tº 39–
er
24, 25.
C6
2-
DRAFT º
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
ROYAL GORGE EIS AREA, COLORADo
PROPOSED DOMESTIC LIVESTOCK GRAZING PROGRAM
Prepared by
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR



CONSERVE
United States Department of the Interior
BU REAU OF LAND NAA NAG ENMENT
COLOR ADO STATE OFFICE
RO OM 7 OO, COLOR ADO STATE BANK BU | LO NG
| 6 OO BROA OVW A Y
OEN VER, COLORADC 8 O 2 O2
NOTICE
Enclosed for your review and comment is the draft environmental impact
statement (DEIS) for the management of livestock grazing in the Royal
Gorge Resource Area.
This statement is based on information developed by the Bureau of Land
Management and the Department of the Interior. Information and data
were supplied by and in coordination and consultation with Federal, state,
and local governmental departments and agencies and a number of
organizations and individuals. The purpose of the statement is to address
various alternatives for a grazing management plan, including a preferred
alternative and to assess the possible impacts from the various
alternatives. The statement discusses regional and local impacts
associated with the five grazing management alternatives. Impact
assessment includes coverage of 368 grazing management units on
589,675 acres of public land in south-central Colorado. Impacts were
analyzed over two projection periods, a short term (5 years) and a long
term (20 years), for 16 resource values.
Af
We would appreciate receiving any review comments you may wish to
make as soon as possible. The comment period extends to May 12, 1980.
A series of public meetings were heid in seven cities in central and
southern Colorado during the spring and summer of 1979 to explain the
proposed grazing plan. A formal hearing on the statement is scheduled for
early May. Information on this hearing will be announced by local,
regional, and national news media.
DALE R. AND RUS
State Director
Save Energy and You Serve Americal


;VEW FORMAT
The printing of EISs is necessary for public awareness and participation in
management decisions concerning public lands. Two factors have
principally contributed to experimentally printing this EIS in newspaper
pertaining to the printing of EISs direct that they be more readable and in
other ways more accessible to the general public. For example, EISs may
not exceed 150 pages (excluding appendices) and must be written in clear,
understandable language.
Printing in newspaper format reduces printing costs enormously.
Readability also benefits through use of larger type. Reduced printing,
format.
First, in the past few years, printing Costs have increased enormously. To
handling and mailing costs encourages a wider dissemination and
increased readership of the document which is consistent with the new
EPA regulations.
reduce overall costs for production of draft and final EISs, the Bureau has
experimented with printing only the draft EIS and publishing corrections,
additions, and Comments as an addendum rather than reprinting the whole
document as a final EIS. Still, printing costs have been high.
Since this is the first use Of this new format, the Bureau of Land
Management would appreciate your comments. Any comments pro or con
should be addressed to the District Manager, Bureau of Land
Management, P.O. Box 311, Canon City, Colorado 81212.
Second, new Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations
SUMMARY
(X) Draft ( ) Final Environmental Impact
Statement
Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land
Management
1. Type of Action: (X) Administrative ( )
Legislative
2. Brief Description of Action: The Bureau of
Land Management proposes to implement a
domestic livestock grazing program for the Royal
Gorge Resource Area (approximately 589,675
acres of public lands) in the Canon City District,
located in south-central Colorado. The overall
objective is to increase livestock/wildlife forage
by 6,551 AUMs, from a present total of 14,212
AUMs to 20,163 AUMs, by the year 2000.
Components of the proposed action are: (1)
intensive grazing management through allotment
management plans (AMPs) on 379,380 acres, (2)
less intensive management on 189,900 acres, (3)
elimination of grazing on 20,395 acres, and (4)
completion of the following vegetation
manipulation projects and range facilities
required to implement the intensive management
AMPs: 18,530 acres of thinning, 4,900 acres of
burning, 200 acres of brushland plowing, 9
reservoirs, 28 catch ments, 67 spring
developments, 2 wells, 3.3 miles of pipeline, 80
miles of fence, 4 cattleguards, 1 water storage
tank, and 4 water troughs.
3. Summary of Environmental Impacts:
Vegetation would improve in quantity and
quality; plant vigor and production would be
increased from 14,212 AUMs to 20,763 AUMs.
Runoff and erosion would decrease as a result of
improved watershed conditions. Deer, elk, and
bighorn habitat would improve. Aquatic and
riparian habitats would stabilize or improve on
m OSt areas.
Livestock grazing and income would be
reduced in the short and long term. Ranching
costs would increase. Visual quality and
recreational usage would be slightly affected.
Income from recreation-related sources would
increase.
4. Alternatives considered:
Preferred
No Action
Elimination of Grazing
Management Constraints
Nonintensive
;
5. Comments requested from the following:
See list of agencies, organizations, and persons
to whom copies of the statement are sent.
6. Date Draft Statement made available for
*** **puble MAR 17 1980
LIST OF AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS, AND
PERSONS TO WHOM COPIES OF THE
STATEMENT ARE SENT
Comments On the Environmental Statement will
be requested from the following agencies and
interest groups:
Federal Agencies
Department of the Interior
Geological Survey
Water and Power Resources Service
Fish and Wildlife Service
National Park Service
Heritage Conservation and Recreation
Service
Department of Agriculture
Forest Service
Soil Conservation Service
Environmental Protection Agency
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
Colorado State Agencies
Office of the Governor
Colorado Division of Planning-State Clearing
House (Distributes to State Agencies)
Colorado Historical Society
Local Government
Fremont, Chaffee, Lake, Park, Teller, Custer,
Hu er fan o, and El Paso County
Commissioners and Planning Commission
Other Organizations
American Fisheries Society -
Colorado Association of Soil Conservation
Districts
Colorado Cattlemen's Association
Colorado Farm Bureau
Colorado Four Wheel Drive Clubs
Colorado Guides and Outfitters Association
Colorado Mining Association
Colorado Open Space Council
Colorado Parks and Recreation Society
Colorado Rivers Council
Colorado Sportsmen Association
Colorado Wildlife ASSOciation
Colorado Wildlife Federation
Colorado Wool Grower's Association
Environmental Defense Fund
Izaak Walton League of America
National Audubon Society
National Council of Public Land Users
National Resources Defense Council
Rockwell international
Sierra Club
Society for Range Management
Trout Unlimited
The Wilderness Society
Individuals
Dick Loper
James Lindzey
Paul Friesema
William Southern
Livestock Operators
4
— ROYAL GORGE ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT
TABLE OF CONTENTS sº
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * e e s e e s e e s e o e e s e e s e s e e s a e s e e s e e < e < e < e < e < e e s e e s a e e s a e s e a e e s = e s e e
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * e s e e s e e s a e s e s e e s e e s s e º 'º e º e º e º e e s e e e s a e e s a e s a e e e s e e s e e s e s e e s a e
CHAPTER 2 DESCRIPTION OF THE ALTERNATIVES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Preferred Alternative (Intensive Management) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Grazing Treatments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Key Species and Rest Treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Facilities and Land Treatments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Facility and Treatment Design Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Adjustments in Grazing Use and Proposed Utilization Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Benefit/Cost Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Nonintensive Management Units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Elimination of Grazing Units. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Unallotted Units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Monitoring, Evaluation, and Adjustment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
No Action (Continuation of Present Grazing Management) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Elimination of Grazing Alternative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Management Constraints Alternative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Nonintensive Management Alternative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Alternatives Dropped From Consideration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Impact Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Interrelationships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The Decision to Graze . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Determination of Management Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Determination of Stocking Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Rationale for Range Improvements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
State and Private Land . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Federal Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
State Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Local Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
CHAPTER 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Soils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Vegetation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Vegetative Types. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Poisonous and Noxious Plants. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Threatened and Endangered Plants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Condition. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Apparent Trend . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Livestock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Wildlife. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Mule Deer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Elk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Antelope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Bighorn Sheep . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Riparian-Broadleaf-Associated Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Mountain Shrub-Associated Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Conifer-Associated Species. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Grassland-Associated Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Threatened and Endangered Animals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Aquatic Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Recreation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Economics and Social Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Employment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Government Finance and Tax Base . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Social Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Water Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Water Quantity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Water Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Cultural Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Archaeology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Historic Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Paleontology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Visual Resources Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Forestry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Wilderness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Flood Plains/Flood Hazard Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
CHAPTER 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Assumptions and Anal
Preferred Alternative .
ysis Guidelines. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
• * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Impacts on Vegetation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Impacts on Livestock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Impacts on Wildlife
10
10
10
10
10
12
13
13
14
14
14
15
15
15
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
17
17
17
17
17
17
19
19
19
19
19
23
23
23
23
24
24
24
26
26
26
26
29
29
29
30
30
30
30
30
32
32
33
34
34
34
34
34
35
35
35
35
36
36
37
37
37
38
38
38
38
38
40
40
Impacts on Aquatic Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Impacts on Recreation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
Impacts on Economics and Social Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
Impacts on Water Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
Impacts on Soils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
Impacts on Archaeology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
Impacts on Visual Resources Management (VRM) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
Impacts on Forestry. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • • • - - - - - - - 50
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
No Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
Impacts on Vegetation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
Impacts on Livestock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
Impacts on Wildlife. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
Impacts on Aquatic Resources. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
Impacts on Recreation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
Impacts on Economics and Social Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
Impacts on Water Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
Impacts on Soils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
Impacts on Archaeology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
Impacts on Visual Resources Management (VRM) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
Impacts on Forestry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
Elimination of Grazing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
Impacts on Vegetation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
Impacts on Livestock. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
Impacts on Wildlife. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
Impacts on Aquatic Resources. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
Impacts on Recreation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
Impacts on Economics and Social Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
Impacts on Water Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
Impacts on Soils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
Impacts on Archaeology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
Impacts on Visual Resources Management (VRM) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
Impacts on Forestry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
Management Constraints. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
Impacts on Vegetation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
Impacts on Livestock. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
Impacts on Wildlife. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
Impacts on Aquatic Resources. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
Impacts on Recreation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
Impacts on Economics and Social Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
Impacts on Water Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
Impacts on Soils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
Impacts on Archaeology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
Impacts on Visual Resources Management (VRM) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
Impacts on Forestry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
Nonintensive Alternative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
Impacts on Vegetation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
Impacts on Livestock. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
Impacts on Wildlife. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
Impacts on Aquatic Resources. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
Impacts on Recreation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
Impacts on Economics and Social Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
Impacts on Water Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
Impacts on Soils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
Impacts on Archaeology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
Impacts on Visual Resources Management (VRM) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
Impacts on Forestry. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
The Relationship Between Local Short-Term Uses of Man's Environment and the Maintenance
and Enhancement of Long-Term Productivity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
Cumulative Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
Trends Significantly Impacting Environmental Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
Long- and Short-Term Benefits. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * > . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
Risks to Health and Safety. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
Alteration in Quality of Life . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources Which Would Be
Involved if the Preferred Alternative Were Implemented . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
LIST OF PREPARERS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
APPENDIX A-SUMMARY OF GRAZING MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-1
APPENDIX B–RANGELAND MANAGEMENT PROPOSAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-1
APPENDIX C–SOIL ASSOCIATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-1
APPENDIX D–STREAM PROFILE RATING SYSTEM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-1
APPENDIX E–RECREATIONAL USE DATA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E-1
APPENDIX F-ECONOMICS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F-1
APPENDIX G–RUNOFF, PEAK FLOWS, AND SEDIMENT YIELD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . G-1
APPENDIX H-WILDLIFE DATA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H-1
LITERATURE CITED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LC-1
GLOSSARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . GL-1
TABLE OF CONTENTS – 5
6
— ROYAL GORGE ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT
Five alternatives for rangeland management, one
of which is preferred over the others, are presented in
this environmental impact statement. They are the
Preferred Alternative, No Action (continuation of
present management), Elimination of Grazing
(elimination of all livestock grazing on public lands),
Management Constraints (curtailment of livestock
grazing in favor of the development and use of other
resources), and Non intensive Management
(continuation of present management with reduced
livestock grazing).
Livestock management under the Preferred
Alternative is based on recently completed
Management Framework Plans (MFPs) of the Royal
Gorge and the Raton Basin Planning Areas. These
MFPS were written from recommendations of BLM
resource Specialists and considered public opinion.
They present objectives for future use of resources on
public lands and describe specific action plans to
accomplish them. Only the Preferred Alternative fulfills
objectives for rangeland management as well as
objectives for all of the other resources in these MFPs.
On the basis of MFP decisions, three objectives
were defined for rangeland management: (1) improve
livestock grazing habitat; (2) provide additional
livestock forage on intensively managed units above
the 1977-78 range survey level; and (3) provide
livestock forage on a sustained yield basis to
management units where intensive management is not
possible. On the basis of MFP decisions five objectives
were defined for other resources: (1) provide forage to
meet projected wildlife needs; (2) improve fisheries on
33 streams on public land; (3) reduce erosion rates on
public lands; (4) enhance existing recreational
opportunities; and (5) provide additional access to
public lands. Whichever of the alternatives (or
combination of them) is selected, these objectives
should be fulfilled to comply with MFP decisions and
maintain the spirit of multiple use.
Impacts
Impacts of each of the five alternatives are
summarized below and all impacts would originate
from the initial effect of grazing reductions on
vegetation and would accrue gradually. In this EIS they
have been assessed at two points—5 years after
implementation of a given management program
(short term) and 20 years after implementation (long
term). The one exception is economics, in which
impacts are expressed as yearly averages over 5 years
and over 20 years. For example, under the Preferred
Alternative, total yearly property tax collections would
average $5,472 less over 5 years but in the long term, as
range improved and vegetation allocations were
adjusted upward, ranch equity would increase and
early losses in tax revenues would be recouped. After
20 years, tax revenue losses would average only $2,347
per year.
Except for economics, short-term changes are not
discussed in this summary. Impacts take place so
slowly that even 20 years (long term for the purpose of
this EIS) are too short to observe much change;
therefore only long-term impacts are indicated. Where
increases and decreases are noted, the change is
always relative to present conditions.
With the exception of impacts on the local
economy and on the Arkansas River watershed (e.g.,
sediment yield, peak flows, and runoff), impacts
described in this summary and throughout this
document apply only to public lands. A more lengthy
but readable description of the cause-effect sequence
of impacts and evaluation of their relative importance
appears in Chapter 4. Methods for gathering
SUMMARY
background data and criteria for analysis are explained
further in the Appendices. All data used in this
summary are drawn from Table 2-5, a quantitative
summary of impacts.
Preferred Alternative
Upon implementation, there would be a reduction
in livestock use from 39,369 AUMS to 14,212 AUMS On
public rangelands. As a result, livestock production per
animal per year would increase. The number of AUMs
available annually would gradually increase, reaching
20,763 after 20 years.
Net revenues to 21 large ranchers would decrease
from an average of $34,449 per year per rancher to
$27,470 in the short term. In the long term, net revenues
to large ranchers would average $31,521 per year. Net
revenues to 72 small ranchers would decrease from
$352 per year per rancher to an average operating loss
of $3,785 in the short term; operating loss would
average $1,628 in the long term.
Construction of range improvements would cost
$2.4 million. Short-term labor losses would total 17.9
person-years. Some of that loss would be recovered by
increased employment as range improves and
stocking level is increased. Over the long term, total
labor losses would shrink to 7.2 person-years. Total
yearly property tax collections from all ranchers, large
and small, would average $5,472 less in the short term
and average $2,347 less over the long term. Income
would increase in the government sector by $90,000
due to costs of administering the range program.
After 20 years, total live vegetative cover would
increase 12 percent, from 22.5 to 25.2 percent cover.
The condition of range suitable for grazing would
improve; 200 more acres would reach excellent
condition, 23,430 more acres good condition, and
23,630 acres less would be in poor condition. Of
438,959 acres of range suitable for grazing, 341,834
acres in a downward trend (78 percent) would reach
stable range condition. This improvement would be
attributable primarily to increases in vigor and
production of range forage plants. Vegetative
composition on public lands would change to more
desirable species, but composition change takes place
slowly so even in the long term (20 years) it would only
be slight.
Out of 109 miles of riparian habitat, 3.5 miles would
improve from fair condition to excellent in the long
term (20 years). An additional 41.3 miles of riparian
habitat would assume an apparent upward trend
instead of its current downward trend. Of the 109 miles,
53 miles would be in good or excellent condition; 99
miles of the 109 would be either in an upward trend or
stable (Table 2-5).
Consumptive use of water by livestock and wildlife
would decrease from 50 to 15 acre-feet of water per
year over 20 years.
Changes in peak flows, runoff, and sediment yield
would reflect increases or decreases in vegetative
cover and production. These changes were calculated
only for lands that are proposed for intensive
management under the Preferred Alternative. These
lands constitute 64 percent of the total land surface
affected by proposals in this EIS and would experience
the major changes. Water resources calculations for
the Other alternatives involve the same land surface
only under different kinds of management. Changes
taking place on the remaining 36 percent of the land
surface were calculated to be very minor by
comparison and would do little to alter the major
results, so they were excluded from consideration.
Peak flows from 10-year storms would decrease 3
percent and volume of runoff from a 10-year storm
would decrease about 3 percent over the long term.
Sediment entering the Arkansas River would gradually
reach 10 percent reduction after 20 years. No change
would Occur in the amount of sediment entering the
South Platte River. Overall there would be,
accordingly, 25 percent less erosion (also see changes
in the number of acres in each erosion condition class
(Table 2-5), a more generalized measure of land's
susceptibility to erosion).
Wildlife habitat would be largely unaffected by
management of rangelands under the Preferred
Alternative, although some smaller areas would be
improved and others degraded. Wildlife would benefit
from increased forage and water resulting from
cutbacks in livestock grazing and redistribution of
animals to other areas. Some degradation of wildlife
habitat would occur elsewhere, principally because of
increased competition for food and water as livestock
are introduced into areas previously seldom or never
grazed and as burning and thinning, carried out for
improvement of rangeland, destroys some wildlife
cover. Overall, however, habitat would benefit.
Improvement would occur on 13 percent of mule
deer habitat, degradation on 2 percent. For elk habitat,
8 percent would be improved, 1 percent degraded; for
bighorn sheep, 5 percent and 0.1 percent (Table 2-5
shows acreage). Forage available for wildlife would
gradually increase; 26 percent more would become
available annually in the long term. Wildlife
populations in the region as a whole would not be
expected to increase significantly since small
improvements in habitat on public land would be offset
by losses of habitat to other uses on private lands.
These other uses would be unrelated to range
management, such as construction of housing,
building of roads, mining, and development of
recreational facilities.
With the improvement of riparian and wildlife
habitat, hunting and fishing would be expected to
improve. A 2 percent increase in recreation days,
principally in hunting and fishing, would be gradually
realized over the long term (Table 2-5 indicates
numbers).
Increases in recreation days would be
accompanied by expenditures for goods and services,
bringing more money into the local economy. The total
increase for all recreational activities would average
$213,133 per year over the long term.
As vegetative cover increases on rangelands,
visual quality and variety would also be expected to
improve. Damage to cultural resources would continue
because of livestock grazing, but difficulties inherent
in assessing damage to archaeological resources
preclude evaluation of losses here. Impacts to known
resources or resources discovered during
implementation of range improvement projects will be
mitigated on site-specific basis.
No Action
Livestock use would remain at its present level of
39,369 AUMs with no chance for increase in the long
term (20 years). Livestock production per animal per
year would remain at its present level or decrease
slightly. No rangeland improvements would be
COnStructed.
No changes in revenue would accrue to livestock
operators. Similarly, there would be no changes in
ranch labor, property tax collections, or government-
related income.
Of 438,959 acres of range suitable for grazing,
there would be no change in the number of acres
presently in upward, downward, and stable trend
(2,664, 346,834, and 89,461, respectively) over the long
term. The number of acres in good or excellent range
COndition would remain the but 5,000 to 10,000 of the
99,133 acres of range presently in fair condition could
decline into poor condition. Vegetative composition on
public lands would not change.
Condition of riparian habitat where livestock graze
would not change. Improvement would occur on 1.5
miles of stream due to factors unrelated to livestock
management. Apparent trend on 109 miles of stream
fisheries also would not change.
Consumptive use of water by livestock would
remain at 50 acre-feet. Total runoff from a 10-year
storm would continue to be 22.22 acre-feet per square
mile. Peak flows from a 10-year storm would gradually
increase due to loss of Cover, by 14 percent over the
long term on a few units not currently grazed but which
would be allotted upon demand. This increase would
not significantly alter the average peak flow from
public rangelands, however.
Sediment entering the Arkansas River would not
be expected to change (presently 1.9 million tons per
year). After 20 years, sediment yield per acre would
have increased slightly, from 1.55 to 1.64 tons per acre
per year, due to gradual loss of cover, but there could
be no change in the amount of land in erosion
Condition classes, a more general measure of
Susceptibility to erosion (Table 2-5).
There would be a slight but unmeasurable decline
of mule deer, elk, and bighorn sheep habitat from
present condition. Forage available for wildlife and
Competition for forage with livestock would remain at
present levels.
Recreational use for hunting would decrease 300
days for deer (9 percent) and 50 days for elk (2 percent)
as habitat and wildlife numbers decline. This decrease
in recreation days would result in loss of revenue for
the local economy, over the long term averaging
$44,576 per year.
Damage to cultural resources because of livestock
grazing would continue at its present rate, which
Cannot be assessed due to difficulties inherent in
evaluation. There would be no damage to
archaeological resources because of range
improvements, as none would be implemented.
Elimination of Grazing
Upon implementation, all of the 39,369 AUMs
presently harvested by livestock would no longer be
available. In some respects, this would be beneficial.
The apparent downward trend on public rangelands
would reverse itself. All of the 341,834 acres currently
Showing downward trend in range condition would
become stable. Range condition would not change
because it depends on large changes in component
factors—vegetative production, density, cover, and
Species composition—which would take much longer
than 20 years, the long-term endpoint for the EIS.
Smaller beneficial changes would take place, however.
Vegetative cover would gradually increase 8 percent,
from 22.5 to 24.3 percent cover, after 20 years. Vigor
and production in range forage plants would improve
and composition of forage plants would shift toward
more desirable species for grazing.
Elimination of grazing would have adverse effects
economically. Net revenues to 21 large ranchers would
decrease from an average of $34,449 per year per
rancher to $24,457 while net revenues to 72 small
ranchers would decrease from an average of $352 to an
operating loss of $5,575 per rancher per year over the
long term. Long-term ranch labor losses would total
26.6 person-years. Total yearly property tax
Collections from all ranchers, large and small, would
average $7,120 per year less over the long term. Fences
Costing an estimated $18 to $30 million (6,000 to 10,000
miles total) would have to be constructed by ranchers
and would yield no economic return to them.
Riparian habitat would improve, limited only by
site potential. Of the 109 miles of stream in the EIS area,
49 miles would reach excellent condition (3.3 at
present), 46.25 miles good condition (46.25 at present),
10 miles fair condition (46.60 at present), and 4 miles
would remain in poor condition (13.15 at present) after
20 years. All 109 miles would be in an apparent stable
Condition or upward trend; 56.25 miles of stream
fisheries are presently in a downward trend.
Consumptive use of water by livestock would
cease, making an additional 44 acre-feet of water
available on public lands. Volume of runoff from a 10-
year storm would decrease by 10 percent and peak
flows from 10-year storms would gradually decrease
by 15 percent in 20 years. Sediment load in the
Arkansas would have decreased from 1.9 million tons
per year to 1.49 million tons per year (24 percent).
Sediment yield per acre per year would have decreased
from 1.55 tons to 0.54 tons (65 percent) on
management units currently grazed (90 percent of
public rangelands in the EIS area). No change in
Sediment yield would have occurred in areas which
currently are not grazed (10 percent of public
rangeland). Less erosion would occur overall, but data
was not available with which to calculate the amount of
rangeland that would fall in different erosion classes.
Wildlife habitat would be largely unaffected by
elimination of grazing on public rangelands.
Improvement would occur on 5 percent of mule deer
habitat and 10 percent of elk habitat. Bighorn sheep
habitat would not be affected. An estimated 13,500
AUMS would be available for big game. There would be
no competition with livestock for forage on public
lands.
With improvement of riparian and wildlife habitat,
hunting and fishing would be expected to improve
(Table 2-5). An increase of 26 percent in recreation
days for deer hunting, 13 percent for elk hunting, and
57 percent for bighorn sheep would be realized
gradually over the long term. There would be a 10
percent increase in recreation days for fishing.
Increases in recreation days would be accompanied by
expenditures for goods and services, bringing more
money into the local economy. The total increase for
all recreational activities would average $617,349 per
year over the long term (20 years).
With increases in vegetative cover and production,
visual variety and therefore quality would also improve.
Damage to Cultural resources because of livestock
grazing would cease.
Management Constraints
Upon implementation, a reduction in livestock use
from 39,369 AUMs to 10,413 AUMS would occur on
public rangelands. Over the long term, live vegetative
cover would increase 9 percent, from 22.5 to 24.6
percent cover. Of the 438,959 acres of range suitable
for grazing, 341,834 acres presently exhibiting a
downward trend in range condition would become
stable. The condition of range suitable for grazing
would improve; 100 more acres would reach excellent
condition, 7,160 more good condition, and 7,160 acres
less would be in poor condition. Beneficial impacts on
Condition would be attributable to land treatments. The
number of AUMs annually available would gradually
increase, reaching 14,659 after 20 years.
Net revenues to 21 large ranchers would decrease
from an average of $34,449 per year per rancher to
$19,786 over the short term but would average $20,904
SUMMARY —7
per year per rancher over the long term. Net revenues
to 72 smaller ranchers would decrease from an average
of $352 per year per rancher to an average net
operating loss of $4,726 in the short term and an
average net operating loss of $3,985 over the long term.
Range improvements would cost $6.5 million.
Ranchers would pay $5.9 million for fencing to keep
livestock off public lands. BLM would provide $604,000
for range improvements.
In the short term, a total of 22.7 person-years of
ranch labor would be lost. Some of that would be
recovered because employment would increase as
range improves and stocking level is again increased.
Over the long term, labor losses would total 19.2
person-years. Total yearly local property tax
Collections from all ranchers, large and small, would
average $6,075 less per year in the short term and
$5,139 less per year over the long term. Income would
increase in the government sector by $60,000 due to
costs of administering the program.
Riparian habitat would improve; of 109 miles in the
EIS area, 13 miles of stream would become excellent
(3.60 at present), 47.75 miles good (46.25 at present),
40.58 miles fair (46.60 at present) and 7.62 miles poor
(13.15 at present) after 20 years. There would be 56.25
miles of stream in apparent stable condition, 42.85
miles in an upward trend, and 10.2 miles in downward
trend compared to current levels of 56.25, 1.50, and
51.50 miles, respectively.
Consumptive use of water for livestock would
decrease from 50 acre-feet to 12 acre-feet per year.
Runoff from rangelands would decrease, reflecting
increases in vegetative cover and production. Volume
of runoff from a 10-year storm would gradually
decrease by 6 percent and peak flows from 10-year
storms would be reduced 8 percent after 20 years.
Sediment yield would gradually change,
decreasing 15 percent after 20 years. Erosion generally
would decrease, but data was not available with which
to Calculate the amount of rangeland that would fall in
different erosion classes (Table 2-5).
Wildlife habitat in the EIS area would be largely
unaffected by the management of rangelands (Table 2-
5). Improvement would occur on 11 percent of mule
deer habitat, degradation on 2 percent. For elk habitat,
5 percent would be improved, 1 percent degraded; for
bighorn sheep, 5 percent would be improved. Forage
available for wildlife would gradually increase; after 20
years, 26 percent more (2,945 AUMs) would be
available.
With improvement of wildlife and riparian habitat,
hunting and fishing would be expected to improve
(Table 2-5). An increase of 41 percent in recreation
days for deer hunting, 12 percent increase for elk
hunting, 75 percent increase for bighorn sheep
hunting, and 5 percent increase for fishing would
gradually be realized over the long term (20 years).
Increases in recreation days would be
accompanied by expenditures for goods and services,
bringing more money into the local economy. The total
increase for all recreational activities would average
$458,932 per year over the long term.
With increases in vegetative cover and production,
visual variety and therefore quality would improve.
Damage to cultural resources due to livestock grazing
would continue but at a slower rate than at present. No
known sites would be destroyed by range
improvement projects. Impacts to newly discovered
sites will be properly mitigated.
Nonintensive Management
With implementation, livestock grazing on public
8
— ROYAL GORGE ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT
lands would be reduced from 39,369 AUMs to 14,212
AUMs. That level of use would remain essentially
constant over the long term (20 years). No increase in
forage availability would be expected. A small increase
(5 percent) in live vegetative cover would occur, from
22.5 to 23.2 percent cover. This small change
combined with minor improvements in plant vigor,
species composition, and production would not be
sufficient to change trend of range condition.
Net revenues to 21 large ranchers would decrease
from an average of $34,449 to $27,470 per year per
rancher while net revenues to 72 smaller ranchers
would decrease from an average of $352 to a net
operating loss of $3,785 per year per rancher over the
long term. Long-term ranch labor losses would total
17.9 person-years. Total yearly property tax
collections from all ranchers, large and small, would
average $5,472 less per year over 20 years. Range
improvements, limited to fencing of riparian areas to
protect them from livestock, would cost $300,000.
Riparian habitat on 50 miles of fenced stream
would improve. Of 109 miles of stream in the EIS area,
13.4 miles would be in excellent condition (3.30 at
present), 47.75 miles in good condition (46.25 at
present), 40.6 miles in fair condition (46.6 at present),
and 7.62 miles in poor condition (13.15 at present) after
20 years. There would be 1.5 miles of stream fisheries
in an apparent upward trend (1.50 at present), and
62.75 in stable condition (51.50 at present).
Consumptive use of water would decrease from 50
to 15 acre-feet. Peak flows from 10-year storms and
volume of runoff from 10-year storms would both
decrease by about 1 percent after 20 years.
Sediment yield would gradually change; 9 percent
less sediment would enter the Arkansas River after 20
years. Erosion would generally decrease, although
present data does not permit projections of numbers of
acres in different erosion classes (Table 2-5).
Wildlife habitat in the EIS area would be largely
unaffected by the management of rangelands.
Improvement would occur on 4 percent of mule deer
habitat, degradation on 1 percent. For elk habitat, 4
percent would be improved, none degraded; 2 percent
of bighorn sheep habitat would be improved, none
degraded. Available forage for big game on public
lands would not be expected to increase beyond its
present level of 11,189 AUMs.
With improvement of wildlife and riparian habitat,
hunting and fishing would be expected to improve
(Table 2-5). An increase of 20 percent in recreation
days for deer hunting, 8 percent for elk hunting, 45
percent for bighorn sheep hunting, and 4 percent for
fishing would gradually be realized over the long term.
Increases in recreation days would be
accompanied by expenditures for goods and services,
bringing more money into the local economy. The total
increase for all recreational activities would average
$305,543 per year over the long term.
Damage to cultural resources would continue at
its current rate, but cannot be quantified due to
difficulties inherent in assessment. No sites would be
destroyed because of range improvement projects
because none are proposed.
Issues To Be Resolved
In the preparation plan for this EIS, several
important issues were identified: (1) the suitability of
livestock grazing in the EIS area because of its steep
and rocky nature, (2) adverse economic impacts on
ranchers wrought by changes in management of
livestock operations in response to BLM planning
decisions and the 1977–78 range survey, (3) the
compatibility of livestock grazing with the
RIPARIAN VEGETATION IS IMPORTANT FOR GOOD FISHERIES
The health of riparian vegetation is important to the well being of the whole
aquatic ecosystem.
stabilize streambanks.
gravel.
cent to 40 percent.
healthy.
washed into the stream.
result.
bury their eggs.
aeration, providing oxygen for fish eggs.
When riparian areas lose vegetation, a lot more sediment enters streams.
filled and sediment filters into riffle areas, smothering fish eggs and aquatic inver-
tebrates. As the process continues, fish production decreases. When riparian areas are
healthy, fish production can be two to three times greater than when they are un-
Lack of vegetation makes riparian areas less able to absorb moisture.
rains, runoff is not slowed down as it drains from the watershed and streams become
shutes for water. The land is eroded away and habitat is destroyed.
In the upper photograph banks are pocked with hoof marks and are bare.
have grazed the vegetation away, banks have been trampled, and exposed soil has
The stream has widened and become more shallow as a
Both herbaceous and woody species grow there and help
When livestock graze riparian areas heavily, vegetation loses
vigor and becomes more sparse, exposing the soil. This loss of vegetation makes banks
more suseptible to erosion. The situation is made worse by the continued presence of
livestock, which trample banks, causing them to collapse into the stream.
Lack of vegetation also eliminates shading along the stream. Cover is important for
maintaining proper temperature for survival of the fishery. Cold water species, such as
trout, cannot survive in water temperatures over 81 degrees F over a two-week period.
Stabilization of banks is important because it maintains the pool/riffle ratio. The
whole length of a stream is either pool or riffle. A pool is an area where there is slack
water and depth is greater than average.
Riffle is rapidly moving "white” water that is shallow and contains small diameter
Fish feed on aquatic invertebrates and spawn there.
Pools provide resting areas for fish.
Riffle areas have good
The ideal ratio of pool to riffle is 60 per-
Pools are
During heavy
Cattle
In the lower photograph vegetation is high and continuous to the water's edge.
The bank is stable and the stream has undercut the bank (the darker area along
the stream), providing shade, cooler water, and a pool for hiding.
the stream there are shallower, faster running riffle areas where fish seek food and
In the center of

maintenance of viable riparian areas, (4) competition
between livestock and wildlife resulting from the
introduction of livestock into areas not previously
grazed, (5) degradation of the wilderness
Characteristics in areas where there would be
improvement projects, and (6) overgrazing of certain
areas because of trespass on remote small parcels of
public lands intermingled with private lands.
As the EIS developed, two of these issues came to
the forefront as the most compelling—economic
impacts on ranchers and impacts of livestock grazing
on riparian areas. Economic impacts on ranchers were
inevitable because of the livestock reduction called for
in most of the alternatives. Grazing riparian areas
developed as an issue because it conflicted with the
MFP goal of maintaining or improving fisheries.
A major problem in rangeland husbandry is
appraisal of the forage resource and determination of
the livestock grazing capacity of the land (Stoddart and
Smith, 1955). BLM's 1977-78 range survey estimated
current livestock grazing capacities of public land
within the EIS area. This Survey is an estimate only and
will be adjusted either upward or downward on the
basis of actual use and utilization studies until a
moderate level of grazing is reached.
Stated another way, the goal of rangeland
management in the Royal Gorge Resource Area is not
to implement levels suggested by the survey to obtain
optimum rangeland, but to implement a stocking level
that would perpetuate the value of public rangelands
on a sustained yield basis. To this end, the survey is the
most current and best data BLM has and will be
adjusted through on-the-ground studies and
Consideration of needs of all resources.
This environmental impact statement (EIS) is the
result of a suit filed by environmental interests, usually
referenced as Natural Resources Defense Council
(NRDC) et al., in Federal Court in 1973, alleging that
BLM's programmatic grazing EIS did not comply with
the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA).
Following a court decision largely in favor of the NRDC
and subsequent agreements, BLM developed new
Management Framework Plans (MFPs) for use of
public lands in the Royal Gorge and Raton Basin
Planning Areas. A table outlining recommendations
made in these MFPs appears in Appendix A.
Recommendations in these MFPs reflect policy
goals expressed in the Federal Land Policy and
Management Act (FLPMA) that the "national interest
will be best realized if the public land and their
resources are periodically and systematically
inventoried and their present and future use is
projected through a land use planning process . . .,"
that "the public lands be managed in a manner that
protects the quality of the environment,” that
"management be on the basis of multiple use and
Livestock grazing in riparian areas is a perennial
problem everywhere (Ames, 1977; Graul and Bissell,
1978). In the MFP, a decision was made not to
permanently fence large areas of riparian habitat
because initial and maintenance Costs would be
prohibitive. A compromise solution was reached that
would allow cattle to graze riparian areas but would
maintain a high quality riparian habitat.
The principal problem in the EIS area seems to be
that cattle are interfering with the regeneration of
woody riparian vegetation, which is maintaining the
Current deteriorated State of fisheries. Areas where
woody vegetation has already been established for
some time can withstand moderate use by cattle and
their associated fisheries can maintain themselves. To
protect young regrowths of woody riparian vegetation,
exclosures would be constructed in portions of
deteriorated riparian areas as part of each allotment
management plan.
When the woody vegetation had grown to a point
where livestock grazing at a moderate level could be
tolerated, the exclosure would be moved to another
location until that site had improved. This movement of
exclosures would continue until all riparian areas
would be self-sustaining.
This type of woody riparian regeneration has not
been widely documented in the literature but has been
used successfully. Whether this system of
regeneration would work in the EIS area, whether the
woody vegetation could actually withstand livestock
use after the exclosure is removed, and how long it
would take an excluded area to recover, need yet to be
resolved.
CHAPTER 1
PURPOSE
sustained yield ...," and that "public land be managed
in a manner which recognizes the Nation's need for
domestic Sources of mineral, feed, timber and fiber."
Out of recommendations in these MFPs came
several alternatives for grazing management which are
described in this EIS. Of these alternatives, one is
preferred, and is hereafter referred to as the "preferred
alternative." This corresponds to the "proposed
action" in past EISs. The change in terminology is a
result of a new organization and structuring of
environmental impact statements. The other
alternatives are variously referred to as "alternatives",
"other alternatives", or by descriptive names, e.g.,
"elimination of grazing", "nonintensive management",
"management constraints alternative", etc.
The Preferred Alternative is designed:
1. To improve livestock grazing habitat (soil, plant, and
water requirements) on 589,675 acres of public land
within a 20-year period;
2. To increase the vegetation production from a
CHAPTER ONE – 9
Conclusion
In terms of meeting the objectives indicated at the
beginning of this summary, the Preferred Alternative is
the most complete and balanced plan for rangeland
management. Implementation would accomplish all
eight of the listed objectives. The Management
Constraints Alternative would accomplish all except
that of providing additional livestock forage for
stabilizing the local livestock industry. The other three
alternatives fall far short. The No Action Alternative
would not meet any of the eight objectives. The
Elimination of Grazing Alternative would meet only the
objectives of aquatic habitat improvement, reduction
of erosion, and increased recreational use. The
Nonintensive Management alternative would provide
only aquatic habitat improvement, increased
recreational opportunities, and livestock forage on a
sustained yield basis to 250 management units.
A brief synopsis of the tradeoffs and
complementary recommendations for the Preferred
Alternative appears in Appendix A. In Chapter 2, the
Preferred Alternative is described in detail along with
differences between it and other alternatives. Chapter
3 describes the affected environment of this EIS area
and Chapter 4 presents impacts. To avoid repetition, a
full analysis of impacts appears only in the Preferred
Alternative and brief summary descriptions of impacts
are presented for the other alternatives.
Whichever alternative is selected, some details Of
the action will change and evolve to accommodate the
listed objectives in the light of new data, unexpected
changes in resource condition, and changes in public
demand on a resource until on-the-ground
implementation is complete. The basic objective of
BLM is a balanced program in the spirit of multiple use.
proposed level of 14,212 livestock animal unit months
(AUMs) after implementation of the Preferred
Alternative to 20,763 AUMs in 20 years;
3. To provide livestock forage on a sustained yield
basis to 278 grazing management units on public lands
in the Royal Gorge Planning Area, insuring that 7, 181
AUMs are available for immediate and future use;
4. To increase stream channel stability on
approximately 75 miles of 33 streams and thus improve
fish habitat;
5. To reduce erosion rates on 546,820 acres to enhance
watershed COnditions;
6. To enhance recreational values by increasing wildife
numbers and, ultimately, hunting and fishing success
and wildife viewing opportunities as well as improving
aesthetic and visual qualities of the area;
7. To provide access facilities that will allow the general
public full use of areas which is permitted by existing
law and regulations; and
8. To provide 14,134 AUMs of forage on 77 intensive
management units for wildlife to maintain the desired
wildlife populations.
10 – ROYAL GORGE ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT
CHAPTER 2
DESCRIPTION OF THE ALTERNATIVES
INTRODUCTION
Following is a description of the five alternatives
for grazing management in the EIS area. The Preferred
Alternative, in previous EISs referred to as the
Proposed Action, is described first. This is followed by
four alternatives, which include a wide range of
possible grazing management alternatives. These
alternatives are No Action (continuation of present
grazing management), Elimination of Grazing,
Management Constraints, and Non intensive
Management. The first two of these represent ends of
the spectrum, from essentially no management
(allowing present use levels), to total control
(elimination of all grazing on public lands). The
Management Constraints Alternative represents an
intermediate level of management between the
Preferred Alternative and Elimination of Grazing. The
Nonintensive Management Alternative is a minimal
management level.
The Preferred Alternative results from the Royal
Gorge and Raton Basin Management Framework
Plans (MFPs). Specific allotment management plans
(AMPs) were not developed, but a rest standard for
rangeland vegetation was proposed on which all future
AMPs would be based. Because this EIS is based on
the BLM Management Framework Plans and not an
AMP program, the Preferred Alternative is somewhat
more broadly stated than in previous grazing EISs that
were based on AMPS.
PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
(INTENSIVE MANAGEMENT)
The Preferred Alternative was developed to benefit
livestock production on public lands by adjusting the
manner, amount, and timing of grazing. These
adjustments would benefit desirable forage species of
rangeland plants by giving them a "rest" from grazing.
During this rest they would be able to complete
their physiological growth requirements and gain in
vigor and relative abundance. A recent BLM range
survey (1977–78) determined the current condition of
range forage plants in the EIS area and their
physiological needs for reversal of the current
downward trend in their condition. These
requirements are reflected in the proposed
adjustments of livestock use on public rangelands.
The proposed adjustments under the Preferred
Alternative would also benefit wildlife habitat, fisheries
production, and to a lesser extent recreation. For
example, livestock grazing would be restricted on
some management units to summer, fall, and winter
because spring grazing is detrimental to wildlife,
especially big game. In spring, the forage needs of
wildlife coincide with those of livestock. At other times
of the year, moderate livestock grazing improves
forage species consumed by wildlife and adjustments
would be made accordingly. BLM would place study
exclosures to preclude livestock use along certain
streams in the EIS area to establish the impact of
grazing in riparian areas, ultimately adjusting use to
benefit fisheries. LiveStock would be eliminated from
places designated as valuable for development of
recreational facilities such as campgrounds and picnic
3 ſea S.
In the final analysis, the Preferred Alternative
would benefit mainly vegetation, livestock, and wildlife
both in the short and long term. This involves a
complex compromise balancing the conflicting needs
of all three resources and would be achieved
principally through the coordinated use of two
methods. First, period of livestock use would be
adjusted to allow proper rest for and regeneration of
desirable forage species. Secondly, utilization would
be limited to a moderate level, on the average about 50
percent, although this average would be achieved by
varying utilization of key species from 40 to 60 percent
in Selected areas.
The upper limit of 60 percent utilization on public
lands would actually include the combined use of
livestock and wildlife. For the purposes of this EIS, all
vegetation was allocated to livestock, but it was
assumed that some of this would be used by wildlife.
How much is not known. Present data from the
Colorado Division of Wildlife (DOW) is insufficient to
project how much forage wildlife, especially big game,
WOUld COnSU me.
With implementation of the Preferred Alternative,
actual livestock consumption would be monitored. The
upper limit placed on utilization on public rangelands
would, therefore, help determine the actual vegetative
needs of wildlife.
Competition between big game and livestock is
most severe early in the growing season of forage
species—spring and early summer. During this time,
they consume the same vegetative species. Through
adjustments in livestock period of use and livestock
stocking rates, these vegetative species would be
expected to increase in vigor and relative abundance
(hereafter referred to a "percent composition" relative
to total vegetative cover). Wildlife needs would be met
and the condition of rangelands would improve.
The needs of livestock would be met for the time
being with minimal economic pressure on operators.
More importantly, a gradual improvement in
rangelands for the future would be insured. The
principal beneficiary of improved range would be
livestock. As vegetative production on public lands
increases, it would be allocated entirely to livestock to
the limit of each operator's original qualifications (the
level of his present grazing privileges). Thereafter,
vegetation would be allocated to both livestock and
wildlife on the basis of priorities established in future
MFPS.
According to recommendations in current MFPs,
100 grazing units totaling 379,380 acres (64 percent of
public land in the EIS area) would be combined to form
77 units and these WOuld receive intensive
management (Table 2-1).
Range improvements proposed for implementing
intensive management are listed on Table 2–2 by
management alternative. Specifications, exact
locations, type, and general maintenance
requirements for each development are detailed in the
1979 Royal Gorge MFP, which is available for review at
the BLM Canon City District Office.
Grazing Treatments
A "grazing treatment" is the management of
livestock use to achieve a certain quality and quantity
of vegetative production on rangelands.
Grazing treatments would allow range plants a
period free from livestock grazing during the growing
season. According to MFP recommendations, the
minimum rest standard is 1 year of grazing during the
growing season followed by 2 years of rest during the
growing season. If livestock are grazed during the
nongrowing time of year, rest would not be required
during the subsequent growing season. Such
treatments can be expected to improve forage
production by changing botanical composition,
increasing plant vigor, stimulating plant growth and
reproduction (through seed dissemination and
seedling establishment), and allowing litter
accumulation for protection of the soil surface.
Livestock production and performance would be
improved without range deterioration (Stoddart et al.,
1975).
Key Species and Rest Treatment
Grazing treatments developed for the 77 units
proposed for intensive management are designed to
provide a rest standard based on four key species of
forage plants, one or more of which are found in each
unit. Key species serve as an indicator of changes
occurring in the vegetational complex (Stoddart et al.,
1975). The species of grass selected as key species are
mountain muhly, Arizona fescue, needle-and-thread,
and Indian ricegrass. These plants are widespread but
not common, intolerant of excessive grazing pressure,
and highly palatable to livestock. By using grazing
treatments that meet the physiological requirements of
these species, it is assumed that the requirements of
other important grasses, forbs, and browse can also be
met.
D M
v /
{ ſº tº 4%
* { *
F. W ... " f.s . " W
\f t p\\ /. © ºf
* ... a = 4 #
r e *
6 : * {
\ f * * y
º ///
ſ * A tº /
"pºſſ,
ºf"/".
G ' ',
|NDIAN RICE GRASS
(Oryzopsis hymenoides)


TABLE 2-1
SUMMARY OF THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
CHAPTER TWO – 11
Proposed Present Proposed
Level of Level of Level Of Land
Number Livestock Livestock Percent Wildlife Treatments Management
Status Of Units Acres Use Use Adjustment Use (Acres) Facilities
Unallotted 13 20,395 0 AUMS 387 AUMS – 100 None Fence
39.70 Miles
Nonintensive 278 189,900 7,181 AUMS 15,434 AUMs — 53 None None
Intensive 77 379,380 7,031 AUMs 23,548 AUMs — 70 11, 189 AUMS Thin Springs
18,530 67
Burn Water Catchments
4,900 28
Plow Reservoirs
200 9
Fence
40.45 Miles
Water Pipeline
3.3 Miles
Water Troughs
4
Cattleguards
4
Wells
2
Water Storage Tank
1
Total 368 589,675 14,212 AUMs 39,369 AUMs – 64 11,189 AUMs Thin Springs
18,530 67
Burn Water Catchements
4,900 28
Plow Reservoirs
200 9
Fence
80.1 Miles
Water Pipeline
3.3 Miles
Water Troughs
4
Cattleguards
4
Wells
2
Water Storage Tank
1
12 – ROYAL GORGE ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT
TABLE 2-2
A SUMMARY OF THE LEVEL OF USE AND REOUIRED DEVELOPMENTS
FOR THE PREFERRED AND THE OTHER ALTERNATIVES
No Action Nointensive Preferred? Management'
(Present Situation) Elimination (No AMPs) Alternative Constraints
Initial Level of Use (AUMs) 39,369 O 14,212 14,212 10,413
Increase Level of Use 20 Years (AUMs) O O O 6,551 2,872
Number of Units with Intensive Management 1 O 1 77 27
Units with Nonintensive Management 470 O 354 278 278
Units with No Grazing 5 368 13 13 63
Miles of Pipeline Required O O O 3.3 O
Number of Storage Tanks O O O 1 O
Number of Reservoirs Required O O O 9 3
Number of Water Troughs O 0 O 4 O
Number of Spring Developments” O O O 67 22
Rainfall Catchments? O O O 28 10
Number of Wells O O O 2 O
Number of Cattleguards O O O 4 2
Miles of New Fencing? O 6-10,000 100 80 1-2,000
Acres of Brushland Plowing O O O 200 100
Acres of Prescribed Burning O O O 4,900 3,160
Acres of Selective Thinning O O O 18,530 4,000
'Intensive Management Units in this proposal are 12, 23, 58,61, 75, 95, 97, 126, 133, 139, 140, 142, 150, 170, 173, 193, 194, 197, 198, 199,200, 202,204, 217,224, 230,231
*See Appendix B for specific management units.
*As AMPS are developed in the Preferred Alternative it is estimated that an additional 100 water developments and 71 miles of fence, not shown in this table, would be
required.
l
%
'ſ
/4.
º' MOUNTAIN MUHLY
| }\, , (Muhlenbergia montana)
On units with woody riparian species, critical
stands of big game browse, or young reproducing
aspen stands, management would be based on their
needs. If a unit has more than one key species and rest
requirements for them are different but overlapping,
the rest standard would be adapted to accommodate
both, from the beginning of one to the end of the other.
In unique areas, additional plants would be used as a
basis of management. Key species and their rest
requirements are indicated in Table 2-3.
Facilities and Land Treatments
Construction of management facilities would be
required for the implementation of grazing treatments.
Facilities include springs, pipelines, storage tanks,
earthen reservoirs, water troughs, cattle guards,
catchments, wells, and new fencing. Realizing the full
forage potential of a management unit might require
one or more land treatments, (Arnold et al., 1964), such
as brushland plowing, prescribed burning, and
selective thinning of trees.
All facilities are designed by the BLM district
engineers on a site-specific basis but are standard in
design throughout BLM. Details of construction may
be reviewed in the BLM Canon City District Office.
Facilities required for implementation of all
alternatives are shown in Table 2-2.
Site-specific management facilities would be
detailed in AMPs that would be developed.
Fencing that was recommended in the MFP
grazing unit border fence which would prevent
trespass by livestock from adjacent land. An estimated
71 miles of additional fence would be required to set up
pastures within 16 management units. Spring
developments proposed in the MFPs were only those
that are known. Additional springs undoubtedly exist
and would be developed. An estimated 100 additional
water sources (predominately springs and a few
catchments) would be proposed in AMPs.
Study exclosures to preclude livestock from
grazing would be constructed in major riparian areas
that are in poor or fair condition. The number, size, and
exact location of these exclosures would be
determined as AMPs are developed. Exclosures would
help to determine recovery rates of woody riparian
Species and serve as nurseries for the surrounding
area. Once woody riparian vegetation would become
established enough so that livestock grazing could not
damage it severely, the exclosure would be moved to
another location. Studies in Utah (Kimbal and Savage,
1977) have shown that this requires about 4 years.
NEEDLE AND
TH READ
S(Stipa comata)




Land treatments proposed on behalf of grazing
management would be generally supportive of other
resource recommendations in the Same area.
Facility and Treatment Design Features
Design features for construction of proposed
range developments are as follows:
1. Roads or trails would be constructed only where
existing roads and trails could not be used (BLM
policy).
2. Archaeological clearance would be required for
each project site before construction (BLM policy;
National Historic Preservation Act of 1966; National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969; Executive Order
115983; 36 CFR 800).
3. Threatened or endangered species survey and
clearance would be required for each project site
before construction (Endangered Species Act and
BLM Manual Section 6840.
4. Disturbance of soil and vegetation at all project sites
would be held to an absolute minimum (BLM policy,
BLM Manual Section 8400).
5. Areas where the Soils would be disturbed would be
restored to blend into the surrounding topography
(BLM policy, BLM Manual Section 8400).
6. Visual resources contrast ratings would be
completed in the survey and design stage of all
proposed developments (BLM policy; BLM Manual
Section 8400), and appropriate mitigating measures
would be implemented to meet the Visual Resource
Management (VRM) objectives.
7. All water storage tanks would be buried when
feasible.
8. The watershed specialist would be consulted for
onsite investigations to determine areas of least
impact. Areas of greatest impact could be avoided,
e.g., steep slopes and areas in the critical and severe
erosion condition classes. Soil maps, when available,
would be used in making selections.
9. All fences would be constructed according to BLM
Manual Section 1737.
10. Water would be provided in rested pastures for
wildlife use where feasible (BLM policy).
11. All prescribed burning would be written as part of
the AMP; guidelines for smoke dispersal would
accommodate air quality standards for the particular
a ſea.
%2 ARIZONA FESC, IE
aſºvº's (Festuca arizonica)
7.
12. Facilities constructed in a wilderness study area
would not impair the area's suitability for wilderness
designation.
13. Before construction of any facility, BLM would
prepare a site-specific environmental assessment to
analyze impacts. Maintenance of range developments
on public lands is subject to policy in BLM Manual
Section 7120. Fences and cattle guards built primarily
for livestock management would be maintained by
allottees under agreements complying with BLM
guidelines. BLM would maintain all BLM-owned water
developments on public land.
TABLE 2-3
CHAPTER TWO – 13
Allottees' obligations would be limited to periodic
inspections and reporting of damage or malfunction.
The inspection and maintenance schedule would be
met subject to budget constraints. The schedule is:
fences and cattle guards, 5 years; earthen reservoirs, 3
years; springs, well facilities, pipelines, and wildlife
water areas, annually. Adjustments in the maintenance
schedule would be made as appropriate.
Adjustments in Grazing Use and Proposed
Utilization Level
Range surveys were completed on 209,862 acres
(36 percent of all public lands) in 92 management units
by the ocular reconnaissance method which is briefly
described in Appendix B. These surveyed
management units varied in size from 36 acres to
52,229 acres and in livestock grazing qualifications
from 6 to 2,601 animal units months (AUMs). Most of
these management units were selected for survey
because of the large amount of public land within their
boundaries (at least 30 percent) and a relatively large
number of AUMs. Some small units were selected
because they could be easily surveyed and were
adjacent to larger units.
The range Survey, along with suitability studies in
1975 and 1976, indicated that the surveyed area was
Overstocked. Results of the studies are on file at the
Royal Gorge Resource Area office in Canon City and
Summarized in Table 2-4.
The 278 management units in the EIS area not
selected for intensive survey by ocular reconnaissance
were less intensively surveyed by mapping vegetative
type, condition, and apparent trend. This enabled a
comparison between the two kinds of Surveyed units.
Average forage production on intensively surveyed
units was used to estimate production on those less
intensively surveyed.
Plans for grazing management have allocated
14,212 AUMS for livestock use, of which 7,031 AUMS
are found on intensively surveyed areas and 7, 181
AUMS in less intensively surveyed areas. Allocation of
vegetation to livestock by unit is shown in Appendix B.
This stocking level would allow for 40-60 percent
(moderate) utilization of usable vegetation in each
management unit.
KEY SPECIES, UTILIZATION, AND THEIR REST REQUIREMENTS
Percent Percent
Utilization Utilization
Tolerable In Tolerable in
Grazed Pastures' Crucial Grazed Pastures? Crucial
Species (Under Management) Rest Period (Under Management) Rest Period
Arizona fescue 80 4–25 through 8-25 50 None
Festuca arizonica 2 years in 3
Mountain muhly 75 5–5 through 9-15 40 NOne
Muhlenburgia montana 2 years in 3
Indian ricegrass 75 4-20 through 7-5 40 None
Oryzopsis hymenoides 2 years in 3
Needle-and-thread 70 4-20 through 7-10 30 None
Stipa comata 2 years in 3
"Type of grazing would be high intensity, low frequency. These are maximum levels of utilization allowable on an area in good or excellent
condition. These levels would be lower on areas in poor or fair condition, and in years of below normal precipitation. Period of use would also
change allowable utilization levels. Heavy utilization (60-80%) can be tolerated by plants if given 2 years rest following the growing season
(Hyde, et al., 1979).
2Type of grazing would be yearlong. Grazing cannot exceed moderate use (50%) if pastures are used every year during the growing season.


14 – ROYAL GORGE ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT
erosion.
wildlife or watershed.
one pictured is too small.
STUDIES ARE PART OF RANGE MANAGEMENT
Study exclosures are important for monitoring rangeland improvement. These areas are
removed from cattle grazing to improve comparisons with grazed lands. They are placed
in key areas, usually areas which are susceptible to heavy livestock use or are critical to
Exclosures allow resource specialists to monitor only those
elements which are pertinent to judging range condition - plant vigor, production, per-
cent composition of desirable species, litter accumulation, and soils susceptibility to
Existing study exclosures are too small, too few, or too infrequently monitored. The
Exclosures should be large enough (an acre) to buffer the
effects of grazing around it. They should be monitored regularly to obtain results and
to maintain proper experimental controls.
SUMMARIZED RESULTS OF ROYAL GORGE RANGE INVENTORY 1977-78
TABLE 2-4
Percent Number Present Use Proposed Use
Adjustment of Units (AUMs) (AUMs)
+ 3 to +274 3 340 235
0 to — 10 2 345 319
– 11 to – 20 2 183 148
–21 to — 30 O - -
–31 to - 40 3 308 206
–41 to — 50 7 1,950 1,084
—51 to – 60 8 1,669 769
–61 to - 70 12 6,867 2,511
–71 to - 80 12 3,157 749
–81 to — 90 21 5,332 760
–91 to -100 13 3,784 250
83. 23,548 7,0312
There were 92 allotments surveyed and combined into 83 management units.
2The percent reduction was calculated by subtracting proposed use from present use
and dividing by present use: (23,548 - 7,031) divided by 23,548.
The present grazing use by livestock on
intensively surveyed public lands is 23,548 AUMs, an
average of 70 percent overuse. Recommended
changes for 80 of these units ranged from no change to
100 percent reduction. Three management units
showed potential for increases in grazing use. There
are 15,434 AUMS being grazed on management units
that received a less intensive survey. Reductions were
made on the basis of average existing forage
production (See Appendix B for methodology) so that
AUM levels would reflect more closely how much
grazing can actually occur. Recommended changes
for the 278 less intensively surveyed units range from
no change to 96 percent reduction.
Under the Preferred Alternative, adjustments
would be initiated during the first grazing year (March
1, 1981) following completion of the final EIS, in
October 1980. Livestock operators would have up to 3
years to adjust their ranching operations to
accommodate the survey level stocking rate.
Adjustments of at least 20 percent in any one year
would be required (e.g. 20-30-50, 40–20–40, 20-40-40,
or some other combination for the respective 3-year
adjustments). This would be responsive not only to the
needs of the operator but to the needs of the rangeland
resource.
Apportionment of predicted vegetative increases
above livestock operator qualifications must be done
through the BLM planning system. Projected increases
in vegetation would be distributed through guidelines
set during the next update of Management Framework
Plans (MFPs) for the Royal Gorge and Raton Basin
Planning Areas. Distribution of increases in vegetative
production would reflect the needs of all resources
(e.g., watershed, wildlife, recreation, etc.).
Benefit/Cost Analysis
As grazing systems and range improvements are
developed for management units, an analyis of those
developments would be made for each unit to examine
their economic viability.
Nonintensive Management Units
Nonintensive grazing management is proposed
for 278 units on 189,900 acres (33 percent of public land
in the EIS area). These units are small scattered tracts
of public land in areas largely privately owned,
containing a small number of AUMs relative to
surrounding private land with little or no value for
resource uses other than grazing. Grazing on these
public lands would be reduced an average of 53
percent (7,181 AUMs remaining). Most of this public
land is in poor condition. Reductions would be made to
more accurately reflect real carrying capacity.
New allocations would also be made. Of 278 units
proposed for nonintensive management, 59 (29,610
acres, 667 AUMS) would be allocated on demand. On
lands that would be managed nonintensively, grazing
permits would be issued specifying the period of use,
kind and number of livestock, and any other necessary
stipulations. No range improvements and no
management objectives other than improvement or
maintenance of desirable range conditions have been
proposed.
Elimination of Grazing Units
Livestock grazing would be eliminated on eight
units totaling 7,465 acres (1 percent of the public land
in the EIS area) (Table 2-1). Six of these units have
insufficient forage for livestock grazing; one is within a
reservoir and one is a vegetatively unique area on

THE MOSOUITO PASS AREA HAS NEVER BEEN GRAZED
The Mosquito Pass area is one of the few Alpine grasslands on BLM-administered land.
Because of its fragile nature, great scenic beauty, and general ruggedness and remote-
ess, resource specialists have recommended it never be grazed.
Sommerville Table. Grazing would be eliminated on
portions of eight other units (1,190 acres, 66 AUMs)
because of conflicts between nonintensive range
management and use of other resources. To ensure
that these 16 units would not be grazed, 39.7 miles of
fence would be constructed.
Unallotted Units
Five units (12,930 acres, 2 percent of the EIS area)
composed of Small, scattered tracts of public land are
unsuitable for grazing and have never been allotted
(Table 2-1). These units would remain unallotted.
Monitoring, Evaluation, and Adjustment
Specific objectives would be formulated for each
unit and set forth in individual Allotment Management
Plans (AMPs). Progress toward these objectives would
be periodically checked through vegetation studies,
which would be conducted on each unit and
intensively documented.
Monitoring
Actual utilization of the current annual years
growth (expressed as percent) by livestock and wildlife
would be monitored by BLM. In addition, livestock
Operators would be required to furnish actual use data,
i.e., exact numbers of livestock and amount of time
spent on each management unit. Together these data
would be used to extrapolate the amount of vegetation
actually available as forage for livestock and wildlife.
Long-term trend would be observed by the use of
permanent plots, transects, exclosures, and photo
points, which would enable a comparison of various
factors of range condition at two points in time. These
study areas could be read and photographed at regular
intervals.
To make meaningful evaluations of range trend,
more data is needed on localized climate. Fluctuations
in climate tend to "mask" or bias data on changes in
rangeland condition. To overcome this deficiency, an
extensive system of weather stations would be
maintained by BLM through contracts or cooperative
agreements with local residents.
Remote sensing techniques would be used to
observe the trend of range and related resources as
expertise becomes available. For example, low level,
color infra-red aerial photography would be used to
monitor riparian vegetation.
Evaluation
Each unit under intensive management would be
periodically checked for progress toward objectives
set forth in its management plan and evaluated
according to a predetermined schedule. For instance,
a three-pasture rotation system would be evaluated
after each grazing cycle—every 3 years. Units being
grazed seasonally would be evaluated on the average
of every 4 years. Some could be evaluated more often if
they contain a sensitive feature such as a critical
erosion hazard or critical wildlife habitat.
The evaluation Schedule would be carried out
subject to certain limitations, principally budget and
personnel. As part of the evaluation of AMPs,
CHAPTER TWO – 15
competition between big game and livestock for forage
would be assessed. Currently, no data exists to
evaluate how much competition is taking place.
Adjustments of grazing treatments and livestock
numbers could result from this assessment. These
studies would most likely take place on units where
grazing conflicts occur, for example, on units with
spring grazing and/or riparian habitat. Fecal analysis
may be used to assess conflict.
Adjustment
Level of use may be adjusted annually. Utilization
of the current annual growth would be checked at the
end of grazing periods, taking into account actual use
records provided by the livestock operator. Use levels
for the next season would be adjusted to fall within the
moderate-use range (40-60 percent). In certain cases,
operators may request additional use if production
exceeds that of the previous year. Requests for
additional use would be approached on a case-by-case
basis and temporary, nonrenewable use could be
granted. If actual utilization is consistently below the
moderate range by at least 10 percent for 3 years after
livestock reductions are fully implemented and the unit
exhibits an upward trend, a permanent upward
adjustment could be made.
Implementation
The decision to adopt the preferred or one of the
other alternatives would be made on the basis of the
final EIS, scheduled to be completed by September 30,
1980. Whatever program is adopted, it would be
implemented after issuance of the Range Management
Program Decision Document, probably late in 1980.
Certain phases, such as monitoring studies, would
begin before final approval of the EIS and issuance of
the program document. The grazing program itself
would be implemented before the 1981 grazing season.
Allotment Management Plans (AMPs) would be
formulated jointly by BLM and the livestock operators.
In 1981 and 1982, 77 AMPs would be written (see
Appendix Table B-4 for implementation schedule).
Period of use on 42 units would be adjusted to
accommodate implementation of the grazing program.
Range improvements needed on these allotments
would also be carried out according to standard BLM
work plan procedures. These improvements would be
constructed as funding becomes available.
Full grazing systems would be implemented to
accommodate present period of use on 35 units and
improvements would be constructed as funding
becomes available. Full implementation would be
achieved by September 30, 1986.
Implementing allotment management plans and
grazing systems would not be contingent upon
carrying out land treatments (thinning, burning,
plowing, etc.). They would be scheduled as the AMPs
are formulated. Periodic maintenance would be
scheduled as needed. The one currently active AMP
would be revised and its level of use adjusted.
Each range user would be issued term permits
through the Royal Gorge Resource Area office. These
would specify use area, period of use, numbers, and
kind of livestock.
Livestock grazing would be supervised
throughout the year. Requests by livestock operators
for changes in use outside the limits of the action being
implemented must be consistent with management
objectives, requested in writing, and approved in
advance of the grazing period. Without prior
authorization, such use would be considered trespass
and appropriate action would be taken in accordance
with regulations in 43 CFR 4150.

