Environmental Assessment Allenspark Recreational Shooting Project
Environmental United States Department of Agriculture Assessment
Forest Service Allenspark Recreational Shooting Project June 2011
Boulder Ranger District, Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests and Pawnee National Grassland Boulder County, Colorado
T. 2N, R. 71 W, section 4
For Information Contact: Cat Luna 2140 Yarmouth Ave. Boulder, CO 80301 303-541-2508 Draft Environmental Assessment Allenspark Recreational Shooting Project
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) 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 USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 14th and Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (202) 720-5964 (voice and TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.
Environmental Assessment Allenspark Recreational Shooting Project
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BACKGROUND
The Forest Service has prepared this Environmental Assessment (EA) in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other relevant Federal and State laws and regulations. This Environmental Assessment discloses the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental effects that would result from the Proposed Action of building a shooting range at the former Allenspark Dumpsite and alternatives to the proposed action as well as the no action alternative.
Chapter 1 and Chapter 2 serve as an executive summary.
Chapter 1 includes information on the history of the proposed project, the purpose of and need for the project, and the agency’s proposal for achieving that purpose and need.
Chapter 2 provides a more detailed description of the agency’s Proposed Action as well as alternative methods for achieving the stated purpose. This section also details how the Forest Service informed the public of the proposal and how the public responded. The alternatives were developed based on significant issues raised by the public and other agencies. This discussion also includes possible design criteria. Finally, this section provides a summary table of the environmental effects associated with each alternative and includes a discussion of the no action alternative as well.
Chapter 3 contains detailed information of the Affected Environment and environmental effects of implementing the Proposed Action or the alternatives.
The appendices provide more detailed information to support the analyses presented in the Environmental Assessment.
A list of agencies and persons consulted and contacted is included as well as a glossary for technical terms.
Note: Comments received in response to this solicitation, including names and addresses of those who comment, will be considered part of the public record on this Proposed Action and will be available for public inspection. Comments submitted anonymously will be accepted and considered; however, those who only submit anonymous comments will not have standing to appeal the subsequent decision under 36 CFR Part 215. Additionally, pursuant to 7 CFR 1.27(d), any person may request the agency to withhold a submission from the public record by showing how the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) permits such confidentiality. Persons requesting such confidentiality should be aware that, under the FOIA, confidentiality may be granted in only very limited circumstances, such as to protect trade secrets. The Forest Service will inform the requester of the agency's decision regarding the request for confidentiality, and where the request is denied; the agency will return the submission and notify the requester that the comments may be resubmitted with or without name and address within 15 days.
Environmental Assessment Allenspark Recreational Shooting Project
Table of Contents
Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need for Action 1.0 Introduction ...... 1 1.1 Project Background and Need ...... 2 1.2 Forest Plan Direction ...... 2 1.3 Purpose of the Project ...... 3 1.4 Decision Framework ...... 3 1.5 Public Involvement ...... 3 1.6 Key Issues ...... 4
Chapter 2 – Alternatives 2.0 Introduction ...... 6 2.1 Alternatives ...... 6 2.2 Alternative Comparisons ...... 13 2.3 Alternatives Dropped from Detailed Study ...... 14 2.4 Environmental Effects Comparisons of Alternatives ...... 15
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects 3.0 Introduction ...... 18 3.1 Recreation ...... 18 3.2 Hazardous Materials ...... 26 3.3 Watershed ...... 29 3.4 Soils and Air ...... 36 3.5 Wildlife, Fish and Plants ...... 42 3.6 Heritage ...... 55
Appendices A: Issues from Scoping on the Proposed Action ...... 59 B: Allenspark Dumpsite Potential Concept Plan...... 69 C: Glossary ...... 71 D: References ...... 77 E: Consultation, Coordination, and Interdisciplinary Team ...... 81
Environmental Assessment Allenspark Recreational Shooting Project
List of Tables
Table 1: Quick Guide Comparison of Alternatives ...... 13 Table 2: Effects Comparisons of Alternatives ...... 15 Table 3: PTES Species and MIS Included in Project Analysis ...... 44 Table 4: Summary of Determinations/Estimation of Effects ...... 52
List of Figures
Figure 1: Recreation Discussion Map ...... 19 Figure 2: Watershed Discussion Map ...... 30
Environmental Assessment Allenspark Recreational Shooting Project
CChhaapptteerr 11 –– PPuurrppoossee aanndd NNeeeedd ffoorr AAccttiioonn 1.0 Introduction ______
This Environmental Assessment (EA) describes and discloses the direct, indirect and cumulative environmental effects of the proposed action, the no action alternative, and one other alternative to the proposed action for developing a designated shooting area at the former Allenspark Dumpsite to minimize the risks of bullets leaving Forest land and travelling onto nearby private land. This EA is not a decision. Following the review of public comments on this document, the deciding official (the Boulder District Ranger) will make a decision and it will be described and explained in a Decision Notice along with a summary of the comments received on the EA.
Location
This project is approximately 135 acres of National Forest system land on the Boulder Ranger District of the Roosevelt National Forest in Boulder County, Colorado. Project boundaries are broken into two parcels as depicted on the map below. The larger parcel s approximately 98 acres and the smaller parcel is approximately 37 acres. The project area is approximately a quarter mile east of the intersections of State Highway 7 and State Highway 72. The area location is as follows: T. 2N, R. 71 W, section 4. The former Allenspark Dumpsite is located in the North St. Vrain Geographic Area, as described in the 1997 Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests and Pawnee National Grassland Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan
pgs. 97 to 99).
1
Environmental Assessment Allenspark Recreational Shooting Project
1.1 Project Background and Need ______
The former Allenspark Dumpsite is a popular area on the Boulder Ranger District for sport shooting. The site where people mostly concentrate to shoot is a small, mostly isolated parcel surrounded by developed residential private land. The concentrated site where people shoot is just north approximately 100 yards off of State Highway 7 in the central portion of the 98 acre parcel (the larger parcel) shown on the map on page 1. There are five (5) houses within 1/2 mile (one of which is just outside of 1/2 mile) of the dumpsite and approximately 82 houses and structures within a mile radius of where people shoot. Access to the area is provided by State Highway 7, which runs through the lower quarter of the site. It offers quick and easy access from Longmont and Boulder, offers year round shooting opportunities, and provides an area that is flat with hillsides to prop targets with backstops present. Several shooters can be shooting at one time in this area throughout the week and at different times of the day. While the majority of shooting has been observed in what appears to be a safe manner, this heavy use pattern along with the topography and the close proximity to private land, as well as some unsafe shooting practices, has led to increased concern for public safety.
As background, eighteen incidents of near misses to residents on the surrounding private land were documented between 2008 through December 2009. Additional documented incidents have occurred since then. This Environmental Analysis (EA) will address the hazard created when bullets from recreational shooting at the former Allenspark Dumpsite and southeasterly adjoining parcel cross onto adjacent developed private property and pass near residents and structures.
The smaller 38 acre parcel to the southeast of the larger 98 acres parcel (see map page 1) is also included in this study because of the possibility of stray bullets leaving this site and straying onto the surrounding private land as well.
1.2 Forest Plan Direction ______
The former Allenspark Dump is located within the Middle St. Vrain Geographic Area of the 1997 Revision of the Land and Resource Management Plan (pages 89-91)(Forest Plan). One of the goals of this geographic area is to emphasize motorized and non-motorized recreational opportunities in the majority of the area.
The management area prescription in the Forest Plan for these two parcels is 4.2- Scenery. Scenic areas are managed to protect or preserve scenic values and recreational uses of designated scenic byways and other heavily used scenic travel corridors. Sounds from people or motorized recreational activities are usually common, and there are limited opportunities for solitude or isolation. Use may be concentrated or dispersed in these areas. A social type of recreational experience may be provided under this management prescription. Developed recreational sites may also be common and are often emphasized in these travel corridors.
2
Environmental Assessment Allenspark Recreational Shooting Project
1.3 Purpose of the Project ______
The purpose of the project is to minimize the risk of bullets travelling from the former Allenspark Dumpsite and adjoining southeasterly parcel (National Forest System lands) onto the surrounding private lands.
1.4 Decision Framework ______
Given the purpose and need, the deciding official (the Boulder District Ranger) reviews the Proposed Action and the other alternatives in order to make the following determinations:
The proposed recreation management/development project complies with applicable standards and guidelines found in the Forest Plan and all laws governing Forest Service actions. Sufficient site-specific environmental analysis has been completed. The proposed project benefits the public and is in their best interest.
With these assurances the deciding official (the Boulder District Ranger) must decide: Whether or not to accept the Proposed Action or one of the alternatives which includes the No Action Alternative. What, if any, additional actions should be required to better manage natural resources and recreational opportunities in the project area.
1.5 Public Involvement ______
On May 20, 2010, a scoping letter was mailed to over 275 recipients via the U.S. Postal Service and to over 175 recipients by electronic mail. The mailing lists included individuals, organizations, and local governments. Additionally, a legal notice was posted in the Boulder Daily Camera on May 24, 2010 announcing the scoping and official 30 day comment period for the Allenspark Recreational Shooting Project per direction in Forest Service handbook 1909.15. The project and all pertaining documents were also posted on the Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forest’s website. The purpose of this letter and public notice was to inform the public that the Boulder Ranger District was beginning the Allenspark Recreational Shooting Project. The letter also detailed that the District was asking for issues, comments and suggestions associated with the proposed action described in the letter and posted online at the project’s website. At the end of the comment period, over 530 responses were received by the Boulder Ranger District. The input received was used to identify the key issues as explained in the next section which were then used to develop alternatives to address those issues.
3
Environmental Assessment Allenspark Recreational Shooting Project
In addition to developing key issues and alternatives, public input, along with internal field visits to nearby shooting ranges, resulted in changes to the proposed action (please see page 5 for a full description of the proposed action). These changes include:
Eliminating the proposed skeet shooting area Increasing the berm sizes from 20 feet to 40 feet and expanding the east side of the site approximately one acre to accommodate the new berm size should one that size be needed. The range will operate no more than 10 hours a day during daylight hours. The hours of operation will be established by the organization, concessionaire, or club selected to manage the site with Forest Service approval. Extending the current shooting closure until the range is constructed and operational. Phase 2 has been eliminated and all action items are in one implementation schedule.
Public input also indicated that having scoping and the official 30 day comment period together was not sufficient for them to understand the proposal and its environmental effects. In response to their concerns, the Forest Service determined that this initial comment period would be used solely for scoping to determine issues and alternatives and that the official 30 day comment period would follow the completion of the EA.
1.6 Key Issues ______
Both the public comments received on the proposed action during the scoping period and issues raised internally by the Interdisciplinary Team were carefully reviewed in this analysis. Chapter 3 addresses both the Key issues and Other Issues. The identified issues are broken into three groups:
1. Key Issues. Key issues are used to develop and analyze the alternatives. (see Chapters 2 and 3 of this document.) They involve potential effects to resources that might not be addressed by existing laws, Forest Plan standards and guidelines, policies, or design criteria.
2. Other Issues. These issues can be addressed by existing laws, Standards and Guidelines, policies or design criteria. (See Chapter 3 of this document for discussion of effects to these “Other Issues” by alternative.)
3. Issues Dismissed from Detailed Analysis. These issues are not given detailed analysis because the potential effects do not vary between alternatives and/or the effects are not expected to be significant, can be mitigated, or are not within the scope of this document.
4
Environmental Assessment Allenspark Recreational Shooting Project
The following are the issues and questions raised during public and internal scoping efforts applicable to this proposed project. These issues have been separated into the three groups as described above:
Key Issues:
Developing a known former dump will introduce toxicity into the soil and water.
Developing the site into a shooting range could increase lead levels, both airborne and in the soil.
How will the site be secured to prevent people from entering the site and shooting when the site is closed?
Bullets can stray from the site despite implementing the proposed action.
Other Issues:
Wildlife will be disturbed by the shooting.
The site should be closed to shooting during breeding season.
Effects to Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species and to Management Indictor Species
Effects to Cultural Resources
Issues Dismissed from Detailed Analysis:
See Appendix A - Issues from Scoping on the Proposed Action, for a listing and brief discussion on the issues dismissed from detailed analysis.
5
Environmental Assessment Allenspark Recreational Shooting Project
CCHHAAPPTTEERR 22 –– AALLTTEERRNNAATTIIVVEESS
2.0 Introduction ______This chapter describes and compares a range of reasonable alternatives considered for the Allenspark Recreational Shooting Project. Applicable specific project design criteria and monitoring are described in this chapter for the alternatives as well. Also included in this chapter are alternatives considered but eliminated from further analysis.
2.1 Alternatives ______Three alternatives were studied in detail. These include: Alternative A: The No Action Alternative (as required by law) Alternative B: Proposed Action: Range Development Alternative C: Site Closure to Recreational Shooting
Alternative A – No Action Under Alternative A, the No Action Alternative, the site would reopen to recreational shooting when the current temporary shooting closure expires on December 31, 2012. Site conditions would return to the same conditions before the temporary closure was put into effect in April, 2010. Shooting activities would return to similar use levels and patterns of use and would return to previous conditions before the temporary closure was put in place. The site and shooting activities would remain unregulated under this alternative, except for occasional patrols by the Boulder Ranger District and by the Boulder County Sheriff Department for compliance with current Forest Service shooting regulations. The safety issue of bullets leaving the site and traveling onto private land would also reemerge under Alternative A when the temporary closure is lifted.
There are no design criteria or monitoring activities for Alternative A because there are no new actions under this alternative. With no new actions, all management of the site would remain the same as pre-closure with no new design criteria. Monitoring activities would also revert back to pre-closure and include occasional patrols as described in the previous paragraph.
Alternative B – Proposed Action: Range Development
The proposed action would establish a designated shooting range at the former Allenspark Dumpsite and initiate management actions that would reduce the risk of bullets passing from National Forest System land onto surrounding private land. The actual range design will be contracted to a range design expert using the design criteria included as part of this alternative.
6
Environmental Assessment Allenspark Recreational Shooting Project
Please see Appendix B for a potential concept plan for this alternative. Specifics of the proposed action include:
5-15 shooting Stations 25 yards in length 5-15 shooting stations 50 yards in length 4-10 shooting stations 100 yards in length Shooting stations will include overhead baffling designed to control the vertical pitch of the firearm, brass receptacles, a target mount and bullet trap. Only paper and metal targets designed for shooting as permitted under Forest Order #10-00-2010-01 will be allowed . Berms will be placed in appropriate areas to ensure shooter safety, protect nearby private land from stray bullets, and for sound mitigation. Backstop berms will be up to 40 feet in height for the purposes of this analysis, all other berms will be up to 8 to 20 feet in height. The east side of the current existing site will be expanded approximately one acre to accommodate a 40 foot berm. Actual berm height will be determined in the engineering and design of the range for all berms. Backstop berms may be less than 40 feet depending on the design requirements for backstop berms to function properly. A hardened walkway will provide designated routing to all shooting areas within the site Parking for 15-40 vehicles Unisex vault toilet Trash receptacles and recycling stations Close the 98 acre area to all activities (including hunting) except shooting. This is the larger parcel found on the location map on page 1 in Chapter 1. Close the 37 acre parcel to shooting. All other legal activities will be allowed. This is the smaller parcel found on the location map on page 1 in Chapter 1. Require that the range be managed and supervised under a Forest Service special use permit by an organization, concessionaire, or club and that the range can only be open for operation with onsite presence by the special use permittee. The range will operate no more than 10 hours a day during daylight hours. The hours of operation will be established by the organization, concessionaire, or club selected to manage the site with Forest Service approval. Provide a range manager facility for the special use permittee to conduct operations. Information Kiosk that will include the rules of the range, shooting information, and education. Extend the current shooting closure until the range is fully constructed and operational.
Design Criteria and Monitoring for Alternative B: Range Development
In response to public comments on the proposal and specialist input, design criteria and monitoring activities were developed to address the potential effects of implementing Alternative B. Design Criteria and monitoring can also come from Forest Service policy and regulations.
Design Criteria
Ensure the developed target shooting range and support facilities are designed and operated consistent with Forest Service Manual (FSM) 2709.11, Chapter 40, 41.46 (a-j), Special Use Administration, Target Ranges.
7
Environmental Assessment Allenspark Recreational Shooting Project
Work closely with professional range design architect/engineer to ensure range-related recreation activities are compatible, and related operational recommendations remain consistent with project area objectives. Ensure the developed range Shooters-At-One- Time (SAOT) does not exceed range design and user capacity is no greater than observed in the past.
A minimum of 40-acres of National Forest within the 98-acre parcel, surrounding range development area, will be identified and managed as an integral component of the proposed recreation site. This area will be called the “maintained area”. The purpose of the maintained area is to ensure effective implementation of the proposed action. The maintained area will facilitate vegetation management, help achieve sound barrier objectives, sustain scenic resources, and improve target shooter experience by providing an appealing forest landscape backdrop. More importantly, perimeter identification will further enhance success of actions intended to ensure bullets are contained in the project area, facilitate improved safety for range users, and caution those that are unaware of regulatory requirements and wander unknowingly into the area. Wildlife friendly fencing will be used where needed to secure the range when closed. Given capacity constraints, shooter activity objectives and other factors such as topography it’s unlikely the developed range could be placed in another location within the project area.
Project construction and management activities occurring within the Colorado Department of Transportation right-of-way (ROW) will be coordinated with CDOT.
Project construction activities will not be conducted on Memorial Day, 4th of July and Labor Day holiday weekends and Sundays.
Operating times for heavy equipment and chainsaws are limited to the hours of 7 a.m. to 7 p.m., except when conducted by permittee after construction.
Public outreach and notification will occur prior to construction or other major project activities, to raise public awareness.
Warning signs and on-site announcements will be used to notify recreation enthusiasts of impending project activities. For the duration of construction and other project implementation, operations will require warning signs, speed limit signs and may include traffic control during the high-use season.
Emphasize compliance patrols during the construction period to ensure compliance with extended temporary closure order. Establish monitoring and compliance patrols with other local agencies, neighborhood watch volunteers and range permittee.
Site furnishings and architecture will be carefully selected to maintain a “rustic” character consistent with the Rocky Mountain Province as described in the Forest Service Built Environment Image Guide (2001) and the Roaded Natural setting to the greatest extent possible.
Building materials will be native rock, wood and other natural materials when they are available and practical to use. Use manufactured materials identified in FSM 2709.11 as needed.
8
Environmental Assessment Allenspark Recreational Shooting Project
Design will incorporate universal design principles as much as practicable. Facility amenities will consider easy access for persons with disabilities.
The hardened walkway design will provide administrative access for motor vehicles.
Public access to the formal range will be provided at the entrance identified at Highway 7. Public access will be prohibited within the formal range when the range is not open to the public. Perimeter fencing will be designed to allow safe, easy wildlife passage and be designed to discourage trespass by people into the formal range area.
Design will incorporate use of existing and/or previously used areas as much as possible for development and designation of facilities.
Areas closed to future use or disturbed by facility construction will be revegetated with local native vegetation. Revegetation will mimic the color, distribution and texture of the natural ground cover and/or forest conditions. The proposed development will protect and integrate existing vegetation, and rock to the extent possible.
Site disturbance and unnatural contouring such as cut and fill slopes and linear features will be minimized in all areas not designed for shooting range management. A combination of berms, vegetation, boulders and/or low rock retaining walls will be used to buffer views as seen from adjacent private land, Highway 7, and from within the site where feasible.
The range designer will incorporate the design concepts found in chapter 3, section 3.5, of the National Shooting Sports Foundation's Environmental Aspects of Construction and Management of Outdoor Shooting Ranges which provides information on range siting and orientation and includes a site checklist, a summary of ecological criteria for range siting, and recommendations about the type of sites to avoid when locating target ranges. In addition, they will incorporate the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)’s Best Management Practices (BMP) Manual and section 1, chapter 3, article 2, of the NRA Range Source Book t for making siting recommendations.
The Forest Service shall complete a baseline Site Condition Assessment to establish the baseline conditions for the proposed shooting range for future monitoring of soil and watershed conditions.
The special use permittee shall complete the Toxic Release Inventory reporting under the Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act (EPCRA) if shooting range waste thresholds are exceeded.
Avoid, if feasible, disturbing the soil capping the old dump. If it is not feasible to avoid disturbance, perform a site investigation prior to disturbance to determine the presence of hazardous or toxic compounds in the dump, and prescribe design criteria to avoid mobilizing such compounds.
Avoid, if feasible, creating berms on top of the filled (eastern) portion of the dump. If avoidance is not feasible, perform a stability analysis and develop measures to limit subsidence and slope failure risk.
Include lead recovery into site design and shooting range operations. 9
Environmental Assessment Allenspark Recreational Shooting Project
Design drainage swales into site drainage to trap lead fragments transported in surface runoff, to promote infiltration, and to reduce surface runoff.
Berm construction along the eastern side of the site will impede surface runoff. Design site drainage to route surface runoff around or through the berm.
