Environmental Assessment Continental Divide National Scenic Trail Reroute Lujan to La Garita Wilderness

Saguache Ranger District, Rio Grande National Forest, Saguache County, Colorado Gunnison County, Colorado and Gunnison Ranger District, Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunnison National Forests October, 2012

i

To review this EA on line, go to www.fs.usda.gov/projects/riogrande/landmanagement/projects, then look for Continental Divide National Scenic Trail Addition (EA). This EA is being released for public comment in accordance with 36 CFR 215.3. The Responsible Officials for this project will be the District Rangers of the Saguache and Gunnison Districts, of the Rio Grande and the Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunnison National Forests. Only those who submit timely and substantive comments will be accepted as appellants of the final decision. Also, for appeal eligibility, each individual or representative from each organization submitting comments must either sign the comments or verify their identity upon request. Submitting Comments: The opportunity to comment ends 30 days following the date of publication of this legal notice in the Gunnison Country Times, and the Alamosa Valley Courier. Whichever publication date is later will begin the comment period. Comments may be submitted in hard copy through the mail, email, fax, or delivered by hand at Forest Service offices in Gunnison or Saguache. Office hours for hand delivery are 8:00 am to 5:00 pm, weekdays. Mail comments to: CDNST, USFS 2250 Hwy 50 Delta, CO 81416 Fax comments to: 970-874-6698 Email comments to: [email protected]

Further Information: For more information regarding this project please contact Jeff Burch, 970-874-6649.

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

ii

Table of Contents

Chapter 1: Introduction/Purpose and Need/Proposed Action Document Structure ...... 1 Background ...... 1 Purpose and Need for Action ...... 2 Proposed Action ...... 3 Decision Framework ...... 6 Public Involvement ...... 6 Issues ...... 7 Cumulative Actions to be Considered in the Analysis ...... 8 Chapter 2: Alternatives, including the Proposed Action ...... 10 Alternatives ...... 10 Chapter 3: Affected Environment/Environmental Consequences ...... 14 Effects on Recreation/National Scenic Trails/User Experience/ Scenery ...... 14 Effects on Wildlife Sensitive Species ………….………………………………………………………….…30 Effects on Wildlife Management Indicator Species………………………………………..…………49 Effects on Migratory Birds …………………………………………………………………….………………..61 Effects on Threatened or Endangered Species of Wildlife ………………………………………65 Effects on Threatened or Endangered or Sensitive Plants ……………………………………….79 Effects on Cultural Resources…………………………………………………………………………….…….84 Effects on Native American Cultural/Religious Sites ………………………………………………..85 Effects on Watershed Conditions in Terms of Construction, and Use of Trails………….86 Effects on Road/Transportation System………………………………………………………………..…89 Effects on traditional grazing use Spread/Management of Noxious Weeds …………….90 Chapter 5: Consultation and Coordination ...... 94 Maps and Photos Appendices Appendix A - Maps Vicinity Map Alternative 1 Map Alternative 2 Map Alternative 3 Map Alternative 4 Map Appendix B CDNST web site home page Appendix C Legal Policy and Direction

iii

iv

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION/PURPOSE AND NEED/PROPOSED ACTION Document Structure ______The Forest Service has prepared this Environmental Assessment in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other relevant Federal and State laws and regulations. This Environmental Assessment discloses the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts that would result from the proposed action and alternatives. The document is organized into the following parts: Introduction: This section includes information on the history of the project proposal, the purpose of and need for the project, and the agency’s proposal for achieving that purpose and need. This section also details how the Forest Service informed the public of the proposal and how the public responded. Alternatives, including the Proposed Action: This section provides a more detailed description of the agency’s proposed action as well as alternative methods for achieving the stated purpose. These alternatives were developed based on issues raised during scoping. Environmental Consequences: This section describes the environmental effects of implementing the proposed action and other alternatives. This analysis is organized by resource element, as suggested by issues identified in scoping. Within each section, the affected environment is described first, followed by the effects of the No Action Alternative that provides a baseline for evaluation and comparison of the other alternatives that follow. Agencies and Persons Consulted: This section provides a list of preparers and agencies consulted during the development of the environmental assessment. Appendices: The appendices provide more detailed information to support the analyses presented in the environmental assessment. Additional documentation, including more detailed analyses of project-area resources, may be found in the project planning record. Background ______In 1968, Congress enacted the National Trails System Act (NTSA, P.L. 90-543) which established a nationwide trail system. The Act describes that National Scenic Trails “will be extended trails so located as to provide for maximum outdoor recreation potential and for the conservation and enjoyment of the nationally significant scenic, historic, natural, or cultural qualities of the areas through which such trails may pass.” The Act also specifically directed the study of a Continental Divide National Scenic Trail (CDNST). A study of possible trail routes along the Continental Divide was initiated in 1969 and completed in 1976. In 1977, a Legislative Final Environmental Statement (FES) describing the routes was completed and filed with the Council on Environmental Quality. In 1978 Congress used the information from the Study Report and the Legislative FES to amend the NTSA. The

1 amendment established and designated the CDNST, a 3,100 mile trail corridor extending from the Montana-Canada border to the New Mexico-Mexico border. The basic goal of the CDNST is to provide hikers and horseback riders an opportunity to experience the diverse country along the Continental Divide in a manner that will assure a high quality recreation experience while maintaining a constant respect for the natural environment. The Study Report and Legislative FES were formally adopted by the Chief of the Forest Service in 1981. In 1997 the Deputy Chief of the Forest Service issued a memo to Regional Foresters stating that “…as the CDNST is further developed, it is expected that the trail will eventually be relocated off of roads for its entire length.” The memo further stated that “It is the intent of the Forest Service that the CDNST will be for non-motorized recreation. As new trail segments of the CDNST are constructed to link existing non-motorized segments together, and to reroute the CDNST off of primitive roads or other routes where motorized travel is allowed, motorized use should not be allowed or considered. Allowing motorized use on these newly constructed trail segments would substantially interfere with the nature and purpose of the CDNST.” In 2003, the Rocky Mountain Deputy Regional Forester issued a memo emphasizing the importance of working toward a high-quality non-motorized route for the CDNST in the Rocky Mountain Region by the trail’s 30th anniversary in 2008. This EA addresses the effects of a proposed reroute of a segment of the Continental Divide Scenic Trail in south central Colorado. See Vicinity Map in Appendix A - Maps. The intent of the Continental Divide National Scenic Trail (CDNST) is to provide a non-motorized backcountry trail experience from Canada to Mexico. See Appendix B for the home page of the CDNST web site. Numerous CDNST trail segments are still open to motorized recreational uses including the section from Windy Peak to the La Garita Wilderness. This segment is currently in close proximity to the Continental Divide in Saguache County on the Rio Grande (RGNF) and Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, Gunnison National Forests (GMUG). Initially the entire segment from Windy Point to Lujan to the La Garita Wilderness was being considered for this project. However, the ID team found that issues and opportunities were substantially different for these two segments. Hence, this EA and the Decision it supports focuses only on the segment from Lujan to the La Garita Wilderness. The Rio Grande and the GMUG propose to develop a non-motorized trail between Lujan and the La Garita Wilderness. In 2006 a location for the non-motorized trail was identified, flagged and mapped using GPS. Purpose and Need for Action ______The CDNST is formally addressed in the Forest Service Manual: 2353.42 - Policy Administer National Scenic and National Historic Trail corridors to be compatible with the nature and purposes of the corresponding trail. CDNST. The nature and purposes of the CDNST are to provide for high-quality scenic, primitive hiking and horseback riding opportunities and to conserve natural, historic, and cultural resources along the CDNST corridor.

2 Currently, the portion of the CDNST addressed here, consists of segments of various roads and trails which connect to convey the traveler from Lujan to the La Garita Wilderness. Trail tread varies from single track to full size vehicle roads. Designated uses include hiker horse all the way to full sized passenger vehicle. Many segments are located well below the continental divide, and have little or no resemblance to a true “continental divide scenic trail.” There is a need to establish a trail with the location, character and use-designation consistent with the purposes and intents of the Continental Divide Scenic trail system. There is also a need to provide trail head facilities to accommodate safe public access to the trail from State Highway 114, as well as safe crossing of State Highway 114 by trail users. Proposed Action ______Construct and manage 31.2 miles of trail from Lujan Pass to the Skyline Trail (#465) in the La Garita Mountains, in accordance with standards prescribed by Forest Service Handbook 2309.18, Trails Management Handbook. Construct one 0.9 mile spur trail from Luder’s Campground to the CDNST. This segment of trail follows an old logging road northwest of the campground. Allowable uses on the trail would include horse and foot travel only. A trailhead and parking area would be constructed on the south side of Highway 114 on North Pass. The parking area would be approximately ¼ acre in size and a single vaulted CXT toilet would be installed at the parking area. A trailhead and parking area would be constructed in the meadow near the entrance to Luder’s Campground (See photo included in the first version of the alternative). This trailhead would be constructed to a standard to facilitate horse and horse trailer use. Decommission approximately 2 miles of motorized trail on the Gunnison National Forest. The remaining segments of the current CDNST follow roads which will remain in place. The actual work of constructing the trail would be done using hand tools, and possibly horses to haul materials, tools, etc. to remote work locations. It could be done in a variety of different ways such as with Forest Service crews, volunteers, or by contract. The length of time that it will take to construct the trail will depend on how this work would be done, but would likely be completed within two years. A season of operation for construction activities has not been identified other than when the snow is off. The only new facilities proposed are a parking area and trailhead at the top of North Pass on Highway 114 and a parking area/trailhead for horse trailer parking at Luder’s Campground. There is a CXT toilet planned for the trailhead at North Pass. The trail would have a tread width of 24” and clearing limits of 6 feet (three feet on each side of the trail).

Note: There can be confusion over the reference to “Cochetopa Pass,” and “North Pass,” and “South Pass.” Referring to the map on the next page, North Pass is labeled “Reroute Access Point #1 Hwy 114,” Cochetopa Pass, or Old Cochetopa

Pass, is labeled Reroute Access Point #2 Cochetopa Pass Road Saguache County Rd NN-14.” And what is referred to as “South Pass” is labeled Reroute Access Point #3 Saguache Park Road NFSR 787.

3 Figure 1. Existing Route, Proposed Reroute and Access Points, CDNST Lujan to La Garita

4 NOTE: See Appendix C for design specifications for trails to be newly constructed. Proposed Action by Trail Segment Segment ID Skyline Trail # 7465 Miles 1.2 From La Garita Wilderness To Beginning 2006 Re-route Trail Status Current CDNST Trail Use Horse and Foot Travel Only Unit Gunnison District Construction Needs Maintenance Only

Segment ID 1-Skyline Trail to Cochetopa Miles 22.3 From Skyline Trail To Old Cochetopa Pass (NN114) Trail Status New Construction Trail Use Horse and Foot Travel Only Unit Gunnison District 16.3 miles Saguache District 6 miles Construction Needs All New Construction, No existing trail.

Segment ID 2-Cochetopa to Luder’s Spur Trail Miles 2.5 From Old Cochetopa Pass (NN114) To Luder’s Spur Trail Trail Status New Construction Trail Use Horse and Foot Travel Only Unit Saguache District Construction Needs All New Construction, No existing trail

Segment ID 3-Luder’s Spur Miles 0.9 From CDNST To Luder’s Campground Trail Status Existing Trail Bed Trail Use Horse and Foot Travel Only Unit Saguache District Construction Needs Improve existing trail, water bars, etc.

Segment ID 3A-Luder’s Spur Alternative Miles 1.1 From Luder’s Spur To CDNST Trail Status New Construction Trail Use Horse and Foot Travel Only Unit Saguache District Construction Needs All New Construction, No existing trail

Segment ID 4-Luder’s to North Pass Miles 2.5 From Luder’s Spur To North Pass (Highway 114) Trail Status New Construction Trail Use Horse and Foot Travel Only Unit RGNF Construction Needs All New Construction, No existing trail

Segment ID A3-Luder’s to North Pass Miles 4.8 From Luder’s spur

5 To North Pass (Highway 114) Trail Status New Construction Trail Use Horse and Foot Travel Only Unit Saguache District Construction Needs All New Construction,

Segment ID 5-Highway 114 to Lujan Pass Miles 2.6 From Highway 114 To Lujan Pass Trail Status New Construction Trail Use Horse and Foot Travel Only Unit Saguache District, Gunnison District Construction Needs All New Construction Decision Framework ______The decision to be made is whether to construct each of the segments of new trail proposed, using what standards/specifications; what type of use to designate each segment for; and what facilities to establish at trailheads in what specific locations.

Legal/Policy Context for the Decision Appendix C to this EA is a set of excerpts from applicable law, regulation and policy. It is not included in the body of the document due to its length, and the specific technical/legal information it presents. However, the reader is encouraged to become familiar with this direction as it helps define the scope of the decision to be made.

Responsible Official The responsible officials for this project are the District Rangers of the two affected Ranger Districts. The Decision will be a joint decision, and will be signed by both Rangers. The analysis supporting this decision is being conducted by a joint Interdisciplinary team comprised of members from both Forests. No cooperating agencies were identified for this analysis. Public Involvement ______Scoping for public concern and comment for these facilities was initially done in 2010. Scoping consisted of adding this project to the Schedule of Proposed Actions published through PALS in July of 2010, and sending a scoping letter and map to an extended list of potentially affected/interested parties, agencies and elected representatives. The Scoping letter and map, as well as the mail lists to whom they were sent are in the record. The comment period was from August 13, 2010 (the date of the scoping letter), to September 17, 2010. It should be noted that this was NOT the 30 day Notice and Comment period required under 36 CFR 215, and that another comment period will be offered upon completion of this EA. Letters and emails were received from 19 parties, including individuals, organizations, and the Colorado Division of Wildlife (now Colorado Parks and Wildlife). These responses are in the record, and were used directly to identify issues below.

6 In addition to the project specific scoping discussed above, the analysis process that supported the Gunnison Basin Federal Lands Travel Management decision of 2010 provided an opportunity for comment on the Continental Divide Trail. Comments received are recorded in Appendix XX of the Final Environmental Impact Statement, Gunnison Basin Federal Lands Travel Management, April 2010, at pages XX-24 to XX-30. These comments were reviewed and considered as part to this EA, and are incorporated by reference. In summary, comments argued the question of whether the CDNST should be used for motorized use, or not, and advanced positions supported by “intended purposes for the use of the CDNST.” All of these comments were also considered in the development of issues and alternatives. Issues ______As a product of scoping and interdisciplinary discussions, the following issues have been identified as either unresolved conflicts requiring alternative analysis to come to decision, or potential resource effects which should be addressed to come to an informed decision. These form the basis for the formulation of alternatives (Chapter 2), and for the environmental effects analysis (Chapter 3). Effects on the user experience of this segment of trail of the current route being used, compared with the proposed action and alternatives, in terms of the intents and purposes of the CDNST system. Related to effects on user experience, effects on scenery. Effects on wildlife in terms of direct habitat loss, fragmentation of habitat, and changing animal distributions. Effects of new trail construction and use on spread of noxious weeds Effects of new trails construction on connecting corridors for lynx and other wildlife Effects of new trail location, construction and use on Native American cultural, religious sites Effects of new trail location on trail difficulty/access for elderly and handicapped: Effects of new trail location on hunting areas not now accessed by trail. Effects of new trail location s in terms of trail maintenance cost, as well as user experience if trails (trees across the trail) are not maintained in a timely manner. Effects of new trail locations on grazing management/gates left open etc Alternative or routing preference: Trail needs to be routed so users have access to water Alternative preference in favor of mountain bike use for this portion of CDNST Alternative preference for no motorized use on the trail Alternative preference for no motorized or mechanized use on the trail Alternative preference for trailhead facilities that accommodate only non motorized or non-mechanized use. Project Design Criteria and management of the trail: The CDNST Comprehensive Plan was implemented in November 2009. The Directive provides management direction for the CDNST by addressing and clarifying the nature and purpose of the CDNST. There should be some recognition of that document

7 Management of the trail corridor: A management plan for the corridor should be developed. In addition to the issues above, the following resource concerns were identified by the ID Team as deserving of analysis in the EA to provide the “hard look” environmental analysis required to make an informed decision. Effects on soils in terms of construction, and use of trails Effects on water quality Effects on Threatened or Endangered or sensitive wildlife species in addition to lynx Effects on Threatened or Endangered plants Effects on Road/Transportation System Effects on Roadless Area resources/values

CUMULATIVE ACTIONS TO BE CONSIDERED IN THE ANALYSIS

Cumulative effects of past present or reasonably foreseeable future actions taking place near enough to the area affected by this project need to be considered. The first step in such an analysis is to identify the resources potentially affected, define a cumulative effects analysis area for each, and then to identify actions which may have cumulative effects per above. Each resource may have a different analysis area for this purpose. For example a cumulative effect analysis area for water may be a watershed; for wildlife may be an elk migration corridor, and for soils may be simply on site. Each resource section of Chapter bounds its analysis area and identifies which of the following actions may have cumulative effects in terms of that resource. The relevant past, present, and foreseeable future activities for consideration in cumulative effects analysis for this specific Analysis Area include: (a) livestock grazing in the area, (b) wildlife, (c) timber harvesting/thinning and wood gathering, (d) recreation, (e) private land development, (f) roads and trails, (g) fire suppression and use, (h) mining, and (i) insect and disease. Each of these is briefly discussed below: (a) Livestock grazing. Livestock grazing has occurred in this area since the late 1800s and continues today. Portions of the trail reroute are currently being used as stock trails as was evidenced by use, this would continue. (b) Wildlife Wildlife ungulate numbers (primarily elk, deer, and bighorn sheep) and rodent populations have fluctuated in the past and would probably continue to do so in the future. When wildlife numbers are high, there could be impacts on palatable Sensitive plants, if they occur in the Analysis Area. The Colorado Division of Parks and Wildlife monitors and manages wildlife with the goal of keeping big game numbers within their stated objectives. (c) Timber harvesting/thinning and wood gathering. There has been some past timber cutting and wood gathering in the Analysis Area (mostly commercial harvesting of Engelmann spruce and lodgepole pine outside Wilderness). There are 24 stands of LP within 6 feet of the trail for 1800 ac, 5 stands of spruce for 984 acres and 7 stands of aspen for 650 acres. The other stands

8 within 6 feet of the trail are grass covertype. There are current and future plans for commercial timber harvest and firewood gathering activities. (d) Recreation. There is a network of roads and trails in the Analysis Area which facilitates a variety of recreation access and use. This area has been historically lightly used for mostly dispersed recreation use (driving for pleasure, hiking, camping, etc.) with peak use probably during the fall hunting seasons. (e) Private land development. Private land exists inside the Analysis Area and it is mostly associated with patented mining claims. Development is minimal and there are no current or foreseeable plans for notable changes in these lands. (f) Roads and trails. There is an infrastructure network of roads and trails in the Analysis Area. This infrastructure has been in place for many decades, although recent Travel Management Decisions have reduced open road density in this area. (g) Fire suppression and use. In the past, there has been widespread fire suppression activity, especially at the lower elevations and particularly in the last 50 years or so. However, much of the Analysis Area is either subalpine or alpine habitat where there has been limited, if any, fire suppression. Currently and in the foreseeable future, there are limited plans for use of prescribed fire at these higher elevations. (h) Mining. Mining considers leasable (oil and gas), saleable (sand and gravel), and locatable (hard-rock) minerals. Past mining activities have been primarily locatable mineral activity. Currently, and in the foreseeable future, there are no known plans to appreciably expand this activity in the Analysis Area. (i) Insect and disease. Insect and disease outbreaks are increasing in the Analysis Area. Currently, there is a large spruce beetle epidemic causing high mortality in Engelmann spruce forests. We are also starting to see mountain pine beetle in the lodgepole pine along the divide. (j) Cultural Resources. The loss of archaeological resources has happened in the past and will happen in the future. The cumulative effect is that over time fewer archaeological resources will be available to learn about past human lifeways, to study changes in human behavior through time, and to interpret the past to the public. Heritage resource inventory, recording, evaluating and archiving basic information about each site for future reference serves to partially mitigate potential cumulative effects to heritage resources. In conjunction with the proposed project, previous logging activities, recreation activities such as hunting, and livestock grazing have the potential to cause ground disturbance and lead to cumulative, long term, irreversible adverse effects to heritage resources. However, because the archaeological site potential appears very low within the analysis, the potential for negative cumulative effects is also low.

9 CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION

This chapter describes and compares the alternatives considered. Alternatives Considered in Detail

Four alternatives were considered in detail for this environmental analysis, as a result of the scoping process. The alternatives presented below represent a range of reasonable alternatives, given the purpose and need and Key Issues for the proposed action. The No Action and three action Alternatives are described and analyzed in detail as follows: Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative 2 – Preferred Alternative Alternative 3 – Mechanized Use Alternative 4 - Minimal Development

Alternative 1 – No Action The Council for Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations for implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires that a no action alternative be developed as a benchmark from which the agency can evaluate the proposed action. Under Alternative 1, the CDNST would remain on the current location with no changes to allowable modes of travel. The key features of the No Action Alternative are summarized below in Table 2.3.1-1.

Table 2.3.1-1 Key Features of Alternative 1 Key Feature Description New Trail Construction 0 Miles New Horse and Hike Trail 0 Miles New Mechanized Trail 0 Miles CXT Toilets Installed 0 Number of Parking Areas/Trailheads Constructed 0 Area Disturbed by New Parking Areas/Trailheads 0 Acre Miles of Non-motorized Trail Decommissioned 0 Miles Miles of CDNST Located on Motorized Roads and Trails 27.0 Miles

Alternative 2 (Preferred Alternative) Under Alternative 2 approximately 31.2 miles of new trail construction would occur from the Skyline Trail (#465) in the La Garita Mountains to Lujan Pass with the purpose of re-routing the CDNST and Colorado Trail from the current location. One spur trail of 0.9 miles would be constructed to connect the CDNST and Colorado Trail to Luder’s Campground. Allowable uses on this trail would include horseback riding and hiking. Motorized and mechanized use would not be permitted. A parking area would be constructed at the top of North Pass (Hwy 114) on

10 the south side of the road which would be approximately 1/4 acre in size. A single CXT vaulted toilet would be installed at the parking area on North Pass. A trailhead and parking area up to ¼ acre in size would be constructed at Luder’s Campground. Approximately 2.0 miles of non- motorized trail on the GMUG NF would be decommissioned following construction of the new trail. See the “Proposed Action” section of this EA for a description of individual segments of trail.

Table 2.3.2-1 Key Features of Alternative 2 Key Feature Description New Trail Construction 32.1 Miles New Horse and Hike Trail 32.1 Miles New Mechanized Trail 0 Miles CXT Toilets Installed 1 Number of Parking Areas/Trailheads 2 Area Disturbed by New Parking Areas/Trailheads < ½ Acre Miles of Non-motorized Trail Decommissioned 2.0 Miles Miles of CDNST Located on Motorized Roads and Trails 0 Miles

Alternative 3 Under Alternative 3 approximately 31.2 miles of new trail construction would occur from the Skyline Trail (#465) in the La Garita Mountains to Lujan Pass with the purpose of re-routing the CDNST and Colorado Trail from the current location. One spur trail of 0.9 miles would be constructed to connect the CDNST and Colorado Trail to Luder’s Campground. Allowable uses on this trail would include horseback riding, hiking and mountain biking (mechanized use). Motorized use would not be permitted. Approximately 2.0 miles of non-motorized trail on the GMUG NF would be decommissioned following construction of the new trail.

Alternative 3 Table 2.3.3-1 Key Features of Alternative 3 Key Feature Description New Trail Construction 32.1 Miles New Horse and Hike Trail 32.1 Miles New Mechanized Trail 32.1 Miles CXT Toilets Installed 0 Number of Parking Areas/Trailheads 0 Area Disturbed by New Parking Areas/Trailheads 0 Acres Miles of Non-motorized Trail Decommissioned 2.0 Miles Miles of CDNST Located on Motorized Roads and Trails 0 Miles

Alternative 4 Under Alternative 4 approximately 31.2 miles of new trail construction would occur from the Skyline Trail (#465) in the La Garita Mountains to Lujan Pass with the purpose of re-routing the

11 CDNST and Colorado Trail from the current location. Allowable uses on this trail would include horseback riding and hiking. Motorized and mechanized use would not be permitted. Approximately 2.0 miles of non-motorized trail on the GMUG NF would be decommissioned following construction of the new trail. Alternative 4

Table 2.3.4-1 Key Features of Alternative 4 Key Feature Description New Trail Construction 31.2 Miles New Horse and Hike Trail 31.2 Miles New Mechanized Trail 0 Miles CXT Toilets Installed 0 Number of Parking Areas/Trailheads 0 Area Disturbed by New Parking Areas/Trailheads 0 Acres Miles of Non-motorized Trail Decommissioned 2.0 Miles Miles of CDNST Located on Motorized Roads and Trails 0 Miles

Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study Alternatives, or aspects of alternatives, which were considered but eliminated from further detailed analysis include: 1. A proposal to construct a parking area on the south side of the Old Cochetopa Pass Road (NN14) and the installation of interpretative signs. This alternative was dropped because these facilities would not be needed given the anticipated levels of use. 2. A proposal to construct a highway underpass on Highway 114. This alternative was dropped because it would have been too expensive. 3. Three options were considered in the field for the location of the trail crossing of Hwy 114. This analysis is documented in the file for this project. Two locations were considered and not brought forward for consideration as alternatives. Option 2 was brought forward and is part of the proposed action.

12 CHAPTER 3 - AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT/ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES. This section discusses the physical, biological, social and economic environments of the affected project area and the potential changes to those environments which could result from implementation of the alternatives.