16 — ROYAL GORGE ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT
Livestock may be marked (preferably by ear
tagging) to aid in the detection of trespass in certain
area.S.
NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE
(CONTINUATION OF PRESENT
GRAZING MANAGEMENT)
Livestock use would remain at the present level of
39,369 AUMs. No new range improvements would be
constructed, but existing ones would be maintained.
The one existing AMP in the EIS area would continue
operation with no revisions. Of the remaining 367 units,
5 would be unallotted and 362 units would be
nonintensively managed. On nonintensive units, kinds
of livestock, period of use, and livestock numbers
would be specified. Existing improvements would be
maintained. BLM would not build any new
improvements for livestock, but operator-built
improvements would be allowed under cooperative
agreement or permit on a case-by-case basis. Trespass
control would take place on all allotments. Manpower
and funding would remain at their present levels.
ELIMINATION OF GRAZING
ALTERNATIVE
All grazing on public lands in the Royal Gorge and
Raton Basin Planning Areas would cease. No grazing
authorizations would be issued and no AMPS would be
developed. All existing forage would be allocated to
wildlife, watershed, and other uses. To insure
elimination of grazing on public lands interspersed
among state and private lands, an estimated 6,000 to
10,000 miles of fence would have to be built. No new
improvements for livestock would be built on public
lands. Existing improvements would be maintained by
BLM only if required for other resource uses and would
otherwise be removed. The rangeland management
program for this resource area would be limited to
trespass detection and processing of trespass cases.
MANAGEMENT CONSTRAINTS
ALTERNATIVE
This alternative was designed to achieve the
greatest benefit for big game and fisheries habitat and
deteriorated watershed. Currently watershed in the
EIS area has a plant community with relatively low
diversity and ecological stability. Wildlife, fisheries,
and watershed specialists have identified 50
management units on which these deteriorated
conditions exist, recommending that grazing be
eliminated until their condition has become
acceptable.
Intensive livestock management would occur on
27 units, nonintensive management on 278 units, and
no grazing on 63 units (Table 2-2). Descriptions of
intensive and nonintensive types of management
appear in the Preferred Alternative. Instead of 39,369
AUMs presently grazed, 10,413 AUMs would be
allocated to livestock.
NONINTENSIVE MANAGEMENT
ALTERNATIVE
Stocking on 355 management units would be
reduced to the moderate-use levels proposed under
the Preferred Alternative. The kinds of livestock, a year
around period of use, and livestock numbers would be
specified. In contrast to the Preferred Alternative, no
rest standard for rangeland forage plants would be
implemented and thus no AMPs would be written.
Existing improvements would be maintained. BLM
would not build any new improvements, but operator-
built improvements would be allowed under
cooperative agreement or permit on a case-by-case
basis. Approximately 50 miles of critical riparian
habitat would require fencing to prevent further
deterioration and improve habitat.
Management units that are currently unallotted
would be available for grazing upon demand. The
rangeland management program would be reduced
from its present level to issuing periodic use
authorizations, detecting trespass, processing
trespass cases, and minimally monitoring range
condition and trend.
ALTERNATIVES DROPPED
FROM CONSIDERATION
According to BLM's 1977-78 range survey and a
number of watershed, fisheries, and wildlife
Specialists, current grazing pressure (demand) far
exceeds forage production. Any alternative that would
stock management units above moderate-use levels
proposed under the Preferred Alternative was
dropped. Consideration of the No Action Alternative is,
however, mandated in all environmental analyses.
IMPACT SUMMARY
A table summarizing impacts of the alternatives
appears at the end of this chapter (Table 2-5).
Resources which could be directly impacted by
the selection of any one of the alternatives include
vegetation, livestock, economic and social values,
wildlife habitat, fisheries habitat, and watershed
(hydrology and soils). Recreation and visual resources
would experience secondary impacts as wildlife
numbers increase, fisheries become more productive,
or watershed conditions stabilize or improve. Impacts
on air quality by any of the alternatives would be minor
and of short duration. Impacts on forestry would be
noticeable in 50 to 100 years. There probably would be
no impacts on geology, known historic sites, lands, or
wilderness study areas.
Selection of the No Action Alternative would
produce no short-term adverse impacts. Rapid
changes in wildlife habitat, fisheries, and watershed
condition (soil and water) did occur over 100 years ago
and finally stabilized 40 to 60 years ago. Since then
changes have been slow and grazing pressure has
remained constant. There would be no long-term
benefits from this proposal. A small decline in gain per
livestock animal would result as forage quality and
quantity would decline. As production per animal
decreases economic return would also diminish.
Selection of the Elimination of Grazing Alternative
would improve 45.4 miles of fisheries habitat and
watershed to near pristine conditions in the long term.
In the short term wildlife habitat would rapidly improve
(3 to 5 years), then stabilize at a level below optimum
unless vegetation manipulation practices such as fire
or brush cutting occurred regularly. Sediment yield on
public land would be reduced 65 percent.
With improvement in other resources, recreational
use of public lands would increase by an estimated
13,770 days. Impacts on income would be insignificant
because ranch income as a component of regional
income is quite small. A few individual ranchers would
suffer economic hardship, however, being forced to
make major changes or sell their ranches. Up to 10,000
miles of fencing would be required to keep livestock off
public lands, resulting in significant improvement of
fisheries, wildlife habitat, and watershed conditions in
the long term. As fencing is constructed, 10,000 acres
of vegetation would be disturbed but loss of topsoil
would be insignificant. Some wildlife would be lost due
to entrapment in fences.
The Nonintensive Alternative would improve 11.25
miles of fisheries to good or excellent condition on
streams impacted by livestock. Wildlife habitat,
principally mule deer (18,238 acres) but also elk and
bighorn sheep habitat, would improve. Economic
impacts would be insignificant. Benefits would accrue
to 50 miles of fenced riparian areas and a reduced but
unknown level of competition for forage between
livestock and wildlife would result on all grazed units.
In the long term, all resources on public land
including livestock grazing would benefit from the
Preferred Alternative. Wildlife habitat and watershed
conditions would significantly improve on 77
intensively managed units in the long term. Fisheries
habitat would improve on 3.5 miles of stream while 50
miles remain in good to excellent condition. There
would be 46 miles of riparian habitat on which the trend
would change from declining to stable or improving
condition. Secondary benefits would accrue to
recreation and visual resources. An additional 2,460
recreation days of hunting and fishing would result
from improved habitat. There would be slight
decreases in 10-year storm runoff and peak flow (3
percent each) and soil loss due to erosion (25 percent).
Water quality would improve slightly. Some negative
economic impacts would be felt. A few individual
ranchers would be forced to make major changes or
sell their ranches, but fewer than under the Elimination
of Grazing Alternative.
The Management Constraints Alternative would
result in economic impacts very similar to those under
Elimination of Grazing. In addition, it would not meet
livestock production goals identified in the
Management Framework Plan. Beneficial impacts
would be expected in wildlife habitat, fisheries, and
watershed condition. Wildlife and watershed
conditions could improve most rapidly where
overgrazing has taken place. Secondary beneficial
impacts would be expected in recreation and visual
resources. An additional 9,005 recreation days would
result from improved wildlife and fisheries habitat.
INTERRELATIONSHIPS
The preferred and other alternatives are an
outgrowth of BLM's planning process, whose principal
purpose is to develop plans for the management of
public lands. These plans reflect priorities established
through several contacts with the public and other
interested parties and in consultation with BLM
resource specialists. According to Federal policy, the
following resource values receive consideration:
vegetation, watershed, wildlife, aduatic resources, wild
horses, recreation (including visual resources),
wilderness, cultural resources, and livestock. Details
on the multiple use planning system of BLM may be
obtained at the BLM Canon City District Office and the
Royal Gorge Resource Area Office and in BLM
Manuals Sections 1601 through 1608.
The planning process begins with an inventory of
basic resources which are analyzed in the Unit
Resource Analysis (URA) and progresses through a
series of recommendations and management
decisions described in a Management Framework Plan
(MFP). Basic resource data are contained in the Raton
Basin URA, 1978, and the Royal Gorge URA, 1979.
Recommendations and management decisions are
contained in the Royal Gorge MFP, 1979, and in the
Raton Basin MFP, 1978. These documents may be
reviewed at the Royal Gorge Resource Area Office or
the Canon City District Office. The livestock portions
of these MFPs are summarized in Appendix A.
The MFPs provide guidance for development of
on-the-ground action plans-known as Activity Plans-
for specific public resources (e.g., watershed, wildlife,
etc.).
The Decision to Graze
Grazing of livestock on public land has taken place
for over 120 years and potential of the land to support
this use is evident. The BLM range survey indicates
there are at least 7,000 AUMs of usable livestock forage
produced every year on units proposed for intensive
management. Grazing is the only practical way to
harvest them. However, public land has been in the
past and continues to be grazed beyond its grazing
capacity on a sustained yield basis.
Part of the decision to allow continued cattle
grazing on public land was based on studies which
show that livestock grazing improves the quality and
quantity of forage consumed by wildlife (Stoddart et
al., 1975). This conclusion has been borne out in the
EIS area. Heavy use by livestock has resulted in
present day mule deer habitat which has an abundance
of browse where normally too little browse would
occur (Leopold, 1950; by Stoddart et al., 1975). Heavy
use has, however, reduced the amount of spring forage
available to mule deer. The Preferred Alternative would
reserve this forage for deer annually or on a rotating
basis while maintaining livestock use at other times to
keep browse stands in excellent condition.
The decision to graze was also influenced by
public input. The majority opinion of those in the EIS
area attending the planning meetings was that
ranchers should be allowed to continue to graze
livestock on public lands.
Determination of Management Level
Management level in the Preferred Alternative was
determined by a number of factors. Units containing at
least 30 percent public land were considered amenable
to intensive management. Units having critical big
game habitat and deteriorating watershed and at least
20 percent public land within their boundaries were
also considered amenable.
Implementing intensive management in areas with
only a small percentage of public land was not
considered feasible. Five of the 77 units indicated for
intensive management were included principally
because such management would benefit wildlife.
Unallotted management was proposed for portions of
eight units identified as valuable for development of
recreational facilities.
Determination of Stocking Level
The 1977-78 BLM range survey provides the best
estimate of current forage production available for use
by domestic livestock on public lands. Most wildlife
needs are apparently being met on lands other than
those administered by BLM or on lands unsuitable for
livestock grazing. This is evidenced by the generally
good condition of wildlife habitat on public lands.
There is currently a lack of spring forage for wildlife in
the EIS area, which under the Preferred Alternative
would be corrected by changing the period of use on
42 units from spring to late summer, fall, or winter. The
proposed rest standard would aid in increasing
desirable grass species and fulfilling both livestock
and wildlife needs.
No allocation of forage was made to wildlife on
nonintensively managed units because of two
factors—land ownership patterns and big game
mobility. Most of these units are very small and
scattered among large blocks of private land. Big game
are extremely mobile and therefore have a wide range
of possible habitat. Thus it was assumed that if the
range were stocked with livestock at a moderate rate
big game could satisfy their forage requirments.
Rationale for Range Improvements
Land treatments and construction of rangeland
facilities were designed to improve forage production
and distribution of livestock on public land (away from
overgrazed areas to lightly used areas). Proposed
rangeland facilities are mainly water sources, which
would improve livestock distribution as well as
providing water for wildlife. Land treatments were
designed to return the rangeland to a state of disclimax
instead of climax. As rangeland approaches its climax,
its productivity of vegetation usable by livestock and
wildlife diminishes (Komarek, 1963). Much of the EIS
area is now at climax because man has eliminated
wildfires, which maintain a state of disclimax
(Burkhardt and Tisdale, 1976). The proposed
treatments are designed to replace wildfires with the
cutting and thinning of conifers and some controlled
burns of brush.
State and Private Land
BLM management plans must take into account
resources available on state and private lands
intermingled with public lands. Section 402 of the
Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976
states in part: "Allotment Management Plans shall not
refer to livestock operations or range improvements on
non-Federal lands except where the non-Federal lands
are intermingled with, or, with the consent of the
permittee or lessee involved, associated with, the
Federal lands subject to the plan." Availability of non-
Federal resources could influence plans on units
slated for intensive management, although currently
no such resources have been identified. '
CHAPTER TWO – 17
State and private land comprises 78 percent of the
total of 2,631,000 acres in the EIS area. Under the
Preferred Alternative, 278 units consisting mainly of
state and private land would be managed
nonintensively. Presently, this level of management
does not involve any non-Federal resources.
Federal Programs
Bureau of Land Management
Section 603 of Bureau of Land Management
(FLPMA) directs BLM to complete a wilderness
inventory. The first phase involves identification of
roadless areas (a contiguous tract of land 5,000 acres
or greater). BLM policy directs that no action will be
taken on this land which would impair its suitability as
wilderness. This is known as "interim management".
Preliminary decisions as to suitability for wilderness
will be made by October 1980, and lands not suitable
will be returned to multiple use management. Final
determination of wilderness areas must be made by
Congress by 1990.
Forest Service
The Pike-San Isabel National Forest is adjacent to
part of the EIS area. Four BLM permittees have five
allotments (units 199,116,117, 222, and 223) adjacent to
their Forest Service allotments. These are not
integrated with BLM allotments to form integrated
grazing units.
There is no cooperative nor coordinated grazing
program between BLM and the Forest Service and no
trailing permits across BLM-administered land since
most of the National Forest is not grazed. However,
when Forest Service allotments become available,
BLM could recommend that certain vegetation
allocations be made to qualified operators who have
lost or had reductions in grazing use on public lands.
There are no major conflicts between the current Pike-
San Isabel grazing management and the BLM
preferred and other alternatives described in this EIS.
Soil Conservation Service
The Soil Conservation Service (SCS) has
cooperated and continues to cooperate with BLM in
developing soil surveys. BLM will coordinate with the
SCS in formation of ranch management plans with
operators having AMPs developed for their grazing
allotments on public lands.
Fish and Wildlife Service
The Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), under the
Endangered Species Act of 1973 (PC 93-205), under the
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, as amended (PL
85–624, 72 Stat. 563, 16 USC 661), and under animal
damage control programs, must cooperate with other
Federal and state agencies with regard to wildlife.
FWS has primary responsibility for control of
predatory animals and rodents on public lands when
damage to other resources by these animals can be
shown and documented. They report animal damage
or predation, compile records, and carry out control
programs on public lands in areas authorized by BLM.
Regulations governing interagency cooperation (43
CFR 870-876) require Federal agencies to formally
consult with one another if a Federal action would or
may affect endangered or threatened species or their
habitat.

18 – ROYAL GORGE ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT
TABLE 2-5
IMPACT SUMMARY |
Present Preferred NO Elimination Management Nonintensive
Environmental Element Situation Alternative Action of Grazing Constraints Management
Livestock Forage
AUMS (per year) 14,212 20,763 14,212 O 14,659 14,212
Average Vegetative Cover
On Intensive Mgt Units (Percent) 22.50 25.20 22.49 24.30 24.60 23.20
Apparent Range Trend (Acres)
Upward 2,664 2,664 2,664 2,664 2,664 2,664
Stable 94,461 436,295 89,461 436,295 436,295 94,461
Downward 341,834 O 346,834 O O 341,834
Unsuitable 150,716 150,716 150,716 150,716 150,716 150,716
Range Condition (Acres)
Excellent 307 507 307 307 407 307
Good 3,376 26,806 3,376 3,376 10,536 3,376
Fair 99,133 99.133 94,133 99,133 99,133 99,133
Poor 336,143 312,513 341,143 336,143 328,983 336,143
Wildlife Habitat
Acres Improved (On Intensive Mgt Units)
Mule Deer 455,000° 58,431 O 22,598 50,961 18,238
Elk 96,200 8, 141 O 10,000 4,780 3,960
Bighorn Sheep 41,900 2,276 O O 2,276 900
Acres Degraded (On Intensive Mgt Units)
Mule Deer 455,000° 10,500 O O 7,902 4,360
Eik 96.200 1,000 O O 1,000 O
Bighorn Sheep 41,900 30 O O O O
Acres Unchanged
Mule Deer 455,000. 386,069 455,000 432,402 396,137 432,402
Elk 96.200 87,059 96,200 86,200 90,420 92,240
Bighorn Sheep 41,900 39,594 41,900 39,624 39,624 41,000
Wildlife Forage (On Intensive Mgt Units)
AUMs (per year) 11, 189 14, 134 11, 189 13,500 14, 134 11,189
Aquatic Riparian Habitat
Condition of Stream Fisheries (Miles)
Excellent 3.63 7, 1 5, 1 49. 1 13.4 13.4
Good 46.3 46.3 46.3 46.3 47.8 47.8
Fair 45.6 42.1 44.1 10.0 40.6 40.6
Poor 13.8 13.8 13.8 4.0 7.6 7.6
Apparent Trend of Stream Fisheries (Miles)
Upward 1.5° 42.9 1.5 1.5 42.9 1.5
Stable 51.5 56.3 51.5 107.8 56.3 62.8
Downward 56.3 10.2 56.3 O 10.2 45.1
Recreation Visitor Days (per year)
Deer Hunting 3,512 4,565 3,212 4,412 4,962 4,212
Elk Hunting 3,009 3,279 2,959 3,359 3,379 3,259
Bighorn Sheep Hunting 245 382 245 385 430 355
Other Big Game 1,593 1,593 1,593 1,593 1,593 1,593
Fishing 122,979 123,979 122,979 135,359 129,979 127,949
TOTAL 131,338 133,798 130,988 145,108 140,343 137,368
Livestock Grazing
AUMs (per year) 39,369 20,763 39,369 O 14,659 14,212
Economic Values (On Intensive Mgt Units)
Net Revenue (per year)
Large Operator $ 34,449 $ 31,521 $ 34,449 $ 24,457 $ 20,904 $ 27,470
Small Operator 352 – 1,628 352 –5,575 –3,985 –3,785
Construction Costs of Rangeland Improvements (Millions) O $ 2.4 O $ 18-30 $ 6.5 $ .3
Ranch Labor Losses (person-years) *s- 7.2 O 26.6 19.2 17.9
Property Tax Total $ 34,086 $ 31,739 $ 34,086 $ 26,966 $ 28,947 $ 28,614
Government Related Income Change * $ 90,000 O O $ 60,000 O
Recreation Related Income Change Per Year - +$213,133 –$ 44,576 +$617,349 +$458,932 +$305,543
Water Resources
Water Consumption by Livestock and Wildlife
(Acre-Feet/Year) 50 15 50 6 12 15
Peak Flow from 10-year Storm
(Cubic Feet/Second/Sq. Mile on Intensive Mgt Units) 112.92 109. 12 112.87 97.87 103.89 11 1.67
Volume of Runoff from a 10-year Storm
(Acre-feet/Sq. Mile on Intensive Mgt Units) 22.23 21.66 22.22 20. 10 20.98 22.06
Sediment Entering — Arkansas River (Million Tons/Year) 1.90 1.72 1.90 1.49 1.62 1.73
Soil Erosion
Soil Loss to Erosion
(Tons/Acre/Year on Intensive Mgt Units) 1.55 1. 16 1.64 0.54 0.82 1.19
Soil Loss to Range Improvement Construction (Tons) 733,050 8,511 O O 3, 183 O
Erosion Condition Class (Acres)
Stable 55,259 55,594 55,259
Slight 182,604 198,984 182,604 NA NA NA
Moderate 221,863 208,389 221,863
Critical 33,925 30,684 33,925
"All impacts are long term (20 years) and no short-term impacts were identified because of the length of time required to observe a change in vegetation
*These figures represent total acres of habitat
*Rounded to the nearest tenth mile
*NA means not available
Water and Power Resources Service
Water and Power Resources Service (WPRS) is
responsible for water control and management along
the Arkansas River and has one project, the Arkansas
Frying-Pan in the area. WPRS is routinely consulted on
projects that could affect area watersheds. None of the
alternatives are expected to affect WPRS lands or areas
of jurisdiction.
State Programs
Colorado State Land Office
About 15 percent of the 2.6 million acres of land in
the EIS area is owned by the state and administered by
the State Land Office.
These lands are leased to permittees for livestock
grazing and, in most instances, are intermingled with
public and private lands. The lessee is considered
responsible for these lands and controls public access,
except when leases are granted by the state for
concurrent uses in addition to livestock grazing (e.g.,
mining). The state also issues oil, gas, and geothermal
leases On its lands.
The proposed intensive livestock management
program would have a direct effect on unfenced,
intermingled state lands. If BLM sets the grazing
capacity of intermingled state lands below what the
state recognizes as the proper capacity, the state
lessee may request an adjustment in recognized
capacity for his state lands.
Colorado Division of Wildlife
The Colorado Division of Wildlife (DOW) is
responsible for fish and wildlife management within
the EIS area. BLM is responsible for fish and wildlife
habitat management on public lands, while DOW
CHAPTER 3
CHAPTER THREE – 19
manages actual populations. This requires close
coordination. Much of the information used to
determine present and estimated future wildlife
numbers was supplied by DOW. They presently have
38 AUMs of grazing qualifications in unit 127 (5,755
acres of public land).
Local Programs
Few local programs are directly related to the
preferred and other alternatives considered in this EIS.
Resource plans developed by SCS and BLM mutually
affect each other, and SCS is often the contact for local
agencies regarding these plans. The Soil and Water
Conservation Districts work with landowners through
the SCS and Agriculture Stabilization and
Conservation Service on conservation measures for
farmers and ranchers.
The EIS area lies in portions of eight counties; it
appears there would be little conflict with county
planning or zoning.
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
SETTING
The environmental impact statement (EIS) area is
located in Southcentral Colorado, bordered On all sides
by the Pike-San Isabel National Forest. The area's
principal Communities are Canon City, Salida,
Colorado Springs, Leadville, and Walsenburg (Map 3-
1).
Elevation ranges from 5,300 feet near Penrose on
the east to 14,036 feet near Leadville On the west and
6,100 feet near Walsenburg on the south to 9,900 feet
near Fairplay on the north. The Arkansas River divides
the area. Its upper reaches run north-south, parallel to
the Continental Divide.
The EIS area consists of 589,675 acres of public
land scattered throughout 2,631,000 acres of land in
two planning areas. Approximately 22 percent of the
EIS area is public land, 62 percent private land, 15
percent state land, and 1 percent other. The EIS area
lies in all or parts of eight counties: Chaffee, Custer, El
Paso, Fremont, Huerfano, Lake, Park, and Teller.
The land form of the area is predominately a
foothills type. To the east lie plains, to the west the
rugged Sangre De Cristo and Collegiate mountain
ranges. East from these mountain ranges, the land
descends into steep and rugged canyons dominated
by pinyon and juniper, finally leveling out into rolling
hills and mountain valleys.
SOILS
The soils in the EIS area represent a complexity of
chemical and physical features but most generally are
residual type soils derived from sandstone and shale
and alluvial soils derived from mixed alluvium (Map 3-
2). Appendix C gives the more important chemical and
physical properties of individual soils occurring in the
soil associations. More detailed information can be
found in the Royal Gorge and Raton Basin Planning
Unit URAs and in the Chaffee-Lake Area soil survey
(SCS-1975), available at the BLM Canon City District
Office.
The present erosion condition classes are an
expression of current erosion activity based on field
examination. Seven categories of soil surface factors
(SSFs) were considered to determine the present
erosion condition. The seven features are soil
movement, surface litter, surface rock, pedestalling,
rills, flow patterns, and gullies. Five erosion condition
classes are used to depict erosion activity through
numerical values: stable (SSF 0-20), slight (SSF2I-40),
moderate (SSF 41-60), critical (SSF 61-80), and severe
(SSF 8-100) (See Appendix B, Form 7310-12).
Public lands of potential AMP status in each
erosion class are: stable—55,259 acres; slight—182,604
acres; moderate—221,863 acres; and critical 33,925
acres. Almost 45 percent of public lands falls within the
moderate erosion class and 7 percent is within the
Critical class.
Often there is a direct relationship between
erosion condition class and vegetative condition. Of
land area suitable for grazing, 78 percent shows an
apparent declining trend; only percent (2,664 acres)
has an improving vegetative trend; 21 percent is static.
Sediment yield is soil transported by water from
one point to another. Sediment yield is measured in
tons per acre per year. Reliable data is based on
calculations over a long period, generally 25 years or
more. Sediment yield is estimated on the basis of an
area's geology, soil, climate, runoff, topography,
ground cover, land use, upland erosion, channel
erosion, and sediment transport. The Pacific
Southwest Interagency Committee (PSIAC)
developed procedures for estimating sediment yield,
giving each of these factors a numerical rating.
Sediment yield from public lands is estimated at
733,050 tons or 396 acre-feet of soil annually.
Individual sediment yield ratings are listed by unit in
Appendix G.
20 – ROYAL GORGE ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT
r-a2-w R-81-w R-79-w
)
|
P i k E
N AT I O N A L
Fo R. Es T.
s
N AT to NAL
For Es T.
H
l
&
|
R-74-w
-
s A N is A B E L l
|-
- –H–- -
N AT to NAL -
º
15 mile-
MAP 3-1. ROYAL GORGE EIS AREA LOCATION MAP
For Est | -
L.
—H---
T-----
re".”
Luis Maria dºc-
T-40-n
T-39-N
T-38'N
R-73-w
R-72-w
rike narronal Fo R. Es T -
T-7-s
R-70-w
~ \ --- "...
| -
Rampart Reservoir
T-11-s
T-12-5
–––. \
| i ~~~
\ - |\ \,
T-1 6-s
T--4--
T-26-s
T-27-s
T-26-s
T-29-s





















R-82-w
R-80-w R-79-w R-78-w R-77-w -
- - – ur-c-nr-dº-
r
Homertake Reservoir
l
Pi KE
49
N AT I O N A L
F O R. Es T
- R-73-w R-74-w R 73 w R-72-w
I –
º ºs {º} T-7-s
, - - - - - - - - `--
| - | -- CHAPTER THREE – 21
4. \) º -
º º - | T-8-s
T-9-s
º
Rºw R-70-w R-69-w R-68-w R-67-w
----r *H G9
Monum-nt i
\
|
- P 1 K E N AT I o N A L Fo REST - º
r-
~
I- gº
- +.
| |--
49
— = i
— — . ~.
- - º
- 'H'
Worth ºtamount Reservoir ! south cºwmount Reservoir
& ſ. 24, " :
ſ Crystal Creek Reservoir
Rampart Reservoir T-12-s
-->
!-
~ : 137
gºwn". Canyon Reservoir - -
t 157
-
-
-
-
l .
T-13-s
F-—-
49 - | -
--- -14-s
--- l T
- - 120 º - *
º F—-—,
- - º
º 49 |
- º
crºpp-cr- *
T-15-s
º 137 +. |
- tº
º -- victor - -----------
-- - +
- ~ | T-1 6-s
- 55
137 3 t
l
/ 49 - 31 -
I 46 - - T-17-s
55 55 8
AN 93 - 46
- * 3.
º
-
A. 34 46 l
55 47 /3 T-18-s
t 2 Canon-city 8
**- 34 47
45 100 -
*7 46.
34 - - - º
T-19-s
Tl25
. - -"
!--
—-
* — 116
- º - T-20-s
S A N IS A B E
- - - - - - 35 -Tº
- N AT I C N A L º
Fo REs T T-21-s
º --
- -
- º 51
º º
GE | º "T-22's
- - - 1– -
O 5 1O 15 miles -
|--|--|-l l +\
MAP 3-2. SOIL ASSOCIATIONS
(Refer to Appendix C for Names and Descriptions)
T-44-N
Hºcºon.
-
Luis Maria Baca
Grant wo. 4
T-41 -N
T-40-N
T-39-N









22 – Royal GoRGE ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT
R-02-w R-61-w R-80-w R-79-w R-76-w R-77-w R-76-w R-75-w R-7--- R-73-w R-72-w -
I ---
+ -
- º
c
& - --~~
-
- -
Moment-º-noir - - |
º: | -
-
R-r -- -
\ ----
\ Turquois-l T-9-s
\
\ -
N
r | | –H
|
|
-- |
--- T-to-s
l -
- -
- l º R-71-w R-70-w R-69-w R-6--- R-67-w
- - º - -- T ---
º W ------- “. G
- - º |
* - ---
\l. - - T-11-s
rwin Lººſ cº Pik Elºn Air 1 on All Fo RE's T -
- G - Pi KE - – \
- -
clear C º N AT I O N A L T5 ~ / -- º
- - -
- Nº. Fo R. Es T | - º, lº: Rampart Reservoir T-12-s
y 2 \º s ; : A = º -à
2^ / | ----- canyon Reservoir º .
- - -- º - -
i º º South nºt a -
-- ºf 2 gº . |T-13's
| - Crystal Creek Reservo
- - - º |colorado pring-
ºvº -
T---->
T-15-s
r-5-E -
º *
-
T-17--
-T-
T-18-s
©
º |ries
|- ~ -
--
- ~~
º *~~r-zo's
zes saw is as EL º -
- r—.
--
2–
T---->
--- T-22-s
o 5 lo 15 miles -
1–1–1–1–1–1–
º MEADOW
º GRASSLAND T-23-s
- AGRICULTURE -N - -
BROADLEAF *
-- MOUNTAIN SHRUB Luis Maria Bac- –
P- PINYON-JUNIPER
Grant wo. 4
Conifer
SAGEBRUSH
SALTBUSH
MAP 3-3. DISTRIBUTION OF VEGETATIVE TYPES
- - - º P-
- --- -
>\* ºf ea ~~
- - -
T-o-º- º -
C -º …
- - o: Mº
o:
T-39-n º
sº
- → . º:
º | -
T-38-n - |
GE/
—— | A § - * L-v-
ºs
T-25-s































VEGETATION
The quite variable climate and elevation of the
Royal Gorge EIS area are conducive to extremely
varied vegetation. The classification system used in the
EIS area by BLM categorizes vegetation into one of
three major groups-grassland, shrubland, or
forestland. More definitive type designations, as
outlined in BLM Manual Section 1632.12, consist of
types, subtypes, and major species. Major subtypes
are listed in Appendix Table B-3. Distribution of major
subtypes is shown on Map 3-3.
Grassland Group
The grassland group includes the grass and
meadow types and covers approximately 1,532,300
acres or 58 percent of the EIS area. This group is most
important because of its potential for forage
production.
The grassland group is found predominately in the
South Park and High Park areas and includes the blue
grama subtype at 5,000-9,500 feet, the mountain muhly
subtype at 8,000-10,000 feet, and the Arizona fescue
subtype at 9,000-II,500 feet. These subtypes intergrade
with each other and are found throughout the area
within their elevational zones. Each is found as
extensive acreages or as very small parks within shrub
or forest types. Much of the blue grama-dominated
subtype is the result of past overuse of mountain
muhly, needle-and-thread, or western wheatgrass-
dominated sites. Severely overutilized sites are
dominated by annual weeds or shrubs but these are not
extensive and generally occur in bottoms, around
water, or in small parks within forest and shrub types.
The meadow type includes the sedge-rush and
brome meadow subtypes. Sedge-rush meadows are
found extensively in South Park while brome meadows
are found at mid to high elevations throughout the EIS
area. Except in South Park, meadows generally are
small (less than 5 acres) and therefore less significant
to overall forage production. However, meadows are
important as an index of productivity when associated
with relatively low forage-producing forest or shrub
types.
Shrubland Group
The shrubland group covers approximately 28
percent or 736,400 acres in the EIS area. Types include
pinyon-juniper at 5,000-10,000 feet, mountain shrub at
6,000-9,500 feet, sagebrush at 7,500-10,000 feet, and
saltbush at 5,400–5,500 feet.
Pinyon-juniper is the most significant shrub type
because it covers nearly one-fourth of the EIS area. It is
found on shallow rocky soils of ridges, on deep soils in
valleys, and on benches. Pinyon dominates at higher
elevations, juniper at lower. Mature stands of pinyon or
juniper support little or no understory vegetation.
Relative forage production depends mainly on the
occurrence of blue grama parks within the type.
The mountain shrub type is dominated by Gambel
oak or mountain mahogany. These are found
predominately in the Arkansas Canyon area or on
shallow rocky soils. This type is less important in the
EIS area as a whole but contributes significant forage
and cover where it occurs. Gambel oak is a primary
successional stage following fire or disturbance in
forest types.
The sagebrush and saltbush types are less
important because they occupy relatively little area on
public lands.
Forestland Group
The conifer and broadleaf tree types make up the
forestland group. It occupies only 11 percent (294,900
acres) of the EIS area. The major conifer subtypes
include ponderosa pine at 5,000-9,000 feet, lodgepole
pine at 9,000-11,500 feet, Douglas-fir at 6,000-10,000
feet, and Engelmann spruce at 9,000-11,500 feet. Major
broadleaf types are aspen at 5,000-11,500 feet,
narrowleaf cottonwood at 5,000-8,000 feet, and plains
cottonwood at 5,000-6,000 feet.
Ponderosa pine occurs in open stands with
productive understory of grasses, forbs, and shrubs.
Other conifer types are less important because they
occur on steep slopes in dense stands with little
understory production.
Aspen is the most widely distributed subtype in the
EIS area, occurring as small "islands" within conifer
types where moisture and light are favorable. The
aspen subtype generally has a highly productive grass-
forb understory and contributes to the overall
productivity of associated conifer types.
The two cottonwood subtypes are limited in size
and distribution but are important as livestock and
wildlife concentration areas. These subtypes are often
associated with streams or springs and are often the
only suitable bedding grounds in the rugged canyon
areas at low and mid elevations. These types can
support productive grass or meadow understories but
more often have annual weed understories due to
Overuse.
Other
Other types found in the area are riparian,
cultivation and cropland areas, population centers,
and waste areas.
Riparian
Riparian zones are generally too small to be
mapped separately but are found throughout the EIS
area where there is enough water. Riparian bands
generally occur along streams through the grass,
meadow, and broadleaf tree types, but can also be
found where conditions permit in conifer types and
woodlands. The cottonwoods dominate riparian areas
at lower elevations while alder dominates high
elevation riparian sites. Willow can dominate riparian
sites from mid to high elevations and is commonly
associated with cottonwoods or alder. Other species
found in riparian areas include cattails, sedges, and
rushes. Riparian species commonly have given way to
annuals and some hardier grass species under
excessive grazing pressure.
Cultivation and Croplands
These areas involve private lands that are currently
being used to grow row crops and hay, both irrigated
and dry land. Cropland areas can be found in major
drainages and in large valleys such as South Park and
the Wet Mountain Valley. Major crops are alfalfa and
grass for hay production. Some corn is grown as well
as some dryland grain crops.
Population Centers
Population centers are areas occupied by cities
and towns and the surrounding suburbs.
CHAPTER THREE – 23
Waste
Waste includes land covered by large bodies of
water or extremely rocky, steep land which is not
supporting any appreciable amount of vegetation.
Poisonous and Noxious Plants
Poisonous and noxious plants are not a serious
problem in the Royal Gorge EIS area. Localized
concentrations may cause problems or reduce
vegetative production but these are not significant to
the area. The major noxious or poisonous plants found
are sleepygrass, snakeweed, rabbitbrush, rubberweed,
Whipple cholla, prickly pear, lupine, and loco. Water
hemlock is known to occur along Fourmile Creek, but
is not a problem.
Gambel oak can be a hazard to livestock when
grazed during the spring. Normally losses are not
significant because rangeland having much oak is
deferred from grazing during that time.
More information on poisonous or noxious plants
of the Royal Gorge EIS area is available in the Royal
Gorge and Raton Basin URAs, Step III, Vegetation.
Threatened and Endangered Plants
No specimens of the species contained in the list
of endangered and threatened plant species of
Colorado (Federal Register, Vol. 40, No. 127, p. 27846,
dated 07/01/75) have been found in the EIS area. More
information on suspected or proposed threatened or
endangered plant species is available in the Royal
Gorge and Raton Basin URAs, Step III, Vegetation.

24 – ROYAL GORGE ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT
Condition
The analysis of range condition is used to compare
the current condition of a range to the best possible
condition of a given area (Stoddart et al., 1975). Major
changes in vegetation that would affect range
condition are slow in occurring (Wasser, 1974). In the
long term for this EIS, which is 20 years, changes in
range condition classes are not expected. Objectives
for range condition have been adjusted accordingly.
In the EIS area, 1 percent of public ranglands are in
excellent to good condition and 73 percent fair and
poor. Twenty-six percent of public land is unsuitable
for livestock grazing. Table B-1 in Appendix B
indicates range condition objectives by management
unit. Ideally, permanent, fenced exclosures that have
been in place over a long period of time should be used
to indicate the potential of the native plant community
in contrast to current conditions (Stoddart and Smith,
1955). Lacking such exclosures, BLM specialists have
had to use highway and railroad rights-of-way and
remote or protected sites showing little or no sign of
livestock use.
Blue grama dominates much of the mid- and low-
elevation grasslands and shrub or forest understories.
Blue grama is known to be quite resistant to grazing
and will tend to increase under heavy grazing pressure
(Cook, 1975, 1979). Ungrazed areas were found by
comparison to be dominated by cool season bunch
grasses with blue grama, a warm season species,
occurring only in small amounts (Trlica and Hackney,
1977). Yearly grazing during the growing season has
eliminated or prevented reproduction of the cool
season species (Cook, 1979) on most of the grazeable
rangeland in the EIS area.
The method used in this EIS for evaluating range
condition (Appendix B) is similar to one used by the
Soil Conservation Service (SCS), in which the concept
of climax is a measure of optimum condition. Nearness
to climax is judged by closeness to maximum species
diversity, but this alone may not adequately indicate
actual range condition. To add flexibility to the method
of evaluating range Condition, production of usable
forage species is added as a consideration, especially
when a plant community is apparently near climax. The
range condition rating is lowered when production is
lower than would be expected considering current
growing conditions (SCS, 1976).
The rating system must be applied to a great
variety of vegetative conditions and types. For
example, grazing in the EIS area takes place in areas
that are quite heavily forested and not usually
considered rangeland. A mature pinyon-juniper stand
would rate in excellent condition but, because such a
stand has so little usable forage, it would rate in poor
condition as rangeland. This situation accounts for a
large amount of rangeland in poor condition in the EIS
area.
With few exceptions, the quality of riparian
vegetation in areas grazed by livestock is far below
potential. All of the riparian zones affected by livestock
grazing are in poor or fair condition (see Aquatic
Resources). The concentration of livestock, wildlife,
and human use in these areas has resulted in a
reduction of the indigenous woody and nonwoody
vegetation. Species composition, vigor, and density of
desirable species have been reduced. Sites in good or
excellent Condition are inaccessible to livestock (see
Appendix D).
Rangeland unsuitable for grazing was not
included in general livestock management objectives
to improve condition and therefore its condition was
not rated. Areas with steep slopes (greater than 50
percent) or areas supporting little usable vegetation
(less than 25 pounds per acre) such as dense timber or
mature pinyon-juniper stands were rated unsuitable.
Apparent Trend
Effective evaluation of present and past
management must be determined by evaluating the
direction of change in range condition, up or down
(Stoddart et al., 1975). To measure a change, or trend,
in range Condition, observations should be made at
two points in time. Lacking earlier observations of
range condition for comparison, trend can be inferred
from factors such as species composition, plant vigor,
and litter accumulation. This was the method used for
the purpose of this EIS.
Because trend had to be inferred, it is referred to as
"apparent" trend throughout this document. The
observations of current conditions occurred during the
drought years of 1977 and 1978. At that time, apparent
trend of range condition of 83 percent of the EIS area
was downward. Objectives for range trend by
management unit are found in Appendix Table B.
Most rangeland in this EIS area showed
undesirable compositional changes during the 1977–
78 apparent trend survey. The severe drought would
have diminished the amount of desirable seedlings
observed thus falsely lowering the trend rating but
undesirable species reproduction would have been
similarly affected. Compensation for the effects of
drought was therefore possible and an undesirable
change was still indicated.
Pinyon or juniper was observed to be intermingled
with grass and shrub types. This natural encroachment
of pinyon and juniper into adjacent types, however
slow, inevitably causes a decline in other shrub and
9tass species (Barney and Frischknecht, 1974;
Burkhardt and Tisdale, 1975). Thus the apparent trend
of pinyon-juniper stands and most adjacent areas was
inferred to be downward.
Plant vigor was lower than expected because of
the drought. Relative vigor is readily apparent when
grazed plants are compared to protected plants
growing on the same site. Desirable plants found under
shrubs, inside cactus clumps, or across fencelines
Commonly showed an estimated two to five times
greater size over plants readily available to livestock
and wildlife. Such reduced vigor will eventually lead to
a reduction or loss of these plants from the community
(Stoddart and Smith, 1955), which is characteristic of a
downward trend.
Comparisons between grazed and ungrazed areas
on the same site also permitted evaluation of ground
cover of desirable vegetation. Losses in cover of
desirable species were observed. Such losses provide
opportunity for undesirable species to become
established, implying a downward trend (Humphrey,
1962).
all or even lose weight.
new forage areas.
severely overgraze the flatter land.
SOME LAND IS UNSUITABLE
Areas with steep slopes or sparse vegetation are not suitable for livestock grazing.
When forced to graze these areas, cattle expend more energy in acquiring food
and, as a result, gain weight more slowly.
Unsuitable areas are, therefore, not economical to graze
because of low weight gains and greater management costs in moving cattle to
In addition, cattle do not graze these areas evenly. They tend to
This being the case, BLM does not allocate
forage for livestock in these kinds of areas.
In some cases, cattle gain no weight at

CHAPTER THREE – 25
RANGE IMPROVEMENT BEGINS WITH PLANT VIGOR
Increase in plant vigor is the first step in improvement of rangeland. It takes five
years for overgrazed forage plants to regain enough vigor to produce seed at a normal
rate. During late summer and fall, seeds dry up and are scattered by the wind and
other natural forces. In spring they germinate, producing more plants. At this time,
already-established plants are low in food reserves (carbohydrates), which they use
during winter and in spring for first growth. First growth is necessary to replenish the
carbohydrates used for later growth and, if carbohydrate reserves are adequate, for
producing more seeds.
Cattle graze on the upper part of range plants, which is where the carbohydrate-pro-
ducing process of photosynthesis takes place. Removal of the upper part delays pro-
duction and storage of nutrients, which is necessary for winter survival. Less seed is
produced as a result because growth requirements take precedence and use up available
nutrients. If plant physiological processes are inhibited in this way over several years,
reserves of nutrients get too low for the plant to survive.
With proper rest, desirable forage species are more competitive than other species of
vegetation and tend to predominate. Forage species are the most stable and have the
highest producing potential. The measure of good range condition is the relative
predominance of these desirable forage species.
The upper left drawing depicts the gradual decline of a range plant. As it is grazed
heavily every year during the growing season, the plant and its root system become
progressively smaller. Two drawings below depict the recovery of a range plant given
proper rest. Note that the plant on the right is larger and has abundant seed heads.
In the photograph to the left the range has been grazed heavily every year and plant
vigor is low. The photograph to its right is a closeup of the ground on the same range.
It is the end of the growing season and there is very little growth and few seed heads.
In another closeup of a different part of the range (lower right), there are several
plants that are larger and have more seed heads. This part of the range has been less
heavily grazed and plants have had an opportunity to complete their physiological
requirements.



































26 – ROYAL GORGE ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT
The majority (75 percent) of riparian areas
affected by livestock grazing have a declining trend in
condition (see Aquatic Resources). Livestock
concentration along stream courses has caused
overgrazing of riparian vegetation, resulting in
extremely low plant vigor. Reproduction of desirable
species is limited or nonexistent. Woody riparian
species are becoming more rare, reducing cover and
therefore soil and streambank stability.
Production
Prior to the 1977-78 range survey, very little
reliable production data was available. Production
surveys were made on some grazing units in past years
but results are questionable. Little or no field data was
documented or figures were arbitrarily changed
(always upward) without documentation. Previous
Surveys often did not discount unsuitable rangeland in
assessing the grazing capacity of units. For example, a
rocky brush covered ridge was given equal grazing
capacity to a grassy flat nearby.
The 1977-78 survey is currently the only reliable
source of data upon which to base initial grazing
capacities in the Royal Gorge EIS area. Even though
1977 and 1978 were two exceptionally dry years, little
or no difference was found in field data that was
checked during the extremely wet 1979.
Though the data is sound, several factors preclude
the results of this survey from being used as the sole
determinant of grazing capacities. The survey method
used requires actual use pastures upon which to base
forage acre requirements (FARs) and individual plant
species proper use factors (PUFs). (See Appendix B
for more detail on the method of calculation.) These
two factors can be determined for local conditions
through monitoring actual grazing use in a controlled
grazing unit. Lacking such a unit, FARs and PUFs were
estimated based on specialists' local experience and
knowledge and similar surveys conducted in western
Colorado and Nevada.
Another major factor affecting the applicability of
the current survey in determining grazing capacity was
the inability to map vegetative types on a small enough
scale. The BLM Manual (44.12.11A) requires mapping
Of areas no Smaller than 160 acres. Where this has been
done, grazing capacity has been underrated.
In the EIS area, much grazing takes place in
shrublands and forested areas in which are Scattered
grassy parks and meadows. The grazing capacity of
areas like these, therefore, are judged primarily on the
basis of vegetative types less productive of forage
species. Where possible, such areas have been
mapped as small as 5 acres, but this still does not
adequately indicate their grazing capacities. Map scale
precludes mapping any smaller. As a result, land that
might be desirable to the operator was not allocated
because its apparent capacity was below minimum
Standards for allocation.
In the recent MFP updates, grazing capacities
were calculated based on 50 percent use of the current
annual vegetative growth of perennial vegetation,
which is the average for proper use (Cook, 1974). If
more annual vegetation is present during the spring or
summer, more grazing use may occur while remaining
within 50 percent and still achieve proper use levels.
During the fall or winter or under high intensity-low
frequency grazing treatments, more than 50 percent
use may be allowed. In these situations where current
annual growth varies substantially, setting an exact
yearly grazing capacity is not feasible.
e In summary, the results of the 1977-78 range
survey are not intended for determining the absolute
grazing capacities of management units, but they are
the most reliable data available and provide a sound
basis for initial use adjustments when evaluated along
with condition and apparent trend information.
LIVESTOCK
Cattle and horses are the only kinds of livestock
authorized to graze public lands within the Royal
Gorge EIS area. There are approximately 310 grazing
permittees/lessees using 416 grazing allotments on
public land. Grazing of horses is authorized on 9 of
these, the rest entirely cattle. An average of 40 to 50
ranch transfers or grazing lease assignments are
processed each year in the Royal Gorge Resource
Area, constituting a 13 to 16 percent yearly turnover in
livestock operators using public land. Of the 93
operators being directly affected by proposed
intensive management, 72 operators run small
operations (200 head or less) and are usually
Cependent On Outside income to sustain their
Operation.
The approximately 217 operators not affected by
intensive management proposals are not dependent
on public rangeland. Their permits/leases generally
consist of a few scattered parcels of public land within
hundreds or thousands of acres of private land. Of all
forage production in the EIS area, only 3 percent is
attributed to public land (Bartlett et al., 1979) and only
half of that is found on the large manageable tracts
slated for intensive management (Table 2-1). The
stability of the region's livestock industry as affected
by grazing management on public lands is indicated by
the relative amount of forage provided on public lands
compared to private lands, the number of operators
dependent on public land, and the number of those
operators dependent on livestock for their livelihood.
Present overstocking on some public land causes
livestock to utilize low value forage, expend more
energy in grazing, and consume less forage. Weight
gains and livestock production returns are lower
(Oxley, 1975).
Most grazing use on public lands occurs during
the summer although some use occurs during other
seasons of the year. Winter use is limited to foothill
ranges on the eastern and southern edges of the EIS
area because most of the range is at a higher altitude
and is often covered by snow.
Hay and private pasture are generally needed to
hold livestock through the winter. Most operators
pasture and feed their livestock on hay meadows and
remove them in the spring or summer to allow for hay
production. Historically public lands have been used to
graze cattle during this time.
Most livestock operations are cow-calf or Cow-
calf-yearling. A few operators maintain a rigid livestock
management program, calving occurring in the late
winter and early spring. Most are part-time operators,
however, and calving can occur at any time of the year,
although it occurs predominately in the spring.
Some of the part-time Operators lease their base
property from investment companies and subdividers.
WILDLIFE
Species, type, and conditions of habitats are SO
diverse that most wildlife species must be considered
in generalized groupings related to preferred habitats.
Most big game will be addressed by species—mule
deer, elk, antelope, and bighorn sheep. All other
wildlife will be addressed by principal related
habitats—riparian and broadleaf trees, mountain
Shrub, Conifer
grasslands.
(including pinyon-juniper), and
Food, water, cover, and the interrelationships of
these factors all affect quality of habitat and ultimately
wildlife populations. Determining the precise cause-
effect relationship and degree to which each of these
factors limits wildlife populations is difficult. The
Combined effects can be described in general terms,
however.
Mule Deer
Populations are low and habitat conditions are
generally in poor to fair condition throughout the EIS
region (Table 3-1). Several factors have influenced the
EIS area deer herd in recent years, including climate,
human activities, and livestock grazing (Map 3-4).
Some of the resulting impacts are irreversible; others
are temporary or cyclic.
During the winter of 1972-73 a series of severe
winter storms decimated many of the Colorado deer
herds, including those of the EIS area. The following
years were generally dry, damaging and retarding
growth of browse plants, grasses, and forbs.
Continued livestock and wildlife use in the wake of this
drought has reduced production, vigor, density, and
composition of the area's vegetation and with it the
area's carrying capacity for mule deer. Additional mule
deer habitat has been lost because of urbanization,
rural Subdivision, home construction, and associated
human activity, and wildlife harassment.
During Spring, concentrations of mule deer are
found feeding on private irrigated hay fields and
meadows along Currant Creek, Texas Creek, and the
area around Howard, Colorado. As forage outside
these hay fields "greens up" the mule deer move out of
these areas and spend the summer, fall, and winter,
depending on the severity, in adjacent mountain shrub
Communities.
Although winter habitat is generally critical to
survival and health, losses of mule deer in this EIS area
are due principally to the poor condition of Spring-
summer ranges (Table 3-1). This can be seen by
comparing the condition of seasonal ranges. The
recent drought has only slightly affected annual
production and vigor of mountain shrubs like Gambel
oak, mountain mahogany, and Snowberry which are
sufficient for their winter Survival. Utilization is
generally below 60 percent. In comparison, vegetation
on spring-summer ranges has little vigor and low
production due to heavy livestock use. In addition,
these are the sites most Often used for subdivision and
recreation. Public lands have very little spring range to
compensate for loss of spring-summer range
elsewhere.
Drinking water is scarce and can limit use of areas
during June, July, and August. Deer frequently move
great distances to get water and use of an area can
depend on maintenance of livestock water sources.
COver in the area is excellent. The terrain is
generally rough or rolling, which provides for many
requirements of deer. Much of the steep rocky terrain is
covered by dense pinyon-juniper stands which provide
excellent escape and resting cover. The principal use
of public land by mule deer is for cover and gathering
food at times other than Spring. Water and spring
forage are acquired on private land.
Elk
Elk populations in the EIS area have been
increasing steadily ever since their reintroduction into
the region in the 1940s. Approximately half of all elk
R-82-w
R-79-w
|
N AT I O N A L
F O R. Es T.
º
\
15
|
-N-
_^
Gº-
O 5 IO
H–1–1–1–1–1–1–1–1–1–1–1–1–
Miles
LEGEND:
Mule Deer Bighorn Sheep
Distribution-1/
C
- - -
-
C
Winter Range
Crucial Winter Range
*-
-
Calving, Lambing & -
Kidding Areas CT) º
Generalized Movement
Patterns _2~ _-
+/secause mule deer habitat is so general and wide
spread, only areas not normally supporting significant
numbers have been excluded (Eastern plains, south Park
and Wet Mountain valley).
MAP 3–4.
|
MULE DEER AND BIGHORN SHEEP DISTRIBUTION
N AT 1 o NAL
The
Forest |
Luis Maria Baca
R-70-w
R-69-w
cHAPTER THREE – 27
R-71 -w
º
T-1 1-s
- /
P 1 K E N AT I o N A L. F o REST - -
-- – H-
----- |- ſ \ |
- - -T – | -- |- Rampart Reservoir T-12-s
| “”º º
'— '#7 |\ k .
Eºwn".Canyon Reservoir -- | - * -
t - º
- tamount Reservoir-e South cºwmount Reservºir
T2+2 &
– --- - T-13-5
Crystal Creek Reservo
co-or-do-prin--
I.
º
|-- \s
| | ſ=J A
san is aest
*N__
- w
~s
- ^
H
#
T-14-s
T-15-s
T-16-s
T-17-3
T-18-s
T-19-5
T-22-5
|
Fo R. Es T
T-23-s
T-24-s
---
-
-
r −1.
y \ T T-25-s
NiZ - |z
ºr ſº
| ſ N. T-26-s
ſt-r-, -F –
S- |_--~
—































28 – ROYAL GORGE ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT
R-82-w R-81-w R-80-w R-79-w - R-78-w R-77-w R-76-w
a........a...º - - R-75-w R-74-w R-73-w R-72-w
ar-e--nº-d-- - - -
T-7-s
T-8-s
T-9-S
T-10-s
rºw R-70-w R-69-w
- \
| t
| - \ - |
- T - - * - | |G)
º º - P 1 K E N AT I o N A L FOREST -
P 1 K E lsº - N
/ \|^\ | > *N – r---
- - -
N AT I O N A L \ - r— - \
Antero Reservour - º * - South - º
- º º, º *. ~ !-- l
F OR Es.T `--> º “” P-r
River Tu-, 1- , - —l- -
- E. * -
º -> –
-worthcºtsmount º South owoup. Reservoir
| zº, "Sº
-—y - * * T-13-s
Crite creek Reservoi
© - colorado spring-
- - º
#
H H
TH
T-14-s
-
* | T-15-s
-
R-s-E r-e-e
| P
|T-1s-s
N AT to NAL
T-17-g
!
T-18-s
T-19-5
H - -
\ 4
| -i. -
| Ti, Z2-—º
--- SA N T S A B E L i ºp
National L. N. -
T N
!T-4 -
Forest | º
- |- ) Nº ºn-
- º 1. - ---------
- Gº. - *...*
O 5 |O 15 –– - L
-
T-zz-s
- - I -
-
l_1-1–1–1–1–1–1–1–1–1–1––––
Scole in Miles
K - Nº TTLLC.
/ saw is est | >- T-23-5
| '1, \\\\
| T-44-N L. \ º
| *c...”
LEGEND:
*-
-
-
-
n
a
ri
O
N
a
L
ºl 22-d T---->
Fo R. Est
Elk Antelope _9_^1
Distribution -
Winter Range C2 -
crucial winter Range T
Calving, Lambing, & T-25-g
Kidding Areas
Generalized Movement -
Patterns _2~ _2~ -T-
T-26-s
MAP 3-5. ELK AND ANTELOPE DISTRIBUTION

















CHAPTER THREE – 29
TABLE 3-1
ExISTING BIG GAME POPULATION AND HABITAT STATUS
Big Game Population Population Big Game Habitat Condition
Species Estimated Trend
Numbers
1978–1979
Total
Habitat?
Winter Habitat Spring-Summer Habitat Yearlong Habitat (1,000s
(1,000s Acres) (1,000s Acres) (1,000s Acres) Acres)
Poor Fair Good Total Poor Fair Good Total Poor Fair Good Total
Mule deer 8,740 Stable - 103.6 126.8 230.4 17.0 30.0 100.0 147.0 24.0 240.9 15.6 280.5 455.0
Elk 1,950 Up - 2.4 43.1 45.1 - 58.9 - 58.9 - 58.9 15.9 74.8 7.2.2
Antelope 545 Down 1.7 - - 1.7 - 25.7 - 25.7 9.8 13.3 - 23.2 43.5
Bighorn sheep 270 Up - - 3.6 3.6 10.9 - - 10.9 - - 38.4 38.4 76.2
'Public Lands only
*Total habitat doesn't equal the sum of the seasonal habitat uses because of overlapping utilization
habitat is in good condition with the rest, mainly
spring-summer range, in fair condition (Table 3-1).
Most Spring-summer habitat is on U.S. Forest Service
land, which is generally in good condition.
Livestock grazing and human activity have not
affected elk as severely as mule deer because elk
normally inhabit lands at higher elevations that are less
suitable for human uses (Map 3-5).
Elk habitat in the EIS area includes Waugh
Mountain, Black Mountain, and Reinecker Ridge.
Movement between these areas and adjacent Forest
Service lands is frequent. Competition for forage with
livestock often occurs during the spring and early
summer, so elk spend most of this time on Forest
Service lands and fall and winter on or near BLM-
administered public lands.
Water and cover are not limiting factors to elk.
Water is generally abundant even at higher elevations.
Large tracts of heavy timber with open meadows
provide cover and forage. As a result the population is
expanding.
Antelope
Antelope are found mostly on private lands within
the EIS area with several important exceptions (Map 3–
5). The antelope population is declining (Table 3-1).
Antelope habitat on public lands is in poor to fair
condition. There are conflicting uses, the major ones
being subdivisions adjacent to public land and
livestock grazing. Drought has affected grass, forb,
and browse production in recent years.
Antelope spend Summer and fall in South Park and
move towards Canon City via Currant Creek in the
winter. Normally they winter near the Stirrup Ranch,
but if weather is severe, they move close to Canon City.
South Park does not have sufficient browse species for
antelope in the winter. Their principal forage, fringed
sage, is covered by drifted snow. More favorable
conditions exist closer to Canon City.
Competition for food between antelope and
livestock in South Park is suspected not to be a
problem. Water can be a limiting factor during late
summer in South Park and sometimes they can rely
only on water developed for livestock.
Cover is a limiting factor. Summer and fall habitat
is covered with subdivisions, by highways with sheep
proof fences, and by dams with municipal water
supplies. Winter habitat is under intensive agricultural
use, crossed with highways, and subdivided. In severe
winters, antelope retreat to pinyon-juniper hillsides,
which provide adequate cover.
Bighorn Sheep
Bighorn numbers are increasing, partially due to a
vigorous Colorado Division of Wildlife program which
includes transplanting bighorn sheep and controlling
lungworms. Several sheep ranges are fringe use areas
of herds that spend a good deal of time on National
Forest Lands (Map 3-5). The Arkansas Canyon herd is
the only one that does not occupy U.S. Forest Service
land.
Habitat conditions are generally good (Table 3-1).
The bighorns inhabit areas that have not, so far, been
subdivided nor urbanized to any significant degree.
Sheep prefer rough rocky terrain, which is abundant
on public lands and precludes concentrated livestock
USe.
Food is abundant in bighorn sheep habitat. There
are good mixtures of browse, forbs, and grass. Water is
limiting to the distribution of sheep, which usually
follow water courses rather than depend on livestock
water developments.
Riparian-Broadleaf-Associated Species
These habitats have heavy wildlife, livestock, and
human use. Typical wildlife species found in the
riparian and broadleaf habitat type include beaver,
cottontail rabbit, raccoon, marsh hawk, mourning
dove, king fisher, flicker, warbler, sparrow, deer, and
pocket gopher. Hundreds of acres in the EIS area have
been degraded by intensive livestock and wildlife
grazing, home building, roads, and recreational use.
Riparian habitat has also been degraded by many
water diversions for agriculture and other uses.
Watershed degradation (Badger Creek) has
adversely affected riparian habitat. Suitable woody
riparian habitat has not established itself because of
periodic flooding at least partially attributable to poor
condition of the watershed. Location and condition of
riparian areas are discussed under Vegetation, this
chapter.
Most riparian habitat on public lands in the EIS
area is associated with small streams having narrow
flood plains and distinct riparian zones. These zones
are far more important to wildlife than their total
acreage would indicate. They make up the smallest
RIPARIAN AREAS ARE IMPORTANT TO
NEARLY ALL WILDLIFE SPECIES
Riparian habitat provides food, water, and escape
cover. Riparian areas run through all of the other
vegetative types but occupy less area than any other.
They provide early spring forage for herbivores before
the surrounding tree-covered hillsides begin producing
food. In late summer and early fall riparian areas are
important because perennial streams are the only
source of water. Smaller nongame animals use the
thick heavy vegetative cover to escape predators and
to reproduce and rear their young. Riparian areas
also provide them with a cooler, moister habitat
during summer.

