Environmental Assessmenta123.g.akamai.net/.../11558/www/nepa/64965_FSPLT2_025957.pdf · 2010. 9....

i

United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service September 2010

Environmental Assessment

Watershed Improvement Projects on the Pawnee National Grassland

Pawnee National Grassland Arapaho Roosevelt National Forest and Pawnee National Grassland Weld County, Colorado

Little Owl Creek, Pawnee National Grassland

Lead Agency: USDA Forest Service Responsible Official: Lori A. Bell, District Ranger, PNG Contact Persons: Lori A. Bell, District Ranger

Pawnee National Grassland 660 ‘0’ Street, Greeley, CO 80631 Phone: 970-346-5003 E-mail: [email protected] Or Nehalem Clark, Rangeland Management Specialist

Pawnee National Grassland 660 ‘0’ Street, Greeley, CO 80631

Phone: 970-346-5008 E-mail: [email protected]

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

T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S CHAPTER 1: Purpose and Need Introduction 1 Purpose and Need for Action 1 Proposed Action 2 Public Involvement 3 Resource Issues 3 Scope of Analysis 4 CHAPTER 2: Alternatives Alternative 1 – No Action 5 Alternative 2 – Proposed Action 5 Description of Treatments 5 Design Criteria 8 CHAPTER 3: Existing Conditions/Environmental Consequences Project Area Overview 17 Physical Resources Soil and Water 19

Biological Resources Range 23

Botany 25 Wildlife 27

Fisheries 37 Invasive Plants 39

Social Resources Heritage 41 Lands, Special Uses and Minerals 43

Recreation 45 Social/Economic 47 LITERATURE CITED 48 CHAPTER 4: Consultation and Coordination 50 APPENDICES

Appendix 1. Response to Comments Received During Initial Scoping 51 Appendix 2. List of High Priority Sites to be considered for 53

Watershed Improvement Projects Appendix 3. Examples of Site-Specific Projects and Proposed Treatments 55

L I S T O F T A B L E S A N D F I G U R E S

Figure 1. Project Area Map 3 Table 1. Design criteria common to all treatments 8 Table 2. Design criteria specific to individual treatments, by resource area 10 Figure 2: Photo example of a road washout 18 Figure 3. Photo example of gully 18 Figure 4. Photo example of cattle trail 19 Figure 5. Photo example of riparian area with headcuts 19 Table 3. Principal watersheds on the PNG 19 Table 4: Threatened, Endangered and Proposed plant species to be considered 25

in future watershed project proposals. Table 5. Sensitive plant species considered in this analysis 26 Table 6. Rare and Imperiled Natural Plant Communities to be considered 26

for individual watershed project review. Table 7. Federally Listed wildlife species considered in this analysis. 27 Table 8. Sensitive wildlife species considered in this analysis 28 Table 9. ARNF Management Indicator Species (MIS) considered in this analysis 31

1

C H A P T E R 1 : PURPOSE AND NEED

INTRODUCTION

Across the Pawnee National Grassland (PNG), erosion features such as large gullies, road washouts and unstable stream banks are threats to soil, water and other natural resources. Many of these features are caused or accelerated by activities such as road use, grazing, recreation and other uses. The PNG is proposing to implement watershed improvement projects to rehabilitate the sites where unacceptable levels of erosion are occurring. This document will analyze potential effects of the proposed watershed restoration treatments and provide an adaptive framework by which projects will be completed. Under this Environmental Assessment (EA), the Forest Service (FS) anticipates undertaking up to five projects annually over the next 10-15 years.

During the 2008 and 2009 field seasons, a total of 124 sites on the PNG were surveyed as part of the Watershed Improvement Needs (WIN) inventory. Some sites, mostly on the west side of the Grassland had been documented in previous years, but a complete inventory of the entire grassland did not exist. Using the WIN data, we ranked watershed inventory sites according to (1) level of alteration, (2) need for immediate attention, (3) threat to water or other resources, and (4) feasibility of restoration and/or corrective action. The ranking exercise was followed-up with field visits to all of the highest rated risk sites to explore potential remediation. The Proposed Action is to begin undertaking corrective management on the highest risk sites. Watershed improvement projects could include treatments such as reseeding, temporary fencing, drainage, cattle exclusion and soil grading or recontouring. In addition, we will continue inventory and monitoring efforts associated with existing and new sites.

The FS prepared this EA in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Arapaho Roosevelt National Forest and the PNG Land and Resource Management Plan (1997) and other relevant federal and state laws and regulations. Both the No Action and Proposed Action alternatives will adhere to all required federal laws and executive orders and requirements for project-specific findings or other disclosures.

This EA discloses the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental effects of implementing the Proposed Action versus No Action. This EA is not a decision document. Instead, it presents evidence and analysis necessary to determine whether the consequences of the Proposed Action have “significant” effects on the human environment and natural resources and therefore, whether an EIS is necessary. Upon completion of this determination, the Responsible Official (Lori A. Bell, PNG District Ranger) will make a decision to implement the Proposed Action, a modification of the Proposed Action or No Action. Additional documentation may be found in the project planning record located at the PNG District Office in Greeley, Colorado.

PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION

The purpose of the Proposed Action is to rehabilitate degraded areas that are contributing to loss of topsoil, sedimentation of water sources, or loss of riparian habitat or other watershed

2

impacts. Examples of these features include: road erosion and washouts, gullies, streambank degradation, and eroded cattle trail networks. The need for the Proposed Action within the PNG Watershed Improvement Project Area is based on the Forest Plan and the need to reconcile the difference between the existing and desired conditions in the project area. The need for action is driven by two chief concerns related to erosion features: (1) degraded soil and water resource conditions; and (2) displacement of soil and loss of vegetation resulting in degraded habitat for wildlife and loss of forage for permitted livestock. Implementation of watershed improvement projects would benefit a variety of resources, and improve overall watershed condition. This is especially critical on the PNG where surface water and associated aquatic and terrestrial species are rare.

As an example, under the Proposed Action a potential watershed improvement project would be the reshaping and reseeding of a large headcut and gully site which is devoid of vegetation cover and forage used by livestock and contributing sediment to downstream water sources. Another example would be the implementation of projects that would improve habitat which supports two fish species, the plains topminnow (Fundulus sciadicus) and the plains killifish (Fundulus zebrinus), considered management indicator species for the prairie aquatic community. This could be accomplished through the rehabilitation of a gully that drains to a pond supporting these fish.

PROPOSED ACTION

The proposed action is to utilize a suite of watershed improvement treatments across the PNG (see Figure 1) to reduce erosion and sedimentation occurring at these sites. The project area encompasses the entire 193,000 acres of the PNG (Figure 1); however, we estimate that erosion features comprise only a small fraction of the PNG. We expect to treat up to 100 acres annually. Prior to development of this Proposed Action, maps and ground surveys of the project area were used to identify types and severity of erosion features. Treatments, described in detail in Chapter2, will be tailored to individual sites, and rehabilitation projects may include a combination of treatments. Monitoring will be used to determine effectiveness of treatments and used to guide future management and implementation under an adaptive management approach.

3

Figure 1. Project Area map (Pawnee National Grassland, Weld County, Colorado).

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

Public input was conducted through scoping in the Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forest and Pawnee National Grassland (ARNFPNG) Schedule of Proposed Actions (SOPA) under the name “PNG Watershed Restoration Environmental Assessment” beginning on January 1, 2010. The public was also informed about this project through the environmental assessment scoping and comment period. From these outreach efforts, six comment letters were received. All comments were generally supportive of the project. See Appendix 1 for a summary of public comments received during scoping.

RESOURCE ISSUES

The interdisciplinary team (IDT) initially defined the resource concerns to be analyzed in the EA as follows:

1) Impacts to a variety of resources, including soil, water, range, recreation, heritage, etc. due to ground disturbance as a result of watershed improvement projects.

2) Disturbance to wildlife during watershed improvement projects.

4

No other key issues were identified during public scoping or subsequent IDT meetings that suggested a need to develop additional alternatives.

SCOPE OF ANALYSIS

This Environmental Assessment considers watershed improvements projects to be implemented within the Project Area, which is defined as the entire Pawnee National Grassland. Management of high use recreation areas on the Grassland, such as the Main Off-Highway Vehicle (OHV) Area and popular recreational shooting areas along Coal Creek and other locations is not proposed for change in the Proposed Action. However, if management at these sites were to be changed in future NEPA planning efforts, the treatments analyzed in this EA could be employed. For example, the Coal shooting area could be rehabilitated in the future using the treatment methods analyzed here.

5

C H A P T E R 2 : ALTERNATIVES

This chapter describes and compares the alternatives considered for the PNG Watershed Improvement Projects. It also includes a summary of the treatments that would be used to accomplish the proposed action along with the design criteria and mitigation measures that will be employed.

ALTERNATIVE 1 - NO ACTION

Under the No Action Alternative, current management direction and practices would continue in the project area. No watershed improvement projects would be undertaken to accomplish the purpose and need. The results of taking No Action would be the current condition as it changes over time. Within the project area, alteration of soil and water resources and vegetation occurring as a result of erosion will continue.

ALTERNATIVE 2 - PROPOSED ACTION

Under Alternative 2, the Forest Service proposes to initiate watershed improvement projects to remedy erosion features within the PNG project area. Treatment of sites would be prioritized based on severity of loss of soil and vegetation and values-at-risk. Based on projected funding levels and priorities, we anticipate undertaking up to five projects, totaling 100 acres or less, annually. Treatments will be designed to address site-specific issues and may include a combination of treatments, when necessary. Resource specialists will review specific projects prior to implementation. Site-specific design criteria would be considered at that time. Monitoring will be used to determine effectiveness of treatments and to guide future planning under an adaptive management approach. Treatments that may be employed in rehabilitation projects are described below and are roughly arranged from lowest to highest levels of cost and complexity.

Description of Treatments:

Monitoring – Conduct monitoring on watershed sites to determine trend, future needs and, when applicable, effectiveness of treatments. Monitoring data will help guide adaptation of the treatments. Monitoring methods could include: photo points, cross-sections, and cover-frequency. There is no ground disturbance or mechanized equipment associated with monitoring.

Relocate Salt and Mineral – Coordinate with grazing permittees (including range riders and grazing associations) to rotate location of salt and mineral blocks within an allotment. Also, where appropriate, salting locations will be moved from an area of continuous use to another designated location, to encourage rehabilitation of former site. There is no ground disturbance or mechanized equipment associated with this treatment.

6

Drift Fencing - Install portion(s) of temporary fence to redirect cattle movement. Drift fence will often be a single run of lateral fence to block movement through a specific gully or cattle trail. It could also be used as snow fence to deposit snow in a desired area to increase or reduce moisture in rehabilitation areas. Fence will be constructed of buck and rail, barbed wire, or electrical wire. There would be no ground disturbance associated with buck and rail fence installation, and a minimal amount of ground disturbance with installation of barbed or electric fence. Equipment used to construct fence could include gas-powered or tractor mounted auger and various hand tools. All fences would be maintained regularly.

Exclosure Fencing – Install fence to entirely exclude a treatment area. Exclosures would typically be less than 10 acres in size. The goal is to exclude cattle grazing and other disturbances to provide for vegetation recovery. Fence will be constructed of buck and rail, barbed wire, or electrical wire. There would be no ground disturbance associated with buck and rail fence installation and a minimal amount of ground disturbance with installation of barbed or electric fence. Equipment used to construct fence might include a gas-powered or tractor mounted auger and various hand tools. All fences would be maintained regularly.

Planting of Trees and Shrubs – Live trees and/or shrubs would be planted in restoration areas for the purpose of soil stabilization, shading of riparian areas, and restoration to historic vegetation conditions. Living snow fences could also be constructed to trap and control blowing and drifting snow. Plant material would be locally sourced and, when possible, collected from adjacent sites. Timing of planting activity will be important for success due to the arid climate of the PNG. Planting holes would be dug either by hand, tree spade or tractor-mounted auger. Some plantings would be limited to simple willow staking.

Removal of Russian Olive/Other Noxious Plants – Russian olive, a non-native tree, occurs in multiple riparian sites on the grassland. Russian olive would most likely ibe removed by mechanical felling with a chainsaw. Herbicide cut stump applications or stump removal by excavation or grinding could follow felling. Other noxious plants may be found in a variety of sites and treatment methods would be commensurate with the species present.

Seed/Rake/Mulch – Revegetation of bare ground would be accomplished by seeding, raking or mulching (or a combination of these methods). This method may be used in conjunction with fencing and recontouring. Seed mixes will be composed of site-appropriate native species. Ground disturbance with this treatment method will be minimal as hand tools would be used in the majority of cases. In larger restoration projects, equipment such as hydromulchers and seed drilling equipment could be employed. Erosion matting, used as a sediment barrier, may be used to prevent future movement of material.

Hard Armoring – Placement of large material to prevent soil from eroding from stream banks, channels or hydraulic drop structures. This technique could be used near water sources and overflows and along stream channels where head cutting has occurred.

7

Before installation of the armoring material, the area to be treated would typically be recontoured and/or graded to minimize abrupt gradient changes and slopes. Installation of check dams could be used in concert with hard armoring treatments. For small areas, hand placement of the rock may be acceptable but, for larger areas, heavy equipment will be necessary for recontouring and would probably consist of a dozer and/or backhoe. Smaller equipment, such as a skid steer or mini-excavator, would be used for material (rip rap, or other) placement.

