R> %tbie%TW> 1 <9. H l(s -5 . tie UANAGEMENT SITUATION ANALYSIS ; MSA BLWUBRARY BLDG 50, ST-1 50A DENVER FEDERAL CENTER P.O. BOX 25047 DENVER, COLORADO 80225 BLDG. 50, / ;£MVER federal center P.O. BOX 25047 DENVER, COLORADO 80225 SAN LUIS RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 3-87 San Luis Resource Area Public Lands: USA (Use, Share, Appreciate) SLRMP/MSA-CLT/03-06-87/0348P CHAPTER 1 CLIMATE CONTENTS Pag RESOURCE AREA PROFILE (RAP) " Description . 1 Condition and Trend . . 2 EXISTING MANAGEMENT SITUATION (EMS) Current Management . . 6 Supply-Demand Analysis ... . 6 CAPABILITY ANALYSIS (CA) Definition . 7 Management Practices ..... . 7 Resource Capability Level Description ...... . 7 FORMS All forms are placed in order of use ........... . 8 DATA THEMES Discussion or presentation of data theme material ... . 11 REFERENCES List all reference studies, persons, reports, etc. .... . 12 ' SLRMP/MSA-CLT/ 03-06-87/0348P CHAPTER 1 — CLIMATE RESOURCE AREA PROFILE (RAP) Description The San Luis study area is located in a high valley /mountainous, continental climate region characterized by dry air, sunny days, clear nights, raoderate/high precipitation, moderate/high evaporation, and extreme daily temperature changes* The Continental Divide and the San Juan Mountains to the west, and the Sangre de Cristo Mountains to the east flank the dry, wide, and flat San Luis Valley. The Rio Grande River flows east from the San Juan Mountains into the center of the valley, and then flows south into New Mexico. The complex topography of the region causes considerable variation in site-specific temperature, precipitation, and surface winds. Extremely frigid conditions and blizzards can occur, but severe weather conditions such as tornadoes, floods, and damaging hail are rare. The climatology of the resource area is very diverse, and prolonged onsite monitoring is necessary to specify local conditions. The following description represents a range of climatic conditions throughout the resource area. SLRMP SLRMP/MSA-INT/ 03-06-87/0423P MANAGEMENT SITUATION ANALYSIS (MSA) Introduction This management situation analysis (MSA) consists of three parts: (!) resource area profile (RAP), (2) existing management situation (EMS), and (3) capability analysis (CA). All three parts are to be graphically displayed on GIS theme computer displays as well as narratively described here. Both the resource area profile and existing management situation will be pht in the affected environment chapter of the environmental impact statement. They will be used as the rationale for proposing to manage resources in a particular way and to provide the baseline information for measuring impacts. They may have to be revised after the alternatives and environmental consequences chapters are written. The capability analysis will be used to formulate the alternatives for the environmental impact statement. This document is a working tool to assist in the development of the RMP/EIS over the next two "+" years. As you read thru and usd these sections, please keep in mind that they need to be tempered by the SLRMP topics of concern. Make changes as needed on your copy . . . .or add any new data. If you feel you should share these changes or new data with other team members . ... please provide ‘them to the team leader, f To remind you of the direction we \ began the MSA process with, ye have included the material on the next page. • ' * * This gives the basic cparameters, guidance, definitions with which to do management situation analysis. -ii- , SLRMP/MSA-INT/ 03-06-87 /0423P RESOURCE AREA PROFILE JJ Description of Resource Tell what, where, and how much. Summarize your inventory. Reference to data themes should be done. Condition and trend Is it in good condition, poor condition? Is it getting better or worse? Describe inventory (quality and extent of data). EXISTING MANAGEMENT SITUATION JJ Current Management How is your resource presently managed? Describe agreements and related policies. Supply-Demand Analysis and Dependency Who wants your resource? Who has a use for your resource? How dependent are they on BLM providing this resource. (Degree of need) CAPABILITY ANALYSIS JJ Definition of Capability Resource Levels Capability Analysis Forms 1 will go here. These forms define what you believe to be most important for management; three levels from most needed down. Use only three levels I Be terse, brief, concise, and incisive I Management Practices Capability Analysis Forms 2 will go here. These forms describe the types of management you would prescribe for each resource capability level. What does it take to manage for the three defined levels on Form 1? Be terse, brief, concise, and incisive I Resource Capability Level Description Capability Analysis Forms 3 will go here. These forms will describe the areas we have mapped as RCL 1, RCL 2, RCL 3. These specific sites must relate to your data theme material. Be complete as possible but concise. — Most of this material will go directly into the SLRMP/EIS as it is written here. , — / Most of this material will be used in formulating alternatives and carrying out conflict resolution. -iii- ( 4k SLRMP/MSA-CONT/2-23-87 / 0368P SLRMP MANAGEMENT SITUATION ANALYSIS Contents By Chapter and Specialist Responsibility Chapter Chapter Title Specialist Responsible for Preparation of Chapter 1. Climate Scott Archer 2. Air Resources Scott Archer 3. Soils Jerry Harman 4. Water Resources Howard Wertsbaugh 5. Topography Dave Taliaferro 6. Geology and Minerals Kevin Anderson 7. Paleontological Resources John Beardsley 8. Vegetation Royce Wheeler 9. Riparian Vegetation Fran Ackely 10. Livestock Grazing Royce Wheeler 11. Wildlife Habitat John Schwarz 12. Forest and Woodland Resources John Wilson 12. Land and Realty Actions Bill Miller 13. Wilderness Bill Schneider 14. Area of Critical Environment Concern Rick Athearn 15. Access and Transportation Fred Martinez 16. Recreation Bill Schneider 17. Visual Resources Bill Schneider 18. Historic Resources Rick At he ran 19. Archeological Resources John Beardsley 20. Fire « Harold May 21. Economic Conditions and Social Environment Jeanette Pranzo 22. Hazards Fred Martinez NOTE: Typing/Word Processing done by Elner Rush and Terry McGinness iv SLRMP/MSA-CLT/03-06-87/0348P CHAPTER 1 CLIMATE CONTENTS Page RESOURCE AREA PROFILE (RAP) Description . . 1 Condition and Trend . . . . 2 EXISTING MANAGEMENT SITUATION (EMS) Current Management . . . 6 Supply-Demand Analysis ... . 6 CAPABILITY ANALYSIS (CA) Definition . 7 Management Practices ..... . ....... 7 Resource Capability Level Description ... . 7 FORMS All forms are placed in order of use . . . 8 DATA THEMES Discussion or presentation of data theme material . 11 REFERENCES List all reference studies, persons, reports, etc . 12 SLRMP/MSA-CLT/ 03-06-87/ 0348P CHAPTER 1— CLIMATE RESOURCE AREA PROFILE (RAP) Description The San Luis study area is located in a high valley /mountainous, continental climate region characterized by dry air, sunny days, clear nights, raoderate/high precipitation, moderate/high evaporation, and extreme daily temperature changes. The Continental Divide and the San Juan Mountains to the west, and the Sangre de Cristo Mountains to the east flank the dry, wide, and flat San Luis Valley. The Rio Grande River flows east from the San Juan Mountains into the center of the valley, and then flows south into New Mexico. The complex topography of the region causes considerable variation in site-specific temperature, precipitation, and surface winds. Extremely frigid conditions and blizzards can occur, but severe weather conditions such as tornadoes, floods, and damaging hail are rare. The climatology of the resource area is very diverse, and prolonged onsite monitoring is necessary to specify local conditions. The following description represents a range of climatic conditions throughout the resource area. SLRMP/MSA-CLT/ 03-06-87/ 0348P Condition and Trend The extent that vertical and horizontal mixing will take place is related to the atmospheric stability and mixing height. Distributions of these factors for selected sites are presented in Table 1-1. Unstable conditions can occur from strong surface heating, typical of summer afternoons, producing upslope winds. Neutral conditions reflect a breezy, well-mixed atmosphere. Stable conditions are enhanced by rapid radiative cooling and downslope drainage, producing the least amount of dispersion. Spring and summer mixing and transport is generally good, but nighttime cold air drainage, particularly in the fall and winter, can cause extremely low temperatures and the poorest dispersion conditions. Inversions are formed under these conditions, trapping pollutants within a certain layer of air and are enhanced by weak pressure gradients, cold clear nights, snowcover, and lower elevations. Temperatures vary mostly with elevation, and to a lesser extent, local microclimate. Table 1-2 summarizes monitored values for temperature, precipitation, and frost-free periods throughout the study area. At higher elevations, summer temperatures will probably range from lows of 38 F to highs of 77°F. Winter temperatures may range from -8°F to 32°F. Freezing temperatures and snowfall are possible year around, with snow accumulation likely from September to May® At lower elevations, summer temperatures can range from 48°F to 82°F. Winter temperatures can range from 0 F to35 F. Extreme temperatures throughout the area may drop as low as -42°F or rise to 97 °F. Freezing temperatures are likely from September to May with snow accumulation from October to April. -2- SLRMP/MSA-CLT/ 03-06-87/0348P TABLE 1-1 SELECTED ATMOSPHERIC DISPERSION VALUES Station Stability Frequency (percent) Season Unstable Neutral Stable Mixing Height (m) Morning Afternoon Alamosa, Colo. Annual 29 34 37 300-400 2,000-2,600 Spring 26 47 27 300-600 2,400-3,400 Summer 39 31 30 300-400 2,400-4,000 Fall 29 33 38 200-300 1,800-2,200 Winter 21 27 52 300 1,200-1,400 Pueblo, Colo. Annual 24 41 35 „ Spring 23 50 27 - - Summer 33 35 32 - - Fall 23 37 40 - - Winter 15 41 44 - - Trinidad, Colo. Annual 24 40 36 — — Spring 21 53 27 - - Summer 33 35 32 - - Fall 24 35 41 - - Winter 18 39 43 Sources: Holtzworth, 1972, and Pedco Environmental, Inc., 1981. SLUMP /MSA T1-2/03-17-87/0348P Table 1-2 Selected Climatic Data Station Elev Temperature (°F) TftT - K - Mean Sea Extreme Mean Annual Mean Extreme Level Min Min Mean Max Max Precipitation (in) Annual Monthly Monthly Mean Mean Max Min Snowfall Frost-Free Period Mean Mean Mean # Begin End Days Date Date Alamosa 7536 -42 24 Blanca 7750 -38 25 Center 7673 -37 24 Crestone a 8115 -16 — Del Norte 7884 -34 28 Gr Sand Dunes NM 8120 -25 29 Hermit 9000 -40 16 Manassa 7687 -34 23 Monte Vista 7637 -38 24 Rio Grande Resa 9455 -38 — Saguache 7692 -24 27 Salida 7060 -33 29 San Luis a 8033 -27 — Silverton 9272 -37 19 Wagon Wheel Gap 8500 -40 16 Wolf Creek Pass 10642 -19 25 42 59 91 7.1 1.3 43 60 97 7.8 1.6 42 60 95 7.3 1.3 43 — 89 12.0 3.1 43 58 91 10.0 1.8 44 58 91 10.6 2.2 34 53 97 15.7 2.3 42 60 94 7.5 1.5 41 59 91 7.1 1.4 32 — 80 24.7 4.0 43 60 93 8.8 1.7 46 63 95 11.0 1.7 39 — 84 12.6 6.2 36 53 85 22.4 3.0 36 55 96 11.9 2.3 38 51 88 40.8 5.5 0.2 37 98 6/1 9/7 0.2 23 112a 6/8a 9/28a 0.3 28 96 6/6 9/10 0.2 — 140 5/11 9/28 0.4 46 114 6/1 9/23 0.3 37 123 5/29 9/29 0.7 76 11 6/27 7/8 0.2 18 90 6/8 9/6 0.2 23 72 6/12 8/23 0.0 — 1 6/30 7/1 0.2 30 106 6/4 9/18 0.6 53 104 5/31 9/12 0.3 — 91 6/10 9/9 1.2 140 10 6/28 7/8 0.4 53 8 6/29 7/7 1.1 363 8a 6/10a 6/ 1 8a Source: Pedco Environmental, Inc., 1981. Note: a-U.S. Department of Commerce, 1984 SLRMP/MSA-CLT/ 03-06-87/0348P EXISTING MANAGEMENT SITUATION (EMS) Current Management Climatic considerations are incorporated into specific project decisions as needed (i.e., rehabilitation, forage yield, etc.). Site-specific monitoring is also conducted when neqessary. Supply-Demand Analysis The generally dry and seasonally frigid conditions of the San Luis Valley restrict both the growing season and diversity of plant life. Mountain areas are also seasonally cold, but increased moisture assists plant growth. Special considerations must be included for rehabilitation project developement . Technical support is required from the Colorado State Office Air Resource Specialist; Colorado State Climatologist; and the U®S. Department of Commerce — Weather Service. SLRMP/MSA-CLT/ 03-06-87 / 0348P Because of the effects of the San Juan Mountains, annual precipitation in the mountains is among the highest statewide (41 inches on Wolf Creek Pass) and in the San Luis Valley among the lowest (7.1 inches at Alamosa). At the lower elevations, there is a small summer maximum due to thunderstorms; at the highest elevations, most precipitation comes from winter snowstorms. Snowfall amounts vary from 20 inches at the lower elevations to over 360 inches on Wolf Creek Pass; mountainous accumulations vary from 25 to 80 inches. Although mid-valley winds predominate from the west and southwest (Figure 1-1), areas of diverse and rugged terrain result in complex wind flows and surface winds. Winds of various pressure are forced around hills or channeled through valleys, but without strong gradient flows, daily upslope/downslope winds predominate. Upslope winds usually occur on sunny mornings when the air at higher elevations heats rapidly and rises. Downslope winds occur when the air near the ground cools, becomes dense, and sinks downward along drainages. Air basins have been defined based on these drainage winds, indicating areas of similar atmospheric flow, topographic influence, and general dispersion potential. The study area is located in the San Luis air basin of Colorado. SLRMP/MSA-CLT/ 12-8-86/0348P Figure 1-1 Annual Surface Wind Rose for Alamosa SITE: Alamosa, Colorado WIND SPEED CLASS SITE NUMBER: 23061 mph PERIOD OF RECORD: 1948-1972 TOTAL OBS: 128,505 - Annual X CALMS: 12.6 Source: Pedco Environmental, Inc., 1981 1 SLRMP/MSA-CLT/ 03-06-87 / 0348P CAPABILITY ANALYSIS The following forms describe the definition of the capability resource levels (RCLS), the management practices to be applied to each particular RCL, and specific site(s) within each RCL. m SLRMP/MSA-CLT/ 03-06-87/ 0348P SLRMP MSA CAPABILITY ANALYSIS FROM 1 DEFINITIONS OF RESOURCE CAPABILITY LEVELS Resource Climate _ _ Specialist Name Scott F. Archer Date 11-21-86 _ Resource Capability Level 1 (define the highest priority for management) Incorporate climate limitation considerations into forage yield calculations for rangeland utilization determinations. Resource Capability Level 2 (define the second highest priority for management) Incorporate climate considerations into wildlife habitat improvement activity plans to ensure proper species selection. <# SLRMP/MSA-CLT/ 03-06-87/0348P SLRMP MSA I CAPABILITY ANALYSIS FROM 2 MANAGEMENT PRACTICES Resource Name Climate Specialist Name Scott F. Archer Date 11-21-86 Describe the types of management that you would use in RCL 1 areas Based upon procedures currently being developed by the Washington Of fice--Di vision of Rangeland Resources, assess the affect growing season weather conditions have no forage production. Describe the types of management you would use in RCL 2 areas Utilize knowledge of climatic conditions to select proper plant species for wildlife habitat improvement projects. t 1*- $ SLRMP/MSA-CLT/03-06-87/ 0348P SLRMP MSA CAPABILITY ANALYSIS FORM 3 RESOURCE CAPABILITY LEVEL DESCRIPTIONS Specialist Name Scott F. Archer Area Number (from GIS Theme) Resource Climate _ _ (i.e., 1, 2 or 3) ______ Date 11-21-86 _ Description of Area (Species, number of acres, miles, etc.) Resource area-wide. Rationale for RCL N/A ALL The determination of RCL must be made on a case-by-case basis as site-specific proposals are considered. I* 0 SLRMP/MSA-CLT/ 03-06-87 /0348P DATA THEMES (STILL MISSING) Need a description of the GIS themes, how they can be used, what is the content, to include a listing of guads used. SLRMP/MSA-CLT/ 03-06-87/ 0348P REFERENCES (STILL MISSING) SLRMP/MSA-AIR/ 03-06-87 /0349P CHAPTER 2 AIR QUALITY CONTENTS Page RESOURCE AREA PROFILE (RAP) Description . . . ^ Air Quality Regulations • •«••••**“ . Existing Air Quality . . . ^ Condition and Trend . . . . . EXISTING MANAGEMENT SITUATION (EMS) ...... 8 Current Management . 0 Supply-Demand Analysis . CAPABILITY ANALYSIS (CA) ...... 9 Definition . * 9 Management Practices . . . . ' 9 Resource Capability • Level Description .••••.•*** FORMS All forms are placed in order of use ••••••••••••*••* 10 DATA THEMES Discussion or presentation of data theme material ........ REFERENCES List all reference studies, persons, reports, etc. ...... • • m SLRMP/MSA-AIR/ 03-06-87 / 03A9P CHAPTER 2 — AIR QUALITY RESOURCE AREA PROFILE (RAP) Description Air Quality Regulations National ambient air quality standards limit the total amounts of specific pollutants allowed in the atmosphere - carbon monoxide (CO), lead, nitrogen dioxide (N02), ozone, sulfur dioxide (S02), and total suspended particulates (TSP). State standards include these parameters, but may also be more stringent (i.e., Colorado's 3-hour S02 standard). These standards were established to protect public health (primary standards) and public welfare (secondary standards). Areas that consistently violate minimum Federal standards because of man-caused activities are classified as nonattainment areas, and must implement a plan to reduce ambient levels below the maximum pollution standards (Table 2-1). Under the environmental protection agency (EPA) "Fugitive Dust Policy," areas that violate the TSP Ambient Air Quality Standards, but lack any significant industrial particulate sources and have a population less than 25,000, are designated as unclassified areas are generally exempt from having to follow the offset provisions, retofit controls, and new source control requirements established for nonattainment areas by the Clean Air Act. -1- SLRMP/MSA-AIR./ 03-06-87/0349P To protect areas not classified as "nonattainment, Congress established a system for the prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) through the clean Air Act Amendments of 1977. Areas were classified by the additional amounts of TSP and SO^ degradation that would be allowed. PSD Class I areas, predominantly national parks and certain wilderness areas, have the greatest limitations; virtually any degradation would be significant. Areas where moderate, controlled growth can take place were designated as PSD Class II. PSD Class III areas are those areas that allow the greatest degree of impacts. Colorado SC^ (e.g.. Category I). Existing Air Quality The existing air quality throughout the resource area can only be surmised; for most pollutants, no monitoring data is available. However, the air quality of the study area is believed to be typical of undeveloped regions in the Western Untied States; ambient pollutant levels are usually near or below the raeasureable limits. Locations vulnerable to decreasing air quality from extensive development include the immediate operation areas (surface mines, milling operations, power plants), and local population centers with the induced impacts. -2- SLRMP/MSA-AIR/ 03-06-87 /0349P TABLE 2-1 STATE AND FEDERAL AIR QUALITY STANDARDS (micrograms per cubic meter) Pollutant r.ri Averaging Time_2/ jy Ambient Increment 2/ Federal prim. secon. Colorado prim. secon. Class/ Cat I Class II Class Carbon Monoxide 8 Hour 10000 10000 10000 — _ — — 1 Hour 40000 40000 40000 — — — — Lead Quarterly 1.5 1.5 - - - - - Nitrogen Dioxide Annual 100 100 100 - - - - Oxidants (Ozone) 1 Hour 235 235 160 - - - - Sulfur Dioxide Annual 80 — — — 2 20 40 24 Hour 365 - - - 5 91 182 3 Hour — 1300 700 — 25 512 700 Total Suspended Annual 75 60 75 cr. o 1 5 19 37 Particulates 24 Hour 260 150 260 150 10 37 75 Sources: National Ambient Air Quality Standards (40 CFR 50 et seq, 1/5/83) Requirements for Implementation Plans (40 CFR 51.24, 9/3/82) Approval of Implementation Plans (40 CFR 52.21, 6/25/82) Code of Colorado Regulations (Volume 5, Part 14, 5/27/80) Notes: / Ambient standards are the absolute maximum level allowed to protect either public health (primary) or welfare (secondary). _ 2/ Incremental (Prevention of Significant Deterioration) standards are the maximum incremental amounts of pollutants allowed above a baseline in regions with clean air. The Colorado Category I increments are identical to the Federal Class I increments. 3/ Short-term standards (those other than Annual or Quarterly) are not to be exceeded more than once each year, except the Federal ozone standard. Under federal regulations, the "expected number of days" with ozone levels above the standard is not to be exceeded more than once per calendar year. The Colorado annual secondary TSP standard was established as a guide zn assessing implementation plans to achieve the 24— hour standard . -3- SLRMP/MSA-AIR/ 03-06-87 /0349P Most of the resource area has been designated a PSD Class II, attainment area. Some towns have measured high TSP levels (exceeding the standards), but since the cause is primarily natural fugitive dust, these towns have been designated "unclassified" for TSP. PSD Class I areas in the resource area include the La Garita, Weminuche, and Great Sand Dunes Wilderness Areas. These areas and the Great Sand Dunes National Monument are also Colorado Category I Areas. Condition and Trend Higher TSP concentrations are to be expected near towns due to local combustion sources and unpaved roads; significant regional TSP levels are probably due to fugitive dust (primarily wind blown). Since fugitive dust particulates are larger than those produced in combustion processes, they settle relatively quickly and present a minimal inhalation health treat. The Environmental Protection Agency may alter the existing TSP regulations to reflect this difference by setting standards for particulates less than 10 microns in diameter, commonly called unhaulable particulates and abbreviated PM-10. Average and extreme monitored background concentrations of TSP are presented in Table 2-2. Preliminary estimates for pollutant concentrations in the study area are presented in Table 2-3. PSD Class I regulations also address the potential for impacts to air quality \ related values (AQRVs) . These AQRVs include visibility, odors, and impacts to flora, fauna, soils, water, geologic, and cultural structures. Visibility impacts can occur from atmospheric increases in small, light-scattering particles or increases in light-absorbing gases (typically NC^) • Although -4- 4 SLRMP/MSA-AIR/ 03-06-87 / 0349P not monitored in the resource area, standard visual range values are expected to exceed 70 miles during nonwinter periods. A possible source of impact to AQRVs is atmospheric deposition (acid rain). Mechanisms of atmospheric deposition are currently under study; preliminary results have correlated ambient sulfuric and nitric acids with combustion by products (sulfates and nitrates). Selected atmospheric deposition data are presented in Table 2-4. TABLE 2-2 SELECTED AMBIENT POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS DATA (micrograms per cubic meter) _ — Station Name/Type Year Total Suspended Part. PM-10 No. Obs Ann Geo Mean 2nd 24-hr Max Ann 2nd Arith 24-hr Mean Max Alaraosa/Urban 1985 67 49 128 1984 81 52 146 1983 88 51 235 1982 88 37 I7T3 Pagosa Springs/ 1985 59 115 339 (57) (183) Urban _2J 1984 85 114 395 1983 85 101 268 1982 84 120 376 Trinidad/Urban JL! 1985 3 (22) (22) 1984 85 48 113 1983 85 49 126 1982 82 46 167 Source: Colorado Department of Health, n.d. Note: JJ Values in parenthesis lack reliability due to limited sample size. Underlined values indicate violation of Ambient Air Quality Standards. 2/ Monitor located outside the study area. SLRMP/MSA-AIR/ 03-06-87 /0349P TABLE 2-3 PRELIMINARY ESTIMATED RURAL POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS SAN LUIS RESOURCE AREA (micrograms per cubic meter) _ 1/ Pollutant _!/ Annual Mean Quarterly Mean 2nd 24-hr Max 2nd 8 -hr Max 2nd 3-hr Max 2nd 1-hr Max Carbon Monoxide — _ _ — Lead — - — Nitrogen Dioxide - - — — — — Oxidants (Ozone) -- — — — — Sulfur Dioxide — — — Total Suspended Particulates Source: _ _ , 1986. Note: _}J Values are conservative indicators of ambient concentrations developed for internal use by the Colorado Air Pollution Control Division and should not necessarily substitute for on-site monitoring data. The values (particularly TSP) indicate the ambient pollution levels in general geographic areas, not a specific location. Values are subject to change as new data are acquired . _2J Total suspended particulate values are geometric means; all others are arithmetic means. SLRMP /MSA-AIR/ 03-06-87/ 034 9 P TABLE 2-4 SELECTED ATMOSPHERIC PRECIPITATION DATA (pH) ♦ Alamosa, CO Quarter No. 1st 2nd Obs Mean Min Min Jan - Mar 1980 Apr - Jun T9 80 Jly - Sep 1980 Oct - Dec 1980 Source: Natural Resource Ecology Laboratory, n.d. -7- SLRMP /MSA-AIR/ 03-06-87 /0349P EXISTING MANAGEMENT SITUATION (EMS) Current Management The air resources management program was established to limit degradation In the planning area by assuring that public land comply with Federal, state and, local legislation. air quality use activities For example, prescribed burns must comply with BLM Manual Section 7723, Air Quality Maintenance Requirements, to minimize air quality impacts from resulting particulates. This procedure requires obtaining an approved open burning permit from the state prior to Implementation. Existing air quality Is inventoried to establish a baseline from which changes associated with BLM or other agency proposals may be determined. BLM personnel coordinate with state and Federal agencies and private organizations to assemble existing monitoring data. Additional monitoring may be implemented by BLM when necessary. Future Impacts from BLM actions are assessed prior to Implementation. Site-specific project plans for proposals affecting BLM and adjacent lands are reviewed for compliance with existing laws and policies protecting these areas. Mitigation may be Incorporated Into project proposals when necessary to reduce potential impacts. -8- SLRMP/MSA-AIR/ 03-06-8 7/034 9 P Supply-Demand Analysis Because of the existing good air quality and lack of large industrial development in the resource area, no unusual restrictions are anticipated, except during periods of poor dispersion (stagnation). Continued urbanization likely lead to increased carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, and particulate concentrations. These impacts will be minimized through compliance with air quality regulations. Technical support is required from air resource specialists in the BLM-Colorado State Office; U.S. Forest Service-Region II; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency-Region VIII; and the Colorado Department of Health-Air Pollution Control Division. -9- SLRMP/MSA-AIR/ 03-06-8 7/ 034 9 P CAPABILITY ANALYSIS The following forms describe the definition of the capability resource (RCLS), the management practices to be applied to each particular RCL, specific site(s) within each RCL. levels and -10- * SLRMP /MSA-AIR/ 03-06-8 7/034 9 P SLRMP MSA CAPABILITY ANALYSIS FROM 1 DEFINITIONS OF RESOURCE CAPABILITY LEVELS Resource - Air Quality _ Specialist Name Scott F. Archer Date 11-21-86 Resource Capability Level 1 (define the highest priority for management) Review site-specific project plans affecting BLM and adjacent lands for compliance with existing laws and policies protecting air quality. Incorporate raitigative measures to reduce air quality degradation when Resource Capability Level 2 (define the second highest priority for management) Apply smoke management procedures (outlined in BLM Manual 7723) prior to and during prescribed burning activities. » -11- ' SLRMP/MSA-AIR/ 03-06-87/0349P SLRMP MSA CAPABILITY ANALYSIS FROM 2 MANAGEMENT PRACTICES Resource Name Air Quality Specialist Name Scott F. Archer Date 11-21-86 Describe the typ ( tlie Prec*ictive capabilities available through the Colorado State Ice Air Resource Specialist to review project proposals, predict resultant air quality conditions, and propose mitigative measure when necessary. Describe the types of management you would use in RCL 2 areas Comply with requirements of BLM Manual 7723 to ensure smoke is minimized from prescribed burns. Utilize the predictive capabilities available through the Coiorado State Office Air Resource Specialist to review project proposals, predict resultant air quality conditions, and propose mitigative measures when necessary • -12- SLRMP MSA SLRMP/MSA-AIR/ 03-06-87/0349P CAPABILITY ANALYSIS FORM 3 RESOURCE CAPABILITY LEVEL DESCRIPTIONS Specialist Name Scott F. Archer Resource Air Quality Date 11-21-86 Area Number (from CIS Theme) RCL (i.e., 1, 2 or 3) Description of Area (Species, Resource area-wide. number of acres, miles, etc.) Rationale for RCL N/A ALL The determination of RCL must be made on proposals are considered. a case-by-case basis as site-specific SLRMP/MSA-SOL/1 2-09-86 /0352P SLRMP MSA CAPABILITY ANALYSIS FROM 2 MANAGEMENT PRACTICES Resource Name Solis Specialist Name Jerry B. Harman Date 11-26-86 Describe the types of management that you would use in RCL 1 areas Management of the soils resource would be based on the compatibility of spec fic soil capabilities with proposed uses, and the implementation of management practices that provide for long-term productivity. Surface road^uildinv^M t>»eS SU?h 38 prescribed burning, chaining, disking, seeding. See soils ^ sltT “°U“1 reCel™ “tentlon. database. 3 N 3 2' Sit specific ~ refer to GIS soils Describe the types of management you would use in RCL 2 areas Describe the types of management you would use in RCL 3 areas N/A -7- ' SLRMP MSA SLRMP/MSA-S0L/12-09-86/0352P CAPABILITY ANALYSIS FORM 3 RESOURCE CAPABILITY LEVEL DESCRIPTIONS Specialist Name Jerry B. Harman Resource Soils Date _ 11-26-86 _ Area Number (from GIS Theme) SLS _ RCL (i.e., 1, 2 or 3) RCL 1 Description of Area (Species, number of acres, miles, etc.) See soils overlays No. and No. planning for land uses, use the soils _ • For other than general GIS database. Rationale for RCL See management practices under capability analysis. -8- SLRMP/MSA-SOL/1 2-09-86 /0352P Need a content DATA THEMES (STILL MISSING) description of the GIS themes, how they can be used, what is the » to include a listing of guads used. SLRMP/MSA-S0L/12-09-86/0352P REFERENCES (STILL MISSING) -10- slrmp/msa-wat£ '/0369P CHAPTER 4 WATER RESOURCES CONTENTS RESOURCE AREA PROFILE (RAP) Description . . . . . Surface Water . Ground Water Water Quality . Floodplains . Condition and Trend . Surface Water . Ground Water . • • Floodplains . . EXISTING MANAGEMENT SITUATION (EHS) Current Management . • • Surface Water . Ground Water . Floodplains . Supply-Demand Analysis . CAPABILITY ANALYSIS (CA) Definition . Management Practices . . . • Resource Capability Level Description Page 1 1 3 4 5 5 5 6 6 7 7 8 9 9 11 11 11 FORMS All forms are placed in order of use . . DATA THEMES Discussion or presentation of data theme material REFERENCES List all reference studies, persons, reports, etc 19 ; SLRMP/MSA-WAT/ 01-26-87 / 0369P CHAPTER 4 — WATER RESOURCES RESOURCE AREA PROFILE Description Surface Water The San Luis Resource Area is located near the headwaters of the Rio Grande River, in a large structural basin known as the San Luis Valley. For the most part, the public lands form a band around the rim of the valley, separating the agricultural land on the valley floor from the higher timber and rangeland of the Rio Grande National Forest. The major streams in the area originate on National Forest land in the San Juan, La Garita, Saguache, and Sangre de Christo Mountains. Two exceptions are Trinchera and Culebra Creeks, which originate on the Sangre de Cristo and Trinchera land grants. All streams in the valley are tributary to either the Rio Grande river or the Closed Basin. The Closed Basin is a 2,940 square mile watershed in the northern part of the valley that has no surface outlet. The total watershed area of the San Luis Valley is about 5 million acres. The public lands comprise 516,000 acres, or about 10 percent of the total. Thirty four perennial streams, with a combined length of about 630 miles, pass through about 46 miles of public land. Thus, approximately 7 percent of their channel length could be directly affected by management of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) . The 8 most important streams and their lengths are shown in Table 4-1. i SLRMP/MSA-WAT/ 01-26-87 / 0369P TABLE 4-1 Eight Most Important Streams Stream Total Miles BLM Miles 7o BLM Rio Grande River 150 12.0 1/ 8 Saguache Creek 70 0.5 1 Alamosa River 60 2.0 3 La Jara Creek 60 3.4 6 San Luis Creek 48 1.9 4 Kerber Creek 25 0.5 2 Carnero Creek 21 0.3 1 Rock Creek 18 0.3 2 Total 452 — 2TT79 ~ 5% 1/ Rio Grande River Borders BLM on one bank only. The remaining 26 streams, with a combined total length of 178 miles, flow through about 25 miles of public land. All but one of these streams are tributary to the Closed Basin. In contrast to the perennial streams, most of the drainages originating on public lands are ephemeral (a few are intermittent). Most have low gradients and many flow over large alluvial fans. Runoff usually results from intense summer thunderstorms, although heavy, wet, spring snow occasionally produces flow. Stream flow is reduced significantly by transmission losses, primarily by percolation into the ground water system. Runoff from watersheds on the public lands reaches perennial streams via surface routes only during extreme storm events. SLUMP /MS A-WAT/ 01-26-87/ 0369P The average annual water supply to the San Luis Valley has been estimated at 2.5 million acre feet (Davis Engineering Services Inc., 1974). The U.S. Geological Survey estimates that 2 million acre feet are consumed by evapotranspiration, and about one- half million acre feet leave the valley via ground water underflow and streamflow across the state line. The estimated annual water yield from public lands is 35,000 acre feet (Gifford et.al., 1975). This represents' 1.4 percent of the total annual supply. Ground Water The San Luis Valley is well known for its huge ground water resources. The floor of the valley is underlain by water-bearing sedimentary deposits that are miles thick. Unconfined (water table) ground water is found at 4) shallow depths and is easily obtained. However, much of the unconfined water is of low quality, and unsuitable for domestic or agricultural use. Below the unconfined aquifer lies an immense confined (artesian) aquifer system. This aquifer produces large quantities of good quality water, and has been extensively developed for agricultural, domestic, and municipal purposes. Since 1976, development of the confined aquifer has been strictly regulated by the Colorado State Engineer. -3- SLRMP/MSA-WAT/ 03-16-87 / 0369P Around the fringes of the valley floor (where most of the public land is located), the occurance of ground is much more variable. Along the base of the Sangre de Christo Mountains, water is found in alluvium and in igneous, raetoraorphic, and sedimentary rock formations. Along the west side of the valley, volcanic rocks of various types predominate. Most wells located above the valley floor yield relatively small quantities of good quality water. The primary uses are for stock and domestic water. Where aquifers outcrop, especially in the northwest part of the valley, many springs occur. These springs are important sources of water for wildlife and livestock. About 100 springs have been found on public lands. Water Quality AH of the streams passing through the public lands have good to excellent quality of water. The exception is Kerber Creek, which is heavily polluted from mining wastes. Kerber Creek passes through about one-half mile of public land just downstream from the Bonanza raining district, where the pollution originates. Ground water in the San Luis Valley is generally of very high quality. The large exception is the unconfined aquifer of the valley floor, which in many places contains water with high levels of dissolved solids. -4- SLRMP/MSA-WAT/ 01-26-87/ 0369P Floodplains and Alluvial Valley Floors Although virtually every drainage on, or passing through, the public lands is subject to flooding, the only floodplain, in the classical sense, is along the Rio Grande River. In eastern Conejos County, about 12 miles of public land border the Rio Grande’s western bank. Most of this land is in narrow canyon country, and the' floodplain area is not extensive. There are no alluvial valley floors on public lands in the San Luis Resource Area. Condition and Trend Surface Water Perennial streams on the public lands are in good to excellent condition, and in stable trend, with the exception of Kerber Creek and Ford Creek. Kerber Creek suffers from severe pollution by heavy metals. The trend is a table to very slowly upward, as streambanks re vegetate and pollutants are washed away. Lower Ford Creek is in poor hydrologic condition due to eroded streambanks and down cutting of the channel. The trend is more or less stable, although some streambanks continue to erode. Many ephemeral drainages, especially on the west side of the valley, are in poor condition. This is due to erosion and down cutting that has occurred in years past. The trend is stable to slowly improving, although a few headcuts are still active. -5- , * SLRMP/MSA-WAT/ 01-26-87 / 0369P Most intermittent streams on the public lands are in good hydrologic condition, with stable trend. Poison Gulch and Upper Sanderson Gulch are two exceptions. Both of these drainages once contained wet meadows. Erosion has cut through these meadows and lowered the water table. Raw banks and advancing headcuts still exist, but the trend is generally stable to very slowly improving. Ground Water The condition of ground water in terms of quantity and quality is generally good to excellent. The exception is the unconfined aquifer of the valley floor, where the quantity is excellent, but the quality is poor. The trend of quantity and quality of the water from aquifers surrounding the valley floor is stable. The trend of these characteristic's in the unconfined aquifer is unclear, and studies are underway to help understand just what the trend is. The artesian head in the confined aquifer has dropped over the years, but the quality appears to be stable. The confined aquifer has been the subject of many studies over the years, and it is likely that these studies will continue, so that any adverse trends can be detected. Floodplains The condition of floodplains along the Rio Grande River is considered good, despite the fact that the riparian vegetation is poorly developed. This appears to be due to a lack of alluvial deposits along the channel, rather than to mismanagement of the floodplain. The trend appears to be stable. -6- I SLRMP/MSA-WAT/ 01-26-87 / 0369P EXISTING MANAGEMENT SITUATION Current Management Surface Water The resource area triUst comply with Federal, state, and local regulations governing water use and management. State water quality standards have been set that follow those formulated at the local level in Section 208 Water Quality Management Plans. By ensuring that Bureau management actions enhance or maintain water quality, the BLM conforms with state water quality regulations, as well as the water quality provisions of the Clean water Act, and the Federal Water Pollution Control act. Before any work is permitted in perennial stream channels, Section 404 permits are obtained from the Army Corps of Engineers as required by Federal Law. Some use is made of surface water on public lands by fishermen and other recreationists. Some consumptive use of streamflow is made where livestock and wildlife drink from the streams. An effort is currently underway to quantify these uses and to apply for state water rights to ensure that these uses can continue. Monitoring of the aquatic health of most perennial streams is being done by the fisheries program. The hydrology (soil and water) program analyzes occasional grab samples to determine basic water quality, and to detect any trends. The soil and water program also monitors precipitation, runoff, and sediment production from 5 small watersheds, to determine impacts and trends related to livestock grazing. -7- 1 SLRMP/MSA-WAT/ 03-16-87 / 0369P A modest amount of money ($5,000 - $10,000) is programmed each year to maintain existing erosion control structures and to correct erosion problems resulting from off-road vehicle use. Ground Water About 36 wells have been drilled for the purpose of stockwater. All of these wells have been registered with the State Engineer, with the exception of 4 flowing wells near Moffat. These wells were drilled prior to the establishment of the BLM. Near the south end of the Closed Basin, 37 wells have been drilled into the confined aquifer, and 6 more are contemplated » The purpose of these wells is to provide water for fisheries and wildlife habitat, primarily waterfowl nesting habitat. Applications for rights to use this ground water are currently before the State Water Court in Water Division 3. All of the developed springs and most of the undeveloped springs on public lands are used for stock water and water for wildlife. The BLM has acquired decrees for state water rights on 87 of the 100 or so springs on public land, and has filed application for water rights on the remainder. All BLM management actions (such as issuance of a permit to drill an oil well, or construction of a BLM water well) conform with local, state, and Federal laws and regulations; especially those concerning water rights and protection of ground water quality. -8- ■ <• SLRMP/MSA-WAT/ 01-26-87 / 0369P Floodplains Management of floodplains must comply with Federal Executive Order 11988, "Floodplain Management". Essentially, this executive order prohibits the construction of permanent structures within the 100-year floodplain and restricts any activity which could interfere with the "natural and beneficial functions of a floodplain". Executive Order 11988 also regulates the transfer of any Federally owned floodplain to any non-Federal individual or organization. Therefore, before public land containing floodplains can be transferred to any non-Federal owner, stipulations must be written into the deed that restrict development and use of the floodplain. Supply-Demand Analysis The water resources of the San Luis Valley are extremely important locally, as well as downstream in New Mexico and Texas. Colorado is bound by interstate compact to deliver a certain amount of water to users in New Mexico and Texas. Irrigated agriculture is the economic keystone of the entire San Luis Valley. In some years, there is not enough water to satisfy the needs of all these users. In addition, there is an increasing demand to expand irrigated land in the valley, as well as schemes to divert water from the Rio Grande to other river basins along Colorado's front range. -9- ' SLRMP/MSA-WAT/01-26-87 /0369P Bureau of Land Management’s annual consumptive use of water is estimated 5,100 acre feet, of which 4,550 acre feet is used by the Blanca Wildlife Habitat Area. This figure represents 0.25 percent of the total consump use in the San Luis Valley. Compared to the valley as a whole, the production and consumption of water on the public lands is fairly insignificant. -10- SLRMP/MSA-WAT/ 01-26-87 / 0369P CAPABILITY ANALYSIS The following forms describe the definition of the capability resource levels (RCLS) , the management practices to be applied to each particular RCL, and specific site(s) within each RCL. -11- SLRMP/MSA-WAT/ 01-26-87 / 0369P SLRMP MSA CAPABILITY ANALYSIS FROM 1 DEFINITIONS OF RESOURCE CAPABILITY LEVELS Resource Surface Water Specialist Name H. Wertsbaugh - - Date 1-22-87 _ Resource Capability Level 1 (define the highest priority for management) Intermittent streams that have potential to be restored to perennial streams and perennial streams in poor condition. Resource Capability Level 2 (define the second highest priority for management) All other surface water. -12- '1 SLRMP/MSA-WAT/03-16-87/0369P SLRMP MSA CAPABILITY ANALYSIS FROM 2 MANAGEMENT PRACTICES Resource Name Surface Water _ _ _ Specialist Name H. Wertsbaugh _ _ _ _ Date 1-22-87 Describe the types of management that you would use in RCL 1 areas Amend existing allotment management plans to provide for structural treatment and special grazing systems as needed to restore streams to their pre-existing condition. Describe the types of management you would use in RCL 2 areas Review all proposed management actions to ensure that laws and regulations protecting water quantity and quality are complied with. SLRMP/MSA-WAT/ 01-26-87 / 0369P SLRMP MSA CAPABILITY ANALYSIS FORM 3 RESOURCE CAPABILITY LEVEL DESCRIPTIONS Specialist Name H. Wertsbaugh Area Number (from CIS Theme) SMS, WTP Resource Surface Water _ RCL C1*6** 1» 2 or 3) - - 1,2 — - Date _ _ 1—22—87 _ _ _ Description of Area (Species, number of acres, miles, etc.) RCL-1: 5 miles of stream RCL-2: 46 miles of stream Rationale for RCL RCL-1: has potential for improvement RCL-2: is at potential condition 14- SLRMP/MSA-WAT/03-16-87 /0369P SLRMP MSA CAPABILITY ANALYSIS FROM 1 DEFINITIONS OF RESOURCE CAPABILITY LEVELS Resource Around Water Specialist Name H. Wertsbaugh Date Resource Capability Level -1 (define the highest priority for management) All ground water in San Luis Resource Area. -15- SLRMP/MSA-WAT/01-26-87/0369P SLRMP MSA CAPABILITY ANALYSIS FROM 2 MANAGEMENT PRACTICES Resource Name Ground Water Specialist Name H. Wertsbaugh Date 1-22-87 Describe the types of management that you would use in RCL 1 areas Ensure that all management actions comply with laws and regulations protecting water rights of others and ground water quality. -16- SLRMP/MSA-WAT/ 01-26-87 / 0369P SLRMP MSA CAPABILITY ANALYSIS FORM 3 RESOURCE CAPABILITY LEVEL DESCRIPTIONS Specialist Name H. Wertsbaugh Area Number (from GIS Theme) None Resource Ground Water _ _ RCL 1» 2 or — - - Date _ 1-22-87 _ Description of Area (Species, number of acres, miles, etc.) Resource Area Wide Rationale for RCL Ground water is necessary for management of the public lands and for the economy of the San Luis Valley. -17- , SLRMP/MSA-WAT/03-16-87/0369P DATA THEMES Water Sources Theme (WRS) This theme shows all sources of water on the public lands that are needed for recreation, livestock, and' wildlife management. Water sources include wells, springs, perennial streams, and intermittent streams. Chester Quadrangles Used Kiowa Hill Bonanza La Jara Canyon La Sauses Saguache Laughlin Gulch Sky Valley Ranch Lobatos S. Fork West Lookout Mt. Terrance Reservoir Manassa N.E. Twin Mt. S.E. Mesito Res. Vincente Canyon Mirage Villa Grove Antonito Zapata Ranch Baldy Klondike Mine Bushnell Peak Graveyard Gulch Centro Goshawk Dam Del Norte V Poncha Pass Dog Mt. Lake Mt. Fox Creek Whale Hill -18- SLRMP/MSA-WAT/ 03-16-87 / 0369P Quadrangles Used Cont'd Fulcher Gulch Greenle Mt. Hickey Bridge Indian Head Harrence lake Moffat South Lake Mt . N . E . Sweede Corners Twin Peaks Pikes Stockagde Hooper S.E. Medano Ranch Grouse Creek Dry Lakes Trickle Mt. Lime Creek Valley View Hot Springs Ute Mountain Surface Water Streams Theme (SWS) This theme shows all perennial streams on public land in the resource area. Quadrangles Used Chester Bonanza Whale Hill Villa grove Valley View Hot Springs Klondike Mine Lake Mountain Grouse Creek Saguache Bushnell Peak Trickle Mountain Mirage Zapata Ranch Poncha Pass Medano Ranch Baldy -19- SLRMP/MSA-WAT/ 03-16-87 /0369P Quadrangles Used Cont'd Del Norte Greenle Mountain La Jara canyon Terrance Reservoir Lime Creek Ute Mountain Mesito Reservoir Lake Mountain N.E. Centro Hickley bridge South Fork West Vincente Canyon Kiowa Hill Pikes Stockade Indian head Surface Water Lakes and Ponds (SWL) This theme shows all lakes and ponds on the public lands in the San Luis Resource Area. Quadrangles Used Dry Lakes Goshawk Dam Vincente Canyon Lake Mountain N.E. Whale Hill Kiowa Hill Fox Creek La Jara Canyon Terrance Reservoir Mesito Rsevoir Trickle Mountain Poncha Pass Medano Ranch Lobatos Centro Twin Peaks -20- ( SLRMP/MSA-WAT/03-16-87/0369P REFERENCES Davis Engineering Services Inc. 1974. Water Quality Management Plan, Rio grande basin of Colorado. Emery, P.A., Snipes, R.J., and Dumeger, J.M., 1972. Hydrologic Data for the San Luis vAlley, Colorado. Colorado Water Conservation Board basic Data Release Number 22. Emery, P.A., 1971. Hydrology of the San Luis Valley, South-Central Colorado. U.S. Geological Survey, Hydrologic Investigations Atlos, HA 381. Gifford, G.F., Hawkins R. , and Williams J.S., 1975. Hydrological Impacts of Livestock grazing on National Resource Lands in the San Luis Valley. Unpublished report prepared for the Bureau of Land Management. Utah State University. Powell, W.J., 1958. Ground Water Resources of the San Luis Valley Colorado. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 1379. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Engineer, Alamosa, Colorado (groundwater studies and closed basin). Ron Stieger, U.S. Geological Survey-Water Resources Division, Pueblo, Colorado (water production, use and quality in Rio Grande Basin). Dennis Felmlee, Colorado Division of Water Resources, Alamosa, Colorado (water rights in the San Luis Valley) . Pete Bryant, Rio Grande County Commission, Del Norte, Colorado (History of Mishab Wells). Ralph Curtis, Rio Grande Water Conservation District, (BLM Water Rights and Consumption) Alamosa, Colorado (use of water + 208 Water Quality Program). ' SLRMP/MSA-T0P/03-06-87/ 0350P CHAPTER 5 TOPOGRAPHY CONTENTS RESOURCE AREA PROFILE (RAP) Page Description . . . 1 DATA THEMES Discussion or presentation of data theme material . » , . 3 REFERENCES List all reference studies, persons, reports, etc . 5 SLRMP /MSA-TOP/ 03-06-87 / 0350P CHAPTER 5— -TOPOGRAPHY RESOURCE AREA PROFILE (RAP) Description The San Luis Valley is a large north-trending topographic depression bordered on the east mainly by the Sangre de Cristo Mountains and on the west mainly by the San Juan Mountains. The portion of the valley that lies in Colorado is nearly 100 miles long and ranges in width from 20 miles in the north, to 150 miles in the center, to 50 miles or more in the south. The valley floor is essentially a flat featureless plain with an elevation ranging from 7,500 to 7,900 feet. The San Juan Mountains gradually rise to elevations of 12,000 to 13,000 feet, with some peaks over the Continental Divide higher than 14,000 feet. The Sangre de Cristo Mountains rise abruptly from the valley floor to elevations over 14,000 feet. Steep alluvial fans extend from the rugged eastern range down to the valley floor. The San Luis Hills, a series of hills and mesas that rise 500 to 1,000 feet above the valley floor, lie in the southern portion of the valley near the community of San Luis. Active sand dunes, located in the Great Sand Dunes National Monument, contain a relief of approximately 800 feet. The public lands lie near the outer edges of the valley adjacent to mountain fronts. As a result, most of the land is steep and mountainous with rock outcroppings and steep canyons or gradually sloping alluvial fans dissected by small drainages. -1- SLRMP/MSA-TOP/03-06-87/0350P These topographical features have been shaped through eons by changing geologic and climatic processes. The mountainous and rocky areas were formed by volcanic activity which folded and uplifted the crust of the earth. Formation has also been affected through time by the processes of weathering and erosion. Gradually, sloping alluvial fans were formed by intermittent streams carrying vast quantities of weathered rock debris from adjacent mountain fronts to the valley below. These natural processes are still active today, although their results would not be seen within one person’s lifetime, nor even for several centuries. Human presence in the valley has had no noticeable effect on regional topography. Perhaps local features have been altered or obscured by human activity, but the scale of activities, such as livestock grazing, agriculture, and mining, has been minute and the effects of activities short-lived compared to the age-old geologic and climatic processes that form topography. ' t SLRMP/MSA-T0P/03-06-87/0350P DATA THEME One topographic theme has been developed for this RMP effort. The theme is the Digital Elevation Model (DEM). The digital data shows differences in topography at points across a quad map. This is measured in standard elevations above sea level (see attached example of DEM). Eighty-four quads are involved in the SLRMP. As of March 1987, 47 quads are available and loaded in the MOSS user data base for DEM. Thirty-seven more quads will be produced by the end of April 1987. -3- ar-29-?7 SLRMP/MSA-TOP/ 1 2-00 -C6/0350P REFERENCES SLRMP/MSA-T0P/03-06-87/0350P 1. San Luis Resource Area Grazing Environmental Impact Statement, Bureau of Land Management, May 1978. SLRMP /MSA-MIN/ 03-10-87 /0351P CHAPTER 6 GEOLOGY AND MINERALS CONTENTS Page RESOURCE AREA PROFILE (RAP) . ]. Description . ... 1 Minerals and Geology • •••••••*" ^ Leasable Minerals „• . . . < 4 Locatable Minerals • . * g Salable Minerals . e 10 Condition and Trend . * IQ Leasable Minerals . * . n Locatable Minerals . ^ Salable Minerals . * EXISTING MANAGEMENT SITUATION (EMS) Current Management . General .... . Leasable Minerals . Locatable Minerals . Salable Minerals . Supply-Demand Analysis and Dependancy . Leasable Minerals . Locatable Minerals . Salable Minerals . 12 12 13 14 15 16 16 16 17 CAPABILITY ANALYSIS (CA) Definition . *****... 18 Management Practices . * . . 18 Resource Capability Level Description ••••••• FORMS „ . 19 All forms are placed in order of use . * . 19 Forms . . ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; . . 23 Forms 2 . . . 