30 — ROYAL GORGE ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT
percentage of all zones but provide at least some
habitat requirements for nearly all wildlife species
inhabiting the EIS area. Riparian habitats provide
water, food, escape cover, sites for reproduction and
rearing young, and travel routes for species associated
with adjacent habitats as well as riparian species
(Ames, 1977).
Because of the larger amount of vegetation
produced in these areas, the early greenup, long
growing season, and relatively flat terrain, they are
attractive sites for livestock, wildlife, and most human
activities.
Wildlife habitat in riparian areas is the most
adversely impacted habitat type in the EIS area. Cattle
grazing and other human activities have resulted in
production far below potential and below the needs
projected for wildlife.
Mountain Shrub-Associated Species
The mountain shrub type is a transition zone
between the conifer type and the grassland type.
Typical wildlife species of the mountain shrub type are
mule deer, coyote, magpie, red-tailed hawk, pinyon
jay, western bluebird, least chipmunk, Colorado
chipmunk, rattlesnake, and mountain lion.
Big game such as mule deer typically use these
areas as winter range. South-facing slopes which are
free of snow and contain large numbers of browse
plants are mule deer winter habitat. Food produced
here is usually abundant and diverse. Acorns, seeds,
grass, browse, and forbs provide food for many species
of wildlife.
Water is scarce in the mountain shrub type but
usually can be found in adjacent drainages. During
winter, snow is a source of water. During summer, lack
of water in an adjacent drainage can limit use of this
community by wildlife.
Cover on these types is usually good. The terrain is
typically rolling hills dissected with ravines and dry
washes. Scattered conifers provide nest sites, shade,
and escape for many species of wildlife. Dense stands
of brush provide escape cover and nesting sites as well
as food. These areas are typically crossed with trails
which wildlife use to travel from water to heavy or thick
cover. Since mountain shrub is a transition type,
species found there also use adjacent habitat types as
well.
Conifer-Associated Species
A large variety of wildlife species occupy conifer
habitats (pinyon-juniper, ponderosa pine, fir, etc.) at
some time in their lives but few spend their entire life
cycle there. Conifer sites are important for nesting,
denning, rearing of young, protection from weather,
and escape from predators.
Typical species of the conifer type include turkey,
elk, mountain chickadee, Stellar jay, Aberts squirrel,
porcupine, and goshawk.
A variety of factors is altering the composition,
health, and stability of wildlife populations using these
habitats. Beneficial changes are occurring where
firewood cutting, timber harvest, and pine beetle
infestations are opening up many of the dense conifer
stands, creating a greater edge effect and diversity of
understory vegetation and promoting a more varied
faunal mixture. Detrimental changes for wildlife are
happening as a result of rural home building,
subdivision, and to some extent drought making
inroads into conifer sites.
Conifer habitats in the EIS area normally support
little wildlife because so much of their production is
tied up in standing biomass and the shade from trees
and other tall vegetation reduces understory
production.
Grassland-Associated Species
Grasslands in the EIS area are in generally poor
condition, as manifested by low plant vigor, low plant
composition and density, and low production. The
gradual downward trend is continuing.
Typical species of the grassland type include
Richardson's ground squirrel, prairie dog, jackrabbit,
mourning dove, western king bird, horned lark, tree
sparrow, and antelope.
Next to riparian species, those dependent on
grasslands have been more drastically impacted than
those associated with any other type of habitat.
Changes in quality and amount of production as well
as reduction or depletion of such important vegetative
species as western wheatgrass and Indian ricegrass
have diminished wildlife production, health, and
species diversity. Degradation is largely due to urban
development, livestock grazing, off-road vehicle use,
roads, and powerlines.
Water, an important element of grassland habitat,
is generally adequate in quality but dependability of
supply and distribution are lacking on many summer-
fall ranges.
Threatened and Endangered Animals
Between 10 and 30 bald eagles winter in the EIS
area. They primarily occupy private and state land.
Peregrine falcons are suspected of occupying the area
during breeding season, but there have been no
verified sightings in the last 5 years. Past nesting sites
are monitored each year.
The EIS area potentially is habitat for the black-
footed ferret, grizzly bear, and gray wolf but there have
been no confirmed sightings for at least 30 years.
Implementation of any of the grazing management
alternatives would not affect the abundance or
distribution of any threatened or endangered species
of wildlife.
AQUATIC RESOURCES
Within the Royal Gorge Grazing EIS area, aquatic
resources consist of 44 streams covering 109 miles and
11 reservoirs with 251 surface acres. The Arkansas
River is the main fishery, accounting for 70 percent of
fish production. Approximately 40 miles (38 percent)
of the river flow across public land. The remaining
fisheries are small feeder streams to the Arkansas or
South Platte Rivers.
The feeder streams are important mainly as
Spawning grounds (Map 3-6), which are crucial to
brown trout production because the Arkansas River is
not stocked with brown trout by the DOW. The DOW
does stock rainbow trout regularly.
Approximately 10 percent of the length of feeder
streams for the Arkansas River is on public lands.
There are 11 reservoirs partly on public land whose
fisheries receive regular stocking by DOW.
Approximately 70 percent of the fish production in
these lakes is from DOW stockings. Grazing does take
place on public land adjacent to two of these lakes but
effects have been determined to be negligible.
grasses, and trees.
MIXING OF HABITAT TYPES BENEFITS WILDLIFE
Where two or more habitat types meet is called an edge; the beneficial effect of this
occurrence on wildlife is called the "edge effect."
in the mountain shrub type, water in riparian areas, and find cover in pinyon-juniper.
They can acquire all of their needs in one small area.
the chance of predation is greatly reduced.
In this photograph, pinyon-juniper is intermingled with grassland parks.
rounding rolling hills are covered by shrubland which contains a mixture of shrubs,
Animals can acquire food
They expend less energy and
The sur-

R-82-w
R-81-w R-80-w R-79-w
N V --
R-78-w
Twin Lakes
| Twin La Fºnor
—.
clear cººki wº
Clear Creek Reservoir -
-j-Nºr-I-Rºt
|
Pik E
N AT To NAL
| -
FOR Es T.
R-77-w
R-75-w R-74-w
R-71-w R-70-w
CHAPTER THREE – 31
R-69-w R-6e-w R-67-w
O
L_1
L^
Scole in
EXCELLANT
GOOD
FAIR
POOR
CRITICAL SPAWNING
AREAS
to
--1-1–1–1–1–1–1–1–1–1–1–
Miles
MAP 3-6. AQUATIC HABITAT PROFILE RATINGS
15
|
l
W ------ ++. G
. (3) -
IT
º
r-
= 1. l. Rampart Reservoir T-12-5
| *#)
T-13-s
-
* c -------
Luis Mariº Bºc-
Grant Wo. 4
A
y T-41-N
T-40-n
T-39-N
| -------- ſ
st --tº-
l
Wilson Reservoir Ø
º
| T-15-5
_l
t-tº-3
T-17-3
T-10-3
Q
º
T-
©
º - T-10-3
.*..... - - ~
º ſ
\ | -
T-21-5
T-22-5
T-24-5
- |- -
- -
| ſº
`s --— T-26-s
N T-27-5
T-29-s

























32 – ROYAL GORGE ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT
In the Summers of 1977 and 1978 all Streams on
public land were inventoried and rated for stream
profile. Reservoirs were also inventoried and rated for
fish habitat Condition.
In the BLM stream profile rating system, five
factors (i.e. Stream cover, streambank condition,
streambank stability, stream channel stability, and
sedimentation of streambed) are evaluated to indicate
the physical, chemical, and biological characteristics
of a stream. Application of these factors in the profile
rating system is illustrated in Appendix D. The system
produces a condition rating for each fishery as
excellent, good, fair and poor. The inventory also
produces a reading of apparent trend, which is the
direction of habitat toward a different condition rating.
Based on the inventory, 49 percent of the miles of
streams on public lands is in good or excellent
condition (Appendix Table D-2) (Map 3-6). However,
87 percent of that amount is on the Arkansas River
where conditions are not influenced by livestock.
Streams influenced by livestock are small and
generally in either poor or fair condition (Table 3-2). All
are on lower reaches of the Arkansas system below
Salida.
The trend for aquatic habitat on 51.5 miles of
stream is stable while 56.3 miles are declining in
condition and only 1.5 are improving. The Arkansas
River accounts for 78 percent of aquatic resources in
stable condition (Appendix Table D-2).
Stream shading is a critical component of fish
habitat, providing protection from warming by the sun.
Adequate stream shading is due primarily to woody
riparian vegetation and to a lesser extent herbaceous
vegetation. Vegetation also provides food for riparian-
associated species and fish and has a stabilizing effect
on soils. Livestock feeding on herbaceous and woody
vegetation during critical growth stages can severely
harm riparian habitat (Garul and Bissell, 1978).
Streambank condition is judged by the amount of
exposed soil, the more exposed soil, the worse the
condition. Soils not stabilized by vegetation are
washed away during periods of high runoff and
deposited as Sediment in stream beds. When livestock
continually graze riparian vegetation during the
growing season, it loses vigor and is less effective in
holding soil.
The percent of streambank that is eroding away
along its length is a measure of streambank stability,
which is an important factor in fish habitat because
banks provide cover. The erosion of streambanks
caused by vegetation decline can be intensified due to
livestock trampling. Fifty to seventy percent of the
small feeder streambanks On the lower Arkansas
system has been damaged by trampling.
Unstable banks yield large volumes of sediment
which cover food sources and smother fish eggs,
hampering reproduction and survival. Streambed
Sedimentation, therefore, is another factor that can be
Observed and used to rate the relative health and
productivity of streams.
These factors directly influence another measure
of the health of streams, stream channel stability. This
is the percent a channel "moves" or changes its
meanderings within its high watermark. The more a
channel moves, the less pooling and riffling occurs
along its length. Pools and riffles are important for high
quality fish habitat, providing, respectively, resting
areas and feeding and spawning areas. Feeder streams
in the lower reaches of the Arkansas have heavy
livestock use and exhibit frequent channel movement.
Most Streams above Salida have less livestock use and
are relatively stable.
Fish production varies with habitat condition. The
streams in excellent condition have an average
TABLE 3-2
AOUATIC AND RIPARIAN PROFILE RATINGS ON STREAMS
AFFECTED BY LIVESTOCK GRAZING
|N ROYAL GORGE E.I.S. AREA
Stream Miles Profile" Stability
Stream Name On Public Land Rating Rating
Tarryall Creek 3/4 Fair Declining
High Creek 1/3 PO.Or Declining
Sheep Creek 1/4 Fair Stable
Salt Creek 1/4 POOl' Declining
Pruden Creek 1/4 POOr Declining
Currant Creek 3 POOr Declining
Box Canyon 2 1/2 Fair Declining
Fourmile Creek (Shelf Road Area) 3 1/4 POOr Declining
Beaver Creek 1/2 Fair Stable
Eightmile Creek 8 Fair Declining
Cottonwood Creek 6 Fair Declining
Tallahassee Creek 2 1/2 PO.Or Declining
Texas Creek 3 Fair Declining
Fourmile Creek (Buena Vista Area) 1/4 Fair Stable
Little Cochetopa Creek 1/2 Fair Stable
Bear Creek 3/8 Fair Stable
West Creek 1/8 POOr Declining
Hamilton Creek 2 Fair Declining
Big Cottonwood Creek 3/4 Fair Declining
Muddy Creek 1 Fair Stable
Palo Durc Creek 3 1/4 Fair Declining
May Creek 1 1/4 Fair Declining
Pass Creek 1/8 PO.Or Declining
N. Abeyta Creek 3 1/2 Fair Stable
S. Abeyta Creek 1/4 Fair Stable
Totals 6.1 Fair Stable
27.5 Fair Declining
9.8 POOr Declining
"See Appendix D for explanation of classification system
production of 85 lbs/acre, streams in poor condition,
25 lbs/acre (Worm, 1978).
RECREATION
The main recreational resource in the EIS area is
the Arkansas River. The river and adjacent land
support a gamut of activities including rafting, fishing,
picnicking, camping, wildlife viewing (particularly
bighorn Sheep near the lower end of the Arkansas
Canyon), and geological viewing. Actual visitor use
data for this area are not yet available, but an estimated
500,000 visitor-days occur on these lands annually.
Of primary recreational concern in this EIS are
hunting and fishing resources. Approximately 8,359
big game hunter-days are attributable to public lands
(Appendix E) and 122,979 fishermen-days. Most of the
fishermen days are spent on the Arkansas River.
Most of the streams in the area have only a small
amount of public land adjoining, but small feeder
streams such as Badger Creek, Texas Creek, and
Fourmile Creek (near Canon City) on these lands
annually receive about 800, 300, and I,200 visitor-days,
respectively.
Other streams such as Grape Creek and Pass
Creek have potential as fisheries, but due to
destruction of habitat presently have little or no sport
fish. Public lands along these tributaries annually
receive approximately 225 and 180 visitor-days,
respectively.
Deer, elk, and antelope hunting in the EIS area
contributes approximately 0.4 percent of the statewide
harvest of each of these animals. Bighorn Sheep, On the
other hand, provide 10-15 percent of the state harvest.
The Colorado Division of Wildlife (DOW) has
projected overall hunter pressure (demand) to rise for
the next 5 to 10 years. Consequently, public lands will
play an even more important role as a hunting
resource. If the present trend continues, game
(particularly big game) numbers will not keep pace
with hunter demand.
Hunting also generates supplementary but
unknown amounts of recreational activities such as
four-wheel drive use, motorcycle use, hiking, camping,
and picnicking in undeveloped areas.
Public lands with unique primitive values and
characteristics include the area around Beaver Creek,
which covers approximately 12,000 acres and is
characterized by extremely rough, steep terrain. Most
visitor use occurs along the west and east forks of
Beaver Creek, which are administered by DOW.
Brown's Canyon near Salida also contains similar
values. Other lands in the EIS area lie within wilderness
inventory areas and are proposed for management
under special guidelines.
ECONOMICS AND SOCIAL
VALUES
The EIS area includes all or portions of eight
counties in Colorado. Excluding Colorado Springs and
CHAPTER THREE – 33
TABLE 3-3
RANCH SIZE AND INCOME EFFECTS
Average BLM
Cattle Number of AUM Use Gross Revenues Net Revenues' Non-Ranching Income
Model (Head) Ranches Per Ranch Per Ranch All Ranches Per Ranch All Ranches Per Ranch A|| Ranches
1 1 to 199 72 190 $ 16,401 $1,152,072 $ 352 $ 25,344 $12,807 $ 922,104
2 200+ 21 260 $129,908 $2,728,068 $34,449 $723,429 $21,758 $ 456,498
Total 93 $3,880,140 $748,773 $1,378,602
Source: Effect of Federal Grazing on the Economy of Colorado, a draft report, Departments of Range and Economics, Colorado State University, 1978.
"Excludes depreciation and owner operator labor costs.
TABLE 3-4
suburbs the EIS area is predominately rural. The DEPENDENCY ON PUBLIC LANDS
estimated total population for the eight-county area is FOR LIVESTOCK GRAZING
355,900 (1978). For the purpose of analysis in this EIS, ROYAL GORGE EIS AREA
El Paso County will be excluded because so little area
within it is actually affected. With this exclusion the
estimated total population in the EIS area is 65,900 Breakdown 0 to 199 Head 200+ Head Total
(USDI-BLM, RGRA, PAA, 1978). by Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
Social and economic impacts of livestock grazing
On public lands appear relatively insignificant when * § !. . : º º : :
Compared to the EIS area economy and society as a 21 to 30 6 8 2 10 8 9
whole, but are relatively important to individual ranch
tº ſº tº it. * 31 to 40 8 11 8 9
operators and families of those holding BLM grazing
privileges. Therefore, whenever possible, socio- 41 to 50 7 10 7 8
economic analysis will concentrate on this microcosm 51 to 60 3 4 3 3
of ranch operators and their families. 61 to 70
71 to 80
Of the 368 units making up the Royal Gorge EIS 81 to 90
91 to 100 1 2 1 1
Area, 77 units would be managed intensively; of the
remaining, 278 units would be managed nonintenively tº-º-º-º: tº-º-e *-ºſ e cº-º-º-º- tº-e tº Eº-º-º-º:
and 13 would not be allotted for grazing. On the 77
units 93 different operators run cattle and horses Total 72 100 21 100 93 100
during all or part of the grazing season.
Only impacts associated with intensive
1 e & e & º &
management on the 77 units will be treated in this and Based on information provided by livestock operators for grazing case files, Royal Gorge Resource Area
the other socio-economic sections of the statement. Office
Nonintensive management will not be discussed
because there are essentially no changes in actual TABLE 3-5
practices and therefore no impacts on livestock
Operators. PERSONAL INCOME BY MAJOR SOURCES
CONSTRUCTION – 1976
Income
Government All Industries
County ($1,000) ($1,000)
Ranch income Chaffee 2,804 31,144
Custer 1 14 96
Impacts on ranch income in the EIS were based on . º º:
a study by the Range and Economics Departments of L . aſ O 815 7401s
Colorado State University at Fort Collins, Colorado, of a Ke 3,777
ranch operations in Southeast Colorado, including the Park 480 y
Royal Gorge Resource Area. This study delineated Teller 1,509 9,438
"typical" ranch budgets (Appendix F) (Bartlett et al., Total - 7 Counties 10,082 197,829
1979). Ranching operations were separated into two
Categories (or models) by herd size. Table 3-3 shows - Colorado 924,158 13,032,345
the effects on income from cattle ranching for
operators directly affected by BLM-administered Percent 1.09 1.52
grazing within the Royal Gorge Resource Area. Both
models show nonranching income to be important to
. operator livelihood, especially for the smaller Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis, Personal Income By Major
perators (Model 1). Sources 1976, USDC
Over two-thirds of the ranch operators are
dependent upon public lands for less than 20 percent Construction Income construction-related industries for 1976 in the Seven-
of their total livestock forage (Table 3-4). However, county region totaled $10,083,000 (U.S. Department of
dependency is largely seasonal. Operators depend on Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis, 1978). This
public lands for spring forage, making their availability Implementation of all but the No Action Alternative was 5.1 percent of total personal income for the region
a critical factor in ranching viability. would require some construction. Personal income for (Table 3-5).
34 – ROYAL GORGE ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT
*
TABLE 3-6
Government Income
PERSONAL INCOME BY MAJOR SOURCES
GOVERNMENT – 1976
In 1976, government employment (Federal, state,
and local) in the seven-county region accounted for
$45,533,000 of personal income (USDC Bureau of Government All Industries
Economic Analysis, 1978). This is 23 percent of total County ($1,000) ($1,000)
1976 personal income in the region (Table 3-6).
Chaffee 9,536 31,144
Employment Custer 697 96
ploy Fremont 19,001 67,658
Huerfano 4,035 11,698
The labor force increased in the seven-county Lake 6,302 *
region from 18,096 (U.S. Census, 1970) in 1970 to 28,255 Park 2,601 9488
in 1978 (Colorado Department of Labor and Teller 3,261 9.
Employment, 1978). This constitutes an increase of tº
10,159 in the labor force during this period. As of June Total - 7 Counties 45,433 197,829
1978, there were 1,990 or 7.0 percent of the labor force
unemployed. Total - Colorado 2,910,073 13,032,345
Percent 1.56 1.52
Government Finance and Tax Base
Livestock Carried On ranches are considered
property for purposes of local and county property
taxes. Livestock stocking level is also a factor
determining the market value of ranches. Changes in
BLM grazing management could ultimately affect
future assessed valuations and market values.
The 1978 assessed valuation for the seven-County
region was $353,056,260 which, when applied to the
total average county mill levy of 61.19, produced a total
revenue of $21,604,924 (Colorado Division of Property
Taxation, Department of Local Affairs, 1978). Cattle
were valued at $1,702,690 for the seven-county region
in 1978, or .0048 percent of total assessed valuation.
On an average mill levy of 61.19, all cattle in the
sevencounty region contributed $104,188 in property
taxes.
Social Values
The public attitudes and social values in the Royal
Gorge EIS area traditionally have been conservative,
that is, in favor of the status quo, especially regarding
attitudes toward land management and planning for
privately-owned resources. Many people feel that the
owners of resources have a constitutional right to use
them as they see fit and that controls on the use and
dispostion of resources are unwarranted and
unconstitutional. For ranchers this idea carries Over to
land they lease from the Federal government, in
conflict with the government's right to eminent domain
and with the traditional right of the community to
control property and resources to protect itself from
what is viewed as harmful in individual control.
From the point of view of social well being, this
change in public attitudes toward the acceptance of
local controls is positive, but continued resentment of
Federal controls from "outside" agencies (i.e., BLM) is
negative. The continued resentment is engendered by
the economic dependence of ranchers on BLM lands
and tends to undermine a desirable basic trust
relationship.
The major land use trend in the EIS area is
Conversion of range, forest, and agricultural land to
mining development (i.e., uranium) and to rural
subdivisions. Major land use changes in Park and
Fremont Counties are coming in the conversion of
pasture and agricultural land to mining areas.
Notwithstanding this trend, overall social well
being of the residents relative to land use is good.
Although residents would prefer the land was privately
owned, they apparently appreciate some regulation of
mining development.
Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis, Personal Income By Major
Sources 1976, USDC
WATER RESOURCES
The area covered by this analysis is drained by two
major rivers, the South Platte and the Arkansas. These
rivers provide about half of the streamflow available for
use on the eastern slope of the Colorado Rockies.
Natural flow in both rivers is augmented by trans-
mountain diversions from western slope streams.
Three significant tributaries of the Arkansas join it
many miles downstream from the eastern boundary of
the area. These are the Huerfano, Cucharas, and
Purgatoire Rivers. Their upper reaches are located in
the southern part of the EIS area, in Huerfano and Las
Animas Counties. The management of public lands
has little effect upon the hydrology of these three
streams because their watersheds exist principally on
private, state, and national forest lands (BLM is 6
percent of total drainage area).
Similarly, management of BLM land has little
influence upon the South Platte River because there
are only a few scattered tracts of public land in its
watershed and, in most cases, are not directly tributary
to that river.
Water Quantity
Both the South Platte and Arkansas Rivers
(including the Huerfano, Cucharas, and Purgatoire)
are fed primarily from snowmelt in the high mountains.
Figures 3-1 and 3-2 illustrate how the influence of
snowmelt in the headwaters of the Arkansas near Malta
is transmitted downstream all the way to the gaging
station at Portland (over 120 miles). The hydrographs
presented in these figures are representative of the
other major streams within the EIS area.
In contrast, most runoff produced from BLM lands
comes from intense rainfall, usually in the form of flash
floods. With few exceptions, channels draining public
lands are normally dry. To put things in perspective,
annual runoff from public lands in the Arkansas
drainage is estimated to be less than 1 percent of the
Arkansas River's total volume of Streamflow. This
estimate is based on the SCS Flood Hydrograph
method.
Water Quality
Both the Arkansas and the South Platte Rivers are
high quality streams supporting cold water fisheries.
Generally, the quality of water is poorest during
spring and early Summer when snowmelt swells rivers
and flushes accumulated sediments from tributary
channels. On the Arkansas, for example, suspended
sediment levels usually increase from low flow
concentrations of 10 to 300 milligrams per liter (mg/l) to
around 2,000 mg/l. Short-lived but more dramatic
increases result from summertime flash floods on
tributary drainages. For example, on August 7, 1968,
suspended sediment at the Portland gage was
measured to be over 9,000 mg/l, following heavy rains
upstream.
Water quality of streams within the EIS area
gradually decreases downstream. In 1976 water
samples analyzed for total dissolved solids (TDS)
showed an average of 42 milligrams per liter at a station
on Halfmoon Creek near Leadville. Samples taken
from the Arkansas River 130 miles downstream, near
Portland, averaged 292 mg/l. Similar situations are
likely in other streams, although no data exists to
Substantiate this. It is not known how much of this
increase in TDS is related to management of forest and
rangelands, but a large part of the increase is probably
due to irrigation return water and natural geologic
conditions (water flowing over soluble geologic
formations).
The occurrence, quantity, and quality of ground
water within the EIS area are highly dependent upon
geologic conditions. The principal Sources of ground
water are valley alluviums, basin fill deposits of the Wet
Mountain Valley, and Mesozoic sedimentary
formations. The remainder of the area is underlain with
a complex variety of older sedimentary, metamorphic,
and igneous rocks. Ground water originating from and
underlying most BLM lands occurs as a result of
fracturing and weathering.
Although the total amount of ground water within
the EIS area is unknown, it exceeds several million
acre-feet. A recent Geological Survey study (1978)
estimates there are over 1.5 million acre-feet in the Wet
Mountain Valley alone.
.
.
FIGURE 3-1
TYPICA L ANNUAL HYDROGRAPH
HALFMOON CREEK NEAR MALTA , COLOR ADO
(Drainage Area; 23.6 sq. mi.)
CHAPTER THREE – 35
FIGURE 3-2
TYPICAL ANNUAL HYDROGRAPH
A R KANSAS RIVER AT PORT LAND , COLORADO
(Drainage Area; 4024 sq. mi.)
ISO 3000
I 40 -:424-
144.0.
1 30
2500 *
1 20
1 1 0 sº
† *
100 2000 |
}
i
~5
ſº
90 c
§ |
C/D
5
C-
80 ~
º
ſº- |
.E 1500 l
-C
-:
7 J Q
tº- |
$º |
60 +: |
*S | 13
50 1 000 XXX XXXX
º
40 i
–49.9 23.8-
|
|
30 i
|
|
i S 00 - # . :
20 | |
•) 5 |
•)
10 206 |
|
0 0– || ||
OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB M A R A PR MAY JUNE JULY AUG SEPT OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB M A R A PR MAY JUNE JULY AUG SEPT
Months of the Year
The quality of ground water is generally very good
with no known sources unsuitable for stock water.
Some of the Mesozoic sedimentaries, however,
Produce water high in hardness and TDS. This water is
Suitable for irrigation, wildlife, or stockwater, but
marginal for human use.
- The greatest consumptive use of water in the area
ls for irrigation and almost all of these needs are
Supplied by surface water. Over 400,000 acres are
irrigated from the average annual flow of about 700,000
acre-feet. Municipal and industrial use account for
most of the remainder. Ground water is used for
ºrrigation, municipal, domestic, and stock water
Purposes but in much smaller amounts.
BLM consumptive uses are miniscule compared to
the total water supply and to uses by others.
^pproximately 45 acre-feet per year are withdrawn
from ground water for livestock, wildlife, and
Tecreational purposes (campground water supplies).
^nnual use of surface water by livestock and wildlife is
°stimated at 5 acre-feet based on water requirements
9' 12.5 gal/day and 3 gal/day per animal, respectively
(see wildlife and livestock sections for present
Tumbers of animals). Total ground water has been es
timated at millions of acre-feet, the annual surface
Water supply at 700,000 acre-feet.
CULTURAL RESOURCES
Archaeology
Known archaeological resources were identified
in the following manner.
1. Data was gathered in a Class 1 inventory which is
continuing by BLM personnel.
2. The State Historic Preservation officer has been
consulted and the Colorado State Inventory (Master
Preservation Plan) has been researched.
3. Individuals with knowledge of the EIS area
archaeological resources were contacted.
4. A research team from the University of Northern
Colorado currently doing a stratified random inventory
of the Raton Basin, which includes part of the EIS area,
was contacted.
Of the 680 archaeological sites identified in the EIS
area, 15 appear to qualify for the National Register and
will be nominated; 3 additional sites will be
investigated further to determine eligibility. The
Brown's Canyon portion of the Arkansas River has
potential to qualify as an Archaeological District. All of
these sites are identified in the Unit Resource Analyses
Months of the Year
(URAs) for both the Raton Basin and the Royal Gorge
Planning Areas.
Types of sites found throughout the EIS area
include: rock art, kill sites, various structures,
"processing" sites, "general" camps, lithic and quarry
sites, tipi rings, wickiups, battle grounds, trails, vision
guest locations and a paleo-astronomic observatory.
All types of sites have been damaged by livestock
(Carmichael and Loendorf, 1976, Fuchs, Kaufman and
Roney, 1977; Johnson, 1977; Gordon 1978, Litzinger,
1975; Roney, no date).
Roughly 4 percent of the EIS area has been
inventoried. At least 50 percent of those sites located in
the Royal Gorge Planning Area are known to have been
disturbed by vandalism, erosion, or livestock. Similar
conditions exist in the northern third of the Raton
Basin Planning Area.
Historic Resources
The principal period of Euro-American settlement
in the Royal Gorge area occurred between 1859 and
the turn of the century, encouraged chiefly by the
discovery and subsequent development of various and
substantial metal ore deposits.

36 — ROYAL GORGE ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT
Gold exploration brought tens of thousands of
people to the northwest section of South Park and to
the headwaters of the Arkansas River between 1859
and 1865. Camps such as Tarryall, Hamilton, Jefferson
City, Buckskin Joe, Fairplay, and Oro City were
established.
Silver mining during the 1870s and 1880s resulted
in the re-emergence of several gold camps and led to
the creation of new town sites such as Alma, Park City,
Montgomery, Granite, and Leadville, the most
spectacular of the state's silver boom towns. In 1879,
over $11,000,000 worth of ore was taken from
Leadville's mines, and by 1880, the carbonate camp
ranked second, only to Denver, in population.
The decline of silver mining, during the 1890s,
resulted in a second wave of gold prospecting and the
emergence of another boom town. From its initial
discovery, in 1891, to 1920 the mines of Cripple Creek
produced more than $300,000,000 worth of gold ore. In
1900, gold production in the Cripple Creek district was
valued at $18,000,000 and the population was
estimated at between thirty and fifty thousand.
A significant outgrowth of this mining activity was
the construction of major railroad lines to the
important mining regions. From 1880 to 1887, Leadville
was linked to eastern terminals by three roads, the
Denver and Rio Grande (D&RG), the Denver, South
Park and Pacific (DSP&P), and the Colorado Midland
railroads. The Florence and Cripple Creek, the Midland
Terminal, and the Colorado Springs and Cripple Creek
District railroads had all reached Cripple Creek and
Victor by 1901.
Railroad construction spurred the advancement of
population centers dependent on activities other than
precious metals mining. Canon City, founded in 1859
as a supply town for the mountain mining camps, also
developed into a coal mining and fruit growing center
by the 1870s. As major stops on the route to Leadville,
Canon City and nearby Florence prospered from
D&RG traffic along the upper Arkansas River valley
after 1880. Florence became a center for regional ore
reduction following the completion of the Florence and
Cripple Creek Railroad in 1894. By the 1890s,
Communities such as Hartsel, the center of South
Park's cattle industry, Salida, and Buena Vista were
provided access to front range and eastern markets
through rail transportation.
As the twentieth century progressed, precious
metals mining declined in emphasis and a more
diversified economic base became established in the
Royal Gorge area. Sheep and cattle ranching,
practiced in South Park and at sections along the
upper Arkansas valley prior to 1900, increased in
significance as the mining activity and interest of the
previous decades subsided. Fruit growing in Fremont
County, particularly in the Canon City area,
experienced similar development. Tourism and
outdoor recreation were important if only seasonal
parts of the region's economy.
Mining subsequently faded somewhat from the
historical picture, but not entirely. Coal and oil
production remained important for a time in the Canon
City-Florence area. Mineral extraction also
experienced a marked change. Cement manufacturing
at Portland and Concrete, begun at the turn of the
century, promoted the mining of lime, silica, iron, and
gypsum. The Climax Molybdenum Company, with
operations north of Leadville, was the world's largest
producer of a rare metal, molybdenum, from 1924 to
1946. By the late 1940s, uranium mining and milling.
began taking place near Canon City.
Upon consultation with the State Historic
Preservation Officer (Colorado State Historical
Society, 1967), and the National Register of Historic
Places, February 6, 1979, and supplements listed to
November 13, 1979, it was found that several sites
TABLE 3-7
SITES LISTED ON THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES (SITES THAT HAVE BEEN
DETERMINED ELIGIBLE FOR INCLUSION ON THE NATIONAL REGISTER) FOUND IN THE EIS AREA
Site Name" County Type of Site Impact Location
Grace Episcopal Church Chaffee Historic None In Buena Vista, CO
Littlejohn Mine Complex Chaffee Historic None
Vicksburg Mining Complex Chaffee Historic None
Hutchinson Ranch Chaffee Historic None
Ohio-Colorado Smelting and
Refining Company Smokestack Chaffee Historic None
Hope Lutheran Church Custer Historic None
Pioneer Cabin El Paso Historic None
Dexter Cabin Lake Historic None In Leadville, CO
Healy House Lake Historic None In Leadville, CO
Interlaken Resort District Lake Historic None
South Park Community Church Park Historic None In Fairplay, CO
South Park Lager Beer Brewery Park Historic None In Fairplay, CO
Summer Saloon Park Historic None In Fairplay, CO
'Federal Register, February 6, 1979 and subsequent volumes through November 13, 1979
(Table 3-7) have been entered on the Register or are
eligible for entry on the Register. None of these sites
would be affected by any of the alternatives.
Paleontology
Paleontological resources have been observed in
several geological formations in the EIS area. The most
significant formation producing dinosaur fossils is the
Morrison formation of the Jurassic age. The Denver
Museum of Natural History is currently excavating and
salvaging dinosaur remains in the Fourmile area, unit
147. Results from this excavation are not available.
VISUAL RESOURCES
The EIS area is located in the Southern Rocky
Mountain physiographic region. Public lands within
the EIS area lie between river bottoms and the higher
coniferous forests. Exceptions are the Cripple Creek,
Waugh Mountain, Kerr Gulch, and Leadville areas,
where public lands include high forested ridges.
Public lands in the EIS area are characteristically
diverse. They include narrow river bottoms, alluvial
fans, eroded foothills, flat-topped mesas, and rolling
ridges. Vegetation includes aspen, fir, ponderosa pine,
pinyon, juniper, mountain shrubs, mixed brush, and
grasses. The vegetation is closely related to elevation
and exposure (see Vegetation, this chapter).
All landscapes have an identifiable character,
regardless of size, location, or land use. This character
is determined by the relationships between four basic
elements: Color, line, form and texture.
The dominant colors in the EIS area, which vary
with the weather and the time of day and year, are the
browns, reds, and greys of soils and rocks and the
greens, yellows, reds, and browns of vegetation.
Occasional blues, greens, and browns are added by
the presence of water. .
Lines are distinct in the layering of soils, changes
in vegetation types, along ridge tops, and in drainage
patterns. Form or topography varies from sheer-walled
Canyons to flat-topped mesas. Texture results from the
different vegetative types and erosion patterns. The
relationships of these four basic elements in the four
landscape features soil, water, vegetation, and
structures—give the EIS area a general landscape
character of natural ruggedness, remoteness, and
openness.
The area is visually quite vulnerable to culture
modifications—any changes to the natural landscape
resulting from the activities of man. Those having the
greatest visual impact are associated with early mining
activities, development of ranches and farms, recent
energy exploration and development and their related
service facilities, and railroads.
Fences are probably the most common intrusion.
Fences that were built by brushing out the fence line
with a bulldozer are the most Obvious.
Sharp lines have also been created by vegetation
manipulation projects such as chaining, spraying, or
plowing followed by seeding along powerline rights-
of-way. These clearings and associated powerlines are
noticeable near Canon City, Wellsville, Salida, and
Leadville.
The magnitude of visual intrusions on public lands
at present is low in comparison to total area and to
private lands within the EIS area. This is due primarily
to the ruggedness and remoteness of the public lands,
management restrictions, population distributions,
and the vast acreage involved.
Visual Resource Management (VRM) classes have
been established for the public lands. The manner in
which they are determined is explained in BLM Manual
Section 8400. Each VRM Class describes a different
degree of acceptable modification in basic elements
(form, line, color, and texture) of the landscape. The
classes are therefore the basis for determining whether
or not a modification would result in a visual impact
and, if so, what appropriate mitigating measures would
be required. Information on the visual classes
determined for the EIS area are available in the Royal
Gorge and Raton Basin Management Framework
Plans. -
FORESTRY
Present estimated sustained yield of forest
products is 1.1 million board feet per year (mbf) of saw
timber and 1.0 mbfoſ woodland products. Saw timber is
usually obtained by commercial thinning and a few
clearcuts on about 600 acres. Ponderosa pine,
lodgepole pine, Douglas-fir, and Englemann spruce
provide the saw timber. An estimated 800 acres of
pinyon and juniper is thinned each year to harvest
woodland products. In the long term (20 years) there
would be about 20,000 acres of coniferous forest in a
regeneration state each year that would be susceptible
to damage by livestock grazing.
WILDERNESS
Eight units are currently being intensively
inventoried for wilderness characteristics. Six of these
units have over 5,000 acres of roadless land. The High
Mesa Grassland Natural Area is required by Section
603 of FLPMA to automatically become an Instant
Study Area, while the Crystal Falls unit is being
considered because it adjoins Forest Service lands
being considered for wilderness (Table 3-8).
The Colordo BLM State Director will make a
decision by February 1980 on which land will be
returned to multiple use management. After a period of
public comment On his decision, a final decision will be
made on which lands should be returned to multiple
use management, sometime around September 1980.
Lands not released to multiple use management
(Wilderness Study Areas) will receive interim
management to protect wilderness values until
Congress makes the final decision on their status.
FLOOD PLAINS/FLOOD
HAZARD EVALUATION
Flood hazard depends on the amount of human
occupancy in conjunction with the probability of a
flood-inducing storm. Virtually every perennial and
ephemeral stream channel in the entire EIS area is
subject to flash flooding. Changes in grazing
management would have virtually no effect on the
susceptibility of these streams to flooding because
their influence would be enormously overshadowed by
that of geology, topography, and the characteristics of
localized storm occurrence. Changes in flood runoff
attributable to each alternative are indicated by unit in
Appendix G.
TABLE 3-8
CHAPTER THREE – 37
INTENSIVE WILDERNESS INVENTORY UNITS
Inventory Unit No.
and Name
Approximate Acreage
General Location
CO-050-002 6,468
Brown's Canyon
CO-050-009 680
High Mesa Grassland
CO-050-013 15,063
McIntyre Hills
CO-050-014 10,937
Lower Grape Creek
CO-050-010 12,950
Bear Mountain
CO-050-016 21,140
Beaver Creek
CO-050-017 11,080
Upper Grape Creek
CO-050-033 160
Crystal Falls
Total 83,868
South of Buena Vista
(Chaffee County)
Northwest of Canon City
High Mesa Instant Study Area
(Fremont County)
Southwest of Canon City
(Fremont County)
West of Canon City
(Fremont County)
North of Cotopaxi
(Fremont County)
Northeast of Canon City
(Teller, Fremont & El Paso Counties)
Southwest of Canon City
(Fremont & Custer Counties)
Southwest of Westcliffe
(Custer County)
AIR OUALITY
Air Quality throughout the EIS area is good. Low
populations and lack of extensive manufacturing and
industry account for reasonably good quality air. The
EIS area lies within Colorado Air Quality Control
Region 4 and air pollution data is based on
nondesignated area standards. Sampling in Canon
City over a 1-year period (1976) showed suspended
particulate matter at a mean of 56 micrograms per
cubic meter (ug/m3) (Colorado Air Pollution Control
Commission 1977), which is below the 75 ug/m Federal
primary and state standards.
Canon City is the only recording station located in
the EIS area. Due to insufficient data, no conclusions
nor further observations can be accurately projected
concerning air pollution problems in the EIS area. No
significant deterioration of air quality is expected from
range management activities in the EIS area, however.
38 – ROYAL GORGE ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT
CHAPTER 4
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
INTRODUCTION
None of the alternatives would have impacts on
minerals, lands, historic resources, wild horses,
wilderness, climate, air quality, and threatened and
endangered flora and fauna. For this reason they were
not included in the following discussion.
To avoid repetition, a full analysis of impacts
appears only in the Preferred Alternative and brief
summary discriptions of impacts are presented for the
Other alternatives.
There was no detailed study on which alternative
would be the most efficient in conserving energy, but
some general observations are possible. The
Management Constraints and Elimination of Grazing
Alternatives would require large amounts of fencing
(2,000 miles and 10,000 miles, respectively) and
therefore large expenditures of energy for
COnStruction and maintenance. This would waste
energy because fencing would yield few benefits to the
grazing management program.
The No Action and Nonintensive Alternatives
would involve no rangeland projects and limited
fencing, respectively, so implementation of either
alternative would be conservative of energy but at the
expense of resource development.
The Preferred Alternative would require project
development somewhere between the two levels
described above. There would be optimum
achievement of resource potentials in the long run and
energy expenditure would fall somewhere between the
higher level required in the Management Constraints
and Elimination of Grazing Alternatives and the lower
one for No Action or Nonintensive Management. From
a resource development standpoint, the Preferred
Alternative is more balanced than NO Action,
Nonintensive, or Elimination of Grazing and equal to
the Management Constraints Alternative.
Description of impacts of the Preferred Alternative
on resources follows, in order of diminishing
consequence. This order is different from that of
Chapter 3, Affected Environment, for which a different
format is required. Long-term impacts for each
alternative are summarized in Table 2-5 at the end of
Chapter 2.
ASSUMPTIONS AND ANALYSIS
GUIDELINES
1. The Preferred Alternative would be implemented
beginning in the spring of 1981.
2. BLM would have the funds and manpower available
to implement the proposal.
3. Baseline data for vegetation condition, trend, and
production is the most reliable data currently available.
Available data was used whenever it was applicable
and extrapolated to areas for which no data was
available.
4. Licensed use was used instead Of active livestock
qualifications in tabular displays. There may be a small
difference between the two, but it was not deemed
significant for the purpose of impact assessment.
5. Allotment Management Plans (AMPs) in the EIS area
would be written during 1981-82. Site-specific
Environmental Assessment (EAs), formerly called
Environmental Assessment Reports (EARs), would be
written to assess site-specific impacts of each AMP.
6. Construction of improvements (wells, springs,
pipelines, fences, etc.) would be completed by
September 30, 1986.
7. Implementation of AMPs and grazing systems would
not be contingent on carrying out land treatments such
as thinning, burning, plowing, etc. Land treatments
would be carried Out On a timetable indicated in each
AMP, which in many instances would extend beyond
September 30, 1986.
8. Livestock operators would have up to 3 years to
adjust their ranching operations and reach the
moderate stocking level. Final levels of grazing use
would be adjusted based on utilization studies and
actual use data.
9. Forage increases over and above present livestock
Qualifications would be allotted in future updates of the
appropriate Management Framework Plan (MFP).
Increases up to this point, indicated by annual
utilization and actual use studies, would not require
MFP updates.
10. Management of grazing would be done to
guarantee forage on a sustained-yield basis.
Reductions in grazing would produce short-term
adverse impacts in terms of forage availability but
eventually would provide better forage on a sustained-
yield basis for livestock production.
11. Management status of some management units
may change after implementation of the EIS. For
example, during subsequent evaluations in future
MFPs, some units managed nonintensively may be
changed to intensive management. These changes
would likely be minor with respect to their effect on
overall impacts. Assessment of impacts is sufficiently
general to allow for this type of change.
12. Short-term impacts are those that would occur 5
years after full implementation of the rangeland
management program. Long-term impacts are those
projected for 20 years after implementation.
13. AMPs, including land treatments and range
improvement projects, would not be developed in
intensive wilderness study areas until a final decision
On their wilderness status has been made.
14. BLM will verify the level of impacts and monitor and
evaluate AMPs after they are implemented so that
necessary adjustments in those plans not meeting
multiple use objectives can be made.
15. Proposed conifer thinnings complement forestry
recommendations made in the Royal Gorge MFP and
would be carried out under Supervision of RGRA
foresters.
PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
Impacts on Vegetation
The Preferred Alternative would, in general, be
beneficial to vegetation. Livestock would be more
evenly distributed over suitable range and certain key
species more desirable to livestock as forage would
improve significantly in vigor and production in the
Short term.
Impacts on Vegetative Types
Vegetative types would not significantly change as
a result of grazing treatments or rest standards. Key
species would recover vigor and complete their
reproductive functions and the percent composition of
key species relative to the whole vegetative community
would increase slightly over the long term (Cook,
1979). Specific objectives for key species composition
would be established when individual AMPs are
developed. Vegetative types in poor condition may
realize a change in dominant species, but a significant
change would only occur over an extended term of 25
to 50 years.
Implementation of a rest standard would allow
desirable herbaceous species in riparian zones to
regain vigor and production and increase in density.
Vegetation immediately adjacent to streams would not
be expected to improve, however, since livestock and
big game would continue to trample and cause
sloughing of the banks. Locally, this has been
observed in the Texas Creek study area, prior to
elimination of grazing there in 1976.
In 2 miles of riparian habitat that would be fenced
and in all exclosures woody species would be expected
to re-establish themselves. Re-establishment in
riparian areas that are not protectively fenced would be
in doubt (see Vegetation).
Plowing and seeding would convert 200 acres of
shrubland to grassland. Burning would convert 4,900
acres of the Gambel oak subtype to a Gambel Oak-
grass subtype. Dense conifer or pinyon-juniper (PJ)
types on 18,530 acres would be thinned to encourage
understory production (Carder, 1977). For example, a
mature PJ stand would be thinned, creating a PJ-
needle-and-thread-Indian ricegrass type as a result of
understory response (Barney and Frischknecht, 1974).
There would be a short-term loss of vegetation on
93 to 271 acres scattered over 159 sites and a long-term
loss of vegetation on 47 to 152 acres due to
construction of various range improvement projects.
These losses would be very small and would be offset
by benefits resulting from the improvements. For
example, new water developments would be placed to
attract livestock away from overused existing water
sources, allowing areas around them to improve in
vigor, composition, and production (Vallentine, 1971).
A tabulation of rangeland treatments and facilities
appears in Appendix Table B-5.
Impacts on Condition
Range condition would improve with proper
management (Humphrey, 1962; Stoddart et al., 1975).
Rate of improvement depends on the current vigor and
percent composition of desirable plant species on
rangeland (Humphrey, 1962; Vallentine, 1971). Five
years or more are necessary for desirable plant species
to regain enough vigor to produce seed at a normal
rate; more time is needed in drier climates. Beyond
this, several more years are necessary before an
increase in percent composition of desirable plants
would be noticed (Stoddart and Smith, 1955). Because
of the generally poor range condition, scattered
sporadic moisture patterns, and low vigor and percent
composition of desirable species, improvement in
range condition classes would not be anticipated
during the long term (20 years) (McLean and Tisdale,
1972 by Trlica et al., 1977).
Land treatments would expedite improvement in
range condition. In some cases, land treatments would
be used for partial conversion of the vegetative
community to new vegetative types. In other cases,
conversion would be complete. Land treatment for
partial vegetation conversion (burning or thinning)
followed by proper management would be expected to
improve range to good condition. Partial conversion
could achieve at least 50 percent composition of
desirable vegetative species (Pase and Granfelt, 1977;
Vallentine, 1971). Complete conversion through
plowing followed by seeding would improve a site to
excellent condition. Desirable vegetative species
would reach over 75 percent of total vegetative
composition. Such good results are likely because
only sites with the highest productive potential would
be chosen for land treatment (Stoddart et al., 1975).
As a result of land treatment, 200 acres would be
improved to excellent condition and 23,430 acres
would be improved to good condition. Riparian zones
would not improve in condition class. Increases in
percent composition of herbaceous vegetation on the
Texas Creek site might suggest the contrary but
improved composition alone is not enough to improve
riparian's condition class. Reproduction of woody
riparian species would have to occur also, and it would
not without a grazing exclosure.
For range condition objectives, see Appendix B,
Table B-1.
Impacts on Trend
Change in vegetative cover is commonly used as
one of the basic indicators of apparent trend in range
condition (Humphrey, 1962). Given a small change in
cover, other indicators such as composition and
reproduction will also show small changes in the same
direction. For the purpose of analysis, cover was used
as the major indicator of apparent trend.
The predicted increase in total live vegetative
cover of 2.7 percent is not large, but it is a significant
increase (12 percent) over current total live cover.
Given such a small change, significant improvement of
apparent trend in range condition would not be
expected within the 20 years that represents the "long
term" for this EIS.
Implementing proposed grazing treatments and
rest standards would allow the vigor of desirable plant
species to improve significantly in the short term
(Stoddart and Smith, 1955). They are more
competitive, long-lived, and adapted. If they are not
continually overgrazed but are allowed to complete
their physiological growth requirements their
seedlings would eventually become established
(Mueller-Dombois and Ellenberg, 1974).
Downward apparent trend should at least be
arrested and Stable condition achieved on 270,781
acres of public lands over the long term. Principally
responsible for this change would be intensive
management and elimination of grazing. Elimination of
grazing on some units should stabilize condition there.
Cover on the 77 intensively managed units would be
expected to increase by 1 to 5 percent in 20 years (see
Appendix Table B-2).
Rangeland treatments followed by proper
management could significantly increase ground
CHAPTER FOUR – 39
is excluded (top photograph).
NATURAL WOODLAND EXPANSION REDUCES PRODUCTION
OF GRASSLANDS
As pinyon and juniper become larger, they intercept more and more light and water.
A duff layer of needles accumulates underneath, making the ground unsuitable for
germination and growth of understory plants.
As pinyon and juniper are removed (e.g., through
burning and thinning) and the duff is broken up, water and light are allowed to
reach the soil surface and understory plants receive sufficient light and nutrients
to grow. Forage plants will predominate (lower photograph).
Ultimately, most other vegetation
cover on treated areas (Stoddart and Smith, 1955).
These cover values could not be computed, however,
because cover values used for analysis were a
weighted average for an entire unit. Rangeland
treatments and facilities would aid in improving
livestock distribution and enhance the effects of
grazing treatments, rest standards, and proper
stocking levels on apparent trend.
The apparent trend in condition of riparian zones
would stabilize. Two years of nonuse on the Texas
Creek site has shown that woody riparian species will
not otherwise reproduce. Without reproduction of
woody species condition of riparian zones would not
improve (Platts and Roundtree, 1972).
The establishment of continuing trend studies
prior to implementation would allow at least 5 years to
evaluate actual trend in range condition.
Impacts on Production
The generally low vigor of forage species in this
EIS area is significantly affecting production.
Ungrazed plants are two or more times the size of
repeatedly grazed plants or, stated another way,
production is less than half of potential. More precise
data on production increases is not possible without
specific measurement of relative plant size.
Nevertheless, given the 5 years necessary for forage
species to regain full vigor (Stoddart and Smith, 1955),
production could double. The overall increase in
production projected for public rangelands was 50
percent, however, because a large amount of
vegetation on the surveyed range occurred on
sideslopes, ridges, and mountaintops. This vegetation
is not as low in vigor as that occurring on more
accessible range so production could not improve as
much (Stoddart and Smith, 1955).

