquatic and riparian) in the project area. Aquatic Habitat Provides the greatest Addresses many of the Provides the greatest benefit to aquatic risk that impacts to known problem areas. systems since it addresses the most aquatic systems will However, it does not problem areas and thereby reduces the continue and perhaps address as many known risk that impacts will continue. increase since it site-specific problem areas addresses few of the and is therefore associated impacts that are known with a greater risk that to be occurring. chronic erosion or other problems will continue. Vegetation Gain in vegetative area. Very little change in Loss of vegetative area. Gain in the vegetated area. protection of sensitive habitats. Weeds Potential for future Potential for future Potential for future increase due to increase due to increase due to increased increased visitation. Potential for increased visitation. visitation. Potential for increase dispersion. Opportunity for

Chapter 2 2-15 Rampart Range Recreation Area Motorized Roads and Trails Plan Environmental Assessment

Issues Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C increase dispersion. public education with new signage. Opportunity for public education with new signage. Recreation Decrease in recreational Maintenance of current Increase in recreational opportunities opportunities and recreational opportunities and experience through new trail and experience. and experience through facility construction. trail realignment. Land Use No direct impacts. No direct impacts. Minor No direct impacts. Minor indirect effects indirect effects from new from new trails. trails. Noise Alternative A, noise Alternative B would have Alternative C would create larger areas increases due to similar operational noise with lower ambient noise levels by increased use. impacts as Alternative A. closing several trails, and condensing increase in noise to one the overall trail system into a smaller key receptor. area where several trails currently exist. Alternative C would have similar effects on the noise levels as described in Alternative B. Transportation Decrease in Maintain current levels of Improve accessibility. accessibility. accessibility. Social and Least construction cost, Moderate construction Highest construction cost, decrease in Economic increase per unit cost, decrease in per unit per unit maintenance cost. Potential maintenance cost. maintenance cost. increase in expenditures on goods.

2-16 Chapter 2 Environmental Assessment Rampart Range Recreation Area Motorized Roads and Trails Plan

CHAPTER 3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

A. Background

This section describes the resources of the area, and the potential effects the proposed action and its alternatives may have on these resources. Impacts to the environment are considered in terms of their direct, indirect, and cumulative effects. Definitions for these effects are as follows (40 CFR 1508.7 and 1508.8):

Direct effects - Effects caused by the action and occurring at the same time and place.

Indirect effects - Effects caused by the action but occurring later in time or further removed in place.

Cumulative effects - Discussions focus on the incremental impacts of the proposed activities when added to other past, present, and foreseeable future actions, regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such other actions.

Direct, indirect and cumulative effects can also occur with the No Action alternative as accounting for the impacts of not implementing the proposed actions.

Cumulative effects analysis will be done for activities on lands of all ownerships near the project area. These activities have historically been occurring for many years, are currently ongoing, and are expected to continue into the near future and include: logging; road building; road use and road maintenance; recreational activities; prescribed burning, wildfires and wildfire suppression; and to a limited extent, mining and mineral exploration.

The analysis examines the effects of alternatives. The analysis considered a 1,320 foot corridor for new or realigned trails, providing flexibility in trail construction to avoid obstacles and assures mitigation measures outlined in Chapter 2 will be met. Calculations for trail area are based on varying widths for single track and ATV trails (4 and 8 feet), other calculations are provided using length as the unit of measure. Parking expansion calculations are based areas provided in Chapter 2.

B. Physical Resources

1. Hydrology

a. Affected Environment

The Upper South Platte Watershed is critical to Colorado; eighty percent of the water used by 1.5 million Denver metropolitan residents comes from, or is transmitted through, this river drainage. Most of the watershed is located within the Pike National Forest, southwest of the City of Denver. Water quality issues have become a major concern in recent years, heightened in part by the Buffalo Creek Fire of 1996, the High Meadow Fire of 2000, and the

Chapter 3 3-1 Rampart Range Recreation Area Motorized Roads and Trails Plan Environmental Assessment

Schoonover and Hayman Fires of 2002. Combined, these fires burned over 165,000 acres. The Colorado Unified Watershed Assessment identified the Upper South Platte River as a high priority watershed in need of restoration (USFS 2001a). The project area lies within this major watershed.

The Upper South Platte Watershed Protection and Restoration Project were initiated to monitor and protect this watershed, which RRMRA is a part of. Cooperating partners significantly contributing to the project include the Colorado State Forest Service, Denver Water, Trout Unlimited, Volunteers for Outdoor Colorado, Colorado Mountain Club, Rampart Range Motorcycle Management Committee, and the Upper South Platte Watershed Protection Association.

The project area includes twelve sixth-level watersheds that drain into the South Platte River. All of the watersheds were determined to be either limited or degraded according to the Inland West Watershed Initiative (IWWI) (Winters and Gallagher, 1997) in part due to roads and road conditions. Within the project area there are approximately 180 miles of intermittent streams and 78 miles of perennial streams (Table 3-1).

Table 3-1: Sixth-Level Watersheds within in the Project Area.

Stream Length (miles)1 Intermittent Perennial Code Watershed Name Acres Stream Stream 101900020702 Bear Ck 6,868 10.22 7.12 101900020502 Chatfield Res. C 1,746 5.84 0.0 101900020704 Dry Gulch Ck 4,201 6.63 3.79 101900020706 Garber Ck 3,464 4.76 3.67 101900020708 Indian Ck 3,010 6.91 2.89 101900020705 Jackson Ck 1,0231 17.38 9.18 101900020804 Lower Trout C 19,136 37.12 17.68 101900020707 Lowest Plum C 79 0.11 0.0 101900020501 South Platte Canyon 12,387 38.86 11.55 101900020701 Storm Peak 127 0.0 0.0 101900020107 Waterton/Deckers C 28,369 50.53 21.01 101900020805 West Creek 1,627 1.18 1.34 Total 91,245 179.54 78.22 1Source: Colorado Division of Wildlife Hydrology Data Set. 2005.

As shown in Table 3-1, there are a number of perennial and intermittent streams in the study area. Associated with each stream is the adjacent riparian habitat. One key measure of this habitat is the Water Influence Zone (WIZ), which includes the land next to water bodies where vegetation plays a major role in sustaining the long-term integrity of aquatic systems. The WIZ includes the geomorphic floodplain, riparian ecosystem, and inner gorge. A minimum horizontal width (from the top of each bank) is 100 feet (used for this analysis) or the mean height of mature dominant late-seral vegetation, whichever is greatest (36 CFR 219.27e).

3-2 Chapter 3 Environmental Assessment Rampart Range Recreation Area Motorized Roads and Trails Plan

The State of Colorado’s Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE,2005) has designated beneficial uses for streams in the project area, which includes Coldwater Class 1 and Domestic Water supply, Aquatic Life Cold 1, Recreation 1a, Water Supply, and Agriculture. The federal Clean Water Act requires states to compile a 303(d) list of streams that are impaired (do not fully or partially support their beneficial uses). Trout Creek is listed on the Colorado’s 303(d) list for high levels of sediment (CDPHE, 2004a). Federal law also requires that a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) plan to improve water quality be approved prior to removal from the 303(d) list. Another reach in the area, the Upper South Platte, has an existing TMDL plan, established in response to the 1998 listing on the Federal 303(d) list. A TMDL plan for the Trout Creek reach is currently in process (CDPHE 2004a). The Monitoring and Evaluation List (M&E) (CDPHE, 2004b) is intended to identify segments where there is reason to suspect water quality problems on stream segments, however uncertainty exists regarding one or more factors. Several streams within the project area are on the State of Colorado’s M&E 2004 List, mostly for high levels of sediment and/or water temperature. These are listed below:

• South Platte River, sources of South and Middle Forks to North Fork South Platte River; sediment.

• South Platte River, sources of South and Middle Forks to North Fork South Platte River S. Platte River, Spring Creek to N. Fork S. Platte River; sediment.

• Tributaries to S. Platte River, Tarryall Creek to N. Fork S. Platte River Indian Creek on USFS Land; sediment.

• Tributaries to S. Platte River, Tarryall Creek to N. Fk. S. Platte River Trout Creek; temperature.

• S. Platte River, N. Fork. S. Platte River to Bowles Ave. S Platte R, N Fork S Platte to Strontia Spring Reservoir; sediment.

• S. Platte River, N. Fork. S. Platte River to Bowles Ave. below Strontia Springs Reservoir; aquatic life use.

• E & W Plum Creek on NF Lands excluding Bear Creek above Perry Park Reservoir, Plum Creek and tributaries on USFS Land; sediment and temperature.

• Tributaries to W. Plum Creek, not on USFS Land Spring Creek, Bear Creek; aquatic life use.

• Sugar and Pine Creek were also on the 1998 M&E list, being considered to become 303d listed in 2006.

• Horse Creek was also listed on the 1998 M&E list for sediment. It was recommended to remain on the list, due to heavy impacts from the Hayman Fire.

The South Platte River, which borders portions of the western boundary of the study area, has been part of a Wild and Scenic River Study that investigated the reach of the South Platte

Chapter 3 3-3 Rampart Range Recreation Area Motorized Roads and Trails Plan Environmental Assessment

River from Elevenmile Reservoir to Strontia Springs Reservoir and included the North Fork of the South Platte River (USDA Forest Service 1995). Three classifications are possible under the study, “Scenic”, “Wild” and “Recreational”. This particular reach of the South Platte River, along with the lower portions of the North Fork of the South Platte River, was found eligible for consideration as a wild and scenic river. The reach of the South Platte River that borders portions of the western boundary of the study area is classified as “Recreational”. Forest Service policy governing eligible rivers exists to protect eligibility and maintain classification until the river has been either added to the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, or found not suitable for inclusion in the System (see Forest Service Manual, section 2354.21). The Forest Plan has been amended to establish a management area (inclusive of a ¼ mile buffer on each side of the river) for eligible segments, with accompanying direction to protect identified values.

Flows in this reach of the Platte River are controlled by releases from Cheesman Reservoir. High flows along this reach are typically in July and August and range between 150 and 350 cubic feet per second. Low flow occurs in December through March and averages around 50 cubic feet per second of flow during this period. Other smaller perennial streams in the project area include Jackson Creek, West Creek, and Trout Creek. Pine Creek, Bear Creek, Horse Creek, and Garber Creek are smaller perennial creeks with smaller drainage areas and correspondingly lower flows. All of these waterways are classified by CDPHE as: Aquatic Life Cold 1 (cold water aquatic life classifications are appropriate for mountain streams), Recreation 1a (can support primary contact recreation, such as swimming, rafting, kayaking, tubing, windsurfing and water skiing), Water Supply Agriculture (intended to protect the quality of water used for either crop irrigation or livestock watering). b. Environmental Consequences

In the context of this project, impacts to stream systems are primarily associated with road and trail crossings and the location of trails within proximity to streams, particularly within the WIZ.

Table 3-2 summarizes the number of crossings of perennial and intermittent streams by roads and trails for each of the three alternatives. For all alternatives, the number of road crossings of intermittent and perennial streams is consistent and no additional road crossings result from any of the alternatives. All three alternatives decommission roads and eliminate crossings of intermittent streams at five locations.

With respect to trails, the number of stream crossings varies among alternatives. Alternatives B and C include new stream crossings at a number of locations while Alternative A does not. However, both Alternatives B and C remove more than 20 stream crossings by trails that are located in sensitive environmental areas.

It should also be noted that most stream crossings in Alternative C are perpendicular crossings that minimize the distance through the channel.

3-4 Chapter 3 Environmental Assessment Rampart Range Recreation Area Motorized Roads and Trails Plan

Table 3-2: Road and Trail Crossings of Intermittent and Perennial Streams.

Road Stream Crossings Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Intermittent Perennial Intermittent Perennial Intermittent Perennial Existing Roads 42 25 42 25 42 25 New Roads 0 0 0 0 0 0 Rebuilt Roads 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Crossings 42 25 42 25 42 25 Decommissioned Roads 5 0 5 0 5 0 Trail Stream Crossings Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Intermittent Perennial Intermittent Perennial Intermittent Perennial Existing Trail 28 11 11 8 7 6 New Trail 0 0 9 1 18 8 Rebuilt Trail 0 0 0 1 2 2 Total Crossings 28 11 20 10 27 16 Decommissioned Trail 1 1 19 3 21 4 *Trails that are Level II Roads are counted within road crossings.

Table 3-3 below summarizes for each alternative the length of roads and trails located within the Water Influence Zone (WIZ). Potential Impacts to riparian areas in terms of water quality, vegetation and wildlife is often related to the amount of disturbance within the WIZ, which is an area 200 feet in width, centered on the stream. All three alternatives have the same road distance through the WIZ and each alternative would result in the closure of nearly 2 miles of roads through the WIZ. For trails, alternative B and C would each result in a decrease of over 12 miles of trails in the WIZ through the closure and relocation of trail segments to less sensitive locations. Alternative A would result in a substantially greater length of trails remaining within the WIZ, which in some cases includes the primary channel. Alternative B has trails located in the WIZ that are not located in the channel, but in some cases they parallel the riparian area for some distance. Alternative C primarily impacts the WIZ by perpendicular channel crossings with less distance running parallel to the riparian area resulting in less impact.

(1) Effects Common to All Alternatives

In most instances, impacts to hydrologic functions are also impacts to vegetation and the soils of an area as these resources are all closely related. OHV motorized activities disturb soils and vegetation, which can increase erosion and sediment deposits into waterways. These impacts are more damaging if they occur in riparian areas, especially along the banks of waterways. All alternatives have the potential to cause these types of impacts through off- trail travel or other unauthorized activities.

Chapter 3 3-5 Rampart Range Recreation Area Motorized Roads and Trails Plan Environmental Assessment

Table 3-3: Length (miles) within the Water Influence Zone (WIZ) 100 feet on each Side of Perennial and Intermittent Drainage for the Three Alternatives.

MOTORIZED CLASS Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C

Intermittent Perennial Intermittent Perennial Intermittent Perennial Roads

Maintenance Level 2 Roads 2.32 2.65 2.32 2.65 2.32 2.65

Maintenance Level 3 Roads 1.56 5.90 1.56 5.90 1.56 5.90

Maintenance Level 4 Roads 1.15 10.29 1.15 10.29 1.15 10.29 Total Roads (Excludes Level 1 5.03 18.84 5.03 18.84 5.03 18.84 Roads) Closed Maintenance Level 1/ Re- 1.42 0.42 1.42 0.42 1.42 0.42 vegetated Roads* Trails Existing Full Size Vehicle, ATV and 0.69 0.16 0.69 0.16 0.69 0.16 Single Track Trail Existing ATV Trail (allows single 4.18 1.73 1.53 0.94 1.12 0.57 track use)

Existing Single Track 7.32 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.16 0.15 New Full Size Vehicle, ATV and Single Track Trail (uses existing 0.00 0.00 1.46 2.24 1.46 2.24 roads) New ATV Trail (includes 0.00 0.00 0.52 0.11 0.41 0.29 realignments) New Single Track Trail (includes 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.12 0.29 realignments) Total Trails 12.19 1.90 4.19 3.45 4.96 3.71 Closed Trail 0.11 1.35 10.09 2.10 10.22 2.24

The Watershed Conservation Practices Handbook (FSH 2509.25) presents standards to protect soil, aquatic and riparian systems in the National Forest System. The Handbook also has specific design criteria to meet the standards using current knowledge and technology. Five areas that are covered include hydrologic function, riparian areas, sediment control, soil productivity, and water purity. All alternatives would employ these standards and design criteria to protect the watershed.

(a) Direct Effects

Direct effects of roads include increased runoff due to soil compaction, increased erosion and sediment production from road and ditch surfaces, subsequent drainage, increased possibility of pollutants associated with motor vehicles entering water, and possible altering of surface and subsurface flows. Roads and trails located in the stream channel bottom remove stabilizing vegetation, making fine substrate vulnerable to erosion downstream and an increased sediment load.

3-6 Chapter 3 Environmental Assessment Rampart Range Recreation Area Motorized Roads and Trails Plan

Direct effects can also include impacts to riparian areas, wetlands, and floodplains at stream crossings. If the travel way is located in the channel bottom, direct effects can include increasing soil compaction, altering stream morphology, mobilizing substrate materials, and altering or removing stabilizing riparian vegetation. These can cause higher peak flows, which can worsen potential flooding downstream.

Any disturbance to channel banks, particularly motorized activity up and down the stream banks, causes bank erosion, removes vegetation, increases bank instability, reduces shade and cover for aquatic life, and changes the character of the floodplain, thereby reducing its ability to function properly.

(b) Indirect Effects

Sediment generated from roads and trails can be deposited downstream, changing the channel morphology and watershed response to flood waters. Channels can become wide and shallow, resulting in reduced habitat for aquatic life and providing conditions that promote increases in water temperature. In addition, other resources such as soil (erosion) and vegetation (introduction of weeds) may be affected.

(c) Cumulative Effects

Changes in stream channels, sediment loads, bank stability, and loss of floodplain functionality, all have cumulative effects on overall response in the watersheds and on receiving waters downstream. Projects occurring in the area and on adjacent lands will all contribute to watershed conditions. Key projects include fire restoration activities, especially related to the Hayman fire. Other projects include treatment for insect infestation and timber management activities. Watershed condition should improve as these restoration activities are implemented.

Wildfire and storms also have an effect on water quality. These events greatly influence the amount of sediment yield. Human activities have often increased the severity of events such as storms and fire. Recent fire and storm events greatly contributed to sediment loads into the South Platte River and tributaries. This extreme sediment loading caused channel instability and shifting, increased bank erosion, and increased streambed deposition.

Other OHV and other recreational activities are anticipated to continue in this area for the foreseeable future and indications are that user numbers will increase. The result could be the creation of informal roads and trails which negatively affect watershed condition if not properly managed. Ongoing planning initiatives along Front Range will serve to coordinate recreation management and services on the Pike, Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests and Pawnee National Grasslands. Programs such as the Front Range Recreation Alignment will attempt to provide seamless recreation management with consistent rules and regulations such as motor vehicles on designated roads and trails only, designated sites to park and camp and consistent travel management signing. Overall, these effects will help protect natural resources.

Chapter 3 3-7 Rampart Range Recreation Area Motorized Roads and Trails Plan Environmental Assessment

(2) Alternative A - No Action

(a) Direct Effects

The no action alternative would likely result in a continuation if not acceleration of the current rate of erosion associated with trail use and a similar or higher level of sediment entering into waterways within the project area. As previously described, several miles of trail would remain in or adjacent to drainage areas causing direct effects to riparian areas and water quality. Trails located directly along riparian areas are inconsistent with the Forest Plan Management Area 9A.

Trails that are currently closed to motorized uses for safety and resource protection would likely remain closed and efforts would be made to rehabilitate these reaches to improve water quality. It is also probable that additional trail reaches that are poorly located and designed would be closed in the future in order to minimize detrimental effects to the watershed (as well as coincident safety issues).

(b) Indirect Effects

As described above, trails would continue to be located within and adjacent to tributaries to the South Platte River and other water bodies. Many of these trails are currently in poor condition due to erosion. Vegetation within these water corridors continues to be removed including sensitive riparian vegetation. These water corridors traditionally act as filtering systems. Trails located within these areas can transport sediment loads from other locations in the project area. Sediment generated from improperly located and constructed trails is deposited downstream, changing the channel morphology and watershed response to flood waters.

(c) Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects would be the same as described under “Effects Common to all Alternatives”. However, they would be expected to be somewhat greater under Alternative A.

(3) Alternative B

(a) Direct Effects

Under this alternative, effects to the watershed in terms of erosion and water quality would likely improve over current conditions. More than 12 miles of trails located in the WIZ would be closed and over 20 stream crossings in sensitive areas would be removed. New trail construction totaling less than 1 mile would occur in the WIZ under this alternative. As described in Chapter 2, new trails would be reconstructed or realigned to design standards that would minimize erosion and sediment contribution to waterways. Some trails under this alternative would be located along the lower portions of several watersheds, including Waterton/Deckers and Lower Trout Creek. The South Platte River flows through both of these watersheds.

3-8 Chapter 3 Environmental Assessment Rampart Range Recreation Area Motorized Roads and Trails Plan

(b) Indirect Effects

As described in Alternative A, trails would continue to be located adjacent to tributaries to the South Platte River and other water bodies. However, these trails would be removed from the primary channel of many of these tributaries. Reconstruction and relocation of many trails would reduce the direct sedimentation from these areas. However, continual trail construction and removal of vegetation in close proximity to tributaries will continue to contribute to sediment loads.

(c) Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects would be the same as described under “Effects Common to all Alternatives”.

(4) Alternative C – Proposed Action

(a) Direct Effects

Under this alternative, negative effects to the watershed in terms of erosion and water quality would likely be reduced compared to current conditions. More than 12 miles of trails located in the WIZ would be closed and over 20 stream crossings located in sensitive areas would be removed.

Relocated trails would no longer be aligned parallel to key drainages, and instead would be relocated to cross drainages perpendicularly. Of the new trails constructed, less than 3 miles would occur in the WIZ. New trails would be reconstructed or realigned to design standards that would minimize erosion and sediment contribution to waterways. Key trails in close proximity to the South Platte River and other areas would be removed. The result would be the creation of 28,000 acres of non-motorized area within several watersheds. Some trails under this alternative would remain in the upper portions of several watersheds, including Waterton/Deckers and Lower Trout Creek. The South Platte River flows through both of these watersheds. Because trails are located in the upper reaches, the potential for sediment to enter perennial and intermittent streams is reduced and would likely be less than Alternatives A or B.

(b) Indirect Effects

Unlike Alternatives A and B, motorized trails would be relocated out of key watersheds and tributaries. Limitation of human activities in these areas would improve water quality by reducing impacts to riparian vegetation and minimizing erosion.

(c) Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects would be the same as described under “Effects Common to all Alternatives”.

Chapter 3 3-9 Rampart Range Recreation Area Motorized Roads and Trails Plan Environmental Assessment

(5) Comparison of Alternatives

Alternative C would present the greatest protection to the hydrologic resource due to the largest reduction of trail in key sensitive areas such as along stream corridors. New trails constructed under alternatives B or C would employ BMPs to create trails that would minimize erosion and the resulting sediment loading of waterways.

2. Soils a. Affected Environment

Soils in the project are generally categorized as ranging from areas of no soil (rock outcrops) to areas where soils are relatively deep, such as riparian areas. Parent material over much of the project area and nearly all areas where trails are currently located consist of Pikes Peak Granite. Soils are formed from this weathered material or in colluvium (loose deposit of rock debris accumulated through the action of gravity at the base of a cliff or slope) over weathered granite. Soils along the northern reaches of the project area differ, being formed instead from weathered parent material consisting of mixed schist, gneiss and granite.

As part of the development of the soil survey for this area, the USFS (USFS 1992) has evaluated the risk for hazard of water erosion in the region and for the 36 soil types found in the project area. From this survey it is estimated that 2 percent of the area (1,330 acres) is subject to slight erosion, 32 percent of the area (29,200 acres) has moderate risk for erosion, and 66 percent of the area is rated at risk for severe water erosion. The majority of the severely erodible soil is represented by the Sphinx soil unit which has a gravelly, coarse, sandy, loam texture and is found on slopes of 40 to70 percent. Sphinx soils are coarse textured and shallow, are moderately to excessively drained, and form on mountainsides. As with most of the soils in the project area, the Sphinx soil is derived from decomposed Pikes Peak Granite. A field inventory of the area conducted in 2001 indicated that soils east of Rampart Road contained more fines and had better adhesion (less likely to erode) than soils to the west of Rampart Road (Recreation Solutions, 2001).

Proper placement and alignment of trails and roads is critical to protecting the soil resource. Roads and trails that are constructed on steep grades have a greater tendency to erode and contribute sediment to aquatic systems. Approximately 52 percent of the project area is on slopes greater than 30 percent and it in is these areas where potential losses to erosion are highest. Soil compaction can compound these effects by inhibiting water infiltration causing greater runoff and higher peak flows during runoff events. Many of the trails and roads present in the project area have been designed to reduce impacts to soils. Some trails are exhibiting erosion with the most severe reaches and trail sections being closed to further motorized use. Severe erosion can be noted at several trail locations in RRMRA and this erosion has continued several feet into the weathered parent material, aided by the mechanical action of motorized traffic. Poor trail alignment in most of these areas appears to be the primary reason for the high degree of erosion.

3-10 Chapter 3 Environmental Assessment Rampart Range Recreation Area Motorized Roads and Trails Plan

b. Environmental Consequences

(1) Effects Common to All Alternatives

Impacts to soils are often closely associated with impacts to vegetation and the hydrologic functions of an area as these resources are commonly related. Recreational activities can have an effect on soil compaction. Motorized and non-motorized traffic can compact soils, reducing pore space which affects water infiltration and water holding capacity, as well as rooting depth of vegetation. Soils that have low organic matter content, that are finer in texture, have less rock fragments, or are wet are more susceptible to compaction. All soils, regardless of their characteristics, are susceptible to compaction where multiple passes of equipment, vehicles, foot or animal trailing take place. Soils in the majority of the project area are typically low in organic matter but are coarse in texture making them less susceptible to compaction. Soils in the bottom land areas, especially along the more major drainages, have finer textures and thus are more susceptible to compaction.

During wet periods of the year, soil compaction and damage to vegetation is more likely to occur. If the disturbance is not repeated, natural recovery is likely to occur, especially in areas with more productive soils. Impacted locations having less productive soils will show signs of disturbances for years as the vegetation resource would be slower to recover. Areas where soils are disturbed may also be more susceptible to the invasion of noxious weeds.

Locations where roads and trails have eroded soils in riparian and wetland areas can exhibit a change in the vegetation community due to a loss or lowering of the subsurface hydrology.

Roads and trails crossing streams and wetlands would continue to result in the loss of soil, increased soil compaction, stream bank instability, increased sedimentation, and impacts to vegetation.

Sheet erosion, rill erosion, and gullying are erosion processes that can occur in the area. Sheet erosion is overland surface flow of water over a broad surface without cutting into the soil profile. Rill erosion exists when shallow cuts are seen to the soils profile as the result of more concentrated water movement. Gullying occurs when large volumes of water coalesce and the erosional force is increased, causing deep and wide cuts into the soil and parent material. Each can contribute to sediment delivery to streams as well as impacts to soil productivity, vegetation, and the hydrologic resource.

By their nature trails and roads act as structures that impact the soil resource through the accumulation of runoff which can contribute to increased erosion. Soil erosion can also occur in areas that are not disturbed, and can be caused by a short duration of high intensity storm events. Existing trails can impact the soil resource if they are widened or deepened through increased use. Occasional illegal off-trail use causes impacts to soils as well. Reconstructed and new trails will impact the soil resource because they are typically constructed in areas where soils are not disturbed. Each alternative has one, or a combination of, each type of these impacts. The degree of impacts for each alternative differs when comparisons are made as to how trails are maintained, constructed and used by recreational OHV users as well as the length of the trail system to be provided to the public.

Chapter 3 3-11 Rampart Range Recreation Area Motorized Roads and Trails Plan Environmental Assessment

Trails that are determined to have the potential for greater soil impacts, such as steeper trails that exhibit severe erosion, will be maintained to a higher level, closed for repairs, rerouted, or, permanently closed and rehabilitated to non-trail uses.

(a) Direct Effects

OHVs will impact both roads and trails, resulting in continued soil erosion and soil compaction. Trails where erosion is at unacceptable levels will require high maintenance levels or subsequent closure if erosion can not be controlled. Closure could also be implemented due to safety issues as some highly eroded trails are impassable. The creation of illegal trails and roads also has a direct effect on soil resources by increasing the overall potential for soil erosion and compaction. Areas where significant disturbance occurs will require restoration.

(b) Indirect Effects

Indirect effects to the soil resource will be seen as a greater potential for weeds to become established in areas where soil has been disturbed which would require control measures to be implemented. The effects of soil erosion would also affect the hydrologic resources by causing increased sedimentation in waterways which would alter flow dynamics. Increased sedimentation effecting water quality would also have a negative effect on aquatic life such as invertebrates and fish.

(c) Cumulative Effects

Impacts to soil resources in the project area would occur from OHV use as well as from a variety of other sources including grazing, wildfire, and rural development. As the Colorado front-range population continues to grow, recreational users will put increasing pressures on the areas available for their activities. OHV use as well as other activities that can impact soils can be anticipated to increase in the project area due to its close proximity to the Denver metropolitan area. The convenience and natural beauty of the area also contributes to attracting people. Soil erosion can be accelerated when OHVs introduce invasive plants that are poorly suited to holding soil in place yet can out-compete native vegetation.

(2) Alternative A - No Action

(a) Direct Effects

Direct effects of Alternative A would be the same as those described above under “Direct Effects Common to All Alternatives” above. A decrease of 5 road crossings and 1 trail crossing of intermittent and perennial streams would be seen with this alternative. This alternative would also see a decrease of 1.42 and 0.42 miles of roads in intermittent and perennial streams, respectively. Approximately 0.11 miles of trails would be closed in areas of intermittent streams and 1.35 miles closed in areas of perennial streams.

3-12 Chapter 3 Environmental Assessment Rampart Range Recreation Area Motorized Roads and Trails Plan

(b) Indirect Effects

Indirect effects of Alternative A would be the same as those described above under “Indirect Effects Common to All Alternatives” above.

(c) Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects of would be the same as “Cumulative Effects Common to All Alternatives” above.

(3) Alternative B

(a) Direct Effects

Direct effects of Alternative B would be the same as those described above under “Direct Effects Common to All Alternatives” above. A decrease of 5 road crossings and 22 trail crossing of intermittent and perennial streams would be seen with this alternative. This alternative would also see a decrease of 1.42 and 0.42 miles of roads in intermittent and perennial streams, respectively. Approximately 10.09 miles of trails would be closed in areas of intermittent streams and 2.1 miles closed in areas of perennial streams due to environmental, policy, or safety issues. A reduction in the number of road and trail crossings and distance in areas of intermittent and perennial streams will likely result in a decrease in impacts, such as erosion and compaction, to the soil resource. Construction and realignment of an estimated 4.43 miles of new trail reaches would replace trail reaches that historically were more likely to contribute to soil impacts. Negative impacts of construction of new and realigned trails would be minimized by using BMPs for location of routes and construction.

(b) Indirect Effects

Indirect effects of Alternative B would be the same as those described above under “Indirect Effects Common to All Alternatives” above.

(c) Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects of Alternative B would be the same as those described above under “Cumulative Effects Common to All Alternatives” above.

(4) Alternative C – Proposed Action

(a) Direct Effects

Direct effects of Alternative C would be the same as those described above under “Direct Effects Common to All Alternatives”. A decrease of 5 road crossings and 25 trail crossing of intermittent and perennial streams would be seen with this alternative. This alternative would also see a decrease of 1.42 and 0.42 miles of roads in intermittent and perennial streams, respectively. Approximately 10.22 miles of trails would be closed in areas of intermittent streams and 2.24 miles closed in areas of perennial streams due to

Chapter 3 3-13 Rampart Range Recreation Area Motorized Roads and Trails Plan Environmental Assessment environmental, policy, or safety issues. A reduction in the number of road and trail crossings and distance in areas of intermittent and perennial streams will likely result in a decrease in impacts, such as erosion and compaction, to the soil resource. Construction and realignment of an estimated 5.81 miles new trail reaches would replace trail reaches that historically were more likely to contribute to soil impacts. Negative impacts of construction of new and realigned trails would be minimized by using BMPs for location of routes and construction.

(b) Indirect Effects

Indirect effects of Alternative C would be the same as those described in Alternative B.

(c) Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects of Alternative C would be the same as cumulative effects common to all alternatives.

(5) Comparison of Alternatives

Alternative C would present the greatest protection to the hydrologic resource due to the largest reduction of trail in key sensitive areas such as along stream corridors. New trails constructed under alternatives B or C would employ BMPs to create trails that would minimize erosion and the resulting sediment loading of waterways.

3. Floodplains, Wetlands and Riparian Areas a. Affected Environment

Floodplains, riparian, and wetland areas are typically considered important areas in the landscape. Floodplains and riparian areas are often more vegetated with a greater cover and diversity of grasses, forbs, shrubs, and trees where wetlands are located. These areas are typically important to wildlife by providing habitat for cover, corridors for travel, and multiple sources for the procurement of food. Floodplains are also areas that have larger areas of drainage and often support perennial flows, providing support for a variety of water dependent plant and animal species. Larger basins also support greater flood flow volumes and the condition of floodplains can influence the ability of the basin to abate these flows. This environment often represents in part or whole the water influence zone (WIZ) discussed in the Hydrology section. Floodplains, wetlands and riparian areas are often more heavily impacted by the activities of humans, livestock and wildlife. Impacts to these resources are often closely related to impacts of soil and hydrologic resources.

Major drainages with floodplains, wetlands and riparian areas that are near or connected to roads and trails in the project area include the South Platte River, Horse Creek, Trout Creek, Sugar Creek, Pine Creek, and Jackson Creek. Additional information for these areas is described in the Hydrology section. The number of acres or riparian habitat in watersheds located in the project area mapped by the CDOW is presented in Table 3-4. Riparian habitat mapped includes riparian tree, shrub, and herbaceous vegetation as well as open water and un-vegetated riparian bares such as sand bars.

3-14 Chapter 3 Environmental Assessment Rampart Range Recreation Area Motorized Roads and Trails Plan

Table 3-4: Acres of Riparian Habitat as Mapped by the CDOW.

Watershed Acres of Riparian Habitat Bear Ck 373 Chatfield Res. C 96 Dry Gulch Ck 157 Garber Ck 194 Indian Ck 254 Jackson Ck 832 Lower Trout C 1,014 Lowest Plum C 3 South Platte Canyon 661 Waterton/Deckers C 1,147 West Creek 22 Total 4,753

b. Environmental Consequences

(1) Effects Common to All Alternatives

Impacts include potential increases in soil erosion and soil compaction, potential for weed establishment due to soil disturbance, and damage to existing riparian vegetation. In addition, impacts to wetland hydrology may occur when vehicle caused erosion intercepts groundwater, promoting draining and causing the immediate area to dry. Other impacts common to all alternatives would be the disturbance of wildlife in this area. Riparian areas are important for a variety of animals and disturbance from travel through these areas can displace wildlife to more unfavorable areas. The federally threatened Preble’s meadow jumping mouse occupies riparian areas that have a mixed cover story of herbaceous, shrub and tree species and a seasonal water source. Roads and trails in riparian areas could remove habitat suitable to this species.

(a) Direct Effects

Direct impacts to floodplain, riparian areas and wetlands would be the removal of vegetation, erosion from disturbances caused by motorized vehicles, and increased access by humans to areas important to wildlife.

(b) Indirect Effects

Indirect impacts to these areas would be a loss of continuity in the riparian corridor for the movement of wildlife. Riparian areas are commonly used for wildlife to facilitate movement and transecting this area would fragment the corridor. Additionally, any disturbance or alteration of watershed characteristics can have an affect on downstream areas such as increased runoff and flood volume.

Chapter 3 3-15 Rampart Range Recreation Area Motorized Roads and Trails Plan Environmental Assessment

(c) Cumulative Effects

Riparian areas are commonly sought after because of their appeal for a variety of uses including livestock grazing and dispersed camping. Additionally these areas typically comprise a small percentage of the area of the landscape. Consequently minimizing impacts to these areas is important to preserving the valuable functions they perform. Intact riparian areas will be under constant risk of impacts over time especially as recreational use is anticipated to increase in the future.

(2) Alternative A – No Action

(a) Direct Effects

Direct effects of Alternative A would generally be the same as those described above under “Direct Effects Common to All Alternatives”. However, effects to these systems would be more severe than Alternatives B and C, since some trails remain directly along stream bottoms, riparian areas and floodplains.

(b) Indirect Effects

Indirect effects of Alternative A would generally be the same as those described above under “Indirect Effects Common to All Alternatives”. However, effects to these systems would be more severe since larger areas of these riparian systems would be affected, resulting in an increase in indirect effects compared to Alternatives A and B.

(c) Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects of would be the same as “Cumulative Effects Common to All Alternatives” above.

(3) Alternative B

(a) Direct Effects

Direct effects of Alternative B would be the same as those described above under “Direct Effects Common to All Alternatives” above. However, the direct effects would be less as compared to Alternative A, as streams are relocated from the stream bottoms to adjacent land.

(b) Indirect Effects

Indirect effects of Alternative B would be the same as those described above under “Indirect Effects Common to All Alternatives” above. However, the indirect effects would be less as compared to Alternative A, as streams are relocated.

3-16 Chapter 3 Environmental Assessment Rampart Range Recreation Area Motorized Roads and Trails Plan

(c) Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects of Alternative B would be the same as those described above under “Cumulative Effects Common to All Alternatives” above.

(4) Alternative C – Proposed Action

(a) Direct Effects

Direct effects of Alternative C would be the same as those described above under “Direct Effects Common to All Alternatives” above, however they would be dramatically reduced as compared to Alternatives A and B. Riparian areas are crossed more directly in this alternative due to design standards and relocation. In addition, trails are generally located towards the upper reaches of watersheds, thus reducing potential impacts to floodplains, riparian areas and wetlands.

(b) Indirect Effects

Indirect effects of Alternative C would be the same as those described above under “Indirect Effects Common to All Alternatives” above. However, the indirect effects would be less as compared to Alternative A and B, as streams are relocated to areas of less sensitivity.

(c) Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects of Alternative C would be the same as “Cumulative Effects Common to All Alternatives” described above.

(5) Comparison of Alternatives

The impacts to riparian areas will be the least under Alternative C and the greatest under the No Action Alternative.

No change will be seen in the length of roads in floodplains, riparian, and wetland areas across all alternatives (Table 3-5). A decrease in length of trails in these areas will be seen under either Alternative B or Alternative C.

Chapter 3 3-17 Rampart Range Recreation Area Motorized Roads and Trails Plan Environmental Assessment

Table 3-5: Length of Roads and Trails Intersecting Floodplains, Riparian Areas, and Wetland Areas in the Project Area for each of the Proposed Alternatives (CDOW 2005).