27 Forms 3 . * # ° ’ * * DATA -THEMES 31 Discussion or presentation of data theme material • • 0 . REFERENCES List all reference studies, persons, reports, etc 32 * * — SLRMP / MS A-HIN / 03-10-87 /0351P CHAPTER 6 —GEOLOGY AND MINERALS RESOURCE AREA PROFILE (RAP) Description Minerals and Geology The San Luis Valley and the adjacent San Juan and Sangre de Cristo Mountain Ranges have long been an area of focus for mineral exploration and development. The diverse geologic and mineral resources associated with this area provides an opportunity for continued use of and exploration for mineral 5 values from the public lands within the San Luis Resource Area (SLRA). The following information provides a synopsis of the mineral resource values present or having the potential to be present within the San Luis Resource Area. Leasable Minerals Geothermal The San Luis Valley is a structural, sediment filled basin within the Rio Grande Rift Zone. This rift zone presents one of the more promising geothermal resource areas in Colorado because the region has (1) undergone recent volcanism and other igneous activity, (2) tectonic activity resulting -1- ( f SLRMP/MSA-MIN/ 03-10-87 /0351P In numerous faults extending to depth, (3) high heat flow values present, ( ) ''ood reservoir rocks and trapping mechanism, and (5) a good source of available water. With the presence of these features essentially located throughout the entire San Luis Valley, the potential for utilization of this resource exists; however, the determination of specific areas for development is difficult due to a lack of available subsurface and geophysical data. Therefore, the use of surface expressions in the form of hot springs is the most readily available means for identifing areas of geothermal potential. The following lists the known geothermal springs and wells within the San Luis Valley : Name Location Average Temp Average Discha Mineral Hot Springs Sec. 12, Valley View Hot Springs Sec. 36, Shaws Warm Spring Sec. 33, ^^and Dunes Swimming Pool ^^^lot Water Well ^i^plash Land Hot Water Well Sec. 27, Sec. 34, Dexter Warm Spring Sec. 8, Mclntire Warm Spring Sec. 18, 45N. , R. 9E. , NMFM 60°C 46N. , R. 10E., NMPM 35°-37°C 41N. , R. 6E. , NMPM 30 C 41N. , R. 10 E., NMPM 44°C 38N. , R. 10E., NMPM 40 C a 35N. , R. HE., NMPM 20 C 35N. , R. 11E., NMPM 10-14 C 10 GPM 60 GPM 34-50 GPM N/A N/A 5 GPM N/A (Barrett and Pearl 1978) -2- , SLRMP/MSA-MIN/03-10-87/0351P Currently there are no existing known geothermal resource areas (KGRA) with the San Luis Resource Area however, prior to _ _ there were three KGRAs. These designations, have been eliminated due to a reappraisal of leasing interest in this area. Oil and Gas Oil and gas seeps have been reported in the San Luis Basin since the late 1800s. However, despite the presence of porous and permeable sandstones, thick widespead clays for seals, and shows of hydrocarbons, only about 15 oil and gas tests have been drilled in the 2,500 square miles of the basin and most of these before 1955. This lack of exploration activity has essentually left the basin a frontier region for oil and gas activity. Recent activity including extensive seismic activity and exploration drilling has resulted in ^ a better understanding of the stratigraphy, structure, and possible trapping mechanisms within the SLRA. Essentially the SLRA presents two areas for potential oil and gas exploration and development: The San Luis Basin The faulting and rifting of the Sangre de Cristo uplift resulted in the formation of the San Luis basin. This basin was then filled by Tertiary clastic and volcanic rocks to a depth of approximately 20,000 feet adjacent to the Sangre de Cristo mountains. This basin fill can be divided into four units consisting in descending order as the Alamosa fm; the Santa Fe fm; an unnamed Paleocene to Eocene unit, and the Vallejo fm. Potential trapping mechanisms consist of pinchouts and truncations, fault traps, and structural closures . -3- SLRMP/MSA-MIN/ 03-10-87 /0351P The San Juan Sag This foreland basin, formerly adjacent to and west of the Lararaide Sangre de Cristo Uplift, remained intact following formation of the San Luis Basin to the east. This basin was then concealed by more than 10,000 ft. of volcanic and volcaniclastic rock with only a small window of Cretaceous rock exposed near Quartz Creek to indicate the potential sedimentary sequence buried beneath this volcanic cover. , The potential stratigraphic sequence beneath the volcanic cover could involve Paleozoic (Permo— Pennsylvanian) , Jurassic, Cretaceous, and Tertiary sediments. Recent exploration drilling has confirmed the presence of a sedimentary sequence for this region. The completion of the Kirby Petroleum Company's No. 1 Jynnifer well northwest of Del Norte Colorad with an initial production of 30 barrels of oil and 80 MCFGPD established the first production of oil and gas within the San Luis Valley. Extensive seismic, geophysical, and exploration drilling within both regions of the San Luis Valley will be required in order to adequately evaluate this area for oil and gas resource potential. Sodium Sodium salts consisting of sodium carborate, sodium sulfate, and sodium chloride with some associated potassium are found in the San Luis Lake. Some shipments of soda were made from this area during the 1930s; however, no production figures are available. The area is localized and no other areas are known to be present within the resource management plan (RMP) area. - , r L SLRMP/MSA-MIN/03-10-87/0351P Coal The SLRA has no potential for the pressence of coal resources. Locatable Minerals For the purposes of this planning effort, the San Luis RMP area will be divided into eastern and western halves in order to more adequately describe the locatable mineral resources in these areas. These areas were established by geologic setting, variations in mineral resources, and depositional environments. Eastern Side of the San Luis Valley (Sangre de Cristo Range) This area has been the foeua of extensive mineral exploration and development since the late 1800s and contains numerous and highly diversified occurrences of locatable minerals. The following list provides information on past and present mining districts and mineralized areas: Mining District (MD) and/or Mineralized Approximate Location Commodities Present (1985) Production Record Blake MD T. 44, 45, 46, 47, N., R.10,11E. N/A Crestone MD T.43, 44N. , R.12E. Gold, Silver, Lead, Copper $275,000 Liberty MD T.25S. , R.73W. Gold, Silver 150 oz Au; 1,000 oz Ag Blanca MD T.27,28W. , R. 72, 73W. Gold, Silver, Tungsten 4000 oz Au; 7,000 oz Ag 1,000 tons Tungsten ore Raspberry Creek MA T.47N. , R.9E. Lead, Silver N/A Steel Canyon MA T.46N. , R.10E. Silver, Lead, 7,000 oz Ag; 70,000 lbs PI 8,000 lbs Cu , SLRMP/MSA-MIN/ 03-10-8 7 /0351P Mining District (MI)) and/or Mineralized Area (MA) Approximate Location Commodities Present (1985) Production Record Orient Mine T.46N. , R.lOEo Iron Ore 1,700,000 tons Wild Cherry Creek MA T.45N. , R. HE. Silver, Lead, Copper 100 oz Ag; 6,000 lbs Pb 500 lbs Cu Triple T Mine MA T.45N. , R.11E. Gold, Silver, Copper 300 oz. Au; 2,000oz Ag 300,000 lbs Cu King Turquoise Mine MA T.34N. , R. 11E. Turquoise $67,000 gem Turquoise Other types of locatable mineral resources that have been identified as having potential In the eastern part of the San Luis Valley are fluorite, thorium, rare earth elements and uranium. Based on available production figures and reliable estimates, the total Wproduction of locatable minerals from the eastern half of the San Luis Valley is 1,450 ounces of gold; 10,600 ounces of silver; 308,500 pounds of copper; 76,000 pounds of lead; and 1,700,000 tons of iron ore; $67,000 of gem-quality turquoise -6- SLRMP/MSA-MIN/ 03-10-8 7 /0351P Western Side of the San Luis Valley (San Juan Mountains) The San Juan volcanic field dominates the western side of the San Luis Valley. This volcanic complex has been the setting for significant occurrances of base and precious metal (gold, silver, lead, zinc, and copper) mineralization. For the most part these mineral deposits have been associated with collapsed Tertiary volcanic structures ("Calderas") and associated igneous intrusives. At least five calderas are known to occur along the western flank of the San Luis Valley and of these at least two occur within or in close proximity of the SLRA. The Bonanza Caldera is in the northern part of the valley and production here was dominated by silver and lead. The Platoro-Summitville Caldera complex is located in the southeastern part of the San Juan Mountains and was principally a gold-silver region. Mineralized intrusives, which could have a bearing on mineralization within the SLRA, include. Alamosa River, Cat Creek, Jasper, and Biedell stocks, the Twin Movintain Intrusives 'md an intrusion near Jack Creek northwest of Saguache. _ Other mineral occurrences are present outside of these areas; however, these occurrences are generally small, isolated areas. The following list provides information on mineralized areas situated within or identified as having influence on the SLRMP area. Mining District (MD) and/or Mineralized Area (MA) (1985) Approximate Commodities Production Location Present Record Bonanza MD T.45,46,N., R.6,7E. Ag, Pb, Zn Crystal Hill MD T.42,43,44N. , R.6E. Au, Ag r.-sw., A. ■s'e. Jasper MD T37N. , K3,4E. Au, Ag, Pb 1 | Alunite 4 Nl' ^Bummitville MD T36N. , R.4E. Au, Ag, Cu Platoro MD sl \L Au , Ag , Cu $12,000,000 N/A N/A $ 7,500,000 iJ/a -7- < ■ ' I I SLRMP/MSA-MIN/ 03-10-87 /0351P Mining District (MD) and/or Mineralized \rea (MA) _ _ _ Approximate Location Commodities Present (1985) Production Record Copper Butte MD T.45N. , R.8E. Cu N/A Jack's Creek MD T.46N. , R.6E. Ag, Pb, Zn N/A Cat Creek MA T.36, 37N. , R.6E. Pb, Zn N/A Tracy Canyon MA T.44N. , R.6E. Ag, Zn, Au, Mo Cu, Pb, N/A Based on available information from production records and reliable estimates, the total production for the western part of the San Luis Valley is: 311,900 ozs. of Au; 6,454,000 oz of Ag; 16,898,000 lbs of Cu; 45,473,000 lbs of Pb; 9,723,200 lbs of Zn; and 3,500 lbs of gem turquoise. Other mineral resources showing potential within the western side of the San Luis Valley include uranium, thorium, and perlite. Salable Minerals Occurrences of sand and gravel, building stone, and other types of mineral materials are widespread throughout the area of the SLRMP. Because of the low unit value and high transporation costs associated with mineral materials in general, only those areas representing positive potential for development and use are identified in the following discussion. 1 SLRMP /MSA-MIN/ 0 3-1 0~8 7 / 0 3 51 P Cinders South of Centro and Capulin is a large deposit of volcanic cinders. This area is part of a large basaltic plateau and contains cinder deposits potentially suitable for commercial exploration. Of particular interest is the Los Magotes and San Luis Hills area. Potential cinder deposits could also be present within the San Luis Hills. Dimension Stone Volcanic rock suitable for building purposes occur southeast of Del Norte, Colorado. At least three quarries have operated in this area previously and significant reserves of this material remain for use. A small amount of marble has been quarried from gently folded Paleozoic limestones in the Steel Canyon area. 01Tiis deposit is small and localized in extent. Sand, Gravel and Riprap Areas representing potential for utilization of these mineral materials are located throughout the SLRMP area. Areas with good potential for sand and gravel development include the Saquache Creek Valley west of Saquache; the area north of Crestone, In the area of Monte Vista and Del Norte; the area west of the Great Sand Dunes National Monument, and south of the Alamosa National Wildlife Area. These areas and numerous other sites within the valley could receive use for sand and gravel based largely on the needs of immediate construction projects. -9- SLRMP/MSA-MIN/ 03-10-87 /0351P areas occur in the San Luis Valley. These collecting Old Woman Creek, the Crystal Hill Area, Trickle Mountain, Old Woman Creek Geodes and agates are reported to occur along the Old Woman Creek northwest of Del Norte. None were observed during fieldwork. Crystal Hill Area Geodes occur along Sanderson Creek, adjacent to a perlite deposit. The geodes ontain microcrystalline quartz and a few have cavities lined with dusty quartz crystals. Moderately large quartz crystals have been found in and around the mine dumps at Crystal Hill. Trickle Mountain Petrified wood is found on the west side of Trickle Mountain. The exact location is in the SE^SE^ Sec. 8, T. 45 N. , R. 5 E,, NMPM. The multicolored pieces of petrified wood show the annual rings very well. Rockhound Areas A number of rockhound localities are found at: and the Villa Grove Mine. -10- SLRMP/MSA-MIN/ 03-10-87 / 0351P Villa Grove Mine North of Villa Grove is the old Villa Grove Turquoise Mine. It is a large open pit mine that produced about 3,500 pounds of gem turquoise from the early 1950s through the mid 1970s. This mine is a possible rockhound area though it is primarily of private land. Condition and Trend Leaseable Minerals Geothermal The current uses of geothermal resources in the San Luis RA is primarily for ecreational activities with some use for industrial space heating. The current number of geothermal leases and the associated lease acreage are identified in the cument geogological management section and substantial Increase in these figures and exploration interest is not expected based on current economic conditions. Current uses should continue with some possible increase in space heating utilization. Oil and Gas The San Luis Valley was the focus of very limited oil and gas exploration activity until about 1981 when a new concept concerning the potential presence of Cretaceous, Jurassic, and Paleozoic sediments beneath the San Juan Volcanics was first seriously considered. During the period subsequent to this date, extensive eophysical data and confirmation of the presence of sediments beneath the volcanic •over by exploration drilling has been completed. The first production of oil and -11- SLRMP/MSA-MIN/03-10-87/0351P gas within the SLR A was made in 1985 by Kirby Petroleum. With this discovery and '-.he completion of the South Fork Development Contract, further exploration of the western portion of the SLRA should occur at a much increased rate. This amount of activity is dependent on economic factors that greatly influence the amount of exploration work conducted in a frontier oil and gas area such as this. Locatable Minerals The SLRA as indicated has a long history of locatable mineral exploration and development. This exploration and resultant development have been cyclic and depends largely on economic factors; i.e., with a large increase in price exploration and development activity increases, and vice versa with a large drop. The trend is for continued activity of this type based largely on economics. ^ Salable Minerals \ Because of low unit value and high transportation costs, deposits of mineral materials such as sand and gravel, building stone, and cinders are valuable for the most part only when they are near market sites. Currently most commercial use of mineral materials is from private sources close to population centers with primary use of public land resources for site-specific projects in remote locations. This trend is expected to continue with a possible increase due to depletion of private resources and/or interest in a specific commodity. ' SLRMP/MSA-MIN/ 03-10-87 /0351P EXISTING MANAGEMENT SITUATION I Current Management General Minerals fall into three categories for management by BLM. These categories are leasable, locatable, and salable. Leasable Minerals Presently within the SLRA leasable minerals include geothermal and oil and gas These resources are made available for exploration and development through the issuance of a lease for each specific commodity. The lessee pays an annual rental nd/or royalty for this right and any development or exploration is subject to the terms and conditions of the lease as well as applicable rules and regulations. Locatable Minerals These are minerals subject to location under the Mining Law of 1872, as amended, and can include, but are not limited to; gold, silver, lead, copper,^ zinc, uranium, and thorium. Exploration for atj development of these resources, is^general accomplished by the discovery of minerals and subject to filing of a location mining claim. This claim provides a property right to the claimant to develop the mineral resources subject to location, and provided all conditions of the law are met provides for the patenting of the claim in fee simple. SLRMP/MSA-MIN/ 03-10-87 / 0351P Salable Minerals These include, but are not limited to; dimension stone, flagstone, sand and gravel, clay, cinders, and riprap. These mineral materials are made available for use by issuance of a free use permit to other governmental agencies or by sale contract to individuals or companies. Leasable Minerals Geothermal or geothermal resources are managed in accordance with the SLRA Geothermal Umbrella Environmental Assessment (EA) and all applicable rules and regulations. This EA identifies the terms required for issuance of a geothermal lease for public lands within the resource area. These lease terms are divided into four categories with acreage figures for each given as follows: ianagement Category Low Moderate High Unknown Potential Potential Potential Potential Total Open: Standard stips Open: NSO or similar constraints Closed: Discretionary CLosed: Nondiscretionary There are currently no known geothermal resource area designations within the SLRMP area, and no producing leases. There are _ leases within the SLRA containing approximately acres of land. No drilling or exploration activity occurred during 1985. ' SLRMP/MSA-MIN/03-10-87/0351P Oil and Gas Geophysical exploration and oil and gas operations on Federal leases within the SLRA are conducted in compliance with the SLRA Oil and Gas Umbrella Environmental Assessment and all applicable rules and regulations. This umbrella EA identifies specific terms and conditions for oil and gas leases issued for public lands in the SLRA. These lease terms can be divided into four categories with their associated acreage figures as follows : Management Category Low Potential Moderate Potential High Potential Unknown Potential Total Open: Standard stips Open: NSO or similar constraints Closed: Discretionary :Losed: Nondiscretionary iliere are no Known Geologic Structure (KGS), designations nor producing leases within the SLRA. The South Fork Oil and Gas Development Contract was approved effective June 1, 1985, and involves 773,119 gross acres in Archuleta, Conejos, Mineral, Rio Grande, and Saquache Counties. There are currently _ _ leases for _ _ acres of public land within the SLRA. “15- \ I ■ — SLRMP/MSA-MIN/ 03-10-87/ 0351P Locatable Minerals Locatable minerals within the resource area include, but are not limited to, gold, silver, copper, lead, zinc, uranium, thorium, molybdenum, iron, and turquoise. These minerals are managed under the 1872 Mining Law as amended, with surface use of the mining claims subject to the 3809 and 3802 regulations and a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between BLM and Colorado Mined Land Reclamation Division. Operations under a Notice of Intent (NOI) and Plan of Operations (POO) have averaged on a yearly basis, six NOIs and one POO. There are acres of public lands closed to mineral entry within the SLRA. Salable Minerals - - — Mineral materials available for disposal in the SLRA include, but are not limited ^J^o, sand and gravel, moss rock, building stone, cinders, and riprap. Authorization for use of these commodities is by competitive and noncompetitive sale and by free use. All authorizations are completed in accordance with the 43 CFR 3600 regulations and all applicable rules and requirements. During FY 85 mineral material disposals within the SLRA consisted of seven noncompetitive sales for a total of 29,000 tons of material. -16- SLRMP/MSA-MIN/03-10-87 /0351P Salable minerals are currently made available from community pits and pommon use areas within the locations : SLRA. Mineral material sites are situated in the following Location Type of Permit Type of Mineral Material T.45N. , R.6E., sec 12 Fee Use Riprap T.45N. , R.9E., sec 29 Free Use Decomposed Granite T.44N., R.11E., sec 34 Free Use Sand and Gravel T.44N., R.7E., sec 34 Community Pit Moss Rock T.40N., R.6E., sec 3 Free Use Riprap T.40N. , R.6E., sec 9 Free Use Riprap T.39N., R.6e., sec 11 Noncompliance Sale Ornamental Stone T.35N. , R. 8E. , sec 19 Free Use Riprap T.35N., R.7E., sec 32 Free Use Sand and Gravel *D.27S., R.73W., sec 29 Free Use Sand and Gravel i.28S. , R.73W. , sec 31 Noncompliance Sale Sand and Gravel' T»38N. , R.13E., sec 6 Free Use Sand and Gravel T.46N., R.6E., sec 25 Common Use Riprap -17- (f SLRMP/MSA-MIN/ 03-10-87 / 0351P Supply-Demand Analysis and Dependency Leasable Minerals As indicated the San Luis basin has good potential for the presence of geothermal resource; however, the demand for development of these resources has been and is expected to continue at a low scale. Of the _ acres of public land with low to high potential only _ > leases for a total of ________ acres currently exist, with little known interest in the acquisition of new leases in this area. The dependency on public lands for this resource is low and in all probability will remain so. Oil and Gas The San Luis RA until the completion of the No. 1 Jynnifer well, had no production of oil and gas whatsoever. However, with this discovery and the completion of the South Fork Development Contract the demands for geophysical exploration and leasing of public lands for oil and gas should increase. Currently _ _ oil and gas leases exist in the San Luis RA covering _ _ acres of public lands. It is believed that with further activity and interest these figures should increase. Since much of the area currently recieving interest for oil and gas exploration is either USFS or public lands, this activity will eventually become quite dependent on these acres and, therefore, should be made available. \ SLRMP/MSA-MIN/ 03-10-87 / 0351P Locatable Minerals As identified, significant potential for the presence of locatable mineral resources, especially near the mountain ranges, exists in the San Luis Valley. Therefore, this potential, makes the demand on public lands in these areas quite high during periods of commodity price upterms and can just as dramatically make demand low with drastic price declines. The potential for resource exploration and development is present; however, economics play a major role in the demand for these resources. The existence of public lands in areas of resource potential could make development of these resources quite dependent on the public lands. Salable Minerals The presence of a very large resource of salable minerals (i.e., sand/gravel) in the "•LRA makes supply of this type of commodity far exceed the demand. The exception to this is the presence of cinders in the Los Mogotes area where demand for this type of material from a regional or statewide basis could exceed supply. This area should receive special consideration to assure the availability of this resource for utilization. In addition the need for material for a site-specific use (i.e., road base and riprap) could change the supply-demand situation of a particular area. The aggregate figures for the SLRA in 1984 were _ _ _ tons with the public lands providing _________ of this figure availability of this resource from the public lands is not currently dependent on the San Luis Valley. 19- ' SLRMP /MSA-MIN/ 03-1 0-8 7 / 03 51 P CAPABILITY ANALYSIS The following forms describe the definition of the capability resource level (RCLs), the management practives to be applied to each particular RCL, and the specific site(s) within each RCL. -20- SLRMP/MSA-MIN/ 03-10-87 / 0351P SLRMP MSA CAPABILITY ANALYSIS FROM 1 DEFINITIONS OF RESOURCE CAPABILITY LEVELS Resource Minerals - Locatable Specialist Name K. Andersen _ Date 11-10-86 _ Resource Capability Level 1 (define the highest priority for management) Areas within the resource area identified as having a medium to high potential for the presence of locatable -minerals. Resource Capability Level 2 (define the second highest priority for management) Areas within the resource area identified as having a low potential for the presence of locatable minerals. Resource Capability Level 3 (define the third highest priority for management) The remainder of the resource area. ($ SLRMP/MSA-MIN/ 03-1 0-87 /0351P Resource Minerals - Oil and Gas Specialist Name K. Andersen _ Date 11—19—86 _ _ _ Resource Capability Level 1 (define the highest priority for management) Areas within the resource area identified as having moderate potential for oil and gas resources and the area- within the South Fork Development Contract. SLRMP MSA CAPABILITY ANALYSIS FROM 1 DEFINITIONS OF RESOURCE CAPABILITY LEVELS Resource Capability Level 2 (define the second highest priority for management) Areas within the resource area identified as having a low potential for oil and gas resources. Resource Capability Level 3 (define the third highest priority for management) Remainder of the resource area. -22- SLRMP/MSA-MIN/ 03-10-87 /0351P SLRMP MSA CAPABILITY ANALYSIS FROM 1 DEFINITIONS OF RESOURCE CAPABILITY LEVELS Resource Minerals - Geothermal _ Specialist Name K. Andersen Date 11-19-86 _ Resource Capability Level 1 (define the highest priority for management) Areas within the resource area identified as having a moderate to high potential for the presence of 'geothermal resources. Resource Capability Level 2 (define the second highest priority for management) Areas within the resource area identified as having a low potential for the presence of geothermal resources. Resource Capability Level 3 (define the third highest priority for management) Remainder of the resource area. -23- SLRMP/MSA-MIN/ 03-10-87 / 0351P SLRMP MSA CAPABILITY ANALYSIS FROM 1 DEFINITIONS OF RESOURCE CAPABILITY LEVELS Resource Minerals - Salable Specialist Name K. Andersen Date 11-19-86 Resource Capability Level 1 (define the highest priority for management) Common use and free use areas established to meet long-term and site-specific use needs. Resource Capability Level 2 (define the second highest priority for management) Disposal through competitive and noncompetitive sale when market conditions exceed supply and available private resource capabilities cannot be expanded to meet this need. Resource Capability Level 3 (define the third highest priority for management) All areas within the resource area having a high, moderate, or low potential for the presence of mineral material commodities. SLRMP/MSA-MIN/03-10-87/0351P SLRMP MSA CAPABILITY ANALYSIS FROM 2 MANAGEMENT PRACTICES Resource Name Minerals - Locatable Specialist Name K. Andersen Date 11-19-86 Describe the types of management that you would use in RCL 1 areas 1. Assure that public lands remain open for the exploration, location and development of minerals resources. 2. All surface use of lands subject to claims would be conducted in accordance with the 3802 and 3809 regulations and to prevent unnecessary and undue degradation of resource values. 3. Assure that mining claimants are provided all the rights and privileges provided by law and other regulations. Describe the types of management you would use in RCL 2 areas See RCL-1 Narrative Describe the types of management you would use in RCL 3 areas See RCL-1 Narrative -25- f m SLRMP/MSA-MIN/03-10-87 /0351P SLRMP MSA CAPABILITY ANALYSIS FROM 2 MANAGEMENT PRACTICES Resource Name Minerals - Leaseable Oil/Gas _ _______ _ Specialist Name K. Andersen _ Date 11-19-86 Describe the types of management that you would use in RCL 1 areas 1. Assure that public lands a>re open for oil and gas leasing. 2. Assure that only stipulations that are necessary, justifiable, and not subject to existing law, regulations, and operating orders are made a term and conditon of the lease. 3. Provide for public lands to be open for geophysical exploration. LPescribe the types of management you tefer to RCL-1 Narrative would use in RCL 2 areas Describe the types of management you would use in RCL 3 areas Refer to RCL-1 Narrative. -26- SLRMP/MSA-MIN/ 03-10-87/ 0351P SLRMP MSA CAPABILITY ANALYSIS FROM 2 MANAGEMENT PRACTICES Resource Name Minerals - Leasable- Geothermal Specialist Name K. Andersen Date 11-19-86 Describe the types of management that you would use in RCL 1 areas 1. Assure that public lands are open for geothermal leasing* 2. Assure that only stipulations that are necessary, justifiable, and not subject to existing law, regulations and operating orders are made a term and condition of the lease. Describe the types of management you would use in RCL 2 areas .efer to RCL-1 Narrative Describe the types of management you would use in RCL 3 areas Refer to RCL-1 Narrative -27- V — SLRMP/MSA-MIN/ 03-10-87/ 0351P SLRMP MSA CAPABILITY ANALYSIS FROM 2 MANAGEMENT PRACTICES Resource Name Minerals - Salable Specialist Name K. Andersen _ _ _ Date 11~19~86 Describe the types of management that you would use in RCL 1 areas 1* Inventory and monitor exis'ting sites to assure that suitable materials are available for utilization. 2. Coodinate with other Federal, state and local governement agencies to provide suitable material for utilization by these organizations. 3. Assure that use authorizations are completed in accordance with applicable rules regulations and requirements and that such use is of benefit to the public. Describe the types of management you would use in RCL 2 areas inventory and respond to market conditions for mineral materials through either industry application or known mineral resource situation. 2. Assure that use authorizations are completed in accordance with applicable rules, regulations and requirements and that such use is of benefit to the public and does not directly compete with private supplies. Describe the types of management you would use in RCL 3 areas Refer to RCL-1 and 2 Narratives. -28- V SLRMP/MSA-MXN/ 03-10-87/0351P SLRMP MSA CAPABILITY ANALYSIS FORM 3 RESOURCE CAPABILITY LEVEL DESCRIPTIONS Specialist Name K» Andersen _ _ Area Number (from GIS Theme) Resource Minerals - Locatable _ __ RCL (i.e., 1, 2 or 3) 1,2,3 Date 11-20-86 Description of Area (Species, number of acres, miles, etc.) RCL“1: - acres of public land have been identified as having a moderate to high potential for locatable minerals (i.e., gold, silver, copper, uranium RCL“2: _ _ acres of public land have been identified as having for locatable minerls (i.e., gold, silver, copper, uranium • . a low potential . . ) . RCL-3: — _ acres of public land have been identified as having an unknown potential for the presence of locatable minerals. Rationale for RCL RCL-1 These are areas within the resource area with existing locatable mineral operations, past mineral operations, or at based on available information and have been identified as having characteristics conducive to the presence of locatable mineral resources. These areas present the best likelihood for mineral exploration and possible development. RCl>-2 These are areas within the resource areas that have been identified as having potential for the presence of locatable mineral resources, however, available information indicates that the geologic environment is less conducive for the presence of mineral resources. RCL- 3 These are areas which have very limited potential and/or have limited information available concerning the geology /minerology, upon which to make a judgement concerning this potential for locatable mineral resources. % SLRMP /MSA-MIN/ 03-1 0-8 7 / 03 51 P SLRMP MSA CAPABILITY ANALYSIS FORM 3 RESOURCE CAPABILITY LEVEL DESCRIPTIONS Specialist Name K. Andersen Area Number (from GIS Theme) Resource Minerals - Geothermal _ __ RCL (i.e., 1, 2 or 3) — __1 _, Date 11-20-86 Description of Area (Species, number of acres, miles, etc.) RCL— 1 : acres of public land have been identified as having a moderate to high potential for the presence of geothermal resources. RCL— 2: acres of public land have been identified as having a low potential for the presence of geothermal resources. RCL— 3 : acres of public land which have an unknown potential for the presence of geothermal resources. Rationale for RCL RCL— 1 These are areas of potential based on available information concerning geology, location of surface expression, prior KGRA designations, and leasing interest. These areas are believed to be those most likely to warrant management needs as a result of geothermal resource activity. RCL- 2 These are areas of potential within the resource area with a low potential for the presence of geothermal resources based on available information. RCL-3 These are areas within the resource area where the geologic environment, the inferred geologic processes, and the lack of geothermal resource occurrence would not indicate a potential for the presence of geothermal resources. -30- v . SLRMP/MSA-MIN/ 03-10-87/ 035.1P SLRMP MSA CAPABILITY ANALYSIS FORM 3 RESOURCE CAPABILITY LEVEL DESCRIPTIONS Specialist Name K» Andersen Area Number (from CIS Theme) _ _ Resource Minerals - Oil and Gas RCL (i.e., 1, 2 or 3) _ 1>2,3 Date 11-20-86 Description of Area (Species, number of acres, miles, etc.) RCL-1: _ _ areas of public land have been identified as having a moderate potential for the presence of oil and gas resources. RCL-2: _ acres of public land have been identified as having a low potential for the presence of oil and gas resources. RCL-3: _ acres of public land that have an unknown potential for oil and gas resources. » rationale for RCL RCL-1 These are areas of potential based on available information concerning geophysical interest, geolegy, the South Fork Development Contract, leasing interest and exploration drilling. Based on these factors and the presence of the only producable oil well in the resource area it is the area identified as having the best potential for oil and gas resources and therefore, the area needing the highest management priority. RCL-2 These are areas within the resource area where potential for the presence of oil and gas resources, however, the information items identified in RCL-1 are not as prevalent in these areas. RCL-3 These are areas within the resource area where the geologic environment, the inferred geologic processes, and the available inforamtion concerning the presence of oil and gas resources would not indicate a potential. -31- SLRMP/MSA-MIN/ 03-10-87 / 0351P SLRHP MSA CAPABILITY ANALYSIS FORM 3 RESOURCE CAPABILITY LEVEL DESCRIPTIONS Specialist Name K. Andersen _ _______ Area Number (from GIS Theme) Resource Minerals - Saleable RCL (i.e., 1, 2 or 3) 1 > Date 11-20-86 Description of Area (Species, number of acres, miles, etc.) The San Luis Valley has an abundant and diverse mineral material resource. The following lists the different types and acreage available by potential for each commodity: » High Moderate Low Sand & Gravel acres acres acres RipRap acres acres acres Dimension Stone acres acres acres .Cinders acres acres acres Rationale for RCL RCL-1 These areas are established on an as needed basis due to a specific resource need quite often in relation to a single use project (i.e., road surfacing, canal lining, or reservoir protection) or to meet the long term/small quantity needs of a particular user group. Potential for resource was established based on available information and location of resource in relation to population, transportation, and/or project sites. Use* of a low potential site is quite likely to occur based on economic and site position as well as the resource potential present. RCL- 2 Same as RCL-1 RCL-3 Same as RCL-1 -32- \ / SLRMP /MSA-MIN/ 03-10-8 7 /0351P DATA THEMES (MISSING) Need a description of the GIS themes, how they can be used, what is the content, to include a listing of guads used. -33~ SLRMP/MSA-MIN/ 03-10-87 / 0351P REFERENCES (MISSING) ■ I SLRMP/MSA-PAL/3-17-87/0370P CHAPTER 7 PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES CONTENTS RESOURCE AREA PROFILE (RAP) ' Description . Condition and Trend . . • • EXISTING MANAGEMENT SITUATION (EMS) Current Management . Supply-Demand Analysis . • « CAPABILITY ANALYSIS (CA) Definition . . . Management Practices • Resource Capability Level Description . FORMS All forms are placed in order of use « DATA THEMES Discussion or presentation of data theme material REFERENCES Page 1 2 3 3 4 4 4 5 10 List all reference studies, persons, reports, etc. . 11 SLRMP/MSA-PAL/3-17-87 /0370P CHAPTER — -7 PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES RESOURCE AREA PROFILE Description Most geologic formations in the resource area have produced fossils either within the vicinity or elsewhere in the region. The only overview/inventory of paleontolgical resources was contracted by Bureau of Land Management (BLM) with the Denver Museum of Natural History, (Lindsey 1983). This report emphasized both existing localities and the likelihood of additional fossil material being discovered in given locations. These resources were organized within a classification system based upon rarity of occurrence, depth of species/group study and scientific significance. The classifications are: Class 1-a: Immediate detailed study follow-up is needed. Fossils of scientific interest are exposed to the surface, or are very likely to be discovered with detailed field work in the area. This classification is to oe used for site-specific localities having scientifically significant fossils. Class 1-b : Other areas having a high potential for scientifically significant fossils. In these areas, a paleontological evaluation will be done by the paleontologist on a case-by-case basis, prior to any surface-disturbing activities. These evaluations will change this classification to Class 1-a, Class 2, or Class 3, as appropriate. v ' ( • — SLRMP/MSA-PAL/ 3-17-87 /0370P Class 2: There is evidence of f ossilization, but the presence of fossils of scientific value has not been established, and is not anticipated. Detailed study may be desirable in the future for the evaluation of all types of fossil collection. This classification may be used in identifying recreational values in fossils. Class 3: Little likelihood of finding fossils of scientific use. No further considerations of fossils necessary unless future discoveries require a change of classification. To date, no paleontologic properties have been formally evaluated for status within the National Natural Landmark System. Condition and Trend Generally, paleontologic properties are subject to natural erosion, systematic scientific collecting, commercial collecting, recreational fossil hunting , and other destructive activities such as mineral exploration. The general trend is gradual deterioration. However, natural erosional factors may be synchronous with geologic processes that place there factors beyond the scope of planning needs. -2- v f * — SLRMP/MSA-PAL/ 3-17-87 /037QP EXISTING MANAGEMENT SITUATION Current Management Present BLM policy is based primarily upon the Antiquit its. Law of 1906 requiring protection primarily of vertebrate fossils. This has been achieved through a permitting system somewhat similar to that for archaeological resources. Nonvertebrate resources are monitored through a commercial permit system or through a recreational collecting system designated by management. Supply ~ Demand Analysis and Dependency Paleontolgic resources can be both scientific and commercial commodities but are limited in the since that available resources are finite. At the present time, virtually the only demand is the scientific study of pliestocene fauna in association with archaeological materials. ' { u SLRMP/MSA-PAL/ 3-17-87 /0370P CAPABILITY ANALYSIS The following forms describe the definition of the capability resource levels (RCLS), the management practices to be applied to each particular RCL, and specific site(s) within each RCL. SLRMP/MSA-PAL/3-17-87/0370P SLUMP MSA CAPABILITY ANALYSIS FROM 1 DEFINITIONS OF RESOURCE CAPABILITY LEVELS Resource Paleontolgy _ _ Specialist Name J. Beardsley _ Date _ _ _ Resource Capability Level 1 (define the highest priority for management) Paleontologic sites which qualify for inclusion within the National Natural Landmark System. This would' be from Class 1-a and Class 1-b. Resource Capability Level 2 (define the second highest priority for management) Those sites which exhibit scientific value or potential according to the Antiquit Act of 1906 or as otherwise determined by the scientific community. This is also Class 1-a and 1-b resources. Resource Capability Level 3 (define the third highest priority for management) Commercial, Recreational, Educational use of resources, Class 2. -5- A ' v SLRMP/MSA-PAL/3-17-87/0370P SLRMP MSA CAPABILITY ANALYSIS FROM 2 MANAGEMENT PRACTICES Resource Name _ Paleontology Specialist Name J. Beardsley Date 2-3-87 Describe the types of management that you would use in RCL 1 areas Identify the site/area protect the site/area through management practices including: fencing, closure, signing, interpretation, etc. Provide research, education, and recreation opportunities consistent with Natural Landmark Status. Describe the types of management you would use in RCL 2 areas Provide protection of vertebrate sites in the same manner as RCL 1. Scientific value and noncommetant protection of nonvertebrate locations may be determined in consultation with the scientific community. Describe the types of management you would use in RCL 3 areas Resolution and monitoring can be through a permitting system to include commercial collection, recreational collecting, local museums, and schools -6- f* SLRMP/MSA-PAL/3-17-87/0370P SLRMP MSA CAPABILITY ANALYSIS FORM 3 RESOURCE CAPABILITY LEVEL DESCRIPTIONS Specialist Name J. Beardsley Area Number (from GIS Theme) PAL Resource Paleontology _ _ ^ ^ or Date _ 2-3-87 _ Description of Area (Species, number of acres, miles, etc.) No areas are currently known. Rationale for RCL Identification of landmarks one mandated as part of the National Heritage. SLRMP/MSA-PAL/ 3-17-87 / 0370P SLRMP MSA CAPABILITY ANALYSIS FORM 3 RESOURCE CAPABILITY LEVEL DESCRIPTIONS Specialist Name J. Beardsley Area Number (from GIS Theme) PAL Resource Paleontology RCL (i»e. , 1, 2 or 3) RCL 2 Date 2-3-87 — ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ k' Description of Area (Species, number of acres, miles, etc.) Pleistocene - Pliacene - Quaternary Hansen's Bluff, Great Sand Dune Area Rationale for RCL Areas of ongoing scientific research. V ' SLRMP/MSA-PAL/3-17-87/0370P SLRMP MSA CAPABILITY ANALYSIS FORM 3 RESOURCE CAPABILITY LEVEL DESCRIPTIONS Specialist Name J. Beardsley Resource Paleontology Area Number (from GIS Theme) # RCL (i.e., i, 2 or 3) RgL Date 2-3-87 Description of Area (Species, number of acres, miles, etc.) Kerber Creek, Droz Creek Nonvertebrate Resources Rationale for RCL Class 2 public collecting potential. PAL -9- SLRMP/MSA-PAL/ 3-1 7-87 /03 7QP DATA THEMES (MISSING) Need a description of the GIS themes, how they can be used, what is the content, to include a listing of guads used. SLRMP/MSA-PAL/ 3-17-87 / 0370P REFERENCES 1983 Lindsey, Don K., Paleontological Inventory and Assessment of the San Luis Resource Area. Report submitted to the Bureau of Land Management, Canon City, Colorado. (NEED: a record of discussion with SHP, Universities, etc.) -11- SLRMP/MSA-VEG/ 02-24-87 / 0353P CHAPTER 8 VEGETATION CONTENTS RESOURCE AREA PROFILE (RAP) Description of Vegetation Types . . Condition and Trend . • Threatened and Endangered Species . EXISTING MANAGEMENT SITUATION (EMS) Current Management . » Supply-Demand Analysis . CAPABILITY ANALYSIS (CA) Definition . . • Management Practices . Resource Capability Level Description . » • FORMS All forms are placed in order of use . DATA THEMES Discussion or presentation of data theme material • REFERENCES Page 1 7 8 13 14 16 17 18 19 21 List all reference studies, persons, reports, etc. 23 ■IBP''':' f SLRMP/MSA-VEG/ 02-24-87 /0353P CHAPTER 8 — VEGETATION RESOURCE AREA PROFILE (RAP) Description There are thirteen vegetative types in the San Luis Resource Area (SLRA). The classification is based on vegetative aspect and may or may not reflect the dominant species where shrubby species occur. For example rabbitbrush may be only 15 percent of the total vegetation of the type, but is classified as a half shrub type based on occular estimates of the composition and does not reflect total pounds produced. Table 8~1 lists acres, percent of public lands, and condition of each type. Half Shrub Half shrub is the predominant vegetative type and is present over the entire resource area and at all elevations. The type includes snakeweed (Guterrezia sarothral) and low rabbitbrush (Chrysothennus greenie) • The predominant grass ' species associated with this type are bluegrama (Bouteloua gracilis), ring muhly (Muhlenbergia torreyi) , and Indian ricegrass (Oryzopsis hymenoides) . -1- . ' SLRMP/MSA-VEG/ 02-24-87/0353P TABLE 8-1 SUMMATION OF ACRES, PERCENT NRL, AND CONDITION OF 13 VEGETATIVE TYPES IN THE SAN LUIS RESOURCE AREA Percent of Condition (acres) Vegetative Type Acres Total NRL Poor Fair Good Grassland 124,030 24.0 35,433 79,915 8,682 Meadow 1,150 0.2 172 748 230 Sagebrush 15,740 3.1 10,540 5,200 0 Mountain shrub 3,471 0.7 0 694 2,777 Conifer 47,683 9.2 3,335 18,335 26,013 Rock Outcrop 2,629 0.5 1,200 1,429 0 Pinon-Juniper 99,522 19.3 10,750 65,732 23,040 Broadleaf trees 1,643 0.3 0 500 1,143 Saltbush 2,054 0.4 900 1,154 0 Greasewood 15,867 3.1 8,067 7,800 0 Winterf at 3,421 0.7 1,368 2,053 0 Half shrub 191,750 37.1 118,391 63,801 9,558 Annuals 7,411 1.4 4,817 2,594 0 Total 516,371 100.0 194,973 249,955 71,443 Percent 100 38 48 14 SOURCE: 1978 San Luis Grazing EIS (Page II-S6) 2- V SLRMP/MSA-VEG/ 02-24-87 /0353P Grass Grass is the second most common vegetative type found. Blue grama is the predominate species and is throughout the resource area. Species occurring in lesser amounts include western wheatgrass (Agrapyron smith!!, needle-and-thread (Stlpa comata), squirreltail (Sltanlon hystrix), and red threeawn ( Arts t Ida longiseta) , and ring muhly. At higher elevations (above 9,000 feet) Arizona fescue (Festuca arizonlca) and mountain muhly (Muhlenbergia montana) occurs along with other cool season species. Pinon- Juniper This type occurs in the foothill areas immediately below the conifer types. Colorado pinon pine (Plnus edulis) and Utah juniper (Juniperus osteospema) are the major species with an understory of grasses and shrubs. The dominate grass is bluegrama. Other grasses associated with this type are Indian ricegrass, squirreltail, red threeawn and Scribner! needle-grass ( St lp_a scribneri) . Conifer The conifer type is at the higher elevations and includes mostly Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga raenziesii) and ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa) . Ponderosa pi occurs in open stands supporting understory grasses of Arizona fescue and mountain muhly, along with various shrubs and forbs. Other conifer types occur on steep slopes in dense stands with little understory production. -3- SLRMP/MSA-VEG/ 02-24-87 /0353P Broadleaf The broadleaf type is dominated by aspen (populus treraula treraaloides) but includes small areas of narrow leaf cottonwood (populus angustif olia) . Aspen occurs as small islands within the conifer type and generally supports an understory of grasses, shrubs, and forbs. The cottonwood subtypes are associated with streams and springs and support an understory of grasses, shrubs, and forbs. Sagebrush The sagebrush type is a relatively small percentage of the total vegetation of the resource area. The sagebrush types are only found at the extreme south end of the area southwest of Antonito, the extreme north end of the area above Villa Grove, and on top of the San Luis hills. The brush species is big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata) Greasewood The greasewood types are located on areas in which there are high concentration of salts due to poor drainage. Small amounts of saltbush (Atriplex canescens) and rabbitbrush are sometimes intermingled with the greasewood (Sarcobatus vermlculatus) ■ Understory vegetation is mostly saltgrass (Distichlis strlcta) . -4- SLRMP/MSA-VEG/02-24-87/0353P Winterfat I ! e Only a small portion of the area is covered by winterfat type (Eurotla lanata) . It occurs at lower elevations growing on high (8 to 10) pH soils. Understory grasses include blue grama, western wheatgrass, and Indian grass. Mountain Shrub ; The mountain shrub type represents a very small but important part of the vegetation. It occurs on the lower mountain slopes and foothills mostly in the northeastern portion of the area. Predominant species include Gambel oak brush (Quercus gambelii), skunk bush (Rhus trilobata), with small amounts of currant (Ribes spp.) , a small area of mountain mahogany (Cercocarps montanus) 'ij is scattered over the entire areas. Saltbush The saltbush type constitutes a very small part of the vegetative types and is commonly found in scattered patches within the winterfat and half shrub types at the lower elevations. Meadow (Wet) The meadow (wet) type is included in the riparian zones and will be discussed in more detail in Chapter 9. -5 SLRMP/MSA-VEG/ 02-24-87 /0353P Rock Outcrop The rock outcrop type includes extremely rocky, steep land or other land that is incapable of supporting vegetative cover. Condition and Trend Range condition (good, fair, and poor) is used to describe the condition of the vegetative types in the resource area. Table 8-2 summarizes conditions by vegetative type and vegetative condition by allotment. The method used to determine range condition is a combination of the Phase I watershed inventory (completed in 1975) and classification of plants species as desirable, intermediate, and least desirable. Composition and plant species were taken from the 1958-1959 and 1960-1961 occular reconnaissance survey. The following information describes the categories of range conditions. 1. Good Condition; Composition is 40 percent or more of both desirable and intermediate species with at least 20 percent made up of desirable species. Erosion condition class is slight to stable. 2. Fair Condition: Composition is 15 to 39 percent of desirable and intermediate species with 5 or more percent made up of desirable species. Erosion condition class Is less than critical. Also, ecosystems where 60 percent or more of intermediate species and less than 5 percent desirable species are present will be rated fair condition when the erosion condition class is moderate to stable. ' ■ r SLRMP/MSA-VEG/ 03-06-87/ 0353P 3. Poor Condition: Composition is less than 15 percent desirable and intermediate species. Erosion condition class is critical to severe. (It should be noted that if the erosion condition class is severe to critical, the site is rated in poor condition regardless of the plant composition.) Apparent trend is used to indicate the direction of change in range condition. Three categories are used to indicate apparent trend (upward, static, and declining). The general vegetative trend of each allotment is shown on Table 8-2. Conditions of the allotment are also shown on this table. In general the acreage not listed in Table 8-2 have a stable to upward trend. Threatened and Endangered (T&E) Species There are no threatened and endangered plant species (T&EPS) in the SLRA. There is an extensive list of Sensitive Plant Species (SENPS) that have been reported or suspected. A short list of verified SENPS and their mapped locations has been provided by the Colorado Natural Areas Program (CNAP). Several Sensitive Plant Association (SENPA) have been identified by CNAP. A map has been provided showing their locations. There is also a tentative list and location of Sensitive Floristic Communities ( SENFC) identified by CNAP but is not included in their final report. However, a map was provided by CNAP showing the location of some known communities. V SLUMP /MSA- VEG/ 03-06-87/ 0353P The following list describes the 4 catagories mentioned above: Category Definition T&EPS A plant species that is listed Federally and must be protected by law. SENPS SENPA SENFC A plant species being considered to be listed Federally or listed by the state of Colorado as sensitive species or listed by the BLM Colorado State Office if it meets the criteria found in Instruction Memorandum CO— 87— 104. Plant associations that are listed by the stae of Colorado as sensitive. There are none listed by BLM at this point. These are floristic communities that are disjunct populations of endemic species or communities with wide diversity of species that can yield important data e.g. Potential natural community determinations. These sitess are identified as areas and not by species or plant associations. ! j :S Refer to the TEP Theme for locations and size. v ' SLRMP/MSA-VEG/02-24-87 /0353P TABLE 8-2 VEGETATIVE CONDITION CLASSES AND TRENDS FOR AMPs IN THE SAN LUIS RESOURCE AREA Management Unit (AMPs) 4501 Poncha Pass West 4505 Poncha Pass East 4506 East Side 4510 Turquoise Gulch 4513 Kelly Creek 4514 Kerber Creek 4517 Noland Gulch 4523 East San Luis Creek 4519 West San Luis Creek 4521 Piney Creek 4522 Steel Canyon 4524 Mirage 4527 Valley View Hot Springs 4530 Cotton Creek 4315 Dry Gulch 4531 Stonehouse 4532 Crow 4533 Cooper Butte 34 McIntyre Gulch *,36 Findley Gulch 535 Cottonwood 4540 Dry Gulch 4560 Laughlin 4541 Porson Gulch 4558 E. Hoag land Hill 4545 Cross Creek 4546 Trickle Mountain 4547 Sheep Creek 4548 Taylor Canyon 4550 Rabbit Canyon 4551 Saguache Park 4552 Hat Springs 4554 Robb Ranch 4557 Hoagland Hill 4562 Mitchell 4563 West Tracy Ridge 4566 Tracy Cattlemen's Total Area (Acres) 1,925 2,160 10,013 3,806 6,699 4,500 7,650 1,220 1,520 2,510 4,472 2,395 4,927 3,880 835 3,840 2,000 4,420 4,602 8,115 3,230 4,823 1,820 12,898 1,459 6,305 19,562 2,031 2,902 3,835 1,920 4,564 1,488 4,167 938 925 27,749 Good 1/ (Acres) Fair JJ (Acres) Poor 1/ (AcresT 1,875 50 0 2,160 0 0 4,710 5,303 0 3,746 60 0 900 4,699 1,100 4,500 0 0 4,050 3,600 0 0 1,220 0 0 1,520 0 1,910 600 0 3,822 650 0 80 2,315 0 640 4,287 0 0 3,880 0 0 835 0 0 3,840 0 0 2,000 0 1,000 3,420 0 0 4,402 200 0 3,270 4,845 0 2,030 1,200 0 4,623 200 0 1,820 0 0 12,898 0 0 1,459 0 2,500 2,605 1,200 2,700 14,962 1,900 1,031 1,000 0 0 200 2,702 0 3,335 500 0 1,000 920 0 4,564 0 0 1,488 0 0 4,107 60 0 40 898 0 0 925 5,140 15,709 6,900 S U U U U S U S S S u s u s s s s s u u u s s s s u s u u u s s s s u u u 1/ Depicts the vegetative condition of the area (in acres) of each AMP 2/ Trend: U - Upward S - Static -9- t . f - SLRMP /MSA- VEG/ 02-24-87 /0353P TABLE 8-2 (Cont'd) VEGETATIVE CONDITION CLASSES AND TRENDS FOR AMPs IN THE SAN LUIS RESOURCE AREA Management Unit (AMPs) Total Art (Acres 4565 Tracy Individual 1,676 4567 Biedell Creek 2,462 4568 East of Carnero Creek 11,849 4569 Upper Coolbroth 1,780 4570 Lower Coolbroth 605 4571 Carnero Creek 2,318 4572 La Garita 1,082 4574 Rio Grande Canal 4,360 4307 Alder Creek 275 4305 Sanderson 510 4304 Bowen 488 4402 Pup Peak 5,002 4401 Limekiln 5,050 4403 Nicomodes 2,120 4404 Refuge 1,280 4405 Raton Creek 3,940 4406 Rock Creek 12,680 4201 McMahon 15,016 t 12 Greenie Mountain 7,794 )»11 Gat o— Hutchinson 1,960 ^410 Triangle 3,715 4216 Jadero Flat 5,200 4206 Poso Creek 2,240 4207 Capulin 3,992 4219 Romero Canyon 1,713 4220 Ra Jadero Canyon 6,730 4213 Garambuyo 7,683 4214 Trujillo 5, 168 4210 Crossroad 3,198 4211 Gosline 960 4212 Ciscom Flat 3,680 4227 La Jara Creek 820 4222 Little Mogotes 13,510 4226 Grande 3,950 4225 Mogote Flat 1,977 4224 Poso 5,240 4229 Los Mogotes 7,514 4234 Big Horn Creek 760 4235 Railroad 3,741 Vegetative Condition Classes Vegetative Condition Trend Good 1/ (Acres') Fair 1/ (Acres') Poor 1/ (Acreiy 960 716 0 S 1,500 962 0 U 2,700 6,649 2,500 s 1,780 0 0 s 605 0 0 s 2,318 0 0 u 1,082 0 0 u 0 4,360 0 s 275 0 0 u 510 0 0 s 0 0 488 u 0 0 5,002 s 0 0 5,050 s 0 0 2,210 9 0 560 720 ? 