United States Department of Agriculture Environmental Forest Service Assessment July, 2010 Grand Mesa National Forest Mechanized (Mountain Bike) Travel Restriction Grand Valley Ranger District, Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunnison National Forests Mesa and Delta Counties, Colorado The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, DC 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. Environmental Assessment Grand Mesa Mechanized Travel Restriction Grand Mesa National Forest Mechanized Travel Restriction Environmental Assessment Mesa and Delta Counties, Colorado Lead Agency: USDA Forest Service Responsible Official: Charles S. Richmond, Forest Supervisor Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunnison National Forests 250 HWY 50 Delta, CO 81416 For Information Contact: Niccole Mortenson, Project Lead 2250 HWY 50 Delta, CO 81416 970-874-6616 [email protected] i Environmental Assessment Grand Mesa Mechanized Travel Restriction ii Environmental Assessment Grand Mesa Mechanized Travel Restriction SUMMARY The Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunnison National Forests propose to restrict mechanized travel to designated trails. The area affected by the proposal includes only the Grand Mesa National Forest as managed by the Grand Valley Ranger District. This action is needed to address a recreation niche that was overlooked in previous analyses; prevent continued resource damage from a proliferation of user-created routes; and, further, identify a base system of routes that can be built upon in the future as resource protections, funding and user group cooperation allow. There is a history of travel management decisions and restrictions on the Grand Mesa National Forest. Recently it was noted that a new situation was occurring that was not adequately addressed in any of the previous travel analysis regarding non-motorized, mechanized travel. The GMUG recognizes mechanized travel such as mountain biking as a desirable non-motorized recreational experience. This analysis provides the GMUG the opportunity to disclose the effects of restricting mountain bike (and other mechanized equipment) use to an existing and/or proposed system of routes. As part of the public involvement process, the GMUG sent out approximately eighty letters with maps to interested parties, user groups, businesses, and Local, State, Federal and Tribal entities; sent press releases to all area newspapers (at least three published); provided a radio interview (KVNF); and posted information to the GMUG’s website. Twenty-five comments were received primarily from mountain bikers and associated groups. The key issues brought forward relate to safety and user experience. These issues led the agency to develop alternatives to the proposed action including: • No Action Alternative- Mechanized travel allowed to continue cross-country anywhere on the Grand Mesa National Forest. • Alternative 1 (Proposed Action)-Restrict mechanized travel to existing routes (addresses resource concerns). • Alternative 2 Restrict mechanized travel to existing routes and authorize approximately 26.9 miles of new mechanized routes (addresses resource concerns and user experience). • Alternative 3- Restrict mechanized travel to existing routes, authorize approximately 26.9 miles of new mechanized routes and add seasonal closures in the Kannah Creek area (addresses resource concerns, user experience and safety). Implementing any of the action alternatives would result in fewer impacts to natural and physical resources while still addressing recreation demand. Based upon the effects of the alternatives, the responsible official will decide: • Whether or not to restrict mechanized travel to designated routes; and • If mechanized travel is restricted to designated routes, decide which alternative (or combination of alternatives) to implement. iii Environmental Assessment Grand Mesa Mechanized Travel Restriction iv Environmental Assessment Grand Mesa Mechanized Travel Restriction Table of Contents Grand Mesa National Forest Mechanized Travel Restriction.......................................... i Summary ....................................................................................................................... iii Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action ....................................................................... 1 1.0 Document Structure .................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Grand Mesa Travel Restriction History .................................................................... 1 1.2 Purpose and Need for Action .................................................................................... 3 1.3 Proposed Action ........................................................................................................ 3 1.4 Decision Framework ................................................................................................. 4 1.5 Authorizing Actions .................................................................................................. 4 1.5.1 Laws ................................................................................................................... 4 1.5.2 Regulations ........................................................................................................ 4 1.5.3 Policy ................................................................................................................. 4 1.5.4 Forest Plan Direction ......................................................................................... 6 1.6 Public Involvement ................................................................................................... 7 1.7 Issues ......................................................................................................................... 7 1.7.1 Key Issues .......................................................................................................... 7 1.7.2 Non-key Issues ................................................................................................... 8 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the proposed action ................................................... 11 2.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 11 2.1 Alternatives Considered in Detail ........................................................................... 12 2.1.1 No Action Alternative ...................................................................................... 13 2.1.2 Common to All Action Alternatives ................................................................ 18 2.1.3 Alternative 1 – Proposed Action (Existing Designated Routes) ...................... 20 2.1.4 Alternative 2 (Additional Routes) .................................................................... 23 2.1.5 Alternative 3 (Additional Routes with Seasonal Restriction) .......................... 27 2.1.6 Design Criteria for Alternatives ....................................................................... 31 2.2 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study ............................... 32 2.2.1 No Initial Mechanized Travel Restrictions ...................................................... 32 2.2.2 Restrict Mechanized Travel below the Rim of Grand Mesa............................ 32 2.2.3 Open Link Connecting Cobbett Lake and Crag Crest Trail West Parking Lot to Mechanized Travel.................................................................................................... 33 2.2.4 Open “Extra Credit” Trail to Mechanized Travel ............................................ 33 2.3 Comparison of Alternatives .................................................................................... 33 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences .............................. 41 3.0 Existing Activities in Analysis Area ....................................................................... 41 3.0.1 Water Development ......................................................................................... 41 3.0.2 Livestock Grazing ............................................................................................ 41 3.0.3 Fire Management ............................................................................................. 41 3.0.4 Timber Management ........................................................................................ 41 3.0.5 Recreation ........................................................................................................ 42 3.0.6 Oil and Gas Development ................................................................................ 42 3.1 Air Quality .............................................................................................................