Recontour and Grading of Gullies and Headcuts – To minimize soil erosion at some gully and headcut sites, recontouring and grading may be desirable. Heavy equipment such as a backhoe and/or dozer would likely be necessary to accomplish this method, in addition to the use of temporary erosion control, until vegetation becomes established.

Construction of Waterbars and Other Drainage Structures, (including creation of overflow ponds) – Water diversion structures (i.e., waterbars, deflector belts, large rocks and sediment logs) could be used to redirect water away from heavily eroded areas which are threatening roads, streams and other values at risk. Grade control structures, such as log or rock drop structures, would be used to lower the gradient and dissipate energy and reduce erosion. Construction of overflow ponds could aid in reducing hydraulic velocities, serve as water catchments, and would create wildlife habitat. Small-scale projects could be accomplished with hand tools and larger scale undertakings would employ heavy equipment such as a backhoe or dozer. Supplemental materials such as rocks, logs and impermeable material barriers, might be used in this process. Geomatting and/or bentonite clay could be used in the creation of overflow ponds. Maintenance of these structures would be required periodically.

Road Closures/Rehabilitation –Temporary or permanent road closures may be utilized in watershed improvement projects to aid in the protection of soil and vegetation resources. Road closure extent and duration would be site-specific and directly related to the size and complexity of the project. Alternative means of access and road relocation/realignment may also be considered. If monitoring suggests that the desired condition is not being accomplished using temporary closures, permanent closure may be required. Portions of, or an entire length of road, may need to be ripped and reseeded to encourage revegetation. Heavy equipment such as dozers, graders and backhoes could be used in this treatment. Appropriate level of NEPA and public involvement would be performed prior to initiating this action if Forest System roads are proposed for decommissioning.

Move/Alter Water Source – In order to redistribute cattle concentration areas, relocation of water source(s) may be considered. However, due to the high cost of this technique, it would likely only be utilized as a last resort, after determining through monitoring that other treatments are not effective for restoring an area of concern. Depending upon the specific project, water could be piped underground to a new site, or this could require establishment of new water well.

Change Grazing Management – Grazing management changes, such as timing, stocking rate, and rotations, may be employed to protect restoration areas or as a stand-alone

8

restoration method. Adaptive grazing management is already allowed for in PNG Range Management EA’s and any changes in grazing to support watershed improvement projects would tier to these documents.

Temporary Closures for Resource Protection – In most cases, temporary closures of areas would be used as a last resort in rehabilitation. There would likely be little to no ground disturbance specific to this method of restoration. A FS Special Order would be required for this action.

Design Criteria for Alternative 2:

Design criteria specific to each treatment were developed to mitigate resource concerns from the Proposed Action. Project design criteria common to all treatments are described below (Table 1).

Table 1. Design criteria common to all treatments

Resource Area Design Criteria

Soil and Water Comply with all design criteria in the FS Region 2 Watershed Conservation Practices Handbook (FSH 2509.25). Provide direction for establishing water rights where needed.

Botany

1) Prior to project implementation, sites will be surveyed for presence of rare plant habitat and/or rare plants to decrease potential for disturbance to habitat and species. 2) If rare plants are discovered during project surveys, those areas could be excluded from project area.

Wildlife

Site-specific review during individual project planning will consider these potential design criteria:

1) Raptor nest sites: Avoid activity near an active raptor nest tree or perch from Feb. 15-July 15 including placement of salt near trees. Exceptions may occur on a case-by-case basis when birds are adapted to existing human activity. Buffers vary depending on raptor species present.

2) Mountain plover habitat: Avoid disturbance to known plover nest sites (including off-road driving) from April 10-July 10. Coordinate off-road driving routes with wildlife biologist, if possible. Determine need for plover nest survey on project-specific basis. Limit activity as much as possible during nesting season.

3) Prairie dog towns: Avoid placement of water pipelines and fences within desired active prairie dog colonies (per the Prairie Dog Management Plan). Avoid treatments on prairie dog towns from March through mid July to avoid impacting young and protect potential nesting plovers.

4) FS Sensitive riparian bird species: Surveys will be conducted, if needed. Timing restrictions may apply.

5) Northern leopard frog: If northern leopard frog site is found at a site, project modifications may be required, including timing restrictions, buffer zones or avoidance.

6) FS Sensitive ground nesting birds (i.e., Chestnut collared longspur, McCown’s longspur, Cassin’s sparrow, mountain plover): Stay on roads as much as possible to limit impact during nesting season (spring to mid-summer) and be aware of nesting birds during treatments.

Weeds 1) Any construction equipment will be thoroughly cleaned and all soil and other debris removed prior to entering FS lands to prevent potential transport of noxious species.

9

2) Area of disturbance within restoration site should be minimized to decrease opportunity for new weed population establishment. 3) Restoration sites will be monitored for new weed populations for several years following project. Weeds will be treated using appropriate methods, if found.

Heritage

1) All ground disturbing watershed improvement projects proposed under this analysis would be subjected to a site-specific cultural resource inventory, as appropriate for the treatment type, prior to project implementation and in consultation with the Colorado State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) and relevant Tribes. Avoid eligible or unevaluated cultural resources. 2) Implementation of the project would not begin until the SHPO has concurred with a determination of either no historic properties affected or no historic properties adversely affected. Current MOU’s may allow project to proceed if no artifacts are found. 3) Previously undiscovered sites encountered during the course of project activities would be avoided until they can be evaluated by a professional archaeologist. If cultural sites are discovered after project activities are completed, the Grassland would document any damage and consult with SHPO and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation pursuant to 800.13(b).

Recreation Consult recreation manager if any projects are proposed in close proximity to developed or high concentration dispersed recreation areas.

10

Table 2. Design criteria specific to individual treatments, by resource area. Resource concerns and related design criteria/mitigations already presented in Table 1 above are not included here.

Treatment Resource Concerns Design Criteria Mitigation(s) Other Notes

Monitoring No additional. No additional. No additional. No additional.

Relocate Salt/Mineral Blocks

Soil/Water: Placement by areas that have seasonal flows; length of time at new placement area. Range: Short term loss of vegetation cover at salting sites. Wildlife: Impacts to resources due to livestock concentration and off-road driving. Cultural: Cattle concentration at new salt/mineral location may adversely impact cultural artifact and soil disturbance.

Soil/Water: Avoid placing salt in swales or saddles; move salt blocks frequently; avoid placing near water source or areas with high seasonal flows. Range: Coordinate with grazing permittees on specific locations. Wildlife: Limit off-road driving, if possible. Cultural: Place new salting locations away from eligible or unevaluated cultural resources.

Soil/Water: Monitor old and new salting areas and rehabilitate or relocate if necessary.

Range: Regular relocations of salt and mineral locations will discourage development of bare areas, but short term cattle concentrations will occur at more sites over time. Botany: Regular rotations of salt and mineral locations will increase the probability of impacting rare plant habitat. Wildlife: Salting areas can create habitat for the mountain plover. Weeds: Regular rotation of salt and mineral locations will discourage development of bare areas and decrease opportunity for weed establishment. Cultural: No cultural survey required if salting locations are rotated regularly and placed only in dry locations.

Drift Fencing (temporary)

Range: Short term loss of vegetation cover along fence line due to cattle congregation along fence posts. Wildlife: Wildlife passage through fenced areas. Cultural: Concentrated cattle movement along fence line.

Range: Use minimum amount of drift fencing necessary to accomplish. Wildlife: Use wildlife-friendly fence designs. Cultural: Survey may be required.

Range: Fence maintenance may be required due to cattle congregation along fences.

Botany: Small scale soil disturbance with this activity results in small probability of impacting rare plant habitat. Weeds: Minimal soil disturbance with this activity results in small probability of new weed infestation. Cultural: No cultural survey required if fence is temporary or

11


not anchored to the ground (e.g., buck and rail fencing).

Exclosure Fencing

Range: Wash-out of fences in riparian areas. Wildlife: Wildlife passage through fenced areas. Cultural: If excluding livestock watering site, then could increase concentration of cattle at other water sources.

Range: Use appropriate fence design when crossing riparian/wash areas to withstand flood(s), and minimize wash out fencing. Wildlife: Use wildlife-friendly fence designs. Cultural: Survey may be required.

Range: Fence maintenance may be required due to cattle congregation along fences. .

Range: Any loss of forage would be at a very small scale and wouldn’t drive changing permitted AUM’s. Botany: Minimal soil disturbance with this activity results in small probability of impacting rare plant habitat. Wildlife: May benefit Cassin’s sparrow, but a negative effect is expected to McCown’s longspur. Fisheries: Beneficial to aquatic and fisheries resources. Weeds: Minimal soil disturbance with this activity results in small probability of new weed infestation. Cultural: No cultural survey required if fence is not anchored to the ground (e.g., buck and rail fencing) and will not result in increased cattle use at other watering areas.

Planting of Trees & Shrubs

Soil/Water: Consumption of plant material by wildlife/ livestock; mortality of transplants due to physiologic needs of plants. Botany: Potential for reduction of rare plant habitat. Wildlife: Possible alteration of northern leopard frog, fish and riparian bird habitat. Fisheries: None.

Soil/Water: Use native plants designed to survive on minimal water. Follow plant physiology requirements for planting. Botany: Avoid areas with rare plants. Wildlife: See raptor design criteria. Determine need for northern leopard frog, fish and riparian bird surveys if project is in riparian area.

Soil/Water: To ensure success of plantings, temporary fencing should be used to exclude browsing animals.

Soil/Water: Select planting areas with enough water to support plant growth. Confirm if fertilizers are needed or not. Range: Potential for small loss of forage due to competition by shading, once trees and shrubs establish. Botany: Establishment of trees and shrubs in restoration sites provide shading and resource competition;

12


Weeds: Import of weeds on nursery stock.

Weeds: Nursery stock should be verified as weed-free.

could reduce rare plant habitat, if present. Wildlife: Planting may improve wildlife habitat. For example, ferruginous hawks would benefit from more trees. Fisheries: Beneficial due to shading, which provides cover and temperature regulation. Weeds: Opportunity for weed infestation diminished with provision of shading and resource competition by trees and shrubs. Cultural: If planting occurs in areas of significant soil deposition or heavy vegetation, archaeological monitoring may be necessary.

Removal of Russian Olive/Other

Noxious Weeds

Soil/Water: Use of herbicides near water. Range: Use of herbicides for weed control could have impacts to non-target species. Botany: Loss of rare plants with herbicide application. Wildlife: Possible alteration of northern leopard frog and riparian bird habitat. Loss of mammal and insect prey species in herbicide treatment areas due to herbicide non-target effects. Fisheries: Removal of riparian vegetation cover; subsequent temperature increases to stream. Weeds: Re-sprout of non-native

Soil/Water: Use appropriate buffer distances. Range: Follow herbicide label to ensure minimal effects to non-target species. Botany: Survey for rare plants prior to treatment. Wildlife: Determine need for northern leopard frog and riparian bird surveys if project is in riparian area. Consider planting cottonwood and willow when Russian olive is removed. Fisheries: Consider planting native trees and shrubs where non-native trees are removed. Weeds: Use cut stump method to discourage resprouting.

Range: Monitor to determine whether treatments had impacts to non-target species and adapt future treatments. Cultural: Consult with SHPO to ensure that effect to eligible cultural resource is not adverse.

Range: Removal of Russian olive and other weeds should increase presence of desirable vegetation. Wildlife: Would result in slight loss of habitat for ferruginous hawks. Weeds: Removal of RO and other weeds from treatment sites should increase probability of project success in the long term by promoting desirable vegetation. Cultural: Removal may require archaeological monitoring if it would be ground disturbing and located within an eligible cultural resource. No cultural survey required for non-ground disturbing removal of grasses, forbs, or newly recruited shrubs or trees.

13


trees/weeds. Cultural: Ground disturbance; plants may be contributing elements of historic sites (such as homesteads).

Cultural: Cultural resource survey required if removal would cause ground disturbance or may affect shrubs or trees; Avoid eligible or unevaluated cultural resources.

Seed/Rake/Mulch

Soil/Water: Disturbance of biotic crusts and loss of topsoils when raking; excess mulching depth. Range: Effects to native flora. Weeds: Possibility for contamination of seed with noxious or undesirable species. Cultural: Dislocation of surface and shallowly buried artifacts.

Soil/Water: Avoid implementation during high winds; use tackifier on erosion prone soils. Range: Locally adapted native seeds should be used. Weeds: Use only certified weed free seeds from reputable sources. Cultural: Cultural resource survey required; Avoid eligible or unevaluated cultural resources.

Soil/Water: Consider use of fencing, fertilizer, tackifier and wood mulch to increase success. Wildlife: Improves habitat in the long term. Weeds: Opportunity for weed infestation diminished with provision of shading and resource competition by native plants. Cultural: No cultural survey required if ground is not raked or otherwise disturbed.

Hard Armoring

Soil/Water: Increased runoff rates and erosion related to oversized structures, poor or inadequate design, and site location, including areas downstream of selected site. Wildlife: Possible alteration of northern leopard frog, fish and riparian bird habitat.