Effects on Recreation/National Scenic Trails/User Experience/ Scenery Recreation is the primary purpose of, and the driving issue for, the proposed action taken up in this EA. The reader is referred to discussion of “Background” and “Purpose and Need” in Chapter 1. Establishment of a trail consistent with the goals for the CDNST is the standard against which a new alignment should be evaluated. Stated in the 2009 CDNST Comprehensive Plan (http://www.fs.fed.us/cdt/main/cdnst_comprehensive_plan_final_092809.pdf) under the Nature and Purpose Description is that as the CDNST is further developed, it is expected that the trail will eventually be relocated off of roads for its entire length. The memorandum further states, “It is the intent of the Forest Service that the CDNST will be for non-motorized recreation (USDA Forest Service 2009b). In this section of Chapter 3 the existing trail and facilities, as well as the proposed trail and facilities are described in terms of character, recreation opportunity including user experience, use and access. After reading this section, the reader should have a good grasp on the nature and use of the trail in its current/existing alignment, and be able to understand the anticipated result of the proposed relocation in the same terms.

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

Character of this Segment of the CDNST

Location/Maps/Photos Figure 1.1 (Chapter 1) is a vicinity map showing the general location of the proposed trail relocation. Figures 2.1 to 2.4 (Chapter 2) are maps of alternatives, showing all proposals being considered in more detail. Appendix A of this EA is a set of photographs which should serve to give the reader a real visual impression of the existing trail, as well as settings for the proposed new trail. The reader is encouraged to review these maps and photos with some care to be able to follow discussions that follow.

A Description of the Existing Trail The following is excerpted from descriptions of Segments 29, 30 and 31 in the 2002 Updated 2nd Edition (now out of print) of Colorado’s Continental Divide Trail, The Official Guide, by Tom Lorang Jones. Jones does an excellent job of describing the nature of the route in terms of type

13 of tread, and physical environment. The book breaks the trail into segments. Mileages referred to are specific to each segment. Elevations are shown in parentheses. From near the end of Segment 29: NOTE: This detailed description is Beginning at Lujan: ……..”follow Forest Road 785 as it turns left included in part for information, in part (south) away from a spur road that continues straight ahead. to emphasize the complexity of the At mile 33.7 (10,150), the road crosses over the west side of interconnected roads and trails that Lujan Creek, which may be dry for the first mile or so. The La make up this segment of the CDNST. If Garita Mountains loom in the near distance just west of south the reader wishes to advance past this, You will reach Colorado Highway 114 at mile 35.0 (9,720). Turn go two pages forward to END OF TRAIL right (west) and continue along the highway to mile 35.3 where DESCRIPTION you‘ll find a large pullout on the other (south) side of the road.” Beginning Segment 30: ….”Pass through a gate in the fence at the southwest end of the pullout on Colorado Highway 114. Follow a clear trail to the south past carsonite posts into the Lujan Cree drainage. The trail soon turns right (west) at mile 0.3 to parallel the edge of the trees. A tread soon develops a short distance south( left) of the line of posts and crosses Pine Creek at mile 0.6. Don’t follow this across the stream! Just before the near edge of Pine creek, turn left (south) and spot more posts leading upstream along the east side of the water. A faint tread soon develops along this route.” Lupine, wild geraniums, and other bursts of floral fecundity adorn the sides of the trail. Potentilla, rabbitbrush, and willow add color to this arid section of the trail. As an obscure roadbed materializes under the CDT, stay in the drainage along the left side of the streambed until the road crosses over to the right (west) side of the stream at mile 1.8 (9,675). In 0.1 mile, get into the exit lane, take an off-ramp from the stream to the right, and follow it through a 100-yard U-turn that ends up pointing north. The CDT follows a clear logging road (Forest Route 878.1C) out of the drainage and curves back to the south (left) at mile 2.7 (9,940). The road ends in 1.0 mile as a clear single-track continues to the south via a stout, 0.3 – mile climb. This ends at a gate at mile 3.9 (10,260). At mile 4.1, turn left (southeast) off the single-track onto another roadbed (Forest Route 876, unmarked). This descends gradually to the south to a gate at mile 6.4 and reaches Cochetopa Pass Road at mile 6.8. Turn right (west), descend through two switchbacks, and turn left (southeast) onto a jeep road at mile 7.3 (9,630) “ The CDT bend to the right (south, then west) as it climbs gradually to a small stand of trees and a gate at mile 8.1 (9,810). This begins a slight descent into the Los Creek drainage on an idyllic country lane. Stay on the right fork of the main road at mile 8.2 and reach Los Creek at mile 8.6. Follow the road along the creek 0.8 mile to a small pond (9,555) where it forks again. Follow the left fork above Los Creek to the west and climb to mile 9.9 (9,705) on Forest Route 787.2A where you will have your first views of the great expanse of Cochetopa Park.” Descend into the park and passes through a gate at mile 11.6. In another 50 yards, stay on Forest Route 787.2a by turning right at a fork. You will reach the well- maintained Saguache Park Road at mile 11.9 (9,352). Turn left (south) and continue to a cattle guard in a wooded saddle at mile 12.8 (9,510). From here the road curves west (right), then south, and reaches the intersection with Forest Route 787.2D, a spur road on the right (southwest ) at mile 13.3 (9,525)” Beginning Segment 31: Go….”southeast on Forest Route 787.2D. Just after 0.1 mile, leave this road to follow a fainter one to the left (southwest). The CDT soon passes a majestic Ponderosa pine and begins a good climb to mile 0.6. After passing through some trees, the trail breaks out again into sprawling Cochetopa Park and meanders along its southern edge. You will cross Quemado Creek drainage, which is usually dry, at mile 2.1 (9,775) .. A side road branches of to the left (south) to follow this drainage upstream. Avoid this, stay to the right and follow the faint road’s curve 0.2 mile northwest to Forest Route 787.2D which is more clear. Turn left (west), cross the

14 Quemado Creek drainage, and begin a gradual climb. The trail tops out at mile 2.9 (9,960)…… Pass through a gat and descend into the dry Van Tassel Gulch . Cross to the west side to the gulch at mile 3.4 (9,830) and continue 0.1 mile to a road. Turn left (south) and climb steadily through a winsome aspen forest that explodes with color and light in September. Top out in a clearing at mile 5.1 (10,410).” Descend along the road in a slow curve to the right (west, then north) to mile 6.3 where it exits the trees and turns sharply to the left (southwest). Continue 0.3 mile to where several jeep roads converge near a pond. Follow the one farthest left (south) along the edge of the pond and then descend steeply as the road curves to the right (west). At the bottom of this brief descent, look for a very faint trail breaking off to the left (southwest) at mile 6.7 (9,720). If you miss this and end up at the road’s end in a grassy cul-de-sac, walk southeast and pick up the single-track trail where the flat valley bottom meets the steeper hillsides. The single-track soon turns into a jeep road. Where it appears to fork at mile 8.5, take the clearer track that bears left (southeast) behind some spruce trees. In 0.2 mile, the CDT climbs steeply to a bench, beginning a series of climbs and descents above the valley floor. At mile 9.8 (9,945) ne last steep descent takes you to a ford of Cochetopa Creek. ………. Pickup the trail on the other side.” Continue south to mile 10.4 where the trail crosses Nutras Creek and enters the La Garita Wilderness……” END OF TRAIL DESCRIPTION This narrative serves to reinforce the description of this segment of the CDNST as a series of connected existing roads, trails, and two track routes, moving considerably down off of the true Continental Divide to take advantage of existing travel ways, but resulting in a route that is entirely inconsistent with the intended character of the CDNST. Transitions from one route type to another ( e.g., from full sized gravel road to two track, and back, or single track to full sized gravel road, see photographs in Appendix A) are confusing to the user, are poorly marked, and present a challenge to even follow the current alignment of the trail.

Character Relative to the Rest of the CDNST The continental divide through Colorado traverses some of the most beautiful high elevation mountain scenery in America. Elevations of 13,000 feet and above are not uncommon. In many segments the trail is entirely above timber line (tree line), surrounded by Rocky Mountains, in nothing short of outstanding scenery. Truly alpine environments. The segment of the trail between Lujan and La Garita, the focus of this analysis, is almost entirely below 10,500 feet in elevation, and almost entirely in forested environments, or below forested environments in mountain grassland. The existing trail, taking advantage of a set of connected existing routes, some motorized, some ATV tracks, and some single track, is not consistent with the character intended for the CDNST, or with most other segments of the trail. The fact that this segment is unremarkable in comparison with other segments of the CDT does not minimize its importance as a link in the continuous trail system. The trail dropping down, to well below the continental divide, to use established motorized travel-ways in this segment is not consistent with the objectives for the trail overall.

Elevation/Topography The existing trail follows drainages, and relatively low country. Elevations begin at 10,500 at Lujan, but quickly move down to 10,000, and then go even to as low as 9,400 well below the lower edge of the treeline through its middle section, and then move back up to 10,500 feet at La Garita boundary. The existing trail is on northwest side of the Continental Divide, by as

15 much as three miles in some places., and much lower… below tree line much of the time on old roads.

Vegetation Please refer to the botanical reports in the record for detailed descriptions of the vegetation along the routes. As much as one-third of the distance of the existing route is in open treeless environments, predominantly mountain grassland, below the lower tree line. The lower tree line in this area is the result of moisture conditions and elevation. Along the proposed route, there are 24 stands of lodgepole pine within 6 feet of the trail for 1800 ac, 5 stands of spruce for 984 acres and 7 stands of aspen for 650 acres. The other “stands” within 6 feet of the trail are grass covertype.

Remoteness/Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) The entire length of the existing trail is located in Roaded Natural settings. Segments at lower elevations are on the developed end of this ROS class, with the trail actually following existing roads, and passing with sight of dwellings and developed private land. While much of this area does feel “remote”, in that it is a long way from towns and there is not much use, it does not feel primitive or semi-primitive. Roads and development present the appearance and feel of private ranch land type of landscapes.

Water (for Drinking) One of the concerns raised by the public in response to scoping was that there is very little water in this area. The existing trail crosses several live streams, providing opportunity to refill water vessels. The existing trail (actually mostly road) meets Lujan Creek just about a mile southwest of Lujan Pass and stays pretty close to a water source for about 3 miles. After leaving Lujan Creek and Pine Creek, there is no water for another 4 miles or so. As the existing trail gets closer to Cochetopa Creek, water is available (seasonally) every few miles, although it seems most people consider Cochetopa creek the first significant water since Lujan and Pine Creeks.

Mode of Travel Designation Much of the existing trail is open for motorized (existing multiple purpose forest roads), and mechanized (mountain bike) use. It does provide a through route for mountain bike use. The experience had by the mountain biker is one of transitioning from one type of route to another across this segment of the CDNST. Biking forest roads which are being used by full sized motorized vehicles, and including commercial hauling of timber and other products at times, results in a reduced experience by the biker. It also presents some issues in terms of safety of users. Dusty roads with much traffic are unpleasant and can be dangerous to the mountain biker. Considerable interest has been expressed by the mountain bike community in having the new trail designated as open for mechanized (mountain bike) use.

16 Views/Visuals Visual resource impacts of a trail such at the CDNST can be considered from the perspective of 1) the trail viewed from other places, such as State Highway 114, and 2) views from the trail as seen by users of the trail. Please refer to Appendix A for photographs of and from the trail.

Views of the Trail The existing trail is visible from Highway 114 as it leaves the highway and proceeds southwest as a single track leading through and across an open grassland and stream bottom. It is not easily noticed by drivers on the state highway, and could be mistaken for a cow path. Coming from the north, the trail coincides with, and is, the developed gravel road coming from Lujan Pass. See photos in Appendix A. In all instances where the trail can be seen from Forest Roads (that is where is does not actually coincide with a Forest Road) the trail is consistent with the visual quality objectives for the general forest, and is congruent in the context of the general forest setting.

Views from the Trail As noted above, as much as one-third of the distance of Immediate foreground: 0 feet to 300 feet the existing route is in open treeless environments. This Foreground: 300 feet to one-half mile affords the user with extensive views of the surrounding Middleground: one-half mile to 4 miles country. Background: 4 miles and greater Predominant views, where vegetation is open enough to allow views from the existing trail, look up from a range of low elevations down to 9,400 feet, at the continental divide in the foreground to middleground to the southeast, as tree covered hills, and then across extended mountain grasslands in the foreground to middle ground to the northwest towards Cochetopa and or Razor Dome in the background. Scenic Integrity Objectives for the area seen from the current trail are consistent with Roaded Natural settings, and are met by the current trail alignment at all distance zones. We again refer the reader to the Appendix with photographs which show the appearance of the area better than any description can.

Access to the Trail Including Parking The reader is referred to the section of this chapter entitled “Transportation and Access,” and the map of the Proposed Action under the section of this EA under that title. Where the trail crosses State Highway 114, there is no safe off-highway parking provided. Hikers and riders staging at this location must do so on the apron of the highway, or forest road, suffering risk of accident. Figure 1 below is a topographic map of the pass area. The existing trail crossed the highway where Lujan Creek does. Figure 2 is the same scale representation of the area in an aerial photo. Figure 3 is a closer look at the area, showing road side pull out parking. Figure 1. North Pass Topographic

17

Figure 2. North Pass Aerial Photo

Figure 3. North Pass Aerial Photo close-up for where the existing trail crosses SH 114. The existing trail follows the road labeled in white “CR31CC”

18

The proposed parking area would provide safe and convenient parking with an outhouse facility at this most popular (in this segment) access point to the trail. This may actually invite/induce additional use of this segment of the trail for day hikers in that the presence of the trail will be more apparent, and the access to it will feel more secure. This is a substantial improvement of the existing situation in terms of recreation user experience and recreation opportunity offered. At present there is no sanitary facility at North Pass. The consequence is a very unsanitary situation in the area of the actual pass.

Roadless Character/Roadless Rule(s) The map below reflects roadless area delineations in relation to the proposed new trail alignment. Two types of delineations are the 1979/2001 Roadless Rule delineations, and the 2012 Colorado Roadless Rule delineations.

19

The yellow line on this map is the proposed new trail alignment It can be seen that the southern route taken by the new trail does pass through a segment of the 1979-2001 roadless delineation. This area is no longer considered roadless because ongoing management had been occurring in this area since 1979. The Colorado Roadless Rule of 2012 eliminates these delineations as consideration for roadless, and replaces them with delineations from that rule. There is no effect on roadless values of the trail passing through this area. The second area of roadless affected by the trail is on the Southwest end of the trail. It can be seen that the new trial passes through both (1979/2001) inventoried roadless, and an area of 2012 Colorado Roadless rule roadless. The trail would move from the north side of this small block approaching the La Garita Wilderness boundary, to the south side of it. This is consistent with provisions of the 2012 Colorado Roadless Rule. A trail may be built in Congressionally designated Wilderness if it is consistent with the purposes for which the area is being managed, and such is the case here. No effect on roadless values of the delineated roadless area will occur with construction of the proposed trail.

20 None of the other facilities contemplated, other than the new trail itself, are within or near inventoried roadless areas.

Use of this Segment of the CDNST

Amounts of Use As described above, this segment of the CDNST from Lujan to LaGarita is less scenic than many other sections, and hence less likely to have the day traffic seen other places. However, it is an important link in the overall trail system. Though no user counts have been conducted for the CDNST in the study area, use of the trail can be characterized through several measures. Use on the trail itself during the peak of the hiking/snow free season is characterized by users themselves as light to moderate. Hikers on the trail in mid-season may encounter four to five parties or hikers over the course of a day of hiking on weekends, and none to three on week days. Use increases substantially in hunting season (see below) and, conversely, is very light in shoulder seasons of early spring and late fall. In terms of proximity to population centers as a source of users, this segment of the CDT is one of the most remote in Colorado. The nearest towns are Gunnison (Pop. 5,800), 38 driving miles to the NW, and Saguache (Pop. 580), 32 driving miles to the SW. Towns of the San Luis Valley include Monte Vista (Pop. 4,000), 67 driving miles, Alamosa (Pop. 8,800), 84 driving miles, and other smaller farm communities of the Valley. (Note: population figures rounded from 2010 Census Data). Recreation opportunities for day hiking abound in the mountains surrounding each of these communities, making the CDNST from Lujan to LaGarita only one of many choices for local hikers. The fact that it is a national trail gives it significance and invites use from people wanting to hike a “National Scenic Trail.” The fact that much of the existing route is actually along developed roads discourages day use. The population of the San Luis Valley is an estimated 50, 000 people. Though this may seem to be a large population base, when compared to the population centers of the front-range, and further north and south along the CDNST, this is a very small base of population from which to draw recreation use on this particular trail. As another gauge, even though the Appalachian and the Pacific Crest Trails are different environments, for comparison purposes, the Appalachian Trail receives an average of four million visitors per year along any one portion of its length, yet only 200 to 300 users thru-hike its entire length (AT 2005). And, approximately 180 users thru-hike the entire length of the Pacific Crest Trail (PCT 2005). The Monarch Crest Store, located along the CDNST north of the study area, receives and holds packages for “thru-hikers.” According to a store representative, 57 packages were received for thru-hikers in 2004. Additionally, the store is a common starting point for northbound day hikers and southbound mountain bikers. The store representative estimates that 20-30 day hikers and 200-300 mountain bikers leave from the store daily during period of high use. The most accurate tally of use on the trail, however, is provided by a volunteer “trail angel,” William Appel. Mr. Appel has continuously surveyed use at Lujan for the past two summers. His report is excerpted below.

21 “Last year (2011) I saw 317 hikers between 7/2/11 and 8/28/11 after uplifting the total by 15% to compensate for the fact that I was only on site until 5 pm each day. I saw only 5 CDNST hikers during this time. I saw 61 mountain bikes, 4 llamas, 17 horses with riders and 41 dirt bikes. This year I was on site from 7/9/12 to 8/12/12 or 23 days less. I counted 236 hikers, 15 of which were CDNST. I counted 77 mountain bikes, 44 llamas, 4 mules, 3 horses with riders, and 40 dirt bikes. To try and compare the 2 years, we can make some conservative assumptions. First, we should add at least 30 hikers for the period from 7/2/12 to 7/9/12 since this was a low snow year and a healthy flow of hikers had already started in early July. (total now 266). Next we should add at least 48 hikers for the end of the period between 8/13/12 to 8/28/12 based on at least 3 per day which was the average from last year. (total now 314) . If we uplift this by 15% again since I was only on site until 5 pm we arrive at a conservative estimate of 361 hikers for the period from 7/2/12 to 8/28/12 or an increase of some 14% this year over last year. The increase in mountain bike and dirt bike traffic was similar. For some reason, I did not see many horses this year. There was a healthy increase in CDNST hikers this year, probably due to the lack of snow. ( Most CDNST hikers at Lujan are northbound while CT hikers are southbound. ) ……. My "confirmed hiker count" before the 15% uplift was obtained from personal contact, the sign-in register, footprints, trash left in the garbage can, or information gathered from hikers. I am 100% sure the actual numbers are higher than stated here.”

Winter use Winter use is very light to non-existent. This segment of the continental divide is in the snow shadow of the San Juan Mountains of Southwest Colorado and consequently receives very little snow in comparison with other areas nearby. There is no grooming of or marking of the trail as a cross country ski route, as it often does not have enough snow to ski or snowmobile. The current alignment at low elevations further discourages winter recreation use.

Outfitters There are no outfitters who use the southwest end of this segment of the CDNST to access the La Garita Wilderness. The Quarter/Quarter Circle Ranch uses existing roads, some of which overlap with the existing CDNST route, to access other areas with horseback clients. There is a permitted trekking program with the Colorado Trail Association which does support through hikers of the Colorado Trail/CDNST. This segment of the CDNST is only one small segment of their use, and would actually be much better accommodated by the proposed new trail location. No outfitters or guides hold permits specifying the use of the remainder of the trail from La Garita to Lujan.

Hunting It is common in western Colorado for areas which receive light use for most of the spring/summer/fall season to receive substantial increase in use during the big game hunting seasons. Such is the case here as well. Dispersed camps are set up in the vicinity of the lower segments of the trail along roads which allow for full sized vehicle access. Hunters travel these roads to get to hunting locations, and often walk up non –motorized segments of the trail to access “back country” where game is less disturbed. The activities of dispersed camping, “road hunting,” motorized travel associated with access to hunting, are all inconsistent with the experience sought by hikers of the CDNST.

22 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES Under the No Action Alternative, all aspects of the existing alignment, as described above, would remain the same. Objectives for the Continental Divide National Scenic Trail would not be met. The action alternatives considered in this EA respond to the purpose and need for action, and address issues in different ways. In the following discussion, the effects of implementing different actions being considered are presented in a way that should allow the reader to understand the real differences, and to provide for an informed decision. Aspects of environmental consequences are under the same headings and in the same order as were presented above under Affected Environment.

Elevation/Topography The proposed trail essentially courses the Continental Divide, with a good bit of climbing and descending with the terrain of the divide. Elevations range from 10,500 feet to just over 11,000 feet in the Cochetopa Hills, but for the most part range from 10,500 to 10,800 over the course of the 31 miles. The proposed trail places the alignment at consistently higher elevation than the existing trail. One consequence of this is that the trail has more ascending and descending in short segments than does the existing alignment. There would be trail grade climbs and ascents in some locations as opposed to road grade inclines on the existing roads/trail alignment.

Vegetation Over the length of the new trail, 90 to 95 percent of the proposed trail alignment passes through forested environments, of mixed aspen and conifer. It should be noted that much of the current trail is not under tree cover, and hence is not subject to the hazard and cost associated with the ongoing insect and disease situation in Colorado mountain forests. Mortality of conifer in this area from mountain pine beetle, or spruce beetle, is light. However, this epidemic is advancing and may reach this area. Location of the new trail through predominantly forest cover brings with it the risk of many of the conifers along the route becoming hazard trees to users, and expensive in terms of maintenance of an open trail in the future. It is not possible to predict the timing or likelihood of this happening, but it is a consideration.

Remoteness/Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) The proposed new trail location would offer substantially greater sense of remoteness. Again refer to maps and photos. Also see the segment by segment description of the existing trail above, and of the proposed trail in Chapter 2. On many segments of the new trail the hiker will have a strong sense of remoteness from sights, sounds or indications of human development. At many points along the new alignment the user is miles from any road or development.

Water (for Drinking) The proposed new alignment follows the ridge or near the ridge of the Continental Divide for most of its length dropping down to live water in only two places: Monchego Park, and Luder’s

23 Campground. Luder’s Campground and Monchego Park are the main sources of water on the proposed route until it starts getting close to Cochetopa Creek. Monchego Park may benefit from some water source development/improvement, since it is not very fast flowing and leads into a stock pond. There are two potential water sources just about ¾ of a mile northeast of Monchego Park, but they would require improvement. These are small springs which could potentially provide water. Four miles southwest of Monchego Park there are two stock ponds about a mile off the proposed alignment on road 787. Humans would not enjoy drinking from this source, but it would be acceptable for stock (Horses, Llamas, etc.). Three miles further west, on the proposed route, there is a natural pond ¼ mile down road 597, again not optimal for human use, but adequate for stock use. Then another 3 miles down the proposed alignment (to the south), Cochetopa creek provides good flowing water.

Designations of Existing Trail Under Alternative 2 and 4, the entire length of the new trail would be designated for hiker and horse use only. Under Alternative 3, the trail would be designated for hiker/horse/mechanized use, which includes mountain bike use. See discussion below under “User Experience.” The proposed action: relocates the CDNST off of roads within its management areas; limits use of new trails to non-motorized use only; and provides for higher quality scenery, primitive hiking and horseback experiences than what currently exists. Therefore, complying with the direction set forth in the 2009 Continental Divide National Scenic Trail Comprehensive Plan. Note: acccording to US Forest Service, Trail Accessibility Guidelines, devices built exclusively to assist those with mobility impairments (i.e., wheelchairs) are not considered mechanical devices excluded from use. Motorized vehicles such as quads or UTV’s are not built exclusively for people with disabilities, and therefore, cannot be used as a substitute for a wheelchair to access non-motorized routes.

Views/Visuals

Views of the Trail Under Alternative 2, construction of a new trail and facilities will have a very minor short term effect on visual resources, in terms of views of the trail. With the exception of where it actually crosses points of access, the trail will not be seen from any travelled route, and will be consistent with the visual quality objectives for the area affected. Parking and sanitary facilities to be constructed under Alternative 2 but not under Alternatives 3 or 4, and short segments of the trail in all alternatives, will be visible in the immediate foreground and can create more contrast than will be acceptable in areas designated for retention or partial retention. However, the trail is actually part of the expected image of the public being served (USDA Forest Service 1995). With this in mind, the new trail and its construction activity will be seen, as is expected when a trail is added, as a feature or facility to the landscape. The construction

24 activity is a short term effect. The class of trail proposed (materials, and design standard) when complete is intended to reflect a viewing platform that blends into the landscape and will not detract from the scenic experience - appearing and functioning as the wilderness portion of the CDNST does. As a result, the proposed CDNST route will be compatible within areas managed for High Scenic Integrity Objectives. The proposed trail alignment will be seen from Highway 114 where it immediately crosses and departs from the highway itself, not in its current location, but nearer the true North Pass. Also, under all action alternatives, in the longer term, Highway 114 on the east side of and approaching North Pass is a public travel way from which some evidence of the trail might be seen. The hill across which the trail alignment is proposed, faces the highway, and is a lodgepole pine forest, with area of young growth. The trail construction may result in creation of a linear cut in the tree canopy which could catch the eye of a passer-by, altering the line and form of the forest. Visual quality objectives of foreground from the highway are partial retention, and would still be met.

Views from the Trail (all action alternatives) The existing section of CDNST, sharing use with roads, is eliminated as system trail under action alternatives 2-4. As a result, scenic integrity objectives (as opposed to existing visual condition) for the existing alignment could change from high to moderate to reflect more closely the existing visual condition associated with road scenes. In terms of effects on views from the trail in its new location, located predominantly on the actual ridge of the Continental Divide, views, where not subtended by forest vegetation, are in every direction, and extend in many more instances to middle ground and background. These views include the snow-capped peaks of the LaGaritas to the SW in the middle distance, the Sangre de Cristo Mountains in the background across the San Luis Valley to the East, and Cochetopa Dome to the NW. Note: this view of the LaGaritas is of their northeast exposure. This exposure holds snow the longest, offering the “snow-capped mountain” appearance well into the summer and into the hiking season. The location and views from the new trail location are a substantial improvement over the existing trail locations in terms the experience of the hiker/user. The scenic quality of what is seen from the new location is much more consistent with the objectives for the CDNST, and for back country experience in general. Distant views of mountains as seen from remote locations will be the predominant experience for most of the length of the new trail location. The proposed new trail location does pass through potential future timber sale area. See Scoping documents and Figures in Appendix B, for a map of the location of the boundaries of this vegetation management area. The types of activities that are occurring and may occur in this area include: Commercial Timber harvesting using clear-cutting, selection harvest, salvage treatments for insect and disease control, and pre-commercial thinning primarily for insect and disease control; Mechanical treatment of low vegetation including roller chopping and hydroax.