Alt A Alt B Alt C Miles of Road in Riparian Habitat 9.89 9.89 9.89 Miles of Trail in Riparian Habitat 12.23 6.03 7.84

4. Heritage Resources

a. Affected Environment

As of the end of the 2004 calendar year, the Forest Service had conducted 27 prior cultural resource inventories in or near the RRMRA vicinity. A total of 10,631 acres have been inventoried for cultural properties. Of this acreage, 232 cultural properties have been identified; 175 historic and 57 prehistoric.

The historic properties are related to settlement, transportation, natural resource exploration (logging / mining), recreation, and Forest Service administration activities within the Front Range of the Rocky Mountains. Twenty-four of the 175 historic properties have been identified as eligible for inclusion/nomination to the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). A historic district associated with the South Park, Denver, & Pacific Railroad and associated communities is located on the northwest border of the analysis area. The historic district begins at the confluence of the North Fork of the South Platte River and the South Platte River, continuing up the North Fork of the South Platte River to the town of Pine Grove. Components of the historic district are also listed on the National Register of Historic Places and include the South Platte Hotel and the South Park, Denver & Pacific Rail Road. The other historic listed property located on Forest Service lands is Devil’s Head Lookout. This site represents early U.S. Forest history and fire suppression. On private land in- holdings, Indian Park School house is listed. This site is associated with historic settlement of the area.

The prehistoric properties within the analysis area are generally characterized as surface areas of stone tools and stone tool manufacturing debris. The time of occupation falls within the following eras: Paleo-Indian Period (9500-7500 B.C.); Early, Middle and Late Archaic (7500 B.C. to A.D. 500); Early and Middle Ceramic Periods (A.D. 500-1500); and Proto Historic / Historic (A.D. 1500 – 1880). Most of the recorded prehistoric sites most likely reflect relatively recent use of the analysis area by historic tribes and their immediate predecessors. Twenty-nine prehistoric properties currently known to exist in the analysis area are recommended eligible for listing on the NRHP and represent the following classifications: seasonal camp, camp, activity area (rock shelter), and miscellaneous. One site, Dancing Pants Rock Shelter, is listed on the NRHP.

The Forest Plan guidelines for heritage (cultural) resource management are to comply with applicable laws and regulations, particularity the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 as amended (NHPA). The latter directs federal agencies to consider the possible effects of their actions on important cultural sites and to devise methods to minimize such effects if they are harmful in their nature.

3-18 Chapter 3 Environmental Assessment Rampart Range Recreation Area Motorized Roads and Trails Plan

In association with the NHPA and NEPA, tribal governments, Local Certified County Governments, and local historical societies were contacted through an EA initiation letter. The letter requested comment on the proposed plan concerning its effects on tribal rights and interests. The Southern Ute Indian Tribe does not object to the proposed plan, however they wish to be informed in the event that American Indian cultural sites are inadvertently discovered. b. Environmental Effects

(1) Effects Common to All Alternatives

(a) Direct Effects

Existing trails and converted roads would continue to deteriorate with increased rutting and erosion unless action is taken. Increased and expanded erosion might affect archeological deposits where cultural sites intersect or are adjacent to existing roads and trails. Existing roads or trails may be historic travel routes and their historic character diminishes by continued erosion.

(b) Indirect Effects

Continued road access would open up cultural properties for damage through vandalism and personal collection of artifacts. Without proper monitoring and/or interpretation these resources are increasingly threatened by development, public use and vandalism and would remain in jeopardy.

(c) Cumulative Effects Foreseeable activities within the Project Area include timber harvest, recreation, fire management and road and trail improvement projects. All of these activities may have a cumulative effect to heritage resources in the form of increased soil erosion, increased visitor use, traffic, and vandalism. These impacts can be avoided or minimized through the implementation of appropriate site-specific mitigation measures through consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation.

(2) Alternative A – No Action

(a) Direct Effects

Since no changes are anticipated, existing trails and converted roads would continue to deteriorate with increased rutting and erosion. Increased and expanded erosion might affect archeological deposits where cultural sites intersect or are adjacent to existing roads and trails. Existing roads or trails may be historic travel routes and their historic character diminishes by continued erosion.

Chapter 3 3-19 Rampart Range Recreation Area Motorized Roads and Trails Plan Environmental Assessment

(b) Indirect Effects

Indirect effects of Alternative A would be the same as those described above under “Indirect Effects Common to All Alternatives” above.

(c) Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects of Alternative A would be the same as “Cumulative Effects Common to All Alternatives” described above.

(3) Alternative B

(a) Direct Effects

Proposed actions resulting from the implementation of this alternative would be subject to the provisions of the National Historic Preservation Act. Avoidance as a means of mitigating impacts to sites would be the most viable approach to most proposed actions with the potential to affect cultural sites. If avoidance is not possible, then other mitigative approaches would be developed with the assistance of the Colorado Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (OAHP/SHPO).

(b) Indirect Effects

Indirect effects of Alternative B would be the same as those described above under “Indirect Effects Common to All Alternatives” above.

(c) Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects of Alternative B would be the same as “Cumulative Effects Common to All Alternatives” described above.

(4) Alternative C – Proposed Action

(a) Direct Effects

Proposed actions resulting from the implementation of this alternative would be subject to the provisions of the National Historic Preservation Act. Avoidance as a means of mitigating impacts to sites would be the most viable approach to most proposed actions with the potential to affect cultural sites. If avoidance is not possible, then other mitigative approaches would be developed with the assistance of the Colorado Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (OAHP/SHPO).

3-20 Chapter 3 Environmental Assessment Rampart Range Recreation Area Motorized Roads and Trails Plan

(b) Indirect Effects

Indirect effects of Alternative C would be the same as those described above under “Indirect Effects Common to All Alternatives” above.

(c) Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects of Alternative C would be the same as “Cumulative Effects Common to All Alternatives” described above.

(5) Comparison of Alternatives

Alternatives B and C would minimize current degradation of cultural resources and be subject to the provisions of the National Historic Preservation Act. Impacts to cultural resources due to erosion would continue under Alternative A.

5. Air Quality a. Affected Environment

The project area is located in the western portion of Douglas County, Colorado. The project area is approximately 15 miles southwest of the City of Denver and is part of the Denver Metropolitan Area. The area is bounded to the north by the Pike National Forest, to the east by the Pike National Forest, to the south by the Pikes Peak Ranger District Boundary, South Platte River and State Highway 67.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (DPHE) regulate air quality in Colorado through implementation of the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA) (42 U.S.C. §§ 7401-7671q). The CAA is a federal air quality law, which is intended to protect human health and the environment by reducing emissions of specified pollutants at their source. In accordance with this law, permits are required for any stationary facility that qualifies as a “major source.” Further, the CAA outlines three types of airshed classification areas: Class I, II and III. The Rampart Range Motorized Recreation Area is a Class I airshed. Statutory Class I areas include international parks and national parks in excess of 5,000 acres and wilderness areas in excess of 6,000 acres which were in existence as of August 1977. The air quality in these areas is subject to the highest levels of protection, with emphasis on visibility protection.

Applicable Regulations, Plans, and Policies The CAA requires the adoption of national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) to protect the public health and welfare from the effects of air pollution. The NAAQS have been updated as needed. Current standards are set for sulfur dioxide (SO2), carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), ozone (O3), particulate matter less than 10 microns (PM10), particulate matter less than 2.5 microns (PM2.5), and lead (Pb), which are known as the criteria pollutants. The NAAQS are shown in Table 3-6.

Chapter 3 3-21 Rampart Range Recreation Area Motorized Roads and Trails Plan Environmental Assessment

A State or region is given the status of “attainment“ if the NAAQS thresholds have not been exceeded for any criteria pollutant or “nonattainment” for a specific pollutant if the NAAQS thresholds have been exceeded for that pollutant. An area designated as nonattainment may request redesignation if it can be shown that the area has not exceeded the NAAQS for a period of three years. Redesignation requires the appropriate agency with jurisdiction over the area to prepare a maintenance plan and demonstrate compliance with NAAQS for 10 years. There are no more stringent Colorado State standards for these criteria pollutants.

The 1990 amendments to federal Clean Air Act Section 176 required the EPA to promulgate rules to ensure that federal actions conform to the appropriate SIP. These rules, known together as the General Conformity Rule (40 CFR §§ 51.850-.860 and 40 CFR §§ 93.150- .160), require any federal agency responsible for an action in a nonattainment area (see Table 3-7) to determine that the action is either exempt from the General Conformity Rule’s requirements or positively determine that the action conforms to the applicable State

Table 3-6: National Ambient Air Quality Standards.

National Pollutant Averaging Time Primary Secondary Concentration 1-Hour6 0.12 ppm (235 µg/m3) Same as Ozone (O )5 3 8-Hour5 0.08 ppm Primary Standard Carbon Monoxide 8-Hour1 9.0 ppm (10 mg/m3) None (CO) 1-Hour1 35 ppm (40 mg/m3) Nitrogen Dioxide Annual Average 0.053 ppm (100 µg/m3) Same as (NO2) 1-Hour – Primary Standard Annual Average 80 µg/m3 (0.03 ppm) – 1 3 Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) 24-Hour 365 µg/m (0.14 ppm) – 3-Hour1 – 1300 µg/m3 (0.5 ppm) Suspended Particulate 24-Hour1 150 µg/m3 Same as 2 3 Matter (PM10) Annual Arithmetic Mean 50 µg/m Primary Standard Fine Particulate Matter 24-Hour4 65 µg/m3 Same as 5 3 3 (PM2.5) Annual Arithmetic Mean 15 µg/m Primary Standard Same as Lead (Pb) Calendar Quarter 1.5 µg/m3 Primary Standard Hydrogen Sulfide 1-Hour - -

1 Not to be exceeded more than once per year. 5 To attain this standard, the 3-year average of the fourth-

2 highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone To attain this standard, the expected annual arithmetic concentrations measured at each monitor within an area mean PM10 concentration at each monitor within an over each year must not exceed 0.08 ppm. area must not exceed 50 µg/m3. 6 3 (a) The standard is attained when the expected number To attain this standard, the 3-year average of the annual of days per calendar year with maximum hourly average arithmetic mean PM2.5 concentrations from single or concentrations above 0.12 ppm is ≤ 1. (b) The 1-hour multiple community-oriented monitors must not exceed 3 standard is applicable to all areas notwithstanding the 15 µg/m . promulgation of 8-hour ozone standards under Sec. 4 To attain this standard, the 3-year average of the 98th 50.10. On June 2, 2003, (68 FR 32802) USEPA percentile of 24-hour concentrations at each proposed several options for when the 1-hour standard population-oriented monitor within an area must not would no longer apply to an area. 3 exceed 65 µg/m . 7 Designated to protect public health and welfare and to prevent the significant deterioration of air quality. Source: EPA 2005 ppm – parts per million µg/m3 – micrograms per cubic meter mg/m3 – milligrams per cubic meter

3-22 Chapter 3 Environmental Assessment Rampart Range Recreation Area Motorized Roads and Trails Plan

Implementation Plan. In addition to the roughly 30 presumptive exemptions established and available in the General Conformity Rule, an agency may establish that forecast emission rates would be less than the specified emission rate thresholds, known as de minimis limits. An action is exempt from a conformity determination if an applicability analysis shows that the total direct and indirect emissions from the project would be below the applicable de minimis thresholds and would not be regionally significant, which is defined as representing 10 percent or more of an area’s emissions inventory or budget. The project area’s attainment designation and applicable de minimis limits are presented in Table 3-7.

Table 3-7: Nonattainment Classifications and De Minimis Limits for the Rampart Range Motorized Recreation Area.

De minimis Limits Pollutant EPA Designation (tons/year) 1 O3 – 1-Hour Attainment/Maintenance Plan NOX 100; VOC 100 1 O3 – 8-hour Nonattainment - Basic NOX 100; VOC 100 PM10 Attainment/Maintenance Plan 100 2 PM2.5 Attainment/Unclassifiable -- CO Attainment --2 2 NO2 Attainment -- Source: USEPA 2005 1 Attainment status is for ozone; de minimis limits apply to precursor pollutants volatile organic compounds (VOC) and nitrogen oxides (NOX.) 2 De minimis thresholds do not apply to attainment pollutants.

b. Environmental Consequences

The proposed project is located in a nonattainment area for the 8-hour O3 standard and under a maintenance plan for 1-hour O3, and PM10. Therefore, the project is subject to the General Conformity Rule.

(1) Effects Common to All Alternatives

(a) Direct Effects

Construction/Maintenance Sources of construction/maintenance emissions would be similar. All alternatives would include limited clearing and grading activities, either to maintain trails or to open new trails. Clearing and grading would generate dust, including PM10. PM10 would also be generated by vehicle travel on unpaved roads or on paved roads that have had soil or sand deposited on the roadway. PM10 is a concern as the project area is currently under a maintenance plan for PM10.

Mobile sources, such as gasoline- and diesel-fuel-powered construction equipment used for the maintenance and construction of trails, would generate nitrogen oxides (NOX) and volatile organic compounds (VOC.) NOX and VOC emissions are a concern as the project area is currently designated nonattainment for the 8-hour O3 standard and attainment/maintenance for the 1-hour O3 standard; NOX and VOC are the primary constituent chemicals for O3.

Chapter 3 3-23 Rampart Range Recreation Area Motorized Roads and Trails Plan Environmental Assessment

Maintenance and construction of trails typically require use of motorized construction vehicles. Use of these vehicles and the potential dust generated during these activities is marginal when compared to the Federal De Minimis thresholds and the County’s emission inventory for (2004 COAPCD). Thus, continued maintenance of the existing trail or creation and maintenance of new trails would not result in emissions that would exceed the de minimis limits and would not exceed 10 percent of the County’s emission inventory.

Operations The proposed action is intended to improve management and control of the trail areas for the anticipated future demand for OHV facilities, based on historic and projected sales of OHV in the region. Another purpose of the proposed action is to create trails that are desired by the OHV community and reduce the number and frequency of unauthorized trail making and off trail exploration. The retention of the existing trails and alignments or the realignment and rehabilitation of specific trails in the project area would not cause increased use of the Recreation Area. Thus, direct operational emissions would be the essentially the same under all alternatives.

(b) Indirect Effects

As noted above, the retention of the existing trails and alignments or the realignment and rehabilitation of specific trails in the project area would not cause increased use of the park beyond anticipated levels. Therefore, no indirect effects that would increase pollutant emissions are anticipated.

(c) Cumulative Effects

Existing vehicle emissions are accounted for in the SIP and emissions inventories prepared for Douglas County. Future increases in population densities and vehicle use (regional growth) are also accounted for in the development of the SIP.

(2) Alternative A - No Action

(a) Direct Effects

Under the No Action Alternative, no new facilities or trails are planned. The existing recreational use of the Recreation Area would continue and would increase in the future with or without implementation of one of the proposed alternatives. Trail maintenance would continue.

(b) Indirect Effects

No adverse indirect air quality effects would occur.

(c) Cumulative Effects

No adverse cumulative air quality effects would occur.

3-24 Chapter 3 Environmental Assessment Rampart Range Recreation Area Motorized Roads and Trails Plan

(3) Alternative B

(a) Direct Effects

Construction With Alternative B, approximately 27 miles of new or realigned trails would be built. As described in the Effects Common to all Alternatives, emissions would be much less than the de minimis quantities and there would be no adverse effects.

Operations With Alternative B, there would be approximately 125 trail miles, an increase of about 5 miles, compared to the existing conditions with 120 trail miles. The addition of trails is not anticipated to result in additional vehicle miles, but rather a distribution of the operations over a different set of trails. There would be no notable change in emissions from vehicle operations. There would be a slight increase in emissions due to trail maintenance; the increase would not be significant.

(b) Indirect Effects

No adverse indirect air quality effects would occur.

(c) Cumulative Effects

No cumulative indirect air quality effects would occur.

(4) Alternative C – Proposed Action

(a) Direct Effects

Construction With Alternative C, approximately 82 miles of new or realigned trails would be built. As described in the Effects Common to all Alternatives, emissions would be much less than the de minimis quantities and there would be no adverse effects.

Operations With Alternative C, there would be approximately 149 trail miles, an increase of about 29 miles, compared to the existing conditions with 120 trail miles. The addition of trails is not anticipated to result in additional vehicle miles, but rather a distribution of the operations over a different set of trails. There would be no notable change in emissions from vehicle operations. There would be a slight increase in emissions due to trail maintenance; the increase would not be significant.

Chapter 3 3-25 Rampart Range Recreation Area Motorized Roads and Trails Plan Environmental Assessment

(b) Indirect Effects

No adverse indirect air quality effects would occur.

(c) Cumulative Effects

No adverse cumulative air quality effects would occur.

(5) Comparison of Alternatives

Emissions from trail construction and maintenance activities for Alternative B would be greater than for Alternative A, No Action. Emissions from trail construction and maintenance activities for Alternative C would be greater than for Alternative B.

There would be negligible differences in emissions from recreational vehicle operations for all three alternatives.

6. Fire a. Affected Environment

Forested and woodland areas comprise the majority of the project area with ponderosa pine and Douglas fir being the two major species (CDOW, 2005b). In the past, natural fire played a role in thinning and opening stands of ponderosa pine to create areas that were open and park-like. Past fire control in the area has allowed stands in many areas to become denser and less open, creating a greater potential for intense fires. Other plant communities comprising a small proportion of the project area include aspen, gamble oak, and grasslands.

In recent years, several areas have dramatically altered by Fire, especially Hayman. Large areas have very little surface fuel loads remaining. Approximately 75% of fire-killed ponderosa pine snags can be expected to fall within the next 10 years. Standing fire-killed timber also presents a hazard to visitors as these snags can fall with little warning. As the area recovers, fuel loading will increase as the potential for fire will increase. Existing access would need to be maintained in keys areas to meet fire protection and suppression objectives (USFS, 2004). b. Environmental Consequences

(1) Effects Common to All Alternatives

(a) Direct Effects

Since few changes are proposed in the current designated road system, all of the alternatives will provide the same road access for planned prescribed burns and wildland fire suppression activities. If any new roads are needed for planned burns, they will be analyzed as part of that individual project. If is anticipated that if these roads are needed, they will be temporary

3-26 Chapter 3 Environmental Assessment Rampart Range Recreation Area Motorized Roads and Trails Plan

in nature, open only for administrative access, and rehabilitated and reseeded when no longer needed.

(b) Indirect Effects

No indirect effects are anticipated.

(c) Cumulative Effects

As use overall increases in the region, so does the risk for human caused fire starts.

(2) Alternative A – No Action

(a) Direct Effects

Direct effects of Alternative A would generally be the same as those described above under “Direct Effects Common to All Alternatives”. However, the least amount of motorized trails would be open to travel in this alternative. This will allow for the least access for firefighters. It also leaves the least area for human caused fire starts along travel ways.

(b) Indirect Effects

Firefighter response time could be longer as compared with other alternatives.

(c) Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects of would be the same as “Cumulative Effects Common to All Alternatives” above.

(3) Alternative B

(a) Direct Effects

Direct effects of Alternative B would generally be the same as those described above under “Direct Effects Common to All Alternatives”. A smaller amount of trail as compared to Alternative C would be open to travel in this alternative. This will allow for less access for firefighters. It also leaves a lower amount of area open for human caused fire starts along travel ways.

(b) Indirect Effects

Firefighter response time could be longer as compared with Alternative C.

Chapter 3 3-27 Rampart Range Recreation Area Motorized Roads and Trails Plan Environmental Assessment

(c) Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects of Alternative B would be the same as those described above under “Cumulative Effects Common to All Alternatives” above.

(4) Alternative C – Proposed Action

(a) Direct Effects

Direct effects of Alternative C would generally be the same as those described above under “Direct Effects Common to All Alternatives”. However, the largest number of motorized trails would be open to travel in this alternative. This will allow for the greatest access for firefighters. It also leaves open a larger area for human caused fire starts along travel ways. Trails in previously burned areas would remain closed, reducing the risk to motorists from associated hazards such as falling snags.

(b) Indirect Effects

Firefighter response time could be the shortest as compared other alternatives.

(c) Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects of Alternative C would be the same as “Cumulative Effects Common to All Alternatives” described above.

(5) Comparison of Alternatives

Though access and accessibility vary by alternative, the risk of fire is common to all alternatives.

C. Biological Resources

1. Terrestrial Wildlife (including Federally Listed, Sensitive, and Management Indicator Species) a. Affected Environment

Species Selected for Analysis There are more than 200 reptiles, amphibians, mammals and breeding birds in the project area. A subset of these species was analyzed in-depth to determine the effects of the proposed alternatives on wildlife and wildlife habitats. Species selected for analysis are Federally listed species, Management Indicator Species (MIS), and Forest Service Sensitive plant and animal species that are known to occur or may occur in the project area and would be affected by the project alternatives (Table 3-8). Detailed information about the effects of the alternatives on each species is provided in the Biological Report, (USFS 2005). Summaries are provided here.

3-28 Chapter 3 Environmental Assessment Rampart Range Recreation Area Motorized Roads and Trails Plan

Habitat Assessment The project area is within the montane forest of the Southern Rocky Mountain geographic area and is centered on the Rampart Range. It includes watersheds that flow west to the South Platte River and east to the Forest boundary. Elevations range from 5,600 to 9,748 feet. Terrestrial habitats are dominated by mature stands of ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir, with smaller inclusions of Gambel oak, lodgepole pine, and aspen. Aquatic habitats include streams and associated riparian areas, and ponds. Rock features are common and create a broken, discontinuous landscape. All habitats are primarily affected by the existing system trail and road infrastructure, most of which has been in existence prior to the Forest Plan (1984). Table 3-9 presents the cover types and habitat structural stages found in the project area.

Table 3-8. Species Selected for Analysis for Rampart Range Motorized Roads and Trails Plan. Bald Eagle (Threatened) Pawnee Montane Skipper (Threatened) FEDERALLY-LISTED Mexican spotted owl (Threatened) Preble’s meadow jumping mouse SPECIES (Threatened)

Mule Deer Beaver SPECIES Elk Mallard MANAGEMENT Merriam’s turkey Wilson’s warbler INDICATOR SPECIES Green-tailed towhee Brook Trout Virginia’s warbler Northern leopard frog Townsend’s big-eared bat Boreal owl Bristlystalked sedge Flammulated owl Lesser yellow-lady’s-slipper SENSITIVE Northern goshawk White adder’s-mouth orchid SPECIES Peregrine falcon Rocky Mountain monkeyflower Olive-sided flycatcher Rock cinquefoil Three-toed woodpecker Selkirk’s violet Lewis’s woodpecker Narrowleaf grapefern

Table 3-9. Cover Types (acres) and Habitat Structural Stages (HSS) in the Rampart Project Area.

Cover Types None 1 2 3A 3B 3C 4A 4B 4C 5 Total Aspen 4 0 150 133 23 90 144 0 0 544 Riparian-grass 78 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 78 Riparian-shrub 0 1086 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1086 Douglas-fir 345 165 290 3,053 2,022 1,513 31,252 8,258 2,165 49,063 Gambel Oak 0 50 2589 134 0 0 0 0 2,773 Limber pine 0 0 0 0 0 48 0 0 0 48 Lodgepole Pine 0 33 0 1077 1032 0 336 209 241 2,928 Mountain Grassland 163 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 169 Mountain Shrub 0 376 70 134 0 0 0 0 0 580 Ponderosa Pine 816 68 974 1406 350 7,844 15,632 2,070 528 29,688 Spruce-fir 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 47 0 47

Chapter 3 3-29 Rampart Range Recreation Area Motorized Roads and Trails Plan Environmental Assessment

Cover Types None 1 2 3A 3B 3C 4A 4B 4C 5 Total Rock 56 Water 82 Unknown 754 Recent Wildfires 5839 Recent Rx burns 7816 Total Structural Stage Acres 1,406 1,778 4,079 5,937 3,427 9,495 47,364 10,584 2,934 87,004 Source: J:\fsfiles\ref\library\gis\forest\psicc\flora\psi\ris (pre-fire conditions)

b. Environmental Consequences

(1) Effects Common to All Alternatives

The effects of the alternatives are compared by evaluating the changes in wildlife habitat in both the short and long-term. This is a qualitative analysis based on expected changes in the environment, focusing on the key wildlife issues identified in Chapter 1.

Mitigation measures have been incorporated into the project alternatives to help address these key issues (See Chapter 2). In addition, the resource values shown below have been selected to compare the effects of the alternatives on wildlife habitats.

Resource Value (net change in acres) Mexican spotted owl designated critical habitat Pawnee montane skipper habitat Preble’s meadow jumping mouse potential habitat Preble’s meadow jumping mouse critical habitat General terrestrial wildlife habitat 4B Management Area habitat Noise disturbance corridors Non-motorized parcels > 10 mi2

Table 3-10 below summarizes the acres of habitat, and miles of roads and trails associated with each resource value for each alternative.

(a) Direct Effects and Indirect Effects

Each alternative has the potential to impact wildlife as a result of disturbance (including noise) and habitat modification. Existing literature indicates that wildlife responses to disturbance are shaped by at least six factors: type of activity, recreationist’s behavior, predictability of the activity, frequency and magnitude of the activity, timing (e.g. breeding season) and, relative location (e.g. above versus below, in the open versus screened by topography or vegetation). The type of animal including its life history and size, group size, and sex and age also affect responses to disturbance (Knight and Cole 1995). Wildlife learned responses might take the form of avoidance, habituation, or attraction (Knight and Cole 1991). Habituation reduces the physiological cost of dealing with an environmental

3-30 Chapter 3 Environmental Assessment Rampart Range Recreation Area Motorized Roads and Trails Plan

stress factor, but it seldom eliminates the cost entirely. Habituated animals may have chronically elevated heart rates (Cassier and Abies 1990 in Youmans 1999).

Table 3-10. Acres and Miles of Wildlife Habitat Affected by Roads and Trails in each Alternative.

Parameter Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Mexican Spotted Owl Total acres of potential owl habitat in project area 52443.8 52443.8 52443.8 Miles of trail in potential owl habitat 80.27 79.16 96.79 Miles of road in potential owl habitat 50.39 50.43 50.43 Net Change in acres of potential owl habitat +29.1 +38.8 +6.9 Pawnee Montane Skipper Total acres of skipper habitat in project area 5310.1 5310.1 5310.1 Miles of trail in skipper habitat 1.41 1.37 1.17 Miles of road in skipper habitat 4.76 4.76 4.76 Net Change in acres of skipper habitat +0.6 -0.2 +0.3 Preble’s Meadow Jumping Mouse Potential Habitat Total acres of Potential Preble's Habitat in project 18778.4 18778.4 18778.4 Miles of trail in Potential Preble's Habitat 16.51 9.26 11.38 Miles of road in Potential Preble's Habitat 31.64 31.64 31.64 Net Change in acres of potential Preble’s habitat +11.6 +20.1 +17.3 Preble’s Meadow Jumping Mouse Critical Habitat Total acres of Critical Preble's Habitat in the project 1796.4 1796.4 1796.4 Miles of trail in Critical Preble's Habitat 1.71 0.51 0.36 Miles of road in Critical Preble's Habitat 8.84 8.84 8.84 Net Change in acres of critical Preble’s habitat +2.8 +4.23 +4.41 Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat Net Change in acres of terrestrial habitat in roads/trail/and parking areas +38 +24 -4 4B Management Area Habitat (net change in acres) 0 +0.9 +0.4 Noise Disturbance Corridor (net change in acres) 0 -2000 0 3 parcels; 3 parcels; 3 parcels; Non-motorized parcels >10 mi2 (net change in acres) 0 +1,332 acres +8,267 acres Note: Net change of affected habitat is the difference of road/trail closures and new trail.

Commonly used OHVs and dirt bikes emit decibel levels of 85-110, recorded at 20” from the source. Sound is rapidly attenuated by distance, topography and vegetation. As a general rule, the sound level from a line source with a “soft” ground surface has an attenuation rate of 4.5 dB per doubling of distance (Hoover and Keith 1996). Based on this attenuation rate, approximately 1500’ of forested vegetation could reduce the effects of OHV noise from 100dBA to an estimated 41-66dBA (equivalent to typical sound levels found in conversation or in an office setting (USDA 2005b)). Sound levels are based on the range of human hearing; the relative effects of noise on wildlife are likely more pronounced, and include the masking of sounds of interest (Bowles 1995). The area within a 1500’ sound corridor along each side of all existing and proposed roads and trails is estimated to be the same in Alternatives A and C; Alternative B would affect approximately 2,000 fewer acres.

Roads and trails can result in increased mortality from construction or reconstruction activities and use, reductions in habitat availability and effectiveness, disruption of

Chapter 3 3-31 Rampart Range Recreation Area Motorized Roads and Trails Plan Environmental Assessment movement corridors, alteration of the physical and chemical environment, and increased alteration and use of habitats by humans (Trombulak and Frissell 2000). Effects that alter the physical condition of the habitat are often more pronounced in wet, unstable, and sensitive environments, particularly from off-highway vehicles (Meyer 2002). Trails along streams can negatively affect riparian vegetation with concurrent increases in sedimentation to adjacent streams. Sediment can inhibit or kill periphyton communities, bacteria, and fungi, which are important food sources for invertebrates, amphibians, and fish (Cordone and Kelly 1961, Murphy et al. 1981). The presence of roads and trails is also considered a potential avenue for the introduction and spread of non-native plant species, including noxious weeds (Chong et al. 2003). Some noxious weed species are capable of affecting wildlife habitat at the landscape scale (Canfield et al 1999).

(b) Cumulative Effects

The structure, composition, and landscape pattern of vegetation in the Pike/San Isabel National Forests, particularly the lower montane zone, has been substantially altered from its pre-European conditions by cumulative human impacts. Before logging, grazing, and fire suppression, ponderosa pine stands along the Colorado Front Range were less dense, more open, and less vulnerable to diseases, insects, and large intense wildfires (Foster Wheeler 1999). These vegetation changes, combined with hunting/trapping pressure, extirpation of large predators, and more recent land development have altered the distribution and abundance of wildlife species.

Ongoing and reasonably foreseeable activities in the project area that affect wildlife include: timber treatments, prescribed fire, permitted and public recreational activity, and noxious weed control. All Federal actions account for the effects of planned activities on wildlife and typically mitigate adverse affects.

Within the project area and immediate vicinity, the greatest threats to wildlife are the development of private lands, increasing unmanaged recreational use of public lands, and events that affect large geographic areas or populations, such as drought, catastrophic fire and disease (chronic wasting disease, west nile virus). The area under review encompasses approximately 3% of the Pike and San Isabel National Forest and the anticipated effects of the action alternatives are minor relative to threats that affect large areas or entire wildlife populations.

(2) Alternative A – No Action

(a) Direct Effects

If the roads and trails currently closed remain as such, the No Action alternative would slightly increase the amount of habitat available for the Mexican spotted owl, Pawnee montane skipper, Preble’s meadow jumping mouse and other terrestrial wildlife and plant species. These increases would occur as small units of habitat along restored roads and trails, rather than as contiguous blocks of habitat. On dry sites or severely eroded sites, restoration would likely be slow and the habitat may not be functional for several years. There is some

3-32 Chapter 3 Environmental Assessment Rampart Range Recreation Area Motorized Roads and Trails Plan

question about whether the trails or roads would remain closed. There would continue to be incremental losses of wildlife habitat along the existing trail system as routes are expanded to avoid trail hazards or poorly designed trail segments. Sediment from existing trails would continue to cover habitat, such as at the bottom of steep trail sections. Several miles of trail in or within 100’ of drainages would continue to reduce habitat availability and quality for riparian dependent species. Wildlife would continue to be affected as described above by noise, human and vehicle activity. These adverse and beneficial effects to habitat are considered minor relative to the amount of wildlife habitat available in the project area.

(b) Indirect Effects

Disturbed sites in the project area, such as those found along the edges of trails, are commonly infested with noxious weeds. These infestations further reduce the quality of wildlife habitat along the trail and the weeds may expand to areas beyond the trail corridor.

(c) Cumulative Effects

Alternative A continues the current recreational patterns of use and there would not be any cumulative effects from this alternative in the short-term. Habitat loss is foreseeable in the long-term as routes are expanded to avoid trail hazards or poorly designed trail segments and expected increased use of the area. The long-term effects of Alternative A would be cumulative to the past, present and foreseeable actions occurring in the project area. Wildlife in the project area have either habituated to the core areas of frequent motorized activity, modified their behavior, or have learned to avoid the area.

(3) Alternative B

(a) Direct Effects

This alternative would directly improve more acres of wildlife habitat than Alterative A. As with Alternative A, habitat improvements would occur in small units along restored road and trails and may take several years to be fully functional. The same concerns over the permanence of trail closures and incremental losses of habitat along poorly designed trail segments would exist in this alternative. Habitat availability would increase slightly for the Mexican spotted owl, Preble’s meadow jumping mouse and other terrestrial wildlife and plant species. This alternative would be particularly beneficial to species dependent on riparian habitats since 22 stream crossings and 12 miles of trail in or within 100’ of a drainage would be closed and there would be a net decrease in trail miles in the WIZ. All newly constructed trails and stream crossings would follow BMPs, reducing erosion potential and minimizing impacts to riparian habitats. Habitat availability would decrease slightly for the Pawnee montane skipper; this alternative would also disturb 0.18 acres of critical habitat for Preble’s meadow jumping mouse. This alternative would reduce the number of acres of habitat affected by noise disturbance by approximately 2000 acres. It would also provide approximately 1,300 more acres of non-motorized habitat than Alternative A. This increase would occur in three large, contiguous units on the north, east and south portions of the project area. Approximately one acre of habitat would be restored in 4B management areas.

Chapter 3 3-33 Rampart Range Recreation Area Motorized Roads and Trails Plan Environmental Assessment

The adverse and beneficial effects to habitat in this alternative are considered minor relative to the amount of wildlife habitat available in the project area.

(b) Indirect Effects

The indirect effects would be similar to Alternative A, however, more trail miles would slightly increase the risk of noxious weed infestations. Three large areas of non-motorized habitat on the north, east and south portions of the project area would improve connectivity between the project area and surrounding habitats.

(c) Cumulative Effects

In general, the cumulative effects of Alternative B would be similar to Alternative A but would provide improvements to some of the most sensitive habitats (aquatic and riparian) in the project area.

(4) Alternative C – Proposed Action

(a) Direct Effects

This alternative reduces the overall footprint of the trail system, concentrating use into a core area. It creates three large units of non-motorized habitat, providing approximately 8,000 more acres of non-motorized wildlife habitat than Alternative A. As a result, this alternative would provide beneficial effects to approximately 8% of the project area and improve more acres of habitat than the other alternatives.

As with Alternative A, some habitat improvement would occur in small units along restored road and trails and may take several years to be fully functional. The same concerns over the permanence of trail closures would exist in this alternative. Habitat availability would increase slightly for the Mexican spotted owl, Pawnee montane skipper, and Preble’s meadow jumping mouse. Because more trail miles would be constructed, the net increase in restored habitat would be less than Alternative B for Federally-listed species. Approximately 0.4 acre of habitat would be restored in 4B management areas. The proposed alternative would also benefit species dependent on riparian habitats since 25 stream crossings and 12 miles of trail in or near drainages would be closed and there would be a net decrease of trail miles in the WIZ. All newly constructed trails and stream crossings would follow BMPs, reducing erosion potential and minimizing impacts to riparian habitats.

This alternative substantially reduces the overall footprint of the trail system, concentrating use into a core area. It creates three large units of non-motorized habitat, providing approximately 8,000 more acres of non-motorized habitat than Alternative A. As a result, this alternative would provide beneficial effects to approximately 8% of the project area.

3-34 Chapter 3 Environmental Assessment Rampart Range Recreation Area Motorized Roads and Trails Plan

(b) Indirect Effects

The indirect effects would be similar to Alternative A, however, more trail miles would increase the risk of noxious weed infestations. Three large areas of non-motorized habitat on the north, east and south portions of the project area would improve connectivity between the project area and surrounding habitats.

(c) Cumulative Effects

In general, the cumulative effects of Alternative C would be similar to Alternative A but would provide improvements to some of the most sensitive habitats (aquatic and riparian) in the project area and would reduce the overall foot-print of activity in the Rampart Range area.

(5) Comparison of Alternatives

Alternative C would reduce the overall foot-print of activity in the project area and create three large areas of non-motorized habitat. As a result, Alternative C would improve more acres of wildlife habitat than the other alternatives. New trail construction would impact more acres in Alternative C; however, trail closures and re-routes would provide improvements to some of the most sensitive habitats (aquatic and riparian) in the project area. Alternative B would provide similar improvements, but to a lesser degree. Alternative A would continue the current pattern of recreational use, resulting in minor beneficial and adverse effects to wildlife habitat.

2. Fisheries and Aquatic Resources a. Affected Environment

The project area is defined by twelve sixth-level watersheds that drain into the Upper South Platte River (see Hydrology Section). These watersheds contain approximately 180 miles of intermittent streams and 78 miles of perennial streams that support or influence fish and other aquatic species in the Upper South Platte River drainage. Both the perennial and intermittent streams also support various amounts of riparian habitat. Riparian vegetation is important to fish because it helps maintain stream channel profiles by protecting banks with soil-binding roots and shielding banks from erosion. It also provides cover, controls temperature, and provides nutrients for aquatic and terrestrial fish food organisms.

Historically, white suckers (Catostomus commersoni), longnose suckers (Catostomus catostomus), longnose dace (Rhinichthys cataractae), creek chubs (Semotllus atromaculatus), and greenback cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki stomias) were known to inhabit project area streams and lakes. Greenback cutthroat trout is federally listed as a threatened species and also serves as a Management Indicator Species (MIS) for the Pike and San Isabel National Forests.

Many years of surveys have concluded that greenback cutthroat trout are no longer present in the project area. Habitat loss, habitat modification and hybridization with or displacement by

Chapter 3 3-35 Rampart Range Recreation Area Motorized Roads and Trails Plan Environmental Assessment non-native trout species has eliminated greenbacks from most of its native range. Suspected specimens in Bear Creek were recently found to be introduced Westslope cutthroat trout. Although there are no records as to when or how this species was introduced, Bear Creek now harbors a pure population of Westslope cutthroat trout that is important to maintain in high ecological condition due to the relative rarity of this subspecies (S. Culver, pers. comm. 2005).

Brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalus), an introduced nonnative species, is the primary aquatic MIS present in the project area. Brook trout maintain self-sustaining populations in a few of the perennial streams in the project area. Competition with brown trout and whirling disease may be contributing to their decline (USDA Forest Service 2001). Recent wildfires and drought have also caused brook trout populations to decline on the forest. Optimal stream habitat for brook trout and other trout species is characterized by clear, cold water; silt-free rocky substrate in riffle-run areas; well vegetated stream banks; abundant instream cover; deep pools; relatively stable flow regime and stream banks; and productive aquatic insect populations.

Naturally reproducing populations of brown trout and rainbow trout occur in the South Platte River and in the lower reaches of the larger project area tributaries. Although the project area occurs below those portions of the South Platte that are considered “Gold Medal” or “wild trout waters”, the overall fisheries quality is considered high and important to local recreational pursuits (USDA Forest Service 2004).

Roads and off-highway vehicle trails can have numerous negative influences on aquatic systems depending upon their location, design and amount and type of use (Trombulak and Frissell 2000, Meyer 2002, Decker et al. 2003). Increased sediment loads are a primary concern for aquatic environments, and highly roaded environments can lead to chronic erosion that reduces the integrity of aquatic systems (Switalski et al. 2004). There are several streams within the project area that are on the State of Colorado’s Monitoring and Evaluation 2002 List, mostly for high levels of sediment and/or water temperature (see Hydrology section). In the Upper South Platte River, the amount and condition of the current road system roads are at least in part contributing to habitat degradation for aquatic species and/or limiting them from reaching their full potential (Winters and Gallagher 1997).

Several recent high-intensity wildfires, such as the Buffalo Creek, Hayman, Hi Meadow, and Schoonover fires, have also substantially altered fish habitat conditions and populations in the Upper South Platte River drainage. However, some riparian areas damaged by these fires and subsequent flood events are recovering and now support a dense new growth of willows along their stream corridors. The chronic disturbances from roads and other human activities may be influencing recovery rates and inhibiting the full expression of recovery in some riparian systems within the project area (Kershner et al. 2003). b. Environmental Consequences

Potential project impacts on fisheries are primarily associated the proposed road and trail crossings in each alternative and the changes these might have on the habitat attributes that are important to cold-water aquatic systems. In general, roads and trails that are within close

3-36 Chapter 3 Environmental Assessment Rampart Range Recreation Area Motorized Roads and Trails Plan

proximity to riparian zones and streams will have a higher risk of indirectly influencing the biotic integrity of aquatic systems due to their potential influences on soils, riparian vegetation and the overall hydrologic function of individual drainages. Increased sediment delivery is a primary concern for aquatic systems, and the soils within riparian zones are particularly sensitive to damage and displacement by motorized vehicles (Meyer 2002).

There are currently 25 and 42 road crossings of perennial and intermittent streams, respectively, within the project area. These do not change between the no action and action alternatives. However, all three action alternatives decommission roads and eliminate crossings of intermittent streams at five locations.

The number of stream crossings along motorized trails varies among alternatives. Currently, there are 11 and 28 trail crossings of perennial and intermittent streams, respectively, within the project area. Alternative B would reduce the number of perennial stream crossings to 10 and the number of intermittent crossings to 20 while constructing 10 new crossings, 90% of which cross intermittent stream channels. Approximately 26 miles of trails that are inconsistent with USFS policies would be closed, including 12 miles of trails within the Water Influence Zone (WIZ). Riparian zones (the WIZ) are major determinants of both the food resources and habitats for fish and other aquatic vertebrates (Gregory et al. 1991) and are particularly sensitive to disturbances that might alter the natural retention of inputs into stream systems. Trail reductions or relocations that occur within riparian zones are therefore expected to reduce potential influences on aquatic systems more so than those that occur in upland areas.

Alternative C would exceed Alternative B and reduce the number of existing perennial and intermittent stream crossings to 6 and 7, respectively. However, Alternative C would also construct 26 new stream crossings and result in a net increase of nine crossings over Alternative A. Approximately 45 miles of trails that are inconsistent with USFS policies would be closed, including 12 miles of trails within the WIZ. Although potential impacts to aquatic systems most likely varies between individual drainages and specific trail locations, Alternative C is expected to provide the greatest overall reduction in risks as associated with disturbances to riparian zones and potential erosion from trail locations. This is expected to reduce the risk of chronic erosion problems that can negatively influence pool habitat and other attributes that are important to fish and other aquatic species.

Alternative B and C propose new stream crossings at a number of locations while Alternative A does not. However, both Alternative B and C would remove and rehabilitate more than 20 trail crossings that are located in sensitive stream and riparian areas. The proposed crossings in Alternative C would also be perpendicular to the streams. This would minimize the distance that the trail travels through the riparian zone and therefore further minimize the risk of impact to aquatic systems.

(1) Effects common to all alternatives

Productivity of aquatic biota is closely linked to the degree of geomorphic complexity and biological integrity of riparian zones (Gregory et al. 1991). In headwater segments of

Chapter 3 3-37 Rampart Range Recreation Area Motorized Roads and Trails Plan Environmental Assessment drainages, riparian zones control the food resources for invertebrate consumers which form the food base for downstream fish communities. Intermittent stream systems also serve a key function due to their influence on downstream channels through the supply of sediment, water, and organic materials. Impacts to aquatic systems are therefore closely associated with processes or activities that influence the retention and contribution ability of riparian zones. Riparian systems are particularly vulnerable to motorized activities disrupt soils and vegetation, which can increase erosion and sediment deposition into waterways.

(a) Direct Effects

All alternatives have the potential to influence aquatic systems due to the presence of roads and trails. Roads and trails primarily have direct effects on soils and vegetative attributes which indirectly influence the aquatic biota. Examples include soil compaction, erosion and sediment production that occur more frequently when roads are in close proximity to riparian zones and stream systems. Roads and trails can also directly influence the hydrological characteristics of individual streams, which may lead to downstream influences on streambank stability, sediment loads, and fish productivity. Roads and stream crossings can also function as barriers to fish movement, or lead to chronic erosion that causes indirect downstream impacts on aquatic biota.

Historically, many trails were developed solely and independently by users without considering environmental impacts or current trail design standards. Erosion from improperly located, designed, and constructed trails can cause impacts to aquatic systems. Designating specific uses, realigning, adding, and decommissioning certain trails would address many of these concerns and are expected to reduce direct impacts to aquatic systems.

(b) Indirect Effects

Roads and trails have several indirect effects on aquatic systems, with increased sedimentation often being particularly influential. Sediment generated from roads and trails can be deposited downstream, changing the channel morphology and watershed response to flood waters. Channels can become wide and shallow, resulting in less suitable habitat for aquatic life and providing conditions that promote increases in water temperature.

(c) Cumulative Effects

The accumulation of small modifications of habitat results in local, regional, or global changes in fisheries. Many of these effects can be sublethal but still alter the growth and productivity of aquatic biota (Burns 1990). Roads and motorized trails are recognized as one of the most important features that contribute to modifications of aquatic habitat (Trombulak and Frissell 2000). In the project area, there are approximately 92 miles of road (excluding Level 1 Roads) and 120 miles of motorized trails that have the potential to influence aquatic systems. These are a subset of approximately 27,000 miles of public road and 30,000 miles of National Forest Systems road have been constructed in Forest Service Region 2 (USDA Forest Service 1998). Reducing problem roads is recognized as a primary method for reducing local influences on aquatic systems (Switalski et al. 2004).

3-38 Chapter 3 Environmental Assessment Rampart Range Recreation Area Motorized Roads and Trails Plan

Past land uses on public and private land within and near the project area have caused long- term modifications of the forest landscape, original stream channels, and riparian vegetation, thus altering the characteristics of fisheries habitat in the project area. These modifications are a result of dams, water diversions, bridges, roads, trails, logging, grazing, mining, fire suppression, homesteading, and agricultural use. The near-elimination of beaver from the South Platte River drainage also had a significant effect on the functions and processes that they provide to aquatic systems (Decker et al. 2003). Recent observations, however, suggest that beaver populations may be increasing and expanding (S. Culver, pers. comm. 2005). Existing impacts from roads, trails, and other development are contributing to cumulative effects through the loss of riparian vegetation, accelerated erosion, and increased sediment transport.

The watersheds in the South Platte River varied from functioning systems that exhibited higher integrity to highly altered, fragmented systems prior to the recent large-scale fires that have occurred. The cumulative effects of past logging, grazing, and fire suppression have indirectly affected the burn severity and extent of recent wildfires that have resulted in severe erosion and sedimentation in the project area. Storm events washed large quantities of sand and gravel from fire-exposed soils into the South Platte River and tributaries. This sediment loading caused channel instability and shifting, increased bank erosion, and increased bed deposition. The extreme flows and sediment also caused fish losses far downstream and damaged large areas of riparian vegetation. Sediment delivered from the burn areas is expected to adversely affect aquatic resources for many years, gradually decreasing as the exposed soils and deposits revegetate and stabilize.

Whirling disease is present in many of the perennial streams in project area. This disease is a parasitic condition affecting fish, primarily rainbow trout. As a result, rainbow trout populations have decreased in some of the affected reaches. Other species, like brown trout, are affected to lesser degrees. Tubifex worms, an intermediate host for whirling disease, may increase due to excess stream-bottom sediments caused by past land uses, recent wildfires, and livestock grazing. New Zealand mudsnail was also recently found in the South Platte River upstream of Cheesman Reservoir. This non-native snail has the ability to reproduce quickly and mass in high densities. They could potentially impact fish food organisms reducing fish production as they spread. Impacts on fisheries caused by whirling disease and New Zealand mudsnail would reduce the effectiveness of proposed and on-going efforts to improve riparian and stream habitat conditions.

Current and future fuels management projects are projected to reduce the risk of catastrophic fires and thus reduce the potential for catastrophic sediment delivery over the long-term. Past and on-going restoration efforts within the burn areas, such as closing roads, mulching, and seeding are also helping reduce erosion and sediment. Improvements in livestock grazing are also expected to improve riparian and stream habitat conditions and have cumulative benefits to the aquatic ecosystem in the South Platte River watershed. OHV and other recreational activities are going to occur in the project area for the foreseeable future and indications are that user numbers will increase. Managing the impacts of these activities is expected to contribute to improved conditions for aquatic species in the project area since sedimentation is a primary management concern.

Chapter 3 3-39 Rampart Range Recreation Area Motorized Roads and Trails Plan Environmental Assessment

(2) Alternative A - No Action

(a) Direct Effects

The no action alternative would most likely result in the highest risk of impact to aquatic species and habitats since it would continue to implement a trail system that is recognized as contributing to a sediment delivery that is detrimental to aquatic systems. Several miles of trail that are adjacent to riparian areas and contributing to the degradation of riparian areas and water quality would not be corrected. Approximately 80% of the existing trail crossings within perennial and intermittent streams would remain in their current location and continue to contribute to chronic erosion problems that may negatively influence the growth and productivity of aquatic biota. However, it is probable that some trail reaches and crossings that are poorly located and designed would be closed in the future in order to minimize detrimental effects to the watershed (as well as coincident safety issues). Trails that are currently closed to motorized users for safety and resource protection would also likely remain closed and efforts would be made to rehabilitate these reaches to improve water quality.

(b) Indirect Effects

The indirect effects of Alternative A are expected to be similar to those described under “Effects Common to all Alternatives”. Sediment delivery into stream channels is a primary indirect influence on the health and productivity of aquatic biota in the project area. Alternative A would most likely provide the highest risk of contributing to the current sediment deliveries into aquatic systems within the project area since it does not reduce known problem areas.

(c) Cumulative Effects

The popularity and use of off-highway vehicles in Colorado has experienced more than a five-fold increase from 1991 to 2001 (USDA Forest Service 2004a). These activities occur on both public and private land and contribute to small modifications of habitat that is primarily expressed by increased sediment loads into aquatic systems. Potential cumulative effects from these activities are expected to be greatest in the no action alternative since impacts would not be properly managed as the number of recreationists increase and have continued access to sensitive environments.

(3) Alternative B

(a) Direct Effects

Alternative B is expected to result in decreased rates of erosion and improvements to water quality due to the proposed relocations and adjustments in motorized trails. For example, over 12 miles of trails located in the WIZ would be closed and over 20 stream crossings in sensitive areas would be removed. These proposals are expected to have moderate benefits to aquatic systems since they eliminate several of the recognized problem areas that are contributing to local sediment deliveries.

3-40 Chapter 3 Environmental Assessment Rampart Range Recreation Area Motorized Roads and Trails Plan

Approximately 4.3 miles of new trail construction within the WIZ would occur under this alternative. Closing and reconstructing trails is expected to create some short-term disturbances that may contribute to sediment loss. However, the removal of problem roads has been shown to reduce chronic erosion, particularly when the roads are associated with stream crossings (Switalski et al. 2004). The new trails would also be reconstructed or designed to standards intended to minimize erosion and sediment contribution into stream channels and aquatic systems, thereby reducing the overall influences on aquatic systems.

(b) Indirect Effects

The indirect effects of Alternative B are expected to reflect those described under “Effects Common to all Alternatives”. For example, sediment delivery and potential impacts to aquatic systems will not be eliminated. However, these impacts are expected to be reduced since several trails and stream crossings will be reduced and/realigned that are contributing to erosion and sedimentation. Alternative B therefore reduces the risk that the current sedimentation rates will continue to be expressed in the aquatic system and reduces the potential impacts that this may have on pool habitat, stream temperatures, and other attributes that are important to aquatic biota.

(c) Cumulative Effects

Potential cumulative effects on aquatic biota are difficult to quantify since they can be additive and interactive in a variety of ways and involve complex spatial and temporal relationships (Burns 1990). For the purposes of this analysis, however, it is assumed that the elimination of small modifications of habitat will also reduce potential cumulative effects. Alternative B is anticipated to reduce the risk that cumulative effects will be as influential as in Alternative A since several problem areas are addressed that contribute to modifications of habitat and in particular, to sedimentation. However, maintenance and monitoring will be needed to assure that trails located on steeper slopes and remaining sensitive areas do not degrade and produce additional sediment into the watershed from erosion. The reduction of cumulative effects may also be expressed in individual stream channels or segments, and not necessarily within entire drainages where other modifications exist.

(4) Alternative C – Proposed Action

(a) Direct Effects

Alternative C is anticipated to provide the greatest beneficial effects to aquatic systems since it addresses the most known problem areas and provides the least risk that chronic erosion will continue to be associated with specific trail locations. As in Alternative B, over 12 miles of trails located in the WIZ would be closed and over 20 stream crossings in sensitive areas would be removed. Trails in close proximity to the South Platte River and other sensitive areas would also be removed. The trail relocation would include perpendicular stream crossings that reduce the amount of riparian area influenced by parallel trail systems.

Chapter 3 3-41 Rampart Range Recreation Area Motorized Roads and Trails Plan Environmental Assessment

Approximately 5.8 miles of new trail construction within the WIZ would occur under this alternative. This is slightly greater than that proposed in Alternative B, and may create some short-term disturbances that contribute to sediment loss. However, additional long-term benefits to aquatic systems are anticipated since Alternative C addresses a greater proportion of the known problem areas. As in Alternative B, the new trails would be reconstructed or designed to standards intended to minimize erosion and sediment contribution into stream channels and aquatic systems, thereby reducing the overall influences on aquatic systems.

(b) Indirect Effects

The indirect effects of Alternative B would continue to reflect those described under “Effects Common to all Alternatives” since all potential impacts and sedimentation risks will not be eliminated. However, the risk that these impacts would be as significant as those associated with Alternative A or B would be reduced since additional existing stream crossings would be addressed and impacts to additional riparian trails would be eliminated. Alternative C would also remove trails from several key drainages. This is anticipated to further reduce the risk that current sedimentation rates will continue and reduces the potential impacts that sediment delivery may have on pool habitat, stream temperatures, and other attributes that are important to aquatic biota.

(c) Cumulative Effects

Alternative C is anticipated to reduce the risk that cumulative effects will be as influential as in Alternatives A or B since several additional problem areas are addressed that contribute to small modifications of habitat. As in Alternative B, however, maintenance and monitoring will be needed to assure that trails located on steeper slopes and within remaining sensitive areas do not degrade and produce additional sediment from erosion. Monitoring and evaluation will be particularly important given the current and projected increase in motorized recreational pursuits on public lands.

(5) Comparison of Alternatives

A comparison of alternatives in relationship to the desired condition for aquatic systems is best performed by evaluating differences in small modifications of habitat and the risk that these modifications will contribute to sedimentation, riparian zone impacts, increased water temperatures, or other impacts on aquatic biota. Alternative C is expected to provide the greatest benefit to aquatic systems since it addresses the most problem areas and thereby reduces the risk that impacts will continue. Alternative B also addresses many of the known problem areas. However, it does not address as many known site-specific problem areas and is therefore associated with a greater risk that chronic erosion or other problems will continue without additional maintenance and monitoring. Alternative A provides the greatest risk that impacts to aquatic systems will continue and perhaps increase since it addresses few of the impacts that are known to be occurring in spite of the fact that motorized recreation is increasing. Alternative C is therefore anticipated to best meet the desired future condition for aquatic systems, which includes managing forest uses in a manner that meets water quality

3-42 Chapter 3 Environmental Assessment Rampart Range Recreation Area Motorized Roads and Trails Plan

standards and provides for healthy, viable populations of fish and wildlife species (USDA Forest Service 1984, pg. III-203).

3. Vegetation and Timber Management a. Affected Environment

As described further in the Terrestrial Wildlife section, forested and woodland areas comprise the majority of the project area with ponderosa pine and Douglas fir being the two major species (CDOW, 2005b). In the past, natural fire played a role in thinning and opening stands of ponderosa pine to create areas that were open and park-like. Past fire control in the area has allowed stands in many areas to become denser and less open, creating a greater potential for intense fires. Other plant communities comprising a small proportion of the project area include aspen, gamble oak, and grasslands.

As part of the forest management program, mechanical thinning and controlled burns have been used. The Russell Ridge area underwent mechanical thinning in 2002 to reduce overly dense vegetation and ladder fuels. A portion of the area was treated with prescribed fire in October 2003. Areas in the Indian Creek area also received mechanical thinning treatments in 2004 (USFS 2004a).

Other factors affecting vegetation include impacts from insect outbreaks, including the Douglas-Fir tussock moth, Orgyia pseudotsugata. Years of forest management emphasizing fire prevention and suppression, along with other management practices have resulted in a gradual shift from ponderosa pine to Douglas-fir. This change in forest composition and structure has resulted in large areas that are more susceptible to large scale to outbreaks (USFS, 2002c). The Forest Service has an ongoing treatment plan for the area.

b. Environmental Consequences

(1) Effects Common to All Alternatives

(a) Direct Effects

Vegetation communities will be common to all alternatives. Direct effects are described in Table 3-11. Positive gains in vegetation are due to road and trail restoration.

Chapter 3 3-43 Rampart Range Recreation Area Motorized Roads and Trails Plan Environmental Assessment

Table 3-11: Area (acres) of Impact to Plant Communities.

Community Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C

Ponderosa Pine +17 +11 +7

Douglas Fir +18 +5 -16

Other 1 +3 +8 +5

Total Change +38 +24 -4

Area calculations based on a width of 10 feet for trails open to use by OHVs, a width of 4 feet for trails open only to single track vehicle use, and a width of 15 feet for decommissioned roads. The impacts due to parking only occur in Alternative C to douglas fir plant community. 1 Communities include: aspen, grassland, lodgepole pine, riparian, and spruce/fir. + net gain of vegetation due to trail construction and trail/road decommissioning - net loss of vegetation due to trail construction and trail/road decommissioning

(b) Indirect Effects

All alternatives will provide adequate road access for any future timber or vegetation treatment activities. If any new roads are needed for future management, they will be analyzed as part of that individual project. It is anticipated that these roads, if any are needed, will be temporary (less than 1 year) in nature, open only for administrative access, and rehabilitated and reseeded when no longer needed.

Illegal trails created in the area will impact the vegetation resource. Trail reaches that have been closed and restored will be revegetated to native species. However, relocation and construction of new trail reaches will result in the removal of vegetation. Continued use of this area will allow the introduction of weeds into the area displacing native vegetation.

(c) Cumulative Effects

Vegetation in the area has been altered by human impacts, disease and fire. On-going and reasonably foreseeable activities in the project area include: timber treatments, prescribed fire, permitted and noxious weed control.

(2) Alternative A – No Action

(a) Direct Effects

As more recreation use occurs in the area, an increase in user created roads and trails may be expected. People driving off roads for the purpose of illegally gathering firewood would increase the number of roads thus causing more resource damage and potential vegetation loss. Though land would be restored in this alternative, existing trails may still impact sensitive habitat areas.

3-44 Chapter 3 Environmental Assessment Rampart Range Recreation Area Motorized Roads and Trails Plan

(b) Indirect Effects

Impacts to vegetation may help to promote the establishment of weeds.

(c) Cumulative Effects

Effects of Alternative A will be the same as that described in “ Cumulative Effects Common to All Alternatives”

(3) Alternative B

(a) Direct Effects

Trail construction will remove vegetation closing trail sections and relocation of trails out of the immediate riparian area will help to minimize the impact to vegetation. Areas that are closed will be restored and revegetated with native species. Some areas of vegetation will be removed due to construction of new and realigned sections of trail.

(b) Indirect Effects

Impacts to vegetation may help to promote the establishment of weeds. A reduction in the impacts to vegetation, especially in riparian areas, will help to reduce soil erosion and help maintain higher water quality in streams.

(c) Cumulative Effects

Effects of Alternative B will be the same as that described in “ Cumulative Effects Common to All Alternatives”

(4) Alternative C – Proposed Action

(a) Direct Effects

Trail and parking area expansion result in a net loss of vegetation. However, closing trail sections and relocation of trails will reduce impacts to sensitive habitat areas and help mitigate losses. Areas that are closed will be restored and revegetated with native species.

(b) Indirect Effects

Impacts to vegetation may help to promote the establishment of weeds. A reduction in the impacts to vegetation, especially in riparian areas, will help to reduce soil erosion and help maintain higher water quality in streams. Because trails are located in the upper reaches of the watersheds for this alternative, a greater benefit to the reduction of erosion promoting enhanced water quality will likely be realized as riparian areas would be less affected.

Chapter 3 3-45 Rampart Range Recreation Area Motorized Roads and Trails Plan Environmental Assessment

(c) Cumulative Effects

Effects of Alternative C will be the same as that described in “ Cumulative Effects Common to All Alternatives”

(5) Comparison of Alternatives

Alternative C would provide for the greatest amount of protection to the vegetation resource as trails would be located and constructed using BMPs and would thus minimize the distance of trails in riparian areas. Alternative C results in net loss of vegetation.

4. Noxious Weeds a. Affected Environment

Forest Service Manual (FSM) 2080.5 defines noxious weeds as “Those plant species designated as noxious weeds by the Secretary of Agriculture or by the responsible State official. Noxious weeds generally possess one or more of the following characteristics: aggressive and difficult to manage, poisonous, toxic, parasitic, a carrier or host of serious insects or disease, and being native or new to or not common to the United States or parts thereof”. Weeds can be introduced into an area by natural means such as seeds carried by wind or introduced by wildlife moving from areas where weeds are present. Other potential sources that contribute to the introduction of weeds include livestock, motorized and non motorized vehicles, and human activities. Seed material can be introduced to an area by attaching to fur, vehicles, mud attached to vehicles, and to clothing and dislodging in the area. Weeds are most commonly found adjacent to roads, trails, camping areas and parking areas. Areas that are disturbed by human activities or that may be overgrazed by livestock or wildlife are often areas where weeds first occur. In the project area weeds were noted along some roadside areas and around the perimeter of several parking areas as well as in the riparian area of Jackson Creek.

Populations of weed species identified in the project area include: diffuse knapweed (Centaurea diffusa), spotted knapweed (Centaurea maculosa), Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense), musk thistle (Carduus nutans), Russian thistle (Salsola iberica), yellow toadflax (Linaria vulgaris), Dalmatian toadflax (Linaria genistifolia ssp. dalmatica), oxeye daisy (Chrysanthemum leucanthemum), scentless chamomile (Matricaria maritima), leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula) and cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum). GIS mapping of weed populations in the project area by the USFS indicates the majority of infestations are associated with roads, specifically State Highway 67 along Sugar Creek, the Russell Ridge drainage, Indian Creek Campground, Topaz Point along Rampart Range Road, Long Hollow Road and sections along Jackson Creek Road north of Rampart Range Road.

The Forest Service has an active program of weed control for these species.

3-46 Chapter 3 Environmental Assessment Rampart Range Recreation Area Motorized Roads and Trails Plan

b. Environmental Consequences

(1) Effects Common to All Alternatives

(a) Direct Effects

A common source for the introduction of weeds into an area is by incidental deposition of seed material from vehicles (cars, trucks and OHV’s) that enter a particular area. RRMRA has numerous vehicles that enter the area, some of which may have recently been to an area where weeds were present. As user numbers are anticipated to increase over time, so will the potential of additional weeds to be introduced into the area. In addition, the use and impacts of OHV’s in the area will provide disturbed areas that will favor the establishment of weeds.

(b) Indirect Effects

The presences of weeds can have an effect on the distribution of wildlife in the area as some weed populations can replace habitat and displace wildlife that uses that habitat.

(c) Cumulative Effects

On-going and reasonably foreseeable human activities in the project area, including recreation, will increase the transport of weeds. On-going programs would be used to mitigate the impacts.

(2) Alternative A – No Action

(a) Direct Effects

Effects of Alternative A on weeds will be the same as that described in “ Direct Effects Common to All Alternatives”

(b) Indirect Effects

Effects of Alternative A on weeds will be the same as that described in “ Indirect Effects Common to All Alternatives”

(c) Cumulative Effects

Effects of Alternative A on weeds will be the same as that described in “ Cumulative Effects Common to All Alternatives”

(3) Alternative B

(a) Direct Effects

Effects of Alternative B on weeds will be the same as that described in “ Direct Effects Common to All Alternatives”. However, dispersion could be accelerated with the creation of new trails.

Chapter 3 3-47 Rampart Range Recreation Area Motorized Roads and Trails Plan Environmental Assessment

(b) Indirect Effects

Effects of Alternative B on weeds will be the same as that described in “ Indirect Effects Common to All Alternatives”

(c) Cumulative Effects

Effects of Alternative B on weeds will be the same as that described in “ Cumulative Effects Common to All Alternatives”

(4) Alternative C – Proposed Action

(a) Direct Effects

Effects of Alternative C on weeds will be the same as that described in “ Direct Effects Common to All Alternatives”. However, dispersion could be accelerated with the creation of new trails. With the incorporation of the Visitor Contact Center, the public can be educated on the impacts that noxious weeds have on the environment and learn how to minimize these impacts through education programs. The implementation of BMP’s described in Chapter 2 will minimize negative effects.

(b) Indirect Effects

Effects of Alternative C on weeds will be the same as that described in “ Indirect Effects Common to All Alternatives”

(c) Cumulative Effects

Effects of Alternative C on weeds will be the same as that described in “ Cumulative Effects Common to All Alternatives”

(5) Comparison of Alternatives

Alternative C could accelerate the dispersion of noxious weeds. Alternative C would also have the greatest impact to help reduce weeds in the project area as educational opportunities will be presented to the public at the visitor center. Alternatives A and B will not change the management of weeds from its current condition.

D. Economic and Social

1. Recreation a. Affected Environment

Annual visitation is estimated to be 3.8 million visitors for the PSICC. The South Platte District, based in Morrison, CO and the Pikes Peak District based in Colorado Springs, CO receive large volumes of recreation visitor use due to their proximity to the Colorado Front

3-48 Chapter 3 Environmental Assessment Rampart Range Recreation Area Motorized Roads and Trails Plan

Range. In 1998, there were an estimated 2.2 million recreation visits to the South Platte District alone (USFS, 2004). The recreation demands placed on the District are diverse, with approximately 70% of the use occurring as dispersed activities. These activities include motorcycle and ATV trail riding, 4WD riding, sightseeing, driving for pleasure, camping, picnicking, hunting and fishing, hiking and backpacking, horseback riding, mountain biking and rock climbing, (Sporl et al., 1998). Recreational use occurs throughout the year with summer and fall being the most heavily used times. Winter recreation, such as cross-country skiing and snowmobiling are largely dependent upon the weather, however during most years there is not enough snow for snowmobiling to occur (USFS, 2004).

Residents of the Denver metropolitan area comprise the majority of recreation users in the area. Motorized recreation is by far the most popular activity in the project area. The National Visitor Use Monitoring (NVUM) project was completed in 2002 by the USFS in the PSICC. The results of this study indicated that off-highway vehicle (OHV) use (including 4- wheelers, dirt bikes, etc.) is third (10.1%) only to scenic viewing (18%), and hiking and walking (17.5%), as the primary activity for surveyed PSICC users. As this study represents the entire PSICC, it is expected that the percent of users solely within RRMRA whose primary activity is motorized recreation would be higher than for the entire PSICC. For example, a count conducted on July 16, 2001 indicated that approximately 140 vehicles used the road to Dutch Fred. Of these vehicles, approximately only 20% were non motorized users such as mountain bikers and car campers (Recreation Solutions, 2001).

The Forest Roads located on the Pikes Peak Ranger District primarily function as routes for recreationists to access certain portions of the forest. Some people utilize these roads for pleasure driving and/or sightseeing purposes including four-wheel drive motorized users, mountain bikers, and horseback riders. As shown Chapter 2, the road segments are located in 6 MAs in the Project Area; 2A (Semi-Primitive Motorized Recreation Opportunities), 2B (Rural and Roaded-Natural Recreation Emphasis), 4B (Management Indicator Species), 7A (Wood Fiber Production Utilization), 7D (Wood Fiber Production Utilization for Products other than Sawtimber) and 9A (Riparian Management). Most roads are located in 2B which permits motorized and non-motorized recreation activities, such as driving for pleasure, viewing scenery, picnicking, fishing, and snowmobiling.

Because the RRMRA supports a variety of user types, both motorized and non-motorized, conflicts can occur on the road system. Street legal motorcycles as well as non street legal ATV’s and non licensed motorcycles often travel Rampart Road (a class 3 road) creating a safety issue. Larger 4 wheel drive vehicles are limited to roads which are also commonly shared with licensed OHVs. Approximately 11 miles of Class 2 roads are available for these users. One of the more popular and longer routes for 4 wheel drive vehicles is along Daken Road, located in the southeastern portion of the project area. Other similar areas are found in the South Park District of the PSICC and include roads such as Boreas Pass, Breakneck Pass, Brown Pass and China Wall, Signal Butte Trail, Crystal Creek Road, Trail Creek Campground, Bug Turkey Campground, and Wildhorn Campground.

A network of over 100 miles of designated motorize trails exists in the project area offering a variety of routes ranging in difficulty from easy to very difficult. Users are limited to the

Chapter 3 3-49 Rampart Range Recreation Area Motorized Roads and Trails Plan Environmental Assessment designated trails system and informal trails are subject to immediate closure. Restrictions on types of use of key trails are present are marked, however violations are common. Restrictions are present for OHVs and ORVs wider than 50 inches. In many cases, the grade of trails makes use beyond motorcycles difficult. Based on recent sales, the popularity of OHV’s is increasing. It has also been observed that the number of ATV users is increasing at a more rapid rate than other OHV use.

Though a variety of trails are present, the experience on many trails is declining. Resource damage makes some trails impassible and can result in closure. Interviews with users found that; the variety of trails is sparse; trail conditions are degrading; there is a lack of loops; lack of long trails; signage is inadequate; and there are no opportunities for dirt bike riders, except for ATV trails. Users also noted that more recently designed trails are greatly improved, both from the user and environmental standpoints. Overall, it was clear to users that the motorized trail network lacked an overall plan.

The designated trails system has received a great deal of maintenance from local OHV clubs who obtain grant funds for this purpose. Even with ongoing maintenance, the location and design of some trails have resulted in the closure by Special Order due to poor resource condition. In many cases trails are located in areas inconsistent with Management Areas or objectives in the Forest Plan.

Non-motorized use also occurs on the RRMRA. Four established campgrounds are currently available in the Recreation Area and include Indian Creek, Flat Rocks, Devils Head and Jackson Creek in addition to 60 smaller camp sites. Horseback riding, hiking and mountain bike opportunities are available on trails located north of Hwy 67. The South Platte River along much of the western boundary of the project area is a major recreation area in Colorado and is highly regarded for its “Gold-Medal” trout fishery. Hiking occurs on designated roads and trails in the RRMRA. A number of motorized trails are located in the 4B management area. These motorized trails are not only very popular with ATV quad and motorcycle riders, but are also utilized by hikers, mountain bikers, and equestrians. A short stretch of the Colorado Trail is present in the northern portion of the study area. Another popular trail used by visitors is the 1.4 mile foot trail to Devils Head Lookout Tower. This is an active fire observation station manned during the high fire summer season. Adjacent recreation opportunities include Chatfield and Roxborough State Parks. b. Environmental Consequences

Key factors considered in the evaluation of direct, indirect and cumulative impacts of the alternatives include:

• Public access

• Recreation opportunities and experiences

• Crowding and density issues

• Affects to Forest Plan Management Areas and ROS direction

3-50 Chapter 3 Environmental Assessment Rampart Range Recreation Area Motorized Roads and Trails Plan

The amount of designated roads in the RRMRA, approximately 92 miles, does not vary among the alternatives. As shown in Table 3-12, Alternative B and C provide a result of net gains in total trail; however both see a slight reduction in existing ATV trail than in the No Action Alternative.

Table 3-12: Motorized Trail by Alternative.

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C MOTORIZED CLASS (miles) (%) (miles) (%) (miles) (%) Existing Full Size Vehicle, ATV and Single Track Trail* 11 9% 11 9% 11 7% Existing ATV Trail (allows single track use)** 84 70% 87 70% 48 32% Existing Single Track 24 20% 0 0% 8 5% New Full Size Vehicle, ATV and Single Track Trail* 0 0% 7 5% 7 5% New ATV Trail (includes realignments)** 0 0% 20 16% 34 23% New Single Track Trail (includes realignments) 0 0% 0 0% 41 28% Total Trails * 120 100% 125 100% 149 100% Closed Trail 11 NA 26 NA 45 NA

(1) Effects Common to All Alternatives

(a) Direct Effects

Increasing demand for motorized recreation opportunities is common to all alternatives. Since the amount of road does not vary amongst alternatives, impacts attributed to soil erosion would be the same. As demand is increasing, the problems associated with increased use, including erosion, user conflicts, noise, and wildlife impacts will likely increase for all alternatives, but may vary in the degree to which these impacts occur. Any new recreation amenity and new trail construction and alignment will result in improvement of the overall recreational experience for the use and be constructed to reduce impacts. Under all alternatives, 16 miles Forest Road miles would remain closed to motorized use. All existing and new informal, unclassified roads would continue to be signed as closed and restored. Since most of these roads are currently closed and do not contribute to the travel system, no significant effect would occur to recreation.

The motorized trail system is modified within each alternative. Even though all alternatives are generally consistent with the Forest Plan, the No Action alternative does not fully achieve the Plan’s objectives due to impacts to natural resources. Table 3-13 summarizes the net changes in motorized trails by the Forest Plan Management Areas as compared to existing conditions and demonstrates consistency with each management class.

Chapter 3 3-51 Rampart Range Recreation Area Motorized Roads and Trails Plan Environmental Assessment

Table 3-13: Motorized Trail Modifications by Management Area.

Zone 2a Zone 2B Zone 3A Zone 4B Zone 7A Zone 7D Zone 9A ROS -Semi- ROS- ROS-Semi- ROS-Semi- ROS -Semi- ROS -Semi- ROS-Semi- Primitive Roaded Primitive Primitive Non- Primitive Primitive Primitive Motorized Natural Non- Motorized Motorized Motorized Non- Motorized /Motorized Motorized

Alternative A

Alternative B

Alternative C

Increase in motorized trails

Decrease in motorized trails

No change motorized trails

Direct effects of any new recreational amenities, trail realignments and new trail construction will result in the improvement in the motorized trail system and the recreational experience of users.

(b) Indirect Effects

Indirect effects will be the same in all alternatives and include littering, trespassing, creation of informal trails and other impacts generally associated with visitor use.

(c) Cumulative Effects

Changes in the State’s recreational preferences, increasing population and the improvement of amenities will continue to fill recreational demands of the local and regional population. Continued improvements to the road system on the western edge of Denver will increase accessibility to the area. The result will be the need to manage great numbers of people with varying recreational needs. The result could be the creation of informal roads and trails which negatively affect watershed condition if not properly managed. Ongoing planning initiatives along Front Range will serve to coordinate recreation management and services on the Pike, Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests and Pawnee National Grasslands. Programs such as the Front Range Recreation Alignment will attempt to provide seamless recreation management with consistent rules and regulations such as motor vehicles on designated roads and trails only, designated sites to park and camp and consistent travel management signing. Overall, these effects will help protect natural resources.

3-52 Chapter 3 Environmental Assessment Rampart Range Recreation Area Motorized Roads and Trails Plan

(2) Alternative A - No Action

(a) Direct Effects

Under this alternative, many trails enjoyed by users would temporarily remain assessable. Since many trails are located in areas incompatible with Forest Service directives and the Forest Plan, these trails would eventually be closed, resulting in a net decrease in trail miles. The result of the action would be the loss of motorized recreation to many areas of the Recreation Area.

Since there will be a net loss of trails over time, a gradual overcrowding of existing trails will occur. Visitor density will most likely increase, leading to management issues such as visitor conflicts, public safety issues, and increased trail maintenance. Furthermore, increased density leading to trail conflicts may result in a further drop in visitor satisfaction. A decrease in resource condition will also occur as a result of the concentrated use on fewer trails. Many of the trails currently closed under this alternative would require extensive repair and rehabilitation to get them back to an acceptable level of safety and resource sustainability. Depending on the extent of rehabilitation work required, current closures would remain in place until the long-term feasibility of the trail is determined and resources are obtained to correct issues based on the determined action.