Soil/Water: Proper size and installation techniques under guidance of FS engineer. Avoid locations that will adversely impact playas. Include transplants for long-term bank stabilization. Monitor for effectiveness and maintenance requirements. Wildlife: Determine need for northern leopard frog, fish and riparian bird surveys if project is in riparian area. Consider avoiding cottonwood groves.

Soil/Water: Identify playas and other sensitive areas during specific project surveys

Soil/Water: Consider geotextiles in place of hard armoring. Range: If using heavy equipment, consider timing outside of growing season. Cultural: No cultural survey required if material is not buried or anchored (e.g., surface placement of rocks).

14


Recontour & Grading

Soil/Water: Damage to wetland and riparian areas by heavy equipment; increased risk of erosion from disturbed sites and to other areas downstream; topsoils are removed or mixed with subsoil. Range: Short-term loss of vegetation cover within treatment area due to removal of vegetation during grading. Wildlife: Possible alteration of northern leopard frog, fish and riparian bird habitat.

Soil/Water: Identify areas to exclude mechanical equipment and have oversight by FS personnel on-site; collect and store topsoil (with tackifier) separately from subsurface soil. Use site appropriate erosion control methods (straw mulch, erosion matting, etc.) Range: Consider temporary fencing area to prevent delay of site rehabilitation. Minimize disturbance area by heavy equipment. Wildlife: Determine need for northern leopard frog, fish and riparian bird surveys if project is in riparian area. Consider avoiding cottonwood galleries.

Soil/Water: Use geotextiles in areas prone to erosion to eliminate continued erosion on newly contoured site(s). Also use temporary closures and/or fencing to prohibit undesired animal or human traffic.

Range: If using heavy equipment, consider timing outside of growing season.

Construct Waterbars & Other Drainage Structures (including overflow

ponds)

Soil/Water: Playa modification. Botany: Potential for disturbance of rare plant habitat. Fisheries: Disturbance to fish habitat.

Soil/Water: Avoid natural playas. Botany: Restoration sites will surveyed for rare plant habitat. Wildlife: Consider avoiding cottonwood groves. Fisheries: Do not design road drainage to flow into fisheries habitat.

Soil/Water: Overflow ponds may not be able to hold collected water. Verify area soils have sufficient clay to hold water or add bentonite to design. Range: If using heavy equipment, consider timing outside of growing season. Fisheries: Beneficial to aquatic and fisheries resources.

Road Closure/ Rehabilitation

Range: Loss of access. Cultural: Ground disturbance.

Range: Consult with range program to determine whether road is need for access to range improvements. Cultural: Cultural resource survey required; Avoid eligible or unevaluated cultural

Wildlife: Benefit to wildlife overall; reduction in human disturbance. Fisheries: Beneficial where roads impact aquatic and fisheries resources. Cultural: No cultural survey required if road is closed through

15


resources, or close roads through non-ground disturbing methods.

non-ground disturbing means.

Move/Alter Developed Water

Source

Soil/Water: Restoration of old site and potential damage at new site. Range: Abandonment of water development would leave significant disturbed area. Wildlife: Wildlife mortality in tanks. Cultural: Impact of cattle concentration at new water source location. Ground disturbance at removal location.

Soil/Water: Consider temporary fencing for restoration and establishment at sites and using excavated topsoils at new site for coverage at old site. Range: Consider revegetation at abandoned site. Coordinate with Range Staff on new water location. Wildlife: Install escape ramps in tanks. Cultural: Cultural resource survey required; Avoid eligible or unevaluated cultural resources.

Weeds: Restoration sites will be monitored for new weed populations for several years following project. Weeds will be treated using appropriate methods, if found.

Change Grazing Management

Range: Variable outcomes depending upon prescribed grazing. Weeds: Modification of grazing management, particularly in wetland or riparian areas, has the potential to alter density and establishment of weed species, specifically Canada thistle.

Range: Analyze on site-specific basis. Weeds: Design grazing management with attention to weed species in affected areas, if present. For example, consideration should be given to timing of grazing of certain weeds.

Range: Depending upon change, could result in more or less available grazing. Wildlife: Benefits/impacts to wildlife would depend on grazing system and location. Fisheries: Could be beneficial depending upon type of changes in grazing prescribed. Weeds: Monitor sites, wetland and riparian sites specifically, for changes in weeds populations following alterations to grazing management.

16


Temporary Closures for Resource

Protection

Range: Could result in temporary loss of forage availability to livestock, but increased plant vigor long-term. Weeds: Temporary closure areas should decrease human and cattle disturbance within treatment areas, and thus decrease weed infestation potential.

17

C H A P T E R 3 : EXISTING CONDITIONS & ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS

This chapter summarizes the physical, biological, and social resources of the analysis area and the effects of implementing each alternative on that resource. Complete discussion by resource area (soil and water, range, botany, wildlife, fisheries, invasive plants, heritage, lands/special uses/minerals, recreation, and social/economic) can be found in specialist reports included in the EA Project File.

The effects analysis considers direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of each alternative to the resources in the project. Direct environmental effects are those that occur at the same time and place as the initial action. An example would be on-site soil compaction from rubber-tired equipment laying underground cable. Indirect environmental effects are caused by the action, but occur later in time or are spatially removed from the action. An example would be downwind effects of a power plant on air quality. Cumulative effects are those resulting from incremental impacts of the action when added to other past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions. Cumulative effects can result from individually minor, but collectively significant actions that take place over a period of time.

PROJECT AREA OVERVIEW

The project area includes all of the 193,000 acres of National Forest System land within the PNG located in northeastern Weld County, Colorado. The Grassland is characterized as having a semi-arid climate with annual precipitation of twelve to fourteen inches. High wind speeds are common on the PNG. Temperatures range from a minimum average of 14° F in the winter to a maximum average of 87° F in the summer. Precipitation events can occur anytime during the year. The driest months tend to be from August through November while the wettest months are usually during the initial part of the growing season, from March through July. Though infrequent, large storm events are primary drivers of erosion in this system. The prevailing winds are westerlies (Hazlett 1998).

The watersheds within the Project Area are large (20-50,000 acres) and consist primarily of non-Forest Service Lands intermingled with state and federal lands. Primary drainages are Coal Creek, Owl Creek, Crow Creek and Pawnee Creek which drain to the South Platte River. Many of the watersheds begin upstream of FS lands and terminate downstream of FS lands. Most of the drainages are ephemeral, with some discontinuous perennial reaches. Because most precipitation events are intense and episodic, water tends to wash through drainages rapidly. Streambank vegetation can include cottonwood, willow and various other shrubs, but many riparian areas lack overstory vegetation and instead are characterized by grasses.

The dominant vegetation type on the PNG is shortgrass steppe, with some mid-grass prairie species present. Blue grama (Bouteloua gracilis) and buffalo grass (Buchloe dactyloides) are the two most common grasses of the shortgrass ecosystem. These grasses are dominant in the upland areas and cover approximately 80% of the Grassland. Plant communities vary somewhat on the northeastern portion of the Grassland where more topographic relief, rainfall, and soil

18

differences favor mid-grass prairie communities which might include side oats grama (Bouteloua curtipendula), little blue stem (Schizachyrium scoparium) and needle and thread grass (Hesperostipa comata). Many of the other more than 400 native plant species and 115 introduced non-native plant species (Hazlett 1998) found on the Grassland have wide-ranging distributions throughout the plains, although local distribution is variable. Although there are a significant number of introduced non-native species on the PNG, only a small percentage are actually considered noxious or highly undesirable.

Hazlett (1998) classified the PNG into six habitat types based on location, soils, and plant species present. These habitat designations include open steppe, sandy soils, breaks/barrens, cliffs/ravines, riparian, and roadsides/disturbed soils. The open steppe is the most common habitat type characterized by blue grama and buffalo grass, as well as red threeawn (Aristida purpurea), fringed sage (Artemisia frigida), rabbitbrush (Chrysothamnus nauseosus), broom snakeweed (Gutierrezia sarothrae), ring muhly (Muhlenbergia torreyi), prickly pear cactus (Opuntia polyacantha), western wheatgrass (Pascopyron smithii), scurf pea (Psoralidium tenuiflorum), and scarlet globemallow (Sphaeralcea coccinea). Sandbar willow (Salix exigua) and cottonwood trees (Populus deltoides) are located along some riparian corridors, and some junipers (Juniperus scopulorum) are present in the northern region of the grassland (Wohl et al. 2009).

Erosional features observed and recorded as part of the PNG Watershed Improvement Needs (WIN) inventory included: gullies, headcuts, cattle trails and trail networks, road washouts and erosion, degraded riparian areas, erosion in cattle concentration areas, and water overflow from developed water tanks. Figures 2-5 provide some examples of typical sites inventoried.

Figure 3: Example of a gully believed to have formed from a cattle trail that was later washed out. It has not revegetated due to continued cattle use.

Figure 2: Example of a road washout (center of photo). Past attempts to rehabilitate with armoring have been unsuccessful. Site is contributing to sedimentation of stream and riparian area just downhill.

19

P H Y S I C A L R E S O U R C E S

SOIL AND WATER

Affected Environment The landscape is dominated by rolling hills with gentle slope gradients (average slope gradient is <7%). The northern part of the grassland has high bluffs, arroyos, and box gullies. Valleys and swales on the PNG range from broad bottom to narrow downcut shapes. The PNG does get snow but its contribution for groundwater recharge or soil moisture is minimal because much is lost to sublimation and evaporation.

Watersheds

Thirty-nine watersheds fall within lands managed by the PNG. Approximately 60% of these are within the 10 watersheds shown in the following table (Table 3):

Table 3. Principal watersheds on the PNG

HUC6* Watershed

Number Watershed Name

ACRES on FS Land

Total Watershed Acres

FS Percent of Total Watershed (%)

101900090307 Unnamed 17,457 33,409 52.3

101900091002 Sand Creek 15,302 31,870 48.0

101900140401 Unnamed 14,353 54,729 26.2

101900140402 Wild Horse Creek 13,195 42,546 31.0

Figure 5: Example of riparian area with several unnatural headcuts forming along banks.

Figure 4: Example of eroding cattle trail which connects water source to salting location. These types of trails are common across the grassland, and some erode and become larger gullies.

20

HUC6* Watershed

Number Watershed Name

ACRES on FS Land

Total Watershed Acres

FS Percent of Total Watershed (%)

101900140406 South Pawnee Creek-Wild Horse Creek to

Mouth 12,850 44,248 29.0

101900090802 Coal Creek Headwaters 11,691 27,924 41.9

101900091004 Crow Creek-Little Crow

Creek to Sand Creek 10,316 41,856 24.6

101900090306 Unnamed 8,498 17,383 48.9

101900090308 Unnamed 7,876 17,592 44.8

101900170402 Sidney Draw 6,825 32,604 20.9

TOTALS 118,363 ac 344,161 ac

*HUC = HUC6 number is the watersheds Hydrologic Unit Code, 6th level. The HUC system is used nationally to code watersheds from largest (1st level) to smallest (6th level).

Typically FS lands only occupy a small percentage of the area in a HUC 6 watershed, and the percentages are even smaller in the remaining 29 watersheds not listed in the table above. The higher intensity short duration precipitation events common to the PNG can be spatially variable and play an important role in the watershed hydrology in localized areas.

Field inventory highlighted that problem areas and their contributing watershed area are much smaller than the entire watershed area. However, it has been noted that the contributing area of the smaller sub-watersheds seem to possess the same magnitude of potential damaging effects that can be observed in the larger watershed under the proportional precipitation events of that watershed. This is referred to as “microtopography” (NRCS 2003). Thus, even at even smaller scales; erosion is initiated by channeling of overland flow and can be significant. Runoff starts as sheet flow, and then develops into rill flow and eventually into gully forming flow. Overland flow in grasslands generally does not occur in uniform sheet flow, but is concentrated into channels or microchannels (Flenniken et al. 2001). Microchannels are flow paths among vegetated clumps. On the PNG, ground cover is not continuous, which creates a perfect canvas for microchanneling and the acceleration of erosional force. Studies have shown and current problem areas support this idea (NRCS 2003).

During rains, erodible soils (especially where bare and exposed) are scoured from drainages. Sediment moved helps to increase stream velocity, resulting in bank widening, gullies and rills. Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) suggests that change in vegetation from Native to invasive plants will decrease infiltration rates. Trampling and removal of vegetative cover induced by managed activities and climate have been shown to influence watershed characteristics and runoff potential.

Sources of water, which is limited on the PNG, include streams, potholes, playas, and subsurface groundwater. The general orientation of stream drainages is northwest to southeast. On the grasslands there are 1,621 miles of ephemeral channels, 1,786 miles of intermittent channels, and 30 miles of perennial streams.

21

Potholes are a source of perennial water on the PNG. They are found in stream channels and are fed from ground water or resupplied during spring runoff, with most being permanently wet. Playas are shallow clay-lined depressions on the landscape fed exclusively by precipitation events and overland flow or runoff from surrounding lands. The high clay content in playas helps to impound water on the surface, although not throughout the entire year. During dry periods, it is not uncommon for as much as 50% of a playa bed to be without vegetation or water. Playas existing on FS managed lands are gaining more recognition as ecologically valuable because of the unique habitats they provide for various forms of terrestrial wildlife and aquatic species, and for their contribution to recharging the groundwater aquifer through cracks that form in the soil during dry periods.