25 These activities are consistent with the Forest Plans, and are appropriate for this area of the National Forest given the current management direction. From the trail, at locations indicated, the user will see clear evidence of previous and current timber harvesting activity from both the existing trail and the new location. These activities are not currently planned at this time. They are not “foreseeable actions” for the purpose of NEPA as defined in 36 CFR 220, however there is potential for future planning of them. Scoping for timber treatments has been conducted. Following scoping this vegetation treatment project has been put on hold pending the CDNST relocation decision addressed in this EA. Establishment of the CDNST in its new location brings with it certain direction which may impinge on these harvesting activities, and may cause timber planners to adjust methods of harvest for visual considerations. These include Scenic Integrity Objectives associated with the trail. Please see Chapter I, under “Applicable Law, Regulation, Policy” for discussion of the direction referred to. At such time as new management activities, including timber harvesting, are contemplated, and NEPA is completed, consideration must be given to the direction related to the CDNST. Included in the record is a view-shed map showing what could be seen within ½ mile (foreground) from the new trail alignment without the screening of vegetation. As most of the trail would be under forest cover, even these areas are seen only through the trees, or not at all. The new parking area proposed at North Pass on Highway 114 will alter the appearance of the area from trees to that of a developed parking area. This will be a substantial change, however it will be congruent with the highway setting, the pass on which it is located and the expectation of users that there be just such a facility at this location.

Access to the Trail Including Parking Please see the section of this EA entitled Transportation, as well as Figure 1 of the Introduction for more discussion of access. Access is substantially improved under Alternative 2. Under Alternative 2, but not under Alternatives 3 and 4, the addition of a parking area and toilet at North Pass, along with trailhead and parking area at Luder’s campground offers the highest level of convenience and service to the public for using this new trail facility, remedying the sanitary problems created at North Pass by absence of a facility.

Roadless Character/Roadless Rule(s) The southern route taken by the new trail does pass through a segment of the 1979-2001 roadless delineation. This area is no longer considered roadless due to ongoing management since 1979. The Colorado Roadless Rule of 2012 eliminates these delineations as consideration for roadless, and replaces them with delineations from that rule. There is no effect on roadless values of the trail passing through this area. The second area of roadless affected by the trail is on the Southwest end of the trail. It can be seen that the new trail passes through both old (1979/2001) inventoried roadless, and an area of 2012 Colorado Roadless rule. The trail would move from the north side of this small block approaching the La Garita Wilderness boundary, to the south side of it. This is consistent with provisions of the 2012 Colorado Roadless Rule. No effect on roadless values of the delineated roadless area will occur with construction of the new trail. None of the other facilities (parking, toilet, trailheads) proposed are within or near inventoried roadless areas.

26 Use of this Segment of the CDNST

Summer Use It is reasonable to expect use to increase with the construction of a true hiking trail, with such easy access from both the State highway, and Country and Forest Roads. The opening of a new segment of a National trail will certainly attract new use for a period of time. Over time this is expected to taper off, and to be predominantly hiker use. However some increase in use will occur among users seeking lower elevation, gentler hikes than is found in the more rugged trails in the area. Parking and an easy trail on a pass adjacent to a state highway is expected to result in increased day use. Hikers may hike in one to four miles and back out on the new trail, which they seldom do on the current trail.

Winter Use Under all alternatives, the proposed new trail does traverse higher terrain, and so will receive more snow, and will be well enough defined to allow a skier to follow it in winter. It is possible that on the occasions when there is enough snow, cross country skiers will find it an attractive route to ski. This could either be out and back skiing, or point to point with vehicle shuttling. Parking provided at North Pass would provide facilities to accommodate day skiing (cross country) under Alternative 2.

Outfitters A new trail location is not expected to alter this use in any way.

Hunting In its new location, the trail will have long segments which are not accessible by any form of motorized equipment. Walk in hunting will still occur relatively near to access points, however, none of the new route will be on motorized routes. The trail would provide trail access to areas not accessed to date, and attract walk-in, or horse facilitated, hunting in areas that have not been hunted. Access along the existing trail alignment will remain available per status quo.

In Sum - User Experience Consistent with the Objectives for the CDNST People using primitive trails often experience the outdoor environment in a more natural state or setting. Seeing commercial building materials or engineered construction techniques used in such a setting can change its primitive character and therefore the user’s experience. On the CDNST, over its length, people are generally looking for a higher degree of challenge and risk where they can use their outdoor and survival skills. The portion of the CDNST that is proposed, consistently offers this level of experience – with distinctive scenic attractiveness and very high scenic integrity as well.

Hikers/horseback riders The proposed action: relocates the CDNST off of roads within its management areas; limits use of new trails to non-motorized use only; and provides for higher quality scenery, primitive hiking and horseback experiences than what currently exists, therefore complying with the direction set forth in the 2009 Continental Divide National Scenic Trail Comprehensive Plan.

27 Under all action alternatives, the proposed new location of this segment of the CDNST, and under alternative 2, proposed facilities, substantially enhance the recreation experience of the hiker/horseback rider using this segment of the CDNST. Instead of what was a series of interconnected, confusing and inconsistent travel ways, including roads and trails, the new trail is one single track trail from Lujan to the La Garita wilderness. Users will suffer no challenge in terms of navigation as in the current situation, will travel near or just below the true continental divide, and will enjoy a primitive to semi-primitive experience. Access points are spaced appropriately for support, but are not close together enough to be obtrusive. In short, it will become a true trail experience, consistent with the objective for the CDNST, and provides one more connecting link in the CDNST. Under Alternative 3 the trail would be designated as open for mechanized/mountain bike use. Mountain bike use on the trail would have environmental effects. Mountain bikes affect trail tread. In situations where trails climb or descend over forest soils such as are found along the proposed trail alignment (any trail alignment in this area located off of gravel surface roads), through repeated digging of mountain bike tire tread, trails are entrenched over time. The tread loosens soils, and subsequent rains wash it, creating down- cutting. Also, where the trail created by hiker and horse use is more likely to have relatively flat walking surface, the “cross section profile” of the tread of a trail used by mountain bike traffic is often rounded, or open horseshoe shaped. The consequence of this to the hiker and horse is that with each step, the foot is placed on an inward slope, turning the ankle and knee, and even hip, in an unnatural fashion. Long hikes on this kind of trail can result in unusual soreness in hikers or horses, and simply be uncomfortable. This can affect user experience. Another effect observed in mountain bike trails in certain circumstances of slope and soils is the creation of a washboard or hummocking effect. Going uphill, each power stroke of the rider places uneven force on the soils, and over time can result in a hummocking effect, not unlike washboarding of roads but with much longer distances between dips. The gentle slopes of the new proposed location would be susceptible to this effect over time. The result for the hiker or horseback rider is that they find themselves walking up and down these dips to stay in the trail. The social effects of mountain bike use on the trail include encounters by hikers and horseback riders with mountain biking parties. Mountain bikers travel much faster than hikers and or horses, and often “appear” quickly, causing hikers and horses to have to quickly yield. In downhill (from bikers perspective) situations this can even lead to safety issues. A biker coming around a corner at high speed can come upon a hiker before either party is aware of the other. In general terms, bicycle use on the CDNST is not consistent with the overall objectives for the CDNST.

Bicyclists As we noted above, interest has been expressed by the mountain bike community in having the new trail designated as open for mechanized (mountain bike) use. Alternative 3 was formulated to address this issue. Under this alternative the proposed trail would be designated for mountain bike use.

28 Addition of the new trail for mountain bike use would offer a challenging opportunity for mountain bike riders to use a single track trail for long distances, instead of having to ride the series of connected roads that is now the route. This would create a substantial new opportunity for those seeking this kind of recreation use of the National Forest. The roads making up the existing route are gravel and present some small hazard to riders from traffic. And the same navigational challenges that face hikers must be dealt with by bike riders. The recreation experience of riding roads is substantially different from riding a single track trail, especially a new single track trail. Some riders may actually prefer the use of roads and more developed surfaces and less of a feeling of isolation, while others seek that experience. As part of the proposed action, even with the construction of a new trail alignment, the existing through route for mountain bikes would be maintained, and so the current opportunity is preserved. Effects on Wildlife Sensitive Species/Management Indicator Species

Analysis Area Boundaries The CDNST Reroute Project involves approximately 32.1 miles of foot-trail construction with a tread width of 24 inches and clearing width of 6 feet as well as facility and trailhead development at two locations under Alternative 2. All trail construction and facility/trailhead construction occurs on National Forest lands. The area analyzed for direct and indirect effects includes the trail and trailhead locations of proposed activities (i.e., 6-foot clearing width and trailhead construction sites) in addition to Forest Service-administered lands within ¼ mile (400 meters) of these sites to account for effects such as disturbance due to human presence. The boundary for cumulative effects analysis (CEA) varies by species in relation to species home range size and mobility. The CEA is identified for each species addressed further in the analysis.

Habitat Type Associated with the Project Area Vegetation databases from the GMUG and RGNF indicate that the new trail segment is located primarily in forested stands dominated by lodgepole pine, spruce/fir, and aspen, with small amounts of bristlecone pine and grass/forb/shrub openings (Table 5). The trailhead along State Highway 114 would be located predominately within aspen whereas the trailhead location at Luder’s Campground is a grass/forb/shrub meadow. Table 5. Dominant Vegetation within 0.25 mile of Proposed Trail and Trailheads Percentage of Area within 0.25 Dominant Species/Type Acres mi. Grass/Forb/Shrub 541 6% Bristlecone pine 137 2% Lodgepole pine 2,739 32% Spruce/fir 2,892 34% Aspen 2,132 25% Douglas-fir 72 <1% Willow 77 <1%

29 Sensitive Species Of the Region 2 sensitive terrestrial wildlife species that occur or may occur on the Rio Grande National Forest (RGNF) or Grand Mesa-Uncompahgre National Forest (GMUG) (Regional Forester list June 2011), species found within the project area that may be influenced by project activities, and included in this analysis, are: American peregrine falcon, Boreal owl, Flammulated owl, Northern goshawk, Olive-sided flycatcher, American marten, Pygmy shrew, Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep, Spotted bat, Townsend’s big-eared bat, Hoary bat, and Wolverine. Those species that do not have habitat present within the analyses area, and not evaluated further in this, document include: the Great Basin silverspot butterfly, Bald eagle, Black swift, Brewer’s sparrow, Burrowing owl, Columbian sharp-tailed grouse, Ferruginous Hawk, Gunnison Sage Grouse, Lewis’ woodpecker, Loggerhead shrike, Mountain plover, Northern harrier, Sage sparrow, White-tailed ptarmigan, Yellow-billed cuckoo, Desert bighorn sheep, Fringed myotis, Gunnison’s prairie dog, Kit fox, New Mexico jumping mouse, River otter, and white-tailed prairie dog. American Peregrine Falcon

Status within the Analysis Area Information for the RGNF indicates that peregrine falcons currently nest on the Conejos Peak District (4 sites), the Divide District (2 sites), and the Saguache District (1 site). One other site is located adjacent to the Divide District on Colorado Division of Wildlife land. The Saguache District’s eyrie is located approximately 2.4 miles from the analysis area. The last year this eyrie was known to be active was 2006. No occupancy was detected from 2007 through 2011. No peregrine falcon observations are reported for the Gunnison Ranger District (GMUG NRIS wildlife database). Aerial photograph interpretation as well as digital elevation modeling (DEM) and elevational contour maps do not indicate the presence of potential nesting habitat in the form of prominent cliff sites or large rocky outcrops within the project area. Potential foraging habitat exists throughout the analysis area in the form of grass/forb/shrub openings and areas above forest canopy.

Effects Analysis Alternative 1 The no-action alternative would maintain the existing CDNST trail location. No construction and subsequent use of new trailheads would occur. Alternative 1 would have no direct or indirect impacts on peregrine falcons. Action Alternatives Direct Effects/ Indirect Effects – The zone of potential human disturbance to nesting peregrines is identified as within one mile of nest sites (Richardson and Miller 1997, Romin and Muck 1999). Review of aerial photographs and elevational datasets indicate no suitable nesting habitat (prominent cliff sites or large rocky outcrops) within the project area (0.25 miles from proposed activities). Several large rocky outcrops do exist within one mile of proposed

30 activities near the southern terminus of the project adjacent to Cochetopa Creek, but because these outcrops are located along the existing CDNST route it is likely that peregrine activity would have been identified if occurring. Therefore, no nesting or potential nesting activity is expected within one mile of proposed treatments. Project Design Criteria have been incorporated into all action alternatives that would address potential disturbance if peregrines were to establish nesting near new trail and trailhead sites (see Project Design Criteria). Therefore, no impacts to peregrine falcon nesting are expected under all action alternatives. Because the project area lies within 2.4 miles of a known eyrie, there is potential that peregrines could utilize natural openings and areas above forest canopy for foraging. Disturbance of foraging peregrines is unlikely due to the low-intensity nature of project activities and subsequent project area use in addition to the aerial nature of peregrine foraging which naturally creates a measure of spatial separation from ground-level project activities. Impacts to peregrine prey availability is also not expected due to the small spatial scope of vegetation treatments (i.e., trail clearing width of 6 feet, trailhead disturbance totaling less that ½ acre) where project activities are spread over a 32-mile span. Therefore, no impacts to peregrine falcon foraging are expected under all action alternatives.

Cumulative Effects Because there are no direct or indirect effects, no cumulative effects would occur.

Determination Based on the analysis discussed above, I determine that as proposed, this project will have “no impact” on the peregrine falcon. Boreal Owl

Status within the Analysis Area Boreal owls are known to occupy spruce-fir habitat on both the RGNF and GMUG. Numerous sightings have been reported between the two Forests. Only several have been reported for the Gunnison RD and no reports have come from the Saguache RD. All sightings are located more than 20 miles from the project area (GMUG, RGNF NRIS Wildlife Database). Dry overall habitat conditions and limited spruce-fir habitat are suspected for the lack of boreal owl observations on the Saguache District (Irwin 2009). The CDNST Reroute project contains approximately 1,498 acres of Spruce/fir forest in structural stages 4B or 4C containing mature forest with moderate or dense canopy closures.

Effects Analysis Alternative 1 The no-action alternative would maintain the existing CDNST trail location. No construction and subsequent use of new trailheads would occur. Alternative 1 would have no direct or indirect impacts on boreal owls. Action Alternatives All action alternatives would create a 6-foot clearing width associated with the proposed trail. A total of about 4 acres of clearing would occur in portions of spruce-fir stands in Structural

31 Stages 4B and 4C. This would occur along a total of 5 miles of trail scattered throughout the extent of the total 32.1 miles proposed. Due to a lack of existing habitat, no habitat alteration would occur at proposed new trailheads under Alternative 2. Creation of the 6-foot clearing width is expected to have minimal impact to boreal owl roosting habitat availability. The affected habitat (4 acres) represents only 0.26% of spruce-fir stand in structural stages 4B and 4C currently within the analysis area. In addition, the narrow width of the affected area precludes any meaningful edge effect or concentrated patch that would constitute an opening devoid of hunting perches or roost opportunities. Openings larger than several hectares (interpreted as more than 7 acres) are expected to eliminate foraging habitat (Hayward 1994). Proposed treatments could remove individual snags within the clearing width or outside the clearing width for safety reasons. Current snag availability and distribution within the affected area is unknown, but larger snags may exist within the proposed clearing width. If a snag is removed while occupied by nesting boreal owls, the activity would lead to nest abandonment or could cause mortality of nestlings if they are present. Because the affected area represents a small, narrow portion of habitat within the analysis area, snag availability for boreal owl nesting at the broader scale is not expected to be measurably impacted at the project area scale. Boreal owls tolerate human and machine noise and have been recorded nesting within 30 meters (100 feet) of a major highway. The species will also tolerate frequent nest inspections and will deliver prey to the nest with humans observing from only several meters away indicating that disturbance is not an important factor in nest loss or individual movements (Hayward 1994). Therefore, human activity during project implementation and subsequent project area use is not expected to impact boreal owls.

Cumulative Effects Boreal owls are known to have rather large home ranges, averaging approximately 3,600 acres. Therefore, the cumulative effects area (CEA) identified for this species extends outside the project area at distance of one home range diameter, or 2.7 miles. In total, the CEA accounts for other activities within 3 miles of project activities. The primary activities of concern for boreal owls include logging and fuelwood gathering. Past logging activities that have occurred within spruce-fir stands have likely affected local availability of nesting, roosting, and foraging habitats. Some past logging in spruce-fir has occurred in portions of the CEA on the GMUG. Past logging in the Saguache RD spruce-fir zone appears to be minimal. No reasonably foreseeable timber harvest activities are identified within the spruce-fir zone of the RGNF. On the GMUG, the Cochetopa Hills Planning Area occurs with the boreal owl CEA for this project. Potential project activities within the planning area include timber harvest and prescribed burning, some of which may occur within spruce-fir stands. Impacts to boreal owls would be analyzed for that project if suitable habitat is affected. Due to the minor habitat impacts predicted as a result of the CDNST Reroute Project, additional cumulative impacts associated with projects in the Cochetopa Hills Planning Area are likely to be insignificant.

32 Other ongoing and foreseeable activities within the CEA include livestock grazing, outfitter/guide and special use permits, and fish habitat improvement projects, none of which are expected to add measurable cumulative effects.

Determination Based on the analysis discussed above I determine that as proposed, this project “May adversely Impact Individuals, but not likely to result in a loss of viability in the planning area, nor cause a trend toward federal listing” for the boreal owl. Flammulated Owl

Status within the Analysis Area There are currently 42 records of flammulated owl occurrence on the RGNF and 150 recorded occurrences on the GMUG, indicating that the species is fairly common. On the RGNF, the majority of these records occurred on the Conejos Peak District during surveys for the Mexican spotted owl. Only five observations have been reported for the Saguache RD. Only a total of four flammulated owl observations are reported for the Gunnison RD, GMUG, the nearest of which is located about 15 miles north of the project area (GMUG NRIS Wildlife Database). Owl surveys have not been conducted in the project area vicinity and no known occurrences are reported for the project area. Although the project area lacks ponderosa pine, the area does contain approximately 72 acres of mature Douglas-fir stands with structural stages 4A, 4B, and 4C that may be used to some extent by the species.

Effects Analysis Alternative 1 The no-action alternative would maintain the existing CDNST trail location. No construction and subsequent use of new trailheads would occur. Alternative 1 would have no direct or indirect impacts on flammulated owls. Action Alternatives All action alternatives propose to create approximately 1,640 feet (0.31 mi.) of new trail within one mature Douglas-fir stand. At a clearing width of 6 feet, this would impact about 0.23 acre of flammulated owl habitat. In addition, snags that pose a safety risk within or near the trail may be removed. Direct impacts to flammulated owls resulting in nest abandonment or mortality of young would occur if owls are nesting in trees or snags being removed. Project design criteria that require reporting of raptor nest activity to the RGNF Forest Biologist may reduce the risk slightly, but the species’ cryptic nature and nocturnal activity period make it unlikely that owls would be detected during daylight project activities. Indirectly, trail construction that affects 0.23 acre would have minimal impacts to habitat availability as this represents only 0.3% of habitat within the project area. The trail’s narrow configuration would also preclude a change in stand suitability for the species. Flammulated owls are known to nest close to sites occupied by humans and tolerate observation by flashlight all night while feeding young, indicating that they are very tolerant of humans. Nest abandonment is rare. However, the effects of mechanical activities such as chainsaw use in proximity to nest sites has not been evaluated (McCallum 1994); therefore there is potential for trail construction activities to affect

33 flammulated owls nesting in proximity to work sites. Subsequent non-motorized trail use is not expected to generate substantial noise nor is it expected to impact flammulated owl nesting.

Cumulative Effects Home range sizes reported for flammulated owls are relatively small, averaging about 20 acres in size during the nesting period (McCallum 1994). Therefore, the project area is of sufficient size to assess the potential cumulative impacts of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable activities. The primary activities of concern for flammulated owls include logging and fuelwood gathering. Review of past activities indicates that no timber harvest has occurred in flammulated suitable habitat within the project area within recent history. On the GMUG, the Cochetopa Hills Planning Area occurs with the CEA for this project. Potential project activities within the planning area include timber harvest and prescribed burning, some of which may occur within suitable habitat. Impacts to flammulated owls would be analyzed for that project if suitable habitat is affected. The lack of open road access to existing suitable habitat makes it very unlikely that firewood gathering is a factor for this species. Other ongoing and foreseeable activities such as livestock grazing and special use permits are not expected to impact flammulated owl suitable habitat within the project area.

Determination Based on the analysis discussed above, I determine that as proposed, this project will have “May adversely Impact Individuals, but not likely to result in a loss of viability in the planning area, nor cause a trend toward federal listing” on flammulated owls or their habitat. Northern Goshawk

Status within the Analysis Area Goshawks are relatively common on the Saguache Ranger District (Irwin 2009). Core areas of goshawk territories are found adjacent to the analysis area in the vicinities of Spanish Creek, Luder’s Creek, and Jakes Creek on the RGNF (NRIS Wildlife Database). A total of 27 goshawk territories were known to occur on the Gunnison RD as of 2008 (USDA Forest Service 2008). Review of available information shows that nesting has occurred in the vicinity of West Pass Creek less than one mile from the project area. In addition, goshawk activity was detected within the project area during the nesting season southeast of Monchego Park in 2010 (Hill 2010). On the RGNF, one nest site has been reported approximately 0.5 mile from the proposed trail site in the vicinity of Cantonment Creek. This nest site was last identified as active in 2006. Approximately 3,247 acres of suitable northern goshawk habitat occurs within 0.25 mile of proposed new trail and trailheads.

Effects Analysis Alternative 1 The no-action alternative would maintain the existing CDNST trail location. No construction and subsequent use of new trailheads would occur. Alternative 1 would have no direct or indirect impacts on goshawks.

34 Action Alternatives Direct Effects/ Indirect Effects Approximately 14.3 miles of new trail is proposed in suitable goshawk habitat defined as aspen, spruce-fir, Douglas-fir, limber pine, lodgepole pine, or ponderosa pine in structural stages 4B or 4C. The amount of habitat affected by trail clearing activity totals 10.4 acres under all action alternatives representing about 0.3% of habitat available within the project area. The narrow configuration of the trail corridor (6 feet wide) is expected to preclude stand-level changes in goshawk habitat suitability and is unlikely to influence existing goshawk use patterns. Trailhead construction at the State Highway 114 site would occur within modeled goshawk habitat, but the site’s location being directly adjacent to a State highway reduces the potential for use by nesting goshawks. The Luder’s Creek trailhead is located outside suitable habitat. Some removal of snags or trees outside the trail clearing limits may occur to provide for safety. This may affect availability of cavity nesters as prey locally, but the small size of the affected area makes it unlikely that snag removal will impact prey abundance at the scale of a given goshawk territory. In addition, snags or trees removed for safety reasons would be retained onsite and function as down log habitat for other potential prey. Therefore, trail construction under all action alternatives, as well as trailhead construction under Alternative 2, is not expected to measurably impact goshawk habitat availability or use. There are no known goshawk active nest stands within the project area. However, goshawk activity recorded near the proposed trail route in the vicinity of Monchego Park in 2010 may indicate goshawk nesting. In addition, because no goshawk surveys have been completed along the trail route, the status of potential nesting along other portions of the trail route is unknown. Trail construction activities in proximity to active nest sites could affect nesting success due to disturbance. Project design criteria that require reporting of TES species to the RGNF Forest Biologist and Gunnison RD District Biologist are likely to reduce the risk of impacts to nesting because the species is often vocalizes and readily displays defensive behavior when humans come near a nest. However, some impacts to nesting success may still occur due to human disturbance. Subsequent trail use by the public may also affect goshawk nesting. The short- term duration of a hiker or horseback rider moving through a stand may create a minor disturbance, but repeated passing of several users per day may create disturbance levels that lead to nest failure or movement to a nesting site in less disturbed areas in subsequent breeding seasons.

Cumulative Effects Goshawk home ranges average about 5,400 acres in size. Therefore, the cumulative effects area (CEA) identified for this species extends outside the project area at distance of one home range diameter, or 3.3 miles. In total, the CEA accounts for other activities within about 3.5 miles of project activities. The primary activities of concern for goshawks include logging and fuelwood gathering. Past logging activities that have occurred within conifer and aspen stands have likely affected local availability of nesting, roosting, and foraging habitats. Reasonably foreseeable timber harvest activities within the CEA on the RGNF include Buffalo Pass Timber Stand and Fuels Reduction

35 Project and Calesa Stewardship Project. On the GMUG, a portion of the Cochetopa Hills Planning Area occurs within the goshawk CEA. The Barnet project may also occur within the CEA. Impacts to goshawks would be analyzed for each of these projects under the NEPA process, with mitigations such as limited operating periods (LOPs) likely required in proximity to active nest sites. In addition, impacts created by the CDNST project would be considered during cumulative effects analysis if this project falls within the goshawk CEAs of those projects listed above. Habitat impacts and additional disturbance effects may result from these other projects and overlap those of the CDNST Reroute project, but due to the minor habitat impacts predicted as a result of the CDNST Reroute Project, additional cumulative impacts are likely to be insignificant.