Provide temporary erosion control and revegetation to limit erosion and sedimentation.
Develop scaled project design plans that include design details to address construction best management practices, surface drainage on and adjacent to the site, design specifics for berm construction and stability, re-vegetation, and erosion control. Plans will be reviewed and approved by the project Soil Scientist or Hydrologist prior to implementation to ensure compliance with Forest Plan direction for protection of soil and water resources. Directly applicable watershed protection management measures, fully described in the Watershed Conservation Practices Handbook (FSH 2509.25), are: 11.1, 11.2, 13.1, 13.2, 13.3, 13.4, 15.1 and 15.2.
Project should include all relevant best management practices described in Best Management Practices for Lead at Outdoor Shooting Ranges. EPA-902-B-01-001 Revised June 2005.
Project should include all relevant guidance outlined in Corrective Action at Outdoor Shooting Ranges Guidance by Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment Hazardous Materials and Waste Management Division, January 2005.
Develop a Hazardous Materials Report (site characterization and environmental fate of dumped materials and human health risks/environmental effects by alternative). Use report to inform project design and protect soil/water resources and human health.
To address lead contamination in air and associated safety concerns: o Implement erosion control/dust abatement measures to lower the risk for wind erosion and associated airborne lead o Measures to reduce exposure to airborne lead include well ventilated shooting stations and on-site range protective equipment for respiratory and skin protection
Require the permittee that manages the range to provide information to shooting range users about the effects of lead on wildlife and to encourage the use of lead-free ammunition.
Prior to any ground disturbance for shooting range construction, a Forest Service wildlife biologist will visit the forested acre east of the former dump site and conduct bird and/or other surveys if deemed necessary. If additional wildlife concerns are identified, the wildlife biologist will provide appropriate measures to minimize or eliminate effects.
Prior to any ground disturbance for range construction, conduct botany surveys on approximately one acre east of the dump site and if any Forest Service Sensitive or rare plant species are found, work with a Forest Service botanist to avoid or minimize effects.
10
Environmental Assessment Allenspark Recreational Shooting Project
If feasible, avoid impacting the plant species of local concern, buckbrush/Fendler’s ceanothus (Ceanothus fendleri), located adjacent to the southwest portion of the former dump site.
If any fencing is installed, a Forest Service wildlife biologist will coordinate with the Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW) regarding fence design, and fence design will incorporate applicable guidelines from the CDOW publication “Fencing with Wildlife in Mind.”
If revegetation will occur, a Forest Service botanist will approve any seed mix used.
Consult with a Forest Service botanist regarding seed testing if revegetation will occur.
Comply with FS Rocky Mountain Region Order NO. 02-2005-01 requiring use of certified weed-free hay, straw, or mulch in all Forest Service activities
To minimize risk of noxious weed introduction and spread, insure that all equipment is clean, i.e., free of mud, dirt, plant parts, and seeds, or other debris that could contain or hold seeds, prior to entering the project area. Equipment will be considered free of soil and other debris when a visual inspection does not disclose such material. Disassembly of equipment components or specialized tools is not required.
For any soil or fill material to be imported to the site, including for berm construction, the Forest Service reserves the right to inspect the dirt sources for Colorado-listed noxious weeds prior to transport of soil/fill material to the site, and may reject the soil/fill material if any listed weeds, or their seeds, are found on or in it.
Monitoring
Ensure the developed target shooting range and support facilities are monitored consistent with FSM 2709.11 and as other regulations apply. Coordinate routine monitoring and compliance patrols with other local agencies, neighborhood watch volunteers and range permittee.
Review and monitor the developed target shooting range planning, design engineering and administration of special use permit for overall compliance with FSM 2709.11 and applicable regulations.
Review and monitor the professional range design layout, implementation schedule, and construction to insure compliance with Best Management Practices, design criteria and special use permit requirements and contractual agreements.
Monitor regulatory compliance within the managed range area to ensure compliance with design criteria requirements.
Monitor regulatory compliance of dispersed parking and area closures to ensure compliance with design criteria requirements
11
Environmental Assessment Allenspark Recreational Shooting Project
Monitor designated parking capacity and recreation displacement to ensure compliance with plan objectives.
Monitor the response to education and information to evaluate the success in achieving management plan objectives.
Conduct implementation monitoring throughout the construction process for correct application of ARNF-PNG watershed conservation practices and project design criteria. Continue effectiveness monitoring on an annual basis.
The Forest Service will monitor the site for noxious weeds for at least three years after construction and treat any weeds that appear, based on weed species priorities and available resources.
Alternative C: Site Closure to Recreational Shooting
Alternative C closes both the 98 acre parcel and the southeasterly adjoining 37 acre parcel (map on page 1) to recreational shooting by recommending to the Forest Supervisor to issue a Forest Supervisor's order to close the parcels to recreational shooting. All other legal activities, including hunting, would be allowed under this alternative. Barriers and signage would be placed at key access points to implement the closure on the ground. Additional barriers and signage would be installed as necessary if new access points are discovered after the closure has been implemented. Routine patrols by law enforcement and forest service personnel would also help to ensure the effectiveness of the closure. No site reclamation is proposed under this alternative.
This alternative addresses the purpose and need of this project by eliminating the activity causing bullets to stray from National Forest system lands onto nearby private land at the former Allenspark dumpsite .
Design Criteria and Monitoring for Alternative C: Site Closure to Recreational Shooting
In response to public comments on the proposal and specialist input, design criteria and monitoring activities were developed to address the potential effects of implementing Alternative C. Design Criteria and monitoring can also come from Forest Service policy and regulations.
Design Criteria
Design features used to improve effectiveness of the target shooting closure should use the Forest Services’ Built Environment Image Guide and Roaded Natural standards when applicable. Avoid closure features that have potential to become an attractive nuisance.
12
Environmental Assessment Allenspark Recreational Shooting Project
Monitoring
Emphasize monitoring and compliance patrols during the start up period for the permanent closure order.
Monitor effectiveness of closure on an on-going basis for compliance.
2.2 Alternative Comparisons ______
The following table is designed to compare the elements of the alternatives.
Table 1: QUICK GUIDE COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES Action Item Alternative Alternative Alternative A B C (No Action) (Proposed (Site Closure to Action) Shooting) Provides shooting stations at 25, 50 and 100 X yards Berms for increased safety and noise buffering X Parking X Toilet Facilities X Trash receptacles and recycling stations X Close the 98 acre area to all activities, X (including hunting) but recreational shooting (larger parcel on map page 1) Restricted hours of operation X Managed by concessionaire or shooting club X with a Range Master Information kiosk X Close the 98 acre (larger parcel on map page X 1) area to shooting and allow all other activities, including hunting Recommend Forest Service Closure order to X prohibit recreational shooting on all 135 acres Install barriers and signs as needed to X implement shooting closure on all 135 acres Open all 135 acres back up to recreational X shooting after the current closure order expires in December 2012. Close the southeasterly 37 acre parcel to X X recreational shooting (smaller parcel on map page 1). All other legal activities, including hunting, would be allowed.
13
Environmental Assessment Allenspark Recreational Shooting Project
2.3 Alternatives Dropped from Detailed Study ______The alternatives eliminated from detailed consideration, along with the rationale for their dismissal, are as follows:
1. Provide a developed shooting range as described in the proposed action, but not staffed and/or supervised. This alternative was dropped from detailed study because it decreases the success of achieving the purpose and need of the project. Without staffing and supervision, chances are increased for improper shooting behavior that results in stray bullets leaving the site and travelling onto the surrounding private land.
2. Build an indoor range. This alternative was dropped from consideration because it is outside of the scope of this project. It was also considered to be incongruent with the type of opportunities sought and provided for in forest settings
3. Close the Allenspark Dump to recreational shooting and place the shooting range somewhere else. It is outside the scope of this project to consider locating a shooting range elsewhere. The purpose and need for this project is to address the safety issues of recreational shooting at this specific site. Closing the site to shooting however, has been incorporated through Alternative C.
14
Environmental Assessment Allenspark Recreational Shooting Project
2.4 Environmental Effects Comparisons of Alternatives The following table summarizes the effects analysis for all of the alternatives documented in Chapter 3 of this EA.
Table 2: Effects Comparison of Alternatives Key Issues Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C No Action Proposed Action Closure to Shooting Potential for soil and water contamination If the soil covering the old dump was disturbed Potential for soil and water contamination from from the old dump would remain during construction of the shooting range to a the old dump would remain unchanged. Developing a unchanged. There does not appear to be depth that would expose the contents of the There does not appear to be any surface known former any surface material or liquid movement old dump, there would be an increased but material or liquid movement out of the dump dump will out of the dump site, but groundwater unknown risk that hazardous or toxic contents site, but groundwater effects are unknown. introduce effects are unknown. within the dump would be made available for toxicity into the water-borne transport to Middle St. Vrain soil and water. Creek. The risk is unknown because the contents of the dump are unknown. Lead from spent ammunition would While lead from spent ammunition would Lead from spent ammunition that accumulated continue to accumulate at the site. While continue to be introduced to the site, bullet at the site prior to closure would remain. If the risk of surface or groundwater traps and lead recovery could reduce the rate enforcement of the closure is not completely contamination traveling off-site would be of lead accumulation in the soil. If lead effective, and some shooting continues to low, lead in the soil would increase. recovery was effective at recovering old lead occur, lead could continue to accumulate at (deposited prior to the construction of the the site, but at lower rates than in Alternative Airborne lead can be a potential risk to range), it is possible that total lead in the soil A. Whether lead accumulation would be lower shooters. However, because lead is so would be reduced. for Alternative B or C would depend on the Developing the dense, it is unlikely to remain airborne for effectiveness of lead recovery for Alternative B site into a long and the risk is generally limited to Airborne lead can be a potential risk to and the frequency of illegal shooting for shooting range direct exposure on the site, rather than a shooters and range workers. However, Alternative C. While the risk of surface or could increase larger off-site exposure risk. Lead in soils because lead is so dense, it is unlikely to groundwater contamination traveling off-site lead levels, and dust may potentially become airborne remain airborne for long and the risk is would be low, lead in the soil would remain or both airborne if wind erosion of contaminated soil occurs. generally limited to direct exposure on the site, may increase slightly. and in the soil. However, because evidence of excessive rather than a larger off-site exposure risk. wind erosion at the site was not observed, Lead in soils and dust may potentially become the risk for exposure to airborne lead off- airborne if wind erosion of contaminated soil site is likely to be low. occurs. However, because erosion control measures would be implemented and maintained in the managed shooting range, wind erosion and the risk for exposure to airborne lead off-site is likely to be low.
15
Environmental Assessment Allenspark Recreational Shooting Project
How will the The dumpsite is not a formally designated The Proposed Action directly addresses The existing temporary shooting closure has site be secured recreation site, and there are no time of recreation site security concerns as required been very successful ensuring the site is to prevent day, week, or year occupancy restrictions by FSM 2709.11, Chapter 40. Forest Service secure from illegal target shooting activities. people from (no closed hours) prohibiting time of day Manual 2709.11 provides direction on the Replacing the temporary order with a entering the visitation. Therefore, there are no management of shooting ranges operated on permanent closure, and continuing site and restrictions to keep people from entering National Forest System lands and includes enforcement emphasis patrols and education shooting when the site under this alternative. direction on site security. contacts on weekends during the interim start the site is up period is expected to extend this success closed? into the future. The No Action alternative would not Once implemented, the proposed action and Prohibiting recreational target shooting within Bullets can minimize the risk of bullets leaving the recommended design criteria would greatly the project area is expected to reduce the risk stray from the dumpsite, nor would it ensure bullets are reduce the risk of bullets leaving the of bullets leaving the dumpsite. Adjacent site despite contained within the project area. Adjacent developed range and ensure bullets are private landowners would no longer be implementing private landowners would remain contained within the project area. threatened by stray bullets resulting from the proposed threatened by stray bullets leaving the irresponsible target shooting. action. project area. Other Issues Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C No Action Proposed Action Closure to Shooting Recreational shooting can impact wildlife Types of disturbance effects to wildlife are Alternative C reduces the effects from species and their habitats in a number of similar to those described under Alternative A. shooting to wildlife by eliminating shooting at ways, including injury or death to animals In addition, construction of a designated both the 98 acre and 37 acres parcels. from direct shooting, and temporary or shooting range would create temporary long-term abandonment of habitat on and disturbance and most animals are likely to Wildlife will be near shooting ranges and/or concentrated avoid the dump site while construction is disturbed by shooting areas due to high levels of noise occurring. The dump site currently provides the shooting. and other human disturbance. Under this relatively low-quality wildlife habitat. Alternative, these effects are temporarily stopped, other than illegal activity, in the project area, and would resume after December 31, 2012. The site should While several wildlife species may While several wildlife species may incidentally This alternative closes both parcels to be closed to incidentally use parts of this area, the use parts of this area, the former dump site shooting, therefore closing the site to shooting shooting during former dump site and adjacent areas do and adjacent areas do not provide important during the breeding season is not necessary. breeding not provide important breeding habitat for breeding habitat for PTES or MIS species or season. PTES or MIS species or other wildlife, and other wildlife, and closure during breeding closure during breeding season is not season is not warranted. warranted.
16
Environmental Assessment Allenspark Recreational Shooting Project
Effects to Threatened, Endangered, Proposed Threatened, Endangered, Proposed Threatened, Endangered, Proposed Threatened, Species Species Species Endangered, The finding for Mexican Spotted Owl is The finding for Mexican Spotted Owl is "may The finding for Mexican Spotted Owl is "may and Sensitive "may affect, not likely to adversely affect." affect, not likely to adversely affect." affect, not likely to adversely affect." species and to Management Forest Service Sensitive Species Forest Service Sensitive Species Forest Service Sensitive Species Indicator The finding for all Forest Service Sensitive The finding for all Forest Service Sensitive The finding for all Forest Service Sensitive Species. Species analyzed is "May adversely impact Species analyzed is "May adversely impact Species analyzed is "May adversely impact individuals, but not likely to result in a loss individuals, but not likely to result in a loss of individuals, but not likely to result in a loss of of viability on the Planning Area, nor cause viability on the Planning Area, nor cause a viability on the Planning Area, nor cause a a trend to federal listing. trend to federal listing. trend to federal listing.
Management Indicator Species Management Indicator Species Management Indicator Species The finding for all Management Indicator The finding for all Management Indicator The finding for all Management Indicator Species analyzed is "no change to Species analyzed is "no change to Planning Species analyzed is "no change to Planning Planning Area (ARP) populations." Area (ARP) populations." Area (ARP) populations." Effects to No effects to cultural resources are No effects to cultural resources are anticipated No effects to cultural resources are anticipated Cultural anticipated under any of the proposed under any of the proposed alternatives under any of the proposed alternatives Resources alternatives.
Purpose and Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Need No Action Proposed Action Closure to Shooting Alternative A does not meet the purpose Alternative B does satisfy the purpose and Alternative C meets the purpose and need of and need of this project. This alternative need of this project. The proposed action this project by eliminating the activity causing has no associated actions that would establishes a designated shooting range at bullets to stray from National Forest system reduce the risk of stray bullets leaving the the former Allenspark Dumpsite and initiates lands onto nearby private land at the former Allenspark dumpsite (National Forest land) management actions that would reduce the Allenspark dumpsite. and travelling onto the nearby private risk of bullets passing from National Forest lands. System land onto surrounding private land.
17
Environmental Assessment Allenspark Recreational Shooting Project
CCHHAAPPTTEERR 33 –– AAFFFFEECCTTEEDD EENNVVIIRROONNMMEENNTT AANNDD EENNVVIIRROONNMMEENNTTAALL EEFFFFEECCTTSS
3.0 Introduction ______This chapter describes the affected environment and environmental effects of the alternatives on the resource area as they relate to the key issues. Each resource section contains a description of the current condition (affected environment) of the resource, and a discussion of the environmental effects including the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects associated with the implementation of each of the alternatives.
Direct effects are caused by the action and occur at the same time and place as the action taken. Indirect effects are caused by the action and are later in time or farther removed in distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable (i.e., likely to occur within the life of the project).
"Cumulative effect" is the impact on the environment which results from the incremental effect of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future action's effects regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative effects can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time. (40 Code of Federal Regulations 1508.7, NEPA Implementation Regulations)
3.1 Recreation ______
A. Affected Environment
Over the past 100 years, lands within the project area have facilitated a variety of uses such as public service utility corridors, transportation corridors, trash/sewage disposal, camping and recreational target shooting. Since the 1950’s the area known as the former Allenspark Dumpsite (also known as the Raymond/Allenspark Dump from 1962 to1975) emerged to become a very popular, undesignated recreational target shooting area.
98-Acre Northwest Parcel
The northwest portion of the project area (98-acres) generally extends north of Highway 7, encompassing the dumpsite and the south-facing slope most commonly used as a target shooting backstop (See figure 1: Recreation Discussion map). Both Highway 7 and Glacier View Road (to the south) facilitate opportunities for short-term parking necessary to access the shooting site. Recreational target shooting has dominated all other recreation activities in this location for several decades, noticeably increasing over the past 5 years. . As many as 25 vehicles have been observed parked along Highway 7 and Glacier View Road at one time during summer weekend days. 18
Environmental Assessment Allenspark Recreational Shooting Project
37-Acre Southeast Parcel
The southeast parcel (37-acres) provides opportunities for recreational activities such as dispersed camping, picnicking, hunting, hiking, wayside stretching, and occasional target shooting. Observational data and visitor comments indicate that limited highway parking, absence of off-road vehicle access, limited non-motorized foot traffic access, heavy highway traffic, uneven slopes and uneven topography are key factors that discourage recreation activity other than those consistent with displacement of recreational target shooters during periods of high use. For several decades, other nearby Forest Service system lands have offered more diverse recreation opportunities that dispersed recreation visitors have come to the area to expect.
Figure 1: Recreation Discussion Map
19
Environmental Assessment Allenspark Recreational Shooting Project
Recreation Use (General)
The project area is easily accessible from Denver and its surrounding Front Range communities. The area is open year-round and most use occurs between early spring and late fall. Observational data suggests that prior to the temporary closure the project area received approximately 7,000 visitors per year. The average number of people observed per vehicle was 2.0 and average duration of stay was estimated at 1.25 hours. The highest shooting use observed within the dumpsite was 55 people at one time (PAOT), however only 15 people were capable of shooting at one time (SAOT). Summer weekdays average about 15 PAOT. Winter visitation is very low, except during warm weather anomalies.
Recreation-Related Use
The existing area is administratively managed by the Forest Service. The Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) maintains a 70-acre administrative right-of-way (200 feet either side of centerline) known as State Highway 7. Roads existing within the area include State Highway 7, Glacier View Road (NFSR 264.1), and remnants of a variety of roads used for past special uses. The original paved alignment of Highway 7 (now Glacier View Road) was re-aligned to its current location in 1960’s. Construction of the new alignment included pavement and shoulders to accommodate present and future design year (2015) traffic volumes. Traffic volume has remained somewhat constant in the vicinity of Raymond/Allenspark with average daily traffic counts fluctuating between 1800 and 2000 vehicles per day. Colorado Department of Transportation suggests summer season average daily traffic counts double as a result of concentrated tourist traffic. The reconstructed highway design provides adequate “line of sight” that allows pedestrians an opportunity to safely cross the highway when accessing the former Allenspark Dumpsite. Randomly placed regulatory signs are the only features on the ground that suggests the location of the former dumpsite.
Glacier View Road remains open to the general public. Original highway constructed features can still be seen in their degraded condition. Remnants of other roads, no longer open for motorized access, are sometimes used for administrative purposes (fuels treatment) or for special uses such as the former Allenspark Dumpsite. The Forest Service permitted Boulder County to operate the 4.8-acre, Allenspark Dumpsite from 1962, until 1975, when it was reclaimed to its current condition. Other special uses permitted in the area include a powerline (pending permit renewal), water line for private use, and unresolved residential encroachments temporarily permitted by the Forest Service.
Regulatory Compliance
Generally, target shooting enthusiasts have been observed shooting in what appears to be a safe manner. The issuance of target shooting-related violation notices (citations) is low compared to other areas on the Boulder Ranger District that have similar recreation use dynamics. Law Enforcement and Forest Protection Officers agree that recreational target shooters within the project area typically have a high regard for regulations and user safety, when compared to that in other similar areas. Since 2008, documented near-misses and unsafe shooting practices have led to increased concern for public safety.
During field contacts some shooters in the 98 acre parcel voiced concern that their recreation experience is degraded when competition is high for establishing a safe area to shoot with other shooters at the dumpsite. Occasionally, safe shooters express concern about other users using inappropriate gun handling techniques and who appear to be generally unaware of applicable 20
Environmental Assessment Allenspark Recreational Shooting Project
regulations. Shooters have been observed dispersing to sites within the project area that are unlikely to have provided facilitated opportunities for safe shooting. Some of these satellite sites have questionable backstops and shooting alignments that may put people in the area at risk, including those in the former dumpsite and nearby private property residents. Although rare, there have been reports that describe conflict among shooters when unruly shooters purposefully defy regulations even after tactful peer communication. Some users mentioned they had to leave the site to ensure their personal safety.