0 1,200 2,740 s 840 9,840 2,000 s 1,500 2,560 10,956 s 400 4,000 3,394 s 0 520 1,440 s 0 1,840 1,875 s 0 2,900 2,300 u 0 100 2,140 s 0 3,192 800 u 0 1,730 0 s 0 5,430 1,300 s 0 3,000 4683 ? 0 840 4,328 ? 0 0 3,198 1 0 0 960 ? 0 0 3,680 u 0 820 0 u 0 6,110 7,400 u 0 2,850 1,100 s 0 1,977 0 s 0 800 4,440 u 0 640 6,874 s 0 0 760 s 0 0 3,741 s 1/ Depicts the vegetative condition of the area (in acres) of each AMP. 2/ Trend: U S Upward Static -10- SLRMP/MSA-VEG/ 02-24-87 /0353P TABLE 8-2 (Cont'd) VEGETATIVE CONDITION CLASSES AND TRENDS FOR AMPs IN THE SAN LUIS RESOURCE AREA 4236 4239 4240 4242 4249 4248 4250 4249 4251 4252 4253 4254 4256 4255 4117 4107 4113 >4102 SB 20 ^T542 jy 2/ Management Unit (AMPs) Llano San Antonio Alta Lake Twin Lakes Pinon Kiowa Hills Eight Mile Pinon Hills Mesa Common San Luis Hills Flat Top Farry Hills East Bend La Sauses Tobin Creek Foothills Blanca/Four Mile Lakes Dry Lakes Zapata Falls Tuttle Creek - l Total Area (Acres) Vegetative Condition uxass es Vegetative Condition Trend Good 1/ (Acres) Fair 1/ (Acres) Poor 1/ (Acres’)* 5,261 0 0 5,261 U 4^850 0 2,505 2,345 S 5,192 0 5,192 0 s 8', 153 0 7,253 900 u 7,210 0 4,650 2,560 s 4* 302 0 300 4,002 u 5,640 9,274 0 0 0 0 960 9,274 s s 4,976 0 0 4,976 s 2^542 0 0 2,542 s 7,440 747 0 0 2,600 0 4,840 747 s s 2,760 0 0 2,760 s 3 ',200 0 0 3,200 s 6,126 0 1,600 4,526 s 4j 700 0 1,440 3,560 u 5,540 0 5,540 0 u 2,240 0 0 2,240 u 3,680 0 0 3,680 u 5^991 0 4,351 1,640 s 1,169 0 1,169 0 u Depicts the vegetative condition of the area (in acres) of each AMP Trend: U - Upward S - Static -11- ' SLRMP/MSA-VEG/ 02-24-87 /0353P EXISTING MANAGEMENT SITUATION (EMS) Current Management Refer to Chapter 10 - Livestock Grazing for the current management of the vegetation. -12- SLRMP/MSA-VEG/02-24-87/0353P Refer to Chapter 10 - SUPPLY-DEMAND ANALYSIS - Livestock Grazing for the Supply-Demand Analysis -13“ SLRMP/MSA-VEG/ 03-06-87/ 0353P CAPABILITY ANALYSIS (CA) The following forms describe the definition of the capability resource levels (RCL’s), the management practices to be applied to each particular RCL, and give the specific site(s) that fall within each RCL. V SLRMP/MSA-VEG/ 03-06-87/0353P SLRMP MSA CAPABILITY ANALYSIS FORM 1 DEFINITIONS OF RESOURCE CAPABILITY LEVELS Resource Vegetation _ _ _ _ Specialist Name Royce Wheeler Date 2-23-87 Resource Capability Level 1 (define the highest priority for management) Areas in SLRA where monitoring shows that sensitive plants and associations are being damaged as a result of grazing. Resource Capability Level 2 (define the second highest priority for management) Areas in SLRA where vegetation production are less than demand or production is more than demand. (By livestock or wildlife) See Table 8-3 Resource Capability Level 3 (define the third highest priority for management) All other remaining areas. SLRMP/MSA-VEG/Q2-24-87 / 0353P SLRMP MSA CAPABILITY ANALYSIS FORM 2 MANAGEMENT PRACTICES Resource Name Vegetation Specialist Name Royce Wheeler Date 2-23-87 Describe the types of management that you would use In RCL 1 areas Special protection from excessive or damaging browsing or grazing to protect T&E species. Restrict or eliminate grazing on those areas that monitoring shows damage or decline in numbers of plants or downward trend in the associations. Describe the types of management you would use in RCL 2 areas Increase or decrease browsing or grazing on areas based on demand levels See Table 8-3 Describe the types of management you would use in RCL 3 areas Maintain browsing or grazing of these areas. -16- SLRMP/MSA-VEG/ 02-24-87 /0353P SLRMP MSA CAPABILITY ANALYSIS FORM 3 RESOURCE CAPABILITY LEVEL DESCRIPTIONS Specialist Name Royce Wheeler _ ___ Area Number (from GIS Theme) Resource Vegetation _ _ RCL 1» 2 or 3) — _____ Date _ 2-23—87 _ Description of Area (Species, number of acres, miles, etc.) Data gathering not completed — monitoring will be implemented and repeated when necessary. Specific monitoring procedures have not been developed. Rationale for RCL To prevent the loss of the listed sensitive plant species and sensitive plant associations. ■ SLRMP/MSA-VEG/02-24-87/0353P SLRMP MSA CAPABILITY ANALYSIS FORM 3 RESOURCE CAPABILITY LEVEL DESCRIPTIONS Specialist Name Royce Wheeler _ _ Area Number (from GIS Theme) - VEG Resource Vegetation _ RCL 2 or - Date _ 2-23-87 _ _ Description of Area (Species, number of acres, miles, etc.) All areas where changes need to occur in grazing or browsing. See Table 8-3 t Rationale for RCL To bring production levels in line with use. -18- ■ SLRMP/MSA-VEG/02-24-87 /0353P % SLRMP MSA CAPABILITY ANALYSIS FORM 3 RESOURCE CAPABILITY LEVEL DESCRIPTIONS Specialist Name Royce Wheeler Area Number (from GIS Theme) VKG Resource Vegetation RCL (i.e., 1, 2 or 3) Date 2-23-87 Description of Area (Species, number of acres, miles, etc.) All other areas In the resource area with no particular vegetation problems. Rationale for RCL No changes needed. -19- * ' , SLRMP/MSA-VEG/ 02-24-87 /0353P DATA THEMES The following attributes are used to describe the Vegetative (VEG) theme. 1/ __2 / _2/ 1 ~ Bogr, Eula, CHRY _1/ Vegetative Type 1 - Grass 2 - Meadow 3 - Perennial forbs 4 - Sagebrush 5 - Mountain shrub 6 - Conifer 7 - Rock Outcrop 8 - Barren 9 - Pinon-juniper 10 - Broad leaf trees 11 - Creosote bush 12 - Mesquite 13 - Saltbush 14 - Greasewood 15 - Winterfat 16 - Desert shrub 17 - Half shrub 18 - Annuals 19 - Cropland leparator The most dominate or important vegetative species using the standard 4 letter plant symbol (scientific name) found in the Common Colorado Range Plants publication, 1980, Soil Conservation Service . There can be 1,2 or 3 species listed* SLRMP/MSA-VEG/ 02-24-87 /0353P The following attributes are used to describe the Threatened and Endangered Plants (TEP) theme. %JV 2 / _3 / JJ _5 / SENSP / NELI ? NMP 1/ Category Classification TEFPS - Threatened and Endangered Federal Plant Species SENPS - Sensitive Plant Species SENPA - Sensitive Plant Association SENFC - Sensitive Floristic Community 2/ Separator 3/ plant Species NELI ~ Neoparrya lithophllii ASRI - Astragolus rlpleyi CLMU - Cleome multicaulis Plant Association IP - PIP0 (PSME) / FEAR2 / MUMO 2P - PIAR (PIP0) (PSME) / FEAR2 / MUMO 3P - MUFI 4P - FEARl / MUFI 5P - FEAR2 / MUMO 6P - CELA / ORHY Floustic Communities IF - Flattop Mesa 2F ~ Grande Mogote Peaks 3F - Little Mogote Mesa 4F - South Pinon Hills 5F - Pinon Hills Separator 5/ Management Plan Status MP - Existing Management Plan NMP - No Management Plan -21- I SLRMP/MSA-VEG/ 02-24-87 /0353P REFERENCES 1. San Luis Resource Area Final Grazing Environmental Statement May, 1978 2. San Luis Resource Area Range Management Program Document September, 1978 3. San Luis Resource Area Rangeland Program Summary Update May, 1985. -22- SLRMP/MSA-RIP/03-11-87 / 0361P CHAPTER 9 RIPARIAN VEGETATION CONTENTS Page RESOURCE AREA PROFILE (RAP) * Description of Riparian Vegetation . 1 Condition and Trend . . . 3 EXISTING MANAGEMENT SITUATION (EMS) Current Management . 8 Supply-Demand Analysis and Dependancy . CAPABILITY ANALYSIS (CA) Definition . . . Management Practices . Resource Capability Level Description FORMS 9 9 9 All forms are placed in order of use . . . . . • 10 DATA THEMES Discussion or presentation of data theme material . 15 REFERENCES List all reference studies, persons, reports, etc 16 r SLRMP/MSA-RIP/03-11-87 / 0361P CHAPTER 9 — RIPARIAN VEGETATION RESOURCE AREA PROFILE Description The San Luis Resource Area (SLRA) contains approximately acres of riparian vegetation, which is _ percent of the total acres in the resource area. This vegetative type occurs adjacent to perennial streams, some intermittent streams, reservoirs, ponds, and springs. The perennial streams encompass the majority of this acreage, and most of these streams are in the northern half of the resource area. The GIS theme for riparian vegetation is labeled RIP. This theme was created by putting a buffer zone around those areas that support riparian vegetation. The type and extent of riparian vegetation adjacent to streams, both perennial and some intermittent, are dependent on a number of interacting factors. These include stream width, depth, and flow rate, soil type, topography, and the management practices applied, such as timber harvesting, road building, and grazing. 1 ♦ SLRMP/MSA-RIP/03-11-87/0361P The Rio Grande River is by far the largest of these perennial waterways and forms the southeastern boundary of the resource area. The majority of, the remainder of perennial streams are found northeast and northwest of Saguache. Private lands interspersed with public lands make management of some streams difficult. An example of this is the Rio Grande River, which has some public lands on the west side but is strictly private on the east side. Riparian areas associated wl^th the _ _ Jknown springs in the resource area contribute a minor portion to the total riparian acreage. The primary factor that determines the extent of riparian vegetation associated with each spring is the flow rate. Those springs with higher flow rates will support more riparian vegetation, subject to topography and soil type. Reservoirs and ponds, both manmade and natural, are another source of riparian vegetation. The most important factor influencing the associated plant community is water fluctuation (Crouse and Kindschy, 1984). Those reservoirs with little variation in water level will support the most dense and diverse riparian zones (Crouse and Kindschy, 1984). Manmade reservoirs constructed for the purposes of improving watersheds and watering livestock are scattered throughout the resource area. Those manmade reservoirs which do not hold water yearlong are generally not capable of sustaining riparian vegetation. Manmade reservoirs constructed for the purposes of watering livestock and improving watersheds are scattered throughout the resource area. I -2- SLRMP/MSA-RIP/ 03-11-87/ 0361P There are many ponds in the resource area which support riparian vegetation and provide important wildlife habitat. An example is the Blanca Wildlife Habitat Area (BWHA), which contains some 1,400 acres of ponds and riparian vegetation, and is an important waterfowl production area. Other areas, such as the Dry Lakes north of BWHA, have potential for wetlands development and could produce some riparian communities in the future. Table 9-1 provides a current inventory of riparian acreages associated with ponds. TABLE 9-1 Riparian Acres - Ponds Area Acres Riparian Blanca Wildlife Habitat Area Flat Top Mishak Lakes Dry Lakes Mumm Well Pond SLRMP/MSA-RXP/ 03-11-87/ 0361P Condition and Trend The condition and trend of a number of selected perennial streams was analyzed in the San Luis Grazing EIS (see Table 9-2). These streams were rated using the criteria shown in Table 9-3. Monitoring conducted since completion of the EIS has resulted in some changes in condition and trend on the above streams. Other perennial streams have been added to the list as a result of later inventories. There are still miles of perennial streams which have had no riparian vegetation inventory. These streams should be inventoried and monitored in the future so that progress towards achieving riparian objectives can be evaluated. No intermittent streams have been inventoried to date. As riparian vegetation management receives more recognition in public land management programs, it is likely that some funding will be directed for this type of inventory. SLRMP/MSA-RIP/ 03-11-87/ 0361P TABLE 9-2 RIPARIAN CONDITION AND TREND ON SELECTED PERENNIAL STREAMS IN THE SAN LUIS VALLEY Stream Name Stream Miles Riparian Community Riparian Stability Lower Ford Creek 1.5 Poor Declining Middle Ford Creek 0.5 Good Declining Upper Ford Creek 1.0 Good Improving Baxter Creek 1.5 Fair Declining Lower Tuttle Creek 1.0 Excellent Stable Upper Tuttle Creek 1.0 Poor Improving Lower Sheep Creek 0.3 Good Improving Upper Sheep Creek 1.7 Excellent Stable Hat Springs Creek 1.8 Fair Declining Cross Creek 0.5 Good Stable Kerber Creek 0.5 Poor Declining Alder Creek 0.4 Good Stable Fisher Creek (Head of San Luis Creek) 0.5 Poor Stable Upper Garner Creek 0.3 Good Stable Rito Alto Creek 0.3 Excellent Stable Black Canyon Creek 0.8 Excellent Stable Quarry Creek 0.3 Excellent Stable Upper Raspberry Creek 0.5 Excellent Stable Lower Raspberry Creek 0.5 Fair Stable Eaglebrook Gulch 0.6 Fair Declining Saguache Creek 0.3 Excellent Stable Spanish Creek 0.3 Excellent Stable Rock Creek 0.2 Excellent Stable Middle San Luis Creek 0.4 Poor Stable Upper San Luis Creek 0.6 Good Stable Dorsey Creek 0.5 Good Improving Middle Garner Creek 0.3 Good Stable Lower Garner Creek 1.7 Fair Improving Cotton Creek 0.8 Good Stable Rio Grande (A) 7.0 Poor Stable Rio Grande (B) 5.0 Good Stable La Jara Creek 2.5 Good Improving Alamosa River 2.0 Good Stable Total 37.1 -5- SLRMP/MSA-RIP/03-11-87 / 0361P TABLE 9-3 CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM FOR RIPARIAN COMMUNITIES IN THE SAN LUIS VALLkF CONDITION CLASS DEFINITION OF CLASS Excellent Diversity and abundance of typical riparian plants (trees, shrubs, forbs, grasses, etc.) and animals (mammals, birds, amphibians, invertebrates, etc.) good. Good age distribution, reproduction evident. Soil mostly covered with vegetation, bank erosion generally lacking. Cover for animals abundant. Vegetation shades water most of the day. Good Most groups of typically riparian plants (trees, shrubs, forbs, grasses, etc.) and animals (mammals, birds, amphibians, invertebrates, etc.) present at or near stream border, but numbers may be reduced. Age diversity fair, reproduction evident. Some bare soil areas noticeable, but erosion at low levels. Riparian animals somewhat reduced or typical species missing due to cover loss. Fair Many of the typically riparian plants (trees, shrubs, forbs, grasses, etc.) and animals (mammals, birds amphibians, invertebrates, etc.) rare or missing from steam border. Age diversity lacking, little sign of reproduction, bare soil may be common. Animal populations greatly reduced from lack of cover; may only be transitory in the community. Vegetative shade on stream lacking or only during morning and evening hours. Poor Typically riparian plants and animals scanty or lacking in both numbers and diversity. Little age variation, no sign of reproduction. Range plants (i.e., rabbitbrush, sagebrush, etc.) abundant down to water edge. Erosion of bare soil normally high, but may be reduced in raonotypic grass communities that provide good ground cover but little diversity or animal cover. No shade on water from vegetation. A detailed survey of riparian condition and trend specifically for springs and reservoirs has not been conducted. However, springs with potential for development have, for the most part, been developed and fenced. Since livestock have been excluded from these fenced springs, it can be reasoned that trend is stable or improving. Condition and trend of those springs which are undeveloped and/or unfenced is determined by the amount of livestock use. ' SLRMP/MSA-RIP/ 03-11-87 / 0361P Table 9—4 shows current status of springs regarding development and fencing* As indicated, some of those shown as undeveloped have potential for development in the future. This list of springs was taken from the water sources (WRS) GIS theme. TABLE 9~4 SPRING DEVELOPMENT STATUS Spring Developed? FencecfT Name * Indicates potential for development » SLRMP/MSA-RIP/03-11-87 / 0361P Table 9-5 lists the reservoirs (e.g., check dams) in the resource area that hold water yearlong and are capable of sustaining riparian vegetation. Condition and trend of reservoirs, like springs, is determined in general by the amount of livestock use. Therefore, Table 9-5 also shows accessibility of 1 these reservoirs to livestock. It should be noted here that' Terrace Reservoir will not be included in this table. Even though it holds water yearlong, the annual fluctuation in water level is such that it precludes a riparian community from becoming established. TABLE 9-5 RESERVOIRS WITH RIPARIAN VEGETATION * Reservoir, Name Riparian Acreage Accessible to Livestock? SLRMP/MSA-RIP/03-11-87 / 0361P EXISTING MANAGEMENT SITUATION Current Management The importance of riparian areas has only recently received much attention in the overall management of public lands. Historically, riparian areas have not been managed directly, but have received impacts as a consequence of other resource use practices. Examples include grazing management plans and maintenance or improvement of wildlife habitat by fencing riparian areas. Livestock grazing, timber harvesting, and road building are the most important resource activities that affect riparian areas. There are currently 60 operational allotment management plans (AMPs) with some type of grazing strategy. In those allotments where water is provided by riparian sources, grazing strategies dictate the season of use and duration of grazing in the riparian areas. These areas are preferred by livestock and, therefore, typically receive heavy to severe grazing use. Grazing systems can affect riparian management by: (1) deferring seasons of use, (2) controlling livestock numbers, (3) allowing rest from grazing, and (A) dictating the type of livestock. In order to discourage livestock from over grazing the riparian areas, several management tools have been applied. Many springs and some streams have been fenced to keep livestock out, which allows an area to stabilize so that wildlife habitat is maintained or improved. Riparian enclosures have been constructed on Garner Creek, Ford Creek (3 total), the Rio grande (3 total), and San Luis Creek. -9- SLRMP/MSA-RIP/ 03-11-87 / 0361P The proper use of SP and mineral supplements can encourage livestock to spend less time in riparian areas. Salting stipulations are written into some AMPs, but compliance is essentially voluntary and, therefore, these stipulations are not very effective. Some lands within the resource area have been eliminated from grazing or are unalloted. Riparian areas within these lands (Table 9-6) benefit by having no livestock use. The ponds included in the Blanca Wildlife Habitat Area are managed for waterfowl production and fishing. Riparian acreages will increase in this area when and if funds become available for further development. Supply-Demand Analysis and Dependency The demand for riparian vegetation is derived mainly from three resource activities: livestock grazing, recreation, and fisheries/wildlife habitat management. The supply is dynamic, and it responds to management practices as well as natural forces and events. As more emphasis is directed towards the management of riparian areas, it is likely that management strategies will increase both the quantity and quality of these vegetative communities. -10- * SLRMP/MSA-RIP/03-11-87/0361P Livestock demands for forage produced in riparian areas is high. Utilization on these areas is typically much heavier than adjacent upland areas. This occurs because the animals can meet the basic needs of food, water, and cover without having to travel very far. Normally, cattle will move off riparian areas to graze only after the supply of forage is exhausted. A recent study by Krugeger (1984) showed that although riparian areas made up only 2-3 percent of a pasture, they produced 20 percent of the forage. Riparian areas support a wide diversity of recreation opportunities including fishing, hiking, rafting, camping, and picnicking. Indeed, almost all campgrounds and picnic areas are located along streams or lakes. Although there is no demand for the vegetation itself, the unique habitats which have evolved certainly attract all types of users. It follows, then, that enhancement of the vegetation (e.g., provide more cover for fish) would afford more potential recreation opportunities. Wildlife and fisheries demands on riparian vegetation are more closely tied to the cover which the vegetation provides. These demands are discussed adequately in Chapter 11 (Wildlife Habitat) of this document and will not be repeated here. -11- f SLRMP/MSA-RIP/03-11-87 / 0361P TABLE 9-6 RIPARIAN SOURCES WITHIN E/G OR UNALLOTED Source Elimination of Name Grazing (E/G) or Unalloted (U) % -12- SLRMP/MSA-RIP/03-11-87/0361P CAPABILITY ANALYSIS The following forms describe the definition of the capability resource levels (RCLs) the management practices to be applied to each particular RCL, and specific site(s) within each RCL. - SLUMP /MS A-RIP/ 03-11-87 / 0361P SLRMP MSA CAPABILITY ANALYSIS FROM 1 DEFINITIONS OF RESOURCE CAPABILITY LEVELS Resource _ Riparian Vegetation Specialist Name Fran Ackley _ Date _ _ _ _ __ Resource Capability Level 1 (define the highest priority for management) Poor condition riparian streams on public lands. Developed, unfenced springs accessible to livestock and undeveloped springs targeted for development. Ponds, and reservoirs that are, accessible to livestock, in critical wildlife ranges, and in poor condition. Resource Capability Level 2 (define the second highest priority for management) Fair condition riparian streams on public lands. Developed springs where fencing is inadequate, i.e. area fenced is too small, and undeveloped springs accessible to livestock. Ponds, and reservoirs, accessible to livestock and in fair condition. Resource Capability Level 3 (define the third highest priority for management) Good condition riparian streams on public lands. Undeveloped springs not proposed for development and not accessible to livestock. Ponds and reservoirs not accessible to livestock. -14- SLRMP/MSA-RIP/03-11-87 / 0361P SLRMP MSA CAPABILITY ANALYSIS FROM 2 MANAGEMENT PRACTICES Resource Name _ Riparian Vegetation Specialist Name _ Fran Ackley _ Describe the types of management that you would use in RCL 1 areas Streams - 1) Change season and/or duration of livestock use. 2) Incorporate riparian pasture into allotment management plan. 3) Fence stream corridor and plant and/or seed riparian species. 4) Change type of livestock. 5) Eliminate grazing. Springs - Fence springs to include riparian vegetation and leave water at the source for wildlife. Ponds and reservoirs - Pipe water to a trough below water source and fence riparian vegetation. Describe the types of management you would use in RCL 2 areas Streams - 1) Change season and/or duration of livestock use. 2) Incorporate riparian pasture into allotment management plan. 3) Eliminate grazing temporarily and develop a management plan for livestock use. Springs - 1) Enlarge enclosures to include all riparian vegetation. 2) Fence undeveloped springs accessible to livestock. Ponds and reservoirs - Fence riparian vegetation and include a water gap in the fence for livestock and wildlife. Describe the types of management you would use in RCL 3 areas Streams - Monitor for condition and trend. Springs - Monitor for condition and trend. Ponds and reservoirs - Monitor for condition and trend. -15- SLRMP/MSA-RIP/03-11-87 / 0361P SLRMP MSA CAPABILITY ANALYSIS FORM 3 RESOURCE CAPABILITY LEVEL DESCRIPTIONS Specialist Name _ _ Francis Ackley Area Number (from GIS Theme) Resource Riparian Vegetation _ _ RCL (i.e., 1, 2 or 3) _ _ Date _ _ _ _ Description of Area (Species, number of acres, miles, etc.) (DATA GATHERING NOT COMPLETED) Rationale for RCL % -16- ' p SLRMP/MSA-RIP/ 03-11-87 / 0361P % SLRMP MSA CAPABILITY ANALYSIS FORM 3 RESOURCE CAPABILITY LEVEL DESCRIPTIONS Specialist Name _ Francis Ackley Area Number (from GIS Theme) Resource Riparian Vegetation RCL (i.e., 1, 2 or 3) Date Description of Area (Species, number of acres, miles, etc») (DATA GATHERING NOT COMPLETED) Rationale for RCL i i i I -17- SLRMP/MSA-RIP/ 03-11-87 / 0361P SLRMP MSA CAPABILITY ANALYSIS FORM 3 RESOURCE CAPABILITY LEVEL DESCRIPTIONS Specialist Name _ Francis Ackley Area Number (from GIS Theme) Resource _ Riparian Vegetation RCL (i.e., 1, 2 or 3) Date _ _ _ _ _ _ Description of Area (Species, number of acres, miles, etc.) (DATA GATHERING NOT COMPLETED) Rationale for RCL % -18- SLRMP/MSA-RIP/03-11-87/0361P DATA THEMES The GIS theme for riparian vegetation was created by manipulating several already existing themes. Riparian acreages for perennial streams were calculated by adding a 50 meter buffer zone on each side of the streams shown in the surface water streams theme. This 50 meter figure was adjusted upward or downward where necessary to account for topographical variations. Intermittent streams with potential for restoration to perennial status were added to the SWS theme. The Surface Water Lakes (SWL) and ponds theme was used to determine riparian acreage associated with lakes, ponds, and reservoirs. A buffer zone of 100 meters in diameter was drawn around each source capable of sustaining riparian vegetation. Those sources which hold water yearlong were determined to be capable. The Water Projects (WTP) theme was used as the base source of information for springs. All springs in the resource area were geocopied from this theme onto the RIP theme. ■ SLRMP/MSA-RIP/03-11-87 /0361P REFERENCES - SLRA GRazing Mgmt. Environmental Statement - BLM Draft Riparian Policy - BLM Supplemental Program Guidance Crouse, Michael R. and Kindschy, Robert R. 1984. A Method for Predicting Riparian Vegetation Potential of Semiarid Rangelands. In : Proceedings, 1984 Pacific Northwest Range Management Short Course - Range Watersheds, Riparian Zones and Economics, Interrelationships in Management and Use, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon. Krueger, W.C., 1984. Cattle grazing in Managed Forests. In: Proc. Forestland Grazing Symposium, in press. Personal Contacts: Jim Dollerschell, Range Con, SLRA John Schwarz, Wildlife Biologist, SLRA Royce Wheeler, Range Con, SLRA Howard Wertsbaugh, Hydrologist, CCDO Don Prichard, Fisheries Biologist, CCDO -20- * 9 SLRMP/MSA-LIV/03-06-87/0365P CHAPTER 10 LIVESTOCK GRAZING CONTENTS - RESOURCE AREA PROFILE (RAP) Description . * Condition and Trend . • EXISTING MANAGEMENT SITUATION (EMS) Current Management . Supply~Demand Analysis • • • • Page 1 3 4 10 CAPABILITY ANALYSIS (CA) Definition . . . Management Practices .... . Resource Capability Level Description • FORMS All forms are placed in order of use . ****** DATA THEMES Discussion or presentation of data theme material * * * ® * 9 * REFERENCES List all reference studies, persons, reports, etc . * * * * TABLES Table 10-1 - Management Objectives . ******* Table 10-2 1 Forage Allocation . * . Table 10-2 - Management Proposal and Range Improvements * * 0 * * 12 12 12 13 17 20 23 27 45 * SLRMP/MSA-LIV/03-06-87 / Q365P CHAPTER 10 ~ LIVESTOCK GRAZING RESOURCE AREA PROFILE Description After years of summer grazing by small flocks of sheep In the early 1800s, permanent livestock production was established in the San Luis Valley in about 1842. Settlement and ranching expanded rapidly in the second half of the 19th century, with sheep use predominant in the lower half of the valley and cattle and sheep grazing about equal in the upper or northern part of the valley. Experiencing severe winter losses, most ranchers developed the use p that exists today: moving livestock from lower private lands in late spring to higher public lands (public lands and national forest lands) for the summer, then moving the livestock onto public lands in the late summer and fall, and subsequently back onto private lands before winter to utilize regrowth on hay fields and hay as the primary sources of roughage (forage). During the early 1900s, drought and overgrazing combined with a lack-of-use regulations or supervision caused the condition of the range to decline. Following the enactment of the Taylor Grazing Act of 1934, the Grazing Service, with the help of district advisory boards, made specific allocations of public range to local livestock operators. In 1941, Grazing District f8 was established to administer domestic livestock grazing on public domain in the San Luis Valley. During the period from 1941 to 1943, range adjudication work-- the apportionment of grazing use on public range among eligible applicants-was accomplished. Individual or common allotments were established. -1- SLRMP/MSA-LIV/03-06-87/0365P For the most part, the allowable use rates were excessive and the ranges con¬ tinued to deteriorate. During the following several years the Grazing Service and later the BLM mainly Issued licenses and permits and solved allotment boundary problems. Some downward adjustments in grazing use were made on very critical areas and on areas where the operators cooperated. In the mid-1950s, the need for more appropriate stocking rates for individual allotments became obvious. As a result, range surveys were Initiated on several grazing units to determine proper stocking rates for the various allotments. After these surveys were completed, stocking rates were reduced on most allotments. Many of these reductions were fairly drastic, ranging from 50 to 60 percent. Surveys continued intermittently through 1963, and reductions continued to be imposed. In the early 1960s some of the original surveys were rechecked, often resulting in additional reductions. In 1973, several environmental groups and one individual group (usually referenced as Natural Resource Defense Council (NRDC) , et al.) filed suit in Federal Court alleging that the Bureau of Land Management programmatic environmental statement on livestock grazing did not comply with the requirements of NEPA (42 USC 4321 et seq.) concerning BLM administration of public lands. The court in 1975 found largely for the plaintiffs and approved an agreement between the involved parties requiring completion of 212 site-specific environmental statements (ESs). The San Luis Resource Area selected for the first grazing ES in Colorado. A proposed action and several alternatives were developed based on objectives developed in the Burea planning efforts for the area. In May 1978, the final grazing environmental impact statement (FEIS) for the resource area was completed. In September of the same year (1978) the Rangeland Program Summary (RPS) originally called Range Management Program, San Luis Resource Area was issued. -2- SLRMP/HSA-LIV/03-06-87 /0365P Condition and Trend Reference Chapter 8 - Vegetation for Condition and Trend of the forage resources (vegetation)* -3- ft SLRMP/MSA-LIV/03-06-87 /0365P EXISTING MANAGEMENT SITUATION (EMS) Current Management The previously discussed RPS identified the selected alternative that would be the livestock grazing management program for the San Luis Resource Area Alternative "G," Balanced Multiple Use, was selected and summarized in the document. Briefly this alternative included the following actions. A. Implement 54 new allotment management plans (AMPs) and continue with 10 described in the Proposed Action of the FEIS of the 11 existing AMPs as B. Implement 6 new AMPs revised to optimize wildlife benefits and modify 1 of 11 existing AMPs for wildlife benefits. C. Implement 12 new AMPs revised to reduce costs of implementation. D. Eliminate livestock grazing on nine management units as described in the Proposed Action plus one additional allotment (Posito Creek) acquired by the Colorado Division of Wildlife (DOW). E. Implement less intensive management on 39 management units as described in the Proposed Action. F. Implement less intensive management on 12 management units that had AMPs proposed in the Proposed Action. -4- SLRMP/MSA-LIV/03-06-87 /0365P An AMP is a livestock grazing plan dealing with a specific unit of range, providing a specific management program that considers livestock grazing in relation to other uses of the range and other renewable resource values— soil, water, vegetation, and wildlife. An AMP establishes the seasons of use, the number of domestic animals that would be allowed on the range, and the possible range improvements that would be needed, such as fencing and water development. The following steps were used in the preparation of AMPs. Review the Bureau planning data, collect and analyze additional resource data (e.g. soils, water, vegetation, wildlife), and contact range users. Identify resource problems (e.g. winter grazing by livestock on crucial winter range for deer). Establish objectives that would enhance the resource and/or resolve resource problems (Table 10-1 identifies specific objectives for the AMPs.) Develop a grazing system that would accomplish the objectives. Establish the location for range improvements required for implementing grazing system. Develop evaluation procedures and conduct studies to determine the effects of each grazing system. -5- SLRMP/MSA-LIV / 03-06-87 / 0365P Implementation of Alternative "G" was scheduled over 8 years. The BLM proceeded to implement Alternative ”G" in 1978. The FEIS identified the allowable level of grazing use for each allotment. In some cases, Immediate reductions were recommended to arrest range deterioration or reverse apparent downward trend. These allotments were the first to be scheduled for AMP implementation. Originally, it was planned to issue decisions as AMPs were implemented. But due to a change In BLM policy all decisions have been Issued although not all AMPs have been implemented. Other decisions have also been issued as administrative actions were required by regulation in such cases as conflicting applications, change in class of stock, etc. The FEIS also set forth a rudimentary allotment categorization. This placed allotments In one of two categories; 1) Intensive management (basically allotment having AMPs), and 2) custodial (allotments not having AMPs written at the time of the EIS or not contemplated to have AMPs In the future). Several changes In BLM policy since 1978 have directed a recategorlzatlon of allotments Into three categories. These policy changes, coupled with a need to further prioritize funding, and the availability of more on-the-ground data indicate a need for a more complex categorization. Criteria is being formulated and a new categorization is expected in the future. Table 10-2 shows the proposed and actual administrative actions on stocking levels that have taken place since 1978 and present category by allotment. -6- SLRMP/MSA-LIV/03-06-87/0365P The FEIS identified the proposed implementation of 72 AMPs. This is addition to the continuation of the 11 existing pre-EIS AMPs. To date 49 AMPs have been implemented. Two of the original AMPs were eventually divided into seven separate ones because of reduced need for intensive management, reduced cost, desire of operators to run separately, changes in class of livestock, etc. In addition, two AMPs have been implemented on allotments that were not scheduled for implementation because of 'cost effectiveness. Grazing was eliminated on two of the allotments proposed for AMPs because of loss of grazing preference for failure to apply for transfer and relinquishment of grazing preference. This is in addition to the allotment acquired by the Colorado Division of Wildlife. The nine management units scheduled for elimination of grazing in the FEIS were completed in 1979. Several of the implemented AMPs have been completely revised because of improvement costs and feasibility, change in class of stock, operator desires, etc. All changes were evaluated and documented in environmental assessments. Table 10-3 illustrates the types of new improvements proposed and new improvements constructed by allotment. It also shows the benefit/cost ratio by allotment. Intensive allotment monitoring began in 1978 along with AMP implementation. Some monitoring had been in place prior to 1978 on existing AMPs. Implementation workload necessitated that monitoring studies be placed on the ground at the time of AMP implementation and not before. Monitoring studies will be conducted on all allotments eventually. -7- ' ( SLRMP/MSA-LIV/03-06-87/0365P Basic monitoring consists of range trend, actual use, and utilisation studies. Trend studies are placed in key areas and are tied to AMP objectives. Each AMP discusses management objectives for that allotment and the studies are used to monitor progress toward these objectives. In addition, ecological site inventories (ESI) are being conducted as part of the monitoring program on all allotments. Actual use and utilization data are gathered annually on each implemented AMP, ns far ns practicable, to provide a yearly correlation between actual use made by livestock and the relative amount of forage consumed. This allows an evaluation to be made of the appropriate stocking levels. Where specific wildlife objectives exist In an AMP , special studies are Initiated to monitor wildlife use, Indicate areas of competition, and alert the manager to resource conflicts that may exist. Evaluations are scheduled on AMPs varying with the complexity of grazing systems and on-going workload. Trend data Is correlated with actual use /utilization data and an evaluation Is made of progress toward achievement of AMP objectives. To date 25 AMPs have been subjected to evaluation. One grazing system has been revised following an evaluation. Management objectives were revised on two AMPs following evaluations. A special hydrologic study was also begun in 1979 to monitor and assess the impacts of various grazing systems on hydrologic outputs and erosion/ sedimentation responses. These studies are still on-going and no conclusio have yet been drawn® -8- SLRMP/MSA-LIV/03-06-87/0365P Based on the FEIS schedule, 27 AMPs are still scheduled for Implementation. Several of the allotments have had new range improvements constructed, but the AMPs are not fully implemented because of budget restraints and new range policy, the remaining allotments will be scrutinized closely before they will be scheudled for full implementation. The allotments will be re-evaluated using new categorization criteria and may be dropped from implementation or fev^ged to make them more cost effective* Animal damage control activities on BLM lands are guided by the Department of the Interior policy, memorandum of understanding with the Colorado Division of Wildlife and the United States Department of Agriculture and the Animal Damage Control Plan for the San Luis Resource Area. This plan is prepared jointly with the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Colorado State Department of Agriculture (CSDA) , Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW) and the BLM. The USDA have the overall responsibilities for the program and supervises all control activities. The BLM has approval responsibilities for the specific control actions on the public lands. ' SLRMP/MSA-LIV/03-06-87 /0365P SUPPLY-DEMAND ANALYSIS There are 160 livestock grazing allotments in the SLRA. This amounts to - acres of public lands being grazed by livestock by authorization and - acres not being grazed by livestock® Table _ _ shows the authorized grazing level for 1985. TABLE Year ~T 1 Cattle Number Sheep Horses Cattle AUMs Sheep Horses 1985 ~T 1 1 11,7504®' 23,235 80 22,246 r 10,636 I- 466 V The number of cattle shown is adult cattle and does not include calves. Grazing is a major use of the public lands. The local economics depend heavily on the agriculture industry of which ranching is a major contributor. Approximately 30% of the local ranching operations depend on the use of public lands in support of their livestock forage needs. Amount of dependency varies greatly. There are 109 individual operations that have BLM grazing permits Current trends show the number of sheep are continuing to decline and tha number of beef cattle and calves fluctuates from year to year. This would indicate that the demand for sheep forage from the public lands should decline and forage demand for cattle should increase over the long term. -10- SLRMP/MSA-LIV/03-06-87 /0365P Based on the SLRA--FEIS the projected AUM availability for livestock grazing by the year 2005 would be 52,000 AUM's if the grazing program (AMPs) are fully implemented. The U.S.F.S. projects in their land use plan to provide 105,000 to 108,000 AUMs of livestock forage annually. The BLM is currently authorizing approximately 33,000 to 34,000 AUMs annually. -11- SLRMP/MSA-LIV/03-06-87 /0365P CAPABILITY ANALYSIS (CA) Resource Capability Levels (RCLs) are not applicable to livestock grazing since the decision document (RPS) has been issued for grazing on public lands. Table 10-1 shows the forage allocation for livestock and allotment category. Table 10-2 shows the grazing system proposed and/or implemented and projects proposed and/or installed. Table 10—3 summarized the objectives for the I allotments® Monitoring is a continuing effort on all allotments. Due to policy changes concerning Riparian areas and new wildlife data, some conflict resolution may cause a change in the specific grazing programs on some grazing allotments. The following forms described the Resource Capability Levels (RCLs), the management practices to be applied to each particular RCL, and the specific site(s) within each RCL. -12- , ' SLRMP MSA SLRMP/MSA-LIV/03-06-87/0365P CAPABILITY ANALYSIS FROM 1 DEFINITIONS OF RESOURCE CAPABILITY LEVELS Resource Livestock Grazing Specialist Name R. Wheeler Date 2-27-87 Resource Capability Level 1 (define the highest priority for management) Allotments possibly needing minor changes in objectives due to variance wit Riparian, Wildlife, ACECs, T & E vegetative species, etc. and current monitoring shows a few allotments where minor commensurate accomodations possibly (up and/or down) need to be made. Capability Level 2 (define the second highest priority for management) All other allotments (I & M) which are still effectual (per i (wi ^in^o^and Grazing EIS) and are not needing modifications. See Tab e , » 10-3. -13- SLRMP/MSA-LIV/03-06-87/0365P SLRMP MSA CAPABILITY ANALYSIS FROM 2 MANAGEMENT PRACTICES Resource Name Livestock Grazing Specialist Name R. Wheeler Date 2-27-87 Describe the types of management that you would use lnRCL 1 areas_ Revisit those allotments where riparian, wildlife, etc, variances are deemed needed or where monitoring indicates a modification may poss y e Determine changes needed if any and imp emen Continue present management as specified in grazing decisions 10-1, 10-2, and 10-3. See Table -14- SLRMP/MSA-LIV/03-06-87 /0365P SLRMP MSA CAPABILITY ANALYSIS FORM 3 RESOURCE CAPABILITY LEVEL DESCRIPTIONS Specialist Name R. Wheeler Resource Livestock Grazing Area Number (from GIS Theme) RCL (i.e., 1, 2 or 3) Date 2-27-87 Description of Area (Species, number of acres, miles, etc.) Riparian areas, wildlife conflict areas, etc., e.g. allotments r , etc. Rationale for RCL To reflect changes In policy or new Information regarding rlP”^n> ble TH vegetation, etc. Also to adjust where monitoring has shown any posslb e changes needed. -15- SLRMP/MSA-LIV/03-06-87 /0365P SLRHP MSA CAPABILITY ANALYSIS FORM 3 Specialist Name Resource RESOURCE CAPABILITY LEVEL DESCRIPTIONS R. Wheeler Area Number (from GIS Theme) Livestock Grazing _ RCL (i.e., 1, 2 or 3) - _ 2 Date 2-27-87 Description of Area (Species, number of acres, miles, etc.) All other lands where grazing is occurring in SLRA. Rationale for RCL Continue present valid and viable management as specified in existing grazing decisions. See Table 10-1, 10-2, and 10-3. -16- SLRMP/MSA-LIV/03-06-87 /0365P DATA THEMES There are 6 themes created for use in the livestock grazing chapter and they are described below. The following attributes are used to describe the Allotment Boundary (ALB) theme polygons displayed on the GIS maps. 1/ 2/ 3/ 4/ 5/ 4501 f I X N 1/ RMAS allotment number 2/ Seperator 3/ Allotment Category Classification: I - Improve C - Custodial M - Maintain 4/ Seperator 5/ Allotment Status: Y - AMP Implemented ) Only used with I N - AMP Not Implemented ) category allotments 0 - No grazing system G - Grazing system stipulated on grazing permit ) Only used with M or C ) category allotments he following attributes are used to describe the Pasture Boundary (PBD) theme olygons displayed on the GIS Maps. 1/ 2/ 3/ 4/ 5/ 4501 No* 1 - North 1/ EMAS allotment number 2/ Seperator 3/ Pasture number 4/ Separator 5/ Pasture name -17- SLRMP/MSA-LIV/03-06-87/0365P The following attributes are used to describe the Range Structural and Vegetative Project (RGL) (line data) and (RGP) (point data) themes, and the Range Water Project (RWL) (line data) and JWP) (point data) themes. 1/ 2/ 3/ 4/ 5/ 6/ 7/ 4501 No. F “ 3506 J 50U0 1/ RMAS allotment number 2/ Seperator 3/ Type of projects: F - Fence N - Vegetative Manipulation E - Seedings X - Exclosures/Encfosures RGP theme (point data) G - Cattleguards L - Corrals RWL theme (line data) P - Pipelines V - Ditch RWP theme (point data) C - Catchment R - Reservoirs S - Springs *T - Livestock watering trough - only used W - Wells G - Guzzlers 4/ Seperator 5/ Project Number 6 / Seperator 7/ Project Maintenance Responsibility 5000 RMAS permittee number COM2 Used where there is a community allotment with more than 1 permittee SAG Saguache County CON Conejos County RG Rio Grande County ALA Alamosa County DOW Colorado Division of Wildlife HWY State Highway Department BLM Bureau of Land Management * Note only the allotment number, first seperator and T is used for trough location, i.e., 4501 No. T. -18- 7W i ■ ; l . / s. » s ^ L*5Y ^ ^ i 4 v-t O- LIST MAPS ALB i T>. < OqSu ©0 g 1459 MAPS IN MASTER PROJECT SANLUIS ^P) 3 A NT ONI 3 ALBBALDY 3 ALBBIGHPK r o ALBBLANCA 3 ’T'^BBONAZA 3 ALBBUSHPK 3 ALBCAPULN 3 ALBCENTRO 3 A LB CHE ST R 3 ALBCOALDL 3 ALBDELNOR *7 ALBDOGMTN 3 ALBDRYLKS 3 ALBFOXCRK H ALBFULCGL 3 ALBGOSHDM 3 ALBGRAV6L 3 AL.BGRNEMT 3 ALBGROSCK 3 ALBNICKBR 3 AL.BHOOPRE 3 ALBHOOPSE 3 ALB INDIAN 3 ALBK IOWAN 3 A LB KL ON DM "7 o ALBLAGARI 3 ALBL.A JARC 3 ALBLAKEMT 3 ALBLASAUS 3 ALBLAUGHG 3 ALBLIBRTY *7 K.} ALBLIMECR *7 ALBLKMTNE 3 ALBLOBATO 3 ALBLOOKMT 3 ALBLOSPIN 3 ALBLSEGNE *7 vJ ALBMANANE 3 ALBMANA3A 3 ALBMEDANR 3 ALBMESITR 3 ALBMIRAGE 3 ALBMOFFTN 3 ALBMONTEV 3 ALBNPASS 3 ALBPIKEST 3 ALBP INBET 3 ALBPONCPS 7 V—' ALBRITOAL 3 ALBSAGUAC 3 ALBSANDCP 3 ALBSEVPLA 3 ALBSFORKE 3 ALBSFORKW 3 ALBSKYVLY 3 ALBSWEDCR 3 ALBTERRAC 3 ALBTRKLMT 3 ALBTWINMT 3 AL.BTWINPK 3 ALBTWMTSE 3 ALBUTEMTN 3 ALBVICENT *7 ALBVILLGR 3 ALBVYVWHS 3 ALB WELL VL 3 ALBWHALHL 3 ALBZAPAT A 3 I<> ©Oq)q ©Og 1 ENTER COMMAND ? LIST PBD+ THIS MAP DOES NOT EXIST (e ©Oa&y ©Oa I ENTER COMMAND ? LIST MAPS OaSu ©Oq 1459 MAPS IN MASTER PROJECT SANLUIS ANTONI 3 PBDBAL.DY 3 PBDBIGHPK 3 PBDBLANCA “7 ^KiBONAZA 3 PBDBUSHPK 3 PBDCAPULN 3 PBDCENTRO 3 r BDCOALDL 3 PBDDELNOR 3 PBDDOGMTN 3 PBDDRYLKS 3 PBDFOXCRK 3 PBDFULCGL 3 PBDGOSHDM 3 PBDGRAVGL. 3 PBDGRNEMT 3 PBDGROSCK 3 PBDHICKBR 3 PBDHOOPRE 3 PBDHOOPSE 3 PBD INDIAN 3 PBDK IOWAN 3 PBDKLONDM 3 PBDLAGARI 3 PBDLAJARC 3 PBDLAKEMT 3 PBDLAUGHG 3 PBDLIMECR 3 PBDLKMTNE 3 PBDLOBATO 3 PBDLOOKMT 3 PBDLOSPIN 3 PBDLSEGNE 3 PBDMANANE 3 PBDMANASA *7 PBDMEDANR “a w* PBDMESITR 3 PBDMIRAGE 3 PBDMOFFTN ’7 PBDMQNTEV 3 PBDNPASS 3 PBDPIKEST 3 PBDPINBET 3 PBDPONCPS 3 PBDRITOAL 3 PBDSAGUAC 3 PBDSEVPLA ‘7 W PBDSFORKE 3 PBDSFGRKW PBDSKYVLY 3 PBDSWEDCR 3 PBDTERRAC 3 PBDTRKLMT 3 PBDTWINMT "7 iJ PBDTWINPK 3 PBDTWMTSE 3 PBD VI CENT 3 PBDVILLGR 3 PBDVYVWHS 3 PB DWELL VL 3 PBDWHALHL 3 PBDZAPATA 3 r ilUWbLLVL Cf r JQ.UWnnL.nU , i @0g*> ©Og ENTER COMMAND ? LIST ACTIVE. 0g8u ©Og *ACTIVE* No data to process ♦ You must select some map 7i ©5>©0g ENTER COMMAND ? DYE USER SAN LUIS ..OGGEJJ OFF FROM MOSS '/HANK YOU FOR USING MOSS STOP data ♦ CL I r (t ' L [ REFERENCES SLRMP/MSA-LIV/ 03-06-87 /0365P List of Information Consulted 1. San Luis Resource Area Grazing Environmental Statement Final, Maye, 1978 2. San Luis Resource Area Range Management Program Document, September, 1978 3. San Luis Resource Area Rangeland Program Summary Update, May, 1985 4. Colorado Agricultural Statistics Bulletins 1-77, 1-81, 1-85, 1-86 5. Rio Grande National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement - 1982 6. John Bethke, Planning Specialists, RGNF, M.V. 7. Jake Jakubowski, Range Specialist, BLM, CCDO List of Laws and Regulations 1. Taylor Grazing Act of 1934 2. Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 3. Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978 4. National Environmental Policy Act of 5. National Historic Presevation Act of 1966 6. Endangered Species Act of 1973 7. BLM Intern Management Policy & Guidelines for Lands Under Wilderness Review 8. 43 Code of Federal Regulations 4100 List of Washington Office Instruction Memos 1* WO-82-292, Final Grazing Management Policy 2. WO-82-650 3. W0-83-27, Final Rangeland Improvement Policy List of Colorado State Office Instruction Memos (MISSING) -20- SLRMP/MSA-LIV/03-06-87/0365P TABLE 10-1 FORAGE ALLOCATION Active Preference RMAS No. Allotment Name as Shown In EIS Before FEIS (AUMs) FEIS Level (AUMs) Decision Level (AUMs) Management Category 4501 Poncha Pass West 555 375 375 I 4505 Poncha Pass-East 429 380 645 I 4506 East Side 1213 1875 1820 I - Total Arizona -Colorado 1642 2255 2465 4502 West Clover Creek 75 45 45 I 4510 Turquoise Gulch 539 539 559 I 4513 Kelly Creek 567 566 567 I 4514 Kerber Creek 307 274 274 I 4517 Noland Gulch 541 541 541 I 4519 West San Luis 159 159 159 I 4523 East San Luis 103 103 103 I - Total E & W San Luis Creek 262 262 262 4521 Piney Creek 171 171 180 I 4522 Steel Canyon 210 210 205 I 4524 Mirage 187 187 191 4527 Valley View Hot Sp. 428 427 428 I 4530 Cotton Creek 313 312 313 I 4315 Dimick Gulch 77 77 77 I 4531 Stone House 390 390 390 I 4532 Crow 203 200 203 I 4533 Copper Butte 445 440 445 I - Total Mineral Hot Springs 1038 1030 1038 4534 McIntyre Gulch 311 311 132 I - Total Findley Gulch 1127 753 703 4535 Cottonwood 342 256 217 I 4536 Findley Gulch 785 497 487 I 4540 Dry Gulch 303 303 303 I 4560 Laughlin Gulch 150 150 150 I - Total Laughlin Gulch 453 453 453 4541 Poison Gulch 780 782 734 I 4558 East Hoagland Hill 75 75 76 I - Total Poison Gulch 855 867 810 4545 Cross Creek 300 301 300 I 4546 Trickle Mtn. 1200 776 776 I -19- ( SLRMP/MSA-LIV/03-06-87 / 0365P TABLE 10-1 (Cont'd) RMAS No. Allotment Name as Shown in EIS Active Before FEIS (AUMs) Preference FEIS Level (AUMs) Decision Level (AUMs) Management Category 4547 Sheep Creek 202 202 202 I 4548 Taylor Canyon 245 245 245 I 4550 Rabbit Canyon 290 292 289 I 4551 Saguache Park 119 119 118 I 4552 Hat Springs 327 323 327 I 4554 Robb Ranch 113 113 113 I 4557 Hoag land Hill 228 228 228 I 4562 Mitchell 51 25 51 I 4563 West Tracy Ridge 82 48 42 I 4566 Tracy Cattlemen's 2930 2847 2847 I 4565 Tracy Individual 99 100 100 I 4567 Biedell Creek 172 172 172 I 4568 E. of Carnero Creek 631 630 467 I 4569 Upper Coolbroth 119 74 74 I 4570 Lower Coolbroth 58 29 29 I 4571 Carnero Creek 104 104 104 I 4572 La Garita 73 73 73 I 4574 Rio Grande Canal 225 225 225 I 4307 Alder Creek 20 20 20 I 4305 Sanderson 32 32 32 I 4304 Bowen 31 21 21 I 4402 Pup Peak 406 404 406 I 4401 Limekiln 373 370 373 I 4403 Nicomodes 212 212 200 I 4404 Refuge 92 92 92 I - Total Nicomodes 304 304 292 4405 Raton Creek 386 387 274 I 4406 Rock Creek 1146 1147 1147 I 4201 McMahon 1309 1287 1287 I 4412 Greenie Mtn. 720 598 598 I 4411 Gato-Hutchinson 228 228 228 I 4410 Triangle 315 315 315 I 4216 Jadero Flat 322 322 322 I 4206 Poso Creek 206 206 209 I 4207 Capulin 588 587 588 I 4219 Romero Canyon 127 127 125 I 4220 Ra Jadero Canyon 621 621 617 I 4213 Garambuyo 582 581 582 I 4214 Trujillo 213 213 213 I 4210 Crossroad 298 298 298 I 4211 Gosline 68 68 68 I - Total Cinder Pits 1161 1160 1161 4212 Ciscom Flat 191 192 191 I -20- f SLRMP/MSA-LIV/ 03-06-87/0365P TABLE 10-1 (Cont'd) Active RMAS No. Allotment Name as Shown in EIS Before FEIS (AUMs) 4227 La Jara Creek 50 4222 Little Mogotes 1172 4226 Grande-Mogote 540 4225 Mogote Flat 206 4224 Poso 315 4229 Los Mogotes 360 4234 Big Horn Creek 90 4235 Railroad 152 4236 Llano 178 Preference FEIS Level _ (AUMs) 40 1444 522 199 276 315 88 152 150 Decision Level (AUMs) 31 1202 522 206 200 315 90 172 150 Management Category I I I I I I I I I 4239 San Antonio 4240 Alta Lake Total Alta Lake 222 212 425 288 647 500 222 I 288 i 510 4242 Twin Lakes 664 653 653 4245 Pinon 399 393 292 4248 Kiowa Hills 208 208 204 4250 Eight Mile 237 212 212 4249 Pinon Hills 538 391 500 4251 Mesa Common 350 315 263 4252 San Luis Hills 110 72 110 4253 Flat Top 426 328 348 4256 East bend 149 87 149 4254 Fairy Hills 47 36 47 - Total Rio Grande Common 1082 838 870 4255 La Sauses 139 128 128 4117 Tobin Creek 235 235 235 4107 Foothills 279 257 260 4113 Blanca/Fourmile 36 36 36 4102 Lakes 36 36 36 4103 Dry Lakes 103 103 103 - Total Dry Lakes 139 139 139 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 4542 Tuttle Creek 48 48 48 I -21- SLRMP/MSA-LIV/Q3-06-87/0365P TABLE 10-1 (Cont 9 d) RMAS No. Allotment Name Active Before FEIS (AUMs) Preference FEIS Level (AUMs) Decision Level (AUMs) Management Category 4504 Round Hill 10 10 10 c 4503 Clover Creek 5 5 5 c 4507 San Luis Creek No. 1 6 6 6 c 4508 Alder Creek 58 58 58 c 4509 Spring Creek 75 75 75 c 4511 San Luis Creek No. 3 12 12 12 C 4515 South Kerber Creek ' 12 12 12 c 4516 North Kerber Creek 18 18 18 C 4518 Nye 90 76 76 C 4520 Silver Creek 8 8 8 c 4317 Rito Alto 45 45 45 C 4316 San Isabel Creek 12 12 12 c 4539 Calvert Fenced F.R. 14 14 14 c 4559 Ward Fence Tract 18 18 18 c 4544 Indian Creek 7 7 7 c 4546 Meadow Fenced 20 20 20 c 4555 Mesa 20 20 20 c 4556 Mill Creek 45 45 22 C 4561 Higgins Springs 49 49 49 C 4564 Tracy Ridge 45 45 45 C 4310 Indian Head 28 28 28 c 4309 County Line 18 18 18 C 4306 Shaw Creek 44 44 44 c 4303 Schrader Creek 53 42 42 c 4202 Alamosa River 40 40 40 c 4319 Alamosa Prairie 11 11 11 c 4259 Chicago Bogs 52 52 52 c 4258 Del Rancho 12 12 12 c 4232 Las Mesitas 7 7 7 c 4241 South Hills 75 75 75 c 4243 River 200 200 200 c 4244 South Valley 136 136 136 c 4247 Braiden 60 60 50 c 4320 Oxbow 8 8 8 c 4101 Rio Grande 98 98 98 c 4106 Allotment B 3 3 3 c 4108 Dow Pasture 14 14 14 c 4109 Phiffer Pasture 4 4 4 c 4115 Caldwell Pasture 13 13 13 c 4312 Bachelor Lake 24 14 24 c 4110 Spring Pasture 10 10 10 c 4111 Sand Pasture 10 10 10 c 4112 Crow Pasture 40 40 40 c 4126 Section 15 Lease 15 15 15 c 4103 Dry Lakes 4 4 4 c 4577 Hellgate 29 29 29 c 4102 Zapata Falls 246 246 246 M -22- TABLE 10-3 INIENSIVE MANAGEMENT (BJECTIVES FOR RENEWABLE RESOURCES (20-YEAR TIME FRAME) SLFMP/MSA-LIV / 03-06-87 /0365P 4501 Poncha Pass-West Maintain Present 10%-15% big sagebrush cover for wildlife. Increase ground cover from 20% to 35%. Reduce erosion class from "Moderate-Slight to "Stable." Maintain forage Increase crested wheat- production for grass from 20% to 30%. cattle at 375 AUMs. 4505 Ari zona-Colorado Porcha Pass-East: Maintain present wildlife habitat. Increase ground cover on all seeded areas to 25%. — Increase livestock forage production from 429 AUMs to 625 AUMs. Increase pine needle- grass from 21% to 30%. Monitor western wheat- grass and crested vfteatgrass. 