(b) Indirect Effects

In addition to indirect effects previously mentioned, traditional users who have historically frequented the area for pleasure driving, sightseeing (from a vehicle), or OHV riding may become displaced, or forced to find other areas to carry out their recreational activities. These acts of substitution are already happening as road closures have occurred in other areas (USFS, 2004). The creation of informal trails to supplement an inadequate motorized trail system may result. Other indirect impacts that may occur include a decrease in non- motorized user satisfaction as resource damage and conflicts increase.

(c) Cumulative Effects

Effects of Alternative A will be the same as that described in “ Cumulative Effects Common to All Alternatives”

(3) Alternative B

(a) Direct Effects

Many trails incompatible with Forest Service directives and the Forest Plan would be relocated and reopened. The result will be a trail system equal to the current amount of trails found in the Recreation Area. Under Alternative B, current motorized recreation opportunities would be maintained. Since there will be a marginal net gain of trails over time (5 miles), there will be a gradual overcrowding of existing trails. Visitor density will most likely increase, leading to management issues such as visitor conflicts, public safety issues, and increased trail maintenance. Furthermore, increased density leading to trail conflicts

Chapter 3 3-53 Rampart Range Recreation Area Motorized Roads and Trails Plan Environmental Assessment may result in a drop in visitor satisfaction. A decrease in resource condition will also occur as a result of the concentrated use on fewer trails

Under Alternative B, there would be no distinction of trail by user type, therefore eliminating all existing single track from the system. As all trails would permit use by both single and double tracked OHV vehicles, greater degrees of access by all user types may be seen. However, as all trails will be open to all user types, this may also lead to on-trail conflict and unfulfilled recreational needs. Under this alternative, there will also be no loop trails; no long distance trails, thus eliminating some degree of variety in trails for the users. The result would be the continuation or decrease in the current level of user satisfaction.

Alternative B is consistent with the Forest Plan which permits motorized recreation activities in within designated management areas. Under this alternative, trails are increased primarily in Management Area 2A, but to a lesser degree than Alternative C. The management area has an ROS class of Semi-Primitive Motorized and has a management emphasis directed at providing motorized recreation opportunities. A large amount of trail remains present in Management Area 2 B which has an ROS class of Roaded Natural. Trails were also increased in 7B which has an ROS class of Semi-Primitive Motorized. Trails were reduced in Management Area 4B and 9A in which the management emphasis is this area is to protect habitat. Management emphasis is this area is to protect wildlife. Trails were also reduced in 7A which has an ROS class of semi-primitive motorized and encourages low to moderate contact and management emphasis directed toward forest management. No trails are present or were added to area Management Area 3A which has an ROS class of semi-primitive non- motorized.

(b) Indirect Effects

Indirect effects of Alternative B will be the same as that described in Alternative A, but to a lesser degree.

(c) Cumulative Effects

Effects of Alternative B will be the same as that described in “ Cumulative Effects Common to All Alternatives”

(4) Alternative C – Proposed Action

(a) Direct Effects

The Proposed Action would have a positive direct impact to recreation opportunities and user satisfaction. The increase in amount of trail, trail for key user types, longer trails, loop trails and trails designed to improve the recreational experience will have a positive benefit. Under Alternative C, there would be an overall increase in motorized recreation opportunities. There will be a total of 29 miles more than the No Action Alternative and 24 more miles than Alternative B. Since there will be an increase in trails over time, there will be a reduction in overcrowding on existing trails. This will lead to an overall greater user experience and an increase in user satisfaction. Under this alternative, visitor density will be further dispersed

3-54 Chapter 3 Environmental Assessment Rampart Range Recreation Area Motorized Roads and Trails Plan

to longer single loop trails which could help to reduce management issues such as visitor conflicts, public safety issues, and trail maintenance, as well as providing for a more sustainable trail system.

This alternative focuses on providing trails for different user experiences. Long distance trails are created, new single track opportunities are provided, trails for technical riders and new looped systems for ATV riders. New trail will be designed to ensure less maintenance and long-term sustainability. Trail construction standards will also be implemented in order to provide for greater user satisfaction and resource protection.

This alternative is consistent with the Forest Plan which permits motorized recreation activities in within designated management areas. Under this alternative, trails are increased primarily in Management Area 2A, which has an ROS class of Semi-Primitive Motorized and has a management emphasis directed at providing motorized recreation opportunities. A large amount of trail remains present in Management Area 2 B which has an ROS class of Roaded Natural. Trails were reduced in Management Area 4B and 9A in which the management emphasis is this area is to protect habitat. No trails are present or were added to area Management Area 3A which has an ROS class of semi-primitive non-motorized.

This alternative will provide well marked and clearly distinguishable trails for various user types. Improvements at parking areas will ensure that visitors understand how to properly use the trail system. New signage and public education materials will focus on way finding, safety and environmental protection.

(b) Indirect Effects

Indirect effects will the improvement in user satisfaction for non-motorized recreation users. The creation of three large contiguous non-motorized areas wills benefit hiking and equestrian users. There will also be a benefit for users of the Colorado Trail since motorized use adjacent to this area will be removed. The creation of a well designated motorized trail system adequate for all user types should result in the reduction of the creation of informal trails.

(c) Cumulative Effects

Effects of Alternative C will be the same as that described in “ Cumulative Effects Common to All Alternatives”

(5) Comparison of Alternatives

Alternative C would result in an improvement of recreation opportunities and user satisfaction. Alternative B would maintain current levels of recreation opportunities and satisfaction. Alternative A would result in a decrease both factors.

Chapter 3 3-55 Rampart Range Recreation Area Motorized Roads and Trails Plan Environmental Assessment

2. Land Use a. Affected Environment

The project area is located primarily within Douglas County. In 1920, the population of Douglas County was 3,517; by the year 2000, Douglas County’s population had grown to 175,766. One key growth area of Douglas County includes Highlands Ranch, located just northeast of the project area. Other communities located near the project area include the municipalities of Lone Tree, Castle Rock, Deckers, Palmer Lake, Sedalia, and Larkspur. Adjacent public lands include Roxborough and Chatfield State Park as well as small parcels of land owned by the State Land Board. The Recreation Area is comprised of 84,826 acres of public land under the jurisdiction of the USFS, 1,362 acres administered by other governmental agencies and 30 private in-holdings comprising 5,059 acres. Key residential subdivisions identified by Douglas County located in or close to the project are described in Table 3-14.

Table 3-14: Subdivisions. Subdivision Name Within Recreation Area Adjacent to Recreation Area Roxborough Park North X Southdowns at Roxborough X Morgan Convenience Center X Heinle Acres X Russell Ridge X Enchantment X Nighthawk Hills X Pine Hills X The Rock Estates X Rainbow Falls North X Ferguson Subdivision X Valley Park X Vaux Ranchette X Woodmoor Mountain X Thunder Butte X Trout Creek Ranch X Fredonia Ranch X WestCreek Lakes X Source: Douglas County.

b. Environmental Consequences

(1) Effects Common to All Alternatives

This section examines the project’s potential effects on land use and access. The primary land use issues associated with the project are related to potential physical conflicts with private land uses or restriction of access. Other issues examined in this section include the project’s potential conflict with the applicable land use and resource management plans of federal, state, and local agencies. The project would be considered to have a significant impact on land use:

• Permanently preclude a permitted or current land use over a substantial area;

3-56 Chapter 3 Environmental Assessment Rampart Range Recreation Area Motorized Roads and Trails Plan

• Permanently displace existing, developing, or approved uses;

• Substantially conflict with applicable general and regional plans and/or approved or adopted policies, goals, or operations of communities or governmental agencies.

(a) Direct Effects

Recreation use is expected to increase in all alternatives. No land uses will be precluded or displaced due to these activities. The Pike and San Isabel National Forests; Comanche and Cimarron National Grasslands (PSICC) Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) as amended (October, 1984) provides long-term management direction for the entire project area. As discussed in the Recreation section, Alternatives B and C are consistent with Forest Plan Management Area Guidance. The area is also designated by Douglas County for rural land use activities and is therefore consistent.

(b) Indirect Effects

Indirect effects from noise due to increasing recreation use will continue to occur.

(c) Cumulative Effects

Conflicts between motorized recreation uses and land uses are expected to increase as rural estate subdivisions continue to be located in and around the Recreation Area.

(2) Alternative A – No Action

(a) Direct Effects

Direct effects of Alternative A will be the same as that described in “ Direct Effects Common to All Alternatives”.

(b) Indirect Effects

Indirect effects of Alternative A will be the same as that described in “ Indirect Effects Common to All Alternatives”.

(c) Cumulative

Cumulative effects of Alternative A will be the same as that described in “ Cumulative Effects Common to All Alternatives”.

(3) Alternative B

(a) Direct Effects

Direct effects of Alternative A will be the same as that described in “ Direct Effects Common to All Alternatives”.

Chapter 3 3-57 Rampart Range Recreation Area Motorized Roads and Trails Plan Environmental Assessment

(b) Indirect Effects

New elements associated with Alternative B would be located in sparsely populated areas containing isolated residential developments. Indirect impacts from trails in proximity to private parcels could occur. As discussed in the subsequent sections, most residential areas are currently experiencing infrequent noise from existing OHV use. Residential areas are primarily concentrated in the eight subdivisions located within the Recreation Area. The proximity of new or realigned trails to existing developed subdivisions is described in Table 3-15.

Table 3-15: Subdivisions Proximity Alternative B.

Subdivision Name Approximate Distance to New or Realigned Trails Morgan Convenience Center 16,000 feet Heinle Acres 9,500 feet Russel Ridge 10,700 feet Nighthawk Hills 7,000 feet Pine Hills 2,000 feet Rainbow Falls North 4,400 feet Ferguson Subdivision 9,000 feet Thunder Butte 18,000 feet Source: Douglas County / EDAW GIS.

New trail alignments of Alternative B would cross existing roads. Final design of the trails would attempt to avoid conflicts with transportation routes as much as practicable. Trail construction would most likely not require a temporary closure of any roads.

(c) Cumulative

Cumulative effects of Alternative B will be the same as that described in “ Cumulative Effects Common to All Alternatives”.

(4) Alternative C – Proposed Action

(a) Direct Effects

Direct effects of Alternative C will be the same as that described in “ Direct Effects Common to All Alternatives”.

(b) Indirect Effects

New elements associated with Alternative C would be located in sparsely populated areas containing isolated residential developments. Indirect impacts from trails in proximity to private parcels could occur. As discussed in the subsequent sections, most residential areas are currently experiencing infrequent noise from existing OHV use. Residential areas are primarily concentrated in the eight subdivisions located within the Recreation Area. The proximity of new or realigned trails to existing developed subdivisions is described in Table 3-16. Since most trails are sited in areas where existing trails are present, disturbance

3-58 Chapter 3 Environmental Assessment Rampart Range Recreation Area Motorized Roads and Trails Plan

will be limited. Additional efforts were made to avoid siting new trails near developed private land and to use topography to minimize noise and visual impacts.

Table 3-16: Subdivisions Proximity Alternative C.

Subdivision Name Approximate Distance to New or Realigned Trails Morgan Convenience Center 18,000 feet Heinle Acres 5,000 feet Russell Ridge 4,000 feet Nighthawk Hills 4,000 feet Pine Hills 500 feet Rainbow Falls North 4,800 feet Ferguson Subdivision 10,500 feet Thunder Butte 16,700 feet Source: Douglas County / EDAW GIS.

Other benefits would occur from the closure of formal trails and roads in close proximity to private land holdings. In addition, informal trails and roads not part of the designated travel management system will be closed. The formalization of the road and trail system will also discourage trespassing on public lands.

New trail alignments of the proposed action would cross existing roads. Final design of the trails would avoid conflicts with transportation routes as much as practicable. Trail construction and the expansion of existing parking areas would most likely not require a temporary closure of any roads.

(c) Cumulative

Cumulative effects of Alternative C will be the same as that described in “ Cumulative Effects Common to All Alternatives”.

(5) Comparison of Alternatives

No direct impacts are anticipated under any alternative. Indirect impacts could occur with Alternatives B and C as use occurs in new areas. Improvements in the trail system may result in the decrease of informal trails and trespassing on private parcels.

3. Noise a. Affected Environment

Noise generally is defined as unwanted or annoying sound that typically is associated with human activity and that interferes with or disrupts normal activities. Although exposure to high noise levels has been demonstrated to cause hearing loss, the principal human response to environmental noise is annoyance. The response of individuals to similar noise events is diverse and influenced by the type of noise, the perceived importance of the noise and its appropriateness in the setting, the time of day and the type of activity during which the noise occurs, and the sensitivity of the individual. Therefore, the “A-weighted” noise scale, which weights the frequencies to which humans are sensitive, is used for measurements. Noise

Chapter 3 3-59 Rampart Range Recreation Area Motorized Roads and Trails Plan Environmental Assessment levels using A-weighted measurements sometimes are written as dB(A) or dBA. In this EA, all noise levels discussed are A-weighted and dBA is understood to identify the A-weighted decibel.

Average noise levels over a period of minutes or hours usually are expressed as dB Leq, the equivalent noise level. The period of time average may be specified; Leq(3) would be a 3-hour average.

Human perception of noise has no simple correlation with acoustical energy. The perception of noise is not linear in terms of dBA or in terms of acoustical energy. Two noise sources do not sound twice as loud as one source. It is widely accepted that the average healthy ear can barely perceive changes of 3 dBA, increase or decrease; that a change of 5 dBA is readily perceptible; and that an increase (decrease) of 10 dBA sounds twice (half) as loud (Caltrans 1998). Table 3-17 provides examples of common activities and the sound levels associated with those activities.

From the source to the receiver, noise changes both in level and frequency spectrum. The most obvious change is the decrease in noise as the distance from the source increases. The manner in which noise reduces with distance depends on the following important factors: ground absorption, atmospheric effects and refraction, shielding by natural and man-made features, noise barriers, diffraction and reflection. For a point noise source, such as construction equipment, the attenuation or drop-off in noise level would be at least -6 dBA for each doubling of unobstructed distance between source and the receiver. For a line noise source, such as vehicles traveling on a roadway, the attenuation or drop-off in noise level would be approximately -3 dBA for each doubling of unobstructed distance between source and the receiver.

Table 3-17: Typical Noise Levels.

Noise Level Common Outdoor Activities Common Indoor Activities (dBA) --110-- Rock Band Jet Fly-over at 300 m (1,000 ft) --100-- Gas Lawn Mower at 1 m (3 ft) --90-- Diesel Truck at 15 m (50 ft), Food Blender at 1 m (3 ft) --80-- at 80 km/hr (50 mph) Garbage Disposal at 1 m (3 ft) Noisy Urban Area, Daytime --70-- Vacuum Cleaner at 3 m (10 ft) Gas Lawn Mower, 30 m (100 ft) Commercial Area --60-- Normal Speech at 1 m (3 ft) Heavy Traffic at 90 m (300 ft) Quiet Urban Daytime --50-- Large Business Office, Dishwasher in Next Room Quiet Urban Nighttime --40-- Theater, Large Conference Room (Background) Quiet Suburban Nighttime --30-- Library Quiet Rural Nighttime --20-- Bedroom at Night, Concert Hall (Background) --10-- Broadcast/Recording Studio Lowest Threshold of Human Hearing --0-- Lowest Threshold of Human Hearing Source: Caltrans, 1998.

A large object in the path between a noise source and a receiver can significantly attenuate noise levels at that receiver. The amount of attenuation provided by this “shielding” depends on the size of the object, and frequencies of the noise levels. Natural terrain features, such as

3-60 Chapter 3 Environmental Assessment Rampart Range Recreation Area Motorized Roads and Trails Plan

hills and dense woods, as well as man-made features, such as buildings and walls, can significantly alter noise levels. For example, noise from a line source in a heavily forested area would typically attenuate at a rate of 4.5 dBA instead of 3 dBA as described above.

The project area is located in Douglas County. Key growth areas include Highlands Ranch, located just northeast of the area. Other communities located adjacent to the Recreation Area include the municipalities of Lone Tree, Castle Rock, Deckers, Palmer Lake, Sedalia, Littleton and Larkspur. Adjacent public lands include Roxborough and Chatfield State Park, as well as small parcels of land owned by the State Land Board.

Sensitive Receptors Human noise-sensitive receptors are generally considered persons who occupy areas where noise is an important attribute of the environment. These areas often include residential dwellings, mobile homes, hotels, motels, hospitals, nursing homes, education facilities, and libraries. Noise-sensitive receptors also may include wildlife, including certain songbirds. The nearest sensitive human receptors based on Douglas County subdivisions and their distances from the existing trails are shown in Table 3-18.

Table 3-18: Proximity of Existing Trails to Residential Subdivisions in the Project Area. Subdivision Predominant Land Use in Nearest Approximate Distance to Name Subdivision Existing Trail Existing Trails Feet Morgan Convenience Center Residential # 690 6,100 Heinle Acres Residential # 692 3,600 Russel Ridge Residential # 693 3,100 Nighthawk Hills Residential # 693 2,900 Pine Hills Residential # 673 500 Rainbow Falls North Residential # 649 4,000 Ferguson Subdivision Residential # 678 6,300 Thunder Butte Residential # 649 14,800 Source: Douglas County / EDAW GIS

b. Environmental Consequences

(1) Effects Common to All Alternatives

(a) Direct Effects

Noise associated with maintenance of existing trails would continue under all alternatives, but would not be significant due to the short-term and intermittent nature of the activities. Additionally, noise levels from OHV use on existing trails would continue.

(b) Indirect Effects

Indirect noise impacts are related primarily to vehicles using area and regional roadways to access the project area. Noise levels along affected roadways would continue to increase as use of the area increased due to growing popularity of OHV activities. As a general rule, a doubling of traffic volumes will generate a barely perceptible increase (3 dBA) in noise

Chapter 3 3-61 Rampart Range Recreation Area Motorized Roads and Trails Plan Environmental Assessment levels. It is unlikely that the affected roads would experience a doubling of traffic volumes in the foreseeable future.

(c) Cumulative Effects

Conflicts between motorized recreation uses and land uses are expected to increase, as rural estate subdivisions continue to be located in and around the Recreation Area and use of the Recreation Area increases.

(2) Alternative A - No Action

(a) Direct Effects

Under the No Action Alternative, no new facilities or trails are planned. Noise associated with maintenance activities would continue, but would not be significant due to the short- term and intermittent nature of the activities. Noise levels in areas adjacent to existing trails would continue to increase as use of the park increased; and there would be potential for additional increases as people used or created unauthorized trails, potentially bringing them closer to sensitive receptors.

(b) Indirect Effects

Indirect noise impacts are related primarily to vehicles using area and regional roadways to access the project area. As previously discussed, noise levels associated with the regional growth and increased use of the area, due to growing popularity of OHV activities, is not anticipated to substantially increase noise levels.

(c) Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects of Alternative A will be the same as that described in “ Cumulative Effects Common to All Alternatives”.

(3) Alternative B

(a) Direct Effects

Alternative B would create or realign approximately 27 miles of trails and close approximately 26 miles of trails. The majority of the realigned trails under Alternative B are located within a few hundred feet of the corresponding original trails and further from sensitive receptors, which would result in noise reductions at several sensitive receptor locations, with the exception of the relocation of trail 674, which would be closer to Pine Hills community. Realigning trail 674 would increase noise levels in the southern portion of Pine Hills by approximately 4 dBA, which would be noticeable, but not substantial. New trails proposed under Alternative B are located several miles from sensitive receptors and would not substantially change noise levels at known sensitive receptors. Other direct effects analyzed under the No Action Alternative would also occur under Alternative B.

3-62 Chapter 3 Environmental Assessment Rampart Range Recreation Area Motorized Roads and Trails Plan

(b) Indirect Effects

The indirect effects analyzed under the No Action Alternative would continue to occur under Alternative B.

(c) Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects of Alternative B will be the same as that described in “ Cumulative Effects Common to All Alternatives”.

(4) Alternative C – Proposed Action

(a) Direct Effects

Alternative C has the greatest potential to change the noise levels within the Recreation Area and at sensitive receptors. Alternative C would close many of the outlying trails and create new trails in a more defined area, thus creating more areas where the OHV noise is less disturbing at the cost of potentially increasing noise levels at areas already affected by OHV noise.

Alternative C would create or realign approximately 82 miles of trails and close approximately 45 miles of trails. The majority of realigned trails under Alternative C are similar to those realigned under Alternative B. Notable exceptions are the realignment of trails 692, 678 and 649 in the southwestern portion of the project area, which would be closed under Alternative C. Trail 674 would be realigned the same under Alternative C as under Alternative B, and would have similar impacts in the Pine Hills community.

New trails proposed under Alternative C are predominately located in the central eastern portion of the park with two notable exceptions: a singletrack loop trail for advanced riders north of the Nighthawk Hills community along the alignment for trail 693, and a new singletrack tour loop located in the southern portion of the project area. These new trails are generally located further from noise sensitive receptors than existing trails and thus would not substantially affect noise levels at affected receptors. An exception to this would occur in the central portion of the project area between trails 674/675 and 690 where new trails would be added. The nearest noise sensitive receptors to this area are located in the Pine Hills community. However, noise levels from the additional trails would are not anticipated to increase noise levels beyond those identified for the realignment of Trail 674.

The closing of trail 692 would result in a beneficial effect in the northern portion of the project area, south of the Colorado Trail, by reducing noise levels in that area and allowing patrons to enjoy the natural soundscape. Other direct effects analyzed under the No Action Alternative would also occur under Alternative C.

Chapter 3 3-63 Rampart Range Recreation Area Motorized Roads and Trails Plan Environmental Assessment

(b) Indirect Effects

The indirect effects analyzed under the No Action Alternative would continue to occur under Alternative C.

(c) Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects of Alternative C will be the same as that described in “ Cumulative Effects Common to All Alternatives”.

(5) Comparison of Alternatives

Construction noise from Alternatives B and C would be similar to maintenance activities under Alternative A. Alternative B would have similar operational noise impacts as Alternative A, the primary difference occurring at the Pine Hills community where noise levels would increase but would not be substantial. Alternative C would create larger areas with lower ambient noise levels by closing several trails, and condensing the overall trail system into a smaller area where several trails currently exist. Alternative C would have similar effects on the ambient noise levels in the Pine Hills Community as Alternative B.

4. Transportation System a. Affected Environment

Nearly all of the existing road system on Pike National Forest System lands has been developed from the demand for access to natural resources and recreational opportunities. There are 108 miles of classified roads within the Recreation Area; maintenance level (ML) 1 roads (closed to the public) account for 16 miles, ML 2 roads (maintained for high clearance vehicles) total 22 miles, ML 3 roads (maintained for passenger vehicles) total 42 miles, and ML 4 roads (maintained for passenger vehicles, moderate rate of speed) account for 28 miles.

Table 3-19 shows an inventory of Forest Service roads and trails in the project area. Primary access around and through the RRMRA area is from the east via Colorado State Highway 67, a maintenance class 4 road. This road passes through the Recreation Area and also provides access to Deckers, a popular trout fishing destination, as well as various residences and small businesses in the area. Daily traffic volumes average approximately 1000 vehicles per day, with over 4000 vehicles per day anticipated by the year 2020. Future plans anticipate that Highway 67 will continue to be a minor arterial. Future improvements to that area could be the addition of regional transit to the east of the Recreation Area. No new roads are planned within the project area ( Douglas County, 2003).

Rampart Road, a ML 3 road, is the major north-south running dirt gravel road in the project area. Rampart Road is cabled over much of its length the first 9 miles to discourage entry onto the road from ATVs. Rampart Road passes through the Recreation Area and eventually ends at Manitou Springs just east of Colorado Springs.

3-64 Chapter 3 Environmental Assessment Rampart Range Recreation Area Motorized Roads and Trails Plan

Table 3-19: Roads and Trails.

Road or Tail (miles) Maintenance Level 2 Roads* 22 Maintenance Level 3 Roads* 42 Maintenance Level 4 Roads 28 Motorized Trails 120 Maintenance Level 1/ Re-vegetated Roads* 16 Closed Motorized Trail 11

Other secondary access is listed in the Roads Analysis, found in Appendix C. These roads are primarily native surfaced and low volume, providing access for recreation, mining, private in-holdings and other traditional uses. Roads in the area are adequate for the traffic demands, although the need for maintenance in areas is evident. Continual maintenance of roads is needed to ensure safety for vehicular use.

According to the Hayman Roads Analysis (2004), annual maintenance costs for ML 2 roads averages $409 per mile and for ML 3 roads it is $5,329 per mile. Deferred maintenance is maintenance that was not performed when scheduled and was delayed until a future time due to budget constraints. Deferred maintenance costs for ML 2 roads within the PSICC averages $771 per mile and for ML 3 roads it is $16,506 per mile. The lack of maintenance can accelerate the deterioration of these roads, which means that over time, adverse environmental impacts and safety concerns become increasingly more important to address when deciding the future management of these roads.

As described in the Recreation section, over 120 miles of trail is available for motorized use, both ATV and single-track vehicles. These trails are available to non-motorized uses, complementing the non-motorized trails available on the northern portion of the project area. A reach of the Colorado Trail is also present in this area. Rampart Range Road is closed to larger vehicles from December 1 through April 1. Snowmobile use also occurs on Rampart Road when snow conditions are favorable. b. Environmental Consequences

Table 3-20 describes the proposed road system under each alternative. No changes in the road system are planned between alternatives. Additional information can be found in Appendix C- Roads Analysis. An increasing amount of closed trails are planned in Alternatives B and C; however, the overall amount of motorized trails will be increased.

Chapter 3 3-65 Rampart Range Recreation Area Motorized Roads and Trails Plan Environmental Assessment

Table 3-20: Transportation System.

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C MOTORIZED CLASS (miles) (%) (miles) (%) (miles) (%) Roads

Maintenance Level 2 Roads* 22 24% 22 24% 22 24% Maintenance Level 3 Roads* 42 46% 42 46% 42 46% Maintenance Level 4 Roads 28 30% 28 30% 28 30% Total Roads (Excludes Level 1 Roads) 92 100% 92 100% 92 100% Maintenance Level 1/ Re-vegetated Roads* 16 NA 16 NA 16 NA

(1) Effects Common to All Alternatives

(a) Direct Effects

The desired future condition of the transportation system provided by the Forest Plan is to manage the transportation system for increased cost effectiveness, efficiency, and utility. As described in Appendix C, no major changes in the road system are planned. Previously identified Class 1 roads, designated due to resource damage, should remain. Poorly designed or maintained roads promote erosion and landslide, degrading riparian and wetland habitat through sedimentation and changes in stream flow and water temperature, with associated reductions in fish habitat and productivity. Work required to keep these roads closed would be the installation of gates or physically blocking the entrances to these roads with fences, barricades or signs. No maintenance, mitigation or specific monitoring measures would be implemented for the closed roads, except for periodic monitoring of the closed roads to make sure the gates, fences, signs, etc. are still in place. Unclassified roads would remain closed and decommissioned.

Designated roads currently opened serve key functions necessary for the operation of the Recreation Area. Designated roads that are currently open would remain open, and would be maintained as needed and as funding allows. Overall, the management of the travel system is consistent with the Forest Plan. Road management focuses on the management of the existing system, which includes closures to protect soil, water and wildlife resources. Modifications in the motorized trail network are described in the Recreation section.

(b) Indirect Effects

Since no major changes are anticipated, there may be minor increases in competition for the use of existing routes. Interpretation and enforcement would be needed to eliminate or reduce noncompliance with travel regulations. Temporary roads may be needed to conduct other management activities, such as prescribe burns and timber harvests.

Limiting road networks reduces the potential for erosion, maintains surface soil layers in a stable or protected state, and decreases the potential for erosion and deposition in area streams and reservoirs. Proper maintenance of authorized roads and rehabilitation of closed

3-66 Chapter 3 Environmental Assessment Rampart Range Recreation Area Motorized Roads and Trails Plan

roads, including drainage systems, are key elements to limiting impacts from roads on wildlife, riparian areas, streams, and watersheds.

(c) Cumulative Effects

Increases in population and recreation use will continue to put pressure on the existing transportation system.

(2) Alternative A - No Action

(a) Direct Effects

This alternative uses existing roads and trails as the foundation; however, additional user created routes may still present a problem due to the lack of public education, law enforcement, and inconsistent signing. No new roads and trails are anticipated as part of the alternative. Roads and trails would continue to be closed if resource damage is present. The overall transportation system would be reduced. Road and trail miles would be the least, reducing access. Safety and environmental concerns would continue as road and trails are not redesigned and relocated to avoid known issues. This would lead to increased user conflicts, resource damage, and increased cost associated with the system.

(b) Indirect Effects

No modification in the road network is planned. In some cases, trails would remain in sensitive habitat resulting in increased maintenance costs. In other cases, trails would remain in areas that would result in increased conflicts with non-motorized recreation uses and wildlife.

Increased uncontrolled access may allow people to travel into previously un-accessed areas, resulting in indirect impacts such as ground and habitat disturbance, increased pressure on wildlife species, increased litter, sanitation needs and vandalism.

(c) Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects of Alternative A will be the same as that described in “ Cumulative Effects Common to All Alternatives”.

(3) Alternative B

(a) Direct Effects

No changes are proposed in the road system; however, the trail system would be improved. The public would benefit by having a better system of trails that provide reasonable access. However, the recreational experience may not be improved. User conflicts between motorized users, especially between ATV and single track users, would increase.

Chapter 3 3-67 Rampart Range Recreation Area Motorized Roads and Trails Plan Environmental Assessment

(b) Indirect Effects

The long-term per unit maintenance costs would be reduced once the system is brought up to standard. The elimination of degraded trails and relocation of trails out of sensitive areas would reduce maintenance cost per mile of trail.

(c) Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects of Alternative B will be the same as that described in “ Cumulative Effects Common to All Alternatives”.

(4) Alternative C - Proposed Action

(a) Direct Effects

No major changes are proposed in the road system; however, the trail system would be improved. The public would benefit by having a better system of trails that provide reasonable access for all types of activities. User conflicts are likely to decrease because of consistent signing, better maintenance, and increased public education. It is anticipated that fewer law enforcement problems and user created routes will occur because the local community was closely involved in the development of this alternative.

(b) Indirect Effects

The long-term per unit maintenance costs would be reduced once the system is brought up to standard. The elimination of degraded trails and relocation of trails out of sensitive areas would reduce maintenance cost per mile of trail.

(c) Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects of Alternative C will be the same as that described in “ Cumulative Effects Common to All Alternatives”.

(5) Comparison of Alternatives

Alternative C would result in the improvement of the travel system. A formalize travel system would be put into place that consisted of clearly designated roads and trails. The trail system in this alternative would be improved and increased. Alternative B would maintain the current system. Alternative A may result in a decrease in accessibility.

5. Social and Economic a. Affected Environment

The project area is located in Douglas County. Other communities located adjacent to the Recreation Area include the municipalities of Lone Tree, Castle Rock, Deckers, Palmer Lake, Sedalia, and Larkspur. Economic and demographic data for these small communities

3-68 Chapter 3 Environmental Assessment Rampart Range Recreation Area Motorized Roads and Trails Plan

is not regularly collected or reported by state or national agencies, so county-level information is used to highlight trends in the area. In 1920, Douglas County had a population of 3,517. By the year 2000, Douglas County’s population had grown to 175,766 (DOLA,2005) and is currently one of the fastest growing counties in the state. According to Douglas County, households in the County will growth from 56,900 in 2000 to 146,100 household by 2020 resulting in a population of over 400,000. An analysis of the County’s Regional Statistic Area demonstrates that the project area and adjacent area has approximately 2,700 households equating to over 8,000 people. This area is expected to grow to 5,800 households, or over 17,000 people. Employment forecasts anticipate the project area and adjacent lands will grow from 1,200 jobs to over 3,000 by 2020. In contrast, Douglas County will grow from 54,000 to 114,000 jobs by 2020. (Douglas County 2003)

As noted in the Recreation section of this document, continued growth in the area will likely increase the demand for recreational opportunities and access to the Forest. People will also continue to demand Forest products and amenities in terms of wood products, water, wildlife, and the scenic backdrops that draw people to the area to live and work.

As described in the Recreation section, recreational demands in the area will continue to be similar for all alternatives. The potential change in allowable use and miles of use by each alternative are unlikely to affect general use of the area. There is information that both motorized and nonmotorized users contribute to the local economy as they access the Forest for day and overnight trips. The USDA Forest Service National Visitor Use Monitoring survey indicates the average expenditures for goods and services within 50-miles of a site, per person, per trip is approximately $280 (USFS, 2002a). The Colorado Off-Highway Vehicle Coalition (COHVCO, 2001) completed a survey of the economic contribution of OHV use in Colorado. The survey shows that residents can spend between $86 and $102 per person on a day trip and between $264 and $339 per person on an overnight. Day trips for non-residents are similar, and expenditures for overnight non-residents range between $712 and $923.

(1) Effects Common to All Alternatives

(a) Direct Effects

The direct effects include the cost of implementing the project. The estimated costs of implementing each alternative are discussed within each Appendix E. This cost could include the possibility of volunteer efforts and grant moneys to support the reconstruction, closure, or maintenance of any part of the trail system. Under any alternative, partnerships will always be considered as a valuable method for completing maintenance work, educating user groups, and community involvement opportunities. The cost analysis also does not include the possibility of phasing construction over a long period of time.

It is unlikely that changes in the existing trail system would make a dramatic difference in expenditures by users. Under Alternative B and C, a large variety of recreational opportunities would be available. Alternative C would also provide unique opportunities for key user groups. Alternative A, may result in resource concerns, potentially deterring visitation.

Chapter 3 3-69 Rampart Range Recreation Area Motorized Roads and Trails Plan Environmental Assessment

(b) Indirect Effects

Any facility or improvements in the trail system may increase visitor satisfaction potentially increasing expenditures in the area.

(c) Cumulative Effects

The cumulative effect any tourist based improvements to the region would be a net increase in the tourism and its associate revenues. Increase traffic and population in the area could also act as deterrent. As similar improvements occur in other areas, users will be given more choices of where to recreate resulting in a potential benefit to other areas.

(2) Alternative A - No Action

(a) Direct Effects

There would very minor expenditures needed for new facility construction, new trails or realigned trails. However, maintenance trail cost per mile would increase as no changes will be made to poorly designed and located trails.

(b) Indirect Effects

Alternative A provides users with the same recreation opportunities; however resource damage may result in the continued closure of trails. Degraded and closed trails may result in decreasing user satisfaction levels. Return visitation levels may slightly decrease affecting local commercial enterprises.

(c) Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects of Alternative A will be the same as that described in “ Cumulative Effects Common to All Alternatives”.

(3) Alternative B

(a) Direct Effects

Cost estimates for trail enhancements and restoration, facility improvements and signage are over $600,000. Maintenance cost per mile of trail would be reduced as a result of the redesign and relocation.

(b) Indirect Effects

Alternative B focuses on the provision that motorized trails offer a great deal of flexibility. For some, this lack of formalization is appealing. The ability to cater to these user groups could be a benefit to local commercial enterprises, including camping concessionaires, local stores and other associated entities.

3-70 Chapter 3 Environmental Assessment Rampart Range Recreation Area Motorized Roads and Trails Plan

(c) Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects of Alternative B will be the same as that described in “ Cumulative Effects Common to All Alternatives”.

(4) Alternative C – Proposed Action

(a) Direct Effects

Cost estimates for trail enhancements and restoration, facility improvements, signage and parking expansion are over $2,000,000. The implementation of the new system will be phased over the next five to ten years. Maintenance cost per mile of trail would be reduced as a result of the redesign and relocation.

(b) Indirect Effects

Alternative C addresses many of the concerns outlined in Chapter 1. The alternative focuses on the provision of amenities and motorized trails that might improve the recreational experience of users. For some, these improvements are of great importance and will influence their choice of recreation destinations. The configuration of the motorized trail system has also created large areas available to non-motorized users, resulting in an increase in these activities. The ability to better meet recreational demand could be a benefit to local commercial enterprises, include camping concessionaires, local stores and other associated entities. This alternative is consistent with the Forest Plan which states that resource activities such as road and trail construction and recreation site development add to local economies by providing jobs, goods, and services.

(c) Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects of Alternative C will be the same as that described in “ Cumulative Effects Common to All Alternatives”.

(5) Comparison of Alternatives

Alternative C would result in the most maintenance and construction cost. However, per unit maintenance cost should decrease. Alternative C would be implemented over the next 5 to 10 years to ensure adequate construction and maintenance funding is available. Local businesses will see a slight increase in expenditures on goods than Alternatives A and B.

E. Effects Summary

1. Irretrievable and Irreversible Commitment of Resources

There are no known irretrievable and/or irreversible commitments of resources for this project.

Chapter 3 3-71 Rampart Range Recreation Area Motorized Roads and Trails Plan Environmental Assessment

2. Reasonable Foreseeable Future Actions

Reasonable foreseeable future actions include the Hayman Fire Roads Management Plan and ongoing insect control programs, fire restoration and fuels treatment projects. The Hayman Fire Roads Management Plan provides direction on road management and is directly incorporated into this document for applicable areas. Other future activities related to regional initiatives will address camping and parking in the project area.