Resource protection and regulation compliance patrols within the 135-acre project area have been somewhat successful achieving user regulatory compliance. Fencing and regulatory signing projects implemented in 2009/2010, consistent with CDOT requirements, successfully eliminated illegal motor vehicle use and allowed regeneration of vegetation consistent with scenic highway objectives. But at the intersection of Highway 7 and Glacier View Road, these efforts have been much less effective. Compliance is less than desirable, and efforts to sustain scenic highway objectives have not been successful. Forest Service employees continuously replace “No Motor Vehicle” signs and repair wood barriers that are damaged, vandalized and/or stolen. This problem is not uncommon in urban forests, nor is it solely the result of any one user group desiring access to engage in any number of recreation opportunities.
B. Environmental Effects
Forest Plan Consistency
The project area lies within the North St. Vrain Geographic Area with a management area designation of 4.2 Scenery. Recreation-related components of the action alternatives comply with the Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forest and Pawnee National Grasslands, Forest Plan (1997) standards and guidelines, and all federal laws governing Forest Service actions. While the Forest Plan does not provide specific direction on managing recreational shooting on the District nor objectives for this recreational activity, related issues and connected actions were integrated into desired future conditions and management area objectives during the planning process.
Geographic Area Direction
Setting - South St. Vrain Canyon and the Towns of Raymond and Riverside are considered key geographic features. The area’s extensive transportation network includes primary access via Colorado Highway 7 and 72.
Goals and Desired Conditions - Manage highway corridors in the South St. Vrain Canyon for year-round recreational use. Manage areas along Colorado Highway 7 in South St. Vrain canyon for heavy use that consists primarily of driving for pleasure and viewing scenery. Encourage passenger car travel on State Highways and County Roads. Expect some road and trail closures and obliterations to occur. Most decisions on specific roads, trails to keep or close will be made during travel management implementation.
Other Key Recreation-Related Resource Direction Scenic Management System (SMS) – Manage for high Scenic integrity objective. Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) - Roaded Natural Roadless Status – Not applicable, not in area designated as Roadless Winter Strategy - Motorized not Emphasized, Non-Motorized Emphasized
21
Environmental Assessment Allenspark Recreational Shooting Project
Management Area 4.2 Desired Conditions
Social - Opportunities exist to view high-quality scenery that represents the natural character of the Forest. Evidence of human activities or habitation due to mining, milling, or grazing may be present now and into the future. Contacts are usually common in areas where use concentrates. Sounds from people or motorized recreational activities are unusually common and limit opportunities for solitude or isolation. Provide access to natural attractions, water features, or areas that provide desired recreation opportunities. Use may be concentrated or dispersed, depending on the need to protect an area from degradation. A social type of recreational experience may be provided.
Administrative - Developed recreational sites may be common and are often emphasized in travel corridors. Facilities may be present to enhance viewing or recreational opportunities. Improvements such as improved roads, primitive roads, trails, bridges, fences, shelters, overlooks, signs or water diversions will blend into the landscape where feasible, be removed if no longer needed, or will be designed to be minimally intrusive into the landscape.
Alternative A – No Action
Direct and Indirect Effects
Under the No Action alternative, the 135-acre project area would remain closed to recreational target shooting until Order #10-01-2010-02 (Allenspark Dump Shooting Closure), is rescinded and or expires on or before December, 31, 2012.
Dispersed target shooting and other recreational uses are expected to continue as they have in the past. Issues and concerns identified during public scoping would remain unresolved. Regulatory compliance patrols and site monitoring would remain unchanged. Parking along State Highway 7 and Glacier View Road would continue to facilitate short-term parking for those accessing recreational target shooting activities at the dumpsite. Concentrated parking for recreation access would continue, consistent with other local road/highway locations that provide public land access.
The target shooter's recreational experience is expected to remain impacted as the inappropriate discharge of firearms by other shooters encourages the target shooter leave the site. As a result, existing shooter displacement to other near-by areas would continue. Use levels would also remain the same. Forest visitors and adjacent private landowners would remain threatened by stray bullets leaving the site because the inappropriate discharge of firearms would continue at the site.
Direct and Indirect Effects on the Key Issues
Risk of Bullets Leaving the Site The No Action alternative would not minimize the risk of bullets leaving the dumpsite, nor would it ensure bullets are contained within the project area. Adjacent private landowners would remain threatened by stray bullets leaving the project area.
22
Environmental Assessment Allenspark Recreational Shooting Project
Securing the Site when it is Closed The dumpsite is not a formally designated recreation site, and there are no time of day, week, or year occupancy restrictions (no closed hours) prohibiting time of day visitation. Therefore, there are no restrictions to keep people from entering the site under this alternative.
Cumulative Effects
Recent trends assessed with field observations suggest that as front-range population increases, similar shooting sites will be discovered, and demand for shooting opportunities will increase, there would be a reciprocal increase in conflict among recreation users as they compete for opportunities on the Boulder Ranger District widely known for its limited land base, scarce undiscovered recreation resources, and extensive recreational use. This is expected to further perpetuate target shooting issues and concerns as similar recreational target shooting conflicts remain unresolved across the Boulder Ranger District.
There are no other known cumulative effects anticipated that measurably effect the recreation resource under Alternative A.
Alternative B – Proposed Action
Direct and Indirect Effects
The proposed action would establish a designated shooting range at the former Allenspark Dumpsite and initiate management actions that minimize the risk of bullets passing from this location onto surrounding private land. The developed range and support facilities would be designed and constructed by a range design expert using the design criteria included as part of this alternative.
Forest Service Manual (FSM) 2709.11, Chapter 40, 41.46 (a-j) consolidates standards and guidelines most essential to range development and operational management success. Analysis of Alternative B uses these standards and guidelines when determining the effects to recreation resource.
Routine range operations, range management requirements, regulatory requirements, and effective design are expected to discourage illegal, inappropriate uses within the project area. Therefore, regulatory compliance is expected to improve and remain effective long after range development and operations are implemented.
It’s important to disclose that archery, paintball games and skeet shooting are not considered in the conceptual design nor identified in the proposed action. If considered in a future design, they must first be reviewed by a range design professional for compatibility with other range uses. It is expected that archery, paintball games and skeet shooting activities would be displaced to other areas on the Boulder Ranger District. Indirectly, these activities can more easily find new sites compatible with their use elsewhere on the Boulder Ranger District when compared to recreational shooting. As such, displacement of these recreation activities is considered to be a short-term inconvenience.
23
Environmental Assessment Allenspark Recreational Shooting Project
All recreation uses within the 37 acre parcel would continue as in the past, except the area would be closed to recreational target shooting. Shooter displacement is expected to be minimal. Otherwise, there are no known measureable effects to the recreation resource. The existing highway design provides adequate “line of sight” distance which facilitates safe motorized access to and from the proposed developed range parking area. Conflicts between motorists and pedestrians are not anticipated. Based on results of similar ingress/egress access analysis conducted with CDOT, highway infrastructure modifications such as acceleration/deceleration lanes would not be required.
Overall, establishing a safe target shooting venue as proposed would improve opportunities for recreational target shooting without measurably impacting the recreation resource in the project area.
Direct and Indirect Effects on the Key Issues
Risk of Bullets Leaving the Site Selection of the Proposed Action calls for a variety of best management practices and adaptive management actions to ensure effective mitigation of key issues and consistency with the Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forest and Pawnee National Grasslands Forest Plan (1997). It has been determined that once implemented, the proposed action and recommended design criteria would reduce the risk of bullets leaving the developed range and ensure bullets are contained within the project area.
Securing the Site when it is Closed The Proposed Action directly addresses recreation site security concerns as required by FSM 2709.11, Chapter 40. Implementing recommended design criteria is expected to help bolster security measures intended to discourage illegal access to the site when not in operation. To ensure continued success of the proposed action, the Boulder Ranger District would coordinate routine law enforcement/monitoring patrols with other local agencies, neighborhood watch volunteers and directly with the authorized range manager.
Cumulative Effects
Alternative B is not expected to contribute to increased visitation. Recreational target shooting is not expected to measurably increase on National Forest land in the local vicinity. However, it is assumed the recreational target shooting community would market this successful model as a means to mitigate similar issues elsewhere on National Forest lands within the vicinity of Colorado’s Front Range.
There are no other cumulative effects anticipated that measurably effect the recreation resource under Alternative B.
24
Environmental Assessment Allenspark Recreational Shooting Project
Alternative C – Site Closure to Shooting
Direct and Indirect Effects
Under Alternative C, the project area would be permanently closed to recreational target shooting (except, hunting would be allowed). The existing temporary short-term target shooting closure order expiring in December 2012, (Allenspark Dump Shooting Closure, Order #10-01- 2010-02), would be replaced by a permanent closure order.
The closure would displace traditional use target shooting that has evolved at this site concurrently with population growth, improved motor vehicle access, and private land development over the past several decades. Until recently, target shooting in the project area remained unaffected by a long series of actions prohibiting recreational target shooting elsewhere in Boulder County.
Otherwise, there are no other known effects anticipated that would measurably effect the recreation resource under Alternative C.
Direct and Indirect Effects on the Key Issues
Risk of Bullets Leaving the Site Prohibiting recreational target shooting within the project area is expected to eliminate the risk of bullets leaving the dumpsite. Adjacent private landowners would no longer be threatened by stray bullets resulting from irresponsible target shooting.
Securing the Site when it is Closed The existing temporary shooting closure has been very successful ensuring the site is secure from illegal target shooting activities. Replacing the temporary order with a permanent closure, and continuing enforcement emphasis patrols and education contacts on weekends during the interim start up period is expected to extend this success into the future.
Cumulative Effects
Long before the Roosevelt National Forest was designated in 1917, the fractured land ownership pattern caused conflict between user groups, private landowners, and land management agencies. Years of respectful collaboration has helped reduce this confusion but land access constraints and a wide variety of incompatible land use regulations remain. Based on professionally observed trends, it is reasonable to expect that Alternative C, may further compound negative effects stemming from decades of target shooting closures in Boulder County. It is expected that as recreational target shooting opportunities become scarce, there would be fewer options for finding safe/sustainable shooting opportunities on the Boulder Ranger District. While thousands of acres of National Forest land remain available for target shooting, issues prompted by incompatible recreation uses are expected to become more intense in the coming years.
There are no other cumulative effects anticipated that measurably effect the recreation resource under Alternative C.
25
Environmental Assessment Allenspark Recreational Shooting Project
Irreversible / Irretrievable Loss
No irreversible or irretrievable losses are expected under any of the proposed alternatives.
3.2 Hazardous Materials ______
A. Affected Environment
Project Characteristics and Use
The sites associated with the Allenspark Shooting Project Area include two parcels of public land consisting of approximately 130 acres total. No existing structures are on the two parcels of public land associated with the study area. Public access to the areas is provided by State Highway 72 and State Highway 7. Direct access to the areas is primarily by parking and hiking to the parcels off the State Highway routes. Five residential houses are within ½ mile of the site with 82 houses and structures within one mile. Portions along the State Highways are fenced for right-of-way purposes and portions are fenced for travel management.
Historical records have indicated that approximately 2 acres of the northwest parcel was once utilized as a permitted dumping area (Raymond / AllensparkDump) to Boulder County. Records indicate solid waste material and septic tank liquids material typical of households were deposited between 1962 and 1972. The dumping area itself shows very little surface evidence that indicates the type and quantity of material buried. The Raymond / Allenspark Dump site permit was terminated in full compliance on July 11, 1975. This old dump site shows recent evidence of current and past recreational shooting activities and includes such surface items as spent ammunition, clay targets, and miscellaneous household debris utilized as range targets.
There are no indications or records of past mining or oil and gas operations on these two parcels of land.
Hazardous Materials and Substances
No old abandoned or partially buried drums, pesticides products, automotive, chemicals, petroleum products, or unmarked containers typical of permitted landfill operations are present on the surface. No unusual seepage, soil stains or unusual odors have been observed with the old dump site.
Larger than normal amounts of spent ammunition and clay targets are currently evident throughout the soil surface of the old dump site. These items could pose a Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) liability if they are deemed an imminent hazard to human health or the environment. There has been no historical testing of the soil for baseline analysis for the lead content. The acidity or alkalinity of the existing soil structure would be further complicated due to the presence of buried material at the old dump.
Water and Wastewater
The property has no surface water conveyances such as pits, ponds, rivers, creek, or streams. No wells exist on either of the two parcels of public land. A search of the Colorado Division of Water Resources records indicate over 75 permitted wells on private lands within one mile of 26
Environmental Assessment Allenspark Recreational Shooting Project
the project area. The majority of these wells are for domestic residential uses. There has been no historical testing of the groundwater for baseline analysis for the lead content.
There is no physical surface evidence of any past wastewater treatment systems on either of the two parcels of public land. However, records indicate the old Raymond / Allenspark Dump utilized constructed pits for the disposal of septic tank waste.
Surface runoff typically follows the existing natural topography. The closest stream is Middle St. Vrain Creek and is located approximately ¼ mile down-gradient from the southern parcel of land.
B. Environmental Effects
Forest Plan Consistency
The Forest Plan standard is not to approve new uses or re-issue current uses where the primary use is for the storage or disposal of hazardous materials such as landfills. The shooting range activities involving hazardous materials do not fall under the definition of storage and disposal facilities and as such this project is consistent with Forest Plan direction for special uses.
Alternative A – No Action
Direct and Indirect Effects
Opening the project area to recreational shooting would continue to directly increase the surface loading of spent ammunition, clay targets, and other household shooting targets. This alternative would have the most direct effect of all the alternatives as the recreational shooting use and subsequent associated environmental impact would be the highest due to the site not being managed and shooting would continue to occur in a concentrated area.
In general, solid metallic lead in ammunition is generally immobile in the environment. Solid lead in soils can breakdown into soluble compounds and become mobile in the groundwater if exposed to the right conditions (annual precipitation, pH, exposure time, flow rates, soil density). Studies have shown that these soluble lead compounds tend to remain in the upper 4 to 6 inches of the surface. Due to the unknown geology, groundwater migration, and soil characteristics associated with the site this alternative should be monitored and if necessary best management practices developed and implemented.
Cumulative Effects
The presence of spent ammunition, clay targets, and household range targets would continue to increase and accumulate over time. The added presence of the solid lead and clay targets would only increase the risk of endangerment to human health and the environment, however small or large it may be. In addition, the unmanaged area would continue to invite and increase the use of household trash for use as range targets. This could lead to the release of hazardous substances from the range targets. For example, the use of fluorescent bulbs as range targets and the subsequent release of mercury to the environment.
27
Environmental Assessment Allenspark Recreational Shooting Project
Alternative B – Proposed Action
Direct and Indirect Effects
Developing a managed recreational shooting range would help mitigate some of the environmental effects caused by the recreational shooting range activities. Although this alternative could increase the number of users the shooting range would be under a permitted, supervised, and managed stewardship. Forest Service policies and handbooks for the development, operations, and management of shooting ranges would ensure that public safety concerns are addressed and that the direct environmental effects are prevented or minimized. Since management of the shooting range would be by a permitted organization or concessionaire the approval and monitoring of the operations would include provisions for litter control, soil monitoring, and water monitoring, all of which would greatly reduce the environmental risks to both the recreational shooter but also the surrounding residents.
The development of the proposed shooting range on the old dump site would add an extra weight burden to the existing dump cover. Historical records do indicate that the dump was covered and compacted with native soil within the requirements of the permit. However, due to the unknown characteristics of the solid waste material and the effort of compaction some additional settlement should be anticipated if the range site is developed.
It is recommended that “Best Management Practices for Lead at Outdoor Shooting Ranges” (EPA-902-B-01-001, June 2005 or Latest Edition) be followed as well as other design criteria to minimize lead in the soil and the solubility and migration of lead components in the surface water, groundwater, and through the reclaimed dump site.
The public and private areas surrounding the developed shooting range should see an indirect effect as recreational shooters would tend to utilize the developed facilities over unmanaged areas. This shift in recreational shooting behavior would lead to a reduction in concentrated hazardous lead material in the surrounding areas associated with unmanaged shooting activities.
Cumulative Effects
No cummulative effects by past, present or future projects are anticipated under this alternative.
Alternative C – Site Closure to Shooting
Direct and Indirect Effects
The closing of the sites to shooting would reduce the risk the most of all the alternatives in terms of the public health and the environment. Any increase in the number and loading of spent ammunition, clay targets, and household shooting targets would be eliminated due to the closure of the site to shooting. Intense management of the area would be required in order to prevent unauthorized shooting activities, and it should be expected that unauthorized shooting would still occur but not at the current rate of use. Closure of this area would have the indirect effect of displacing the recreational shooting use to other parcels of public lands or to private lands thus moving the environmental effects to another locale If this alternative is chosen it is recommended that the design criteria section for this alternative be implemented, as funding 28
Environmental Assessment Allenspark Recreational Shooting Project
allow, in order to reducing the risks and environmental liabilities associated with the past recreational shooting activities to the Forest Service.
Cumulative Effects
No cummulative effects by past, present or future projects are anticipated under this alternative.
Irreversible / Irretrievable Loss
No irreversible or irretrievable losses of commitments are anticipated under any of the proposed alternatives.
3.3 Watershed ______
A. Affected Environment The project area consists of two separate parcels as described in Chapter 1 of the Environmental Assessment (see map in Figure1). The Allenspark dump site is located in the northwest (NW) parcel. While it is likely that some shooting has occurred in the southeast (SE) parcel, the concentration of shooting has occurred at the dump site in the NW parcel, and the proposed developed shooting range would be located at the dump site in this parcel. Watershed issues are primarily focused at the dump site, so the watershed analysis also focuses on the NW parcel and dump site.
The old dump site is located just north of US Highway 7. It lies very close to a ridge dividing Middle St. Vrain Creek from an intermittent, unnamed tributary to Middle St. Vrain Creek. The site is located within the drainage of the tributary.
Surface water flowing downslope from the site would travel approximately 0.5 miles down an ephemeral channel before it reaches the intermittent tributary, and an additional 0.35 miles down the intermittent tributary before it reaches the perennial Middle Saint Vrain Creek (see map in Figure 1). Ephemeral channels are those channels that flow only in response to direct precipitation events (e.g. rainstorms, or in some cases during peak snowmelt), and flow infrequently enough that they do not have a defined channel that is kept clear of vegetation and organic litter. Intermittent streams flow only seasonally (usually in response to snowmelt runoff, in this area), but flow frequently enough that a defined channel is maintained. The presence of ephemeral and intermittent channels and the distance to Middle St. Vrain Creek indicate that the site is only rarely connected to Middle St. Vrain Creek by surface water flow.
29
Environmental Assessment Allenspark Recreational Shooting Project
Figure 2: Watershed Discussion Map
Other activities and disturbances that affect water resources within the Middle St. Vrain Creek watershed occur on both federal and non-federal lands. These include paved and unpaved roads, motorized and non-motorized recreation, a limited amount of vegetation management (e.g. fuels management), and residential development. Dispersed shooting occurs at other locations within the watershed, particularly in the Bunce School and Taylor Mountain areas, located to the south of the Allenspark dump site. Of these activities and disturbances, those most likely to affect water resources at the watershed scale are roads and motorized recreation on federal lands, and residential development on private lands.
Potential for Soil or Water Contamination from the Dump Site: The dump site is a fairly flat area about two acres in size. It appears that when the dump was closed, the slopes along the western half of the site were cut, and the material was used to fill over the dump on the eastern half of the site. The maximum depth of cut on the western fringe of the site is approximately 5- 15 feet. Depth of fill is unknown, but the height of the fill slope along the eastern edge, comprised of both the dump depth and fill depth is approximately 5-15 feet. The dump was used from the late 1950’s or early 1960’s until 1975. During this time period there were fewer restrictions on material that could be disposed of in dumps than there are currently, and it is possible that in addition to household waste, the dump may contain hazardous material, petroleum products, autos, and other waste. There is a report that the dump was used as a disposal site for material pumped from septic systems (Luna, 2010). While observations from a 30
Environmental Assessment Allenspark Recreational Shooting Project
site visit did not indicate that there was any surface material or liquid movement out of the dump site, there is no known groundwater monitoring data that would indicate whether there is subsurface flow through the dump and whether any flow is contaminated. However, the location of the dump site, near a ridge on a dry southeastern slope would limit the amount of water available for either surface or subsurface flow. At the time of a site visit in November, 2010, no surface water was observed in the ephemeral drainage for 200-300 feet down slope of the site (the extent of the channel that was observed during the visit). However, a June 2010 report indicated the presence of a spring approximately 50 yards down gradient of the dump site (Lowney, 2010). This may indicate the presence of seasonal groundwater movement near or through the dumpsite during spring melt. It was unreported how far downslope surface water persisted. Disturbing the soil that overlays the old dump could result in risks of soil and water contamination that do not exist in the current condition.