Determination Based on the analysis discussed above I determine that as proposed, this project “May adversely Impact Individuals, but not likely to result in a loss of viability in the planning area, nor cause a trend toward federal listing” of northern goshawk. Olive-sided Flycatcher

Status within the Analysis Area The Forest database provides 27 records of olive-sided flycatchers occurring on the Saguache Ranger District predominately from grass/forb/shrub, spruce-fir, Douglas-fir, in spruce-fir, ponderosa pine, and riparian habitats. No records were found for the Gunnison Ranger District, but the species is likely to occur there in similar habitats. Suitable nesting habitat in the form of conifer or aspen that borders an opening is limited, but is more common in the southern portion of the project area where conifer stands are more apt to share a boundary with natural grassy openings and parks. Suitable habitat defined as aspen, spruce-fir, or Douglas-fir in structural stages 4A, 4B, or 4C totals 5,233 acres within the project area. The project area lacks recent post-fire habitat. Snag densities along edges within the project area are unknown.

Effects Analysis Alternative 1 The no-action alternative would maintain the existing CDNST trail location. No construction and subsequent use of new trailheads would occur. Alternative 1 would have no direct or indirect impacts on olive-sided flycatchers. Action Alternatives Creation of the 6-foot clearing width is expected to have minimal impact to habitat availability. The affected habitat (4.8 acres) represents approximately 0.09% of aspen, spruce-fir, Douglas- fir stand in structural stages 4A, 4B, or 4C currently within the analysis area. In addition, the narrow width of the affected area precludes any meaningful creation of edge or concentrated patch that would constitute an opening that may increase habitat availability and benefit the species. Proposed treatments could remove individual snags within the clearing width or outside the clearing width for safety reasons. Current snag availability and distribution within the affected

36 area is unknown, but snags suitable for nesting may exist within the proposed clearing width. If a snag is removed while occupied by olive-sided flycatchers, the activity would lead to nest abandonment or could cause mortality of nestlings if they are present. Because the affected area represents a small, narrow portion of habitat within the analysis area, snag availability for olive-sided flycatcher nesting at the broader scale is not expected to be measurably impacted. Information pertaining to the effects of human disturbance on olive-sided flycatcher nesting success is limited (Altman and Sallabanks 2000). The species may tolerate some activities surrounding the nest, but distance and noise intensity thresholds have not been identified. Therefore, trail construction activities may have an unknown level of effect on nesting activity. Subsequent trail public trail use may also influence nesting, but the intensity and duration of disturbance generated by passing hikers is expected to be less. Repeated exposure to trail traffic may elicit selection of an alternate nest site or individuals may become habituated and tolerant of passing traffic. Therefore, human activity during project implementation and subsequent project area use may impact olive-side flycatchers.

Cumulative Effects Olive-sided flycatcher nesting territories vary between 25-50 acres per pair (Kotliar 2007). Due to this small size, the project area is expected to be of sufficient scale to assess overlapping cumulative impacts. No reasonably foreseeable timber harvest activities are identified within the portion of the project area on the RGNF. On the GMUG, the Cochetopa Hills Planning Area occurs with a portion of the CDNST project area. Potential project activities within the planning area include timber harvest and prescribed burning, some of which may occur within olive-sided flycatcher suitable habitat. Impacts to the species would be analyzed for that project if suitable habitat is affected. Due to the minor habitat impacts predicted as a result of the CDNST Reroute Project, additional cumulative impacts associated with projects in the Cochetopa Hills Planning Area are likely to be insignificant. Fire suppression has likely limited the number of fire-created openings, which is a preferred habitat for this species. Other ongoing and foreseeable activities within the CEA include livestock grazing, outfitter/guide and special use permits, and fish habitat improvement projects, none of which are expected to add measurable cumulative effects.

Determination Based on the analysis discussed above, I determine that as proposed, this project will have “May adversely Impact Individuals, but not likely to result in a loss of viability in the planning area, nor cause a trend toward federal listing” on olive-sided flycatcher or their habitat. American Marten

Status within the Analysis Area Local survey efforts conducted specifically for American marten have not been conducted on the Rio Grande National Forest. During the period from 1992 through 1995, however, a considerable amount of information was collected on martens by the Colorado Division of Wildlife during survey efforts for wolverine (Kenvin 1992, 1993, 1994-95). Additional marten

37 information was collected during 1990-91 survey efforts by a consulting firm in the Wolf Creek Pass area (Thompson et al. 1992). These efforts were focused in the alpine and spruce-fir landtypes and included infra-red camera stations, snow tracking routes, hair snag stations, and aerial surveys. A total of 57 site detections of marten are currently known on or near the RGNF. Forty-three (75%) of these locations occur on the Divide Ranger District, 13 (23%) on the Conejos Peak District, and one (2%) on the Saguache District. Marten have also been detected twice in the Cameron Park area and once in the South Crestone and the Rito Alto areas of the Saguache District. The Saguache District is considered under-sampled since none of the wolverine surveys occurred there. On the GMUG, there are 69 documented marten occurrences for which 49 were in spruce-fir, 10 were in lodgepole pine, eight in aspen, and one each in limber pine and grassland edge. Those documented in lodgepole pine have been within the Gunnison Basin. Most marten occurrences have been within ¼ mile of high elevation riparian areas (Vasquez and Spicer 2005). No marten occurrences are shown to occur within or adjacent to the CDNST Reroute project area (NRIS Wildlife Database). The project area contains 2,877 acres of spruce-fir lodgepole habitat capable of supporting marten (i.e., structural stages 4B and 4C). Therefore, occupancy is assumed.

Effects Analysis Alternative 1 The no-action alternative would maintain the existing CDNST trail location. No construction and subsequent use of new trailheads would occur. Alternative 1 would have no direct or indirect impacts on American marten. Action Alternatives Direct Effects/ Indirect Effects Approximately 13.4 miles of new trail is proposed within suitable marten spruce-fir and lodgepole pine habitat. The amount of habitat affected by trail clearing activity totals 9.7 acres under all action alternatives representing about 0.3% of habitat available within the project area. The narrow configuration of the trail corridor (6 feet wide) is expected to preclude stand- level changes in habitat suitability and is unlikely to influence existing marten use patterns. Trailhead construction at both the State Highway 114 and Luder’s Creek sites would occur outside suitable habitat. Some removal of snags or trees outside the trail clearing limits may occur to provide for safety. This may affect availability of snag-associated prey species locally, but the small size of the affected area makes it unlikely that snag removal will impact prey abundance at the scale of a given territory. In addition, snags or trees removed for safety reasons would be retained onsite and function as down log habitat for other potential prey. Therefore, trail construction under all action alternatives, as well as trailhead construction under Alternative 2, is not expected to measurably impact marten habitat availability or use. Trail construction activities within marten suitable habitat could affect species use patterns due to disturbance. The effects to marten are expected to be avoidance or displacement that

38 would be temporary in nature. Subsequent trail use by the public may also affect marten use patterns. The short-term duration of a hiker or horseback rider moving through a stand may create a minor disturbance, but repeated passing of several users per day may create disturbance levels that lead to longer-term avoidance or displacement near the trail.

Cumulative Effects Marten female home ranges average about 830 acres in size. Therefore, the cumulative effects area (CEA) identified for this species extends outside the project area at distance of one home range diameter, or 0.65 mile. In total, the CEA accounts for other activities within about 0.9 mile of project activities. The primary activities of concern for marten include logging and fuelwood gathering. Past logging activities that have occurred within mature spruce-fir and lodgepole pine stands have likely affected local habitat availability. Reasonably foreseeable timber harvest activities within the CEA include the Cochetopa Hills Planning Area. Impacts to American marten would be analyzed for this project under the NEPA process. In addition, impacts created by the CDNST project would be considered during cumulative effects analysis if this project falls within the Cochetopa Hills Planning Area marten CEA. Habitat impacts and additional disturbance effects may result from these other projects and overlap those of the CDNST Reroute project, but due to the minor habitat impacts predicted as a result of the CDNST Reroute Project, additional cumulative impacts are likely to be insignificant.

Determination Based on the analysis discussed above I determine that as proposed, this project “May adversely Impact Individuals, but not likely to result in a loss of viability in the planning area, nor cause a trend toward federal listing” of American marten. Pygmy Shrew

Status within the Analysis Area No pygmy shrew records are reported for either the Gunnison or Saguache Ranger Districts (NRIS Wildlife Database). However, no surveys for this species are known to have occurred within or adjacent to the project area. Suitable habitat consisting of spruce-fir and wet meadow/riparian cover types total about 3,012 acres within the project area.

Effects Analysis Alternative 1 The no-action alternative would maintain the existing CDNST trail location. No construction and subsequent use of new trailheads would occur. Alternative 1 would have no direct or indirect impacts on pygmy shrews. Action Alternatives Approximately 2,893 acres of spruce-fir stands occur within the project area. The clearing width for the proposed new trail would impact about 8 acres, or 0.2% of existing spruce-fir. Wetland habitat within the project area is limited to 119 acres, most of which (77 acres) occurs along Cochetopa Creek along the existing CDNST south of the point where the proposed trail

39 joins the existing trail. The proposed trail intersects wet or moist areas in only one location consisting of a short meadow crossing (approximately 90 feet) at the northern extent of the project where the proposed trail leaves the junction with the existing CDNST at Lujan Pass. No standing water or wetland vegetation is evident within the meadow at the crossing thereby avoiding optimal pygmy shrew habitat. Width of the trail (24 inches) across the meadow may remove less than 1/100th acre of potential pygmy shrew habitat in that location. No barriers to shrew movement are expected as a result of trail construction and subsequent use. Direct effects include the potential for injury or mortality of an individual shrew if it was stepped on by passing trail traffic, but the potential for direct effects is low.

Cumulative Effects Pygmy shrews are expected to have small home ranges averaging about one acre. Therefore, the project area defines the cumulative effects area for this species. Two activities with potential to impact pygmy shrew habitat are timber harvest and livestock grazing. Because the Cochetopa Hills Planning Area overlaps the CDNST project area, there is potential that timber harvest could occur in suitable spruce-fir stands. The only potential overlapping effect to pygmy shrew habitat in wet meadow settings within the project area would be livestock grazing, which may alter pygmy shrew habitat suitability dependent upon grazing intensity (Beauvais and McCumber 2006). Due to the small scale of habitat impacts generated by the CDNST Reroute Project, no substantial cumulative impacts are expected.

Determination Based on the analysis discussed above I determine that as proposed, this project “May adversely Impact Individuals, but not likely to result in a loss of viability in the planning area, nor cause a trend toward federal listing” of pygmy shrew. Rocky Mountain Bighorn Sheep

Status within the Analysis Area The overall components of bighorn sheep range include summer, winter, severe winter, and concentration areas as well as migration routes. All of these components are found throughout the Conejos Peak, Divide and Saguache Districts of the Rio Grande National Forest (RGNF), and portions of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) (Natural Diversity Information Source (NDIS), CDOW 2009). Local habitat relationships for bighorn sheep are similar to that described elsewhere for Colorado. Most local bighorn sheep populations occur in steep, mountainous terrain in the alpine and subalpine zones. Most herds display elevational migrations which vary by season although some herds remain in the alpine zone throughout the year. The primary lambing areas on the Saguache Ranger District and Field Office occur on BLM lands (Irwin 2009). The Saguache District and adjacent BLM lands consist of two main bighorn sheep herds and one small remnant herd. The largest herd is the Sangre de Cristo herd (S9) on the District’s east side and the Trickle Mountain (S10) and Carnero Creek (S55) herd on the west side of the District. The Trickle Mountain herd consists of two small groups of sheep found in the Poison Gulch and Trickle Mountain areas. The Carnero Creek herd is located in the Hell’s Gate area and to the south to the Natural Arch area on the Divide RD.

40 There are no reported observations of bighorn sheep within the project area (NRIS Wildlife Databases). The closest bighorn sheep observations occur approximately 15 miles northwest to the northwest on the GMUG and 8 miles east on the RGNF. The project area generally lacks suitable habitat in the form of steep rugged terrain or open south-facing slopes. A small portion (less than 200 acres) of mapped bighorn sheep summer range occurs within the project area near the headwaters of Buck Park Creek (NDIS, CDOW 2006). The project area is located outside the mapped extent of bighorn sheep winter range, winter concentration areas, summer concentration areas, and production areas (NDIS, CDOW 2006).

Effects Analysis Alternative 1 The no-action alternative would maintain the existing CDNST trail location. No construction and subsequent use of new trailheads would occur. Alternative 1 would have no direct or indirect impacts on Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep. Action Alternatives Project activities within mapped bighorn sheep summer range, including trail construction under all action alternatives and trailhead construction under Alternative 2, would occur within forested stands on mild slopes not expected to support bighorn sheep. Trail and trailhead construction sites are also located outside the mapped extent of bighorn sheep winter range, winter concentration areas, summer concentration areas, and production areas. Therefore, project activities are not expected to impact bighorn sheep habitat. Bighorn sheep have habituated to human activity in many areas where the activity is somewhat predictable. In Forest Service Region 2, the primary concern for human-related disturbances occurs on winter ranges (Beecham et al. 2007). Winter ranges usually encompass or are close to traditional lambing areas, which are also susceptible to disturbance. However, some disturbances can also be detrimental on summer range areas, such as recreational disturbances along the Continental Divide Trail in Colorado. Human disturbances can alter the movement patterns of individual bighorn sheep and cause them to wander into high-risk areas that may have not otherwise occurred (Beecham et al. 2007). Bighorn sheep generally show a consistent absence within the project area, but there is potential for use of portions of the project area during exploratory movements. Human disturbance during project implementation or subsequent trail use may impact individual sheep if encountered. Sheep response to trail use is likely to consist of avoidance or temporary displacement. Impacts are expected to be short- term because the area is currently unoccupied by the species. Subsequent trail travel would be open to use and presence of pack animals that may include llamas and pack goats. Review of available literature suggests that the presence of llamas is unlikely to lead to transmission of microbes fatal to bighorn sheep. This is consistent with results reported by Foreyt (1994) and a lack of data linking such species to bighorn sheep die- offs (Schommer and Woolever 2001). Garde et al. (2005) conducted a risk assessment that reviewed the potential for disease transmission between domestic pack animals and wild Dall’s sheep and mountain goats and concluded that contact between llamas and wild Dall’s sheep or mountain goats in the Northwest Territories may result in disease transmission, but there was

41 insufficient data to clearly assess the role of camelids as a source of disease at the time the report was written. Scientific evidence reviewed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service suggests that llamas utilized as pack animals present a minimal risk of transmission of known pathogens to Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2007). Bighorn sheep are particularly susceptible to Pasteurella/Mannheimia-related pneumonia that can result in substantial die-offs (Cassirer et al. 2007, George et al. 2008). Domestic goats have been reported to contain Pasteurella/Mannheimia strains known to cause mortality in bighorn sheep (Rudolph et al. 2003, Garde et al. 2005). While Foreyt (1994) reported no transmission of Pasteurella between domestic goats and bighorn sheep in exposure trials, Rudolph et al. (2003) concluded that a feral goat in Hell’s Canyon National Recreation Area shared identical strains of Pasteurella with two bighorn sheep, one of which was symptomatic for pneumonia, and suggested that domestic goats may serve as a reservoir of Pasteurella strains that may be virulent in bighorn sheep. Further investigation; however, concluded that the source of additional bighorn sheep mortalities in that Hell’s Canyon die-off was attributed to sources other than the single feral goat (Rudolph et al. 2007). In a risk assessment conducted for the Northwest Territories, Garde et al. (2005) concluded that contact between domestic goats and wild Dall’s sheep would likely result in disease transmission and negative long-term effects on population dynamics and sustainability. The Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (WAFWA 2010a) considers potential interaction of bighorn sheep and domestic goats a high risk factor for bighorn sheep. Garde et al. (2005), Rudolph et al. (2003), Schommer and Woolever (2001), and WAFWA (2010a) all recommend avoiding contact between domestic goats and bighorn sheep. All new proposed trail segments are outside the current mapped distribution of bighorn sheep. Therefore, the potential for interaction between pack goats and bighorn sheep is currently low. However, exploratory movement of bighorn sheep, as well as incorporation of suitable habitats where the western trail segment is located into overall home ranges, is possible, and use of domestic goats as pack animals would increase risk to bighorn sheep if close contact between the two species occurs.

Cumulative Effects There are currently no domestic sheep allotments on the Saguache District. However, there are active domestic sheep allotments on the Divide District and State lands adjacent to the south side of the Saguache District. There are also domestic sheep on private land to the North of the analysis area in the Trickle Mountain area (Irwin 2009). These are all potential sources for disease transmission to the area’s wild sheep. Habitat does not currently appear to be a limiting factor for sheep on the District’s west side.

Determination Based on the analysis discussed above I determine that as proposed, this project “May adversely Impact Individuals, but not likely to result in a loss of viability in the planning area, nor cause a trend toward federal listing” of Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep.

42 Spotted Bat

Status within the Analysis Area Surveys for spotted bats have not been conducted in the project area, nor have there been any reports of the species occurring in the project area vicinity (GMUG, RGNF NRIS databases). Approximately 541 acres consisting grass/forb/shrub openings occur within the project area. Potential roosting habitats are lacking within the project area. Aerial photograph interpretation as well as digital elevation modeling (DEM) and elevational contour maps do not indicate the presence of prominent cliff sites within the project area. The area does contain suitable foraging habitat as this species is known for utilizing a range of vegetation associations.

Effects Analysis Alternative 1 The no-action alternative would maintain the existing CDNST trail location. No construction and subsequent use of new trailheads would occur. Alternative 1 would have no direct or indirect impacts on spotted bats. Action Alternatives No prominent roosting habitat is identified within the project area. The project area does contain conifer stands and subalpine meadows that potentially serve as foraging habitat. Because this species is an aerial feeder and is known to use large areas for foraging, project activities would have an immeasurable impact on foraging habitat. Therefore, project activities will have no impact on spotted bat roosting or foraging under all action alternatives.

Cumulative Effects Because there are no direct or indirect effects to roosting or foraging, there would be no cumulative effects to spotted bats.

Determination Based on the analysis discussed above I determine that as proposed, this project will have “No Impact” on spotted bats. Townsend’s big-eared bat

Status within the Analysis Area Surveys for bat species on the RGNF have primarily been conducted by the CDOW. Nine species of bats, including Townsend’s, have been documented as occurring on or near the Forest. The current information for Townsend’s involves seven abandoned mine sites that are used primarily as temporary roost sites, with one moderately-sized maternity colony also on the Forest. A total of 17 occurrences are located on or near the GMUG, the closest of which is about 54 miles northwest of the project area. No caves features or abandoned mines are known to occur within the project area. The area does contain suitable foraging habitat as this species is known for utilizing a range of vegetation associations.

Effects Analysis Alternative 1

43 The no-action alternative would maintain the existing CDNST trail location. No construction and subsequent use of new trailheads would occur. Alternative 1 would have no direct or indirect impacts on Townsend’s big-eared bats. Action Alternatives No prominent roosting habitat is identified within the project area. The project area does contain conifer stands and subalpine meadows that potentially serve as foraging habitat. Because this species is an aerial feeder and is known to use large areas for foraging, project activities would have an immeasurable impact on foraging habitat. Therefore, project activities will have no impact on Townsend’s big-eared bat roosting or foraging under all action alternatives.

Cumulative Effects Because there are no direct or indirect effects to roosting or foraging, there would be no cumulative effects.

Determination Based on the analysis discussed above, I determine that as proposed, this project will have “No Impact” on Townsend’s big-eared bats.

Hoary bat Status within the Analysis Area Surveys for hoary bats have not been conducted in the project area, nor have there been any reports of the species occurring in the project area vicinity (GMUG, RGNF NRIS databases). One individual sighting is reported for the RGNF in the Sangre de Cristo Mountains. Potential roosting habitats consisting of foliage within conifer and aspen are available throughout the project area. The area also contains suitable foraging habitat as this species is known for utilizing a range of vegetation associations.

Effects Analysis Alternative 1 The no-action alternative would maintain the existing CDNST trail location. No construction and subsequent use of new trailheads would occur. Alternative 1 would have no direct or indirect impacts on hoary bats.

Action Alternatives Roosting and foraging habitat is available throughout the project area. Because the action alternatives could remove trees to create the trail and clearance width, direct impacts to individual roosting bats is possible. However, the small amount of area being impacted (approximately 23 acres) precludes potential impacts to populations. Also, because this species is an aerial feeder and is known to use large areas for foraging, project activities would have an immeasurable impact on foraging habitat.

44 Cumulative Effects The primary activity of concern for this species is timber harvest (WBWG 2005). Past logging activities that have occurred within forested stands in the project have likely affected local habitat availability. Reasonably foreseeable timber harvest activities within the CEA include the Cochetopa Hills Planning Area. Impacts to hoary bats would be analyzed for this project under the NEPA process. In addition, impacts created by the CDNST project would be considered during cumulative effects analysis if this project falls within the Cochetopa Hills Planning Area marten CEA. Habitat impacts and additional disturbance effects may result from these other projects and overlap those of the CDNST Reroute project, but due to the minor habitat impacts predicted as a result of the CDNST Reroute Project, additional cumulative impacts are likely to be minor.

Determination Based on the analysis discussed above I determine that as proposed, this project “May adversely Impact Individuals, but not likely to result in a loss of viability in the planning area, nor cause a trend toward federal listing” of hoary bats.

Wolverine

Status within the Analysis Area Until recently, the last confirmed wolverine sighting in Colorado was in 1919. Twelve survey efforts conducted in Colorado from 1979-1996 yielded no confirmed sightings. Occasional reports of wolverine sightings were investigated, but wolverine were never officially documented. In spring 2009, researchers with the Greater Yellowstone Wolverine Program tracked a wolverine from Grand Teton National Park south into north central Colorado. This was the first wolverine confirmed in the state in 90 years (CPW 2012a). No confirmed wolverine sightings existing within or adjacent to the project area. The area contains suitable travel and foraging habitat in the form of subalpine conifer and meadows, but lacks alpine habitat and avalanche-prone slopes most likely to support denning.

Effects Analysis Alternative 1 The no-action alternative would maintain the existing CDNST trail location. No construction and subsequent use of new trailheads would occur. Alternative 1 would have no direct or indirect impacts on Townsend’s big-eared bats. Action Alternatives Wolverines are unlikely to occur within the project area due to lack of known individuals in southern Colorado. However, due to the secluded nature of the species as well as its naturally low population densities and large home ranges, it is possible that an individual could occur undetected on the GMUG or RGNF. Because the project area lacks alpine habitat and avalanche-prone slopes, impacts to potential wolverine denning is not expected. The project area has potential to provide some limited foraging opportunities and currently provides suitable habitat to support relatively undisturbed wolverine travel across the landscape.

45 Wolverines utilize a wide variety of upper-elevation vegetation types for foraging and travel in addition to having extremely large home ranges. Project activities proposed under all action alternatives, including trail clearance, would affect an area less than 25 acres in size distributed across a distance of about 31 miles. Activities proposed under Alternative 2, including trail clearing and trailhead construction, would affect less than 26 acres total. This represents approximately 0.3% of the project area. In comparison to the home range size utilized by the species (up to 500 square miles), the effect of project activities at the home range is immeasurable. Vegetation changes would not change stand suitability for foraging or travel. Wolverine response to presence/absence of human activity has been described in several studies both locally and at the landscape level. Hornocker and Hash (1981) found no difference in wolverine density between wilderness and non-wilderness portions of their study area, nor was there a difference in wolverine movement, habitat use, or behavior. However, there was seasonal separation between areas of human use and wilderness. Logging roads and foot trails outside wilderness were used by humans primarily in the summer. During this season, wolverines used higher elevation areas within wilderness in response to food availability and cooler temperatures. Winter use of non-wilderness areas by humans was almost nonexistent, but wolverines used these lower elevations in winter in response to food availability, thereby effectively separating wolverines and humans. Copeland (1996) reported abandonment of denning sites after human disturbance. Copeland et al. (2007) found no relationship between wolverine occurrence and proximity to non-motorized trails within established home ranges. Preliminary results reported by Heinemeyer et al. (2010) indicate that adult wolverines in central Idaho established home ranges in landscapes containing a range of winter recreational activities and levels of recreational intensity; however, there may be some indications of behavioral responses or adaptations by wolverines such as shifts in daily activity periods to reduce movement during periods of peak recreational activity. Trail construction and subsequent trail use under all action alternatives as well as trailhead construction and subsequent use under Alternative 2 would increase human-caused disturbance by varying intensities in relation to existing levels. Because wolverines are characterized as shy animals, encounters with humans during project implementation or subsequent trail use are likely to result in avoidance by, or temporary displacement of individual animals. However, the probability of existing wolverine occurrence within the project area is low; therefore, the potential for impacts to individuals is also low.