40 – ROYAL GORGE ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT
Rangeland improvement facilities would not be
expected to increase production directly but would be
supplemental in achieving the projected increase due
to intensive management.
Vegetative treatment of low forage-producing,
high-potential sites (through plowing and seeding,
burning, and thinning) would be expected to provide
an additional 3,036 AUMs of forage (Wright, 1976,
Vallentine, 1971; Carder, 1977).
An overall forage increase from 7,031 AUMs to
13,582 AUMs would occur on intensively managed
units in the long term.
Appendix Table B-1 describes objectives and
treatments for specific management units.
Methodologies for predicting production increases are
also found in Appendix B.
Conclusion
Impacts of the Preferred Alternative on vegetation
would be beneficial. Key species would recover vigor
and complete their reproductive functions; percent
composition of key species would increase slightly on
rangelands. This would also occur in riparian areas,
except that woody species would re-establish
themselves only where exclosures were used.
Range condition would improve, but noticeable
improvement would not be expected within 20 years
without land treatment (burning, plowing, or thinning).
Downward trend in range condition would be arrested
and stable condition achieved in the long term. Cover
would be expected to increase 1 to 5 percent.
Production would increase about 50 percent in the
short term. An overall forage increase from 7,031
AUMs to 13,582 AUMs would occur in the long term.
Impacts on Livestock
The Preferred Alternative would initially reduce
active qualifications on intensively managed units
from 23,548 AUMS to 7,031 AUMs. A reduction from
15,434 AUMs to 7,181 would take place on
nonintensively managed units and from 387 AUMs to 0
AUMs on units where grazing would be eliminated.
This is a total reduction of 25,157 AUMs (64 percent),
from 39,369 to 14,212 AUMs. The estimated 14,212
AUMs of usable livestock forage on public lands is only
1 percent of the total forage produced in the EIS area.
Adjustments in use by units are shown in Appendix B,
Table B-1.
Livestock operators on the intensive management
units would become more dependent on other lands
until forage production increases were realized on 72
units. If other lands these operators control could not
support the 16,517 AUM's reduction on public lands,
some operators would have to buy, rent, or lease
additional pasturage or feed some of their livestock.
Operators on 42 units would be required to change
from spring-summer grazing to fall grazing on public
lands.
There would be no impacts on operators of
nonintensively managed units because reductions
would reflect the amount of forage currently being
harvested.
Increased vegetative vigor and production as a
result of intensive management would provide more
nutritious forage and make more forage available for
livestock. Fewer livestock would be grazed but this
would be somewhat offset by higher production per
animal (Oxley, 1975; Martin, 1978).
Cattle tend to graze where they drink.
PROPERLY PLACED WATER FACILITIES PROMOTE BETTER LIVESTOCK
DISTRIBUTION
Where several sources of water are available,
cattle will tend to distribute themselves more evenly.
vegetation around a single water source. In this photograph, even though cattle are con-
gregated near the water facility, surrounding vegetation has not been overgrazed.
This prevents overuse of
In some cases operators on intensive management
units would require better management practices such
as closer herd monitoring, record keeping, and proper
husbandry techniques. These plus extra herding of
cattle and maintenance of proposed range facilities
would cause higher operating costs.
The proposed water projects would improve
livestock distribution within units and reduce the
amount of time and energy livestock spent traveling to
water (Vallentine, 1971). Stocking at proper levels
would also reduce grazing pressure in areas that have
been overutilized. These measures would result in a
small but unquantifiable improvement in livestock
condition and production (Stoddart, et al., 1975). An
additional 1,515 AUMS would be available in the short-
term through rangeland management, increasing
livestock production (Vallentine, 1971). Fencing would
help in administration of grazing on public land by
allowing BLM easier detection of trespass.
Approximately 6,551 AUMs of additional livestock
forage would be expected to become available on the
intensively managed units in the long term (20 years).
Due to dietary overlap, some of this increase would be
consumed by wildlife (Hansen and Reid, 1975).
Conclusion
The Preferred Alternative would reduce allocated
vegetation to livestock by a total of 64 percent through
intensive and non intensive management and
elimination of grazing. To accommodate changes on
intensively managed units, some operators might have
to buy, rent, or lease additional pasturage or feed some
of their livestock. Operators of nonintensively
managed units would not be impacted because
reductions would merely reflect current grazing
capacity on those lands.
Increased vegetative vigor and production as a
result of management would provide more nutritious
forage and make more forage available for livestock.
Proposed water projects would improve livestock
distribution within units and reduce the amount of time
and energy livestock spent traveling to water.
Management would also reduce grazing pressure in
areas that have been overutilized in the past. On
intensively managed units, an additional 1,515 AUMs
would become available in the short term and 6,551
more AUMs in the long term.
Impacts on Wildlife
The Preferred Alternative would be slightly
beneficial to wildlife habitat (Table 4-1). Providing a
rest standard for forage plants and reducing livestock
use to a moderate level would change range trend,
increase vegetative cover and species diversity, quality
and quantity of nesting and escape cover, and supply
of forage for wildlife. As shown in Table 4–2, greater
forage production resulting from intensive
management would help meet big game needs
projected by the DOW although meeting these needs is
not a formal goal of BLM wildlife management.
Studies indicate that in the long term, wildlife
habitat benefits when a grazing system is implemented
on suitable livestock range (Skovlin et al., 1968). Steger
(1970) noted that moderate grazing can improve a
range. As older, less efficient plant material is used, the
younger plant parts will produce a more efficient
growth, especially if given a rest. This improvement in
the quality of forage along with the increased quantity
should produce better overall habitat conditions.
Impacts on Mule Deer
Livestock compete with wildlife, especially the
larger herbivores such as deer, elk, and antelope, for
food. Wadle (1962) and Muchmore (1969) report that
90 percent or more of a deer's diet in the spring is made
up of grass species. Mackie (1978) found that the diets
of domestic and wild ungulates are often very similar in

TABLE 4-1
IMPACT RATINGS FOR THE PREFERRED
CHAPTER FOUR – 41
ALTERNATIVE ON VARIOUS BIG GAME AND WILDLIFE SPECIES
ASSOCATIONS ON PUBLIC LANDS"
Big Game Wildlife Species Association?
Riparian
Mule Bighorn and Mountain
Deer Elk Antelope Sheep Broadleaf Shrub Conifer Grassland
Grazing Use:
AUMs at time of implementation 4 4 3 3 1 4 3 4
AUMs at 5 years 4 4 3 3 1 4 3 4
AUMs at 20 years 4 4 3 4 1 4 3 4
Period of use (rest standard) 5 5 5 3 2 2 2 5
Management Facilities:
Storage tanks (water) 3 3 3 3 4 3 3 4
Pipeline (water) 3 3 3 3 4 3 3 4
Reservoirs 2 2 3 2 4 3 3 4
Water troughs 3 2 3 2 4 3 3 4
Spring developments 3 2 3 2 4 3 3 4
Rainfall catchments 3 2 3 2 4 3 3 4
Wells (water) 3 2 3 2 4 3 3 4
Brushland plowing 2 3 2 3 3 2 3 4
Prescribed burning 4 4 3 4 3 4 2 4
Selective thinning 5 3 3 3 3 4 2 4
Fencing 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4
Land Actions:
Disposal 2 2 3 3 2 2 2 2
Acquisition 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 4
Access 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3
Administration:
Allotment COmbination 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 4
Totals 64 59 58 55 58 61 55 75
Elements considered 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19
Rating 3.4 3.1 3.0 2.9 3.0 3.2 2.9 3.9
Average impact rating
for whole alternative 3.2
"The rating system is as follows:
1 = Most significant adverse impact
2 = Adverse impact
3 = Minor or no impact
4 = Beneficial impact
5 = Most significant beneficial impact
*See Royal Gorge URA Step II, Animals, for list of animals by preferred habitat sites.
*arly spring when both tend to seek out new, rapidly
9°owing grasses and forbs on similar range sites. He
*So found that during this period nutritional needs,
*Specially of pregnant females, are very high and
*ubstantial quantities of new green plants are required.
Where competition is intense, there are changes in
"stribution, population size, and growth and survival
"ates adverse to wildlife. This need not be the case.
CKean and Bartman (1971) found that under
"oderate stocking, livestock daily gains were
"naffected by moderate grazing of mule deer.
Competition between mule deer and livestock
"ould generally be reduced on the 77 intensive units as
* result of reduced livestock use. There would be no
$9mpetition during the spring on 42 of these units
°Cause livestock would be grazed after the growing
Season.
Affects of land treatments such as the proposed
brushland plowing, prescribed burning, and selective
thinning are difficult to evaluate because exact
location, vegetative composition, Slope, and other
pertinent data would not be determined until AMPs are
written.
Plowing often kills native plants, especially highly
preferred forbs (Yokum, 1977). Up to 200 acres of
habitat, none of it critical, would suffer a loss of
preferred forbs.
Selective thinning on 18,530 acres in forested
areas and woodlands would improve habitat for deer.
Shrub and other forage production would be increased
without destroying escape Cover as these plants are
"released" when the overstory is removed, giving them
more light and water.
Prescribed burning on 4,900 acres could create a
more favorably mixed community of grasses, forbs,
and shrubs as well as setting back overaged, dominate
shrubs (Beardall and Sylvester, 1973). Where pinyon-
juniper would be removed, the density of grasses,
forbs, and shrubs would be higher which is favorable to
mule deer.
The addition and improvement of 67 water sources
WOuld result in better Overall livestock distribution,
providing a more uniform grazing pattern and reducing
heavy use around existing water sources. Water
developments for livestock would also benefit wildlife,
but greater competition between livestock and wildlife
for forage could result in some areas. New water
facilities extend livestock into areas that have
previously received little use or have only been
seasonally grazed. Some of these might be important
wildlife habitat. The degree of impacts, both beneficial
42 – ROYAL GORGE ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT
TABLE 4-2
PROJECTED FORAGE PRODUCTION IN RELATION TO PROJECTED BIG GAME
NEEDS WITHIN THE INTENSIVELY MANAGED UNITS (ON PUBLIC LANDS)"
Difference
Between
e Minimum Increased Needed
Mule Deer (AUMs) Elk (AUMs) Bighorn Sheep (AUMs) Needed Forage Increase
Existing DOW Minimum Existing DOW Minimum Existing DOW Minimum For Mule Objectives Projection
Management Use Projected Needed Use Projected Needed Use Projected Needed Deer, Elk at 20 Yrs. Objectives
Unit Level? Needs” Increase" Level? Needs” Increase" Level? Needs* Increase" Sheep” (AUMs)* (AUMs)7
12 174 228 54 64 69 5 sº-º: &Eº &=ºge 59 61 2
23 5 6 1 *º sº- wºme * Gºº *-ºs 1 69 68
58 6 8 2 30 32 2 &= * = Eº 4 8 4
61 77 101 24 225 243 18 *= Gº-º º 42 46 4
66 121 158 37 178 192 14 * Eº *E tº 51 81 30
68 218 286 68 4 4 *E* *ºme tº me. *E= 68 61 –7
75 106 139 33 wº e-8 gº º º tº-ºº: 33 98 65
91 11 14 3 33 36 3 tºº tº- º 6 8 2
95 18 24 6 e-º-º-º-º: *E* mººse wº * sºme 6 22 16
96 13 17 4 sº sº e-8 * º *E= 4 5 1
97 77 101 24 sºme &= sº sº-ºº: ºms &_- 24 135 111
98 54 71 17 ---> * --> * sº tº-º-º-º: * --> 17 12 –5
99 22 29 7 sº *= * = * tºº * 13 102 85
100 6 8 2 e- sº --- 11 17 5 2 22 20
105 39 51 12 e- * º * sºme *ºme 12 17 5
117 38 50 12 sº- sº sº 12 18 6 18 16 –2
118 50 65 15 20 22 2 26 40 14 31 26 –5
126 42 55 13 * sº * -º 15 23 8 21 75 34
127 206 270 64 sº sº sºme 88 135 47 111 99 -12
128 47 62 15 e-ºº-º sº sº * gºe º 15 2 –13
133 17 22 5 * * * -º * * *-* 5 196 181
134 2 2 * * * sº sº * &- sº 3 3
136 1 1 14 3 sº *= e- * º- *º 3 6 3
137 14 18 4 {-º º tº-º-º: *-ºs *º-º-º: º 4 6 2
138 47 62 15 sº * 3- 37 57 20 35 230 195
139 5 6 1 sº sº sº 3 5 2 3 15 12
140 82 107 25 * --> sº *Eºgº 10 15 5 30 30 Gº
141 130 170 40 * sº tº- 10 15 5 45 73 28
142 66 87 21 sº 8-9 *- sº * tº- 21 40 19
143 12 16 4 * tº-º-º-º: {-} mº, * --> {- 4 23 19
146 9 11 2 tºº-º-º: 4-> * * tº- sºme 2 5 3
147 37 48 11 sº tº- &- &= * sº 11 242 231
148 8 10 2 sº e- * --> * gº * 2 2 emº
149 60 79 19 sº e- * * tº- * 19 121 102
150 52 68 16 sº <--> sºmº *E= &= sºme 16 45 29
155 79 103 24 *Eºs e- sºme sº sº *-*- 24 55 29
156 44 58 14 * * --> e- {-> sº * 14 10 –4
158 63 82 19 tº- {- 4-> sºme sº sº- 19 40 21
165 115 151 36 210 227 17 * tºº º 53 62 9
166 51 67 16 76 79 3 * º tº- 19 41 22
167 50 65 15 100 108 8 * sº sºme 23 16 –7
168 10 13 3 140 151 11 wº º sº 14 43 19
169 14 18 4 125 135 10 º-º-º: sºme e-º-º- 14 98 84
170 25 33 8 25 27 2 *--> *-* * = 10 36 26
"Because of computer limitation antelope needs were not included.
*Existing use level was determined using Division of Wildlife current estimates of big game populations.
*Minimal projected needs for forage determined using the Division of Wildlife's long range projections of wildlife numbers for 1983. These numbers are projected to remain
stable after 1983.
“Minimal needed increases are the difference between the existing use level and minimal projected needs.
*Minimal needed increases for mule deer, elk, and bighorn sheep are the sum of the minimal needed increases for each species.
*Increased forage projection objectives at 20 years are BLM objectives for increases in forage production on public land in 20 years.
7Increased forage production objectives are compared to forage needs for wildlife calculated from DOW's projected big game populations for 1983, which are predicted to
remain stable thereafter. Forage production for wildlife on public lands is not expected to be sufficient to meet these projected requirements until 20 years after
implementation of the preferred alternative.
CHAPTER FOUR – 43
TABLE 4-2 (Cont.)
PROJECTED FORAGE PRODUCTION IN RELATION TO PROJECTED BIG GAME
NEEDS WITHIN THE INTENSIVELY MANAGED UNITS (ON PUBLIC LANDS)
Difference
Between
Mule Deer (AUMs) Elk (AUMs) Bighorn Sheep (AUMs) '...' º .
Existing DOW Minimum Existing DOW Minimum Existing DOW Minimum For Mule Objectives Projection
Management Use Projected Needed USe Projected Needed Use Projected Needed Deer, Elk at 20 Yrs. Objectives
Unit Level? Needs? Increase" Level? Needs? increase" Level? Needs? Increase" Sheep” (AUMs)* (AUMs)?
171 8 11 3 * e- sº sº- * {-> 3 3 º->
172 21 27 6 * 4-8 º &= tº- tº- 6 35 29
173 12 16 4 11 12 1 4-º e- *E*º-º: 5 13 8
177 12 16 4 {-º-º-º-º: *- tº-º-º-e e- e- 4- 4 2 –2
187 91 119 28 * * sº sº *= * --> 28 70 42
189 56 73 17 º * --> e---> 8- 4- * 17 10 –7
190 127 166 39 sº * * - 15 23 8 47 99 52
191 252 330 78 10 11 1 115 176 61 140 105 –35
192 468 615 145 tº-º * g- 12 18 6 151 566 4.15
193 674 883 209 *-º-º-º: * tº- *= &=> * 209 404 195
193A 3 4 1 * *ºs :- * --> tº-º-º-º: * 1 2 1
194 50 65 15 sº º sº * e- sº 15 59 44
195 27 35 8 sºme * tº-3 tº-3 sº s== 8 7 – 1
196 26 34 8 * * g- egºs * s== 8 1 –7
197 658 862 204 129 139 10 * -º * * 214 950 736
198 227 297 70 5 5 *º * 4-8 *= 70 43 –27
199 179 234 55 º * tº-º-º: 23 35 12 67 4-3 –67
200 38 50 12 º tºº 4-> * tº- e- 12 * - – 12
202 306 401 95 * *= 3- * tº-º-º: 3- 95 4-> –95
204 102 134 32 75 81 6 tº- 8- tº- 38 67 29
213 51 67 16 37 40 3 e- {-, * 19 29 10
216 469 614 145 469 506 37 * tº- e- 182 48 -134
217 500 655 155 625 675 50 * tº- *--> 205 29 – 176
222 51 67 16 * tººs * * *E=º tº- 16 99 83
224 267 350 83 sºme &ºm= *E= e- * -> 83 56 –27
225 11 14 3 sº º-> * tº- * e- 3 9 6
227 227 297 70 * wº- * 8--> sº sºme 70 342 272
230 188 246 58 13 14 1 * -º *mme sº-º-º-º-º: 59 142 83
231 76 100 24 * sº * * * * 24 233 209
233 73 96 23 3 3 cº- tº- * <-- 23 145 102
237 400 524 124 * - º- *=º * &- * 124 314 190
238 46 60 14 sºme * *-*. tº- sºme tº- 14 75 61
243 190 249 59 N 21 23 2 4- sº sº-º-º: 61 258 197
TOTAL 77 8,220 10,712 2,543 2,592 2,834 206 377 588 199 2,948 6,551 3,616
'Because of computer limitation antelope needs were not included.
*Existing use level was determined using Division of Wildlife current estimates of big game populations.
*Minimal projected needs for forage determined using the Division of Wildlife's long range projections of wildlife numbers for 1983. These numbers are projected to remain
stable after 1983.
“Minimal needed increases are the difference between the existing use level and minimal projected needs.
*Minimal needed increases for mule deer, elk, and bighorn sheep are the sum of the minimal needed increases for each species.
*Increased forage projection objectives at 20 years are BLM objectives for increases in forage production on public land in 20 years.
"Increased forage production objectives are compared to forage needs for wildlife calculated from DOW's projected big game populations for 1983, which are predicted to
remain stable thereafter. Forage production for wildlife on public lands is not expected to be sufficient to meet these projected requirements until 20 years after
implementation of the preferred alternative.
44 – ROYAL GORGE ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT
and adverse, would be addressed in individual AMPS
on a site-by-site basis.
Fencing would have impacts similar to
development of water in terms of influencing livestock
distribution and range use. Fences also constitute
physical barriers to normal mule deer movement.
Regardless of design or construction, some loss of life
and disruption of movement would be unavoidable, but
would be expected to be minor (Papez, 1976). BLM
wildlife biologists estimate that five mule deer per year
would become entangled in fences and die.
The Preferred Alternative would improve 58,431
acres of mule deer habitat and degrade 10,500 acres
(Appendix H-2). Degradation would result from certain
land treatments and management facilities. Deer
would not be totally eliminated from these 10,500
acres, but would be excluded temporarily, possibly as
long as the life of the project. In all, 68,931 acres out of
455,000 acres of mule deer habitat in the EIS area could
be impacted. This area is relatively small, but 17,000 of
the acres that would be improved are critical spring
and summer range. Mule deer population would be
expected to increase in response to more favorable
habitat. This improvement would be offset later by
losses of habitat on private lands due to other
conflicting human uses which would diminish the
overall carrying capacity of big game range.
Impacts on Elk
The Preferred Alternative would improve the
quantity and quality of elk forage and cover.
Hansen and Reid (1975) found that cattle and elk
diets overlap 30 to 50 percent in spring and summer,
suggesting the competition for food can be intense
during that time and could limit elk use.
Aside from this competition, which occurs mainly
during the growing season of plants (spring-summer),
livestock use during summer (after growing season)
could benefit elk. Anderson and Scherinzinger (1975)
found that cattle grazing during summer improve the
quality of forage which elk use during winter. Under
the Preferred Alternative, livestock use would be
reduced during the growing season on 11
management units that have elk habitat, thereby
reducing competition but maintaining some beneficial
grazing. On 10 other management units, competition
would be eliminated altogether by grazing livestock
after the growing season (after August 10).
Studies indicate that in the long term wildlife
habitat benefits when a grazing system is implemented
on suitable livestock range. Steger (1970) noted that
moderate grazing can improve range. As older, less
efficient plant material is used, younger plant parts will
produce a more efficient growth, especially if given a
rest. By allowing the more palatable key forage species
to complete their growth cycle more high quality
forage would be available for grazing herbivores. In
addition, this would improve overall habitat conditions
for elk (Table 4-2).
Brushland plowing of 200 acres is not within elk
habitat and would not impact elk.
Selective thinning would improve the quality of
some elk habitat. Good elk cover on 1,060 acres of
conifer on six sites would be maintained while
improving forage production. Prescribed burning on
l,000 acres on four sites would create a more favorably
mixed community of grasses, forbs, and shrubs as well
as setting back overaged, dominate shrubs.
Adding and improving 67 water sources for
livestock would result in better Overall livestock
distribution, but elk would not benefit directly by new
water sources. The availability of water would extend
livestock into areas that have previously received little
grazing use and would, in some cases, increase
competition between livestock and wildlife for forage.
The degree of impact, both beneficial and adverse,
would be addressed in the individual AMPS On a site-
by-site basis.
Out Of 96,200 acres of elk habitat in the EIS area,
8,141 acres would be improved while 1,000 acres would
be degraded (Appendix Table H-2).
Some increases in elk numbers would be expected
the first few years following implementation but would
be offset later by losses unrelated to grazing
management.
Impacts on Bighorn Sheep
The Preferred Alternative would not generally
improve sheep habitat and could degrade part of it if
areas receiving little livestock use at present were
grazed more heavily, thereby increasing competition
with bighorn sheep (Table 4-2).
Cattle do not generally graze areas inhabited by
sheep because they are often remote, mountainous,
and rocky and because, in the case of this EIS area,
areas that are accessible to livestock Often lack water.
Therefore, changes in grazing management would
probably not greatly affect bighorn sheep habitat.
However, development of water facilities for livestock
could attract sheep and result in more competition
instead of a more uniform use of resources. The degree
of impact, both beneficial and adverse, would be
addressed in the individual AMPs on a site-by-site
basis.
Selectively thinning 2,010 acres of pinyon-juniper
would improve habitat for sheep. Shrub and other
forage production would increase.
Prescribed burning on 100 acres would remove
pinyon-juniper and create a more mixed community of
grasses, forbs, and shrubs favorable to sheep as well as
setting back overaged, dominate shrubs.
Providing additional water and producing new
forage by thinning and burning could improve 2,276
acres of sheep habitat (Appendix Table H-I and H-2).
Other facilities would degrade 30 acres. Heavier cattle
use in existing sheep habitat could increase
competition but the effect of this cannot be quantified.
Impacts on Antelope
The Preferred Alternative would have little impact
on antelope since very little (less than 5 percent) of
their habitat is on public land (Table 4-2). Only three
units proposed for intensive management contain
antelope habitat.
Reducing stocking rates, providing a rest standard
for forage plants, and reducing competition in spring
would not increase the amount of forage available to
antelope when it is a limiting factor in habitat viability.
Forage availability is a problem in winter and antelope
do not generally use public land then.
Providing additional water sources in South Park
could benefit antelope during late summer but this
would not significiantly improve their habitat nor
increase their numbers.
No land treatments are proposed in antelope
habitat.
Impacts on Riparian-Broadleaf-Associated
Species
Under the Preferred Alternative, intensive
management would increase vegetative species
diversity, increase quality and quantity of nesting and
escape cover, and provide a greater supply of forage
for herbivores. Livestock grazing will always be heavier
in riparian areas because of lusher vegetation and the
presence of water (Table 4-2).
Any shift in livestock use away from the spring
season would be beneficial to wildlife in riparian
habitat. In the EIS area the riparian areas are the first
sites to green up and the first grazed by livestock.
Competition among all herbivores is greatest in
riparian areas in the spring.
Reduction of livestock use under intensive
management would benefit more than just big game.
As indicated by Galliziolis (1977), bird populations
usually decline in the presence of too many head of
livestock. He observed that when a severely
overgrazed area was placed under proper grazing
management, small bird populations increased by
more than 100 percent.
Range improvements such as water developments
would provide an additional 34 to 106 acres of riparian
habitat. Overflows from these new Sources would
create amphibian breeding habitat where none had
existed before.
The small increase in runoff in the short term due
to burning, thinning, or plowing would not affect
wildlife populations. A severe storm following Soon
after land treatments would result in greater runoff and
more sediment could be introduced into riparian areas.
The effects of this short-term impact cannot be
quantified (see Aquatic Resources).
Increases in vegetative cover would protect small
animals from the heat of the sun as well as from
predators. There could be substantial increases in
populations of small mammals, birds, and amphibians
indigenous to these areas. The diversity of wildlife
species using this habitat type, principally smaller
mammals and birds as well as predators on these
species, would also increase.
Impacts on Mountain Shrub-Associated
Species
Impacts on wildlife populations of the mountain
shrub type would be small. At present this type is in
good condition and the important forage producing
plants, Oakbrush and mountain mahogany, are in good
condition.
There is little competition for forage between
livestock and wildlife in this type in the spring so
changes in livestock management would not
significantly increase forage for wildlife. Increasing the
number of management units grazed in the fall or
winter would increase only slightly the amount of
competition.
By providing a rest standard, desirable key species
of grass would increase relative to other species which
are less desirable forage. Production and ground cover
would increase, benefiting smaller mammals and
birds.
Development of new water sources for livestock in
or near the mountain shrub type would provide water
for wildlife where none usually exists in the summer. It
would also improve habitat around existing water
sources a little, by reducing competition. Small
mammals would benefit especially in drier periods like
summer and early fall.
Conversion of 4,900 acres of mountain shrub to
grassland habitat on 10 management units by burning
would be temporary. Loss of mountain shrub would
also be minor, there are a total of 76,600 acres of this
type in the EIS area.
Prescribed burning would create a more favorably
mixed community of grasses, forbs, and shrubs as well
as set back overaged, dominant shrubs, improving
forage production and cover (Short and McCulloch,
1977). This would provide a variety of foods instead of
just browse and also different types and heights of
cover. Burning would not destroy important wildlife
habitat. Mountain shrub is a transition type of habitat,
and few animals complete their entire life cycles there.
In the very long term, removal of livestock from
spring grazing on 42 of 77 intensively managed units
could have adverse impacts on wildlife. These units
would be grazed by livestock only in fall and winter,
which could promote grassland habitats at the
expense of mountain shrub. Grass not grazed during
its growing season tends to burgeon and dominate a
site by obtaining its nutrients, water, and light at the
expense of young browse plants. Wildlife need a
diversity of vegetation to fulfill their yearlong
nutritional needs. Proper grazing management can,
however, maintain the desired plant mix, vigor,
densities, and production to provide this diversity.
Thinning 17,470 acres of pinyon-juniper would
convert it to a mountain shrub or grassland type. The
forest canopy would be opened up, increasing
production of forage plants and providing a mix of
cover types (Minnich, 1969).
Brushland plowing would not take place in the
mountain shrub type and would not impact associated
wildlife species.
As a result of the Preferred Alternative, 22,370
acres of mountain shrubland would be disturbed by
burning and thinning. All of the thinnings, burnings,
and water developments proposed in the Preferred
Alternative are complementary to recommendations
made for wildlife in the Royal Gorge MFP.
Impacts on Conifer-Associated Species
Most of the coniferous habitat in the EIS area is not
suitable for livestock grazing. What little usable forage
grows there is often inaccessible because it occurs on
steep slopes. Some grazing does take place, however,
and changes in livestock management would probably
reduce use and thereby competition with wildlife in this
type. Vegetative production would increase some as a
result, but not enough to significantly improve habitat.
Coniferous habitat primarily provides cover. Such
areas will not support as diverse wildlife populations as
other habitat types. Thinning 1,060 acres would create
Small openings in overmature timber where low-
growing plants could grow and produce forage.
Openings would be small enough not to affect quality
of cover.
Development of water in or near conifer types
would provide an important habitat element. With the
addition of water and increase in forage, these areas,
which already provide good cover, would become
highly productive of wildlife.
Impacts on Grassland-Associated Species
Of the four wildlife associations, grassland would
benefit most with the Preferred Alternative (Table 4-2).
Grasslands have been heavily grazed in the past,
resulting in significant declines in wildlife densities
and diversity.
CHAPTER FOUR – 45
Wherever a forest canopy is removed (e.g., through
burning and thinning), understory forage production
increases dramatically
Small natural openings are too remote and widespread
to have any value for livestock and wildlife grazing
LAND TREATMENTS BENEFIT LIVESTOCK
AND WILDLIFE
Proposed thinnings and burnings would increase the
number and size of natural openings so that addi-
tional
wildlife.
forage would be available for livestock and
Burning and thinning provide more nutrients
for understory growth because they remove compe-
tition from larger vegetation and allow understory
access to more sun and precipitation.
They are also
very cost-effective as management tools.
As vegetative cover, composition, and productivity
improved, forage as well as the quality and quantity of
nesting and escape cover would increase, benefiting
more than just big game (Galliziolis, 1977).
Development of water sources for livestock would also
benefit wildlife.
Conclusion
Providing a rest standard under the Preferred
Alternative would reduce competition on spring and
summer ranges of mule deer. Some minor damage to
habitat would occur as a result of brushland plowing,
which would destroy highly preferred forbs.
Development of water facilities would generally benefit
mule deer although in a few habitat areas competition
might increase as a result of livestock redistribution.
Fencing would have a similar effect. Competition
would be a bane mainly during spring and early
summer, when the diets of livestock and mule deer
overlap. Otherwise, livestock grazing would be a
benefit, by increasing the growth of highly preferred
forbs.
Effects on elk would be similar to those on mule
deer.
Bighorn sheep habitat would be little affected,
except in a few areas where competition would
increase due to redistribution of livestock. In some
cases, bighorn sheep habitat might be extended as a
result of new water developments for livestock, also
creating new competition, but this impact would be
minor. Thinning and burning of pinyon-juniper would
benefit sheep, by providing a more favorably mixed
community of grasses, forbs, and shrubs.
Antelope would be little affected because very
little of their habitat is on public lands.
Intensive management would increase vegetative
species diversity, quality and quantity of nesting and
escape cover, and supply of forage for riparian and
broadleaf associated wildlife species. Impacts on
mountain shrub associated species would be small.
Coniferous habitat would improve from thinning and
water development, becoming highly productive of
wildlife. Of the four wildlife associations, grassland-
associated species would benefit most. Increases in
vegetative cover, composition, and productivity would
increase forage and improve nesting and escape cover.
Water developments for livestock would improve water
availability for wildlife.
Impacts on Aquatic Resources
The Preferred Alternative would not be expected
to have a major effect on the fish habitat in the EIS area,
even in the long term. Streams presently in good or
excellent condition (49.9 miles) would remain so. Of
streams in poor and fair condition (59.45 miles), 14
miles would remain in poor or fair condition due to
factors other than livestock grazing. Habitat on the
remaining 41.95 miles of stream would improve but
probably not enough to jump a full condition class
(Appendix Table D-2).
Stream shading would improve on about 2.0 miles
of stream where the growth of willows would occur
because of fencing to exclude livestock. On another
1.5 miles of stream, conditions would improve from fair
to excellent due to conditions unrelated to livestock
grazing.


46 – ROYAL GORGE ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT
Streambank conditions should significantly
improve on approximately 42 miles of stream in poor or
fair condition as vigorous reproduction of the
herbaceous Species takes place.
Streambank stability would not be expected to
improve where livestock grazing would occur because
recovery is cumulative and livestock would continue to
damage banks by trampling.
As riparian vegetation, especially woody species,
increase in density and vigor, streambanks would be
able to better withstand high and vigorous flows.
Whether or not a major improvement in channel
stability would occur is unknown because recovery of
woody species is not certain.
Streambed sedimentation would diminish in
relation to beneficial changes in other factors
indicated above.
Under the Preferred Alternative fish populations
would be expected to remain the same or increase
slightly in response to habitat either stabilizing or
improving slightly (Duff, 1978).
Impacts on Recreation
The Preferred Alternative would not affect the
Arkansas River, which is the main recreational
resource of the EIS area. Rafting, fishing, picnicking,
camping, geologic viewing, and watching bighorn
sheep would continue and probably increase
regardless of which alternative is implemented. The
river is very large compared to other water resources in
the EIS area, and its appeal to recreationists is
influenced much more by spring runoff, flash floods,
fish stocking, and recreational facilities than by
livestock grazing.
Fishing as a recreational resource contributes
about 122,000 recreational days out of the 500,000
days provided in the EIS area. The Preferred
Alternative would somewhat improve the quality of
fisheries on a total of 7 miles of stream along Texas
Creek and Fourmile Creeks, which are feeder streams
On the lower Arkansas River. Other feeder streams in
the lower Arkansas River drainage such as Badger and
Grape Creeks would not improve because factors
other than grazing management limit their fishery
value. Improving the quality of fishing on these streams
and other small stretches would increase the total
amount of recreational fishing by an estimated 1,000
days (Table 4-3). Some of the increase would occur on
the Arkansas River itself.
The Arkansas River is stocked yearly with rainbow
trout but it's known at least locally for its brown trout.
The spawning sites for brown trout are found on feeder
streams such as Texas and Badger Creeks.
Improvements on these spawning streams would help
maintain the Arkansas River as a top brown trout
fishery.
By improving the quality of 58,431 acres of mule
deer habitat, 8,141 acres of elk habitat and 2,276 acres
of bighorn sheep habitat, these populations would
increase.
Recreation days for hunting and big game harvest
would increase proportionally to habitat improvement.
Currently, about 8,359 recreation days are devoted to
big game hunting in the EIS area. There would be an
expected increase of about 1,460 days (Table 4-3),
which would be small compared to current activity
estimated by the Colorado DOW for the Southeast
Region of Colorado, about 107,250 days.
Development of range improvement facilities in
areas with primitive values and characteristics would
not threaten nor diminish values associated with these
areas since their design and construction would be
compatible with overall management objectives.
Spring developments could be well hidden by
vegetation and water catchments could use naturally
flat rock surfaces to collect water. These and other
types of mitigation would be developed in site specific
environmental assessments to preserve primitive
values and characteristics.
Conclusion
The Preferred Alternative would improve riprian
and wildlife habitat. Improvements along Texas and
Badger Creeks would help maintain them as important
spawning areas for brown trout and the Arkansas River
as a top brown trout fishery. Texas and Fourmile
Creeks would also improve as fisheries. Hunting would
improve as wildlife habitat improves. Range
improvement facilities and spring developments would
not threaten primitive values.
Impacts on Economics and Social Values
Agriculture, in its regional setting, is not a major
contributor to generation of personal income. Only
Fremont and Teller Counties contribute an
appreciable amount (1.5 to 2.0 percent) to their
respective county's total income (USDI-BLM, RGRA,
TABLE 4-3
ESTIMATED ADDITIONAL RECREATION VISITOR DAYS
BY ALTERNATIVE IN 20 YEARS"
1978). Reduced grazing on BLM-administered lands
would not have a significant effect on the regional
economy.
Factors considered in impact analysis are the EIS
area population, income (including range livestock-
related income, COntract construction-related income,
recreation-related income, and government-related
income), employment, public finance and tax base,
and social values. Grazing units that would be less than
intensively managed would not affect these factors
since reductions in vegetation allocation would be
made to reflect the amount of forage currently being
harvested on them rather than being true reductions.
As a result, operating costs in the form of grazing fees
would be slightly lower. Resulting impacts on ranch
equity would only be very minor if not negligible
because the number of AUMS from public land
contributing to the equity of these ranches is very small
compared to the AUMs derived from private land. With
a couple of exceptions, this also holds true for units
where grazing would be eliminated. Where elimination
of grazing would have major impact on the operator,
units are included in the economic analysis. Aside from
these units, only impacts resulting from 77 intensively
managed units are analyzed because major impacts
would derive only from them.
Impacts on Income
Impacts on Ranch Income
Ranch operations having less than 200 head of
Cattle would incur a total loss of net revenues related to
cattle grazing of $297,864 per year in the short term (5
years) and $42,560 per year over the long term (Tables
4–4 and 4-5).
Each rancher would incur an average short-term
loss of $4,137 per year and a long-term loss of $1,980
per year. These ranchers, particularly the smaller ones,
would become more dependent on nonranching
income. The method by which these statistics were
derived appears in Appendix F.
Ranch operations having more than 200 head of
cattle would incur a loss of net revenues related to
cattle grazing of $46,559 per year in the short term and
$61,488 over the long term (Tables 4-4 and 4-5). Each
operator would incur an average short-term loss of
$6,979 and a long-term loss of $2,928 per year. Despite
this reduction in net revenues, intensive management
would still yield an average annual net profit per
operator of $30,000.
Elimination
Present NO Of Management Preferred
Situation Action Grazing Constraints Nonintensive Alternative
Deer Hunting 3,512 –300 900 1,450 700 1,053
Elk Hunting 3,009 – 50 350 370 250 270
Bighorn Sheep Hunting 245 O 140 185 110 137
Other Big Game 1,593 O O O O O
Fishing 122,620 O 12,380 7,000 4,970 1,000
Totals 130,979 -350 13,770 9,005 6,030 2,460
"These estimates were made by BLM personnel and will vary due to several reasons not related to the rangeland management
such as gas availability, regional population increases, DOW regulations, climatic conditions, and legal access to public lands.
TABLE 4-4
RANCH SIZE AND SHORT-TERM INCOME EFFECTS
(Constant 1978 Dollars)
CHAPTER FOUR —47
Gross Revenue Changes
Model Number of Total BLM AUM Total Public and Net Revenue Changes
Ranches Cattle Ranches Reduction Private AUM Reduction' Per Ranch All Ranches Per Ranch All Ranches
Preferred and Nonintensive? Alternatives
Cattle 1 0 - 199 72 11,780 23,560 $– 5,437 $–391,464 $— 4,137 $–297,864
Cattle 2 200+ 21 4,737 9,474 –10,270 –215,670 – 6,979 –146,559
Total 93 16,517 $–607,134 $–445,323
Management Constraints Alternative
Cattle 1 0 - 199 72 14,383 28,765 $– 6,815 $–490,680 $– 5,078 $–365,616
Cattle 2 200+ 21 5,933 11,866 —13,292 –279,132 –14,663 –307,923
Total 93 20,316 $–769,812 $–673,539
'Private AUM reductions are on private land managed in conjunction with public lands.
Analysis was made based on an average of 1 private AUM per 1 BLM AUM.
*Short and long-term impacts for the Nonintensive Alternative are the same.
TABLE 4-5
RANCH, SIZE AND LONG-TERM INCOME EFFECTS
(Constant 1978 Dollars)
Gross Revenue Changes
Model Number of Total BLM AUM Total Public and Net Revenue Changes
Ranches Cattle Ranches Reduction Private AUM Reduction' Per Ranch All Ranches Per Ranch All Ranches
Preferred Alternative
Cattle 1 0 - 199 72 7,232 14,464 $– 2,178 $–156,816 $– 1,980 $–142,560
Cattle 2 200+ 21 2,734 5,468 – 4,457 – 93,597 – 2,928 – 61,488
Total 93 9,966 $–250,413 $–204,048
Elimination of Grazing Alternative”
Cattle 1 0 - 199 72 16,156 32,312 $– 8,294 $–597,168 $– 5,927 $–426,744
Cattle 2 200+ 21 7,392 14,784 -16,195 –340,095 – 9,992 –209,832
Total 93 23,548 $–937,263 $–636,576
Management Constraints Alternative
Cattle 1 0 - 199 72 13,496 26,992 $– 5,661 $–407,592 $— 4,337 $–312,264
Cattle 2 200+ 21 3,948 7,896 —11,704 –245,784 —13,545 –284,445
Total 93 17,444 $–653,376 $–596,709
'Private AUM reductions are on private land managed in conjunction with public lands.
Analysis was made based on an average of 1 private AUM per 1 BLM AUM.
*Short and long-term impacts of the Elimination of Grazing Alternative are the same.
Impacts on Construction Income
Impacts on Government Income
Six additional staff people would be hired by the
Impacts on Employment
Types of improvements needed to stabilize and
improve the condition of the range under intensive
management are shown on Table 4-6. They are
estimated to cost $2.4 million (1978 dollars) and would
Contribute significantly to the income of construction
industries in the seven-county region.
Royal Gorge Resource Area to implement intensive
management. Assuming an average of $15,000 per
employee in salary and benefits, an increase of $90,000
in annual personal income would be generated. This
would be very small in proportion to current
government-related income in Fremont County, where
most of the new employees would be located.
The principal benefit of intensive management
would accrue to the construction industry through
construction and maintenance of range
improvements. The ranch labor sector would suffer a
decline in employment accompanying cutbacks in
vegetation allocations on public land. In the short term,
a reduction of 18 person-years of labor would result
from intensive management. In the long term, 11 of
48 – ROYAL GORGE ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT
these 18 person-years would be regained on these
ranches, resulting in a long-term net loss of 7 person-
years (Table 4–7).
As stated earlier, an estimated six additional BLM
employees would be hired to implement intensive
management, which could be considered a beneficial
though not a major impact.
Impacts on Government Finance and Tax Base
As a result of intensive management, collections of
local property taxes would be reduced by $5,472 per
year during the short term (5 years) and $2,347 per year
in the long term (20 years)(Table 4-8). Given total
property tax revenues of $34,086 for cattle ranches in
the Royal Gorge Grazing EIS area, losses would
amount to 16 percent and 7 percent in the short term
and long term, respectively. Within the seven-county
region this loss in tax revenue would be negligible.
Impacts on Recreational Values
An increase of 2,460 hunting and fishing days due
to a change in management on the public grazing land
would increase recreation-related expenditures for
goods and services in the resource area though not
much. The increase in hunting days for deer, elk, and
bighorn sheep is the largest of the recreation-related
increases (Appendix Table F-7). Accordingly, the
greatest share of the increased income would come
from hunters.
TABLE 4-6
ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COSTS OF RANGE
IMPROVEMENTS OF THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
(1978 Dollars)
|tem Units Dollars
Pipeline (Miles) 3.3 6,600
Storage Tanks (No.) 1 5,000
Reservoirs (No.) 11 27,500
Water Troughs (No.) 4 900
Spring Developments (No.)? 67 46,900'
Catchments (No.)? 39 195,000
Wells (No.) 2 18,000
Plowing (Acres) 200 5,000
Burning (Acres) 4,900 98,000
Thinning (Acres) 17,630 1,763,000
Fencing (Miles) 80 240,000
Cattleguards (No.) 4 6,400
Total 2,412,300
"As AMPs are developed, there would be an estimated 71 miles
of additional fencing and 100 additional spring developments
required for implementation of the AMPs. Estimated construc-
tion costs due to these additional improvements would in-
crease to $2,503,600.
*Includes the cost of necessary water troughs.
TABLE 4-7
RANCH LABOR LOSSES (In Person-Years)
Preferred Elimination of Grazing Management Constraints
Model Short-term' Long-term Short-term Long-term Short-term Long-term
Cattle 1 12.75 5.04 18.49 T8.49 16.13 13.41
Cattle 2 5.13 2.21 8.10 8.10 6.65 5.86
Total 17.88 7.25 26.59 26.59 22.78 19.27
"Implementation of the Nonintensive Alternative
would produce long-term losses of labor equal to short-term losses
produced by the Preferred Alternative.
TABLE 4-8
LOCAL PROPERTY TAX TOTAL (PER YEAR) – ALL RANCHES (Constant 1978 Dollars)
Preferred Alternative Elimination of Grazing Management Constraints
Property Tax Current
Model Tax! Short-term? Long-term Short-term? Long-term Short-term Long-term
Cattle 1 $13,208 $ 9,789 $11,843 $ 8,257 $ 8,257 $ 8,908 $ 9,632
Cattle 2 $20,878 $18,825 $19,896 $18,709 $18,709 $19,103 $19,315
Total $34,086 $28,614 $31,739 $26,966 $26,966 $28,011 $28,947
'Average annual assessed value per head would be $31.95 (typical feeder steer value derived by the Colorado Division of Property Taxation,
Dept of Local Affairs).
*Implementation of the Nonintensive Alternative would reduce long-term property tax collection by the same amount as the short term for the
Preferred Alternative.
*Implemention of the Elimination of Grazing Alternative would impact local property taxes equally over both the short and long term.
Growth in income expected from expenditures for
goods and services would be $213,133. Income
attributable to increases in hunting days would be
$176,564 while income attributable to increases in
fishing days would contribute $36,569. Of total
regional income, the additional sportsman
expenditures would amount to less than a tenth of a
percent of the regional economy.
Impacts on Social Values
Reductions set forth in the Preferred Alternative
would conflict with the attitudes and expectations of
people engaged in livestock production who presently
use lands administered by BLM. As borne out at public
meetings, these people feel that grazing should
Continue as a necessary and defensible use of public
lands. At least 90 percent of all operators would be
affected, either by reduction, elimination, or change in
management.
Social impacts are directly related to economic
impacts, which in turn are primarily a function of (1)
dependence on BLM grazing; (2) severity of reduction
in grazing use on BLM-administered lands; and (3) the
percentage of income derived from livestock
production. Several other factors are also influential:
age of operator, family situation, degree of
diversification, debt burden, and present income.
TOO little information is available On individual
Operators and their economic options to determine
Social impacts wrought by intensive management.
Some operators would be forced out of business but
most would continue their operations, perhaps at a
lower level. Those who quit the business might have to
relocate, either to a new community where conditions
are more favorable for raising livestock or to a "new
place" within this community, such as a tenant
Operator. In extreme cases, they might have to leave
the rural environment altogether and seek residence
and employment in towns and cities. Others might
Continue their lifestyle by finding a new livelihood in
rural areas. Some operators who suffer economic
hardship but do not quit business would seek
employment to replace lost livestock-related income.
Ranches now producing livestock could be sold
and subsequently subdivided for rural homesites.
There is already a large influx of people into the EIS
region caused by development of energy resources.
Accommodation of new housing demand in rural,
formerly agrarian areas, would change their character.
Population growth in the region will inevitably cause a
Shift in the socio-political spectrum away from a
predominantly rural and agrarian society.
Conclusion
Under the Preferred Alternative, net revenues to 21
large ranchers would decrease from an average of
$34,449 per year per rancher to $27,470 in the short
term. In the long term, net revenues to large ranchers
would average $31,521 per year. Net revenues to 72
Small ranchers would decrease from $352 per year per
rancher to an average operating loss of $3,786 in the
Short term; operating loss would average $1,628 in the
long term.
Construction of range improvements would cost
$2.4 million, benefiting the local construction industry.
Short-term ranch labor losses would total 17.9 person-
years. Some of that loss would be recovered by
increased employment as range improves and
Stocking level is increased. Over the long term, total
labor losses would shrink to 7.2 person-years. Total
yearly property tax collections from all ranchers, large
and small, would average $5,472 less in the short term
and average $2,347 less over the long term. Income
would increase in the government sector by $90,000
due to costs of administering the range program.
With improvement of riparian and wildlife habitat,
hunting and fishing would be expected to improve
(Table 2-5). Associated increases in recreation days
would be accompanied by expenditures for goods and
services, bringing more money into the local economy.
The total increase for all recreational activities would
average $213,133 per year over the long term.
Impacts on Water Resources
Impacts on Water Quantity
Implementation of the Preferred Altenative would
increase vegetative cover on 77 intensive management
units (Appendix Table B-2). Increases in total ground
cover would be expected to decrease flood peaks and
reduce potential sediment loads (Pase and
Lindenmuth, 1971). Decreases in flood peak flows
would be expected to average 3.8 cubic feet per second
per square mile of drainage (CSM) (Appendix G). As
calculated by the SCS Flood Hydrograph method, this
is a reduction of 3 percent from the existing level. The
average annual sediment load in the Arkansas River
would be reduced by about 183,200 tons, compared
with the existing rate of 1.9 million tons per year (PSIAC
method) (Appendix G). Sediment loads in the South
Platte River would not be affected because tributary
public lands are generally proposed for nonintensive
management and are mostly remote from perennial
Stream S.
A greater decrease in runoff and sediment
production would be expected from 7,465 acres of
currently allotted land that would be put into a no
grazing status. Runoff would decrease an estimated 15
CSM, a reduction of 13 percent, and sediment load to
the Arkansas would decrease an estimated 7,500 tons
per year (0.4 percent of the total existing load).
A slight increase in runoff and sediment
production would be expected on 29,610 acres. In this
case, previously ungrazed land would be opened to
grazing and ground cover would be expected to
decrease, causing increases in runoff of about 11 CSM
and increases in sediment load of 18,350 tons annually
in the long term.
No changes in runoff or sediment load would be
anticipated on 180,602 acres where nonintensive
management or nongrazing is expected to continue
since no changes in cover would be anticipated.
Approximately 200 acres in allotments 23 and 213
would be plowed and reseeded. Runoff from these
acres would be expected to decrease significantly
during the first 2 or 3 years after treatment, as
infiltration rates of water into the soil are increased,
then gradually decrease and eventually approach
existing rates. Short-term decreases are estimated to
be 11 CSM for runoff and 0.4 ton per acre per year for
Sediment.
In allotments 68, 133, 147, 192, 194, 224, 227, 230,
231, and 233 a total of 4,900 acres would be scheduled
for burning of oakbrush to establish more forage. This
action would result in a short-term (2-3 years)
decrease in ground cover with accompanying
increases in runoff and sediment load. The increases
should be highest during the first year (depending on
storms), averaging 61 CSM of runoff and 3,000 tons of
potential sediment load per year. In the long term,
runoff and sediment load would approach pre-
treatment levels.
CHAPTER FOUR — 49
Thinning of pinyon-juniper stands is proposed on
18,530 acres in units 66,97, 126, 127, 138, 142, 143, 147,
150, 155, 158, 165, 166, 169, 172, 190, 192, 193, 197, 204,
216, 222, 224, 227, 230, 231, 237, 238, and 243. An
increase in runoff and sediment load would be
expected after treatment, initially 29 CSM of runoff and
220 tons per year per square mile of sediment. As
ground cover increases over the short term, sediment
yield and runoff would decrease slightly from pre-
treatment levels (Pase and Lindenmuth, 1971; Hurst,
1976), stabilizing in the long term.
Installation of 80 miles of fence, 3.3 miles of
pipeline, and 97 water developments would not be
expected to have any measurable effect on runoff or
Sediment load because of the Small area involved.
The present consumptive use of ground and
surface water by livestock (50 acre-feet) would
decrease in proportion to the reduction of AUMs
proposed in this alternative (about 70 percent). This
decrease would be offset to a certain extent by
increased consumption by wildlife, primarily big game,
and should result in no measurable change in either
ground water quality or quantity.
Impacts on Water Quality
Although total dissolved solids and salinity in
streams are related to the quantity and characteristics
of the sediment load, no changes in water quality are
anticipated.
Conclusion
Runoff changes would reflect increases or
decreases in vegetative cover and production. Peak
flows from 10-year storms would decrease 3 percent
on lands proposed for intensive management. Volume
of runoff from a 10-year storm would decrease about 3
percent over the long term.
Impacts on Soils
Intensive management on 77 units totaling 379,380
acres would provide a rest standard for forage plants.
Live vegetative cover and litter (total ground cover)
production would increase, improving infiltration rates
and erosion condition (Table 4-9). Runoff and
associated sediment yield (Appendix G) would
Cecrease.
TABLE 4–9
EROSION CONDITION CLASS
Erosion Acreage in Each Class
Condition Classes Present Predicted'
Stable 55,259 55,594
Slight 182,604 198,984
Moderate 221,863 208,389
Critical 33,925 30,684
Totals 493,651 493,651
'Predictions are based on average predicted improve-
ments after 15 years of management. Predictions
were made only on the 84 percent of the public lands
which have been inventOried.
50 – ROYAL GORGE ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT
Late Summer, fall, and early winter periods of use
would be most beneficial to overall condition of the
watershed because infiltration rate of the soil would
not be as severely affected as that caused by spring
grazing.
Sediment yield would be reduced from 1.55 to 1.16
tons/acre/year on intensively managed units, a 25
percent reduction from present levels.
Erosion condition and sediment yield would
remain essentially the same on the 279 units with
nonintensive management and on the one existing
AMP allotment.
Sediment yield would increase from 0.54 to 1.19
tons/acre/year on 59 nonintensively managed units
covering 29,610 acres. These units are currently
ungrazed but would be allotted for grazing upon
demand. Elimination of grazing is proposed for 13
units totaling 7,465 acres that currently are being
grazed. Sediment yield on these units would be
reduced from 1.55 to 0.54 tons/acre/year. No changes
would occur on the remaining 12,930 acres since they
are not presently being grazed and never will be.
Sediment yield estimates have been calculated by use
Of the PSIAC method.
The current rate of wind erosion has not been
determined, but would decrease on intensively
managed units as vegetative cover increases.
Short-term soil loss due to range improvements
and land treatments needed to implement intensive
management on 77 units would be about 8,511 tons
(Table 4-10 and Map 4-1). This loss is insignificant
when compared to 733,050 tons of soil lost annually
from public lands. Long-term impacts would be
negligible.
The effects of compaction have not been
quantified although studies would be carried out.
Conclusion
Sediment entering the Arkansas River would
gradually reach 10 percent reduction after 20 years. No
change would occur in the amount of sediment
entering the South Platte River. Overall there would be,
accordingly, 25 percent less erosion (also see changes
in the number of acres in each erosion condition class
(Table 2-5), a more generalized measure of land's
susceptibility to erosion).
Impacts on Archaeology
The Preferred Alternative would not change the
number of sites affected, but the degree of impact
attributable to livestock grazing would be reduced.
Increasing vegetative cover would stabilize land
surface and reduce erosion. Since fewer artifacts
would be exposed, fewer would be subject to alteration
because of livestock trampling and vandalism. None of
the 680 known sites would be disturbed through range
project construction. Sites discovered during
construction of range improvements would be
protected. Locations and types of improvements
would be altered to mitigate impacts on new sites
discovered prior to construction. Such projects could
produce negative impacts because areas previously
remote would become accessible during
implementation, thereby making newly discovered
Sites subject to vandalism. These impacts are not
Quantifiable.
Impacts on Visual Resource Management
Improving the cover, density, vigor, production,
and composition of the forage-producing grasses
could change two of the basic elements of a landscape,
TABLE 4-10
SHORT TERM SOIL LOSS DUE TO
PROPOSED RANGE IMPROVEMENTS
(Preferred Alternative)
Acre Disturbance
Improvement Units Per Unit Soil Loss (Tons)"
Plow - Seed 200 AC. &=º 120
Burn - Seed 4,900 AC. * 2,940
Thin 18,530 AC. ºmº 5,289
Fence 80 Mi. 0.5 - 1.0 45
Pipeline 3.3 Mi. 0.2 - 1.5 3
Water Storage Tanks 1 0.1 - 1.0 .6
Earthen Reservoirs 9 0.5 - 3.0 20
Water Troughs 4 0.1 - 1.2 3
Spring Developments 67 0.1 - 0.5 20
Rainfall Catchments 28 1.0 - 3.0 70
Wells 2 0.2 - 0.5 .6
Totals 8,511.2
"Total units of range improvement were multiplied by the optimum number of acres disturb-
ed per unit. This was then multiplied by the optimum amount of sediment yield (.6
Tons/Acre) were taken from the “Sediment Yield" map, Colorado Land Use Commission,
1974, (Map 4-1).
color and texture. The color of the landscape might be
slightly changed from earth colors of browns and reds
to greens and yellows of vegetation. The addition or
increase of plants could change the texture of a
landscape by covering erosion patterns or changing
vegetative types. Texture would be changed as barren
or nearly barren areas are covered, removing the
barren landscape and replacing it, at least in the
foreground, with a vegetated landscape. The changes
would be evident only at major viewpoints along roads
and highways.
Highway 50 through the Arkansas Canyon
provides the majority of viewpoints of public land in the
EIS area. There would be no changes in livestock
management and therefore no changes in vegetation
in the canyon. Existing basic elements of that
landscape would not change.
Visual contrasts would result from range
improvement facilites such as pipelines, storage and
watering tanks, fences, and temporary roads, which
would contrast with an otherwise natural landscape.
These impacts would be short term and highly
localized, however. There would also be short-term
visual intrusions related to land treatments such as
plowing, burning, and thinning. None of the adverse
impacts would threaten outstanding scenery or
primitive and wildland type areas.
None of the adverse impacts identified above
exceed allowable Visual Resource Management
contrast ratings. For criteria and methodology, see
BLM Manual, Section 8400.
Impacts on Forestry
Increases in growth of grass plants associated
with implementation of the Preferred Alternative would
prevent or retard the establishment of seedlings. Grass
plants and shrubs are beneficial to seedlings by
providing shade which keeps soil temperatures down,
but they also compete with pine seedlings for soil
moisture and nutrients. In the long term, effects would
be offsetting and localized. Steeper slopes where
livestock do not graze would not be impacted.
Trampling damage to wooded areas would not
become acute unless livestock would be concentrated
in planatations, where forests are being regenerated.
In any case, serious adverse impacts would be very
localized. Moderate trampling could also be beneficial,
however, burying seeds in the soil, thereby making
them more susceptible to germination.
Any increase in vegetative production would
increase the potential for fire. Fire would have a
localized, long-term impact in any forested or wooded
a ſea S.
Prescribed burning in the 4,900 acres of oakbrush
would kill the Scattered conifers. These conifers are the
only natural seed source for the timber and woodland
products in this cover type and their loss would be a
loss both in present worth and in costs for regeneration
of the site by planting.
The benefit of burning is the removal of oakbrush,
which allows better access for planting of either forest
or woodland commercial species and diminishes
oakbrush competition with seedlings for water,
sunlight, and nutrients. This benefit to seedlings
would, however, be partially offset by increased
competition from grass and forbs. The long-term
impact would be positive, replacing oakbrush cover
with a productive forest stand.
Selective thinning 1,060 acres of conifer to
improve range would remove more trees from the
forest stand than would be removed strictly for
R-81-w R-79-w R-78-w R-77-w
R-82-w
R-73-w
V a.....nºes."
^ Twin Laºh
N AT I O N A L
Fo R E S T
R-5-E
|
N AT on AL
Tie- |-
For Est
º *— T] Fº-
5 very high yield (1.0–3.0 acre feet per square mile per year) includes areas consisting
mostly of badlands or other severely eroded lands with extensive sheet and rill
erosion and numerous deep gullies and streambanks.
High yield (0.5–1.0 acre feet per square mile per year) includes mostly rangelands
having much sheet and rill erosion and numerous shallow to moderately deep gullies or
a few deep gullies and eroding streambanks. Also includes dry cropland on slopes
averaging greater than three percent.
3. Moderate yield (0.2–0.5 acre feet per square mile per year) includes mostly rangelands
with some sheet and rill erosion and only a few shallow to moderately deep gullies.
Also includes dry cropland on slopes averaging less than three percent.
2 Low yield (0.1–0.2 acre feet per square mile per year) includes mainly forest lands,
grasslands, irrigated cropland, and other areas with a good vegetative cover and only
occasional gullies or sites with obvious sheet and rill erosion.
1 Very low yield (less than 0.1 acre feet per square mile per year) includes mainly high
mountain areas with dense vegetative cover, areas of resistant rock outcrops, and
sandhill areas. All of these areas are characterized by having no significant erosion problems.
Severely eroding stream banks or gullies with average depth of five feet or more are
shown. Sediment yield is from 1.0 to 2.0 acre-feet per bank mile per year.
MAP 4-1. SEDIMENT YIELD MAP
R-71-w
CHAPTER FOUR –51
N AT I on
Luis Mariº Bºca
Grant No. 4
T-41-N
\ -
N - ^- Re-
-on
--
2^ T-22-s
R-70-w R-69-w R-68-w R-67-w
T
\ -----r *H. G
2 --------
T-11-s
- ©
- —
r- -
= !-- l. Rampart Reservoir T-12-5
- | “ſº
---L- '5 vº– ~
orthplemsTºzº, mount Reservºir
-------'A' |T-13's
Crystal Creek Reservoi |
N- co-or-do-Prin--
|-
º
T-14-s
*
1
T -
.
T-15-s
-
ſ ſ
2
T-16-3
-
/ T-17--
\
/
|T-iss
*
/
- > - |
Yº |
\
º -
w N |T-is-s
- 8.
*~
\ =
*
wº-> T-zo-s
-T I
Th. -
i- º
T-21-s
!----- -
-
l_ſ-
1 s A N is AB. E. L.
----
-
N AT 1 o N-A L.
T-24-3
T-25-
—f-H
H H
Zº |
14on
- -
|-
T-27-5
T-26-s
T-29-s





























52 – ROYAL GORGE ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT
maintenance of a productive forest. The remaining
trees in the stand would be worth more at their maturity
than if the stand had not been cut at all. Timber
production averages 6,000 board feet per acre. At the
current value of $20 per thousand board feet, $127,200
of revenue would be generated through timber sales
over the long term. Thinning 17,470 acres of pinyon-
juniper would benefit forest resources and also help
meet Some of the current demand for firewood.
Average production is 5 cords of firewood per acre. At
the current value of $5 per cord, $436,750 of revenue
would accrue through firewood sales over the long
term.
Thinnings would be conducted on an average of
500 acres per year. This is approximately equal to and
complements the current forestry program. Therefore,
forest product sales would not change.
Summary
The Preferred Alternative, if implemented, would
meet all eight of the MFP objectives as outlined in
Chapter 1 of this EIS. Some resource tradeoffs have
been made to accomplish this. Grazing management
plans would be developed with special consideration
given to improving riparian habitat. Other resources
would benefit similarly: watershed, vegetation, wildlife,
and recreation.
NO ACTION
Impacts on Vegetation
Under the No Action Alternative decline in plant
vigor, and the related indirect impacts of decreased
production, cover, and compositional diversity, would
continue. Vegetative types would remain essentially
unchanged over the long term, but a small increase in
the pinyon-juniper type would occur (Barney and
Frischknecht, 1974; Burkhardt and Tisdale, 1976).
Physiological needs of vegetation would not be
met (Martin, 1978). Yearly, heavy utilization of
desirable forage species would favor undesirable
species (Cook, 1977), continuing the apparent
downward trend in range condition on 341,834 acres.
The amount of public land in poor range condition,
currently 336,143 acres, would increase by 5,000 to
10,000 acres over the long term due to the continued
decline in plant vigor and the loss of desirable species.
On the 77 units proposed for intensive
management in the Preferred Alternative, cover would
diminish by less than 1 percent (Appendix Table B-2).
As desirable species are lost from a plant community,
they will be replaced by less desirable plants
(Humphrey, 1962). Cover would not change on 209
units which would continue to be managed
nonintensively. On 59 additional units currently not
grazed but recommended for non intensive
management under the Preferred Alternative, cover
would decrease about 1 percent.
Impacts on Llvestock
Livestock grazing would continue at the present
level without change in numbers of livestock or use
periods. Continued decline in plant vigor, cover,
production, and diversity could adversely affect animal
health and weight gains (Oxley, 1975) over a much
longer time, 20 to 50 years (Stoddart et al., 1975).
Since no water developments nor facilities are
proposed under the No Action Alternative, livestock
would continue to concentrate around currently
available water sources, which are limited. Livestock
would graze less desirable vegetation, adversely
affecting livestock production.
Without a change in present grazing practices on
public lands, trend and range condition would
continue to slowly decline. Livestock production per
animal on public lands would remain lower than the
resource is capable of supporting on a sustained yield
basis (Martin, 1978). According to the 1977-78 range
survey conducted by BLM, there are 14,212 AUMs of
forage available for harvest on a sustained yield basis.
Current livestock use is 39,369 AUMs.
Impacts on Wildlife
The overall wildlife impacts of the No Action
Alternative would favor mountain shrub habitat. This is
currently in good condition so the small improvement
would not increase the carrying capacity or diversity of
species using that type. Grassland- and riparian-
related wildlife species would be hardest hit by
continuation of existing grazing practices (Table 4-11).
Impacts on Mule Deer
No Action would result in the continued
domination of upland areas by woody vegetation and
intense competition between mule deer and livestock
for green forage on meadows and parks in the spring
and early summer. Without the production of
additional forage in spring and without additional
water developments, the overall quality of mule deer
habitat would not be expected to improve. It could
actually decline if additional spring habitat is lost to
subdivision development.
Impacts on Elk
Elk would have to compete with livestock on a
yearlong basis for food. Competition for spring forage
on 21 management units while elk are calving and
before they move to their summer range on Forest
Service lands could adversely affect reproduction.
Currently cover and water appear to be adequate.
Impacts on Antelope
Antelope would be relatively unaffected by this
alternative, but changes in cover in their yearlong
habitat due to the encroachment of Subdivisions could
further reduce their numberS.
Impacts on Bighorn Sheep
Bighorn sheep probably would not be impacted
because they currently inhabit areas livestock rarely
use. There is a chance, however, that present heavy
livestock use may be preventing or slowing bighorn
sheep movement into new areas.
Impacts on Riparian-Broadleaf-Associated
Species
Continuation of present grazing practices would
further degrade riparian habitat. Important wildlife
food and cover would be lost or existing poor habitat
Conditions would be perpetuated.
Loss of cover, particularly in riparian areas, would
have adverse effects because of increased
evaporation, which reduces the amount of water
available for wildlife. This would adversely affect big
game and fish but also many forms of insect life, which
are directly or indirectly related to free-standing or
flowing water during some portion of their life cycle.
Insects are vital to a healthy ecosystem because of
their importance in the food chain.
Impacts on Mountain Shrub-Associated
Species
The mountain shrub type would continue in good
condition, supplying browse for big game and escape
cover for all species of wildlife. Since habitat
components supplied by this type, summer or fall food
and cover, are not limiting to wildlife populations,
maintaining or improving its condition would not affect
the carrying capacity of surrounding habitat types.
Impacts on Conifer-Associated Species
The quality of the coniferous habitat would not be
affected. It principally provides cover and water.
Impacts on Grassland-Associated Species
Grassland habitats, like riparian habitats, would
continue to produce far below their potential. Heavy
grazing would keep competition for food intense while
removing some cover for smaller wildlife species.
Many grassland types have been converted from
mixtures of grasses and forbs to sodbound bluegrama
parks which have little value to wildlife. Continued
livestock grazing at current levels would perpetuate
this undesirable condition.
Conclusion
There would be a slight but unmeasurable decline
of mule deer, elk, and bighorn sheep habitat from
present conditions. Available forage and competition
with livestock would remain at current levels.
Impacts on Aquatic Resources
The NO Action Alternative would result in a small
continued decline in aquatic resources resulting from
current livestock grazing management practices.
About 5 miles of stream would remain in good or
excellent condition while 13.83 miles of stream would
remain in poor condition. On Pass Creek, 1.50 miles in
fair condition would improve to excellent, due to the
creek's natural recovery from a severe flood in 1976
which lowered its profile rating from excellent to fair.
Stream shading, streambank stability, stream
channel stability, and streambed sedimentation would
not be expected to change if present management is
continued. Without any improvement of these four
stream characteristics and with streambank conditions
declining, the overall downward trend of aquatic
TABLE 4-11
IMPACT RATINGS FOR THE NO ACTION
CHAPTER FOUR – 53
ALTERNATIVE ON VARIOUS BIG GAME AND WILDLIFE SPECIES
ASSOCIATIONS ON PUBLIC LANDS!
Big Game Wildlife Species Association?
Riparian
Mule Bighorn and Mountain -
Deer Elk Antelope Sheep Broadleaf Shrub Conifer Grassland
Grazing Use:
AUMs at time of implementation 2 3 3 2 1 3 3 2
AUMs at 5 years 2 3 3 2 1 3 3 2
AUMs at 20 years 2 2 3 2 1 3 3 2
Period of use (rest standard) NA
Management Facilities:
Storage tanks (water) NA
Pipeline (water) NA
Reservoirs NA
Water troughs NA
Spring developments NA
Rainfall catchments NA
Wells (water) NA
Brushland plowing NA
Prescribed burning NA
Selective thinning NA
Fencing NA
Land Actions:
Disposal NA
Acquisition NA
Access NA
Administration:
Allotment combination NA
Totals ET –F– -ā- –F– -ā- + -ā- –F–
Elements Considered 3 3 3 3 3 9 3 3
Rating 2.0 2.7 3.0 2.0 1.0 3.0 3.0 2.0
Average impact rating
for whole alternative 2.3
*The rating system is as follows:
1 = Most significant adverse impact
2 = Adverse impact
3 = Minor or no impact
4 = Beneficial impact
5 = Most significant beneficial impact
*See Royal Gorge URA Step II, Animals, for list of animals by preferred habitat sites.
resources would be expected to continue: 1.50 miles
would improve, 51.50 miles would remain stable, and
56.30 miles would decline. The resources that would
decline are already in poor or fair condition; decreases
in fishery production would be small or slight. The
declining trend would continue on 37.50 miles of
stream where grazing occurs until an equilibrium
attributable to current grazing practices would be
reached. The remaining 14 miles of stream would
decline to a point determined by natural conditions.
Streambanks would also continue to deteriorate.
Impacts on Recreation
Recreation use of the Arkansas River would be
Unchanged. Activities such as rafting, picnicing,
Camping, geologic and wildlife viewing, and fishing
would not be affected by continuation of present
livestock management practices.
Small unnoticeable declines in the quality of big
game habitat along with losses in quantity of habitat on
private land would reduce recreational big game
hunting by about 350 days (Table 4-3). The loss would
increase the gap between the projected demand for big
game hunting and the amount resources would be able
to provide.
The No Action Alternative would not be expected
to change the amount of fisherman days in the EIS
area. The quality of fisheries habitat and fish
production would remain the same. With no change in
fish production, no additional fishing pressure would
be anticipated.
There would be no impacts on areas with primitive
values and characteristics.
Impacts on Economics and Social Values
Impacts on Economics
Production per animal would decline, taking the
form of fewer calves, smaller calves, and less weight
gain on yearlings. As production per animal declines, a
small decrease in the economic return per animal
would result. Economic losses would be insignificant
on a regional basis, but would increasingly impact
individual ranchers.
Recreation-related income would be negatively
impacted by a loss of $44,576, mostly attributable to a
loss of hunting days. This would be of little significance
to the regional economy.
54 – ROYAL GORGE ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT
RECREATION IS PART OF MULTIPLE USE
Major recreational activities in the EIS area are fishing,
camping, and wildlife viewing along the Arkansas
River. Steep surrounding hillsides, a highway, and a
railroad right-of-way prevent livestock from grazing
along much of the river. A bighorn sheep herd in-
habits the hills across the river and frequently may
be seen during summer and fall.
Impacts on Social Values
There would be no impact on the social attitudes
or expectations of people engaged in the production of
livestock.
Impacts on Water Resources
Impacts on Water Quantity
Under the No Action Alternative, ground cover
would not be expected to change on 562,000 acres in
the EIS area. Since changes in runoff are dependent on
changes in ground cover, runoff would remain at
current levels.
On 30,000 acres in 6 units, ground cover would be
expected to diminish by about 1 percent over the next
20 years (Appendix Table B-1). Based on the SCS
Flood Hydrograph method of calculation, this would
result in a very slight increase in runoff (less than 1
percent) over the long term.
The No Action Alternative would have no
measureable effect upon the sediment load in either
the Arkansas or South Platte River (PSAC method).
There would be no change in consumptive use of water
by livestock and wildlife nor in ground water quality
and quantity.
Impacts on Water Quality
Without increasing the sediment loads of the
Arkansas or South Platte Rivers, there would be no
change in the water quality of either river.
Impacts on Soils
Since livestock grazing would continue at its
present levels and no new range improvements would
be constructed, watershed condition would be
expected to remain essentially the same for the next 20
years.
Impacts on Archaeology
Damage to archaeological remains due to
livestock trampling and trailing would continue at its
present rate. Sites previously undisturbed by livestock
would remain undisturbed.
Without improving vegetative cover and reducing
erosion, remains would continue to be exposed and
susceptible to vandalism or livestock damage. There
would be no vandalism attributable to range
improvement projects.
Impacts on Visual Resource Management
(VRM)
Areas currently overgrazed would continue to
deteriorate. Vegetative cover would diminish slightly
over the long term, but not enough to change any of the
four basic VRM elements. With this gradual change,
visual variety and therefore visual quality would also
gradually diminish, but contrast due to lack of cover
would not exceed allowable VRM contrast ratings.
Impacts on Forestry
Implementation of the No Action Alternative
would not involve thinning or burning of forested areas
and would therefore not affect forestry production.
Summary
The No Action Alternative, if implemented, would
not meet any of the eight MFP objectives as outlined in
Chapter 1. The following resources would suffer:
watershed, vegetation, livestock, wildlife, fisheries,
and recreation.
ELIMINATION OF GRAZING
Impacts on Vegetation
The Elimination of Grazing Alternative would, in
general, be beneficial to the vegetation resource. Plant
vigor would improve significantly along with slight
improvement in cover and production (Stoddart and
Smith, 1955). Seedlings of the more desirable forage
species, which would normally predominate without
grazing, would eventually become re-established
(Mueller-Dombois and Ellenberg, 1974). Composition
would improve only slightly since it requires a longer
period of time to show significant change. Vegetative
types would not change.
The predicted increase in live vegetative cover of
1.8 percent is not great, but it is a significant increase (8
percent) over current cover (Appendix Table B-2).
Changes in vegetation occur very slowly in areas of
harsh edaphic and climatic conditions (Stoddartet al.,
1975) such as the Royal Gorge EIS area. The apparent
trend in range condition would stabilize over the long
term and more significant changes in range condition
would be noticeable over an extended term of 25-50
years (Stoddart and Smith, 1955).
Riparian vegetation would be expected to improve
dramatically by the elimination of grazing.
Improvement on stream reaches classified as "fair"
and "good" would begin immediately. The 13.8 miles
of riparian habitat classified as "poor" would stabilize
as herbaceous and woody plants begin to establish
themselves, as evidenced in the Texas Creek study
area. Those in poor condition would achieve a "good"
classification within 20 years. Ninety-five miles of
stream in the EIS area would be in good or excellent
Condition.
Trespassing livestock would limit improvement on
portions of streams because riparian areas would be
grazed first. It is difficult to assess the impact of
infrequent trespass on riparian habitat, but it is
expected to be minimal. Improved watershed
conditions would buffer water flow during high- and
low-flow periods and extend riparian vegetation
further onto alluvial fans.
Since public land is intermingled with private
grazing land, fences would have to be constructed. The
Construction of 6,000 to 10,000 miles offence would be
necessary to guarantee elimination of grazing. As
many as 10,000 acres would be disturbed in building
the fence. Initially vegetation would be lost on the
fence line to permit construction. Following
completion of fences, 600 to 2,000 acres would remain
perpetually disturbed due to trailing and periodic
maintenance.
With the loss of grazing use on public lands,
private ranges and agricultural land could be more
intensively managed for more forage production to
meet additional need. This could benefit vegetation on
private lands if production and management are
improved sufficiently to meet this need. If not,
condition of private ranges could decline.
Conclusion
Upon implementation, all of the 39,369 AUMs
presently harvested by livestock would no longer be
available. In some respects, this would be beneficial.
The apparent downward trend on public rangelands
would reverse itself. All of the 341,834 acres currently
showing downward trend in range condition would
become stable. Range condition would not change
because it depends on large changes in component
factors—vegetative production, density, cover, and
species composition—which would take much longer
than 20 years, the long-term endpoint for the EIS.
Smaller beneficial changes would take place, however.
Vegetative cover would gradually increase 8 percent,
from 22.5 to 24.3 percent of total cover, after 20 years.
Vigor and production of desirable forage plants would
improve and composition of rangeland vegetation
would shift toward more desirable species for grazing.
Impacts on Livestock
Elimination of livestock grazing from public lands
(3 percent of total livestock production in the Royal
Gorge Planning Area) (Bartlett et al., 1979) would
constitute an insignificant decrease in total livestock
production over the entire EIS area. About 39,369
AUMs of forage production or 3,280 animal units of
livestock production would be lost each year.