Lead Contamination: Spent bullets left in areas used for target shooting can result in an accumulation of lead in soil. Lowney (2010) reports that grab samples taken at the dump site showed lead concentrations exceeding 800 parts per million (ppm). It is unknown where the grab samples were collected or whether they are representative of lead levels throughout the site. There are multiple factors that determine whether lead remains in the soil in relatively inert form or travels offsite to surface or ground waters either as dissolved lead or lead particles. Factors that influence the ability of lead to dissolve and be transported in water include annual precipitation amount, pH of rain and surface water, contact time with water, and soil organic cover. High precipitation, acidic precipitation, extended water-lead contact time (e.g. wet soils), and low organic material (leaves, plant litter, soil organic matter) increase the risk that lead would dissolve and move off-site in water (EPA, 2005).
The project area has fairly low annual precipitation of 21 inches (PRISM, 2011). The southeastern exposure of the site would lead to high evapotranspiration rates, which would lead to a reduction in water available to leave the site as surface or subsurface flow. There is no information on pH of precipitation at the project area. From a site visit, it appears that soils are coarse textured, with high infiltration rates that would reduce contact time. Organic material accumulation is fairly low. Primarily because the site is dry, with low precipitation and high evapotranspiration, and short contact times, it appears that the risk of dissolved lead introduction into ground or surface water is fairly low.
Factors that influence the ability of lead particles to be transported by surface water are those that influence the frequency, velocity and depth of surface flow. Because the site is an upland site some distance away from a perennial stream, the surface flow of concern is stormwater runoff. Factors include rainfall intensity, topographic slope, soil type, and vegetative cover (EPA, 2005).
Much of the precipitation at the site falls as snow and melts at a rate that makes it more likely that melt water would infiltrate into the ground rather than run off as surface runoff. The area is likely to receive high intensity summer thundershowers which may produce surface runoff. However, a site visit did not reveal rills or gullies that would indicate frequent stormwater runoff. Soils are coarse textured, which would indicate high infiltration rates. The site is fairly flat and vegetated, which would slow any surface runoff. The ephemeral stream channel that begins below the eastern edge of the site is well vegetated, indicating infrequent runoff, and the vegetation would serve as a filter which would help to trap heavy lead fragments. These factors, combined with the fact that surface water travels 0.85 miles through ephemeral and intermittent channels before reaching a perennial stream indicate that the risk of the risk of lead particle transport to surface water is also fairly low. 31
Environmental Assessment Allenspark Recreational Shooting Project
However, while it appears that the risk of lead contamination of ground or surface water is low, it should be noted that no soil or groundwater sampling for lead has been conducted at the site, nor has surface water sampling for lead occurred in Middle St. Vrain Creek below the confluence with the intermittent channel.
Site Drainage: As discussed above, the existing dump site is nearly flat, with well drained soils. It appears that surface runoff occurs infrequently. There are few rills and gullies on the site surface or on the fill slope at the eastern edge of the site. When surface runoff does occur, it follows an ephemeral stream channel that begins at the edge of the fill slope. If the site were developed, compacted areas could develop along pathways, at the parking lot, and at shooting stations. Increased compaction could increase the frequency and amount of surface runoff and could disturb the stability of the ephemeral channel. An example of the changes in channel stability from changes in frequency and amount of flow can be seen in the ephemeral channel along the southern edge of the site that runs parallel to Highway 7 and receives the runoff from the highway and cross drains that drain water under the road. The increase in flow amount and frequency has caused the channel to erode in steeper sections and deposit sediment in flatter sections.
Site Stability: The site appears to be stable currently. Minor erosion is occurring from some of the cut slopes on the western edge of the site where the slopes have not revegetated. The flat portion of the site is revegetated. There is no evidence of slope failure or erosion along the fill slope at the eastern edge of the site.
B. Environmental Effects
Forest Plan Consistency
Because no new disturbance or construction would take place for alternative A, other than limited work necessary to effectively close the site, this alternative would be consistent with Forest Plan standards and guidelines for water resources.
Implementation of design criteria, listed in Chapter 2, would ensure that Alternative B would be consistent with Forest Plan standards and guidelines for water resources.
Alternative C would be consistent with Forest Plan standards and guidelines for water resources.
Forest Plan Standards: The following water resources standards from the 1997 revision of the Forest Plan are relevant to this analysis.
4. (ST) Manage land treatments to conserve site moisture and to protect long-term stream health from damage by increased runoff.
5. (ST) Manage land treatments to maintain enough organic ground cover in each land unit to prevent harmful increased runoff.
15. (ST) Limit roads and other disturbed sites to the minimum feasible number, width, and total length consistent with the purpose of specific operations, local topography, and climate. 32
Environmental Assessment Allenspark Recreational Shooting Project
16. (ST) Construct roads and other disturbed sites to minimize sediment discharge into streams lakes, and wetlands.
17. (ST) Stabilize and maintain roads, trails, and disturbed sites during and after construction to control erosion.
21.(ST) Place new sources of chemical and pathogenic pollutants where such pollutants will not reach surface or ground water.
22.(ST) Apply runoff controls to disconnect new pollutant sources from surface and ground water.
Alternative A – No Action
Direct and Indirect Effects
Potential for soil and water contamination from the old dump would remain unchanged. As discussed in the Affected Environment section, there does not appear to be any surface material or liquid movement out of the dump site, but groundwater effects are unknown. Lead from spent ammunition would continue to accumulate at the site. While the risk of surface or groundwater contamination traveling off-site would be low, lead in the soil would increase. Site drainage and site stability would remain unchanged.
Watershed conditions in the SE parcel would remain unchanged or may improve slightly. Because shooting would not be permitted on this parcel, lead from spent ammunition would accumulate only from illegal shooting activities. It is unlikely to contribute to water quality problems.
Cumulative Effects
Cumulative effects are considered at the scale of the Middle St. Vrain Creek watershed, from its headwaters along the Continental Divide, to the confluence with South St. Vrain Creek. As noted in the Affected Environment section, the activities that most affect watershed processes are roads, motorized recreation, and residential development. Continued use of the site would affect watershed processes such as erosion and sedimentation much like historic use since the dump was closed. These effects would be small and would be limited to the site. It is unlikely that the cumulative effects would be measurable at the watershed scale. However, as noted above, shooting activities occur elsewhere in the watershed. The risks of lead contamination to Middle St. Vrain Creek from continued shooting at this site, however low, would accumulate with the lead risks from those other shooting locations.
Alternative B – Proposed Action
Direct and Indirect Effects
If the soil covering the old dump was disturbed during construction of the shooting range to a depth that would expose the contents of the old dump, there would be an increased but 33
Environmental Assessment Allenspark Recreational Shooting Project
unknown risk that hazardous or toxic contents within the dump would be made available for water-borne transport to Middle St. Vrain Creek. The risk is unknown because the contents of the dump are unknown.
While lead from spent ammunition would continue to be introduced to the site, bullet traps and lead recovery could reduce the rate of lead accumulation in the soil. If lead recovery was effective at recovering old lead (deposited prior to the construction of the range), it is possible that total lead in the soil would be reduced.
It is likely that development of a shooting range would lead to soil compaction and increased surface runoff from the site. Compacted areas would include the parking area, constructed paths, and shooting stations. Increased surface runoff would increase the likelihood that solid lead particles and fragments would be transported off-site in surface water.
It is likely that berms would be constructed to contain bullet travel. If any berm is constructed on the eastern portion of the site, over the filled portion of the old dump, the weight of the berm(s) may create problems with regard to settling or slope stability of the existing fill.
A 40 foot berm would be constructed to the east of the existing site. If the berm were constructed with a 2:1 slope along the entire eastern edge of the area, it would have approximate dimensions of 300 feet long by 160 feet wide by 40 feet high. This would expand the disturbed area of the site by an additional 1-1.5 acres. The berm would require more than 35,000 cubic yards of material to construct. It is unlikely that this quantity of material could be generated at the site, so berm construction could create off-site effects. The berm would change surface runoff patterns for the site. Surface flow from the dump site currently follows an ephemeral stream channel to the east. The channel begins at the foot of the eastern fill slope. Construction of a berm would fill the channel and preclude the function of the existing drainage pattern. Establishing new drainage would need to be considered in site planning. The berm would be a new source of sedimentation and erosion on what is currently a stable site. Erosion control and revegetation would need to be considered in site planning.
Design criteria could be implemented to reduce the effects of this alternative. Recommended design criteria are provided in Chapter 2.
Watershed conditions in the SE parcel would remain unchanged or may improve slightly. Because shooting would not be permitted on this parcel, lead from spent ammunition would accumulate only from illegal shooting activities. It is unlikely to contribute to water quality problems.
Cumulative Effects
Cumulative effects are considered at the scale of the Middle St. Vrain Creek watershed, from its headwaters along the Continental Divide, to the confluence with South St. Vrain Creek. The cumulative effects of soil disturbance and increased overland flow are greater for this alternative than for Alternatives A or C. For the short term, during the construction phase, increases in sedimentation from storm flow may be measurable at the watershed scale. After project completion and revegetation, because of the size and location of the site, it is unlikely that the cumulative effects of this action would have measurable watershed scale effects. The cumulative risk of lead contamination to Middle St. Vrain Creek would be smaller for this alternative than for Alternative A or C because lead recovery and bullet traps would reduce the 34
Environmental Assessment Allenspark Recreational Shooting Project
lead contamination risk from this site. While Alternative C would close this site to shooting, it is likely that at least some of the shooting activities that would have occurred at this site would be displaced to other locations within the same watershed.
Alternative C – Site Closure to Shooting
Direct and Indirect Effects
Potential for soil and water contamination from the old dump would remain unchanged. As discussed in the Affected Environment section, there does not appear to be any surface material or liquid movement out of the dump site, but groundwater effects are unknown.
Lead from spent ammunition that accumulated at the site prior to closure would remain. If enforcement of the closure is not completely effective, and some shooting continues to occur, lead could continue to accumulate at the site, but at lower rates than in Alternative A. Whether lead accumulation would be lower for Alternative B or C would depend on the effectiveness of lead recovery for Alternative B and the frequency of illegal shooting for Alternative C. While the risk of surface or groundwater contamination traveling off-site would be low, lead in the soil would remain or may increase slightly.
Site drainage and site stability would remain unchanged.
Watershed conditions in the SE parcel would remain unchanged or may improve slightly. Because shooting would not be permitted on this parcel, lead from spent ammunition would accumulate only from illegal shooting activities. It is unlikely to contribute to water quality problems.
Cumulative Effects
Cumulative effects are considered at the scale of the Middle St. Vrain Creek watershed, from its headwaters along the Continental Divide, to the confluence with South St. Vrain Creek. As noted in the Affected Environment section, the activities that most affect watershed processes are roads, motorized recreation, and residential development. Closure of the site may reduce erosion and sedimentation from the site, but the reduction would be small and would be limited to the site. However, as noted above, shooting activities occur elsewhere in the watershed. Because it is likely that some shooting activities that would have occurred at this site would be displaced to other shooting sites in the watershed, the risks of lead contamination to Middle St. Vrain Creek, however low, would be similar to Alternative A and higher than Alternative B because no lead recovery would occur at any of the shooting locations in the watershed.
Irreversible / Irretrievable Loss
There would be no irreversible or irretrievable commitment of resources with respect to watershed resources for any of the alternatives.
35
Environmental Assessment Allenspark Recreational Shooting Project
3.4 Soils and Air ______
A. Affected Environment The dump site and immediate surrounds is the analysis area for this soils report. The dump site is a flat area of approximately 2 acres. The 2717B soil map unit is the only soil series that occurs within the analysis area (Soil and Terrestrial Ecological Land Unit Survey, ARNF). The soils in this map unit are classified at the sub-group level as Typic Ustochrepts and Lithic Eutroboralfs. The soils have a loamy-skeletal particle size classification which means they have loamy textures and at least 35% rock content. From soil mapping information, background pH levels for the Typic Ustocrept soils were determined to be 6.6-6.8 (neutral). Soil was excavated from the western part of the analysis area to create a flat area and a cut-slope. The dump pit, currently filled with refuse and capped with soil, is located on the on the eastern part of the dump site. A sewage disposal pit was located just north of the main dump pit.
Past earth moving activities to create/operate the dump disturbed the soil and modified the natural hill-slope contour, the soil profiles within modified borrow/fill areas would not generally match with the soil survey map unit and soil profile descriptions. Additional detailed soil mapping would be needed to accurately describe project area soils. The type, degree and extent of on-site soil contamination are also unknown because a complete inventory of dumped materials and an extensive site characterization report is not currently available.
Existing condition of the analysis area soil resources and effects of the alternatives are described in terms of ground surface condition, surface drainage and soil contamination.
Ground Conditions and Surface Drainage: For the purposes of this effects analysis, the flat portion of the dump site and the steep cut and fill slopes adjacent to the flat surface are considered. The eastern part of the flat dump surface is an earthen “cap” that was installed following closure of the dump. It appears the cap material was excavated from the western part of the flat area. The flat area is approximately 1.5-2 acres in size.
The effectiveness of the cap is reflected by: Soil cap coverage of dumped materials Growth of vegetation Surface Erosion Surface ponding at the flat dump site and/or evidence of sub-surface leaching from the fill-slope adjacent to the dump site
The following field observations describe effectiveness and functioning condition of the cap: The cap appears to physically cover dumped materials Vegetative cover is primarily grass, probably seeded following construction of the cap Excessive surface erosion was not observed on the cap, fill, or cut slopes Evidence of surface ponding was not observed The chemical composition of surface run-off from the dump site is unknown but visual evidence of overland flow of contaminated runoff was not observed below the site Evidence of acid run-off in the form of red-orange (iron oxide) color along drainage channels below the site was not observed
36
Environmental Assessment Allenspark Recreational Shooting Project
Sub-surface water contamination and movement: The chemical composition, amount, and direction of sub-surface flow from the dump site is unknown but evidence of leaching of toxic materials at the base of the dump site (lower fill slope) was not observed Generally, sub-surface water movement is associated with faulting and/or fractured bedrock geology in this area. Because of this, ground water movement is difficult to predict without extensive analysis
Soil Contamination: Characterization of the dump for a variety of potential soil contaminants has not been conducted. However, Lowney reported that soil lead concentrations exceeded 800 ppm in two grab samples collected from the dump site (Lowney, 2010). The presence of these elevated levels of lead in the surface horizon of the soil indicates that the source of the lead is likely associated with the use of the area as an informal shooting range. Although there are no human health-based screening levels specific to shooting ranges, these reported concentrations exceed both the residential soil lead threshold of 400 mg/kg and the threshold for soils in industrial areas of 800 mg/kg that have been established by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Perhaps equally or more relevant to this site, the measured concentrations significantly exceed EPA’s screening criteria for ecological receptors (i.e., ecological soil screening levels (Eco SSLs). The Eco SSLs for lead in soil are set at 11 mg/kg for protection of avian species, 56 mg/kg for protection of mammalian species, and 120 mg/kg for protection of plant life. Presence at the surface also allows for direct contact with the contamination by humans that may visit the area and by wildlife receptors.
B. Environmental Effects
Forest Plan Consistency
The following watershed protection management measures are directly relevant to this project and are included to ensure consistency with Forest Plan direction for protection of soil and water resources. The management measures and associated design criteria/mitigations, fully described in the Watershed Conservation Practices Handbook (FSH 2509.25), are: 11.1, 11.2, 13.1, 13.2, 13.3, 13.4, 15.1 and 15.2.
11.1 (1) Manage land treatments to conserve site moisture and to protect long-term stream health from damage by increased runoff.
11.2.(2) Manage land treatments to maintain enough organic ground cover in each land unit to prevent harmful increased runoff.
13.1 (9) Limit roads and other disturbed sites to the minimum feasible number, width, and total length consistent with the purpose of specific operations, local topography, and climate.
13.2 (10) Construct roads and other disturbed sites to minimize sediment discharge into streams lakes, and wetlands.
13.3 (11) Stabilize and maintain roads, trails, and disturbed sites during and after construction to control erosion.
37
Environmental Assessment Allenspark Recreational Shooting Project
13.4 (12) Reclaim roads and other disturbed sites when use wnds, as needed, to prevent resource damage
15.1 (15) Place new sources of chemical and pathogenic pollutants where such pollutants will not reach surface or ground water.
15.2 (16)Apply runoff controls to disconnect new pollutant sources from surface and ground water.
Alternative A – No Action
Direct and Indirect Effects
Ground disturbance and associated effects to soil resources would include continual minor disturbance to the area from pedestrian traffic, concentrated in locations from which people typically shoot and in target areas. Prior to the closure, these areas of concentrated effects generally appeared to be on the western half of the flat dump area. On the eastern half of the flat area (capped area), it appeared that minimal, if any, shooting and/or pedestrian traffic and associated ground disturbance occurred. Surface drainage for a large proportion of the flat area appears to tend to the north-east before entering an ephemeral swale draining to the south- east. The site is approximately 0.53 miles from the closest seasonal stream that is tributary to the middle fork of St Vrain Creek. The swale appears to be relatively stable and exhibits minimal scour and/or deposition directly below the dump site.
Lead Contamination in Soil Shooting activities would result in ongoing accumulation of lead in the soil, concentrated in the cut-slopes serving as target area backstops. Generally, lead and other heavy metals would be bound in the soil and relatively immobile. Binding of heavy metals in the soil is influenced by soil texture, soil water content and movement, soil erosion and transport, and pH. Based on field observations, the site is dry, well drained and run-off, erosion and transport of sediment off site appears to be minimal. Soils are rocky and medium textured (loamy-skeletal). Positively charged heavy metals can be bound in the soil to the negatively charged clay and/or organic fraction of the soil. From soil mapping information, background pH levels for the Typic Ustocrept soil were determined to be 6.6-6.8 (neutral). Evidence of soil erosion and/or acid run- off in the form of red-orange (iron oxide) color along drainage channels was not observed, indicating that mobility of heavy metals through surface run-off is probably low.
Lead Contamination in Air Airborne lead can be a potential risk to shooters and range workers. However, because lead is so dense, it is unlikely to remain airborne for long and the risk is generally limited to direct exposure on the site, rather than a larger off-site exposure risk. Lead in soils and dust may potentially become airborne if wind erosion of contaminated soil occurs. However, because evidence of excessive wind erosion at the site was not observed, the risk for exposure to airborne lead off-site is likely to be low. Measures to reduce exposure to airborne lead include well ventilated shooting stations, dust abatement and erosion control, and wearing personal protective equipment for respiratory and skin protection.
Indirect Effects: Allowing shooting to continue at this site may indirectly lower the potential for displacement of this activity to other sites.
38
Environmental Assessment Allenspark Recreational Shooting Project
Cumulative Effects
Cumulative effects to soil resources are considered at the shooting area scale and are intended to reflect the long-term soil productivity (ability to support vegetation commensurate with site and soil capabilities), proper hydrologic functioning condition of soil, and soil contamination. At the dump site, soil productivity, hydrologic function and contamination have been adversely affected by the history of use of the site. The effects of earth-moving activities to create/operate the dump, dumping of materials of unknown toxicity/mobility and use of the site as shooting area are the main past activities to be considered in this soils analysis and any future site characterization and project design reports. If Alternative A is implemented, ground disturbance and associated effects to soil resources would include continued minor disturbance to the area from pedestrian traffic, concentrated in locations from which people typically shoot and in target areas. Surface drainage for a large proportion of the flat area would remain unchanged under Alternative A. Shooting activities would result in ongoing accumulation of lead in the soil, concentrated in the cut-slopes currently serving as target area backstops.
Alternative B – Proposed Action
Direct and Indirect Effects
Direct Effects: Construction activities would cause ground disturbance that may impact site stability and cap effectiveness during the construction phase of this project. Generally, these effects could be mitigated through application of appropriate construction best management practices. Hardening of ground surfaces would increase surface run-off from the site which may cause additional scour and deposition in the swale that drains the flat area.
Construction of a large berm across the entire eastern side of the flat area, as shown in the site concept plan, would intercept and pool surface run-off unless the area is re- contoured to drain effectively. The proposed height of a backstop berm is 40 feet. At a 1:1 (horizontal: vertical) gradient (100% slope), the base of the berm would be 80 feet. To ensure berm resistance to surface erosion or mass wasting, a more reasonable gradient for a large earthen berm would be 2:1 (50% slope) with a base area of 160 feet. As shown in the scaled aerial photograph above, it appears unlikely the site is physically large enough to accommodate the features contained in the conceptual plan. If the length of the berm is approximately 500 feet and the width is approximately 160 feet, approximately 1.8 acres of the currently stable capped area would be buried. Due to the change in gradient, the berm would likely have higher potential for erosion than the current cap. The proposed construction activities would also increase the risk for de- stabilization of the swale below the site due to increased runoff from the developed site. Off-site effects caused by excavating and importing large amounts of material for berm construction is an indirect effect to soil resources at the borrow site where excavation activities occur.