Soils

The NRCS has classified soils on the PNG into 84 different soil series, with 11 of them accounting for 60 percent of the total PNG acreage. Four soil orders encompass the 11 soil series. The remaining 40 percent contains 73 different soil series; with no one soil series accounting for more acreage than 2 percent.

Knowing the soil order and series provides planners more information about soil characteristics such as the hydrologic rating, slope gradient range, typical soil texture, and agricultural limitations that might exist for each soil type. For example, projects planned for pond development are more likely to be successful on soils with high clay content (i.e. Aridisols or Entisols), minimal slope gradient, and a moderate to high run-off potential. Descriptions of the four dominant soil orders on FS lands are as follows:

Mollisols are well-developed agricultural soils most often identified by a fertile humus rich surface horizon that has developed from decomposed organics. Plant roots in this horizon have access to high levels of exchangeable calcium and magnesium (considered base elements), which are two of three secondary nutrients essential for plant growth.

Aridisols, associated with arid regions, have a very low concentration of organic matter and are considered alkaline soils because of clays, calcium carbonate, silica, salts, and/or gypsum in their surface horizons that has accumulated through time. Plants with long tap roots that can uptake water from subsurface water storage are the only vegetation which can survive in this soil type.

Alfisols are well-developed soils that originate from altered Entisols (described below) or Inceptisols (newly formed soils) through the chemical and mechanical processes of eluviation (the movement of fine mineral particles (like clay) or dissolved substances out of an upper layer in a soil profile) and illuviation (the deposition of fine mineral particles or dissolved substances in a lower soil layer). Although these soils also contain exchangeable base cations, they are considered to be slightly acidic.

Entisols are considered transition soils between the other soil orders and non-soils (i.e. badlands, riverwash, dunes, or rock outcrops). They are considered very unstable soils because of their susceptibility to water and wind erosion and poorly developed horizons.

22

Climate and Hydrology

Temperature and moisture are significant variables that influence soil fertility. For vegetative growth on the PNG, available moisture is the most limiting factor. Historical data shows a trend of increased temperature (1941-2005) and precipitation (1931-2005) in Colorado over time. The entire grassland area experienced a severe drought in 2002, especially when considering precipitation patters over the last century. For New Raymer it has taken eight years to reach the 15 inches per year average that it held from 1970 to 2000 (CSU Climate Center 2010).

Storms are typically of short duration and high in intensity. Monthly precipitation is greatest from May through August and erosion from heavy runoff is also greatest during this period (SGS-LTER 2010). If water is not infiltrated properly it can be lost through evapotranspiration or runoff. High temperatures create a water deficit on the PNG because potential evapotranspiration (PET) is high, ranging from 2 to 10 times more than annual precipitation rates (Sala et al. 1992).

Environmental Effects

Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative 1 (No Action)

Under the No Action Alternative, no watershed improvement projects will occur. Areas already identified with concerns will be left as they are and will either recover at a natural rate or continue to degrade. Climate change predictions suggest more intense storms, longer periods between precipitation events, and increasing temperatures, which could all increase soil erosion rates.

Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative 2 (Proposed Action)

The Proposed Action has the potential to improve areas with identified resource concerns. The hydrologic rating, slope and soil order will all be considered at each project area to determine if site specific mitigation measures are needed to protect soil resources. For example, projects planned for pond development are more likely to be successful on soils with high clay content (i.e. Aridisols or Entisols), minimal slope gradient, and a moderate to high run-off potential.

The determinations of the need for rehabilitation at sites on the PNG were based on localized sub-watershed scale hydrology processes, not watershed scale process. These processes deal with precipitation input and that interaction with and on the land and atmosphere. Potential evapotranspiration (PET), infiltration and overland flow are processes that have a significant impact to impairing the hydrologic and soil processes of the shortgrass ecosystem (Sala et al. 1992; Weltz et al. 2000). Due to the limited precipitation and small size of areas with problems, restoring hydrologic function to small impairments can help improve a watershed’s health overall.

The matrix in Chapter 2 describes concerns of individual treatments to soil and water resources. Soil compaction and displacement is a potential effect of some proposed treatments. Effects for

23

combined treatments will be analyzed when specific projects are planned. By following the recommended design criteria, all treatments are expected to be beneficial to soil and water resources. Potential concerns, design criteria and mitigation measures for the various treatments are listed in Chapter 2.

Direct and indirect effects as a result of treatments are expected to be short term in nature. Once the treatment areas have recovered from ground disturbance, the resulting watershed improvement will be beneficial to the local soil and water resources. For example, if a badly eroding gully is to be rehabilitated, there will likely be some short term ground disturbance. But in the long term, if the gully is no longer contributing sediment to water resources areas, the results would be beneficial.

Cumulative Effects of Both Actions

Landscape impacts resulting from uses such as past and present livestock grazing, roads, human disturbance, off-road vehicle driving, and energy development and a decrease in historic fires are past and ongoing cumulative impacts that have in places contributed to soil and water resource impacts. The areas in need of repair or improvement due to erosion and resource damage often overlaps with these other uses. Under the No Action alternative, no improvement projects would be undertaken and no cumulative benefits would be realized. However, the Proposed Action should be cumulatively beneficial to soil and water resources.

B I O L O G I C A L R E S O U R C E S

RANGE

Affected Environment

Nearly all of the Grassland, considered primary rangeland, is managed for livestock grazing. For the purpose of grazing permit administration, the PNG is divided into two units: the Crow Valley Unit, which comprises the west half of the Grassland, and contains approximately 98,000 acres, and the Pawnee Unit (on the eastside) which contains approximately 92,000 acres. Both units have intermingled private and state lands. Grazing management within the project area is accomplished on a total of 162 active allotments in partnership with two grazing associations, along with issuance of twelve direct on-off permits.

The majority of livestock grazing on the PNG occurs during the summer/fall season between the months of May through October. The average historical stocking rate is 4.2 acres/cow-calf pair for a 5 month grazing season and most allotments are continuously grazed for this period. However, some rotation systems are in place and management of these allotments is dictated in Annual Operating Instructions (AOIs). Range condition on the PNG is generally considered as ‘good’ to ‘fair’.

Riparian areas serve as water sources for livestock on a number of allotments, however livestock water is primarily provided via developed wells. The majority of grazing occurs on upland sites while riparian areas represent a small portion of the grazed area. Livestock impacts

24

in riparian areas are variable, but it is common for cattle to congregate in lowland and riparian areas for drinking, foraging and staying cool during warm weather. The FS requires permittees to place salt at least ¼ mile away from all riparian areas and most water sources, in order not to further encourage cattle to gather at these sites. Cattle can contribute to watershed degradation on the whole due to a number of behaviors, including trailing between water sources and other preferred sites (i.e., salting locations), grazing and watering at and around water sources (both developed and riparian sites).

The desired condition of rangeland resources is to provide available forage for both wildlife and domestic livestock in a manner consistent with other PNG resource objectives and the Forest Plan. The PNG Range Management Environmental Assessments prescribe adaptive management be used to promote a shifting mosaic of vegetative structural heterogeneity. Allotment Management Plans propose changes in management on some allotments which include installation of new fencing and water developments to facilitate new grazing systems.

Adaptive grazing management is used to create and maintain diverse structure to include a mix of short and mid-tall structure vegetation, riparian and chalk bluff areas. These different structural components are required to meet habitat needs for a variety of wildlife, particularly Management Indicator Species (MIS), and threatened and endangered species (TES). Short and mid-tall (including four-wing saltbush communities) vegetation structure can be correlated to specific plant species occurring on a variety of ecological sites. Riparian and chalk bluff designations would typically have mid-tall structure vegetation. The PNG currently has more short structure vegetation than the desired mix of short and mid-tall vegetative structure (desired condition is 67% short, 31.2% mid-tall, 1.3% riparian, and 0.5% chalk bluffs).



The No Action Alternative, if chosen, would have negative effects, at least at small scales, to range resources on the PNG. If no restoration projects are initiated Grassland managers would not be able to mitigate loss of soil and vegetation from sites as effectively.


The Proposed Action is intended to rehabilitate sites on the PNG where unacceptable levels of erosion are taking place using a variety of techniques. Continued monitoring of watershed inventory needs will continue to track trends and determine whether sites are recovering naturally or if a restoration project is warranted.

Implementation of the Proposed Action will be an overall benefit to range resources on the Grassland. By identifying and discontinuing causes of erosion and providing mechanisms for resource recovery, the following outcomes are predicted: (1) increased ground cover vegetation; (2) more vigorous plant communities at proposed project sites; (3) fewer weedy plant species; and (4) decreased potential for soil erosion and runoff into water bodies. With restoration project activities, it is expected that short-term disturbances to vegetation may

25

occur, depending upon project design. Timeframes for vegetative recovery on the PNG are largely dependent upon timing and amount of moisture, but short-term effects are expected to last on the order of 1-4 years.

Due to the small scale of watershed restoration projects and type of treatments proposed, seasonal adjustments in permitted grazing numbers due to these projects is not anticipated.

Cumulative Effects of Both Alternatives

Changes to range resources as a result of current uses on the PNG (including permitted livestock grazing, impacts from roads, human disturbance, off-road vehicle driving, and energy development) are past and ongoing cumulative impacts. The areas in need of repair or improvement due to erosion and resource damage often overlaps with these other uses. Therefore the Proposed Action should be cumulatively beneficial to rangeland resources.

BOTANY


There are 2 threatened and 3 sensitive plant species are currently surveyed for on the PNG. Ten rare or imperiled natural plant communities have also been identified on the PNG (CNHP 1999). Detailed descriptions of these plants and communities can be found in the Botany Report in the EA Project Record.

Federally Threatened, Endangered and Proposed Species and Critical Habitat

Two threatened plant species listed for the PNG will be considered in planning any watershed restoration project (Table 4). No proposed species are known or suspected to exist on the PNG and no critical habitat has been designated in this area.

Table 4: Threatened, Endangered and Proposed plant species to be considered in future watershed project proposals.

Common Name Species Status

Colorado Butterfly Plant Gaura neomexicana ssp. coloradensis Threatened

Ute Ladies’-tresses Spiranthes diluvialis Threatened

Sensitive Species

Three sensitive plant species described below (Table 5) will be considered in all site-specific watershed project proposals prior to implementation.

26

Table 5. Sensitive plant species to be considered in future watershed project proposals.

Common Name Species Status

Dwarf milkweed Asclepias uncialis Sensitive

Prairie moonwort Botrychium campestre Sensitive

Sandhill goosefoot Chenopodium cycloides Sensitive

Rare and Imperiled Natural Plant Communities

The Colorado Natural Heritage Program has identified rare and imperiled natural plant communities that exist on the PNG. Table 6 summarizes the rare and imperiled natural plant communities that should be considered in any individual watershed project review.

Table 6. Rare and Imperiled Natural Plant Communities to be considered in future watershed project proposals.

Plant Community Common Name Major Species Present

Four-wing Saltbush/Blue Grama Shrubland Atriplex canescens/Bouteloua gracilis

Wet Meadows Carex nebrascensis

Clustered Sedge Wetland Carex praegracilis

Montane Grasslands Hesperostipa comata/Bouteloua gracilis

Scarp Woodlands Juniperus scopulorum/Schizachyrium scoparium

Foothills Riparian Shrub Prunus virginiana (Prunus americana)

Coyote Willow/Bare Shrubland Salix exigua/shrubs

Great Plains Mixed Grass Prairies (Sandstone/Gravel Breaks)

Schizachyrium scoparium/Bouteloua curtipendula

Bullrush Schoenoplectus pungens

Snowberry Shrubland Symphoricarpos occidentalis



If the No Action Alternative is implemented, it would have no direct or indirect effects on any of the rare and imperiled plant communities on the PNG since no existing rare plant habitat or species would be disturbed. However, continued erosion in existing communities would be detrimental.


The Proposed Action Alternative has the potential to disturb rare plants or rare plant habitat as some rehabilitation methods would be ground disturbing. This creates potential for rare plants

27

and/or their habitat to be destroyed or reduced. Some larger erosional features may have had time to develop into habitat such as sandhill goosefoot habitat in sandy areas. Travel with equipment to the rehabilitation sites could alter or reduce habitat or impact individual rare plants. However, because watershed improvement projects will be relatively small in scope, it is unlikely that rare plants will occur at these sites. In addition, design criteria to avoid rare plants would help to reduce the risk of impacting such populations. Thus, in the longer term, implementation of the Proposed Action will be neutral to beneficial to botanical resources.


Current actions that have cumulative effects on rare plants and their habitat are permitted livestock grazing, mineral leasing, prescribed burning, noxious weed management, recreation, and wildfire. Drought and wildfire are environmental conditions that are unpredictable and ongoing, and can have significant impacts on vegetation resources. Prescribed fire can have an impact on rare plants, both positively and negatively, by either increasing or decreasing rare plant habitat depending on fire plan objectives. Human activities, typically recreational activities, could affect individual plant mortality. Mineral exploration and extraction could impact undetected individual plants; recognized rare plant habitat would be avoided in oil and gas construction and equipment installation.

There are no cumulative effects associated with the No Action Alternative. The Proposed Action would be most likely to have minor and small-scale negative cumulative impacts on rare plants and their habitat taking into account past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. Due to the small size and the nature of the watershed projects and design criteria, the Proposed Action could, overall, improve rare plant habitat.