Use of private land for grazing would probably
increase with elimination of grazing on public land if
herds are not reduced. Because of the generally better
vegetative condition and production of private land in
this EIS area, livestock would benefit from higher
Quality forage. Increased production per animal,
improved animal health, larger calf crops, and fewer
losses could indirectly result in the short term (Sims,
1975). If management and production of private lands
were not improved to sustain the increased grazing
use, the decline in vegetative condition and production
would have a significant adverse impact on livestock
over the long term.
If management and production of private lands
were improved to sustain the increased use, benefits to
livestock would be significant in the long term.
Livestock would graze ranges of higher quality and
production year around. At present, they must graze
the largely unsuitable lower producing, lower forage
Quality ranges of public land during a portion of the
year. If such a practice continues, it would, in effect,
depress potential livestock production (Stoddart et al.,
1975).
IMPACT RATINGS FOR THE ELIMINATION OF GRAZING
Impacts on Wildlife
Total elimination of grazing on public lands within
the EIS area would variously affect the biological
community (Table 4-12), favoring species that are
associated with grassland habitats at the expense of
mountain shrub-associated Species.
Many wildlife species would benefit from
increases in cover and forage. Lusby et al. (1963) found
that ground cover index on mixed soil types was
significantly higher (4 percent) on ungrazed areas than
on grazed areas at the end of 5 years. The long-term
effects on wildlife habitat are harder to evaluate, but
most wildlife authorities agree that some livestock
grazing is needed to protect species diversity and
population health and stability (see Preferred
Alternative, Wildlife).
TABLE 4-12
CHAPTER FOUR – 55
Impacts on Mule Deer
Overall, elimination of grazing would improve big
game habitat for about 20 years after implementation,
with habitat condition diminishing slightly thereafter.
Competition between livestock and big game on spring
ranges would be eliminated, significantly benefiting
mule deer; 22,598 acres of spring and summer deer
habitat would improve. However, in a study conducted
in Colorado, Rogers (unpublished paper) found that
initial recovery of various browse species is faster with
no grazing, but more forage is produced with moderate
use over a period of 3 to 4 years.
Some increase in big game populations would be
expected the first few years following implementation
because more spring forage would be available. At
first, an apparent increase in population would Occur
as deer that formerly grazed on private land during
Spring would graze on public land instead. Actual
increases in deer population would require 4 to 5 years.
ALTERNATIVE ON VARIOUS BIG GAME AND WILDLIFE SPECIES
ASSOCATIONS ON PUBLIC LANDS!
Big Game Wildlife Species Association?
Riparian
Mule Bighorn and Mountain
Deer Elk Antelope Sheep Broadleaf Shrub Conifer Grassland
Grazing Use:
AUMs at time of implementation 2 3 3 3 4 3 3 4
AUMs at 5 years 4 4 3 3 5 2 3 4
AUMs at 20 years 4 4 3 3 5 2 3 4
Period of use (rest standard) NA
Management Facilities:
Storage tanks (water) NA
Pipeline (water) NA
Reservoirs NA
Water troughs NA
Spring developments NA
Rainfall catchments NA
Wells (water) NA
Brushland plowing NA
Prescribed burning NA
Selective thinning NA
Fencing 2 4 3 3 5 2 3 4
Land Actions:
Disposal NA
Acquisition NA
Access NA
Administration:
Allotment Combination NA
Totals T2- TET T2- TZT TST –F T2- -H-
Elements considered 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
Rating 3.0 3.7 3.0 3.0 4.7 2.2 3.0 4.0
Average impact rating
for whole alternative 3.3
"The rating system is as follows:
1 = Most significant adverse impact
2 = Adverse impact
3 = Minor or no impact
4 = Beneficial impact
5 = Most significant beneficial impact
*See Royal Gorge URA Step II, Animals, for list of animals by preferred habitat sites.
56 — ROYAL GORGE ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT
These increases would be offset later, however, by
losses unrelated to grazing management such as
subdivision of private lands and other conflicting
human USeS.
The extensive fencing necessary to enforce
nonuse would disrupt big game movement and cause
some wildife losses (Papez, 1976). Numbers lost and
degree of disruption of normal movement patterns
would depend to some degree on yearly weather
cycles, hunting pressures, and other nongrazing
factors.
Impacts on Elk
Initally, removal of livestock would benefit elk
habitat by eliminating competition between livestock
and elk for forage in the spring. At other times of year,
the elk diet shifts more toward forbs and away from
grasses, however, and cattle grazing promotes the
growth of forbs. Anderson and Scherinzinger (1975)
found in their study on elk that when cattle are removed
from a jointly-used area elk numbers gradually decline
because forage quality declines. An apparent increase
in elk population would occur initially because elk
would be attracted to public land from adjacent habitat
by the increased availability of spring forage. Some
increase in elk population would actually occur after 4
to 5 years but would eventually decline to near present
levels.
Impacts on Antelope
Antelope would be relatively unaffected. No
additional forage would be provided during the crucial
winter period since antelope rarely use public land in
the winter. Competition with cattle would be reduced
during summer and this would improve the overall
quality of antelope habitat.
Impacts on Bighorn Sheep
Elimination of grazing would not affect bighorn
sheep. As riparian areas adjacent to sheep habitat
improve, bighorn sheep might extend their home range
to utilize these lush sites and the sheep population
might increase slightly.
Impacts on Riparian-Broadleaf-Associated
Species
The riparian sites would benefit more from this
alternative than any other habitat. Livestock
concentrate on lowlands, meadows, and along
watercourses and this has severely impacted riparian
vegetation within the EIS area. Within 5 years, riparian
habitats would improve significantly as cover and food
increase. Associated wildlife populations would
improve in stability, health and diversity.
Impacts on Mountain Shrub-Associated
Species
Elimination of grazing would promote grassland
habitats at the expense of mountain shrub sites. Grass
not grazed during its growing season tends to burgeon
and dominate a site by obtaining its nutrients, water,
and light at the expense of young browse plants.
Wildlife, especially deer and elk, would lose a
necessary diversity of vegetation to fulfill their
yearlong nutritional needs. Cover and nesting sites for
other wildlife species would also be lost. Domination
by grasses, however, could take 50 to 100 years
developing to a point where it would seriously impact
wildlife.
Impacts on Conifer-Associated Species
This type would be unaffected by elimination of
grazing. Grasses would not be expected to invade
established conifer stands without the aid of fire Or
logging. The cover provided by conifers would not be
affected.
Impacts on Grassland-Associated Species
Grassland habitat, like riparian habitat would be
expected to improve significantly. Grass species
would increase in density, vigor, and production
providing additional food, a greater variety of food, and
additional ground cover which is now lacking or
greatly deficient.
The reduction in livestock use would benefit more
than just herbivores. As indicated by Galliziolis (1977),
when a severely overgrazed area was rested and
allowed to recover small bird population increased
more than 100 percent.
Conclusion
With the elimination of grazing, big game habitat
would improve in the long term, principally because of
the removal of competition for spring forage. Benefits
would actually be limited, however, because livestock
grazing promotes the growth of various forage species
which are the mainstay of mule deer and elk diets
during summer, fall, and winter. The net effect would
be beneficial to elk and mule deer, antelope and
bighorn sheep would be largely unaffected.
Riparian-broadleaf-associated Species would
improve in stability, health, and diversity. Grassland
habitat would improve at the expense of shrubland
habitat, although domination of shrubland sites by
grasses, which would reduce diversity of food, cover,
and nesting sites, would not happen for 50 to 100 years.
Coniferous habitat would be unaffected.
Impacts on Aquatic Resources
The Elimination of Grazing Alternative would have
both short- and long-term beneficial impacts on
aquatic resources. Condition of 45.45 miles of stream
would change from poor or fair to good or excellent.
Ten miles of stream in fair condition and 4 miles in poor
condition would remain so due to natural Conditions.
All 109.30 miles of stream in the EIS area would
become approximately stable or improving, with
variations resulting from yearly fluctuations in climate.
Stream shading would improve as woody riparian
vegetation would grow and herbaceous species would
increase in vigor and density. These improvements
would be expected within 5 years.
As herbaceous species gain in vigor, density, and
production, streambank conditions would improve
significantly. Litter would accumulate, increasing
resistance to erosion.
Streambank stability would also improve as woody
and herbaceous species become established. In the
absence of trampling by livestock, less sediment from
streambanks would be deposited in streams.
Stream channel stability would improve as a
consequence of these other improvements. Sediment
would be reduced from surrounding streams in the
watershed as cover and litter in these areas
accumulated. As a result, food supply to Cold water
trout species would increase, improving fish
reproduction (see Preferred Alternative, Aquatic
Resources).
Fishery production on 24.25 miles of feeder stream
in the lower Arkansas drainage would be expected to
increase two to three times. Use of these streams by
fishermen would increase but would not significantly
affect fish supply to the Arkansas River, the principal
fishery in the EIS area.
Impacts on Recreation
Recreational uses of the Arkansas River would not
be affected if grazing on public lands were eliminated.
Livestock use is remote from recreational resources.
Improving big game habitat would increase their
numbers and subsequently increase hunter days by
1,350, most of which (900 days) would be attributable
to increases in the mule deer population.
Improving the quality of fisheries habitat on 45
miles of stream would increase fish production and
subsequently fisherman use on these streams. If
production were to improve 2 to 3 times on these
streams, fishermen days would increase from 122,979
to an estimated 135,359 days. Without improvement of
fish production, fisherman days would remain
relatively stable.
Primitive values and characteristics would not be
changed if grazing were eliminated on public lands.
Impacts on Economics and Social Values
If grazing were eliminated, incomes of ranch
operators using public lands would be cut back, in
some cases, severely. Some Operators would have to
give up cattle grazing as a livelihood.
Impacts on Income
Impacts on Ranch Income
As a group, ranch operations having less than 200
head of cattle would incur a loss in net revenues related
to cattle grazing of $426,744 (Table 4-5) per year. Each
operator would incur an average loss in net revenues of
$5,927 per year and would become very dependent
upon nonranching income.
As a group, ranch operations having more than
200 head of cattle would incur a loss in net revenues
related to cattle grazing of $209,832 per year. Each
operator would incur an average loss in net revenues of
$9,992 per year, but would still show an average profit
of $27,500 per year.
Impacts on Construction Income
The type of improvement needed to carry out the
elimination of grazing on public lands is shown in
Table 4-13. An estimated 6 to 10 thousand miles of
fencing would be needed costing from 18 to 30 million
dollars (1978 dollars).
TABLE 4-13
ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COSTS OF RANGE
IMPROVEMENTS OF THE ELIMINATION OF GRAZING
ALTERNATIVE — (1978 Dollars)
|tem Units Dollars
Pipeline (Miles) O O
Water Storage Tanks (No.) O O
Reservoirs (No.) O O
Water Troughs (No.) O O
Spring Developments O O
Catchments (No.) O O
Wells (No.) O O
Plowing (Acres) O O
Burning (Acres) O O
Thinning O O
Fencing (1,000s of Miles
Millions of Dollars) 6 - 10 18 - 30
Cattleguards (No.) O O
Total (Millions of
Dollars) 18 – 30
Impacts on Government Income
It is not known if increases in BLM staff would be
required for carrying out the Elimination of Grazing
Alternative, but for the purposes of this analysis it is
assumed that none would be.
Impacts on Employment
Beneficial impacts to employment would be felt in
construction activities related to the construction and
maintenance of fencing. Negative impacts would
Occur when the ranch labor force would be cut back
due to losses in public land grazing privileges. In the
long term, 27 person-years of labor would be lost
(Table 4-7).
Impacts on Government Finance and Tax Base
Local property tax collections would be reduced
$7,120 per year (Table 4-8) as a result of elimination of
grazing, but this loss would be insignificant in the EIS
area.
Impacts on Recreational Values
Recreation days would increase by 13,770
(Appendix Table F-9), mainly attributable to hunting
and fishing. Growth in income expected from
expenditures for goods and services would be
$617,349. Income growth attributable to increases in
hunting days would be $164,998; increases in fishing
days would contribute $452,351. This increase in
income would be of little regional significance.
Impacts on Social Values
The reductions set forth in the Elimination of
Grazing Alternative would conflict with attitudes and
expectations of operators whose cattle presently graze
lands administered by the BLM. As borne out at public
meetings, these people feel grazing should continue as
a necessary and defensible use of public lands.
TOO little information is available on individual
operators and their economic options to determine
social impacts wrought by elimination of grazing.
Some operators would be forced out of business but
most would continue their operations, perhaps at a
lower level. Those who quit the business could be
forced to relocate, either to a new community where
conditions are more favorable for raising livestock or to
a "new place" within this community such as a tenant
operator. In extreme cases, they might be forced to
leave the rural environment and seek residence and
employment in towns or cities. Others might continue
their lifestyle by finding new livelihood in the rural
environment. Some who suffer economic hardship but
do not quit business would seek employment to
replace lost livestock-related income.
Ranches now producing livestock could be sold
and subsequently subdivided for rural homesites.
There is already a large influx of people into the EIS
region caused by development of energy resources.
Population growth in the region will inevitably cause a
shift in the socio-political spectrum away from a
predominantly rural and agrarian Society.
Conclusion
Elimination of grazing would have adverse effects
economically. Net revenues to 21 large ranchers would
decrease from an average of $34,449 per year per
rancher to $24,457 while net revenues to 72 small
ranchers would decrease from an average of $352 to an
operating loss of $5,575 per rancher per year over the
long term. Long-term ranch labor losses would total
26.6 person-years. Total yearly property tax
collections from all ranchers, large and small, would
average $7,120 per year less over the long term. Fences
costing an estimated $18 to $30 million (6,000 to 10,000
miles total) would have to be constructed by ranchers
and would yield no economic return to them.
With improvement of riparian and wildlife habitat,
hunting and fishing would be expected to improve
(Table 2-5). Associated increases in recreation days
would be accompanied by expenditures for goods and
Services, bringing more money into the local economy.
The total increase for all recreational activities would
average $617,349 per year over the long term (20
years), but would have little regional significance.
CHAPTER FOUR – 57
Impacts on Water Resources
Impacts on Water Quantity
Elimination of grazing should result in an increase
in total ground cover, about 8 percent overall. This, in
turn, would reduce flood peak runoff by about 13
percent or 15 CSM in the long term (SCS Flood
Hydrograph method).
Reductions in average flood peak runoff would
reduce erosion rates and associated Sediment loads in
perennial and ephemeral streams. Sediment loads in
the Arkansas River would be reduced by 409,680 tons
(24 percent of present levels).
Elimination of grazing would result in a 100
percent decrease in consumptive use of water by
livestock, or 45 acre-feet annually. There would be an
increase in wildlife consumption, estimated at 1 acre-
foot per year.
Due to improved ground cover and better
infiltration of water into the soil, a very slight increase
in available ground water should occur. Quality of
ground water would not be affected.
Impacts on Water Quality
Water quality in the Arkansas River would be
improved by an unquantifiable amount as sediment
from public lands is reduced 24 percent.
Impacts on Soils
Runoff and sediment yield would be reduced as
plant vigor, ground cover, and litter increase. Sediment
yield on 5,274 acres already intensively managed
would decrease from 1.16 to 0.54 tons/acre/year. A
decrease of 65 percent would occur on another
554,791 acres, from 1.55 to 0.54 ton/acres/year. No
changes would be anticipated on 70,395 acres that are
presently not being grazed. Sediment yield estimates
have been calculated by use of the PSIAC method.
Short-term soil loss due to 6,000 miles Of fence
construction would be insignificant. From 3,000 to
6,000 acres of surface would be disturbed, but would
be revegetated naturally within 2 to 3 years.
Impacts on Archaeology
Elimination of grazing may be beneficial to
archaeological resources. Vegetative cover would
improve with the removal of livestock, reducing
exposure of artifacts due to erosion and their alteration
and destruction due to livestock trampling and to
vandalism.
Constructing 6,000 to 10,000 miles of fence would
increase accessibility to previously remote areas,
which would increase vandalism. Damage due to
vandalism is not quantifiable.
Impacts on Visual Resource Management
Improving the cover, density, vigor, production,
and composition of the forage-producing grasses
could change two of the basic elements of a landscape,
color and texture. The color of the landscape might be
slightly changed from earth colors of browns and reds
to greens and yellow of vegetation. The addition or
58 – ROYAL GORGE ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT
increase of plants could change the texture of a
landscape by covering erosion patterns or changing
vegetative types. Texture would be changed as barren
or nearly barren areas are covered, removing the
barren landscape and replacing it, at least in the
foreground, with a vegetated landscape. The changes
would be evident only at major viewpoints along roads
and highways.
Highway 50 through the Arkansas Canyon
provides the majority of viewpoints of public land in the
EIS area. Since cattle rarely graze there, there would be
no changes in livestock management and therefore no
changes in vegetation in the canyon. Existing basic
elements of that landscape would not change.
Impacts on Forestry
Elimination of livestock grazing would not involve
vegetative manipulations of forested areas and would
therefore not impact forestry production.
Increases in growth of grasses associated with
implementation of the Elimination of Grazing
Alternative would prevent or retard the establishment
of seedlings. Grass plants and shrubs are beneficial to
seedlings by providing shade which keeps soil
temperatures down, but they also compete with pine
seedlings for soil moisture and nutrients. In the long
term, effects would be offsetting and localized. Steeper
slopes where livestock do not graze would not be
impacted.
Summary
The Elimination of Grazing Alternative, if
implemented, would meet only three of the eight MFP
objectives outlined in Chapter 1. Objectives of
improving fish habitat, reducing erosion rates, and
enhancing recreational values would be met.
Objectives of improving livestock grazing habitat,
providing livestock forage on a sustained yield basis to
250 management units, providing improved access
facilities, and increasing wildlife forage and population
levels through intensive management would not be
met.
MANAGEMENT CONSTRAINTS
ALTERNATIVE
Impacts on Vegetation
As indicated earlier, policy requires that there be a
compromise alternative between the Preferred
Alternative and elimination of all grazing on public
lands. The Management Constraints Alternative is this
compromise. Under the Preferred Alternative, there
would be 77 intensively managed units. Under
Management Constraints, grazing on 50 of these
(totaling 232,589 acres) would be eliminated. The
remaining 27, covering 146,791 acres, would be
intensively managed.
On the 50 units where elimination of grazing would
take place, vegetative cover would increase 8 percent
after 20 years, from 22.5 percent total cover to 24.3
percent of total cover (Table 4-1). On the 27 units that
would be intensively managed, vegetative cover would
increase 12 percent after 20 years, from 22.5 percent
total cover to 25.2 percent of total cover. Improved
vigor and desirable species composition would cause
slight cover and production improvement on
elimination of grazing and intensively managed units
(Stoddart and Smith, 1955).
Aggregate ratings of forage plant vigor on the 77
units would improve from poor/fair to fair/good on
379,380 acres of public land. As a result, apparent
range trend would change from downward to either
stable condition or improving trend on 270,781 acres.
The continued loss of desirable species would be
abated (Humphrey, 1962). Improved range condition
would not be expected over the long term as major
changes in composition are not expected (Stoddart
and Smith, 1955).
Another 278 units covering 188,840 acres would be
managed nonintensively under the Management
Constraints Alternative. No improvement in ground
cover would be expected on these units because there
would be no change in present management of them.
Impacts to vegetation on private lands would
depend on how livestock operators reacted to
adjustments in grazing on public lands. If they would
cut back their herd size in proportion to grazing
reductions, there would be no impact on private lands.
If they would graze the same size herd after cutbacks,
condition of their range could decline significantly.
A study on Texas Creek suggests that riparian
vegetation would improve dramatically if grazing were
eliminated. Improvements along streams classified as
"fair" and "good" would begin immediately. In the long
term, 68 percent of the riparian habitat would be
classed as "good" or "excellent." Decline on 13.8 miles
of riparian habitat classified as "poor" would cease as
herbaceous and woody plants begin to establish
themselves. Riparian areas in "poor" condition would
improve to "good" condition within 20 years. Out of a
total of 109 miles of stream, 61 miles would be in
"good" or "excellent" condition.
Trespassing livestock would limit improvement on
portions of streams because areas would be grazed
first. The impact of infrequent trespass on riparian
habitat is difficult to assess but would be expected to
be minimal. Improved watershed conditions would
buffer water flow during high- and low-flow periods
and extend the riparian vegetation further onto alluvial
fans.
Burning, thinning, and plowing on intensively
managed units would improve vegetative vigor,
density, and production but significant change in
vegetative types toward more desirable species would
not occur in the relatively short time of 20 years.
Prescribed burning would be carried out on 3,160
acres on 5 management units, selective thinning on
4,000 acres on 10 management units, and brushland
plowing on 1 unit involving 100 acres.
Three reservoirs, 22 springs, and 10 catchments
would be constructed. Impacts of the development of
these water facilities would be similar to those in the
Preferred Alternative.
Approximately 1,000 to 2,000 miles of fence would
be constructed to ensure elimination of grazing,
disturbing as many as 2,000 acres of surface in the
short term. About 400 acres could remain disturbed in
the long term due to trailing of stock along fence lines
and periodic maintenance.
Conclusion
Upon implementation, a reduction in livestock use
from 39,369 AUMs to 10,413 AUMs would occur on
public rangelands. Over the long term, vegetative
cover would increase 9 percent, from 22.5 to 24.6
percent of total cover. Of the 438,959 acres of range
suitable for grazing, 341,834 acres presently exhibiting
a downward trend in range condition would become
stable. The condition of some range would improve;
100 more acres would reach excellent condition, 7,160
more good condition, and 7,160 acres less would be in
poor condition. Beneficial impacts on condition would
be attributable to land treatments. The number of
AUMS annually available would gradually increase,
reaching 14,659 after 20 years.
Impacts on Llvestock
Grazing would be eliminated on 50 of the units
proposed for intensive management in the Preferred
Alternative, totaling 232,589 acres.
Unallotted status would be applied to units
currently unallotted and proposed for unallotted status
in the Preferred Alternative. On all of these units
combined, 4,159, AUMs of livestock grazing or 347
animal units of livestock production would be
eliminated. This is less than 1 percent of total livestock
production in the region (Bartlett et al., 1979).
Intensive management would be carried out on 27
units. Initially, there would be a reduction from 9,342 to
3,232 AUMs, but in the long term (20 years), there
would be an additional 2,872 AUMS available on a
sustained-yield basis, totaling possibly as much as
6,104 AUMs. If range condition improves and grazing is
reintroduced on the 50 units where grazing would be
eliminated, up to 7,478 AUMs would be available on a
sustained-yield basis.
On nonintensively managed units there would be
no impacts because reductions (15,434 AUMs to 7,181)
would reflect the amount of forage currently being
harvested on those lands.
Operators on the 27 intensively managed units,
which would require increased herding of cattle and
maintenance of proposed range facilities, would have
higher operating costs.
The proposed water projects would improve
livestock distribution within units and reduce the
amount of time and energy livestock spent traveling to
water (Vallentine, 1971). Stocking at proper levels
would reduce grazing pressure on areas that have been
overutilized (Stoddart et al., 1975). The combined
effect would be a small but unquantifiable
improvement in livestock condition and production
(Stoddart and Smith, 1955). Fencing would facilitate
range administration by allowing BLMeasier detection
of trespass.
Impacts on Wildlife
The Management Constraints Alternative is the
most beneficial of the alternatives for wildlife (Table 4-
14). Big game and riparian habitats would receive
significant benefits, while grassland sites would
benefit to a lesser degree.
Impacts on Mule Deer
Competition for food with livestock would end on
50 management units (232,589 acres) where grazing
would be eliminated. Plant production as well as vigor
and composition would improve. Competition would
be reduced on 27 intensively managed units. There,
light grazing of important wildlife browse plants by
livestock would stimulate external bud development
and increase production of new and tender shoots,
producing a better class of browse.
TABLE 4-14
CHAPTER FOUR – 59
IMPACT RATINGS FOR THE MANAGEMENT CONSTRAINTS
ALTERNATIVE ON VARIOUS BIG GAME AND WILDLIFE SPECIES
ASSOCATIONS ON PUBLIC LANDS!
Big Game Wildlife Species Association?
Riparian
Mule Bighorn and Mountain
Deer Elk Antelope Sheep Broadleaf Shrub Conifer Grassland
Grazing Use:
AUMs at time of implementation 4 4 4 3 5 4 3 4
AUMs at 5 years 5 5 4 3 5 4 3 4
AUMs at 20 years 5 5 5 3 5 2 2 5
Period of use (rest standard) 5 5 5 3 5 2 2 5
Management Facilities:
Storage tanks (water) NA
Pipeline (water) NA
Reservoirs 4 4 3 3 4 3 3 4
Water troughs NA
Spring developments 4 4 3 4 4 3 3 4
Rainfall catchments 4 4 3 4 4 3 3 4
Wells (water) NA
Brushland plowing NA
Prescribed burning 4 4 3 4 3 3 2 4
Selective thinning 4 4 3 4 3 3 2 4
Fencing 4 4 3 3 5 3 3 4
Land Actions:
Disposal 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Acquisition 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
Access 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 3
Administration:
Allotment combination 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 4
Totals 58 58 48 49 57 46 41 55
Elements considered 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14
Rating 4.1 4.1 3.4 3.5 4. 1 3.3 2.9 3.9
Average impact rating
for whole alternative 3.7
"The rating system is as follows:
1 = Most significant adverse impact
2 = Adverse impact
3 = Minor or no impact
4 = Beneficial impact
5 = Most significant beneficial impact
*See Royal Gorge URA Step II, Animals, for list of animals by preferred habitat sites.
The addition and improvement of water sources
would better distribute livestock over the range.
Generally, the development of water facilities improves
availability of water for wildlife, but sometimes extends
livestock use to previously little or only seasonally
grazed areas so that competition develops. The degree
of impact, both beneficial and adverse, will be
addressed and mitigated in the individual AMPs on a
Site-by-site basis.
Impacts of fencing would be similar to those of
water facilities, but would, in addition, create physical
barriers to normal wildlife movement. Regardless of
mitigation, some loss of life and disruption of
movement would be unavoidable but minor (Papez,
1976).
Impacts of land treatments such as brushland
plowing, selective thinning, and prescribed burning
are difficult to evaluate because exact location,
vegetative composition, slope, and other pertinent
data would not be indicated until AMPs are written. In
general, using large brushland plows often kills native
plants, especially highly preferred forbs. Selective
thinning in forested areas and woodlands improves
habitat for deer and elk, increasing shrub and other
forage production without destroying escape cover.
Prescribed burning can create a more favorably
mixed community of grasses, forbs, and shrubs as well
as setting back overaged, dominant shrubs (Beardall
and Sylvester, 1973). Where pinyon-juniper is removed
the density of grasses, forbs, and shrubs is higher,
which is favorable to mule deer.
As a result of the Management Constraints
Alternative, 50,961 acres on 31 units with spring and
summer mule deer habitat would be improved
(Appendix Table H-2). There would also be 7,902 acres
of deer habitat degraded by facilities and fences.
Impacts on Elk
Elk would benefit from increases in spring and
Summer forage on six management units where
livestock use would be eliminated.
Increased water availability would generally not,
by itself, improve the quality of elk habitat. It would,
however, redistribute livestock into areas previously
rarely or not-at-all used, creating some competition for
spring forage but also improving browse production.
Cover would be altered on 4,000 acres of
coniferous habitat where it is thinned. This would
improve the quality of habitat by providing food in
areas adjacent to cover where none now exists.
60 – ROYAL GORGE ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT
There would be 4,780 acres of elk habitat improved
and 1,000 acres degraded by facilities and fences
(Appendix Table H-2). Reserving large areas of habitat
for wildlife would improve the quality of cover. This
could attract elk from Other areas as well as increase all
populations, but by how much cannot be estimated.
Impacts on Antelope
Impacts on antelope would be insignificant.
Impacts on Bighorn Sheep
Elimination of grazing on 3 management units
would reduce livestock use on public lands adjacent to
bighorn sheep habitat. Bighorn sheep might expand
their home range into these areas.
Water developments on public lands would
improve 2,276 acres of sheep habitat (Appendix Table
H-2).
Land treatments, management facilities and
fences would not generally impact sheep.
Impacts on Riparian-Broadleaf-Associated
Species
Excluding livestock from 50 miles of wetlands
would allow rejuvenation of terrestrial riparian
vegetation and associated wildlife (see Aquatic
Resources).
Riparian habitat would improve significantly in 5
years. Associated wildlife populations would also
benefit, improving in stability, health, and diversity.
Food and cover provided by woody and herbaceous
species of plants would increase.
Impacts on Mountain Shrub-Associated
Species
The Management Constraints Alternative would
improve vegetative species diversity, increase the
quality and quantity of nesting and escape cover, and
provide a greater supply of forage for wildlife.
Intensive management on 27 units would maintain
the desired plant mix, vigor, densities, and production
to provide wildlife with the diversity of vegetation
required to fulfill their yearlong nutritional needs (see
Preferred Alternative, Wildlife).
By contrast, elimination of grazing on 50
management units would increase productivity of
forage plants rapidly but would not maintain it for more
than 5-10 years (Rogers, unpublished paper). Without
light grazing by livestock external bud development
would not be stimulated and tender new shoots of
browse would not grow. In addition, cover and nesting
sites for other wildlife would be lost as shrubs give way
to grasses. Domination of sites by grasses, however,
could take 50 to 100 years to develop to a point where it
would seriously impact wildlife.
Development of water would increase wildlife and
livestock use of drier areas, where mountain Shrub
OCCUſ.S.
Land treatments such as thinning or burning
(7,390 acres) would convert stands of conifer or
decadent mountain shrub areas to young productive
stands of mountain shrub habitat or grassland. This
would provide additional food for wildlife as well as
livestock. Competition would be greatest in riparian
areas, which are used in the spring. Without improving
food production in those areas, wildlife use of
mountain shrub would not increase.
Some direct loss of wildlife (drowning) would be
inevitable with the expanded use of drinking troughs
and steel rib Stock tanks. These losses would be minor
and somewhat offset by the inherent capacity of the
water to attract and Sustain invertebrate populations,
improving the base of the entire food web within
intensively managed areas.
Impacts on Conifer-Associated Species
Under this alternative, 4,000 acres of conifer would
be converted to grassland or mountain shrub. Forage
production would increase at the expense of cover for
large animals. Smaller animals would not suffer loss of
COVer.
Animals indigenous to coniferous areas would
lose a small amount of habitat but the edge effect
provided by thinning would compensate for the loss of
cover. Creation of smaller areas of food within large
patches of cover would improve the quality of the
habitat slightly. Livestock use of these areas would
also increase, thereby increasing competition with
wildlife.
Impacts on Grassland-Associated Species
Grassland habitat would benefit greatly. Forage
plants would improve in vigor, production, and density,
providing additional food for larger herbivores and
creating more cover for smaller animals.
Conclusion
Wildlife habitat would benefit more under the
Management Constraints Alternative than any of the
others. On 27 intensively managed units, forage
production would increase and growth of more and
better browse would be promoted. Elimination of
grazing on 50 other units would eliminate competition
but would hurt browse production in the long term.
Mule deer and elk would be the principal beneficiaries
of any improvement. Antelope would be unaffected.
Bighorn sheep would benefit from new water
developments, which might lead them to extend their
habitat.
Riparian habitat would improve greatly where
grazing would be eliminated. Land treatments would
create smaller areas of food within large patches of
cover, improving the quality of coniferous habitat
slightly. Grassland habitat would benefit greatly.
Forage plants would gain in vigor, production, and
density, providing food for large herbivores and cover
for smaller animals.
Impacts on Aquatic Resources
The Management Constraints Alternative would
have beneficial impacts on 8 of 50 management units
where grazing would be eliminated. Stream profile
ratings on 11.25 miles of streams in these units would
improve to good or excellent condition, bringing the
total length of stream in good or excellent condition to
61.10 miles. Of this total, only 1.50 miles would improve
due to factors other than livestock management. About
48 miles of stream would remain in poor or fair
condition, 14 miles because of natural conditions. In
the long term, 56.25 miles of stream would become
stable, 10.20 miles would decline, and 42.85 miles
would improve (Table D-3).
Where grazing would be eliminated, 11.25 miles on
eight streams, stream shading would improve. Woody
species would re-establish themselves and
herbaceous species would improve in vigor, density,
and production because removal of livestock would
allow plants to increase their food reserves and meet
their physiological growth requirements.
There would be an accompanying improvement in
streambank conditions. Trampling of banks would
cease, allowing woody Species to become established
and cover to develop.
Stream channel stability would improve as woody
and herbaceous species become established, making
streambanks better able to withstand floods and
erosion. Sedimentation in streambeds would diminish
as cover in the surrounding watershed increases and
banks become more stable.
On seven streams, totaling 22.63 miles, intensive
management would improve streambank conditions
because of vigorous reproduction of herbaceous
Species.
On nine streams totaling 10.2 miles where
nonintensive management would continue, no change
in condition or apparent trend of fisheries habitat
would OCCur.
As a result of Management Constraints, fish
production would be expected to increase by two to
three times on 11.25 miles of feeder stream. Some
increase in the recreational use would be expected but
most of the greater production would benefit fisheries
on the Arkansas River. Where woody species become
established, moderate livestock grazing could be
reintroduced without harm to the aquatic resource. It is
not known how long re-establishment of reintroduced
woody species would take but the process would be
observed and studied by BLM.
Impacts on Recreation
Recreational uses of the Arkansas River would not
be affected by the Management Constraints
Alternative since livestock grazing takes place in areas
remote from recreational resources.
Improving the quality of big game habitat would
increase the number of big game, primarily mule deer.
Subsequently, the number of hunters using the area
would increase an additional 2,005 hunter recreation
dayS.
The quality of fisheries habitat would improve on
22 miles Of Stream and recreational use of these
streams would subsequently increase by 7,000
fishermen days. The number of fishermen using the
Arkansas River would not change.
Water facilities would be developed in Brown's
Canyon. These developments would be screened and
hidden by vegetation and blended into the surrounding
area as much as possible, but primitive values could
still be diminished. Effects of this are not quantifiable.
Impacts on Economics and Social Values
Agriculture, in its regional setting, is not a major
contributor to generation of personal income. Only
Fremont and Teller Counties contribute an
appreciable amount (1.5 to 2.0 percent) to their
respective county's total income (USDI, BLM, RGRA,
PAA, 1978). Reduced grazing on BLM-administered
lands would not have a significant effect on the
regional economy.
Factors considered in impact analysis in the EIS
are population, income (including range livestock-
related income, contract construction-related income,
recreation-related income, and government-related
income), employment, public finance and tax base,
and Social values. Grazing units that would be less than
intensively managed would not affect these factors
Since reductions in vegetation allocation would be
made to reflect the amount of forage currently being
harvested on them rather than being true reductions.
As a result, operating costs in the form of grazing fees
would be slightly lower. Resulting impacts on ranch
equity would only be very minor if not negligible
because the number of AUMs from public land
contributing to the equity of these ranches is very small
Compared to the AUMs derived from private land. With
a couple of exceptions, this also holds true for units
where grazing would be eliminated. Where elimination
of grazing would have a major impact on the operator,
units are included in the economic analysis. Aside from
these units, only impacts resulting from 77 units which
have been proposed for intensive management under
the Preferred Alternative are analyzed because major
impacts would derive only from them.
Income
Impacts on Ranch Income
Ranch operations having less than 200 head of
Cattle would incur a total loss of net revenues related to
cattle grazing of $365,616 per year in the short term (5
years) and $312,264 per year over the long term (Tables
4-4 and 4-5). Each rancher would incur an average
short-term loss of $5,078 per year and a long-term loss
of $4,337 per year. These ranchers, particularly the
Smaller ones, could become more dependent on
nonranching income. The method by which these
Statistics were derived appears in Appendix F.
Ranch operations having more than 200 head of
Cattle would incur a loss Of net revenues related to
cattle grazing of $307,923 per year in the short term and
$284,445 per year over the long term (Tables 4-4 and 4-
5). Each operator would incur an average short-term
loss of $14,663 per year and a long-term loss of $13,545
per year. Despite this reduction in net revenues,
intensive management would still yield an average
annual net profit per operator of $20,904.
Impacts on Construction Income
Types of improvements needed to stabilize and
improve the condition of the range under intensive
management are shown on Table 4-15. They are
estimated to cost $6.5 million (1978 dollars) and
contribute significantly to the income of construction
industries in the seven-county region.
An estimated 2,000 miles of fence construction
would be necessary to keep trespass livestock off the
50 units where grazing would be eliminated. At an
estimated cost of $3,000 per mile, $6 million would be
spent on border trespass fence out of the $6.5 million
total spent for range improvements. These fences
would not benefit livestock production and would
benefit other resources in a minor way. All riparian
habitat could be protected and all vegetation could be
reserved for the benefit of wildlife or watershed
resources. Fence construction would yield few
economic benefits, if any.
Impacts on Government Income
Four additional staff people would be hired by the
Royal Gorge Resource Area to implement intensive
management. Assuming an average of $15,000 per
employee in salary and benefits, an increase of $60,000
in annual personal income would be generated. This
would be very small in proportion to current
government-related income in Fremont County, where
most of the new employees would be located.
TABLE 4-15
ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COSTS OF RANGE
IMPROVEMENTS OF THE MANAGEMENT CONSTRAINTS
ALTERNATIVE — (1978 Dollars)
|tem Units Dollars
Pipeline (Miles) O O
Water Storage Tanks (No.) O O
Reservoirs (No.) 3 7,500
Water Troughs (No.) O O
Spring Developments 22 15,400
Catchments (No.) 10 50,000
Wells (No.) O O
Plowing (Acres) 100 2,500
Burning (Acres) 3,160 63,200
Thinning (Acres) 4,000 400,000
Fencing (Miles) 2,000 6,000,000
Cattleguards (No.)
Total
2 3,200
6,541,800
"Estimated figure; exact figure will be determined when AMPs
are completed.
CHAPTER FOUR – 61
Impacts on Employment
The principal benefit of intensive management
would accrue to the construction industry through
construction of range improvements. The ranch labor
Sector would suffer a decline in employment
accompanying cutbacks in vegetation allocations on
public land. Table 4-7 depicts these ranch labor losses.
In the short term, a reduction of 22.7 person-years of
labor would result from intensive management. In the
long term, 3 of these years would be regained, resulting
in a long-term net loss of 19.2 person-years. An
estimated four additional BLM employees would be
hired to implement intensive management, which
could be considered a beneficial though not a major
impact.
Impacts on Government Finance and Tax Base
Collections of local property taxes would be
reduced by $6,075 per year during the short term (5
years) and $5,139 per year in the long term (Table 4-8).
Given total property tax revenues of $34,086 for cattle
ranches involved in the Royal Gorge Grazing EIS area,
losses would amount to 16 percent and 7 percent in the
short term and long term, respectively. Within the
Seven-county region this loss in tax revenue would be
negligible.
Impacts on Recreational Values
Wildlife populations would increase more under
this alternative than any of the others. Income
attributable to both hunting and fishing would increase
moderately in the region due to an increase of 9,005
recreation days (Appendix Table F-10). Growth in
income expected from expenditures for goods and
services would be $458,932. The hunting share would
be $233,301 while fishing would contribute $225,631.
These additional expenditures by sportsmen would be
of little regional significance.
Impacts on Social Values
Reductions set forth in this alternative would
Conflict with the attitudes and expectations of people
engaged in livestock production who presently use
lands administered by BLM. As borne out at public
meetings, these people feel that grazing should
continue as a necessary and defensible use of public
lands. At least 90 percent of the operators would be
affected, either by reduction, elimination, or change in
management. Social impacts are directly related to
economic impacts. Too little information is available
on individual operators and their economic options to
determine social impacts. Some operators would be
forced out of business but most would continue their
Operations, perhaps at a lower level.
Ranches now producing livestock could be sold
and Subsequently subdivided for rural homesites.
There is already a large influx of people into the EIS
region caused by development of energy resources.
Population growth in the region will inevitably cause a
Shift in the Socio-political spectrum away from a
predominantly rural and agrarian society.
Conclusion
Net revenues to 21 large ranchers would decrease
from an average of $34,449 per year per rancher to
$19,786 over the short term but would average $20,904
per year per rancher over the long term. Net revenues
62 – ROYAL GORGE ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT
to 72 smaller ranchers would decrease from an average
of $352 per year per rancher to an average net
operating loss of $5,078 in the short term and an
average net operating loss of $4,337 over the long term.
Range improvements would cost $6.5 million.
Ranchers would pay $5.9 million for fencing to keep
livestock off public lands. BLM would provide $604,000
for range improvements.
In the short term, a total of 22.7 person-years of
ranch labor would be lost. Some Of that would be
recovered because employment would increase as
range improves and stocking level is again increased.
Over the long term, labor losses would total 19.2
person-years. Total yearly local property tax
collections from all ranchers, large and small, would
average $6,075 less per year in the short term and
$5,139 less per year over the long term. Income would
increase in the government sector by $60,000 due to
costs of administering the program.
Increases in recreation days would be
accompanied by expenditures for goods and services,
bringing more money into the local economy. The total
increase for all recreational activities would average
$458,932 per year over the long term.
Impacts on Water Resources
Impacts on Water Quantity
A slight decrease in runoff should occur on 27
intensively managed units totaling 146,791 acres as
vegetative cover increases (Appendix Table G-1). The
decrease would be about 3 percent (3.8 CSM) due to an
average increase in ground cover of about 2 percent in
the long term (Appendix Table B-2).
There would be a greater decrease in runoff from
50 allotments (232,589 acres) where grazing would be
eliminated. On these units, ground cover would
increase about 16 percent with a resulting decrease in
runoff of 15 CSM, or 13 percent, based on the SCS
Flood Hydrograph method.
In units 133, 194, 224, 230 and 231, a total of 3,160
acres would be scheduled for burning of oakbrush in
order to establish more forage. This action would
result in a short-term (2-3 year) decrease in ground
cover with accompanying increases in runoff and
sediment load. Increases should be highest during the
first year (depending on storms) and are estimated to
average 61 CSM of runoff and 3,000 tons of sediment
load per year. In the long term, runoff and sediment
load would approach pre-treatment levels.
Thinning of pinyon-juniper stands is proposed on
4,000 acres in units 97, 126, 142, 193, 197,204, 230, and
231. An increase in runoff and sediment load would be
expected after treatment. Initial increases in runoff
would be 29 CSM and 220 tons per year per square mile
of sediment. As ground cover increased over the short
term, sediment yield and runoff would decrease
slightly from pre-treatment levels (Pase and
Lindenmuth, 1971), stabilizing in the long term.
Average annual sediment loads in the Arkansas
River would decrease by 275,200 tons (15 percent of
present levels). No changes in sediment loads in the
South Platte River would be expected (PSIAC method,
Appendix G).
There would be a 75 percent decrease in
consumptive use of water (about 38 acre-feet per year)
by livestock. Use by wildlife would increase by 1 acre-
foot per year, or 2 percent.
No changes in ground water quantity or quality are
anticipated.
Impacts on Water Quality
Water quality would be improved by an
unquantifiable amount as sediment introduction into
the Arkansas River is reduced 15 percent.
Conclusion
Consumptive use of water for livestock would
decrease from 50 acre-feet to 12 acre-feet per year.
Runoff from rangelands would decrease, reflecting
increases in vegetative cover and production. Volume
of runoff from a 10-year storm would gradually
decrease to 94 percent of current levels after 20 years.
Over the same period, peak flow from 10-year storms
would be reduced 3 percent.
Impacts on Soils
On 27 intensively managed units, sediment yield
would decrease from 1.55 to 1.16 tons/acre/year as
vegetative cover increased. On 50 units where grazing
would be eliminated, sediment yield would decrease
from 1.55 to .54 tons/acre/year. There would, in
addition, be a slight increase in sediment yield (0.65
tons/acre/year) on 59 currently unallotted units
(29,610 acres) that would be managed nonintensively
under the Management Constraints Alternative. There
would be essentially no change on the remaining 219
nonintensively managed and 13 unallotted units.
Sediment yield estimates have been calculated by use
Of the PSIAC method.
There would be a short-term Soil loss of 3,183 tons
from range improvements and land treatments, less
than 1 percent increase over present levels. Long-term
soil loss would be negligible.
Impacts on Archaeology
Elimination of grazing on 50 units would benefit
archaeological resources. Vegetative cover would
improve with the removal of livestock, reducing
exposure of artifacts due to erosion and their alteration
and destruction due to livestock trampling and to
vandalism.
Intensive management on 27 units would also
increase Cover and reduce erosion but an
unquantifiable amount of vandalism could occur to
sites located near range improvement projects.
Impacts on Visual Resource Management
Improving the cover, density, vigor, production
and composition of the forage-producing grasses
could change two of the basic elements of a landscape,
color and texture. The color of the landscape might
change slightly, from the earth colors brown and red to
the green and yellow of vegetation. The addition or
increase of plants could change the texture of a
landscape by covering erosion patterns or changing
vegetative types. Texture would be changed as barren
or nearly barren areas are covered, removing the
barren landscape and replacing it, at least in the
foreground, with a vegetated landscape. The changes
would be evident only at major viewpoints along roads
and highways.
Highway 50 through the Arkansas Canyon
provides the majority of view-points of public land in
the EIS area. There would be no changes in livestock
mangement and therefore no changes in vegetation in
the canyon. Existing basic elements of that landscape
would therefore remain the same.
Range improvement facilities such as pipelines,
storage and watering tanks, fences, and temporary
roads would contrast with an otherwise natural
landscape. These impacts would be short term and
highly localized, however. There would also be short-
term visual intrusions related to land treatments such
as plowing, burning, and thinning. None of the adverse
impacts would threaten outstanding scenery or
primitive and wildland areas.
None of the adverse impacts identified above
exceed allowable Visual Resource Management
contrast ratings. For criteria and methodology, see
BLM Manual, Section 8400.
Impacts on Forestry
Increases in growth of grasses associated with
implementation of the Management Constraints
Alternative would prevent or retard the establishment
of seedlings. Grass plants and shrubs are beneficial to
seedlings by providing shade which keeps soil
temperatures down, but they also compete with pine
seedlings for soil moisture and nutrients. In the long
term, effects would be offsetting and localized. Steeper
slopes where livestock do not graze would not be
impacted.
Thinning 4,000 acres of pinyon-juniper would
produce about 20,000 cords of firewood. Current value
of firewood is $5 per cord and would result in $100,000
in revenues being collected over 20 years. Burning
3, 160 acres of Oakbrush would decrease conifer seed
sources. Forest product revenues would not be
impacted.
Summary
Implementation of the Management Constraints
Alternative would result in seven of the eight MFP
objectives being met. Increased livestock forage
objectives would not be achieved. Objectives for
improving livestock grazing habitat, providing forage
on a sustained yield basis, improving fish habitat,
reducing erosion rates, enhancing recreational values,
improving access, and increasing wildlife forage would
also be met.
NONINTENSIVE MANAGEMENT
ALTERNATIVE
Impacts on Vegetation
Adjusting the grazing level through proper
vegetation allocation is the first step in managing for
the improvement of rangeland. Nonintensive
management, which would adjust grazing levels
without providing a rest standard, would not provide
for the needs of the desirable forage species (Appendix
Table B-2). Therefore, major changes in vegetative
composition would not occur and vegetative types
would not be affected.
Range condition would not improve without
increasing percent composition of desirable species;
435,276 acres of public land would remain in poor or
fair condition. The gradual apparent downward trend
of most of the rangeland resource would continue and
eventually reach equilibrium where it has not already
done SO.
Although percent composition of desirable
species would not increase, plant vigor would improve,
increasing forage production slightly. Forage
production would, however, remain far below
potential. Forage production increases would be very
small and would be offset by continued deterioration of
vegetation in livestock concentration areas. Condition,
trend, and production in these areas would not change
or would decrease slightly.
Approximately 50 miles of riparian habitat would
be fenced to prevent further deterioration and to
improve habitat. This would require approximately 100
miles of fence. Within fenced enclosures plant vigor
would improve in the short term; cover, production,
and composition would improve over the long term.
Impacts on Llvestock
The major impact of nonintensive management on
livestock would be the reduction of grazing on public
lands from 39,369 AUMs to 14,212 AUMs. With this
reduction, 2,096 animal units per year would be lost,
about 2 percent of livestock production in the region
(Bartlett et al., 1979). Livestock production per animal,
TABLE 4-16
CHAPTER FOUR – 63
however, would be improved with less grazing on the
unsuitable range (Stoddart et al., 1975).
Two hundred seventeen operators would not be
impacted because reductions would reflect the
amount of forage they are currently harvesting from
public lands. Ninety-three other operators would be
forced to reduce their herds or find additional feed Or
pasturage. If additional use would be forced on private
land without improved management and production,
condition Of these lands would decline.
Fencing of 50 miles of riparian habitat would not
significantly impact livestock production. Livestock on
24 allotments would be forced to utilize lower quality
and less accessible forage and would gain weight more
slowly.
Impacts on Wildlife
The proposed reductions in livestock use without
a rest standard for forage plants would not notably
increase the amount of food or quality of cover for
wildlife (Table 4–16).
IMPACT RATINGS FOR THE NONINTENSIVE MANAGEMENT
ALTERNATIVE ON VARIOUS BIG GAME AND WILDLIFE SPECIES
ASSOCATIONS ON PUBLIC LANDS!
Big Game Wildlife Species Association?
Riparian
Mule Bighorn and Mountain
Deer Elk Antelope Sheep Broadleaf Shrub Conifer Grassland
Grazing Use:
AUMs at time of implementation 2 2 3 3 4 3 3 3
AUMs at 5 years 2 3 3 3 4 3 3 4
AUMs at 20 years 3 3 3 3 5 3 3 4
Period of use (rest standard) NA
Management Facilities:
Storage tanks (water) NA
Pipeline (water) NA
Reservoirs NA
Water troughs NA
Spring developments NA
Rainfall catchments NA
Wells (water) NA
Brushland plowing NA
Prescribed burning NA
Selective thinning NA
Fencing 3 3 3 3 5 3 3 2
Land Actions:
Disposal 2 2 3 3 2 2 2 2
Acquisition 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 4
Access NA
Administration:
Allotment combination NA
Totals TGT + TET TST T2: . TET TET TST
Elements considered 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6
Rating 2.7 2.8 3.0 3.2 4.0 3.0 3.0 3.2
Average impact rating
for whole alternative 3.1
"The rating system is as follows:
1 = Most significant adverse impact
2 = Adverse impact
3 = Minor or no impact
4 = Beneficial impact
5 = Most significant beneficial impact
2See Royal Gorge URA Step II, Animals, for list of animals by preferred habitat sites.
64 – ROYAL GORGE ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT
Impacts on Mule Deer
Reduction in livestock numbers without a change
in period of use would not diminish big game-livestock
competition for early spring grasses and forbs
generally. In areas where livestock concentrate, such
as riparian zones, competition for forage during the
spring would remain intense.
Construction of 50 miles of fence to protect
riparian habitat would provide additional forage for big
game and increase cover for all species of wildlife in
the short term. Fencing would exclude livestock but
not wildlife from riparian areas, particularly benefiting
mule deer and elk in spring and summer. Although
fences constitute physical barriers to wildlife (Papez,
1976), loss of life and disruption of movement would be
expected to be minor.
The combined effects of livestock reductions and
fencing would be improvement of 18,238 acres of mule
deer habitat on 17 management units and degradation
of 4,360 acres (Appendix Table H-3). Some increases
in mule deer population would be expected initially but
would be offset later by losses from causes unrelated
to grazing management such as subdivision of private
lands and other conflicting human uses.
Impacts on Elk
Reductions in livestock numbers would generally
reduce competition between elk and cattle. Since most
cattle use in the spring is on rangelands that are lower
in elevation than those used by elk, reduction of
competition would have minimal impact.
As a result of reduced livestock use, approximately
3,960 acres of elk spring-summer habitat in 6
management units would be improved (Appendix
Table H-3).
Impacts on Antelope
Antelope would not be impacted because new
water sources would not be developed and quality of
cover and food on their winter habitat would not be
improved.
Impacts on Bighorn Sheep
Fencing portions of Fourmile and Eightmile
Creeks (11 miles) would improve the quality of forage
in riparian areas, improving 900 acres of adjacent
sheep habitat (Appendix Table H-3).
Impacts on Riparian-Broadleaf-Associated
Species
Fencing of riparian zones would allow plants to
increase in density, vigor, and production and allow
litter to accumulate. This would improve cover and
availability of food and increase the ecological
stability, health, and diversity of wildlife species using
those areas.
Impacts on Mountain Shrub-Associated
Species
This habitat type would not be affected by
nonintensive management. Without providing forage
plants a rest standard, areas grazed in the spring and
summer would not be expected to show an
improvement in vegetation, food, or cover.
Impacts on Conifer-Associated Species
Without providing rest standards, no changes in
the vegetative makeup of this habitat type would be
expected.
Impacts on Grassland-Associated Species
Without providing a rest standard, no changes in
the vegetative makeup of this habitat would be
expected.
Impacts on Aquatic Resources
Where livestock use is excluded by fencing, 11.25
miles of stream would improve from poor or fair
condition to good or excellent (Appendix Table D-4).
No improvement would take place where livestock use
is reduced but no rest standard applied. Grazing does
not affect 63.5 miles of the 109 miles of Stream in the
EIS area.
The profile rating on 11.25 miles of stream in the
EIS area would improve to good or excellent, bringing
the total to 61.10 miles. Some reaches (48.20 miles)
would remain in poor or fair condition, 14 miles of
which would never improve because condition is
limited by other factors.
Under the Nonintensive Alternative, trend of
condition on 45 miles of stream would continue to
decline (56.30 at present), 62.75 miles would be stable,
and 1.50 miles would improve (Appendix Table D-4).
Stream shading would improve where woody
species become re-established and where herbaceous
species gain in vigor and density. Elimination of
grazing by fencing would allow plants to grow and
meet their physiological requirements. Streambank
conditions would also improve as cover, density,
production, and litter increase.
Streambank stability would improve as woody
Species re-established themselves and streambanks
became more resistant to erosion. Trampling of banks
by livestock would stop also, further improving
stability. Channel stability as a whole would improve
and less sediment would be deposited in streambeds.
Fish would more easily find food and spawn and the
fishery would benefit.
Fish production on 11.25 miles of stream would
improve two to three times as a result of improving
stream condition. Some increase in recreational use of
fisheries in these streams would be expected but most
benefits would be realized on the Arkansas River.
On 34.50 miles of stream where grazing would
continue, conditions would remain unchanged. Mere
reduction of grazing alone has been shown not to
benefit aduatic resources.
Impacts on Recreation
Reducing livestock use on management units
adjacent to the Arkansas River would not affect
recreational uses of the river.
Improved big game habitat could eventually result
in an increase in big game numbers and subsequently
hunter use of the area, by an additional 1,060 hunter
fish production.
TEXAS CREEK RIPARIAN AREA IS COMING BACK
After two years without livestock grazing, herbaceous and woody riparian vege-
tation (grasses) has grown high and is continuous to the water's edge.
ground, woody species of vegetation are beginning to regenerate themselves.
Improvement in riparian vegetation will lead to a two- to three-fold increase in
In the fore-