Construction of a large berm adjacent to the dump site and across the entire eastern side of the area would intercept and pool surface run-off unless the area is re-contoured to drain effectively. To ensure berm resistance to surface erosion or mass wasting, the proposed gradient for the large earthen berm would be 2:1 (50% slope) with a base area 39
Environmental Assessment Allenspark Recreational Shooting Project
of 160 feet. The vertical height from the base on the down-slope side to the top of the berm is estimated to be 55-65 feet. If the length of the berm is approximately 500 feet and the width is approximately 160 feet, approximately 1.8 acres of the currently stable natural forested hill-slope would be buried, creating an irretrievable loss through permanent conversion of approximately 1.8 acres of stable natural forested hill-slope below the site to relatively steep berm. Due to the change in gradient, the berm would likely have higher potential for erosion than the current hill-slope. The proposed construction activities would also increase the risk for de-stabilization of the swale below the site due to increased runoff from the developed site. Off-site effects caused by excavating and importing large amounts of material for berm construction is an indirect effect to soil resources at the borrow site where excavation activities occur.
Construction of a parking lot immediately to the south of the shooting area and adjacent to Highway 7 is proposed. It appears unlikely the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed 15-40 car parking lot as shown in the conceptual plan. Significant amounts of road run-off and road sand appear to either deposit or wash through this area. Additional run-off from the hardened parking lot surface may also de-stabilize the swale below the parking lot.
Installation of vault toilets and trash receptacles would benefit soil and water resources because the potential for human waste and/or trash in and around the area would decrease.
Closing the entire 98 acre area to all activities except shooting would likely lower the occurrence of ground disturbing activities in the 98 acre area. Any resulting benefits for soil resources would be small because the current rate of ground disturbing activities and projected expansion of ground disturbing activities in this area is low. Closing the 19.5 mile marker area to shooting would likely benefit soil and water resources at the site
Establishing hours of operation between dawn and dusk and requiring that the range be managed and supervised by an organization, concessionaire, or club and the range could only be open for operation with onsite presence by that entity would ultimately benefit soil resources by lowering unauthorized expansion of ground disturbing activities in the area and providing for drainage and erosion control maintenance if/when needed.
Construction of a Shooting Range Manager Facility/Information Kiosk would involve minor ground disturbance in the immediate area accessing and surrounding the facility during the construction phase of the project. Generally, these effects could be mitigated through application of appropriate construction best management practices.
Lead Contamination in Soil Under this alternative, future accumulation of lead, concentrated at target areas, and potential for soil/water contamination would likely decrease because bullet traps would be installed.
Lead Contamination in Air Airborne lead can be a potential risk to shooters and range workers. However, because lead is so dense, it is unlikely to remain airborne for long and the risk is generally limited to direct exposure on the site, rather than a larger off-site exposure risk. Lead in soils and dust may potentially become airborne if wind erosion of contaminated soil occurs. However, because 40
Environmental Assessment Allenspark Recreational Shooting Project
erosion control measures would be implemented and maintained in the managed shooting range, wind erosion and the risk for exposure to airborne lead off-site is likely to be low. Measures to reduce exposure to airborne lead include well ventilated shooting stations, dust abatement and erosion control, and wearing personal protective equipment for respiratory and skin protection.
Indirect Effects: Implementation of this alternative may reduce displacement of shooting to other areas, a beneficial indirect effect.
Cumulative Effects
Cumulative effects to soil resources are considered at the shooting area scale and are intended to reflect the long-term productivity (ability to support vegetation commensurate with site and soil capabilities), proper hydrologic functioning condition of soil, and soil contamination. At the dump site, soil productivity, hydrologic function and contamination have been adversely affected by the use history of the site. The effects of earth-moving activities to create/operate the dump, dumping of materials of unknown toxicity/mobility and use of the site as shooting area are the main past activities to be considered in this soils analysis and any future site characterization and project design reports. If Alternative B is implemented, ground disturbance and associated effects to soil resources would include permanent re-contouring and ground disturbance associated with construction activities, permanent hardening of surfaces, significant modification of existing surface drainage, and less accumulation of lead in the soil. Allowing shooting to continue at this site may indirectly lower the potential for displacement of this activity to other sites.
Alternative C – Site Closure to Shooting
Direct and Indirect Effects
Alternative C closes both parcels in the analysis area to recreational shooting. Both parcels would remain open to all other uses under Alternative C. Under this alternative, additional minor ground disturbance and additional accumulation of lead, concentrated in target areas, would not occur. Over time, natural recovery of vegetation on currently disturbed sites would occur. Additionally, short term effects associated with construction activities and long term effects associated with site development would not occur. In comparison with Alternatives A and B, this alternative is preferred because it has the lowest direct effects. Displacement of effects to other sites for shooting would be an indirect effect associated with this alternative.
Cumulative Effects
Cumulative effects to soil resources are considered at the shooting area scale and are intended to reflect the long-term productivity (ability to support vegetation commensurate with site and soil capabilities), proper hydrologic functioning condition of soil, and soil contamination. At the dump site, soil productivity, hydrologic function and contamination have been adversely affected by the use history of the site. The effects of earth-moving activities to create/operate the dump, dumping of materials of unknown toxicity/mobility and use of the site as shooting area are the main past activities to be considered in this soils analysis and any future site characterization 41
Environmental Assessment Allenspark Recreational Shooting Project
and project design reports. If Alternative C is implemented, ground disturbance at the site would be minimal and natural recovery of vegetation may occur, existing surface drainage would remain unchanged or improve if vegetative ground cover accumulated, and no additional accumulation of lead in the soil would occur.
Irreversible / Irretrievable Loss
Under Alterative B, to ensure berm resistance to surface erosion or mass wasting, the proposed gradient for the large earthen berm would be 2:1 (50% slope) with a base area of 160 feet. The vertical height from the base on the down-slope side to the top of the berm is estimated to be 55-65 feet. If the length of the berm is approximately 500 feet and the width is approximately 160 feet, approximately 1.8 acres of the currently stable natural forested hill-slope would be buried, creating an irretrievable loss through permanent conversion of approximately 1.8 acres of stable natural forested hill-slope below the site to relatively steep berm.
3.5 Wildlife, Fish and Plants ______
A. Affected Environment Elevation in the project area ranges from 7,800 to 8,200 feet. Elevation at the former dump site where the developed shooting range is proposed in Alternative B is approximately 8,100 feet. Vegetation is an open meadow at the former dump site, with native and nonnative grasses and forbs. In surrounding areas, overstory vegetation is primarily ponderosa pine, with some Douglas-fir especially to the north of the meadow. North of the meadow is a rocky ridgeline, and downhill and north of the ridgeline is an intermittent east-west creek with some riparian vegetation, likely a combination of aspen and willows but the specific riparian vegetation was not field-verified since this area would not be impacted by proposed activities under any Alternatives. The area north of the ridgeline occupies about the northern one-third of the larger parcel and currently receives low visitor use, which is expected to continue under all Alternatives. Aspen occur in a few small patches outside of the riparian area and are interspersed with conifers north of the ridgeline, particularly closer to the east-west drainage. South of Highway 7 is a narrow riparian area with some aspen along a north-south intermittent drainage.
For additional Affected Environment information regarding stream channels and site drainage, lead contamination, and other site characteristics of the former dump site that are relevant to wildlife, fish, and plants, refer to Section 3.3 Watershed and Section 3.4 Soils.
The project area is located in the North St. Vrain Geographic Area and Management Area 4.2 Scenery, as described in the Forest Plan (USDA Forest Service 1997). There are no standards or guidelines associated with either of these designations. Old growth, effective habitat, interior forest, corridors, and key winter range were evaluated in the Biological Report. No old growth or key winter range occur in the project area. Mapped effective habitat and interior forest occur in the northern portion of the larger parcel, and both parcels are within forested corridors. Effective habitat, interior forest, and corridors are discussed below under Section B. Environmental Effects: Forest Plan Consistency.
Wildlife and botany field surveys were conducted during 2004 and 2005 for the St. Vrain fuels treatment project which includes most of the project area. Additional wildlife and botany surveys
42
Environmental Assessment Allenspark Recreational Shooting Project
and field visits for this project were conducted during 2009, 2010, and 2011. No Federally Proposed, Threatened, or Endangered species or Forest Service Sensitive species (PTES) were observed during surveys or field visits, and no PTES species have been previously documented in the project area. In the larger parcel, a plant species of local concern, buckbrush/Fendler’s ceanothus (Ceanothus fendleri), and a rare plant community, foothills ponderosa pine savanna (Pinus ponderosa/Leucopoa kingii), tracked by the Colorado Natural Heritage Program (ranked G3S3), were observed.
Invasive Plants/Noxious Weeds
Botany surveyors found Dalmatian toadflax (Linaria dalmatica), common mullein (Verbascum thapsus), and smooth brome (Bromus inermis) within the open meadow area. Dalmatian toadflax was found northeast of the meadow, in an area with no proposed construction. Common mullein occurs in small patches on the south side of the meadow. Smooth brome is the dominant grass in the meadow and also occurs between the meadow and Highway 7. Noxious weed surveys in 2000 found small amounts of Canada and musk thistle (Cirsium arvense, Carduus nutans) and cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum) at the former dump site and in the smaller parcel, and oxeye daisy (Chrysanthemum leucanthemum) and sulfur cinquefoil (Potentilla recta) along Highway 7 near the smaller parcel.
Several small patches of Colorado-listed noxious weeds occur in both parcels, and additional infestations occur along Highway 7. Smooth brome, which is not a listed noxious weed but is nonnative and invasive, is the dominant grass at the former dump site. Both parcels have been disturbed by past motorized and nonmotorized recreation use, including recreational shooting, vehicle use, camping, and hiking. The former dump site has been heavily disturbed by past dumping and by moving dirt and capping the dump. The proximity of both parcels to Highway 7 increases the ongoing risk of noxious weed introduction and spread to the project area.
Wildlife, Fish, and Plant Species Considered and Evaluated
The complete lists of all Federally Proposed, Threatened, and Endangered, Region 2 Sensitive (PTES), and Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests (ARNF) Management Indicator Species (MIS) were considered in this analysis. PTES species considered include wildlife, fish, and plants. MIS considered include wildlife and fish; there are no plant MIS for the ARNF. No PTES or MIS fish species were selected for analysis because no PTES or MIS fish or their habitats occur in the project area. Species listed in Table 3 below were identified as either occurring within the Project Area, or having habitat that occurs within the Project Area. Any species not listed below will not be discussed further in this document. Complete lists of all species considered for analysis can be found in the Biological Report for Terrestrial Wildlife, Fish, and Plants, located in the project file.
43
Environmental Assessment Allenspark Recreational Shooting Project
Table 3: PTES Species and MIS Included in Project Analysis
Threatened / Project Sensitive Species Endangered Management Amphibians, Species Indicator Species Mammals Birds Mollusks, Plants Insects Rocky Mountain American American peregrine Boreal toad Rock Mexican Bighorn Sheep marten falcon Northern cinquefoil spotted owl Elk Fringed myotis American three-toed leopard frog Mule deer Rocky Mountain woodpecker Golden-crowned kinglet bighorn sheep Flammulated owl Hairy woodpecker Townsend’s Lewis’ woodpecker Mountain bluebird big-eared bat Northern goshawk Pygmy nuthatch Olive-sided flycatcher Warbling vireo Wilson’s warbler Boreal toad
Fish
As discussed above under Wildlife, Fish, and Plant Species Considered and Evaluated, no PTES or MIS fish species or their habitats occur in the project area. Therefore, there are no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects to PTES or MIS fish species and fish are not discussed further in this section.
Plants
One Forest Service Sensitive plant species, rock cinquefoil, was evaluated due to the presence of potential habitat in the project area and in areas of potential indirect effects. The species is not known to occur in these areas. Project design criteria provide for additional surveys In the larger parcel under Alternative B. Project design criteria are incorporated to minimize potential effects to the plant species of local concern, buckbrush/Fendler’s ceanothus, which occurs adjacent to the former dump site in the area of the proposed shooting range construction under Alternative B. The rare plant community, foothills ponderosa pine savanna, located in the southern portion of the larger parcel is not expected to be influenced by any of the Alternatives.
B. Environmental Effects
Forest Plan Consistency
Forest Plan consistency is evaluated in the Biological Report for Wildlife, Fish, and Plants, located in the project file. The amount, distribution, and condition of effective habitat, interior forest, and forested corridors would not be influenced by Alternative A, B, or C. This project is consistent with Forest Plan direction for biological resources.
Wildlife – General Effects Discussion
Recreational shooting can impact wildlife species and their habitats in a number of ways, including: injury or death to animals from direct shooting; damage to and destruction of 44
Environmental Assessment Allenspark Recreational Shooting Project
vegetation, including trees, from shooting; temporary or long-term abandonment of habitat on and near shooting ranges and/or concentrated shooting areas due to high levels of noise and other human disturbance; habitat loss and degradation due to litter from ammunition and targets; and lead poisoning from ingestion of ammunition, soil, or plants. Some effects of recreational shooting, such as injury to wildlife from vehicles; harassment or injury to wildlife from domestic pets accompanying people; degradation of habitat due to soil loss and compaction, trampling of vegetation, invasive species introduction and spread; and general littering, are not unique to recreational shooting and also occur with other human activities.
Lead is a toxic metal that, in sufficient quantities, has adverse effects on the nervous and reproductive systems of animals, and can be lethal to wildlife if ingested, even in small amounts. Evidence indicates that lead is neither essential nor beneficial to living organisms, and that all measured effects are adverse, including those on survival, growth, reproduction, development, behavior, learning, and metabolism (Eisler 1988). According to the American Bird Conservancy and Center for Biological Diversity, an estimated 10 million to 20 million birds and other animals die each year from lead poisoning in the United States (USFWS 2011a).
The following is excerpted and summarized from Lewis et al 2001 regarding lead poisoning in wildlife at a federal shooting range: Lead poisoning is a well-recognized and well-documented cause of morbidity and mortality in wildlife. Toxic (lethal) and sublethal effects of lead to wildlife vary with species, sex, age, and diet. A 1999 study, along with recoveries of animal carcasses, at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC) diagnosed lead poisoning in multiple bird and mammal species, including gray squirrel (Sciuris carolinensis), yellow-rumped warbler (Dendroica coronata), northern cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis), solitary vireo (Vireo solitarius) and brown thrasher (Toxostoma rufum). The study could not determine the exact form of lead exposure but based on bullet fragments present at the outdoor shooting ranges at FLETC and detection of ingested lead fragments in some of the tested animals, it was strongly suspected that most of the lead exposure occurred through ingestion of bullets or bullet fragments. Some birds may ingest lead shot that visually resembles a normal food source; species that forage on the ground may ingest lead along with seeds; woodpeckers may even ingest lead from fragments imbedded in trees; and deer may ingest lead fragments due to the taste of lead salts on oxidized bullet fragment surfaces. Use of FLETC firing ranges is very heavy, in excess of five million rounds shot per year, and lead deposition at smaller outdoor shooting ranges such as the one proposed under Alternative B likely presents relatively lower risks. However, any range used over a long period of time may result in significant accumulations of lead.
Other studies have shown evidence of lead poisoning in mice, shrews, voles, songbirds, and frogs at active and abandoned shooting ranges (Labare et al 2004, Ma 1989, Stansley and Roscoe 1996, Vyas 2000). These studies also indicate that lead from these sites can become bioavailable and be ingested by terrestrial animals from soil and/or plants. Insects and other invertebrates that grow or live in lead-contaminated soils are at increased risk from lead, and high amounts of lead have been shown in various species of insects and soil invertebrates in contaminated areas including roadsides and metal smelter environments (Eisler 1988).
The bioaccumulation of lead by plants is species-specific and depends on soil conditions (Labare et al 2004). Bioavailability of lead in soil and plants appears to be greater with more acidic soils (Stansley and Roscoe 1996, Ma 1989). According to Eisler (1988), bioavailability of lead in soils to plants is limited, but is enhanced by reduced soil pH, reduced content of organic matter and inorganic colloids, reduced iron oxide and phosphorus content, and increased amounts of lead in soils. Background soil pH levels in the former dump site area are 6.6 to 6.8, considered neutral, based on Forest Service soil mapping (see Soils Report in the Project File). 45
Environmental Assessment Allenspark Recreational Shooting Project
These pH levels are in the range that may limit food chain uptake of lead through plants (Stansley and Roscoe 1996). Soil pH levels at the site have not been measured by the Forest Service; however, field visits to the former dump site did not reveal evidence of acid runoff (see Soils Report in the Project File).
A federal ban on use of lead shot was phased in beginning with the 1987-1988 hunting season and became nationwide in 1991 (USFWS 2011b). The State of Colorado requires lead-free shot for waterfowl hunting. There are no Colorado prohibitions for lead bullets, and most target shooters use lead ammunition due to lower cost and easier availability (Rogstad, pers. comm. 2011). Waterfowl hunting does not occur in the project area, and use of lead ammunition for target shooting and hunting is legal in the project area.
In the project area, accumulation of lead has been occurring with unmanaged recreational shooting in both parcels. In the larger parcel, shooting is concentrated in the southern part, at the former dump site and adjacent areas and is likely most concentrated in the cut slopes used as backstops. Recreational shooting, and therefore lead accumulation, has been dispersed in the smaller parcel.
Recreational shooting, whether dispersed/unmanaged or at a constructed range, creates noise that may impact wildlife. According to Knight and Gutzwiller (1995), normal speech occurs at 60 decibels (dB) when the medium is air (as opposed to water), and a safe limit for wildlife for continuous noise is from 70 to 90 dB. Decibel levels for shotguns, rifles, and pistols range up to 170 (http://www.freehearingtest.com/hia_gunfirenoise.shtml). Sound measured by a sound meter that approximates the sound received by the human ear is indicated as dBA. With sport shooting, peak sound pressure levels at the ear can range from about 110 to more than 170 dBA (Turner 2001).
For the proposed constructed designated shooting range under Alternative B, the Forest Service estimates that the loudest firearms (170 dBA) would result in sound levels of approximately 122 dBA at 250 feet from where they are fired, not considering vegetation and topography. Factoring in the grass, shrubs and trees in the former dump area would reduce the sound approximately another 36.5 dBA at 250 feet from the source, dropping sound levels to 85.5 dBA, which falls within the range considered safe for wildlife for continuous noise. This level would be further reduced by proposed berms, baffling, and onsite buildings, and reduced more by distance for animals more than 250 feet from origin of a shot. Refer to Appendix A of the Environmental Assessment and Turner 2001 for further information.
Noise from recreational shooting in the project area would be continuous at times, and sporadic at other times when less use is occurring. Many animals generally would be expected to avoid a designated shooting range and concentrated recreational shooting areas when shooting is occurring, but individuals may enter the site and be shot, trampled, or frightened.
Dangerous or unfamiliar noise is more likely to arouse animals than harmless, familiar noise. The most intense wildlife responses to noise involve panic flight or running; however studies show that animals rarely respond with uncontrolled panic (Knight and Gutzwiller 1995). Shooting is likely to be perceived as harmful by hunted species such as elk and deer and they would be expected to avoid areas while shooting is occurring. Some animals of various species likely already avoid the project area, particularly around the former dump site, due to recreational shooting activities, while some individuals may have become accustomed to recreational shooting noise and remain in surrounding areas.
46
Environmental Assessment Allenspark Recreational Shooting Project
PTES and MIS Wildlife and Plant Species
Effects of Alternatives to PTES wildlife and plant species and MIS wildlife species are summarized in the following sections. Additional detailed analysis for species analyzed for this project can be found in the Biological Report for Wildlife, Fish, and Plants, located in the project file.
Other Issues – Breeding Season
An issue was raised during scoping regarding closing the developed area to shooting if a developed range is constructed, which is proposed under Alternative B. The proposed developed shooting range would occur in and adjacent to the former dump site. This area is small in size; has been heavily disturbed in the past by dumping, recreational shooting, and other human uses; and is adjacent to State Highway 7. Based on these factors, while several wildlife species may incidentally use parts of this area, the former dump site and adjacent areas do not provide important breeding habitat for PTES or MIS species or other wildlife, and closure during breeding season is not warranted.
Alternative A – No Action
Direct and Indirect Effects
Under Alternative A, past effects from recreational shooting in both parcels, including noise, trash, destruction of trees by shooters using them as targets, and destruction of other vegetation by shooting and trampling, would resume after December 31, 2012. Accumulation of lead- containing ammunition would continue, with higher concentrations in the cut slopes at the former dump site that are used as backstops. Effects in the larger parcel from recreational shooting are estimated to be greater under Alternative A than under Alternative B for the reasons discussed below. Effects from recreational shooting in the smaller parcel are expected to be similar to Alternatives B and C until December 31, 2012, because the smaller parcel would remain closed under Alternative A through that date and would be closed under Alternatives B and C. Effects in the smaller parcel after December 31, 2012, when it would be reopened to recreational shooting, are estimated to be greater under Alternative A than under Alternatives B and C, because the smaller parcel would be closed to recreational shooting under Alternatives B and C.