WILDLIFE


Terrestrial Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed Species

Table 7 lists the Threatened, Endangered and Proposed wildlife species that were considered in this analysis. With the exception of mountain plover, all were excluded from the effects analysis as no further analysis is needed for Threatened, Endangered, or Proposed species that are not known or suspected to occur in the project area, and for which no suitable habitat is present, unless indirect or cumulative effects may result (such as downstream water depletions).

Table 7. Federally Listed wildlife species considered in this analysis.

Common Name Species Status Species

Excluded Reason for Exclusion from

Analysis

▲ Whooping crane Grus americana Endangered Yes Does not occur on the PNG. No

water depletions.

▲ Least tern (interior population)

Sterna antillarum Endangered Yes Rare migrant on the PNG. No

water depletions.

28

Common Name Species Status Species

Excluded Reason for Exclusion from

Analysis

▲ Piping plover Charadrius melodus Threatened Yes No suitable habitat in project

area; no water depletions.

Mexican spotted owl Strix occidentalis lucida Threatened Yes No suitable habitat in project

area.

Preble’s meadow jumping mouse

Zapus hudsonius preblei

Threatened Yes No suitable habitat in project

area.

Mountain plover Charadrius montanus Proposed No Not excluded.

Notes: ▲ water depletions in the South Platte River watershed may affect these downstream species

The mountain plover is currently proposed for listing by the US Fish and Wildlife Service. It is an inland shorebird and is associated with disturbed sites. Preferred nesting habitat consists of short-grass plains and fields, plowed fields and sod farms. It nests on bare ground, including, but not limited to prairie dog towns and recently burned sites. Less frequently, mountain plovers use dry sandy riparian drainages and roads for nesting (Knopf 2010). Riparian habitat with trees or areas with tall grass are not mountain plover habitat.

Forest Service Sensitive Species

Table 8 includes only current sensitive species that may occur or have habitat on the PNG. The species noted as excluded on the tables below will not be further analyzed.

Table 8. Sensitive wildlife species considered in this analysis

Common Name Species MIS/Indicator Community

Species Excluded

Reason for Exclusion

Mammals

Black-tailed prairie dog Cynomys ludovicianus Yes (prairie dog

towns) No

Swift fox Vulpes velox No No

☼ ▼ Fringed myotis Myotis thysanodes No No

Birds

☼ American bittern Botaurus lentiginosus No No

American peregrine falcon

Falco peregrinus No No

Bald eagle Haliaeetus

leucocephalus No No

Black tern Chlidonias niger No No

Brewer’s sparrow Spizella breweri No No

Burrowing owl Athene cunicularia Yes (prairie dog

towns) No

Cassin’s sparrow Aimophila cassini No No

29

Chestnut-collared longspur

Calcarius ornatus No No

Ferruginous hawk Buteo regalis Yes (shortgrass & mid-grass prairie)

No

Grasshopper sparrow Ammodramus savannarum

No No

▼ Greater sagegrouse Centrocercus urophasianus

No Yes Outside species range.

☼ Lewis’ woodpecker Melanerpes lewis No No

Loggerhead shrike Lanius ludovicianus No No

ong-billed curlew Numenius americanus No No

McCown’s longspur Calcarius mccownii No No

Northern harrier Circus cyaneus No No

Olive sided flycatcher Contopus cooperi No Yes No suitable habitat in

project area.

Purple martin Progne subis No Yes No suitable habitat in

project area.

Northern goshawk Accipiter gentiles No No

▼ Yellow-billed cuckoo Coccyzus americanus

occidentalis No No

Amphibians

Northern leopard frog Lithobates pipiens No No

Invertebrates

Regal fritillary

butterfly Speyria idalia No No

Note: ☼ These species are suspected to occur but unconfirmed on the PNG.

▼These species not known or suspected to occur on National Forest System lands, however it may occur in the planning area.

Mammals

Prairie dog habitat includes short, mixed, and tall grassland types. There are approximately 2,800 acres of prairie dog towns on the PNG. Prairie dog towns provide habitat for a great number of wildlife species on the grassland, including, birds, reptiles and other mammals.

Swift foxes are often associated with prairie dog colonies, but can occur almost anywhere on the grassland. They inhabit open prairies and plains and they dig multiple burrows in sandy soil along fence lines or in high ground of open prairies. Burrows are used yearlong. Prairie dogs, along with several other animals, are prey for the swift fox.

30

The fringed myotis is a bat species present on grasslands. Maternity colonies and hibernaculum occur in large trees, cliffs, mines and caves. Areas near water may provide foraging habitat.

Birds

Northern goshawk, bald eagle, or American peregrine falcon may use areas near water for foraging. Nesting occurs in large trees, bluffs and buttes within the project areas. The bald eagle is a rare winter migrant.

Burrowing owls nest on the ground and rely on the presence of recently excavated burrows. They occur on most prairie dog towns on the PNG, but will use burrows of badgers, ground squirrels, and so on.

Chestnut collared longspur, McCown’s longspur, Cassin’s sparrow, grasshopper sparrow, Brewer’s sparrow, and ferruginous hawk are all small ground-nesting species with the exception of ferruginous hawk. The ferruginous hawk is a large raptor which occasionally nests on the ground, but more commonly nests in trees. All species could occur within the project area, and vary somewhat in their habitat requirements within the grassland. For example, the McCown’s longspur prefers short grass with bare ground, while the Brewer’s sparrow occurs in sagebrush. None of these birds are dependent on riparian vegetation.

American bittern, long-billed curlew, black tern, and northern harrier are wetland or marsh dependent. Except for the long-billed curlew, all build their nests within or along riparian areas such as wetlands. The long-billed curlew and northern harrier depend on wetlands, and arroyos, but do not necessarily nest within them. Their nests are located in close proximity to wetlands.

Loggerhead shrike, Lewis’s woodpecker, and yellow-billed cuckoo nest in shrubby habitat or trees. Cottonwood groves, which are highly limited on the grassland, provide yellow-billed cuckoo habitat. This species is a candidate species for federal listing but currently does not have listing status and it has been detected on the grassland. The loggerhead shrike impales its prey on thorny bushes and trees as well as on barbed wire fences. The shrike and the Lewis’s woodpecker can use Russian olive trees and shrubs.

Amphibians

The northern leopard frog is an uncommon aquatic species occurring in streams, permanent ponds, and feeding habitat (upland areas for adults). This species is documented on the grassland, although its habitat is limited and sightings are not common. This frog is drastically declining across its range, largely because of a chytrid fungus in the water.

Invertebrates

The regal fritillary butterfly has not been sighted on the PNG, but habitat is present and it is suspected to occur. This rare butterfly lives in prairie habitat and relies on violets. There is one common violet (Viola nuttalli) on the grassland.

31

Management Indicator Species

Table 9 lists the Management Indicator Species (MIS) considered in this analysis. Refer to previous discussion regarding western burrowing owl, black tailed prairie dog, ferruginous hawk, and mountain plover. Further information on species’ trends is located in the project files.

Table 9. ARNF Management Indicator Species (MIS) considered in this analysis.

Common Name Species Management Indicator Community (MIC)

Birds

Ferruginous hawk1 Buteo ragalis Shortgrass and midgrass prairie

Mountain plover1 Charadrius montanus Shortgrass prairie

Lark bunting Calamospiza melanocorys Midgrass prairie

Western burrowing owl1 Athene cunicularia Shortgrass prairie/prairie dog towns

Mammals

Black-tailed prairie dog1 Cynomys ludovicianus Shortgrass prairie

Mule deer Odocoileus hemionus Young to mature forest & openings

1Species is addressed under multiple categories; MIS, Sensitive and/or Federally Listed

Lark buntings are an indicator species associated with upland mid-grass prairie. The local population density of this species varies greatly between years due to its semi-nomadic nature, a result of the unpredictable climate of the Great Plains. However, at larger geographic scales, the overall trend is clearly downward throughout the bird’s range.

Mule deer are not abundant on the Grassland and the trend on the PNG is downward, but within the state of Colorado, the trend is upward (USDA 2004). During the day, they utilize dry drainages.

Migratory Birds

The Pawnee National Grassland provides habitat for 301 bird species. The location of the Grassland in relation to the Rocky Mountains and the Great Plains, as well as its proximity to avian migration corridors and flyways influences the diversity of birds. Examples of migratory birds include: swainson’s and rough legged hawks, bald eagle, chestnut collared longspur, and lark bunting.

ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS

Threatened, Endangered and Proposed Species


There would be no effects under the No Action Alternative.

32


The effects of proposed treatments associated with watershed restoration projects would be variable based on the specific method used. The removal of Russian olive would have no effect on mountain plover habitat because plovers prefer treeless areas, and would not occur where Russian olives are present. An area closure, depending on the habitat present, may provide a slight benefit by removing potential human disturbance. In the short term, road closures would benefit the mountain plover by decreasing traffic on roads. In the long term, as the closed roads became vegetated, there would be a slight loss of mountain plover habitat. Salt placement, because it concentrates cattle and creates bare ground, could result in creation of mountain plover habitat. Plover could use these sites in the spring prior to cattle turnout on the PNG.

All treatments, other than area closures have the potential to disturb nesting mountain plovers or impact nests. Driving on FS roads and off-road could disturb nesting mountain plover during the April through July time period. In addition, if watershed improvement projects are implemented during the plover nesting season, small-scale disturbance of nest sites could occur. However, thousands of acres of mountain plover habitat exist on the Grassland, therefore the small-scale watershed improvement projects are unlikely to jeopardize the continued existence of the bird.

Cumulative Effects for Both Alternatives

Building and driving of roads, home building, energy development, and plowing fields are the main current effects to mountain plover on private and/ or state land. The presence of agricultural fields provides habitat for the mountain plover. The addition of effects associated with watershed improvement projects, principally associated with off-road driving during nesting season, would be minor. Therefore, it is not anticipated that implementation of the Preferred Action, nor the No Action Alternative, will add to cumulative effects to mountain plover

Forest Service Sensitive Species


Under the No Action Alternative, there would be no direct impacts to the majority of Forest Service Sensitive Species analyzed here. There would be no improvement or increase of habitat under this alternative. In the long term, continued soil erosion and degradation of areas may impact individuals of riparian species but is not likely to result in a loss of viability within the project area, nor cause a trend toward federal listing.


For all species

33

The determination of species effects is based on implementation of the design criteria. A reduction in weed species and a potential increase in native plant species diversity would benefit all wildlife species. The creation of overflow ponds would benefit wildlife species in the longterm by providing an additional water source for drinking and or/foraging for insects. Area and road closures, depending on the size, would benefit species by providing an area free of human disturbance. The Proposed Action may impact individual species, but is not likely to result in a loss of viability on the PNG, nor cause a trend toward federal listing.

Beneficial and potentially negative impacts exist to species under noxious weed treatment. This analysis is tiered to the Environmental Assessment for Noxious Weed Management on the Arapahoe and Roosevelt National Forest and PNG (2003). Slight risks are associated with using herbicides for noxious weed management. Examples include: sensitive bird species consuming prey species from treated areas, wildlife consuming vegetation in treated riparian areas, or increased human disturbance during nesting. Under this alternative, all sensitive bird species (except the black tern) may be impacted, but is not likely to result in a loss of viability on the PNG, nor cause a trend toward federal listing. There would be no impact to the black tern since it is highly unlikely to nest in the project area.

Mammals

Prairie dog towns are unlikely sites for watershed improvement projects. If implemented at these sites, there would be no impact to the prairie dog’s life cycle or habitat from the following treatments: monitoring, removal of Russian olive trees, shrub/ tree planting, and seeding, raking/mulching. Hard armoring, recontouring and grading, road closure/rehabilitation and construction of waterbars may have a slight negative impact on prairie dogs due to equipment disturbance associated with these treatments. Impact of these disturbances would be temporary and would depend upon timing, proximity and duration of activity, and are not expected to result in prairie dog mortality. Relocating salt or minerals may benefit prairie dogs, as towns often occur in heavily grazed areas. Exclosure fencing may negatively impact prairie dogs because taller vegetation such, as within an exclosure, is not optimal habitat.

The majority of treatments, under the Proposed Action would not impact the swift fox. Increased noise and human disturbance associated with some treatments near a watershed improvement project may cause the swift fox to temporarily abandon a burrow or foraging area. Treatments with the potential to cover up burrows (such as seed/rake/mulch and recontouring) would be a temporary effect since swift foxes build new burrows every few days. The chance of mortality, as a result of watershed improvement projects, is low given the small scale of projects and acreage proposed annually.

Watershed improvement projects that increase water capacity and quality in riparian areas would benefit the fringed myotis by increasing insect sources for prey. Due to its nocturnal behavior, implementation would not disturb the fringed myotis. No habitat would be negatively impacted.

34

Birds

The northern goshawk, bald eagle, and American peregrine falcon would not be impacted under the Proposed Action. No large scale changes in the prey base of these species are expected because of the small scale of proposed watershed projects.

The majority of burrowing owls are located on prairie dog towns. Therefore, the effects to burrowing owls are similar to the effects for prairie dogs, with the following exceptions: seed/rake mulch, hard armoring, and recontouring/grading in sandy riparian areas such as arroyos, may damage nest sites (burrows) or cause mortality to burrowing owls. The likelihood of this effect is low given the small scale of proposed treatments. Riparian bird surveys, in addition to site-specific mitigation measures, would be implemented to avoid destruction of nest sites or mortality of burrowing owls.