3-72 Chapter 3 Environmental Assessment Rampart Range Recreation Area Motorized Roads and Trails Plan

CHAPTER 4. LIST OF PREPARERS AND CONTRIBUTERS

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:

A. ID Core Team Members

Randy Hickenbottom South Platte District Ranger, Pike National Forest, South Platte Ranger District John R. Kirkaldie Team Leader, NEPA Coordination, Pike National Forest, South Platte Ranger District Bruce Meighen Team Leader, NEPA Coordination, EDAW Scott Dollus Recreation Planner, Pike National Forest, South Platte Ranger District Tom Keith NEPA, EDAW

B. Extended ID Team Members

Curtis Fair Archaeologist, Pike National Forest, South Platte Ranger District Ron Vigil Recreation Planner, Pike National Forest, South Platte Ranger District Deb Entwistle Hydrologist, Pike National Forest, South Platte Ranger District Denny Bohon Biologist, Pike National Forest, South Platte Ranger District Mike Elson Biologist, Pike National Forest, South Platte Ranger District Dana Butler Hydrologist, Pike National Forest, South Platte Ranger District Ken Kanaan Soil Scientist/Ecologist, Pike National Forest, South Platte Ranger District Steve Priest Recreation Lands Staff, Pike National Forest, South Platte Ranger District Mary Tyler Website, Pike National Forest, South Platte Ranger District Brian Banks GIS Specialist, Pike National Forest, South Platte Ranger District Terry McCann Public Affairs, Pike National Forest, South Platte Ranger District

Chapter 4 4-1 Rampart Range Recreation Area Motorized Roads and Trails Plan Environmental Assessment

Gary Schafer Fire Management Specialist, Pike National Forest, South Platte Ranger District Chad Schneckenburger Recreation Planner, EDAW Drew Stoll Recreation Planner and GIS, EDAW Craig Severn Ecologist, EDAW Diana Leiker Public Outreach, EDAW Nicole Korbe Public Outreach, EDAW Bill Maddux Air and Noise, EDAW Maria Michieli-Best Secretary/Recorder, EDAW Linda Spangler Technical Editing, EDAW Phil Hendricks Design, EDAW

Kelley Savage Design, EDAW

Shelley LaMastra Design, EDAW

Randy Ghormley Aquatic Resources, Rio Grande National Forest

Steve McCloskey Engineering, Pike National Forest, South Platte Ranger District

C. Federal, State and Local Agencies

US Forest Service Environmental Protection Agency Colorado State Parks Colorado Department of Transportation Colorado Division of Wildlife Douglas County Open space Douglas County State Historic Preservation Office U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

D. Tribes

Eastern Shoshone Tribe Jicarilla Apache Tribe Kiowa Tribe of Oklahoma Northern Cheyenne Tribe Northern Arapahoe Tribe Southern Cheyenne and Arapahoe Tribes of Oklahoma

4-2 Chapter 4 Environmental Assessment Rampart Range Recreation Area Motorized Roads and Trails Plan

Southern Ute Tribe Ute Indian Tribe Ute Mt. Ute Tribe of Indians Comanche Tribe

E. Others

The following organized groups provided written input to the environmental analysis:

Colorado Quad Runners Parker Elizabeth Riding Club Rampart Range Motorcycle Committee (RRMC) Colorado Motorcycle Trail Riders Association (CMTRA) Colorado Off-Highway Vehicle Coalition (COHVCO) COLO MOUNTAIN CLUB Colorado Mountain Club – Denver Sierra Club American Motorcycling Association (AMA) Colorado Wild Vickery Motorsports Southern Rockies Conservation Alliance CMC/CEC CQR Tennessee Walking Horse association of Colorado (TWHAC) PERC/PTR/AHR Bighorn 4x4 Club Dakan Mountain District Four Wheel Drive Rampart Motorcycle Blue Ribbon Coalition Grand Prix Motorsports Equestrian ICRIA Riding Club Elbert Horse Council Mile High Mustangs Central Colorado Wilderness Coalition Upper Arkansas and South Platte Project Rocky Mountain Recreation Initiative Nighthawk Subdivision

Including the above groups, approximately 600 persons, clubs or organizations provided written input during the scoping process. The name of every person or organization that provided written input is not listed here due to space, but is available in the Project Record located at the South Platte Ranger District.

Chapter 4 4-3

This page intentionally left blank

APPENDIX A – GLOSSARY

This page intentionally left blank

Environmental Assessment Rampart Range Recreation Area Motorized Roads and Trails Plan

APPENDIX A – GLOSSARY

A

Affected Environment – The physical and human-related environment that is sensitive to changes resulting from the proposed actions.

Airshed – A geographic area that, due to topography, meteorology, and climate, shares the same air.

All terrain vehicles (ATVs) - Vehicles that are designed for off-road use. They have three or more wheels.

Alternative – A mix of management prescriptions applied to specific land areas to achieve a set of goals and objectives. The alternatives provide management direction for the proposed project that reflects identified public and management concerns for the Decision Area.

B

Best Management Practices (BMPs) – Practices determined by the State to be the most effective and practical means of preventing or reducing the amount of water pollution generated by non-point sources, to meet water quality goals.

Big Game – Those species of large mammals normally managed as a sport hunting resource.

Biological Diversity (Biodiversity) – The relative distribution and abundance of different plant and animal communities within an area.

Biological Assessment/Evaluation – A documented Forest Service review of activities in sufficient detail determines how an action may affect any threatened, endangered, proposed or sensitive species.

C

Classified Road – A road that is constructed or maintained for long-term highway vehicle use. Classified roads may be public, private or forest development.

Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) – An advisory council to the President, established by NEPA. It reviews federal programs for their effect on the environment, conducts environmental studies and advises the President on environmental matters.

Cultural Resources – The remains of sites, structures, or objects used by humans in the past historic or prehistoric.

Appendix A A-1 Rampart Range Recreation Area Motorized Roads and Trails Plan Environmental Assessment

Cumulative Effect – The impact on the environment that results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other action. Cumulative impacts can also result from individually minor, but collectively significant, actions taking place over a period of time.

D

Decommissioning – Some of the roads are discussed in terms of “decommissioning”. This term is used to refer to a specific type of road closure. On a decommissioned road, access would be controlled by means of a moderately sized berm or “tank trap” impassable to vehicles but capable of being easily bulldozed to permit vehicle passage if the road is reopened in the future. For all decommissioned roads, water bars are installed, the roadbed is seeded, all culverts are removed, and self-maintaining cross road drainage is provided.

Developed Recreation – Recreation dependent on facilities provided to enhance recreation opportunities in concentrated use areas. Examples are ski areas, resorts and campgrounds.

Dispersed Recreation - Recreation that occurs outside of developed recreation sites requiring few, if any, facilities, or other improvements and includes such activities as hunting, hiking, viewing scenery and cross-country skiing.

E

Ecosystem – Any community of organisms along with its environment, forming an interacting system.

Effects (or impacts) – Environmental consequences (the scientific and analytical basis for comparison of alternatives) because of a proposed action. Effects may be either direct, which are caused by the action and occur at the same time and place, indirect, which are caused by the action and are later in time or farther removed in distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable, or cumulative.

Endangered Species – Any plant or animal species that is in danger of extinction throughout all, or a significant portion of its range (Endangered Species Act of 1973).

Environmental Assessment (EA) – A concise public document which serves to: a. briefly provide sufficient evidence and analysis for determining whether to prepare an EIS or a finding of No Significant Impact; b. Aid an agency’s compliance with NEPA when no EIS is necessary.

Ephemeral Streams – Streams that flow only as a direct response to rainfall of snowmelt events. They have no base flow.

Erosion – The detachment and transport of individual soil particles by wind, water, or gravity.

A-2 Appendix A Environmental Assessment Rampart Range Recreation Area Motorized Roads and Trails Plan

F

Fauna – Animals, including lesser forms such as insects, mites, etc.

Floodplain – The lowland and relatively flat areas adjoining inland and coastal waters, including, at a minimum, that area subject to a one percent of greater chance of flooding in any given year.

Flora – Plants

Forage – All browse and non-woody plants that are available to livestock or game animals and used for grazing or harvested for feeding.

Forest Development Road – A road wholly or partially within or adjacent to a National Forest System boundary that is necessary for the protection, administration, and use of National Forest lands, which the Forest Service has authorized and over which the agency maintains jurisdiction.

G

Graminoid – All grasses and grass-like plants, including sedges and rushes.

H

Habitat – The sum total of environmental conditions of a specific place occupied by a wildlife species or a population of such species.

Habitat Type – An aggregation of all land areas potentially capable of producing similar plant communities at climax stage.

I

Indicator Species – See Management Indicator Species.

Indirect Effects – Secondary effects which occur in locations other than the initial action or significantly later in time.

Interdisciplinary (ID) Team – A group of professional specialists with expertise in different resources that collaborate to develop and evaluate management alternatives.

Intermittent Streams – A stream that runs water in most months, but does not run water during the dry season of most years.

Irretrievable – Applies to losses of production, harvest, or a commitment of renewable natural resources. For example, some or all of the timber production from an area is irretrievable lost during a time an area is used as a winter sports (recreation) site. If the use is

Appendix A A-3 Rampart Range Recreation Area Motorized Roads and Trails Plan Environmental Assessment changed, timber production can be resumed. The production lost is irretrievable, but the action is not irreversible.

Irreversible – Applies primarily to the use of nonrenewable resources, such as minerals, or cultural resources, or to those factors that are renewable only over long-time spans, such as soil productivity. Irreversible also includes loss of future options.

Issue – A subject of question of public discussion of interest to be addressed or discussed in the planning process.

L

Land Allocation – The assignment of a management emphasis to particular land areas with the purpose of achieving goals and objectives.

M

Management Area – Geographic areas, not necessarily contiguous, which have common management direction, consistent with the Forest Plan allocations.

Management Direction – A statement of multiple use and other goals and objectives, along with the associated management prescriptions and standards and guidelines to direct resource management.

Management Indicator Species – A species selected because its welfare is presumed to be an indicator of the welfare of other species sharing similar habitat requirements. A species of fish, wildlife, or plants that reflect ecological changes caused by land management activities.

Management Prescriptions – A set of land and resource management policies that, as expressed through Standards and Guidelines, creates the Desired Future Condition over time.

Maintenance Level – See Road Maintenance.

Mitigation – Actions to avoid, minimize, reduce, eliminate, replace, or rectify the impacts of a management practice.

N

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Process – An interdisciplinary process, which concentrates decision making around issues, concerns, alternatives, and the effects of alternatives on the environment.

National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) – Establishes the legal and administrative context within which local historic preservation commissions relate to, and participate in the national historic program. The policy in to promote conditions in which historic properties can be preserved in harmony with modern society, and fulfill modern society need.

A-4 Appendix A Environmental Assessment Rampart Range Recreation Area Motorized Roads and Trails Plan

No Action Alternative – The No Action Alternative is required by regulations implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (40 CFR 1502.14). The No Action Alternative provides a baseline for estimating the effects of other alternatives. When a project activity is being evaluated, the No Action Alternative is defined as one where current management direction would continue unchanged.

Noxious Weed – A plant species that is highly injurious or destructive and has a great potential for economic impact. A plant species that is listed as noxious by the State of Idaho.

O

Off Highway Vehicle (OHV) – All terrain vehicles.

Obliteration – Obliteration of an existing road would involve, removal of all culverts, establishing permanent drainages and recontouring of the road surface.

Open Road Density – A standard set in the Forest Plan that is applied to most Management Areas important to big game. This road density standard of three-quarter of a mile of open road per square mile of habitat correlates directly to the elk habitat effectiveness of the area (i.e. 68 percent)

Optimum Habitat – The amount and arrangement of cover and forage that results in the greatest level of production that is consistent with other resource requirements.

P

Perennial Stream – Streams that flow continuously throughout the year.

Prescriptions – Management practices selected and scheduled for application on a designated area to attain specific goals and objectives.

Private Road – A road under private ownership authorized by an easement to a private party, or a road which provides access pursuant to a reserved of private right.

Public Road – A road open to public travel that is under the jurisdiction of and maintained by a public authority such as states, counties, and local communities.

R

Range of Alternatives – An alternative is one way of managing the National Forest and BLM, expressed as management emphasis leading to a unique set of goods and services being available to the public. A range of alternatives is several different ways of managing the lands, offering many different levels of goods and services.

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) – A system for defining the types of outdoor recreation opportunities the public might desire and identifies that portion of the spectrum a

Appendix A A-5 Rampart Range Recreation Area Motorized Roads and Trails Plan Environmental Assessment given area might be able to provide. It is used for planning and managing the recreation resource and recognizes recreation activity, setting, and experience opportunities.

Primitive (P) – a natural environment of large size. Interaction between users is very low and evidence of other users is minimal. Motorized use within the area is not permitted.

Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized (SPNM) – A natural, or natural appearing, environment of moderate to large size. The concentration of users is low, but there is often evidence of other users. No roads are present.

Semi-Primitive Motorized (SPM) – A natural, or natural appearing, environment of moderate to large size. Interaction between users in this setting is low, but there is often evidence of other users. Local roads used for other resource management activities may be present.

Roaded Natural (RN) – A natural, or natural appearing, environment of moderate size with moderate evidence of the sights and sounds of humans. Such evidence usually harmonizes with the natural environment. Interaction between users may be moderate high, with evidence of other users prevalent. Motorized use is allowed.

Rural (R) – An area characterized by a substantially modified natural environment. The sights and sounds of humans are readily evident, and the interaction between users is often moderate to high. A considerable number of facilities are designed for use by a large number of people. Facilities for intensified motorized use and parking areas are available.

Restricted Road – A National Forest road or segment that is restricted from a certain type of use or all uses during a certain seasons of the year or yearlong. The use being restricted and the time period must be specified. The closure is legal when the Forest Supervisor has issued and posted an order in accordance with 36 CFR 261.

Riparian – Pertaining to areas of land directly influenced by water. Riparian areas usually have visible vegetative or physical characteristics reflecting this water influence. Streamsides, lake borders, or marshes are typical riparian areas. Vegetation bordering watercourses, lakes or swamps; it requires a high water table.

Road – A vehicle travel way of over 50 inches in width.

Road Maintenance – The upkeep of the entire Transportation System including surface and shoulders, parking and side areas, structures and such traffic control devices as are necessary for its safe and efficient utilization.

Roadless Area – A National Forest-system area which is larger than 5,000 acres or, if smaller that 5,000 acres, is contiguous to a designated Wilderness or primitive area; contains no roads, and has been inventoried by the Forest Service for possible inclusion into the wilderness preservation system.

Route – a road and/or a trail – often used as a collective term for both roads and trails.

A-6 Appendix A Environmental Assessment Rampart Range Recreation Area Motorized Roads and Trails Plan

S

Scoping – The procedures by which the agencies determines the extent of analysis necessary for a proposed action, i.e. the range of actions, alternatives, and impacts to be addressed, identification of significant issues related to a proposed action, and establishing the depth of environmental analysis, data, and task assignment.

Sediment – Any material carried in suspension by water, which will ultimately settle to the bottom. Sediment has two main sources; from the channel itself, and from upslope areas.

Sensitive Species – Those species identified by the Regional Forester for which population viability is a concern as evidenced by significant current or predicted downward trends in population numbers or density, or habitat capability that would reduce a species’ existing distribution.

Seral – A biotic community that is in a development, transitory stage in ecological succession.

Special Use Permit (FS)/Special Recreation Permit (BLM) – A permit issued under established laws and regulations to an individual, organization, or company for occupancy or use of NFS and BLM land for some special purpose.

Succession – The progressive changes in plant communities toward climax habitat.

T

Temporary Road –A subset of a road, a temporary road is authorized by contract, permit, lease, other written authorization or emergency operation, not intended to be part of the Forest transportation system and not necessarily for long-term resource management

Threatened Species – Any species of plant or animal that is likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.

Trail – A travel way, either motorized or non-motorized, less than 50 inches in width.

Travel way – Any established tread that allows the passage of a user. This could range from a road to a trail. This does not include such things as game or cattle trails.

U

Unclassified Road – A road that is not constructed, maintained, or intended for long-term highway use, such as, roads constructed for temporary access and other remnants of short- term use roads associated with fire suppression, timber harvest, and oil, gas, or mineral activities, as well as travel ways resulting from off-road vehicle use.

Unroaded Area – An area that does not contain classified roads.

Appendix A A-7 Rampart Range Recreation Area Motorized Roads and Trails Plan Environmental Assessment

W

Water Yield – The measured output of the Forest’s streams.

Watershed – Entire area that contributes water to a drainage system or stream.

Watershed Classes (IWWI)

Class I (Pristine) – Areas where current and past management activities have not significantly affected the function of stream and riparian areas. These watersheds are relatively pristine and form the basis from which comparisons to impacted stream and riparian systems could be made.

Class II (Limited) – Areas where there are currently management activities occurring, and are not in a pristine condition. Influences on sediment transport, hydrologic function, and biological communities are present, and are moderately impacted.

Class III (degraded) – Areas where major impacts to the land have resulted in severe damage to stream and riparian function. In many cases, these areas have been identified by the Colorado Department of Health or other agencies as being seriously degraded directly by management activities.

Wetlands – Areas that are inundated by surface or ground water with a frequency sufficient to support a prevalence of vegetative or aquatic life that requires saturated or seasonally saturated soil conditions for growth and reproduction. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, wet meadows, river overflows, mud flats, and natural ponds.

Wilderness – All lands included in the National Wilderness Preservation System by public law; generally defined as undeveloped Federal land retaining its primeval character and influence without permanent improvements or human habitation.

Wilderness Study Area – A roadless area or island that has been inventoried and found to have wilderness characteristics as described in Section 603 of FLPMA and Section 2(c) of the Wilderness Act of 1964 (78 Stat. 891).

Wildfire – Any wildfire not designated and managed as a prescribed fire with an approved prescription.

A-8 Appendix A APPENDIX B – REFERENCES

This page intentionally left blank

Environmental Assessment Rampart Range Recreation Area Motorized Roads and Trails Plan

APPENDIX B – REFERENCES

Bowles, Ann E. 1995. Responses of wildlife to noise. In: Wildlife and Recreationists, Coexistence through management and research. Island Press, Washington DC., Covelo, California. Pp 109-156.

Burns, D.C. 1990. Cumulative effects of small modifications to habitat. Fisheries 16(1): 12-17.

California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 1998. Technical Noise Supplement, October.

Canfield, J.E.,L.J. Lyon, J.M. Hillis, and M.J. Thompson. 1999. Ungulates. Pages 6.1- 6.25 in G. Joslin and H.Youmans, coordinators. Effects of recreation on Rocky Mountain wildlife: A review for Montana. Committee on Effects of Recreation on Wildlife, Montana Chapter of The Wildlife Society. 307pp.

Cassier, E. F., and E.D.Abies. 1990. Effects of disturbance by cross-country skiers on elk in Northern Yellowstone National Park. Final Report to the NPS. 103 pp in: in Joslin, G., and H. Youmans, coordinators. Effects of recreation on Rocky Mountain wildlife: A review for Montana. Committee on Effects of Recreation on Wildlife, Montana Chapter of the Wildlife Society. 307 pp.

Chong, G. T., Stohlgren, C. Crosier, S. Simonson, G. Newman, and E. Petterson. 2003. Ecological Effects of the Hayman Fire. Part 7: Key Invasive Nonnative Plants. Pp 244-249 in Hayman Case Study. USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-114. Rocky Mountain Research Station, Ft. Collins, CO.

Colorado Department of Local Affairs. 2004. Colorado Demography Statistics.

Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. 2005. Water quality control commission, Regulation No. 38. Classification and numeric standards- South Platte River Basin, Laramie River Basin, Republican River Basin, Smokey Hill River Basin.

Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, Water Quality Control Commission. 2004a. List of Water Quality Limited Segments Requiring TMDLS.

Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, Water Quality Control Commission. 2004b. Monitoring and Evaluation List.

Colorado Division of Wildlife. 2005. Hydrology Data Set.

Colorado Division of Wildlife. 2005. CDOW Riparian Data Set.

Colorado Division of Wildlife. 2005b. Colorado Vegetation Classification Project. Colorado Division of Wildlife data set.

Appendix B B-1 Rampart Range Recreation Area Motorized Roads and Trails Plan Environmental Assessment

Colorado Off-Highway Vehicle Coalition (COHVCO). 2001. Economic Contribution of Off-Highway Vehicle Use in Colorado. Colorado State Department of Labor, Demography

Colorado Natural Heritage Program (CNHP). Various databases accessed on the internet. 2004

Cordone, A. J., and D.E. Kelley. 1961. The influence of inorganic sediment on the aquatic life of streams. Referenced In: Wildlife and Recreationists, Coexistence through management and research. Island Press, Washington DC.; Covelo, California. Pg 188.

Culver, S. 2005. Personal comments. Fisheries Biologist, South Platte Ranger District. June 2005.

Decker, L.M., J.L. Kershner, and D. Winters. 2003. Ecological Effects of the Hayman Fire. Part 5: Historical Aquatic Systems. Pp. 228-231 in Graham, R.T., Technical Editor. 2003. Hayman Fire Case Study. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report RMRS- GTR-114. Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, CO.

Douglas County. 2003. Douglas County 2020 Transportation Plan.

Forman, R.T.T. 2000. Estimate of the area affected ecologically by the road system in the United States. Conservation Biology 14(1):31-35.

Foster Wheeler, 1999. Landscape Assessment Upper South Platte Watershed. Prepared for USFS, Colorado State FS, Denver Water Board, US EPA. the Pike National Forest, Morrison, Colorado. August 1999.

Gregory, S.V., F.J. Swanson, W.A. McKee, and K.W. Cummins. 1991. An ecosystem perspective of riparian zones. BioScience 41(8): 540-551.

Hoover, R. M. and R.H. Keith. 1996. Noise control for buildings and manufacturing plants. Hoover and Keith, Inc. Houston , TX.

Jochimsen, D.M., C.R. Peterson, K.M. Andrews, and J.W. Gibbons. A literature review of the effects of roads on amphibians and reptiles and the measures used to minimize those effects. Final Draft. Idaho Fish and Game and USDA Forest Service. November 2004. 68p.

Kauffman, J., and W.C. Krueger. 1984. Livestock impacts on riparian ecosystems and streamside management implications: a review. Journal of Range Management 37: 430-437.

Kershner, J.L., L. MacDonald, L.M. Decker, D. Winters, and Z. Libohova. 2003. Ecological Effects of the Hayman Fire. Part 6: Fire-Induced Changes in Aquatic Systems. Pp. 232-243 in Graham, R.T., Technical Editor. 2003. Hayman Fire Case Study. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-114. Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, CO.

B-2 Appendix B Environmental Assessment Rampart Range Recreation Area Motorized Roads and Trails Plan

Knight, Richard L. and David N. Cole. 1991. Effects of recreational activity on wildlife in wildlands. Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference 56:238-247.

Knight, Richard L. and David N. Cole. 1995. Factors that influence wildlife responses to recreationists. In: Wildlife and Recreationists, Coexistence through management and research. Island Press, Washington DC., Covelo, California. 372 pgs.

Meyer, K.G. 2002. Managing degraded off-highway vehicle trails in wet, unstable, and sensitive environments. USDA Forest Service Technical Report 0223-2821-MTDC, Missoula, MT. 48 p.

Murphy, M.L., C.P. Hawkins, and N.H. Anderson. 1981. Effects of canopy modification and accumulated sediment on stream communities. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 110:469-578.

Recreation Solutions. 2001. Rampart Range Inventory Team Observations and Recommendations. Recreational Solutions OHV Team. Jim Cooper and Troy Dymock. July 2001.

Sporl, C., S. Priest, L. Malcolm, and S. Dollus. 1998. Strategy 2010: A Strategy for Developed Recreation on the South Platte Ranger District. Pike National Forest: Morrison, Colorado.

Switalski, T.A., J.A. Bissonette, T.H. DeLuca, C.H. Luce, and M.A. Madej. 2004. Benefits and impacts of road removal. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 2(1): 21-28.

Trombulak, Stephen C. and Christopher A. Frissell. 1999. Review of ecological effects of roads on terrestrial and aquatic communities. Conservation Biology, Volume 14, No 1. February 2000. Pages 18-30.

Trombulak, S.C., and C.A. Frissell. 2000. Review of ecological effects of roads on terrestrial and aquatic communities. Conservation Biology 14(1): 18-30.

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service Manual 2600: Wildlife, Fish and Sensitive Plant Management.

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. June 2005. Rampart Range Recreation Area Motorized Roads and Trails Plan Biological Report, including BA, BE and MIS analysis. Prepared by South Platte Ranger District, Morrison, CO.

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2005b. Deschutes and Ochoco NF, Crooked River NG Website:www.fs.fed.us/r6/centraloregon/recreation/cohvops/sound.shtml. Typical sound levels associated with common events.

Appendix B B-3 Rampart Range Recreation Area Motorized Roads and Trails Plan Environmental Assessment

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2004. Environmental Assessment: Hayman Fire Roads Management Project. Pikes Peak, South Park, and South Platte Ranger Districts, Pike and San Isabel National Forests. 21 p. + appendices.

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2004a. News release October 22, 2004. Russell Ridge Prescribed burn Smoke to be seen in skies southwest of Denver.. Pike & San Isabel National Forests, Cimarron & Comanche National Grasslands, South Platte Ranger District, Morrison, Colorado.

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2004b. Wild and Scenic River Study Report and Final Environmental Impact Statement, North Fork of the South Platte and the South Platte Rivers. Pike and San Isabel National Forests, Cimarron and Comanche National Grasslands. January 2004.

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2003. Roads Analysis Report: Hayman Fire Burn Area. Pike and San Isabel National Forests. Pikes Peak, South Platte, and South Park Ranger Districts. 37 p. + appendices.

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2002. Fourmile Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment.

United States Department of Agriculture, 2002a. National Visitor Use Monitoring project report, Pike and San Isabel National Forests, Comanche and Cimarron National Grasslands.

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2002b. R2 Roads Analysis Supplement to FS-643.

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2002c. Trout-West Hazardous Fuels Reduction Project Environmental Assessment.

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2001a Business Plan for the Upper South Platte Watershed Protection and Restoration Project.

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2000. Land Management Plan Monitor Report.

U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2000a. Forest Roads A Synthesis of Scientific Information. Edited by Hermann Gucinski, Michael J. Furniss, Robert R. Ziemer, and Martha H. Brookes. Found on the internet at: http://www.fs.fed.us/eng/road_mgt/science.pdf

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1999. Roads Analysis: Informing Decisions about Managing the National Forest Transportation System. Misc. Rep. FS-643. Washington D.C: U.S. Dept of Agriculture Forest Service.

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1998. National Forest Road System and Use. January 30, 1998 draft transportation document. Washington, D.C. 28 p.

B-4 Appendix B Environmental Assessment Rampart Range Recreation Area Motorized Roads and Trails Plan

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1995. Wild and Scenic River Suitability Study for the South Platte River and the North Fork of the South Platte River in Douglas, Jefferson, and Park Counties, CO.

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1992.Forest Service and Natural Resources Conservation Service. Soil survey of Pike National Forest, eastern part, Colorado, parts of Douglas, El Paso, Jefferson, and Teller Counties.

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1984. Land and Resource Management Plan: Pike and San Isabel National Forests and Comanche and Cimarron National Grasslands. Pike and San Isabel National Forests, Pueblo, CO.

United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2005. Green Book, Available at: http://www.epa.gov/oar/oaqps/greenbk/index.html

Winters, D. and P. Gallagher. 1997. Results and Documentation for the Watershed Assessment Conducted by the Pike and San Isabel National Forest and Comanche and Cimarron National Grasslands.

Appendix B B-5

This page intentionally left blank

APPENDIX C – ROADS ANALYSIS

This page intentionally left blank

Pike and San Isabel National Forests Affected Watersheds: , Chatfield Reservoir, Dry Gulch Creek, Garber Creek, Indian Creek, Jackson Creek, Lower Trout Creek, Lower Plum Creek, Bear Creek, South Pikes Peak, South Platte Ranger District Platte Canyon, Storm Peak, Waterton/Deckers, and West Creek

Roads Analysis Report

Rampart Range Motorized Recreation Area

United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service July 2005

This page intentionally left blank

Road Analysis Rampart Range Recreation Area Motorized Roads and Trails Plan

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. INTRODUCTION ...... C-1 A. Background ...... C-1 B. Scope ...... C-1 C. Process ...... C-1 D. Products ...... C-2

II. STEP 1 – SETTING UP THE ANALYSIS...... C-3 A. Objective ...... C-3 B. Interdisciplinary Team ...... C-3 C. Information Needs ...... C-3 D. Analysis Plan ...... C-4 E. Public Involvement ...... C-4

III. STEP 2 – DESCRIBING THE SITUATION...... C-7

IV. STEP 3 – IDENTIFYING ISSUES...... C-11 A. Aquatic Resources...... C-11 B. Terrestrial Wildlife...... C-11 C. Botany and Noxious Weeds...... C-11 D. Heritage...... C-12 E. Recreation ...... C-12 F. Range ...... C-13 G. Special Uses...... C-13 H. Vegetation, Timber (Harvest), and Fuels (Fire Suppression) ...... C-13

V. STEP 4 – ASSESSING BENEFITS, PROBLEMS AND RISKS ...... C-15 A. Aquatic, Riparian Zone, and Water Quality (AQ)...... C-15 B. Terrestrial Wildlife (TW)...... C-19 C. Ecosystem Functions and Processes (EF)...... C-21 D. Economics (EC)...... C-22 E. Timber Management (TM) ...... C-23 F. Minerals Management (MM)...... C-23 G. Range Management (RM)...... C-24 H. Water Production (WP)...... C-24 I. Special Forest Products (SP)...... C-24 J. Special-Use Permits (SU)...... C-24 K. General Public Transportation (GT) ...... C-25 L. Administrative Use (AU)...... C-27 M. Protection (PT)...... C-27 N. Unroaded Recreation (UR)...... C-28 O. Road-Related Recreation (RR) ...... C-30 P. Social Issues (SI)...... C-32 Q. Cultural and Heritage (CH)...... C-34 R. Civil Rights and Environmental Justice (CR)...... C-36

Appendix C C-i Rampart Range Recreation Area Motorized Roads and Trails Plan Road Analysis

S. Passive Use Value (PV)...... C-37

VI. STEP 5 – DESCRIBING OPPORTUNITIES AND SETTING PRIORITIES . C-39 A. Road Management Strategy Recommendations ...... C-40

VII. STEP 6 – REPORTING ...... C-41

APPENDICES Appendix A: Roads Analysis ID Team ...... C-43 Appendix B: Road Management Strategies ...... C-45 Appendix C: Rating Criteria...... C-47 Appendix D: Potential for Soil Erosion ...... C-55 Appendix E: Glossary of Terms...... C-57 Appendix F: References...... C-61 Appendix G: Road Maintenance Recommendations ID Team Spreadsheet...... C-63 Appendix H: Road Maintenance Recommendations after Line Officer and District Review...... C-64 Appendix I: Aquatic Road Maintenance Recommendations Spreadsheet...... C-65 Appendix J: Recreation Road Maintenance Recommendations Spreadsheet...... C-66 Appendix K: Landslide Hazard ...... C-67 Appendix L: Erosion Hazard Spreadsheet ...... C-68 Appendix M: Wildlife Road Maintenance Recommendations Spreadsheet...... C-69 Appendix N: Heritage Resources ...... C-70

MAPS Map 1: Existing Roads Analysis Locator Map ...... C-71

C-ii Appendix C Road Analysis Rampart Range Recreation Area Motorized Roads and Trails Plan

I. INTRODUCTION

A. Background

In August 1999, the Washington Office of the U.S. Forest Service (Forest Service) published Miscellaneous Report FS-643 titled Roads Analysis: Informing Decisions about Managing the National Forest Transportation System (USDA-FS 1999). The objective of roads analysis is to provide decision makers with critical information to develop road systems that are safe and responsive to public needs and desires, affordable and efficiently managed, have minimal negative ecological effects on the land, and are in balance with available funding for needed management actions. A supplement to FS-643 specific to Forest Service Region 2 (USDA 2002) was used for this evaluation. Roads analysis is not a decision process nor does it constitute a Federal action. It will serve to guide future project-scale analyses by identifying conditions, changes, and effects relevant to implementing forest plans.

B. Scope

The Rampart Roads Analysis Project included a review of approximately 100 miles of roads over an area of over 91,200 acres to include portions of 12 sixth level watersheds. This analysis examined the risks to aquatics, wildlife habitat, noxious weeds infestations, cultural and heritage sites, soil erosion, landslide risk, as well as the value of roads to recreation, social and economic issues. This report should be used in conjunction with the RRMRA EA, BA and Wildlife Report.

C. Process

This roads analysis is a sequential six-step process that provides a set of possible issues and analysis questions for which the answers can help managers make choices about road system management. The analysis determines the relevance of each question and also incorporates public participation as deemed necessary. The analysis also considered documents previously completed. A key based document was the Hayman Fire Burn Area Roads Analysis Report, 2003; results are directly incorporated into the report. Information from this report was included directly into this analysis.

The following six steps guided the process.

• Step 1. Setting up the Analysis

• Step 2. Describing the Situation

• Step 3. Identifying the Issues

• Step 4. Assessing Benefits, Problems and Risks

• Step 5. Describing Opportunities and Setting Priorities

• Step 6. Reporting – Chapter 1-4 of the associated Environmental Assessment

Appendix C C-1 Rampart Range Recreation Area Motorized Roads and Trails Plan Road Analysis

Tasks for this process included:

• An evaluation of all roads within 12 affected watersheds

• Identification of roads that should be maintained for long-term motor vehicle access

• Characterization of system road conditions and work needed to meet assigned maintenance levels

• Analysis of classified and unclassified roads, some of which could lead to consideration for closure, decommissioning, or incorporation into the transportation system

• Prioritization of future road projects

D. Products

This report documents the information and analysis procedure used for the Rampart Range Motorized Recreation Area roads analysis. The report contains a table rating each road for resource and recreation values, watershed and wildlife risks (see Appendix). It contains management guidelines and opportunities for future actions that will impact the Forest roads system. It also includes a map with the existing maintenance level 1, 2, 3, and 4 roads.

C-2 Appendix C Road Analysis Rampart Range Recreation Area Motorized Roads and Trails Plan

II. STEP 1 – SETTING UP THE ANALYSIS

A. Objective

The Rampart Roads Analysis was designed to produce an overview of the road system for the Rampart Range Motorized Recreation Area (RRMRA) and to identify pertinent ecological, social, and economic road management issues essential to making future decisions about affected transportation systems. All maintenance level roads are addressed. This information is intended to support the current Land and Resource Management Plan, Pike and San Isabel National Forests; Comanche and Cimarron National Grasslands Pike (1984), and will contribute to the forest-wide roads analysis. The road system is also a vital component of a transportation plan. Accompanying this document is the Rampart Range Motorized Trail Plan and Environmental Assessment (EA) which addresses overall travel management on the Recreation Area. A Biological Assessment was also completed as part of this project.

B. Interdisciplinary Team

The Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) for this Road Analysis Plan (RAP) is comprised of personnel from the Pike and San Isabel National Forests; Comanche and Cimarron National Grasslands (PSICC) National Forest and EDAW, Inc. These personnel consist of technical experts with disciplines in the areas of ecology, engineering, fire management, fisheries biology, forestry, GIS, heritage resources, hydrology, recreation, resource planning, and wildlife biology.

C. Information Needs

Informational needs for this project consist of available data, which the Forest Service owns or has access to. If the information was not available in a reliable and usable format at the time this study was performed, it was not incorporated into the analysis.

The following plan was available and was incorporated into the findings:

• U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1984. Land and Resource Management Plan: Pike and San Isabel National Forests; Comanche and Cimarron National Grasslands. Pueblo, CO.

• U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2003. Hayman Fire Burn Area Roads Analysis Report: Pike and San Isabel National Forests; Comanche and Cimarron National Grasslands. Pueblo, CO.

Existing digital mapping data that is available in a GIS format and was incorporated into the findings include:

• Forest Service Road System

• Hydrology (wetlands, lakes and streams)

• Watersheds

• Ownership

Appendix C C-3 Rampart Range Recreation Area Motorized Roads and Trails Plan Road Analysis

• Forest Service Management Areas

• Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive (TES) species locations

• Slope classes

• Erosion potential

• Landslide hazard

Other surveys, reports, communications, and documents used in the analysis are listed in the References Cited section.

D. Analysis Plan

Roads were evaluated on a segment basis separated (See Appendix A and B: “Road Management Strategies”). The ID Team provided ratings of high (H), moderate (M), low (L), or not applicable (N/A) for each road segment. Ratings reflected either a risk rating or a value rating for compiling into a resource-by-resource database. The following resource areas have a risk rating associated with them: Aquatic, Wildlife, Botany, Weeds, and Archaeology. The following resource areas have a value rating associated with them: Recreation, Range, Special Uses, Vegetation Management, Timber, and Fuels. “Risk/Value” criteria are presented in Appendix C: “Risk/Value Rating Factors”. Using these ratings, the roads were then evaluated by the ID Team to develop recommendations that can be used as the basis for prioritizing road projects and for meeting current and future transportation needs. In addition to a spreadsheet that summarizes these compiled ratings, Appendix G, a narrative response detailing the impact of the existing road system and future road projects on specific resources is provided in Steps 3 and 4.

E. Public Involvement

Scoping for the Plan was initiated with notification in local newspapers, notification on the website and a mailing to over 300 persons either known to be interested in similar projects or who had asked to be informed of such projects or of the proposed project. Over 300 people attended two open houses that were held in July of 2004. The open houses provided the public an opportunity to gain information on the project and to share information and their concerns and ideas. As a result of the open houses and subsequent public input, more than 500 comments were received. The majority of the comments received focused on enhancing the existing trail system and protecting environmental resources. Based on comments received and internal ID team workshops, three road and trail concepts were developed.

An additional mailing, notifications in local newspapers, and postings on the Pike National Forest website were used to advertise two additional public workshops held in Denver and Douglas County in October of 2004. The purpose of these workshops was to discuss and refine preliminary alternative concepts for enhancing the road and trails system. Approximately 120 people attended the workshops and comments were received following the meetings. Comments on these Planning Concepts were subsequently incorporated, as appropriate, into the draft alternatives presented in Chapter 2. The majority of the comments

C-4 Appendix C Road Analysis Rampart Range Recreation Area Motorized Roads and Trails Plan

received supported a road and trail concept that created trails for different user types, provided for more trail loops and enhanced resource protection. Based on comments received and subsequent internal Forest Service team workshops, the three project alternatives presented in Chapter 2 of the EA were developed, made available in hardcopy and posted on the website. The draft Alternatives were made available for public review and comment on November 23, 2004.