days. The largest increase could be experienced in
deer hunting (Table 4-3).
The quality of fisheries on 11.25 miles of stream
would improve, resulting in an increase of 4,970
fishermen days. This increase would occur only on
Smaller streams that feed the Arkansas River.
Primitive values and characteristics Of Brown's
Canyon and Beaver Creek would not be affected by
reductions in livestock use.
Impacts on Economics and Social Values
Economic impacts of the Nonintensive Alternative
would be the same as for the Preferred Alternative.
Analysis of these impacts was based only on the 77
units proposed for intensive management in the
Preferred Alternative. The other units were not
analyzed because they contained too little public land
to have a significant impact.
Impacts on Income
Impacts on Ranch Income
Range operations having less than 200 head of
Cattle would incur a total loss of net revenues related to
Cattle grazing of $297,864 per year (Table 4–4). Each
rancher would incur an average long-term loss of
$4,137 per year over the long term. These ranchers,
particularly the smaller ones, would become more
dependent on nonranching income. Further
elaboration of the method by which these statistics
were derived appears in Appendix F.
Ranch operations having more than 200 head of
cattle would incur a loss of net revenues related to
cattle grazing of $146,559 per year over the long term
(Table 4-4). Each operator would incur an average loss
of $6,979 per year. Despite this reduction in net
revenues, each operator would still show an average
net profit of $30,000 per year.
Impacts on Construction Income
Range improvement would consist of 100 miles of
fencing. Estimated cost would be $300,000 and would
not contribute significantly to the income of
Construction industries in the seven-county region.
Impacts on Government Income
Personal income in the government sector would
not increase since no additional employees would be
hired by the BLM.
Impacts on Employment
The ranch labor sector would suffer a decline in
employment as cutbacks in vegetation allocations on
public land occurred. Table 4–7 depicts these ranch
labor losses. In the short term, a reduction of 18
person-years of labor would result from nonintensive
management. No additional hiring would occur in the
QOvernment Sector.
Impacts on Government Finance and Tax Base
Local property tax changes incurred as a result of
nonintensive management would reduce property
taxes collected by $5,472 per year over the long term
(Table 4-8). Given a total property tax collection of
$34,086 for cattle ranches in the Royal Gorge Grazing
EIS area, long-term losses would amount to 16
percent. Within the seven-county region this loss in tax
revenue is negligible.
Impacts on Recreational Values
The recreation-related impacts would be similar to
those in the Preferred Alternative. AS wildlife
populations increase, recreation-related income from
hunting and fishing would rise. Recreation days would
increase 5,970 and income to the local economy would
increase $305,543 (Appendix Table F-14). The hunting
share would be $126,180 while fishing would
contribute $179,363. This increase in income would be
of little regional significance.
Impacts on Social Values
Reductions resulting from implementation of the
Nonintensive Management Alternative would conflict
with attitudes and expectations of people engaged in
livestock production who presently use lands
administered by the BLM. As borne out at public
meetings, these people feel that grazing should
continue as a necessary and defensible use of public
lands. At least 90 percent of all operators would be
affected, either by reduction, elimination, or change in
management.
TOO little information is available on individual
operators and their economic options to determine
Social impacts wrought by intensive management.
Some operators would be forced out of business but
most would continue their operations, perhaps at a
lower level. Those who quit the business might have to
relocate, either to a new community where conditions
are more favorable, for raising livestock or to a "new
place" within this community, such as a tenant
operator. In extreme cases, they might have to leave
the rural environment and Seek residence and
employment in towns and cities. Others might
continue their lifestyle by finding new livelihood in the
rural environment. Some operators who suffer
economic hardship as a result of intensive
management but would not quit business would seek
employment to replace lost livestock-related income.
Ranches now producing livestock could be sold
and subsequently Subdivided for rural homesites.
There is already a large influx of people into the EIS
region caused by development of energy resources.
Population growth in the region will inevitably cause a
shift in the socio-political spectrum away from a
predominately rural and agrarian Society.
Conclusion
Net revenues to 21 large ranchers would decrease
from an average of $34,449 to $27,470 per year per
rancher while net revenues to 72 Smaller rancherS
would decrease from an average of $352 to a net
operating loss of $3,785 per year per rancher over the
long term. Long-term ranch labor losses would total
17.9 person-years. Total yearly property tax
collections from all ranchers, large and small, would
average $5,472 less per year over the long term. Range
improvements, limited to fencing of riparian areas to
protect them from livestock, would cost $300,000.
CHAPTER FOUR —65
Increases in recreation days would be
accompanied by expenditures for goods and services,
bringing more money into the local economy. The total
increase for all recreational activities would average
$305,543 per year over the long term.
Impacts on Water Resources
Impacts on Water Quantity
Runoff from 123,931 acres should not change
since total ground cover in these areas would be
expected to change less than 1 percent (Appendix
Table G-1). Ground cover on 255,449 acres would
improve by 1 or 2 percent in the long term (Appendix
Table B-2). This would result in a decrease in peak
flows of 1 percent as calculated by the SCS Flood
Hydrograph method.
Without changes in ground cover there should be
no change in annual sediment loads in the South Platte
River. Sediment load would decrease by 169,100 tons
in the Arkansas (9 percent from existing levels) as
ground cover increases (PSIAC method, Appendix G).
There would be a 70 percent decrease in
consumptive use of water by livestock (35 acre-feet per
year) due to the reductions in AUMs. Consumptive use
by wildlife would not be expected to change.
No changes would be anticipated in ground water
quality or ground water quantity.
Impacts on Water Quality
Although total dissolved solids and salinity in
streams are related to the quantity and characteristics
of sediment load, no changes in water quality should
result from nonintensive management because
expected changes in sediment load are small
compared to existing levels.
Impacts on Soils
A 70 percent reduction in levels of livestock
without grazing management would offer little change
in sediment yield and erosion. Cattle would continue to
"select" graze certain desirable areas, e.g., around
water sources, salt licks, and areas of easy
accessibility.
Most sediment yield reduction would be long term,
showing a slight decrease, from 1.55 to 1.19
tons/acre/year. Sediment yield estimates have been
calculated by use of the PSIAC method.
Construction of 51.3 miles of fence around
riparian habitat would disturb 25 to 50 acres of surface;
soils losses would be short term and insignificant.
Complete rehabilitation would occur in 2 or 3 years.
Impacts on Archaeology
Vegetative cover would change only slightly,
which would maintain erosion and exposure of cultural
remains at their present rates.
Developing 50 miles of fence would not
appreciably increase vandalism. -
66 – ROYAL GORGE ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT
Impacts on Visual Resource Management
(VRM)
Changes in vegetative cover, production, vigor or
composition would not be expected. Without changes
in vegetation there would be no changes in any of the
four basic VRM elements.
Visual contrasts which would result from
constructing 50 miles of fence would be short term and
highly localized. None of the fence construction would
threaten outstanding scenery.
Impacts on Forestry
Implementation of the Nonintensive Alternative
would not involve vegetative manipulation of forested
areas and would therefore not affect forest production.
Summary
The Nonintensive Alternative, if implemented,
would fail to meet five of the eight MFP objectives as
outlined in Chapter 1. Objectives for improving fish
habitat, enhancing recreational values, and providing
forage on a sustained yield basis to 250 management
units would be met. Objectives not met include
improving livestock grazing habitat, increasing
vegetation production, and thereby providing more
livestock forage on a sustained yield basis, improving
access facilities, increasing wildlife forage, and
reducing erosion rates.
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN
LOCAL SHORT-TERM USES OF
MAN’S ENVIRONMENT AND
THE MAINTENANCE AND EN-
HANCEMENT OF LONG-TERM
PRODUCTIVITY
Productivity of the environment would be affected
by implementation of the Preferred Alternative. In this
context, "short-term" refers to productivity accruing 5
years after implementation, "long-term" to
productivity accruing 20 years after.
Cumulative Impacts
The Preferred Alternative would not generally lead
to impacts beyond those discussed in Chapter 4.
However, widespread success on intensively managed
units could lead to intensive grazing management on
additional units on public lands. This would result in
impacts similar to those discussed for the Preferred
Alternative.
The major factor in the EIS area's future is
expected to be the exploration for and development of
uranium. These activities would probably have
profound social and economic impacts. Grazing
management would have little, if any, effect on energy
development and its impacts. Energy development, on
the other hand, could have significant impacts on
grazing management as land is diverted from livestock
operations to mining activities and residential and
commercial development.
Long-term adverse impacts arising from the
Preferred Alternative in the EIS area are listed below.
Note that impacts associated with high density grazing
periods, while of only several weeks' or months'
duration, are considered to be long-term since they
would occur repeatedly as long as the grazing systems
are in effect, i.e., up to 20 years into the future.
1. Reductions in foliage volume and plant
carbohydrate stores during each periodic, high density
grazing period.
2. Modification of 18,530 acres of pinyon-juniper and
conifer types due to vegetation manipulation.
3. A decrease of five AUM's of forage production
resulting from the loss of between 47 and 152 acres to
range facilities.
4. Increased soil compaction and decreased litter
during periods of high density grazing.
5. An increase in big game mortality of about five mule
deer per year due to fencing.
6. Increased wildlife/livestock competition during
periods of high density grazing.
7. The loss of an unknown amount of riparian and
aquatic habitat due to the replacement of surface flow
with piping.
8. Higher operating costs of the 77 intensively
managed allotments because of increased herding of
livestock and maintenance of range facilities.
9. Initial decreases in income, market values, and EIS
area tax base due to stocking reductions.
10. The creation of visual contrasts due to
juxtaposition of grazed and rested pastures, vegetation
manipulation, and range facilities.
11. Increased vandalism and inadvertent damage to
cultural resources.
Trends Significantly Impacting Environmental
Values
The proposal would result in the following trends:
1. Improvement in vegetation, soil, watershed, and
wildlife resource values (see Chapter 4 for
quantification of improvements as they would exist 20
years after implementation).
2. Offsetting beneficial and adverse impacts on visual
resources. Increased visual quality of vegetation over
the entire EIS area would offset local visual
disturbances created by the juxtaposition of grazed
and rested pastures and the presence of vegetation
manipulation projects and range facilities.
3. Potential degradation (loss or destruction) of
cultural resources.
LONG- AND SHORT-TERM
BENEFITS
This section enumerates long-and short-term
benefits arising out of the proposal and highlights the
tradeoffs (adverse impacts) necessary to bring these
about.
Risks to Health and Safety
The proposal would result in minimal risks to
health and safety. The 151 miles of fence to be
constructed as part of the proposal would be a safety
hazard for snowmobilers, motorcyclists, and
horseback riders. The level of risk is considered to be
minimal.
Alteration in Quality of Life
The proposal would generally improve the quality
of life. The increased vegetative production would
result in increased production of red meat per animal
which would benefit both livestock operators and the
public. Improvement in wildlife habitat and numbers
would increase recreational opportunities, i.e., hunting
and sightseeing.
Less tangible, but perhaps most important, is the
overall protection and enhancement of environmental
resources—vegetation, soil, water, and wildlife—for
both present and future generations. These resources
are useful not only for commodity production; they
also contribute to the quality of recreational and
wilderness experience.
Tradeoffs would be necessary to achieve the
objectives of the proposal. In some cases, quality of life
would diminish in local areas or for specific
individuals. Overall, however, quality of life would be
enhanced should the proposal be implemented.
Summary
Taking into account both the benefits and
tradeoffs which would result from implementation of
the proposal, the net effect would be an enhancement
of natural ecosystem productivity (vegetation, soils,
watershed, and wildlife) and human productivity
(active qualifications, income, market values, and EIS
area tax base). The proposal would generally support
NEPA Section 101 (b) goals. There would be minimal
risks to health and Safety.
|RREVERSIBLE AND IRRE-
TRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF
RESOURCES WHICH WOULD
BE INVOLVED IF THE PREFER-
RED ALTERNATIVE WERE IM-
PLEMENTED
The irreversible and irretrievable commitment of
resources resulting from the Preferred Alternative are
described below. The term irreversible refers to use
that is incapable of being reversed; once initiated, use
would continue. The term irretrievable means
essentially irrecoverable or not reasonably retrievable;
once used, the resource would not be readily
replaceable.
Vegetation manipulation would result in the
irreversible loss of 18,530 acres of conifer and pinyon-
juniper vegetation types and an initial, irretrievable
loss of soil due to increased erosion.
Burning 4,900 acres of the mountain shrub
vegetation would result in the irreversible loss of 4,900
acres of that type and an initial, irretrievable loss of soil
due to increased erosion.
Brushland plowing would result in the irreversible
loss of 200 acres of half-shrub vegetation type but no
increase in erosion.
Construction of range facilities would result in the
loss of 43 to 145 acres which the facilities would
Occupy. Loss of forage in the area removed from
production would be irretrievable and amount to
approximately 5 AUMs annually for the life of the
proposed projects. Soil disturbance would result in
Some irretrievable losses of soil in the short term.
The development of range facilities could disturb
Certain cultural resources, either through direct impact
or through vandalism. Once disturbed, historical and
archaeological sites, as well as artifacts, would no
longer be available for future study. This would deplete
Or alter the nonrenewable Cultural resource base and
could result in a data gap in the history of an area.
Cultural resource loss would be irreversible and
irretrievable.
The Preferred Alternative would involve
commitment of material associated with the proposed
improvements. Once installed, these materials would
be irretrievably committed, though the materials might
have some salvage value.
The major irreversible and irretrievable
commitment would involve the costs associated with
installation, maintenance, and administration of the
proposal. Once the expenditures were made, those
particular funds would not be available for other public
programs. An additional irretrievable commitment
would involve the labor associated with the proposal.
Labor, too, once expended, could not be retrieved.
Irretrievable losses of tax revenue would be realized
where reductions in livestock use Occurred.
ROYAL GORGE GRAZING EIS TEAM
CHAPTER FOUR – 67
LIST OF PREPARERS
Seventeen people wrote all or parts of sections in
this EIS. They are listed below.
A core team of three members wrote Chapters 1
and 2, which explain the purpose of the EIS and
describe the alternatives.
Chapters 3 and 4 were edited by the core team
from written information provided by the resource
Specialists. All but one have been in their present
positions with BLM at least 1 year, either in the Canon
City District or at the Colorado State Office. All are
knowledgeable about the EIS area.
Team
Name Assignment Education Experience
James Sazama” Team Leader BS Wildlife BLM - 3 yrs. Wildlife Biologist
MS Range Management
Clay Bridges Wildlife BS Wildlife Biology
Donald Prichard Fisheries BS Fisheries Biology
Roy Wiley" Vegetation & Livestock BS Range-Forest Mgmt.
g Technical Coordinator
Jim Cunio Vegetation BS Forest Managment
Dennis Zachman Recreation BS Outdoor Recreation
William Schneider
Erik Brekke Air Quality BS Wildlife Biology
Robert Addison Soils BS Agronomy
Howard Wertsbaugh Hydrology BS Watershed
Roger Underwood Geology BS Geology
John Martin
John Beardsley
Visual Resource
Economic & Social
Archaeology
BA Geology
MS Outdoor Recreation
BLM - 1 yr. Range Conservationist
BLM - 11 yrs. Wildlife Biologist
BLM - 2 yrs. Fisheries Biologist
BLM - 2 yrs. Range Conservationist
BLM - 2 yrs. Forester
BLM - 5 yrs. Outdoor Rec. Planner
NPS - 10 yrs. Park Naturalist
BLM - 5 yrs. Outdoor Rec. Planner
BLM - 1 yr. Wildlife Biologist
BIA - 2 yrs. Soil Scientist
SCS - 3 yrs. Soil Scientist
BLM - 3 yrs. Soil Scientist
USFS - 15 yrs. Hydrologist
BLM - 4 yrs. Hydrologist
MS Ag Economics
BA Anthropology
BLM - 7 yrs. Geologist
BLM - 3 yrs. Economist
USFS - 1 yr. Archaeologist
BLM - 3 yrs. Archaeologist
Frederic Athearn History Ph.D. History
William Dyer" Write/Edit/Review BS Chemistry
MS English
MA History of Science
Ken Smith Wilderness BS Outdoor Recreation
MS Rec. & Outdoor Adm.
Stuart Parker Lands BA Economics
BLM - 3 yrs. Historian
BLM - 3 yrs. Writer/Editor
BLM - 1 yr. Wilderness Coordinator
BLM - 9 yrs. Realty Specialist
*Core team members prepared Chapters 1 and 2, while other team members provided information for Chapters 3 and 4 for their team
assignment. Roy Wiley, in addition to preparing Chapters 1 and 2, also provided information for Chapters 3 and 4 in Vegetation and
Livestock segments.
68 – ROYAL GORGE ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT
,

APPENDICES – A-1
APPENDIX A Additional rationale and details are available in the
Royal Gorge Unit Resource Analysis (URA) and
Management Framework Plan (MFP), available in the
Summary of Grazing Management Royal Gorge Resource Area, Canon City.
Recommendations
The following table is a summary of the grazing
management recommendations, how they conflicted
with and complemented other resource activities,
management's decision on each recommendation, and
trade-offs required for implemention.
TABLE A-l
DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPOSAL IN MFP STEP 1 AND STEP 2
ROYAL GORGE PLANNING AREA
Other MFP-1 Resource Other MFP-1 Resource Multiple Use Rationale for
MFP-1 Management Recommendations Management Recommendations Recommendations Resource the Multiple Use
Recommendation or URA Values Which Conflict Which Complement (MFP-2) Trade Off S Recommendations
Range Management
Maintain 12,930 acres of None Maintain or enhance Same a S MFP - 1 None This will reduce admin-
presently unalloted pub- existing watershed ministrative costs of
lic lands in 5 management conditions to maintain range management while
units, permanently in existing water quality. protecting qualities
this status. Restrict use of critical associated with those
wildlife habitat to management units.
protect ptarmigan and
bighorn sheep habitat.
Manage approximately Protect critical wildlife Manage approxi- Grazing will No nintensive management
147,832 acres of public habitat by fencing fisheries mately 120,010. be eliminated will allow cost effect-
lands in 177 management and riparian areas, and of public lands by fencing 5 ive land management.
units in a nonintensive eliminating use on other in 172 manage- fisheries. Watershed guidelines
Status areas by elimination of ment units in a Five management will ensure that public
grazing non intensive units (58,61, lands are grazed proper-
Statu S 199, 200, and ly and critical wildlife
202) will be habitat will be fenced
intensively or be managed intensive-
managed to ly. Intensively managed
provide man- areas will have specific
agement for wildlife goals and
critical wild- objectives developed in
life habitat. AMPs. Fencing recrea-
Grazing will tion sites to eliminate
be eliminated cattle grazing will
on developed protect site develop-
recreation ments and improve the
sites. quality of these sites.
Manage approximately Grazling should be eliminated Continue or intensify Manage approxim- Improvement of Intensive grazing sys-
352, 356 acres of public on 50 miles of riparian habi- existing management a tely 378,646 riparian fish- tems will be developed
land in 72 management tat and on another 128,000 to maintain or increase acres of public eries habitat, to protect general
units in an intensive acres to protect critical total ground cover for lands in 77 man- critical wild- watershed conditions,
Status wildlife habitat. An ad- protection of watershed agement units life habitat woody riparian vegeta-
ditional 5 units with 26, 290 Iſe SOUl I C eS e in an intensive and watershed tion, and other sensi-
acres should be intensively Statu S. conditions will tive a reas to ensure
managed to protect critical be slower than that their condition
wildlife habitat. if grazing were doesn't deteriorate.
eliminated. If conditions continue
Grazing should not be allowed to deteriorate or show
on developed recreation sites. Grazing will no positive response to
be eliminated the system, a new system
Any grazing on critical water- as developed may be developed or
shed areas will prevent water- recreation grazing eliminated .
shed conditions from rapidly sites are com- Exclosures will be con-
improving. pleted and structed in riparian
fenced. areas to monitor pro-
Any developments placed in gress of the grazing
wilderness study areas should Installation treatment •
not degrade wilderness qualities. of range im-
Those placed in other areas provements will
should conform to the visual not be permitted
classes established for each area. in wilderness
study areas
until a final
decision on the
wilderness
qualities is
decided.
— ROYAL GORGE ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT
TA BLF A-1
DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPOSAL IN MFP STEP l AND STEP 2
ROYAL GORGE PLANNING ARFA
MFP-1
Recommendation
Other MFP-1 Resource
Management Recommendations
or URA Values Which Conflict
Other MFP – l Re Source
Management Recommendations
Which Complement
Multiple Use
Recommendations
(MFP-2)
Resource
Trade Offs
Rationale for
the Multiple Use
Recommendations
Provide livestock forage
on 77 intesnive units
during the seasons for
which there is the great-
The demand
for forage resources will
be based on the current
est demand.
use periods.
Provide rest periods
from live stock use on
all management units
placed in intensive
Grazing during the spring or
early summer prevents cool season
species from reproducing. During
this time there may be intense
competition for forage between
wildlife and livestock. Lack of
forage during the spring may be
a limiting factor on mule deer
within the planning area. Grazing
late in the winter may also result
in competition on the critical big
game winter ranges.
Rest periods should be provided on
the nomintensive units as well as
the intensive units. Certain units
may require additional key species
Management of water-
shed and wildlife
complement this rec-
onmendation by having
Provide live-
stock forage on
35 units during
the periods for
which there is
the greatest de-
mand. The cur-
rent use period
will be assumed
to be the period
of greatest de-
mand. On the
other 42 intensive
units use periods
will be changed
to late summer
(August 1) to
early winter
January 15)
Rest periods
based on the phy-
siological stan-
dards of key
Competition will
still exist on
units grazed in
the spring and
late winter.
Forty-two op-
erators will
have to shift
their operations
to accommodate
the new period
of use.
On scattered
isolated tracts
of public land ,
rest standards
Grazing systems can
be implemented that
are designed to meet
the physiological re-
quirements of forage
plants. By changing
the periods of use to
late fall/early win-
ter, all plants will
be rested annually
during critical grow-
ing periods. These
units have small num-
bers of AUMs and lit-
tle opportunity for a
highly intensive graz-
ing system.
Resting from grazing
during the critical
growing periods will
allow forage plants to
management status. Rest
periods will be based on
the physiological stand-
ards required to maintain
which are important to wild life. the forage plants
receive a period of
rest during which
they can meet their
species should be
provided on all
intensively mana-
will not be pro-
vided for key
species. Habi-
meet their physio-
logical growth re-
quirements. These
Addi-
production of the key
vegetative species for
the management unit on a
sustained yield basis.
growth requirements.
ged units.
tional key plants
will be identi-
fied for rip-
arian zones.
tat improvement
in these areas
will be very
slow if improved
at all.
rest standards are
designed to meet plant
requirements while
allowing livestock
grazing to continue.
Provide for the grazing None None Same as MFP-1. None Based on current de-
of cattle on 355 manage- mand and no conflicts
ment units, and for the this would best bene-
grazing of horses on 9 fit the livestock op-
management units. This erator and associated
is based on current rangeland resources.
demand.
Allocate forage to live- None Watershed and wildlife Same as MFP-1. The short-term This will allow live-
stock based on the 1978
management have recom-
Range Survey and Suita-
mended reduced lives tock
benefits of im- stock grazing to con-
bility data.
Classify 82,342 acres
of public lands in 154
management units for
disposal.
stocking levels to a-
chieve goals and object-
ives of those resources.
Recreation, wildlife, forestry,
minerals, and lands have
identified resource values on
some of the lands recommended
for disposal.
Certain public
lands classified
for disposal but
having a signif-
icant resource are
identified to be
retained in
Federal ownership.
proved watershed
and wildlife
habitat will be
achieved more
slowly by allow-
ing any grazing .
The long-term
benefits to
these resources
by cattle graz-
ing at this level
will be signifi-
Cante
stock operators
will be forced to
find alternate
Many live-
tinue at a rate which
allows wildlife habi-
tat and watershed
conditions to improve.
feed sources since
many units will be
drastically reduced.
Small tracts of public
land which are un-
manageable and have
little value for other
resources should be
disposed of. However
small tracts with sig-
nificant resource val-
ues will be retained.
TABLE A-l
DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPOSAL IN MFP STEP 1 AND STEP 2
ROYAL GORGE PLANNING ARFA
APPENDICES – A-3
Other MFP-1 Resource
Other MFP-1 Resource
Multiple Use
Rationale for
MFP – 1 Management Recommendations Management Recommendations Recommendations Resource the Multiple Use
Recommendation or URA Values Which Conflict Which Complement (MFP-2) Trade Offs Recommendations
Acquire 39,467 acres of None Acquisition of private Acquire 39,467 None Land acquisition will
nonpublic patented lands lands would add to the acres of nonpublic expand the forage pro-
in or near 29 management quality of wildlife patented lands. Ac- duction potential of
units to expand forage habitat on public land. quisition is limited lands in public owner-
production potential of to exchange only. ship. Outright pur-
lands in public ownership chase of land would
reduce the local tax
base and public opin-
ion is strongly
against large land ac-
quisition by the
Federal government.
Acquire easements across None None Acquire easements None A goal of the BLM is
93 tracts of patented across 93 tracts of to provide public
lands in or near 49 patented lands in or access to all public
management units. near 49 management lands for whatever
units. All easements rea SO Iſle
will be permanent
exclusive.
Eliminate grazing use by None Wildlife, recreation, and Same as MFP-1 . None Ecologically unique
live stock on approximately watershed management also areas, lack of forage,
7,465 acres of public land recommended elimination of and critical wildlife
in 8 management units. grazing on some or all of habitat would be pro-
these areas. tected by the elimi-
nation of grazing.
Consolidate l l l grazing None None Same as MFP-l. None This will result in
allotments into 39 more efficient range
management units. management and reduced
administrative costs
with only minor
inconveniences.
Eliminate trespass horse None None Same as MFP-1. None It will provide a
use on approximately
13,400 acres of public
land
Replace approximately 200
acres of existing half-
shrub-grassland on 2 man-
agement units by implement-
ing a program of brushland
plowing followed by seed-
ing of desirable grass
and browse species.
Replace 4,900 acres of ex-
isting brush-covered grass-
land on 10 management units
with a more desirable vege-
tative community by imple-
menting a program of pre-
scribed burning, followed
by seeding of desirable
browse and grass species.
Visual resource manage-
ment would conflict with
this recommendation if
it were located so that
it would be visually
apparent and change the
visual character of the
a Tea •
Burning areas with forest
products such as transplants
and Christmas trees conflicts
with forest management
recommendations to sell
these products. Burning
next to developed recrea-
tion sites might make these
sites less desirable for
campers.
Long-term benefits of
this recommendation
would be improved forage
for wildlife. Increased
cover would also reduce
soil erosion.
Wildlife management has
recommended burning
these same areas.
Same as MFP-1. Short-term
losses would
be increased
soil erosion
and loss of
forage on a
short-term
basis.
Allow prescribed
burns to be plan-
ed and imple-
mented. The for-
est products on
these sites will
be sold as demand
requires. No
burning within 150
feet of developed
recreation site S
as a guideline.
There may be a
short-term loss
of soil due to
erosion but
there should
eventually be
improved water-
shed quality.
Some forest pro-
means of removing un-
authorized live stock
use from public lands
in accordance with
regulations
Forage production will
be increased without
negatively impacting
other resources.
It will improve forage
production on these
sites and open up
areas blocked because
of overgrown vegeta-
tion. Bit game habi-
tat will also be
improved.
ducts will be
lost, but this
in other areas.
demand can be met
A-4 – ROYAL GORGE ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT *
TABLE A-1
DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPOSAL IN MFP STEP 1 AND STEP 2
ROYAL GORGE PLANNING ARFA
MFP – 1
Recommendation
Rationale for
the Multiple Use
Recommendations
Other MFP-1 Resource
Management Recommendations
Which Complement
Multiple Use
Recommendations
(MFP-2)
Other MFP-1 Resource
Management Recommendations
or URA Values Which Conflict
Resource
Trade () f f S
Improve approximately
18, 530 acres of existing
timbered grassland on 29
management units to create
more desirable vegetative
communities by implement-
ing a program of selective
thinning followed by seed-
ing of desirable grass and
browse species.
Construct 80 miles of 3–
wire livestock fence on
public land. All fences
will adhere to Standard
BLM Fencing Specifications
modified to allow wildlife
In OV ement e
Install 4 cattleguards on
frequently traveled roads
There may be a
small loss of
It will improve for-
age quantity and
forest products. Quality for livestock
Wilderness quali- and big game as well
ties will be pro- as promoting eco-
tected in the system stability.
study areas. Roads built into
these areas will be
rehabilitated and
closed.
Carry out thin-
ning on the des-
cribed areas with
the exception of
those located in
wilderness study
areas. If the
study areas do not
become wilderness,
the recommendation
will be accepted
for those areas
also. Large areas
of valuable forest
products should be
Wildlife management has
recommended thinning
these same a reas.
Removal of forest products
before rotation age is reached
decreases the amount of pro-
ductive forest land in the
planning area. Thinning may
not be allowed in proposed
wilderness areas.
crossing the public land
in 3 management units.
Develop 67 natural springs
or seeps on the public
land in 27 management
units.
Drill 2 water wells on
public lands in 1
management unit.
Construct 9 ear then
reservoirs on the public
lands in 7 management
units.
Construct 28 rainfall
catchments on the public
lands in 14 management
units.
Install 3.3 miles of
water pipeline on the
public lands in 3
management units.
Install l water storage
tank on public land.
Install 95 water troughs
on the public lands in
43 management units.
Construction and instal-
lation will adhere to BLM
Specifications modified
to provide escape ramps
for small mammals and
birds.
avoided.
Construction of fences may None Same as MFP-1. Some losses to Fences are needed to
alter the visual character big game will distribute livestock
of some areas. Wilderness occur but they over the range. Rest
study areas would be neg- will be rotation pastures
at ively impacted by this minimized. require fence
recommendation. construction.
None None Same as MFP-1. None This recommendation
will facilitate range
management operations.
Roads leading to developed Wildlife management has Same as MFP-1. None It will better dis-
springs would conflict with also recommended that tribute live stock and
recreation goals in some these sites be developed. wildlife over the
areas. Construction should range and may elimin-
be visually acceptable to ate Overuse in some
VRM classifications. a Tea Se
None This benefits wild life Same as MFP-1. None Expanding water re-
as well. sources will distrib-
ute livestock and
wildlife more evenly
over public land.
None This will complement Same as MFP-1. Short-term loss Providing more water
wildlife by providing of productivity will better distribute
additional sources of will occur on livestock and wild-
Water • sites where veg- life over the range.
etation has been
scraped.
These devices would not be This would benefit wild- Same as MFP-1. Some loss of Providing more water
acceptable in the proposed life as well. Many of forage product- will better distribute
wilderness study areas. these devices were also ivity will re- livestock and wild-
recommended by wildlife sult when these life over the range.
management. devices are
constructed.
None It will benefit wildlife Same as MFP-1. There will be The additional water
management's goal of a short-term will better distribute
providing additional soil loss due livestock and wild-
Water . to erosion. life over the range.
The location could change It will benefit wild life Same as MFP-1. Some visual The additional water
the visual qualities of management's goal of qualities may will better distribute
SOIſle a rea Se providing additional be a ffected. livestock and wild-
Water • life more evenly
over the range.
None It will benefit wild life Same as MFP-1. Construction This will distribute
management's goal of
providing additional
Water •
will have to
protect wilder-
ness values and
road less char-
acteristics.
livestock and wild-
life more evenly
over the range.
APPENDIX B
Rangeland Management Proposal
Table B-1 displays the entire rangeland
management proposal for 589,675 acres of public land
in the Royal Gorge and Raton Basin Planning Areas.
Management Framework Plans for these two areas are
available for inspection at the Royal Gorge Resource
Area office, Canon City. Additional rationale and
methodology are detailed in these documents.
Predicted Live Vegetative Cover for Management
Units by Alternative
Table B-2 shows present and future live vegetative
cover for the proposed intensive management units
only, under each alternative. Cover values are a
weighted average based on BLM's 1977-78 range
Survey data.
Vegetative Types of the Royal Gorge EIS Area
Table B-3 includes the breakdown of major
vegetative types and extent of their occurrence (in
acres) in the Royal Gorge EIS area. The subtypes and
major species found in each are also included.
Implementation Summary of Units Proposed for
Intensive Range Management
Table B-4 shows the schedule for development
and implementation of proposed allotment manage-
ment plans (AMPs). All AMPs would be developed by
1981 and implemented by 1985.
Long-Term Loss of Vegetation Due to
Construction of Various Range Improvement
Projects
Table B-5 summarizes the total long-term loss of
vegetation through construction of all proposed
improvements. The loss by individual type of project
and total loss by type of project are also given.
Methodologies for Determining Present and
Predicted Conditions
The present and future vegetative conditions
determined include forage production, range
condition, and apparent trend of range condition.
Present forage production was estimated using
the ocular reconnaissance method. The type of data
gathered is briefly described and the method of
calculation discussed. The method for determining
production on less intensively surveyed units is also
Gescribed.
Present range condition and apparent trend
determinations were constrained by various factors.
The nature of these constraints, adjustments made to
Overcome them, and the rationale for these
adjustments are shown. Guidelines used for
determining trend and condition are also included.
Future forage production was difficult to estimate
given present limited data. Certain assumptions were
necessary for predicting vegetative responses to
management and land treatments. These are indicated
and discussed.
Future range condition and apparent trend were
similarly difficult to determine. Extrapolations had to
be made based on research from other geographic
areas. The basis for these extrapolations as well as the
criteria for estimating condition and trend are
indicated.
Methodology for Determining Forage Production
of Suitable Rangeland
Data taken from the 1977-78 Range Survey was
used to determine present forage production for
vegetative types in grazing units for which allotment
management plans (AMPs) are proposed.
Ocular reconnaissance and 100-step-point
transects were used to collect data. Both methods
produce the same basic type of data: type and percent
APPENDICES – B-1
of basal ground cover (vegetation, litter, bare ground,
small or large rock), percent plant cover by Species
(composition), and usable forage vegetation by
Species.
Once field data were compiled, the percent of each
perennial species making up the vegetative
composition was multiplied by the proper use factor
(PUF) for that species by season (spring, summer,
etc.). A PUF represents the percent average weight of
current annual growth of a particular plant species in
relation to all associated species that can be safely
grazed without limiting forage production capacity
(Stoddart et al., 1975). Certain forage species are
preferred above others; therefore, PUFs for each
species vary according to a grazing animal's
preference, the season of grazing, and associated
plant species. The value derived for each species was
multiplied by its percent composition. These were
averaged and multiplied by the total vegetative cover of
perennial plants. The product of this multiplication is
called the forage acre factor (FAF), which theoretically
is that portion of an acre having a complete areal cover
of usable forage. The proper use level would vary with
the season of year because of shifts in grazing animal
preferences (Cook, 1975).
The FAF was calculated using PUFs for each
Season a unit is grazed and a weighted average was
calculated for the percentage of use for each season.
Seasonal periods used were: spring, March 21-June
20; summer, June 21-September 20; fall, September
21-December 20, winter, December 21-March 20.
Since all of the acres in the vegetative type may not
be utilized by livestock because of such factors as
steepness or accessibility, the FAF is multiplied by the
utilizable acres expressed as a percentage of the total
to derive the net forage acre factor (Net FAF). This
figure represents the average of all acres included in
the analysis that are covered by vegetation and how
much of that acreage and vegetation can be utilized by
livestock. Rangelands are considered unsuitable if the
slope exceeds 50 percent or the Soil surface factor
(SSF) exceeds 60. Percent slope was determined by
field technicians using a clinometer. SSF was
determined using Form 7310-12.

㺠º-º UNITED STATES By Date
y DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT Location
DETERMINATION OF EROSION CONDITION CLASS Treatment affecting the SSF
SOI L SURFACE FACTORS (SSF)
&
He .
a; *:::::: ſº." #, ..". Occurs with each event. Soil Subsoil exposed over much of
No visual evidence of movement | Some movement of soil particles v alo Ige ºne tre e gh r and debris deposited against area, may have embryonic dunes
# racing generally less than 1" in º , may y
tº tal height minor obstructions. and wind scoured depressions
* -
O
- O l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 O i 1 | 2 1 3 1 4
ſº a Moderate movement is apper- Extreme movement apparent,
2; Accumulating in place May show slight movement ent, deposited against large and numerous deposits Yº." at are
ÉÉ obstacles against obstacles
j U l 2 3. 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 1 | 1 2 ! 3 1 4
tº
tal Iſ ſ -
º - . present, coarse fragments If present, surface rock or frag- || If present, surface rock or frag
3. #::::::::::: º: of have a truncated appearance or ºº:::::::::::::::. ments exhibit same movement ments are dissected by rills
#8 caused by wind or water spotty distribution caused by pattern jº ..., |2nd accumulation of smaller and gullies or are already
É? wind or water y fragments behind obstacles washed away
gº
O l 2 3. 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 O | 1 1 2 ! 3 1 4
* Rocks and plants o destals
wh92 || No visual evidence of Slight pedestalling, in flow Small rock and plant pedestels generail, º, º::::::::: Most rocks and plants ped-
# pedestalling patterns occurring in flow patterns exposed estalled and roots exposed
tºl J
Ø, sº
{-, O l 2 3 4. 5 6 7 8 9 1 O 1 1 12 ! 3 14
&
tº
% No visual evidence of flow Deposition of particles may be | Well defined, small, and few Flow patterns conts an silt and º:*:::::::"::":
º, patterns in evidence with intermittent deposits s and deposits and alluvial fans large barren fan deposits
- H. e
ſº. He
* O I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 O | 1 12 1 3 1 4 15
R111s Vºy" to 6" deep occur in ex- Rills /?" to 6” deep occur in ex- sº tºº
- - Some rul is in evidence, at in- - May be present at 3° to 6” deep
: No visual evidence of ralls frequent intervals over 1 0" fºr.: at approximately º: area at intervals of 5 at intervals less than 5'
g
O 1. 2 3 4. 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 1 1 12 ! 3 1 4
Gullies are numerous and well
- A few gullies in evidence which | Gullies are well developed with developed with active erosion :
§ May *: present in stable :*: show little bed or slope erosion. |active erosion along less than | along 10 to 50% of their lengths i.e., º: :::::::::::::
: .." |..." on channel bed Some vegetation is present on | 1.0% of their length. Soone veg- || or a few well developed gullies T. of t '. tºta tº
-> and side slopes slopes. et at ion may be present. with active erosion a long more re actively eroding
O than 50% of their length
O 1 2 3. 4 S 6 7 8 9 | 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 15
SITUATION TOTAL
Eros ton Condition Classes: Stable 0-20: Slight 21–40. Moderat r < 1 —60;
Critical 6 1–80. Severe 81 - 100
( Instructions on re vers r)
B-2 – ROYAL GORGE ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT
EXAMPLES
EXAMPLE ONE EXAMPLE TWO "º EXAMPLE THREE • * *
ITEM POTEN Tua LLY | IDENTIFIED | Possi B Le Port: NTIALLY | IDENTIFIED | POSSIBLE || POTENTIALLY | IDENTIFIED | Possi B LE
PRI SEN r PACTORS FA CTOR Pº Lºs RNT FA CTORS FACTOR PRESENT FACTORS FACTOR
Soil Movement Yes 8 14 Yes 8 14 Yes 8 14
Surface Litter Yes 9 14 Yes 9 1 4 Yes 9 14
Surface Rock Yes 7 14 No - •º º No sº- $º º
Pedestalling Yes 10 14 Yes 10 14 Yes 10 14
Rills Yes 8 14 Yes 8 14 No - *E* =
Flow Patterns Yes 10 15 Yes 10 15 Yes 10 15
Gullies Yes 6 1S No - - - No - q- -
TOTAL 58 100 45 71 37 57
Total SSF #, 100 = $s #x 100 = 63 #x 100 - 65
100 71 57
under consideration.
GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS
District prepares one (1) copy and files in district with particular study
Do not include items in computations which are not potentially present.
Identify numerical factor that most nearly describes the conditions
observed by circling the factor given for each logical item.
to compute the SSF.
* Wind and worer are considered eroding ogents when evaluating item Total – Total computed SSF.
** A soil with no rocks in its profile and no probobility of gullying
*** A pumice soil area where no water erosion occurs
SPECIFIC INSTRUCTIONS
Total all factors at bottom of page. Divide total identified factors by
total possible factors for items considered and multiply by 100 in order
Situation – Describe situations being evaluated such as present, geo-
logic, with mechanical treatment in effect for 10 years, under a
5 pasture livestock management system for last 8 years, etc.
tº gº ºne-ºver 7 : P = e tº
The next step in calculating the present forage
production was to determine forage acre requirements
(FARs) for the Royal Gorge EIS area. A FAR is that part
of a forage acre necessary to support one AUM for 1
month without injury to the rangeland resource. The
FARs used were .4, .5, 6, .7, and .8. These were based
on relative production and palatability with .8 being
used for the lowest producing, least palatable plants
and .4 for the highest producers and most palatable
plants. Depending on vegetative composition, the FAR
used on each vegetative type was divided by the net
FAF for that type and results represent the average
number of acres needed to support one AUM (A/AUM).
(PUFs and FARs were estimated based on input from
Colorado State University range scientists, local Soil
Conservation Service (SCS) and BLM specialists, as
well as similar studies done in western Colorado and
Nevada.) An example is shown on Form 4412-1.
Form 44 12–1 U.S. DEP TMENT OF THE INTERIOR
(November 1970) BUREAJ OF LAND MANAGEMENT
FORAGE SURVEY TYPE WRITEUP
(OCULAR RECONN A ISSAN CE MET HOO)
KIND OF $º A QN
GRA ZING gº
TOTAL •r, COMP -
SP F.C i Es A LL OW AB L E C OMPOSI- cº-r x *śr
PU F TION C PU F -
i
SU BT OT A L
BY OT A L
i
Writeup No. Form 4412-1 U.S. DEPAR', .NT OF THE INTERIOR Writeup No.
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
(November 1970)
Date
Aerial Photo No.
SECTIONS Twp.,
COMP DE E R COMP . TOTAL
X sp E CIES ALL. O.W AB L E
PU F
S PU F PU F D PUF
i
SU BT OTAL
wº
E
0.
:
gº
BTOTAL
TOTALS
Av C PUF — » Av Den = F A F — » — 7, Util = Net F A F
Av S PUF * A v Den = FAF lºt %. Util : Net FAF
Av D PUF – º Av Den = FAF nºt 7, Util : Net FAF
Av PUF * A v Den - FAF x º, Util = Net FAF
Total Net F AF_;
BT OT A L
TOTALS 100
; FAR + Net FAF — = Ac/AUM Av C Puf.1%. Av Den • 2. = Far: o37. /20%. Util E Net F • Far-ſa- + Net Far.057- 40.5 ae/auw
; FAR + Net FAF : Ac/AUM Av S PUF × Av Den = F A F — » %. Util = Net FAF — ; FAR — º Net FAF : Ac/AUM
; FAR + Net FAF - Ac/AUM Av D PUF — » Av Den : FAF x %. Util = Net FAF ; FAR + Net F A F = Ac/AUM
; FAR * Net FAF — = Ac/AUM Aw PUF x Av Den - FAF x 7, Util = Net FAF ; FAR + Net FAF = Ac/AUM
FAR * Net FAF. = Ac/AUM Total Net F A F-, FAR — “ Net FAF — = - _ Ac/AUM
* Live stock and major game species (Other &ame species making in apprec wah (r us r are: ... } * Live stock and major game species. (Other garne species "ak in& inapp's vial, le us are:
FORAGE SURVEY TYPE WRITEUP -
(OCULAR RECONN A ISSAN CE METHOD) Aerial Photo No.
•7,
COMPOSI-
Date
OF © 3. Aſ CN SECTIONS Twp.
3-2/ Me ºt
carriº | coºr sheep co:*
TION PU ºr c pur | FUF S PU F