Chestnut collared longspur, McCown’s longspur, Cassin’s sparrow, grasshopper sparrow, Brewer’s sparrow, ferruginous hawk could be affected by vehicles traveling off-road and over nests during the nesting season (spring to mid-summer). Adult birds would likely not be killed due to the slower speed of the vehicles traveling across the grassland and resulting time for adult birds to fly away. Damaged eggs or mortality of young could occur if they are driven over. Ground disturbing treatments, such as seeding/raking/ mulching, recountour/grading, and moving water sources, could impact nests and young. These birds are not riparian dependent and do not use roads as a primary habitat. Therefore, hard armoring of riparian areas and waterbar construction would not directly affect nests beyond equipment traveling to the sites.

Individual birds nesting within the project area or foraging temporarily may benefit or be affected from changes in habitat as a result of the treatments. For example, exclosures with taller vegetation may slightly benefit the Cassin’s sparrow since it relies on structural heterogeneity. Exclosures would result in a negative impact to the McCown’s longspur due to its dependence on short vegetation structure. Due to the small-scale of the Proposed Action, large scale benefits at the species’ level are not expected. These birds, except for the ferruginous hawk, are not dependent on trees. Therefore, planting trees is not expected to harm nor benefit these five sensitive bird species. Planting of trees would benefit the ferruginous hawk and removal of the Russian olive trees would result in a slight loss of habitat. In some cases, changes in habitat would be a long term benefit.

American bittern and black tern could be affected by off-road driving, whereas long-billed curlew and northern harrier are not likely to be impacted. In the short term, nests may be impacted or human disturbance may result in the species abandoning the project area under the following treatments: seed/rake/mulch, hard armoring, road closure/rehab, waterbars drainage. Treatments such as relocating salt blocks, exclosures, planting of trees and shrubs, and removing Russian olive trees would benefit all of the riparian dependent species. In the long-term, any watershed improvement projects in riparian areas would benefit these bird species by improving the riparian habitat. In the long-term, the Proposed Action would benefit these riparian species.

Loggerhead shrike, Lewis’s woodpecker, and yellow-billed cuckoo could abandon nest sites as a result of heavy equipment-related treatments such as hard armoring or recontouring and

35

grading. Due to the limited area of cottonwood galleries, avoidance measures may be needed in the unlikely event that a yellow-billed cuckoo is detected. In the long-term, all treatments but one would benefit these species. The removal of Russian olive would negatively impact the Loggerhead shrike. Planting cottonwoods and willow in place of Russian olive trees would benefit the Lewis’s woodpecker and yellowbilled-cuckoo. This species is rare compared to the Loggerhead shrike, and therefore increasing yellow-billed cuckoo habitat is a priority. In the long-term, the majority watershed restoration projects would benefit these species.

Amphibians

Under the Proposed Action there would be a slight risk that all treatments using vehicles or equipment could impact northern leopard frogs by driving on roads when frogs are migrating or using upland habitat. Roadways can cause heavy amphibian mortality (Smith and Keinath 2007). Given the low likelihood of high population numbers of northern leopard frogs on the grassland, and the temporary nature of watershed project implementation, this potential impact is not expected to outweigh the benefits of implementing the Proposed Action. Exclusion of cattle from riparian habitat would benefit the northern leopard frog (Smith and Keinath 2007).

In the short-term, implementation of ground disturbing treatments near occupied northern leopard frog habitat (such as recontouring, grading, seeding/raking/mulch, hard armoring and moving or altering a water source) could greatly impact this species. Design criteria such as buffer areas and timing restrictions, would eliminate negative changes to habitat or direct mortality. In the long-term, the majority of treatments would benefit the species.

Insects

Regal fritillary butterfly may be impacted by noxious weed treatment. When testing of herbicides occurs prior to EPA approval, it is not possible to test the impacts of all species. Other proposed treatments are not expected to impact the butterfly.


Changes from historic grazing processes, fragmentation by roads, human disturbance, off-road vehicle driving, and a decrease in historic fires are past and ongoing cumulative impacts that have reduced the habitat quality and populations for sensitive species discussed above. Energy development, also occurring on private land, contributes impacts to sensitive species, especially due to roads and increased threats to birds and the fringed myotis (wind energy). Noxious weed spraying and prairie dog poisoning may decrease habitat for species such as the prairie dog and burrowing owls.

Under the No Action Alternative, cumulative effects would be limited to those species such as long-billed curlew, American bittern, black tern and northern harrier which would be negatively impacted by increased soil erosion and long term loss of habitat.

Under the Proposed Action, watershed improvement activities that include driving off-road during the nesting season would contribute to impacts to bird nests and young. Cumulatively, this project in a minor way increases this impact. With implementation of effective protection

36

measures, this project would in the long term benefit the Northern leopard frog by habitat improvement. Increased noxious weed treatment may in a minor way contribute impacts to the Regal fritillary butterfly. An overall benefit to wildlife species is expected with effective implementation of design criteria that will pertain to each project, as discussed in the Proposed Action.

Management Indicator Species


There would be no effects under the No Action alternative.


Under the Proposed Action, the creation of alternate water sources such as overflow ponds may benefit lark buntings. This project would not cause the species trend to change over the planning area. It may increase individuals at a few of the proposed project areas depending on the type of treatment.

Increasing and improving water sources would in the long-term benefit mule deer. During implementation, temporary human and mechanical disturbance may cause individuals to temporarily leave the project area. The proposed projects would not cause mortality to individuals or change the downward trend on the grassland.


The project slightly contributes to cumulative effects to Management Indicator Species with off-road vehicle driving and impacts to nests. Refer to the sensitive species cumulative effects for more information.

Migratory Birds


There would be no effects under the No Action alternative.


Effects associated with implementation of the Proposed Action are similar to those described for other birds in preceding discussion. Migratory bird habitat may be enhanced as a result of watershed improvement projects.

37


No cumulative effects are expected for Migratory Birds.

FISHERIES


Aquatic Habitat Existing Conditions

Beginning in 1988, the FS in conjunction with the Colorado Division of Wildlife began monitoring the physical and biological characteristics of refuge pools, or “potholes”, found on PNG. Monitoring has continued since 1988, although the primary purpose is to monitor population trend of native fish found on the PNG. Several species of fish are native to the PNG, with many of them being at the far western edge of their range. Two species, the plains topminnow (Fundulus sciadicus) and the plains killifish (Fundulus zebrinus), are considered management indicator species for the prairie aquatic community, and are monitored at regular intervals.

Like other Great Plains grassland watersheds, stream channels on the PNG are either intermittent or ephemeral. Fish typically inhabit intermittent stream channels that during high flows are longitudinally connected. By summer, water in these channels is restricted to disconnected pools maintained by groundwater. Generally, these pools are clean, clear, shallow in areas, and heavily vegetated. Pond or pool condition varies throughout the PNG, with cattle grazing having the greatest influence on their condition.

Great Plains fish species have evolved adaptations that allow them to survive in physiologically stressful conditions (e.g. high water temperatures, low dissolved oxygen, unpredictable high flows, etc.). Even under these conditions, they are able to compress their reproduction and growth cycles into short periods to facilitate their survival (Rahel and Thel 2004a; Rahel and Thel 2004b; Wohl et al. 2009).

Of the approximately 200 potholes inventoried since 1988, only 30 were documented to contain topminnow or killifish populations. In 2008, plains topminnows were only found to occur in 8 potholes. Plains killifish, historically found in 12 ponds, were not observed in surveys done in 2008.

Fisheries Existing Conditions

Currently topminnow populations are restricted to two drainages, South Pawnee Creek and Willow Creek. There are multiple ponds associated with these drainages, and in most years Willow Creek is longitudinally connected. South Pawnee Creek historically had two ponds on the Kibben Allotment that supported topminnows. However, one of those ponds was excavated in the early 1990’s and resulted in the loss of suitable shallow habitats. In addition to the creation of unsuitable habitat, the pond is now disconnected from the main channel and there is no evidence to suggest that high spring flows have connected this pond to other pools nearby. The lack of suitable habitat to support topminnows coupled with fragmentation is

38

preventing recolonization at this pond. In the Willow Creek drainage, topminnows are found in the channel near the bunker site. Predatory fish are also present in several ponds within the drainage, but are coexisting with topminnow refugia (considered abundant). It is possible that topminnows are currently present in other drainages on the grassland, but have not been recorded. Site visits in the spring of 2010 documented flowing water in drainages that had been dry for several years, which suggests that topminnows may inhabit previously uninhabited or previously inaccessible water bodies.

Like the plains topminnow, killifish have been a focus of monitoring efforts by both the FS and Colorado Division of Wildlife. Their distribution on the PNG was historically limited to a handful of drainages, as they are primarily restricted to the central and southern Great Plains. In 1998, plains killifish were found in four separate drainages in a number of ponds. Between 1998 and 2006, their presence fluctuated in those four drainages. Surveys in 2008 did not document killifish in South Pawnee Creek; the other three drainages were not visited in 2008.



Under the No Action alternative, no watershed improvement projects would occur on the PNG and current management would continue. Aquatic resources would remain at risk.

Current conditions of aquatic habitat and fish populations on the PNG indicate a downward trend for plains killifish and a stable trend for plains topminnows. Many ponds supporting these populations are protected by fencing, but there are several ponds in poor condition and in need of fencing due to impacts from livestock grazing. Grazing effects to unfenced ponds include: water temperature increases, riparian vegetation removal resulting in increased water temperatures and sedimentation, nutrient enrichment by fecal deposition, and change in pond “morphology” from hoof action (Kauffman et al. 1983; Kauffman and Krueger 1984; Belsky et al. 1999). Under the No Action Alternative, cattle grazing will continue to negatively affect aquatic habitats and fish populations at some sites.

Aquatic systems on the PNG are also affected by roads and road networks. Roads are pervasive features on the landscapes and for aquatic systems, they can serve as sources of sedimentation and pollution, and act as passage barriers (Trombulak and Frissell 2000; Angermeier et al. 2004; Ward et al. 2006). Roads on the PNG may potentially fragment habitat, although a blockage has not been documented. Due to the flash flooding nature of the PNG, most of the crossings observed are bridges, which handle flash flooding better than culverts.

If the No Action Alternative is selected, roads and associated washouts and erosion may continue to have negative impacts on aquatic systems. With its implementation, no road closures or drainage feature construction will occur. Without the implementation of these treatments, sedimentation of aquatic habitats and the delivery of potential pollutants via road drainage will still occur, resulting in degraded aquatic habitats.

No threatened, endangered, or sensitive fish species occur in the project area; therefore, no effects are anticipated. However, current trends of the aquatic MIS plains topminnow and

39

plains killifish are not expected to improve under the No Action Alternative. Degraded habitats will continue to be degraded, and at-risk areas may become degraded.


The Proposed Action Alternative includes a variety of treatments, several of which are not anticipated to affect fishery resources on the PNG. Current habitat conditions for prairie aquatic MIS can be considered degraded in areas and adequate in other areas. The implementation of the Proposed Action will improve the long-term viability of prairie aquatic MIS found on the PNG. Therefore, only the following proposed treatments are expected to have the potential to affect aquatic resources: fencing, planting of trees and shrubs, road closure and rehabilitation, construction of waterbars and other drainage structures, creation of overflow ponds, removal of Russian olive and other invasive species, changing grazing management, and seeding/raking/mulching. Generally, the proposed treatments are expected to have direct effects on aquatic habitats and indirect effects on fish populations, and all effects are anticipated to be beneficial and result in the protection and enhancement of aquatic habitats and fish populations found on the PNG.


The cumulative impacts of the Proposed Action, when combined with ongoing activities (such as continued cattle grazing, recreational shooting and gas pipeline construction) and current watershed conditions in the project area could potentially affect the areas fishery and their habitats. The most significant cumulative effect to fisheries and aquatic habitats within the PNG geographic area is cattle grazing and its associated impacts. The effects anticipated from the implementation of the Proposed Action are expected to reduce overall cumulative negative effects, as they should be beneficial effects.

INVASIVE PLANTS


Most invasive plant species on the PNG typically occur near cultivated land, along road rights-of-ways, or in riparian areas (Hazlett 1988). Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense) is currently the most common perennial invasive weed on the PNG. It is found in riparian areas, ephemeral bottomlands, and adjacent to irrigated croplands and county roads. Other invasive weeds that are more worrisome include: absinth wormwood (Artemisia absinthium), musk thistle (Carduus nutans), scotch thistle (Onopordum acanthium L.), leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula L.), diffuse knapweed (Centaurea bovina Velen.), Russian knapweed (Acroptilon repens), dalmation toadflax (Linaria dalmatica (L.) P. Mill.), salt cedar (Tamarix ramosissima Ledb.), and Russian olive (Elaeagnus angustifolia L.).

The PNG has a very low occurrence of noxious weeds overall. It has been suggested that the shortgrass steppe is among the least invaded ecosystems, probably due to arid conditions

40

combined with the somewhat impenetrable buffalo grass-blue grama mat vegetation. The Grassland appears to serve as sink habitat for most noxious weeds which rarely become large populations and instead are probably hitchhikers from other environments. Likely sources of these weeds include the intermingled land ownership and high density of fence lines and roads, livestock, wildlife, recreationalists (both on vehicles and off-highway vehicles), and wind and water transport. If large populations of noxious weeds were to establish on the PNG it could result in competition with and eventual displacement of native plants, which would decrease available forage for livestock, loss of wildlife habitat quality by replacing species used for nesting, forage, and cover and potentially increased soil erosion.