4506 East Side: Maintain present wildlife habitat. Increase ground cover on all seeded areas to 25% - Increase livestock pro¬ duction as follows — Conmanche seeding: 525 AUMs to 666 AUMs; Native seeding: 2,025 AUMs to 2,600 AUMs. Increase western wheat- grass and needle-and- thread from 22% to 35%. Monitor crested wheat- grass and Russian wild- rye. 4502 West Clover Creek Maintain at least 5% canopy cover of big sage for wildlife. Increase ground cover from 20% to 35%. — Maintain forage production for cattle at 45 AUMs. Increase crested wheat- grass from 20% to 30%. Monitor western wheat- grass and pine needle- grass. ** Erosion Condition Class. Tte following expressions and numerical ratings are used for the current erosion activity. Stable = 0-20; Slight = 21-40; Moderate = 41-60; Critical = 61-80; Severe = 81-100. Seven categories of surface features (soil movenent, surface litter, surface rock, pedestailing, rills, flew patterns, and gullies), each having a tunerical rating, v*>ne used to determine the BLM rating system for current erosion activity. - No specific objective for this resource was identified in AMPs. SLRMP/MSA-LIV/03-uo--87 /0365P TABLE 10-3 INTENSIVE MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES FOR RENEWABLE RESOURCES (20-YEAR TIME FRAME) RMAS No. Allotment Name Wildlife Habitat Watershed Protection** Acquatic Habitat Livestock Production on NRL Vegetation (Key Species) 4510 Turquoise Gulch 4513 Kelly Creek 4514 Kerber Creek 4517 Noland Gulch 4519 West San Luis 4523 East San Luis 4521 Piney Creek Maintain habitat for 30 antelope for 9 months and 30 deer and 20 elk during winter. Reserve 90% annual growth of mountain mahogany for deer. Maintain mountain mahogany at 3% to 5% and reserve 90% annual growth for deer and elk. Maintain 15% forbs, 35% shrubs, and 50% grass to assure forage for wildlife. Reserve 90% annual growth of mountain mahogany for elk and deer. Reduce erosion class from "Slight" to "Stable” by increasing ground cover from 15% to 30%. to 30%. Reduce erosion class from "Slight" to’^Stahle" by increasing ground cover from 15% to 30%. Reduce erosion class from "Slight" to "Stable* by increasing ground cover from 15% to 30%. Maintain erosion class of "Slight." Increase forage produc¬ tion for cattle from 539 ATMs to 845 AUMs. Maintain forage production for cattle at 603 AUMs. Maintain forage production for cattle at 274 AUMs. Maintain forage production for cattle at 541 AUMs. Maintain forage production for cattle at 262 AUMs. Maintain forage production for cattle at 171 AUMs. Monitor needle-and- thread. Increase western wheat- grass and needle-and- thread from 3%-5% to 20%. Maintain Arizona fescue at 33% of species compo¬ sition. Increase vestem wheatgrass from 3% to 20%. Increase vestem wheat- grass and needle-arri- thread from l%-5% to 20%. Increase western wheat- grass from 15% to 20%. Maintain present species coaposition at 60% grass, 10% forbs, and 30% browse. Monitor need le-and-thread and western wheatgrass. SIJWP/MSA-LrV/03-06-87 /0365P TABLE 10-3 INTENSIVE MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES FOR RENEWABLE RESOURCES (20-YEAR TIME FRAME) RMAS No. Allotment Name Wildlife Habitat Watershed Protection** Acquatic Habitat Livestock Production on NRL Vegetation (Key Species) 4522 Steel Canyon Reserve 90% annual Maintain erosion class growth of mountain of "Slight." mahogany for elk and deer. Maintain present habitat for 250 antelope; also 25-35 deer days per 2acre, and 5 elk days per acre. Maintain forbs at 15% of species composition. Maintain forage production for cattle at 210 AUMs. / Increase Arizona fescue and western wheatgrass to 30% species compo¬ sition. 4524 Mirage '' Increase ground cover from 17% to 25%. Maintain forage production for cattle at 187 AUMs. Increase western wheat- grass from 10% to 18%-20%. 4527 Valley View Hot Springs Maintain habitat for 30 antelope and 100 deer yearlong, long. Increase ground cover from 15% to 20%. In¬ crease litter from 8% to 10%. Increase forage production for cattle from 427 AUMs to 536 AUMs. Change dominant grass from blue grama to western wheatgrass and needle-and-thread . 4530 Cotton Creek Reserve 90% annual growth of mountain mahogany for big game. Reduce erosion class from "High-Moderate" to "Slight" by In¬ creasing ground cover from 15% to 25%. Maintain stream bank vegetation over at least 35% of shore¬ line of Cotton Creek. Maintain forage production for cattle at 312 AUMs. Increase western wheat- grass by 50%. 4315 Dimick Gulch Reserve 75% annual growth of mountain mahogany for deer. Reduce erosion class from "Slight" to "Stable" by increasing ground cover from 15% to 25%. Maintain forage pro¬ duction for cattle at 18 AUMs and for horses at 59 AUMs. Increase Indian rice- grass and sand dropseed from 5% to 15%. 4531 4532 4533 Mineral Hot Springs Stone House Crow Copper Butte Reduce erosion class from 'High-Moderate" to "Low-Moderate." Maintain forage production for cattle at 1,030 AUMs. Increase Indian rice- grass and western wheatgrass from 1% to 10%. Maintain 10% winterfat and 6% four- wing saltbush. ' TABLE 10-3 INTENSIVE MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES FOR RENEWABLE RESOURCES (20-YEAR TIME FRAME) SLRMP/MSA.-LIV/0- J7/0365P KMAS No. Allotment Name Wildlife Habitat Watershed Protection** Acquatic Habitat Livestock Production on NKL Vegetation (Key Species) 4534 McIntyre Gulch Reduce erosion class from "Moderate" to "Slight." Maintain forage production for cattle to 311 AUMs. Increase Arizona fescue and sand dropseed from 20% to 30%. 4535 4536 Findley Gulch Cottonwood Findley Gulch Maintain forage production for cattle at 753 AUMs. / Increase Indian rice- grass from 2% to 8% and western wheatgrass from 4% to 20%. 4540 4560 Laughlin Gulch Dry Gulch Laughlin Gulch Reserve 90% annual growth of mountain mahogany for elk and deer. Reduce erosion class from "Slight” to "Stable." Maintain forage production for cattle at 426 AUMs. Achieve the following plant composition: 15% forb, 25% browse, and 60% grass. Monitor western wheatgrass and Arizona fescue. 4541 4556 Poison Gulch Poison Gulch East Hoag land Hill Reserve 90% annual growth of mountain mahogany for elk, deer, antelope, and mountain sheep. Reduce erosion class from "Slight" to "Stable" by increasing ground cover from 15% to 30%. Increase stream bank cover to 25% on Ford Creek. Maintain present riparian vegetation along Tuttle Creek. Maintain forage production for cattle at 867 Allis and for horses at 88 AUMs. Increase Arizona fescue and western wheatgrass from 25% to 35% in the conifer and pinyon- juni¬ per vegetative type, and increase vestem wheat- grass from a "trace" to 15% in the lower por¬ tions of the allotment. 4545 Cross Creek Reserve 90% annual growth of mountain mahogany for big game. Reduce erosion class from "Slight" to "Stable." Reduce livestock grazing pasture on 8 t ream banks. Maintain forage production for cattle at 301 AUMs. Increase Arizona fescue from 3% to 15%. 4546 Trickle Mountain Reserve 90% annual growth of mountain mahogany for big game and 15% as seedlings and young plants. Increase tufted hair- grass from 10% to 50% on vet areas of springs. Reduce erosion class from "Moderate" to "Stable" by increasing ground cover. Maintain forage production for cattle at 1,008 AUMs. Increase western wheat- grass from 3% to 15% and Arizona fescue from 20% to 30%. SLRMPABA-IIV/03-U6-87/0365P TABLE 10-3 INTENSIVE MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES FOR RENEWABLE RESOURCES (20-YEAR TIME FRAME) RMAS No, Allotment Name Wildlife Ifebitat Watershed Protection** Acquatic Habitat Livestock Production on NRL Vegetation (Key Species) 4547 Sheep Creek Maintain habitat by allowing only fall livestock grazing to avoid competition to wildlife for spring forage. Reduce erosion class from "Slight” to "Stable" by increasing ground cover. Maintain forage production for cattle at 202 ALMs. / Increase Arizona fescue from 3% to 8%. 4548 Taylor Canyon Reserve 75% annual growth of mountain mahogany for deer and elk. Increase ground cover from 13% to 20%. Reduce erosion class from "Moderate" to "Slight". — Maintain forage production for cattle at 245 ADMs. Increase Arizona fescue from 27% to 35% and vestem wheatgrass from 5% to 15%. bkintain "trace of scarlet globemallow. 4550 Rabbit Canyon Reserve 90% annual growth of mountain mahogany for deer and elk. Reduce erosion class from "Moderate” to "Slight" by increasing ground cover from 15% to 20%. Maintain forage production for cattle at 292 AUMs. Increase Arizona fescue and western wheatgrass from 5% to 20%. Main¬ tain scarlet globe- mallcw at a "trace." 4551 Saguache fork — — Maintain forage production for cattle at 118 AUMs. 4552 Hat Springs Reserve 50% annual growth of mountain mahogany for elk. Maintain forage production for cattle at 373 AUMs. Increase Arizona fescue and vestem wheatgrass from 5% to 15%. Monitor balance of 25% browse, 10% forbs, and 65% grass. 4554 Robb Ranch Maintain 98% mountain mahogany in a satis¬ factory condition. Maintain habitat for 250 bighorn sheep. Reduce erosion class from "Slight" to "Stable" by increasing ground cover from 24% to 35%. Maintain forage production for cattle at 113 AUMs. Monitor mountain mahogany at 5%. In¬ crease Arizona fescue from 3% to 10%. ' SLFMP/MSA-LrV/03^o-87/0365P TABLE 10-3 INTENSIVE MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES FOR RENEWABLE RESOURCES (20-YEAR TIME FRAME) RMAS No. Allotment Name Wildlife Habitat Watershed Protection** Acquatic Habitat Livestock Production on NRL Vegetation (Key Species) 4557 Hoag land Hill Reserve 9C% annual growth of mountain mahogany for sheep, deer, and elk. Reduce erosion class from "Moderate" to "Slight" by increasing ground cover. — — Maintain forage production for cattle at 263 AUMs. Increase Arizona fescue from 5% to 20%. 4562 Mitchell Maintain forage production 'for cattle at 25 AUMs. Reduce lambs quarter from 64% to 32%. In¬ crease winterfat from 8% to 27% and four-wing saltbush from 1% to 5%. 4563 West Tracy Ridge Reserve 4-in. growth of winterfat for wild¬ life winter use. Allow litter accimilation. Maintain forage production for cattle at 16 AUMs. Monitor blue grama, winterfat, and western wheatgrass. 4566 Tracy Cattlemen's Reserve 70% annual growth of mountain mahogany for deer and elk. Maintain present "Slight" erosion class. Maintain forage production for cattle at 2,930 AUMs. Increase winterfat and sand dropseed from 1% to 10%, western wheat- grass and Indian rice- grass from 1% to 10%, and pine needlegrass from 1% to 10%. 4565 Tracy Individual Reserve 90% annual growth of mountain mahogany for deer an! elk. Maintain or reduce "Slight" erosion class. Maintain 25% plant density. Maintain forage production for cattle at 100 AUMs. Maintain present 90% grass, 4% to 5% forbs, and 15% browse species composition. Increase western wheatgrass and Arizona fescue. Reduce blue grama. Monitor squirrel tail and mountain mahogany. 4567 Biedell Creek Increase mountain mahogany from 1% to 5%, and reserve 90% of annual growth Reduce erosion class from "Moderate" to "Stable" by increasing ground cover from 20% — Maintain forage production for cattle at 172 AUMs. Increase Arizona fescue from 15% to 30% and western wheatgrass from 2% to 15%. € SLRMP/MSA-LIV/ 1 <0 J7/0365P TABLE 10-3 INTENSIVE MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES FOR RENEWABLE RESOURCES (20-YEAR TIME FRAME) RMAS No. Allotment Name Wildlife Habitat Watershed Protection** Acquatic Habitat Livestock Production on NRL Vegetation (Key Species) 4568 East of Camera Creek Resene 90% annual growth of mountain mahogany for deer and elk. Reduce erosion class from "Moderate" and "Slight" to "Stable" by increasing ground cover from 10%-20% to 25%-30%. Maintain forage production for cattle at 630 AUMs. Increase western wheat- grass from 5% to 20%, and Arizona fescue from 20% to 40%. 4569 Upper Coolbrath Reserve 90% annual growth of mountain mahogany for deer and elk. Increase ground cover from 15% to 30%. Maintain forage production for cattle at 74 AUMs. Increase Arizona fescue from 40% to 60%. 4570 Lower Coolbrath Increase ground cover from 15% to 30%. Reduce erosion class from "Slight" to "Stable." Maintain forage production for cattle at 29 AUMs. Increase Arizona fescue from 40% to 60%. 4571 Camera Creek Reserve 50% annual growth of mountain mahogany for big game. Increase ground cover from 10% to 25%. ““ ““ Maintain forage production for sheep at 104 AUMs. Increase western wheat- grass and needle-and- thread from 1% to 20%. 4572 La Garita Resene 50% annual growth of mountain mahogany for big game. Maintain forage production for sheep at 73 AUMs. Maintain 3% mountain mahogany in rock outcrop areas. Increase western wheatgrass and needle- and-thread from 1% to 20%. 4574 Rio Grande Canal Reduce bare ground from 45% to 37%. ~ “ ““ Maintain forage production for sheep at 225 AUMs. Increase Indian rice- grass from "trace” to 8%. 4307 Alder Creek Reserve 90% annual growth of mountain mahogany for deer and elk. Maintain forage production for cattle at 20 AUMs. Maintain plant density at 30%-35%. Monitor western wheatgrass and Indian rLcegrass. # TABLE 10-3 INTENSIVE MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES FOR RENEWABLE RESOURCES (20-YEAR TIME FRAME) SLRMP/MSA-LIV/O: I 37/0365P RMAS Wildlife Watershed Acquatic Linstock Production Vegetation No. Allnt-rrent Nara_ Habitat_ Protection** Habitat_ on NKL (Key Species) 4305 Sanderson Reserve 90% annual growth of mountain mahogany for deer and elk. 4304 Bowen 4402 Pup Peak Maintain 25% browse composition species. Reserve 90% annual growth of mountain mahogany for big game. Maintain mountain mahogany, winterfat, four-wing saltbush, and little rabbitbush at 25% species compo¬ sition for wildlife. Reserve 50% annual growth of mountain mahogany for deer and elk. Reduce "Moderate" soil erosion class to "Slight." Reduce erosion class from "Slight" to "Stable" by increasing ground cover from 15% to 25%. 4401 Limekiln Maintain winterfat, little rabbitbush, and four-wing salt¬ bush at 25% species composition for wildlife. Reduce erosion class from "Slight" to "Stable" by increasing ground co\er from 14% to 25%. 4403 4404 Nicomodes Nicoraodes Refuge Reduce erosion class from "Slight" to "Stable" by increasing ground cover from 15% to 25%. Maintain forage production for cattle at 32 AUMs. Maintain forage production for cattle at 32 AUMs. Maintain 25% species composition of mountain mahogany, green rabbit¬ brush, winterfat, and four-wing saltbush. Increase western wheat- grass from 1% to 10%. Maintain forage Increase western wheat- production for grass from 2% to 10%. sheep at 404 AUMs. Maintain forage Increase western wheat- production for grass from 1% to 10%. sheep at 370 AUMs. Maintain forage production for sheep at 304 AUMs. Maintain little rabbit¬ bush, winterfat, and four- wing saltbush at 25% species composition. In¬ crease western wheat grass from 1% to 10% TABLE 10-3 INTENSIVE MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES FOR RENEWABLE RESOURCES (20-YEAR TIME FRAME) SLRMP/MSA-UV/0^:-87/0365P KMAS No. Allotment Name Wildlife Habitat Watershed Protection** Acquatic Habitat Livestock Production on NRL Vegetation (Key Species) 4405 Raton Creek Reserve 90? annual growth of mountain mahogany for deer and elk. Reduce erosion class from "Slight" to "Stable" by increasing ground cover from 16% to 25%. Maintain forage production for cattle at 307 AUMs. / Increase western wheat- grass from 7% to 20%. Maintain winterfat, moun¬ tain mahogany, four-wing saltbush, and little rabbi tbush at 25% species composition. 4406 Rock Creek Reserve 90? annual growth of mountain mahogany for deer and elk. Reduce erosion class from "Moderate" to "Stable" by increasing ground cover from 15% to 25%. Maintain forage production for sheep at 1,147 AUMs. Increase mountain mahogany from "trace" to 20%, and western wheatgrass from 2% to ICE?. Maintain winterfat, four-wing salt¬ bush, and little rabbit- bush at 25% species composition. 4201 McMahon Reserve 90? annual growth of mountain mahogany for deer and elk. Reduce erosion class from "Moderate" to to "Stable" by in¬ creasing ground cover from 15% to 25%. Maintain present riparian vegeta¬ tion condition. Maintain forage production for sheep at 1,287 AUMs. Maintain mountain mahogany, winterfat, four- wing saltbush, and little rabbitbush at 25% species composition. 4412 Greenie Mountain Reserve 90% annual growth of mountain mahogany for deer and elk. Reduce erosion class from "Moderate" to "Stable" by increasing ground cover from 14% to 25%. Maintain forage production for sheep at 598 AUMs. Maintain little rabbit- bush, mountain mahogany, winterfat, and four-wing saltbush at 25% species composition. 4411 Gato-Hutchinson Maintain 25% ground cover for big game. Reserve 50% annual growth of mountain mahogany for deer Reduce erosion class from "Moderate" to "Stable" by increasing ground cover. Maintain forage production for sheep at 228 AUMs. Monitor western wheat- grass, blue grama, Arizona fescue, mountain mahogany, winterfat, and four-wing saltbush. and elk. TAL^RJ-3 INTENSIVE MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES FOR RENEWABLE RESOURCES (20-YEAR TIME FRAME) SLFMP/MSA-LIVA £0 J7/0365P RMAS No. Allotment Name Wildlife Habitat Watershed Protection** Acquatic Habitat Livestock Production on NRL Vegetation (Key Species) 4410 Triangle Reserve 5C% annual growth of mountain mahogany for deer and elk. Reduce erosion class from "Moderate" to "Slight" by increasing Maintain forage production for sheep at 315 AUMs. Maintain mountain mahogany little rabbitbush, winter- fat, and four-wing salt¬ bush at 25% species composition. 4216 Jadero Flat Reduce erosion class from "Critical" to "Slight" by increasing ground cover from 13% to 20%. Maintain forage production for sheep at 323 AUMs. Increase winterfat from 6% to 15% and western wheatgrass from 2% to 10%. 4206 Pbso Creek Reduce erosion class from "Moderate" to "Slight" by increasing ground cover from 15% to 20%. Maintain forage production for sheep at 206 AUMs. Increase winterfat from 13% to 20% and western vrtieatgrass from 5% to to 10%. 4207 Capulin Increase winterfat from 40% to 45% and four-wiqg saltbush from 5% to 10%. Reduce erosion class from "Moderate" to "Slight" by increasing ground cover. Maintain forage production for sheep at 587 AUMs. Increase western wheat- grass from 5% to 10% and blue grama from 5% to 15%. 4219 Romero Canyon Reserve 90% annual growth of mountain mahogany for deer and elk. Reduce erosion class "Slight" to "Stable" by increasing ground cover from 18% to 25%. Maintain forage production for cattle at 127 AUMs. Maintain Arizona fescue at 23% species composi¬ tion. 4220 Ra Jadero Canyon Reserve 90% annual growth of mountain mahogany for deer and elk. Reduce erosion class from "Critical" to "Slight" by increasing ground cover from 13% to 20%. Maintain forage production for cattle at 621 AUMs. Increase western wheat- grass to 20%. 4213 4214 4210 Cinder Pits Gararabuyo Trujillo Cross road Reduce erosion class from "Moderate" to "Slight" by increasing ground cover from 18% Maintain forage production for cattle at 1,162 AUMs. Increase western wheat- grass from 19% to 25%. Maintain winterfat, little rabbitbush, and -net Q-alf-hlph at SLRMP/MSA-LIV, 87/0365P TAJ«*fO-3 INTENSIVE MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES FOR RENEWABLE RESOURCES (20-YEAR TIME FRAME) RMAS No. Allotment Name Wildlife Habitat Watershed Protection** Acquatic Habitat Livestock Production on NRL Vegetation (Key Species) 4212 Ci. scorn Flat Maintain winterfat, four-wing saltbush, and scarlet globe- mallow at 1C%, 8%, and 3% respectively for antelope. Reduce erosion class from "Moderate" to "Stable" by increasing ground cover 10%. Maintain forage production for cattle at 192 AUMs. Increase western wheat- grass from 8% to 28%. 4227 La Jara Creek Maintain a diversity of vegetation for wildlife. Maintain 35% shade and co\rer on La Jara Creek. Maintain forage production for cattle at 64 AUMs. Increase Arizona fescue from 30% to 50%. Maintain nodding brorae at 25%. 4222 Little Mogotes Reduce erosion class from "Slight" to "Stable" by increasing ground cover from 19% to 25%. Maintain forage production for sheep at 720 AUMs and for cattle at 724 AUMs. Increase western wheat- grass form 19% to 25%. 4226 Grande-Mogote Reserve 50% annual growth of mountain mahogany for deer and elk. Reduce erosion class from "Critical" to "Moderate" by increasing ground cover. Maintain forage production for sheep at 426 AUMs. Increase western wheat- grass from 20% to 30%. 4225 Mogote Flat Maintain 50% annual growth of little rabbit bush, winter- fat, and four-wing saltbush for deer, elk, and antelope. Reduce erosion class from "Moderate" to "Slight" by increasing ground cover from 15% to 20%. Maintain forage production for sheep at 206 AUMs. Maintain western wheat- grass at 35% and Indian ricegrass at 10% of species composition. 4224 Poso Reserve 90% annual growth of mountain mahogany, big sage, and four-wirg salt¬ bush for deer arri Reduce erosion class from "Moderate" to "Slight" by increasing ground cover from 15% to 20%. Maintain forage production for cattle at 276 AUMs. Increase western wheat- grass from 2% to 15% and winterfat from 3% to 15%. antelope. TAbLc 10-3 INTENSIVE MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES FOR RENEWABLE RESOURCES (20-YEAR TIME FRAME) slrmp/msa-lcv/ ^87/0365P RMAS No. Allotment Name Wildlife Habitat Watershed Protection** Acquatic Habitat Livestock Production on NKL Vegetation (Key Species) 4229 Lcs Mogotes Reserve 905 annual growth of mountain mahogany, big sage- bush, and four-wing saltbush for big game. Reduce erosion class from "Critical" to "Moderate" by in¬ creasing ground cower from 10% to 20%. Maintain forage production for cattle at 662 ATMs. Increase western wheat- grass from 6% to 15%. Monitor winterfat. 4234 Big Horn Creek Reserve 50% annual growth of mountain mahogany for deer and elk. Reduce erosion class from "Critical" to "Moderate" by increasing ground cover from 2C% to 30%. Maintain forage production for cattle at 88 AUMs. Increase Arizona fescue from zero to 10% and vestem wheatgrass from 2% to 10%. Maintain 90% moun¬ tain mahogany in a satis¬ factory browse condition. 4222 Little Mogotes Reduce erosion class from "Slight" to "Stable” by increasing ground cover from 19% to 25%. Maintain forage pro¬ duction for sheep at 720 AUMs and for cattle at 724 AUMs. Increase western wheat- grass from 19% to 25%. 4226 Grarrie-Mogote Reserve 50% annual growth of mountain mahogany for deer and elk. Reduce erosion class from "Critical" to "Moderate" by increasing ground cower from 15% to 20%. Maintain forage production for sheep at 426 AUMs. Increase western wheat- grass from 20% to 30%. 4225 Mogote Flat Maintain 50% annual growth of little rabbitbush, winterfat, and four-wing saltbush for deer, elk and antelope. Reduce erosion class from "Moderate" to "Slight" by increasing ground cover from 15% to 20%. Maintain forage production for sheep at 206 AUMs. Maintain western wheat- grass at 35% and Indian ricegrass at 10% of species composition. 4224 Pbso Reserve 90% annual growth of mountain mahogany, big sage, and four-wing saltbush for deer, elk and antelope. Reduce erosion class from "Moderate” to "Slight" by increasing ground cover from 15% to 20%. Maintain forage production for cattle at 276 AUMs. Increase v^stem wheat- grass from 2% to 15% and winterfat from 3% to 15%. SLRHP A4SA-LIV/t^Pr 37/036 5P Bu^R- TABuTTO-3 INTENSIVE MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES FOR RENEWABLE RESOURCES (20-YEAR TIME FRAME) RMAS No. Allotment Name Wildlife Habitat Watershed Protection** Acquatic Habitat Livestock Production on NRL Vegetation (Key Species) 4229 Los Mpgotes Reserve 90% annual growth of mountain mahogany, big sage¬ brush, and four-wing saltbush for big game. Reduce erosion class from "Critical" to "Moderate" by increasing ground cover from 10% to 20%. Maintain forage production for cattle at 662 AUMs. Increase western wheat- grass from 6% to 15%. Monitor winterfat. 4234 Big Horn Creek Reserve 50% annual growth of mountain mahogany for deer and elk. Reduce erosion class from "Critical" to "Moderate" by increasing ground cover from 20% to 30%. Maintain forage production 'for cattle at 88 AUMs. Increase Arizona fescue from zero to 10% and western wheatgrass from 2% to 10%. Maintain 90% moun¬ tain mahogany in a satis¬ factory browse condition. 4235 Railroad Reserve 90% annual growth of mountain mahogany and big sage on 1/3 of the allot¬ ment for deer and elk. Reduce erosion class from "Critical" to "Moderate" by increasing ground cover from 15% to 25%. Maintain forage production for sheep at 159 AUMs. Increase western wheat- grass from 5% to 15%. 4236 Llano Reduce erosion class "Critical" to "Moderate" by increasirg ground cover. Maintain forage production for sheep at 150 AUMs. Increase winterfat from 10% to 20% in 10 years. Increase western wheat- grass from 1% to 5%. 4239 4240 Alta Lake San Antonio Alta Lake Maintain winterfat, green rabbitbrush, and four-wiqg salt¬ bush at 25% species composition. Increase ground cover from 12% to 20% to reduce erosion class from "Slight" to "Stable." Maintain forage pro¬ duction for sheep at 75 AUMs and for cattle at 500 AUMs. Increase western wheat- grass from 1% to 10%. 4242 Mn Lakes Reduce erosion class from "Moderate" to "Slight" by increasing — Maintain forage production for cattle at 653 AUMs. Increase western wheat- grass from 1% to 20%. ground cover 10%. slrmp/msa-liv / . 17/0365P TAL«*>-3 INTENSIVE MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES FOR RENEWABLE RESOURCES (20-YEAR TIME FRAME) KMAS No. Allotment Name Wildlife Habitat Watershed Protection** Acquatic Habitat Linstock Production on NRL Vegetation (Key Species) 4245 Pi non Reduce erosion class from "Moderate" to "Stable" by increasing ground cover to 25%. Maintain present habitat for fisheries along the Rio Grande. Maintain forage production for sheep at 393 AUMs. Maintain winterfat, four- wing saltbush, and little rabbitbush at 30% species composition. Increase Indian ricegrass from "trace" to 10%. 4248 Kiowa Hill Reduce erosion class from "Moderate" to "Stable" by increasing ground cover 10%. Maintain forage production for cattle 208 AUMs. Increase western wheat- grass from 5% to 10%. 4250 Eight Mile Reduce erosion class from "Moderate" to "Stable . " Increase ground cover from 21% to 40%. Maintain forage production for cattle at 212 AUMs. Increase western wheat- grass from 8% to 20% and 35% to 40%; Indian ricegrass from 10% to 20%; and combined winter¬ fat and four-wing salt¬ bush from 24% to 30%. 4249 Pinon Hills Reserve 50% annual growth of winterfat and four-wipg salt¬ bush for antelope. Reduce erosion class from "Moderate" to "Slight" by increasing ground cover from 19% to 30%. Maintain riparian vegetation compo¬ sition and cover. Maintain forage production for sheep at 598 AUMs. Increase western wheat- grass and sand drop seed from 5% to 20%. 4251 4252 4253 4256 4254 Rio Grande Common Mesa Common San Luis Hills Flat Top East Bend Fairy Hills Reduce erosion class from "Moderate" to "Slight" by increasing ground cover from 23% to 40%. Maintain riparian vegetation along tile Rio Grande. Maintain forage pro¬ duction for sheep at 281 ALMs and for cattle at 557 AUMs. Increase Indian rice¬ grass from 8% to 15%, and winterfat and four-wing saltbush from 22% to 30%. 4255 La Sauses Reduce eras Lon class from "Critical" to "Slight" by Increasing ground cover from 10% to 30%. Improve riparian vegetation along the Rio Grande for approximately 2 miles. Maintain forage production for cattle at 128 AUMs. Increase western wheat- grass from "trace" to 10% and winterfat to 20%. * 87/0365P SLRMP/MSA-LIV, TA»I0-3 INTENSIVE MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES FOR RENEWABLE RESOURCES (20-YEAR TIME FRAME) KMAS No. Allotment Name Wildlife Habitat Watershed Protection** Acquatic Habitat Livestock Production on NKL Vegetation (Key Species) Four Mile Reduce erosion class from "Slight" to "Stable” by increasing ground cover from 20% to 30%. Maintain forage production for cattle at 18 AUMs. Increase alkali sacaton and Indian ricegrass from 15% to 25%. 4117 Tobin Creek Reserve 50% annual growth of mountain mahogany for deer and elk. Maintain forage production* for cattle at 235 AUMs. Increase western wheat- grass by 60%. Achieve 15% forbs, 25% browse, and 60% grass plant composition. 4107 Foothills Reduce erosion class from "Moderate" to "Slight" by increasing ground cover from 10% to 20%. Maintain forage production for cattle at 257 AUMs. Maintain 15% forbs, 25% shrub, and 60% grass plant composition. Increase Indian ricegrass from 3% to 10% and western vheatgrass from 6% to 15%. Blanca Remove 65% of vegeta¬ tion growth on 5-year cycle to enhance and renew nesting cover on wetland edges and meadows. Reduce erosion class from "Moderate" to "Stable" by increasing ground cover from 15% to 20%. Maintain forage production for cattle at 48 AUMs. Increase combined percen¬ tages of western wheat- grass, Indian ricegrass, and alkali sacaton from 5% to 15%. Dry Lakes / Reduce erosion class from "Slight" to "Stable." Increase ground cover on clay hardpan areas from 6% to 12%. Maintain 60% grass composition. Maintain forage production for cattle at 139 AUMs. Increase Indian ricegrass and western wheatgrass from 3% to 15%. SLFMP/MSA-LIV/03-06-87/0365P TABLE 10-3 INTENSIVE MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES FOR RENEWABLE RESOURCES (20-YEAR TIME FRAME) RMAS No. Allotment Name Wildlife Habitat Watershed Protection** Acquatic Habitat Livestock Production on NRL Vegetation (Key Species) 4542 Tuttle Creek — — Stablilize stream banks. Achieve and maintain plant cover to stabilize erosion. — Maintain forage production for cattle at 76 AUMs. § SLFMP/MSA-LTV/03-06-87/0923E S TABLE 10-2 MANAGEMENT PROPOSAL & RANGE IMPROVEMENTS RMAS Management Unit No. & Acreage Selected Management Type of Grazing Use Fences & Cattleguards Proposed Implemented Proposed Constructed Water Development Proposed Constructed Benefit/ Cost 4501 Boncha Pass West 1,925 Ac. NRL AMP-Proposed Action Rest Rotation 3-Pasture Rest Rotation 3.2 Mi. Fence 3.2 Mi. Fence 3-Pasture 2 Cattleguards 4 Cattleguards .53 Mi. Pipe¬ line 1 Spring .5 Mi. Pipeline 1 Spring 5.74 Ari zona-Colorado 4506 East Sides 10,013 Ac. NRL Existing AMP Continue Exist¬ ing Grazing Use Rest Rotation 4-Pasture / N/A 4505 Poncha Pass-East ; 2,160 Ac. NRL Revised Exist¬ ing AMP -Wild¬ life Effective Continue Exist¬ ing Grazing Use Deferred Rota- .5 Mi. Fence .5 Mi. Fence tioo 2-Pasture N/A 4502 West Clover Creek 320 Ac. NRL Reduced Manage¬ ment-Custodial Benefit/Cost Custodial Rest Rotation - - - _ _ _ 1-Pasture 0.14 4510 Turquoise Gulch 3,806 Ac. NRL Existing AMP Continue Exist¬ ing Grazing Use Deferred Rotation - - - - - 3-Pasture — — — — — N/A 4513 Kelly Creek 6,699 Ac. NRL Existing AMP Continue Exist¬ ing Grazing Use Rest Rotation - - - - - - 3-Pasture — — — — - N/A 4514 Kerber Creek 4,500 Ac. NRL AMP-Proposed Action Rest Rotation 5-Pasture Not Implemented 19.5 ML. Fence - - - .75 ML. Pipeline 1 Reservoir 1 Spring 2.09 4517 Noland Gulch 7,650 Ac. NRL AMP-Proposed Action Continue Exist¬ ing AMP Rest Rotation - - - - - - 3-Pasture — - - - - N/A East & West San Luis Creek 2,740 Ac. NRL Revised AMP Benefit /Cost Deferred Rotation 2-Pasutre Not Implemented - - - - - - .6 ML. Pipeline — — — — 3.54 4519 West San Luis Creek 4523 East San Luis Creek TABLE 10-2 Cont SLBMP/MSA-Uv/ O3-06-87/0923E RMAS No. Management Unit & Acreage Selected Management Type of Grazing Use Proposed Implemented Fences & Cattleguards Proposed Constructed Water Development Proposed Constructed Benefit/ Cost 4521 PLney Creek 2,510 Ac. NRL AMP-Proposed Action Deferred Rotat¬ ion 2-Pasture Not Implemented 1.5 Mi. Fence — 1.25 ML. Pipeline - - - 1 Sprite 2.48 4522 Steel Canyon 4,472 Ac. NRL AMP-Proposed Action Deferred Rotat¬ ion 2-Pasture Not Implemented 2.3 Mi. Fence 1 Cattleguard — — — 2.5 Mi. Pipe lire - - - 2.47 4524 Mirage 2,395 Ac. NRL AMP-Proposed Action Deferred Rotat¬ ion 2-Pasture Not Implemented 1.5 ML. Fence — — ~ '.8 Mi. Pipeline - - - 1.43 4527 Valley View Hot Springs 4,9Z7 Ac. NRL AMP-Proposed Action Continue Exist¬ ing AMP Deferred Rotation - - - - 3-Pasture - .7 Mi. Pipeline N/A 4530 Cotton Creek 3,880 Ac. NRL AMP-Proposed Action Rest Rotation 3-Pasture Rest Rotation 3-Rasture 5.75 Mi. Fence 2 Cattleguards 6.4 Mi. Fence .75 Mi. .9 Mi. Pipeline 3 Cattleguards Pipeline 2.93 4315 Diraick Gulch 835 Ac. NRL Revised AMP Wildlife Effective Rest Rotation 3-Pasture Not Implemented 1 Mi. Fence — 1 Mi. Pipeline - - - 1.80 4531 4332 4533 Mineral Hot Spgs. 10,260 Ac. NRL Mineral Hot Spgs Crow-Wemer Shooke r-Sturde van AMP-Proposed Action / Rest Rotation 3-Pasture Not Implemented 8 Mi. .6 Mi. Pipeline Pipeline 1 Well 1 Storage Tank 1.63 4534 McIntyre Gulch 4,602 Ac. NRL AMP-Proposed Action Deferred Rest Rotation 3-Pasture Deferred Rest Rotation l-Pasture-1980 2.1 Mi. Fence — - - - - 1 Storage Tank 1 Spring 2.95 ! TABLE 10-2 Gont. SLRMP/MSA-U3//03-06-87/0923E EMAS No. Management Unit & Acreage Selected Management Type of Grazing Use Fences & Cattleguards Proposed Implemented Proposed Constructed Water Development Proposed Constructed Benefit/ Cost Findley Gulch 11,345 Ac. NRL Revised AMP Benefit/Cost Rest Rotation - ___ 3-Pasture - - - - 4.3 Mi. Pipeline - - - 2.31 4536 4535 Findley Gulch Cottonwood - - - - - - Deferred Rotation 3-pasture - - - Rest Rotation 1-Pasture 4 Cattleguards 1 Cattleguard 4.5 Mi. Pipeline 1 Storage Tank 4540 4560 Laughlin Gulch 6,643 Ac. NRL Dry Gulch Laughlin AMP-Proposed Action Rest Rotation Not Implemented 1.3 Mi. Fence - - - - 3-Pasture 1 Mi. Pipeline 1 Spring 4.53 4541 4558 Poison Gulch 14,357 Ac. NRL Poison Gulch East Hoag land Hill Revised AMP Wildlife Effective Rest Rotation Not Implemented 6.5 Mi. Fence 3-Pasture 2 Cattleguards .02 Mi. Pipe¬ line 1 Reservoir 3 Check Darns 1 Spring 1.8 Mi. Pipe line 1 Spring 3.41 4545 Cross Creek 6,305 Ac. NRL AMP-Proposed Action Rest Rotation Deferred Rotation 6.4 ML. Fence 4-Pasture 2-Pasture 3 Cattleguards 1.5 Mi. Fence 1 Cattleguard 1.2 Mi. Pipe¬ line 2 Wells 1 Spring .8 Mi. Pipe¬ line 2 Springs 1 Catchment 5.35 4546 Trickle Mtn. 19,562 Ac. NRL AMP-Proposed Action i Rest Rotation Not Implemented 6.4 Mi. Fence 4-Pasture 1 Cattleguard .2 ML. Fence 4 Cattleguards 1.5 Mi. Pipe¬ line 2 Catchments 2 Reservoirs 1 Check Dam 2.0 Mi. Pipe¬ line 1 Well 1 Storage Tank 2 Catchments 1 Spring 3.23 4547 Sheep Creek 2,031 Ac. NRL AMP-Proposed Action Deferred Deferred .75 Mi. Fence 1-Pasture 1-Pasture 1.0 Mi. Fence 1 Spring 1 Spring 35.43 ■ TABLE 10-2 font. SLJMP/MSA-LTV / 03-06-87 /0923E RMAS No. Management Unit & Acreage Selected Management Type of Grazing Use Proposed Implemented Fences & Cattleguards Proposed Constructed Water Development Proposed Constructed Benefit/ Cost 4548 Taylor Canyon 2,902 Ac.NRL AMP-Proposed Action Deferred 1-Pasture Deferred 1-Pasture — — — 1 Storage Tank 1 Reservoir 1 Spring 1 Spring 1 Catchment 13.59 4550 Rabbit Canyon 3,835 Ac. NRL AMP-Proposed Action Deferred Rotation 2-Pasture Deferred Rotation - 2-Pasture 1 Cattleguard / 2 Mi. Pipeline 1 Storage Tank 5 Check Dams 1 Catchment 1.48 4551 Saguache Park 1,920 Ac. NRL AMP-Proposed Action Continue Exist¬ ing Cooperative grazing use with F.S. Rest Rotation 8-Pasture N/A 4552 Hat Springs 4,565 Ac. NRL AMP-Proposed Action Deferred 1-Pasture Deferred 1-Pasture 1.25 Mi. 1.5 Mi. Pipe¬ line 1 Spring 1.8 Mi. Pipe¬ line 6.61 4554 Robb Ranch 1,488 Ac. NRL AMP-Proposed Action Deferred 1-Pasture Not Implemented — — N/A 4557 Hoagland Hill 3,633 Ac. NRL AMP-Proposed Action Rest Rotation 3-Pasture Deferred Rotat¬ ion 2-Pasture 3 Mi. Fence 2.8 ML. Fence 3 Mi. Pipeline 1.7 Mi. Pipe line 2 Catchnents 3.36 4562 Mitchell 938 Ac. NRL AMP-Proposed Action Deferred Rest Rotation 1-Pasture Deferred Rest Rotation 1-Pasture 1 Storage Tank 0.48 4563 West Tracy Ridge 925 Ac. NRL AMP-Proposed Action Rest Rotation 1-Pasture Rest Rotation 1-Pasture — — .10 0 0 TABLE 10-2 Gont. SLfWP/MSA.-4^ J-06-87/0923E KMAS No. Management Unit & Acreage Selected Management Type of Grazing Use Proposed Implemented Fences & Cattleguards Proposed Constructed Water Development Proposed Constructed Benefit/ Cost 4566 Tracy Cattlemen's 27 5 749 Ac. NKL Revised AMP Wildlife Effective Rest Rotation 3-Pasture Not Implemented 12.5 Mi. Fence 7.6 Mi. Pipe¬ line 1.39 1 Well 1 Storage Tank 4565 Tracy Individual 1,676 Ac. NRL AMP-Proposed Action Deferred 1-Pasture Not Implemented — — 1.62 4567 Biedell Creek 2,462 Ac. NRL AMP-Proposed Action Rest Rotation 3-Pasture Rest Rotation 3-Pasture 2.6 Mi. Fence 2 Cattle- guards 2.6 ML. Fence 3 Cattleguards .4 Mi. Pipe- 1 Reservoir 1 Spring .9 Mi. Pipe- 1 Reservoir 4 Springs 8.59 4568 E. of Camero Cr. . 11,849 Ac. NRL AMP-Proposed Action Rest Rotation 4-Pasture Not Implemented 12 Mi. Fence 2 Cattle- guards 1.5 Mi. Fence 1 Cattleguard 4.4 Mi. Pipe¬ line 3 Reservoirs 3 Springs 1.5 Pipeline 2 Reservoirs 2 Springs 2.50 4569 Upper Coolbroth AMP-Proposed Deferred Deferred — — - - 23.12 1,780 Ac. NRL Action 1-Pasture 1-Pasture 4570 Lower Coolbroth AMP-Proposed Deferred Deferred — — — — — — - - 9.54 605 Ac. NRL Action 1-Pasture 1-Pasture 4571 Camero Creek Revised AMP Deferred Not Implemented — — — — — - - 13.59 2,318 Ac. NRL Wildlife 1-Pasture Effective 4572 La Garita Revised AMP Deferred Not Implemented - - - - - - 9>68 1,082 Ac. NRL Wildlife 1-Pasture Effective 4574 Rio Grande Canal AMP-Proposed Rest Rotation Rest Rotation 60 Boundary 20 Boundary 3. Mi. Pipe- 4.89 4,360 Ac. NRL Action 3-Pasture 4-Pasture Markers Markers line 1 Wbll 1 Well 1 Storage Tank 0 TABLE 10-2 Cont. 0 SLEWP/MSA-L. ,^06-87/0923E RMAS No. Management Unit & Acreage Selected Management Type of Grazing Use Proposed Implemented Fences & Cattleguards Proposed Constructed Water Development Proposed Constructed Benefit/ Cost 4307 Alder Creek 275 Ac. NKL AMP-Proposed Action Rest Rotation 1-Pasture Rest Rotation 1-Pasture — .5 ML. Pipe- - 8.90 4305 Sanderson 510 Ac. NKL AMP Proposed Action Rest Rotation 1-Pasture Rest Rotation 1-Pasture .75 Mi. Pipe- - line .25 Mi. Ease¬ ment 1 Spring 19.08 4304 Bowen 488 Ac. NRL AMP-Proposed Action Deferred 1-Pasture Deferred 1-Pasture — N/A 4402 Pup Peak 5,002 Ac. NRL AMP-Proposed Action Deferred Rest Rotation Deferred Rotation 200 Boundary Markers 1.6 ML. Fence Modification 25 Boundary Markers 2.5 Mi. Fence Modification 6 Mi. Pipe- - * Well *1 Well 1 Storage Tank 12 Check Dams 5.02 4401 Limekiln 5,050 Ac. NKL Revised AMP Benefit /Cost Deferred Rest Rotation 4-Pastures Deferred Rest Rotation 4-Pastures 200 boundary Markers 50 Boundary Markers 1 Storage Tank 1.03 4403 4404 Nicomodes 3,080 Ac. NRL Nicomodes Refuge Revised AMP Benefit/Cost Rest Rotation 3-Pasture Not Implemented 1.25 Mi. Fence 20 Boundary Markers 2.01 4405 Raton Creek 3,940 Ac. NKL Revised AMP Benefit/Cost Deferred Rotation 2-Pasture Not Implemented 1.25 Mi. Pipe- - line 1 Spring 2.28 4406 Rock Creek 12,680 Ac. NRL AMP-Proposed Action Rest Rotation 5-Pasture Not Implemented 200 Boundary Markers 9.5 Mi. Pipe- line 2.53 .75 Mi. Ease¬ ment *Waters both Pup Peak & Limekiln Allotments 2 Wells 3 Storage Tanks 3 Reservoirs 10 Check Dams TAj^_ jXt-2 Cont SLRMP/MSA- 17/0923E # RMAS No. Management Unit & Acreage Selected Management Type of Grazing Use Proposed Implemented Fences & Cattleguards Proposed Constructed 4201 McMahon 15,016 Ac. NRL AMP-Proposed Action Rest Rotation 3-Pasture Rest Rotation 3-Pasture 150 Boundary Markers 4412 Greenie Mtn. 8,114 Ac. NRL AMP-Proposed Action Rest Rotation 3-Pasture Not Implemented 500 Boundary Markers 4411 Gato-Hutchinsom 1,960 Ac. NRL AMP-Proposed Action Deferred Rest Rotation 1-Pasture Deferred Rest Rotation 1-Pasture 300 Boundary Markers 4410 Triangle 3,715 Ac. NRL AMP-Proposed Action Deferred Rest Rotation 1-Easture Deferred Rest Rotation 1-Easture 100 Boundary Markers 4216 Jadero Flat 5,200 Ac. NRL AMP-Proposed Action Deferred Rest Rotation 3-Pasture Deferred Rest Rotation 3-Pasture 20 Boundary Markers 20 Boundary Markers 4206 Bosq Creek 2,240 Ac. NRL AMP-Proposed Action Deferred Rest Rotation 3-Pasture Not Implemented 25 Boundary Markers 4207 Capulin 5,589 Ac. NRL Revised AMP Benefit/Cost Deferred Grazing 1-Pasture Not Implemented — — 4219 Romero Canyon 1,730 Ac. NRL AMP-Proposed Action Deferred Rotation 2-Pasture Deferred Rotat¬ ion 2-Pasture 1.75 Mi. 2.3 Mi. Fence 4220 Ra Jadero Canyon 6,730 Ac. NRL AMP-Proposed Action Rest Rotation 3-Pasture Not Implemented 20 ML. Fence 2 Cattle- guards 6 ML. Fence 2 Cattleguards Water Development Benefit/ Proposed_ Constructed_ Cost 1.75 Ml. Pipe- - 25.11 line 1 Sprlpg 2.25 Mi. Pipe- - 2.75 line 1 Well 1 Well 1 Storage Tank 2.27 3.51 9.86 1.26 2.89 2. Reservoirs 1 Reservoir 16.36 3.5 Mi. Pipe¬ line 1 Catchment 4 Reservoirs 1 Spring .2 Mi. Pipe¬ line 2 Catchments 4 Reservoirs 3 Spring 1.20 SLRMP/MSA-L ^^)6-87/0923E # TABLE 10-2 Cont. RMAS No. Management Unit & Acreage Selected Management Type of Grazing Use Proposed Implemented Fences & Cattleguards Proposed Constructed Water Development Proposed Constructed Benefit/ Cost 4213 4214 4210 4211 Cinder Pits 15,370 Ac. NRL Garambuyo Trujillo Crossroad Gosline AMP-Proposed Action Deferred Rest Rotation 3-Pasture Not Implemented 19 Mi. Fence 11 Mi. Pipe¬ line 1 Well 2 Storage Tanks 1 Catchment 1.62 4212 Ci scorn Flat 3,680 Ac. NRL Existing AMP Continue Exist¬ ing Grazing Use Rest Rotation 4-Pasture — — / N/A 4227 La Jara Creek 820 Ac. NRL AMP-Proposed Action Rest Rotation 1-Pasture Rest Rotation 1-Pasture — — 8.20 4222 Little Mogotes 13,510 Ac. NRL AMP-Proposed Action Rest Rotation 3-Pasture Deferred Rotat¬ ion 3-Pasture 24 Mi. Fence 23.7 Mi. Fence 5 Cattleguards 12 Mi. Pipe- 1 tell 1 Storage Tank 2 Catchments 2 Reservoirs *1 tell 1 Catchment 1.51 4226 Grande-Mogote 5,232 Ac. NRL AMP-Proposed Action Rest Rotation 3-Easture Deferred Rotat¬ ion 2-Pasture 50 Boundary Markers 50 Boundary Markers 2.25 Mi. Fence 7.41 4225 Mogote Flat 1.977 Ac. NRL AMP-Proposed Action Deferred Rotation Deferred Rotat¬ ion 2-Pasture 203 Boundary Markers 50 Boundary Markers 1 Reservoir 1 Reservoir 7.63 4224 Pbso 5,240 Ac. NRL Revised AMP Benefit/Cost Deferred Rotation 2-Pasture Deferred Rotat¬ ion 2-Pasture 2.8 Mi. 2.8 ML. Fence 1 Cattleguard 1 tell 3.74 4229 Los Mogotes 5,721 Ac. NRL AMP-Proposed Action Rest Rotation 3-Pasture Rest Rotation 3-Pasture 12.5 Mi. Fence 4.5 ML. Fence 2 Cattleguards 4 Reservoirs 1 Reservoir 1 Catchment 0.6 Mi. Pipeline 2.68 *Waters both little Mogotes and Cinder Pits TABLE 10-2 Cont SURMP/MSA-LIV /03-06-87 /0923E RMAS Management Unit Selected Type of Grazing Use Fences & Cattleguards Water Development Benefit/ No. & Acreage_ Management_ Proposed_ Implemented Proposed_ Constructed Proposed_ Constructed_ Cost 4234 Big Horn Creek Revised AMP 760 Ac. NRL Wildlife Effective Rest Rotation Rest Rotation 2 Mi. Fence 2 Mi. Ferce 1-Pasture 1-Pasture 6.87 4235 Railroad 3,741 Ac. NRL AMP-Proposed Action Deferred Rest Rotation 3-Easture Deferred Rest Rotation 3-Pasture 60 Boundary Markers 20 Boundary Markers 0.2 Mi. Pipe¬ line 28.08 4236 Llano 5,261 Ac. NRL AMP-Proposed Action Alta Lake 10,392 Ac. NRL Revised AMP Benefit/Cost 4239 San Antonio 4240 Alta Lake 4242 Twin Lakes 8,153 Ac. NRL Existing AMP 4245 PLnon 7,210 Ac. NRL Reduced Manage¬ ment - Custodial Benefit/Cost 4248 Kiowa Hills 4,302 Ac. NRL Existing AMP 4250 Eight Mile 5,640 Ac. NRL Revised AMP Benefit/Cost Deferred Rest Deferred Rest 50 Boundary Rotation Rotation Markers 3-Pasture 3-Pasture Deferred Rotation 4-Pasture Deferred Rotat¬ ion 2-Pasture Deferred 1-Pasture Deferred Rest Deferred Rest — — — — — Rotation Rotation 4-Pasture 4-Pasture Custodial Deferred Rotat¬ ion 2-Pasture — — — — — Continue Exist- Rest Rotation — — — — — ing Grazing Use 3-Pasture Deferred Deferred 1-Pasture 30 Boudnary / Markers — — — — — 5 Mi. Pipeline - 1 Vfell 1 Storage Tank 1 ML. Fence 1 Well 2.3 Mi. Fence - 1 tfeLL 2 Cattleguards 1 WeH 1.2 Mi. Fence - 1 Storage Tank 1 Spring 2.36 1.61 N/A 1.03 N/A 1.56 TABLE 10-2 Cont. SLEMP/MSA-L \)6-87/0923E EMAS Management Unit No. & Acreage Selected Type of Grazing Use Fences & Cattleguards Management_ Proposed_ Implemented Proposed_ Constructed Water Development Proposed_ Constructed Benefit/ Cost 4249 Pinon Hills 9,274 Ac. NKL AMP-Proposed Action Deferred Rest Rotation 3-Plasture Rio Grande Com. 18,611 Ac. NKL Revised AMP Benefit/Cost Deferred Rest Rotation 3-Pasture 4256 East Bend 4252 San Luis Mils 4253 Flat Top 4251 Mesa Common 4254 Fairy Mils „ , — _ _ • - - - 4255 La Sauses 3,200 Ac. NKL Revised AMP Benefit/Cost Deferred Rotation 2-Pasture Four Mile' 320 Ac. NRL Revised AMP Combined with Blanca See 4113 Blanca Not Implemented 30 Boundary Markers - 8.5 Mi. Fence - 2 Wells 1 Storage Tank 1.5 Ml. Pipe¬ line ,2 Reservoirs Deferred Rest - - - Rotation 1-Pasture Deferred Rest - - - Rotation 1-Pasture Deferred Rest - - - Rotation 3-Pasture Deferred Rest - - - ‘ Rotation 3-Pasture Not Implemented - - - * - — - - - — - - - Not Implemented - - 2.5 Mi. Pipe¬ line 1.61 1.16 2.29 > 0 SLFMP/MSA-Lv... .jc06-87/0923E 0 TABLE 10-2 Gont. RMAS No. Management Unit & Acreage Selected Management Type of Grazing Use Proposed Implemented Fences & Cattleguards Proposed Constructed Water Development Proposed Constructed Benefit/ Cost 4117 Tobin Creek 6,126 Ac. NRL AMP-Proposed Action Deferred Rotation 2-Pasture Deferred Rotation 2-Pasture 8.25 Mi. Fence 1 Cattleguard 1.4 Mi. Fence Removal 1 Cattleguard .5 Mi. Pipe¬ line 1 Well 1 Well 5.79 4107 Foothills 4,700 Ac. NRL AMP-Proposed Action Deferred Rotation 2-Pasture Deferred Rotation 2-Pasture 2.5 Mi. Fence 2.4 ML. Fence 2.3 Mi. Pipe¬ line 3 Springs .4 Mi. Pipe- lire 1 Well 2 Spring 7.27 4113 Blanca/Four Mile 5,540 Ac. NRL Revised AMP Combined with Four Mile Rest Rotation 5-Pasture Rest Rotation 5-Pasture 6.5 mi. Fence .5 Mi. Pipe¬ line .577 Dry Lakes 5,836 Ac. NRL AMP-Proposed Action Deferred Rest Rotation Not Implemented 2.5 Mi. Fence .2 Mi. Pipe¬ line 1.83 4102 Lakes 3-Pasture 1 Well 4103 Dry Lakes 4120 Zapata Falls 5,991 Ac. NRL AMP-Proposed Action Deferred Rotation 2-Pasture Deferred Rotat¬ ion 3.5 Mi. Fence 1 Mi. Pipe¬ line 2.08 4542 Tuttle Creek 1,169 Ac. NRL Existing AMP Continue Exist¬ ing Cooperative Grazing use with Forest Service Rest Rotation 5-Pasture N/A Phone Line 800 Ac. NRL Custodial Custodial Combine with Zapata Fall Q1A — — — — — Big East 1,440 Ac. NRL Custodial Custodial Combine with Zapata Fall CMA. — — — — — Gamer Creek 240 Ac. NRL Elimination of Grazing Elimination Elimination 2 Mi. Fence 1.5 Mi. Fence — — — South /l/lO A r MPT Elimination of Elimination Elimination 2 ML. Fence 1.5 Mi. Fence — — — SLFMP/MSA-L. T06-87/0923E TABLE 10-2 Cont. RMAS Management Unit Selected Type of Grazing Use Fences & Cattleguards Water Development Benefit/ No. & Acreage_ Management Proposed_ Implemented Proposed_ Constructed Proposed_ Constructed_ Cost Elephant Rocks AMP-Proposed Deferred Elimination — — 3,517 Ac. NRL Action 1-Pasture of Grazing Masonic Bark Elimination of Elimination of Elimination — — — — — — 400 Ac. NRL Grazing Grazing of Grazing Branch AMP-Proposed Rest Rotation Elimination 3.5 Mi. Fence 2,457 Ac. NRL Action 1-Pasture of Grazing Poslto Creek AMP-Proposed Rest Rotation Elimination - — — - — 4,991 Ac. NRL Action 3-Pasture of Grazing la Jara Canyon Elimination of Elimination Elimination - — — — — — — 275 Ac. NRL Grazing Pastures Elimination of Elimination of Elimination — - — 370 Ac. NRL Grazing Grazing of Grazing Mondragon Indiv. Elimination of Elimination of Elimination 2 ML. Fence 2.5 Mi. Fence 385 Ac. NRL Grazing Grazing of Grazing Saddleback Mtn. Elimination of Elimination of Elimination .25 ML. Fence 0.5 Mi. Fence 2,720 Ac. NRL Grazing Grazing of Grazing Park Pasture Elimination of Elimination of Elimination 1.25 Mi. Fence — — — — — 400 Ac. NRL Grazing Grazing of Grazing North Pasture Elimination of Elimination of Elimination — — — — — — — — — — 700 Ac. NRL Grazing Grazing of Grazing 2 Storage Tanks # TABLE 10-2 Cont. 9 SLFMP/MSA-U . .J-06-87/0923E kSs Managenent Unit Selected Type of Grazing Use Fences & Cattleguards Water Development Benefit/ No. & Acreage_ Management_ Proposed_ Implemented_ Proposed_ Constructed Proposed_ Constructed Cost 4504 Round Hill 160 Ac. NRL Custodial Custodial Custodial 4503 Clover Creek 120 Aco NRL Custodial Custodial Custodial 4507 San Luis Creek No.l 55 A Co NRL Custodial Custodial Custodial 4508 4509 Alder Alder Creek 4 Spring Creek 4 Reduced Manage¬ ment-Custodial Benefit /Cost Custodial Custodial 4511 San Luis Creek No. 3 220 Ac. NRL Custodial Custodial Custodial 4515 South Kerber Cr. 4 760 Ac. NRL Custodial Custodial Custodial 4516 North Kerber Cr. 4 180 Ac. NRL Custodial Custodial Custodial 4518 tfye 4 1,460 AC. NRL Reduced Manage- Ment-Custodial Benefit/Cost Custodial Custodial 4520 Silver Creek 200 Ac. NRL Custodial Custodial Custodial 4317 Rito Alto 800 Ac. NRL Custodial Custodial Custodial 4316 San Isabel Creek 820 Ac. NRL Custodial Custodial Custodial 4539 Calvert Fenced FR 122 Ac. NRL Custodial Custodial Custodial 4559 Ward Fenced Tract Custodial Custodial Custodial < r\ \ -rr>-r > SLRMP/MSA-L ^^6-87/0923E • # TABLE 10-2 Cont. KMAS Manageramt Unit Selected Type of Grazing Use Fences & Cattleguards Water Development Benefit/ No. & Aciy^gp_ Ifanagemant Proposed Implemented_ Proposed_ Constructed Proposed_ Constructed Cost 4544 Indian Creek 120 Ac. NKL Custodial Custodial Oustodial 4546 Meadow Fenced 330 Ac. NKL Custodial Custodial Custodial 4555 Mesa 960 Ac. NRL Custodial Oustodial Custodial 4556 Mill Creek 694 Ac. NRL Originally Part of Hoag land Hill Custodial Custodial 4561 Higgins Springs 753 Ac. NRL Reduced Manage¬ ment Custodial- Benefit/ Cost Custodial Custodial 4564 Tracy Ridge 893 Ac. NRL Reduced Manage¬ ment Custodial- Benefit/ Cost Custodial Oustodial 4310 Indian Head 800 Ac. NRL Custodial Custodial Custodial 4309 County Line 200 Ac. NRL Custodial Custodial Oustodial 4306 Shaw Creek 640 Ac. NRL Oustodial Custodial Custodial 4303 Schriader Creek 640 Ac. NRL / Reduced Manage¬ ment Custodial - Beneflt/Gost Custodial Oustodial 4202 Alamosa RI\rer 760 Ac. NRL Reduced Manage¬ ment-Custodial Benefit/Cost Oustodial Custodial 4319 Alamosa Prairie 320 Ac. NRL Oustodial Custodial Custodial SLRMP/MSA-1 •06-87/O923E * TAL-_ ^-2 Gont. RMAS Management Unit Selected Type of Grazing Use Fences & Cattleguands Water Development Benefit/ No. & Acreage_ Management_ Proposed_ Implemented_ Proposed_ Constructed Proposed_ Constructed Cost 4258 Del Rancho 160 Ac. NHL Custodial Custodial Custodial 4232 Las Mesitas 87 Ac. NKL Originally Part of Los Mogotes Rest. Rotat¬ ion 3-Pasture Oustodial 4241 South Hill 1323 Ac. NRL Originally Part of Alta Lake Deferred Rotat¬ ion 4-Pasture Custodial 4243 River 2,324 Ac. NRL Reduced Manage¬ ment-Custodial Benefit/Cost Custodial Custodial 4244 South Valley 1,800 Ac. NRL Reduced Manage¬ ment-Custodial Benefit/Cost Custodial Custodial 4247 Braiden 960 Ac. NRL Reduced Manage¬ ment-Custodial Benefit /Cost Custodial Custodial 4320 Qxbcw 120 Ac. NRL Custodial Custodial Custodial 4101 Rio Grande 2,975 Ac. NRL Reduced Manage¬ ment-Custodial Benefit /Cost Custodial Custodial 4106 Allotment B 160 Ac. NRL Custodial / Custodial Custodial 4108 Dew Pasture 480 Ac. NRL Custodial Custodial Custodial 4109 Riiffer Pasture 160 Ac. NRL Custodial Oustodial Custodial 4115 Caldwell Pasture 280 Ac. NRL Custodial Custodial Custodial # TARi^u iu-2 Cent. SLfMP/MSA-1 7/0923E RM^S Management Unit Selected Type of Grazing Use Fences & Cattleguards Water De-velopnent Benefit/ No. & Acreage_ Management_ Proposed_ Implemented_ Proposed_ Constructed Proposed_ Constructed Cost 4312 Bachelor lake 320 Ac. NKL Custodial Custodial Custodial 4110 Spring Pasture 600 Ac. NRL Custodial Custodial Custodial 4111 Sand Pasture 280 Ac. NRL Custodial Custodial Custodial 4112 Crow Pasture 1,040 Ac. NRL Custodial Custodial Custodial 4126 Section 15 Lease 240 Ac. NRL Custodial Custodial Custodial 4126 Section 15 Lease 140 Ac. NRL Custodial Custodial Custodial 4577 Hellgate 800 Ac. NRL i Custodial Custodial Custodial 4237 Twin lakes Ind. Custodial Custodial Custodial TABLE 10-2 font. SLRMP/MSA-I^ 7/0923E HMAS Management Unit Selected Type of Grazing Use Fences & Cattleguards Wator tv>^i nprenh Benefit/ No. & Acreage_ Management_ Proposed Implemented_ Proposed_ Constructed Proposed_ Constructed Cost Junction 200 Ac. NRL Custodial Custodial Unallotted Section 13 Tract 80 Ac. NRL Custodial Custodial Unallotted Unallotted 280 Ac. NRL Continue Unallotted Unallotted Unallotted 40 Ac. NRL Continue Unallotted CXit - land Sold Unallotted 400 Ac. NRL Continue Unallotted Unallotted Unallotted 160 Ac. NRL Continue Unallotted Unallotted Unallotted 680 Ac. NRL Continue Unallotted Unallotted Unallotted 400 Ac. NRL Continue Unallotted Unallotted Unallotted 1,500 Ac. NRL Continue Unallotted Unallotted Unallotted 360 Ac. NRL Continue Unallotted Unallotted Hot Creek 4,520 Ac. NRL Unallotted Unallotted Unallotted Unallotted 480 Ac. NRL Continue Unallotted Unallotted TABLE 10-2 Cont. SLFMP/MSA-L. S!R)6-8 7/0923E RMAS Management Unit Selected Type of Grazing Use Fences & Cattleguards Water Development Benefit/ No. & Acreage_ Management_ Proposed_ Implemented_ Proposed_ Constructed Proposed_ Constructed Cost Emperius 160 Ac. NRL Unallotted Unallotted Unallotted Unallotted 200 Ac. NRL Continue Unallotted Unallotted Dry Lakes 800 Ac. NRL Custodial Custodial Unallotted Unallotted 1,680 Ac. NRL Continue Unallotted Unallotted Unallotted 80 Ac. NRL Continue Unallotted Unallotted Unallotted 600 Ac. NRL Continue Unallotted Unallotted Unallotted 80 Ac. NRL Continue Unallotted Unallotted Unallotted 80 Aco NRL Continue Unallotted Unallotted Unallotted 80 Ac. NRL Continue Unallotted Unallotted Unallotted 360 Ac. NRL Continue Unallotted Unallotted Unallotted 80 Ac. NRL Continue Unallotted Unallotted 0 \ SLEMP/MSA- ^^p6-87/0923E TAW10-2 Cont. RMAS Management Unit Selected No. & Acreage Management Type of Grazing Use Fences & Cattleguards Water Development Benefit/ Proposed Implemented Proposed Constructed Proposed Constructed Cost Sheep Trail Custodial 280 Ac. NRL Custodial Unallotted Terrace Lakes Unallotted 600 Ac. NRL Unallotted Unallotted Bonanza Unallotted 1,380 Ac. NRL Unallotted Unallotted / / SLRMP/MSA-WIF/1-20-87/0371P CHAPTER 11 WILDLIFE HABITAT CONTENTS RESOURCE AREA PROFILE (RAP) Description . ....... General . . . Terrestrial Wildlife and Habitat . .. Threatened, Endangered, and Species of Special Concern . . Aquatic Wildlife and Habitat . . . Condition and Trend ....... . . . . . Terrestrial Wildlife and Habitat . Threatened, Endangered, and Species of Special Concern . . Aquatic Wildlife and Habitat . EXISTING MANAGEMENT SITUATION (EMS) Current Management . . . General . . . Terrestrial Wildlife and Habitat . . Threatened, Endangered, and