The A/AUM value was then divided into the total
acres in each vegetative type to get an estimate of the
total number of AUMs available in each pasture. By
comparing the total number of AUMs available on all
vegetative types derived with this procedure with the
present stocking rate on the allotment, it was
determined whether the allotment was being stocked
at the proper level or being overstocked.
The nonintensive management units were mapped
by vegetative type, condition, and apparent trend.
These were compared to types on intensively surveyed
areas having the same condition rating and similar
composition, elevation, and aspect. The average
forage production of these intensively surveyed areas
was used to estimate production on nonintensively
Surveyed units.
Methodology for Determining Range Condition
and Apparent Trend
The evaluation of range condition and trend was
accomplished using SCS methods rather than those
used by BLM. The BLM condition and trend analysis
requires extensive quantities of permanent study plots.
This system would have been extremely difficult to
implement during the short period allowed for
inventory. However, the SCS condition and apparent
trend evaluations provide an objective method to
evaluate rangeland both rapidly was well as accurately
with a minimum number of decisions required of the
field technician. They are based on the ecological
principles of climax vegetation and still provide
flexibility to permit adjustment for different types of
management.
Range Condition
Four range condition classes were used to express
the degree to which the composition of the present
plant community reflects that of climax (Cook, 1974).
The Guide for Rating Range Condition (Table B-6)
was used by Area BLM Specialists in rating range
condition in the Royal Gorge Resource Area.
Apparent Range Trend
Without an initial reading for comparison, the true
trend in range condition cannot be determined.
Therefore, apparent trend must be evaluated from data
collected at a single point in time (Stoddart et al., 1975;
Cook, 1979). Five rangeland characteristics generally
indicate apparent trend in range condition. These are:
compositional changes, abundance of Seedlings and
young plants, plant residues, plant vigor, and condition
of the soil surface (Humphrey, 1962; Stoddart and
Smith, 1955). The BLM Planning Manual requires
evaluation of range trend on an improving, static, or
declining basis. The SCS method only rates trend as
improving or declining so that SCS rating points were
reallocated as follows:
Ratings between 0 and 7 inclusive—Apparent
Declining Trend
Ratings between 8 and 13 inclusive—Apparent
Static Trend
Ratings between 14 and 20 inclusive—Apparent
Improving Trend
The Guide for rating Apparent Range Trend (Table
B-7) was used by Area BLM specialists in determinig
apparent trend in range condition.
Methodology for Determining Predicted
Vegetation Production
Predicted production numbers for management
units in the EIS area are conservative estimates based
on experience, judgment, and knowledge of local
conditions. The proposed action for each management
unit was analyzed with respect to the present situation.
Aspects of the proposal which were applied include
period of use, grazing treatment (including rangeland
facilities), and land treatment.
From this analysis, predictions were made for each
allotment by alternative. These predictions are
intended only as estimates and not specific objectives.
Estimates used as objectives for AMPs would be
adjusted according to more detailed information
gathered during AMP development.
In the absence of specific studies in this area, a
study of average forage production increases for the
western United States was used. Van Poolen and Lacey
(1979) found that implementation of management
systems and reducing stocking rates resulted in an
average increase of production by 48 percent. It is
assumed that in 20 years (long term) following such
action there would be at least a 50 percent increase in
forage production. Long-term increases were used as
forage production objectives for each intensive
management unit (see Appendix Table B-1).
Production increases as a result Of land treatments
were conservatively estimated based on treatment of
marginally productive land (30 A/AUM). This is
assumed because specific production data for
proposed vegetation manipulations are not available.
APPENDICES – B-3
Only the potentially more productive sites would be
treated to insure success and maximum benefit
(Stoddart et al., 1975). Production increases through
burning, thinning, or seeding range from 56 percent to
1,400 percent (Stoddart and Smith, 1955; Stoddart et
al., 1975; Vallentine, 1971; Pase and Granfelt, 1977).
Again because of a lack of data and to be conservative,
a minimum increase in production of 50 percent was
predicted for treatments in the short term and also over
the long term.
Methodology for Determining Future Range
Condition Classes and Trend
Changes in vegetation occur slowly in areas of
harsh edaphic and climatic conditions (Stoddart et al.,
1975) such as the Royal Gorge EIS area. On poor
condition areas, improved condition may not be
noticeable for 25 to 50 years (Stoddart and Smith,
1955). Therefore, changes in range condition classes
are not expected to occur over the long term without
vegetative treatment.
Vegetative response due to partial conversion
followed by proper management could result in
increases in the potential natural vegetation to at least
50 percent composition (Pase and Granfelt, 1977;
Stoddart et al., 1975; Vallentine, 1971) or good
condition. Complete conversion would result in the
desired vegetative species reaching over 75 percent of
total vegetative compsotion or excellent condition.
Change in vegetative cover is commonly used as
one of the basic indicator of apparent trend in range
condition (Humphrey, 1962). Given relatively small
change in cover, other indicators such as composition
and reproduction would show small similar changes.
Cover changes were predicted on the basis of
professional judgment of Canon City District's range
specialists. In the 1977-78 range survey, vegetative
cover and type were identified. This data was a
baseline against which other factors were weighed to
predict vegetative response to different kinds of range
management. These other factors include overall
Condition, general climatic and elevational zones, and
soil characteristics for each management units in the
EIS area. Vegetative response was predicted only for
management units which would be managed
intensively or on which there would be elimination of
grazing. Only on these units, it was felt, would changes
in cover be noticeable over the long term of this
environmental impact statement (20 years), which is a
relatively short time in relation to the rate of vegetative
cover changes.
B-4
— ROYAL GORGE ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT
TABLE B-1
RECOMMENDATION AND OBJECTIVE SUMMARY
Recommendations Objectives
Kind Of
Stock/g
Season sºme tº º ºs
Mgt. Of Forage/h
Key No/a Mgt. Use/e Production Administ. Land Livestock Grazing
§ º e º º Status/c * * ºne º g- º gº º Treatment Treatment Mgt. Admin/m
Former tº tº sº tº Key Mgt. Type Type Facility tº º º- º Range Range
Allot. Federal Vegetative Adjust & & & Forage Trend Condition
No/b Acreage/d Species/f AUMs/i Acreage/j Acreage/k Acreage/l Production/n Acres/o Acres/p
Unall. None None None None None Improve U=O G=O
tº- tº-º º cº-e tº- tº- tº-e wº tº º sº tº tº º tº tº tº-e tº º ºs S=lO480 F=614O
Unall. lO480A None None None D=O P=434O
None
2 Unall. O3-Ol None DSP None None Improve U=O G=2O
tº- tº º ºxe Q_ºº & e º 'º wº Thru g- tº 2 º º 2OOA. tº º º-ºº º S=2OO F=O
Unall. 2OOA O2–28 None None D=O P= 18O
wº, None None
3 Nonint. O3-Ol Cattle None None None Improve U=O G=8O
gº tº cº-º cº- tº-º º º º Thru tº cº- $º º cº-º e º 'º º S=153 F-O
5937 153A O2-28 1O AUMS 1O AUMS =O P=73
None D Il
4 Nonint. None Cattle None None None Improve U=O G=6O
tº º ºs º-º tº º ºs º-º gº º “me tº sº tº dº º Rº tº gº tº º S=310 F=22O
Unall. 31OA None 23 AUMs None D=O P=30
None
a/ Management Key Number - Key system to simplify location of grazing allotment(s).
b/ Former Allotment Number – ADP number of allotment in present situation.
c/
d/
e/
f/
g/
h/
i/
j/
k/
l/
m/
n/
Management Status - Unall. Unallotted Status, Nonint. - Nonintensive Status, AMP - Intensive Status.
Federal Acreage - Public land found within the management unit boundary.
Season of Use — Period during which livestock grazing will be authorized each year.
Key Wegetative Species – Plant species on which minimum rest requirements are based.
Kind of Stock - Kind of livestock authorized to graze the public lands within the management unit.
Forage Production – Number of Animal Unit Months (AUMs) of livestock forage produced on suitable range and authorized
for use each year.
Management Adjustment - Number of Animal Unit Months of livestock forage adjusted up (U) or Down (D) from current use
levels to reach the "Forage Production" of h above.
Administrative Treatment - Proposed administrative remedies to existing livestock management problems: DSP –
disposal of public land, ACQ - acquisition of private land, ROW - road easements across private land, EOG -
elimination of grazing use by livestock, COA – consolidation of separate grazing allotments into one (l) management
unit, EUHU - elimination of unauthorized horse use on public land.
Land Treatment – Proposed vegetative treatments: PLOW – brushland plowing, BURN – prescribed burning, THIN -
selective thinning.
Livestock Management Facility – Facilities designed to improve livestock management: FNC - fencing, CTG -
cattle guards, S&S — spring development, WLL – water wells, RSV – earthen reservoirs, CTM – rainfall catchments, PPL –
water pipelines, WST – water storage tank, WTR - water troughs.
Grazing Administration — Increase in administrative efficiency of lifestock management.
Forage Production — Number of Animal Unit Months (AUMs) of livestock forage production available within 20 years on
suitable range.
o/ Range Trend – Number of acres of public land exhibiting an ecological vegetative trend that is "improving" (U),
"remaining static"(S), or "declining"(D) within 20 years.
p/ Range Condition – Number of acres of public land exhibiting an ecological vegetative condition that is rated
"excellent" (X), "good" (G), "fair" (F), or "poor" within 20 years.
RECOMMENDATION AND OBJECTIVE SUMMARY
APPENDICES – B-5
Recommendations Objectives
Kind of
Stock
(RM-6)/g
Season Forage
- of Use Allocation Administ. Land Livestock Grazing
Mgt. Mgt. (RM-4)/e (RM-7) ſh Treatment Treatment Mgt. Admin.
Key No/a Status tº-º º º º º gº tº º Type Type Facility (RM-A)/m
---- (RM-1,2,3)/c Key Mgt. & & & tº tº e º º Range Range
Former gº tº º ºs Vegetative Adjust Acreage Acreage Number Forage Trend Condition
Allot. Federal Species —AUMS- (RM-8 thru (RM-14 thru (RM-17 thru Production —Acres— —Acres—
No/b Acreage/d (RM-5)/f (RM-7),'i 13)/j l6)/k 25)./l (RM-B)/h (RM-C)/o (RM-C)/p
5 Unall. O3–Ol None DSP None None Improve U=O G=O
* - tº * = º º Thru tº gº tº Eº 815A. tº E. e. g.º. ºº e S=O F=1O
Unall. 875A. O2-28 None None D=875 P=865
None None
6 Nonint. O3–Ol Cattle DSP None None Improve U=O G=O
e-º º º º gº tº e º 'º - Thru tº e º e º 'º - e. l,295A. *_º - tº- tº S=O F=O
5863 l, 295A. O2-28 22 AUMS 22 AUMS D=1295 P=1295
None D 42
7 Nonint. O3-l Cattle None None None Improve U=O =O
gº º º º * - ſº e ∈ e Thru tº-º cº- º º tº e º 'º - º S=O F=4O
Unall. 8OA. O2-28 8 AUMS 8 AUMS D=8O P=4O
None None
8 Nonint. O3–Ol Cattle None None None Improve U=O G=O
º - tº E- tº e º º e Thru cº-º º ºs º- <-- “L- º gº S=O F=94l
5747 3,298A. O2-28 138 AUMs 138 AUMs D=3298 P=2357
None None
9 Nonint. O3-Ol Cattle None None None Improve U=O G=O
tº º ºs º-e * - E - º º Thru tº e-º º º cº-º º ºs º- S=95 F=255
Unall. 605A. O2-28 33 AUMs 33 AUMs D=51O P=350
None None
lO Nonint. O5-Ol Cattle DSP None None Improve U=O G=323
* - G - tº * > * > . . . . . Thru tº º cº-e E- º ll3A. tº e º 'º S=O F=2OO
5938 523A. O9–3O 40 AUMs 40 AUMs D=523 P=O
None None
ll Nonint. O3-Ol Cattle DSP None None Improve U=O G=O
* - e º 'º º- tº e º Thru cº-º -º º q_º 7OA. cº-º º ſº º º S=O F=l4O
Unall. 2,050A. O2-28 23 AUMs 23 AUMs D=2O3O P=1890
None None
12 AMP O3-Ol Cattle ACQ. None None Improve U=ll68 G=ll68
* > *-* - - tº cº-e ºs º- Thru tº gº tº º 8OOA. * > . . . . . .” S=O F=O
5728 3,274A. O2-28 ll6 AUMs gº º Es Ele 183 AUMs D=2106 P-2106
tº tº e º º tº tº e º º ROW
None D 27 3 Rd.
(5.50 Mi)
EOG
90A.
13 Nonint. O3-Ol Cattle DSP. None None Improve U=O G=O
º cº- ºr e º º * -º a º º q > Thru cº-e ºr e º º 40A. gº tº º º S=O F=O
Unall. 40A. O2–28 2 AUMS 2 AUMs D=4O P=4O
None None
l4 Nonint. O3–Ol Cattle DSP. None None Improve U=O G=O
º º tº gº tº tº gº º Thru tº º º e l, 256A. * > . . . . . . . . . . S=777 F-777
5903 l, 256A. O2-28 74 AUMs 74 AUMs D=449 P=449
None D 24l
ls Nonint. O3-Ol Cattle DSP. None None Improve U=O G=O
©º º º tº cº-e º Thru e- tº cº- e 496A. tº e º 'º S=O F=O
5754 496A. O2-28 35 AUMs 35 AUMs D=496 P=496
None D 35
B-6
- ROYAL GORGE ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT
RECOMMENDATION AND OBJECTIVE SUMMARY
Recommendations Obiectives.
Kind of -
Stock/g
Season gº tº º
Mgt. Of Forage/h
Key No/a Mgt. Use/e Production Administ. Land Livestock Grazing
cº-e sº º º tº Status/c º e º ºs º º ºs tº e º – º – Treatment Treatment Mgt. Admin/m
Former • e º Lº Key Mgt. Type Type Facility tº ſº Range Range
Allot. Federal Vegetative Adjust & & & Forage Trend Condition
No/b Acreage/d Species/f AUMS/i Acreage/j Acreage/k Acreage/l Production/n Acres/o Acres/p
l6 Nonint. 03-01 Cattle None None None Improve U= 0 G=0
gº º cº-º º Lº e-º º ºs º- ºr p Thru º º sº e º gº * > * > * > * > S=l, l;0 F=0
5800 l!!!0A. 02-28 29 AUMs 29 AUMs D=0 P= 1, 10
None D 18
l? Nonint. 03-01 Cattle None None None Improve U= 0 G=0
gº tº º ºs º- gº º e º º Thru tº º tº gº º tº º e º 'º º S=675 F=0
5789 675A. 02-28 38 AUMs 38 AUMs D=0 F=675
None D 21,
l8 Nonint. 03-01 Cattle DSP. None None Improve U=0 G=0
cº e º 'º - º * > * > * > * > Thru tº e º 'º º cº- 2,800A. e - ºr e º 'º gº S=5083 F=l60
5805 5,083A. 02-28 236 AUMs gº º cº-e wº 236 AUMs D=0 P= 1,923
& e º e º e & ._º tº º ACQ.
None D l8l4 l,560A.
l9. Nonint. 03-01 Cattle DSP. None None Improve U=0 =0
gº tº º º º e º gº º Thru gº º e 280A. * > * > * > * > S=l227 F=710
5770 l, 227A. 02-28 66 AUMs 66 AUMs D=0 P=517
None D 67
20 Nonint. 03-01 Cattle DSP. None None Improve U=0 G=0
gº º e º º ºxe Thru dº º cº-e ºs l60A. e º º S=l60 F=120
5809 l60A. 02-28 l3 AUMs l3 AUMs D=0 P= 10
None D 23
2l Nonint. 03-01 Cattle DSP None None Improve U=0 =0
gº º º sº º º cº-e sº- ºr e º º Thru e - º ºs º- l60A. gº º tº º S=720 F=280
5756 720A. 02-28 15 AUMs * > * > * > * > 15 AUMs D=0 P= 1, 10
• * * > * > * > tº e º e º e º e ACQ.
None D loC) l, lz0A.
2l A Nonint. 03-01 Cattle DSP. None None Improve U=0 G=0
gº º º dº tº e º 'º Thru * . . . . º º e l60A. sº e º e º º S=l60 F= 10
Unall. 160A. 02-28 lO AUMS lO AUMS D=0 P=l20
None None
22 Nonint. 03-01 Cattle DSP. None None Improve =0 G=0
tº e º 'º º g- º º ºf lº Thru dº º ºs º gº 200A. º º gº e S=1,359 F= 1,079
5735 l, 359A. 02-28 318 AUMs tº º e º e 318 AUMs D=0 P=280
• e º « » « » « » « » ACQ.
None D 85 3,21,0A.
23 AMP 07-15 Cattle ACQ. Plow None Improve U=0 X=100
5939 l,610A. lO-30 98 AUMs 167 AUMs D=0 F= 1,80
« » º 'º º º e º 'º º e º e P=1060
MUMO D 107
21, Nonint. 03-01 Cattle DSP. None None Improve U=0 G=0
tº e º 'º º o gº º e º º Thru gº º º º º 3,262A. º º º e º is S=3262 F-0
5800 3,262A. 02-28 190 AUMs e - dº º º l91 AUMs D=0 P=3262
cº-e ºſ º º 'º ºf 3 tº - EOG
None D lºl 10A.
25 Nonint. 03-01 Cattle DSP. None None Improve U=0 G=0
& º º º º º Thru « » « » « e º º l,360A. tº º º - S=ll!00 F=l!60
Unall. l, k00A. 02-28 76 AUMs 76 AUMs D=0 P=940
None None
26 Nonint. 03-01 Cattle DSP. None None Improve U=0 G=0
gº º º º tº e º º Thru « » « » º -l20A. cº e º 'º - ? S=120 =0
5782 l20A. 02-28 9 AUMs 9 AUMs D=0 P= 120
None D lº
RECOMMENDATION AND OBJECTIVE SUMMARY
APPENDICES – B-7
Recommendations Objectives
Kind of
Stock/g
Season gº º sº º
Mgt. Of Forage/h
Key No/a Mgt. Use/e Production Administ. Land Livestock Grazing
dº º sº º Status/c gº ºne º ºs sº º ºs º- Treatment Treatment Mgt. Admin/m
Former - - - - Key Mgt. Type Type Facility e º 'º - . . . . Range Range
Allot. Federal Vegetative Adjust & & & Forage Trend Condition
No/b Acreage/d Species/f AUMs/i Acreage/j Acreage/k Acreage/l Production/n Acres/o Acres/p
27 Nonint. 03-0l Cattle DSP. None None Improve U=0 G=0
* . . . . . . . . . . e tº & º - Thru © tº tº º l,0A. tº-e -º º S=l;0 F= 0
5929 l,0A. 02–28 l AUM l AUM D=0 P= 10
NOne D 3
28 Nonint. 03-0 l Cattle DSP. None None Improve U=0 G=0
tº e º 'º º ºs º le * - tº e º 'º - Thru tº- tº- tº- tº l,040A. gº tº gº º S=1080 F= 100
Unall. l,080A. 02-28 57 AUMs 57 AUMs D=0 P=980
None None
29 Nonint. 03-01 Cattle DSP. None None Improve U=0 G=0
tº gº tºº º- tº Thru tº º e º º 600A. tº º -º S=600 F=l 20
Unall 600A. 02–28 3l AUMs 3l AUMS D=0 P=l,80
None None
30 Nonint. 03-0l Cattle DSP. None None Improve U=0 G=0
{... º gº º tº * - I - G - nº Thru * . . . . . . . . . . e. 21,0A. * > . º º ºs S=210 F=0
5738 21,0A. 02–28 l3 AUMs l3 AUMs D=0 P=210
None D 27
3l Nonint. 03-0l Cattle DSP. None None Improve U=0 G=0
cº- c. - - tº ºs º ºs Thru cº-e ºs º-, -º l, lº2A. * > gº º- º S=l,692 F=ll,0l
5712 l,692A. 02-28 30l AUMs 30l AUMS D=0 P=3291
None D 309
32 Nonint. 03-01 Cattle None None None Improve U=0 G=0
tº º º º tº e g = e º 'º Thru cº-e ºs º ºs S=160 F=l60
5715 l60A. 02–28 ll AUMS ll AUMs D=0 P=0
None D l
33 Nonint. 03-01 Cattle DSP. None None Improve U=0 G=0
e º e º o tº º ºs º- Thru cº-e e l8l.A. tº e º e º º S=l8l. F=0
5705 l8l. A. 02-28 ll AUMS ll AUMs D=0 P=l8l4
None D l
31, Nonint. 03-01 Cattle DSP. None None Improve U=0 G=0
tº e º 'º gº º tº º Gº Thru tº º º º e 200A. cº º- tº gº S=l 200 F=0
5739 l200A. 02–28 l!!! AUMs º gº º 'º - e. 70 AUMs D=0 P=l 200
º ºs º º e e - e. e º - EOG
NOne D 189 l,80A.
35 Nonint. 03-0l Cattle DSP. None None Improve U=0 G=0
a º e g º e Thru e - e 21,0A. º º - S=520 F=280
5791; 520A. 02-28 37 AUMs * - º e º ſº. 37 AUMS D=0 P=210
<--> --> -º º tº e º º 'º - "º ACQ
None D ll 200A.
36 Nonint. 03-0 l Cattle None None None Improve U=0 G=0 .
* - º º º tº e Thru - º e º 'º &E gº º gº is S=l790 F=l 556
5703 l, 790A. 02–28 ll!2 AUMs l!!2 AUMs D=0 P=231,
None D l;
37 Nonint. 03-01 Cattle ACQ. None None Improve U=0 G=0
tº e - e * - º e Thru tº-e ū- º º l, lz0A. * * * - º - S=l6l;0 F=1610
5910 l,640A. 02–28 l33 AUMs l33 AUMs D=0 P=0
None D l?6
38 Nonint. 03-0 l Cattle ACQ. None None Improve U=0 G=0
tº º ºs º- gº º sº º Thru tº-e - tº- ºr e 2,220A. * * * > * > * > S=625 F=625
5792 625A. 02-28 53 AUMs 53 AUMs D=0 P=0
None D ll
B-8 – ROYAL GORGE ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT *
RECOMMENDATION AND OBJECTIVE SUMMARY.
Recommendations Objectives
Kind of
Stock/g
Season tº e º
Mgt. Of Forage/h
Key No/a Mgt. Use/e Production Administ. Land Livestock Grazing
tº tº e Status/c * > . . . . . . . . .” tº e º 'º - Treatment Treatment Mgt. Admin/m
F Ormer tº-e ºſ- º º- Key Mgt. Type Type Facility tº sº º º Range Range
Allot. Federal Vegetative Adjust & & & Forage Trend Condition
No/b Acreage/d Species/f AUMs/i Acreage/j Acreage/k Acreage/l Production/n Acres/o Acres/p
39 Nonint. 03-0 l Cattle DSP. None None Improve U= 0 G=0
tº-> tº º º tº e º 'º gº Thru tº tº º - º 320A. tº e º 'º - - S=320 F=2|| 0
5775 320A. 02-28 25 AUMS 25 AUMS D=0 P=80
None D 25
l;0 Nonint. 03–0 l Cattle ACQ. NOne None Improve U=0 G=0
tº cº-e º º tº-e ‘º tº º Thru tº º ºxº gº 2,000A. “E º ºs º- S=l720 F= 120
5729 l, 720A. 02-28 l29 AUMs l29 AUMs D= 0 P=680
NOne D lº
l, l Nonint. 03-0 l Cattle None None None Improve U=0 G= 0
gº tº º º * > * > * > * > Thru tº ºn tº * * * * * : * ~ * S=l20 F=l2O
Unall. l20A. 02-28 6 AUMs 6 AUMs D=0 P=0
None None
l, 2 Nonint. 03-0l Cattle DSP. None None Improve U= 0 G=0
gº º sº º * - º º - Thru gº º cº-º º 38A. * - º - - S=38 F=38
5888 38A. 02-28 l, AUMs l, AUMs D=0 P=0
None D l
l! 3 Nonint. 03-0l Cattle DSP. None None Improve U=0 G=0
e -e ºs ºf Lº * - tº e Thru tº tº e º ºs ll3A. * > . . . e. tº S=833 F=833
585.1 833A. 02-28 68 AUMs * - I - - tº º 68 AUMs D=0 P=0
tº e º 'º - - tº cº-º º ºs ACQ.
None D 6 920A.
l, l; Nonint. 03-01 Cattle DSP. None None Improve U=0 G=0
- e º e i = gº º ºs º- Thru • * * * * * * * l29A. tº e º 'º e º 'o S=l.01.9 F=101.9
5801; l,049A. 02-28 69 AUMs 69 AUMs D=0 P=0
None D l?
l;5 Nonint. 03-0 l Cattle DSP. None None Improve U=0 G=0
gº ºs º º tº e º e Thru º º ºs º- l, l,0A. º- e º ºs S=l l;0 F=360
5831 l, l,0A. 02-28 33 AUMs 33 AUMs D=0 P=80
None D 8
l!6 Nonint. 03-0 l Cattle DSP. None None Improve U=80 G=0
sº º sº º gº tº º º Thru *E. E. cº º 360A. & º S=280 F= 120
Unall. 360A. 02–28 23 AUMs 23 AUMS D=0 P=210
None None
l, 7 Nonint. 03-0 l Cattle DSP. None None Improve U= 0 G=0
gº tº e º e º 'º tº- tº-º gº tº Thru * - Lºº º tº e 80A. cº- tº-º º º S=80 F=80
5920 80A. 02-28 6 AUMs 6 AUMs D=0 P=0
None D l;
l, 8 Nonint. 03-01 Cattle None None None Improve U= 0 G=0
tº- tº- tº cº- tº º º ºs Thru tº- tº- tº º ſº- sºme º ºs º- S=1|00 F= 1.00
590l. l,00A. 02–28 30 AUMs 30 AUMs D=0 P=0
NOne D 20
l, 9 Nonint. 03-01 Cattle DSP None None Improve U=0 G=0
tº º e º cº- g-e ºs º-, --> Thru tº º q_º - l, 255A. * . . . . . . . ; S=1255 F=80
5798 l, 255A. 02-28 70 AUMs 70 AUMS D=0 P=ll 75
NOne D 105
50 Nonint. 03–0 l Cattle None None None Improve U= 0 G=0
tº tº gº tº e & Thru & e º e º 'º wº- º ºs º- S=7795 F=l210
5ll, l 7,795A. 02–28 l,60 AUMs tº-e e - e l,60 AUMs D=0 P=6285
* - L| = |* --> tº e º 'º - †- ACQ.
None D 696 2, 1,80A.
EOG
lO
APPENDICES – B-9
RECOMMENDATION AND OBJECTIVE SUMMARY
Recommendations Objectives
Kind of
Stock/g
Season tº º 'º º
Mgt. Of Forage/h
Key No/a Mgt. Use/e Production Administ. Land Livestock Grazing
ę º ºs º- Status/c tº sº º ſº. gº tº º º Treatment Treatment Mgt. Admin/m
Former tº dº º Eº Key Mgt. Type Type Facility tº gº tº tº Range Range
Allot. Federal Vegetative Adjust & & & Forage Trend Condition
NO/b Acreage/d Species/f AUMs/i Acreage/j Acreage/k Acreage/l Production/n Acres/O Acres/p
50A Unall. NOne None EOG None None Improve U= 0 G=0
Q- tº ſº tº tº tº º tº º tº-º e º E → tº º sº gº 30A. *E= tº º gº S=30 F=30
5ll, l 30A. NOne None None D=0 P= 0
D l;
5l Nonint. 03-0l Cattle None None NOne Improve U= 0 G=0
tº-º º gº tº tº gº tº gº Thru cº-Lº sº gº gº {-, -} º E tº e S=2.505 F = 0
5030 2,505A. 02–28 l32 AUMs tº e º 'º - e º º l32 AUMs D=0 P=2505
& tº tº tº Lº - e º º *E. E. º. ºº ACQ.
5031 NOne D l86 l, 960A.
COA.
2 Allot.
52 Nonint. 03-01 Cattle None None None Improve U= 0 G=0
* . . . . . . . . . . tº tº tº I- Thru tº tº dº ſº- tº º º º S=2 || 72 F=0
5059 2, 1,72A. 02–28 l2l AUMS l2l AUMs D=0 P=2|| 72
N One D 252
53 Nonint. 03–0l Cattle None None None Improve U= 0 G=0
cº-e - tº- (- tº e º ſº tº Thru tº e > tº º º E_* º S=826 F=286
5228 826A. 02–28 5|| AUMs 51, AUMs D=0 P=5 || 0
None D 156
5 l; Nonint. 03–0 l Cattle None None NOne Improve U= 0 G=0
{-, -e, -e º * - E-º º º Thru e- - - tº gº º ſº tº º S=l60 F=l60
518O l60A. 02–28 ll AUMS ll AUMs D=0 P= 0
None D lº
55 Nonint. 03–0 l Cattle None None None Improve U= 0 G=0
{-e ºs ºn tº tº- - gº Thru tº- tº- tº- ( - t- tº- (-º º tº- tº-e ſº- tº S=l,003 F= 0
5301, l,003A. 02–28 2011 AUMs EOG 22l AUMs D=0 P= 1,003
tº-e ū- º º {- º – e 320A.
NOne D 518
56 Nonint. 03-0l Cattle None None None Improve U= 0 G=0
tº - º º {...º dº. . . . . . . Thru e- - sº gº & L. ſº tº e S=880 F=0
5152 880A. 02–28 l!9 AUMs l!9 AUMs D=0 P=880
None D 23
57 Nonint. 03-0 l Cattle None None None Improve U= 0 G=0
tº º q_ = tº a e º 'º Thru {-, - º q_2 • * * * * * * * S=l;2 F=0
5157 l!2A. 02–28 l AUM l AUM D=0 P= 1.2
None D 5
58 AMP 08–0l Cattle None None None Improve U=0 G=0
&= º ºs º-e tº- tº- (- - Thru “Tº cº-º º ºſ- sº gº tº gº S=l280 F=0
5155 l, 280A. Ol-l9 6|| AUMs tº 72 AUMS D=0 P=l280
& dº tº e º 'º tº- tº- tº -> COA
5156 FEAR D 59 2 Allot.
MUMO
59 Nonint. 03-0 l Cattle None None None Improve U= 0 G=0
&= - º ºs * B = t = - Thru tº º ºr e º 'º * - tº- ºr e ∈ S=l;0 F = 0
Unall. l,0A. 02–28 2 AUMS 2 AUMS D=0 P= 10
NOne None
60 Nonint. 03-0l Cattle None None None Improve U=0 G=0
º º ºs º g- º ºs º-º Thru tº tº $ tº & º _º S=3570 F= 1,80
5088 3,570A. 02–28 ll.0 AUMs tº - tº-e gº ll.0 AUMs D=0 P=3090
& * = - - Lºs gºe gº tº º COA
5089 None D l8l 2 Allot.
B-10 – ROYAL GORGE ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT
RECOMMENDATION AND OBJECTIVE SUMMARY
Recommendations Objectives
Kind of
Stock/g
SeaSOn tº º ſº tº º
Mgt. Of Forage/h
Key No/a Mgt. Use/e Production Administ. Land Livestock Grazing
gº tºº º º Status/c tº- tº- ( - gº tº Ee º E Treatment Treatment Mgt. Admin/m
Former tº º tº Eº Key Mgt. Type Type Facility tº E tº tº Range Range
Allot. Federal Vegetative Adjust & & & Forage Trend Condition
NO/b Acreage/d Species/f AUMs/i Acreage/j Acreage/k Acreage/l Production/n Acres/o Acres/p
6] Nonint. 03-0 l Cattle DSP. None None Improve U=0 G=0
tº e º º Eº gº ºs º- tº Thru gº º º tº 8,221A. º tº E tº º S=0 F=4794
5038,5039, 8,738A. 02-28 395 AUMS tº gº tº 395 AUMS D=8498 P=3704
5040,5041, gº º º º tº gº º º C0A
5042,5240 None D 654 6 All Ot.
62 Nonint. 03-0] Cattle DSP None None Improve U=0 G=0
tº tº gº tº º e- ºr e = 2 --> Thru gº º ſº tº 240A. sº gº º sº S=0 F=0
5060 240A. 02-28 9 AUMS 9 AUMS D=240 P=240
None D 18
63 Nonint. 03–0 | Cattle DSP. None None Improve U=0 G=0
tº gº tº º * > Eº E. tº Thru gº tº ſº tº 240A. tº- tº º º S= 180 F= 120
Unal l 240A. 02-28 l 3 AUMS 13 AUMS D=6- P=120
None None
64 Nonint. 03–0 l Cattle DSP. None None Improve U=80 G=0
gº º sº mº gº tº Gº || Thru tº- º º – l60A. tº gº tº S=0 F=0
5242 160A. 02-28 7 AUMS 7 AUMS D=160 P=160
None D 8
65 Nonint. 03-0 l Cattle DSP. None None Improve U=0 G=0
gº tº E_* º gº º 'º tº Thru eºs º dº tºº |60A. wº Tº º º º S=0 F=160
5204 |60A. 02-28 14 AUMS 14 AUMS D=l 60 P=0
None None
66 AMP 06-0 l Cattle DSP. Thin S&S Improve U-1348 X=100
sº sº º º * : * > * : * * Thru tº gº tºº tº 40A. 100A. l tº º 'º º is S=0 G=1248
5124,5125, 3,338A. | |-|3| 134 AUMS gº tº º sº 215 AUMS D=1990 F=0
5 126 tº º ºs º- tº gº º ºſ- ROW P= 1990
FEAR D 145 4 RDS.
(6.75 Mi)
C0A
3 Al lot
67 Nonint. 03–0 l Cattle DSP. None None Improve U=0 G=0
tº gº º tº sº º sº º Thru tº gº tº º 200A º “Es tº º S=0 F=0
5052 560A. 02-28 | 7 AUMS l 2 AUMS D=560 P=560
None D 31
68 Nonint. 06–0 l Cattle ROW Burn None Improve U=957 X=200
sº º sº tº sº sº me tº Thru sº ºne º tº 3RDS. 200A. gº tº ſº S= G=757
5 134 2,512A. 0 |-|3| 69 AUMS (6.50 mi) 130 AUMS D=1530 F=0
& gº º gº º gº sº- ºr- (- tº- tº cº- P= 1530
5l 35 FEAR D 267 COA
2 All ot.
69 Nonint. 03-0] Cattle DSP None None Improve U=0 G=0
tº º tº- tº- tº gº Thru gº º – tº 1, 190A. g- ſº tº cº- S=109] F=1256
5 164 l,556A. 02-28 70 AUMS 70 AUMS D=465 P=300
None D 1 10
70 Nonint. 03-0 l Cattle DSP. None None Improve U=0 G=0
e-º ºs º- 'º gº tº tº Thru tº tº ſº tº 173A. tº º-, -º- tº S=0 F=0
5056 173A. 02-28 8 AUMS 8 AUMS D=173 P=173
None D 22
7 Nonint. 03-0 l Cattle DSP. None None Improve U=0 G=0
gº º cº-º º tº e-jº º ſº Thru gº º tº º 206A. sº tºº º ſº S=0 F=0
5 153 206A. 02-28 12 AUMS 12 AUMS D=206 P=206
None D 30
RECOMMENDATION AND OBJECTIVE SUMMARY
APPENDICES — B-11
Recommendations Objectives.
Kind of
Stock/g
Season * - I -ºº º gº tº
Mgt. - Of Forage/h
Key No/a Mgt. Use/e Production Administ. Land Livestock Grazing
tº ſº ºne º Status/c tº - tº- gº tº º e Treatment Treatment Mgt. Admin/m
Former {- tº tº Key Mgt. Type Type Facility gº tº e º 'º º Range Range
Allot. Federal Vegetative Adjust & & & Forage Trend Condition
No/b Acreage/d Species/f AUMs/i Acreage/j Acreage/k Acreage/l Production/n Acres/o Acres/p
72 Nonint. 03–0 l Cattle DSP. None None Improve U=0 G=0
tº e- ºr- º tº º cº- sº Thru tº e -º º e º e l,80A. tº º – e - º S=720 F=80
Unall. 720A. 02–28 25 AUMS 25 AUMS D=0 P=6|| 0
None None
73 Nonint. 03-0 l Cattle DSP. None None Improve U=0 G=0
* - tº º gº tº e º 'º -> Thru *E* sº tº gº l,0A. * - tºº ſº º º S=l;0 F= l;0
5176 l,0A. 02–28 l, AUMs l, AUMs D=0 P=0
None D l;
71, Nonint. 03-0 l Cattle DSP. None NOne Improve U= 0 G=0
* . . . . . . . . . . .” tº-º º cº-e ºs Thru tº > º 780A. “E sº tº º S=307l F=20l., 1
5165,5166, 3,071A. 02-28 277 AUMs tº-º º ſº tº º 277 AUMS D=0 P=l030
5167,5168, & e tº e º e COA
5173,517, None D ll, l; 6 Allot.
75 AMP 05–0l. Horses DSP. None CTM Improve U=l, l;5 G=0
tº º . . . . . . . & e. Thru Cattle l20A. l tº º 'º - † - S=2l2l F=212 l
5ll3 2,792.A. 02-28 tº-e - - - - º º tº gº tº e- - 291, AUMs D=0 P=l l;5
& tº º ſº. lS6 AUMs ROW S&S
5ll l; FEAR tº º 'º - l Rd. l,
D l8 (l.0 Mi)
COA
2 Allot.
76 Nonint. 03-01 Cattle DSP. None None Improve U=l20 G= 0
º º º ºs wº- ºr e-e ‘º Thru • * * > . . . . . .” l20A. tº Le Cº- ºr e = S=0 F=l2O
5239 l20A. 02-28 lO AUMS lO AUMS D=0 P=0
None D 17
77 Nonint. 03-01 Cattle DSP. None None Improve U=20 G=0
&_* < * > . . . . * … . . . . . . e. Thru tº cº-º º gº 50A. º º- º º S=30 F=20
Unall. 50A. 02–28 l AUM l AUM D=0 P=30
None None
78 Nonint. 03-0l Cattle DSP. NOne None Improve U=0 G=0
º ºs cº-e e- - - - Thru q = -º e 20A. tº e º º ºr e º 'º S=20 F=0
50l., l; 20A. 02-28 2 AUMS 2 AUMS D=0 P= 20
NOne D 2
79 Nonint. 03-01 Cattle DSP. None None Improve U=0 G=0
* - I Lº º cº- cº- ºr e º º Thru tº E tº Lº º 380A. tº º cº-º º S=380 F=0
5092 380A. 02-28 lC) AUMS lO AUMS D=0 P=380
NOne D 33
80 Nonint. 03-01 Cattle DSP. None None Improve U=0 G=0
& e g º e -> tº º º ºs Thru tº-e º º 50A. tº E- º ºr e S=50 F=0
5025 50A. 02-28 2 AUMS 2 AUMs D=0 P=50
None D l;
8l Nonint. 03-01 Cattle DSP. NOne None Improve U=320 G=320
Q_º - > * > * > tº e- º gº Thru * - I - e º 900A. 4- G- E - e. e. S=580 F=0
Unall. 900A. 02-28 55 AUMs 55 AUMS D=0 P=580
None None
82 Nonint. 03-0l Cattle DSP. NOne None Improve U=0 G=0
tº e º 'º º gº tº e º 'º Thru tº - tº º 80A. e- º º ºs S=80 F=0
5210 80A. 02-28 5 AUMS 5 AUMS D=0 P=80
NOne
D 8
B-12 – ROYAL GORGE ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT
RECOMMENDATION AND OBJECTIVE SUMMARY.
Recommendations
Objectives
Kind of
Stock/g
SeaSOn gº tº tº e
Mgt. Of Forage/h
Key No/a Mgt. Use/e Production Administ. Land Livestock Grazing
tº - tº º º Status/c &E º º º tº tº º Treatment Treatment Mgt. Admin/m
Former tº E_* ºr lº Key Mgt. Type Type Facility tº º ſº º Range Range
Allot. Federal Vegetative Adjust & * & & Forage Trend Condition
No/b Acreage/d Species/f AUMs/i Acreage/j Acreage/k Acreage/l Production/n AC res/o Acres/p
83 Nonint. 03-0 l Cattle DSP. None None Improve U=0 G=0
gº º ſº º emº sº º mº Thru * . L. tº . . . 3.10A. wº- tº -> S=0 F=0
5065 3.10A. 02-28 | 4 AUMS 14 AUMS D=40 P=40
None D 5
84 Nonint. 03-0 l Cattle DSP. None None Improve U=0 G=200
eº º E tº tº- (- - - - - Thru tº gº tº e 200A. gº tº tº e G--> S=200 F=0
524 l 200A. 02-28 21 AUMS 21 AUMS D=0 P=0
None None
85 Nonint. 03-0 l Cattle DSP None None Improve U=0 G=0
tº-e ‘º º º gº º e º 'º Thru tº gº º cº- 80A. tº e º º S=0 F=0
5229 80A. 02-28 2 AUMS 2 AUMS D=80 P=60
03–0 l None
Thru
86 Nonint. 02-28 Cattle DSP None None Improve U=0 G=0
º gº tº º tº gº tº E sº tº º ºs sº º gº tº 40A. tº e º e º º S=0 F=0
5837 40A. None l AUM | AUM D=40 P=40
None D 9
87 Unal l. None None DSP None None Improve U=0 G=0
e- tº º º gº º º º is q_ _ _ _ _ sº tº E tº 200A. º º cº-e Gº S=0 F=0
Unall. 615A. None None None D=615 P=615
None
88 Nonint. 03-0 l Cattle DSP. None None Improve U=0 G=0
gº tº º º e- º ºs º- Thru gº tº e 350A. g- || > t > g. ſº S=0 F=0
Unall. 360A. 02-28 9 AUMS 9 AUMS D=360 P=360
None None
89 Nonint. 03-0 l Cattle None None None Improve U=0 G=0
gº º sº º gº tº gº tº Thru •º e - º gº º tº gº S=0 F=0
52.13 120A. 02-28 | AUM 1 AUM D=80 P=80
None D 3
90 Nonint. 03-0 l Cattle ROW None None Improve U=0 G=0
gº º sº tº gº º º º Thru Horses l Rd. tº e º º S=0 F=0
5235 120A. 02-28 gº º gº º (0.25 Mi) 2 AUMS D=120 P=120
º º ſº tº º 2 AUMS
None tº gº tº º
D 6
9] AMP 06-0 l Cattle None None None Improve U=38 G=38
gº º sº º tº e º 'º - sº Thru eº º sº tº gº tº S=0 F=0
5046 432A. 08-31 15 AUMS 23 AUMS D=208 P=208
FEAR 16
92 Nonint. 03-0 l Cattle None None None Improve U=0 G=0
gº- º e º ſº gº º e º 'º Thru gº tº gº tº º S=0 F=59
513 125A. 02-28 4 AUMS 4 AUMS D=125 P=66
None D 4
93 Nonint. 03-0 l Cattle None None None Improve U=0 G=
gº º ºs º- gº tº º tº º Thru tº º Eº º S=0 F=
5013 129A. 02-28 4 AUMS 4 AUMS D=129 P=l 29
None D 8
–9-
RECOMMENDATION AND OBJECTIVE SUMMARY
APPENDICES – B-13
Recommendations Objectives
Kind of
Stock/g
Season sº º sº º
Mgt. Of Forage/h
Key No/a Mgt. Use/e Production Administ. Land LiveStock Grazing
* … tº º tº Status/c gº- (- - - - - - gº tº º º Treatment Treatment Mgt. Admin/m
Former ---- Key Mgt. Type Type Facility tº-º º Es Eº Range Range
Allot. Federal Vegetative Adjust & & & Forage Trend Condition
No/b Acreage/d Species/f AUMs/i Acreage/j Acreage/k Acreage/l Production/n Acres/o Acres/p
9|| Nonint. 03-01 Cattle DSP None None Improve U= l;0 G=0
* * * > *- : * > tº e º 'º e º 'º Thru tº e º 'º - - l20A. cº- tº e- ºr e S=l85 F=0
Unall. l,00A. 02-28 8 AUMs l, AUMs D=0 P=225
NOne None
95 AMP 05–l6 Cattle ROW None NOne Improve U=0 G=0
tº º q > * > * > * - º ºs º- Thru cº-º º cº-º º l Rd. * … . . . . . e. S=558 F=83
521,3 l,013A. lO-3l l!3 AUMs (.50 Mi) 65 AUMs D=0 P=l,75
FEAR D 65
96 AMP 08–0l Cattle ROW None None Improve U=0 G=0
* > * > * > . . . º- º º ºs Thru * … tº º º l Rd. &= -º º º S=ll!3 F=80
5067 l!!3A. Ol-l9 lC) AUMS (.75 Mi) lS AUMS D=0 P=63
FEAR D 7
97 AMP 06-19 Cattle ACQ THIN RSW Improve U= 0 G=300
tº e º e º E- * - º ºxº gº Thru tº e º 'º e 2, ll,0A. 300A. l • Lº º cº-º º S=31,92 F=ll;7
50ll,5093, 5,326A. l2-lp 190 AUMs gº tº cº-e Gº- tº e º 'º e 325 AUMs D=0 F=30|5
& 5101, * - T - º tº e º º e º º ROW FNC
FEAR D 398 l Rd. l. 5 Mi.
(2.50 Mi)
COA
3 Allot
98 AMP 06-16 Cattle ROW None None Improve U=0 G=0
tº gº tº e- “E E -ºº º Thru l Rd. tº . g . . . . . . S=6|| 0 F=380
5189 61,0A. 09-l9 23 AUMs (0.25 Mi) 35 AUMs D=0 P=260
FEAR D 90
99 AMP 06-01 Cattle ACQ NOne S&S Improve U=0 G=0
tº ( → * : * ~ * tº º Thru tº e º 'º º l!,280A. l “. . . . . . . ºº S=2553 F=l08
5069 5,305A l0–31 196 AUMs tº e º e º º 291, AUMs D=0 P=2||l,5
* . . . . . . . . . . . * … e º - ROW
FEAR D 33 l Rd.
MUMO (3.0 Mi)
l00 AMP l2–0l Cattle ACQ NOne RSW Improve U=l35 G=0
tº e º º ºs º- G. º Thru “. . . . . . . . . . . 2,637A. l tº- e º º S=615 F=l35
5ll0 l,538A. 03-31 l!3 AUMs e- ºr e = e º º 65 AUMs D=0 P=615
cº- cº- tº - gº º ſº º ROW
FEAR D ll2 3 Rds
l()l Nonint. 03-0 l Cattle DSP. None None Improve U=275 G=0
&_ _ _ _ e tº º º - Thru gº tº º º 790A. g- º ºxº cº- S=l l;5 F=l85
Unall. 870A. 02-28 l!2 AUMs l;2 AUMs D=0 P=535
NOne None
lC)2 Nonint. 03-0l Cattle DSP. NOne None Improve U=0 G=0
º º Gº Gº tº gº e º cº- Thru cº-e sº- e º º 36A. tº º ºs º- S=36 F=27
501,8 36A. 02-28 3 AUMs 3 AUMS D=0 P=9
None D 6
l03 Nonint. 03-0l Cattle DSP. None None Improve U=l20 G=0
tº e º gº º º ºs º- º Thru * - e º 362A. cº- ºr e º e - S=21,2 F=120
521, l; 362A. 02-28 l6 AUMs l6 AUMs D=0 P=2|{2
NOne D 31
lOl. NOnint. 03-0l Cattle DSP. None None Improve U=0 G=0
&_º - º e- gº º E → * > Thru * tº e 200A. * - cº- ºr e º º S=95 F=20
Unall. 200A. 02-28 5 AUMS 5 AUMS D=0 P=75
None
None
B-14 – ROYAL GORGE ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT
RECOMMENDATION AND OBJECTIVE SUMMARY
Recommendations Objectives
Kind of
Stock/g
Season tº E_* º E.E.
Mgt. Of Forage/h
Key No/a Mgt. Use/e Production Administ. Land LiveStock Grazing
tº º ºr e º tº Status/c gº gº º - º ºg tº º Treatment Treatment Mgt. Admin/m
FOrmer * > *- : *, * * * Key Mgt. Type Type Facility sº tº sº º Range Range
Allot. Federal Vegetative Adjust & & & Forage Trend Condition
No/b Acreage/d Species/f AUMs/i Acreage/j Acreage/k Acreage/l Production/n Acres/o Acres/p
lC)5 AMP 08–0l Cattle ACQ. None S&S Improve U=0 G=0
gº º- tº- tº- & E tº e Thru * - gº tº e ∈ l, 1,10A. 2 tº º º º cº-e S=1078 F=327
5098,5103 2,268A. 0l-l9 31, AUMs tº º º cº- 5l AUMS D=0 P=75l.
& 5105 * - tº gº tºº tº - - tº COA
FEAR D 56 3 Allots.
106 Nonint. 03-0l Cattle DSP. None None Improve U=2||3 G=0
tº- tº- e º 'º gº tº º º Thru * - I - (- º 283A. tº-e tº e º e S=l10 F=2||3
5099 283A. 02-28 22 AUMS 22 AUMS D=0 P= l;0
None D l?
l()7 NOnint. 03–0 l Cattle DSP NOne None Improve U=35 G=0
gº º -e ºs gº º e º 'º º Thru tº º º ºs 75A. tº-e Gº e S=l;0 F=55
5100 75A. 02–28 5 AUMs 5 AUMS D=0 P=20
NOne None
108 Nonint. 03-0l Cattle DSP. None None Improve U=0 G=0
gº º Es sº tº-e e i º Thru tº-e ‘Tº “ - tº l32A. tº º S=l32 F=l32
5225 l32A. 02-25 ll AUMs ll AUMS D=0 P=0
NOne D 9
109 Nonint. 03-0l Cattle DSP. None None Improve U=0 G=0
cº-º - º º e- Thru º º ºs º-e l,5A. tº º º S=l;5 F=15
5102 l,5A. 02-28 l, AUMs l, AUMs D=0 P=0
NOne D l
ll.0 Nonint. 03-0l Cattle DSP. None None Improve U=26 G=0
tº- ºr e º 'º -º tº e º e º tº Thru tº º cº-e ºs 26A. • * : * : * * * S=0 F=26
5021 26A. 02-28 3 AUMs 3 AUMs D=0 P=0
NOne D l
lll Nonint. 03-0 l Cattle DSP. None NOne Improve U=0 G=0
gº º cº-e º e- - sº e Thru tº º ºxe gº 233A. cº-e e - gºe S=l!88 F=0
510 l 233A. 02-28 9 AUMS 9 AUMS D=0 P=233
NOne D 22
ll2 Nonint. 03-0 l Cattle DSP. None None Improve U=0 G=0
g- º ºs º- tº gº º tº Thru gº º º ºs º- l!88A. & º gº S=l!88 F=69
5020 l,88A. 02-28 26 AUMs * * * > . . . . e. 26 AUMs D=0 P=llg
& * * * * * > * > tº e - e º e º 'º COA
5022 None D 37 2 Allots.
ll3 Nonint. 03-01 Cattle DSP. None None Improve U=270 G=0
tº e lº º º º º Thru tº º cº-º º 300A. * † º e º 'ºp S=30 F=270
Unall 300A. 02-28 22 AUMS 22 AUMS D=0 P=30
NOne None
ll!! Nonint. 03-01 Cattle DSP. None None Improve U=0 G=0
* * * > * > . . . cº º ºs ºº Thru • * * * * * > * > l25A. tº e º 'º - S=lOO F=0
5178 l25A. 02–28 8 AUMs 8 AUMs D=0 P= 100
NOne D 6
ll 5 Nonint. 03-0 l Cattle DSP. NOne None Improve U=60 G=0
gº º-e sº º g- º ºs º- Thru e º º l69A. * = & E = - º S=269 F=150
5lll 329A. 02-28 2l AUMS tº e-c = - 21 AUMS D=0 P=l79
& gº tº Eº º gº ºne º ºs COA
5ll2 None D 15 2 Allots.
ll6 Nonint. 03-01 Cattle DSP. None None Improve U=0 G=0
* - Lº e º Lº tº º e º Thru emº º º º l20A. tº º º e S=l20 F=0
Unall. l20A. 02-28 6 AUMs 6 AUMs D=0 P=l2O
NOne NOne
RECOMMENDATION AND OBJECTIVE SUMMARY
Recommendations
APPENDICES — B-15
Objectives
Kind of
Stock/g
SeaSOn sº ºme º Eis
Mgt. Of Forage/h
Key No/a Mgt. Use/e Production Administ. Land Livestock Grazing
sº sº º ºs Status/c tº-e - - tº- * Gºº Gº tº Treatment Treatment Mgt. Admin/m
Former tº ſº gº º Key Mgt. Type Type Facility e.-e ºs º º Range Range
Allot. Federal Vegetative Adjust & & & Forage Trend Condition
NO/b Acreage/d Species/f AUMs/i Acreage/j Acreage/k Acreage/l Production/n Acres/o Acres/p
ll 7 AMP l2-0l Cattle ROW None RSW Improve U= 0 G=0
* - sº º tº gº tº cº- Thru gºe - - l Rd. l *_º tº gº º S=ll, l9 F=0
5023 l,539A. 02–28 32 AUMs (l. 25 Mi) 18 AUMs D=0 P=ll, l0
& tº-e Gº e º e * - º q_2 * > tº-º º 'º - ?
5021, FEAR D l;5 COA
2 Allots.
ll 8 AMP 09-0 l Cattle ROW None None Improve U=0 G=0
º º sº gº * º ºs º- Thru * * * * * * * * l Rd. tº tº gº tº S=ll07 F=0
5186 2,682 A. lC-3 l 52 AUMS (35 Mi) 78 AUMs D=0 P=ll07
FEAR U 38
ll.9 Nonint. 03–0 l Cattle DSP. NOne None Improve U= 0 G=0
* º ºxe º * - - e º º Thru tº e -º º º ſº º 80A. &= º º ºs S=27l F= 10
5062 27 la . 02-28 ll AUMS ll AUMs D=0 P=231
None D 31,
l2O Nonint. 03-0l Cattle DSP. None None Improve U=0 G=0
º º ºs º tº e º 'º -> Thru º 4- tº e º e 160A. tº-º º e º 'º e S=l60 F=0
5ll 8 160A. 02-28 7 AUMs 7 AUMs D=0 P=160
NOne D 6
l2l Nonint. 03-0 l Cattle DSP. None None Improve U=0 G=0
* = ′ = a - tº e - e º 'º - º Thru * > . . . . . . . .e 570A. tº sº º ºs S=570 F=0
5000 570A. 02-28 l9 AUMs l9 AUMS D=0 P=570
None D 30
l22 Nonint. 03-01 Cattle None None None Improve U=0 G=0
* = º sº tº e º tº Thru Horses e- tº cº-º gº S=l;0 F= 0
5122 l,0A. 02-28 gº tº e º e º le 2 AUMS D=0 P= 10
4- º cº-e e 2 AUMS
None º º º ºs
NOne
l23 Nonint. 03-01 Cattle None None None Improve U= 0 G=0
* eme emº ºme cº-e e - tº º Thru º-s º º cº- º- º ºs º-e S=l3l F=0
5185 l31A. 02-28 5 AUMs 5 AUMS D=0 P=131
None None
l23A Nonint. 03-01 Cattle NOne None None Improve U=0 G=0
* * * * <-- cº-e - Thru º-> --> <- º e S=300l. F=0
5760 3,00l!A. 02–28 l, l AUMs ll AUMs D=0 P=3001;
NOne D 31,
l21, Nonint. 03-01 Cattle None None None Improve U=0 G=0
* * * * * - - - - --> Thru tº e º e - ( → * ~ * > * > S=l, l;0 F=0
Unall. l!!!0A. 02-28 5 AUMS 5 AUMS D=0 P= l; l;0
None None
l25 Nonint. 03-01 Cattle DSP. None None Improve U=0 G=0
* * me me * > . Tº a Thru º e - ſº cº- 163A. tº gº tº º S=l63 F=O
583.9 163A. 02-28 2 AUMS 2 AUMS D=0 P=l63
None D 6
l26 AMP 08–0l Cattle ROW THIN CTM Improve U=0 G=l60
* * * = * - e > -e º e Thru gº º e º 'º l Rd. l60A. l cº- tº e º 'º -> S=3036 F=0
5l32 6,676A. Ol-lp 69 AUMs (l, .5 Mi) l21, AUMs D=0 P=2876
FEAR D 207
STCO
B-16 – ROYAL GORGE ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT
RECOMMENDATION AND OBJECTIVE SUMMARY
Recommendations Objectives
Kind of
Stock/g
Season tº- tº- º º
Mgt. Of Forage/h
Key No/a Mgt. Use/e Production Administ. Land Livestock Grazing
º- º a º q > Status/c cº-e ºs º- - -> <- - - Treatment Treatment Mgt. Admin/m
FOrmer tº-º cº- tº º Key Mgt. Type Type Facility e- - - - Range Range
Allot. Federal Vegetative Adjust & & & Forage Trend Condition
No/b Acreage/d Species/f AUMS/i Acreage/j Acreage/k Acreage/l Production/n Acres/o Acres/p
l27 AMP lC)-l'7 Cattle ROW THIN CTM Improve U=0 G=600
e- - - « » emº sº º cº- Thru - - - - l Rd. 600A. l - - - - S=3380 F=0
5187 5755A. 0l-01. 38 AUMs (0.75 Mi) tº- (- - - l37 AUMS D=0 P=2780
º º gº º - - - - RSW
FEAR D l91, l
STCO - º cº- -
S&S
2
FNC
O © 50 Mi c
l28 AMP 08–0l Cattle ROW None PPL Improve U=0 G=0
tº º ºr e º e cº- º ºs º- Thru -> -º º q_º l Rd. 0.5 Mi Q-> --> --> --> S=lO77 F=0
5019 3,372A. Ol-l9 l, AUMs (l.0 Mi) º º cº-º º 6 AUMs D=0 P=lO77
& - º º cº- - tº--> --> --> tº- ºr tº º WTR
5306 STCO D l6l COA l
2 Allots.
l29 Nonint. 03-0l Cattle DSP. None None Improve U=0 G=0
- - - - - tº tº e º e º Eº Thru e- - - - 1,0A. cº-e - - - - S=60l F=0
5133 60lA. 02-28 l, AUMs l, AUMs D=0 P=60l
NOne D l?
l30 Nonint. 03-0 l Cattle None None None Improve U=0 G=0
- - - - º gº º ºs º- Thru - - - - -> --> --> --> S=l60 F=0
5226 l60A. 02-28 l AUM l AUM D=0 P=l60
None D 17
l3l Nonint. 03-0 l Cattle DSP. None None Improve U=0 G=0
- - - Gº tº G = - gº Thru - - - - 200A. G-> --> --> --> S=200 F=200
5182 200A. 02-28 7 AUMS 7 AUMS D=0 P=0
NOne NOne
l32 Nonint. 03-0l Cattle None None None Improve U=0 G=0
e- - - - e- º º cº- Thru Q- - - --> tº- (- - - S=52l F=0
5181. 52lA. 02-28 3 AUMs 3 AUMs D=0 P=521
NOne NOne
l33 AMP 08-0l Cattle DSP. BURN CTM Improve U=l80l X=l280
e- - - - - - eme º 'º -> Thru e- - - - 60A. l,280A. l tº- tº G- - S=ll 71, G=0
5032 3,229A. Ol-lp 52 AUMS - - e cº- cº- - - 21,8 AUMs D=0 F=0
& e- º - tº --> --> --> --> ROW RSW P=l695
5ll, l; STCO D 223 l, Rós 2
ORHY (5.25 Mi)
COA
2 Allots
l31, AMP 08-0l Cattle ACQ. None None Improve U=0 G=0
cº-> --> - e &E tº gº tº Thru - º 'º - l,80A. tº º º º S=210 F=0
5183 21,0A. Ol-l9 6 AUMs 9 AUMS D=0 P=210
STCO D ll,
ORHY
135 Nonint. 03-01 Cattle DSP. NOne None Improve U=0 G=0
- - - - - - * > --> --> tº - Thru -> --> --> --> 80A. - - - - S=80 F=80
5866 80A. 02-28 6 AUMs 6 AUMs D=0 P=0
NOne None
l36 AMP 08-0l Cattle ROW None S&S Improve U=0 G=0
- tº º e º- º G = Gº- Thru - cº- º – 3 Rds. l e- - - - S=l21,2 F=0
50ll l, H22A. 09-15 ll AUMS 5.0 Mi) lT AUMS D=0 P=l212
STCO D 53
RECOMMENDATION AND OBJECTIVE SUMMARY
APPENDICES – B-17
Recommendations- Objectives
Kind of
Stock/g
Season sº º sº º
Mgt. Of Forage/h
Key No/a Mgt. Use/e Production Administ. Land Livestock Grazing
º º ºs º- Status/c - --> --> e gº º E. E. Treatment Treatment Mgt. Admin/m
Former - º 'º º Key Mgt. Type Type Facility tº ºº & E GE Range Range
Allot. Federal Vegetative Adjust & & & Forage Trend Condition
No/b Acreage/d Species/f AUMs/i Acreage/j Acreage/k Acreage/l Production/n Acres/o Acres/p
l37 AMP 08–0l Cattle ROW None FNC Improve U=0 G= 0
*- - - - - - - - - Thru * > -> <- - 2 RCls. 0.75 Mi tº º ºs º- - S=1255 F = 0
5223 l,587A. Ol-l9 ll AUMS (6.0 Mi) l'7 AUMs D:0 P=1255
STCO D l;3
ORHY
l38 AMP 06-01 Cattle ACQ. THIN S&S Improve U=2378 G=550
*- - - - - - - - Thru e- º e- - l, 1100A. 550A. 3 sº º ºs º- S=5597 F=20
5010,5072, 15,635A. 02–28 309 tº cº- tº- - tº tº gº tº 539 AUMs D=0 P=8.185
5095,5120, tº e º 'º - & e - Gº tº ROW CTM
5159 MUMO D 295 l, Rols. 5
STCO (l, .75 Mi) º º ºs º-
- - - - FNC
COA l.0 Mi.
5 Allots * - e º e º º
CTG
l
l38A Nonint. 03-0l Cattle DSP. None None Improve U=0 G=0
*- º - Gº cº- º 'º - º Thru cº-e sº cº- tº 36A. & º 'º - tº e º 'º S=8 F=0
5ll.9 36A. 02-28 l AUM l AUM D=0 P=8
NOne D 5
l39 AMP 07-0l Cattle ROW None None Improve U=l76 G=0
*- E - G- - - - - - - Thru cº-º- º – l Rd. cº º- º cº- S=l3l F=0
5237 337A. 09-30 29 AUMs (2.75 Mi) l, l, AUMs D=0 P=307
FEAR D l;2
ll.0 AMP 08-0l Cattle ROW None None Improve U=378 G=0
* - gº º - - - - - - Thru º º e ∈-> <- l, Rols. G-> -e cº-º º S=2273 F=96
52O6 5, 188A. Ol-l9 60 AUMs (13.0 Mi) 90 AUMS D=0 P=2555
FEAR U lo
STCO
ll, l AMP 05-16 Cattle ACQ None FNC Improve U=557 G=0
* º º me gº º Gº G-> Thru e - G - Gºº Gº 210A. l. 25 Mi. cº º-, -º º S=ll,03 F=l639
5015,521.5, 6,272A. 02-28 ll,5 AUMs º Gº Gº- º 218 AUMs D=0 P=2ll!!
5247,5248, º cº- c. º Gº e - © º º tº º ROW
5250,525l MUMO D l;17 5 Rds
STCO (5.25 Mi)
COA
6 Allots.
ll;2 AMP 08–0l Cattle ROW THIN S&S Improve U=517 G=l60
* Gº gº º Cº- ºr e º 'º - e. Thru tº e - º º l Rd. l60A. 5 cº-º- º ºſ- S=290l F= 1000
5302 3,727A. Ol-l9 l;0 AUMs (1.75 Mi) tº a tº e º e º º 80 AUMs D=0 P=2098
º e > Gºº Gº e- º – G - FNC
MUMO D 312 2.0 Mi.
STCO
l! 3 AMP 08-0l Cattle None THIN FNC Improve U=299 G=l20
* * * * - - - - - Thru & e º 'º - P --> l20A. .75 Mi. tº sº cº- º S=l,52 F=0
5078 697 A. Ol-l9 l3 AUMs 36 AUMs D=0 P=6ll
STCO D 50
ORHY
l!3A Unall. None None EOG None FNC Improve U=0 G=0
* * * * - - - - - gº º º tº e - º ºx- 383A. 3.75 MI gº º ſº- E- S=235 F=0
5079 383A. None None None D=0 P=235
D 30
B-18 – ROYAL GORGE ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT
RECOMMENDATION AND OBJECTIVE SUMMARY
Recommendations Objectives
Kind of
Stock/g
Season tº º . . . . . . e.
Mgt. Of Forage/h
Key No/a Mgt. Use/e Production Administ. Land LiveStock Grazing
gºe º Status/c tº tº . . tº º ºs º-e Treatment Treatment Mgt. Admin/m
Former tº- tº- º º Key Mgt. Type Type Facility tº- tº- ºr e gº Range Range
Allot. Federal Vegetative Adjust & & & Forage Trend Condition
No/b Acreage/d Species/f AUMs/i Acreage/j Acreage/k Acreage/l Production/n Acres/o Acres/p
ll, l, Unall. None None EOG None None Improve U= 0 G=0