Cumulative Effects Wolverines exhibit large home ranges described as up to 500 square miles (320,000 acres). Therefore, the wolverine CEA identified for this analysis consists of five lynx analysis units (LAUs) associated with project activities (see Terrestrial Wildlife BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT for the Continental Divide National Scenic Trail Reroute Lujan to La Garita Wilderness). These include the Cochetopa and Stewart Creek LAUs on the GMUG as well as the Cochetopa, 4 Mile to La Garita, and Saguache Creek LAUs on the RGNF. The area totals about 337,000 acres and is sufficient to assess activities that may cumulatively impact wolverines. Reasonably foreseeable timber harvest activities within the CEA on the RGNF include Buffalo Pass Timber Stand and Fuels Reduction Project and Calesa Stewardship Project. On the GMUG,

46 a portion of the Cochetopa Hills Planning Area occurs within the wolverine CEA. The Barnet project may also occur within the CEA. Impacts to wolverines would be analyzed for each of these projects under the NEPA process. In addition, impacts created by the CDNST project would be considered during cumulative effects analysis if this project falls within the wolverine CEAs of those projects listed above. Habitat impacts and additional disturbance effects may result from these other projects and overlap those of the CDNST Reroute project, but due to the minor habitat impacts predicted as a result of the CDNST Reroute Project, additional cumulative impacts are likely to be insignificant. Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable activities in non-federal parcels are not well defined. Review of aerial photography indicates little or no recent timber harvest, but does show signs of past or recent small-scale mining activity within several parcels. The large amount of grass/forb/shrub vegetation in juxtaposition to water suggests that livestock grazing was, or is, occurring within a number of parcels. Agricultural leases and public access programs are identified for all Colorado State Land Board (SLB) parcels within the CEA (Colorado State Land Board 2012). Some structural developments consisting of one or more buildings are noted within 10 parcels. Where livestock grazing is ongoing, it is likely to continue as a foreseeable activity. The potential for future timber harvest, mining, and/or development on non-federal parcels is not known. Given the relatively long distances from project activities and low amounts of existing suitable habitat, it is unlikely that the effects of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable activities occurring on non-federal parcels will overlap with effects generated by this project in a manner that measurably affects wolverines. Additional activities ongoing and foreseeable activities include snowplowing along State Highway 114, which may create steep snow walls along the highway, possibly prolonging lynx crossing time and increasing vulnerability to highway mortality. Trapping is a potential mortality factor that may occur on federal and non-federal lands. Project activities would increase non-motorized access into suitable habitat, which may include an increase in local trapping pressure of furbearing species. Trapping with lethal traps is restricted to water and tree sites in Colorado, which reduces the potential for accidental take and mortality of wolverines by trapping. Therefore, the increased risk of furbearer trapping to wolverine within the analysis area is low. Predator control activities occur on federal and non-federal lands. These activities can occur in wolverine habitat, but more often are located at lower elevations outside wolverine habitat. Activities are directed at specific animals or target species. Wolverine trapped unintentionally can be released. Animal and Plant Health Inspection Services (APHIS-Wildlife Services) information that there is a potential for negative effects to the species if present, but predator control activities would have no effect due to the lack of known wolverine occurrence within the State (USDA APHIS 2005). Therefore, it is unlikely that predator control activities would contribute impacts that would add to those already associated with the proposed action. Currently, Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) is working with recovery program researchers to track the wolverine in order to monitor its movements and activities. In July, 2010 the Parks and Wildlife Commission granted the CPW’s request to begin having conversations about restoring wolverines with CPW’s partners and stakeholders. The CPW is having these

47 discussions with a broad spectrum of user groups, government agencies and other interested people and organizations (CPW 2012a). Therefore, there is potential for future reintroduction of wolverine into Colorado. However, because the timing, location, and probability of reintroduction activities occurring are all unknown, reintroduction of wolverines is not a reasonably foreseeable action.

Determination Based on the analysis discussed above I determine that as proposed, this project “May adversely Impact Individuals, but not likely to result in a loss of viability in the planning area, nor cause a trend toward federal listing” of wolverine. Determination and Conservation Measures Summary Table 7. Determination and Conservation Measures Summary Determination of Effects Species List Status Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 INSECTS Great Basin Silverspot butterfly Speyeria nokomis nokomis Sensitive No Impact No Impact No Impact No Impact BIRDS American bittern Botaurus lentiginosus Sensitive No Impact No Impact No Impact No Impact American peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus anatum Sensitive No Impact No Impact No Impact No Impact Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus Sensitive No Impact No Impact No Impact No Impact Black swift Cypseloides niger Sensitive No Impact No Impact No Impact No Impact Boreal owl Aegolius funereus Sensitive No Impact MAII MAII MAII Brewer’s sparrow Spizella breweri Sensitive No Impact No Impact No Impact No Impact Burrowing owl Athene cunicularia Sensitive No Impact No Impact No Impact No Impact Columbian sharp-tailed grouse Tympanuchus phasianellus columbianus Sensitive No Impact No Impact No Impact No Impact Ferruginous hawk Buteo regalis Sensitive No Impact No Impact No Impact No Impact Flammulated owl Otus flamineolus Sensitive No Impact No Impact No Impact No Impact Gunnison sage-grouse Candidate Centrocercus minimus Sensitive No Impact No Impact No Impact No Impact Lewis’ woodpecker Melanerpes lewis Sensitive No Impact No Impact No Impact No Impact Loggerhead shrike Lanius ludovicianus Sensitive No Impact No Impact No Impact No Impact Mountain plover Charadrius montanus Sensitive No Impact No Impact No Impact No Impact Northern goshawk Sensitive No Impact MAII MAII MAII

48 Determination of Effects Species List Status Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Accipter gentiles Northern harrier Circus cyaneus Sensitive No Impact No Impact No Impact No Impact Olive-sided flycatcher Contopus borealis Sensitive No Impact MAII MAII MAII Sage sparrow Amphispiza belli Sensitive No Impact No Impact No Impact No Impact White-tailed ptarmigan Lagopus leucurus Sensitive No Impact No Impact No Impact No Impact Yellow-billed cuckoo Candidate Coccyzus americanus Sensitive No Impact No Impact No Impact No Impact MAMMALS American marten Martes Americana Sensitive No Impact MAII MAII MAII Desert bighorn sheep Ovis canadensis nelsoni Sensitive No Impact No Impact No Impact No Impact Fringed myotis Myotis thysanodes Sensitive No Impact No Impact No Impact No Impact Gunnison’s prairie dog Cynomys gunnisoni Sensitive No Impact No Impact No Impact No Impact Hoary bat MAII MAII MAII Lasiurus cinereus Sensitive No Impact New Mexico jumping mouse Candidate Zapus hudsonius luteus Sensitive No Impact No Impact No Impact No Impact Pygmy shrew Sorex hoyi Sensitive No Imact MAII MAII MAII River otter Lontra canadensis Sensitive No Impact No Impact No Impact No Impact Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep Ovis canadensis canadensis Sensitive No Impact MAII MAII MAII Spotted bat Euderma maculatum Sensitive No Impact No Impact No Impact No Impact Townsend’s big-eared bat Corynorhinus townsendii townsendii Sensitive No Impact No Impact No Impact No Impact White-tailed prairie dog Cynomys leucurus Sensitive No Impact No Impact No Impact No Impact Wolverine Candidate Gulo gulo luscus Sensitive No Impact MAII MAII MAII

MAII- May Impact (May Impact Individuals or habitat, but is not likely to cause a trend towards Federal listing or loss of viability in the planning area) BI - Beneficial Impact LI - Likely Impact (Likely to result in a trend towards federal listing or a loss of viability in the planning area)

MANAGEMENT INDICATOR SPECIES Evaluation of management indicator species The GMUG and RGNF have a combined total of 17 terrestrial wildlife management indicator species (MIS). Eight species would be potentially affected by project activities due to habitat

49 and management associations, and are analyzed for project effects. The MIS evaluated in detail for this analysis include: brown creeper, hermit thrush, northern goshawk, red-naped sapsucker, vesper sparrow, American marten, elk, and mule deer. The remaining species, American pipit, Brewer’s sparrow, Lincoln’s sparrow, Merriam’s turkey, Pygmy nuthatch, Virginia’s warbler, Wilson’s warbler, Abert’s squirrel, and Cave bats, will not be affected by project activities, due to the lack of project-generated effects on these habitat types. For avian MIS, project level population information is an estimate of potential densities, based on species biology and suitable habitat that is presumed to be occupied. Because MIS were recently amended into the RGNF Forest Plan and avian MIS surveys specific to the Forest were only initiated in 2004, available trend data is derived from existing sources, such as the Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory (RMBO) Monitoring Colorado Birds (MCB) program, the Colorado Land Bird Conservation Plan, and the Colorado Breeding Bird Atlas project, which are currently the primary sources of multi-year monitoring data. Until Forest-wide trend data are established via Forest-wide monitoring protocols, avian MIS population data at the Forest level are of necessity, estimated from known acreages and distributions of habitat types and structural associations, and species habitat affinities, but are considered within the context of available trend data at larger scales. Project level surveys documented species presence and habitat occupancy. For deer and elk, population trends are tracked by the Colorado Division of Wildlife at the Data Analysis Unit level. MIS Effects Analysis Brown Creeper (RGNF) Suitable habitat for the brown creeper on the Rio Grande National Forest occurs within mid to high elevation coniferous forests, particularly in late-successional mixed-conifer and spruce-fir habitat associations. Existing potential habitat in these two forest cover types occurs on approximately 634,000 acres, or about 51% of total forested land base. Studies conducted locally indicate that the brown creeper exhibits a strong preference for late- successional spruce-fir cover types. Brown creepers have also been noted in low densities in aspen stands on the Forest, where they occur in larger-sized stands in the mid to older structural stages. This association with older forest stands is due to their requirement for snags in the latter stages of decay and large live trees for foraging. The brown creeper has a moderately high relative abundance throughout its global range, but is found in relatively low abundance in the Southern Rocky Mountains. Its global population trend indicates a stable or undetectable population trend. Breeding Bird Survey trend data for the brown creeper from 1966 to 2002 suggests a slow population increase continent-wide, with a larger increase in Colorado and surrounding states. Local breeding population trends indicate a stable to slightly increasing trend within the Southern Rockies-Colorado Plateau Bird Conservation Region.

50 Brown creepers have been located on all districts of the Forest and the current information suggests that they are widely distributed and present wherever suitable habitat occurs.

Effects Analysis On the Rio Grande National Forest, the brown creeper is an indicator of late-successional conditions (Habitat Structural Stage 4B, 4C, and 5) within the spruce-fir and white-fir/Douglas- fir Land Type Associations. Other species that may be represented by brown creepers include the boreal owl, northern three-toed woodpecker, pine grosbeak, golden-crowned kinglet, hermit thrush, ruby-crowned kinglet, olive-sided flycatcher, Clark’s nutcracker, Hammond’s flycatcher, red squirrel, southern red-backed vole, snowshoe hare, Canada lynx, elk, and hoary bat. Risk factors considered in this analysis include reductions in the large green tree component required for foraging substrate, reductions in the type of snag component required for nesting, reductions in canopy closure and downed woody material, and disruptions in the natural disturbance processes, such as insects and disease factors, which create and maintain habitat components. Alternative 1 There would be no direct or indirect effects to brown creeper from management activities, as no treatments would occur under this alternative. Action Alternatives Approximately 2,759 acres of mature spruce-fir habitat occurs within the project area. Trail construction activities proposed under all action alternatives would create a clearing 6 feet wide that would impact about 3.6 acres, or 0.13% of available habitat within the project area. Trailhead construction sites proposed under Alternative 2 are located outside suitable habitat. The narrow treatment area would preclude impacts to habitat at the stand level. Disturbance could occur from human activities associated with timber and prescribed fire activities. Some nest destruction could occur with the removal of dead trees. Existing snag densities within the project area are unknown, but treatment associated with 0.13% of available habitat is not expected to measurably reduce snag densities at the project level. At the Forest level, 3.6 acres of treatment equates to 0.0006% of available habitat. Therefore, the action alternatives are not expected to impact population trend or species viability at the Forest level.

Cumulative Effects Brown creeper breeding territory size ranges up to 16 acres (Hejl et al. 2002). Therefore, the portion of the project area on the RGNF is adequate to assess potential cumulative impacts of other projects. The primary activities of concern for the brown creeper include logging and fuelwood gathering. Past logging activities that have occurred within spruce-fir stands have likely affected local availability of nesting, roosting, and foraging habitats. Past logging in the Saguache RD spruce-fir zone appears to be minimal. No reasonably foreseeable timber harvest activities are identified within the spruce-fir zone of the RGNF. Due to the minor habitat

51 impacts predicted as a result of the CDNST Reroute Project, additional cumulative impacts associated with projects other projects are likely to be insignificant. Other ongoing and foreseeable activities within the CEA include livestock grazing, outfitter/guide and special use permits, and fish habitat improvement projects, none of which are expected to add measurable cumulative effects. Hermit Thrush (RGNF) Suitable habitat for the hermit thrush on the RGNF occurs in mid to high elevation coniferous forests, particularly in the mixed-conifer and spruce-fir habitat associations. Existing potential habitat is estimated to occur on approximately 634,000 acres, or about 51% of total forested landbase. Studies conducted locally in spruce-fir and mixed-conifer habitat associations indicate that the hermit thrush exhibits a preference for late-successional but will also frequent sapling-pole sized stands during the latter stages of development. This latter structural stage is defined by trees that vary in size from about 5 to 9 inches DBH and exhibit a canopy closure of greater than 40%. Hermit thrush detected on existing monitoring transects on the Forest achieve their highest densities in spruce-fir habitat types. However, they have also been noted in fairly high densities in aspen stands, where they occur most frequently in larger-sized stands in the mid to older structural stages. This use of aspen may be related to the large amount of spruce-fir inclusions in aspen community types on the Forest. The key habitat components important to hermit thrush include maintenance of patchy understory conditions and coarse woody debris. This association with older forest stands and younger dense stands is due to their requirements for small, dense understory trees for nesting cover and their ground- foraging habits. The hermit thrush as a moderately low relative abundance throughout its global range, but occurs in high relative abundance in the Southern Rockies. It is considered secure globally, although it may be quite rare in portions of its range. BBS trend data for the hermit thrush displays a small population increase continent-wide, but a possible decrease in Colorado and surrounding states. Local breeding population trends indicate a stable or increasing trend. The hermit thrush is considered a common breeder on the Forest and is currently known to occur and reproduce in suitable habitat areas.

Effects Analysis Alternative 1 There would be no direct or indirect effects to brown creeper from management activities, as no treatments would occur under this alternative. Action Alternatives Approximately 2,759 acres of mature spruce-fir habitat occurs within the project area. Trail construction activities proposed under all action alternatives would create a clearing 6 feet wide that would impact about 3.6 acres, or 0.13% of available habitat within the project area. Trailhead construction sites proposed under Alternative 2 are located outside suitable habitat. The narrow treatment area would preclude impacts to habitat at the stand level. Disturbance could occur from human activities associated with timber and prescribed fire activities. Some

52 nest destruction could occur with the removal of dead trees. Existing snag densities within the project area are unknown, but treatment associated with 0.13% of available habitat is not expected to measurably reduce snag densities at the project level. At the Forest level, 3.6 acres of treatment equates to 0.0006% of available habitat. Therefore, the action alternatives are not expected to impact population trend or species viability at the Forest level.

Cumulative Effects Hermit thrush breeding territory size ranges up to about 6 acres (Montana Field Guide 2012). Therefore, the portion of the project area on the RGNF is adequate to assess potential cumulative impacts of other projects. The primary activity of concern for the hermit thrush is timber harvesting. Past logging activities that have occurred within spruce-fir stands have likely affected local availability of nesting, roosting, and foraging habitats. Past logging in the Saguache RD spruce-fir zone appears to be minimal. No reasonably foreseeable timber harvest activities are identified within the spruce-fir zone of the RGNF. Other ongoing and foreseeable activities within the CEA include livestock grazing, outfitter/guide and special use permits, and fish habitat improvement projects, none of which are expected to add measurable cumulative effects. Northern Goshawk (GMUG) On the GMUG, 110 active, alternate or suspected goshawks nests have been found in mature (4B, 4C habitat structural stages) aspen, aspen/mixed conifer, ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir and lodgepole pine stands. Based on data for 110 nest sites, nest site preference is for larger aspen trees (Vasquez and Spicer 2005). On the Gunnison Ranger District, nest productivity is 1.4 fledges per active nest. Known goshawk nest sites occur predominantly in the 4B and 4C habitat structural stages (60% of nest sites). Nest sites were often found in mature stands as small as two acres in size that were inclusions within a larger sapling/pole or mid-aged (3A, 3B, or 3C) dominated stand. Goshawks appear to select for aspen dominated sites for nesting on the Forest. The aspen cover type comprised 64% of known nest sites. Where nests occurred in spruce-fir dominated stands, mature or senescent aspen trees were often a component of those nest sites and nests were typically in aspen trees. There have been no documented occurrences of goshawk nests in Engelmann spruce or subalpine fir trees on the Forest. Modeled high quality goshawk nesting habitat totals 547,997 acres (34%) on the GMUG (Vasquez and Spicer 2005). Goshawks appear to be well distributed across the Forest. The majority of goshawk detections and nest sites were documented during goshawk survey efforts, incidentally by Forest Service personal engaged in fieldwork, or by the public. Suitable (primary and secondary) habitat appears to be well-distributed across the Forest, encompassing approximately 79% of the Forest. Primary habitat (high quality) also appears well-distributed, encompassing approximately 34% of the Forest (Vasquez and Spicer 2005).

Effects Analysis Alternative 1

53 There would be no direct or indirect effects to goshawks from management activities, as no treatments would occur under this alternative. Action Alternatives Approximately 299 acres of mature aspen occurs within the project area. The amount of habitat affected by trail clearing activity totals 0.4 acre under all action alternatives representing about 0.01% of habitat available within the project area. The narrow configuration of the trail corridor (6 feet wide) is expected to preclude stand-level changes in goshawk habitat suitability and is unlikely to influence existing goshawk use patterns. Trailhead construction at the State Highway 114 site would occur within modeled goshawk habitat, but the site’s location being directly adjacent to a State highway reduces the potential for use by nesting goshawks. The Luder’s Creek trailhead is located outside suitable habitat. Some removal of snags or trees outside the trail clearing limits may occur to provide for safety. This may affect availability of cavity nesters as prey locally, but the small size of the affected area makes it unlikely that snag removal will impact prey abundance at the scale of a given goshawk territory. In addition, snags or trees removed for safety reasons would be retained onsite and function as down log habitat for other potential prey. Therefore, trail construction under all action alternatives, as well as trailhead construction under Alternative 2, is not expected to measurably impact goshawk habitat availability or use locally. In comparison to the amount of high-quality habitat available on the GMUG (547,997 acres), effects generated by this project on 0.4 acre are immeasurable at the Forest-scale. Therefore, the action alternatives are not expected to impact population trend or species viability at the Forest level.

Cumulative Effects Goshawk home ranges average about 5,400 acres in size. Therefore, the cumulative effects area (CEA) identified for this species extends outside the GMUG portion of the project area at distance of one home range diameter, or 3.3 miles. In total, the CEA accounts for other activities within about 3.5 miles of project activities on the GMUG. The primary activities of concern for goshawks include logging and fuelwood gathering. Past logging activities that have occurred within conifer and aspen stands have likely affected local availability of nesting, roosting, and foraging habitats. On the GMUG, a portion of the Cochetopa Hills Planning Area occurs within the goshawk CEA. The Barnet project may also occur within the CEA. Impacts to goshawks would be analyzed for each of these projects under the NEPA process, with mitigations such as limited operating periods (LOPs) likely required in proximity to active nest sites. In addition, impacts created by the CDNST project would be considered during cumulative effects analysis if this project falls within the goshawk CEAs of those projects listed above. Habitat impacts and additional disturbance effects may result from these other projects and overlap those of the CDNST Reroute project, but due to the minor habitat impacts predicted as a result of the CDNST Reroute Project, additional cumulative impacts are likely to be insignificant. Red-naped Sapsucker (GMUG) In Colorado, red-naped sapsuckers forage in aspen, willows and cottonwoods close to their nest sites, which are almost exclusively in mature aspen stands. Typical nest stands, dominated by

54 large aspen, have a variety of diseases that create the heart rot needed for suitable cavity excavation (Kingery 1998). Nest stands have trees infected with shelf or heartwood fungus (for drilling nest cavities) and nearby willow stands (for drilling sap wells). Red-naped sapsuckers have been detected on nine BBS routes on the Forest, with insignificant negative trends observed on three out of four routes within the Uncompahgre Plateau Geographic Area, a significant positive trend observed within the North Fork Valley and Grand Mesa Geographic Areas, and positive upward trends observed on three routes within the Gunnison Basin Geographic Area, one which was significant. Single site analysis on BBS routes within the Forest may not be statistically valid due to low sample sizes and the amount of suitable red-naped sapsucker habitat sampled by the routes: from 1966 to 2004, only 0.92 percent (6,806 ac) of all aspen habitat on the Forest (738,515 ac) was sampled by the BBS (Vasquez 2004). From 1998 to 2004, Monitoring Colorado’s Birds (MCB; a program implemented by the Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory) detected 186 red-naped sapsuckers on 25 transects between 1998 and 2004 on the Forest. Most of the observations occurred in aspen and high elevation riparian dominated habitat types. Interestingly, 62 percent of all red-naped sapsucker observations throughout the MCB survey area were on the Forest. Based on MCB data, red-naped sapsuckers appear to be in an upward trend on the Forest. The average number of red-naped sapsuckers per transect range from 2.2 birds in 2001 to 4.15 birds in 2004 (Vasquez 2004). Although red-naped sapsucker populations appear to be stable to increasing at the national, regional, and forest levels, their habitats have and continue to be impacted by land management activities. On the GMUG, some aspen stands are susceptible to conifer invasion and there is little aspen regeneration, which is likely attributed to fire suppression. Over half (65%) of the aspen dominated habitats on the Forest are in a mature to older condition and are declining in vigor. While decadent aspen (aspen > 100 yrs old) may be beneficial to red-naped sapsuckers in the short term, lack of regeneration and conversion to conifer dominated aspen stands may adversely affect the species in the long term. Degradation and loss of willow riparian habitat due to livestock and elk use (foraging on aspen seedlings, saplings, and bark feeding) could also reduce habitat for the red-naped sapsucker (Vasquez 2004). Approximately 299 acres of mature aspen stands occur within the project area.

Effects Analysis Alternative 1 There would be no direct or indirect effects to red-naped sapsucker from management activities, as no treatments would occur under this alternative. Action Alternatives The nest-building through fledging period runs from about May 20 through August 25 for this species (Kingery 1998). Project activities during this time may result in abandonment of nests or alteration of territorial boundaries in the analysis area. Individual nests with eggs or young could be lost during project activities if nesting sapsuckers occur within the trail clearance area.

55 This would most likely be either from nest abandonment due to disturbance, or through direct mortality of nestlings. The amount of habitat affected by trail clearing activity totals 0.4 acre under all action alternatives representing about 0.01% of habitat available within the project area. The narrow configuration of the trail corridor (6 feet wide) is expected to preclude stand-level changes in habitat suitability and is unlikely to influence existing sapsucker use patterns. Trailhead construction at the State Highway 114 site would occur within modeled habitat, but the site’s location being directly adjacent to a State highway reduces the potential for use by nesting sapsuckers. The Luder’s Creek trailhead is located outside suitable habitat. Therefore, trail construction under all action alternatives, as well as trailhead construction under Alternative 2, is not expected to measurably impact sapsucker habitat availability or use locally. In comparison to the amount of high-quality habitat available on the GMUG (547,997 acres), effects generated by this project on 0.4 acre are immeasurable at the Forest-scale. Therefore, the action alternatives are not expected to impact population trend or species viability at the Forest level.

Cumulative Effects Territory sizes reported for red-naped sapsuckers in Colorado are small, ranging from one to 6.5 acres (Walters et al. 2002). Therefore, the GMUG-portion of the project area is of sufficient size to analyze cumulative impacts to the species. Conifer encroachment and displacement of aspen is ongoing in some locations due to mainly to fire suppression. Aspen regeneration can be susceptible to damage by livestock grazing and elk use. The project area is located within an active grazing allotment in addition to providing elk summer range; however, the status of impacts to aspen due to livestock and big game use in the project area is unknown. Due to the small area impacted by proposed activities, overlapping impacts to availability of mature aspen from other activities are expected to be insignificant. Elk (GMUG, RGNF) In Colorado, elk are generally found above 6,000 feet elevation. They utilize a variety of habitats, which include lodgepole, spruce-fir, Douglas-fir, quaking aspen, and mountain shrub types in conjunction with high mountain alpine meadows and lower elevation meadows and pastures, depending on the season. Elk require a combination of open meadows for foraging and woodlands for hiding cover, calving and thermal regulation. The use of open areas by elk tends to decrease 110 yards (100 m) from the forest edge. Slopes from 15-30% are preferred. Ideal winter range includes north and northeast slopes consisting of densely wooded lowlands for cover, combined with south and southwest facing slopes for foraging opportunities. High quality transitional range usually includes meadows or pasture, aspen groves, and other woodland types that provide high quality forage enabling elk to gain weight prior to winter. Open water availability is important in association with the habitat types described (Vasquez and Spicer 2005). Elk populations are intensively monitored by Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW). Annual harvest and census data is used to estimate elk populations within specified geographic areas known as data analysis units (DAUs). Several DAUs overlap the boundaries of the Forests while

56 some occur entirely within Forest boundaries. The GMUG contains either all or at least a portion of nine elk DAUs while the RGNF contains all or portions of four DAUs. Population estimates from 1980 to 2003 indicates an overall increase in elk numbers across DAUs that occur on the GMUG. In addition, total population estimates for all DAUs combined that include acreage on the Forest have been above population objectives since 1980, although several individual DAUs have been below population objectives at some point during this 23 year period (Vasquez and Spicer 2005, CPW 2012x). All elk DAUs associated with the RGNF are currently at or above CPW population objectives and average approximately 16% above objective (CPW 2012b). Elk herds appear well-distributed across each Forest. The project area is located primarily along the border of DAUs E-25 and E26, with a small amount in the north occurring within E-43. The entire project area according to CPW habitat maps is elk summer range. About 586 acres (7% of project area) occurs within mapped winter range on the GMUG side. About 585 acres of the project area, including portions of the new trail route, is within a mapped elk production area north of Saguache Park on the Saguache RD. The project area is outside severe winter areas and areas mapped as summer concentration.

Effects Analysis Alternative 1 There would be no direct or indirect effects to elk from management activities, as no treatments would occur under this alternative. Action Alternatives Proposed trail construction activities under all action alternatives, and trailhead construction under Alternative 2, would occur within mapped elk summer range. The trail footprint consisting of the trail plus 6-foot width clearing limits would alter approximately 25 acres of vegetation, equating to much less than 0.003% of available summer range in each affected DAU (Table 9). The new trail and trailheads would be located outside elk winter range, summer and winter concentration areas, and production areas. Vegetation changes within the narrow trail corridor as well as trailheads expected to be less than ¼ acre each in size are not expected to impact elk habitat availability locally or at the DAU scale. Trail construction activities as well as subsequent trail use may impact elk behavior and use patterns via disturbance within the project area, which is currently relatively undisturbed. Elk reactions to disturbance may range from flight and short-term avoidance during the summer season to longer-term avoidance throughout the fall in response to increased pressure from hunters using the new trail. In the spring and early summer, trail activity may impact elk calving within the mapped production area above Saguache Park. These effects would generally be limited to the project area. Area affected by increased disturbance equates to less than 1% of available summer range, winter range, winter concentration or production areas within any of the three DAUs (Table 9); therefore, project activities may affect elk locally, there are expected to be no discernible changes in population trends at the DAU level.