Species of Special Concern . . Aquatic Wildlife and Habitat . . . . . Supply-Demand Analysis . . . . . . Terrestrial Wildlife and Habitat ....... . Threatened, Endangered, and Species of Special Concern . . Aquatic Wildlife and Habitat • . . . CAPABILITY ANALYSIS (CA) Definition . Management Practices . . . . Resource Capability Level Description FORMS All forms are placed in order of use DATA THEMES Discussion or presentation of data theme material REFERENCES Page 1 1 3 16 22 25 25 32 33 35 35 35 36 37 40 40 43 43 44 44 44 45 50 List all reference studies, persons, reports, etc 51 SLRMP / MS A-WI F/l-20-87 /0371P CHAPTER 11-WILDLIFE HABITAT RESOURCE AREA PROFILE Description General Public lands In the San Luis Resource Area provide 'eight important habitat types for terrestrial wild animals. Ten broad vegetative types combine to form six important habitat types, covering over 97 percent of the surface acreage of the resource area. These habitat types Include the saltbush and greasewood type, half-shrub and winterfat type, grassland type, pinyon- juniper woodland type, mountain shrub and sagebrush type, and coniferous and broadleaf forest type. Two types — wetlands (marsh, riparian, and wet meadows) and rocky cliffs and canyons — are extremely limited (0.7 percent) in surface acreage, but each has special significance as habitat. The remaining vegetative type — annuals — has little importance as wildlife habitat. The section on vegetation gives details on the vegetative composition of each type showing the distribution and the acreages of the vegetative types in the resource area. The shrub overstory of the saltbush and greasewood type provide excellent habitat for magpies, mourning doves, jackrabbits, cottontails, many small mammals, and shrub nesting nongame birds. The high density of rabbits and other small mammals and birds also attracts a relatively high number of predators, such as the coyote and wintering birds of prey. -1- SLRMP/MSA-WXF/ 1-20-87 /0371P Antelope use the half-shrub and winterfat habitat type extensively, especially for winter range, but the fauna has relatively little diversity. Ground nesting birds such as the horned lark and western meadowlark are common, as are fossorial (burrowing) small mammals. The fauna which characterizes the grassland type is similar to that of the half-shrub and winterfat type. Antelope also use the grassland type extensively, often for summer and spring-fall range, and prairie dogs and horned larks are common. The mountain-shrub and sagebrush type has special importance because of the winter forage and cover its browse plants provide for big game animals, especially deer and elk. The mountain-shrub and sagebrush type is also especially important for shrub nesting birds. The pinyon- juniper and woodland type and its browse understory are extremely important for browsing big game animals such as deer and elk since they provide much of the forage and cover for their winter stress period. This type is also important for shrub nesting birds, hole nesting birds, and woodland mammals such as the porcupine and bobcat. The coniferous and broadleaf forest type is important summer range for deer and elk, nesting habitat for band-tailed pigeons, and yearlong range for blue grouse. This type also provides important habitat for a wide variety of forest animals such as snowshoe hares, porcupines, black bears, cavity-dwelling mammals, accipter hawks, chickadees, woodpeckers, and jays. -2- SLRMP/MSA-WIF/1-20-87/0371P Wetland habitat is extremely limited in the resource area, but it provides crucial habitat for the largest variety of wild animals, including most of those characteristic of other habitat types. The wetland type is a grouping of marshland, riparian (stream side) woodlands, and the wet meadows that occur with each. Presently, there are about 1,700 acres of marsh, 46 miles of permanent stream with adjacent riparian woodland, and about 1,100 acres of wet meadow (mostly associated with the marsh and riparian woodlands) on public land in the San Luis Resource Area. Animals that depend on this type include waterfowl, shorebirds, and wading birds plus a large variety of songbirds, small mammals, and furbearers. The final habitat type, rocky cliffs and canyons, is scattered throughout the resource area, but it occupies little horizontal surface acreage. About 2,500 acres have been identified as rocky waste in the vegetative typing process. This type is important as nesting habitat for birds-of-prey such as the golden eagle and the prairie falcon. It is also Important to bighorn sheep, since they depend on steep rocky slopes for escape cover. Terrestrial Wildlife and Habitat A detailed species list of the terrestrial fauna of the San Luis Resource Area appears in Appendix 3 of the San Luis Valley Grazing EIS. The appendix list contains all vertebrates that are known to be present in the resource area, plus those invertebrates (or groups) that are considered economically important or significant. Habitat preference, relative abundance, and seasonal occurrence (for birds only) are indicated according to the best information available. “3- , ' SLRMP/MSA-WIF/1-20-87/0371P A detail discussion of species or groups of species having or requiring specialized management follows. Waterfowl and Wetland Habitat - The San Luis Valley has been described as the southern most major waterfowl production area in the central flyway. It is also considered the most important waterfowl production area in Colorado. Important nesting species include the Canada goose, mallard, gadwall, pintail green winged teal, cinnamon teal, and red head. The total available waterfowl nesting habitat has decreased dramatically since 1900 due to extensive agricultural development and a continuing decrease in the level of the water table. Some of the habitat losses have been better with the development of specified management areas including the Alamosa and Monte Vista Wildlife Refuge Complex, several CDOW Management Areas, and the Blanca Wildlife Habitat Area, however the population trend appears to follow a downward trend. Irrigation practices changed in the Valley during the mid-1970's. Many agriculturists converted from flood irrigation to sprinkler irrigation. That conversion significantly reduced the amount of flooded nesting habitat and many ditches were either destroyed or dry, further reducing production. Additionally, completion of the Closed basin Project will affect an estimated 8,460 acres of wetlands. However, these losses will be mitigated by transfer of wildlife habitat to public ownership and delivery of additional water to Blanca Wildlife Habitat Area, Alamosa National Wildlife Refuge, and San Luis Lakes Wildlife Area. -4- SLRMP/MSA-WIF/ 1-20-8 7/ 0371 P Prior to the conversion to sprinkler irrigation systems, the breeding population averaged 55,000 ducks for the Valley. These breeders produced an average of 84,000 ducks per year, although actual production ranged from 69,000 to 99,000 ducks. During that same time period estimated 4,800 breeding ducks utilizing the mountainous terrain west of the San Luis Valley floor produced an estimated 2,700 ducks per year. That area has not undergone massive habitat alteration and, therefore, is probably producing similar numbers of ducks currently. Current population figures for the valley show virtually a 50 percent decline in the number of breeding ducks and production. The 1984 population estimate projected 15,000 breeding pairs which would produce an estimated 45,000 ducks. Harvest has mirrored the decline in duck numbers in the yaers since 1975. Harvest average about 26,000 ducks between 1970 and 1978. Since 1978, duck harvest has declined to an annual rate of approximately 16,000. An estimated 12,000 ducks winter in the Valley currently, which is a 57 percent decrease over wintering populations estimated in 1975. Valley declines have paralelled national decline in waterfowl populations over the last 10 years. Canada geese have increased in the Valley during recent years. Currently, approximately 8,000 geese winter in the Valley, primarily in barely fields. The 1986 projected breeding population was 244 pairs, which produced an estimated 552 goslings. Goose harvest has also increased recently, along with the gradual population increase. -5- SLRMP/MSA-WIF/1-20-87/0371P The Bureau’s role in wetland habitat is significant in the planning area. The most important production area is the Blanca Wildlife Habitat Area. This roughly 6,000 acre area is a restoration project in an historical wetlands area estimated at 15-2o,000 continuous acres prior to its' demise in the early 1900' s. Generalized statistics are presented in table 11-1. The area is 90 percent complete in construction but only 65 percent of the necessary water has been developed to date. If completed it will realize its potential in 10 to 15 years. Cooperative funding from CDOW has played a role in the development of this project and it is identified in CDOW Draft Water Plan as one of the core areas necessary for maintaining water bird production in the San Luis Valley. Table 11-2 displays public and wetlands in the planning area. These wetland areas include Blanca Wildlife Area, the Empherous Tract, and area of 2,040 acres soon to be transferred from BR to BLM, twelve stream miles along the Rio Grande River from the Alamosa NWR to the New Mexico Line, and scattered lands adjacent to the Meoshak Lakes. In addition there are 1630 acres of historical wetlands in the Dry Lakes Areas presently out of production. There are 46 miles of perenial streams with 1,100 acres of wet meadows associated with riparian woodlands, spring seeps, and small reservoirs that constitute the remainder of the wetland resource in the planning area. -6- SLRMP/MSA-WIF/1-20-87/0371P TABLE 11-1 Blanca Wildlife Habitat Area Present Status: 30 artesian wells (2,687 gpm) (4,326 af) 1,400 acres of wetlands 6 warm water fisheries (bass-bluegill) 17 cold water fisheries (rainbow trout) 5 combined cold and warm Proposed Development : 42 artesian wells (3,870 gpm) (6,230 af) 34 fish ponds 214 acres) 1,875 acres of wetlands Expected Outputs : Goose production/year - 1,000 Duck production/year - 10,000 Fish production/year - 27,000 lb. Waterfowl use days/year - 1,333,000 Shorebird use days/year - 200,000 Bald Eagle use days/winter - 1,050 Closed Basin Mitigation: 307 af artesian/year 800 af ditch/year dikes to control 320 acre land purchase Present studies: Waterfowl census and production Fisheries investigations Vegetation trends Visitor use Statistics : 1972 1985 Goose production (to flight) 3 420 Duck production (to flight) 30 2,620 Fish stocking 200 41,700 Management Practices : Waterfowl Propagation 1. Island Development 2. Nesting Structures 3. Water Management Facilities 4. Closure Nongame and Endangered Species 1. Bird Boxes 2. Tree Planting 3. Perch Poles Fisheries Propagation 1. Fish Ponds a. Warm Water b. Cold Water -7- TABLE 11-2 Public Land Wetlands SLRMP/MSA-WIF/ 1-20-8 7/ 0371P Area c.'X'r c>p» ftooucboo •Wgtrlaftdfti/PcHwitial VN Ufr r\) CK: Remarks Blanca Wildlife Habitat Area 1,400 (475) Erapherous 200 (750) 4,200 Acre Feet of Ajudicated water from 52 Artesian Wells, presently 500 Af flowing Flat Top Rio Grande River Mishak Lakes Dry Lakes 80 (80) Irrigation Sump 12 Stream + 80 Acres Miles of islands and ba rs Only one side of river is public land 10 (50) 4 Artesian Wells 10 (1,630) Possible to obtain water from CDOW or BR Closed Basin Perenial Streams and Stock Reservoirs 1,000 (?) Small wet meadows associated with riparian woodlands spring seeps, and reservoirs SLRMP/MSA-WIF/ 1-20-87/ 0371P Upland Game Birds - Sage grouse were introduced into the area of Round Hill and Swidinski Creek near Poncha Pass in the early 1970s, but they were not observed again for several years. However, two broods were observed farther east on the East Side allotment during the summer of 1974, and no subsequent sightings have occurred to the present time. Sage grouse depend on sagebrush yearlong for food and nesting cover. Nesting and brood rearing usually occur in most stream bottom areas, but no nesting locations or strutting grounds have been identified as yet. No harvest of sage grouse allowed in this resource area. There are approximately 15,420 acres of potential sage grouse habitat of which acres are public lands. Raptors - Raptors which are yearlong residents of the San Luis Resource Area, include the prairie falcon, golden eagle, red tailed hawk, marsh hawk, great horned owl, and peregrine falcon (see subsequent section, "Endangered Species”). The Swainson's hawk and American kestrel (sparrow hawk) are common summer residents, and the rough legged hawk and bald eagle are common winter residents. The cliffs and precipitous rock formations scattered throughout the resource area are used as nesting and perching sites by the prairie falcon, golden eagle, and red tailed hawk. The Swainson’s hawk, American kestrel, and great horned owl nest in trees throughout the valley. -9- , I SLRMP/MSA-WIF/ 1-20-87 /0371P Mule Deer - Presently, deer herds are below the carrying capacity of their range in most of the San Luis Resource Area. Localized exceptions are noted in Unit 82. As in most of the mountainous parts of Colorado, deer herds in the San Luis Valley underwent a buildup during the mid-1900s, but since then a steady loss of habitat caused by human encroachment, increase in elk herds and increasing mortality due partially to illegal harvest has reduced the herds to their present size. Population estimates along with winter ranges, crucial ranges for each of the game management unit are presented in Table 11-3. The maximum winter deer population using public land in the resource area is presently estimated to be about 9,300. The foothills and the mountains of the San Juan and Sangre de Cristo ranges provide the primary mule deer habitat in the planning area. Deer are also present in relatively small numbers along the riparian woodlands of the Rio grande and the Conejos River in the valley bottom, but they are not considered significant to the resource area deer population. Public lands in the San Luis Resource Area are extremely important as winter range for deer, as 66 percent of the herd is dependent on it. Fifteen percent are year long residences while the remainder spend the warmer months at higher elevations on the Rio Grande National Forest. Deer use this winter range for an average of about six months each year (November though April) . -10- SLRMP/MSA-WIF/ 1-20-87 / 0371P The vegetative type of those areas which have been identified as crucial or important deer winter range is mostly a mixed woodland browse, pinyon-juniper, and coniferous forest, depending upon the the aspect. South facing slopes at moderate elevations (8,000 to are normally the crucial portions of the winter range. of mountain slope and 9,000 feet) There are 219,964 acres of crucial winter range identified for mule deer in the planning area. TABLE 11-3 Winter Habitat Deer Populations 1985 to 1986 DOW Unit Number >1/Deer In Number Winter Unit Total Acres Winter Range BLM Winter Range No Crucial Areas/ Acres Crucial Areas Number Acres Deer BLM Winter Crucial BLM Remarks 68 2,200 121,078 2 / 11,706 1,525 15 percent 681 2,600 117,649 - 2 / 34,642 - 1,800 Deer popula- (76)79 2,000 46,325 - 2 / 2,994 - 750 tion on 80 2,000 149,515 - 1 / 75,660 - 1,450 public land 81 2,400 307,593 — 4 / 52,220 - 1,750 year round 82 2,700 124,292 2 / 42,741 — 2,025 13,900 866,452 12 / 219,964 — 9,300 1985 Post Hunt Data and CDOW SLRMP/MSA-WIF/ 1-20-87 / 0371P Elk ~ Elk Populations have generally been stable in the valley during the past 10 years population estimates for each of the game management units are shown in Table 11—4. The maximum winter elk population on public lands in the resource area is 5,600. this is roughly 53 percent of the total wintering elk herd in valley. Approximately 5 percent of the herd reside on public Ians year long* Elk winter rahge and crucial winter range for all game management units are also shown in Table 11-4. Public lands provide mainly winter range for elk as the moist aspen coniferous forest required during other seasons is only present in limited quantities. Elk use this winter range for a maximum of about five months each year (December thru April). There are 345,622 acres of crucial winter range of which _ _____ are public lands identified for elk in the planning area. Most crucial areas for elk overlap crucial deer areas. Pronghorn Antelope - Pronghorn populations have been increasing slightly over the past 10 years. Population estimates for seven game management unit are shown in Table 11-5. Antelope are year long residents of the public land. Peak populations approach 2,900 during the summer months and after natural mortality and harvest, approximately 2,300 winter on public lands. Antelope habitat in the planning area is generally the mixed brush grassland vegetative type, which forms a broad belt around the valley at the base of the mountains. The lower boundary of the habitat is either cultivated farmland or dense greasewood shrubland and the upper boundary is within the lower edge of tiraberland. It is considered significant that antelope in the San Luis Valley and other high mountain parks in Colorado spend considerable time in the lower fringes of the timber type. -12- SLRMP/MSA-WIF/ 1-20-8 7 / 0371P TABLE 11-4 Winter Elk Habitat and Populations 1985 to 1986 DOW Unit Number 1/Elk In Numbe r Winter Unit Total Acres Winter Range BLM Winter Range No Crucial Areas/ Acres Crucial Areas Acres BLM Crucial Numbe r Elk Winter BLM Rema rks 68 1,100 106,543 2 / 57,279 _ 700 5 percent 681 1,500 116,687 ' - 2 / 78,188 - 950 Elk popula- (76)79 3,500 19,954 - 1 / 3,043 - 1,150 tion on 80 2,000 105,948 - 1 / 103,165 - 1,100 public land 81 2,400 171,662 - 1 / 78,367 - 1,300 year round 82 500 105,029 — 2 / 25,639 375 10,500 625,823 ““ 9 / 345,622 5,575 1/ 1985 Post Hunt Data and CDOW. TABLE 11-5 Antelope Habitat and Populations 1985 DOW Unit Number Peak Populations Utilizing Public Land Total Winter Range (Acres) BLM Winter Range Number Crucial Areas/ Acres Crucial Areas Acres BLM Crucial Number Antelope Winter BLM Remarks A73 340 144,108 3 / 56,177 - 235 A74 1,050 162,583 — 4 / 87,087 - 880 A76 320 45,112 - 1 / 18,228 - 245 A77 350 101,866 - 1 / 32,739 - 255 A78 150 29,719 - 0 / 0 - 125 A79 610 133,412 — 3 / 42,410 - 450 A80 100 106,436 — 0 / 0 85 2,930 723,236 - 12 / 236,641 — 2,275 -13- SLRMP / MS A-WI F / 1 - 2 0-8 7 /0371P Antelope seasonal ranges, crucial ranges and management units are also shown on Table 11-5. There are 69,650 acres of crucial kidding range and 199,827 acres of crucial winter ranges identified in the planning area. Periodic hard winters are a major limiting factor on all antelope populations in the valley. Bighorn Sheep - Bighorn sheep populations have increased on the past decade with the exception of Unit S-10 which suffered a lung worm die off in 82-83. Population estimates for four management units are shown in Table 11-6. Winter range, crucial winter range and crucial lambing areas are also shown on Table 11-6. There are approximately 460 Bighorn sheep wintering on public lands and possibly 300 dependent on public lands year round. Summary Big Game — There are approximately 17,600 big game animals on public land winter range in the planning area. Crucial area overlaps are extensive between species where as all four species may be dependent on the same area of range. An estimated 48,600 AUMs yearly is consumed by big game of which 38,000 is consumed in the winter Table 11-7. ' SLRMP/MSA-WIF/ 1-20-87 /0371P TABLE 11-6 Sheep Habitat and Populations 1985 DOW Unit Number Peak Populations Utilizing Public Land Total Winter Range (Acres) BLM Winter Range Number Crucial Areas/ Acres Crucial Areas Acres BLM Crucial Number Sheep Winter BLM Remarks S10 350 97,939 8 / 51,635 350 All BLM year year long range. Crucial lambing areas Natural Arch. 75 3,624 - 1 / 3,264 - 30 Result of a transplant in herd is expanding S29N 85 7,371 2 / 7,371 50 Result of a transplant in 1978 herd is expanding S29S 60 3,163 30 Result of transplants in 1978 and 1983 herd is expanding 570 112,097 ' 12 / 65, 793 ci ^ * TABLE 11-7 Forage Consumption By Big Game (A.U.M.s) On Public Land Name Winter Other Seasons Total Elk 28,000 3,675 31,675 Deer 7,680 3,336 11,016 Antelope 1,625 2,600 4,225 Sheep 766 700 1,466 38,0/1 - - 10,311” 48, -15- SLRMP/MSA-WIF/ 1-20-87 /0371P Threatened and Endangered Species of Special Concern A list of threatened or endangered species of the San Luis Resource Area is compiled in Table 11-8. The endangered listing includes 3 species whose presence is confirmed, 1 species whose presence is a possibility, and an additional 5 species whose presence is hypothetical. There is a possibility that the endangered black-footed ferret is present on public land within the San Luis Resource Area. An experienced employee of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has made unconfirmed observations of ferrets in the Punche Valley and the flat top-Magote areas in the southern half of the San Luis Resource Area. Copies of correspondence regarding recent ferret investigations in these areas and a chronological listing of ferret observations in the San Luis Valley are included in Appendix 3 of the San Luis Valley Grazing EIS. All are in association with prairie dog towns. Total habitat for these 2 areas is 66,200 acres. The American peregrine falcon is one of three endangered birds that are inhabitants of the planning area. The peregrine falcon is a rare yearlong resident, but there are no known nesting eries on public lands. At least one active peregrine erie is on national forest lands in the Conejos River drainage, and although there are several potential nesting sites on public lands within the resource area there are no historic eries on record or is any of the habitat considered primary habitat. -16- SLRMP/MSA-WIF/1-2Q-87/0371P The endangered whooping crane is in the San Luis Valley as a result of an experiment being conducted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Eggs taken for the one remaining whooping crane nesting area in Canada were placed under greater sandhill crane foster parents at Gray's Lake National Wildlife Refuge in Idaho In an attempt to establish a separate flock of whooping cranes. The sanhill crane foster parents are part of a large flock that uses the San Luis Valley as an important stop during spring and fall migrations. Twenty-four whooping cranes were observed in the San Luis Valley during the fall 1985 and the spring 1986 migrations. Whooping cranes utilize marsh and wet-meadow habitat. In addition, open farm fields are also used because of the influence of the Sanhill Cranes that the Woopers travel with. Although Sandhill Cranes utilize the Blanca WHA and as loafing areas on public lands, whooping crane use of public lands is insignificant at this time. The Alamosa and Monte Vista F.W.S. refuge complex Is officially designated as critical habitat for Wooping Cranes. , SLRMP/MSA-WIF/ 1-20-87 / 0371P TABLE 11-8 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife of the San Luis Resource Area Common Name Scientific Name Status and Comments 1/ Mammals Black-footed Ferret Grizzly Bear 2/ Gray Wolf _2 / Wolverine 2/ River Otter 2/ Mustela nigripes ' Ursus horribilis Canis lupus Gulo luscus Lutra canadensis E, C Unconfirmed sightings T C C C Birds American Peregrine Falcon Whooping Crane Bald Eagle Greater Sandhill Crane Falco peregrinus anatum Grus americana Haliaeetus leucocephalus 3/ Grus canadensis tabida E, C - Rare yearlong E, C - Rare migrant E Common winter C -Abundant migrant _i/ Status : E = Endangered, threatened with extinction official list as published in Federal Register through 7/83 C - Declared endangered or threatened in Colorado by Colorado Wildlife Commission, 7/74 1/ Presence is hypathetical-within original distribution but no recerip evidence 2/ Only the nesting population is considered endangered in Colorado. -18- SLRMP/MSA-WIF/1-20-87/0371P The endangered Bald Eagle is a common winter resident of the planning area and populations peaks of 300 have been documented. The valley is considered one of the most important winter concentration areas in Colorado. Primary habitat areas on public lands utilized include 12 miles of the Rio Grande and associated riparian and the Greenie Mountain Roost Area (200 acres). The following listing are Category 2 Species (proposed for listing as TORE) whose range includes the planning arch. White-faced Ibis Plegadls chihi Western Snowy Plover Charadrius alexandrlnus Long-billed Curlew Numenius americana Mountain Plover Charadrius Montanos Swainson's Hawk Buteo Swainson Ferruginous Hawk Buteo regalis With the possible exception of the first 2 species affinity for wetlands none of these birds are known to have primary or localized habitat on public lands in the planning area. Both the Ibis and the snowy plover are considered uncommon on valley wetlands but have been recorded as nesting here. The following listing show selected groups of animals determined to be "Species of Special Concern" by the Colorado Division of Wildlife that are known to reside in the planning area: Fish Rio Grande Cutthroat Trout Rio Grande Suckel Rio Grande Chub Bullhead Minnow Rio Grande Shiner Restrictive population with ecological value Restrictive population with ecological value Restrictive population with ecological value Lack of population data, scientific value Lack of population data, scientific value Amphibians Bull Frog Western Toad Northern Leopard Frog Impact on anticipating other species Large decline in population Large decline in population Mammals Cave using Bats: Plecotus Townsend The cave bats, especially the ones listed, Townsend's Big-eared Bat are of concern because of human disturbance Myotis leibii to their limited roosting habitat. Small-footed Myotis Tadarida brasiliensis Brazilian Free-tailed Bat -19- 0 SLRMP/MSA-WIF/ 1-20-8 7/ 0371P Cynomys Gunnison uunnison's Prairie Dog Ferret habitat; their involvement in plague ecology, agricultural and urban concerns, and their general scientific and aesthetic appeal. The subspecies C. Gunnison Gunnison has also experienced significant range reduction which should be documented. Abert's Squirrel This species is of concern because of its discontinuous distribution in ponderosa pine forest . Brush Mouse The biology of this species is not well understood. It is lacking over significant areas of what seem like suitable habitat. Mink The status of the Mink in Colorado is poorly known - populations appear to be widespread but in low numbers. As a furbearing mammal its biology should be better understood. Black Bear Populations of Black Bear are declining in parts of Colorado. The present status of the species and the impact of liberal hunting seasons are of concern. Mountain Lion The Mountain Lion is a species about which little data have been gathered (recognizing that limited research is ongoing in western Colorado). As a hunted species it should be given more research attention; management should be based on such data. Bobcat The population status and management of Bobcat should be reviewed. Some local populations have suffered from over harvest. More research and a stronger management plan should be devised for this animal . -20- ■ ' SLRMP/MSA-WIF/1-20-87 /0371P Birds Species Eared Gebe Western Grebe American Bittern Great Blue Heron Snowy Egret White-faced Ibis Prairie Falcon Snowy Plover American Aveocet Flammulated Owl Burrowing Owl Canyon Wren American Dipper Mountain Bluebird Loggerhead Shrike Savannah Sparrow Yellow-headed Blackbird }J Rankings of Selection Criteria (1 - low, 10 = high) ABODE Total 6 4 8 3 5 5 6 10 3 2 4 5 6 4 4 8 7 7 7 9 7 4 7 5 6 5 6 5 8 3 10 1 6 4 8 6 9 8 3 5 8 6 8 7 5 8 5 4 8 3 5 2 3 3 21 18 24 17 16 16 24 23 9 18 17 15 18 19 18 17 16 1/ = Rankings of Bird Species of Special Concern Selection criteria for species of special concern. A) currently small or declining populations; B) currently large or increasing populations which may impinge negatively on other species; C) inadequate population information; D) special ecological value (keystone species, indicator species, etc.); and E) special educational, scientific, or recreational value 21- SLRMP/MSA-WIF/ 1-20-87/ 0371P Aquatic Wildlife and Habitat The greatest portion of surface waters on public lands is found in flowing streams, with only a small fraction retained in ponds and reservoirs. Approximately 60 percent of the total water income to the valley comes via streams that flow out of the surrounding San Juan and Sangre de Cristo mountains. The majority of , these streams sink into the porous alluvial materials bordering the mountains and terminate on or before reaching public lands. The Regional Development and Planning Commission publication (1972) cites flow data from Deadman creek in the northwest region of the valley. A volume of 7 cubic feet per second (cfs) was found where Deadman Creek first emerges onto the alluvial material; this volume dropped to 1 cfs within 3.7 miles and disappeared entirely within 8 miles. The lengths and volumes of these ephemeral streams then depend mainly upon source flow and substrate porosity. During snowmelt and summer thundershowers, these streams may reach miles out onto the valley floor and within a few weeks shrink bake into national forest lands. There are presently 46 miles of permanent streams and approximately ____ surface acres of permanent reservoirs on public lands in the planning area. Ninety Eight percent of the permanent ponded waters occur on the Blanca WHA. -22- . SLRMP/MSA-WIF/X-20-87/ 0371P Most streams support a minimum sport fishery and all are cold water fisheries with the exception of the Rio Grande which also supports some Cool water species. Of the 400 acres of ponds and reservoirs 188 acres provide sport fisheries and these are confined to the Blanca WHA. A combination of both warm and cold water fisheries are provided in these ponds due to an artesian water supply. Numerous springs and seeps are found throughout the foothill areas of the Sangre de Cristo and San Juan mountains on NRL . These isolated wet areas, surrounded by inhospitable aridity, are havens for remnant populations of aquatic plants and animals that were once more widely distributed during wetter periods. As swamps and lakes began drying up, these organisms retreated to smaller and still smaller areas until presently they are found only in small, isolated localities. Most common remnant species involve snails, amphipods, isopods, mites, fish, and plants (Cole 1966, Taylor 1968). The potential for discovering a new species within these groups, endemic to the San Luis Valley, is quite high. However, no survey of the biota of existing springs and seeps in the valley have been made to date, and more specific information is therefore lacking. 0 SLRMP/MSA-WIF/ 1-20-8 7/ 0371 P Condition and Trend Terrestrial Wildlife and Habitat Waterfowl - Overall planning area waterfowl populations and habitat have been decreasing over the past decade, Table 11-9 displays public land wetland areas condition and trend. \ -24 SLRMP/MSA-WIF/1-20-87/ 0371P TABLE 11-9 Public Land Wetland Areas Condition and Trend Area Wetland Acreage Condition Trend Remarks Blanca WHA 1,400 Fair-good (475 historic undeveloped acres) Under HMP but most funding has delayed both maintenance and development Empherous 200 Fair-poor (750 out of production acres) Acquired surplus property from the BR closed basin project has water rights capable of 950 acres but requires redevelopment Flat Top 80 Poor No management at present time, water source is no control irrigation return flows Rio Grande River 7 Miles 5 Miles Poor Good Over grazed by trespass cattle (only western side of river is public land) Mishak 10 Poor (50 out of production acres) Decreasing well flows and unprotected from livestock Dry Lakes 10 Poor (1630 historic out of produc¬ tion acres) Depleted well flows. Loss of historic natural flows Perenial Streams 1,100 Fair-good Improvement thru implemented AMPs -25- , SLRMP/MSA-WIF/1-20-87/0371P Elk - Elk populations have been stable over the past ten years, held in check by harvest regulations. Habitat conditions are fair and stable with some improvement. There appears to be a trend of increased elk use at lower evation ranges. Table 11-10 displays elk population and habitat trend for each elk management unit. — le Deer- “ Deer ^erds have continued in a slight downward trend or stable at best except in units 68 and 681 were some increases have been served over the past ten years. This trend has continued despite effort to increase deer with restrictive hunting seasons. Habitat though averageing fair has remained stable. Elk herds at their present levels and on overlapping winter ranges may be a large factor limiting mule deer numbers. Table 11-11 displays deer population and habitat trend for the game management units in the planning area. Pronghorn Antelope - Antelope population has increased slightly over the planning area in general, although several populations have shown considerable fluctuation. Antelope habitat is believed to be in satisfactory condition and stable over their range. Water availability may be limiting use on ranges along the western side of the valley. Some sheep wire fencing is impeding movement in Units A76, A77, and A80 Table 11-12 display antelope population and habitat trend per game management unit. Bighorn Sheep - Sheep populations have generally increased over the planning unit with the exception of Unit S10 habitat is in a stable condition. Table 11-13 displays habitat and population tend for the four sheep management units. -26- Jl SLRMP/MSA-WIF/1-20-87/0371P TABLE 11-10 Elk Population and Habitat Trend DOW Unit Numbe r Habitat Condition Habitat Trend 10 Year Population Trend Remarks 68 Fair 681 Fair Cover is limited in quality because of timber harvest > techniques (76)79 Fair - — 80 Fair - 81 Fair 82 Fa i r Vehicle disturbance is a problem in open winters on ECW -27- SLRMP / MS A-WI F/1-20-87/0371P TABLE 11-11 Deer Population and Habitat Trend DOW Unit Number Habitat Condition Habitat Trend 10 Year Population Trend Remarks 68 Fair — , Browse condition good in east 681 Fair - — half DCW - and all DCW (76)79 Fair - - 80 Fair-Good - - Vehicle disturbance is a problem on DCW 81 Fair — Vehicle disturbance is a problem in open winters on DCW 82 Fair - - Browse stands are generally unsatisfactory in much of this unit -28- ( . SLRMP/MSA-WIF/1-20-87/ 0371P TABLE 11-12 Antelope Population and Habitat Trend I DOW 10 Year Unit Habitat Habitat Population Number Condition Trend Trend Remarks A73 Fair Water distribution inadequate A74 Good — — in Bidell-Tracey area A76 Fair — — Some net wire impeding A77 Fair — — movement A78 Good - - Small unhunted population winter habitat is limiting factor A79 Good - - A80 Fair Small unhunted population Poaching is the limiting factor - Some new wire impeding movement % -29- SLRMP/MSA-WIF/ 1-20-87 / 0371P TABLE 11-13 Sheep Population and Habitat Trend DOW Unit Number Habitat Condition Habitat Trend 10 Year Population Trend Remarks S10 Fair - - Lung Worm die off in 1982 Some Livestock competition on on key foraging Natural Fair Arches S29N Fair S29S Fair SLRMP/MSA-WIF/1-20-87/0371P Threatened and Endangered Species Endangered species primary habitat is presented in Table 11-14. TABLE 11-14 Endangered Species and Habitat Trend Species Population Habitat Remarks Black -footed Ferret ? Gunnison prairie dogs have notable declined in the past decade due to plague Bald Eagle Decline of suitable roost trees and hunting perches on the valley floor -31- SLRMP/MSA-WIF/ 1-20-87 / 0371P Aquatic Wildlife and Habitat Aquatic habitat condition and trend for 37 miles of selected streams and surface acres of pond is described in Table 11-16. Table 11-16 Aquatic Condition and Trend on Selected Aquatic Resources in SLRA Name Miles or S.A. Aquatic Community Stability Rating Game Species Present Lower Ford Cr. 1.5 mi . Poor Declining Bt, C, RG Middle Ford Cr. 0.5 mi . Good Declining Bt, C, RG Upper Ford Cr. 1.0 mi. Good Improving Bt Baxter Cr. 1.5 mi * Poor Declining Unknown Lower Tuttle Cr. 1.0 mi. Good Improving Bt, RG Upper Tuttle Cr. 1.0 mi . Fair Improving RG Lower Sheep Cr. 0.3 mi . Excellent Improving Bt, B, R Upper Sheep Cr. 1.7 mi. Excellent Stable Bt Hat Springs Cr. 1.8 mi . Poor Declining Unknown Cross Creek 0.5 mi . Good Stable Bt Kerber Creek 0.5 mi. Poor Declining Nonexistent Fisher Creek 0.5 mi . Poor Stable Nonexistent Middle San Luis Cr. 0.4 mi. Fair Improving Bt Upper San Luis Cr. 0.6 mi . Good Stable Bt Dorsey Creek 0.5 mi. Good Improving Bt Middle Garner Cr. 0.3 mi . Fair Stable Bt Lower Garner Cr. 1.7 mi . Fair Improving Bt Upper Garner Cr. 0.3 mi. Good Stable Bt Rio Grande (A) 7.0 mi. Good Stable B, NP, CC Rio Grande (B) 5.0 mi . Good Stable B, NP, CC La Jara Creek 2.5 mi « Good Improving R, Bt Alamosa River 2.0 mi . Good Stable B, R, C Alder Creek 0.4 mi. Good Stable Bt Rito Alto Creek 0.3 mi . Good Stable Bt Cotton Creek 0.8 mi. Excellent Stable Bt, R, C Black Canyon Cr. 0.8 mi . Excellent Stable Nonexistent Quary Cr. 0.3 mi. Excellent Stable Bt Lower Raspberry Cr. 0.5 mi . Fair Stable Bt Upper Raspberry Cr. 0.5 mi . Excellent Stable Bt Eaglebrook Gulch 0.6 mi . • Fair Declining Bt Saguache Cr. 0.3 mi. Excellent Stable R, B, C, Bt Spanish Cr. 0.3 mi . Excellent Stable Bt Rock Cr. 0.2 mi. Excellent Stable Bt, R, C Honker Fish Pond 1 1.0 S.A. Poor Declining R Honker Fish Pond 2 7.2 S.A. Good Stable LB, BG Honker Fish Pond 3 6.0 S.A. Fair Declining R Honker Fish Pond 4 4.0 S.A. Poor Stable Nonexistent Honker Fish Pond 5 8.0 S.A. Poor Stable Nonexistent Honker Fish Pond 7 1.5 S.A. Good Stable R Heron Fish Pond 10.0 S.A. Poor Declining Nonexistent -32- A SLRMP/MSA-WIF/1-20-87/0371P Table 11-16 (Continued) Name Miles or S.A. Aquatic Community Stability Rating Game Species Present Chico Fish Pond 3.5 S.A. Fair Declining R Pintail Fish Pond 1.0 S.A. Fair Improving R Snipe Fish Pond 3.0 S.A. Poor Declining Nonexistent Widgeon Fish Pond 8.0 S.A. Fair Improving R Aveocet Fish Pond 18.0 S.A. Fair Stable R Alkali Fish Pond 16.0 S.A. Good Improving R, LB, BG Axel Fish Pond 1 2.2 S.A. Good Stable LB, BG Axel Fish Pond 2 0.8 S.A. Good Stable R Axel Fish Pond 3 1.0 S.'A. Good Improving R Axel Fish Pond 4 3.2 S.A. Good Stable R Axel Fish Pond 12.0 S.A. Good Declining LB, RG Marsh 4 Axel Fish Pond 5 2.5 S.A. Poor Declining Nonexistent Axel Fish Pond 6 8.5 S.A. Poor Stable Nonexistent Mallard Fish Pond 1 1.0 S.A. Good Stable R Mallard Marsh Fish 14.0 S.A. Good Declining LB, BG Mallard Fish Pond 2 9.0 S.A. Poor Declining Nonexistent Mallard Fish Pond 3 1.0 S.A. Fair Stable R Mallard Fish Pond 4 3.5 S.A. Fair Stable R, BG, LB Mallard Fish Pond 5 29.0 S.A. Fair Declining LB, BG Mallard Fish Pond 6 0.8 S.A. Good Stable R Mallard 6 Fish 2.0 S.A. Fair Stable R, LB, BG Pond 2 Mallard Fish Pond 7 0.8 S.A. Good Stable R Mallard 7 Fish 1.5 S.A. Poor Stable LB, BG Pond 2 Note: Species Are Bt - Brooktrout B - Brown trout R - Rainbow trout C - Cutthroat trout RG - Rio Grande Cutthroat trout CC - Channel catfish NP - Northern pike LB - Largemouth bass BG - Bluegill -33- • ' 1 SLRMP/MSA-WIF/1-20-87/0371P EXISTING MANAGEMENT SITUATION Current Management General Current wildlife management in the planning area is based primarly as a support function to the range management program as outlined in the San Luis Resource' Area Grazing EIS, and habitat improvement programs as specified in the Blanca Wildlife Area Habitat Management Plan, the Trickle Mountain Habitat Management Plan, and the Bald Eagle Recovery Plan for Colorado. Specific wildlife improvement projects are kept to these areas except for most urgent cases or where funds and momentum are derived from outside sources. The San Luis Resource Area Oil and Gas Leasing Umbrella Environmental Assessment applies seasonal and no surface occupancy rules to locations where specified wildlife are in a vulnerable location. _ _ _ _ acres are enclosed by these protections. The imperative to manage for minimal impact to the wildlife resource is facilitated by wildlife review and recommendations to other resource development plans. Terrestrial Wildlife Waterfowl - While there are and array of opportunities current active management of wetlands is limited to priority maintenance, mitigation features, and limited operation of the Blanca Wildlife Habitat Area (see Table 11-9) . Improvement and restoration of wetlands is a highly expensive venture which has become overwhelming at current budget levels. CDOW goals for waterfowl is to increase waterfowl production to the mid-1970 levels of 56,000 breeding pairs producing 84,000 ducks.. -34- ' m SLRMP/MSA-WIF/1-20-87/0371P Big Game - There is a consensus between the BLM and the DOW that generally winter range for elk is at its carrying capacity and that the present elk populations may be acting as the limiting factor for deer populations in most units. The Division of Wildlife is presently using harvest regulations to control elk numbers at present levels in all units. The division has and continues harvest regulations, e.g., short seasons, buck only, to allow deer to expand in all units with minimal results. Pronghorn numbers are being held at their present levels thru harvest in the two major management units and being encouraged to expand in all others. Bighorn Sheep populations will be stabilized at or below present levels on the S10 Unit due to lung worm problems. Most all other sheep occupied habitat is on Forest Service Lands. Big Game damage claims are presently insignificant in the planning area. Present 0ig Game habitat management is in a maintenance phase for most all management units. Specific goals are incorporated in the allotment management plans as specified in the grazing EIS and monitored as the plans are implemented. Habitat protection e.g., "Space” through seasonal closures to livestock and recreation or other activities on critical ranges or the ORV closure on the Trickle Mtn. Wildlife Habitat Area play an extremely important role in maintaining existing wildlife populations. Threatened and Endangered Species Protective stipulations, e.g., no surface occupancy seasonal closures ect . , upon other developing resources and in inventories, e.g., bald eagle counts and identifying use areas, have formed the bulk of management for these species over the last decade. -35- SLRMP/MSA-WIF/ 1-20-87/03 71 P Active management has been limited to the bald eagle in the form of attempting to restore, the riparian gallery on the lower Rio Grande River and wetland management. These efforts are being persued with the cooperation of the Colorado Forest Service and the CDOW. Other efforts include a modification of the Blanca Wildlife Habitat Area to incourage use of wintering bald eagles. Aquatic Wildlife Current management of aquatic resources have been limited on public lands. Management completed or in the process of, consist of establishing baseline data on selected streams to express other resource impacts through macro invertebrate analysis, project work (Blanca Wildlife Habitat Area), and limited monitoring. Projects completed have consisted of fish ponds, wells, and manipulation of aquatic vegetation. Each year declining budgets have limited the ability to develop these resources and have severely curtailed the capability to maintain what has been developed. Monitoring for the most part has been tied to the Blanca Wildlife Area. It has been directed to the success or lack of stocking fish and their establishment in the wildlife area, other programs have included monitoring riparian enclosures and the establishment of native fauna back into Tuttle Creek (see Table 11-16). -36- m SLRMP/MSA-WIF/ 1-20-8 7/ 0371P Supply-Demand Analysis and Dependency Terrestrial Habitat Waterfowl Habitat - As noted in the resource profile present demand far exceeds the supply and the supply is decreasing over the planning area. As the wetlands resources and dwindling on private lands. Public lands are being called upon to improve existing habitats and restore historic habitats. The acquisition of private land6 to public ownership is already a realty and will accelerate. This situation concerning wetlands is not confined to the planning area but is both a regional and a national issue of significance. The species of concern is not limited to waterfowl but covers a mirad of species dependent on wetland habitats to meet their biological needs. Public lands have the resources to be a significant factor in wetlands management in the planning area. Big Game Habitat - Table 11-17 displays the recreational days expended on big game in 1983. As deer and elk harvests are unrestricted as to the number of hunters present demand may be met for these species but the quality of these units (days to harvest an animal) is below the state average of all GMUs. Based on the limited licenses available for antelope the demand is roughly 5 times the supply and for Bighorn Sheep the statewide ratio is 6 to 1 in the public drawings. -37- SLRMP/MSA-WIF/ 1-20-87 /0371P The dependency of the total populations of planning area herds on public land winter range are 80 percent for antelope, 80 percent for bighorn sheep, 66 percent for mule deer, and 53 percent for elk. Almost 80 percent of the antelope 37 percent of the Bighorn Sheep 15 percent of the mule deer and 5 percent of the elk utilize public lands for year round habitat. CDOW Strategic Plan Objectives for the period 1983 - 1988 for big game management units are listed in Table 11-17. TABLE 11-17 Hunter Recreation Days (CDOW) Total P.A. 1/ Attributed to BLM Elk 96,200 50,986 Deer 36,041 23,787 Antelope 1,331 1,065 Sheep 386 170 Total 133,958 76,018 1/ Based on percent herd wintering on BLM Source: CDOW Big Game Harvest Statistics 1983 -38- , SLRMP/MSA-WIF/1-20-87/0371P TABLE 11-18 GMU Straglc Plan Objectives 1988 Species GMU Present Numbers Method Elk 68-681 Hold Harvest 76-79 Hold Harvest 80-81 Hold Harvest 82 Increase 8 percent Harvest Deer 680-681 Increase 19 percent Harvest 76-79 Hold Harvest 80-81 Increase 19 percent Harvest 82 Increase 30 percent Harvest Antelope A73 Hold Harvest A74 Increase 45 percent Increase water dist A76 22 percent decrease Harvest A77 Increase 9 percent Harvest A78 No harvest Protection A79 Hold Harvest A80 No harvest Protection Bighorn Sheep S10 Decrease 33 percent Harvest-trap & transplant S29N Increase Protection S29S Increase Protection Natural Arches Increase Protection Source CDOW D.A.U. objectives SLRMP/MSA-WIF/ 1-20-87 / 0371P Demand trends indicate consumptive and noncomsumptive use of wildlife will increase and could even exceed supply. Pressure to improve and expand winter range on public lands will become significant if private range land in critical areas are lost to development. Threatened and Endangered Species These species are not to be viewed under the law of supply and demand. Aquatic Habitat The amount of fishing on public land waters is insignificant when compared to the planning area; however, some fair quality trout fisheries do exist. Warm water fisheries are insignificant when compared to cold water fisheries, yet an estimated 90 percent of this type of fishery available in the planning area is confined to public lands on the Blanca Wildlife Habitat Area which makes them a "unique" feature. Demand trend for the planning area indicate that fishing pressure will increase beyond the supply and public land managers will be called upon to improve habitats in marginally productive streams, ponds, and lakes. -40- SLRMP/MSA-WIF/ 1-20-87 /0371P CAPABILITY ANALYSIS The following forms describe the Resource Capability Levels (RCLs), the management prescription for each RCL, and the specific lands which fall under each category. -41- SLRMP/MSA-WIF/ 1-20-87 /0371P SLRMP MSA CAPABILITY ANALYSIS FROM 1 DEFINITIONS OF RESOURCE CAPABILITY LEVELS Resource Wildlife (Terrestrial-Aquatic) Specialist Name John Schwarz Date _ _ 2-27-87 _ _ Resource Capability Level 1 (define the highest priority for management) - Wetland Restoration and Management - Crucial areas as defined for: Mule Deer Elk Bighorn Sheep Antelope - Warm Water Fisheries - Rapter Nest Sites Resource Capability Level 2 (define the second highest priority for management) Areas of relatively high potential for improvement or protection: - Cold water fisheries, all - Rapter nest sites and specilize habitat areas - General big game winter range and year long range Resource Capability Level 3 (define the third highest priority for management) Areas of relatively low potential for improvement or protection due to habitat capability, land ownership pattern or heavy human use® -42- SLRMP/MSA-WIF/ 1-20-87 / 0371P SLRMP MSA CAPABILITY ANALYSIS FROM 2 MANAGEMENT PRACTICES Resource Name Wildlife (Terrestrial-Aquatic) _ Specialist Name _ _ John Schwarz _ Date 2-27-87 Describe the types of management that you would use in RCL 1 areas - Wetlands Management of existing wetlands and restoration of historic wetlands. - Big Game Crucial Areas Timber management modifications to establish satisfactory cover requirements. Livestock management modifications to assure forage availability and useability for existing big game populations. Monitor for habitat use, condition and trend. - All RCL 1 Areas Protective stipulation including seasonal restrictions and no surface occupancy where appropriate. Land acquisition or trades for effective management or expansion. Conflict resolution in favor of wildlife resources. Habitat management plans as necessary. Describe the types of management you would use in RCL 2 areas - Mitigate impacts through avoidance or extensive rehabilitation. - Water source maintenance and redevelopment. - Maintain existing cold water stream fisheries. - Maintain and improve riparian, water shed and range conditions. - Selective monitoring of wildlife habitat use. - Expansion of warm water fisheries. Describe the types of management you would use in RCL 3 areas Standard stipulations applied to other resource development. SLRMP/MSA-WIF/1-20-87/0371P SLRMP MSA CAPABILITY ANALYSIS FORM 3 RESOURCE CAPABILITY LEVEL DESCRIPTIONS Specialist Name John Schwarz Area Number (from GIS Theme) Resource Terrestrial Wildlife RCL (i.e., 1, 2 or 3) 2 Date 2-27-87 _ Description of Area (Species, number of acres, miles, etc.) Occupied big game winter range. GIS attribute Acres description Public All big game themes 0. Rationale for RCL Winter range is a limiting factor on a resource with an increased demand projection. -44- SLRMP/MSA-WIF/1-20-87/0371P SLRMP MSA CAPABILITY ANALYSIS FORM 3 RESOURCE CAPABILITY LEVEL DESCRIPTIONS Specialist Name John Schwarz _ Area Number (from GIS Theme) Resource Terrestrial Wildlife RCL (i.e., 1, 2 or 3) Date _ _ 2-27-87 Description of Area (Species, number of acres, miles, etc.) All public lands outside RCL 1 and 2. Rationale for RCL Low potential for improvement or protection. SLRMP/MSA-WIF/1-20-87/ 0371P SLRMP MSA CAPABILITY ANALYSIS FORM 3 RESOURCE CAPABILITY LEVEL DESCRIPTIONS Specialist Name John Schwarz Area Number (from GIS Theme) _____ Resource Terrestrial Wildlife RCL (i.e., 1, 2 or 3) _ 2 Date 2-27-87 _ Description of Area (Species, number of acres, miles, etc.) Rapter nest sites and specialized rapter nesting areas. GIS Acres Attribute Description ? Rationale for RCL Rapter are high profile, high interest species, their specialize habitat in this area is geomorphic and an important habitat type for a variety of species dependent on it. ) ■46- SLRMP/MSA-WIF/ 1-20-87 / 0371P SLRMP MSA CAPABILITY ANALYSIS FORM 3 RESOURCE CAPABILITY LEVEL DESCRIPTIONS Specialist Name John Schwarz Area Number (from GIS Theme) Resource Aquatic Wildlife RCL (i.e., 1, 2 or 3) _ _ 2 _ Date 2-27-87 ■■ ■ Description of Area (Species, number of acres, miles, etc.) Prennial streams cold and warm water pond and resevoir GIS Acres fisheries. Attribute Description Rationale for RCL Limited capability area with projected increased demands. Warm water fisheries are unique to the planning area. SLRMP/MSA-WIF/1-20-87/0371P SLRMP MSA CAPABILITY ANALYSIS FORM 3 RESOURCE CAPABILITY LEVEL DESCRIPTIONS Specialist Resource Date Name _ _ John Schwarz Terrestrial Wildlife 2-27-87 Area Number (from GIS Theme) RCL (i.e. , 1, 2 or 3) _ Description of Area (Species, number of Crucial areas as defined for. Mule deer Elk Big horn sheep Antelope acres, miles, etc.) GIS Acres Attribute Public Description O.CW/ O.CL/ All O.CF/ * There is considerable overlap of crucial areas between speers to the extent that one area may be crucial to all four species. Rationale for RCL Big game populations are extremely dependent on public lands for winter survival and winter habitat is the major limiting factor to population size. -48- W SLRMP/MSA-WIF/ 1-20-87 / 0371P SLRMP MSA CAPABILITY ANALYSIS FORM 3 RESOURCE CAPABILITY LEVEL DESCRIPTIONS Specialist Name John Schwarz Area Number (from GIS Theme) Resource Terrestrial Wildlife RCL (i.e., 1, 2 or 3) Date 2-27-87 Description of Area (Species, number of acres, miles, etc.) Waterfowl production - wetland restoration GIS Attribute Description O.CP/ H. PL/ All Rationale for RCL Acres Public Wetlands are of local, regional and natural significance. These areas are primary habitats for both sensitive and economically important species. ' SLRMP /MS A-WIF/ 1 -20-8 7 / 0 3 7 1 P SLRMP MSA CAPABILITY ANALYSIS FROM 1 DEFINITIONS OF RESOURCE CAPABILITY LEVELS Resource Wildlife T & E Species Specialist Name John Schwarz Date _ 2-27-87 _ Resource Capability Level 1 (define the highest priority for management) Primary use habitat for endangered species. Bald Eagle Resource Capability Level 2 (define the second highest priority for management) Primary habitat for the endangered species: Black footed ferret Resource Capability Level 3 (define the third highest priority for management) Primary habitat for candidate Category 2 species: White faced Ibis Snowy Plover - SLRMP/MSA-WIF/1-20-87 /0371P SLRMP MSA CAPABILITY ANALYSIS FROM 2 MANAGEMENT PRACTICES Resource Name _ _ _ Wildlife T & E Species Specialist Name _ John Schwarz Date 2-27-87 Describe the types of management that you would use in RCL 1 areas 1 Protective stipulations including seasonal restrictions and no surface occupancy where appropriate on activities that are likely to interupt some biological process of the species during critical periods. 