At the request of the public, the Forest Service extended the comment period until March 22, 2005 to provide additional opportunity for citizens to give comment on draft Alternatives. The extension of the comment period results from a desire to ensure all interested segments of the public have had a fair opportunity to review the project and the associated draft Alternatives, and to provide input. Additional comments were considered and the Alternatives adjusted where necessary. Based on the final Alternatives, the Environmental Assessment, Biological Assessment, Biological Evaluation and Roads Analysis were completed.

Appendix C C-5

This page intentionally left blank

Rampart Range Recreation Area Motorized Roads and Trails Plan Road Analysis

III. STEP 2 – DESCRIBING THE SITUATION

The Rampart Range Motorized Recreation Area (RRMRA) is located in the Pike National Forest approximately 35 miles southwest of Denver. There are over 100 miles of roads available for the public to travel. Rampart Road (Forest Service road 300), a maintenance level 3 road, provides primary access to the area. This road travels in a north-south direction through the center of the Recreation Area and from this road numerous more rugged roads (maintenance level 2 roads) originate. This area is also a popular area for motorcycle and OHV riders with numerous trails available for their use. Appendix H provides a list of roads evaluated in this analysis and Map1 shows existing roads in the project area.

Five developed campgrounds are located in the RRMRA. These are Indian Creek Campground and Indian Creek Equestrian campground located on Highway 67, Flat Rocks campground located 4.6 miles south of Highway 67, Devils Head campground located 8.6 miles south of Highway 67, and Jackson Creek campground located on the Jackson Creek road 14 miles south of Highway 67. Jackson Creek road requires vehicles with higher ground clearance.

The elevation of the area ranges from about 6,500 feet to over 8,500 feet. The area is largely forested with small areas of grassland and aspen interspersed. Vegetation in the project area is dominated by Ponderosa pine forests and woodlands with smaller areas of Douglas-fir, montane grassland, aspen, mixed conifer spruce / fir forest and woodlands, lodgepole pine forests and woodlands, limber pine forests and woodlands, and Gambel oak shrublands.

Weedy species typically require soil surface disturbance to gain entry into an area. Populations of noxious weeds in the project area, including, diffuse knapweed (Centaurea diffusa), spotted knapweed (Centaurea maculosa), Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense ), musk thistle (Carduus nutans), Russian thistle (Salsola iberica), yellow toadflax (Linaria vulgaris), Dalmatian toadflax (Linaria genistifolia ssp. dalmatica), oxeye daisy (Chrysanthemum leucanthemum), scentless chamomile (Matricaria maritima) and leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula). The most common weeds in the RRMRA are spotted and diffuse knapweed (found most commonly adjacent to roads, trails, parking and camping areas) and Canada thistle (found most often in riparian areas).

There are no listed Threatened or Endangered plant species within the analysis area. The area has seven plant species on the Regional Forest Sensitive Species list: Narrowleaf grapefern (Botrychium lineare), bristlystalked sedge (Carex leptalea), lesser yellow lady’s slipper (Cypripedium parviflorum), Adder’s-mouth (Malaxis brachypoda), Rocky Mountain monkey- flower (Mimulus gemmiparus), Rock cinquefoil (Potentilla rupincola), and great-spurred violet (Viola selkirkii).

Several Federally protected threatened or endangered species are known to occur in the project area. These include: Bald eagle (Haliaetus leucocephalus), threatened; Mexican spotted owl (Strix occidentalis lucida), threatened; Pawnee montane skipper ( Hesperia leonardus montana) threatened; and Preble's meadow jumping mouse ( Zapus hudsonius preblei) threatened (CNHP 2004).

Appendix C C-7 Rampart Range Recreation Area Motorized Roads and Trails Plan Road Analysis

Botanical species diversity is dependent on the variety of habitats found throughout the National Forest. This diversity is a vital part of ecosystems that is important to the viability of other organisms. These habitats often represent a relatively small portion of the landscape, yet are vital to overall ecosystem health. Four areas that have been identified by the Colorado Natural Heritage Program (CNHP) as having high species diversity are North Garber Creek, Pine Creek at South Platte, Devils Head at Jackson Creek, and Pine Nook East (CNHP 2004).

Annual precipitation at nearby Cheesman reservoir is 16.25 inches per year with a majority of precipitation occurring in May, June, July and August (Western Regional Climate Center 2004).

Twelve 6th Level watersheds (a Hydologic Code Unit 6 watershed, or sub watershed, that typically ranges from 10,000 to 40,000 acres in size) are located in the project area. Watersheds include, Chatfield Reservoir, Dry Gulch Creek, Garber Creek, Indian Creek, Jackson Creek, Lower Trout Creek, Lower Plum Creek, Bear Creek, South Platte Canyon, Storm Peak, Waterton/Deckers, and West Creek.

In mid-October, 2003 the Forest Service will begin a year-long series of fuels treatments on Pike National Forest land near Sprucewood and Moonridge in Douglas County. The 2,850- acre Nighthawk Project is designed to thin live and dead trees and other vegetation within the project area in order to reduce hazardous fuels levels within that portion of the national forest. The treatments will not only provide a level of safety from wildfires for nearby residents and private property, but will promote better habitat for wildlife and reduce competition for nutrients among the remaining trees and vegetation, creating a healthier forest. Timber management is limited to fuels reduction efforts removal of some timber for commercial purposes. Areas where these activities occur are closed to the public for safety reasons. The first Nighthawk unit scheduled to receive mechanical treatment is the 815-acre Bear Mountain unit located just west of Moonridge. This will occur beginning in mid- October, 2003. A second unit, the 172-acre Russell Ridge II, will be treated with a prescribed burn also as early as mid-October, weather and environmental conditions permitting. The Russell Ridge II unit was mechanically thinned in 2003 (USFS 2004).

Inactive mines are present in the project area but no active mining is currently occurring. No livestock grazing occurs in the area.

Geology of the area is dominated by Pikes Peak Granite with a smaller area of metamorphic expression seen north of State Highway 67. Soils in the area are generally comprised of shallow, weathered soils derived from the Pikes Peak batholith (USDA 1992). Erosion and landslide hazard have been mapped for the project area roads and are presented in Appendix K and L.

Recreation activities in this area are primarily use by motorcycle, ATV, and 4-wheel drive enthusiast. The area is widely used especially during weekends and holidays in the warmer seasons. Many of these people also camp at one of the many campgrounds available to the public. Other uses of this area include hiking, mountain biking, rock hounding, and photography. Additionally, Douglas County Road 97 and State Highway 67 travel along most of the western border of the project area from which anglers access the South Platte River. Other recreational

C-8 Appendix C Road Analysis Rampart Range Recreation Area Motorized Roads and Trails Plan

activities include big game hunting for deer and elk during archery, muzzle loader and rifle seasons.

Nearly all of the existing road system on Pike National Forest System lands has been developed from the demand for access to natural resources and recreational opportunities. Maintenance and reconstruction requirements of the existing system depend mainly on the volume of recreational use, access for fire suppression activities, and timber management . The amount of future construction is dependent primarily on the need to access and manage natural resources and recreation opportunities. Minor new construction for recreation opportunities (such as access to a new trailhead or campground) may occur in the near future as well as routine maintenance activities.

NFS roads are maintained to varying standards depending on the level of use and management objectives. There are five maintenance levels (also referred to as levels) used by the Forest Service to determine the work needed to preserve the investment in the road. These maintenance levels are described in FSH 7709.58 – Transportation System Maintenance Handbook (1992). Levels 3, 4, and 5 provide access for passenger car traffic and make up the backbone of the Forest transportation system. Forest Service roads are maintenance levels are described below.

• Maintenance Level 1: These roads are closed. Some intermittent use may be authorized. When closed, they must be physically closed with barricades, berms, gates, or other closure devices. Closures must exceed one year. When open, it may be maintained at any other level. When closed to vehicular traffic, they may be suitable and used for non-motorized uses, with custodial maintenance.

• Maintenance Level 2: Roads open for use by high-clearance vehicles. Passenger car traffic is discouraged. Traffic is minor administrative, permitted, or dispersed recreation. Non-traffic generated maintenance is minimal.

• Maintenance Level 3: Roads open and maintained for travel by a prudent driver in a standard passenger car. User comfort and convenience are not considered priorities. Typically low speed, single lane with turnouts and native or aggregate surfacing.

• Maintenance Level 4: Roads that provide a moderate degree of user comfort and convenience at moderate speeds. Most are double lane and aggregate surfaced. Some may be single lane. Some may be dust abated.

• Maintenance Level 5: Roads that provide a high degree of user comfort and convenience. Normally are double lane, paved facilities, or aggregate surface with dust abatement. This is the highest standard of maintenance.

The total length of roads by maintenance class in the RRMRA is presented in Table C-1:

Appendix C C-9 Rampart Range Recreation Area Motorized Roads and Trails Plan Road Analysis

Table C-1: Total Length of Roads by Maintenance Class.

Existing Roads MOTORIZED CLASS (miles) %) Maintenance Level 2 Roads 22 24% Maintenance Level 3 Roads 42 46% Maintenance Level 4 Roads 28 30% Total Roads (Excludes Level 1 Roads) 92 100% Maintenance Level 1/ Re-vegetated Roads 16 NA

This road analysis process is being conducted to facilitate the development of an area wide transportation plan that addresses the increased recreational demand for the use of roads and motorized and non-motorized trails. As the population of the Denver and Front-Range region increases, so will demand for recreational access of this area. Implementation of the transportation plan will minimize impacts to natural resources of the area and enhance the safety and enjoyment of the users.

Currently no fees are charged to access the RRMRA or camp in any of the several campgrounds. Seven locations for donations are provide and are located at the northern end of Rampart Range Road just south of Highway 76 and at each of the 5 campgrounds (Devils Head campground has 2 donation locations). These donations provide for the upkeep and maintenance of the recreation area.

C-10 Appendix C Road Analysis Rampart Range Recreation Area Motorized Roads and Trails Plan

IV. STEP 3 – IDENTIFYING ISSUES

The purpose of this step is to identify important road-related issues that were identified by the IDT, local governments, Native American tribes and the general public. These issues will be considered later in this analysis in terms of how the existing transportation system may affect them. Key road related issues are presented below.

A. Aquatic Resources

Several perennial streams are present in or border the project area and these support a variety of wildlife including trout. Streams and riparian areas are subject to impacts from established roads and also by any illegal travel in the RRMRA. Impacts are related to erosion from road areas into streams, increases in turbidity and sedimentation due to proximity of the road to aquatic areas, illegal access to riparian areas, including wetlands, which damages both water and vegetation resources, and an increased potential for slope failure due to the presences of roads. Construction and maintenance of roads often requires the installation of culverts and bridges which can also impact the aquatic resource.

Much of the impact to aquatic resources is due to water runoff and erosion from roads and trails in the area which are located close to or in drainage. Proper location and alignment of roads and trails can generally reduce these impacts.

Appendix C presents criteria used for determining risks to aquatic resources. Appendix I represents a rating by road of potential impacts to aquatic systems. Additional information and criteria describing erosion and landslide hazards is presented in Step 4 of the analysis.

B. Terrestrial Wildlife

The presence of roads generally has an adverse affect on wildlife. The negative effects of roads include habitat loss, displacement from habitat, injury or death from road crossings, and increase the potential of invasion by non-native plants and animals. Qualitative and quantitative effects of roads on wildlife will be discussed. The use of databases which include CDOW NDIS mapping and CNHP information, as well as literature searches was employed.

C. Botany and Noxious Weeds

Impacts to vegetation mostly occur due to motorized traffic both on and adjacent to trails. Vegetation is trampled along the trail as well as by illegal off-trail activities. An impact to vegetation around camping areas is also seen as trampled areas and trees impacted due to campfire wood collection. No listed Threatened or Endangered vascular plant species occur in the project area. Several Regional Forest Sensitive species can occur in the project area in a variety of plant communities.

Noxious weeds are present in the RRMRA and are most often seen adjacent to roads, trails, parking lots and camping areas. Mesic areas (gullies and riparian areas) adjacent to trails can also support noxious weeds. The most common weeds seen in the project area are spotted knapweed, diffuse knapweed, yellow toadflax and Canada thistle.

Appendix C C-11 Rampart Range Recreation Area Motorized Roads and Trails Plan Road Analysis

Problems with noxious weeds most often occur when motorized vehicles that are not cleaned of plant material enter the Recreation Area, increasing the potential for introduction of weeds from other areas. Motorcycles, ATV’s and 4-wheel drive vehicles travel to many wide spread locations in the project area so potential for area wide introduction of weeds is increased. People, animals, and machinery can all move noxious weeds from place to place via roads. In addition, both legal and illegal roads provide constantly disturbed habitats, devoid of competing vegetation, which are favorable conditions for establishment of weeds. Road maintenance such as grading may also contribute to the movement and spread of weed seed.

Riparian areas appear to be most vulnerable to the establishment of invasive weeds and can threaten and degrade habitat for sensitive species wildlife in general. Noxious weeds often out- compete native species and reduce habitat quality. All roads have a high risk of facilitating the spread and establishment of noxious weeds. Due to limited budgets, inventory and mapping of noxious weeds has been limited and has not kept pace with the rapid rate of spread of noxious weeds. As a result, limited information on existing noxious weed sites is available. Noxious weed risk can be reduced by annual inventory and treatment (i.e., early detection and treatment), and by following Best Management Practices for road maintenance and projects that occur along or near roads.

Appendix G provides a summary for the risk rating to the botanical resource and for the risk of the introduction of weeds for each road in the project area. Criteria for each of these risk ratings are presented in Appendix C.

D. Heritage

As of the end of the 2004 calendar year, the Forest Service had conducted 27 prior cultural resource inventories in the Rampart Range OHV Travel Management Analysis Area or in the near vicinity. A total of 10,631 acres have been inventoried for cultural properties. Of this acreage, 232 cultural properties have been identified; 175 historic and 57 prehistoric. Those sites that have been determined eligible for inclusion or nomination to the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), which includes sites without SHPO. Concurrence and sites that need data determinations must be avoided by proposed activities. Those projects without heritage resource inventory will follow the guidelines set for by the National Historic Preservation Acct (NHPA).

E. Recreation

Roads provide important access for a variety of recreation users. Included are motorcycle, ATV and 4-wheel dive users as well as people sight seeing, hunting, camping or out for day trips. The RRMRA is widely known as an important recreation area for these uses. Annual visitation is estimated to be 3.8 million visitors for the PSICC, eighteen percent of which focus their activities to off-highway vehicle travel (ATV’s, dirt bikes, etc) (USFS, 2002). This activity appears to be rapidly increasing, especially in the RRMRA, and users’ numbers could be a significant issue in the future. It has also been observed that the number of ATV users is increasing at a more rapid rate than motorcycle users.

The network of roads in RRMRA provides for broad access to a variety of places in the project area as well as access to private property that can be used for recreation activities. It is common to

C-12 Appendix C Road Analysis Rampart Range Recreation Area Motorized Roads and Trails Plan see large RV’s and truck towed recreational camper trailers in the project area. Paved roads in the area are also popular travel routes for motorized road bikes.

Because the RRMRA supports a variety of user types, both motorized and nonmotorized, conflicts can occur on the road system. Street legal motorcycles as well as non street legal ATV’s and non licensed motorcycles often travel Rampart Road (a class 3 road) creating a safety issue.

Because of the number of recreational users accessing roads in the area, especially Rampart Road, maintenance of the road is important and can make travel less damaging to the vehicle, safer and more enjoyable. Douglas County currently maintains the road by grading several times a year.

F. Range

No grazing or range allotments are present in the project area.

G. Special Uses

Very little activity in the project area is related to special uses. Mining has occurred in the past but no active mining presently occurs. Several antenna sites are located a short distance off of established roads where road access is necessary. A large high voltage power line corridor is present on the northern portion of the project area with road access to only a few areas. Access to the power line corridor is typically done by aerial methods. Uses of roads for special use activities is intermittent and infrequent.

H. Vegetation, Timber (Harvest), and Fuels (Fire Suppression) Management

Forest management activities such as thinning, logging, and fuels management programs utilize the present network of roads. In some cases trails developed for ATV and motorcycles use are converted to roads that are used by logging equipment. When trails are converted to roads, this often changes the character of the trial making it unfavorable for safe and enjoyable ATV and/or motorcycle use. Converted trails are smoothed and straightened which promotes higher speeds and fewer obstacles to challenge ATV and motorcycle users. It has been recommended by ATV and motorcycle users that trails converted to roads for the purposes of logging activities be returned to the original trail condition after logging is completed. Another effect of Fuels Management is that trails that have been closed to recreational users due to activities of management crews in the area can become difficult to travel after these activities have occurred due to large amounts of woody debris in the trail.

Appendix C C-13

This page intentionally left blank

Road Analysis Rampart Range Recreation Area Motorized Roads and Trails Plan

V. STEP 4 – ASSESSING BENEFITS, PROBLEMS AND RISKS

The following chart lists the Questions from Roads Analysis: Informing Decisions About Managing the National Forest Transportation System (FS-643) with the corresponding question from the R2 Roads Analysis Supplement to FS-643.

A. Aquatic, Riparian Zone, and Water Quality (Aq)

AQ(1) How and where does the road system modify the surface and subsurface hydrology of the area?

Roads alter the surface characteristics of an area with respect to surface and subsurface water flows. Roads can divert the natural flows of water through a basin, can increase the amount of runoff due to compaction and can alter and concentrate runoff which may cause an increase in sedimentation. All of these factors affect the overall hydrology in a watershed, particularly the quantity and timing of flow.

The following roads were identified in the RRMRA and are within 200 feet of a riparian area (water influence zone): 300P, 300T, 348, 502, 502A, 503, 511, 512, 513, 514, 515, 516, 520, 562, 563, 564, County Road 97, and State Highway 67 (See Appendix I).

AQ(2) How and where does the road system generate surface erosion?

Surface erosion is dependent on site-specific conditions of road grade, design, surface material, traffic level, and maintenance level. Conditions within the road corridor, such as soil type, slope, and vegetative cover, are also major factors. Any road surface that is not paved has the potential to erode. Typical forest roads are natural soil surface, gravel roads, or at some intermediate stage. Typically paved roads under USFS jurisdiction are only found in high traffic areas serving as public access routes.

Surface flows typically caused by precipitation are capable of removing sediment from road surfaces into stream channels, especially those comprised of finer-grained. Primary roads with coarser, graveled surfaces are less likely to contribute sediment to storm flows, although their associated ditch systems can provide a source of sediment during storm flow events. Roads located in the channel bottom or having some hydrologic connection are of greatest concern when considering surface erosion sources and mechanisms.

Soil erosion hazard rating evaluates each soil component in a map unit for its susceptibility to erosion and is based on the surface soil (K factor) and the average slope of that soil. This rating is intended for use in the planning of management activities to indicate relative potential erosion hazards. A rating of low means that the soil has a mixture of sand, silt, and clay and has relatively high organic matter content, creating strong structure. These soils generally are on gentle to moderate slopes and do not usually require costly erosion-control measures. A rating of moderate means soils have moderate inherent erodibility and are generally on moderate to steep slopes. These soils are more easily dispersed by raindrop impact and may require more expense to control erosion and sedimentation. A rating of high indicates soils with moderate to high inherent erodibility and are usually on moderate to

Appendix C C-15 Rampart Range Recreation Area Motorized Roads and Trails Plan Road Analysis

very steep slopes. Soil particles are readily moved by overland flow after disturbance. These soils may require considerable expense to control erosion and sedimentation as a part of management practices when activities are planned for such areas.

The following roads are located in areas that are determined to have high erosion potential (see question AQ3 and Appendix L): 300, 300-O, 300P, 300Q, 300R, 348, 502, 502A, 506, 507, 511, 512, 512A, 512B, 534, 514A, 514B, 515, 516, 517, 520, 562, 563, 563A, 564, County Road 97, and State Highway 67 (See Appendix L: Erosion Hazard).

Some locations within the project area may experience surface erosion which may typically be short-lived, and any eroded sediment from the road network would not reach a stream network and therefore could not degrade water quality.

AQ(3) How and where does the road system affect mass wasting?

Mass wasting is influenced by a number of factors, including hill slope gradient, slope position, soil type, bedrock geology, geologic structure, type of road construction, road drainage, and groundwater characteristics. Mass wasting events such as debris flows often severely affect roadbed fills at stream crossings by transporting large amounts of sediment to higher order channels. The presence of roads across steep slopes can increase the risk of mass wasting due to the damming effect of the roadbed on subsurface flows.

Mass wasting hazard potentials of low, moderate and high are described below:

Low mass movement potential: Map units with low mass movement potential are on consolidated geologic materials such as gneiss, schist, granite, and sandstone. These geologic materials generally occur on gently sloping to moderately steep landforms. Photo interpretation and fieldwork showed no evidence of recent or previous landslides. There is little mass movement risk to management for activities planned for such areas. The potential for damage to watersheds resulting from mass movement is minimal.

Moderate mass movement potential: Map units with moderate mass movement potential are on poorly consolidated geologic materials such as interbedded sandstones, siltstone, and shales. These geologic materials occur on moderately steep to steep landforms. On-site investigations and air photo interpretation have shown these areas to be relatively stable or to have few ancient landslide materials. These areas have long since healed, and little recent movement has taken place or is likely to occur under normal conditions. Periods of prolonged seasonal precipitation or undercutting soil and geologic material may increase the risk of mass movement activities. A rating of moderate represents a certain amount of risk to the use and management of such areas. Higher costs for construction and design can be expected.

High mass movement potential: Map units with high rating occur on soft or poorly consolidated geologic materials such as shale or sandstone over soft shale. These geologic materials occur on moderately steep to very steep landforms. On-site investigation and air photo interpretation have shown recent evidence of mass movement. These areas include freshly cut scarps, exposed geologic strata, and raw accumulation areas. "Jack-strawed timber"—an array of angled and tilted trees resulting from differential root tensions from mass movement—are often present. A rating of

C-16 Appendix C Road Analysis Rampart Range Recreation Area Motorized Roads and Trails Plan

high represents a serious risk to use and management of such areas. An on-site soil, geo-technical, and hydrologic investigation is highly recommended. Higher costs for design and construction can be anticipated to achieve adequate resource protection.

Within the analysis area 6.4 miles of road having moderate potential for mass wasting (See Appendix K: Landslide Hazard). The remainder of this response discusses those potential hazards in-depth, which depict potential risk by road.

AQ(4) How and where do road-system crossings influence local stream channels and water quality?

Road crossings of stream channels without culverts can contribute large quantities of sediment to the stream due to disturbance of streambed material. Road crossings with culverts are also potential inputs of sediment to streams, either when culvert hydraulic capacity is exceeded or the culvert inlet is plugged and stream flows overtop the road fill. Erosion of the crossing fill and/or diversion of stream flow onto the road surface or inboard ditch can drastically alter channel morphology in the immediate downstream reaches of the affected stream. This would also cause short-term water quality problems, increases in turbidity and an increase of bedload capabilities of the channel.

The following roads in the RRMRA have stream crossings that may affect the stream water quality: 97, 348, 502, 503, 511, 512, 514, 515, 520, 562, 564 and 67 (see Appendix I).

AQ(5) How and where does the road system create potential for pollutants, such as chemical spills, oils, de-icing salts, or herbicides to enter surface waters?

Roads in the project area have the potential to create potential pollutants in several ways. Chemicals such as surfacing oils, magnesium chloride, de-icing salts, herbicides, and fertilizers may be applied to roads for maintenance, safety, or other improvement. Vehicle contaminants such as oils, brake-pad linings, and hydraulic fluid, as well as accidental spills, may also contaminate surface waters. Roads that have the highest potential for sources of pollutants entering the stream system are County Road 97 and State Highway 67. These roads are heavily traveled year round and during the winter may be sanded or de-iced, possibly polluting surface water.

AQ(6) How and where is the road system ‘hydrologically connected’ to the stream system? How do the connections affect water quality and quantity (such as delivery of sediments, thermal increases, elevated peak flows)?

There are several roads that are “hydrologically connected” to stream systems. These roads are listed in Appendix H: Road Maintenance Recommendations Spreadsheet, “Aquatic Risk” column. Hydrologic connectivity between the road system and stream system occurs where roads intercept and collect runoff and convey it into established intermittent or perennial stream channels along their surfaces or within their associated ditch systems. Wherever a hydrologic road connection exists, rapid runoff, sediments, and road associated chemicals generated can enter the natural channel network.

Appendix C C-17 Rampart Range Recreation Area Motorized Roads and Trails Plan Road Analysis

AQ(7) What downstream beneficial uses of water exist in the area? What changes in uses and demand are expected over time? How are they affected or put at risk by road- derived pollutants?

All watersheds in the analysis area are designated for the following beneficial uses: Aquatic Life (Coldwater), Recreation 1A, Water Supply, and Agriculture (Colorado Department of Health, 2005). The South Platte supplies water for Denver and Aurora. While these uses will not change much over time, the demand for water supply is expected to increase with the rising population along the Front Range. Sediment produced in the drainage can increase the cost of water treatment.

AQ(8) How and where does the road system affect wetlands?

Roads can affect wetlands by direct encroachment of roadbed fill or by altering hydrologic function in areas adjacent to them. Changes in surface or subsurface drainage associated with wetlands can affect moisture regimes required by existing riparian communities and create conditions conducive for invasive species. These roads are listed in the “Aquatic Risk” column of Appendix H: Road Maintenance Recommendations Spreadsheet.

AQ(9) How does the road system alter physical channel dynamics, including isolation of floodplains; constraints on channel migration; and the movement of large wood, fine organic matter, and sediment?

Stream systems are dynamic and typically migrate within historic floodplains as they erode and re-deposit streambed materials. Streams also transport and deposit large pieces of woody debris and finer organic matter that provide physical structure within the stream channel. Road alignment and road fills can isolate floodplains, increase flow energy by constricting the channel, constrain channel migration, and simplify riparian and aquatic habitat. Road encroachment on stream channels can also reflect stream flows to the opposite bank, creating a cutbank that may increases sediment input into the channel. Additionally wood and sediment trapped behind stream crossings, such as culverts, can limit the downstream transport of this material and increase the risk of a crossing failure.

AQ(10) How and where does the road system restrict the migration and movement of aquatic organisms? What aquatic species are affected and to what extent?

Undersized or perched culverts (where the outlet of the culvert is higher than the stream bed) can limit the movement of aquatic organisms in creeks. Resident fish are highly site loyal but can migrate seasonally prompted by environmental stresses such as summer and winter temperature extremes. These obstacles could effect the survival of resident fish populations. While much anecdotal evidence exists stating how culverts have restricted migration of fish, no data have been collected in the analysis area to characterize the extent of the problem.

C-18 Appendix C Road Analysis Rampart Range Recreation Area Motorized Roads and Trails Plan

AQ(11) How does the road system affect shading, litterfall, and riparian plant communities?

Roads can affect shading and litterfall by paralleling the stream which can constrict and reduce the riparian corridor vegetation which would reduce shading and the amount of litterfall entering the stream. See response to AQ(9).

AQ(12) How and where does the road system contribute to fishing, poaching, or direct habitat loss for at-risk aquatic species?

The Colorado Department of Wildlife and the Forest Service report that most non-compliance instances occur in the more isolated, backcountry locations with road access. These are also the areas where direct habitat loss occurs due to off-highway and in-stream ATV use, dispersed camping in riparian areas, user-developed trails, and poaching. These activities denude stream banks of vegetation that provides shade, wildlife cover, and filter functions for aquatic systems.

AQ(13) How and where does the road system facilitate the introduction of non-native aquatic species?

Whirling disease is a non-native aquatic species and parasite that has been confirmed in 13 of Colorado’s 15 major river drainages, including the Colorado, South Platte, Gunnison, Arkansas and Rio Grande rivers. Whirling disease is a parasitic infection of trout and salmon caused by a microscopic amoeba (Myxobolus cerebralis). The water-borne parasite may not directly kill trout, but fish heavily infested can become deformed or exhibit the erratic tail-chasing behavior from which the disease gets its name. Eventually, heavily infected young fish may die. Whirling disease is thought to be a major factor in the declines of wild rainbow trout populations in certain Colorado waters.

Direct stocking of hatchery-reared fish for recreational angling occurs in several locations in the area by the as well as the potential for stream locations stocked by private landholders. The Colorado Department of Wildlife has taken preventative measures to prevent this parasite from infecting its stocked trout (USFS 2003).

AQ(14) To what extent does the road system overlap with areas of exceptionally high aquatic diversity or productivity, or areas containing rare or unique aquatic species or species of interest?

This is described in the RRMRA Wildlife Report and Biological Assessment, 2005.

B. Terrestrial Wildlife (TW)

TW(1) What are the direct and indirect effects of the road system on terrestrial species habitat?

Roads result in the direct loss of available habitat and reduce habitat effectiveness for a number of wildlife species. The physical presence of a road and the potential for collisions with motorized vehicles have resulted in animals being killed when traveling between habitats. Roads disrupt

Appendix C C-19 Rampart Range Recreation Area Motorized Roads and Trails Plan Road Analysis

habitat selection processes for home ranges, reduce habitat suitability, and alter migration movements. Roads also allow the incursion of non-native and “edge” species (i.e., those that prefer areas where forests and meadows meet) (USFS, 2003).

Roads posing the greatest threat of wildlife mortality caused by motor vehicle collisions are State Highways, which allow greater vehicle speeds and higher traffic volume. In the analysis area, these include State Highways 67, County Road 97 and Forest Service Road 515 (Sprucewood). Common road-kill species on the Pike National Forest include mule deer, small mammals (e.g., Abert’s squirrels), and to a lesser degree elk, coyotes, and birds. Additional information can be found in Chapter 3 of the Environmental Assessment.

TW(2) How does the road system facilitate human activities that affect habitat?

Appendix M describes the effect of terrestrial habitats. Human disturbance can adversely affect these species on their winter range by causing increased activity and energy expenditure and decreased critical fat reserves needed to survive the winter.

Encroachment into wildlife habitat during critical periods can result in: 1) nest failure; 2) loss of young for that year; 3) reduced breeding potential; 4) displacement from suitable habitat and habitat avoidance; 5) increased predation; 6) increases in energy expenditure and stress; and 7) direct mortality (legal and illegal hunting, collection of body parts of value, etc.). These factors can cause lowered productivity, competition for home ranges among species, and mortality.

The road network for the RRMRA facilitates numerous human activities that affect wildlife and wildlife habitats including, but not limited to off-highway vehicle (OHV) use and four-wheel driving, recreational driving, sightseeing, mountain biking, horseback riding, cross-country skiing, hiking, snowmobiling, hunting and fishing, camping, and collecting special forest products.

TW(3) How does the road system affect legal and illegal human activities (including trapping, hunting, poaching, harassment, road kill, or illegal kill levels)? What are the effects on wildlife species?

Effects on wildlife and access for human activities were described in TW(2). Specifically, effects to wildlife include disruption of courtship, breeding, nesting and rearing of young, reduced habitat effectiveness, displacement from occupied habitats, and direct reductions in the amount of available habitat. Poaching of game species does occur, but the extent of this activity is unknown (USFS 2003).

Furbearer trapping is not a major recreational activity on the Pike National Forest, and effects due to the forest road network are not significant. Mortality to Abert’s tassel-eared squirrel from vehicle collisions is a concern in the Forest. Abert’s is a Forest Management Indicator Species (MIS), and mortality from vehicle collisions is most frequent along major state highways where suitable habitat for the species occurs (USFS 2003).

C-20 Appendix C Road Analysis Rampart Range Recreation Area Motorized Roads and Trails Plan

TW(4) How does the road system directly affect unique communities or special features in the area?

Human presence during critical periods can have adverse impacts on wildlife in areas that are important for territory formation/pairing, nesting, brood-rearing, wintering, migration, and big game production areas. Disturbance by humans during any of these times can result in loss of young for that year, displacement from suitable habitat, increased predation, and increased stress levels resulting in reduced fitness. Disturbance during the winter months is generally reduced during because access is limited due to snow.

Many road segments intersect habitats for Threatened, Endangered, Special Status Species or critical wildlife habitat. Please see Appendix M or review Chapter of the Environmental Assessment.

C. Ecosystem Functions and Processes (EF)

EF(1) What ecological attributes, particularly those unique to the region, would be affected by roading of currently unroaded areas?

The presence of roads can be associated with distribution and spread of exotic plants and changes in forest composition and structure, including the loss of old-forest characteristics and increased probability of human-caused fire. There can also be both direct and indirect effects on terrestrial species and habitats and effects on management activities, including fire suppression. Road density, road class, road location, and types of habitats traversed by roads may influence the severity of those effects. The presence of a road in a previously unroaded area will accelerate access for a variety of forest management activities that will change the amount, pattern, and composition of forest cover, and that may in turn lead to changes in terrestrial wildlife ecological processes (USFS 2003).

EF(2) To what degree do the presence, type, and location of roads increase the introduction and spread of exotic plant and animal species, insects, diseases, and parasites? What are the potential effects of such introductions to plant and animal species and ecosystem function in the area?

Roads may influence the spread of exotic organisms through the direct effects of vehicles transporting organisms or through the indirect effect of habitat alteration and creation of disturbed soils that favor weedy species. Weedy species may in turn have undesirable effects on native species and ecosystems by displacing native vegetation, reducing forage for wildlife and livestock, and degrading recreational values.

Populations of noxious weeds in the project area, including, diffuse knapweed (Centaurea diffusa), spotted knapweed (Centaurea maculosa), Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense ), musk thistle (Carduus nutans), Russian thistle (Salsola iberica), yellow toadflax (Linaria vulgaris), Dalmatian toadflax (Linaria genistifolia ssp. dalmatica), oxeye daisy (Chrysanthemum leucanthemum), scentless chamomile (Matricaria maritima) and leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula).

Appendix C C-21 Rampart Range Recreation Area Motorized Roads and Trails Plan Road Analysis

EF(3) To what degree do the presence, type, and location of roads contribute to the control of insects, diseases, and parasites?

The presence of roads and their location impacts management options and effectiveness in dealing with control of insects, diseases, and parasites. Roads provide access for sampling, monitoring, and ground-based treatment of forest insects, diseases, and parasites and provide access that increases the effectiveness of fire suppression efforts.

EF(4) How does the road system affect ecological disturbance regimes in the area?

See response to EF(1).

EF(5) What are the adverse effects of noise caused by developing, using, and maintaining roads?

See responses to TW(2), TW(3), TW(4) and Chapter 3 of the Environmental Assessment.

D. Economics (EC)

EC(1) How does the road system affect the agency’s direct costs and revenues? What, if any, changes in the road system will increase net revenue to the agency by reducing cost, increasing revenue, or both?

The R2 Supplement guidance for this question determined that there are three basic categories of roads: 1) roads that will always be open, 2) roads that will have motorized vehicle restrictions due to serious resource damage or annual budgetary constraints, and 3) roads that don't fall into either of the first two categories (the largest category) (USFS 2003).

Most of the roads within this project area were created over the years for a variety of access needs, and considerable capital investments were incurred to construct these roads. Most of these roads were analyzed in some form, which likely included use needs, construction design standards, environmental considerations, and economic assessment (USFS 2003).

According to the recent Hayman Road Analysis, funding levels needed to maintain and improve the Level 3, 4, and 5 roads shows that the annual road maintenance funding for this forest was still significantly less than adequate.

Forest Road Agreements with Douglas County provide the forest some maintenance on Level 3 through 5 roads.

The largest component of the forest road system is Level 1 and 2 roads. Current funding is producing maintenance cycles of one pass in 14 years compared to a cycle 10 years ago of one pass per seven years (one mile in 17 gets some kind of annual maintenance).

C-22 Appendix C Road Analysis Rampart Range Recreation Area Motorized Roads and Trails Plan

EC(2) How does the road system affect priced and non-priced consequences included in economic efficiency analysis used to assess net benefits to society?

Most travel ways provide access to permitted users of the forest in addition to providing access to the public for recreational pursuits and tourism. Permitted users include timber purchasers, special-use cabins, electronic sites, archery range, North Rainbow Falls subdivision, access for state agencies to administer wildlife, and OHV programs. Roads are necessary for the development and maintenance of these projects, which provide tangible and intangible benefits to diverse populations.

EC(3) How does the road system affect the distribution of benefits and costs among affected people?

Costs of road construction are generally borne by the project needing the roads (e.g. the timber sale or the water project or the minerals project). People affected include those that use the road system for dispersed recreation, developed recreation, minerals development, and administration of services

E. Timber Management (TM)

TM(1) How does road spacing and location affect logging system feasibility? and TM(2) How does the road system affect managing the suitable timber base and other lands?

Small scale timber management (less than 100 acres) is an ongoing process in the area. Much of this activity is related to the fuels reduction program. Existing roads, old logging and skid trails are used whenever feasible. Recently, Trails 692 and 693 were modified to be used as logging roads.

TM(3) How does the road system affect access to timber stands needing silvicultural treatment?

See TM(1) above.

The forest will have vegetation management projects in the analysis area for the next 15 to 20 years. These projects may include site preparation, planting, release, pest management, stand surveys, and pre-commercial thinning. Much of the existing road system will be needed to implement these projects.

F. Mineral Management (MM)

MM(1) How does the road system affect access to locatable, leasable, and salable minerals?

Access to most individual claims and sources depend on existing arterial and collector roads. Some claims require temporary unclassified roads. Currently no active mining occurs in the project area.

Appendix C C-23 Rampart Range Recreation Area Motorized Roads and Trails Plan Road Analysis

G. Range Management (RM)

RM(1) How does the road system affect access to range allotments?

No range allotments are present in the project area.

H. Water Production (WP)

WP(1) How does the road system affect access, constructing, maintaining, monitoring, and operating water diversions, impoundments, and distribution canals or pipes?

Water uses on the National Forest may include diversions, impoundments, and distribution systems. Road access is usually needed to move in the equipment used to build and maintain these structures. Road access also facilitates the monitoring and operation of these water systems (USFS 2003).