57 Table 9. Elk Seasonal Use Areas and Project Activities within DAUs. Winter Concentration Production DAUs Summer Range Winter Range Area Area Trail/Trailhead Footprint (% of DAU total) E -25 0.0012% 0% 0% 0.0012% E-26 0.0024% 0% 0% 0.0008% E-43 0.0001% 0% 0% 0% Project Area (% of DAU total) E -25 0.48% 0.01% 0% 0.19% E-26 0.69% 0.15% 0.04% 0.99% E-43 0.05% 0% 0% 0%

Cumulative effects The cumulative effects analysis area is defined as the associated DAUs described above. Hunting is the primary activity currently influencing elk population numbers. However, the combination of all sources of mortality, potential competition for resources with livestock, roads, recreational activities and other forms of disturbance have not reduced elk numbers sufficiently to meet CPW management objectives for many years. Therefore, none of the action alternatives is expected to have a negative cumulative effect on elk within the analysis area. Mule Deer (RGNF) Mule deer are widely distributed in western North America. In Colorado, they occupy various habitats but achieve their highest densities in shrublands that provide abundant browse and cover. Mule deer also use various habitat types on the Forest, with one of the most important being winter range. The acreages and ecological conditions of mule deer winter range habitat overlaps with that described for elk winter range. During the summer, mule deer are generally well distributed across the Forest and occur at various elevations within different plant communities. Most mule deer summer range is in good to excellent condition and displays a static trend. Mule deer have broad diets and are considered to be intermediate feeders rather than browsers or grazers. Deer food habits are primarily influenced by availability of plant species rather than by selection. Diets are highly variable from year to year and between habitat types. Forage sites with an abundance of browse plants are most beneficial to mule deer. The use of browse species varies by season, but is most prevalent during winter and fall. Forbs and some grasses are particularly important during spring and summer. For maximum use by deer, forage areas should have no point farther than 600 feet from the edge of cover and openings should not exceed 30 acres in size. As with elk, roads can influence deer vulnerability and how they utilize available habitats. Optimum use of habitat can be adversely influenced by the presence of open roads, their type and location, and the amount of vehicle use. CPW has the responsibility of managing mule deer populations in the state and has established herd objectives on the Forest based on the same individual DAUs used for elk. These four DAUs

58 have a combined mule deer population objective of 13,500 to 16,500 animals. The mule deer population has fluctuated above and below this objective since the late 1980’s with population estimates ranging from 13,200 to 14,580 animals over the past six years. For 2011, the estimated 13,500 mule deer population is at the lower population objective. The CDNST Reroute project area occurs within DAU-D-26. In 2011, the mean post-hunt population estimate for this DAU was about 3,905 mule deer which is below the population objective of 4,000 to 5,000 animals (CPW 2012c). The limiting factor for the deer herd in this DAU is the quality and composition of winter range (Weinmeister 2008). The RGNF-portion of the project area (3,293 acres) is mapped entirely as mule deer summer range and is outside all winter range and concentration areas.

Effects Analysis Alternative 1 There would be no direct or indirect effects to mule deer from management activities, as no treatments would occur under this alternative. Action Alternatives Proposed trail construction activities under all action alternatives, and trailhead construction under Alternative 2, would occur within mapped mule deer summer range on the RGNF. The trail footprint consisting of the trail plus 6-foot width clearing limits under all action alternatives would alter approximately 11 acres of vegetation. Trailhead construction proposed under Alternative 2 would alter and remove an additional 0.5 acre. Area affected by all proposed activities equates to less than 0.0003% of available summer range in DAU D-26 (Table 10). The new trail and trailheads would be located outside deer winter range and concentration areas. Vegetation changes within the narrow trail corridor as well as trailheads expected to be less than ¼ acre each in size are not expected to impact deer habitat availability locally or at the DAU scale. Trail construction activities as well as subsequent trail use may impact deer behavior and use patterns via disturbance within the project area, which is currently relatively undisturbed. Mule deer reactions to disturbance may range from flight and short-term avoidance during the summer season to longer-term avoidance throughout the fall in response to increased pressure from hunters using the new trail. These effects would generally be limited to the project area. Area affected by increased disturbance is less than 1% of available summer range within DAU D-26 (Table 10); therefore, project activities may affect mule deer locally, there are expected to be no discernible changes in population trends at the DAU level.

59

Table 10. Mule Deer Seasonal Use Areas and Project Activities within DAU D-26. Winter Concentration DAU Summer Range Winter Range Area Trail/Trailhead Footprint (% of DAU total) D -26 0.00025% 0% 0% Project Area (% of DAU total) D -26 0.57% 0% 0%

Cumulative Effects The cumulative effects analysis area is defined as DAU D-26. Although hunting is a major activity influencing mule deer numbers, habitat generally has the most restricting influence on mule deer populations. The combination of all sources of mortality, limited habitat conditions, roads, recreational activities, loss of winter range due to development, and other forms of disturbance have all had a negative impact on mule deer numbers within the analysis area. Mule deer numbers have also declined in many areas of the West in the face of increasing elk numbers. However, due to the small amount of habitat impacted by this project, overlapping effects with other activities are expected to be insignificant. Vesper Sparrow (RGNF) Vesper sparrow is an indicator of the health of upland bunchgrass/shrub communities. The Colorado Breeding Bird Atlas lists the vesper sparrow as the most abundant species in mountain grasslands. Population information from the Breeding Bird Surveys (Sauer 2008) shows an increasing trend for this species in Colorado (Sauer, et al. 2008). Vesper Sparrows showed no evidence of population change either state-wide from 1998-2005 or within the RGNF from 2004-2007 (RMBO 2008). The primary management influences on these communities and associated wildlife species are related to roads and livestock grazing. Primary habitat for vesper sparrows on the Rio Grande NF occurs in montane and lower elevation grasslands. These grasslands generally occur between 8,400 and 10,800 feet in elevation (USDA 2003b). Vesper sparrows primarily nest in the Arizona fescue, Thurber fescue and western wheatgrass Land Type Associations (LTA 8, 9, and 12, respectively). Parks, open meadows and open hill sides provide a majority of this species available habitat. They require a home range of approximately 10 acres of suitable habitat per breeding pair (Gillihan 2002). Livestock grazing activities occur on approximately 87% of the Forest’s vesper sparrow habitat (Irwin 2009). The RGNF contains about 351,914 acres of vesper sparrow habitat. Therefore, the Forest could potentially support 35,191 pairs of vesper sparrow and the analysis area 3,309 pair (Irwin 2009). The project area contains approximately 483 acres of grassland vegetation.

Effects Analysis Alternative 1

60 There would be no direct or indirect effects to the vesper sparrow from management activities, as no treatments would occur under this alternative. Action Alternatives The trail footprint would impact less than one acre of grassland habitat suitable for vesper sparrows under all action alternatives. Under Alternative 2, the proposed trailhead site at Luder’s Campground would impact an additional 0.25 acre of grassy habitat. Total area impacted translates into about 0.2% of habitat available within the project area and less than 0.0003% of habitat Forest-wide. Considering the small magnitude of habitat impacts, discernible changes in population trends at the Forest level are not expected.

Cumulative Effects The RGNF-portion of the project area constitutes the CEA for this species. Prescribed fire, wildfire, drought, conifer encroachment and unauthorized off road vehicle use may all degrade vesper sparrow habitat or destroy nests. Weeds and non-native grasses like cheat grass may also pose future risk for this species. The action alternatives may increase the risk of weeds and non-native grasses becoming established due to increased human and pack animal traffic, but the magnitude of risk is low due to the small portion of habitat affected. Therefore, implementation of any action alternative it is not expected to add measurable cumulative impacts for this species.

MIS Conclusion The analysis has focused on MIS found in the project area and has determined that impacts to MIS habitats and species may be associated with this project under all action alternatives. Although impacts are expected the magnitude of potential impacts is negligible in comparison to Forest-level habitat distribution and availability. The no-action alternative would have no effect on Forest-level population trends and species distribution. All alternatives are determined as having an insignificant effect on population trends and species distribution at the Forest level.

MIGRATORY BIRD ANALYSIS The Migratory Bird Act (MBTA) of 1918 was passed to enforce a treaty between the United States, Mexico and Canada primarily due to the concern for poaching of migratory birds. Except as regulated by permit, it is unlawful under the Act for anyone at any time, by any means or in any manner, to pursue, hunt, export, import, transport or carry any migratory bird. Until recently, it was maintained that the MBTA was intended to address issues related to the hunting and poaching of migratory birds, but not habitat modification. However, inconsistent interpretations of the Act by federal agencies and contradictory rulings by various circuit courts left the issue regarding habitat modification unclear. On January 10, 2001, Executive Order 13186 was signed and entitled “Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds”. The Executive Order states that “environmental analysis of Federal actions, required by NEPA or other established environmental review processes, shall evaluate the effects of actions and agency plans on migratory birds, with

61 emphasis on species of special concern.” The Executive Order further directs action agencies to develop and implement a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USDA, USDI 2008) that promotes the conservation of migratory birds. This MOU has been developed as a means to reduce the direct, indirect and cumulative effects of land management activities on migratory birds, including those dealing with habitat modification. Direction concerning landbird conservation in Forest Service Region 2 is to reference the 2008 Birds of Conservation Concern list produced by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) when completing NEPA evaluations for project activities. Furthermore, Forest Service units are encouraged to interface with the State and Bird Conservation Region working groups for actions and objectives to pursue concerning migratory bird conservation. Bird Conservation Regions consist of a hierarchical framework of nested ecological units that allow for the use of multiple scale-specific approaches to on-the-ground management. Bird Conservation Regions encompass areas that become progressively more ecologically similar as the units are stepped-down to a smaller scale. At the smallest and most local scale, the physiographic area is used for bird conservation efforts. State groups such as local Partners-In-Flight chapters are the primary workforce involved with translating the BCR information into conservation action at the local scales. There are 37 BCRs in North America with four of these occurring at least partially in Colorado. The Rio Grande National Forest occurs within the Southern Rockies Colorado Plateau Bird Conservation Region (BCR 16), which encompasses portions of Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, Utah and Wyoming. Information from BCR 16 was synthesized for use in Colorado through the development of the Birds of Conservation Concern list (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2008 and the Colorado Landbird Conservation Plan (BCP). These Plans have been or are being developed by every state in the nation based on the individual physiographic areas encompassed by the BCR’s. Thus at the finest scale of analysis, the GMUG and RGNF occur within the Southern Rocky Mountains Physiographic Area (Area 62) of the Southern Rockies Colorado Plateau Bird Conservation Region. The following are the Birds of Conservation Concern for BCR 16, their status within the project area, and projected influence from the CDNST Reroute Project (Table 11). Table 11. FWS Birds of Conservation Concern for BCR 16, occurrence in the Project Area, and anticipated influence of the action alternatives. Species General Habitat Occurrence in Effect of Action Alternatives Analysis Area Evaluated as an R2 sensitive species; Ferruginous Hawk Prairie No No Effect (No habitat present) Bald eagle Mature trees near water No No Effect; (No habitat present) No Effect; Project activities are not Golden Eagle Cliffs/grasslands No expected to affect this species. Evaluated as an R2 sensitive species; Peregrine Falcon Cliffs No No Effect. No Effect. Project area lacks suitable Prairie Falcon Cliffs No nesting habitat.

62 Species General Habitat Occurrence in Effect of Action Alternatives Analysis Area Gunnison sage- Evaluated as an R2 sensitive species; grouse Sagebrush No No Effect. (No habitat present). Snowy Plover Shorelines No No Effect. (No habitat present) Evaluated as an R2 sensitive species; Mountain Plover Prairie No No Effect. (No habitat present). American bittern Wetlands No No Effect. (No habitat present) Prairies and meadows near Long-billed curlew water No No Effect. (No habitat present) Yellow-billed Evaluated as an R2 sensitive species; Cuckoo Deciduous Riparian No No Effect. (Species not present). Evaluated as an R2 sensitive species. Project activities may impact the species or habitats (see above). No preferred habitat exists within the Flammulated Owl Ponderosa pine/snags Possible project area. Burrowing Owl Plains/grasslands No No Effect. (No habitat present). Lewis’s Riparian Cottonwood and Evaluated as an R2 sensitive species; Woodpecker Ponderosa pine No No Effect (no habitat present). No Effect, (Insufficient habitat Willow flycatcher Willow riparian No present). Gray Vireo Oak woodlands/scrub No No Effect. (No habitat present). No Effect. Project activities are not Pinyon Jay Pinyon/Juniper No expected to affect this species. Juniper titmouse Pinyon/Juniper No No Effect. (No habitat present). Open forest with shrubby Veery understory No No Effect. (No habitat present). Bendire’s Thrasher Rare spp. of arid areas No No Effect. (No habitat present). Grace’s warbler Ponderosa pine No No Effect. (No habitat present). Brewer’s sparrow Sagebrush No No Effect. (No habitat present). Grasshopper May impact, but magnitude of sparrow Open grasslands Possible impact is extremely small (1 ac). Chestnut-collared Evaluated as an R2 sensitive species; longspur Plains No No Effect. (No habitat present). Black rosy-finch Alpine tundra No No Effect. (No habitat present). Brown-capped rosy-finch Alpine tundra No No Effect. (No habitat present). May impact, but magnitude of Cassin’s finch Open coniferous forest Possible impact is extremely small

The Colorado Landbird Conservation Plan (Beidleman 2000) identified priority species and habitats for each physiographic area in the state based on the Partners-In-Flight species prioritization process. Priority habitats identified for the Southern Rocky Mountains Physiographic Area include alpine tundra, aspen, cliff/rock, high elevation riparian, lowland riparian, mixed-conifer, mountain shrubland, ponderosa pine, sagebrush shrubland, spruce-fir, and wetlands. The priority habitats and species that occur within the project area are identified in Table 12.

63 Table 12. Priority habitats and species of the Southern Rocky Mountains province and their relationship to assessment for the CDNST Reroute Project. Priority BCP Priority Species BCP Potential Potential Influence Effect of Alternatives Habitat Issues(s) from Project Type Activities

Aspen Broad-tailed Grazing, snag Issues identified. Species expected to occur in hummingbird* habitat, Trail and trailhead the analysis area. Minimal Red-naped sapsucker* Altered clearing may remove influences anticipated on Purple martin disturbance a small amount of aspen habitat due to the Violet-green swallow* regimes mature aspen. scope of treatments (less than 1 acre affected). High Cordilleran flycatcher Grazing, Issues identified. No effects expected. Elevation American dipper Recreation Trail and trailhead Riparian MacGillivray’s warbler impacts clearing may remove Wilson’s warbler a small amount of habitat. Mixed Blue grouse Altered Issues identified. Species expected to occur in Conifer Williamson’s sapsucker disturbance Trail clearing may the analysis area. Minimal regimes, snags, remove a small influences anticipated on timber mgmt. amount of habitat. mixed conifer habitat due to the scope and spatial configuration of treatments (less than 11 acre affected). Spruce/Fir Boreal owl Timber mgmt., Issues identified. Species expected to occur in Olive-sided flycatcher snags, altered Trail and trailhead the analysis area. Minimal Hammond’s flycatcher disturbance clearing may remove influences anticipated on regimes a small amount of habitat due to the scope and habitat. spatial configuration of treatments (less than 8 acres affected). * Species documented in vicinity of CDNST

Summary of Effects on Migratory Birds Four of the seven priority habitats identified in the Colorado Landbird Conservation Plan for the Southern Rocky Mountains province (Beidleman 2000) occur within the CDNST Reroute Project Area. Seven priority bird species are documented as occurring in the project vicinity, with other species possible. Trail construction would occur within a small area (less than 0.20 acre) mapped as riparian vegetation, but aerial photograph interpretation shows the area lacks dense willow thickets and standing or flowing water that creates suitable habitat for the associated priority species. Aspen, mixed conifer stands consisting of Douglas-fir and lodgepole pine forest types, and spruce-fir are present within the project area and in trail construction locations. Trail clearing activities would remove trees on approximately 11 acres in mixed conifer, 8 acres in spruce-fir, and less than one acre of mature aspen. In addition, treatments would remove snags representing a hazard to trail traffic.

64 The amount of habitat affected by trail clearing activity represents about 0.01% of mature aspen, 0.4% of available mixed conifer, and 0.3% of spruce-fir habitat within the project area. The narrow configuration of the trail corridor (6 feet wide) is expected to preclude stand-level changes in habitat suitability and is unlikely to influence existing habitat use patterns by associated species. Trailhead construction at the State Highway 114 site would occur within aspen habitat, but the site’s location being directly adjacent to a State highway reduces the potential for use by associated species. The Luder’s Creek trailhead is located outside suitable habitat. Trail and trailhead construction would occur during the breeding period for most associated species in all habitat types present within the project area. An exception would be blue grouse, which are known to nest in aspen-sagebrush areas that do not occur within the project area, but may utilize the project area outside the breeding period. Tree and/or snag removal would directly impact nesting birds if present, causing nest failure or mortality of young. Table 13 shows that breeding habitat and individuals may be affected by project activities for seven of 13 BCR focal species. Primary breeding periods for most affected species range from April/May through July/August. This would overlap the anticipated trail/trailhead construction seasonal timeframe due to the need to accomplish these activities during the snow-free period (estimated early June – end of September). Approximately one-half of the duration and expected amount of project activities would occur in June and July. Activities conducted during the remainder of the work period (August and September) are less likely to impact nesting birds. Therefore, scheduled timing of project activities may still affect but reduces the potential for direct impacts to focal species. Table 13. BCR Focal Species and Breeding Periods Breeding Habitat Potentially Focal Species Affected? Primary Breeding Period Source Broad-tailed hummingbird Yes (Green trees) Late May - Mid August Calder and Calder 1992 Red-naped sapsucker Yes (Snags) Late May - Early August Walters et al. 2002 Purple martin Yes Mid April - Late July Brown 1997 Violet-green swallow Yes Late May - Early August Brown et al. 2011 Cordilleran flycatcher No Late April - Late July Lowther 2000 American dipper No Late March - Mid August Willson and Kingery 2011 MacGillivray's warbler No Late May - Late July Pitocchelli 1995 Wilson's warbler No Mid June - End of July Ammon and Gilbert 1999 Blue grouse No Early May - End of August Zwickel and Bendell 2005 Williamson's sapsucker Yes (Snags) Early May - Mid July Dobbs et al. 1997 Boreal owl Yes (Snags) Early April - End of June Hayward and Hayward 1993 Olive-sided flycatcher Yes (Snags) Late April - Early July Altman and Sallabanks 2000 Hammond's flycatcher Yes (Green trees) End of May - Late July Sedgwick 1994

Because the affected area represents minor portions of available habitats, potential impacts would be restricted to individuals and are not expected to affect local population densities or

65 trends. Due to consideration and analysis of migratory birds as well as expected project implementation scheduling that reduces the potential for direct impacts as described above, the project is consistent with applicable elements of Executive Order 13186 and the USFS- USFWS Memorandum of Understanding to promote conservation of migratory birds. Effects on Threatened or Endangered Species of Wildlife A Biological Assessment which evaluates the potential effects of this project on Threatened, Endnagered,and Proposed Species of wildlife and fish in compliance with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act has been prepared, and is part of the project record. That BA and resultant consultation with the U.S. Fish and Widlife Service, as applicable, is the source of this analysis to comply with the requirements of NEPA.

Species List – Species Evaluated Of the T/E species identified in the pre-field review for species that occur or potentially occur on the Gunnison Ranger District (GMUG) or the Saguache Ranger District (RGNF), including downstream aquatic species that may be influenced by project activities, only Canada Lynx Lynx canadensis was identified as documented within or near the project area, and potentially affected. There is no potential habitat in or near the analysis area for any federally listed or proposed species except the Canada lynx. Therefore, the proposed project will have no effect on the southwestern willow flycatcher, Mexican spotted owl, Uncompahgre fritillary butterfly, greenback cutthroat trout, Debeque phacelia, or Colorado hookless cactus. Furthermore, because there will be no additional Colorado River water depletions beyond authorized limits, the proposed project will have no effect on any Colorado River Basin aquatic species (i.e. bonytail, Colorado pike minnow, humpback chub, razorback sucker,). The Canada lynx has habitat present and/or occurs in or near the project area and is the only species that will be evaluated further.

Analysis Area Boundaries The CDNST Reroute Project involves approximately 32.1 miles of foot-trail construction with a tread width of 24 inches and clearing width of 6 feet as well as facility and trailhead development at two locations. All trail construction and facility/trailhead construction occurs on National Forest lands. Because the project area contains mapped lynx habitat, Lynx Analysis Units (LAUs) will serve as the baseline analysis area for this project.

Lynx Analysis Units A Lynx Analysis Unit (LAU) is a project analysis unit upon which direct, indirect, and cumulative effects analyses are evaluated for Canada lynx. LAUs were established to approximate the size of a typical lynx home range; however, they do not represent the home range of an actual animal. An LAU provides a constant area for comparison of effects to lynx over time. The GMUG currently contains a total of 51 LAUs whereas the RGNF contains 25 LAUs. The proposed CDNST Reroute Project occurs within or directly adjacent to five LAUs, two of which occur on

66 the GMUG (i.e. Cochetopa and Stewart Creek LAUs) and three on the RNGF (i.e. Cochetopa, 4 Mile to La Garita Creek, and Saguache Park; Figure 3). Although no management actions are proposed in the Needle-Razor LAU (GMUG), it is included in the analysis because it contains a portion of the North Pass/Cochetopa Hills Lynx Linkage Area (LLA).

Figure 3. Lynx LAUs and Linkage Area

Environmental Baseline Canada lynx habitat in Colorado primarily occurs in the subalpine and upper montane forest zones. Recent analysis of radio-collared reintroduced lynx in Colorado indicates that the majority of the habitat used occurs between 9,900 – 11,620 feet (Theobald 2011). Forests in these zones typically contain deep winter snows and are dominated by subalpine fir, Engelmann spruce, aspen, and lodgepole pine. A preference for these forest types, particularly spruce-fir associations, has been documented by radio-telemetry and tracking techniques

67 associated with lynx reintroduced to Colorado (Theobald 2011). Other habitats used by reintroduced lynx include spruce-fir/aspen associations and various riparian and riparian- associated areas dominated by dense willow (Shenk 2009). Throughout North America, the distribution of lynx is closely tied to habitats that support an abundant population of snowshoe hare (Koehler 1990, Aubry et al. 2000). These habitats are generally defined as regenerating stands that contain dense, small-diameter stems that provide both food and horizontal cover (Koehler 1990, Aubry et al. 2000). In Colorado, both small diameter lodgepole stands and mature spruce-fir stands support the highest density of snowshoe hares, although the latter may be of more importance on a year-round basis due to the long-term persistence and distribution of mature spruce-fir stands (Ivan 2011). Reintroduced lynx in Colorado are also utilizing red squirrels, cottontails, and other alternate prey items (Shenk 2006). Red squirrels are closely associated with mature forest conditions, and would occur with snowshoe hare as an important alternate prey species (Buskirk et al. 2000). The increased use of riparian-willow systems by reintroduced lynx during late summer and fall is also considered to be associated with alternate prey sources (Shenk 2009).

Species Status in or Near the Project Area There is a general pattern of consistent, year round lynx utilization of habitats on portions of the GMUG, RGNF, and San Juan NF (SJFN) approximately 25 miles west-southwest of the project area. In addition consistent utilization is described for portions of the GMUG, White River, and Pike-San Isabel NFs approximately 24 miles north of the project area (Figure 6, Theobald and Schenk 2011). No lynx locations have been reported within 1 mile of the proposed trail project. The closest lynx observation consists of a snow track reported 4 miles west of the project in 2002 (GMUG NRIS dataset). Snow track surveys completed in 2012 on the GMUG west of North Pass along the existing CDNST route did not record lynx occurrence (M. Vasquez, unpublished data, 2012). While no observations have been reported near the project, it is probable that lynx move through the area. Ivan (2011) constructed point-to-point line segments connecting lynx GPS locations up to a week apart in the vicinity of North Pass. While these constructed segments do not represent exact or approximate lynx locations, the data does indicate the likelihood that lynx use the North Pass area for movement between the San Juan Mountains to the southwest and the Sawatch Range to the northeast. In addition, the Cochetopa Hills/North Pass area is described as a well-used lynx movement corridor (USDA Forest Service 2008).

68

Figure 6. The utilization distribution for current lynx habitat in Colorado, with Forest Service administrative boundaries and I-70 as a reference. The CDNST Reroute Project vicinity is added for reference. Map is from Figure 7 in Theobald (2011).

Lynx Habitat Associated with the Project Area The CDNST Reroute Project is located on and near the Continental Divide at elevations ranging from 9,160 to 11,500 feet. Where the new proposed trail is mapped, approximately 100,687 feet (19.1 miles) of trail would occur within mapped primary suitable lynx habitat, with an additional 8,931 feet (1.7 mi) of trail mapped in secondary suitable habitat (Table 4). Trailheads proposed at North Pass and Luder’s Campground are located outside mapped lynx habitat (Figure 4).

69

Table 4. Proposed Trail Length within Lynx Suitable Habitat Primary Secondary LAU Suitable (mi) Suitable (mi) Total (mi) Cochetopa (GMUG) 11.79 0.03 11.82 Stewart Creek (GMUG) 2.97 1.66 4.63 Cochetopa (RNGF) 0.91 0.00 0.91 4 Mile to La Garita Creek (RGNF) 2.44 0.00 2.44 Saguache Park (RGNF) 0.95 0.00 0.95 Needle-Razor (GMUG) 0.00 0.00 0.00 TOTAL 19.07 1.69 20.76

Figure 4. Characterization of mapped lynx habitat associated with the CDNST Reroute Project.