2 Identify habitat improvement and protection projects and implement them. Describe the types of management you would use in RCL 2 areas Protective stipulations necessary to maintain the integrity of the habitat until species presence or lack of presence is established. Describe the types of management you would use in RCL 3 areas Management would concentrate on other wildlife species in this habitat type while expecting new information as to the species classification. This particular RCL is also defined as an RCL 1 under Terrestrial and Acquatic Species. -51- SLRMP/MSA-WIF/1-20-87/0371P SLRMP MSA CAPABILITY ANALYSIS FORM 3 RESOURCE CAPABILITY LEVEL DESCRIPTIONS Specialist Name John Schwarz _ _ Area Number (from GIS Theme) Resource _ T & E Wildlife _ RCL (i.e., 1, 2 or 3) 1 Date _ 2-27-87 _ Description of Area (Species, number of acres, miles, etc.) Bald Eagle primary habitat. GIS attribute description BE.CW 12 Stream Miles BE.R 200 ac. Rationale for RCL Primary habitat. ■ SLRMP/MSA-WIF/1-20-87/0371P SLRMP MSA CAPABILITY ANALYSIS FORM 3 RESOURCE CAPABILITY LEVEL DESCRIPTIONS Specialist Name _ John Schwarz Area Number (from GIS Theme) _ Resource _ T & E Wildlife RCL (i.e., 1, 2 or 3) _ 2 Date _ _ 2-27-87 _ _ Description of Area (Species, number of acres, miles, etc.) Blackfooted ferret GIS Attribute Description Acres Habitat BF.P 66,200 % Rationale for RCL Primary habitat for the Blackfooted ferret. SLRMP/MSA-WIF/ 1-20-87 /0371P SLRMP MSA CAPABILITY ANALYSIS FORM 3 RESOURCE CAPABILITY LEVEL DESCRIPTIONS Specialist Name John Schwarz Area Number (from GIS Theme) _ Resource T & E Wildlife RCL (i.e., 1, 2 or 3) 3 Date 2-27-87 Description of Area (Species, number of acres, miles, etc.) All wetlands. GIS Acres Attribute Description 0.CP/(A11) _ Rationale for RCL Primary habitat for Category II species : Whitefaced Ibis Snowy Plover -54- SLRMP/MSA-WIF/1-20-87/0371P DATA THEMES The following is given by attributes a description of the GIS themes. (Need to discuss also how they can be used, what is the content, to include a listing of quads used, etc). ATTRIBUTES Elk Elk MUL Mule Deer ANT Antelope SHP Bighorn Sheep WTF Waterfowl TES Threatened-Endangered Species RAS Rapter Sites O.CW/ 681__1 ; 0.681 O.CW/ 681_1 ; 0.681 O.CW/A73JL O.A73 O.CF/A73_l O.CW/S10_l 0.S10 O.CL/S10_l O.CP/1 H.P/1 BF .P/1 ; Be.CW/1 R.GE/810 1 SCRM BE.R/1 R.RT/810_1 R.PF/810 1 ELK, MULE DEER, ANTELOPE, BIGHORN SHEEP 0 Occupied habitat year long including winter CW Crucial winter range CF Crucial fawning range CL Crucial lambing range 681 CDOW game management unit 1 Area number of special polygon WATERFOWL 0 Occupied habitat CP Crucial production 1 Area number of special polygon H Historic wetland P Potential area THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES BF Black-footed ferret BE Bald eagle P Potential area R Roost area SCRM Sandhill crane roost during migration 1 Area number of special polygon CW Crucial winter range RAPTER NEST SITES R Rapter site GE Golden eagle RT Red tail hawk PF Prairie falcon 810 CDOW game management unit 1 Site number in management unit -55- SLRMP/MSA-WIF/ 1-20-87 / 0371P REFERENCES PERSONS CONTACTED Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW) Clayton Wetherill Steve Torbet Jim Olterman Dick Weldon Tom Ranch David Kenvin Bert Widhalm U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Mel Nail Area Supervision Area Biologist Sr. Wildlife Biologist D.W.M. D.W.M. D.W.M. D.W.M. Refuge Manager Monte Vista, CO Monte Vista, CO Montrose, CO Lahara , CO Monte Vista, CO South Fork, CO Saguache, CO Alamosa, CO STUDIES USED Bald Eagles of the San Luis Valley, CO: Their Winter Ecology and Spring Migration MSV Colorado Big Game Harvest CDOW Colorado Wildlife Workshop, Species of Special Concern CDOW Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants USFWS Rio Grande National Forest EIS USFWS San Luis Resource Area Grazing Management E.S. BLM San Luis Valley Waterfowl, Waterbird Wetland Plan CDOW 1984 1983 1985 1983 1985 1978 1986 (Draft) ' SLRMP/MSA-FOR/ 03-05-87 / 0364P CHAPTER 12 FOREST AND WOODLAND RESOURCES CONTENTS Page RESOURCE AREA PROFILE (RAP) Description . 1 Condition and Trend . 4 EXISTING MANAGEMENT SITUATION (EMS) Current Management . ..... . 6 Supply-Demand Analysis and Dependency ..... . 7 CAPABILITY ANALYSIS (CA) Definition . . . . . 9 Management Practices . ..... 9 Resource Capability Level Description ............ 9 FORMS All forms are placed in order of use . . . 10 DATA THEMES Discussion or presentation of data theme material .... . 15 REFERENCES List all reference studies, persons, reports, etc. .... . 17 SLRMP/MSA-FOR/ 03-05-87/ 0364P CHAPTER 12.— FOREST AND WOODLAND RESOURCES RESOURCE AREA PROFILE Description Fifteen percent (76,033 acres) of BLM surface acres in the San Luis Resource Area are occupied by forest cover types that can be grouped into commercial forest land or into woodlands. The GIS theme, which displays the location, description, and extent of the forest cover, Is entitled FOR and is briefly summarized in Figure 1. FIGURE 1 . FOREST AND WOODLAND ACREAGE CLASSIFICATION I Total Forest Land | | 76,033 acres I r — — I _ _ 1 1 _ A. Commercial Forest Land (CFL) | |~ B. Woodlands (P/J) I 27,044 acres (36 percent) 1 j 48,989 acres (64 percent) I All commercial and woodland forest acres are then assigned to one of the following four management categories: Lands Available for Intensive Management of Forest Products — -These are areas where forest management is one of many uses, but where other uses or resource values are not emphasized. The acreage consists of 5,769 acres of suitable CFL and 12,482 acres of productive operable woodlands (18,251 acres total) . -1- SLUMP /MSA-FOR/ 03-05-87 / 0364P Lands Available for Restricted Management of Forest Products — Areas where other multiple use or resource values are emphasized and selective harvesting and extended rotation are generally applied. No forested acres were inventoried in this category. Lands Where the Forest will be Managed to Enhance Other Uses — Areas where forest management is tailored and forest products are harvested specifically to benefit other identified^ resource values or uses. The acreage consists of 21,274 acres of CFL not currently economical to harvest, or are biologically unsuitable for sustained forest management. Also 36,508 acres of nonoperable woodlands are included (57,782 acres total). Forested acres now in wilderness study area status are presently assigned here. Forest Lands Not Available for Management of Forest Products — Areas where forest management is excluded. This category would include forested acres in designated wilderness or primitive areas. No acres have been inventoried in this category at the present time. The allowable harvest level for this planning period will come from the forest types assigned to the first category above. These acres are currently operable with existing equipment and technology. -2- — SLRMP/MSA-FOR/ 03-05-87/0364P Commercial Forest Land (CFL All forest lands capable of yielding at least 20 cubic feet per acre per year of commercial tree species are included in this category. The tree species included here are those valued as important by local industry and are: ponderosa pine (PP), Douglas-fir (DF) , Engelmann spruce (ES), lodgepole pine (LP) , white fir (LPrp), and aspen (A). The acreage distribution by county and species is shown in Table 12-1. TABLE 12-1 FOREST ACREAGE DISTRIBUTION County Acres (BLM) PP DF LP ES A LbrP P/J TOTAL Alamosa 43,957 “ - - - 78 - — 6,637 Conejos 185,547 - - - 524 - - 5,665 Rio Grande 54,996 - - 58 250 - - 5,840 Saquache 231,731 146 574 1,331 110 23,000 516,231 12,231 11,440 146 893 2,334 1,209 47,780 76,033 The suitable commercial forest lands produce between 20 and 49 cubic feet per acre per year. These forest acres are commonly an ecotone between the open valley floor and the more continuous forest environment on the adjacent national forest land. Many of the stands are narrow stringers or isolated patches averaging about 50 acres in size. Sparse, patchy groups of trees and small isolated stands less than 10 acres in size were not typed nor included as suitable forest land. Suitable CFL are those forest lands judged to be capable of sustaining long-term timber production. The nonsuitable commercial forest lands are those incapable of sustained long-term timber production because of their fragile nature or inability to adequately reforest under existing harvesting or reforestation technology. Nonsuitable forest lands were identified during the Timber Production Capability Classification and Operations Inventory (TPCC) . -3- - SLRMP/MSA-FOR/ 03-05-87 / 0364P Woodlands Juniper is normally the first occurring tree species above the valley floor. As elevation increases, pinon pine becomes more common and the typical pinon- juniper woodland becomes prevalent. Pinon pine- juniper communities usually have an understory of grasses and shrubs adapted to zeric conditions. Precipitation averages 10 to 15 inches annually, and elevations range from 7,500 to 9,000 feet. Small stands, typed as limber pine or bristlecone pine, will be treated as woodlands. They are generally located on shallow, rocky exposed ridges at or near timberline. Gambel oak (no acreage included as woodlands because they rarely attain heights of more than 20 feet) is normally found in the upper portion of and just above the pinon-juniper woodlands. It commonly forms large, dense thickets on many sites, which impedes the establishment of conifers. Plains cottonwood, narrow leaf cottonwood, Rio Grande cottonwood, and peach-leaf willow may occur in some drainages. No harvesting of forest products is planned in these drainages or riparian areas. Productive, operable woodlands are those stands located on slopes of 35 percent or less with crown closures averaging 40 percent or more. Nonoperable woodlands are those stands on slopes greater than 35 percent, or with crown closures averaging less than 40 percent. Condition and Trend Commercial Forest Lands Approximately 75 percent of the commercial forest acres have had some type of harvest entry during the past 20 to 25 years. Host of these areas appear to have had diameter-limit timber sale contract stipulations that allowed -4- 1 SLRMP/MSA-FOR/03“05-87/ 0364P removal of all trees greater than a given diameter. Unfortunately, the residual stands of Douglas-fir and ponderosa pine are poorly stocked with smaller, suppressed or intermediate trees, and a few low quality sawlog size trees per acre commonly infected with dwarf mistletoe. The regeneration occurring naturally in these stands is highly vulnerable to infection by the dwarf mistletoe present in the overstory. At present, the western spruce budworm is the most damaging insect pest to the Douglas-fir and white fir. The aspen stands are mature and appear generally healthy. However, aspen clones begin deteriorating in vigor and volume after age 80. If aspen is to be regenerated vegetatively , it should be harvested between ages 80 and 120 so adequate sprouting is possible. White trunk rot is responsible for nearly 60 percent of the decay loss in aspen. Several canker and leaf diseases are also common. White pocket rot, rust-red stringy rot, and red-brown butt rot are very common decay loss pathogens in the conifer stands. Because of the extent of the cut over acres, the predominantly mature age classes, and the presence of forest pests, the commercial forest lands are in fair to poor condition and in a deteriorating trend. Woodlands The pinon-juniper woodlands generally exhibit a wide range of diameters and stocking density. However, most of the stands are mature or approaching maturity. Mature stand volumes range from 7 to 10 cords per acre for the productive operable acres. Insects and diseases are endemic in the pinon/ juniper cover type, although a few small, scattered pockets of mortality caused by various root rots (primarily shoestring root rot) are present. Generally the woodlands can be described as healthy and in a stable condition. % -5- . t SLRMP/MSA-FOR/ 03-05-87/ 0364P EXISTING MANAGEMENT SITUATION Current Management Commercial Forest Land Proper forest management requires that the diseased, cut over stands be treated and put back into production as soon as possible. Treatment of these stands is most efficiently accomplished by making a second logging entry; and selecting an adequate number of the best appearing and most disease free residual trees to serve as a seed source and shelter wood; and remove the rest. We must also achieve adequate slash treatment and seedbed preparation during this fuelwood or low quality sawtimber removal step. As a result of the high proportion of cut over land, we have concentrated on getting these sites back into production for the past 3 years, rather than offer sawtimber from healthy stands. The volume being offered is composed of material with small average stem diameters, and the quality is most generally suitable for fuelwood only. A 5-year dwarf mistletoe suppression plan was written, and biological evaluation done by the USFS, Division of Timber, Forest Pest, and Cooperative Forestry Management. The plan was approved by the Colorado State Director in 1985. Woodlands At present, fuelwood, Christmas trees, and transplant trees are sold on a demand basis. Christmas trees and transplant trees have been made available in past vegetation conversion (chaining) projects. Free use of dead and down fuelwood was a past policy which is difficult to change. Requiring family and , SLRMP/MSA-FOR/ 03-05-8 7/ 0364P small commercial woodcutters to pay for fuelwood, and to also harvest in designated areas to accomplish specific management goals such as improving habitat diversity, forage increases, and insect and disease control takes time and appears to reduce demand. It is hoped that this is temporary and will eventually be accepted as It has in other areas. Supply-Demand Analysis and Dependency Historically, the primary demand has been for sawtimber. The Colorado Forest Products Directory lists nine firms in the four counties containing BLM forest land. The existing mill capacity for Engelmann spruce, aspen, lodgepole pine, Douglas-fir, ponderosa pine, and white fir is 67,700 Mbf annually, if available. The forest products produced includes: studs, fencing, boards, timbers, dimension, house logs, paneling, siding, ties, posts and poles, fuelwood, shavings, and chips. In addition, approximately 10 more small logger /sawmill operators have purchased or shown interest in past BLM sales. Fifteen percent of the mature commercial forest acres in the Canon City District is located in the San Luis Resource Area (SLRA). The recently calculated allowable cut for the Canon City District is 2.1 MMbf. The allowable harvest allocation to the SLRA is approximately 288 Mbf annually. This is less than 1 percent of the local demand for sawtimber. The large majority is obtained from the national forests. However, since all of the mills are located generally on the valley floor, we get annual inquiries to buy BLM sawtimber for winter operations. The BLM forest land lies at lower elevations and is closer to utilization centers. It would be a simple matter to rapidly harvest the small remaining acreage of healthy sawtimber stands. I* SLRMP/MSA-FOR/ 03-05-8 7/0364P Future demand for BLM timber is expected to increase because of improved technology in utilizing small stems for such things as oriented strand, waferboard, and laminated products. Sawtimber operators have been discouraged from bidding on some sales because of the big game winter closure contract stipulations (prevents winter logging on BLM land when operations are snowed out of higher national forest land). Only a few commercial fuelwood operators are located in the SLRA, and of these, very few have equipment that can accomplish the road improvement, maintenance, and mechanical site preparation for natural regeneration, and other necessary onsite mitigating measures. The supply of fuelwood available from the woodland forest far exceeds the present demand. An area regulation allowable harvest calculation in the current productive operable woodland acreage shows 660 cords available annually. We have been selling approximately 150 cords annually on a demand basis to families and small commercial operators. Demand for Christmas trees (350 annually) can be met for a short period by completing a forestry and visual resource plan for the Mt. Blanca chaining area, and allowing removal from these chainings. Also at this time, trespass removal of transplant trees is suspected. The following activity plans should be written to further identify the volume of available forest products. - Allowable Harvest Plan for the Canon City District. - Blanca Forestry/Visual Resource Management Plan. - Forestry Supplement to the Trickle Mountain Habitat Management Plan. - Greenie Mountain Forest Management Plan. 12,482 acres of productive operable woodlands divided by 175 yr rotation = 71.3 acres available to harvest annually x 9.3 cords per acre = approximately 660 cords. -8- ' SLRMP/MSA-FOR/03-05-87 / 0364P CAPABILITY ANALYSIS (CA) The following forms describe the Capability Resource Levels (RCLs), the management practices applied to each particular RCL, and the site(s) within each RCL. SLUMP /MSA-FOR/ 03-05-87/0364P SLRMP MSA CAPABILITY ANALYSIS FROM 1 DEFINITIONS OF RESOURCE CAPABILITY LEVELS Resource Forest and Woodlands Resources Specialist Name _ J. Wilson Date _ _ 10-2-86 _ Resource Capability Level 1 (define the highest priority for management) Management Category 1 — Lands available for intensive management of forest products. — - — ‘ — - — 1. Help meet demand for forest products (sawtimber, roundwood, and fuelwood) first from the 5,769 acres of suitable commercial forest land. Resource Capability Level 2 (define the second highest priority for management) Management Category 1 1. Additional demand for fuelwood over that available from the commercial forest land will be made available from the 12,482 acres of productive operable woodlands. Resource Capability Level 3 (define the third highest priority for management) Management Category 3 — Lands where the forests will be managed to enhance other uses. ■ - -10- SLRMP/MSA-F0R/Q3-05-87/0364P SLRMP MSA CAPABILITY ANALYSIS FROM 2 MANAGEMENT PRACTICES Resource Name ____ _ Forest and Woodlands Resources _ Specialist Name _ J. Wilson Date 10-02-86 Describe the types of management that you would use in RCL 1 areas 1. Improve the existing age class distribution. The silvicultural harvest systems used will be: clea'rcutting (aspen, lodgepole pine), seed tree (Douglas-f ir, ponderosa pine), shelter wood (Douglas-f ir, ponderosa pine, lodgepole pine), group selection (Engelmann spruce, Douglas-f ir) . 2. Reduce impacts of forest pests. 3. Use intensive forest management practices when feasible (PCT and CT) . 4. Reduce percentage of poorly stocked stands (planting, seeding, and site preparation by prescribed fire or mechanical means to enhance natural regeneration) . 5. Maintain species diversity. 6. Leave adequate, high quality seed source. 7. Acquire access. Describe the types of management you would use in RCL 2 areas 1. Harvest mature P/J utilizing clearcutting, seed tree cuts, selection cuts, or salvage removal. 2. Acquire access. 3. Use area regulation to calculate sustainable harvest level. Describe the types of management you would use in RCL 3 areas The same types of harvesting and pest control techniques could be applied on these lands. They are not considered to be economically or environmentally operable during this planning horizon; therefore, no planned cutting is scheduled. Harvest or disturbing activities may include right-of-way clearing for utilities and road construction, mineral or oil and gas extraction, or range or wildlife projects to enhance forage or habitat improvement . -11- SLRMP/MSA-FOR/ 03-05-87/0364P SLRMP MSA CAPABILITY ANALYSIS FORM 3 RESOURCE CAPABILITY LEVEL DESCRIPTIONS Specialist Name _ _ J. Wilson Area Number (from GIS Theme) Resource Forest and Woodland Resources RCL (i.e., 1, 2 or 3) 1 Date 10-02-86 Description of Area (Species, number of acres, miles, etc.) Species RCL 1 aspen 593 Douglas-f ir 1,829 Engelmann spruce 167 lodgepole pine 107 ponderosa pine 3,073 limber pine 0 pinon/ juniper woodland 0 5,769 acres (288 MBF) Rationale for RCL — CL 1 “ These are the industrially preferred species present. Demand is high if the timber is in good condition. They are in rather poor and declining condition and improvement work is necessary to bring productivity back up to capacity. These areas are a major wildlife habitat component, and are esthetically important. ”12“ , SLRMP/MSA-FOR/ 03-05-8 7 /0364P *) SLRMP MSA CAPABILITY ANALYSIS FORM 3 RESOURCE CAPABILITY LEVEL DESCRIPTIONS Specialist Name _ J. Wilson Area Number (from GIS Theme) Resource Forest and Woodland Resources RCL (i.e., 1, 2 or 3) 2 Date 10-02-86 Description of Area (Species, number of acres, miles, etc.) Species RCL 2 aspen Douglas-f ir Engelmann spruce lodgepole pine ponderosa pine limber pine pinon/ juniper woodland Rationale for RCL 0 0 0 0 0 0 12,482 12,482 acres (660 cords) — CL 2 “ 11118 ls the largest forest cover type; however, it is in generally good condition, demand is not as high currently, and economically is not as potentially valuable as RCL 1 lands. -13- ' SLRMP /MS A-FOR/ 03-0 5-8 7 /03 64P SLRMP MSA CAPABILITY ANALYSIS FORM 3 RESOURCE CAPABILITY LEVEL DESCRIPTIONS Specialist Name _ _ J. Wilson Area Number (from GIS Theme) Resource Forest and Woodland Resources RCL (i.e., 1, 2 or 3) _ 3 Date 10-02-86 Description of Area (Species, number of acres, miles, etc.) Species RCL 3 aspen 1,741 Douglas-f ir 9,611 Engelmann spruce 726 lodgepole pine 39 ponderosa pine 9,158 limber pine 1,209 pinon/ juniper woodland 35,298 57,782 acres (no planned harvest level) i Rationale for RCL RCL ^ - These lands are currently much too costly to manage, some acres may not be able to be regenerated in the prescribed time frames, and are generally environmentally unsuited for sustained harvest. SLRMP /MSA-FOR/ 03-0 5-8 7 / 03 64P DATA THEMES The following attributes are used to describe the forest type polygons displayed on the GIS maps (FOR theme). FOR - - - . 2 Woodlands P/ J . 0 1/ 2/ r r 5.9.0. . P . % o.o.i. . w . % 3/ 4/ r r W . $ . 4 . . 7/ r 4 . 5/ 6/ T~ T 2. #.8. 3.0. _1/ Stand number is an unchanging TPCC-01 record for item number (METI). Each stand has a unique number assigned to it so that it can be matched back to our TPCC-01 system which contains additional stand information. 2/ Species ”* ponderosa pine (P) Douglas— fir (D) limber pine (F) aspen (A) Engelmann spruce (S) lodgepole pine (L) pinon/ juniper (W) 3/ TPCC Management Decision _ . (Nl no restrictions (no special harvest and reforestation necessary) techniques (R) (W) estricted timber harvest (refers to limited silvicultural and site reparation systems necessary to achieve natural forest regeneration) area withdrawn (no planned harvesting during this planning period) -15- SLRMP/MSA-FOR/ 03-05-8 7 / 0364P 4/ Size Class (1) 0. 1-0.9 inch (2) 1.0-4. 9 (3) 5. 0-8. 9 (4) 9.0-15.9 (5) 16 plus 5/ Stocking Class 6/ Birthyear (0) non stocked Use last three digits of (1) poorly stocked birthyear (2) medium stocked (3) well stocked Character (_) Character (%) Character ($) Charater (.) Charater (#) separates stand number. from species separates species from TPCC management decision % separates TPCC mgt. decision from size class separates size class from stocking class separates stocking class from birthyear 7/ Woodlands (pinon/ juniper) categories (1) nonoperable (slopes greater than 35 percent) (2) operable P/J (15-24 percent crown closure on slopes less than 35 percent) (3) operable P/J (25-39 percent crown closure on slopes less than 35 percent) (4) operable P/J (40 percent plus crown closure on slopes less than 35 percent) Areas sparsely occupied by pinon/ juniper with less than 15 percent crown closure were considered too sparse to type as woodlands. -16- SLRMP/MSA-FOR/ 03-05-8 7/ 0364P REFERENCES 1. Forest Land and Resource Management, Plan Rio Grande National forest 2. Colorado Forest Products Directory, Colorado State Forest Service 3. Canon city District Ten-Year Forest and Woodland Management Activity Plan and Environmental Assessment (writing in progress) -17- SLRMP/MSA-LND/ 03-11-8 7/ 037 2P CHAPTER 13 LAND AND REALTY ACTIONS CONTENTS Page RESOURCE AREA PROFILE (RAP)> - - Description of Resource . »....l EXISTING MANAGEMENT SITUATION (EMS) Current Management . ... 3 Supply-Demand Analysis . .....5 CAPABILITY ANALYSIS (CA) Land Tenure Adjustments . 6 Rights-of-Way . ....... 8 Water Power Withdrawals . g FORMS All forms are placed in order of use . . 9 DATA THEMES Discussion or presentation of data theme material . . 25 REFERENCES List all reference studies, persons, reports, etc . . . .26 SLRMP/MSA-LND/ 03-11-87 / 037 2P CHAPTER 13 — LAND AND REALTY ACTIONS RESOURCE AREA PROFILE Description of Resource The San Luis Resource Area, Canon City District, is located in the San Luis Valley in south central Colorado. It is bounded on three sides by the Rio Grande National Forest except the southeast section which is Costilla County and consists entirely of private land. The south boundary is the New Mexico State line. For this RMP, the study boundary will be the Rio Grande National Forest boundary. The national forest land was excluded because there is no BLM land within the forest with the exception of the town of Platoro which has three small parcels. The Rio Grande National Forest recently completed a comprehensive land use plan for the entire forest. Approximately 516,231 acres of surface and 101,926 BLM mineral estate lie within the San Luis Resource Area. See Table 13-1. -1- f SLRMP/MSA-LND/ 03-11-87 / 037 2P TABLE 13-1 BLM LANDS IN SAN LUIS RMP COUNTY SURFACE MINERAL ESTATE Alamosa 43,957 JJ 16,259 Conejos 185,547 22,301 Costilla 156 0 Mineral 0 0 Rio Grande 54,996 13,788 Saguache 231,731 JJ 49,578 JJ TOTAL 516,387 JJ 101,926 Jj With Reserved Lands. JJ Of this total 320 acres have oil and gas only. Also within the San Luis Resource Area, there is the Alamosa Refuge (U.S.F.W.S., 10,350 acres), Monte Vista Refuge (U.S.F.W.S., 13,839 acres), and the Great Sand Dunes National Monument (N.P.S., 38,659 acres). The Colorado Division of Wildlife has two Wildlife Areas, Hot Creek and La Jara, within the planning area. The majority of the public land in the San Luis Resource Area is made up of large blocks of public land that are suitable for multiple use management. The valley floor is mostly private land with a few exceptions. Various isolated tracts of public land are located throughout the valley floor and in the Del Norte, South Fork area. (See Table 13-2) SLRMF /MS A-LND /03-11-87/0372P e the majority of BLM land is in large blocks, the parcels that are gnated for disposal are small (40-160 acres) and scattered. Most of them are on the valley floorCand not even in the foothills so the only vegetation, if any, is greasewood. The view from them is great but what most people think of Colorado as being mountains and pine trees isn't available on these scattered parcels •) c V V i TABLE 13-2 BLM Lands vs. Other Lands (Only lands within BLM boundary) County BLM : 2/ % Private % State % Other % 5/ Total Alamosa 43, 957 26 71,067 42 53,476 32 432 4 \ 168, ,932 Conejos 185, 547 (2// ^ 63 66,927 23 39,632 13 2,790 1 294, ,896 • n. 156 1 2/ 156 Rio Grande 54, 996 77 13,453 19 2,560 3 840 1 71] 00 vO Saguache 231, 731 68 86,556 25 21,311 6 360 1 339, ,958 Outside 2/ 955,370 84 42,930 4 120,189 12 V 1,118, ,489 w — 1,193,373 159,909 124,611 1,994, ,280 1/ These are lands within the BLM boundary but are not managed by BLM. 2/ This figure includes Alamosa Refuge, Monte Vista Refuge, Great Sand Dunes National Monument, and Baca Grant (96,000 acres). 1 3/ The BLM acreage contains about 20,000 acres (4%) of scattered tracts of public land. 4/ Only the public land in Costilla County is included. 5/ Includes state and county highways and municipal lands. ^6/J Less 162.17 acres (David BroyfcTs Desert Land Entry). -3- 1 SLRMP/MSA-LND/ 03-11-87 /037 2P EXISTING MANAGEMENT SITUATION Current Management At the present time, lands program requests are handled on a demand basis. Although the demand has increased somewhat over the last 10 years, the number is small and infrequent. Approximately 8-10 applications per year are received in the SLRA and involve access related actions. Most of the current land actions involve rights-of-way such as power lines, telephone lines, roads, communications, etc. The ongoing Bureau of Reclamation’s Closed Basin Project has made several requests for road and power line rights-of-way. This trend is expected to continue. These rights jY are scattered over the entire resource area. Approximately 65 rights l xy authorizations are recorded in San Luis Resource Area off ice. ^ These authorizations are primarily concerned with roads, powerlines, and communications.^ Since most of the BLM land in the San Luis Resource Area is in large blocks, the emphasis is to retain it in federal ownership. Several small scattered tracts were identified for disposal in the Saguache and San Luis MFP’s and when the Asset Management program was first priority. There have been two public sales with some of the parcels sold and the remainder still available for sale. Future land sales will continue to offer for sale the identified disposal tracts. There are frequent public inquiries about public land that is or will be for sale. -4- < , < SLRMP/MSA-LND/ 03-11-87/ 0372P present land sale program has included some of the scattered tracts that identified for disposal in the MFP's and Asset Management Program.^ After some of these tracts are selected for sale, their legal description is verified for location and size. Then an appraisal is done to determine its minimum bid price. The lands are segregated from appropriation under the public land laws. The general public as well as adjacent landowners are permitted to bid on those parcels identified for competitive bidding. Bids from adjacent landowners will be the only ones accepted on those parcels identified for sale by modified competitive procedures on the initial sale day. Sale Procedures are: Bidding will be by sealed bid only. No bids will be accepted for less kthe minimum bid price for each parcel. Sealed bids will be accepted a certain time on the sale date. Bid opening will be at a given time on the sale day at the Canon City District Office. Any of the parcels not sold on the sale date will be re-offered for sale by competitive bidding to the general public beginning at a certain date and the 1st and 3rd Wednesdays each month thereafter until sold or the sale is canceled. -5 SLRMP/MSA-LND/ 03-11-87/ 0372P T^s listing shows lands that have been sold and lands that are currently for These parcels have been sold and ownership transferred: Minimum Serial //Parcel Legal Description Acreage Bid Price C36840-1 T.44N. , R.8E., Sec. 6, NMPM SW\NEi; SEimi; NE^SWi 120.00 $3,600.00 C36840-2 T.44N. , R.9E., Sec. 14, NMPM NW^ 160.00 $16,000.00 C36840-4 R.43N. , R.10E., Sec. 12, NMPM Lot 1 0.97 Lot 2 2.41 $140.00 C36840-7 R.43N. , R.9E., Sec. 12, NMPM NW^SE^ 40.00 $4,000.00 C36840-9 T.45N. , R.10E., Sec. 18, NMPM E^NE^ 80.00 $10,400.00 The following parcels have been offered for sale and are currently available: w Minimum i Jl No. Legal Description Acreage Bid Price C3684Q-3 T.43N. , R.11E. , Sec. 11, NMPM NWkSWk 40.00 $8,000.00 C36840-5 T.43N. , R.10E., Sec. 14, NMPM SE^NW^ 40.00 $4,000.00 C36840-8 R.45N. , R.9E., Sec. 13, NMPM E^NE^ 80.00 $12,000.00 C36840-10 T.45N. , R.10E. , Sec. 21, NMPM uhsuk 80.00 $24,000.00 T.44N. , R. 7E . , NMPM S-ll Sec. 30, Lot 2 60.83 $24,800.00 S-12 Sec. 30, NE^SE^ T.43N. , R.10E., NMPM 41.68 $15,300.00 S-6 Sec. 18, Lots 3, 4 E&W^ T.37N. , R.12E. , NMPM 161.44 $16,200.00 A-l Sec. 10, S^SE^ 80.00 $10,000.00 A- 2 Sec. 15, S^NE^ T.29S. , R.73W. , 6th P.M. 80.00 $10,000.00 % Sec. 31, Lot 2, NE^NW^ 82.47 10,300.00 -6- SLRMP/MSA-LND/ 03-11-87/0372P The following parcel is being sold to the Catholic Church in Antonito, through diocese of Pueblo, to expand their cementery near Ortiz, CO. It will also alleviate a trespass problem since about / acre of the existing cementery is already on public land. The parcel is being offered only to the church because use of the land for a cementery is a very singular and exclusive one. It is very doubtful that anyone would dispute this fact. / T.32N. , R.8E., NMPM, Colorado Sect. 13, S^SW^NE^SW^ 5.00 SLRMP/MSA-LND/03-11-87/0372P exchange proposals (Bagwell, Coolidge, and Colorado Division of .ife) are currently being processed. The Bagwell Exchange is ready for completion as soon as a power site classification review is resolved. The Coolidge exchange on La Garita Creek and the Colorado DOW Exchange in the Hot Creek area are at the appraisal stage. Sanitary landfills have become a point of concern and importance here in the SLRA as well as everywhere else. R&PP leases are no longer used to authorize sanitary landfills on public lands. Now direct sale of a parcel of land to the county, etc. is the recommended procedure. Currently^ Saguache) and Rio Grande counties are in need of new sites for sanitary landfills and are considering some sites on public land. ^ At the present time, public land in Saguache county is classified and is tied up in the National Wildlife T ^J^ation lawsuit and nothing can be done with the land until the lawsuit is .ved •J f. f (U ^ U A, 1 p '• £ (3* 6 f /A Xi Saguache County has now purchased a private parcel for their new landfill. It is adjacent to public land and the county has applied for a ROW across public land to the landfill site. Rio Grande County holds the only site in tlie SLRA. The lease hh^ expired and will not be renewed, due to current policy. BLM has not heard from the county since last summer when there was a meeting to discuss suitable sites. > tit t £ \ -8- I ' SLRMP/MSA-LND/ 03-11-87/0372P ^^^raewhat rare occurrence that has been recently processed is a land donation ie BLM from a private individual. The forty acre parcel adjoins a BLM parcel and it was decided to accept it since it had a clear title and had value in public ownership. Trespass has been an infrequent occurrence in the SLRA. There may be several cases of agricultural trespass. There is one case where a sawmill has spread over onto the adjacent BLM land. That case will probably be resolved this year since trespass abatement is a high priority in 1987. As required by Colorado Instruction Memo CO— 86— 209 for incorporating water power resources (including existing withdrawals) into RMP's, all lands in the resource area must be assigned to one of three suitability categories along ' ^j^tbe management directions appropriate to each category. (NOTE: Need to <- ;ibe the situation here. Numbers if any ... where are they, etc.) O r0-V (3 -H U_ -W tVu * a ^ ;,lt ^ r>6- ' Supply-Demand Analysis It is anticipated that the demand for rights of way authorizations will continue at the current level which is about 10 rights of way applications per year. The majority of the applications are for access related projects such as roads and power or communications needs. The San Luis Resource Area receives about 12 general inquiries per year from individuals interested in purchasing public land in the SLRA and Canon City District. The majority of these individuals are looking for a piece of ado with mountains and trees on it. The public land likely to be iu_ntif led for disposal in the SLRA would not fit this criteria. (NOTE: State why . . . specifically state where it is.) cf* i r ' i,. t &7 A \ i\ t SLRMP/MSA-LND/ 03-11-87/0372P T^^ddition to the Bagwell, Coolidge and Hot Creek exchanges, one other *nge has been discussed with the Clarence Jensen estate to enlarge the Blanca Wildlife area. One sale proposal has been discussed verbally that would mitigate a trespass situation. These proposals involve public land parcels ranging in size from 40 acres to about 1000 acres. The San Luis Valley has a fairly sjtable population overall while certain areas experience seasonal population increases. All the counties and several towns have their own sanitary landfills, but eventually new sites must be found. At the present time, one county is looking for a new site and are considering BLM land as one alternative. Current policy dictates that land for landfills be sold at fair market value to the applicant. BLM anticipates that suitable public land can be identified7^ meet the future needs of the counties. ft. K P’s, leasing, etc. are no longer considered as options for landfill sites due to the liability factor to the U.S. Government. SLRMP/MSA-LND/ 03-11-87/ 037 2P Land Tenure Adjustments CAPABILITY ANALYSIS Land actions involving tenure adjustments fall into one of two categories; disposal of a particular parcel or acquisition of a particular parcel serving the national interest. 1. Disposal - These are shown as RCL I and are lands which will be considered for sale or transfer through exchange or boundary adjustment. Generally, private lands in these zones j^Lll not be acquired through exchange. In sales, the law requires that the mineral estate be reserved to the government although minerals may be transferred through a separate action.^ Criteria for ' ^j^category are: a* Public lands to be considered for RCL I: 1) Lands proximate to cities, towns, or development areas. 2) Isolated non-urban tracts so located as to make effective and efficient management impractical. 3) Lands designated for agricultural, commercial, or industrial development as the highest use or otherwise most appropriate use. b. Consider impacts to local governments. c. Identify specific tracts for disposal. d. Consider reserving public access in patent, where it would benefit the public. -11- ' SLRMP /MSA-LND/ 03-11-8 7 /03 7 2P 2 ’ _ Acquisition - These are shown as RCL 2 and: • Consider acquisition of private land identified by the resource specialists as necessary to improve management of a particular resource^. Give priority to exchange as the method of acquisition. Lands and mineral resources on blocked- up public lands will be retained as a matter of policy under BLM administration for multiple use and boundary adjustments, and recreation and public purposes applications would be considered. a. Public lands fitting (in RCL 2) this description typically are: t I) Designated wilderness areas and wilderness study areas. National conservation areas. Wild and scenic rivers and wild and scenic study rivers (including identified candidate study segments. 4) National or historic trails. 5) Natural or research natural areas. 6) Designated areas for cultural or natural history. 7) Designated areas of critical environmental concern. 8) Designated wild horse preserves. 9) Other congressionally designated areas. 10) Threatened or endangered species habitat areas (including plants and plant communities). II) Riparian habitat areas. 12) Valuable recreation areas (especially water based). 13) Wetland areas as defined in Executive Order 11990, dated May 24, 1977. 14) Flood plain areas (100-year) as defined in Executive Order 11988, dated May 24, 1977. -12- SLRMP/MSA-LND/ 03-11-87/0372P Large blocks of public lands which are suitable for multiple use management. Lands containing water sources with valid existing water rights held by BLM (usually a 40-acre tract containing a spring). 17) Big game critical winter range. b. Public mineral resources fitting this description typically are: 1) Known recoverable coal resource areas. 2) Known geologic structures (oil and gas). 3) Areas identified to have nationally significant oil shale deposits. 4) Lands known to contain economic deposits of locatable and salable minerals. Rights of Ways (ROW) Land actions involving rights— of— way determinations fall into one of three categories shown below: •sir n Suitable ROW Corridor - are those existing corridors or are preferred locations for future corridors where multiple use terms and conditions will allow (RCL 1) . _ j ■ y- r * r \ t ' p- c Suitable ROW Corridor with Limitations — are these locations where multiple use terms and conditions will allow but should be avoided if possible (RCL 2). c f <- rt Non-Suitable Corridor - are those locations where multiple use terms and conditions will not allow right-of-way (RCL 3). Water Power Withdrawals Based on the SPG all land actions involving water power withdrawals fall into one of three categories shown below: Suitable for intensive management of water power and reservoir sites. These are lands recommended for continuation of the withdrawal. Areas which warrant the protection of the water power and/or reservoir sites through a % awal. Management of other resources in these areas will be adjusted in accordance with the terms of the withdrawal. -13- ( SLRMP /MSA-LND/ 03-11-8 7 /03 7 2P Unsuitable for water power and reservoir sites. These are lands not recommended for continuation of the withdrawal. Areas which can be best managed without the withdrawal; BLM recommends revoking the withdrawal. Such recommendation needs to include a demonstration of a higher or better land use. -14- SLRMP/MSA-LND/ 03-11-8 7/03 7 2P SLRMP MSA CAPABILITY ANALYSIS FORM 1 DEFINITIONS OF RESOURCE CAPABILITY LEVELS Resource Land Tenure Adjustment Specialist Name B. Miller Date _ _ 2-27-87 Resource Capability Level 1 (define the highest priority for management) DISPOSAL - Place lands that fit th'e Category planning criteria for DISPOSAL. ^r^teria includes lands proximate to cities, towns or development areas, and isolated non-urban tracts. Resource Capability Level 2 (define the second highest priority for management) ACQUISITION - Identify private lands for acquisition which are necessary to ■* ^ve management of a particular resource. w -15“ ( SLRMp /MSA-LND/ 03-11-87 /0372P t SLRMP MSA CAPABILITY ANALYSIS FORM 2 MANAGEMENT PRACTICES Resource Name Specialist Name Land Tenure Ad jus tment B. Miller Date 2-27-87 Describe the types of management that you would use in RCL 1 areas " " " ' ' 1 11 L - " "■ . '-■’■■■■■ — — T " ■ DISPOSAL Priority for disposal of public lands within these zones; through sale, R&PP, exchange and boundary adjustment. Public lands in this zone can be exchanged for private lands in a retention zone. Generally, do not acquire private lands through an exchange that are within a disposal zone. Encourage considering Section 209 FLPMA mineral interest conveyance applications for lands that have no known mineral values and are within a disposal zone. This type of conveyance would benefit BLM by improving nj,-^gement efficiency; reducing split estates. investment of BLM funds to a minimum for lands within a disposal zone. A... \jJ Describe the types of management you would use in RCL 2 areas ■ = ^ ^ . - - _ ACQUISITION " — — ■ Priority on acquisition of private lands identified by resource specialists as necessary for a resource program. Emphasis on exchange as method of acquisition rather than purchase. I JL— -Ar \ J yW V> SLRMP /MSA-LND/ 03-1 1-8 7 /03 7 2P SLRMP MSA CAPABILITY ANALYSIS FORM 3 RESOURCE CAPABILITY LEVEL DESCRIPTIONS Specialist Name Bill Miller Area Number (from CIS Theme) Resource Land Tenure Adjustment RCL (i.e., 1, 2 or 3) 1 Date 2-27-87 Description of Area (Species, number of acres, miles, etc.) The parcels are small (40—160 acres), scattered, and isolated throughout the resource area. They generally have little if any, vegetation on them.( Any parcels that are part of big blocks would be sold because of adverse location or uneconomic management potential.} Others on a case by case basis. Rationale for RCL ■w SC 1713. Sec. 203 (a) A tract of the public lands (except land in units of the National Wilderness Preservation System, National Wild and Scenic Rivers Systems, and National System of Trails) may be sold under this Act where, as a result of land use planning required under section 202 of this Act, the Secretary determines that the sale of such tract meets the following disposal criteria: (1) such tract because of its location or other characteristics is difficult and uneconomic to manage as part of the public lands, and is not suitable for management by another Federal department or agency; or (2) such tract was acquired for a specific purpose and the tract is no longer required for that or any other Federal purpose; or (3) disposal of such tract will serve important public objectives, including but not limited to, expansion of communities and economic development, which cannot be achieved prudently or feasibly on land other than public land and which outweigh other public objectives and values, including, but not limited to, recreation and scenic values, which would be served by maintaining such tract in Federal ownership. (b) Where the Secretary determines that land to be conveyed under clause (3) of subsection (^) of this section is of agricultural value and is desert in character, such land shall be conveyed either under the sale authority of this section or in accordance with other existing 0 law* l“iS level includes lands identified for further study. -17- r SLRMP /MS A-LND/ 03-11-87/0372P SLRMP MSA CAPABILITY ANALYSIS FORM 3 RESOURCE CAPABILITY LEVEL DESCRIPTIONS Specialist Name Bill Miller _ Area Number (from GIS Theme) Resource Land Tenure Adjustment _ RCL (i.e., 1, 2 or 3) 2 > Date _ _ 2-27-87 Description of Area (Species, number of acres, miles, etc.) Any areas in the resource area that are deemed necessary to enhance management and increase efficiency will be acquired. Access needs are always a high priority on public lands. Others on a case by case basis. Rationale for RCL lisitions shall be consistent with the mission of the BLM and with wicable BLM land use plans. In order to be feasible, any acquisition would have to benefit at least one resource on a long term basis. Acquisition by exchange process will be the preferred methods -18- ’ SLRMP MSA SLRMP /MSA-LND/ 03-11-8 7 /03 7 2P CAPABILITY ANALYSIS FORM 1 DEFINITIONS OF RESOURCE CAPABILITY LEVELS Resource Rights-of-Way Specialist Name B. Miller Date _ _ 2-27-87 _ Resource Capability Level 1 (define the highest priority for management) Suitable lands for linear ROW's and ROW corridors. Resource Capability Level 2 (define the second highest priority for management) Suitable lands for linear ROW’s and ROW corridors with limitations. Resource Capability Level 3 (define the third highest priority for management) Non-suitable lands for linear ROW’s and ROW corridors. -19- r SLRMP /MSA-LND/ 03-11-8 7/0372P SLRMP MSA CAPABILITY ANALYSIS FROM 2 MANAGEMENT PRACTICES Resource Name _ _ Rights-of-Way _ _ _ _ Specialist Name _ _ B. Miller _ _ _ _____ Date 2-27-87 Describe the types of management that you would use in RCL 1 areas Allow linear ROW's, use existing corridors, and identify potential corridors where multiple use terms and conditions will allow. Describe the types of management you would use in RCL 2 areas Same as RCL 1, but with limitations to protect resources. Describe the types of management you would use in RCL 3 areas Allow no ROW's unless mandated by law or there is no other feasible alternative route. -20- SLRMP/MSA-LND/03-11-87/ 0372P SLRMP HSA CAPABILITY ANALYSIS FORM 3 RESOURCE CAPABILITY LEVEL DESCRIPTIONS Specialist Name B. Miller _ Area Number (from GIS Theme) Resource _ Rlghts-of-Way _ _ RCL (i.e., 1, 2 or 3) _ Date 2-27-87 Description of Area (Species, number of Any suitable location for linear ROW's. Existing Corridors Pone ha Pass Hwy 160 W. (Wolf Creek Pass) Hwy 17 (Cumbres Pass) 285 South 160 East (La Veta Pass) .nza Road Aramosa River acres, miles, etc.) Potential Corridors Hayden Pass Cochetopen Pass Carnero Pass Hwy 142 (East of Manassa) Others on a case by case basis Rationale for RCL - Allow lineal ROW's on suitable locations. - Existing corridors in use. - Existing and potential corridors are natural passes or main highways since the valley Is surrounded by mountains. -21- SLRMP MSA SLRMP/MSA-LND/ 03-11-87 / 037 2P CAPABILITY ANALYSIS FORM 3 RESOURCE CAPABILITY LEVEL DESCRIPTIONS Specialist Name _ B. Miller _ Area Number (from GIS Theme) Resource _ _ Rights-of-Way _ _ RCL (i.e . , 1, 2 or 3) _ 2 Date _ _ 2-27-87 _ _ Description of Area (Species, number of acres, miles, etc.) Same as RCL 1 with limitations. Rationale for RCL Same as RCL I with limitations. -22- SLRMP /MSA-LND/ 03-1 1-8 7 / 03 7 2P SLRMP MSA CAPABILITY ANALYSIS FORM 3 RESOURCE CAPABILITY LEVEL DESCRIPTIONS Specialist Name _ B. Miller Area Number (from GIS Theme) Resource _ Rights-of-Way RCL (i.e., 1, 2 or 3) _ 3 Date 2-27-87 Description of Area (Species, number of acres, miles, etc.) No ROW's unless mandated or no other alternative. Case by case basis consideration. ionale for RCL - Not a feasible location. - Other resource values may be higher. - May be necessary to authorize ROW in spite of all other considerations. -23- SLRMP /MSA-LND/ 03-11-87 / 0372P SLRMP MSA CAPABILITY ANALYSIS FORM 1 DEFINITIONS OF RESOURCE CAPABILITY LEVELS Resource Water Power Withdrawals Specialist Name B. Miller Date _ _ _ 2-27-87 _ Resource Capability Level 1 (define the highest priority for management) Suitable for intensive management of water power and reservoir sites . Areas where water power and reservoir development is the priority among a number of possible uses. Other uses must be conditioned in such a way as to protect the use of the site for water power purposes. Certain other uses must have the concurrence of an stipulations furnished by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC): for example, oil and gas drilling. BLM may initiate the withdrawal process using the procedures in 43 CFR 2310 for these areas if they are not already withdrawn and will recommend continuing the withdrawal on any areas already withdrawn. Suitable for restrictive management of water power and reservoir sites. s currently withdrawn are included here and their continuation or vcation will be determined by CSO personnel. Resource Capability Level 2 (define the second highest priority for management) Suitable for restrictive management of water power and reservoir sites. Areas where other resource uses are emphasized in lieu of a permit or license application. Exemptions, preliminary permits and licenses filed through FERC are reviewed on a case-by-case basis as they are received. Use restrictions, and protection of other resources or prohibitions may be negotiated through the FERC as a result of the case-by-case review. Suitable for restrictive management of water power and reservoir sites. Resource Capability Level 3 (define the third highest priority for management) Unsuitable for water power and reservoir sites. Areas where development of water power or reservoirs is excluded or recommended for exclusion. The plan must include a statement and analysis explaining why development of water power and/or reservoirs is recommended for exclusion. A statement of the potential of the water power sites is to be ^«J.uded. An example of an area which may fall into this category is a ^^^erness area. Existing withdrawals In these areas will be recommended for .‘cation by BLM. -24- , ' SLRMP/MSA-LND/03-11-87/0372P SLRMP MSA CAPABILITY ANALYSIS FORM 2 MANAGEMENT PRACTICES Water Power Withdrawals Specialist Name _ _ _ B. Miller _ _ Date 2-27-87 Describe the types of management that you would use in RCL 1 areas Any type of management that would not harm the site for water power purposes. Describe the types of management you would use in RCL 2 areas Same as RCL 1 except a Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FER) review would be necessary if a project of potential adverse consequences was proposed. Resource Name ^ribe the types of management you would use in RCL 3 areas No water power projects would be allowed such as a wilderness study area or designated area, wild and scenic river study area or designated area, etc. -25- SLRMP/MSA-LND/ 03-11-87/ 0372P SLRMP MSA CAPABILITY ANALYSIS FORM 3 RESOURCE CAPABILITY LEVEL DESCRIPTIONS Specialist Name B. Miller Area Number (from GIS Theme) Resource _ Water Power Withdrawal RCL (i.e., 1, 2 or 3) _ 1 Date 2-27-87 Description of Area (Species, number of acres, miles, etc.) None in resource area. Rationale for RCL These areas have high potential for water power development and are given the highest priority of use. -26- r SLRMP /MSA-LND/ 03-1 1-8 7 / 03 7 2P SLRMP MSA CAPABILITY ANALYSIS FORM 3 RESOURCE CAPABILITY LEVEL DESCRIPTIONS Specialist Name B. Miller Area Number (from GIS Theme) Resource _ Water Power Withdrawal RCL (i.e., 1, 2 or 3) _ _ 2 Date 2-27-87 Description of Area (Species, number of acres, miles, etc.) None in resource area. m Rationale for RCL Other resource values are higher than water power, but any potential adverse consequences must be reviewed by FERC. -27- $ sLRMp/MSA_LND/o3_ii_87/o372P SLRMP MSA CAPABILITY ANALYSIS FORM 3 RESOURCE CAPABILITY LEVEL DESCRIPTIONS Specialist Name B. Miller Area Number (from GIS Theme) Resource _ Water Power Withdrawal _ RCL (i.e., 1, 2 or 3) 3 Date 2-27-87 Description of Area (Species, number of acres, miles, etc.) The only lands in the SLRA that are currently withdrawn are along the Rio Grande River in the southeast portion of the area. They total about 2440 acres. These lands are presently under study as a Wild and Scenic River and also have been identified as a candidate ACEG. ^y.onale for RCL Area where water power development is not feasible or prohibited until decisions are made on the Wild & Scenic status and the ACEC determination. -28- r SLUMP /MSA-LND/ 03-11-87/ 0372P DATA THEMES PLS and LST refer to boundaries and BLM ownership as well as other ownership. LDA and LDL includes all types of actions such as withdrawals, R&PP's (Recreation and Public Purposes), ROW's (Rights-of-way), etc. LTA indicates the suitability for disposal of BLM land. The GIS themes which involve land status are the following: PLS - Public Land Survey TRL - Township Ranch Lines LST - Land Status B- LDL - LTA - Land Land Land Action Action Tenure Area Linear Adjustments SLRMP/MSA-LND/03-11-87/0372P REFERENCES Joe Kuka - BLM, State Office, Water Power Stu Parker - BLM, Canon City District Office, Realty Tom Sieverding - BLM, San Luis Resource Area, Area Manager »* Land and REsource Management Plan - Rio Grande National Forest San Luis MFP - San Luis Resource Area Saguache MFP - San Luis Resource Area -30 SLRMP/MSA-WIL/ 03-06-87/ 0360P CHAPTER 14 WILDERNESS CONTENTS Page RESOURCE AREA PROFILE (RAP) Description . ± Condition and Trend . . . 3 EXISTING MANAGEMENT SITUATION (EMS) Current Management ......... . .... . . 4 Supply-Demand Analysis . . 5 CAPABILITY ANALYSIS (CA) Definition . 6 Management Practices ........ . 6 Resource Capability Level Description ...... . 6 FORMS All forms are placed in order of use ......... . 7 DATA THEMES Discussion or presentation of data theme material ... . 