WP(2) How does road development and use affect the water quality in municipal watersheds? See AQ(7) above.

WP(3) How does the road system affect access to hydroelectric power generation?

Roads in the watersheds, especially unpaved roads, have the potential to contribute sediment to the reservoir which could affect the operation of the hydroelectric facility.

I. Special Forest Products (SP)

SP(1) How does the road system affect access for collecting special forest products?

Collecting special forest products often depends on using existing forest roads. These activities provide employment opportunities but typically do not support developing or maintaining roads.

A variety of products can be harvested from National Forests. Natural resources harvested for personal or commercial use are called non-timber or special forest products. Access to these resources has important economic value to many industries. How access to non-timber forest products will affect these resources remains an important issue.

Indirectly, roads play a role monitoring harvest activities as well as in illegal takings. Illegal collection is considered a problem in many areas. Other reports and inventories have maps indicating roads that offer access to non-timber forest products and often act as a means of pinpointing desirable harvesting areas (USFS 2003).

J. Special Use Permits (SU)

SU(1) How does the road system affect managing special-use permit sites (concessionaires, communication sites, utility corridors, and so on)?

Developed campgrounds and picnic areas located in the project area that are managed by a private concessionaire under permit with the USDA Forest Service. Commercial outfitters under permit

C-24 Appendix C Road Analysis Rampart Range Recreation Area Motorized Roads and Trails Plan

who use the road system would be affected if roads are closed or decommissioned. Closure of any classified and unclassified roads will remain an important issue to special-use permit holders..

K. General Public Transportation (GT)

GT(1) How does the road system connect to public roads and provide primary access to communities?

County and state highways traverse into or through the National Forest. These roads connect to arterial, collector, and some local roads at the forest boundary where traffic is dispersed into the forest providing access to communities, tourists, industries, and private lands. Primary access to the RRMRA is from State Highway 67 with County Road 97 providing additional access.

GT(2) How does the road system connect large blocks of land in other ownership to public roads (ad hoc communities, subdivisions, inholdings, and so on)?

Forest Service policy is that access will be provided to a level that is reasonable and suitable for the uses occurring on the land. Access to inholdings are addressed on an individual basis as requests are received. When subdivision occurs on a larger private parcel, forest policy is to require landowners to create an association or some type of consolidated organization to represent all of the landowner interests. This eliminates the need for the forest to enter into road use or special-use permits with each individual landowner. Access is normally limited to summer or non- snow periods, but on occasion, permits are issued for snow plowing during the winter (USFS 2003).

Rights of access by law, reciprocal rights, or easements should be recorded in forest files and county courthouse documents. The forest recognizes these rights and works with the owners to preserve access while protecting the natural resources and facilities on adjacent National Forest lands (USFS 2003).

GT(3) How does the road system affect managing roads with shared ownership or with limited jurisdiction? (RS 2477, cost-share, prescriptive rights, FLPMA easements, FRTA easements, DOT easements)?

When desirable, cooperative agreements should be established to share road improvement and maintenance responsibilities when all partners can benefit. These responsibilities should be determined through a commensurate share process. If access is being provided by a public road agency such as the county or state, then the Forest Service may not be obligated to provide any additional access over federal lands. When larger developments or subdivisions occur and inholding traffic is expected to exceed that generated by the users of the National Forest, agency policy is to pursue turning jurisdiction of the forest road over to another public road authority such as the county or state (USFS 2003).

These roads will be open and available to the traveling public on a regular and consistent basis. Public Forest Service roads will be maintained for passenger access and provide unrestricted access (except when there are seasonal snow closures, emergency closures, or scheduled closures such as for wildlife) to and through the National Forest. Portions of these forest highways are still

Appendix C C-25 Rampart Range Recreation Area Motorized Roads and Trails Plan Road Analysis

under the jurisdiction of the forest. When funding is secured and improvements are made to bring these sections to Federal Highway Administration standards, they will be turned over to either the state or county (USFS 2003).

At present, coordination with Douglas county officials is ongoing for maintenance of Rampart Road (Forest Road #300).

GT(4) How does the road system address the safety of road users?

In 1975, the Forest Service developed a Memorandum of Understanding with the Federal Highway Administration that required the Forest Service to apply the requirements of the national highway safety program, established by the Highway Safety Act, to all roads open to public travel. In 1982, this agreement was modified to define “open to public travel” as “those roads passable by four-wheeled standard passenger cars and open to general public travel use without restrictive gates, prohibitive signs…” Most roads maintained at Levels 3, 4, and 5 meet this definition. Design, maintenance, and traffic control on these roads emphasizes user safety and economic efficiency (USFS 2003).

Safety work such as surface maintenance, roadside clearing, and installation and maintenance of warning and regulatory signs are performed on an annual basis, but due to budget limitations many roads do not receive adequate yearly maintenance. During the winter, most of these roads are not plowed open and some are subject to seasonal restrictions to prevent road damage during the early spring when roads are drying out. Traffic control signing follows standards set forth in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) (USFS 2003).

When accidents occur on forest roads, often the Forest Service is not immediately informed unless an employee is involved. Accidents involving only public motorists are reported to the local sheriff or state patrol, if reported at all. When the forest does become aware of an accident, an investigation is initiated to attempt to identify the cause. If a feature of the road is found to be unsafe, addressing the condition becomes a high priority. Presently, there is no comprehensive program on the Pike National Forest for identifying accident locations and for maintaining surveillance of those locations having high accident rates or losses as is required by the Highway Safety Act (USFS 2003).

Maintenance Level 1 and 2 roads that intersect the higher standard roads need to be clearly distinguishable from those that are managed for passenger car use. This can be accomplished in a variety of ways. The surface type and condition of the lower standard road should convey the impression that a high-clearance vehicle is needed. The route marker used to identify should be placed back from the intersection so it does not readily attract attention to the road. It should be shaped so the number is vertically aligned and not of the distinctive or rectangular shaped signs used on Level 3, 4, and 5 roads. The closure device on roads that are maintained at Level 1 should be visible from the intersection or have a clear warning sign for traffic approaching the closure. Forest officials should give high priority to recommending decommissioning those roads that pose the greatest risk to public safety (USFS 2003).

Travel management regulations are posted on the ground and described on the forest visitor’s map. These regulations have been established by the forest to enable safe motorized travel while

C-26 Appendix C Road Analysis Rampart Range Recreation Area Motorized Roads and Trails Plan

protecting natural resources and minimizing conflicts between users. Off-highway recreation vehicles such as trail motorcycles and ATVs are discouraged on higher standard arterial and collector roads but are not prohibited. Colorado state law governs operation of off-highway vehicles. Off-highway vehicles must be registered in Colorado or (recognized in reciprocity) registered in another state. Colorado Revised Statute 33-14.5-108: Off-highway vehicle operation prohibited on streets, roads, and highways govern off-highway vehicle use. The statute provides an exception to lands of the United States. The public land agencies of the United States determine use on roads and trails or off-highway use. Current forest policy allows off-highway vehicles on roads under Forest Service jurisdiction (USFS 2003).

Colorado law per CRS 42-4-1101 provides that: “the driver of a motor vehicle must at all times so operate it as to maintain reasonable control over it, at a speed no greater than is reasonable and prudent under the conditions then existing.” The statute also provides a speed limit of 20 miles per hour on narrow, winding mountain highways or on blind curves, and for roads not posted with warning or speed limit signs (USFS 2003).

L. Administrative Use (AU)

AU(1) How does the road system affect access for research, inventory, and monitoring?

Road access can affect research, inventories, and field monitoring. Limited or no road access increases time and costs for field observations. Access to individual watersheds depends on this road system (USFS 2003).

AU(2) How does the road system affect investigative or enforcement activities?

Forest Service law enforcement agents are faced with a growing workload paralleling the growth in forest recreation uses. This new workload adds to the traditional work related to natural resource theft or trespass. Expanded road access, particularly near towns, can add to problems with garbage dumping, vandalism, and other criminal activities. Because law enforcement use of roads most often applies to local access, it is best addressed at the watershed scale or finer. Information needs include traffic-accident investigative information, roadway condition, direction of travel, accident evidence, federal-violation investigative information, and evidence of timber theft. Public access by roads into an area creates greater creation of illegal routes and a greater law enforcement workload (USFS 2003).

M. Protection (PT)

PT(1) How does the road system affect fuels management?

Without an adequate road system, options for fuel management are generally limited to broadcast burning larger tracts of land at one time with aerial ignition. This is generally not acceptable to the public because of air quality concerns. The present system of arterial and collector roads are essential to implement much-needed fuels treatments in the near future (USFS 2003).

PT(2) How does the road system affect the capacity of the Forest Service and cooperators to suppress wildfires?

Appendix C C-27 Rampart Range Recreation Area Motorized Roads and Trails Plan Road Analysis

Roads are an integral tool for fire suppression in the urban interface or a wildland setting. Any road, whether a main arterial or a local road, can hold a fire at class A size until resources arrive to extinguish it (USFS 2003).

PT(3) How does the road system affect risk to firefighters and to public safety?

Roads make firefighting safer by providing escape routes as well as barriers to fire spread. However, if there is no emergency, there may be a public safety issue when the public may become lost due to too many roads (USFS 2003).

PT(4) How does the road system contribute to airborne dust emissions resulting in reduced visibility and human health concerns?

This will be analyzed at a forest-wide scale as a part of the Pike/San Isabel Forest Roads Analysis Project (USFS 2003).

N. Unroaded Recreation (UR)

UR(1) Is there now or will there be in the future excess supply or excess demand for unroaded recreation opportunities?

The Forest Plan describes management requirements for individual management areas within the project area. The project area has 5 management area types which are described below. Each management area is assigned with a Recreational Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) such as rural, roaded natural, semi-primitive motorized, semi-primitive non-motorized and primitive classes. The ROS is used to describe the recreation opportunities available on the landscape according to different criteria including the presence of roads and the distance from roads. The project area has all of the above classes except the primitive classification. According to the PSICC Forest Plan, approximately 84 percent of the recreation use on the Pike and San Isabel National Forests occurs within the Roaded-Natural, Rural, and Urban ROS classes (USFS 2003).

The RRMRA has seen an increase in users in the recent past, especially for off road ATV recreation opportunities. As a result both roaded and unroaded areas will be subject to increased use.

UR(2) Is developing new roads into unroaded areas, decommissioning of existing roads, or changing the maintenance of existing roads causing substantial changes in the quantity, quality, or type of unroaded recreation opportunities?

Few official FS roads, if any, have been built in unroaded areas during the past decade, so this has not affected current recreation opportunities. Developing new roads into unroaded areas would reduce the quantity and quality of unroaded recreation. The increasing presence of illegally created motorized social trails/roads, or unclassified roads, is also reducing the quantity and quality of unroaded recreation. Due to a lack of funds and resources (see EC (1)), many roads haven’t been maintained regularly. Increasing or decreasing regular maintenance can change the frequency and patterns of use, but this shouldn’t cause any substantial changes in the quantity, quality, or type of unroaded recreation opportunities. Decommissioning roads or converting roads

C-28 Appendix C Road Analysis Rampart Range Recreation Area Motorized Roads and Trails Plan

to non-motorized trails may create new unroaded recreation opportunities while decreasing roaded recreation opportunities (USFS 2003).

UR(3) What are the effects of noise and other disturbances caused by developing, using, and maintaining roads on the quantity, quality, and type of unroaded recreation opportunities?

Developing, using, and maintaining roads in the project area can affect unroaded recreation by producing dust, noise, visual activity, and a sense of crowding (the feeling of too many people in one place). In addition, increasing the miles of roads or roaded use of previously unroaded areas can result in the degradation or loss of unroaded experiences and displacement of non-motorized recreationists. Where log-hauling activities and other fire rehab projects are underway, visitors are displaced into other parts of the forest. This could affect current users for an unspecified period. Motorized users (motorcycles, dirt bikes, and OHVs) can affect the solitude of visitors within earshot of roads or motorized trails. These activities need to be managed for their location relative to unroaded opportunities (USFS 2003).

UR(4) Who participates in unroaded recreation in the areas affected by constructing, maintaining, and decommissioning roads?

All forest users travel the arterial/collector roads (maintenance Level 3 through 5). Level 2 roads provide dispersed recreationists with access into otherwise inaccessible areas. According to the 2002 National Visitor Use Monitoring (NVUM) Report (USFS, 2002), most visitors to PSICC designated wilderness areas were male (81%), Caucasian (98%), and between the ages of 31 to 40 (30%). Hunters, anglers, rock climbers, bikers, hikers, and horseback riders currently use areas without (and with) roads.

UR(5) What are these participants’ attachments to the area, how strong are their feelings, and available?

Attachment to the project area is very strong for local residents, regular users, and motorized/non- motorized recreationists. The project area is located on the Pike National Forest, which has the distinction of being one of 14 Urban National Forests because of its proximity to the estimated two million people living along the Colorado Front Range. For many, the area is considered to be part of their backyard because of this close proximity. Those participating in unroaded recreation opportunities would not welcome a road into any roadless area (USFS 2003).

Alternate locations for unroaded recreation do exist on other Front Range National Forests; other federal, state, and locally managed lands; and on the Western Slope of Colorado. There are several wilderness areas close by, including the Lost Creek Wilderness, the Evans Wilderness and the Buffalo Peaks Wilderness, which can provide higher-quality unroaded recreation experiences. However, many of these alternate locations may be a further distance away and completely unfamiliar to recreationists, which could negatively impact their experience (USFS 2003).

Appendix C C-29 Rampart Range Recreation Area Motorized Roads and Trails Plan Road Analysis

UR(6): How does the road system affect the Scenic Integrity? How is developing new roads, decommissioning of existing roads, or changing the maintenance of existing roads into unroaded areas affecting the Scenic Integrity?

See responses to UR(2), UR(3), and RR(7).

O. Road-Related Recreation (RR)

RR(1) Is there now or will there be in the future excess supply or excess demand for roaded recreation opportunities? See UR(1) above.

As the Colorado Front Range continues to grow rapidly in population, and as OHV technology continues to become more affordable, there will be a corresponding increase in the demand for roaded recreation. The 2002 National Visitor Use Monitoring (NVUM) Report shows total recreation use (developed, dispersed, and wilderness) on the forest for fiscal year 2001 at 3.87 million visits. Based on demand trends given in the PSICC Forest Plan, dispersed recreation use alone is projected to increase to more than six million recreation visitor days by the year 2030. Approximately 64 percent of all recreation use on the PSICC is attributed to dispersed recreation activities outside of wilderness (USFS 1984). The most popular activity is driving for pleasure, followed by hiking and camping in undeveloped sites. The 2002 NVUM Report also states that the top five recreation activities on the PSICC were viewing natural features, relaxing, viewing wildlife, driving for pleasure, and hiking/walking (USFS 2003).

Nearly all activities require a road for access. About 80 percent of the use occurring outside of developed sites and wilderness occurs on or near roads (USDA Forest Service 1984). Off- highway vehicle travel is one of the most important public issues and management concerns on the Forest and reflects the conflicts that develop between non-motorized and motorized recreation use activities (USDA Forest Service 1984). According to the PSICC Forest Plan, there is adequate capacity to meet demands for dispersed recreation opportunities. However, concentrations of use in the most popular areas can be expected to cause problems or conflicts requiring increased management effort to distribute the use or prevent resource damage (USDA Forest Service 1984). The RRMRA has seen an increase in users in the recent past. Demand for off road recreation opportunities is growing, especially with the ATV users. As a result areas with roaded and motorized designations will be subject to increased use.

RR(2) Is developing new roads into unroaded areas, decommissioning of existing roads, or changing the maintenance of existing roads causing substantial changes in the quantity, quality, or type of roaded recreation opportunities? See UR(2) above.

Roads are part of an infrastructure that link people to time, place, tradition, culture, and way of life throughout human history. Thus, roads do more than lead people from point A to point B to point C. Roads also allow access to and from various places, signify freedom for many recreationists, and provide a unique sense of place in human culture and tradition. Road access is therefore a highly desired and valuable asset that people rely on. Any proposed road management can take away from, or enhance, this desirable and valuable asset. Areas are closed or restricted to motorized use to achieve other multiple-use objectives, such as protecting soil resources or providing wildlife seclusion during critical birthing and nesting seasons. Closing areas to

C-30 Appendix C Road Analysis Rampart Range Recreation Area Motorized Roads and Trails Plan

motorized use sometimes affects traditional access patterns for recreation, hunting, and firewood gathering. Closure of any classified roads remains an important issue to residents and visitors (USFS 2003).

RR(3) What are the effects of noise and other disturbances caused by developing, using, and maintaining roads on the quantity, quality, and type of roaded recreation opportunities?

See UR(3) above.

Developing, using, and maintaining roads in the project area can affect roaded recreation by producing dust and noise. Though motorized recreationists tend to be more tolerant of these impacts than do non-motorized recreationists, these byproducts of road development and maintenance can still degrade the recreation experience. Where log-hauling activities and other fire rehabilitation projects are underway, visitors are displaced into other parts of the forest. This could affect current users for an unspecified period (USFS 2003).

RR(4) Who participates in roaded recreation in the areas affected by constructing, maintaining, or decommissioning?

See UR(4) above.

All forest users travel the arterial/collector roads (maintenance Level 3 through 5). Level 2 roads provide dispersed recreationists with access into otherwise inaccessible areas. According to the 2002 NVUM Report, most visitors to PSICC were male (65%), Caucasian (93%), and between the ages of 31 and 50 (51%). Roaded recreationists include the same type of users who access the unroaded areas: hunters, anglers, rock climbers, bikers, hikers, and horseback riders, as well as those who simply access the developed and dispersed recreation sites, such as campers and picnickers. OHV riding, four-wheeling, and dirt-bike riding are also extremely popular roaded recreation activities within the project area.

RR(5) What are these participants’ attachments to the area, how strong are their feelings, and are alternative opportunities and locations available?

See UR(5) above.

Attachment to the project area is very strong for local residents, regular users, and motorized/non- motorized recreationists. The project area is located on the Pike National Forest, which has the distinction of being one of 14 Urban National Forests because of its proximity to the estimated two million people living along the Colorado Front Range. For many, the area is considered part of their backyard because of this close proximity. Much of the area is known regionally and statewide for having challenging roaded terrain for Off-highway vehicles and four-wheel driving (4WD). Several of these “extreme” roads have been adopted for maintenance and education purposes by 4WD clubs from the Colorado Front Range. The Rampart Range Motorized Recreation Area is also known throughout the state and the western region of the United States for the many roaded recreation opportunities presented there. There are additional motorized

Appendix C C-31 Rampart Range Recreation Area Motorized Roads and Trails Plan Road Analysis

recreation opportunities on other areas of the Pike National Forest, the San Isabel NF, the Arapaho and Roosevelt NF, and on the Rio Grande NF (USFS 2003).

RR(6) How does the road system affect the Scenic Integrity? How is developing new roads, decommissioning of existing roads, or changing the maintenance of existing roads into unroaded areas affecting the Scenic Integrity?

See responses to RR(3) and RR(7).

RR(7): How does road management affect wilderness attributes, including natural integrity, natural appearance, opportunities for solitude, and opportunities for primitive recreation?

Roads and road use may negatively affect non-motorized recreationists, and some people have expressed an interest in wanting roads closed or decommissioned. Although they use roads to access trailheads into unroaded areas or wilderness areas, many users perceive roads to be a deterrent to healthy wildlife habitat or unacceptable contributors to stream sedimentation. They see these unroaded areas as critical to their individual, community, or ecosystem health (USFS 2003).

High road density and open motorized access have always been public issues and concerns on the Pike National Forest. The project area includes several roadless areas. The closure, presence, or addition of new roads and their management in proximity to wilderness areas can change the natural integrity and opportunities for solitude because of differences in vistas, amounts of noise and dust, and crowding. As mentioned in UR(2), the increasing presence of unclassified roads can also decrease wilderness attributes such as natural integrity, natural appearance, and opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation (USFS 2003).

P. Social Issues (SI)

SI(1) Who are the direct users of the road system and of the surrounding areas? What activities are they directly participating in on the forest? Where are these activities taking place?

The direct users of the road system include government agency personnel, public recreationists, counties, commercial entrepreneurs, scientists, students, hobbyists, collectors, and most anyone who enjoys the atmosphere of a forest setting. People who use the Pike National Forest are not only local in proximity, but also come from across the country and around the world (USFS 2003).

Administrative activities include construction and maintenance of forest facilities; management of forest land, including fire management, habitat improvement, watershed and fisheries improvement, and scientific study; land ownership allocations; law enforcement; BAER treatments due to wildfire; and contract and permit administration, including special uses, outfitter guides, mineral extraction, timber harvest, grazing, and access to in holdings (USFS 2003).

C-32 Appendix C Road Analysis Rampart Range Recreation Area Motorized Roads and Trails Plan

Recreation activities (activities on roads and trails) include pleasure driving, four-wheel driving, OHV riding, motorcycling, bicycling, hiking, cross-country skiing, snowmobiling, horseback riding, pack-animal hiking, destination recreation, picnicking, birding, collecting, backpacking, camping, hunting, fishing, and sightseeing (USFS 2003).

Commercial activities can include timber harvest, salvage harvest, thinning and planting of suitable lands, and special uses such as grazing on allotments, mining, and outfitter and guide activities.

People also use the road system to access specific places or sites that hold value culturally, spiritually, or historically. The ability to access these places is important, as is protection for sites (USFS 2003).

Destination activities can occur anywhere on the forest (with snowmobiling limited to motorized winter areas). The other uses occur on the travel system (USFS 2003).

The 1984 Forest Plan includes management area prescriptions with specific standards and guidelines for particular areas. Infrastructure standards and guides are listed for most prescriptions. Some limit certain modes of travel, while others allow all modes of travel. All summer motorized and mechanized forms of travel are restricted to designated routes for the entire forest (USFS 2003).

SI(2) Why do people value their specific access to national forest and grasslands – what opportunities does access provide?

As stated in Forest Roads: A Synthesis of Scientific Information (USDA Forest Service, 2000) “Almost all of the varied types of public recreational uses of National Forests depend in one way or another on roads for access. Whether, when, and where various recreational uses occur depend on the availability of access to—and the extent and location of—the road system. Altering this system is likely to have widespread and differing effects across different types of uses” (USFS 2003).

Of high value to people is the ability to recreate on the forest. In order to participate in most activities, people have to be able to get to certain places on the forest. Most recreation activities require road access to get to trails, access points, or places to recreate. Some forms of recreation require roads to actually partake in the activity (e.g. four-wheel driving, driving for pleasure). While access is valued, so are roadless and wilderness areas (USFS 2003).

For some, the value of access on the forest is directly related to personal income and jobs. Timber and non-timber production, grazing, outfitter-guide services, and special-use permits such as ski areas, are all ways people make money by using the National Forest. Many local businesses rely on tourists coming to the area to recreate on the Pike National Forest. This indirect effect is significant to some communities surrounding the Hayman burn area (USFS 2003).

Appendix C C-33 Rampart Range Recreation Area Motorized Roads and Trails Plan Road Analysis

SI(3) How does the road system affect access to paleontological, archaeological, and historical sites?

Existing roads or trails might be historic travel routes and their historic character diminishes by continuing erosion. Also see Chapter 3 of the Environmental Assessment.

SI(4) How does the road system affect cultural and traditional uses (such as plant gathering, and access to traditional and cultural sites) and American Indian treaty rights? CH(2): How does the road system and road management affect the exercise of American Indian treaty rights? (Similar to SI(4) in FS-643).

See responses to UR(3), UR(5), RR(2), RR(3), RR(7), and SI(2).

SI(5) How are roads that are historic sites affected by road management? CH(3): How does road use and road management affect roads that constitute historic sites? (Similar to I(5) in FS-643).

See responses to UR(1), UR(2), RR(1), RR(2), RR(5), RR(7), CH(1), and CH(2). Existing roads or trails might be historic travel routes and their historic character diminishes by continuing erosion.

Q. Cultural And Heritage (CH)

CH(1): How does the road system affect access to paleontological, archaeological, and historic sites?

As of the end of the 2004 calendar year, the Forest Service had conducted 27 prior cultural resource inventories in the Rampart Range OHV Travel Management Analysis Area or near vicinity. As the results of these cultural investigations, 10,631 acres have been inventoried for cultural properties and 232 cultural properties have been identified; 175 historic and 57 prehistoric.

The recording of these sites is associated with Cultural Resource project inventories. As sites are recorded, recommendations are made as to the site’s eligibility for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). The following designations are recommended: not eligible and eligible. The eligible category also includes need data, not determined, and never evaluated.

Each site (historic, prehistoric) is unique to the cultural element that makes it eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Associated negative elements such as roads, access, and distance from road and human impacts, are taken into consideration when recommending site protective measures. For instance, a developed road that goes through or adjacent to a site, with no visible cultural manifestations to the untrained eye, will most likely have no road or road access concerns. However, road maintenance outside of the roads corridor (e.g., replacement of culverts, drainage ditches) has the potential to impact sites. In those instances where cultural materials are visible to the untrained eye, protective measures may include the following recommendation: road closure, limiting access, signing restrictive area, or interpretation. As the complexity of road development decreases, the likelihood of impacting a site through road

C-34 Appendix C Road Analysis Rampart Range Recreation Area Motorized Roads and Trails Plan

maintenance increases. In addition, monitoring NRHP-eligible sites will also assist in determining impacts and assist with making site protection recommendations (USFS 2003).

Existing roads, trails and converted roads to trails would continue to deteriorate with increased rutting and erosion. Increased and expanded erosion might affect archeological deposits where cultural sites intersect or are adjacent to existing roads and trails. Existing roads or trails might be historic travel routes in their own right and their historic character diminishes by continuing erosion.

CH(2): How does the road system affect cultural and traditional uses (such as plant gathering, and access to traditional and cultural sites) and American Indian Treaty Rights?

Traditional use within the Rampart Roads Analysis area is not documented and is unknown. Indigenous people occupied this area up to 1880. It is likely that small family groups in pursuit of natural resources also accessed traditional and cultural sites within the project area. However, these activities are not documented. It is also possible that at a later date this information may become available through consultation and data sharing.

The Ute Indians are the indigenous inhabitants of the Rampart Roads Analysis area. Other Indian groups lived on the plains at different times and made excursions into the Front Range of the Rocky Mountains. The 1600s found the Comanche living north of the Utes, separating them from the Wind River Shoshone and the Apache were located on the eastern plains. By the early 1700s, the Comanche had settled on the eastern plains, pushing the Apache to the south. The western advance of Euro-Americans displaced the Arapahoe and the Cheyenne who established themselves on the plains, east of the Front Range, displacing the Comanche to the south. During this time it is possible that other nomadic or displaced Native American groups traversed and made incipient excursions into the Rampart Road Analysis area.

As Euro-American settlement continued, the Ute Indians were beginning to be displaced. Eastern Ute lands were ceded by a treaty in 1868, which included the eastern half of the state of Colorado. With the discovery of precious metals, which prompted another treaty in 1873, the Ute territory was once again forced to change. The Meeker Massacre of 1879 dramatically altered Ute lands and restricted their movement to three Ute Reservations: Uintah – Ouray in Utah, the Southern Ute and Ute Mountain Ute reservations in the southwest corner of Colorado. Ute lands were ceded by treaty and did not include treaty rights giving them access to resources within their traditional homeland.

Other Native American groups that traversed or made excursions into the analysis area do not have treaty rights within the Rampart Roads Analysis area (USFS 2003).

CH(3): How are roads that constitute historic sites affected by road management?

Existing roads within the Rampart Roads Analysis area were developed prior to the establishment of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) and were often grand-fathered into forest system roads. Therefore, environmental and archaeological concerns were not taken into account prior to planning and construction. Many of

Appendix C C-35 Rampart Range Recreation Area Motorized Roads and Trails Plan Road Analysis

the existing roads are associated with historic mining, logging, homesteading, and ranching. Historic travel routes that have been documented and recorded include State Highway 67, Rampart Range Road, and State Hwy 97.

These roads were loosely constructed within the boundaries of previous routes, leaving intact original segments of its historic predecessor. The maintenance of these roads, within their existing corridors, should have little effect on historic values. However, if the maintenance takes place outside of the road corridors (roadbed), the activity has the potential to affect historic and prehistoric cultural resources (USFS 2003).

The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) directs that heritage resource concerns must be taken into account whenever there is expenditure of federal funds, issuance of licenses, permits, or contracts. In order to comply with this directive, the PSICC has a project request form (“Request for Cultural Resources Survey or Evaluation and Request for Biological Evaluation”) that is submitted during the planning phase. This request sets in motion background research, determination of undertaking, heritage resource survey/documentation, and finding of concurrence by Programmatic Agreement or written concurrence by the State Historic Preservation Officer/Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (SHPO/OAHP) (USFS 2003).

R. Civil Rights And Environmental Justice (CR)

CR(1) Is the road system used or valued differently by minority, low-income, or disabled populations than by the general population? Would potential changes to the road system or its management have is proportionate negative impacts on minority, low-income, or disabled populations?

Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, requires federal agencies to identify and address “…disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations …” In addition, Department of Agriculture agencies are required, per the Secretary of Agriculture’s 1978 decision, to identify and address the civil rights implications of proposed agency actions in their management decisions (USFS 2003).

The counties surrounding the Rampart Motorized Recreation Area—Douglas, Jefferson, Park and Teller—have low minority representation and few households at or below the poverty level as described by 2000 Census information. It is unlikely that any transportation management decisions made for the area would have disproportionate negative effects on any low-income or minority population. Specific consultation with federal tribes would be conducted for any actions taken and would highlight concerns and issues that may impact tribal use of the area (USFS 2003).

The Pike National Forest does not discriminate against any group of persons based on color, creed, abilities, nationality, or background. All persons are treated equally in policy and management of the National Forest. Travel management is no exception. The rules, standards, and laws that govern how the travel system is developed and used apply equally to all who use it (USFS 2003).

C-36 Appendix C Road Analysis Rampart Range Recreation Area Motorized Roads and Trails Plan

The policy holds true for persons with disabilities. According to direction set forth in Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Janet Zeller, Interim National Accessibility Program Manager on Issue: Legal requirements re: accessibility and UDSA Forest Service Programs): “No otherwise qualified person with a disability in the United States shall, solely by reason of his disability, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance or under any program or activity conducted by any Federal Executive agency or by the United States Postal Service” (USFS 2003).

“Further the person with the disability must be able to achieve the purpose of the program or activity without modifications to the program or activity that fundamentally alters the nature of that program or activity’ ” (7CFR 15e.103(iii)(2), (USFS 2003).

It should be noted that the term “reasonable accommodation” is only used in reference to employment. There is no such requirement for program access. There is no legal requirement to permit a person with a disability to use an OHV in any area that restricts or prohibits OHV use under the Forest Plan or the Forest Travel Plan/Transportation Plan (USFS 2003).

S. Passive Use Value (PV)

PV(1) Do areas planned for road entry, closure, or decommissioning have unique physical or biological characteristics, such as unique natural features and threatened or endangered species?

This question has been incorporated into the Social Issues Questions.

PV(2) Do areas planned for road construction, closure, or decommissioning have unique cultural, additional, symbolic, sacred, spiritual, or religious significance?

This question has been incorporated into the Social Issues Questions.

PV(3) What, if any, groups of people (ethnic groups, subcultures, and so on) hold cultural, symbolic, spiritual, sacred, traditional, or religious values for unroaded areas planned for road entry or road closure?

This question has been incorporated into the Social Issues Questions.

PV(4) Will road construction, closure, or decommissioning significantly affect passive- use value?

This question has been incorporated into the Social Issues Questions.

The SI and CR questions from FS-643 have been reorganized and renumbered by a National effort into SI, CH, and CR questions.

Appendix C C-37

This page intentionally left blank

Road Analysis Rampart Range Recreation Area Motorized Roads and Trails Plan

VI. STEP 5 – DESCRIBING OPPORTUNITIES AND SETTING PRIORITIES

Through the analysis conducted in Step 4, the major uses and effects of the road system including environmental, social, and economic effects of the existing road system was examined. The following is a summary of the benefits, problems, and risks of the current road system.

Can the maintenance requirements of the existing system be met with current and projected budgets?

One of the primary drivers of road reform is to bring the road system into balance with projected budgets. If maintenance needs exceed the funds projected to be available, the opportunities to reduce mileage in the system, reduce maintenance, increase the cost-efficiency of maintenance, or have someone else perform the maintenance (i.e., users) must be considered.

Most roads within this project area were developed over the years for a variety of access needs and with considerable capital investments incurred to construct them. Funding levels needed to maintain and improve the Level 3, 4, and 5 roads is significantly less than adequate. The Pike National Forest needs to take advantage of options to increase revenue to address the shortfall of road maintenance funding.

Are some existing roads not needed to meet projected access needs?

Some roads currently part of the system may not be necessary to meet the access needs projected in current or revised forest plans. Certain roads were identified to change to Maintenance Level 1 roads (roads that are closed) and others were identified to be obliterated and removed from the roads inventory. Closed roads will be considered hydrologically self-maintaining to allow some use by forest visitors to continue.

If new access is proposed, what are the expected benefits and risks?

No new road access is proposed.

Does this analysis indicate problems, risks, and opportunities that could lead to reconsideration of existing decisions? What opportunities exist to change the road system to reduce the problems and risks or to be more consistent with forest plan direction and strategic intent of the roads system?

Changing some road systems will be considered as a form of active ecosystem restoration rather than simply correcting existing problems. For example, seasonal or year-round road closures across a large area could create new refuge for species that require large habitat areas with minimal human disturbance. Alternatively, new road access might be used to attract forest visitors to less sensitive areas and reduce visitor pressure on more sensitive areas. Recreation priorities could also be served through such strategies. For example, new primitive or semi-primitive recreational opportunities could be created by implementing large area road closures.

Appendix C C-39 Rampart Range Recreation Area Motorized Roads and Trails Plan Road Analysis

Are additional roads or improved roads needed to improve access for forest use or protection, or to improve the efficiency of forest use or administration?

Temporary access needs may not be fully met by the existing transportation system. Temporary roads may be needed to meet access needs for National Forest management, forest protection, fuels reduction, or monitoring.

What changes to the road system could be used to respond to the priorities identified?

Changes in response to identified priorities and opportunities could include, but are not limited to:

• Changes in road maintenance level or schedule

• Upgrading or downgrading of road characteristics to match current objectives and uses

• Individual road closures or area-wide road closures

• Traffic management

• Road decommissioning

Where possible, individual opportunities should be aggregated into an integrated set of recommendations for changing the road system and its management. Opportunities identified in this analysis can be fed into planning, budgeting, and scheduling of forest programs of work, project-scale analyses, and land-management planning.

A. Road Management Strategy Recommendations

The ID Team and line officers have identified management opportunities and formulated technical recommendations that should prove helpful to those who will establish priorities for future projects. In addition to individual resource ratings (see appendices I through L), overall ID team recommendations are identified in the “Road Maintenance Recommendations Spreadsheet” (Appendix G).

Approximately 120 miles of roads were evaluated under this Roads Analysis. Appendix H includes the final recommendations of the Rampart Range Motorized Recreation Area project area.

C-40 Appendix C Road Analysis Rampart Range Recreation Area Motorized Roads and Trails Plan

VII. STEP 6 – REPORTING

This Roads Analysis addressed various aspects of the road system in the RRMRA. The results are found in the Proposed Action of the accompanying Environmental Assessment and in Appendix H.

Appendix C C-41

This page intentionally left blank

Road Analysis Rampart Range Recreation Area Motorized Roads and Trails Plan

APPENDIX A – ROAD ANALYSIS ID TEAM

The ID team included the following individuals:

Member Responsibilities

John R. Kirkaldie (USFS) Team Leader Curtis Fair (USFS) Archaeologist Scott Dollus (USFS) Recreation Planner Mike Elson (USFS) Biologist Bruce Meighen (EDAW) Project Manager and Environmental Planner Drew Stoll (EDAW) GIS Coordinator Craig Severn (EDAW) Ecologist

The following individuals provided input into the project:

Randy Hickenbottom (USFS) South Platte District Ranger Deb Entwistle (USFS) Hydrologist Denny Bohon (USFS) Biologist Steve Priest (USFS) Recreation Lands Staff Brian Banks (USFS) GIS Randy Ghormley (USFS) Aquatic Resources Steve McCloskey (USFS) Engineering

Appendix C C-43

This page intentionally left blank

Road Analysis Rampart Range Recreation Area Motorized Roads and Trails Plan

APPENDIX B – ROAD MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES

MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES

A. Maintain as is: Existing maintenance efforts are generally in balance with access needs. No resource impacts are identified that would warrant a change in maintenance levels.

B. Increase maintenance level: Access needs identified exceed existing maintenance efforts and/or resource impacts have been identified that indicate a need to perform maintenance at a higher level.

C. Decrease maintenance level: Access needs identified do not support maintaining road at current level. Resource impacts are low and do not require maintenance to continue at present level.

D. Implement seasonal travel restrictions: Access is generally needed during the snow-free season, but resource concerns indicate a need for implementing travel restrictions to mitigate negative impacts.

E. Close year-round: Access needs are low and are only necessary for administrative or project use. Road can be closed between projects. Resource concerns or maintenance budget limitations indicate a need to close road between project activities.

F. Decommission or convert to other uses: Full-sized vehicle access is no longer needed; road can be removed from the transportation inventory. Road can either be stabilized and returned to resource production or converted to other uses such as a motorized or non- motorized trail.

WORK REQUIRED

A. Maintain on regular “annual” maintenance cycle: Some maintenance items may be done once or more per year and some may be done every other year. The key is that maintenance is done on a regular recurring cycle.

B. Maintain on “as needed” basis: These roads are maintained “as needed” to correct safety and environmental deficiencies. They will generally only receive maintenance work once every five to 10 years.

C. Requires major improvement or deferred maintenance project work: Work may include surfacing, realignment, relocation, installing bridges or major culverts, and so forth.

D. Requires minor improvement or deferred maintenance project work: Work may include brushing, blading, spot rocking, adding or enhancing drainage structures such as drivable dips, water bars, ditches, ditch-relief culverts, and so forth.