70 Linkage Areas The Cochetopa (both GMUG and RGNF) and Needle-Razor LAUs contain portions of the North Pass/Cochetopa Hills Lynx Linkage Area (LLA; Figure 3), which covers approximately 33,212 acres. All but 172 acres are under Forest Service ownership. Primary suitable habitat totals approximately 11,950 acres, or 36% of the LLA. All suitable habitats equate to approximately 37% (12,437 ac.) of LLA acres (Table 5). Table 5. Suitable Lynx Habitat, Cochetopa Hills/North Pass Linkage Area Primary Secondary Forest Suitable (ac) Suitable (ac) Total (ac) GMUG 5,804 438 6,242 RGNF 6,146 49 6,195 TOTAL 11,950 487 12,437

Roads and Access The existing CDNST follows a northeast-to-southwest direction in the vicinity of the project. The main road access to local trail segments is located along State Highway 114, approximately 2.5 miles west of the proposed trailhead along that same highway. Access to existing local trail segments can also be attained via several unimproved, native surface roads that require low speeds of travel. For the proposed reroute, primary access to local trail segments would be derived from the proposed trailhead along State Highway 114. In addition, trailheads would be established at sites with existing road access at both Luder’s Creek Campground and Cochetopa Pass. State Highway 114 receives low to moderate traffic volumes. According to Colorado Department of Transportation data attained for 2011, traffic volume for the segment of State Highway 114 associated with the project (MP20 to MP56), Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) is 110 vehicles (CDOT 2012a). There is likely some limited recreational use in the project vicinity including dirt bikes, ATVs, and personal 4-wheel drive vehicles during the summer and fall along existing native surface roads that access other trail segments. No road or traffic- related mortalities of lynx are known for State Highway 114 (CDOT 2012b) or for the LAUs associated with the project.

Snow Compaction Snow compaction may be an issue for lynx because it is thought that coyotes use the compacted, dispersed recreation trails to travel more effectively through soft snow areas, thus competing with lynx for similar winter prey species, particularly snowshoe hares (Bunnell et al. 2006). However, the significance of this remains uncertain as additional studies in Montana have found that compacted snow routes did not appear to enhance coyotes’ access to lynx and hare habitat or promote increased competition for prey resources (Kolbe et al. 2007). Snow compaction areas within the GMUG portion of the analysis area consist of three separate routes within the Cochetopa LAU totaling about 15.1 miles. No concentrated snowmobile use areas, often called “play areas” are noted within the associated LAUs. On the RNGF, compacted snow routes occur in the Cochetopa (11.6 miles) and Saguache Park (5 miles) LAUs. No “play areas” are identified within associated LAUs. No downhill ski areas are located within any LAU

71 associated with the project. Winter activities may locally influence lynx use of the landscape through diurnal displacement from activity areas and from indirect effects related to snow compaction.

Current Use Levels Trail user counts have been conducted on the CDNST in the Lujan area over the past two summers. Traffic on the existing trail averaged between 5 and 7 hikers per day (W. Appel, pers. comm). Additional traffic included horseback riders, mountain bikes, and motorcycles. Use on the trail itself during the peak of the hiking/snow free season is characterized by users themselves as light to moderate. Hikers on the trail in mid-season may encounter four to five parties or hikers over the course of a day of hiking on weekends, and none to three on week days. Use increases substantially in hunting season (see below) and, conversely, is very light in shoulder seasons of early spring and late fall. Winter use on the existing trail is very light to non-existent. This segment of the continental divide is actually in the snow shadow of the La Garita Mountains and hence receives very little snow in comparison with other areas nearby. There is no grooming of or marking of the trail as a cross country ski route, as it often does not have enough snow to ski or snowmobile. The current alignment at low elevations further mitigates against winter recreation use..

Effects Analysis

Direct and Indirect Effects on Habitat Trail construction activities under the CSNST Reroute Project will cross through approximately 20.76 miles of primary and secondary suitable lynx habitats (Table 4). With a trail clearing width of 6 feet, suitable lynx habitat directly affected by trail construction totals about 15.1 acres. Proposed trailhead construction would occur outside suitable lynx habitat; therefore no loss of mapped habitat would occur as a result of trailhead construction. Ground reconnaissance indicates that the proposed route would cross through a concentration of down wood that may be suitable to support lynx denning. Although the project area is not known to encompass resident lynx, a conservation measure (described below) has been incorporated into the proposed action to avoid physical disturbance of potential denning structure, thereby not precluding future use of such habitat features by lynx if residence is established. Removal of 15.1 acres of suitable lynx habitat constitutes an extremely small amount when compared to suitable habitats available within the associated LAUs. Proportion of primary suitable habitat affected by trail construction ranges from 0.002% to 0.039%, and 0.004% to 0.04% for all suitable habitat in associated LAUs (Table 6). Overall, the project would affect approximately 0.009 % of all suitable habitat within the five LAUs where trail construction would occur (i.e., excluding the Needle-Razor LAU). This represents an extremely minor amount of mapped lynx habitat but would be a permanent footprint within the applicable LAUs. The narrow configuration of the trail footprint (up to 6 feet in width) would not represent a movement barrier to lynx and would not alter the functionality of the surrounding stand as suitable habitat. Subsequently, no change in mapped suitable habitat amounts is expected to occur. Therefore, the amount of potential habitat change is immeasurable in relationship to baseline vegetative conditions within associated LAUs.

72

Table 6. Acres and Percentage of Lynx Habitat Affected by Proposed Trail Construction % of % of Available Available Total Acres Primary LAU Secondary LAU (%) Suitable Primary Suitable Secondary Suitable LAU (ac) Habitat (ac) Habitat Habitat 8.6 Cochetopa (GMUG) 8.6 0.034% <0.1 0.001% (0.040%) 3.4 Stewart Creek (GMUG) 2.2 0.010% 1.2 0.024% (0.034%) 0.7 Cochetopa (RNGF) 0.7 0.004% 0 0% (0.003%) 4 Mile to La Garita 1.8 Creek (RGNF) 1.8 0.003% 0 0% (0.003%) 0.7 Saguache Park (RGNF) 0.7 0.002% 0 0% (0.02%) Needle-Razor (GMUG) 0 0% 0 0% 0 15.1 TOTAL 13.9 0.008% 1.2 <0.001% (0.009%)

Direct and Indirect Effects on Linkage Areas and Connectivity Approximately 5.9 miles of proposed trail would be located within the North Pass/Cochetopa Hills LLA, of which approximately 2.1 miles would occur within suitable lynx habitat. With a 6 foot clearing width, suitable lynx habitat affected within the linkage area by the trail totals 1.5 acres. In addition to the trail, a trailhead would also be constructed within the LLA, adjacent to State Highway 114 in the vicinity of North Pass. The trailhead facility would consist of clearing ¼ acre of forest vegetation, consisting mostly of small to moderate-sized aspen, for a 5-car parking area and toilet facility. The trailhead is located outside mapped suitable lynx habitat, but would permanently remove vegetation that may otherwise facilitate lynx travel through the site. However, the trailhead facility and clearing is not expected to become a barrier to lynx travel across North Pass and through the LLA because of its small imprint on the landscape and the available travel options through forested vegetation to the east and west of the proposed location (see Figure 5). Linkage areas were established predominately to facilitate lynx dispersal

73

Figure 5. North Pass Area Aerial View

Direct and Indirect Effects From Roads No new or temporary road construction is proposed under this project. Project activities would utilize existing roads and trails to facilitate transportation of work crews, equipment, and supplies. Other than access from State Highway 114, the project will utilize existing native surface roads to access project locations. The existing condition of the roads supports low volume, low-speed vehicular traffic that is unlikely to result in any traffic-related mortality for lynx. This operation period should help to minimize potential encounters with lynx because they are not as active during the summer daylight hours. Activity at the project site may last up to several summer/fall months each year for 2-3 years for project completion. This activity will increase human presence and noise levels above what normally occurs in this area. Current baseline conditions for traffic volume on the segment of State Highway 114 associated with the project is 110 AAVT. The proposed trailhead parking

74 area located along State Highway 114 would hold up to 5 vehicles. When considering the trailhead as a source of increased traffic volume, day-hiking and hunting access are likely sources that would draw additional vehicles to the area. Given the small parking area, it is unlikely that traffic volume would increase more than 5-10 vehicles AAVT, which is far below the threshold of 2,000 vehicles per day that is considered a potential impairment to lynx (Clevenger et al. 2002, Alexander et al. 2005). The minimal increase in traffic volume make it highly unlikely that project activities would result in an increased risk of traffic-related mortality to lynx. Direct and Indirect Effects From Potential Disturbances Few studies have been conducted on the effects of recreational activities on lynx (Ruediger et al. 2000). Gaines et al. (2003) reviewed recreation trail-associated factors affecting wide- ranging carnivores and identified ‘disturbance at a specific site’ as the only non-motorized trail- associated factor that may impact lynx. Lynx may be able to tolerate moderate levels of human disturbance. However, human presence at den sites during the denning period has the potential to cause den abandonment that may impact kitten survival or lead to movement to a new den site (Claar et al. 1999). Lynx are described as being generally tolerant of humans (Mowat et al. 1999); however, there have been no studies conducted that have defined a “threshold” associated with recreation activities and the degree of lynx behavioral response. Responses such as indifference, temporary avoidance, or long-term displacement may depend on the intensity and frequency of human presence and activities in addition to availability of nearby secure habitats. The CDNST Reroute Project will increase human activities and noise levels within the vicinity of the project site. Trail construction activities conducted by work crews are likely required for several months during several consecutive years to complete the project. These activities including digging and clearing the trail footprint with hand tools as well as clearing trees and vegetation with chainsaws may result in indirect disturbances to any individual lynx that may happen to travel through the general area. Based on anecdotal information, these individuals would most likely avoid disturbance in the immediate area but otherwise continue to utilize undisturbed portions of the LAU and linkage area as well as the project area when human presence is lacking. Currently, the area is not known to support a lynx home range (Figure 6); therefore the project has a lower likelihood of impacting resident lynx. Lynx are known to utilize forested ridge-tops for travel (USDA Forest Service 2008), which coincides with the topographic location of the trail along most of the proposed route. Therefore, the project’s location within and adjacent to the North Pass/Cochetopa Hills Lynx Linkage Area suggests a higher likelihood of lynx-human interaction. The presence and human use of non-motorized trails such as hiking trails is not listed as a risk factor for lynx, with the exception of snow-compacting activities such as cross-country skiing and snowshoeing (Ruediger et al. 2000). Human use of the project area, both during trail construction and subsequent trail use by the public, would occur predominately during daylight hours. Less human use is likely during dawn and dusk periods, while lynx use of and travel through the project area would largely be undisturbed during the night. Direct and Indirect Effects From Snow Compaction

75 Trail and trailhead construction activities are not expected to begin before snowmelt, which is anticipated to occur during the months of May or June. By this time, it is anticipated that much of the snowpack will be melted with periodic drifts remaining. Some amount of snowplowing may be needed to push through the remaining drifts and access work sites. These activities will not result in any temporary or permanent snow compaction above baseline conditions and will therefore have no influence on lynx in regards to snow compaction concerns. Subsequent trail use by the public may include snow-compacting activities such as cross-country skiing and snowshoeing. Data collected at the Cochetopa SNOTEL site, which is at an elevation similar to North Pass (10,020 ft), from 2005 to 2011 shows that snow depths within the project area are relatively low (NRCS 2012). Maximum depth for any given day was at or below 25 inches, but average depth was 16 inches or less (Figure 7). In terms of proximity to population centers as a source of users, this segment of the CDT is one of the most remote in Colorado. The nearest towns are Gunnison (Pop. 5,800), 38 driving miles to the NW, and Saguache (Pop. 580), 32 driving miles to the SW. Towns of the San Luis Valley include Monte Vista (Pop. 4,000), 67 driving miles, Alamosa (Pop. 8,800), 84 driving miles, and other smaller farm communities of the Valley. (Note: population figures rounded from 2010 Census Data). Recreation opportunities for day hiking abound in the mountains surrounding each of these communities, making the CDNST from Lujan to La Garita only one of many choices for local hikers. Thus, the level of snowshoeing and cross-country skiing is expected to be low due to the relatively shallow snow accumulations. In addition, the remoteness of the project area decreases recreational use potential.

Average Snow Depth, Cochetopa SNOTEL Site 2005-2011 18 16

14

12 10 8

6 Snow Depth (in) DepthSnow 4 2 0

Date

Figure 7. Average Snow Depth, Cochetopa Pass SNOTEL site

76 Cumulative Effects The cumulative effects analysis area (CEA) consists of the area within the boundaries of the LAUs listed in Table 4, totaling 387,393 acres. Approximately 3,898 acres are comprised of private lands (2,748 acres), Colorado State Land Board (970 acres) and Colorado Wildlife and Parks (180 acres) ownership. There are no tribal lands within the CEA. In total, non-federal lands within the CEA account for approximately 1.0% of LAU acreage. There are no Tribal lands within the boundary of the CEA. Nearly all non-federal parcels are located in valley bottoms with vegetation primarily consisting of grass/forb/shrub upland and riparian associations in addition to forested communities with varying amounts of Douglas-fir, ponderosa pine, and aspen, and lesser amounts of lodgepole pine and spruce/fir. Elevations range from 8,600 to 11,400 feet, but most parcels are located near or below 10,000 feet. Distances from the proposed trail and trailhead sites vary from 0.5 mile to 39.7 miles, averaging over 13 miles. Of the 22 non-federal parcels, only one is located less than 2 miles from project sites. Approximately 704 acres of suitable lynx habitat occurs on non-federal parcels, accounting for less than 0.4% of suitable habitat within the CEA. Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable activities in non-federal parcels are not well defined. Review of aerial photography indicates little or no recent timber harvest, but does show signs of past or recent small-scale mining activity within several parcels. The large amount of grass/forb/shrub vegetation in juxtaposition to water suggests that livestock grazing was, or is, occurring within a number of parcels. Agricultural leases and public access programs are identified for all Colorado State Land Board (SLB) parcels within the CEA (Colorado State Land Board 2012). Some structural developments consisting of one or more buildings are noted within 10 parcels. Where livestock grazing is ongoing, it is likely to continue as a foreseeable activity. The potential for future timber harvest, mining, and/or development on non-federal parcels is not known. Given the relatively long distances from project activities and low amounts of existing suitable habitat, it is unlikely that the effects of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable activities occurring on non-federal parcels will overlap with effects generated by this project in a manner that measurably affects Canada lynx. Additional activities ongoing and foreseeable activities include snowplowing along State Highway 114, which may create steep snow walls along the highway, possibly prolonging lynx crossing time and increasing vulnerability to highway mortality. Trapping is a potential lynx mortality factors that may occur on federal and non-federal lands. Project activities would increase non-motorized access into lynx suitable habitat, which may include an increase in local trapping pressure of furbearing species. Trapping with lethal traps is restricted to water and tree sites in Colorado, which reduces the potential for accidental take and mortality of lynx by trapping. In addition, visual lures, baits, and oil lures meant to attract felids are not permitted in the Canada lynx recovery area or on properties known to be occupied by Canada lynx (Colorado Parks and Wildlife 2012). Lynx monitoring records from 1999 – 2006 show no known lynx mortalities due to accidental trapping (Shenk 2009). Therefore, the increased risk of furbearer trapping to lynx within the analysis area is low. Predator control activities occur on federal and non-federal lands. These activities can occur in lynx habitat, but more often are located at lower elevations outside lynx habitat. Activities are

77 directed at specific animals or target species. Lynx trapped unintentionally can be released. Animal and Plant Health Inspection Services (APHIS-Wildlife Services) information shows that no lynx have been taken incidentally in the Western Region for the past 30 years (USDA Forest Service 2008). Therefore, it is highly unlikely that predator control activities would contribute impacts that would add to those already associated with the proposed action.

Conservation Measures Measures for minimizing influences on lynx habitat have been considered and built into the proposed action. Given the minimal scope of this project, no additional conservation measures are considered necessary. Conservation measures include: Placement of the new trail would avoid areas of accumulated down wood that could structurally support lynx denning. Lynx denning habitat characteristics are described in the Southern Rockies Lynx Management Direction, Record of Decision (USDA Forest Service 2008, see Glossary section). Where practicable, the trail location will avoid areas of multi-storied stands where a dense understory provides snowshoe hare habitat. In coordination with Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) traffic signs would be posted in the vicinity of North Pass and the North Pass trailhead to warn of wildlife crossing and reduce vehicle speeds. Project activities such as trail and trailhead construction would occur during the period that avoids the need for snowplowing to access sites for project implementation. Project personnel will be informed to report any individual lynx noted during the duration of project activities. Any sightings or encounters with lynx should be reported to the Forest Service.

Effects Determination Based on this analysis, it is determined that the Continental Divide Scenic Trail Reroute Project “May Affect, But is Not Likely to Adversely Affect” the Canada lynx. The rationale for this conclusion is as follows:  The proposed project will permanently alter approximately 15 acres of suitable lynx habitat. This represents a very minor and immeasureable amount (0.009%) of the total lynx habitat available within the affected LAUs. The narrow corridor (6 foot width) in which vegetation would be cleared would not alter amounts of mapped lynx habitat. The effects due to the minor amount of direct habitat alteration are expected to be insignificant and discountable to Canada lynx.  The proposed project may increase disturbances to lynx, but not result in any adverse impacts to lynx movement across the landscape and through the linkage area because of the relatively low frequency and intensity of non-motorized use projected to occur along the new trail segment.  The proposed project occurs in an area that is not known to be part of a home range of any resident lynx on the GMUG or RGNF.

78  The proposed project is expected to increase vehicle traffic along State Highway 114 and along Forest development roads by only a minor amount. Traffic levels on State Highway 114, including increases expected due to the project, would remain well below threshold levels identified as detrimental to lynx. There will be no increase in road maintenance levels that may facilitate increased traffic volume or speeds. All potential traffic-related effects are expected to be insignificant and discountable.  There are no reasonably foreseeable future projects on non-federal lands that are expected to add to the effects of the proposed action. Therefore, no measurable cumulative effects are anticipated.  Project design criteria are included that are expected to assist in minimizing potential effects on lynx and lynx habitat.

Effects on Threatened or Endangered or Sensitive Plants

Threatened or Endangered Plants An Endangered plant is one that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range. A Threatened plant is one that is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. A Proposed plant is one that has been officially proposed by the USDI Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) for listing as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). A candidate plant is one that the FWS has on file sufficient information on biological vulnerability and threats to support proposals to list it as endangered or threatened. Threatened and Endangered plants are determined and listed by the USDI Fish and Wildlife Service in 50 CFR §17 (available online at: http://endangered.fws.gov/). There are presently no reported records or suspected occurrences of Threatened or Endangered plants on the RGNF. Threatened and Endangered plants in Colorado have unique habitats or ranges that do not occur on this Forest. There are also no plants Proposed for listing or Candidates for listing that occur on the Rio Grande National Forest. On the GMUG the Colorado hookless cactus (Sclerocactus glaucus) is listed as Threatened by the USFWS. This cactus only occurs on the Grand Mesa area of the GMUG, far to the northwest of the project and in very different climate and habitat. The trail project is located on the Gunnison portion of the GMUG. Furthermore the trail segments are at much higher elevations that the habitat where this cactus occurs. As a result, for this species consultation with the USFWS is not required. On the GMUG the De Beque phacelia (Phacelia submutica) is listed as Threatened by the USFWS. This annual plant only occurs on two members of the Wasatch Formation, on the Grand Mesa National Forest near the town of De Beque. This plant only occurs below 6,300 ft elevation in that area, far to the northwest of the project and in very different climate and habitat. As a result, for this species consultation with the USFWS is not required. Sensitive Plants

79 The Forest Service (under FSM 2670) defines a Sensitive plant as one that is not presently listed as Threatened or Endangered by the FWS, but a population viability concern has been identified as evidenced by: 1. Significant current or predicted downward trends in population numbers or density. 2. Significant current or predicted downward trends in habitat capability that would reduce a species' existing distribution. The Regional Forester has identified Sensitive species for the Rocky Mountain Region (R2) (Regional Supplement 2600-2011-1 to FSM 2670). Documented occurrences of Sensitive plants on the RGNF and GMUG came from Forest files, Forest Service personnel, pertinent literature, and records from the Colorado Natural Heritage Program (CNHP). Then, an evaluation was conducted of the remaining species on the current R2 Sensitive species list to judge the likelihood of occurrence on the RGNF and GMUG. Table 5 displays the species either known or suspected to occur on these National Forests, along with a brief habitat description. Species Included in Further Analysis No Federally listed Threatened or Endangered plant species, no plant species proposed to be listed, and no Federal candidate plant species are expected within the project area or in surrounding areas. Therefore, none of these are included in further analysis. Forest Service Sensitive plant species whose habitats are possible within the project area are shown in Table 6.

Table 6. Species included in further analysis.

In Further In Analysis Scientific Name Included Reason for inclusion Aletes lithophilus (Neoparrya lithophila) No Known habitat is far away and in different climate from project area Aquilegia chrysantha var. rydbergii No Known habitat is far away and in different climate from project area Astragalus leptaleus Yes Habitat is possible near trail, near stream crossings Astragalus missouriensis var. No Known habitat is far away and in different humistratus climate from project area Astragalus proximus No Known habitat is far away and in different climate from project area Astragalus ripleyi No Habitat not expected in project area Botrychium lineare Yes Habitat poorly defined in Subalpine zone Botrychium paradoxum Yes Habitat poorly defined in Subalpine zone Braya glabella No No alpine limestone in project area Calochortus flexuosus No Known habitat is far away and in different climate from project area Carex diandra No Habitat not expected in project area Cypripedium parviflorum No Trail locations too dry for this orchid Draba exunguiculata No Only alpine in project area is will above trail

80

In Further In Analysis Scientific Name Included Reason for inclusion Draba grayana No Only alpine in project area is will above trail Draba smithii No Habitat not expected in project area Drosera rotundifolia No Habitat not expected in project area Epipactis gigantea No Habitat not expected in project area Eriogonum brandegei No Habitat not expected in project area Eriophorum altaicum var. neogaeum No Habitat not expected in project area Eriophorum chamissonis No Habitat not expected in project area Eriophorum gracile No Habitat not expected in project area Gilia sedifolia (Aliciella sedifolia) No Only alpine in project area is will above trail, different geology Kobresia simpliciuscula No Habitat not expected in project area Malaxis brachypoda No Known habitat is far away and in different climate from project area Parnassia kotzebuei No Known habitat is far away and in different climate from project area Penstemon degeneri No Known habitat is far away and in different climate from project area Phacelia submutica No Known habitat is far away and in different climate from project area Physaria pulvinata No Known habitat is far away and in different climate from project area Ranunculus gelidus No No high alpine in project area, only alpine in (R. karelinii) project area is will above trail Salix arizonica No Known habitat is far away and in different climate from project area Salix candida No Habitat not expected in project area Salix serissima No Known habitat is far away and in different climate from project area Sclerocactus glaucus No Known habitat is far away and in different climate from project area Sphagnum angustifolium No Habitat not expected in project area Sphagnum balticum No Habitat not expected in project area Thalictrum heliophilum No Known habitat is far away and in different climate from project area Utricularia minor No Habitat not expected in project area Xanthisma coloradoense Yes Occurrences known near trail, in project area (Machaeranthera coloradoensis)

Cumulative Effects: the relevant past, present, and foreseeable future activities for consideration in cumulative effects analysis for this specific Analysis Area include consideration of: (a) livestock grazing in the area, (b) wildlife herbivory, (c) timber harvesting/thinning and

81 wood gathering, (d) recreation, (e) private land development, (f) roads and trails, (g) fire suppression and use, (h) mining, and (i) insect and disease.

Effects Analysis and Determinations by Species 1. Astragalus leptaleus A. Gray (park milkvetch). (Ladyman 2006). Ranked G4/S2 by Colorado Natural Heritage Program, “SH” in Wyoming. Grows “in sedge-grass meadows, swales and hummocks, and among streamside willows. … may often occupy the ecotone between soils saturated with water throughout the growing season and adjacent dry uplands. … occurs on loamy, often calcareous soils …on level to gently sloping ground with no aspect favored. … in relatively drier microsites within riparian zones or wet meadows. Often, it grows in the ecotone between wetlands with standing water or wet meadows that are dominated by Poa pratensis or Juncus/Carex, and adjacent upland communities. The community types that include A. leptaleus are willow- Kentucky bluegrass (Salix geyeriana-Poa pratensis), riparian willow (S. geyeriana-S. boothii), and tufted hairgrass (Deschampsia [cespitosa]). … Plants have mostly been reported from open sites but also from partially shaded sites. … occurs in the montane life zone in Colorado and Wyoming” (Ladyman 2006). Astragalus leptaleus is known from Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Utah, Colorado, and New Mexico, in several hundred occurrences; most of the numbers are from Idaho. Colorado populations seem to be smaller, but much of the habitat has not been searched for the species, so it is difficult to estimate population numbers and sizes in central and south- central Colorado. Known from four locations in the Gunnison Basin, in streamside swales or mid-seral riparian areas, at elevations below 8,000 ft (Ladyman 2006) – well below the project area. This species is difficult to spot, as it is not conspicuous and shorter than the dense grass in which it grows. So it is possible that it could be found in the project area, although not very likely. Astragalus leptaleus was not found in any of the field investigations of this project, and is unknown from the project area or surrounding areas, so impacts cannot be assessed. Determination. Implementation of the action alternatives of this project (Alternatives 2, 3, or 4) will have no impact on Astragalus leptaleus or its habitat. 2. Botrychium lineare W. H. Wagner and F. S. Wagner (narrowleaf moonwort). According to a recent taxonomic treatment, this taxon should be called Botrychium campestre ssp. lineare, an unpublished name. Ranked G2/S1 by Colorado Natural Heritage Program, and S1 in Wyoming. “Local, in open meadows and on rocky slopes, bare-soil roadsides, and earthen dams, mostly subalpine; straddling the length of the Continental Divide…,” in Colorado, “on grassy slopes, among medium-height grasses, and along edges of streamside forests, at elevations of … 7,900 to 9,500 ft” in Colorado, Wyoming, South Dakota, Montana, Idaho, Oregon, Washington, California, and Utah (Rey-Vizgirdas and Behan 2001, Beatty and others 2003, Popovich and Farrar 2012).