11 REFERENCES List all reference studies, persons, reports, etc 12 SLRMP/MSA-WIL/ 03-06-87 / 0360P CHAPTER 14— WILDERNESS RESOURCE AREA PROFILE Description The Federal Land Policy STManageraent Act (FLPMA) of 1976 (section 603a), directs the Secretary of the Interior and the BLM to inventory public lands under its jurisdiction and identify those with wilderness characteristics. This was completed in 1980. Those identified lands were then studied for determination of suitability or nonsuitability for wilderness designation. Based on an evaluation of all resource values/uses in each area determined to contain wilderness characteristics, the Secretary must report his recommen¬ dations to the President, no later than Oct. 21, 1991, on whether or not areas should be designated as wilderness. The Bureau also has authority under section 202 of FLPMA to recommend lands for wilderness designation. Four wilderness study areas (WSAs) in the San Luis Resource Area were studied under this authority. These four are Black Canyon, South Piney Creek, Papa Keal, and Zapata Creek, which total 4,910 acres. They all lie adjacent to the western slope of the Sangre de Cristo Range as shown on the GIS wilderness maps. Because of their location, contiguous to the U.S. Forest Service Wilderness Study area, they are included in the Forest Service study of the Sangre de Cristo Range. The Forest Service in 1986 is recommending all the units in most of their entirety for wilderness suitability. This recommendation has not been finalized as of December 1986. -1- SLRMP/MSA-WIL/ 03-06-87/0360P Two WSAs in the resource area are identified under FLPMA section 603(a): the Sand Castle WSA, a 1,644 acre unit contiguous to the Great Sand Dunes Wilderness Area managed by the National Park Service and the San Luis Hills WSA, 10,240 acreas located in the southeast portion of the San Luis Valley. See Table 14-1. An environmental impact statement is presently being written (1987) that includes these two WSAs and will include management preferences for wilderness suitability. All are shown on GIS maps. All WSAs have outstanding opportunities for primitive and unconfined recreation, which includes hiking, camping, viewing and hunting wildlife, photography, and other similar activities. The units have few imprints of man, but manmade influences outside the units are visible. Table 14-1 WSAs IN SAN LUIS VALLEY RESOURCE AREA BLM UNIT NO. NAME ACRES AUTHORITY UNDER FLPMA SECTION NO. CO-050-131 Black Canyon 2,300 202 CO-050-13 2B South Piney Creek 870 202 CO-050-135 Sand Castle 1,644 603(a) C0-050-137 Papa Keal 1,020 202 CO-050-139B Zapata Creek 720 202 C0-050-141 San Luis Hills 10,240 603(a) -2- " SLRMP/MSA-WIL/ 03-06-87 / 0360P Condition and Trend All the wilderness characteristics identified and inventoried in 1980 remain and are stable* Current trend indicates continued and growing visitor use of WSAs. The way in the Black Canyon WSA continues to have use by 4-wheelers. The mining interest of the early 1980's in the lands near the San Luis Hills WSA has ceased. -3- SLRMP/MSA-WIL/Q3-06-87/0360P EXISTING MANAGEMENT SITUATION Current Management In accordance with Section 603 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, the BLM is required to manage all lands under wilderness review so as not to impair their suitability for wilderness designation. Specific guidance for interim management is provided in BLM's "Interim Management Policy and Guidelines for Lands Under Wilderness Review". Under the interim management guidance, a proposed activity in a WSA must meet three requirements before it is approved. The activity must (1) be temporary, (2) not cause an impact that will be substantially noticeable following reclamation, and (3) not change the WSAs suitability or nonsuitability for wilderness designation. However, also under the interim management guidance, a proposed activity that has valid rights does not have to meet the above three requirements. Activities having valid existing rights are allowed to impair wilderness characteristics in a WSA provided there is no unnecessary and undue degradation. Restrictions placed on activities having valid existing rights must not unreasonably interfere with the enjoyment or the benefit of the right. Valid existing rights apply to mining claims, mineral leases and right-of-way authorizations granted prior to October 21, 1976 the date of the passage of FLPMA. -4- SLRMP/MSA-WIL/ 03-06-87/0360P A proposed powerline bypassed the San Luis Hills WSA in accordance with interim management. The four WSAs adjacent to the U.S. Forest Service WSA are managed in accordance with both BLM and USFS policy and guidelines. Management remains current and involved in growing community interest in Zapata Falls on State of Colorado lands adjacent to the Zapata Creek WSA. Public participation was and is involved in the entire WSA process. Supply Demand Analysis Existing designated wilderness in Colorado by all agencies consist of 2,676,540 acres in 27 various locations throughout the state. Many of these areas are expected to reach their recreational carrying capacity sometime between the years 2000 and 2100 according to state-wide estimates. Some U.S. Forest Service areas already meet carrying capacities in the high use seasons. All of the units are within 2 to 5 hours of the Denver— Front Range metro area and the Albuquerque— Santa Fe metro area. Demand for wilderness by the public on these remote areas is expected to increase in the adjoining Rio Grande national forest from 122,000 wilderness visitor days in 1980 to 453,000 wilderness visitor days in the year 2030. Five of the WSAs adjoin the National Forest and should receive a comparable rate of increased demand. An increase in demand in the San Luis Hills may not be as high in total number, but the ratio in growth should be similar. -5- SLRMP/MSA-WIL/ 03-06-87/0360P CAPABILITY ANALYSIS The following forms describe the Resource Capability Levels (RCLs), the management prescription for each RCL, and the specific lands that fall under each category. -6- SLRMP/MSA-WIL/03-0 6-8 7/036 OP SLRMP MSA CAPABILITY ANALYSIS FROM 1 DEFINITIONS OF RESOURCE CAPABILITY LEVELS Resource _ Wilderness Specialist Name B. Schneider. Date 12-01-86 Resource Capability Level 1 (define the highest priority for management) to7£SiX WSAS are t0 be raana8ed in accordance with the 1964 Wilderness Act, the FLPMA section 603 and 202, and specifically as directed under the BLM's "Interim Management Policy and Guidelines for Lands Under Wilderness Review." As long as these are WSA's we are required to manage all lands under wilderness review so as not to impair their suitability for wilderness designation. This includes active management and monthly field monitoring of each individual area. All WSAs after completion of Congressional review, that are designated as wilderness will be managed in accordance with BLM and Congressional directives. The four WSAs adjoining the U.S. Forest Service Sangre de Cristo WSA will also be managed in accordance with USFS WSA policy. Resource Capability Level 2 (define the second highest priority for management) All WSAs no longer managed under WSA interim management or wilderness management should be managed as ACEC (areas of critical environmental concern). This will assure the retention of the qualities that made each of the areas eligible for the wilderness review process. This would be very similar to present interim management guidelines. The four WSAs adjacent to the USFS WSA, if not included in the forest service wilderness, should be managed as wilderness under BLM direction as outlined under FLPMA section 202. Resource Capability Level 3 (define the third highest priority for management) The four WSAs adjacent to USFS WSA should be managed as ACECs in order to assure the retention of the unique qualities that made each of the areas eligible for wilderness review. The other two WSA's may be managed for multiple-use purposes with retention of the wilderness characteristics a primary goal where feasible. -7- • . i»i> ■•'*! ■«' •• '* ’• b'" ' * ;• ;• ■! * '.,ri , SLRMP/MSA-WIL/03-06-87/0360P SLRMP MSA CAPABILITY ANALYSIS FROM 2 MANAGEMENT PRACTICES Resource Name Wilderness Specialist Name _ B. Schneider _ Date 12-01-86 Describe the types of management that you would use in RCL 1 areas Wilderness management is provided for in "Interim Management Policy & Guidelines for Lands Under Wilderness Review." Specifically this states that BLM is directed: (1) to perpetuate the wilderness resource by managing designated wilderness areas so that their wilderness character is not impaired; (2) to provide opportunities for the public to use for recreational, scenic, scientific, educational, conservation and historical purposes in a manner so as to leave the wilderness area unimpaired for future use and enjoyment as wilderness; and (3) to accommodate in wilderness areas certain activities, existing uses and private rights which are generally nonconforming to wilderness preservation and use. Describe the types of management you would use in RCL 2 areas The four WSAs adjacent to USFS WSA would be managed as stated in RCL 1 above. The other two WSAs would be managed under the defined parameters of ACEC. This requires a detailed management plan that guides the future management of the special resources that are under ACEC designation. This management is defined under 43 CFR 1617. Describe the types of management you would use in RCL 3 areas The four WSAs adjacent to the USFS WSA would be managed under parameters of ACEC stated in second paragraph of RCL 2 above. The other two WSAs would be managed under multiple use management guidelines. No special management designations or techniques of management need be applied but special consideration should be exercised to protect the original wilderness values where feasible and practical. -8- SLRMP/MSA-WIL/03-06-87/0360P SLUMP MSA CAPABILITY ANALYSIS FORM 3 RESOURCE CAPABILITY LEVEL DESCRIPTIONS Specialist Name B. Schneider _ _ Area Number (from GIS Theme) WIL Resource Wilderness _ RCL (i.e., 1, 2 or 3) _ 1 Date _ 12-01-86 Description of Area (Species, number of acres, miles, etc.) 1. Black Canyon WSA 2,300 acres adjoins USFS Sangre de Cristo WSA. 2. So. Piney Creek WSA 870 acres adjoins USFS Sangre de Cristo WSA. 3. Papa Real WSA 1,020 acres adjoins USFS Sangre de Cristo WSA. 4. Zapata Creek WSA 720 acres adjoins USFS Sangre de Cristo WSA. 5. Sand Castle WSA 1,644 acres adjoins NPS Great Sand Wilderness Area. Dunes 6. San Luis Hills WSA 10,240 acres southeast portion of San Luis Valley immediately west of Rio Grande. Rationale for RCL Congressional mandate states that BLM must study and manage lands with wilderness characteristics until determination for wilderness suitability or nonsuitability is made by the President via the Secretary after 1991. -9- . SLRMP/MSA-WIL/03-06-87/0360P SLRMP MSA CAPABILITY ANALYSIS FORM 3 RESOURCE CAPABILITY LEVEL DESCRIPTIONS Specialist Name B. Schneider _ Area Number (from GIS Theme) WIL Resource _ _ Wilderness _ RCL (i.e., 1, 2 or 3) 2 °ate 12-01-86 Description of Area (Species, number of acres, miles, etc.) 1. Black Canyon WSA 2,300 acres adjoins USFS Sangre de Cristo WSA. 2. So. Piney Creek WSA 870 acres adjoins USFS Sangre de Cristo WSA. 3. Papa Real WSA 1,020 acres adjoins USFS Sangre de Cristo WSA. 4. Zapata Creek WSA 720 acres adjoins USFS Sangre de Cristo WSA. 5. Sand Castle WSA 1,644 acres adjoins NPS Great Sand Wilderness Area. Dunes 6. San Luis Hills WSA 10,240 acres southeast portion of San Luis Valley immediately west Grande . of Rio Rationale for RCL To protect the wilderness and other unique qualities of the specific areas. This will assure protection of such qualities which are in increasing demand and rare in supply. SLRMP/MSA-WIL/ 03-06-87/0360P SLRMP MSA CAPABILITY ANALYSIS FORM 3 RESOURCE CAPABILITY LEVEL DESCRIPTIONS Specialist Name Resource _ Date B. Schneider Area Number (from CIS Theme) Wilderness RCL (i.e., 1, 2 or 3) _____ 12-01-86 3 WIL Description of Area (Species, number of acres, miles, etc.) 1. Black Canyon WSA 2,300 acres adjoins USFS Sangre de Cristo WSA. 2. So. Piney Creek WSA 870 acres adjoins USFS Sangre de Cristo WSA. 3. Papa Keal WSA 1,020 acres adjoins USFS Sangre de Cristo WSA. 4. Zapata Creek WSA 720 acres adjoins USFS Sangre de Cristo WSA. 5. Sand Castle WSA 1,644 acres adjoins NPS Great Sand Wilderness Area. Dunes 6. San Luis Hills WSA 10,240 acres southeast portion of San Luis Valley immediately west of Rio Grande. Rationale for RCL Units 1-4 would have unique characteristics protected that gave these areas their original (current) protection. Units 5 and 6 would be managed so that multiple use factors and management would be allowed while still emphasizing protection of the unique values. -11- ' SLRMP/MSA-WIL/03-06-87/0360P DATA THEMES The six WSAs are displayed on USGS quad sheets. The actual bondaries of each of the 6 WSAs is digitized and displayed with the GIS theme, "WIL" . The boundaries shown on the map are identical to those which will be presented to the Secretary of Interior 'in the Canon City District Wilderness FEIS. 1ST WORK 47 MAPS IN WORK PROJECT POLYGON F0RF0XC1 7 SLFORPL 1 3 SLF0RPL4TY 3 SLF0RPL9TY 3 SLRMPFORTY 3 SLRMFLB1PW 3 SLRMPLB5LG 3 SLRMPLB9MQ 3 SLRPLB1PWP SLRPLB5LGP 3 SLRPLB9M0P 3 ENTER COMMAND ? BYE FOR PL 7 3 SLFORPL 1TY 3 SLF0RPL5TY 3 SLPLB10SLP 3 SLRMPLBO 3 SLRMPLB2PE 3 SLRMPLB6RG 3 SLRMPLBMG 3 FORPLB SLF0RPL2TY SLF0RPL6TY 3 SLRMLSTOMG 3 SLRMPLBOMG 3 SLRMPLB3SA 3 SLRMPL.B7BL SLFORPLOTY 3 SLFORPL 37 Y 3 SLFORPL STY 3 SLRMPFORMG 3 SLRMPLBOSL 3 Ql L-> i?i_RMPLB4HH ILRPLB6RGP 3 EMF0RP9MG 3 SLRPLB3SAP SLRPLB7BLP 3 TRNWOLFSAG 7 SLRPLB4HHP SLRPLB8GMP -12- SLRMP/MSA-WIL/ 03-06-87/ 0360P REFERENCES 1. "BLM: Intensive Wilderness Inventory, Final Wilderness Study Areas, November 1980, CSO. 2. Draft Environmental Impact Statement, "Canon City District Wilderness Planning Amendment”. December 1982, CSO. 3. Land and Resource Management Plan, Rio Grande National Forest. 4. Wilderness Specialist, USFS Regional Office, Denver 5-86. -13- SLRMP/MSA-ACE/ 03-06-87/0356P CHAPTER 15 AREAS OF CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS CONTENTS Pag RESOURCE AREA PROFILE (RAP) — ” Description . 1 Condition and Trend . . . . . . . 2 EXISTING MANAGEMENT SITUATION (EMS) Current Management . 3 Supply-Demand Analysis and Dependency . 3 CAPABILITY ANALYSIS (CA) Definition . . -j Management Practices . .... 7 Resource Capability Level Description . . 7 FORMS/TABLES All forms or tables are placed in order of use . 8 DATA THEMES Discussion or presentation of data theme material ......... H REFERENCES List all reference studies, persons, reports, etc . 12 SLRMP/MSA-ACE/ 03-06-87/0356P CHAPTER 15— AREAS OF CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN RESOURCE AREA PROFILE Description There are no formally designated areas of critical environmental concern (ACEC) presently located In the San Luis Resource Area. There is one area that has been formally withdrawn; the Blanca Management Area. However, it has no special designation. Table 15-1 presents the potential ACECs that have been identified to date by the BLM, the public, and the state of Colorado. TABLE 15-1 POTENTIAL ACECS IN SIRA Potential No. ACEC Name Regional or National Significant Site Values Proposed By 1 Black Canyon 2 South PLney Creek 3 Sand Castle 4 Papa Real 5 Zapata Creek 6 San Luis Hills 7 Blanca Area 8 Trickle Mtn. Area 9 Rio Grande Wild & Scenic 10 Elephant Rock Area 31 Cattleguard Folsom Site 12 IWin Peaks 1/ 13 Flat Top WSA Natural Area, (Scenic, Recreation) BIM WSA (Scenic, Recreation) BLM WSA (Scenic, Recreation) BIM WSA (Scenic, Recreation) BIM WSA (Scenic, Recreation) BLM WSA (Scenic, Recreation) BIM Wildlife ffebitat, Recreation BIM Wildlife Habitat, Recreation, T&E Plant Area BIM Recreation, Scenic, and Cultural BIM T&E Plants and Natural Area State of Colo. Cultural Research of National Significance BIM Scenic, Recreation BIM Scenic, T&E Plants and Wildlife Habitat BIM/State of Colo. TwLn Peaks and Rio Grande Wild and Scenic River areas are adjacent and may be combined into one ACEC. -1- SLRMP /MSA- ACE/03-06-87 /0356P The list of potential" ACECs represents those areas currently under consideration as wilderness study areas (WSA), withdrawn areas that have been identified as having "special management" needs as per the 43 CFR 1617 regulations, areas that were inventoried as wilderness areas but did not meet the criteria for WSAs, and areas that have been identified by state, local, or private concerns. Condition and Trend The following sites have been identified as having potential ACEC values. Present condition and trend are shown in Table 15-2. TABLE 15-2 PRESENT CONDITION AND TREND OF POTENTIAL ACEC’S Potential ACEC Name Present Condition i/ Present Trend 2J Black Canyon South Piney Creek Sand Castle Papa Keal Zapata Creek San Luis Hills Blanca Area Trickle Mtn. Area Rio Grande Wild & Scenic Elephant Rock Area Cattleguard Folsom Site Twin Peaks Flat Top Deteriorating Poor, Deteriorating Good Eroding, vandalism Good Good Good (WSA) Good (WSA) Good (WSA) Good (WSA) Good (WSA) Good (WSA) Improving Improving Deteriorating Deteriorating Stable Deteriorating Stable Stable Stable Stable Stable Stable Stable Stable -2- SLRMP/MSA-ACE/ 03-06-87 / 0356P — / Condition is defined here as the relative conditon of those values that cause sites to be considered for ACEC designation. This can include environmental values, roadlessness, lack of human intrusions, scenic values, cultural values, and the ACEC criteria as defined in 43 CFR 1617. The conditon of these factors add up to total "site conditon". —2/ Trend is defined here as the tendency for the continuation of existing condition (defined above) to remain constant. Trend means what is happening to those conditons and values of potential ACECs and what will happen to them if current management continues unchanged. -3- ' SLRMP/MSA-ACE/03-06-87/0356P EXISTING MANAGEMENT SITUATION Current Management Currently, the Blanca Wildlife Area, because it is withdrawn, is managed as a special area. There are restrictions on the use of this area. For example, mineral entry is prohibited. Equally, WSAs are managed as interim wilderness so as not to change their integrity or to compromise them as potential wilderness areas. The Trickle Mountain Area is managed for wildlife enhancement, while the Cattleguard Folsom Site is being excavated by the Smithsonian Institution and is managed as a nationally recognized unique cultural site. Finally, two recently identified rare plant sites are not under any special management pending evaluation (Trickle and Flat Top). The following BLM WSAs are adjacent to proposed U.S. Forest Service wilderness areas : Black Canyon Zapata creek South Piney Creek Papa Keal These WSAs may become part of the Forest Service wilderness system when designation legislation is proposed. The BLM areas could be attached to adjacent National Forest wilderness areas. If this occurs, the BLM areas would not be designated ACECs as they would become part of the National Forest system. -4- u ' ' SLRMP/MSA-ACE/03-06-87/0356P One BLM WSA, Sand Castle, is located adjacent to the San Dunes National Mnument. It has not been recommended for wilderness status. It may be merged into the Monument, and if the occurs. Sand Castle will not be designated an ACEC since it would be part of the Monument. Supply-Demand Analysis and Dependency ACECs normally have no economic demand nor supply attached to them. The demand generated is primarily based on the resources and their values. Such demand is determined by unique and significant resource values, not public need. Regional or national significance is an indication of this demand. Supply of ACECs is determined by the amount of unique resources, availability, and their relative scarcity. This supply must be considered in light of other competing demands, multiple— use needs, and management decisions. -5- SLRMP/MSA-ACE/ 03-06-8 7 /0356P CAPABILITY ANALYSIS (CA) The following forms describe the definition of the capability resource levels (RCL's), and the management practices to be applied to each particular RCL° Table 15-3 presents the specific sites within each of these RCL. -6- SLRMP/MSA-ACE/03-06-87/0356P SLRMP MSA CAPABILITY ANALYSIS FORM 1 DEFINITIONS OF RESOURCE CAPABILITY LEVELS Resource Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) _ _ Specialist Name R. Athearn _ Date 11/13/1986 Resource Capability Level 1. (define the highest priority for management) The designation of an area as an ACEC defines special management areas (SMA) as a site/or area that requires special management techniques, that are defined by the management plan created from an ACEC designation. An ACEC requires special management techniques and recognition of unique values within the boudnaries of the designated ACEC. Resource Capability Level 2 (define the second highest priority for management) Areas that have special or unique values can be managed without a formal ACEC designation, but they can also be managed through administrative means such as limiting grazing, no surface occupancy, etc. These areas are not designated formally as ACECs," but may be specially managed through normal administrative channels if it is decided that certain values require protection. Resource Capability Level 3 (define the third highest priority for management) Those areas where no reasonable special management actions can be taken to protect the resource from irreparable damage or to restore it to a viable condition. Such areas can be "special" and may have unique resource values; but, they simply cannot be protected from damage no matter what kind of special management is applied to the land. Therefore, while the values may be there, special management designation is not appropriate for this type of resource/site. -7- SLUMP /MS A-ACE/ 03-06-87/ 0356P SLRMP MSA CAPABILITY ANALYSIS FORM 1 DEFINITIONS OF RESOURCE CAPABILITY LEVELS Resource Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) Specialist Name R. Athearn _ Date 11/13/1986 Describe the types of management that you would use in RCL 1 areas This level implies that a site/area has begn formally designated as an ACEC and that it must be managed within parameters defined in the management plan that must be prepared for each ACEC. This type of area requires a detailed management plan to guide the future of the special or unique resources under ACEC designation. Such management is defined in 43 CFR 1617.8 and is part of the ACEC designation process. Describe the types of management you would use in RCL 2 areas This level of management is for an area that may not have a formal designation, but it may have special or unique values that require special management to preserve the resources at hand. Through administrative remedy, this type of site may be protected by using such techniques as no surface occupancy, limitation of grazing, withdrawal, fencing, etc. This type of management is less stringent than RCL 1 areas, but it also provides the manager with more flexibility in making land use allocation decisions. Describe the types of management you would use in RCL 3 areas This level of management is for an area that may have special or unique values, but because no reasonable special management actions can be taken to protect these values, no special management (ACEC) designation or management techniques are needed. This situation may also apply to areas where the unique values are marginal in nature, but, they are known to exist because of prior identification. r SLRMP/MSA-ACE/03-06-87/0356P DATA THEMES (STILL MISSING) (Need description of theme data to include quad by quad listing). SLRMP/MSA-ACE/ 03-06-87/0356P REFERENCES (STILL MISSING) -10- . TABU POTENTIAL AREAS OF CRITIC _ _ ~~ (43 (JHSI/.8) TAB^^t3 ica^^Promeneal OCNCERN (ACEC) Potential ACEC 1) Relevance (Significant Value Resource, Processor Hazard) _ a) Known I b) Potential I c) Managenent Threats | Threats/Risks j Desire Prior to RHP 1 . Black Canyon 1 None 1 Ncne, Mining 1 1 WSA 2. South Piney Cr 1 1 None 1 1 1 None, Mining 1 I WSA 3. Sand Castle 1 1 None, OVR 1 Disturbance | 1 1 None, Mining 1 I 1 1 WSA 1 4. Papa Real 1 1 None 1 1 None, Mining i 1 1 WSA 5. Zapata Creek 1 | 1 None, Uncon- | None, Mining 1 trolled Rec. j 1 use 1 1 1 WSA 1 6. San Luis Hills 1 Mining 1 1 Mining 1 1 1 WSA 7 . Blanca Area 1 1 None I 1 1 None, Loss of 1 Water Sources I 1 1 Withdrawal 1 Wildlife mp | 8. Trickle Mtn. 8 I None 1 1 1 1 None, Grazing 1 and Mining 1 1 Wildlife IMP 1 | 9. Rio Grande W/S 1 1 Uncontrolled 1 I Mining, 1 1 Recreation, River Area I Rec Use, 1 Listed Tres- 1 passes 1 Development 1 1 1 Cultural 1 | 10. Elephant Rock 1 None 1 Grazing, Mining 1 Multiple Use 1 11. Cattleguard Folsom Site 1 1 Vandalism, 1 Erosion j 1 1 Vandalism, 1 Erosion 1 1 1 Research 1 1 12. TWin Peaks 1 1 None None, Mining 1 Recreation a 13. Flat Top 1 1 None 1 J _ None, Mining 1 1 Multiple Use 1 J _ 2) Importance (More than Local Significance, Special Wbrth Meaning) _ li) Resource (" b) Sig. Threat to I c) Regional/ I Life/Safety | National Scenic, Rec. and Nat. | None I Scenic, Recreation | None 1 Scenic, Recreation I Scenic, Recreation Scenic, Recreation Scenic, Recreation Wildlife Habitat, Recreation Wildlife Habitat, Rec. and T&E Plants Recreation, Scenic, Cultural T&E Plants, Natural Area Cultural Values of National Significance None None None None None None None, Uncontrolled Recreation Use None None Recreation, Scenic j None ! T&E Plants, Scenic, & | None Wildlife Habitat \ 4/ ^ ccmnmts req«sced that this site shaild be studied for possible ACEC disgnatitns. It I win Peaks is adiaeeni- f-ho u/o ...... u.. , . * Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes A rm^r* SLRMP/MSA-ATR/03-06-87/0366P CHAPTER 16 ACCESS AND TRANSPORTATION CONTENTS Page RESOURCE AREA PROFILE (RAP) Description of Resource ............ . 1 Condition and Trend . . . . 1 EXISTING MANAGEMENT SITUATION (EMS) Current Management . . . 3 Supply-Demand Analysis and Dependency .... . 4 CAPABILITY ANALYSIS (CA) Definition . 5 Management Practices . 5 Resource Capability Level Description ............ 5 FORMS All forms are placed in order of use ........ . 6 DATA THEMES Discussion or presentation of data theme material . 11 REFERENCES List all reference studies, persons, reports, etc 12 SLRMP/MSA-ATR/ 03-06-87 /0366P CHAPTER 16— ACCESS AND TRANSPORTATION RESOURCE AREA PROFILE (RAP) Description of Resource Approximately ________ miles of road throughout the San Luis Resource area provide physical and/or legal access to public lands. These roads are located on federal, state, and private lands. There are miles of federal and state highways that run through the resource area. Roads in the Alamosa, Conejos, Rio Grande, and Saquache counties provide _ miles of road that are important to the RESOURCE AREA TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM. These roads are shown on Map 16-1 (county roads In the San Luis Resource Area). County roads are very important in providing legal access to public lands, this helps the BLM in Its ability to manage these lands. Condition and Trend The majority of roads on the public land were not constructed by the BLM but originated as trails used primarily by recreationists. Most of these roads are in poor condition and do not meet BLM road standards. Roads under BLM control are not maintained regularly, and many would require reconstruction and realignment to accommodate any Increased use. -1- SLRMP/MSA-ATR/ 03-06-87/ 0366P These roads are usually passable only during dry weather, and many require four-wheel drive and high clearance vehicles. During wet weather these vehicles cause considerable damage to roads. Most of the roads are deteriorating from erosion because they lack regular maintenance. Only one wildlife habitat-related road has been built properly and receives adequate maintenance to stay in good condition. A few segments of roads to public lands have no legal access. The access is controlled by adjacent private property owners who close the roads to the public. However, the resource area is working on acquiring road easements in identified areas where there is no legal access. On a overall bases the resource area has good legal access. Access to public lands for which a demand exists because of multiple use opportunities, is good. % SLRMP /MS A-ATR/ 03-0 6-8 7 / 0 3 6 6 P EXISTING MANAGEMENT SITUATION Current Management The existing transportation system for the resource area consists of federal, state, and primary county roads that receive frequent maintenance and secondary country roads, private roads, and BLM managed roads that receive infrequent or no maintenance* The public road system (federal and state highways and county roads) is an integral part of the transportation system for providing access to public lands. Roads receiving state, county or BLM maintenance are shown on Map 16-2. There are ______ miles of BLM roads identified on the resource areas transportation plan. There are _ _ miles of these roads that are maintained by the BLM. Those roads maintained periodically by the private sector are not identified due to the lack of data for this maintenance. Access to a few areas of the public lands are controlled by adjacent private landowners. Their restrictions on access to public lands prevent multiple use management on those portions of the public lands. However, the few areas this problem exists have been identified and easement acquisitions are being planned. The BLM and the intermixed private and county road systems provide access for livestock, forestry, recreation and BLM management. Many of the roads on public lands are only passable during dry weather. Travel on these roads during adverse conditions by four-wheel drive vehicles causes serious erosion problems and impacts to other resources. -3- SLRMP/MSA-ATR/03-06-87/0366P During recent years the resource area has posted seasonal closures on many public roads to protect the fragile resources and for public safety reasons. A few roads have been designated as open, closed or limited to off road vehicle(ORV) use. Roads on the public lands that are utilized frequently by various users have been maintained infrequently by the BLM when funds are available. These roads are maintained under the guidelines and recommendations of the San Luis Resource Area management framework plan and other BLM maintenance polices. Supply-Demand Analysis and Dependency Demands for transportation needs in the resource area are directly related to resources found on public lands. This includes demands for commercial activities, such as, livestock grazing, forestry, minerals and noncommercial type activities, such as using ORV’s, hunting, camping, fuelwood gathering, Christmas trees cutting, and other recreational uses. The road system for using the public lands is inadequate in many areas. Adequate funding and support have not been available to correct this situation. Legal public access is needed in many identified areas to allow the BLM to carry out multiple use management. There are some areas with numerous roads into critical wildlife ranges and fragile environments. This access causes impacts to various resources and users of public lands. Major impacts are felt by soil, water, cultural and wildlife resources. Also, restrictions to access only for BLM administrative purposes and permittees are used in some areas (Service Rds., etc.). -4- SLRMP/MSA-ATR/ 03-06-87/ 0366P CAPABILITY ANALYSIS The following forms describe the definition of the capability resource levels (RCLs), the management practices to be applied to each road, in that particular RCL, and the specific roads within each RCL. A SLRMP/MSA-ATR/ 03-06-87/ 0366P SLRMP MSA CAPABILITY ANALYSIS FROM 1 DEFINITIONS OF RESOURCE CAPABILITY LEVELS Resource Transportation & Access Specialist Name F. Martinez Date 12-1 —86 _ Resource Capability Level 1 (define the highest priority for management) Collector Road - These are high volume roads used primarily for recreational purposes and demand the highest need for preventive maintenance » Resource Capability Level 2 (define the second highest priority for management) Local Roads - These are considered medium duty roads. They provide access to potentially high multiple use areas. These roads are generally stable but demand periodic maintenance. Resource Capability Level 3 (define the third highest priority for management) Resource Roads - These are considered to be light duty roads: They are primarily used by permittee and for BLM administrative purposes and demand spot maintenance. -6- SLRMP/MSA-ATR/03-06-87/0366P SLUMP MSA CAPABILITY ANALYSIS FROM 2 MANAGEMENT PRACTICES Resource Name Transportation and Access _ _ _ _ Specialist Name F. Martinez _ _ _ _ Date 12-1-86 Describe the types of management that you would use In RCL 1 areas Keep and maintain signs and provide preventive maintenance on a yearly bases. Describe the types of management you would use in RCL 2 areas Provide signs indicating road name and number and maintain road on a three year cycle. Describe the types of management you would use in RCL 3 areas Provide restrictive signs and provide spot maintenance on a five year cycle. -7- SLRMP/MSA-ATR/ 03-06-87/ 0366P SLRMP MSA CAPABILITY ANALYSIS FORM 3 RESOURCE CAPABILITY LEVEL DESCRIPTIONS Specialist Name F. Martinez _ _ Area Number (from CIS Theme) TRN Resource Transportation & Access RCL (i.e., 1, 2 or 3) _____ _ 1 Date _ 12-1-86 _ Description of Area (Species, number of acres, miles, etc.) There are _____ miles of collector roads in the San Luis Resource area public lands. Rationale for RCL There exists in the resource area a high user demand for these roads. The access availability is very good. SLRMP/MSA-ATR/ 03-06-87 / 0366P SLRMP MSA CAPABILITY ANALYSIS FORM 3 RESOURCE CAPABILITY LEVEL DESCRIPTIONS Specialist Name F. Martinez Area Number (from GIS Theme) TRN Resource Transportation & Access RCL (i.e., 1, 2 or 3) 2 _ Date 12-1-86 _ Description of Area (Species, number of acres, miles, etc.) There are miles of local roads in the San Luis Resource area. Rationale for RCL These roads provide access to the- resource area's multiple use areas. Legal access to most areas of the public land is considered to be good. However, a few areas have been Identified with no legal access. Easement acquisitions are being sought in those areas of potentially high multiple use. SLRMP/MSA-ATR/ 03-06-87/ 0366P SLRMP MSA CAPABILITY ANALYSIS FORM 3 RESOURCE CAPABILITY LEVEL DESCRIPTIONS Specialist Name F. Martinez _ _ Area Number (from GIS Theme) TRN Resource Transportation & Access _ RCL (i.e., 1, 2 or 3) _ _ 3 Date 12-1-86 _ _ _ Description of Area (Species, number of acres, miles, etc.) There are _ miles of local roads in the San Luis Resource area. Rationale for RCL These are considered restricted roads and have no legal access problems. -10- SLRMP/MSA-ATR/ 03-06-87/0366P NOTE: DATA THEMES (STILL MISSING) Need a description of the GIS themes, how they can be used, what is the content, to include a listing of guads used. -11- SLRMP/MSA-ATR/03-06-87/0366P REFERENCES (STILL MISSING) NOTE: Need all reports persons, agencies, etc., used in putting together this chapter. -12- SLRMP/MSA-REC/ 03-10-87 / 0355P CHAPTER 17 RECREATION CONTENTS Page RESOURCE AREA PROFILE (RAP) ' Description . . . 1 Condition and Trend . . . . . 3 EXISTING MANAGEMENT SITUATION (EMS) Current Management . . . 4 Supply-Demand Analysis . . 7 CAPABILITY ANALYSIS (CA) Definition . . . . . 8 Management Practices . . 8 Resource Capability Level Description .... . 8 FORMS All forms are placed in order of use . . . 9 DATA THEMES Discussion or presentation of data theme material . . 15 REFERENCES List all reference studies, persons, reports, etc 16 SLRMP/MSA-REC/03-10-87 /0355P CHAPTER 17 — RECREATION RESOURCE AREA PROFILE Description The San Luis Valley Resource Area is divided into two areas for recreation management purposes. The Rio Grande Special Recreation Management Area (SRMA) comprises approximately 2,560 acres of public land adjoining the west bank of the rivers. It commences at the Lobotos bridge, east of the community of Antonito, and extends 8 miles south to the New Mexico State line. This area provides an outstanding primitive float boat opportunity as well as fishing, viewing, hiking, and camping, all in a semiprimitive setting. The private land at the Lobotos bridge site provides the only southern point for vehicle and boat access to the final 8 miles of the river in the state and for some distance into New Mexico. This SRMA adjoins the Taos Resource Area where the Rio Grande is a National Wild and Scenic River already. That resource area applies special recreation management emphasis on their stretch of the Rio grande river. The vast majority of the resource area is managed as the San Luis Extensive Recreation Management Area. This includes approximately 516,000 acres in four recreational opportunity settings (see Table 17-1 for definition and breakdown) . There are no developed recreational facilities except for those in the Blanca Management Area. That area has a network of basically three -1- * SLRMP/MSA-REC/03-10-87 / 0355P roads providing access to three restrooms with parking areas and trash receptacles. The area provides excellent wildlife viewing, hunting, and fishing opportunities. A number of trails and entrance ladders are provided for public participation in the above mentioned activities as well as picnicking, hiking, camping, and nature study opportunities. The majority of the Blanca Management area provides for dispersed recreation activities which occur outside of designated sites. The variety of appealing land forms, from mountains to valleys; vegetation from trees to sage; and a variety of topography, from sand dunes to mountain streams offer a significant number of diverse outdoor recreational activities. Specific recreation opportunities available include: Hunting, fishing, viewing, off-road vehicle (ORV) use, hiking, picnicking, camping, vegetative and mineral gathering, snow-mobiling, cross-country skiing, general leisure, and sightseeing. ' SLRMP/MSA-REC/03-10-87/ 0355P TABLE 17-1 RECREATION OPPORTUNITY SPECTRUM CLASSIFICATION R05' SETT rag' "CLASS T7 ” ACRES % OF RESOURCE AREA Semi-primitive nonmotorized (SPNM) Semi-primitive motorized (SPM) Roaded Natural (RN) Rural (R) TOTAL 522,000 100% 1 / Definitions: Recreation Opportunity Spectrum R0S = Professional description of recreation opportunities using the concept of a spectrum. SPNM = \ mile from any road, no noticeable visual or audio intrusions SPM = \ mile from any improved road, no noticeable visual or audio intrusions RN = \ mile from any primary or secondary road, no visual intrusion in foreground R = 0 miles from any road - all roads accepted -3- I , SLRMP /MSA-REC /O 3-1 0-87/0355P Condition and Trend The overall condition of the recreation settings is good with some exceptions. Those exceptions include a few sites being degraded from intensive camping along the flanks of the Sangre de Cristos and in the Trickle Mountain area. The recreational facilities at Blanca Management Area have been periodically vandalized and signing is almost nonexistent. The private land used by the recreating public at Lobotos bridge is deteriorating from lack of public control facilities and livestock trespass. Factors such as population growth and more leisure time are expected to bring about an increase in most recreational activities. There has been an increase in float boat activity on the Rio Grande reflecting the national trend. The of the resources demand and lack for further ORV restrictions on Trickle Mountain have stabilized quality but this may prove to be only temporary. An increase in ORV of adequate funding for management and maintenance may allow deterioration of the recreation quality and land resource. -=4- SLRMP/MSA-REC/03-10-87/0355P The U.S. Forest Service makes the following projection trends for recreation in the Rio Grande National Forest. Total dispersed recreation use will continue to increase at a rate of about 6c, 9 percent per decade. As travel expenses increase, the amount of dispersed recreation use by local residents will increase and visitors will lengthen the duration of their visits. The 1986 Colorado Outdoor Recreation Plan is very general. It anticipated 5.6 percent regional growth and recommends a high priority for picnicking, fishing, hunting, and snowmobiling . SLRMP/MSA-REC/ 03-10-87/ 0355P EXISTING MANAGEMENT SITUATION Current Management The San Luis Valley Resource Area recreation management and maintenance program has been and continues to be severely constrained by budget limitations. Those active functions that do occur can be classified as 1) minimal maintenance of the facilities at Blanca Management Area; 2) seasonal closures of some roads for resource protection; 3) issuance of commercial recreation use permits for Upland game outfitters and a dog trials event. (The Taos Resource Area issues all commercial river permits for the Rio Grande); 4) provision for activity and resource information in response to public requests; 5) coordination of group uses and events occurring on BLM lands; and 6) provision for constrains of other resource use proposals to protect recreation resources. In all of the above functions, very little Tn compliance, monitoring, or maintenance occurs, and that which does occur is reduced annually. Approximately one-half work month annually is provided to maintain the three recreation facilities at Blanca Management Area. A map and a few location signs exist within the area. There are no signs outside the area to direct the public into the area. Vandalism is a reoccurring problem. Resource interpretive signing, proper maintenance of camping and picnicking facilities, and monitoring of recreational use is extremely inadequate. Present management policy is to discourage the use of this recreation resource.. -6- ' • • » SLRMP/MSA-REC/03-10-87/0355P An ORV plan was written for the Trickle Mountain Area, and implemented in the fall of 1979. This limits recreational ORV use to designated roads. Initially this plan benefited the resource and recreating public. However, since the inception of this plan, no funding has been available for further implementation, maintenance, or monitoring. The trend is towards further deterioration of the area. The remainder of the Resource Area is open to ORV use with the exception of seasonal ORV closures because of muddy roads or critical wildlife habitat. These seasonal closures have occurred in the Mogotes-Poso-RaJadero area and in the Poncha Pass area. A few recreation use permits for commercial upland game outfitting are issued. Due to funding limitations, no monitoring of use is conducted. Information from other agencies who do monitor use on their lands indicate that anywhere from 6 to 10 commercial outfitters probably use BLM lands. Some of these outfitters are under permit issued by other BLM offices. The BLM office in Taos administers the permit system for the Rio Grande under verbal agreement with the Alamosa office. This is facilitated by the fact that all boat activity that occurs adjacent to BLM lands in Colorado must exit in New Mexico in the Taos Resource Area. Currently an active land exchange is being pursued to obtain the private land around the Lobotos Bridge area on the Rio Grande. When this exchange is completed it will provide assurance of public access to the river. The BLM will acquire land suitable for development of facilities and public recreational use which is in great demand in this area. The current landowner has allowed public use of the site and granted permission for a boaters registration box. -7- SLRMP/MSA-REC/ 03-10-87/ 0355P The provision of public information is an increasing program workload. There is an increasing amount of public interest in using public lands for a variety of recreational activities. Complete lack of directional signing on public lands adds to this tremendously unmet need. There has been an annual dog trials event at Blanca Management Area that attracts regional participation and numbers of participants are increasing. There have also been several ORV events on BLM lands in the past although present use has shifted to private and Forest Service lands. This shift has been for economic purposes and eliminates the dual permit expenditure by the sponsors of the events. Recreation concerns constrain other resource proposals. For example, projects such as water lines, powerlines, and roads are often routed to avoid areas of sensitive recreational values. All attempts are made to minimize and mitigate adverse impacts to recreational resources. Increasing use and abuse of the recreational resource will require more intensive recreational management and consequently a need for funding. Supply-Demand Analysis The recreation opportunity spectrum is displayed on the GIS maps. This shows the spectrum of opportunities and settings available in the resource area. These settings range from semiprimitive nonraotorized to rural as explained under the RAP description section. -8- ' SLRMP/MSA-REC/ 03-10-87/ 0355P In addition to the opportunities supplied by the BLM, other agencies in the San Luis Valley provide recreational opportunities. The Great Sand Dunes National Monument is a national attraction and offers superb quality sand dunes for hiking, camping, viewing, nature studies, and wilderness experiences. There are two National Wildlife Refuges in the valley that offer the whole spectrum of quality wildlife associated activities. The Rio Grande National Forest on both the east and west flanks of the valley offers almost the entire spectrum of recreational opportunities and settings. The BLM provides the settings and opportunities described earlier. Another very key role of BLM lands is to provide access to the recreational lands of the U.S. Forest Service. The demand for the BLM resource is both local and regional in scope. The Rio Grande Special Recreation Management Area (SRMA) has a regional demand with the potential for national demand for the float boat activity. Other potential demand activities at this site are river hiking, picnicking, camping, scenic viewing, and cultural Interpretation. The national monument and Federal wildlife refuges have national significance and demand . ( 4 * * SLRMP/MSA-REC/ 03-10-87 / 0355P CAPABILITY ANALYSIS (CA) The following forms describe the definition of the capability resource levels (RCL's), the management practices to be applied to each particular RCL, and the specific site(s) that fall within each RCL. -10- SLRMP/MSA-REC/03-10-87/ 0355P SLRMP MSA CAPABILITY ANALYSIS FROM 1 DEFINITIONS OF RESOURCE CAPABILITY LEVELS Resource Recreation _ _ Specialist Name B. Schneider Date 11-22-86 _ _ _ Resource Capability Level 1 (define the highest priority for management) Areas of public land where recreation related public issues and management concerns are significant. These issues and concerns fall into two categories: 1. Areas where resource protection or management action is needed to ensure the continued availability of outdoor recreation opportunities not readily available from other public or private sources. Recreation is the principal management objective. 2. Areas where active recreation use management (people management) is needed to mitigate use conflicts and protect visitor health and safety. Recreation may not be the principal resource management concern. Resource Capability Level 2 (define the second highest priority for management) Areas where public recreation related issues and management concerns are significant, but are related to ensuring the continued availability of high quality dispersed recreational opportunities. Recreation is an important land use in a multiple use perspective. Resource Capability Level 3 (define the third highest priority for management) Areas where dispersed recreational use occurs but other resource uses dominate land use. -11- y SLRMP/MSA-REC/03-10-87/0355P SLUMP MSA CAPABILITY ANALYSIS FROM 2 MANAGEMENT PRACTICES Resource Name Recreation _ __________ _ _ _ Specialist Name B. Schneider _ _ _ _ 11-22-86 Describe the types of management that you would use in RCL 1 areas 1. Areas where resource protection is needed: Management actions could include wild and scenic designations for natural and/or scenic value, activity plans for SRMAs, designation of ORV areas as "closed" or "limited" in response to public issue identification, recreation lands designation, and pursut of appropriate withdrawals to protect recreation opportunities. 2. Areas where active recreation management is needed: Active field presence of Bureau personnel during high use periods and in use conflict areas, active information and education programs with signs, brochures, news releases, activity involvement, and acquisition of access. Describe the types of management you would use in RCL 2 areas Ensure that conflicting land uses are constrained to minimize adverse impacts to important recreation opportunities in each area. Signing and information/education materials may be developed in response to public needs. Where there are no significant land use issues, designable public lands as "open" to ORV use, and acquire access. Describe the types of management you would use in RCL 3 areas Some information signs and materials may be provided to support the public needs for dispersed outdoor recreation opportunities. Constraints on recreational use will be minimal. Restrictions on other resource uses will follow established multiple use principals to ensure long-term protection of resource values, but will not be significantly constrained in the short term by recreation related concerns. -12- ' SLRMP/MSA-REC/ 03~10”87 /0355P SLRMP MSA CAPABILITY ANALYSIS FORM 3 RESOURCE CAPABILITY LEVEL DESCRIPTIONS Specialist Name B. Schneider Area Number (from GIS Theme) REC (SPNM) Resource Recreation RCL (i.e., 1, 2 or 3) la Date Description of Area (Species, number of acres, miles, etc.) Rio Grande SRMA: 2,560 acres on west side of river for approximately one quarter to one half mile (from river to top of rim-rock). From the Lobotos Bridge to New Mexico state line, a distance of 8 miles. SPNM acres = SPM acres = RN acres = Rationale for RCL Offers outstanding scenic, natural, cultural, wildlife wilderness, and recreation values. River setting and opportunities provided here are not available from other public or private sources with the exception of the same river and resources in the state of New Mexico where it is designated as a wild and scenic river when it enters New Mexico. * SLRMP/MSA-REC/ 03-10-87/ 0355P SLRMP MSA CAPABILITY ANALYSIS FORM 3 RESOURCE CAPABILITY LEVEL DESCRIPTIONS Specialist Name B. Schneider _ Area Number (from GIS Theme) REC Resource Recreation RCL (i.e., 1, 2 or 3) _ lb Date Description of Area (Species, number of acres, miles, etc«) San Luis Valley Extensive Recreation Management Area: SPNM acres = _ _ _ _ SPM acres = RN acres = _ _ _ _ R acres = This will include the 52,000+ acres of the Trickle Mountain 0RV area; approximately 13,000 acres of the San Luis Hills; and 3,900+ acres of the Blanca Management Area. Rationale for RCL An ORV plan has been written and approved with public input for the Trickle Mountain Area. Public issue identification has created a need for ORV designation of the San Luis Hills and Blanca Management Area to mitigate conflicts and resource impacts. Active recreation management is needed to protect the recreational, and other values at Blanca. SLRMP/MSA-REC/ 03-10-87 / 0355P SLRMP MSA CAPABILITY ANALYSIS FORM 3 RESOURCE CAPABILITY LEVEL DESCRIPTIONS Specialist Name B. Schneider _ _____ Area Number (from GIS Theme) REC Resource Recreation _ _ _____ ®-CL (i.e., 1, 2 or 3) _ 2 Date _ _ _ _ _ Description of Area (Species, number of acres, miles, etc.) San Luis Extensive Recreation Management Area. SPNM acres = _ _ _ _____ SPM acres = _ _ _ _ _ RN acres ■ _ _ _ _ _ R acres = _ _ _ _ Zapata Falls portion of Blanca Planning Unit Remainder of Saguache Planning Unit not in RCL 1 Rio Grande Planning Unit ORV portions of Greenie Mountain Planning Unit. Rationale for RCL Recreation is an important land (one of the major resources but not the major resource) use in a multiple use perspective. Recreation settings and activity opportunities ensure the continued availability of high quality dispersed recreational opportunities on public lands. Failure to provide opportunities on BLM could mean loss of some activities and would move use onto USFS lands where use in some cases would exceed theoretical capacity. There is very little, if any, opportunity for such activities on private land with notable exceptions of camping, picnicking, and hunting. -15- SLRMP/MSA-REC/ 03-10-87 / 0355P SLRMP MSA CAPABILITY ANALYSIS FORM 3 RESOURCE CAPABILITY LEVEL DESCRIPTIONS Specialist Name B. Schneider _ _ _ Area Number (from GIS Theme) REC Resource Recreation _ _ _ ^L (i.e., 1, 2 or 3) 3 Date _ _ _ _ _ _ Description of Area (Species, number of acres, miles, etc.) San Luis Extensive Recreation Management Area. All of remainder of Resource Area not under RCL 1 or 2. SPNM acres = _ _ _ _ SPM acres ** _ _ _ _ RN acres ® _ _ R acres s _ _____ Zapata Falls portion of Blanca Planning Unit Remainder of Saguache Planning Unit not in RCL 1 Rio Grande Planning Unit ORV portions of Greenie Mountain Planning Unit. Rationale for RCL Provision for dispersed recreational use where it will not be in conflict with other resources. This will require minimal management and maintenance. Recreational demand will be met here for nonintensive use with assurances of protection of all resource values. -16- SLRMP/MSA-REC/03-10-87/0355P DATA THEMES Four of the ROS setting classes are displayed on all BLM lands in the resource area in GIS theme "REC" . They are now limited to BLM lands alone and include some private lands. They are presented on 7\” USGS quad sheets. They include the setting classes: SPNM = Semi primitive nonmotorized SPM = Semi primitive motorized RN = Roaded natural R = Rural These are further defined on Page 3 of Recreation MSA* -17- SLRMP/MSA-REC/ 03-10-87/ 0355P REFERENCES 1. Land and Resource Management Plan Rio Grande National Forest. 2. SCORP, 1986, Colorado Department. Plans and Wildlife Recreatory. 3. Ecological Land Unit, Recreation Capability classification Handbook and Classification Manual CSO 1979. I “18- SLRMP/MSA-VIS/ 03-06-87 / 0367P CHAPTER 18 VISUAL RESOURCES CONTENTS Page RESOURCE AREA PROFILE (RAP) Description . 1 Condition and Trend .. . ........ 2 EXISTING MANAGEMENT SITUATION (EMS) Current Management ........ . 4 Supply-Demand Analysis ..... . ..... 5 CAPABILITY ANALYSIS (CA) Definition . 6 Management Practices ..... . 6 Resource Capability Level Description . 6 FORMS All forms are placed in order of use . » . . 7 DATA THEMES Discussion or presentation of data theme material . .... 