Treatment of noxious weeds on the PNG is based on the concept of integrated weed management (USFS 2003). The goal of integrated weed management is not total eradication of noxious weeds, but successful long-term management through a combination of biological, chemical, cultural, and physical methods. In general, weeds are prioritized for treatment based on aggressiveness and the current extent of infestations, focusing on prevention, early detection and rapid response, or suppression and containment of priority species. Successful weed management on public land also depends on weed management practiced by adjacent landowners.

Annually, approximately 150-250 acres of noxious weeds are treated on the Grassland using a combination of herbicide, prescribed grazing, and hand pulling methods. Surveys of drainages, trails, roadsides and other habitats likely to support noxious weeds are completed regularly to detect new infestations. All known populations are mapped using GPS and stored in a geospatial database. Four monitoring plots, installed in 2007 on the PNG, are being monitored annually to determine the effectiveness of various treatments.



Under the No Action Alternative, existing trends along with weed management will likely continue. This could result in an overall increase in noxious weed populations due to perpetuation of bare ground and disturbed areas associated with erosion features identified in the watershed needs inventory.


The Proposed Action is expected to result in improved watershed conditions and has the potential to maintain or decrease noxious populations on the PNG. Noxious weeds are likely to already inhabit or become established on sights with high percentages of bare ground or in wet areas.

The likely effects on weed populations by the proposed restoration treatments vary by treatment. Treatments with minimal potential to affect existing weed populations or create suitable habitat for new populations include monitoring, construction of drift and/or exclosure fencing, and temporary closures. Removal of Russian olive and other noxious weeds will have a

41

direct positive effect on vegetation resources by the elimination of undesirable weed species. Proposed restoration treatments that include substantial ground disturbance (i.e. recontouring and grading, and potentially road rehabilitation) have the highest potential to result in short-term vulnerability to weed establishment. Treatments that utilize construction equipment (including heavy armoring, grading and recontouring, road rehabilitation, construction of waterbars and other drainage structures and potentially relocation of developed water source) have the potential to transport weeds to watershed restoration sites which could result in new weed populations. The seeding and planting restoration treatments have the potential to introduce weeds via contaminated seed or nursery stock. Implementation of design criteria will reduce this risk.

Indirect effects of completing watershed restoration projects could include damage to non-target species following application of herbicides for weed management purposes. However, strict adherence to herbicide label instructions greatly minimizes such risks.


Changes to noxious weed populations as a result of current uses on the PNG (including permitted livestock grazing, impacts from roads, human disturbance, off-road vehicle driving, and energy development) are past and ongoing cumulative impacts. Because noxious weeds often inhabit heavily disturbed and bare soil sites, the implementation of watershed improvement projects under the Proposed Action will facilitate effective management of noxious weed populations on the PNG.

S O C I A L R E S O U R C E S

HERITAGE

Applicable Laws and Forest Plan Direction

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA), as amended, requires Federal agencies to determine if federally funded, permitted, or licensed activities would adversely affect significant historic properties (36 CFR 800). Cultural resources are considered historic properties if they are eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Determination of the eligibility of cultural resources, and the potential effects that undertakings may have on historic properties are conducted in consultation with the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), relevant Indian Tribes, and Certified Local Governments, if present.

According to the 2004 revised regulations [36 CFR 800.4(d)(1)] for 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 SHPO Office regarding NRHP eligibility. For the purposes of this analysis, cultural resources are considered significant if they are determined to be eligible for the NRHP or if their eligibility has not been determined.

42


The PNG is an area of dense prehistoric and historic cultural resources, of which less than 5% has been inventoried for cultural resources. Prehistoric sites recorded on the PNG range from older than 10,000 years to approximately 200 years ago. These sites primarily reflect hunting and gathering activities, stone tool manufacture, and habitation sites and are represented by projectile points, grinding stones, butchering tools, other lithic (stone) debris, and pottery. Features such as rock-lined pit houses, lithic procurement sites (quarries), stone circles, and rock overhang shelters have been found. Prehistoric sites can be expected most commonly within ½ mile of water source, rock overhangs and along ridge tops that contain natural deposits of stone tool source materials. Such deposits generally consist of chert-rich materials such as jasper which were utilized by Native Americans for stone tool manufacture. These sites can be very long, exceeding a mile or more in length. A project area that contains no cultural resources is extremely rare on the PNG.

The majority of historical sites within the PNG are associated with homesteading in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. These tend to be archaeological rather than architectural sites and generally consist of building foundations, landscape modifications (such as earthen dams or planted trees), and scatters of domestic and agricultural/ranching artifacts. Most of these sites date from the 1910s to the mid 1930s. Several extremely dry seasons occurred in northern Colorado during the 1930s. In response to the high number of farm foreclosures and tax delinquencies that followed drought and other climate related conditions, the federal government launched a land acquisition program to purchase and develop sub-marginal land. These lands changed agencies many times before finally being designated as National Grasslands, administered by the USFS, in 1960. As a result, many historic sites are found on the PNG.



No watershed restoration activity would be undertaken to accomplish the purpose and need. The results of taking No Action would be the current condition as it changes over time. Within the project area, loss of soil and vegetation occurring as a result of erosion features would not be remedied.

Taking No Action to rehabilitate erosion features that may be contributing to loss of topsoil, siltation of water sources, or degradation of riparian habitat would have minimal effects to cultural resources. However, if cultural resources are located in these areas, the loss of soil or vegetation due to erosion may contribute to disturbance of subsurface cultural deposits, displacement of surface artifacts, or exposure of surface artifacts, making them more susceptible to looting by artifact collectors.

43


Under the Proposed Action, the FS proposes to initiate rehabilitation activities on erosion features within the PNG project area and addresses the purpose and need for action. Treatments will be designed to address site-specific issues and may include a combination of treatments when necessary; site-specific mitigations would be considered during site planning.

Several of the proposed treatment methods have the potential to cause adverse effects to cultural resources. Ground disturbing treatments such as hard armoring, recontouring, construction of drainage structures, exclosure fencing, removal of noxious plants, and some methods of road rehabilitation may disturb buried cultural deposits, destroying a sites’ capacity to yield information about prehistoric or historic peoples. Surface disturbing treatments such as seeding/raking/mulching may dislocate surface artifacts from their spatial contexts. Removal of plants, now considered noxious weeds, that were planted by historic homesteaders may significantly alter the historic landscape (one component that contributes to the overall integrity of a site) of historic sites. Altering grazing patterns through relocation of salt and mineral blocks or water sources or adding drift fencing or exclosures may cause indirect effects to cultural resources by causing cattle to trample artifacts or disturb surface or buried artifacts at new locations where they have not previously congregated. With the use of design criteria, it is anticipated that these effects will not be significant.


Cultural resources are non-renewable. The loss of archaeological resources has occurred in the past and will continue to occur in the future through both natural and human causes. Although efforts would be made to locate cultural resources within the Project Area, it is possible that there are undiscovered cultural resources that may be affected by project activities under the Proposed Action. The accumulated loss of individual cultural resources has the potential to limit our ability to understand broad patterns of human history as well as local historical events. Over time, fewer cultural resources would be available for study and interpretation.

LANDS, SPECIAL USES, AND MINERALS


Within the general vicinity of the PNG there are about six hundred active oil and gas production wells, and dozens of ancillary facilities (gas plants, compressor stations, underground pipelines, etc.) used to treat, refine and/or transport the produced hydrocarbon products from their source to their respective markets. The affected environment also includes hundreds of road miles that are used daily for supporting related activities.

Secondly, adjusting and modifying landownership title and landlines is an ongoing part of the Lands Program on the PNG. Planning for any future project implemented under this NEPA document would include verification of landline whenever there is or may be any question

44

about location of property boundaries, rights-of-way boundaries, easement boundaries, etc. Protection of landline monuments will also need to be ensured.

The PNG currently administers approximately one hundred special use authorizations each year on sites throughout the Grassland. These authorizations include large-diameter interstate underground pipelines, high-voltage overhead power transmission lines, underground natural gas gathering pipelines, other types of electric power lines, short-term activities such as non-commercial group use and military training exercises, and outfitter and guide permits. Some permitted uses may be found in fixed locations year-round (e.g., buried natural gas pipeline), while other uses occur for shorter time frames (e.g., two day long military training exercises). Uses such as birding tours led by outfitters and guides do not occupy a fixed location, but rather move around the PNG.


Direct & Indirect Effects of Alternative 1 (No Action)

Under the No Action Alternative, there will be no foreseeable direct or indirect effects to the Affected Environment.

Direct & Indirect Effects of Alternative 2 (Proposed Action)

Under the Proposed Action the potential direct and indirect effects to the affected environment are likely to be minimal or none at all. Any potential effects would likely be positive in nature Reduced erosion potential may facilitate reclamation at a particular site, for example.

While there is a small potential for negative effects to the affected environment, any watershed improvement projects would need to be carefully planned to minimize negative direct and indirect effects. Considerable legal ramifications could exist for negatively affecting ongoing mineral production activities, the existing road system, access to mineral estates, landline boundary monuments, land exchanges, or any authorized special use facilities and activities. However, some types of negative effects (such as short-term traffic delays during construction activities) could still occur.


Under the No Action Alternative, there would be no cumulative effects. Under the Proposed Action, effects to the affected environment would be strictly direct or indirect. Given the nature of the Proposed Action, no cumulative effects are anticipated.

45

RECREATION


The PNG provides a variety of recreational opportunities. Certain areas are developed sites designated for activities, while others on the PNG use the natural landscape as part of its recreational enjoyment. Generally, activities include hiking, horseback riding, camping, target shooting, hunting, photography and bird watching. Many of these activities take place on a year-round basis with the majority of use occurring in the spring and fall.

Developed Recreation

Trails

There is one designated trail on the PNG outside of Crow Valley Recreation Area, located at the Pawnee Buttes. The Pawnee Buttes trail is open year-round to hiking and equestrian use. The overlook is closed between March 1 – June 30 for nesting hawks, eagles and falcons. There are also several social trails in the vicinity of the Pawnee Buttes that have developed through continued use over the years. One of these trails is across the top of Lips Bluff which is southeast of the Pawnee Buttes trail. Another crosses private land (the Nelson Ranch) between the west and east Butte (there is no public right-of-way for this route).

Campground

Crow Valley Recreation Area (CVRA) is the only developed campground on the PNG. CVRA is located at the intersection of Hwy 14 and County Road 77 and is surrounded by private land. CRVA has individual and group camping sites, a baseball field and a group picnic site. Within the campground are two hiking trails, the Mourning Dove Trail and the Bird Walk Trail. The majority of use occurs during the spring and fall months.

Scenic Drive

The Pawnee Pioneer Scenic and Historic Byway (Byway) is approximately 125 miles long and winds its way through the PNG. Attracting visitors from across the nation, the Byway starts in Ault, ends in Sterling or Fort Morgan, and has stops in Briggsdale, Grover, New Raymer and Stoneham. A destination stop along the Byway is the Pawnee Buttes.

Off-Highway Vehicle

Off-Highway Vehicle (OHV) use is prohibited on the PNG with one exception, the Main OHV Area. The Main is located on the northwest side of the PNG and is open from November 1-April 9 for OHV use. The remainder of the year, The Main is closed to OHV use.

46

Dispersed Recreation

The principal dispersed recreational activity that occurs on the PNG is bird watching. The PNG is widely recognized as one of the most important bird areas in the United States. High concentrations of Brewer’s sparrow, horned lark, lark bunting, chestnut-collared longspurs, and McCown’s longspur in Colorado, and the presence of nesting mountain plover are factors that explain why the PNG is considered an international bird tour destination. The bird tour is currently being upgraded with the creation of new interpretive signs and pull-offs at each site. May and June are the best months to see the widest variety of species along the bird tour.



Under the No Action Alternative, no watershed improvement projects would be implemented to accomplish the project purpose and need. This alternative would have minimal impacts on recreation.

Direct and Indirect Effects of Action Alternative 2

Under the Proposed Action, the area near each treatment would experience short-term effects. During project activity, workers and equipment traveling along roads could disturb recreationists. These effects would be temporary. No projects are planned for any developed recreation sites at this time.

Watershed improvement projects could be beneficial to recreation uses through improvements of the scenic value of the restored areas, potential improvement of bird habitat and bird watching opportunities, and potential for improved travel management. Interpretive opportunities exist under the Proposed Action to educate public travelers about the positive impacts of watershed improvements to a variety of resources.


Given the current recreational uses (i.e., OHV use, travel along roads and camping) on the PNG, outcomes of the Proposed Action are likely to be beneficial. For example, if a highly visited site exhibits undesirable levels of erosion, a watershed improvement project would help to retain resources and improve the visitor experience. Impacts to natural resources, if caused by recreational uses, could continue under the No Action Alternative and in turn cumulatively negatively affect these resources and recreation on the PNG.