Indirect effects, including noise, trash including lead-containing ammunition, and destruction of vegetation, would be expected to continue through December 31, 2012 from displacement of recreational shooting to other areas. The estimated area for indirect effects is the same as the cumulative effects analysis area described under Cumulative Effects below. Displacement under Alternative A is estimated to be less than under Alternatives B and C, because recreational shooting use would resume in the project area and displacement would primarily occur through December 31, 2012 when both parcels would be reopened to recreational shooting.
Under Alternative A, the risk of noxious weed introduction and spread from recreational shooting in the project area would continue as it has in recent years once the area would be reopened to recreational shooting after December 31, 2012, and may increase somewhat over the long term.
47
Environmental Assessment Allenspark Recreational Shooting Project
Refer to the Summary of Determinations and Effects to PTES and MIS Species below for further discussion of direct and indirect effects to wildlife and plant species.
Cumulative Effects
For purposes of the analysis of cumulative effects to wildlife and plants, the analysis area is the area where direct and indirect effects from displaced recreational shooting are estimated to be mostly likely to occur. Although not possible to accurately predict the amount of displaced recreational shooting or areas that may be affected, the most likely area is estimated to be the area of the Boulder Ranger District bounded by Highway 36 to the east; Lefthand Canyon Drive from Highway 36 to the town of Ward, and Brainard Lake Road west of Highway 7, on the south; the eastern boundaries of the Indian Peaks Wilderness and Rocky Mountain National Park on the west; and the BRD boundary on the north. Under Alternative A, some recreational shooters are likely to go to nearby, relatively easily accessible areas including Taylor Mountain and Bunce School road, until after December 31, 2012 when the area would be reopened to recreational shooting. Some displacement to these areas appears to be occurring currently, due to the emergency closure of the project area to recreational shooting. The time period for indirect and cumulative effects is the foreseeable future.
Cumulative effects on National Forest System, local city and county open space, and private lands include fuels treatments, cutting of mountain pine beetle-killed trees, and ongoing future increases in mountain pine beetle outbreaks. These activities have a mix of wildlife effects, depending on species and how treatments are implemented. Fuels treatments and cutting of mountain pine beetle-killed trees may impact nest trees for bird species, including cavity-nesting species. Fuels treatments are designed to reduce the risk of wildfire, and in some areas are designed to maintain or enhance old growth stand characteristics. Reduced risk of wildfire is beneficial to some species, however other species such as some woodpeckers benefit from burned areas for nesting or foraging. Fuels treatments, cutting of beetle-killed trees, and future mountain pine beetle activity are likely to temporarily benefit some species - woodpeckers and other cavity-nesting birds can benefit from increased snags for nesting and foraging; and elk and mule deer may benefit from increased forage; and various birds and mammals may benefit from increased edge habitats. Over time, snags would fall and decrease cavity-nesting opportunities again, and potentially create movement barriers for ungulates and other mammals. Increased human use, which could disturb some wildlife species, may occur in some areas if road access is improved for fuels or beetle-killed tree management activities.
Some residential development is likely to continue on non-federal lands in the analysis area and incrementally modify or destroy wildlife habitat. Recreation activity is expected to continue increasing, which modifies or destroys wildlife habitat in some circumstances, and may disturb nesting birds and denning or other production areas for mammals. Cumulative effects to wildlife species may occur due to the presence of lead from recreational shooting and hunting in the analysis area. This risk is not possible to accurately measure, because as discussed above it is not possible to accurately predict the amount of displaced recreational shooting or areas that may be affected. It is also not possible to predict the future amount or locations of recreational shooting, although increased use is likely due to population growth. Lead exposure effects vary by wildlife species and depend on the concentration of lead deposited in an area. Recreational shooting is concentrated in some areas and dispersed in others, resulting in different potential for exposure of animals to lead. For additional discussion regarding lead effects to wildlife, refer to the Wildlife – General Effects Discussion section above, the Summary of Effects to Wildlife
48
Environmental Assessment Allenspark Recreational Shooting Project
Species section below, and the Biological Report for Wildlife, Fish, and Plants located in the project file.
For sensitive plant species and plant species of local concern, cumulative effects include harm to plants and/or habitat changes due to fuels treatments and increasing recreation use on federal and non-federal lands. Inaccessibility of habitat for some of these species limits effects. Alternative A is expected to contribute immeasurably to cumulative effects for the federally threatened Mexican spotted owl, all Forest Service Sensitive species analyzed for this project, and all project MIS.
Alternative B – Proposed Action
Direct and Indirect Effects
Under Alternative B, proposed construction of a designated shooting range, parking area, and toilet would impact approximately three acres, consisting of about two acres of open meadow at the former dump site, a fraction of an acre of forested habitat between the meadow and Highway 7, and just under one acre of adjacent forested area east of the meadow.
Under Alternative B, recreational shooting effects would not occur in the short term in the larger parcel until a designated shooting range is constructed, except for the possibility of illegal recreational shooting activity. In the long term, effects from recreational shooting, again except for illegal activity, would be confined to a constructed designated shooting range at the former dump site. Noise effects are expected to be less than under Alternative A, due to construction of berms and other sound mitigation and confinement of recreational shooting to the constructed range. The total area impacted by recreational shooting would be less than Alternative A because shooting would be restricted to the constructed range. Trash (other than ammunition) resulting from recreational shooting would be reduced due to the requirement that the range be managed and only open for operation with onsite management presence. Limiting recreational shooting at the designated range to up to 10 hours per day during daylight hours, would eliminate nighttime shooting and limit dusk and dawn shooting, which have occurred in the past. Due to use of a constructed range, ammunition may be more concentrated under Alternative B than under Alternative A and amounts of ammunition at the site would fluctuate depending on use of the area and frequency of lead recovery. Incorporation of lead recovery in project Design Criteria, included as part of this Alternative, would reduce accumulation of lead at the proposed range site.
Under Alternative B, temporary noise would occur during construction of a designated shooting range. This would include heavy equipment for constructing berms and other features. Most animals would be expected to temporarily avoid the former dump site area while this occurs. Under Alternative B, indirect effects may occur from displacement of some recreational shooting from the larger parcel, particularly to nearby areas including Taylor Mountain and Bunce School Road, and potentially other areas as described under Cumulative Effects of Alternative A above. While some additional people may be drawn to a designated range, others who have historically used the former dump site may be unwilling to pay a fee and would be displaced to other areas. Displacement would also likely occur from closure of the smaller parcel. Displacement under this Alternative is estimated to be greater than under Alternative A and less than under Alternative C.
49
Environmental Assessment Allenspark Recreational Shooting Project
Under Alternative B, ongoing risk of noxious weed introduction and spread in the larger parcel would be somewhat reduced due to confinement of shooting to a smaller area and management of trash. Importing dirt and use of equipment to construct the proposed designated shooting range under Alternative B present a risk of noxious weed introduction, which would be minimized by project design criteria. Elimination of recreational shooting in the smaller parcel would reduce or eliminate the potential for noxious weed introduction and spread from recreational shooting, depending on compliance and enforcement.
Refer to the Summary of Determinations and Effects to PTES and MIS Species below for further discussion of direct and indirect effects to wildlife and plant species.
Cumulative Effects
Cumulative effects are estimated to be similar under all Alternatives. Refer to the discussion under Cumulative Effects of Alternative A to Wildlife and Plants above.
Alternative B is expected to contribute immeasurably to cumulative effects for the federally threatened Mexican spotted owl, all Forest Service Sensitive species analyzed for this project, and all project MIS.
Alternative C – Site Closure to Shooting
Direct and Indirect Effects
Under Alternative C, effects from shooting in both parcels, including noise and trash, would be discontinued, except for the possibility of illegal shooting activity. These effects would be offset to some degree by displaced recreational shooting (see discussion below). Displaced shooting may occur in some areas in similar concentrations to the project area, or it may be more dispersed, or a combination. Ongoing human disturbance and effects to vegetation resulting from other nonmotorized recreational visitor uses in the project area would continue, due to the easy accessibility of the area.
Indirect effects are expected under Alternative C due to displacement of recreational shooting from the project area to other areas, since both parcels would be closed to recreational shooting. Displaced shooters are more likely to go to nearby areas including Taylor Mountain and Bunce School Road, and potentially other areas as described under Cumulative Effects of Alternative A above. Displacement is estimated to be greater under Alternative C than under Alternatives A or B, because Alternative A would reopen both parcels to recreational shooting after December 31, 2012 and Alternative B would open a constructed range on the larger parcel.
Under Alternative C, the risk of noxious weed introduction and spread from recreational shooting in both parcels would be reduced or eliminated, depending on compliance and enforcement.
Refer to the Summary of Determinations and Effects to PTES and MIS Species below for further discussion of direct and indirect effects to wildlife and plant species.
50
Environmental Assessment Allenspark Recreational Shooting Project
Cumulative Effects
Cumulative effects are estimated to be similar under all Alternatives. Refer to the discussion under Cumulative Effects of Alternative A to Wildlife and Plants above.
Alternative C is expected to contribute immeasurably to cumulative effects for the federally threatened Mexican spotted owl, all Forest Service Sensitive species analyzed for this project, and all project MIS.
All Alternatives
Cumulative Effects Common to All Alternatives
For cumulative effects to federally Threatened, Forest Service Sensitive species, and MIS, see the discussions above by Alternative.
Cumulative effects to noxious weed populations are estimated to be similar under all Alternatives, and include past disturbance discussed above and the ongoing potential for introduction and spread from nearby paved state highways, recreational visitor use other than target shooting, Forest Service fuels reduction projects, and surrounding residences. These uses create ground disturbance where noxious weeds tend to establish; introduce modes of transport for weed seeds, including vehicles, equipment, people, and pets; and increase the potential for introduction of noxious weeds from ornamental plantings around residences.
Irreversible and Irretrievable Loss
Under Alternative B, construction of a designated shooting range would represent an irretrievable commitment of up to three acres of relatively low-quality wildlife habitat. Construction of a shooting range, and particularly the clearing of up to one currently forested acre directly east of the former dump site. There are no known irreversible effects to wildlife or plants or their habitats from any Alternative.
Summary of Determinations and Effects to Species
For species selected for analysis, Table 4 below presents, by Alternative, determinations of effects for federally Threatened and Forest Service Sensitive species, and estimations of effects for MIS. Following the table is a summary discussion of effects of the Alternatives to species analyzed.
51
Environmental Assessment Allenspark Recreational Shooting Project
Table 4: Summary of Determinations /Estimation of Effects Determinatio Determination Determinatio Species Scientific Name Status n for for n for Common Name Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C WILDLIFE Mexican spotted Strix occidentalis 1 owl lucida Threatened NLAA NLAA NLAA American marten Martes Americana Sensitive MAII2 MAII MAII Fringed myotis Myotis thysanodes Sensitive MAII MAII MAII Rocky Mountain Ovis canadensis bighorn sheep canadensis Sensitive and MAII MAII MAII No change3 Project MIS No change No change Townsend’s big- Choryorhinus MAII MAII MAII eared bat Sensitive townsendii American peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus Sensitive MAII MAII MAII American three- toed woodpecker Picoides dorsalis Sensitive MAII MAII MAII Flammulated owl Otus flammeolus Sensitive MAII MAII MAII Lewis’ woodpecker Melanerpes lewis Sensitive MAII MAII MAII Northern goshawk Accipiter gentilis Sensitive MAII MAII MAII Olive-sided flycatcher Contopus cooperi Sensitive MAII MAII MAII Boreal toad Sensitive and MAII MAII MAII Bufo boreas boreas Project MIS No change No change No change Northern leopard frog Rana pipiens Sensitive MAII MAII MAII Elk Cervus elaphus Project MIS No change No change No change Mule deer Odocoileus Project MIS hemionus No change No change No change Golden-crowned Regulus satrapa Project MIS kinglet No change No change No change Hairy woodpecker Picoides villosus Project MIS No change No change No change Mountain bluebird Sialia currucoides Project MIS No change No change No change Pygmy nuthatch Sitta pygmaea Project MIS No change No change No change Warbling vireo Vireo gilvus Project MIS No change No change No change Wilson’s warbler Wilsonia pusilla Project MIS No change No change No change PLANTS Rock cinquefoil Potentilla rupincola Sensitive MAII MAII MAII
1 May affect, not likely to adversely affect. 2 May adversely impact individuals, but not likely to result in a loss of viability on the Planning area, nor cause a trend to federal listing. 3 No change to Planning Area (ARP) MIS populations.
Summary of Effects to Wildlife and Plant Species
NOTE: This section primarily describes effects that could occur within the project area. For a discussion of additional indirect effects including those from displaced recreational shooting, see 52
Environmental Assessment Allenspark Recreational Shooting Project
the discussions above under each Alternative and Effects Common to All Alternatives. Refer also to the above cumulative effects discussions. More detailed discussions of direct, indirect, and cumulative effects by species are included in the Biological Report for Wildlife, Fish, and Plants, available in the project file.
Federally Listed Wildlife Species
There are no known occurrences of the Mexican spotted owl in the project area or the Action Area, which is defined for this project as equal to the analysis area described in the section above. The project area is estimated to provide marginal foraging habitat. Based on potential effects to up to three acres of marginal foraging habitat under Alternative B, and a low risk of lead poisoning under Alternatives A, B, and C, effects to this species could occur. These potential effects are considered immeasurable and discountable. Concurrence from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is pending. There are no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects to critical habitat for the Mexican spotted owl because no critical habitat has been designated in the project area, action area, or on the ARP.
Forest Service Sensitive Species
The only Sensitive plant species analyzed for this project is rock cinquefoil. This species has not been observed during surveys and is presumed absent in the former dump site area. Alternative B provides for additional surveys in the forested acre directly east of the former dump site (which is part of the proposed shooting range construction area) and mitigation of effects if individuals are found. Under all Alternatives, the likelihood of occurrence in the project area and likelihood of effects from recreational shooting activities are estimated to be low.
Individual American martens may be impacted based on the possibility of ingesting lead through consuming their prey. Under all Alternatives, this risk is low based on lack of potential habitat in much of the project area, marginal habitat occurrence in the remainder of the area, and small territory size of prey species.
Individual Fringed myotis bats, and Townsend’s big-eared bats may be impacted by lead ingestion from insect prey. There are no known occurrences of either species in the project area. Habitat in the project area does not provide good roost trees but provides potential foraging habitat. Based on the lack of known occurrences and potential roost sites, minimal effects to potential foraging habitat under Alternative B, and limited availability of water sources for foraging sites, the risk of effects to individual bats from habitat changes under Alternative B and from the potential for lead ingestion under all Alternatives is estimated to be low.
Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep are also analyzed as a Management Indicator Species. The project area is not within mapped range for the St. Vrain herd and therefore winter range and lambing areas would not be impacted under any Alternative. At most, the project area may provide foraging habitat for an occasional individual sheep that may travel through the project area. Effects of up to three acres of marginal potential foraging habitat under Alternative B are estimated to be minimal. Based on incidental use of the area and lack of evidence of acidic soils at the site (see Soils Report), the risk of lead poisoning from ingesting contaminated vegetation is estimated to be low under all Alternatives.
Marginal potential foraging habitat occurs in the project area for Peregrine falcon. No nesting habitat occurs. Northern goshawks could occur in the project area; however based on past surveys and habitat quality in the project area, no effects to nesting northern goshawks or 53
Environmental Assessment Allenspark Recreational Shooting Project
nesting habitat would occur under any Alternative. Peregrine falcons have a large hunting range and goshawks have a relatively large home range, therefore effects to both species from the modification of up to three acres of marginal foraging habitat under Alternative B is estimated to be inconsequential. Based on the variety of prey taken by peregrine falcons and northern goshawks, the possibility exists of lead ingestion through consuming contaminated prey. Under all Alternatives, the potential for lead ingestion for both species is estimated to be minimal, based on incidental use of the project area and the apparent reduced likelihood of lead accumulation in raptors due to pellet casting (Henny et al 1994, Stansley and Roscoe 1996).
The project area provides marginal foraging habitat for American three-toed and Lewis’ woodpeckers. The modification of up to one acre of marginal foraging habitat for these two species under Alternative B is expected to be inconsequential. One study suggested the possibility of woodpeckers ingesting lead directly from tree bark where trees have been shot (Lewis et al 2001). This risk is estimated to be minimal in the project area under all Alternatives, based on incidental use of the area by American three-toed and Lewis’ woodpeckers.
Marginal foraging habitat occurs in the project area for flammulated owl. Modification of up to one acre of marginal potential forested habitat under Alternative B is expected to be inconsequential. The possibility of lead ingestion from arthropod prey exists. This risk is estimated to be low under all Alternatives based on incidental use of the project area. Regurgitation of chitin in pellets may reduce potential lead exposure for this species.
The project area provides marginal potential foraging habitat, at best, for the olive-sided flycatcher. Modification of up to three acres under Alternative B is expected to be inconsequential. Under all Alternatives, the potential for lead ingestion from insect prey is considered minimal based on the low habitat quality and low likelihood of occurrence of this species in the project area.
The project area does not provide potential breeding habitat for boreal toad or northern leopard frog, therefore no potential breeding habitat would be impacted by any Alternative. No occurrences of either species are known in or near the project area. At most, individuals could incidentally travel through the project area. Modification of up to three acres of incidental traveling habitat under Alternative B would be inconsequential. Under all Alternatives, the potential risk of lead ingestion from the project area is considered minimal based on incidental use, at most, by both species.
Management Indicator Species
No change to populations on the Planning Area (ARP) are expected for any project MIS for any Alternative. No change to the amount, distribution, or condition of Management Indicator Communities represented by project MIS is expected under any Alternative.
The project area is within overall range for elk and mule deer, but is not in production areas, severe winter range, or winter concentration areas for either species. Modification of up to three acres of habitat under Alternative B is expected to be inconsequential. The risk of lead poisoning is estimated to be low for elk and mule deer under all Alternatives.
For Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep, refer to the discussion above under Sensitive species. The project area does not provide nesting habitat for golden-crowned kinglets. Kinglets may use the area incidentally for winter foraging. Modification of up to three acres of incidental winter foraging habitat under Alternative B is expected to be inconsequential. Under all 54
Environmental Assessment Allenspark Recreational Shooting Project
Alternatives, the potential for lead ingestion from insects or bark foraging; this risk is considered minimal due to incidental use of the project area.
The project area provides potential foraging habitat for hairy woodpeckers. Modification of up to three acres under Alternative B is expected to be inconsequential. Like three-toed and Lewis’ woodpeckers discussed under Sensitive species above, hairy woodpeckers could ingest lead from foraging on bark. The risk of this is considered minimal under all Alternatives.
The project area does not provide nesting habitat for mountain bluebirds, and because of that, foraging habitat is considered marginal. Therefore, modification of the approximately two acres of open meadow at the former dump site is expected to be inconsequential for this species. Under all Alternatives, the risk of lead ingestion from insect prey is considered minimal because of the low quality of habitat in the project area.
Pygmy nuthatches were observed in the project area during spring and winter. The project area currently does not likely provide nesting habitat, and foraging use is sporadic as flocks move through the area. Modification of up to three acres of foraging habitat under Alternative B is expected to be inconsequential. Pygmy nuthatches tend to forage in tree crowns for conifer seeds and insects, where risk of direct lead contact is reduced. Risk of lead ingestion is estimated to be minimal under all Alternatives.
Warbling vireos may nest in aspen patches in the project area. No aspen patches occur in the proposed shooting range area under Alternative B, and no changes are expected to aspen habitat under any Alternative. Therefore, the risk of lead ingestion through insect prey is negligible under all Alternatives.
Wilson’s warblers may nest or forage in riparian habitats in the project area. No riparian habitats occur near the proposed shooting range area under Alternative B, and no changes are expected to riparian habitat under any Alternative. Therefore, the risk of lead ingestion through insect prey or fruit is negligible under all Alternatives.
3.6 Heritage ______
A. Affected Environment Prehistoric Period
The evidence of the earliest human use of the Allenspark Recreational Shooting Project area comes not from specific sites within the analysis area but rather from nearby prehistoric sites. The earliest known occupation is approximately 5 miles away at a site dating to the Archaic period, which spans a time period from approximately 8,000 to 1,500 years ago. The Button Rock site (5BL4838) is located on a broad open slope overlooking the Button Rock Reservoir. The site consists of the remains of two different camping events two thousand years apart. The first event took place approximately 7000 years ago when a group of people associated with the Mount Albion culture camped at the site. While there they produced stone tools, prepared game, and gathered local plant materials. All that remains of that occupation are two projectile points, the ashes from a hearth (from which the C14 date was derived) and the flake debitage that was produced as the people made stone tools. The second event took place approximately 5,400 years ago when a group of Middle Archaic people camped at the same spot. Like the 55
Environmental Assessment Allenspark Recreational Shooting Project
people before them, they produced stone tools, and prepared and processed game and plants. In the process of camping at this site, the Middle Archaic group created a very large stone hearth. This hearth was rapidly buried by sediments and therefore survived the following 5,400 years well enough to be excavated in 1997.