12 REFERENCES List all reference studies, persons, reports, etc 13 SLRMP/MSA-VIS/03-06-87 /0367P CHAPTER 18 VISUAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT RESOURCE AREA PROFILE Description The visual resources of the resource area have been classified in accordance with BLM Manual 8400. The classification process considers scenic quality and visual and public sensitivity which produce a Visual Resource Management (VRM) numerical classification. The resource area has four classes, numbered II to V. The lower the class number the more sensitive and scenic the area. Table 18-1 is an acreage table of the 4 classes in the Resource Area. TABLE 18. VRM Acreage in SLRA VRM Class 1 1 1 Acreage 1 1 — f % of R.A.I 1 II 1 III 1 1 1 IV 1 1 1 V 1 1 1 1 1 1 All of the classes in the valley are shown on GIS maps. SLRMP/MSA-VIS/ 03-06-87/0367P The lone Class V area is the Blanca chaining, northwest of the community of Blanca. A Class V area is one where the natural character of the landscape has been disturbed to a point where rehabilitation is needed to bring it up to one of the four other classifications. There is potential to increase the visual quality of the landscape through thru prudent management. This area is adjacent to Colorado State Highway 150, which is the major access route to the Great Sand Dunes National Monument. The chaining is readily visible from the center of the valley. It draws comment and attention from tourists to the valley for the first time because of its distinct line and contrast in color and texture as a result of total tree removal for livestock grazing. There are other localized areas such as borrow pits or fence line clearings that need visual rehabilitation but they are local in impact and extent. The highest value scenic resources are the Sangre de Cristo mountains on the east, and the San Juans on the west. Their scenic beauty is one of the major resources attracting tourists to the San Luis Valley. The valley, actually a park , since it is encircled by mountains, is such a flat open expanse that any visual disturbance on the foothills or mountains is readily observable. Growing public sensitivity to visual resources is readily apparent along U.S. Highway 285 between Alamosa and Antonito, Colorado. Local artists began painting scenic murals on buildings, silos, and other objects in 1985. These large murals depict wildlife, scenery, and cultural occurrences of the immediate area. The number of murals increased in 1986 and have drawn considerable favorable comment from locals and tourists alike. This is an obvious indication of local visual sensitivity and interest. -2- r SLRMP/MSA-VIS/ 03-06-8 7 /0367P Condition and Trend The trend in landscapes in the valley is a gradual change from natural and pastoral toward development, particularly in the southern and central portion of the resource area. Development features that have influenced landscapes include electrical power generation, highways, pipelines, irrigation circles, some mine or gravel pits, and various residential areas with their associated services. Any disturbance of the viewshed is readily observable. Most of the viewshed is public land, either BLM or Forest Service. Both agencies currently are concerned with the visual resource and the impact management can have upon the landscape. Presently they set the visual standard for the remainder of the valley to follow. The Blanca chaining is slowly revegetating with trees. Perhaps natural regeneration will return the area to its original character in 40 to 50 years. Management practices could hasten improvement of this area. 1 SLRMP/MSA-VIS/ 03-06-8 7 /0367P EXISTING MANAGEMENT SITUATION Current Management In the recent past the district and state offices had personnel directly assigned to visual resource management. This was an active program that worked directly with project development. Budget limitations have constrained VRM recently. However, the visual resource classes are used as management standards for any proposed development or landscape alteration activities. Scenic resources are considered in most proposed projects significant enough to result in a visual impact. The classification standards are considered, and in some cases VRM expertise is even requested, to aid in mitigating adverse visual impacts. Recent state office policy has been to emphasize working with project proponents to accommodate and reasonably mitigate visual impacts*) VRM assistance has been used in an attempt to mitigate the visual disharmony of the Blanca chaining. Forestry practices are proposed to feather the changing edges to break up the sharp contrasting linear features. All new structures are painted in colors that are in harmony with the surrounding environment. Current management awareness of the visual resource would prevent a chaining such as the one on Blanca would from occurring today. -4- ' SLRMP/MSA-VIS/ 03-06-87/0367P Supply-Demand Analysis The supply of visual resource qualities and public demand (sensitivity) for these resources is taken into account in the VRM analysis. From this analysis the visual resource management classifications are produced. Tourism, a major attraction to the valley is dependent on the scenic resource. Along with tourism, such items as real estate values and quality of life factors relate strongly to the Class II areas in the resource area. All indicators show that demand will continue to grow for quality visual resources. The lands around Crestone have attracted a small development of high income residential and international groups. The major attraction here is the superlative scenery. Some of the reasons for settlement given by international groups is the scenic beauty of this area similar to that in the Himalayas. This would indicate that the supply of such a scenic resource, while arguably unique in Colorado, is of outstanding national value. -5- ' SLRMP/MSA-VIS/ 03-06-87/0367P Capability Analysis The following forms describe the definition of the capability resource levels (RCL's), the management practices to be applied to each particular RCL and the specific site(s) within each RCL. SLRMP/MSA-VIS/ 03-06-87/ 0367P SLRMP MSA CAPABILITY ANALYSIS FROM 1 DEFINITIONS OF RESOURCE CAPABILITY LEVELS Resource Visual Resource Management Specialist Name B. Schneider _ Date 12-01-86 _ _ _ Resource Capability Level 1 (define the highest priority for management) VRM Class II areas. These areas have the highest visual resource management concern based on the combined importance of scenic quality, visibility, and visual sensitivity. VRM Class V area. This area (Blanca chaining) is one where the natural character has been disturbed to the point where rehabilitation is needed to bring it up to one of the four VRM classes. Assure that all proposed landscape disturbing activities adhere to VRM guidelines to maintain visual class existing in area prior to activity. Resource Capability Level 2 (define the second highest priority for management) VRM Class III & IV areas. These are areas with moderate resource management concern based on the combined importance of scenic quality, visibility, and visual sensitivity. Assure that all proposed landscape disturbing activities do not lessen the existing VRM class. Resource Capability Level 3 (define the third highest priority for management) Assure that VRM guidelines are followed in Class III & IV areas. Do not allow any landscape disturbing activity to lessen the VRM class by more than one (e.g., a II to a III, III to IV). -7 f* SLRMP/MSA-VIS/03-06-87 / 0367P SLRMP MSA CAPABILITY ANALYSIS FROM 2 MANAGEMENT PRACTICES Resource Name _ _ Visual Resource Management _ _ _ Specialist Name _ Bill Schneider _ Date _ 1/87 Describe the types of management that you would use in RCL 1 areas Those highly scenic Class II areas may be designated as ACECs for visual resource protection. Management activities in Class II areas will be constrained as necessary to maintain a natural visual setting in the characteristic landscape. Manage the characteristic landscape to provide sustained economic viability for the recreation/tourist industry in the local area. Rehabilitate the Class V areas by using management techniques to lessen the visual contrast and bring back the original VRM Class number to the landscape. Describe the types of management you would use in RCL 2 areas Reasonably constrain management activities in Class III and IV areas so that unnatural visual impacts will not occur or are such to be visibly minimal in extent. In all cases proposed activities will be designed to attempt to fit in as much as reasonably possible into the characteristic landscape. Describe the types of management you would use in RCL 3 areas Protect the visual quality through mitigating measures designed to reduce the degree of contract with the surrounding landscape. Management activities may result in noticeable landscape change, but practice reasonable constraint. Use constraint through addition, subtraction, or alteration of elements of the landscape such as vegetation, rockform, water features, or structures. -8- SLRMP/MSA-VIS/03-06-87/0367P SLRMP MSA CAPABILITY ANALYSIS FORM 3 RESOURCE CAPABILITY LEVEL DESCRIPTIONS Specialist Name Bill Schneider Resource Visual Resources Area Number (from GIS Theme) VRM RCL (i.e., 1, 2 or 3) Date 1/87 Description of Area (Species, number of acres, miles, etc.) VRM Class II areas are the most scenic and most sensitive of all the visual zones in the resource area. They comprise _ _ acres and are usually located on the higher elevations surrounding the resource area; e.g., the mountainous portions of the valley. Rationale for RCL Scenic zones where basic elements (form, line, color, texture) are natural conditions where management activities can be seen but do not attract attention. These are the most valued (most scenic) visual resources in the resource area. -9- SLRMP/MSA-VIS/03-06-87/0367P SLRMP HSA CAPABILITY ANALYSIS FORM 3 RESOURCE CAPABILITY LEVEL DESCRIPTIONS Specialist Name _ Bill Schneider Area Number (from GIS Theme) VRM Resource __ _ Visual Resources RCL (i.e., 1, 2 or 3) _ 2 Date 1/87 Description of Area (Species, number of acres, miles, etc.) VRM Class III areas consist of _ _ acres and Class IV consists of _ _ acres. They comprise the majority of the visual zones in the resource area. Most of the lands are in the center portion of the valley where man-made influences are of important impact upon the landscape. Rationale for RCL In Class III areas contrasts to the basic elements caused by management activities are evident, but remain subordinate to the existing landscape. In Class IV areas the contrast to the basic elements attract attention and are a dominant feature of the landscape in terms of scale. However, the contrast repeats itself in terms of form, line, color, and texture in the landscape. -10- SLRMP/MSA-VIS/ 03-06-87/ 0367P SLRMP MSA CAPABILITY ANALYSIS FORM 3 RESOURCE CAPABILITY LEVEL DESCRIPTIONS Specialist Name _ _ Bill Schneider Area Number (from GIS Theme) VRM Resource _ _ Visual Resources RCL (i.e., 1, 2 or 3) 3 _ Date 1/87 Description of Area (Species, number of acres, miles, etc.) This is a management prescription of what could occur in the visual resource. Presently none of the area is in the RCL. This merely would change the VRM class from what is present today to a class one number lower. For example, under this prescription an area could presently be a landscape where management activities do not attract attention (II). This prescription would allow a lessening of the zone to a landscape where management activities are evident (attract attention) but still remain subordinate to the surrounding landscape. Rationale for RCL This would allow for more intensive management of the visual resource by allowing more visual distraction, yet with a remaining concern for some of the visual resource. < SLRMP/MSA-VIS/ 03-06-87/0367P DATA THEMES All four of the VRM classes funding the resource area are digitized on 1\ "USGS Quad Sheets. In addition sensitivity levels and background distrance zones are indicated". This will give viewer the actual visual management class with rationale for arriving at each description. Zones include all BLM lands plus some private lajids. This theme is entitled "VRM". -12- SLRMP/MSA-VIS/ 03-06-87/ 0367P REFERENCES 1. Land and Resource Management Plan, Rio Grande National Forest 2. S.C.O.R.P, , Colorado D.P.O.R. 1986 -13- SLRMP/MSA-HIS/12-11-86/0354P CHAPTER 19 HISTORIC RESOURCES CONTENTS Page RESOURCE AREA PROFILE (RAP) Description . . . . . 1 Condition and Trend ..... . 2 EXISTING MANAGEMENT SITUATION (EMS) Current Management ..... . ..... 3 Supply-Demand Analysis and Dependency . 3 CAPABILITY ANALYSIS (CA) Definition . 5 Management Practices ..... . 5 Resource Capability Level Description . 5 FORMS All forms are placed in order of use . . . . 6 DATA THEMES Discussion or presentation of data theme material . 11 REFERENCES List all reference studies, persons, reports, etc . 12 [ SLRMP/MSA-HIS/12-11-86/0354P CHAPTER 19 — HISTORIC RESOURCES RESOURCE AREA PROFILE Description There are an estimated 39 historic sites, as inventoried by BLM, in the San Luis Valley. This does not include cities and towns where inventories have been conducted by local historical groups. Two overview documents have been written for this region. The first is: Land of Contrast, A History of Southeastern Colorado, by Frederic J. Atheam (Denver: Bureau of Land Management, 1985), and the second is: "Colorado Southern Frontier Historic Context", by Steven F. Mehls and Carrol Joe Carter, (Denver: Colorado Historical Society, 1984). Of the historic sites/ properties that have been inventoried by BLM, 15 are on BLM lands and 20 are adjacent to BLM lands. These sites vary in type from cemetaries, cabins, abandoned rail grades, mines, and trails, to ruins, foundations, and sites. There are 16 historic properties listed in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), (Colorado Historical Society, October, 1986), and one property listed as a National Historic Landmark (NHL). Of these NRHP sites, one is located on (crosses) BLM land. It is the Cumbres and Toltec Scenic Railroad that runs south of Antonito, Colorado to Chama, New Mexico. The NHL is Pike's Stockade, owned by the Colorado Historical Society. -1- ' SLRMP/MSA-HIS/12-11-86/0354P There is one site that may have religious significance on a local level. It is a "Spanish" Cross that overlooks the town of Mogotes, Colorado. It is located on BLM land and was erected in 1921 as part of the religious context of this region. The cross represents the Catholic religion and is not Native American in nature. To date, none of the historic properties located on BLM lands have been formally evaluated for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places as per 36 CFR Part 60.6. Condition and Trend Generally, historic properties are subject to weathering, vandalism, collapse due to neglect, fire, and other destructive elements. Because these sites are not being actively protected (i.e. "preserved"), they are subject to continuing loss. The general trend for historic properties is gradual deterioration eventually leading to total loss of these sites/properties. Sites listed in the National Register of Historic Places (P.L. 89-665 and P.L. 91-243) are regarded as "important" and therefore, in theory, they are given more consideration than other sites. These properties tend to remain in relatively better condition because they often are still in use or at least "monitored" thanks to visitor use /interest . Examples are the Cumbres and Toltec Scenic Railroad, which is in daily operation as a tourist facility. Another example is Pike’s Stockade (NHL), which, although not maintained, is monitored by local residents and visitors. -2- SLRMP/MSA-HIS/12-11-86/0354P EXISTING MANAGEMENT SITUATION Current Management Current BLM policy requires that historic (and archaeological) properties be managed on a priority basis, beginning with those properties listed in the NRHP, and decending to those of minimal significance. While all sites may have intrinsic value, not all are fully managed. Thus, current management policy is reactive in that sites that may be affected by Bureau actions will be avoided, or, as appropriate, will be mitigated pursuant to 36 CFR Part 800. Management of these historic properties does not presently extend beyond avoidance /mitigation. Supply-Demand Analysis and Dependency Because historic resources are not a commodity per se , there is no demand for them in a market sense. They are fragile, nonrenewable resources that cannot be replaced once gone. In some cases, there is an economic value placed on historic sites in terms of removing parts of the site for decorative wood, antiques, etc. However, this is a very small demand as compared to other natural resources. Collecting "barn wood", and other artifacts, from Federal land is also illegal. More accurately, demand comes in the form of visitor use, interpretation of the site, and research potential of the site(s). Supply of this resource is "continual" in the sense that all contemporary properties will eventually become historic in nature. However, historic properties are now in diminishing supply due to losses ranging from natural forces to human destruction. -3- ' SLRMP/MSA-HIS/ 12-11-8 6 /0354P Historic properties will always be in "demand" because human being have a strong interest in their past and in their roots. However, these properties are only in demand when they are "usable” by people. Restored buildings in downtown areas are economically viable when "reused". Restored cabins in a remote BLM area are not economically feasible nor are they readily accessible for public use and enjoyment. Therefore, the demand for such BLM sites is quite low. Nevertheless, there still may be a demand for this type of site by future generations and/or for research potential. On the other hand, properties such as the Cumbres and Toltec Scenic Railroad are in high demand by the public who is willing to pay for the use of this type of historic value. -4- - SLRMP/MSA-HIS/1 2-11-8 6/03 54P CAPABILITY ANALYSIS The term "capability” is not applicable for historic resources on a general basis. However, there are certain capabilities that various types of historic properties have, including National Register capability, the potential for National Register capability and the lack of National Register ability. Therefore, there are 3 levels of resource capability for historic properties. They are: Level 1, National Register listed properties; Level 2, those properties that are eligible for listing; and Level 3 those properties that do not qualify for the National Register of Historic Places. ' SLRMP/MSA-HIS/12-11-86/0354P SLRMP MSA CAPABILITY ANALYSIS FROM 1 DEFINITIONS OF RESOURCE CAPABILITY LEVELS Resource Historic Resources (No. 19) Specialist Name R. Athearn Date 11-22-86 Resource Capability Level 1 (define the highest priority for management) Historic sites that are National Historic Landmark, or are listed in the National Register of Historic Places. Resource Capability Level 2 (define the second highest priority for management) Those historic sites/places that are eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places as per 36 CFR Part 63. These are sites that have been determined eligible for listing, but have not been listed. Some sites that may have potential for eligibility but are not listed in the National Register. Resource Capability Level 3 (define the third highest priority for management) All other historic sites/places that have research, interpretation, visitor use, or other potential, but are not necessarily eligible for inclusion in or listed in the National Register of Historic Places. By definition, those sites in capability Levels 1 and 2 have some or all of these attributes. -6- SLRMP/MSA-HIS/12-11-86/0354P SLRMP MSA CAPABILITY ANALYSIS FROM 2 MANAGEMENT PRACTICES Resource Name Historic Resources (No. 19) Specialist Name R. Athearn Date 11-22-86 Describe the types of management that you would use in RCL 1 areas 1. Provide protection of site/place through active management. 2. This can include: fencing, signing, restoration, interpretation, closure, and other management actions that help preserve/save the site/place. 3. Provide research opportunities for scholars interested in sites of this type, but this research must be nondestructive to the site because it is National Register listed. Describe the types of management you would use in RCL 2 areas Since these sites are eligible for the National Register, they must be treated in a manner consistent with RCL 1. However, they can be managed in a slightly different manner: 1. Provide protection for these sites/places consistent with National Register sites (1) above. The management would be lesser priority for these sites than those in RCL 1. Provide nomination for these sites as part of management procedure. 3. Provide research opportunities for scholars interested in these sites/places. This could be destructive research if the sites/places are not to be listed in the National Register. Describe the types of management you would use in RCL 3 areas These sites are not eligible to the National Register, but they may have other values such as scenic, interpretive, research, visual, localized interest, etc. These sites can be used for purposes such as visitor use, interpretation, destructive research, etc., as part of acceptable management for such sites. 1. Provide for visitor use of these sites including interpretation, signing, "hand on" demonstrations, etc. 2. Provide for use of these sites/places for destructive research, if appropriate . 3. Manage these sites for other values such as visual, scenic, etc. -7- , SLRMP/MSA-HIS/12-11-86/0354P SLRMP MSA CAPABILITY ANALYSIS FORM 3 RESOURCE CAPABILITY LEVEL DESCRIPTIONS Specialist Name R. Athearn Area Number (from CIS Theme) No . 19 Resource Historic Resources RCL (i.e., 1, 2 or 3) _ 1 Date 11-12-86 Description of Area (Species, number of acres, miles, etc.) There is one National Register of Historic Places site that is located on parts of BLM lands in the San Luis Valley. This is the Cumbres and Toltec Scenic Railroad which runs south from Antonito, Colorado and crosses BLM lands. This site is in operation currently and is an RCL 1 site. The Cumbres and Toltec' s site number is 5-CN-642. Rationale for RCL National Register sites are mandated by law to be protected and preserved as part of the national heritage. Therefore have higher value than other sites that do not qualify for such listing* They have the capability of providing significant information or enjoyment for our historic past and they have intrinsic value for humanity. They are first priority for management and they must be managed in a manner consistent with their value. -8- ■ ' SLRMP/MSA-HIS/12-11-86/0354P SLRMP MSA CAPABILITY ANALYSIS FORM 3 RESOURCE CAPABILITY LEVEL DESCRIPTIONS Area Number (from GIS Theme) No . 19 RCL (i.e., 1, 2 or 3) 2 Date 11-12-86 Specialist Name R. Athearn Resource Historic Resources Description of Area ( Species > number of acres, miles, etc.) There may be up to 5 historic properties in the San Luis valley on BLM lands that may be eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Their final status will depend on the determination of eligibility. If they are eligible and placed on the NRHP, they will become RCL 3 sites. These sites must be managed as RCL 1 sites until they are determined not to be eligible. The RCL 2 sites are: 5-SH-1065-HR (La Garita Wagon Ruts) 5-SH-1063-HE (Poncha Pass rail Line) 5-SH-1053-HE (Villa grove-Orient Railbed) 5-CN-650-HE (Kings Turquoise Mine) 5-SH-1066-HE (Ute Pass Road) Rationale for RCL National Register sites are mandated by law to be protected and preserved as part, of the national heritage. Therefore have higher value than other sites that do not qualify for such listing. They have the capability of providing significant information or enjoyment for our historic past and they have intrinsic value for humanity. They are first priority for management and they must be managed in a manner consistent with their value. -9- SLRMP/MSA-HIS/1 2-11-8 6/0354P SLRMP MSA CAPABILITY ANALYSIS FORM 3 RESOURCE CAPABILITY LEVEL DESCRIPTIONS Specialist Name R. Athearn Area Number (from GIS Theme) No. 19 Resource Historic Resources RCL (i.e., 1» 2 or 3) 3 Date 11-12-86 Description of Area (Species, number of acres, miles, etc.) An unknown number of historic properties, both inventoried and still to be discovered, exist in the San Luis Valley. Such sites, if they are not e igible for the NRHP, are Level 3 sites. These sites may have other "uses" S-u-tKS interpretat:ion> visitor use, or other values, but they are not NRHP eligible. Therefore, they may have more "use" potential than Level 1 or Level rpt 7116 capability of Level 3 sites may actually be higher than RCL 1 or At present, the following are inventoried RCL 3 sites (BLM land): 5-SH-1068-HR (Cabin) ^~SH— 1062— HE (Bonanza Cemetery) 5-SH-1061-HE (Sedgwick Townsite) ^~SH— 1055— HE (Villa Grove Cemetery) 5-SH-1052-HE (Crestone Railroad) 5-CN-649-HN ("Spanish Cross") 5-CN-648-HN (Cabins) 5-CN-647-HN (Ranch Site) 5-CN-646-HN (Canal) 5-CN-645-HN (Cabin) 5— CN— 643— HN (La Sauces Cemetery) 5-CN-640-HN (Canal) 5-CN-639-HN (Graves) Rationale for RCL This type of sites requires minimal management. It also has the potential for other uses that might be destructive to the site, but that can provide a gher level of use. Such uses might include interpretation, visitor use, destructive research, etc. Level 3 sites have the potential of public use whereas Levels 1 and 2 sites are required to be protected. \ -10- * SLRMP/MSA-HIS/12-11-86/0354P DATA THEMES (STILL MISSING) Need a description of the GIS themes, how they can be used, what is the content, to include a listing of guads used. -11- SLRMP/MSA-HIS/12-11-86/0354P REFERENCES National Park Service. National Register of Historic Places, Annual Listing of Properties. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1983 San Luis Valley Council of Governments. "Historical Site Inventory”. Alamosa, Colorado: San Luis Valley Council of Governments, 1973 Mehls, Steven F. and Carrol Joe Carter. "Colorado Southern Frontier Historic Context". Denver: Colorado Historical Society, 1984 Athearn, Frederic J. Land of Contrast, A History of Southeast Colorado. Denver: Bureau of Land Management, 1985 Athearn, Frederic J. "A Brief History of the San Luis Valley". Denver: Bureau of Land Management, 1975 12- , SLRMP/MSA-ARH/ 03-1 7-87 /0357P CHAPTER 20 ARCHEOLOGICAL RESOURCES CONTENTS Page RESOURCE AREA PROFILE (RAP) - Description . . . . . . 1 Condition and Trend . . . 2 EXISTING MANAGEMENT SITUATION (EMS) Current Management . . 3 Supply-Demand Analysis and Dependency . 3 CAPABILITY ANALYSIS (CA) Definition . ..... . ...... 4 Management Practices . .... 4 Resource Capability Level Description . 4 FORMS/TABLES All forms or tables are placed in order of use . . . 5 DATA THEMES Discussion or presentation of data theme material . .... 10 REFERENCES List all reference studies, persons, reports, etc 11 i SLRMP/MSA-ARH/ 03-17-87 / 0357P CHAPTER 20— ARCHEOLOGICAL RESOURCES RESOURCE AREA PROFILE Description There are approximately 2,500 archeological sites recorded by various agencies and groups throughout the planning area* There are 2,460 of these sites that have been officially recorded on the state of Colorado inventory system and have been assigned Smithsonnian numbers. Documents and studies of the prehistory of this region are few and outdated with the draft overview by J. Gunnerron comprise the only recent professional work that includes the San Luis Valley. Of the 2,460 sites inventoried and described, ______ are actually on Bureau of Land Management. These properties include archeological horizons representing the entire span of prehistory from paleo-Indian through historic tribes and vary from hunting, gathering, and habitations to religious locations. The only archeological site currently on the National Registry of Historic Places (NRHP) is the Carnero Creek Rock Art location, which is not on public land. There are properties, however, (e.g., the Cattleguard Folsoum Site) that are very likely to be eligible for inclusion. Current Native American tradition and religious interest may involve Blanca Peak to the east and Pole Mountain to the west but these areas are administered by the United States Forest Service. ' % SLRMP/MSA-ARH/03-17-87/0357P Condition and Trend Archeological sites in general are subject to continual loss through natural forces of exposure and erosion and through human agents prompted by benign curiosity, syteraatic collecting, and premeditated vandalism. These processes have been occasionally delayed or halted through natural a gradation, protection, or data recovery. The general trend, however, is ultimate loss of these resources. Sites listed in the National Register of Historic Places (P.L. 89-665 and P.L. 91-243) are regarded as "important" and therefore, in theory, they are given more consideration than other sites. These properties tend to remain in relatively better condition because they often are still in use or at least monitored" thanks to visitor use/interest. Examples are the Cumbres and Toltec Scenic Railroad, which is in daily operation as a tourist facility. Another example is Pike's stockade (NHL) which, while not maintained, is monitored by local residents and visitors. 8LRMP/MSA-ARH/03-17-87/0357P EXISTING MANAGEMENT SITUATION Current Management Current BLM policy requires that archaeological properties be managed on a priority basis, beginning with those properties listed in the NRHP, and decending to those of minimal significance. While all sites may have intrinsic value, not all are fully managed. Thus, current management policy is reactive in that sites that may be affected by Bureau actions will be avoided, or, as appropriate, will be mitigated pursuant to 36 CFR Part 800. Management of these properties does not presently extend beyond avoidance /mitigation. Supply-Demand and Dependency The most common demand is collecting and "pot-hunting", illegal activities that may reflect an illegal market. Benign and professional interests should be reflected in interpretation, education, and research. As long as there are collectors and an educated public, the demand will be continual, both legally and illegally. Congruent with this demand and committant loss of resource might be an increase in local museum activity. -3- » SLRMP/MSA-ARH/03-17-87/0357P CAPABILITY ANALYSIS (CA) The following forms describe the definition of the capability resource levels (RCL's), and the management practices to be applied to each particular RCL, and give the specific site(s) that fall within each RCL. SLRMP/MSA-ARH/03-17-87/0357P SLRMP MSA CAPABILITY ANALYSIS FROM 1 DEFINITIONS OF RESOURCE CAPABILITY LEVELS Resource Archeological Resources Specialist Name J. Beardsley Date 11-22-86 Resource Capability Level 1 (define the highest priority for management) Archaeological sites or districts that are listed in the NRHP. Resource Capability Level 2 (define the second highest priority for management) Those sites or districts that have been determined eligible but have not yet been listed. / % Resource Capability Level 3 (define the third highest priority for management) Those sites or areas which, of themselves, do not appear to qualify for inclusion on the NRHP but exhibit potential for education, interpretation, visitor use, or particularistic research. -5- m SLRMP/MSA-ARH/03-17-87/0357P SLRMP MSA CAPABILITY ANALYSIS FROM 2 MANAGEMENT PRACTICES Resource Name _ Archaeology Resource Specialist Name J. Beardsley _ Date 11-22-86 Describe the types of management that you would use in RCL 1 areas 1. Active protection through patroling, fencing, physical degradation, closure and any other management action designed for preservation and/or minimal impact. 2. Provide research opportunities for scholars, which in some cases will enhance the site through partial disturbance. Describe the types of management you would use in RCL 2 areas Nominate to the NRHP, then manage according to RCL 1. Describe the types of management you would use in RCL 3 areas 1. Provide education opportunities through the local archaeological and historical societies. 2. Conduct vandalism research. 3. Encourage basic research such as graduate or undergraduate level. -6- ' SLRMP/MSA-ARH/03-17-87 /0357P SLRMP MSA CAPABILITY ANALYSIS FORM 3 RESOURCE CAPABILITY LEVEL DESCRIPTIONS Specialist Name J. Beardsley _ _ _ Area Number (from GIS Theme) Resource Archeology Resources _ RCL (i.e., 1, 2 or 3) _ Date 11-12-86 Description of Area (Species, number of acres, miles, etc.) None, at present are listed in the NRHP. Rationale for RCL N/A Note: National Register sites are mandated by law to be protected and preserved as part of the national heritage. Therefore, they, have higher value than other sites that do not qualify for such listing. They have the capability of providing significant information or enjoyment for our historic past and they have intrinsic value for humanity. They are first priority for management and they must be managed in a manner consistent with their value. SLRMP/MSA-ARH/03-17-87/0357P SLRMP MSA CAPABILITY ANALYSIS FORM 3 RESOURCE CAPABILITY LEVEL DESCRIPTIONS I Specialist Name J. Beardsley _ Area Number (from GIS Theme) Resource Archeology Resource _ __ RCL (i.e., 1, 2 or 3) _ 2 Date _ 11-12-86 _ Description of Area (Species, number of acres, miles, etc.) The Cattleguard Folsoum man site appears likely to qualify. Others may be found as the process of identification/evaluation continues. * Rationale for RCL Site(s) need to be protected in order to maintain there significance. Note: There are no National Register of Historic Places sites presently on BLM. However, there is the potential of at least 10 NRHP sites. If these sites, other than the Cumbres and Toltec Scenic railroad, which is on the NRHP but only crosses BLM lands, should be placed on the register, they would be managed as Capability Level 1. -8- 0 \x SLRMP /MS A-ARH /O 3-1 7 -8 7 / 03 5 7 P SLUMP MSA CAPABILITY ANALYSIS FORM 3 RESOURCE CAPABILITY LEVEL DESCRIPTIONS Specialist Name J. Beardsley Area Number (from CIS Theme) Resource Archeology Resources _ _ RCL (i.e. , 1, 2 or 3) 3 Date 11-12-86 Description of Area (Species, number of acres, miles, etc*) All other sites identified. An unknown number of historic properties, some inventoried, and some still to be discovered, exist in the San Luis Valley. Such sites, if they are not eligible to the National Register, or listed in the register, are Level 3 sites. These sites are those that may have interpretive, visitor use, or other values, but are not Register quality. Therefore, they may have more potential for "use" than Level 1 and Level 2 sites. The capability of Level 3 sites may be higher than Levels 1 and 2. Rationale for RCL Note: This type of sites requires minimal management. It also has the potential for "other uses” that might be destructive to the site, but that can provide a higher level of use. Such uses might include interpretation, visitor use, destructive research, etc. Level 3 sites have the potential of public use whereas Levels 1 and 2 sites are required to be protected. -9- m SLRMP/MSA-ARH/03-17-87/0357P DATA THEMES (STILL MISSING) Need a description of the GIS theme, include which guads maps were used. -10- SLRMP/MSA-ARH/03-17-87 /0357P REFERENCES % Need all references used. Register of Historic Places, Annual Listing of Properties. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1983 -11- (» SLUMP /MSA-FIR/ 03-06-87/037 3P CHAPTER 21 FIRE MANAGEMENT CONTENTS Page RESOURCE AREA PROFILE (RAP) Description (Condition and Trend) . . . . . . 1 EXISTING MANAGEMENT SITUATION (EMS) Current Management . . 1 CAPABILITY ANALYSIS (CA) Definition . ...... . ..... Management Practices . ..... Resource Capability Level Description . ..... FORMS All forms are placed in order of use . . . 4 DATA THEMES Discussion or presentation of data theme material ......... 8 REFERENCES List all reference studies, persons, reports, etc . 9 ro co co SLRMP/MSA-FIR/03-06-87/0373P CHAPTER 21— FIRE MANAGEMENT RESOURCE AREA PROFILE (RAP) Description (Condition and Trend) Historically the SLRA has had very few wildfires. Over a ten year period (1975-1985), the SLRA experienced 1.4 wildfires per year, all in the Class A size (0 to .25 AC.) or Class _B size (.26 to 9.99 AC). Sixtyfour percent of these wildfires occurred between Saguache and Poncha Pass (near Poncha Springs). Lack of occurrence is attributed to rainfall falling on burn starts immediately after lightning storms pass through the area. Unless the historical weather pattern changes dramatically, wildfire occurrence (starts) in the SLRA will remain very low. At this time there is no man-caused fire related problems in the SLRA. EXISTING MANAGEMENT SITUATION (EMS) Current Management and Situation Due to the low fire occurrence, all wildfires in the SLRA are initial attacked and suppressed by the United States Forest Service under a memorandum of understanding with the BLM. This agreement has deleted all duplication of manpower and equipment while providing a cost savings to the Bureau. v. SLRMP/MSA-FIR/ 03-06-87/0373P A fire management plan was developed for the SLRA in 1986. This plan provides two suppression zones and techniques for wildfire protection in the SLRA. These zones are described as follows: Full Suppression Zones - are designed to provide maximum protection for human life, property and improvements and high value natural resources. Least Cost Suppression Zones - are designed to minimize fire suppression cost while maximizing resource losses due to fire suppression operations. This maximizes fire fighter safety and minimizes impairment to natural resources. All WSAs(ACECs, SRMAs, etc., and/or wilderness areas will be managed within this zone of protection. SLRMP /MSA-FIR/ 03-06-87/0373P CAPABILITY ANALYSIS The following forms describe the definition of the capability resource (RCL's), the management practices to be applied to each particular RCL, specific area with each RCL. Only two RCL's were determined to be used plan. levels and in the -3- SLRMP/MSA-FIR/03-06-87/ 037 3P SLRMP MSA CAPABILITY ANALYSIS FROM 1 DEFINITIONS OF RESOURCE CAPABILITY LEVELS Resource Wildfire Management _ Specialist Name Harold May Date 1-8-87 Resource Capability^ Level 1 (define the highest priority for management) Full Suppression Zone - provide maximum protection for human life, property/improveraent and high valued natural resources. Resource Capability Level 2 (define the second highest priority for management) Least Cost Zones - minimize fire suppression cost while maximizing resource losses due to fire operations. -4- ■ SLRMP/MSA-FIR/ 03-0 6-87/0373P SLRMP MSA CAPABILITY ANALYSIS FROM 2 MANAGEMENT PRACTICES Resource Name _ Fire Management _ _ _ _ _ _ Specialist Name Harold May _ _ _ _ ®ate 1-8-87 Describe the types of management that you would use in RCL 1 areas 1. Provide high intensity suppression levels, where the full complement of equipment and work forces will be used aggressively. Describe the types of management you would use in RCL 2 areas 1. All areas not identified in (1) above will be in the least cost zone, where the intensity of suppression action is not fixed and will vary with the conditions occurring at the time of the fire start. -5- SLRMP/MSA-FIR/03-06-87/0373P SLRMP HSA CAPABILITY ANALYSIS FORM 3 RESOURCE CAPABILITY LEVEL DESCRIPTIONS Specialist Resource Name Harold May Fire Management Area Number (from GIS Theme) _ RCL (i.e., 1, 2 or 3) 1 Date 1-8-87 Description of Area (Species, number of acres, miles, etc.) These _ acres, in order to protect historical and natural resources, will be given high intensity fire suppression. Rationale for RCL These acres consist of specific historical sites needing protection e.g., cabins, foundations, etc., and commercial timber stands with high value marketable timber resources. -6- ' SLRMP/MSA-FXR/ 03-06-87/ 0373P SLRMP MSA CAPABILITY ANALYSIS FORM 3 RESOURCE CAPABILITY LEVEL DESCRIPTIONS Specialist Name Harold May _ Area Number (from CIS Theme) _ Resource Fire Management _ ______ ^CL 2 or 3) _ _ 2 Date 1-8-87 _ _ _ Description of Area (Species, number of acres, miles, etc.) These acres will be least cost fire suppression. This basically is the majority of the public lands in the SLRA. Rationale for RCL Level of intensity of suppression is not fixed and will vary based on conditions at fire start. -7“ SLRMP/MSA-FIR/ 03-06-87/037 3P DATA THEMES % The data therae "FRE" will show only these areas within the RCL No. 1 needing a special or higher intensity of fire suppression. _ __ maps are available in the data base, they describe the planning units which have RLC No. 1 sites within them. These are named , _ _ _ > _ _ , _ . Also? an areawide map is shown for RCL No. 1. -8- SLRMP/MSA-FIR/ 03-06-87/0373P REFERENCES 1. Canon City District Fire Management Plan. Canon City District, Bureau of Land Management - September 1986. SLRMP/MSA-SOC/12-15-86/Q358P CHAPTER 22 SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS CONTENTS RESOURCE AREA PROFILE (RAP) Description . * • Population . * * Ethnic and /or Minority Composition Population Projections . • * Employment and Income . • • Government Finances • . * • Life Style . * . EXISTING MANAGEMENT SITUATION (EMS) Economic Sector’s Potentially Affected by Resource Management Plan . . • . DATA THEMES Discussion or presentation of data theme material REFERENCES List all reference studies, persons, reports, etc. . Page 1 1 1 1 2 3 3 4 10 11 . SLRMP/MSA-S0C/12-15-86/0358P CHAPTER 22— SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS RESOURCE AREA PROFILE Description Population The population of the four county economic study area (ESA) consists of Alamosa, Conejos, Rio Grande, and Saguache Counties. The total population for the area over a 15 year period has increased about 6.8 percent. Alamosa and Rio Grande Counties experienced the largest increases in population. Alamosa County has the largest population of the four counties in the ESA (see Table ^ 22-1) . Ethnic and/or Minority Composition One of the most significant socio-economic characteristic of the ESA is its large number of Spanish speaking and Spanish surname population. The ESA has a Spanish language or Spanish surname population of 45 percent of its total population. On the other hand the state of Colorado shows a 17 percent Spanish population. The ESA is primarily a rural region. The 1980 census classified — __ - - of the population as rural. % -1- # * SLRMP/MSA-S0C/12-15-86/0358P Population Projections The San Luis Valley Regional Development and Planning Commission have found the population growth projection for the Region have generally been unreliable.—^ Only Alamosa County is predicted to gain any population over the 1985 to 2010 period. Over all for the ESA the population is projected to decrease by 2 percent. Employment and Income Employment in three sectors, retail trade, services and government make up over 55 percent of the ESA’s employment. The farming sector employs 16 percent of the ESA labor force. The largest area of employment, 21 percent, is in the service sector. The second largest area of employment is the government sector with 19 percent (see Table 22 2). The manufacturing sector of the ESA only employs 3 percent of the workforce. Mining employment appears to be zero at the present for the a When looking at the individual counties a different pattern emerges. Conejos County, for example, has 32 percent of its labor force relating farming. Farming is also the largest employer for Saguache County, 27 percent. Employment in agriculture and government accounts for 51 percent of county employment in Saguache. Page 14 Region 8 Overall Economic Development Plan San Luis Valley Regional Development and Planning Commission. 1984 -2- SLRMP/MSA-S0C/12-15-86/0358P Alamosa employs over 66 percent In retail trade, service, and government, while 9 percent of its labor force is in farming employment. The top three employers for Rio Grande County are first, the service sector 20 percent, government sector 16 percent, and farming sector 15 percent of the county's employment • Income statistics (Table 22-3) mirror the employment statistics. Retail trade (Table 22-4), service, and government are the largest contributors to labor income. Farm proprietors’ income seems to be erratic over the three year period as it went from 10 percent of earnings in 1982 to 3 percent of earnings in 1983, then to 13 percent of earnings in 1984. For Saguache County the farm income, on the other hand, is a large part of the county’s income. Government Finances Table 22-5 represents data on the ESA counties source of revenues and expenditures. Alamosa and Rio Grande Countie have the larger revenue and expenditures. Alamosa County has the largest expenditure for public safety, public works and public health. Lifestyle The lifestyles with the ESA are varied. The lifestyle in Saguache County is centered around farming and ranching economy. Host of the ranches are family owned and operated. The large towns of Alamosa, in Alamosa County and Del Norte and Monte Vista in Rio Grande County provide retail trade and support services facilities for the surrounding smaller communities and rural areas in the ESA. Alamosa, an academic community associated with Adams State College, offers cultural activities. The rural areas support a ranching and farming lifestyle with rodeos, 4H Clubs, Boy Scouts, and riding clubs. -3- , (t SLRMP/MSA-S0C/12-15-86/0358P EXISTING MANAGEMENT SITUATION All resource management plan alternative may affect employment population and income in the area* Most of the effects will likely occur in to agriculture and ranching sectors and the retail sector. These pertors of all economy maybe affected by changes in grazing and recreation opportunities. The Forest Service input - output model IMPLAN will be reset to evaluate the effects of various resource levels on employment, population and income. SLRMP /MSA-SOC/1 2-15-86 /0358P DATA THEME (STILL MISSING) Need discussion of ADA GIS theme here* -5- SLRMP/MSA-SOC/12-15-86/0358P REFERENCES Bureau of Economic Analysis s Various Years, Regional Economic Information System Colorado Depart ement of Local Affairs, Division of Local Government, Demography Section, Various Years Colorado Department of Revenue, 1985 Annual Report Denver U.S» Forest Service, Final Environmental Input Statement Rio Grande National Forest BLM San Luis Valley Resource Area - Social Economic Profile, James M. Mason 1974 San Luis Valley Regional Development and Planning Commission, Region 8 Overall Economic Development Plan December 1984 -6- I Table 22-1 Population by County 1970 - 2010 Percent 1970 1975 1980 1985 Change 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 Source: Colorado Division of Local £overnment, Demography Section Percent Change Alamosa County 11,484 11,658 11,852 12,496 8.8 13,043 13,458 13,801 14,166 14,560 1985-2010 16.5 Conejos County 7,829 8,034 7,786 7,992 2.1 7,848 7,637 7,347 7,023 6,677 -16.5 Rio Grande County 10,453 10,795 10,576 11,456 9.6 11,548 11,540 11,465 11,396 11,344 -1.0 Saguache County 3,833 4,098 3,947 3,946 2.9 3,729 3,452 3,134 2,809 2,475 -37.3 TOTAL ECONOMIC STUDY AREA 33,599 34,585 34,161 35,890 6.8 36,168 36,087 35,747 35,394 35,056 -2.0 ' Employment Cable 22-2 d Labor Force by County Alamosa County 1982 1983 1984 Mining Construction Manufacturing 0 361 165 0 366 151 0 392 89 Transportation 345 298 272 Wholesale Trade 221 239 309 Retail Tr»^c; Finance, Insurance, 1,286 1,265 1,309 Real Estate 474 569 386 Services 1,531 1.588 1 ,669 Government 1,213 1,221 1,203 Mlsc. Agricultural Svcs. 0 0 0 TOTAL NON-FARMING 5,728 5,823 5,763 Farming 583 564 554 Not Classified Elsewhere TOTAL EMPLOYMENT BY PLACE 132 126 134 Conejos County 1982 1983 1984 Rio Grande County 1982 1983 1984 0 0 0 11 0 0 72 73 76 253 231 255 141 98 86 365 337 292 67 66 75 189 195 198 37 35 33 365 337 366 1 75 181 183 746 742 700 56 56 66 286 297 309 380 386 395 1002 1,024 1,043 484 499 506 842 840 832 0 0 0 338 0 0 1,646 1,640 1,670 4,397 4,332 4,440 815 785 768 829 794 772 234 246 250 0 329 445 Saguache County 1982 1983 1984 ESA 1982 ESA 1983 ESA 1984 0 0 0 11 0 0 73 84 686 743 807 21 22 26 692 608 493 33 33 34 634 592 579 86 84 67 709 695 775 1 54 144 146 2,361 2,332 2,338 0 92 70 816 1,014 831 166 175 202 3,079 3,173 3,30^. 389 392 378 2,928 2,952 2,919 0 112 0 338 112 0 1,180 1,133 1,154 12,951 12,928 13,027 462 444 434 2,689 2,587 2,528 331 6 147 697 707 976 OF WORK COUNTY LABORFORCE 6,311 6,387 6,317 2,461 2,425 2,438 5,226 5,126 5,212 1,642 1,577 1,588 15,640 15,515 15,555 Employment Unemployment 5,671 568 5,411 421 5,428 497 2,306 573 2,175 476 2,159 460 5,086 522 4,479 527 4,386 499 1,926 263 1,456 279 1,452 229 14,989 1,926 13.521 1,703 13,425 1,685 TOTAL LABORFORCE BY PLACE OF RESIDENCE 6,239 5,832 5,925 2,879 2,651 2,619 5,608 5,006 4,885 2,189 1,735 1,681 16.915 15,224 15,110 Source: Bureau of Economic Analysl s ♦ * Earnings by Place of Work by County (000) Alamosa County 1982 1983 1984 Conejos County 1982 1983 1984 Rio Grande County 1982 1983 1984 Saguache County 1982 1983 1984 ESA ESA ESA 1982 1983 1984 Wage A Salary Disbursements 59,394 64,083 61,739 16,832 17,027 17,871 Other Labor Income 4,907 5,624 5,687 1,225 1,290 1,388 Proprietors' Income 11,900 12,048 16,958 2,503 1,749 4,142 Farm Prop. Income 3,691 2,564 6,198 317 745 1,367 Non-Farm Prop. Income 8,209 9,484 10.760 2,186 2,494 2,775 Earnings bv Industry: Farm Wage A Salary Income 5,493 4,317 8.013 3,296 2,156 4,372 Non-Farm Wage A Salary Income 70,708 77,438 76,371 17,264 17,910 19,029 Private Wage and Salary Income 53,441 59,164 57,274 11,463 11,604 12,391 Agrl. Services, Forestry, Fish and Other Game -- __ Mining Income — Construction Income 4,294 4,820 6,277 340 386 464 Manufacturing Income 1,993 1,668 1,080 1,563 1,329 1,455 Non-Durable Goods Inc. 1,806 1,518 925 Durable Goods Income 187 150 155 1,539 1,299 1,418 Transportation A Public / Utilities Income 8,746 8,029 7,412 1,225 1,335 1,542 Wholesale Trade Income 3.117 3,457 4,317 489 505 533 Retail Trade Income 10,798 11,606 12,155 1,376 1,512 1,619 Finance, Insurance A Real Estate Income 5.438 8,672 3,781 547 631 746 Services Income 17,046 18,796 20,517 3,648 3,404 3,362 Govt. A Govt. Enterprises Income 17,267 18,274 19,097 5.801 6,306 6,638 Federal, Civilian Income 3,386 3,901 4,063 798 977 1,012 Military Income 292 329 291 164 195 190 State A Local Government Income 13,589 14,044 14,743 4,839 5,134 5,436 44,717 45,059 47,258 10,451 10.113 11,042 131,394 136,282 137,910 3,784 4,088 4,422 648 672 838 10,564 11,674 12,335 12,004 8,565 13,686 4,742 3.757 8,061 31,149 26,119 42,847 5,897 1,253 5,358 2,909 1,556 5,545 12,814 4,628 IP ‘68 6,107 7.312 8,328 1,833 2,201 2,516 18,335 21 ,491 2s. /9 10,938 6.182 10,472 5,431 4,041 8,131 25,158 16,696 30,988 49,567 51 ,530 54,894 10,410 10,501 11,810 147,949 157,379 162,104 38,007 39.118 41,945 6,258 6,016 7,193 109,169 115,902 118,803 2,704 — — _ 766 2,704 766 124 -- — — — ~ 124 2,383 2,268 2,762 — 770 1,013 7,017 8.244 10,516 5,944 5,958 5,704 200 211 282 9,700 9,166 8,521 2.958 2,594 2,207 — — — 4,764 4,112 3,132 2,986 3,364 3,497 200 211 282 4,912 5,024 5,352 3,491 3.642 3,959 340 421 403 13,802 13,427 i: 6 5,417 5,391 5,989 1,078 947 1,028 10,101 10,300 11,067 6,296 6,494 6,361 1,066 1,042 1,124 19,536 20,654 21 ,259 1,834 2,343 2,511 -- 700 423 7,819 12,346 7,551 9,814 10,290 10,901 1,098 1,196 1,431 31,606 33,686 36.211 11,560 12,412 12,949 4,152 4,485 4,617 38,780 41,477 43,301 3,209 3,471 3,327 686 753 683 8,079 9,102 9,085 233 272 265 85 99 96 774 895 842 8,118 8,669 9,357 3,381 3,633 3,838 29,927 31 .480 33,374 » ♦ m Retail Sales Table 22-4 ($000) by Sector and County 1985 Alamosa Coneios Rio Grande Saguache Agriculture 35 40 57 32 Mining 0 111 0 0 Construction 3,490 144 5,551 366 Manufacturing 113 5 4,270 17 Wholesale Trade 8,252 4,963 2,299 37 Retail Trade 99,104 15,490 96,169 17,067 Finance, Insurance, Real Estate 0 0 43 3 Hotels 4,247 821 2,919 42 Misc. Services 6,396 694 4,067 353 Government 0 0 0 12 Non-Classified 0 0 0 0 TOTAL RETAIL SALES 132,269 25,538 131,290 20,947 Source: Colorado Department of Revenue m m m Table 22-5 County Revenues and Expenditures for 1984 Alamosa (000) Cone jos (000) Rio Grande (000) Saguache (000) Total Revenue 6,155 3,774 4,753 3,263 Taxes - Total 2,389 492 1,232 521 Licenses & Permits 6 1 13 2 Charges for Services 351 116 141 220 Fines & Forfeits 2 — 4 — — Miscellaneous - Total 388 158 466 90 Inter-governmental - Total 3,018 3,005 2,894 2,428 Total Operating Expenditures 4,779 3,541 3,498 2,691 General Government 785 501 578 495 Public Safety - Total 457 209 292 223 Public Works - Total 940 646 488 950 Health 290 186 99 165 Culture & Recreation 84 80 65 64 Miscellaneous • 91 127 4 18 Capital Outlay 469 210 862 102 Debt Service - Total 579 — __ Transfer Out 71 — 61 2 Source: Colorado Division of Local Government. m % SLRMP/MSA-HAZ/ 03-06-8 7 /0374P CHAPTER 23 HAZARDS CONTENTS Page RESOURCE AREA PROFILE (RAP) Description . ..... 1 Condition and Trend . . . . 1 EXISTING MANAGEMENT SITUATION (EMS) Current Management . ..... 2 CAPABILITY ANALYSIS (CA) Definition . Management Practices . . Resource Capability Level Description FORMS All forms are placed in order of use . . 4 DATA THEMES Discussion or presentation of data theme material . . . 9 REFERENCES List all reference studies, persons, reports, etc 10 cn ro co ' SLRMP/MSA-HAZ/ 03-06-8 7 /0374P EXISTING MANAGEMENT SITUATION Current Management Before the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 mining activity had very little management* After FLPMA any raining activity greater than 5 acres is required to submit a proposal with a plan of Operation and Reclamation Plan, to the Bureau of Land Management and to the Colorado Mine Land Reclamation Board. Activities less than 5 acres require a notice to BLM and to the CMLRB. In areas where Illegal dumping is a problem, in most cases signs have been posted indicating a no dumping zone. There has been very little management in areas where old and dilopidated buildings are a potential threat to public safety. -2- The following forms describe the definition of the capability resource level (RCLs) , the management practices to be applied to each particular RCL, and the specific site(s) within each RCL. SLRMP/MSA-HAZ/03-06-87/0374P DATA THEMES (STILL MISSING) Need a description of the GIS theme, how it can be used, what is the content, to include a listing of guads used. -9- SLRMP/MSA-HAZ/03-06-87/0374P REFERENCES (MISSING) Need a listing of all reference documents and people talked to . , include CSO/DO/area personnel, etc. - Ken Goodrow National Resource Specialist, SLRA, BLM . . to -10- BLM LIBRARY BLDG 50, ST-150A DENVER FEDERAL CENTER P.O. BOX 25047 DENVER, COLORADO 80225