82 Documented locations in the Gunnison Basin include sites that are near the Continental Divide but in much wetter climates (more precipitation, especially snowfall) than the project area (B. Johnston personal data). Botrychium lineare was not found in any of the field investigations of this project, but these are very small plants and difficult to see without considerable field experience with Botrychium. Since it is currently unknown from the project area, impacts are difficult to assess. Determination. Implementation of the action alternatives of this project (Alternatives 2, 3, or 4) may adversely impact individuals, but is not likely to result in a loss of viability in the Planning Area1, nor cause a trend toward federal listing of Botrychium lineare. 3. Botrychium paradoxum W. H. Wagner (peculiar moonwort). Tentatively ranked G2 by NatureServe, and tentatively S1 by Colorado Natural Heritage program; ranked S1 in Wyoming. Known from one site in Wyoming and one recent discovery in Colorado, on Crested Butte, over 50 miles from the project area and in a very different climate. These are small plants, difficult to detect. Since this is a recent record, and there is only one, habitat description is largely unknown for Colorado. Crested Butte is a much wetter climate than the project area, so the species is unlikely to be found in the project area. Botrychium paradoxum was not found in any of the field searches of the project area. Determination. Implementation of the action alternatives of this project (Alternatives 2, 3, or 4) will have no impact on Botrychium paradoxum and its habitat. 4. Xanthisma coloradoense (A. Gray) D. R. Morgan and R. L. Hartman (Machaeranthera coloradoensis (A. Gray) Osterhout) (Colorado tansy-aster). In Colorado, elevations range 9,500–12,600 ft (2,895–3,840 m), averaging 11,200 ft (3,420 m). In Wyoming, elevations range 8,300–8,500 ft (2,530–2,590 m). In Colorado, populations of Machaeranthera coloradoensis are often associated with limestone, dolomite, shale, or other calcareous substrates. In Wyoming, the species occurs in gravelly places in mountain parks, dry tundra, and on sandstone or limestone outcrops. “Gravelly places in the higher mountain parks and on dry tundra” (Weber and Wittmann 2012). Southeastern Wyoming, central and southwestern Colorado. 25-30 known locations in Colorado, probably 5-8 times that many in fact, in nine counties. 10-15 locations in Wyoming in two counties. Tracked by CNHP as G3/S3, WYNDD as S2. This species has been recently transferred to the genus Xanthisma, with no subspecific taxa allowed (Morgan and Hartman 2003). Known from both the RGNF and GMUG. References: CNHP, COLO, RM, CS, Morgan & Hartman 2003, Parker 2001, Johnston 2001- 2002, Weber and Wittmann 2001ab, Beatty and others 2004, Hartman 2006.

1 The “Planning Area” is the area of the Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National Forests ( the area covered by its Forest Plan), and the area of the Rio Grande National Forest (the area covered by its Forest Plan).

83 Distribution: This endemic, perennial forb of south-central Wyoming and western Colorado (Chaffee, Dolores, Gunnison, Hinsdale, La Plata, Lake, Park, Pitkin, Rio Grande, Saguache, and San Juan Counties) (CNHP 2009). There are documented occurrences on the RGNF in the North Clear Creek area, Grayback Mountain, and in the upper Park Creek drainage. Habitat: This low, prostrate, mat-plant is found on gravelly sites. It is known to grow on relatively barren slopes and ridges in mountain parks and rock outcrops up to dry tundra. Flowering/Fruiting Period: July-early August/August. Direct Impacts. There are a number of known locations for this species in the project area (Figure 9). Several known locations are near sections of the existing trail that would be “decommissioned” (obliterated) under Alternatives 2, 3, and 4. This process would be done by hand, creating barriers and revegetating the trail corridor, perhaps using slash to cover the trail and the revegetation (W. Jackson, personal communication). Under the three action alternatives, there may be some direct effects on plants of this species from this decommissioning activity, if there is some trampling activity outside the trail, or slash is dragged across areas outside the trail; however, these plants are mostly resistant to these activities, so the impacts are expected to be small. Indirect Impacts. In addition, there may also be indirect impacts on plants of Xanthisma coloradoense from new trail construction, as the new trail passes above Monchego Park. Trail construction will be by hand, and involve clearing of vegetation, logs, and rocks from the trail corridor (W. Jackson, personal communication). This may cause a small amount of erosion to flow downward into the populations in the park below (Figure 9). Impacts are expected to be slight, since the populations are separated from the new trail by an existing road. Cumulative Impacts. In the project area and surrounding areas, recreation pressure is expected to increase, whether motorized, mechanized, or non-motorized. Use of trails and roads near populations of Xanthisma coloradoense will likely increase, causing more erosion on these populations. Occasional wandering of people and vehicles off roads and trails will cause some impacts as well, although these are expected to be small, since these plants are somewhat resistant to light trampling. Grazing by livestock has been decreasing steadily over the last few decades, and this trend is expected to continue. However, browsing and grazing by big game – elk, mule deer, and moose – has been increasing over the last decades and will likely continue to increase. We can expect more trampling in these habitats by wild animal species. Impacts on this species from climate change are difficult to predict. A recent assessment of the effects of climate change on Gunnison Basin ecosystems and species rated this species as “presumed stable,” but with low confidence (Neely and others 2011). Determination. Implementation of the action alternatives of this project (Alternatives 2, 3, or 4) may adversely impact individuals, but is not likely to result in a loss of viability in the Planning Area, nor cause a trend toward federal listing of Xanthisma coloradoense (Machaeranthera coloradoensis). Slight direct impacts are expected from existing trail decommissioning, and small indirect impacts from a building a small section of new trail.

84 These activities, that will not involve any mechanized or motorized equipment, may potentially impact one or two occurrences of this species out of probably more than sixty in the Gunnison and Rio Grande Basins. Recent climate change models indicate little change in this species.

Effects on Cultural Resources

Affected Environment/Cultural Survey The scope of this analysis focuses on the potential impacts to cultural resources that might be reasonably expected from each alternative. Forest Service policy (FSM 2361.3) requires that all areas slated for ground-disturbing activities, or land which will leave Federal agency control through sale or exchange, be surveyed for cultural resources in order to comply with 36 CFR 800, the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended, the Archeological Resources Protection Act (ARPA) of 1979, the American Indian Religious Freedom Act (1979) and the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (1992).

Pre-field research indicated that there have been thirteen previous cultural resource inventories within or surrounding the proposed APE. The Rio Grande National Forest obtained the services of Mountain Heritage Enterprise Unit (MHEU), a USDA Forest Service Enterprise Unit specializing in Heritage Resource Management to perform the required Class III (100%) surveys. MHEU surveyed the APE from August 5 to August 12, 2008, September 3 to September 7, 2008 and August 12 and August 13, 2009. Rio Grande National Forest personnel also surveyed a segment on September 23, 29, and 30, 2010. A total of 787 acres were completely inventoried. This effort also inventoried and analyzed the potential for effect to cultural resources resulting from increased use of previously existing trail segments being incorporated into the CDNST and construction of new trail segments for the CDNST. The Area of Potential Effect (APE) is defined as areas within 15 meters on either side of theproposed trail segments. During the current inventory, three historic sites and seven historic isolates were idenitified and recorded. Two sites are recommended not eligible to the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). One site is recommended eligible to the NRHP. Two previously recorded historic sites with an NRHP eligibility status of needs data, including the a linear historic site (Cochetopa Pass Stock Driveway) were noted as in or near the proposed APE. All sites recommended as eligible or need data (unevaluated) will be avoided by project actions and implementation crews will be notified of their locations. Sites and isolates that are recommended as not eligible to the NRHPrequire no further work.

Environmental Consequences

Direct and Indirect Effects Negative direct effects will be mitigated by avoidance proper, documentation, and the Discovery and Education Stipulation below. According to the 2004 revised regulations [36 CFR

85 800.4(d) (1)] for Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 470f) the recommended determination for the proposed action is no adverse effects if eligible and unevaluated sites are avoided. Under the implementing regulations of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (36 CFR 800), sites considered not eligible to the NRHP may be directly affected once adequately recorded, and evaluated.Concurrence was received from the State Historic Preservation Office regarding NRHP eligibility and effect on August 14, 2012. Because of the very low archarological site potential within the APE, the potential for negative direct, indirect and cumulative effects to identified and unidentified cultural resources is very low. Potential indirect effects from vandalism and illegal collection of cultural resources perpetrated by individuals associated with project activities or trail users is possible under each action alternative, but is unlikely due to the low archaeological site density and visibility. For the purposes of NEPA, through avoidance of known resources, and mitigation per below of any resources discovered through implementation, none of the alternatives considered in this EA would have any effect on any historic, or cultural resources. Let’s discuss this statement

Cumulative Effects The loss of archaeological resources has happened in the past and will happen in the future. The cumulative effect is that over time fewer archaeological resources will be available to learn about past human lifeways, to study changes in human behavior through time, and to interpret the past to the public. Heritage resource inventory, recording, evaluating and archiving basic information about each site for future reference serves to partially mitigate potential cumulative effects to heritage resources. In conjunction with the proposed project, previous logging activities, recreation activities such as hunting, and livestock grazing have the potential to cause ground disturbance and lead to cumulative, long term, irreversible adverse effects to heritage resources. However, because the archaeological site potential appears very low within the analysis, the potential for negative cumulative effects is also low.

Discovery and Education Stipulation All persons associated with operations under this authorization must be informed that any objects or sites of cultural, paleontological, or scientific value such as historic or prehistoric resources, graves or grave markers, human remains, ruins, cabins, rock art, fossils, or artifacts shall not be damaged, destroyed, removed, moved, or disturbed. If in connection with operations under this authorization any of the above resources are encountered, the proponent shall immediately suspend all activities in the immediate vicinity of the discovery that might further disturb such materials and notify the Forest Service authorized officer of the findings. The discovery must be protected until notified in writing to proceed by the authorized officer (36 CFR 800.110 & 112, 43 CFR 10.4).

Effects on Native American Cultural/Religious Sites Tribes (list) affiliated with the San Luis Valley were consulted by letters sent on (date). No comments were received by any Tribe during the scoping period. Therefore, it is not believed that and Native American Cultural or Religious Sites will be impacted by any of the proposed action alternatives.

86

Effects on Watershed Conditions in Terms of Construction, and Use of Trails

Affected Environment The project area for the action alternatives is a corridor along or roughly following the Continental Divide. The Continental Divide is the hydrologic divide that follows a line of high peaks across Colorado separating the watersheds that drain into the river systems that feed the Pacific Ocean and those river systems that drain into the Altantic Ocean including the Gulf of Mexico. In the project area, that ridgeline known as the Cochetopa Hills is formed by a series of rounded or dome-like mountains ranging in elevation from 10,000 ft.to 11,500 ft. The majority of the proposed new trail alignment is above 10,000 ft. in elevation. The project area forms the headwaters to both the Gunnison River Basin and the Rio Grande Basin. In this headwater area there are approximately 13 small tributary sub-watersheds with roughly half connected to the Gulf of Mexico system of rivers and the other half draining into the Pacific Ocean system. Because the proposed trail alignment runs along the upper elevations of the hydrologic divide there are few defined drainage channels bisecting the proposed trail. There is little evidence of surface water flow in the project area because of its relative position within the watershed. Neither are there any indications of wetlands occurring along the proposed trail alignment. This is consistent with the position of the project area within the watershed and the soil types of this area. The proposed small spur trail off of the main proposed ridgeline trail to the Luder’s Creek campground parallels Luder’s Creek. This creek is an ephemeral drainage with associated riparian vegetation adjacent to the drainage. Because of the lack of surface water resources within the project area, water quality concerns and potential effects to water quality are minimal and expected to be non-existent. The Cochetopa Hills area is often referred to the “dry side” of the GMUG National Forest because this area is in somewhat of a rain shadow of the higher San Juan mountains to the west. Precipitation totals for this area range between 16 to 25 inches annually which is about 40 to 60 percent of annual precipitation for Red Mountain Pass2 in the San Juans. The soils in the project area are predominately colluvium type soils with volcanic or tuff parent material. Most are classified as gravelly loams and gravelly sandy loams that have low water holding capacity and are generally well drained (NRCS WebSoilSurvey). There is no evidence of areas that could be considered as wetlands within the project area of the proposed action. Based on soil characteristics and precipitation totals, the project area would not be considered to be highly erosive but could be characterized as moderately erosive. There is little evidence of surface erosion in the project area. These loam and sandy loam soils can erode and

2 According to the most recent 6 years of precipitation data from NRCS Snotel monitoring sites for Red Mountain Pass and Cochetopa Pass the average total precipitation for Red Mountain was 43.5 inches and Cochetopa Pass annual total precipitation was 16.5 inches.

87 “unravel” rapidly when vegetative cover is removed and runoff is concentrated and/or accelerated. This is true for most all soil types and not unique to the project area. Watershed condition for the 6th Level Archuleta Creek HUC where the project area is located is classified as good and in proper functioning condition. This classification is based on the Forest Service Watershed Condition Framework (March, 2011).

No Action Environmental Consequences Under the no action alternative, essentially the CDNST would stay on a route that keeps travel on existing roads and trails. Because these roads and trails do not follow the Continental Divde through this area of the Cochetopa Hills they are at lower elevations. As a result, the existing roads and trails are in a different position within the watersheds and they cross several perennial and ephemeral streams as well as traverse some wet meadow areas. It is not known whether these wet meadow areas are wetlands. Some of the stream crossings use culverts to pass surface flows under the roadway, there are others where the stream crossings are fords. Most of these roads used for the CDNST under this no action alternative are user created (i.e., not designed or engineered) low level routes which typically are afforded little maintenance by the Forest Service. These roads receive little vehicle use except during the fall hunting seasons and for the most part create limited watershed damage. Under existing conditions there is some erosion from the road surfaces that results in increased sediment in adjacent creeks, increased turbidity and sediment when vehicles ford streams as well as some damage to wet meadow vegetation and compaction of wet soils in the valley bottoms. Examples of where these conditions exist are; on FR 785 along Lujan Creek, FR 878 along Pine Creek, FR 864.2A along Jakes Creek, and FR 597 along Van Tassel Creek. While there are environmental consequences to water quality and watershed condition in these specific locations, these impacts are somewhat seasonally limited and not considered to be severe under existing conditions. With no action there would be no change to the existing conditions.

Environmental Consequences of the Action Alternatives The construction and development of 31.2 miles of trail will expose approximately 11 acres of un-vegetated and compacted watershed area. Because this is a linear feature the exposed area will be a very small (approximately 3 feet wide) relative to the watershed area affected. There is a potential for these types of linear features to concentrate and accelerate runoff thereby increasing erosion on the running surface of the proposed trail. A new parking area adjacent to existing roadways would increase the surface area of exposed and un-vegetated soils, but these areas are actually relatively small to the overall watershed area and Forest Service handbook design/construction techniques can lessen or eliminate potential erosion and runoff impacts. Adherence to Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 2309.18 direction for trail pre-construction planning (Chapter 3), trail development direction (Chapter 20), and trail design elements (Chapter 5) would reduce or eliminate the concentration and/or acceleration of surface runoff

88 from the running surface of the proposed trail. Additionally, because the proposed trail will run along the ridgeline and the variations in slope along the trail would be slight (0 to 10 percent) there is less potential for there to be long segments of steep trail which is more susceptible to erosion. There would be no stream crossings and no identified wetland areas affected by the proposed trail alignment. There is little, to no potential to adversely impact water quality. Construction and development of the proposed trail and new parking area (½ acre) would not affect watershed condition ratings for the 6th level HUC sub-watershed.

Proper alignment of the short spur trail down to Luder’s Creek campground is important to avoid impacts to the adjacent drainage and riparian systems. Again, adherence to FSH direction for pre-construction planning should be sufficient to avoid potential adverse effects of a trail adjacent to a stream.

Variability of Consequences between the Three Action Alternatives. The three action alternatives are essentially differentiated by minor changes in the allowed mode of travel and ancillary facilities. While these variations differentiate the alternates, they create little change in the effects or consequences of each alternative on watershed conditions. The mode of travel on a trail does have the potential to effect erosion potential. While there are those that would suggest some forms of travel such as mountain bikes have the ability to disturb and detach surface soils more readily than other non-motorized travel, there are no known studies that specifically address the erosion rates of horseback use compared to mountain bike use. Field observations by Forest Service personnel on the GMUG indicate that more critical than the mode of travel is the frequency and number of users on a trail. Trails experiencing high volumes of traffic from any form of non-motorized travel can experience down-cutting of the trail and increased erosion over those trail segments with less use. Development of the proposed trail using proper and recommended design elements that appropriately address grade and drainage would be expected to be able to adequately handle all modes of non-motorized trail without adverse impacts to the running surface of the trial or with increased erosion. The installation of vaulted toilet(s) and the decommissioning of a short segment of non- motorized trial would not have a measurable effect on watershed conditions, but it is expected that these types of ancillary actions could be somewhat beneficial to watershed condition. They should help to eliminate or reduce the potential for improper human waste disposal and remediate a small area of un-vegetated and erodible landscape associated with the decommissioned trail segment.

Possible Mitigation Use of the Forest Service Region 2 Watershed Conservation Practices Handbook (FSH 2509.25) in the development of the proposed trail alignment, design elements and during construction

89 would aid in maintaining existing watershed condition. These practices which are commonly known as Best Management Practices (BMPs) when incorporated with direction and guidance contained in FSH 2309.18 should ensure minimal effects associated with erosion both during construction and from the use of the trail. Use of FSH 2509.18 and FSH 2509.25 in the development of the proposed trail would be consistent with the direction contained in the Forest Service National Best Management Practices for Water Quality Management on National Forest System Lands (Volume 1: National Core BMP Technical Guide, April 2012) publication.

Effects on Road/Transportation System The existing portion of the CDNST spanning from Lujan Pass to Cochetopa Creek follows numerous roads, including administrative routes closed to public motorized use, low standard 4x4 roads, and well established gravel roads. The proposed CDNST reroute would eliminate the vast majority of these roaded sections of the trail, replacing it with single-track along the continental divide. The access routes for either a day hiker or supply drop would remain the same however. The three major roads bisecting this section of trail, both existing and proposed reroute, are as follows: Highway 114, Old Cochetopa Pass Road NN-14, and Saguache Pass Road 787. By and large, the roads used for the existing trail alignment would not change if the CDNST was rerouted as proposed. The roads which are currently open to full sized vehicle that share an alignment with the trail would remain open. The only exception to system route management on the existing trail is a 2.0 mile section of converted road 7872.2D that would be decommissioned, though still legally open to hiker and horse use. Winter use of the area would have no foreseeable change in the scenario of the reroute, as no roads other than highway 114 are plowed for winter access along the trail. The roads in the area that are currently used by through-hikers are also used for fishing access, camping, and hunting. Under any of the alternatives, use other than through-hiking would presumably not see an impact by the absence of hikers, horseback riders, or bikers on the CDNST. Part of this is a result of non-competing interests, but it is also affected by the fact that the area is rather sparse during the summer months when the CDNST is actively used.

90

Effects on Traditional Grazing Use and Spread of Noxious Weeds

Affected Environment Portions of this project are located within two range cattle and horse (C&H) allotments on the Rio Grande National Forest (RGNF): 1) Spanish Creek allotment, and 2) Saguache Park allotment. There are approximately 8 miles in the Spanish Creek allotment and 6 miles in the Saguache Park allotment. The following permittees hold grazing permits on the aforementioned allotments: Table 1. Grazing allotments and permittees in the analysis area. Permittee: Allotment: Authorized Numbers: Status: Available season: Gary and Alice Hill Spanish Creek 126 cow/calf pairs Term 06/01-10/15 Coleman Ranches Inc. Spanish Creek 126 cow/calf pairs Term 06/01-10/15 /LD Ranch Corp. Saguache Park 530 cow/calf pairs Term 06/01-10/05 2 horses 05/01-10/30 Gary and Alice Hill Saguache Park 415 cow/calf pairs Term 06/01-10/05 2 horses 05/01-10/30 Flying X Cattle Co. Saguache Park 516 cow/calf pairs Term 06/01-10/05 2 horses 05/01-10/30

91 Edwin and Anne Nielsen Saguache Park 49 cow/calf pairs Term 06/01-10/05 1 horse 05/01-10/30 Howard Funk Saguache Park 50 cow/calf pairs Term 06/01-10/05 1 horse 05/01-10/30 Cuervo Land and Cattle Saguache Park 230 cow/calf pairs Term 06/01-10/05 3 horses 05/01-10/30

The Spanish Creek and Saguache Park C&H allotments are grazed using rotational grazing strategies. Annual grazing plans are developed every spring. Livestock are controlled using a variety of management techniques including standard barbed-wire fences, temporary electric fences, riding/herding, salting and livestock behavior. A number of range improvements are located on the allotments. While none of these improvements, other than existing fences, are known at this time to be within the proposed CDNST reroute areas, if any are encountered, these improvements need to be protected from disturbance during construction and operation. Several pasture or allotment boundary fences may be encountered along the reroute area. The analysis area on the RGNF has had limited noxious plant inventory due to the remote location. There is a known population of Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense) at the Luder’s Creek campground and downy brome (bromus tectorum) populations along access roadways in the analysis area. These populations are treated annually.

Environmental Consequences The proposed project is not anticipated to have any effects on range resources in terms of grazing system, livestock management, forage resources, or access. Potential minor effects from the proposed action that are anticipated include impacts to range improvements and possible increases in noxious plant populations due to ground disturbing activities. Impacts to range improvements –Gates are susceptible to being left open by trail users resulting in unplanned livestock movement and possible endangerment of livestock. Noxious plant infestations – ground-disturbing activities create opportunities for infestations of noxious plants. The sources of these plant seeds can be air-born, vehicle-born or transported by wildlife, livestock, or people. Any area where the existing vegetation is removed and bare soil is left exposed creates a potential site for noxious plant infestations. Establishment of a new trail route and the disturbance associated with establishing parking areas and toilets will expose soils, thus providing sites and opportunities for establishment of noxious plants. If mitigated per below, resultant noxious plant levels would not rise above current levels along an established trail and parking areas, and would result in no long term impact.

92 Recommended Mitigation Measures Any fences on the RGNF that require breaching to allow user passage will be modified with properly constructed walk-around structures in addition to gates to minimize the occurrence of gates being left open by hikers. All gates will require proper signage to inform the public to close the gate. The UTM coordinates of all gate locations will be given to the RGNF range specialist for entry into the Forest Service database of record. Maintenance of gates and walk- around structures will be listed as protected improvements and monitored. The proposed trail relocation area currently has minimal existing noxious plant infestations; therefore the most important mitigation will be to minimize new noxious plant seed into the area. Implementation of the following will minimize the introduction of noxious plants to the project area. 1. All equipment/tools used in the project area will be washed and free of noxious plant seed prior to entering the project area. 2. Contractors will be required to certify that their equipment has been properly cleaned prior to entering the project area. It is likely that trail work done using hand tools will not require reseeding. In heavily disturbed sites where there are larger areas of disturbance, such as parking areas and toilet installation areas, reseeding is recommended. All reseeding should be done using a Forest Service approved seed mix. It is recommended that approved seed mixtures from either the Saguache R.D. or the Gunnison R.D be utilized for any needed reseeding. The recommended seed mixture from the RGNF reclamation prescriptions (1998) are attached (see Recommended Seed Mixtures below). The seed may be broad-cast applied. However, the soil surfaces need to be firm enough to prevent erosion, but loose enough to allow the seed sprouts to penetrate the soil. The seeding should be down by the end of the growing season in which the disturbance takes place. Fall seeding, on snow, is often the best time to seed in the elevations of the project area. Natural materials should be used for erosion and sediment control. Cut brush and or aspen should be used to construct silt and sediment control structures. Engelmann spruce and Douglas-fir should not be used due to the increased risk of bark beetle infestation. Silt fencing has been used on a variety of mining activities on the district and it is often torn down by livestock and wildlife. Natural materials have the additional benefit of not having to be picked up once re-vegetation has been completed.

Recommended Seed Mixtures This prescription is for well drained sites from about 8,300 to 10,400 feet above sea level and is characterized by ponderosa pine, mixed conifers, Douglas-fir, white fir, Arizona fescue and mountain muhly habitat types. Aspen is the dominant seral tree species following disturbance.

93

PRIMARY SPECIES Pure Live Recommended Varieties Percent Sodformer/ Native/ Seed lbs/ac. (Planting season Mix Bunchgrass Introduced Broadcast S=Spring; Summer, F=Fall) Noncritical Arriba Western Wheatgrass 35 Sodformer Native 6.3 (Pascopyron smithii) syn: (Agropyron smithii) (F/S) Mountain Brome, Bromar 20 Sodformer Native 3.9 Not listed in Weber, syn: (Bromus marginatus) (S/F) Arizona Fescue Redondo 20 Bunchgrass Native 0.6 (Festuca arizonica) Prairie Junegrass 15 Bunchgrass Native 0.20 (Koeleria macrantha) syn: (Koeleria cristata) Bandera Rocky Mountain 5 Forb Native 1.0 Pentstemon (Penstemon strictus) Blue (Lewis) Flax 5 Forb Native 0.5 (Adenolinum lewisii) syn: (Linum lewisii) For noncritical, broadcast rate (most FS needs) 10.7 lbs/acre Possible seed sources: Arkansas Valley Seed Solutions 877-957-3337; 4625 Colorado Blvd, Denver, CO 80216 Pawnee Butte Seed Co. 970-356-7002; P.O. Box 1604, Greeley, CO 80632 Sharp Bros, Seed Co.

94 CHAPTER 5: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION The Forest Service consulted the following individuals, Federal, State, and local agencies, tribes and non-Forest Service persons during the development of this environmental assessment: ID TEAM MEMBERS: Jeff Burch – ID Team Leader, Environmental Coordinator, GMUG NF Barry Johnston – Botanist, GMUG NF Crystal Powell – Recreation and Lands Program Manager, Rio Grande NF Angie Krall – Archaeologist, Rio Grande NF Lisa VanAmburg – Rangeland Management Specialist, Rio Grande NF Randy Ghormley – Wildlife Staff Rio Grande National NF Doug Middlebrook –Wildlife Biologist, Gary Shellhorn – Forest Hydrologist, GMUG NF Mary Nelson – Forester, Saguache District Garth Gantt – Engineering Technician, Gunnison District Joe Laughlin – Recreation Trails Technician, Gunnison District OTHER William Apple (Trail Angel)

95