Athabaskan (proto-Apachean) people occupied the area during the Late Ceramic and Late Prehistoric periods, following the Archaic occupations. The Ute migrated into the mountains of northern Colorado during the later prehistoric and contact periods, and may have migrated to this area as early as A.D. 1300, based on linguistic evidence (Miller 1986). The Arapaho, Shoshone, Cheyenne, and possibly Kiowa also utilized the mountains of this area to a lesser extent beginning in the 17th and 18th centuries, until the removal of all tribes in the late 19th century. Thus, the project area lies in the lands that many Indian Tribes claimed as traditional homelands. All of these tribes lived a mobile lifestyle, following game animals on seasonal migration patterns throughout the foothills, parks, piedmont, and plains. As subsistence hunters and gathers, the Native Americans who lived here would have been in the area seasonally and would have moved throughout the area in search of resources. Because their subsistence relied on the natural environment, Native Americans paid close attention to where necessary resources were located, followed game as they hunted it, and set camps near plant resources that would be gathered. In search of mineral resources such as tool stone or minerals for paints, they would travel to wherever the materials might be located. Consequently, there are several isolated finds of fragmentary projectile points or lithic flakes that have been located associated with this prehistoric use all around the Boulder County foothills. Nothing from this particular period of occupation was found within the analysis area.
Historic Period
In the mountains of north-central Colorado, the historic period begins in the early to mid-1800s, when Euro American explorers first began to venture into the area. Unfortunately, most of the earliest Euro Americans in the area were explorers and trappers, and left little trace of their visits. The most visible historic activities in the area relate to the early mining and an early recreation or hunting lodge economy.
Mining
The early mining period that first warranted the rush to the Boulder area began with the discovery of gold near the town of Gold Hill in 1859. It wasn’t until around the beginning of the 19th century (ca. 1903 to 1912) that mining began to impact the Allenspark, Riverside, and Raymond area. However, the prominent mining complexes remain mostly south and east of the analysis area. What can be found in the immediate area of the project are prospecting pits but no developed mining operations.
Tourism
The history of Allenspark began in 1864 when Alonzo Allen first homesteaded the area that now bears his name. The same year Joel Estes settled in the area now known as Estes Park. Early homesteaders were generally drawn to the area in the 1860s in the hope of becoming wealthy through mining. With the fall of the precious metals market, pioneers tried many different ways to make a living off of the land. The real wealth of the Allenspark and Estes Park area was determined to be tourism. Small camping resorts were developed around the Estes Park and Allenspark area. At the turn of the century the basic mode of transportation switched from horse drawn vehicles to motorcars, which expanded the role of tourism in the area. Rocky Mountain 56
Environmental Assessment Allenspark Recreational Shooting Project
National Park opened in 1915, which increased the visits of tourists seeking to view the Rockies natural beauty and increased the demand for small cabin resorts and second summer homes. Consequently, most of the inventoried historic structures in the nearby communities and summer home groups date to this period of intense mountain recreation from 1900-1945.
Allenspark Dump
The analysis area overlaps what is the former Allenspark Trash Dump. It was designated for dumping by a special use permit from the Forest Service for the community of Allenspark. At the expiration of the permit, the dumpsite was reclaimed, which resulted in the removal of most of the historical component. In recent years the site has been machine excavated, which removed the majority of the historic component. The remainder of the artifacts has been intermixed with fragmented modern trash so that most are indistinguishable as historic. Its reclamation left the site with no historical integrity or significance.
B. Environmental Effects
Forest Plan Consistency
This project is consistent with Forest Plan direction for heritage resources.
Alternative A – No Action
Direct and Indirect Effects
Alternative A is the no action alternative. There is no impact to significant cultural resources by the current use of the site. Inaction would have no effect to cultural resources.
No indirect effects to cultural resources are anticipated under any of the proposed alternatives.
Cumulative Effects
No cumulative effects to cultural resources are anticipated under any of the proposed alternatives.
Alternative B – Proposed Action
Direct and Indirect Effects
Alternative B is a proposed action that involves the construction of the site into a shooting area. This would involve the use of heavy earth-moving equipment which has the potential to displace or destroy both surface and buried cultural materials. The project area was inventoried in 2005 by Forest Service archaeologist Paul Alford for the St. Vrain Fuel Reduction Project (Alford 2005). The Allens Park Dump (5BL9628) is located at the proposed construction area. It was evaluated for eligibility for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places and found to be not eligible. The State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) concurred with this determination on July 29, 2005. According to the 2006 revised regulations [36 CFR 800.4(d)(1)] for Section 106 57
Environmental Assessment Allenspark Recreational Shooting Project
of the National Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 470f), sites considered not eligible to the NRHP may be directly affected once adequately recorded and evaluated, and concurrence is received from the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) regarding NRHP eligibility. This proposed action would have no impact to significant cultural resources.
No indirect effects to cultural resources are anticipated under any of the proposed alternatives.
Cumulative Effects
No cumulative effects to cultural resources are anticipated under any of the proposed alternatives.
Alternative C – Site Closure to Shooting
Direct and Indirect Effects
Alternative C would result in the closure of the site to shooting. This would be an administrative action that would not physically impact the analysis area directly. This proposed action would have no impact to significant cultural resources.
No indirect effects to cultural resources are anticipated under any of the proposed alternatives.
Cumulative Effects
No cumulative effects to cultural resources are anticipated under any of the proposed alternatives.
Irreversible or Irretrievable Loss
Cultural resources are non-renewable, but the loss is limited to a site now considered to be not significant.
58
Environmental Assessment Allenspark Recreational Shooting Project
Appendix A Issues from Scoping on the Proposed Action
59
Environmental Assessment Allenspark Recreational Shooting Project
Appendix A Issues on the Proposed Action Issue Issue Category Reason for Categorization
- The site does not meet the criteria for This project is addressing a safety issue that has been occurring due to a long a safe location nor that it is the best Issue established use (since the 1960's) at this location. The proposed action is a location for a shooting range. Dismissed measure to make the area safer. Additionally, Forest Service policy allows - The Allenspark Dump site is not from ranges on National Forest System lands where they would be consistent with appropriate for a shooting range, put it Detailed the unit's land management plan and improve public safety (paraphrased from somewhere else. Shooting cannot be Analysis Forest Service Handbook 2709.11 Chapter 41.46.b). This project fits both safely accommodated here. criteria.
What alternative sites have been Issue Please see Chapter 2 in the Environmental Assessment. Section 2.2 explains considered (recommendations by Dismissed that placing the shooting range somewhere else is considered outside the residents have been made to the from scope of the project because the purpose and need of this project is not to Forest Service with more suitable Detailed provide or supply a shooting opportunity. The purpose and need is solely to locations)? Analysis address the safety issues of recreational shooting at this specific site.
- 30 days is not adequate time for Issue A second official 30 day comment period has been added at the release of the public input. Dismissed Environmental Assessment based on public input during the initial scoping from - No public meetings were held for this Detailed period. Public meetings are not required and are not planned as a part of this project. Analysis project. The limited information in the proposal Issue has raised concerns on how the Dismissed Impacts of the proposal are addressed in the environmental assessment rather impacts of the range will be mitigated from than in the project proposal. Please see Chapter 2 of the environmental (noise, additional traffic, proximity of Detailed assessment for a discussion of design criteria and monitoring shooting close to homes). Analysis
60
Environmental Assessment Allenspark Recreational Shooting Project
- There is no discussion in the Issue When the Forest Service accepts new projects, it accepts a commitment to fund proposal of how the improvements will Dismissed those projects. Internal sources and grant monies are available to implement be paid for. - The BRD from this project's decision. Any alternative, be it the no action, proposed action, or does not have the funding to develop Detailed closure, requires funding. or manage the site. Analysis Issue The Forest Service will follow its regulations regarding special use permits for There is no mention as to how Dismissed the management of the range. Any party wanting to manage the range will management of the range will be from need to apply for a special use permit. All factors regarding application, selected, trained, scheduled, and paid Detailed selection, management and monitoring of a shooting range on National Forest for. Analysis System lands is detailed in Forest Service Handbook 2709.11 Chapter 40. The original proposal did not address site security when the site is closed. Not The proposal does not address how having the site secured could lead to increased potential of bullets leaving forest the site will be secured when there is land onto private land if someone should enter the site during closed hours. Key Issue no on-site presence and during closed This issue has been included in Environmental Assessment (Chapters 1, 2 and hours. 3) for further analysis. Chapter 2 of the assessment also discusses design criteria to address this issue. There has not been adequate analysis Issue Resource analysis is performed in the Environmental Assessment. What was of the types and amounts of hazardous Dismissed mailed for comments was only the proposal, the first step in the Environmental materials that may be on-site including from Assessment and would not include that analysis. Please see Chapters 2 and 3 lead from previous shooting and how Detailed for the analysis of hazardous material for this project. There are no those will be cleaned up before Analysis requirements for lead clean-up before development. development. The purpose of doing an environmental assessment is to identify the This proposal has such significant Issue environmental effects of the proposal. Should any of the effects in the environmental effects that it should not Dismissed environmental assessment meet the definition of "significant" as defined in the be undertaken without a careful and from implementing regulations of the National Environmental Policy Act searching environmental impact Detailed (40CFR1508.27), then an Environmental Impact Statement will be completed statement. Analysis for the project. Issue The proposal is devoid of any plan to Dismissed The proposal is the plan to address the safety issues as they relate to the prevent unsafe shooting or the return of from purpose and need of the project. The proposed action requires on-site staff and unsafe shooters. Detailed supervision which directly relates to attending to unsafe shooting at the site. Analysis
61
Environmental Assessment Allenspark Recreational Shooting Project
The issue that bullets can stray from the site despite implementing the proposed Shooting range design is not a science action has been added as a key issue to analyze further. Please see the and cannot assure safety of private Key Issue Environmental Assessment Chapters 1, 2 and 3 for further discussion of this property and people down-range. issue.
An information kiosk is included in the proposal for posting rules and regulations for the site. The rules will be enforced by the special use permittee selected to manage the site. Additionally, the proposal requires on site staffing at all times Shooting ranges require clear rules and Issue during open hours to provide constant supervision of the range by the permittee. a high level on constant expert Dismissed Forest Service regulations explain in detail how a range will be managed by a supervision, training, and maintenance, from third party. All factors regarding application, selection, management and which the proposal does not assure or Detailed monitoring of a shooting range on National Forest System lands is detailed in even address. Analysis Forest Service Handbook 2709.11 Chapter 40. The Boulder Ranger District will work closely with the selected managing group/individual as it does with all partners and concessionaires in the management of Forest recreation facilities.
The site was a former dump. Without extensive and costly remediation, hazardous materials would be Developing a known former dump will introduce toxicity into the soil and water disturbed by construction and has been added as a key issue for further analysis. Please see the Key Issue introduced into the atmosphere, runoff, Environmental Assessment Chapters 1, 2, and 3 for further discussion of this and ground water. Federal law issue. constrains the use of the dump site as contemplated in the proposal. Issue The issue of sound as noise in this context is outside of the scope of this project Shooting noise will decrease the quality Dismissed from as it does not meet the purpose and need of reducing the risk of bullets leaving of life for those living in the area. Detailed the Allenspark Dumpsite and traveling onto nearby private land. Analysis Issue There is no evidence that shooting creates more of a wildfire risk than other Dismissed The proposal creates an unacceptable uses across the District. Some uses, like campfires and shooting, do carry a from risk of forest fires. wildfire risk, which the Forest Service has historically accepted as the Forest Detailed Service has allowed these traditional uses to continue. Analysis
62
Environmental Assessment Allenspark Recreational Shooting Project
The proposal was scoped to identify issues with the proposed action. The issues were then used to develop alternatives to address the issues. To drive Issue alternative development, the issues must address the purpose and need of the Contrary to NEPA, the proposal makes Dismissed project. Exploring alternative sites is outside the scope of this project because no mention of the exploration of from the purpose and need is specifically focused at this site and does address alternative sites. Detailed providing shooting elsewhere. Please refer to Chapter 2 of this environmental Analysis assessment for the discussion of the alternatives. Alternative development for this project is in compliance with NEPA.
The purpose and need of the project addresses a site specific safety issue at The proposal is arbitrary and capricious Issue the former Allenspark Dumpsite. The proposed action addresses the purpose as other FS units have closed or Dismissed and need by proposing range development to reduce the risk of bullets leaving relocated ranges because they were from the site and entering private land. The alternative of closing the site is also too close to residential areas and Detailed included in Chapter 2 of the environmental assessment. Alternatives are scenic byways. Analysis analyzed as required by NEPA.
The proposal makes no mention of using private lands as a buffer for shooting The proposal would use surrounding activities. The proposal's purpose is to reduce the risk of bullets leaving Forest private property as a buffer for Issue land and travelling onto the surrounding private land. The intent is to keep escaping bullets and sound energy, Dismissed bullets from leaving the site so that they never reach private land, therefore which constitutes an illegal and from there are no buffering qualities assigned to the nearby private land. Private land uncompensated taking in violation of Detailed is also not considered a buffer to sound as the proposal includes berming and the Constitution of the United States as Analysis baffling to deflect sound energy away from the houses. The Forest Service is well as trespass. not proposing any type of "taking" in this project.
By providing only a vague sketch of the proposed action and denying the right Issue to later comment on the EA and final A second official 30 day comment period has been added at the release of the Dismissed decision, The FS subjects property Environmental Assessment based on public input during the initial scoping from owners to the risk of loss life or limb as period. Please also see the Environmental Assessment for more specifics and Detailed well as property without due process of details on the project. Analysis law as required by the fifth Amendment of the United Stated Constitution.
63
Environmental Assessment Allenspark Recreational Shooting Project
Issue This is a Forest wide regulation that the Boulder Ranger District is enforcing Do not limit the types of targets to Dismissed across the entire District with no plans for exceptions. Changing or making Forest Order #10-00-2010-01. from Detailed exceptions to this Forest Order is outside the scope of this project as it does not Analysis address the purpose and need of the project. Please see Chapter 2 in the Environmental Assessment. Section 2.2 explains Issue that this was an alternative considered but dropped from detailed study because Dismissed We support the project, but do not want it decreases the success of achieving the purpose and need of the project. from it supervised (several reasons given). Without staffing and supervision, chances are increased for improper shooting Detailed behavior that results in stray bullets leaving the site and travelling onto the Analysis surrounding private land. Wildlife is covered in the analysis of this project. Please see the Environmental Wildlife will be disturbed by the Other Assessment Chapters 2 and 3 for further discussions on wildlife, including shooting. Issue design criteria for the proposal for wildlife. Wildlife is covered in the analysis of this project. Please see the Environmental Close the site to shooting during Other Assessment Chapters 2 and 3 for further discussions on wildlife, including breeding season. Issue design criteria for the proposal for wildlife. Issue Dismissed Please see the Environmental Assessment for more specifics and details on the The proposal was not specific enough. from Detailed project. Analysis Issue The Forest Service feels that the proposed site supervision requirements and Proposed management of the site is Dismissed management actions are adequate to address the purpose and need of the too loose. from Detailed Analysis project. Please see the description of the proposed action in Chapter 2. Issue The proposal was designed to meet the purpose and need of the project as Dismissed The proposal is not large enough to stated in Chapter 1, section 1.2 of the Environmental Assessment. In this case, from meet demand. the purpose is not to meet the demand, but to reduce the risks of bullets leaving Detailed the site and travelling onto the nearby private land. Analysis
Issue The Forest Service feels that the proposed level of development is necessary to The proposal proposes more Dismissed achieve the success of minimizing the risk of bullets leaving the dumpsite and development than needed. from Detailed Analysis travelling onto surrounding private land.
64
Environmental Assessment Allenspark Recreational Shooting Project
No feasibility study has been done as a part of this project. The scale of Has an impartial feasibility study been Issue development was described as a variance in the proposal, for example, a range done? The site is too small to Dismissed from of 5-15 shooting stations 50 yards in length. This flexibility will allow the design accommodate such an increase in Detailed of the shooting range to stay within the current capacity of the site. The scale. Analysis environmental analysis will analyze the effects of the proposed development. The analysis of lead levels is synonymous with the analysis of hazard materials What is the environmental impact of as mentioned above and has been included as a key issue. Please see the accumulated lead? Impact of airborne Key Issue Environmental Assessment Chapters 1, 2, and 3 for further discussion of this lead dust? issue.
This site operated as a trash dump in the 1960's and became a popular area for shooting when the dump was closed and capped. This historical use suggests Issue that the scenic integrity has already been compromised at this 2 acre site The proposal will impact the scenic Dismissed proposed for development. When the site is designed, scenic integrity will be a integrity of the area. The project from factor in the design for what scenic integrity remains at the site. The site is not should not be along a scenic byway. Detailed on or along the Peak to Peak Scenic Byway itself. Please also see the Analysis discussion directly below on the Forest Plan's management prescription (4.2 Scenery) for the area for more information.
65
Environmental Assessment Allenspark Recreational Shooting Project
This project and proposal is congruent with the Forest Plan's management prescription for this area. The former Allenspark Dump is located within the North St. Vrain Geographic Area of the 1997 Revision of the Land and Resource Management Plan (pages 89-91)(Forest Plan). One of the goals of this geographic area is to emphasize motorized and non-motorized recreational opportunities in the majority of the area. Issue The proposal is in conflict with the Dismissed The management area prescription in the Forest Plan for these two parcels is Forest Plan’s Management prescription from 4.2- Scenery. Scenic areas are managed to protect or preserve scenic values for the area. Detailed and recreational uses of designated scenic byways and other heavily used Analysis scenic travel corridors. Sounds from people or motorized recreational activities are usually common, and there are limited opportunities for solitude or isolation. Use may be concentrated or dispersed in these areas. A social type of recreational experience may be provided under this management prescription. Developed recreational sites may also be common and are often emphasized in these travel corridors
Current parking is creating safety Issue The current parking will be changed to accommodate the development in the Dismissed problems – developing it will add to from Detailed proposal. The proposed parking will provide safe parking off of Colorado State that. Analysis Highway 7.
- The proposal will increase traffic and congestion. The increased traffic will The proposal will change the demographic of the type of shooter that uses the create conflicts between motorists and Issue site due to introducing a fee and development, however, it is uncertain that the others using Colorado State Highway Dismissed project will increase traffic and congestion on Highway 7 because of this change 7. The increased traffic will create from in demographic. Despite this uncertainty, all traffic design laws and regulations safety problems. Detailed will be adhered to in the project design to assure user safety. Please also see - The proposal will present a safety Analysis the Design Criteria section under Recreation in the Environmental Assessment risk to those using Colorado State further discussion. Highway 7.
66
Environmental Assessment Allenspark Recreational Shooting Project
Issue This project is not intended to address the needs or the use of the area. Its There needs to be more information on Dismissed purpose is to address a documented safety issue that needs to be resolved due the needs and use for the area. from Detailed to shooting use at the site resulting in bullets leaving the site and travelling onto Analysis private land. Issue The berms have been raised from 20 feet to 40 feet in the proposal to better The berms need to be higher. Dismissed from Detailed meet the purpose and need of the project and to help with sound deflection. Analysis Issue The proposed action has been changed from "Establish hours of operation Dismissed between dawn and dusk" to "The range will operate no more than 10 hours a Dawn to dusk is too long – especially in from day during daylight hours. The hours of operation will be established by the the summer months. Detailed organization, concessionaire, or club selected to manage the site with Forest Analysis Service approval. Issue The Allenspark Dumpsite's orientation will either have people shooting towards The proposal has people shooting Dismissed private land/houses or the highway as the site is surrounded by one or the towards Colorado State Highway 7 – from other. The purpose and need and proposal is to reduce the risk of bullets which is unsafe. Detailed leaving the site. This is true for whichever direction the shooting is occurring. Analysis Therefore, this issue is already addressed by this proposal. Issue Toilets and trash are not proposed until Dismissed Phase 2 has been eliminated. All actions will be implemented at the same time Phase 2 – what are shooters to do in from as funding and resources allow. the meantime? Detailed Analysis
The proposal requires that the developed range be managed by a third party Issue under a special use permit with the Forest Service. This was included in the Dismissed proposal to increase the success of meeting the purpose and need for the - Do not charge a fee to use the range. from project. Fees need to be assessed to support the Forest Service and the third - Keep the fee minimal. Detailed party in the management of the range. The Forest Service will use current fee Analysis regulations and will create a business plan with the intent of keeping fees as low as possible.