47

SOCIAL/ECONOMIC


Stakeholders who currently derive a financial benefit from use of the PNG are the oil and gas companies, outfitter and guides, and grazing permittees. With the exception of guided tours and campground fees, no fees are charged for any recreation activities and there are no geographic limits for these activities except for a single, small target shooting closure currently.



Under the No Action Alternative there would be no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects to the socio-economic structure since there would be no reduction in social value or economic benefit.


Under the Proposed Action there would be minimal to no economic or social impacts to oil and gas industry companies, outfitter and guides, and grazing permittees due to the small relative size of the proposed watershed improvement projects. Also, many of these activities, except for permitted grazing, do not co-occur with the watershed improvement needs sites. For example, guided bird tours take place along public roads and would not be impacted by the proposed watershed improvement projects.

The grazing permits held by two grazing associations could be impacted by loss of forage for their livestock during rehabilitation projects because of specific treatments (i.e. fencing) or in other ways removed from grazing activity. However, because of the small size of the watershed projects, very little forage loss would be experienced and in the long-term a small amount of forage gained could be realized with return of these small plots to productive acres.


No cumulative effects are expected for either the No Action or Proposed Action.

48

Literature Cited Angermeier, P. L., A. P. Wheeler, and A. E. Rosenberger. 2004. A conceptual framework for

assessing impacts of roads on aquatic biota. Fisheries 29:19-29. Belsky, A. J., A. Matzke, and S. Uselman. 1999. Survey of livestock influences on stream and

riparian ecosystems in the western United States. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 54:419-431.

Colorado Natural Heritage Program (CNHP). 1999. Colorado Rare Plant Field Guide. http://www.cnhp.colostate.edu/ download/projects/rareplants.

Colorado State University Climate Center. http://ccc.atmos.colostate.edu/dataaccess.php. Last accessed on August 30, 2010.

Flenniken, M., et. al., 2001. Hydrologic Responses of a Montaine Riparian Ecosystem Following Cattle Use. Journal of Range Management, Vol. 54, No. 5 (Sept. 2001). Allen Press and Society for Range Management.

Hazlett, D. L. 1998. Vascular plant species of the PNG. Forest Service Kauffman, B. J., and W. C. Krueger. 1984. Livestock impacts on riparian ecosystems and

streamside management implications...A review. Journal of Range Management 37(5):430-437.

Kauffman, B. J., W. C. Krueger, and M. Vaura. 1983. Impacts of cattle on streambanks in northeastern Oregon. Journal of Range Management 36(6):683-684. Knopf, F. 2010. Retired Colorado Division of Wildlife Biologist. Personal Communication with

Kristen Philbrook, District Wildlife Biologist re: Mountain plover habitat and impacts. May, 2010.

Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) 2003. National Range and Pasture Handbook: Chapter 7 Rangeland and Pastureland Hydrology and Erosion. http://www.monocounty.ca.gov/cdd%20site/Planning/Documents/NCRSHandbook_CompleteHandbook.pdf

Rahel, F. J., and L. A. Thel. 2004a. Plains killifish (Fundulus zebrinus):a technical conservation assessment. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region, Lakewood, Colorado.

Rahel, F. J., and L. A. Thel. 2004b. Plains topminnow (Fundulus sciadicus): a technical conservation assessment. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region, Lakewood, Colorado.

Sala, O.E., W.K. Lauenroth, and W.J. Parton, 1992. Long-Term Soil Water Dynamics in the Shortgrass Steppe. Ecology, Vol. 73, No. 4 (Aug, 1992). Ecological Society of America.

Smith and Keinath 2007. Northern Leopard Frog (Rana pipiens): A Technical Conservation Assessment. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. 66 pp.

SGS-LTER, 2010. About the Shortgrass Steppe. Natural and Environmental Science, Colorado State University. http://sgs.cnr.colostate.edu/. Accessed on 5/03/2010.

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

USFS. 1997. Revision of the Land and Resource Management Plan for the Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests and the Pawnee National Grassland, Ft. Collins, CO.

USFS. 2003. Environmental Assessment for Noxious Weed Management on the Arapahoe and Roosevelt National Forest and PNG

http://www.cnhp.colostate.edu/

http://ccc.atmos.colostate.edu/dataaccess.php

http://www.monocounty.ca.gov/cdd%20site/Planning/Documents/NCRSHandbook_CompleteHandbook.pdf

http://www.monocounty.ca.gov/cdd%20site/Planning/Documents/NCRSHandbook_CompleteHandbook.pdf

http://sgs.cnr.colostate.edu/

49

USFS. 2004. Pawnee National Grassland. Unpublished monitoring data. USFS. 2006. Region 2 Watershed Conservation Practices Handbook (FSH 2509.25).

http://www.fs.fed.us/cgi-bin/Directives/get_dirs/fsh?2509.25!r2 Ward, R. L., J. T. Anderson, and J. T. Petty. 2006. Effects of road crossings on stream and

streamside salamanders. Journal of Wildlife ManagementManagement 72:760-771. Weltz, L., G. Frasier, and M. Weltz, 2000. Hydrologic Response of Shortgrass Prairie Ecosystems.

Journal of Range Management, Vo. 53, No. 4 (Jul. 2000). Allen Press and Society for Range Management.

Wohl, E., D. Egenhoff, and K. Larkin. 2009. Vanishing riverscapes: a review of historical channel change on the western Great Plains. Pages 131-142 in L. A. James, S. L. Rathburn, and G. R. Whittecar, editors. Management and restoration of fluvial systems with broad historical changes and human impacts: Geological Society of America Special Paper 451.

50

C H A P T E R 4 : CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION The Forest Service consulted a variety of individuals, Federal, State, and local agencies, tribes and non-Forest Service persons during the development of this environmental assessment. ID Team Members Lori Bell Nehalem Clark

PNG District Ranger ID Team Leader, Range/Weeds Specialist

Deb Entwistle Hydrologist Victoria Anne Kevin Hyatt

Soil Scientist Hydrologic Technician

Randy Reichert Daniele Pettee

Botanist, Social/Economic analysis Range Management Student Trainee

Nicole Branton Kristen Philbrook Kelly Larkin Steve Wood Kip Klein Vern Koehler Andrea von der Ohe

Archeologist Wildlife Biologist Fish Biologist Engineer Engineer Lands and Minerals Specialist Recreation Specialist

Reghan Cloudman Public Affairs

51

APPENDIX 1. Response to Comments Received During Initial Scoping Wendell Funk (individual)

1) Supports project: Thank you for your comment. 2) Supports permanent exclosure of cattle: This is outside the scope of the PNG Watershed

EA project. See PNG Range EA’s and ARP Forest Plan for more information about range management on PNG.

3) Supports reduction of OHV use: This is outside the scope of this project. See ARP Forest Plan for more information about recreation activities on the PNG.

4) Supports eliminating gun ranges: This is outside the scope of this project. See ARP Forest Plan for more information about recreation activities on the PNG.

Bureau of Reclamation

1) Wants to remain on mailing list: Thank you for your interest in this project. Army Corps of Engineers

1) If restoration projects include any dredge or fill activity, then Section 404 of the Clean Water Act permit is required: We are aware of this requirement, and will contact the COE as needed.

Colorado Natural Areas Program

1) Wants to remain on mailing list: Thank you for your interest in this project. Pawnee Nation of Oklahoma

1) No historic properties will be affected by Proposed Action. Proceed as planned. Notify if previously unsuspected archeological remains are found: We plan to coordinate any watershed restoration activities with our Forest Archeologist in order to be in compliance with Section 106 of the National Historical Preservation Act, as amended.

Colorado Wild

1) Supports project: Thank you for your comment. 2) Land consolidation is desirable to achieve true ecosystem restoration: This is outside the

scope of this analysis. 3) The EA should be explicit in stating what areas are covered by the project: Sorry for the

confusion. Nearly the entire Grassland is being considered in this EA, with site-specific review to occur later, prior to watershed improvement project implementation.

4) The OHV Area and shooting area should receive restoration efforts: We agree that these areas deserve consideration for restoration projects. However due to the higher complexity of the uses on these sites, they will be analyzed separately at a later date. If the areas were closed in the future, this EA would allow for restoration using the treatments included in this analysis.

5) EA should state how much can be accomplished due to the scarcity of funding: We anticipate that one to several projects could be completed annually amounting to no more than 100ac. This will be stated in the EA.

52

6) Restoration design should include attention to: a. Livestock exclusion from rehabilitation areas: This option will be considered as

part of a treatment prescription, but may not be necessary in all cases based on the site specific details.

b. Motor vehicle use excluded from rehabilitation areas: Road closure and restoration will be considered as part of a treatment prescription, but may not be necessary in all cases based on the site specific details. The public is only allowed to travel on designated roads.

c. Permanent elimination of activities that are causing resource damage in restoration area: The intent is to monitor restoration sites and adapt treatments, as necessary, to achieve desired restoration. In some cases, we would prescribe exclusion of certain uses temporarily, but it is likely that we would not eliminate these uses permanently.

d. Use of native species and seeds in replanting: We agree and plan to only use native species in restoration projects.

e. Eradication of non-native plant species, as much as possible: Best practices will be used during restoration activities, such as washing of heavy equipment before coming onsite in order to prevent spread of noxious plants into restoration sites. Sites will be monitored following restoration activities and new weed infestations will be treated. Eradication of non-native plants on the Grassland outside of restoration areas is beyond the scope of this analysis, however the PNG has an aggressive weed management program.

f. Monitoring of restoration areas: We agree that monitoring of restored areas and areas in need restoration is a critical aspect of a successful watershed program on the Grassland and plan to continue monitoring and inventory efforts we have already started.

53

Appendix 2. Table of High Priority Sites to be Considered for Watershed Improvement Projects

Allotment Site Name Problem Description

WESTSIDE

Allenbaw Sites 2, 2B, 4A, 4B Gully, Road Erosion, Tank Overflow

Owl Riparian Gullies, headcut, degraded riparian area,

road

Murphy Site 1A Gully along 2-track road

Sand Sites 2, 8 Headcuts, bare ground, gullies

Halter Site 1A Gullies, cattle trails

Yearling Site 5 Gully

EASTSIDE

Allen Southeast site Gullies and headcuts

Box Riparian Russian olive, noxious weeds, possible

planting

Buck Sites 1A and 1B Gullies

Fiscus Riparian Potholes and headcuts

South Simmons Washout Road Washout

North Simmons Road 123 Road drainage

Youngland Main Drainage Gullies, bare ground

Motis Center and Southwest areas Gullies, cattle trails

East Keota North and West Drainages Road/cattle trails, salting locations

55

APPENDIX 3: Examples of site-specific watershed improvement projects with proposed treatments (Allenbaw and Owl Sites)

Under the Proposed Action, two project areas have been selected that would be undertaken first, Allenbaw and Owl. They will be reviewed on the ground by each of the resource specialists prior to project implementation planned for Spring 2011. In the future, as other projects are undertaken, similar input will be sought from the specialists during planning and implementation. Allenbaw Site Descriptions

1. Gully site: There are 2 large gullies on the west side of the allotment. Both have relatively small watersheds, but the drainages have severely eroded over time. We speculate that the gullies formed when a flood event occurred that concentrated water in existing cattle trails. The gullies continue to be used by cattle, possibly as a connector route between water and salt sources. Several t-post/hay bale check dams were installed in the early 1990s in an attempt to slow erosion. They were not anchored into the banks and the hay bales deteriorated before any improvements were gained. The t-posts are still in place.

2. Water Tank site: At the tank, water overflows from the tank and forms a small stream until it disperses into the hillside. Cattle are trampling the area. Possible solutions that have been discussed include: creating a small pond to capture the runoff and make it available to wildlife or piping the water downslope and creating a pond further away from the tank. This would likely be more useful to wildlife. There is also a headcut just south of the tank site that we would likely try to treat if we were doing other work in the area.

3. Road Erosion site: A fence line road has eroded on a steep section. The road has been widened as people go around gullied areas when wet. We’d either like to close and obliterate this road, if it is not needed, or install better drainage.

Treatment Proposals: Gully Site:

1. Recontour and grade gullies, including waterbars or drainage 2. Seed/rake/mulch 3. Drift fencing to deter cattle from using the area

Water Tank Site: 1. Recontour area around tank and windmill 2. Armoring 3. Recontour and grade headcut 4. Seed/rake/mulch

Road Erosion site: 1. Recontour and grade gullies, including waterbars or drainage 2. Possibly seed/rake/mulch

56

Owl Site Description: Owl Creek has sections of perennial water within the allotment. In 2009 and 2010, portions of the water were fenced off and two tree and shrub planting projects were completed. There are several gullies and headcuts in the immediate watershed that also need to be addressed. The gullies are thought to be a result of cattle trailing and possible past flooding. There is a historic ditch upslope from the water that may influence flood patterns and drainage in the area as well. The road into the drainage is also severely eroded in the steeper section. Treatment Proposal

1. Possibly close and obliterate road if determined to be not needed. 2. Recontour and grade gullies and headcut 3. Seed/rake/mulch 4. Drift fencing to deter cattle from using the area 5. Relocate salt and mineral

Environmental Assessmenta123.g.akamai.net/.../11558/www/nepa/64965_FSPLT2_025957.pdf · 2010. 9....

Documents

Transcript of Environmental Assessmenta123.g.akamai.net/.../11558/www/nepa/64965_FSPLT2_025957.pdf · 2010. 9....