Appendix C C-45

This page intentionally left blank

Road Analysis Rampart Range Recreation Area Motorized Roads and Trails Plan

APPENDIX C – RATING CRITERIA

Follows are descriptions detailing the basis by which each resource specialist rated road segments according to the risk or value those road segments present for a particular resource.

RISK RATINGS

Aquatic Risk

High (H) The road segment is located on a confined valley bottom that frequently or continuously restricts channel migration, affects upland habitat and riparian habitat conditions, alters movement of water, accelerates erosion processes, interferes with recruitment of large woody debris, and/or provides access for motorized off-highway dispersed use within the floodplain, wetland, or riparian reserve. A high risk is one in which these factors affect riparian habitat conditions to the degree that riparian habitat will be degraded. The road is constricting streams so that floodplain connectivity and/or off channel habitat are at risk. Road surface and/or fill slopes exhibit either erosion into streams, visible ditch erosion, cut slope erosion into ditches and sediment directly enters fish-bearing stream from ditch, fill slopes beginning to fail, evidence of accelerated mass wasting due to the sediment, and/or crossings with high potential for failure where failure of the prism will result in a large amount of sediment into at risk fish habitat. Or, if culvert capacity is exceeded during storms, it is likely that the stream will travel down the road and deliver sediment to at-risk fish habitat, crossing or altering stream channel type downstream and/or causing downstream bank erosion.

Moderate (M) The road segment is located on a moderately confined valley or unconfined bottoms with localized areas of road encroachment on stream channel and wetlands. Road segment is occasionally intercepting runoff, especially during peak events, but generally not groundwater. Road segment is native surfaced or graveled, but no visible erosion. Ditch relief culverts are not causing erosion of fill into streams. Crossings are perpendicular to the stream and sufficient to pass the 100-year flood, or designed so that if they do fail only the road segment at the crossing fails. Crossings are not impacting channel morphology downstream or causing downstream bank erosion. There is no evidence of accelerated mass wasting due to the road segment. Road system is a contributor to fine sediment but is not believed to be a major contributor. Downstream stream reaches may be susceptible to damage from increase peak flows.

Low (L) The road is not greatly impacting watershed function. Road segment is paved, not located in valley bottom, or is located on toe slope in confined valley bottom outside the 100-year floodplain and not interfering with floodplain functions. Crossings are bridged or sufficient to pass the 100- year flood and associated debris. Cut and fill slopes are vegetated and not eroding. Crossings are not impacting channel morphology downstream. Watershed is functioning appropriately for fine sediment.

Appendix C C-47 Rampart Range Recreation Area Motorized Roads and Trails Plan Road Analysis

Terrestrial Wildlife Risk

High (H) Wildlife risk is rated high where the road segment within the management area exhibits one or more of these characteristics:

• Pawnee Montane Skipper habitat (T)

• Proposed critical habitat for Preble’s Meadow Jumping Mouse (T)

• With roads passing through elk severe winter range

• With roads passing through mule deer severe winter range habitat

Moderate (M) Wildlife risk is rated moderate where the road segment within the management area exhibits one or more of these characteristics:

• Mexican Spotted Owl designated critical habitat (T)

• Preble’s Meadow Jumping Mouse potential habitat (T)

• With roads passing through elk winter range

• With roads passing through mule deer winter range

Low (L) Wildlife risk is rated low where the road segment within the management area exhibits one or more of these characteristics:

• Mule deer secondary winter range

• No intersection with TES (threatened or endangered species) or MIS (management indicator species).

Botany Risk

High (H) One or more special habitats occur along the road segment, and there is an elevated concern about the future of this/these habitats because of one or a combination of the following factors:

• The special habitat is rare and therefore should be maintained for overall biodiversity and ecosystem health.

• Noxious weeds are present along the road segment that crosses or parallels the special habitat. Noxious weeds are known to exist within the special habitat and are considered “high risk” species.

C-48 Appendix C Road Analysis Rampart Range Recreation Area Motorized Roads and Trails Plan

• The value rating for recreation is high. The area receives an abundance of dispersed and/or developed recreation use to the point where habitat degradation is likely to be occurring or is known to occur. Dispersed and developed recreational use of the special habitat is high and is causing habitat degradation, such as soil compaction and vegetation trampling.

• The road segment travels through a relatively significant portion of the special habitat. The road may parallel the special habitat or travel through it to the point where it is likely that road impacts may be occurring.

• There are or may be cumulative impacts to the special habitat due to a variety of different recreational uses (e.g., the area is used by bicyclists, off-highway vehicles, horses, hikers, campers, etc.).

• Each TES plant population is considered important to maintain the long-term viability of the species. There may be several factors that contribute to this determination. For example, there may be a low number of known populations for the species, or the majority of known sites are at risk.

• The TES plant populations are small, fragmented, and vulnerable to habitat loss that may be occurring due to a combination of factors that can be linked to roads, such as noxious weeds, high recreation use, high road density, and so forth.

Moderate (M) One or more special habitats occur along the road segment, and there is a slightly elevated concern about the future of this/these habitats because of a combination of factors:

• Noxious weeds are not known to occur within the special habitat but occur either along the road segment or occur along roads feeding into this road. Therefore, there is an elevated concern that the special habitat may be at risk from noxious weeds.

• The value rating for recreation is moderate. Dispersed and developed recreation use is occurring and is of some concern.

• The special habitat occupies a relatively large area along the road segment.

• The road segment contains a diversity of special habitats and therefore the concern is elevated due to this increased diversity.

• The road segment travels through a relatively significant portion of the special habitat.

• The TES plant population is a “protected” population in a Conservation Strategy and/or the population is considered important genetically for maintaining long-term viability of the species. However, the road is not necessarily degrading species habitat. There is a higher concern than low because it is an important population, but not enough to warrant a high-risk rating.

• Some level of habitat degradation is occurring that can be attributed to the road, but not enough to be considered a high risk.

Appendix C C-49 Rampart Range Recreation Area Motorized Roads and Trails Plan Road Analysis

Low (L) One or more special habitats occur along the road segment, but it occupies a relatively small area along the road and/or the special habitat is not considered at risk because of one or a combination of the following factors:

• The special habitat is unique but relatively common in the watershed so that concern about road effects is reduced.

• Noxious weeds are currently not present; therefore, risk to the special habitat is low. The road segment is far enough away from high-density weed infestations to reduce the risk of noxious weed spread and establishment.

• The special habitat occupies a small area relative to overall road length. The habitat may be impacted by roads, but these impacts are relatively localized and small in scope.

• The road segment crosses through or near a very small portion of the special habitat.

• The value rating for recreation is low. Dispersed and developed recreation use is low or nonexistent.

• The majority of known populations of TES in other locations are protected and therefore there are no long-term viability concerns for the species.

• The area has not been surveyed for TES plants, and there is some possibility and low-level concern that TES plant populations may occur along the road segment.

Noxious Weeds Risk

High (H) Risk is determined to be high due to one or a combination of the following factors:

• High-risk noxious weed species occur along the road segment.

• The road segment may not have weeds but is located relatively close to high-infestation areas; therefore it is likely that weeds will spread into this road segment.

• Recreation use is high.

• The road is a major arterial road with high traffic flow, resulting in a higher risk of spreading weeds.

• The road segment travels through an area that has a high fire risk in combination with a high risk weed problem. If the area does burn, weeds will spread rapidly along the roads.

• The road segment has undergone previous disturbance, and weed populations already exist.

• The area has not been surveyed, and the risk is not known. However, the area has received a high amount of ground disturbance and contains private lands that have not been surveyed and

C-50 Appendix C Road Analysis Rampart Range Recreation Area Motorized Roads and Trails Plan

are assumed to be uncontrolled; or, it is known that the private land noxious weed populations are not being treated and the land contains high-risk noxious weed species.

• There is high concern that noxious weeds exist in the area and will spread along the road system.

Moderate (M) Risk is determined to be moderate due to one or a combination of the following factors:

• Weeds occur along the road segment, but the population is reduced and considered contained due to years of treatment.

• Medium traffic flow occurs along the road segment.

• Weeds do not occur along the road segment, but high-risk species are established on roads feeding into this road.

• The area has not been surveyed, and the risk is not known. However, the area has received a high amount of ground disturbance and contains private lands that have not been surveyed and are assumed to be uncontrolled; or, it is known that the private land noxious weed populations are not being treated. There is moderate concern that noxious weeds exist in the area and will spread along the road system.

Low (L) Risk is determined to be relatively low due to one or a combination of the following factors:

• The road segment is relatively far away from large infestation areas.

• The species along the road segment or closest to the road segment is of relatively low risk.

• Recreation use and overall traffic is low or limited seasonally such that there is a relatively lower risk of weeds spreading and becoming established.

• A relatively small noxious weed infestation occurs along the road, is fairly stable and contained, and is not expected to spread (assuming that yearly treatment continues).

• There is low or limited potential habitat for the noxious weed species; therefore, the population is not expected to expand its size and range along the road segment.

Heritage Risk

Each site (historic, prehistoric) is unique to the cultural element that makes it eligible for inclusion to the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Associated negative elements such as roads, access, and distance from road and human impacts, are taken into consideration when assessing risk and recommending site protective measures.

Appendix C C-51 Rampart Range Recreation Area Motorized Roads and Trails Plan Road Analysis

High (H) As the complexity of road development decreases, the likelihood of impacting a site through road maintenance increases. In general, a higher risk of impact to historic and prehistoric cultural resources exists where those sites are associated with or adjacent to maintenance Level 1 and 2 roads.

Moderate (M) As road development increases, risk of impact to historic and prehistoric cultural resources generally decreases, as long as development and maintenance stay within existing road corridors. However, where road maintenance is required outside of a road corridor (e.g., replacement of culverts, drainage ditches), the potential impact to a site increases. In those instances where cultural materials are visible by the untrained eye, recommendations for protective measures may include road closure, limiting access, signing restrictive area, or interpretation.

Low (L) A developed road that goes through or adjacent to a site, with no visible cultural manifestations to the untrained eye, will most likely have no road or road access concerns. In general, a lower risk to historic and prehistoric cultural resources is associated with maintenance Level 3, 4, and 5 roads.

Recreation Value

High (H) Road provides primary access to recreational facilities/sites identified on the Pike National Forest Visitor’s Map. Also includes popular dispersed sites/routes.

Moderate (M) Road provides primary access to known dispersed camping sites, hunting areas, off-highway vehicle (OHV) routes, rock-climbing sites, day-use sites, or trailheads not listed on the Pike National Forest Visitor’s Map. Moderate values were assigned to other dispersed recreation areas along roads with moderate summer and fall use.

Low (L) Any open or closed road not included above. Additionally, low values were often assigned to roads that provided only seasonal dispersed recreation use.

Special-Uses Value (Non-Recreation)

High (H) Public law requires that road access be provided.

Moderate (M) Authorizations exist with few or no feasible alternatives to meet identified needs.

Low (L) Short-term commitments exist that will expire, or authorizations can be replaced with suitable alternatives. With regard to how the road system affects managing special-use permit sites, this assessment also includes roads currently permitted by special use authorization, areas where

C-52 Appendix C Road Analysis Rampart Range Recreation Area Motorized Roads and Trails Plan

Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (see glossary, Appendix E) applies, and Revised Statute (RS) 2477 roads (see glossary, Appendix E). The above criterion for non-recreation special uses was applied to all roads within the analysis area. Not all utility lines were considered in the analysis due to time constraints. Authorized unclassified roads have been identified on a separate map and were rated moderate, using the above criteria.

Vegetation Management Value

High (H) Arterial, collector, and local forest roads that provide primary access to forest lands inside the fire perimeter that are scheduled for fire restoration projects, including planting, release, and precommercial thinning. These are generally Level 2, 3, 4, and 5 roads.

Moderate (M) Local forest roads that provide access to significant tracts of forest lands inside the fire perimeter that are scheduled for fire restoration projects, including planting, release, and pre-commercial thinning. These are generally Level 2 and 3 roads.

Low (L) Any open or closed forest or unclassified road not included in the high or moderate ratings.

Timber Value

High (H) Arterial and collector forest roads that provide primary access to forest lands (both inside and outside the fire perimeter) and that have potential for future timber sales are considered of high value. These are generally Level 3, 4, and 5 roads.

Moderate (M) Local forest roads located on main ridges and along main drainages that provide access to forest lands outside the fire perimeter, or forest lands with low burn severity that have potential for future timber sales are considered of moderate value. These are generally Level 2 and 3 roads.

Low (L) Roads of low value include any open or closed forest or unclassified road not included in the high or moderate ratings.

Fuels Value:

Roads are one of our greatest fire suppression tools. Roads allow for rapid access for equipment and, in many instances, are used as fire breaks.

High (H) Roads of high value include all roads under private, state, or county jurisdiction and all arterial, collector, and local forest roads that provide primary access to forest lands inside the fire perimeter and which are scheduled for fire restoration projects, including planting, release, and pre-

Appendix C C-53 Rampart Range Recreation Area Motorized Roads and Trails Plan Road Analysis

commercial thinning. These are generally Level 3, 4, and 5 roads and Level 2 roads on ridges or with main access.

Moderate (M) Roads of moderate value include local forest roads that provide access to significant tracts of forest lands inside the fire perimeter and which are scheduled for fire restoration projects, including planting, release, and pre-commercial thinning. These are generally Level 2 and 3 roads and Level 1 and 2 roads that provide primary access or better access than alternate routes and that provide access for prescribed fire management and/or are strategically located for potential fuel breaks.

C-54 Appendix C Road Analysis Rampart Range Recreation Area Motorized Roads and Trails Plan

APPENDIX D – POTENTIAL FOR SOIL EROSION

The following table indicates the percentage of each of the 11 affected watersheds within the Rampart Range Motorized Recreation Area Roads Analysis Project area that fall into the low, moderate, and high potential erosion risk categories.

Table 1: Potential Erosion Hazard Within Hayman Roads Analysis Project Area

Percent of Road HUC 6 Watershed Erosion Level Miles in HUC 6 Bear Ck Low 0.02 0% Medium 2.96 76% High 0.91 23% Total 3.88 Chatfield Res. C Low 0.13 17% Medium 0.32 40% High 0.33 43% Total 0.78 Dry Gulch Ck Medium 2.60 44% High 3.30 56% Total 5.90 Garber Ck Medium 5.75 93% High 0.45 7% Total 6.20 Indian Ck Low 1.13 21% Medium 3.50 65% High 0.73 14% Total 5.37 Jackson Ck Low 0.63 3% Medium 9.69 47% High 10.39 50% Total 20.71 Lower Trout C Low 2.28 20% Medium 5.01 44% High 4.08 36% Total 11.36 Lowest Plum C Medium 0.22 100% Total 0.22 South Platte Canyon Low 1.86 14% Medium 4.39 32% High 7.33 54% NA* 0.07 1% Total 13.65 Waterton/Deckers C Low 5.25 15% Medium 11.04 31% High 19.06 53% NA 0.84 2% Total 36.20

Appendix C C-55 Rampart Range Recreation Area Motorized Roads and Trails Plan Road Analysis

Percent of Road HUC 6 Watershed Erosion Level Miles in HUC 6 West Creek Low 0.25 5% Medium 0.95 19% High 3.79 76% Total 4.99 Grand Total 109 *NA applies to rock outcrops, pavement and unknown surfaces.

C-56 Appendix C Road Analysis Rampart Range Recreation Area Motorized Roads and Trails Plan

APPENDIX E – GLOSSARY OF TERMS

Alaska National Interest Land Conservation Act (ANILCA) of December 20, 1980: ANILCA provides for owners of non-federal land within the National Forest System to be provided adequate access to their land.

Arterial Road: Primary travel route that provides service to a large land area, usually connecting with public highways or other Forest Service arterial roads.

Classified Roads: Roads wholly or partially within or adjacent to National Forest System lands that are determined to be needed for long-term motor vehicle access, including State roads, county roads, privately owned roads, National Forest System roads, and other roads authorized by the Forest Service (36 CFR 212.1).

Collector Road: Road that serves small land areas and usually connects with Forest Service arterials or public highways. They collect traffic from local roads and terminal facilities.

Deferred Maintenance: Work that can be deferred without loss of road serviceability until such time as the work can be economically or efficiently performed.

Forest Roads: As defined in Title 23, Section 101 of the United States Code (23 U.S.C. 101), any road wholly or partially within, or adjacent to, and serving the National Forest System and which is necessary for the protection, administration, and utilization of the National Forest System and the use and development of its resources.

Local Road: Single-purpose road connecting terminal facilities to collectors or arterials.

Maintenance Levels. The level of service provided by a specific road and the maintenance required for that road, consistent with road management objectives and maintenance criteria.

• Maintenance Level 5: Roads that provide a high degree of user comfort and convenience. Normally are double lane, paved facilities, or aggregate surface with dust abatement. This is the highest standard of maintenance.

• Maintenance Level 4: Roads that provide a moderate degree of user comfort and convenience at moderate speeds. Most are double lane and aggregate surfaced. Some may be single lane. Some may be dust abated.

• Maintenance Level 3: Roads open and maintained for travel by a prudent driver in a standard passenger car. User comfort and convenience are not considered priorities. Typically low speed, single lane with turnouts and native or aggregate surfacing.

• Maintenance Level 2: Roads open for use by high-clearance vehicles. Passenger car traffic is discouraged. Traffic is minor administrative, permitted, or dispersed recreation. Non-traffic generated maintenance is minimal.

Appendix C C-57 Rampart Range Recreation Area Motorized Roads and Trails Plan Road Analysis

• Maintenance Level 1: These roads are closed. Some intermittent use may be authorized. When closed, they must be physically closed with barricades, berms, gates, or other closure devices. Closures must exceed one year. When open, it may be maintained at any other level. When closed to vehicular traffic, they may be suitable and used for non-motorized uses, with custodial maintenance.

Minimum Road System: The road system necessary to meet resource and other management objectives adopted in forest plans, to meet applicable statutory and regulatory requirements, and, to the extent practicable, to minimize the adverse environmental impacts associated with road construction, reconstruction, decommissioning, and maintenance. When identifying the minimum road system, responsible officials also must consider and be responsive to expected long-term road funding.

National Forest System Road: A classified forest road under the jurisdiction of the Forest Service. The term “National Forest System Roads” is synonymous with the term “forest development roads” as used in 23 U.S.C. 205.

Private Road: A road under private ownership authorized by an easement to a private party, or a road that provides access pursuant to a reserved or private right

Public Road: Any road or street under the jurisdiction of and maintained by a public authority and open to public travel (23 USC 101(a)).

Revised Statute (RS) 2477: Under the Act of July 26, 1866 (Revised Statute (RS) 2477; 43 U.S.C. 932), Congress granted rights-of-way for public highways and county roads constructed across public domain before the lands received National Forest status. Although the 1866 act was repealed by the Federal Land Policy and Management Act in 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1715), rights, which preexisted the establishment of the National Forest, are preserved.

Road: A motor vehicle travelway over 50 inches wide, unless classified and managed as a trail. A road may be classified, unclassified, or temporary (36 CFR 212.1).

Road Decommissioning: Activities that result in the stabilization and restoration of unneeded roads to a more natural state (35 CFR212.1)(FSM 7703).

Road Maintenance: The ongoing upkeep of a road necessary to retain or restore the road to the approved road management objective.

Road Management Objective: The purpose, use, operational, and maintenance level of a road based on resource management objectives and access and travel management objectives.

Road Reconstruction: Activity that results in improvement or realignment of an existing classified road as defined below:

• Road Improvement: Activity that results in an increase of an existing road’s traffic service level, expansion of capacity, or a change in its original design function.

C-58 Appendix C Road Analysis Rampart Range Recreation Area Motorized Roads and Trails Plan

• Road Realignment: Activity that results in a new location of an existing road or portions of an existing road and treatment of the old roadway (36 CFR 212.1).

Roads Subject to the Highway Safety Act: National Forest System roads that are open to use by the public for standard passenger cars. This includes roads with access restricted on a seasonal basis and roads closed during extreme weather conditions or for emergencies, but which are otherwise open for general public use.

Sixth-field Watershed: The Rocky Mountain Region (Region 2) of the Forest Service has adopted the hydrologic unit code (HUC) system developed by the U.S. Geological Survey that divides watersheds into a series of progressively smaller nested fields, with the first field representing the largest land area relative to higher-numbered fields in that watershed. Sixth-field watersheds are also called subwatersheds.

Temporary Roads: Roads authorized by contract, permit, lease, other written authorization, or emergency operation, not intended to be a part of the forest transportation system and not necessary for long-term resource management (36 CFR 212.1).

Unclassified Roads: Roads on National Forest System lands that are not managed as part of the forest transportation system, such as unplanned roads, abandoned travelways, and off-highway vehicle tracks that have not been designated and managed as a trail; and those roads that were once under permit or other authorization and were not decommissioned upon the termination of the authorization (36 CFR 212.1). The regulations at 36 CFR 223.37 require revegetation within 10 years.

Appendix C C-59

This page intentionally left blank

Road Analysis Rampart Range Recreation Area Motorized Roads and Trails Plan

APPENDIX F – REFERENCES

Colorado Natural Heritage Program (CNHP). Various databases accessed on the internet. 2004.

Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. 2005. Water quality control commission, Regulation No. 38. Classification and numeric standards- South Platte River Basin, Laramie River Basin, Republican River Basin, Smokey Hill River Basin.

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1984. Land and Resource Management Plan: Pike and San Isabel National Forests; Comanche and Cimarron National Grasslands. Pueblo, CO.

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1992. Forest Service and Natural Resources Conservation Service. Soil survey of Pike National Forest, eastern part, Colorado, parts of Douglas, El Paso, Jefferson, and Teller Counties.

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1992. Transportation planning handbook. Forest Service Handbook 7709.55. Washington, DC: USDA Forest Service. Found on the internet June 2004 at: fsweb.wo.fs.fed.us/directives/fsh/7709.55

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1999. Roads Analysis: Informing Decisions about Managing the National Forest Transportation System. Misc. Rep. FS-643. Washington D.C: U.S. Dept of Agriculture Forest Service.

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 2000a. Forest Roads A Synthesis of Scientific Information. Edited by Hermann Gucinski, Michael J. Furniss, Robert R. Ziemer, and Martha H. Brookes. Found on the internet at: http://www.fs.fed.us/eng/road_mgt/science.pdf

United States Department of Agriculture, 2002a. National Visitor Use Monitoring project report, Pike and San Isabel National Forests, Comanche and Cimarron National Grasslands.

United States Department of Agriculture, 2002b. R2 Roads Analysis Supplement to FS-643.

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. October 2003. Road Analysis Report, Hayman Burn Area.

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2004. Nighthawk fuels treatment program. Accessed on the internet August 2004 at: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/psicc/projects/nighthawk.shtml.

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2004a. News release October 22, 2004. Russell Ridge Prescribed burn Smoke to be seen in skies southwest of Denver.. Pike & San Isabel National Forests, Cimarron & Comanche National Grasslands, South Platte Ranger District, Morrison, Colorado.

Appendix C C-61 Rampart Range Recreation Area Motorized Roads and Trails Plan Road Analysis

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1992. Transportation system maintenance handbook. Forest Service Handbook 7709.58. Washington, DC: USDA Forest Service.

Western Regional Climate Center. 2004. Climate summary for Cheesman Lake, Colorado. Accessed on the internet August 2004 at: http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMAIN.pl?cochee

C-62 Appendix C Road Analysis Rampart Range Recreation Area Motorized Roads and Trails Plan

Appendix C C-63 Rampart Range Recreation Area Motorized Roads and Trails Plan Road Analysis

C-64 Appendix C Road Analysis Rampart Range Recreation Area Motorized Roads and Trails Plan

Appendix C C-65 Rampart Range Recreation Area Motorized Roads and Trails Plan Road Analysis

C-66 Appendix C Road Analysis Rampart Range Recreation Area Motorized Roads and Trails Plan

Appendix C C-67 Rampart Range Recreation Area Motorized Roads and Trails Plan Road Analysis

C-68 Appendix C Road Analysis Rampart Range Recreation Area Motorized Roads and Trails Plan

Appendix C C-69 Rampart Range Recreation Area Motorized Roads and Trails Plan Road Analysis

C-70 Appendix C Road Analysis Rampart Range Recreation Area Motorized Roads and Trails Plan

Appendix C – Map 1 – Existing Roads

Appendix C C-71 Rampart Range Recreation Area Motorized Roads and Trails Plan Road Analysis

C-72 Appendix C APPENDIX D – PARKING AREA CONCEPTS

This page intentionally left blank

Environmental Assessment Rampart Range Recreation Area Motorized Roads and Trails Plan

APPENDIX D – PARKING AREA CONCEPTS

A. Introduction

The following designs represent general concepts for parking areas in which significant improvement is expected (Alternative C). The actual design of the parking areas may vary. Tables associated with these designs can be found Chapter 2.

B. Designs

Conceptual designs are found below.

Entryway

Appendix D D-1 Rampart Range Recreation Area Motorized Roads and Trails Plan Environmental Assessment

Mile 1.5

D-2 Appendix D Environmental Assessment Rampart Range Recreation Area Motorized Roads and Trails Plan

Garber

Appendix D D-3 Rampart Range Recreation Area Motorized Roads and Trails Plan Environmental Assessment

Sunset Point

D-4 Appendix D Environmental Assessment Rampart Range Recreation Area Motorized Roads and Trails Plan

Flatrock

Appendix D D-5 Rampart Range Recreation Area Motorized Roads and Trails Plan Environmental Assessment

Dakan

D-6 Appendix D Environmental Assessment Rampart Range Recreation Area Motorized Roads and Trails Plan

Jackson Creek

Appendix D D-7 Rampart Range Recreation Area Motorized Roads and Trails Plan Environmental Assessment

Dutch Fred

D-8 Appendix D Environmental Assessment Rampart Range Recreation Area Motorized Roads and Trails Plan

Cabin Ridge

Appendix D D-9

This page intentionally left blank

APPENDIX E – COST/BENEFIT SPREADSHEETS

This page intentionally left blank

Environmental Assessment Rampart Range Recreation Area Motorized Roads and Trails Plan

APPENDIX D – COST/BENEFIT SPREADSHEETS

Alternative A

UNIT ITEM QUANTITY UNIT COST COST NOTES Clearing and Grubbing Clear and Grub 0 AC $350.00 $0.00 Entire site Remove and stockpile downfall 0 NIC $0.00 $0.00 NIC - By USFS Staff Remove and stockpile topsoil 0 CY $5.00 $0.00 Assumes 2" over entire site Remove and stockpile duff 0 SF $0.10 $0.00 Tree removal 0 NIC $0.00 $0.00 NIC - By USFS Staff Stump removal and grinding 0 NIC $0.00 $0.00 NIC - By USFS Staff CATEGORY SUBTOTAL $0.00 Site Excavation and Grading Rough grading 0 CY $5.00 $0.00 Assumes 1' over entire site Stump removal fill 0 NIC $0.00 $0.00 NIC - By USFS staff Finish and fine grading 0 SF $0.15 $0.00 Entire site Replace Topsoil 0 CY $3.00 $0.00 Replace duff and downfall 0 SF $0.05 $0.00 CATEGORY SUBTOTAL $0.00 Architecture Restroom - Vault Toilet (CXT-1 hole) 0 EA $28,000.00 $0.00 Restroom - Vault Toilet (CXT-2 hole) 0 EA $35,000.00 $0.00 Kiosk 0 EA $5,000.00 $0.00 CATEGORY SUBTOTAL $0.00 Utilities Area Security Lighting 0 ALLOW $4,200.00 $0.00 Relocate Existing Pay Phone 0 ALLOW $1,500.00 $0.00 Potable Water 0 ALLOW $0.00 $0.00 CATEGORY SUBTOTAL $0.00

Pavement Parking Lot Asphalt 0 SF $1.75 $0.00 Parking Lot Aggregate Base Course 0 SF $0.50 $0.00 Parking lot Trail and Plaza Gravel 0 SF $1.50 $0.00 Trail 8' wide Unloading Ramp 0 NIC $0.00 $0.00 CATEGORY SUBTOTAL $0.00 Fencing Low Barrier Fence 0 LF $6.00 $0.00 Dumpster/Electrical Enclosures 0 EA $5,000.00 $0.00 Relocate Existing Road Gate 0 EA $1,500.00 $0.00 Barriers/Bollards 0 EA $350.00 $0.00 CATEGORY SUBTOTAL $0.00

Landscaping Boulders 0 TON $125.00 $0.00 Revegetation Plantings 0 ALLOW $8,000.00 $0.00 CATEGORY SUBTOTAL $0.00 Site Furnishings Fee Tube 0 EA $1,500.00 $0.00 Picnic Table and Gravel Pad 0 EA $1,800.00 $0.00 CATEGORY SUBTOTAL $0.00 Signage Regulatory/Directional 0 EA $250.00 $0.00 Entry Signage 0 EA $3,000.00 $0.00 Identification Signage 0 EA $1,000.00 $0.00 CATEGORY SUBTOTAL $0.00 Trails Closed and Restored Trail 11 MILE $750.00 $8,250.00 New ATV Trail 0 MILE $3,000.00 $0.00 Includes realignments New USFS System Single Track 0 MILE $3,000.00 $0.00 Assumes tree removal by USFS - 2' wid CATEGORY SUBTOTAL $8,250.00

Subtotal $8,250.00 Concept Design Contingency 20.00% $1,650.00 Contractors Mobilization & General Requirements 12.00% $990.00 GRAND TOTAL $10,890.00 Estimated Architecture and Engineering Fees 15.00% $1,633.50 GRAND TOTAL INCLUDING FEES* $12,523.50

Notes: 1. Does not include maintenance costs. 2. Quantities are approximate and are based on large scale planning documents. Exact quantities for materials and locations for improvements to be determined during a future detailed design process. 3. Costs are in 2005 dollars. Inflation is not included.

Appendix E E-1 Rampart Range Recreation Area Motorized Roads and Trails Plan Environmental Assessment

Alternative B

UNIT ITEM QUANTITY UNIT COST COST NOTES

Clearing and Grubbing Clear and Grub 3 AC $350.00 $1,050.00 Entire site Remove and stockpile downfall 1 NIC $0.00 $0.00 NIC - By USFS Staff Remove and stockpile topsoil 800 CY $5.00 $4,000.00 Assumes 2" over entire site Remove and stockpile duff 66,100 SF $0.10 $6,610.00 Tree removal 1 NIC $0.00 $0.00 NIC - By USFS Staff Stump removal and grinding 1 NIC $0.00 $0.00 NIC - By USFS Staff CATEGORY SUBTOTAL $11,660.00

Site Excavation and Grading Rough grading 4,900 CY $5.00 $24,500.00 Assumes 1' over entire site Stump removal fill 1 NIC $0.00 $0.00 NIC - By USFS staff Finish and fine grading 132,200 SF $0.15 $19,830.00 Entire site Replace Topsoil 1,250 CY $3.00 $3,750.00 Replace duff and downfall 66,100 SF $0.05 $3,305.00 CATEGORY SUBTOTAL $51,385.00

Architecture Restroom - Vault Toilet (CXT-1 hole) 1 EA $28,000.00 $28,000.00 Restroom - Vault Toilet (CXT-2 hole) 0 EA $35,000.00 $0.00 Kiosk 5 EA $5,000.00 $25,000.00 CATEGORY SUBTOTAL $53,000.00

Utilities Area Security Lighting 0 ALLOW $4,200.00 $0.00 Relocate Existing Pay Phone 1 ALLOW $1,500.00 $1,500.00 Potable Water 0 ALLOW $0.00 $0.00 CATEGORY SUBTOTAL $1,500.00

Pavement Parking Lot Asphalt 76,250 SF $1.75 $133,437.50 Parking Lot Aggregate Base Course 76,250 SF $0.50 $38,125.00 Trail and Plaza Gravel 5,200 SF $1.50 $7,800.00 Trail 8' wide Unloading Ramp 0 NIC $0.00 $0.00 CATEGORY SUBTOTAL $179,362.50

Fencing Low Barrier Fence 1,900 LF $6.00 $11,400.00 Dumpster/Electrical Enclosures 0 EA $5,000.00 $0.00 Relocate Existing Road Gate 1 EA $1,500.00 $1,500.00 Barriers/Bollards 50 EA $350.00 $17,500.00 CATEGORY SUBTOTAL $30,400.00

Landscaping Boulders 200 TON $125.00 $25,000.00 Revegetation Plantings 1 ALLOW $8,000.00 $8,000.00 CATEGORY SUBTOTAL $33,000.00

Site Furnishings Fee Tube 0 EA $1,500.00 $0.00 Picnic Table and Gravel Pad 1 EA $1,800.00 $1,800.00 CATEGORY SUBTOTAL $1,800.00

Signage Regulatory/Directional 8 EA $250.00 $2,000.00 Entry Signage 1 EA $3,000.00 $3,000.00 Identification Signage 7 EA $1,000.00 $7,000.00 CATEGORY SUBTOTAL $5,000.00

Trails Closed and Restored Trail 26 MILE $750.00 $19,500.00 New ATV Trail 20 MILE $3,000.00 $60,000.00 Includes realignments New USFS System Single Track 0 MILE $3,000.00 $0.00 Assumes tree removal by USFS - 2' w CATEGORY SUBTOTAL $79,500.00

Subtotal $450,107.50 Concept Design Contingency 20.00% $90,021.50 Contractors Mobilization & General Requirements 12.00% $54,012.90 GRAND TOTAL $594,141.90 Estimated Architecture and Engineering Fees 15.00% $89,121.29 GRAND TOTAL INCLUDING FEES* $683,263.19

Notes: 1. Does not include maintenance costs. 2. Quantities are approximate and are based on large scale planning documents. Exact quantities for materials and locations for improvements to be determined during a future detailed design process. 3. Costs are in 2005 dollars. Inflation is not included.

E-2 Appendix E Rampart Range Recreation Area Motorized Roads and Trails Plan Environmental Assessment

Alternative C

UNIT ITEM QUANTITY UNIT COST COST NOTES

Clearing and Grubbing Clear and Grub 6 AC $350.00 $2,100.00 Entire site Remove and stockpile downfall 1 ALLOW $0.00 $5,000.00 Remove and stockpile topsoil 1,600 CY $5.00 $8,000.00 Assumes 2" over entire site Remove and stockpile duff 132,000 SF $0.10 $13,200.00 Tree removal 1 ALLOW $0.00 $10,000.00 Stump removal and grinding 1 ALLOW $0.00 $10,000.00 CATEGORY SUBTOTAL $48,300.00

Site Excavation and Grading Rough grading 9,800 CY $5.00 $49,000.00 Assumes 1' over entire site Stump removal fill 1 ALLOW $0.00 $10,000.00 Finish and fine grading 264,300 SF $0.15 $39,645.00 Entire site Replace Topsoil 2,500 CY $3.00 $7,500.00 Replace duff and downfall 132,000 SF $0.05 $6,600.00 CATEGORY SUBTOTAL $112,745.00

Architecture Visitor Information Center 1 LS $850,000.00 $850,000.00 Interpretive Signage included Restroom - Vault Toilet (CXT-1 hole) 3 EA $28,000.00 $84,000.00 Restroom - Vault Toilet (CXT-2 hole) 2 EA $35,000.00 $70,000.00 Kiosk 5 EA $5,000.00 $25,000.00 CATEGORY SUBTOTAL $179,000.00

Utilities Area Security Lighting 1 ALLOW $7,500.00 $7,500.00 Relocate Existing Pay Phone 1 ALLOW $1,500.00 $1,500.00 Potable Water/Electrical 1 ALLOW $20,000.00 $20,000.00 CATEGORY SUBTOTAL $29,000.00

Pavement Parking Lot Asphalt 134,000 SF $1.75 $234,500.00 Parking Lot Aggregate Base Course 134,000 SF $0.50 $67,000.00 Trail and Plaza Gravel 10,000 SF $1.50 $15,000.00 Trail 8' wide Unloading Ramp 5 EA $2,000.00 $10,000.00 CATEGORY SUBTOTAL $326,500.00

Fencing Low Barrier Fence 6,000 LF $6.00 $36,000.00 Dumpster/Electrical Enclosures 4 EA $5,000.00 $20,000.00 Access Gate 2 EA $5,000.00 $10,000.00 Relocate Existing Road Gate 1 EA $2,500.00 $2,500.00 Barriers/Bollards 20 EA $350.00 $7,000.00 CATEGORY SUBTOTAL $75,500.00

Landscaping Boulders 500 TON $125.00 $62,500.00 Revegetation Plantings 1 ALLOW $15,000.00 $15,000.00 CATEGORY SUBTOTAL $77,500.00

Site Furnishings Fee Tube 7 EA $1,500.00 $10,500.00 Picnic Table and Gravel Pad 8 EA $1,800.00 $14,400.00 CATEGORY SUBTOTAL $24,900.00

Signage Regulatory/Directional 8 EA $250.00 $2,000.00 Entry Signage 1 EA $3,000.00 $3,000.00 Identification Signage 7 EA $1,000.00 $7,000.00 CATEGORY SUBTOTAL $5,000.00

Trails Closed and Restored Trail 45 MILE $750.00 $33,750.00 New ATV Trail 34 MILE $3,000.00 $102,000.00 Includes realignments New USFS System Single Track 41 MILE $3,000.00 $123,000.00 Assumes tree removal by USFS - 2' wide CATEGORY SUBTOTAL $258,750.00

Subtotal $1,565,695.00 Concept Design Contingency 20.00% $313,139.00 Contractors Mobilization & General Requirements 12.00% $187,883.40 GRAND TOTAL $2,066,717.40 Estimated Architecture and Engineering Fees 15.00% $310,007.61 GRAND TOTAL INCLUDING FEES* $2,376,725.01

Notes: 1. Does not include maintenance costs. 2. Quantities are approximate and are based on large scale planning documents. Exact quantities for materials and locations for improvements to be determined during a future detailed design process. 3. Costs are in 2005 dollars. Inflation is not included.

E-4 Appendix E