67
Environmental Assessment Allenspark Recreational Shooting Project
Issue Pursuant to Forest Service Handbook 2709.11 Chapter 40, a safety plan is A safety plan should be part of the Dismissed required in the application of a special use permit to manage a shooting range project. from Detailed Analysis on National Forest System lands. Based on the terrain, vegetation, baffling, and berming, the sound levels from shooting that emanate from the Allenspark Dumpsite will diminish to safe hearing levels anywhere surrounding the site . A normal conversation occurs at 60-65 dB(A) and the threshold for pain is considered 140 dB(A) (www.freehearingtest.com/hia_gunfirenoise.shtml). With extended exposure, noises that reach a decibel level of 85 can cause permanent damage to the hair cells in the inner ear, leading to hearing loss (www.dangerousdecibels.org/education/information-center/noise-induced- hearing-loss/). According to calculations taken from the paper "Sound and Noise, Study Committee on Firearms Safety and Sport Shooting Ranges", The proposal would introduce unsafe January 4, 2001 by Don Turner for the Arizona Game and Fish Department, and unhealthy quanta of sound energy Issue noise levels leaving the site will fall to below 85 dB(A) from the origin of the at levels that would be prohibited by Dismissed shooting noise to State Highway 7 (at 250 feet away), and even further below local and state law, injuring property from 85 dB(A) to the nearest residence (at 847 feet away). The calculations owners, cyclists, hikers, and Detailed performed by the Boulder Ranger District used the loudest firearm found in an participants in nearby community Analysis internet search (170 dB(A) taken from activities. www.freehearingtest.com/hia_gunfirenoise.shtml) and only accounted for the vegetation found in the area. Following the guidelines and logarithmic qualities of sound as outlined in the paper by Don Turner cited above, the dB(A) from a 170 dB(A) gunshot would be reduced to 85.5 dB(A) at the entrance of the site off of State Highway 7 and would be further reduced to 57 dB(A) at the nearest residence. These calculations do not account for the baffling and berms that would reduce the dB(A)s even further. Given that the sound level to the nearest residence will be reduced to below 57 dB(A) taking into account vegetation, berming, and baffling, and considering the limited hours of operation, the sound levels are within Boulder County Ordinance limits (55 dB(A) between 7:00 am to 7:00 pm and 50 dB(A) between 7:00 pm and 7:00 am).
68
Environmental Assessment Allenspark Recreational Shooting Project
Appendix B Allenspark Dumpsite Potential Concept Plan
69
Environmental Assessment Allenspark Recreational Shooting Project
70
Environmental Assessment Allenspark Recreational Shooting Project
Appendix C Glossary
71
Environmental Assessment Allenspark Recreational Shooting Project
Action Area - 0Defined under the Endangered Species Act as all areas that will be affected directly or indirectly by the Federal action, and not merely the immediate area involved in the action (50 CFR 402.02). Activity Area - An area of land impacted by a management activity or activities. It can range from a few acres to an entire watershed depending on the type of monitoring being conducted. Aquatic Resources - Refers to the biological resources (macroinvertebrates, fisheries, mollusks, etc.) and the habitat found in streams, rivers, ponds and lakes. Alternative - One of a number of possible options for responding to the purpose and need for action, within an environmental analysis. Cation Exchange Capacity - The sum total of exchangeable cations a soil can absorb. Associated with the clay and humus fractions of the soil and highly correlated with plant nutrition Classified Road – Roads wholly or partially within or adjacent to National forest system land that are determined to be needed for long term motor vehicle access, including state roads, county roads, privately owned roads, National Forest System roads, and other roads authorized by the Forest Service Clean Water Act - An Act of Congress, which establishes policy to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters. Compaction - Reduction of soil porosity or increase in soil bulk density Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) - Established by Title II of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) to oversee Federal efforts to comply with NEPA. Cultural Resources - Cultural resources include sites, structures, or objects used by prehistoric and historic residents or travelers. They are non-renewable resources that tell of life-styles of prehistoric and historic people. Cultural resources are diverse and include properties such as archaeological ruins, pictographs, early tools, burial sites, log cabins, mining structures, guard stations, and fire lookouts. Cumulative Effects - Impacts on the environment that result from the incremental impact of an action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. Cumulative effects can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time. Detrimental Compaction - A 15% increase in bulk density from undisturbed bulk density Detrimental Displacement - The removal of soil from a continuous area of 100 square feet or more Detrimental Erosion - Any indication of sheet erosion. Any rills or gullies greater than 1 inch deep Detrimental Soil Impacts - Activity area (unit) soils are considered detrimentally impacted when the extent detrimental of compaction, displacement, puddling, severe burning or erosion exceeds 15% of the area. USDA Forest Service soil quality standards are meant as early warning thresholds of detrimental soil conditions. Detrimental soil conditions result in a true productivity decline and need to be as great as 15 percent to be detectable by current monitoring methods. Therefore, threshold soil quality monitoring standards are set at the level of soil change corresponding to a statistically detectable, 15 percent, decline in potential productivity; this does not imply that absolute productivity of a site has declined 15 percent, but that a detrimental soil condition threshold has been crossed (Powers, et. al., 1998). This activity area standard is mostly 72
Environmental Assessment Allenspark Recreational Shooting Project
applied to soil porosity and bulk density as a measure of compaction, but has also been used as a measure of organic matter loss. Changes of greater than 15 percent increase in bulk density; removal of topsoil from a continuous area greater than 100 feet square; accelerated erosion evidenced by pedestalled rocks or plants, erosion pavements, or rills greater than 1 inch deep; and severely burned soil evidenced by consumption of organic matter to bare mineral soil, reddened surfaces and charred roots in upper cm of soil are all considered to be detrimental soil disturbance as defined by Region 2 Soil Quality Standards (FSH 2509.18-92-1), (Powers, et. al., 1998). Direct Effects - Effects caused directly by an action and occurring at the same time and place. Dispersed Recreation - This type of recreational use requires few, if any, improvements and may occur over a wide area. This type of recreation involves activities related to roads, trails and undeveloped waterways and beaches. The activities do not necessarily take place on or adjacent to a road, trail, or waterway, only in conjunction with them. Activities are often day-use oriented and include hunting, fishing, boating, off-road vehicle use, hiking and others. Easement - A right held by one person to make use of the land of another for a limited purpose, such as a special-use authorization for a right-of-way that conveys a conditioned interest in National Forest System land, and is compensable according to its terms. Ecosystem - A naturally occurring, self-maintained system of living and non-living interacting parts that are organized into biophysical and human dimension components. Endangered Species - Designated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or National Marine Fisheries Service, an animal or plant species that has been given federal protection status because it is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its natural range. Endangered Species Act (ESA) - An act passed by Congress in 1973 intended to protect species and subspecies of plants and animals that are of “aesthetic, ecological, educational, historical, recreational, and scientific value”. It may also protect the listed species’ critical habitat, the geographic area occupied by or essential to the species. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) share authority to list endangered species, determine critical habitat, and develop species’ recovery plans. Erosion - The transportation of earth and rock materials by water, ice, wind, and gravity. Erosion Hazard Rating - A measure of the susceptibility of a soil to erosion based on soil properties and slope. Effective ground cover also controls potential for erosion Forest Plan - This is the overall guidance document for the Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests and Pawnee National Grassland Forest transportation system management – The planning, inventory, analysis, classification, record keeping, scheduling, construction, reconstruction, maintenance, decommissioning, and other operations undertaken to achieve environmentally sound, safe, cost-effective, access for use, protection, administration, and management of National Forest System lands Habitat - A place that provides seasonal or year-round food, water, shelter, and other environmental conditions for an organism, community, or population of plants or animals. Historic Property - Any pre-historic or historic district, site, building, structure, or object included on, or eligible for inclusion on the National Register, including artifacts, 73
Environmental Assessment Allenspark Recreational Shooting Project
records, and material remains related to such a property or resource. Humus - Fully decomposed (composted) soil organic material Hydrophobicity - Formation of water repellent layer in the soil following combustion of plant materials Loamy Skeletal - Soils containing more than 35% rock fragments Long-term Site Productivity - Soil productivity depends on soil structure, organic matter, nutrient pools and biotic processes. Long-term site productivity is altered when disturbance processes exceed recovery processes over time. Management Indicator Species (MIS) - Representative species whose habitat conditions or population changes are used to assess the impacts of management activities on similar species in a particular area. MIS are generally presumed to be sensitive to habitat changes. Mitigation - Actions that avoid, minimize, reduce, eliminate, or rectify impacts from management practices. Monitoring - The process of collecting information to evaluate if objectives and anticipated results of a management plan are being realized, or if implementation is proceeding as planned. Most Limiting Value - There are usually 2 or 3 soil types within each soil-mapping unit. Often, one of the soil types is more limiting than the others for any proposed management activity (road building, erosion hazard rating, etc) National Forest System Road - A classified forest road under the jurisdiction of the Forest Service. The term “National Forest System roads is synonymous (replaces) with the term “forest development roads”. Native plant - A plant native to a specific region where it grows naturally and where it evolved before the arrival of European settlers in the late 1700s. NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act) - An abbreviation for the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, which requires environmental analysis and public disclosure of federal actions. NHPA (National Historic Preservation Act) - A Federal Act, passed in 1966, which established a program for the preservation of additional historic properties throughout the nation and for other purposes, including the establishment of the National Register of Historic Places, the National Historic Landmarks designation, regulations for supervision of antiquities, designation of the State Historic Preservation Offices (SHPO), guidelines for federal agency responsibilities, technical advice, and the establishment of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. NRHP (National Register of Historic Places) - A list of cultural resources that have local, state, or national significance maintained by the Secretary of the Interior. No Action (alternative) - The most likely condition expected to exist if current management practices continue unchanged. The analysis of this alternative is required for federal actions under NEPA. Noxious weed - A state-designated plant species that causes negative ecological and economic impacts to both agricultural and other lands within the state. Proposed Action - A proposal made by the Forest Service to authorize, recommend, or implement an action to meet a specific purpose and need. Recreation Opportunity - Availability of a real choice for a user to participate in a preferred activity within a preferred setting in order to realize those experiences desired. Rights-of-way - Land authorized to be used or occupied for the construction, operation, 74
Environmental Assessment Allenspark Recreational Shooting Project
maintenance and termination of a project or facility passing over, upon, under or through such land (36 CFR 251.51). The privilege that one person or persons particularly described may have of passing over the land of another in some particular line (FSH 2709.12). Riparian - Pertaining to areas of land directly influence by water. Riparian areas usually have visible vegetative or physical characteristics reflecting this water influence. Stream banks, lake borders, or marshes are typical riparian areas. Vegetation bordering watercourses, lakes or swamps; it requires a high water table. Road Construction – Activity that results in the addition of forest classified or temporary road miles (36 CFR 212.1). Road Decommissioning – Activities that result in the stabilization and restoration of unneeded roads to a more natural state. Activities used to decommission a road include, but are not limited to: reestablishing former drainage patterns, stabilizing slopes, restoring vegetation, blocking the entrance to the road, installing waterbars, removing culverts, reestablishing drainage-ways, removing unstable fills, pulling back road shoulders, scattering slash on the roadbed, completely eliminating the roadbed by restoring natural contours and slopes, or other methods designed to meet the specific conditions associated with the unneeded road. (FSM 7712). One or many of the methods described may be used as deemed necessary. Decommissioning removes the road from the transportation system. Road Maintenance – The ongoing upkeep of a road necessary to regain or restore the road to the approved road management objective (FSM 7712.3). Scenery - General appearance of a place, general appearance of a landscape, or features of a landscape. Scenic - Of or relating to landscape scenery, pertaining to natural or natural-appearing scenery; constituting or affording pleasant views of natural landscape attributes or positive cultural elements. Scoping- A process defined by the National Environmental Policy Act and used by the Forest Service to determine through public involvement, the range of issues that the planning process should address. Sedimentation - A general term describing both the erosion and sediment delivery processes. Sensitive species - Sensitive plant and animal species are selected by the Regional Forester or the BLM State Director because population viability may be a concern, as evidenced by a current or predicted downward trend in population numbers or density, or a current or predicted downward trend in habitat capability that would reduce a species' existing distribution. Sensitive species are not addressed in or covered by the Endangered Species Act. Soil erosion - Soil erosion is the detachment and transport of soil particles or aggregates by wind, water, or gravity. Management practices may increase soil erosion hazard when they remove ground cover and detach soil particles. Soil Moisture Regime - An indication of the time period a soil is dry, moist or saturated Soil Structure - the arrangement of soil particles into peds. Structure is generally broken down when compaction occurs Soil Texture - Relative proportions of sand, silt and clay in soil. Coarse textures are associated with “sandy” soils and fine textures are associated with “clay” soils State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) - A person appointed by a state’s governor to administer the State Historic Preservation Program. Sustainable - using a resource so that the resource is not depleted or permanently 75
Environmental Assessment Allenspark Recreational Shooting Project
damaged Threatened species - Designated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or National Marine Fisheries Service; a plant or animal species given federal protection because it is likely to become endangered throughout all or a specific portion of its range within the foreseeable future. Unclassified Road – Roads on National Forest System lands that are not managed as part of the forest transportation system, such as unplanned roads, abandoned travelways, and off-road vehicle tracks that have not been designated and managed as a trail: and those roads that were once under permit or other authorization and were not decommission upon the termination of the authorization (36 CFR 212.1). Water quality - Refers to the chemical, physical, or biological characteristics that describe the conditions of a river, stream, or lake. Water Resources - Refer to the physical hydrologic terms of water quality, water yield (flow), and watershed conditions. Watershed - Region or area drained by surface and groundwater flow in rivers, streams, or other surface channels. A smaller watershed can be wholly contained within a larger one, as watersheds are hierachal in structure. Wetlands - Land areas that are wet at least for part of the year, are poorly drained, and are characterized by hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and wetland hydrology. Examples of wetlands include swamps, marshes, and bogs. Winter range - An area or areas where animals (usually ungulates such as elk, deer, and bighorn sheep) concentrate due to favorable winter weather conditions. Conditions are often influenced by snow depth, and the availability or forage and thermal cover.
76
Environmental Assessment Allenspark Recreational Shooting Project
Appendix D References
77
Environmental Assessment Allenspark Recreational Shooting Project
References:
Alford, Paul. 2005. A Class II Cultural Resource Inventory for the Saint Vrain Fuel Reduction Project, Boulder Ranger District, Boulder County, Colorado. Ms. on file with the Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests and Pawnee National Grassland Supervisor's Office, Fort Collins, Colorado.
Code of Federal Regulations, 2010. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 36 Parks, Forests and Public Property, (Part 1 to End of Parts) as of December 31, 2010.
Colorado State Parks, 2005 (as amended). Colorado Statewide Outdoor Recreation Comprehensive Plan.
Colorado Department of Transportation, 1982. Highway 7 Realignment/Reconstruction Environmental Impact Statement.
Colorado Department of Transportation, 2007 Active Website. Highway 7 Safety and Use Statistics.
“Do You Use Best Management Practices for Lead at Your Outdoor Shooting Range?” EPA- 902-F-00-001, Fact Sheet. Available online at www.epa.gov/region2/
Eisler, R. 1988. Lead hazards to fish, wildlife, and invertebrates: a synoptic review. Contaminant hazard reviews, Report No. 14. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, MD. 94pp.
EPA. 2005. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Best Management Practices for Lead at Outdoor Shooting Ranges. Revised June 2005.
Henny, C.J., L.J. Blus, D.J. Hoffman, and R.A. Grove. 1994. Lead in hawks, falcons and owls downstream from a mining site on the Coeur D’Alene river, Idaho. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 29:267-288.
International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, Wildlife Management Institute, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the Interior (sponsors). Proceedings of the Third National Shooting Range Symposium or latest edition. Wildlife Management Institute, Washington, D.C. 1996. 509 p.
Interstate Technology and Regulatory Council. Environmental Management at Operating Outdoor Small Arms Firing Ranges (SMART-2). 2005. 125 p. Available online at http://www.itrcweb.org.
Knight, R.L. and K. J. Gutzwiller, eds. 1995. Wildlife and recreationists: coexistence through management and research. Island Press, Washington, D.C. 372 pp.
Labare, M.P., M.A. Butkus, D. Riegner, N. Schommer, and J. Atkinson. 2004. Evaluation of lead movement from the abiotic to biotic at a small-arms firing rangeEnvironmental Geology (2004) 46:750–754.
78
Environmental Assessment Allenspark Recreational Shooting Project
Lewis, L.A, R.J. Poppenga, W.R. Davidson, J.R. Fischer, and K.A. Morgan. 2001. Lead toxicosis and trace element levels in wild birds and mammals at a firearms training facility. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 41, pp. 208-214.
Lowney, Yvette, June 22, 2010. Report/letter to John Putnam titled “Old Allenspark Dumpsite and Proposed Shooting Range, Exponent Project No. 1003733.000”. http://glacierviewneighborsassociation.org/lowney%20report.pdf
Luna, C. 2010. U.S. Forest Service Boulder Ranger District Recreation Planner. Personal communication.
Ma, Wei-chun. 1996. Effect of soil pollution with metallic lead pellets on lead bioaccumulation and organ/body weight alterations in small mammals. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 18, 617- 622.
National Rifle Association of America. Range Technical Team Program. Fairfax, VA.
National Rifle Association of America. NRA Range Source Book. Fairfax, VA. 1999 or latest edition. 525 p. Available on the internet at www.nrahq.org/shootingrange/
National Shooting Sports Foundation. Environmental Aspects of Construction and Management of Outdoor Shooting Ranges. Newtown, CT. 1997. 139 p. Available online at www.rangeinfo.org
National Shooting Sports Foundation. Environmental Stewardship Plan Development Program. Newtown, CT. 2005. CD-ROM.
PRISM. 2011. Parameter-elevation Regressions on Independent Slopes Model for estimating precipitation website. http://www.prism.oregonstate.edu/?id=CO. Oregon State University. Site accessed January, 2011.
Rogstad, Larry. 2011. Telephone call between Larry Rogstad, Colorado Division of Wildlife Area Manager, and Bev Baker, January 19, 2011.
Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers Institute. Lead Mobility at Shooting Ranges. Newtown, CT. 1995. 118 p.
Stansley, W. and D.E. Roscoe. 1996. The uptake and effects of lead in small mammals and frogs at a trap and skeet range. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 30, 220-226.
Tourism and Recreation Program of Boulder County, 1998. Peak to Peak Scenic and Historic Byway Corridor Management Plan.
Tourism and Recreation Program, Nederland Colorado, 2002. Peak to Peak Scenic and Historic Byway Visual Intrusion Reduction Plan
Turner, Don. 2001. Sound and noise. Study committee on firearms safety and sport shooting ranges, January 4, 2001 for the Arizona Game and Fish Department.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 2007. Facilities Master Plan. Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forest and Pawnee National Grassland.
79
Environmental Assessment Allenspark Recreational Shooting Project
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 2010. Forest Service Handbook (FSH) and Directives. (Including but not limited to: 2709.11)
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 1997. 1997 Land and Resource Management Plan. Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forest and Pawnee National Grassland.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 2010. Forest Service Manual (FSM) and Directives as amended. (Including but not limited to: 2709.11)
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 2010. National Visitor Use Monitoring Results. Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forest and Pawnee National Grassland.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 2005. North St. Vrain Fuels Reduction Planning Project. Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forest and Pawnee National Grassland.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2011a. 2010-2011 Refuge-apecific hunting and sport fishing regulations. Available at http://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2011/01/21/2011-225/2010- 2011-refuge-specific-hunting-and-sport-fishing-regulations
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2011b. Migratory bird program: nontoxic shot regulations for hunting waterfowl and coots in the U.S. Available at: http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/CurrentBirdIssues/nontoxic.htm
Vyas, N.B, J.W. Spann, G.H. Heinz, W.N. Beyer, and J.A. Jaquette. 200. Lead poisoning of passerines at a trap and skeet range. Environmental Pollution 107: 159-166.
Weiss, Manuel M. 1981a The Boulder County Historical Site Survey. Ms. on file at the Colorado Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation.
80
Environmental Assessment Allenspark Recreational Shooting Project
Appendix E Consultation, Coordination, and Interdisciplinary Team
81
Environmental Assessment Allenspark Recreational Shooting Project
LIST OF AGENCIES AND PERSONS CONSULTED AND CONTACTED
The following organizations and agencies were contacted for information or assisted in identifying important issues:
US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)
Colorado State Historic Preservation Office
Colorado Department of Wildlife
Responsible Official Christine Walsh: District Ranger
INTERDISCIPLINARY TEAM
Core Team Catherine Luna: IDT Leader Ed Perault: Recreation Staff Officer Beverly Baker: Wildlife Biologist Chis IDA: Forest Engineer and Hazardous Materials Specialist Eric Schroder: Soils Scientist Paul Alford: Archeologist Carl Chambers: Forest Hydrologist
EXTENDED TEAM
Karen Roth: Forest Environmental Coordinator Steve Popovich, Forest Botanist Matt Fairchild, Forest Fisheries Biologist
82