g- º tº cº- tº- tº Lº gº º º gº gº º 'º - 220A. {-, -, - e º º S=l80 F=0
Unall. 220A. None None None D=0 P=l80
None
ll,5 Nonint. 03-0 l Cattle None None None Improve U=0 G=0
* - tº º º * - gº tº Thru * - e ∈ E is tº º e g = S=200 F=0
5071 200A. 02–28 2 AUMS 2 AUMS D=0 P=200
NOne D 21
ll,5A Nonint. 03-0l Horses None None None Improve U=0 G=0
* - tº º tº º ºs º- Thru * … º. º º tº tº º ºs º-e S=58 F=0
519 l 360A. 02–28 l AUM l AUM D=0 P=58
None None
ll,5B Nonint. 03-0l Cattle None None None Improve U=0 G=0
gº tº º º º tº- º Thru tº e º e º - tº e º 'º … º S=l20 F=0
5066 l20A. 02-28 l AUM l AUM D=0 P=l2O
NOne D 6
ll!6 AMP 08–0l Cattle ROW None None Improve U-125 G=0
gº º º tº . . . .” Thru * > * > * > * > l Rd. º º - º S=l22 F=0
5090 l,072A. 09-l9 lO AUMS (l.5 Mi) lº, AUMS D=0 P=2||7
MUMO D l;3
STCO
ll, 7 AMP 08–0l Cattle COA THIN S&S Improve U= 10 X=210
gº º tº º tº gº tº º º Thru G. : * > . º º 2 Allots l, 200A. l cº- tº- tº S=5158 G=l 200
5082 6,580A. Ol-lp 99 AUMS tº º cº-º º tº a tº e º e 31}l AUMs D=0 F=l;0
& Gº tº e Cº. º. º. . . . e. BURN FNC P=3718
5083 MUMO D l; l; 21,0A. 0.75 Mi
STCO
ll,8 AMP 08–01 Horses ROW None None Improve U=0 G=0
tº e º 'º - … {-º … Thru tº e º 'º -º l Rd. tº e º º tº S=950 F=0
5212 l,009A. Ol-lp 3 AUMs (2.0 Mi) 5 AUMS D=0 P=950
STCO D l6
ORHY
ll,8A Unall. None None EOG None FNC Improve U=0 G=0
gº º 'º - gº º sº º * - tº- tº- tº tº sº tº º l,69A. 3.0 Mi. gº º ºs e e S=1,37 F=0
52ll l,69A. None None None D=0 P= 1,37
D 20
ll, 9 AMP ll-0 l Cattle None NOne S&S Improve U= 0 G=0
tº º ºs º- * † e º º Thru * … tº e º 'º tº l « . » a º S=6l30 F=595
5300 7,313A. 05-31 21.2 AUMs & e e 363 AUMs D=0 P=5535
gº º-º º tº * > . . . . . . . ºt FNC
STCO D 5ll, .75 Mi
lSO AMP 06-10 Cattle ROW THIN S&S Improve U=0 G=l.90
* e º 'º º tº .º Thru tº e º 'º 2 RCi. lº,0A. 3 gº tº º sº gº S=2025 F=0
530l 2, 1,76A. 10–25 50 AUMS (2.5 Mi) 95 AUMS D=0 P=1875
STCO D 276
lSl Nonint. 03-01 Cattle DSP. None None Improve U=0 G=0
* - º 'º - º * - . . . . . . . . Thru tº 280A. tº e º is tº . . . . S=l080 F=60
Unall l,080A. 02–28 6 AUMs 6 AUMS D=0 P=l O20
None None
RECOMMENDATION AND OBJECTIVE SUMMARY
APPENDICES – B-19
Recommendations Objectives
Kind of
Stock/g
Season gº ºne º ºs
Mgt. Of Forage/h
Key No/a Mgt. Use/e Production Administ. Land Livestock Grazing
tº º º ºs Status/c gº º tº ºº gº sº tº º Treatment Treatment Mgt. Admin/m
Former tº tº tº E: Key Mgt. Type Type Facility tº ºs º gº Range Range
Allot. Federal Vegetative Adjust & & & Forage Trend Condition
No/b Acreage/d Species/f AUMs/i Acreage/j Acreage/k Acreage/l Production/n Acres/o Acres/p
152 Nonint. O3–Ol Cattle None None None Improve U=O G=O
tº º ſº gº gº tº º sº Thru cº ºne º º {- tº º gº S=92O F=O
5224 1080A. O2–28 13 AUMS l3 AUMs D=O P=92O
None D 58
153 Nonint. O3–Ol Cattle DSP. None None Improve U=O G=O
ę & e º 'º tº tºº “º tº Thru & E - ſº º - e. 5l/A. & Lº e E → * > S=51 F=O
5057 5l.A. O2-28 1 AUM 1 AUM D=O P=51
None D 4
154 Nonint. O3–Ol Cattle None None None Improve U=O G=O
tº gº tº º gº tº gº tº Thru tº-º º º ºs tº º º gº S=190 F=O
5O85 48OA. O2-28 2 AUMS 2 AUMS D=O P=190
None None
l;5 AMP O8-Ol Cattle ROW THIN FNC Improve U=O G=3OO
gº ºne º sº tº tº e Thru tº º ºs º-º l Rd. 3OOA. 1.5 Mi. tº gº tºe tº S=2OO7 F=O
5O47 2,978A. Ol-l9 29 AUMs (3.OMi) 84 AUMs D=O P=1707
MUMO D 244
STCO
lº,6 AMP O8-Ol Cattle ROW None FNC Improve U=O G=O
* º ºs º- tº tº tº Thru * - tº º l Rd. .75 Mi. tº ºs º ºs S=1036 F=O
5234 l, 401A. Ol-15 19 AUMs (l.O Mi) 29 AUMs D=O P=lO36
MUMO D 5O
157 Nonint. O3-Ol Cattle DSP. None None Improve U=O G=O
tº º ºs º- tº ºn tº º Thru tº º ſº tº 34OA. tº º tº - S=8O6 F=O
5231,5232, 806A. O2–28 2O AUMS tº gº tº º 2O AUMS D=O P=8O6
5233 gº tºº tº º cº º- tº º COA
None D 55 3 Allots.
lºS AMP O8–Ol Cattle COA THIN FNC Improve U=O G= LOO
* me tº º tº º – tº Thru g- E- tº º 4 Allots. lOOA . O. 5 Mi. tº º tº gº S=2486 F=O
5197,5198 3,548A. Ol-l9 5l AUMs 91 AUMs D=O P=2386
52OO,52O5 tº gº tº º & E; Ee tº .º P=684
MUMO D 24O
STCO
lj9 Nonint. O3-Ol Cattle DSP. None None Improve U=O =O
* * * ºne gº tº º º Thru tº & º tº 24OA. & E º gº tº S=124O F=16O
5035 l, 240A. O2-28 22 AUMS 22 AUMS D=O P=lO8O
None D 78
l6O Nonint. O3-Ol Cattle COA None None Improve U=O G=O
* * ~ * tº-> --> -º º Thru tº e º 'º - tº 3 Allots. tº tº º ºs S=72O F=O
516O, 5161, 72OA. O2–28 17 AUMs 17 AUMs D=O P=72O
5162 * - « » tº e e tº e e º 'º -º
None D 33
l61 Nonint. O3-Ol Cattle None None None Improve U=O G=O
* * * * tº tº Gº tº e Thru $º º 'º gº * Gºº ºme sº S=96O F=O
5037 96.OA. O2-28 29 AUMs 29 AUMs D=O P=96O
None None
l62 Nonint. O3-Ol Cattle DSP. None None Improve U=O G=O
* * * * tº Lº Gº tº Eº º Thru $º tº gº tº 32OA. cº-º ºr tº tº S=48O F=O
51.90 48OA. O2-28 17 AUMs lT AUMS D=O P=48O
None D 21
l63 Nonint. O3–Ol Cattle DSP. None None Improve U=O =O
* * * * tº º gº tº Thru gº º º º l2OA. gº tº cº-e - S=12O F=O
5181 l2OA. O2-28 2 AUMS 2 AUMS D=O P=l2O
None D Ill
B-20 – ROYAL GORGE ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT
RECOMMENDATION AND OBJECTIVE SUMMARY.
— Recommendations Objectives
Kind of
Stock/g
SeaSOn gº tº gº tº
Mgt. Of Forage/h
Key No/a Mgt. Use/e Production Administ. Land LiveStock Grazing
º º ºs º- Status/c tº gº tº º tº gº tº º Treatment Treatment Mgt. Admin/m
FOrmer tº gº tº º Key Mgt. Type Type Facility * = tº gº Range Range
Allot. Federal Vegetative Adjust & & & Forage Trend Condition
No/b Acreage/d Species/f AUMs/i Acreage/j Acreage/k Acreage/l Production/n Acres/o Acres/p
l61, NOnint. 03-0l Cattle NOne None None Improve U=0 G= 0
tº º º º- tº- tº E- º Thru tº gº º º tº-e sº-ºº: º gº S=580 F=0
5219 580A. 02-28 9 AUMS 9 AUMS D=0 P=580
NOne D 31
l65 AMP 06-l6 Cattle ROW THIN None Improve U=0 G=200
gº º – ‘Fº “E º 'º º Thru tº-e Es Eº º l Rd. 200A. tº sºme me º S=ll21, F=0
5218 l,581 A. 9-30 l, l, AUMs (6.50 Mi) lC6 AUMs D=0 P=ll21,
FEAR D 68
l66 AMP 06–01 Cattle ROW THIN None Improve U=ll;0 G=l;0
gº º tº º tº-e tº cº-º gº Thru $º E tº gº 2 RCls. l,0A. cº-e ºs º-tº gº S=ll,02 F=728
503! 2,083A. ll–0 l 70 AUMS (l, .0 Mi) lll AUMs D=0 P=8ll,
& tº e º e i tº &_ _ e º 'º E º ºs º-
5086 FEAR D 97 COA
2 Allots.
l67 AMP 07-0 l Cattle ROW NOne None Improve U=0 G= 0
tº e º e º tº e º º º Thru tº Gº E. tº l Rd. {-, -, -e ºs S=6||5 F=0
5199 957 A. 3–3 l 32 AUMs (3.50 Mi) l!8 AUMs D=0 P=6||5
FEAR D 8
l68 AMP 07–0 l Cattle ROW None NOne Improve U=0 G= 0
tº e- ºr - $º ſº- Thru tº º ºs º- 2 RCls. § --> e S=l03l F=98
5050 l,031A. 09–15 86 AUMs (.50 Mi) l29 AUMs D=0 P=933
FEAR D l; l;
l69 AMP 06-0l Cattle None THIN None Improve U=0 G=l,00
tº gº tº º º tº º cº-º º Thru “Lº Gº e l,00A. tº dº º qº- tº S=21,91 F=813
5087 2,50l.A. lC)-l9 75 AUMS l'73 AUMs D=0 P=1278
FEAR D 259
l'70 AMP 06-15 Cattle ROW None FNC Improve U=0 G=583
gº tº tº 2 tº- tº e º tº Thru tº º 'º gº l Rd. l. 5 Mi. ºn tº º º S=l310 F=l;67
506l l, 310A. 09-30 72 AUMS (2.75 Mi ) lO8 AUMs D=0 P=260
FEAR D 53
17l AMP 08–0l Cattle None None None Improve U=0 G=l31,
* * * * tº * - G- E & º Thru & º e º tº b * > . . . . . . . . S=253 F=0
5009 253A. Ol-l9 6 AUMs 9 AUMS D=0 P=670
FEAR D l;2
lT2 AMP 06-0 l Cattle ROW THIN FNC Improve U=0 G=157
cº-º º ºs º- tº º º ºs Thru e- - - - l Rd. l20A. . 25 Mi. * > * > * > -º S=827 F=0
5017 827A. ll-lp 58 AUMs (3.50 Mi) lC)3 AUms D=0 P=670
& º gº tº e º e G--> <-º ºr e ∈ COA
5018 MUMO D 66 2 Allots
173 AMP 06-16 Cattle COA None FNC Improve U=0 G=0
gº º 'º -º º me tº gº Thru gº ºne º º 2 Allots. . 25 Mi. tºº & º º S=9 l9 F=57
5l.93 919A. 09-30 26 AUMs 39 AUMs D=0 P=862
& gº º º º *E* - sº º
5191, MUMO D lll
l? l; Nonint. 03–0 l Cattle DSP. None NOne Improve U=0 G=0
{ } { * tº º wº- tº tº º Thru e- ºr- tº-º º ll, 7A. § - tº º -> S=33l F= 10
515 l; 33l A. 02–28 9 AUMs 9 AUMs D=0 P=291
NOne D l6
l?5 Nonint. 03-0l Cattle DSP. None NOne Improve U=0 G=0
tº e º 'º º * . . . . . . tº Thru tº lº q > * * * * l20A. * - tº º º S= 780 F=0
5163 780A. 02-28 8 AUMs 8 AUMs D=0 P=780
NOne D 50
RECOMMENDATION AND OBJECTIVE SUMMARY
APPENDICES – B-21
Recommendations. Objectives
Kind of
Stock/g
Season - - - -
Mgt. Of Forage/h
Key No/a Mgt. Use/e Production Administ. Land Livestock Grazing
tº ºs º gº Status/c tº e º 'º º tº e º e g º º Treatment Treatment Mgt. Admin/m
Former - - - - Key Mgt. Type Type Facility e- ºr e = - Range Range
Allot. Federal Vegetative Adjust & & & Forage Trend Condition
No/b Acreage/d Species/f AUMs/i Acreage/j Acreage/k Acreage/l Production/n Acres/o Acres/p
l?6 Nonint. 03-01 Cattle None None NOne Improve U=0 G=0
tº º cº-e ºs º-e tº º e º is tº º Thru a e º 'º - e. &= - Lº gº S=ll!7 F=0
5061, ll,7A. 02-28 5 AUMs 5 AUMs D=0 P=ll, 7
None D 3
177 AMP 09–15 Cattle ROW NOne None Improve U=0 G=0
* † -e º e - e- º e º º Thru tº º cº-e ºs º-e 2 RCls. &E º tº is S=l,80 F=0
5063 630A. 10–31 3 AUMs (6.25 Mi) 5 AUMS D=0 P=l,80
MUMO D 63
STCO
l78 Nonint. 03-0l Cattle DSP. None None Improve U=0 G=0
& - e - tº cº- Thru tº gº e º 'º -> 277A. gº º ſº º- º S=l!80 F=0
5216 277A. 02–28 3 AUMs * - e º º 3 AUMs D=0 P=277
& * > * > * > -e tº º e - COA
5217 None D 31, 2 Allots.
lT 9 Nonint. 03-01 Cattle DSP. None None Improve U=0 G=0
º º º gº tº-e sº Thru º - 390A. º º gº º S=390 F=390
5158 390A. 02-28 23 AUMs 23 AUMs D=0 P=0
NOne D 28
l80 Nonint. 03-01 Cattle DSP. None None Improve U=0 G=0
$º º sº º * - e º 'º - (-e Thru * - cº-º cº-º º 900A. cº- tº º cº-e S=llOl F=863
5llS,5ll6, l, ll3A. 02–28 65 AUMs cº-e º cº- 65 AUMs D=0 P=238
5ll'7 e- ºr p = ′ is g- ºr e - º COA
NOne D 50 3 Allots
l8l Nonint. 03-01 Cattle DSP. None None Improve U=0 G=0
&_º tº º 'º º tº e º 'º e º º Thru tº gº e - 391 A. tº gº º cº- 'º S=391, F=20
5203 391 A. 02-28 8 AUMs 8 AUMs D=0 P=371,
None None
182 Nonint. 03-01 Cattle DSP. None None Improve U=0 G=0
Gº tº e º e gº º º ſº º Thru e-º º cº-º º 200A. tº gº tº gº S=l!99 F=15
5033 199A. 02–28 l'7 AUMs l? AUMS D=0 P= 1,81.
NOne D 95
l83 Nonint. 03-01 Cattle DSP None None Improve U=0 G=0
* = º º wº- ºr e º 'º -º Thru * > * > * > * > 21,0A. ( * * * * * * > S=210 F=0
5220 21,0A. 02-28 8 AUMs 8 AUMs D=0 P=210
NOne D lº
l8l. Nonint. 03-0 l Cattle None None None Improve U=0 G=0
* ºne nº º tº e º 'º º Thru cº-º - - - * - tº º q > S=578 F=0
5015 578A. 02–28 ll, AUMs ll, AUMs D=0 P=578
NOne D 35
l85 Nonint. 03-0l Cattle None None None Improve U=0 G=0
* * *-s º cº-e - tº- tº Thru tº e º 'º -e ºr e tº º º º S=ll0 F=0
5016 l20A. 02–28 l AUM l AUM D=0 P=ll.0
NOne D l?
l86 Nonint. 03-0 l Cattle None None None Improve U=0 G=0
* * * = g-º e º º Thru & e º º ºs * > * > . . . . . S=320 F=0
522l 598A. 02-28 6 AUMs 6 AUMs D=0 P=320
NOne D 52
l87 AMP l2–0l Cattle None None RSW Improve U=0 G=0
* * * * tº º Es Eº Thru tº gº tº º cº- 2 º º gº º S=3503 F=0
5096 5,223A. 02–28 ll.0 AUMs tº e g º º º 210 AUMS D=0 P=3503
q_2 < … º - gº tº gº gº S&S
MUMO D l;0 l; l,
B-22 – ROYAL GORGE ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT
RECOMMENDATION AND OBJECTIVE SUMMARX.
Recommendations Objectives
Kind of
Stock/g
SeaSOn - - - -
Mgt. Of Forage/h
Key No/a Mgt. Use/e Production Administ. Land LiveStock Grazing
e-º º cº- cº- Status/c - tº - - - - - --> Treatment Treatment Mgt. Admin/m
Former - - - - Key Mgt. Type Type Facility º-º º º ºs Range Range
Allot. Federal Vegetative Adjust & & & Forage Trend Condition
No/b Acreage/d Species/f AUMs/i Acreage/j Acreage/k Acreage/l Production/n Acres/o Acres/p
l88 Unall. None None EOG NOne FNC Improve U= 0 G=0
º º - - º- - - - - - - - - - - - l80A. l. I, Mi. G-> g. tº e º 'º S=180 F=0
515l l80A. None None None D=0 P=180
D 20
l89 AMP 06-l5 Cattle ACQ. None None Improve U=0 G=0
- - - - e- - - - Thru - - - - 21,0A. º sº º º S=l730 F=0
5201 2,861A. 02-28 l9 AUMs gº º º º 29 AUMS D=0 P=l730
& cº- tº- (- -º tº º ºs º- ROW
5202 MUMO D 261, l Rd.
STCO (l. 25 Mi)
COA
2 Allots.
l90 AMP 08–0l Cattle ACQ THIN S&S Improve U=0 G=l,00
505l,5127, ---- Thru - - - - 80A. l,00A. 2 tº E G = - S=2590 F=0
5128,5129, 5,969A. Ol-l9 78 AUMs e- - - - l?7 AUMS D=0 P=2190
& 5130 - sº - º - - - - ROW P=l717
FEAR D 1,37 l Rd.
STCO (0.50 Mi)
COA
5 Allots.
l90A Unall. None None ACQ None FNC Improve U=0 X=307
e- - - - - - - - º- G- º º - - - - - l,0A. 2.5 Mi tº e º e º T- S=600 G=0
5129 l,ll 5A. None NOne - Gº tº º None D=0 F=0
- - - - - EOG P=293
D 92 l,ll 5A.
l9 l AMP 06-01 Cattle ROW NOne FNC Improve U=0 G=0
- - - - º- º G- G- Thru - - - - 5 Rds. 0.5 Mi. * - e < … º. º S=ll27 F=206
5003,5097 6,687A. lO-3l 210 AUMS (5.75 MI) G - G- E - cº- 315 AUMs D=0 P=392l
& 5.222 - G- E - Gº -> --> --> --> emº º ºs S&S
FEAR D 239 COA 2
STCO 3 Allots. tº e º 'º - > - -
WTR
3
CTM
l
WLL
2
PPL
l. 5 Mi.
l92 AMP ll-01. Cattle ACQ BURN S&S Improve U=0 X=1:00
- - - - G- Gºº Gº Gº- Thru - G- º º 880A. l,00A. 5 - tº º e º º S=155ll G=l600
5002 26,652A. 02-28 571 AUMs Gº G = Gºº G- e º º Lº - B • e º 'º - > l,l}7 AUMs D=0 F=0
& - - - - - - - - ROW THIN CTM P=l35ll
5238 FEAR D l,039 2 RCls. l,600A. l
STCO (2.25 Mi) Q- - tº º
FNC
0.25 Mi.
l93 AMP lO-Ol Cattle ACQ THIN S&S Improve U=0 G=l020
º º º me º- º º º Thru º- º ºs º- 61,0A. l,020A. l, tº º cº-º º S=lll33 F=31;5
500l l6,248A. 05-31 527 AUMs º º ºs º- 93l AUMS D=0 P=9768
- E- º º -> -º- ºr a ROW
FEAR D 371, l Rd.
STCO (l.50 Mi)
l93A AMP 09-l9 Cattle None None None Improve U=0 G=60
cº- - - - - - - - Thru tº-º-e ‘E & P tº e º 'º - S=l75 F=0
501.9 l95A. ll-ll, l, AUMs 6 AUMs .D=0 P=ll 5
MUMO D lo
STCO
RECOMMENDATION AND OBJECTIVE SUMMARY
APPENDICES — B-23
Recommendations Objectives
Kind of
Stock/g
Season g-e ºs º º-e
Mgt. Of Forage/h
Key No/a Mgt. Use/e Production Administ. Land Livestock Grazing
*= º º gº Status/c « º e gº º sº tº Treatment Treatment Mgt. Admin/m
Former º- - º º Key Mgt. Type Type Facility « . . . . . . tº Range Range
Allot. Federal Vegetative Adjust & & & Forage Trend Condition
No/b Acreage/d Species/f AUMs/i Acreage/j Acreage/k Acreage/l Production/n Acres/o Acres/p
l94 AMP O8–Ol Cattle None BURN None Improve U=O X=32O
tº º sº º t-e `e - tº- Thru Horses 32OA. &= - tº gº S=1876 G=O
5.188 2,462A. Ol-l9 tº e º e 96 AUMs D=O F=13
* - G - G - gº 37 AUMs P=1543
MUMO * - I - I - º
STCO D 208
l95 AMP O8–Ol Cattle None None S&S Improve U=O G=O
º º sº º tº-e ‘º º-, --> Thru * - º gº ºne 2 º º gº º S=312 F=72
5.192 685A. Ol-l9 13 AUMs 2O AUMS D=O P=24O
MUMO D 62
STCO
l96 AMP O8–Ol Cattle None None S&S Improve U=O G=O
gº º º º º gº ºne - Thru cº-º º º - l * - e º 'º - ſº S=93 F=93
5147 278A. O1-15 2 AUMS 3 AUMs D=O P=O
MUMO D 17
STCO
197 AMP O8–Ol Cattle COA THIN CTG Improve U=O G=4O5O
*E* sº º º e - º º Thru * . . . . . . . . 4 Allots. 4,050A. 2 Q_º tº e º 'º º S=22623 F=O
5075,5107, 38,116A. Ol-15 7OO AUMs * - tº e - tº gº tº º º l,650 AUMs D=O F=18573
5108,5109 tº e º 'º - -> tº tº - ºf- ROW FNC
FEAR D 13,081 7 Rds. 2 Mi.
STCO (8.5O Mi) tº º ºs º-
tº º tº gº tº S&S
EUHU 3
l3,400A. tº-e ū-e ºs º-e
CTM
5
RSW
l
l98 AMP O8-Ol Cattle ROW None FNC Improve U=O G=O
$º º sº gº º tº L- e- cº- Thru GE E tº º 2 Rds. 2. O Mi. & sº º sº e- S=5O18 F=O
5OO5 8,46OA. Ol-l9 85 AUMs (3.50 Mi) l28 AUMS D=O P=5O18
& tº º º º * > * > * > * * * º e º e º tº
5091 STCO D 284 COA
2 Allots.
l99 AMP O8-Ol Cattle DSP. None None Improve U=O G=O
* ºne sº eme g- º º º Thru Horses 16OA. « » - º º S=7416 F=ll?
5773 9,868A. Ol-l9 tº . . . º. º. tº gº º e 50 AUMs D=O P-7299
gº º cº-e ‘º 5O AUMs EOG
None * - e º º 3OA.
D 40
2OO AMP O8-Ol Cattle None None None Improve U-O G=O
* º ºs eme gº - e - Thru gº º º ºr e * > * > < * * > S=799 F=O
5813 l, lºSA. Ol-l9 7 AUMs 7 AUMs D=O P=799
None D 71
2Ol Nonint. O3-Ol Cattle None None None Improve U=O G=O
* ºne eme eme tº e-ºe & Le º Thru * > * > . . . . e. tº e º e º 'º gº S=964 F=234
5734 l, l84A. O2-28 1O AUMS 10 AUMs D=O P=730
None D 29
2O2 AMP O8-Ol Cattle None None None Improve U-O G=O
* Gºº Gº eme <-- º cº-e - Thru 6 º' --> -e ºs * > * > * > * > S=3458 F=O
57Ol 5,285A. Ol-l9 21 AUMs 21 AUMS D=O P=3458
None D 14
2O3 Nonint. O3–Ol Cattle DSP None None Improve U=O G=O
* Sºme eme sº e-º º Gº gº Thru tº e º ºs º- 8OA. * - º e S=959 FsO
575l 2,717A. O2-28 14 AUMs 14 AUMs D=O P=959
None D Ill
B-24 – ROYAL GORGE ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT
RECOMMENDATION AND OBJECTIVE SUMMARY.
Recommendations Objectives
Kind of
Stock/g
Season tº tº º º
Mgt. Of Forage/h
Key No/a Mgt. Use/e Production Administ. Land Livestock Grazing
wº-> - º L- Status/c tº-e gº- ºr ſº º º- tº e º º Treatment Treatment Mgt. Admin/m
FOrmer * - º cº- gº Key Mgt. Type Type Facility tº e º gº Range Range
Allot. Federal Vegetative Adjust & & & Forage Trend Condition
No/b Acreage/d Species/f AUMs/i Acreage/j Acreage/k Acreage/l Production/n Acres/o Acres/p
201; AMP 08–0l Cattle ROW THIN S&S Improve U=0 G=l!00
* - º 'º tº º sº º Thru * ... º ºs º- 2 RCls. l,00A. l tº e º 'º tº S=3303 F=80
587l 6, 1115A. Ol-lp 27 AUMs (2.50 Mi) 91, AUMs D=0 P=2823
º º ºxº gº tº e º tº º º ºs P=3, 183
MUMO D l82 EOG
STCO l0A.
205 Nonint. 03-0 l Cattle None None None Improve U=0 G=0
cº-e ºr e - © … tº tº Thru tº e º e º 'º tº º º º S=7 F=7
5819 7A. 02-28 l AUM l AUM D=0 P=0
None None
206 Nonint. 03-0 l Cattle DSP. None NOne Improve U=0 G=110
gº º e º E tº º º º ºs º- ºr e Thru * . . . . . . . . 2,550A. & º e º 'º -> S=2510 F=260
Unall. 2,550A. 02-28 31, AUMs 31, AUMs D=0 P=2250
None None
207 Nonint. 03-01 Cattle DSP. None None Improve U=l;0 G=l10
º º º e- ºr - G - gº Thru * > . . . . . . . . . l,0A. • 2 e º 'º S=0 F=0
5802 l,0A. 02-28 5 AUMS 5 AUMS D=0 P=0
None D l
208 Nonint. 03-01 Cattle DSP. None None Improve U=0 G=0
gº º gº • Thru tº e º 'º a e l,0A. tº º e º 'º S=l;0 F=l;0
5822 l,0A. 02-28 l AUM l AUM D=0 P=0
None D ll
209 Nonint. 03-01 Cattle DSP. NOne None Improve U=0 G=0
gº tº º º ſº tº º ºs º- Thru tº e - e.g. º º l20A. * > * > * > * > S=ll0 F=0
571, l l20A. 02-28 l, AUMs l, AUMs D=0 P=ll.0
None D 2
210 Nonint. 03-0l Cattle DSP. None None Improve U=0 G=0
gº º º tº º e º e º 'º - … Thru tº º º º l60A. tº º ºr e º º S=l60 F=0
5870 l60A. 02-28 5 AUMS 5 AUMS D=0 P=160
None D 3
2ll Nonint. 03-0l Horses DSP. None None Improve U=0 G=0
e-e e º e gº tº gº tº a Thru * - I - I - cº- l60A. Q- E - gº S=l60 F=0
5915 160A. 02-28 7 AUMS 7 AUMS D=0 P=160
NOne D l
2l2 Nonint. 03-01’ Cattle DSP. NOne None Improve U=0 G=0
tº e tº tº- tº e º 'º - . . Thru cº-e & E º º 80A. * > * > * > *- S=80 F=0
5793 80A. 02-28 2 AUMS 2 AUMS D=0 P=80
NOne None
213 AMP 03-0l Cattle COA PLOW None Improve U=0 X=l00
tº e º º cº- cº- gº Thru cº-º º º 2 Allots. lC)0A. g-e ‘ e º ºs S=65l G=0
5793 65l/A. 02-28 33 AUMs 62 AUMs D=0 F=325
&5892 gº º e º ſº tº º E - e P=226
MUMO U l?
STCO
2ll, Nonint. 03-0 l Cattle DSP. None NOne Improve U=0 G=0
Q_ _ _ _ _ _ _ tº gº º cº-º ºr e Thru * - I - º º l,0A. g-e - - - - - S=l60 F=l;0
Unall. l20A. 02-28 5 AUMS 5 AUMS D=0 P=l20
NOne None
RECOMMENDATION AND OBJECTIVE SUMMARY
APPENDICES – B-25
*— — Recommendations Objectives—
Kind of
Stock/g
Season gºe º 'º -
Mgt. Of Forage/h
Key No/a Mgt. Use/e Production Administ. Land Livestock Grazing
** = - Status/c gº- ºr e º 'º --> tº lº q > -º º Treatment Treatment Mgt. Admin/m
Former e º e º º Key Mgt. Type Type Facility Cº-e º 'º - - Range Range
Allot. Federal Vegetative Adjust & & & Forage Trend Condition
No/b Acreage/d Species/f AUMs/i Acreage/j. Acreage/k Acreage/l Production/n Acres/o Acres/p
215 Nonint. 03-01 Cattle DSP. None None Improve U=0 G=0
** * = Q- tº- tº º Thru tº-e tº e º 'º l2A. tº cº-e Eºs º- S=72 F=0
5845 92.A. 02-28 l AUM l AUM D=0 P=72
None D l
216 AMP 08-0l Cattle DSP. THIN CTG. Improve U= 0 G=l00
** = - 5,271, A. Thru tº- º ºs º- l,0A. lC)0A. l *E* tº e º º S=3796 F=719
5918 Ol-lp 72 AUMs gº tº cº-º º l20 AUMS D=0 F=2977
tº º ºs º- º gº º º ºs WST P=262l
FEAR D l68 l
MUMO gº tº E tº
PPL
l. 3 Mi.
S&S
l
217 AMP 08-0l Cattle None None FNC Improve U=0 G=0
591; l 3,286A. Ol-l9 57 AUMs * - gº º sº º tº 86 AUMs D=0 P=250 l;
G. : « » . . . . . e. * - © º S&S
FEAR D lºº l
MUMO
218 Nonint. 03-01 Cattle None None None Improve U=0 G=0
** = - * > * > … e Thru tº-e - - tº º º cº-º º S=338 F=ll 7
5780 338A. 02-28 l, AUMs l, AUms D=0 P=22l
NOne D l?
219 Nonint. 03-01 Cattle None None None Improve U=30 G=0
** = - º gº tº e º 'º Thru tº º º ºr e º º * - sº - S=712 F=0
5883 71,2A. 02-28 5 AUMS 5 AUMS D=0 P=7.1.2
None D 31
220 Unall. NOne None None None None Improve U=0 G=0
** = - tº e º º º ſº º is e- º E tº * Lºº tº º ºs º- tº º º º S=760 F=180
Unall. 760A. NOne None None D=0 P=580
None
222 AMP 08–0l Cattle ACQ. THIN S&S Improve U=0 G=700
sº * > . . . . . . . . Thru tº º tº E gº l,00A. 700A. 2 gº º cº-º º S=2619 F=0
:*::::816 3, 161A. Ol-l9 l3 AUMs * - º 'º - e ll.2 AUMS D=0 P=l.919
5898 gº tºº tº e º e “E” º º ºs COA
FEAR D lºg 3 Allots
MUMO
223 Unall. NOne None EOG None FNC Improve U=0 G=0
sº * * * > * > * > e º 'º tº tº º ºs º- 2,885A. l(). O Mi. tº e º 'º - … - S=2515 F=0
004 2 ,885A. NOne None None D=0 P=2515
D lz0
224 AMP 08–0l Cattle ACQ. THIN FNC Improve U=0 X=160
sº tº e º 'º Thru tº gº tº º l,50A. l60A.. l; .25 Mi. tº E tº sº ºn S=3726 G=l60
l?9 5, 211R. Ol-lp 32 AUMs tº e º 'º - - - - - tº º tº º q_º * - sº º ºs º- 88 AUMs D=0 F=0
tº-º º e º 'º tº º º º ROW BURN S&S P=31,06
MUMO D l8l4 l Rd. l60A. 2
ORHY (0.5 Mi)
ags AMP 08-0 l Cattle COA None FNC Improve U= 15 G=l.9
sº { * ~ * ~ * * > Thru tº Lº º gº 2 Allots. l. 25 Mi. ---- S=850 F=0
jºbs 925A. Ol-l9 l8 AUMs tº º tº e º e 27 AUMs D=0 P=850
5 tº-e ‘º ºl.º tº e º 'º ROW
068 FEAR D 39 l Rd.
ORHY (0.5 Mi)
B-26 – ROYAL GORGE ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT
RECOMMENDATION AND OBJECTIVE SUMMARY
Recommendations Objectives
Kind of
Stock/g
Season Gº tº dº gº
Mgt. Of Forage/h
Key No/a Mgt. Use/e Production Administ. Land Livestock Grazing
tº e º E tº Status/c tº sº e Eº e * = º º Treatment Treatment Mgt. Admin/m
Former tº E tº Lº Gº Key Mgt. Type Type Facility Q_º tº º º Range Range
Allot. Federal Vegetative Adjust & & & Forage Trend Condition
No/b Acreage/d Species/f AUMs/i Acreage/j Acreage/k Acreage/l Production/n Acres/o Acres/p
226 Nonint. O3–Ol Cattle None None None Improve U=O G=O
º º cº º {E_i º Egº tº Thru tº º tº gº tº dº ſº tº S=52O F=O
5142 600A. O2-28 4 AUMS 4 AUMS D=O P=52O
None D 48
227 AMP O5-Ol Cattle COA THIN CTM Improve U=O X=5OO
* > . . . . . . --> --> tº º º sº Thru tº ſº tº gº 2 Allots. l,500A. 2 tº º ºs º- S=553] G=15OO
5OO6 5,964A. lO-Ol l23 AUMs tº-e gº tº tº tº Es º º 465 AUMs D=O F=25O
& tº gº º ºp tº ſº tº º BURN S&S P=3281
5.177 MUMO D la 3 AUMs 5OOA. l
ORHY sº ºne º ºs
FNC
4. O Mi.
228 Nonint. O3–Ol Cattle DSP. None None Improve U=O G=O
tº ſº gº tº tº ſº º ſº Thru tº ºs º º lOA. *E º ºs º-e S=1O F=O
Unall. lCA. O2–28 1 AUM l AUM D=O P=lO
None None
229 Unall. None None EOG None FNC Improve =O G=O
tº E (Exº º tº me tº º dº º ºs ºº {Eºs º gº º 2, 185A. 4.75 Mi. * * *-ºs º-º S=1322 F=O
5077 2, 185A. None None None =O P=1322
D 101
23O AMP O6-Ol Cattle COA BURN CTM Improve =O X=4OO
gº tº º ºs tº gº tº º Thru tº tº tº e º E. tº e 2 Allots. 4OOA. l * - tº º S=2.194 G=200
5O27 3,579A. O2–28 123 AUMs g-e ‘EE Fºº F- 265 AUMs D=O F=O
& &E ºn- sº gº *E ºr e º E tº º THIN
5227 STCO D 8 2OOA. P=1594
231 AMP O8–Ol Cattle DSP. BURN CTM Improve U=O X=1OOO
gº º sº tº tº Eº º º Thru tº e º º tº 40A. l, OOOA. l tº e º 'º - e º º S=3849 G=4OO
5OO7 4,775 Ol-15 93 AUMs tº gº tº Lº Lº gº tº cº-º º 326 AUMs D=O F=O
tº º- º gº tº-e ºs º gº ACQ THIN P=2449
MUMO D 663 40A. 4OOA.
STCO
232 Nonint. O3-Ol Cattle None None None Improve U=O =O
e-º º ſº tº * - e i = 2 * = g = Thru º tºº gº ºs e- º e - S=12O F=12O
51.95 l2OA. O2-28 T AUMs 7 AUMs D=O P=O
None None
233 AMP O6-Ol Cattle ROW BURN None Improve =O X=4OO
e-º º q_s tº gº tº tº º Thru tº-e wºº tº º l Rd. 4OOA . º º- tº gº º S=lO84 G=O
5O28 l,084A. O9–30 l42 AUMs (.5 Mile) 267 AUMs D=O =O
tº - - - ºne º “Tº Tº gº P=684
MUMO U 82
ORHY
234 Nonint. O3-Ol Cattle DSP. None None Improve =O G=O
“E - 6 tº º tº º ºſ-e ` Thru tº sº tº dº 40A. º º 'º º S=4O F=4O
5O29 40A. O2-28 4 AUMs 4 AUMS D=O =O
None D 4
235 Nonint. O3-Ol Cattle DSP. None None Improve U=O G=O
tº- tº º e tº º 'º - Thru tº º º- tº 260A. tº º – Fe S=360 F=4O
Unall. 36OA. O2-28 ll AUMS ll AUMS D=O P=32O
None None
236 Nonint. O3-Ol Cattle DSP. None CTM Improve U=O G=O
* > - e º 'º tº * > . . . . . . . . . Thru Q- E. z º.º.º l, 220A. tº- º 'º - E-e S=122O F=O
5148 l, 22OA . O2-28 12 AUMS 12 AUMS D=O P=122O
None D 130
RECOMMENDATION AND OBJECTIVE SUMMARY
APPENDICES — B-27
*— Recommendations Objectives
Kind of
Stock/g
Season tº- tº E tº
Mgt. Of Forage/h
Key No/a Mgt. Use/e Production Administ. Land Livestock Grazing
* * * = Status/c tº . . . Tº * - º ºs º-e Treatment Treatment Mgt. Admin/m
Former cº- ºr e º cº- Key Mgt. Type Type Facility tº º E. Le Range Range
Allot. Federal Vegetative Adjust & & & Forage Trend Condition
No/b Acreage/d Species/f AUMs/i Acreage/j Acreage/k Acreage/l Production/n Acres/o Acres/p
237 AMP 08–0l Cattle DSP. THIN CTM Improve U= 0 G=l600
* * * * tº me º ºs Thru tº . . . . . . e. 320A. l,600A. l, tº º-, -e ºs S=27672 F=0
5036,5053, 52,229A. Ol-l9 2011 e- - -ºº º º º cº-e ºs 518 AUMs Dr.0 P=26072
5054,5148 g-e ºs º º tº º q ºn tº e º e ACQ S&S
& 5.215 MUMO D 21:29 2, 120A. l,
STCO * - e - - - <- F - F- º
COA FNC
5 Allots. l. 75 Mi.
238 AMP 08-0l Cattle ROW THIN CTM Improve U=0 G= l;00
* * * = * > * > * > -º Thru {- gº t-e e l Rd. l,00A. l *_* tº a tº gº S=31,92 F=0
5055,5143 6,027A. Ol-lp l;2 AUMs (0.5 Mi) tº- tº º ll 7 AUMs D=0 P=3092
& 51.96 tº cº- tº - º- ºr e º 'º º tº cº- ºr- ºr - FNC
STCO D 313 COA . 50 Mi.
ORHY 3 Allots.
239 Nonint. 03-0 l Cattle DSP. None None Improve U= 0 G= 0
* * * = * * * * * * *- Thru & º 50A. tº gº tº tº S=50 F=0
Unall. 50A. 02-28 l AUM l AUM D=0 P=50
NOne None
21.0 Nonint. 03-0 l Cattle DSP. None NOne Improve U= 0 G=0
* * * = e- - - --> Thru gº tº dº º º 273A. *_ _º tº tº S=273 F=0
5767 273A. 02-28 2 AUMS 2 AUMS D=0 P=273
NOne D 37
240A. Nonint. 03–0 l Cattle DSP. None None Improve U= 0 G=0
* * * = e- tº gº tº Thru * tº 300A. tº-º cº- ºr º cº- S=300 F=0
Unall. 300A. 02–28 2 AUMS 2 AUMS D=0 P=300
None None
21, l Nonint. 03-0l Cattle DSP. None None Improve U= 0 G= 0
* * * = wº- º tº Thru tº e º 'º º 360A. tº sº º º S=360 F=2|| 0
5772 360A. 02–28 19 AUMS l9 AUMs D=0 P=l2O
NOne D 53
21.2 Nonint. 03-0 l Cattle DSP. NOne S&S Improve U= 0 G=0
* * * = tº > Thru tº º G = g- º l,0A. tº e º º S= l;0 F=0
5774 l,0A. 02–28 l AUM l AUM D=0 P= l;0
NOne D l;
243 AMP 08–0l Cattle DSP. THIN S&S Improve U= 0 G=l 500
* * * = tº tº e < * * * Thru º º ºs º- 21,0A. lº,00 A. l, Mi g- tº º – S=9||66 F=0
5073 ll,579A. Ol-l9 ll6 AUMs ---- tº sºme º 'º 37 l. AUMs D=0 P=7966
gº º º Es &= º 'º º ROW CTM
MUMO D 68l. 3 Rds. 3
STCO (5.25 Mi) i- tº º º
FNC
2.50 Mi.
2|| || Nonint. 03-0l Cattle DSP. None None Improve U=0 G= 0
* * * = * - gº tº º Thru tº º – - 2, 375A. * = < *- - gº S=3699 F=l290
5074 3,059A. 02-28 l;6 AUMs g- º º l69 AUMs D=0 P=2|{09
gº º sº º $º º sº gº ACQ
NOne D 202 l, 81,0A.
EOG
21,0A.
245 Nonint. 03-0 l Cattle DSP. None None Improve U= 0 G=0
** = - tº e º a Thru * - G -º º - 280A. tº - - S=280 F=0
52ll, 280A. 02–28 2 AUMS 2 AUMS D=0 P=280
NOne D 8
246 Nonint. 03-0 l Cattle None NOne None Improve U=0 G=0
** - - gº tº º º Thru tº º – - - * - I - º º S=60 F=0
5ll;5 60A. 02–28 l, AUMs l, AUMs D=0 P=60
None D 8
B-28 – ROYAL GORGE ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT
RECOMMENDATION AND OBJECTIVE SUMMARY
Recommendations Objectives
Kind Of
Stock/g
Season tº ºs º gºe
Mgt. Of Forage/h
Key No/a Mgt. Use/e Production Administ. Land Livestock Grazing
tº º ºs º- Status/c * * * * * * > *- tº º sº sº Treatment Treatment Mgt. Admin/m
Former gº tºº tº gº Key Mgt. Type Type Facility * Gºº gº º Range Range
Allot. Federal Vegetative Adjust & & & Forage Trend Condition
No/b Acreage/d Species/f AUMs/i Acreage/j Acreage/k Acreage/l Production/n Acres/o Acres/p
247 Nonint. O3–Ol Cattle DSP. None None Improve U=O G=O
* - - B - tº E tº gº Thru gº tº º ºs l6OA. tº º Eº º S=16O F=1OO
Unall. 16OA. O2–28 2 AUMS 2 AUMS D=O P=6O
None None
248 Nonint. O3–Ol Cattle DSP. None None Improve U=O G=O
tº gº tº sº tº gº tº gº Thru emº sºme º sº. 56OA. Gº tº Ee ge S=56O F=56O
5.146 56OA. O2–28 28 AUMS 28 AUMS D=O P=O
None D 21
249 Nonint. O3–Ol Horses DSP. None None Improve U=O G=O
tº º tº E ę Gº tºº º Thru tº gº º º 8OA. tº e º 'º - e º 'º e S=8O F=8O
523O 8OA. O2–28 5 AUMs 5 AUMs D=O P=O
None D 2
25O Nonint. O3–Ol Cattle DSP. None None Improve U=O G=O
tº tº E tº tº se º ſº Thru {E GE tº º 25OA. tº E_* º tº S=30 F=O
5084 25OA. O2-28 1 AUM l AUM D=O P=30
None D 6
25l Nonint. O3–Ol Cattle DSP. None None Improve U=O G=O
tº gº tºº tº “E tº º gº Thru tº º º º 90A. $Eº tº cº-º gº S=90 F=O
5175 90A. O2–28 2 AUMS 2 AUMS D=O P=90
None D 4
252 Nonint. O3-Ol Cattle DSP. None None Improve U=O G=O
tº E tº Gº tº sº tº gº Thru wºme tº gº tº 40A. tº tº ſº- tº e S=4O F=O
5307 40A. O2–28 2 AUMS 2 AUMS D=O P=4O
None D 2
253 Nonint. O3–Ol Cattle DSP. None None Improve U=O G=O
tº gº tº tº tº EE tº tº Thru $º º Eº º 32A tº º º ºs S=12 F=O
5865 82A. O2–28 1 AUM l AUM D=O P=12
None D 2
254 Nonint. O3–Ol Cattle DSP. None None Improve U=O G=O
gº º º ºs tº E_* º --> Thru “Es sº º ºs 7OA. gº tº º º S=7O F=O
Unall. 7OA. O2–28 2 AUMS 2 AUMS D=O P=7O
None None
255 Nonint. O3-Ol Cattle DSP. None None Improve U=O G=O
GE CE Eº º * “Eºs º- tº-3 Thru tºº “º º ºs 2OOA. tº gº tº tº e S=2OO F=O
5884 2OOA. O2-28 1 AUM l AUM D=O P=2OO
None D 6
256 Nonint. O3–Ol Cattle DSP. None None Improve U=O G=O
tº E tº º tº gº tºº e Thru tº tºº tº EE 596A. tº º ſº e S=125 F=125
5855 596A. O2–28 9 AUMs 9 AUMs D=O P=O
None D 4l
257 Nonint. O3–Ol Cattle DSP. None None Improve U=O G=O
tº sº tº tº tº e º 'º - 3 - ? Thru tº sº º º 40A. tº sº tº gº S=4O F=O
5847 40A. O2–28 1 AUM l AUM D=O P=4O
None D 7
258 Nonint. O3–Ol Cattle DSP. None None Improve U=O G=O
tº gº tº º gº tºº tº º Thru E_º - 4 - > --> 594A. * - « » «- º S=434 F=434
5889 594A. O2–28 21 AUMS 21 AUMS D=O P=O
None D lº2
RECOMMENDATION AND OBJECTIVE SUMMARY
APPENDICES – B-29
T- Recommendations Objectives
Kind of
Stock/g
SeaSOn tº E_* ºr E 4 º'
Mgt. Of Forage/h
Key No/a Mgt. Use/e Production Administ. Land Livestock Grazing
** = - Status/c * * * * > -- * * * tº gº tº gº Treatment Treatment Mgt. Admin/m
Former tº e º e Eº º º Key Mgt. Type Type Facility tº º- tº º Range Range
Allot. Federal Vegetative Adjust & & & Forage Trend Condition
No/b Acreage/d Species/f AUMs/i Acreage/j Acreage/k Acreage/l Production/n Acres/o Acres/p
T-
259 Nonint. 03–0 l Cattle DSP. None None Improve U= 0 G= 0
** = = Q_º tºº tº Lº e Thru G. E. l80A. tº tº º tº S=l80 F=50
Unall. l80A. 02–28 lO AUMS l0 AUMS D=0 P=130
NOne None
260 Nonint. 03-0 l Cattle DSP. None NOne Improve U= 0 G=0
** = - tº e º 'º tº Thru t- > e º 'º 675A. º º º- tº S=675 F=675
5763 675A. 02-28 38 AUMs 38 AUMs D=0 P=0
None D 85
26l Nonint. 03–0 l Cattle DSP. None None Improve U=0 G=0
** = - * - F- º Thru tº e º 'º - a - 200A. g-º º- tº- º S=200 F= l;0
Unall. 200A. 02–28 l2 AUMS l2 AUMs D=0 P= 160
None None
262 Nonint. 03–0 l Cattle DSP. NOne None Improve U=0 G=0
** = - * - º q_º - Thru tº e º tº 390A. tº gº tº º S=l0 F= 10
Unall. 390A. 02-28 9 AUMs 9 AUMS D=0 P=0
NOne None
263 Nonint. 03-0 l Cattle DSP. None None Improve U= 0 G=0
** = - & Lº º Thru g-e ºs º-ºº º 507A. º ºs º ºs S=507 F=3||7
5744 507 A. 02–28 27 AUMs 27 AUMS D=0 P=160
NOne D ll
26!! Nonint. 03-0l Cattle DSP. None None Improve U- O G= 0
** = - sº e- cº º Thru e- º ºxº gº l9A. tº sº tº º S=l.9 F=l.9
5893 l9A. 02–28 2 AUMS 2 AUMS D=0 P=0
None D l
265 Nonint. 03-0l Cattle DSP. NOne NOne Improve U=0 G=0
sº Q- e ∈ tº Thru * > * * * * lº,0A. *E º sº º S=150 F=150
795 lº,0A. 02-28 l, AUMs l, AUMs D=0 P=0
NOne D 27
266 Nonint. 03-0 l Cattle DSP. None None Improve U= 0 G=0
sº & Thru tº gº º ºs 30A. tº gº º - S=30 F=30
922 30A. 02-28 3 AUMs 3 AUMs D=0 P=30
None D l
& Nonint. 03-01 Cattle DSP. None None Improve U= 0 G=0
sº ( * > * > . . . . . . Thru tº cº-e ºs º- l,06A. * * * *-s º º S= 1,06 F= 1,06
92l l,06A. 02-28 22 AUMS 22 AUMS D=0 P=0
NOne D 31,
ass Nonint. 03-01 Cattle DSP. None None Improve U= 0 G=0
sºn, tº º º Thru º sº gº ºne 280A. * - © tº e S=280 F=0
917 280A. 02-28 8 AUMs 8 AUMs D=0 P=280
NOne D 6
39 Nonint. 03–0 l Cattle DSP. None None Improve U=0 G=0
º tº e º e Thru tº 3 tº . . tº º l,0A. tº e- cº-º º S=l;0 F=0
hall. l,0A. 02-28 l AUM l AUM D=0 P= 10
NOne None
sº Nonint. 03–0 l Cattle DSP. None None Improve U=0 G=0
Sn. tº e - Thru tº . . . . . . . . . . 320A. * . . . . . . . . . . e. S=320 F=0
lS 320A. 02-28 l8 AUMs l8 AUMs D=0 P=320
NOne D 25
B-30 – ROYAL GORGE ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT
RECOMMENDATION AND OBJECTIVE SUMMARX.
Recommendations Objectives
Kind of
Stock/g
SeaSOn &_* Eº gº º º º
Mgt. Of Forage/h
Key No/a Mgt. Use/e Production Administ. Land Livestock Grazing
tº - E -º Status/c tº º e tº º º- tº Treatment Treatment Mgt. Admin/m
Former gº º cº-e - Key Mgt. Type Type Facility º- - gº º Range Range
Allot. Federal Vegetative Adjust & & & Forage Trend Condition
No/b Acreage/d Species/f AUMs/i Acreage/j Acreage/k Acreage/l Production/n Acres/o Acres/p
27l Wonint . 03–0 l Cattle DSP. None None Improve U= 0 G=0
e- º º º cº-º º 'º - - Thru cº- tº gº º 60A. g- -º º S=60 F=60
Unall. 60A. 02-28 l AUM l AUM D=0 P=0
None None
272 Nonint. 03-0l Cattle DSP. None None Improve U=0 G=39
g-e gº º tº i-, -e º tº Thru * > . º – gº 79A. gº º tº gº S=79 F= 10
5878 79A. 02-28 5 AUMS 5 AUMs D=0 P=0
None None
273 Nonint. 03-0 l Cattle DSP. None None Improve U=0 G=0
gº tº gº tºº tº- ºr e º tº Thru * … º. º. º º l20A. tº º 3 S=l20 F=0
5899 l20A. 02-28 7 AUMS 7 AUMs D=0 P= 120
NOne D lº
27 l; Nonint. 03-0l Cattle DSP. None None Improve U=0 G=0
gº º º tº tº º Thru tºº º ºs º- l20A. tº- tº º º S=l20 F=0
5900 l20A. 02–28 6 AUMs 6 AUMs D=0 P=120
NOne D l?
275 Nonint. 03-0l Cattle DSP. None None Improve U=0 G=0
g- º sº tº tº-e ūs ū-e - Thru gº tº gº tº 80A. * - tº º 'º -> S=80 F=0
571,8 80A. 02–28 5 AUMS 5 AUMS D=0 P=80
None D l
276 Nonint. 03-0 l Cattle DSP. None None Improve U= 0 G=0
tº- tº-tº gº tº {-º e º 'º -> Thru tº tº l,0A. e-º º q > --> S=l;0 F=0
Unall. l,0A. 02–28 2 AUMS 2 AUMS D=0 P=l;0
NOne NOne
277 Nonint. 03-0l Cattle DSP. NOne None Improve U= 0 G=0
tº sº º º * > * > * > …º Thru gº º e º 'º - 280A. tº º q > - e - S=280 F=0
5900 280A. 02-28 2l AUMS 2l AUMs D=0 P=280
NOne D l; l;
278 Nonint. 03-01 Cattle DSP. None None Improve U=0 G=0
gº º sº tº cº- tº E tº e º º Thru tº e º ºs 230A. gº º sº tº S=210 F=0
590l 230A. 02-28 lO AUMS lO AUMS D=0 P=210
NOne D 32
279 Nonint. 03-01 Cattle DSP. NOne None Improve U=0 G=0
tº e º 'º - > * > gº º cº-e G- Thru gº º ºs º- ls 3A. tº º lº S=l;0 F=0
5861, lº,3A. 02–28 l AUM l AUM D=0 P= l;0
NOne D 21,
280 Nonint. 03-0l Cattle DSP. None None Improve U=0 S=0
º tº gº tº º gº tº cº- cº-e Thru * - cº-e ſº º- 370A. tº e º - S=80 F=0
5853 370A. 02-28 5 AUMS 5 AUMS D=0 P=80
NOne D 62
281 Nonint. 03-01 Cattle DSP. None None Improve U= 0 G=l20
5900 l20A. 02-28 ll AUMS ll AUMS D=0 P=0
None D 21,
282 Nonint. 03-0 l Cattle DSP. None None Improve U=0 G=0
tº e º - º * - e º º Thru tº e- - - 520A. * - I - E - e S=120 F=0
5818 520A. 02-28 21, AUMs 21, AUMs D=0 P= 1,20
NOne D loé
RECOMMENDATION AND OBJECTIVE SUMMARY.
Recommendations
APPENDICES — B-31
Objectives
Kind of
Stock/g
Season gº sº tº º
Mgt. Of Forage/h
Key No/a Mgt. Use/e Production Administ. Land Livestock Grazing
« e º 'º e Status/c tº tº tº gº- ( = c_º tº Treatment Treatment Mgt. Admin/m
Former tº e E. E. tº e Key Mgt. Type Type Facility gº º º sº Range Range
Allot. Federal Vegetative Adjust & & & Forage Trend Condition
No/b Acreage/d Species/f AUMs/i Acreage/j Acreage/k Acreage/l Production/n Acres/o Acres/p
283 Nonint. 03-01 Cattle DSP. None None Improve U=0 G=0
tº e º 'º tº gº º sº gº Thru * Le º 'º - l,0A. tº . . . . . .e. S=l.0 F=0
5812 l,0A. 02-28 l AUM l AUM D=0 P=l O
NOne D 3
281, Nonint. 03-0 l Cattle ACQ. None None Improve U=0 G=0
tº e º 'º º q_º º tº º E Thru tº tº gº 6,360A. &E sº tº gº S=l,678 F=l,520
5752 5,518A. 02-28 97 AUMs 97 AUMS D=0 P=3, 158
NOne D 21,5
285 Nonint. 03-0 l Cattle ACQ. None NOne Improve U=0 G=0
tº e - Gºº tº Tº e Thru * * *-s º – 2, lz0A. * … . . . . tº a S=l,880 F=60
5781, l,680A. 02-28 53 AUMs 59 AUMs D=0 P=l,820
NOne D lz5
286 Nonint. 03-0 l Cattle ACQ. None None Improve U= 0 G=0
tº e º 'º - º * * * * * * * * Thru * - e º 'º -º 880A. {-, - º ºxº S=l,080 F=320
581,3 l,8118A. 02–28 50 AUMS 50 AUMS D=0 P=760
NOne D log
287 Nonint. 03-0 l Cattle DSP. NOne None Improve U=0 G=0
* . . . . . . . . . . tº ºs º- 'º Thru e-Is - - 2,556A. tº º sº º S=920 F=260
5827 2,556A. 02–28 l;0 AUMs 10 AUMs D=0 P=760
(See 317 e- º 'º - * - © e º º
& 323) None D 27 l;
288 Nonint. 03-0 l Cattle DSP. None None Improve U=0 G=0
e º 'º - º, º ºs º- Thru tº 61,0A. tº º ºs º- S=625 F=0
Unall. 61,0A. 02-28 9 AUMs 9 AUMS D=0 P=625
NOne None
289 Nonint. 03-01 Cattle DSP. None None Improve U=0 G=0
gº º e tº º tº e Thru tº e º 'º e. 200A. tº e º 'º - e S=l60 F=0
5872 200A. 02–28 2 AUMS 2 AUMS D=0 P=160
NOne D 7
290 Nonint. 03-0 l Cattle DSP. None None Improve U=0 G=0
* - c_º - ºr º tº cº- tº º e Thru gº tº e º e l60A. * > *- : * ~ * S=60 F=0
Unall. 160A. 02-28 l AUM l AUM D=0 P=60
None None
291 Nonint. 03-01 Cattle DSP. None None Improve U=0 G=
* > . º - * - º e º Tº Thru * - ºr º º 61,0A. « » « » « » º S=1100 F=
581.0 61,0A. 02-28 5 AUMS 5 AUMS D=0 P= 100
None D 51,
292 Nonint. 03-01 Cattle DSP. None None Improve =0 G=310
e º 'º - e < * gº tº gº º Thru gº tº e -º ºr e l, 1,28A. gº tº e º – º – S=l, 1,08 F=0
5725 l, 1,28A. 02-28 62 AUMs 62 AUMs D=0 P=l, 168
NOne D 69
293 Nonint. 03-01 Cattle DSP. NOne None Improve U=0 G=0
tº e º e- ºr e º sº º Thru tº . . . . . . . . . 80A. gº º sº º S=60 F=0
Unall. 80A. 02-28 l AUM l AuxA D=0 P=60
None None
291. Nonint. 03-0 l Cattle DSP. None None Improve U=0 G=0
. . . . . . . . . .e. * - e º tº dº...º Thru wº- ºg º º 25l/A. tº º E tº º S=l00 F=0
5821 25l.A. 02-28 5 AUMS 5 AUMS D=0 P= 100
NOne D 31,
B-32 – ROYAL GORGE ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT
RECOMMENDATION AND OBJECTIVE SUMMARY.
Recommendations Objectives
Kind of
Stock/g
SeaSOn *E_ __e E. & E.
Mgt. Of Forage/h
Key No/a Mgt. Use/e Production Administ. Land Livestock Grazing
tº gº tº º Status/c tº E tº . tº tº tº º tº gº Treatment Treatment Mgt. Admin/m
Former * - º tº º ſº Key Mgt. Type Type Facility tº tº e Range Range
Allot. Federal Vegetative Adjust & & & Forage Trend Condition
No/b Acreage/d Species/f AUMs/i Acreage/j Acreage/k Acreage/l Production/n Acres/o Acres/p
295 Nonint. 03–0 l Cattle DSP. None None Improve U= 0 G=0
* > * > * > Lº tº e º 'º - ſº º Thru *E tº º l, lº 7A. cº- cº- ſº gº S=l, lº'7 F=0
5857 l, lº'7A. 02–28 25 AUMS 25 AUMS D=0 P=l, lº'7
NOne D 80
296 Nonint. 03-0 l Cattle DSP. NOne None Improve U=0 G=0
gº º EE tº * - E- ſº Thru tº tº º gº l, 1,0A. º º- tº- tº S=l, l;0 F=0
5832 l, 1,0A. 02-28 7 AUMS 7 AUMS D=0 P= || || 0
None D 25
297 Nonint. 03-0l Cattle DSP. None None Improve U=0 G=0
gº º e º º tº . . . . . . . . . . Thru &E º – º l, l'70A. tº- tº- tº- º S=690 F = 0
5732 l, l'î0A. 02–28 l6 AUMs l6 AUMs D=0 P=690
NOne D 75
298 Nonint. 03-0l Cattle DSP. None None Improve U= 0 G=0
tº e º 'º -> * * tº- ºr e º 'º -> Thru tº e º 'º -º º 80A. * - > * - - - - - S=l0 F= 0
Unall. 80A. 02-28 l AUM l AUM D=0 P= 10
NOne None
299 Nonint. 03–0 l Cattle DSP. NOne None Improve U=0 G=0
* > * > * > * > cº-º º q_ _e Thru º ſº tº e º e l,523A. gº tº tº º S=680 F=0
5897 l,523A. 02–28 2l AUMS 2l AUMs D=0 P=680
NOne D 86
300 Nonint. 03–0l Cattle DSP. None None Improve U=0 G=0
tº º º º * > * tº gº tº Thru g-e E- º – 61.6A. tº-e E-º º º S=590 F=30
5926 61,6A. 02-28 27 AUMs 27 AUMs D=0 P=560
None D 91
30l Nonint. 03-0 l Cattle DSP. None None Improve U=0 G=0
sº º me tº {-, -, -º gº Thru tº E- º ºs 520A. sºme emº ºne º S=l;0 F= 10
Unall. 520A. 02-28 l AUM l AUM D=0 P=0
None D ll!
302 Nonint. 03-0 l Cattle DSP. None None Improve U= 0 G=0
e- tº º º º gº º ºs Thru {E e º ſº tº 920A. tº gº º ºs S=l!90 F=90
5733 920A. 02-28 l() AUMS lO AUMS D=0 P= 100
None D ll!
303 Nonint. 03-0 l Cattle DSP. NOne None Improve U=0 G=0
tº e º ºs tº º sºme ºs º ºs Thru tº . . . E . . 680A. * º º S=360 F=160
Unall. 680A. 02–28 l, AUMs l, AUMs D=0 P=200
NOne None
301; Nonint. 03-0l Cattle DSP. None None Improve U=0 G=0
tº e º E tº tº tº gº tº Thru tº e º e 880A. tº tº ſº-º S=5||0 F=0
5858 880A. 02–28 l0 AUMS lO AUMS D=0 P=5,10
None D 32
305 Nonint. 03-0 l Cattle DSP. None NOne Improve U= 0 G=0
{L_* tº e º tº tº - tº- tº Thru cº-e gº- (- º l,0A. gº º º tº S=l;0 F=0
Unall. l,0A. 02–28 2 AUMS 2 AUMS D=0 P= 10
NOne None
306 Nonint. 03–0 l Cattle DSP. None NOne Improve U=0 G=0
tº e tº-º º - Thru tº e º l, lll:0A. cº-e º – º º S=680 F=0
Unall. l, Al,0A. 02-28 8 AUMs 8 AUMs D=0 P=680
NOne NOne
RECOMMENDATION AND OBJECTIVE SUMMARY
APPENDICES – B-33
Recommendations Objectives
Kind of
Stock/g
Season &E * Gºº gº
Mgt. Of Forage/h
Key No/a Mgt. Use/e Production Administ. Land Livestock Grazing
tº ºme º ºs Status/c º- - gº- *-ºs º tº Treatment Treatment Mgt. Admin/m
Former * . . . . . . . . . . Key Mgt. Type Type Facility * * *-* - Lº tº e Range Range
Allot. Federal Vegetative Adjust & & & Forage Trend Condition
No/b Acreage/d Species/f AUMs/i Acreage/j Acreage/k Acreage/l Production/n Acres/o Acres/p
307 Nonint. 03-0l Cattle DSP. NOne None Improve U=0 G=0
* * = º eºs º- tº- cº-e Thru tº-e ºs º ºs l,560A. tº ºm º º S=l,560 F=0
Unall. l, 365A. 02-28 36 AUMs 36 AUMs D=0 P=l,560
NOne None
308 Nonint. 03-0l Cattle ACQ. NOne None Improve U= 0 G=80
* * * * tº-e ‘Tº º Thru § - E - - - tº º ll, l20A. sº º sºme ſº S=6,966 F= 620
5879 7,307A. 02–28 231, AUMs 231, AUMs D=0 P=6,267
NOne D lºl,
309 Nonint. 03–0l Cattle DSP. None None Improve U= 0 G=0
* - º ºs tº- (-e E = Thru . . . . . . . º l90A. tº ſº º ºs S=l 90 F=0
Unall. lº,0A. 02-28 6 AUMs 6 AUMs D=0 P=150
None NOne
310 Nonint. 03–0 l Cattle DSP. None None Improve U= 0 G= 0
sº me º ºs tº-e ºs º- º Thru tº ºs º- º 200A. * = º ºs S=200 F=0
5925 200A. 02–28 8 AUMs 8 AUMs D=0 P=200
NOne D l?
3ll Nonint. 03–0l Cattle ACQ. None None Improve U= 0 G=0
* * * * wº- ºr e º 'º --> Thru sº º sº gº 360A. tº º sº º S=391 F=3ll
5868 ll2A. 02-28 6 AUMs 22 AUMS D=0 P=80
NOne None
312 Nonint. 03-0l Cattle ACQ. NOne None Improve U=0 G=0
* * * * = G-> -- . . . . . . . Thru tº tº º l, 61,0A. gº º ºs º- S=5|| || F=301;
5769 l, 101|A. 02-28 lO AUMS lO AUMS D=0 P=210
NOne D 35
313 Nonint. 03–0 l Cattle DSP. None None Improve U=0 G=0
* * * * tº º ſº º Thru * - º º - gE l,0A. Gº tº º ºs S=l;0 F=0
Unall. l,0A. 02-28 2 AUMS 2 AUMS D=0 P= 10
NOne None
3ll, Nonint. 03-01 Cattle DSP. None None Improve U=0 G=0
* * * = tº- tº tº tº Thru g- ºr º- tº 87 A. sº tº º sº. S=87 F=0
5886 87 A. 02–28 5 AUMS 5 AUMS D=0 P=87
NOne None
315 Nonint. 03-01 Cattle DSP. None None Improve U=0 G=0
* * *m, eme emº º ºs º- Thru tº- tº tº gº l,0A. * - tº - ſº S=l0 F=0
5896 l,0A. 02-28 l AUM l AUM D=0 P=l O
NOne D l
316 Nonint. 03-0l Cattle DSP. None None Improve U=0 G=0
* * * me º gº tº - Thru {--> - tº gº 21,0A. º tº me º S=2|10 F=0
57 l;6 21,0A. 02-28 9 AUMs 9 AUMS D=0 P=2|| 0
NOne D lº
317 Nonint. 03-0l Cattle ACQ. None None Improve U=0 G=0
* * * = * - tº ſº tº º Thru tº º º º 380A. * - ſº- - º S=8||0 F=0
5827 l, 240A. 02-28 20 AUMS 20 AUMS D=0 P=8||0
(See 287 gº ºne º º tº º tº gº
& 323) NOne D l?0
3.18 Nonint. None Cattle ACQ. None NOne Improve U=0 G=0
* * me eme sº sº º ºs tº e º ſº ºne º º ºs l,500A. sº- ºr e = ′ = S=5,219 F=360
5785 5,2119A. None 209 AUMS 209 AUMs D=0 P=l,889
D 266
B-34 – ROYAL GORGE ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT
RECOMMENDATION AND OBJECTIVE SUMMARY
Recommendations Objectives
Kind of
Stock/g
SeaSOn *E* sº tº tº
Mgt. Of Forage/h
Key No/a Mgt. Use/e Production Administ. Land LiveStock Grazing
tº º º Es Status/c tº- tº dº tº gº tº Eº º Treatment Treatment Mgt. Admin/m
F Ormer tº E tº tº E Key Mgt. Type Type Facility g-º º tº º Range Range
Allot. Federal Vegetative Adjust & & & Forage Trend Condition
NO/b Acreage/d Species/f AUMs/i Acreage/j Acreage/k Acreage/l Production/n Acres/o Acres/p
319 Nonint. 03-0l Cattle ACQ. None None Improve U=0 G=0
tº º tº E tº E. E. tº Thru “E” Eº e º 'º 5,260A. º gº tº e gº S=l, l69 F= || || 0
5828 l, 209A. 02-28 73 AUMs 76 AUMs D=0 P= 729
(See º º sº ºne tº º º gº
32!!) NOne D 52
320 Nonint 03–0l Cattle DSP. None None Improve U=0 G=0
tº e º E tº E & E. tº º º º Thru gº tº º 'º e 320A. emº º ºs ºs S=20 F=0
587 l; 320A. 02-28 l AUM l AUM D=0 P=20
NOne D 32
32l Nonint. 03-0l Cattle ACQ. None None Improve U=0 G=0
tº-e ºs º- e º tº º ºxe sº Thru tº tº $ tº º l,80A. sº º sº º S=l,880 F=60
5781, 200A. 02-28 6 AUMs 59 AUMS D=0 P=l,820
NOne D 25
322 Nonint. 03-0l Cattle DSP. NOne None Improve U=0 G=0
gº- (- e º sº tº tº gº º gº Thru wº- º – º 'º e l,0A. * > * > * > -e S=l;0 F=l;0
57 l;2 l,0A. 02–28 l, AUMs l, AUMs D=0 P=0
NOne D 2
323 Nonint. 03-0l Cattle DSP. None None Improve U=0 G=0
tº e º e º 'º º {- gº tº e - Thru º º tº 280A. gº º cº-e ºs S=200 F=200
5827 280A. 02-28 l, AUMs l, AUMs D=0 P=0
(See 287 * > * > t > -º * -
& 317) NOne D 26
321, Nonint. 03-0 l Cattle DSP. None None Improve U=0 G=0
g- tº tº tº gº tº e º º Thru * - I e º 'º l,0A. tº º S=l;0 F= 10
5828 l,0A. 02-28 3 AUMs 3 AUMs D=0 P=0
(See 319) tº e º 'º - * > --> º L-
None D 2
325 Nonint. 03-0l Cattle DSP. None None Improve U=0 G=0
º, º º tº gº ºne º Thru eme º º ºs 520A. emº tº cº- º S=20 F=0
573.l 520A. 02-28 l AUM l AUM D=0 P= 20
None D l; l;
326 Nonint. 03-0 l Cattle DSP. None None Improve U= 0 G=0
tº gº tº e º º gº- (- - - - - - Thru tº º- tº- tº- 603A. sº tº dº sº S=lOO F=lOO
5908 603A. 02–28 9 AUMS 9 AUMS D=0 P=0
None D 52
327 Nonint. 03-01 Cattle DSP. None None Improve U=0 G=0
G-> -º e- º Eº º Thru gº º º º 220A. * - º ºs º- S=220 F=0
Unall. 220A. 02–28 l AUM l AUM D=0 P=220
NOne None
328 Nonint. 03-01 Cattle DSP. None NOne Improve U=0 G=0
g- º Gº tº “E” E º gº Thru * > * > * > * > ll.0A. tº º º- ºr- S=l0 F=0
591.0 ll.0A. 02-28 l AUM l AUM D=0 P=l O
NOne D lo
329 Nonint. 03-01 Cattle DSP. None None Improve U=0 G=0
gº º sº º tº e º a Thru e- - - --> 35A. * > * > . . . . S=35 F=0
5895 35A. 02–28 2 AUMS 2 AUMS D=0 P=35
None D l
330 Nonint. 03-0l Cattle DSP. NOne NOne Improve U=0 G=0
& º * * * * Thru * * * * * * * > 20A. gº º e º Tº S=5 F=0
5936 20A. 02-28 l AUM l AUM D=0 P=5
NOne D l
RECOMMENDATION AND OBJECTIVE SUMMARY
APPENDICES — B-35
Recommendations Objectives
Kind of
Stock/g
Season sº º º ºxe
Mgt. Of Forage/h
Key No/a Mgt. Use/e Production Administ. Land Livestock Grazing
* = me º Status/c tº º º º e-º º º E Treatment Treatment Mgt. Admin/m
Former tº- tº-º tº e ∈ Key Mgt. Type Type Facility gº tº - - Range Range
Allot. Federal Vegetative Adjust & & & Forage Trend Condition
No/b Acreage/d Species/f AUMs/i Acreage/j Acreage/k Acreage/l Production/n Acres/o Acres/p
33l Nonint. 03-0 l Cattle DSP. None None Improve U=0 G=0
&= -s º ºs gº tº tº º Thru tº - tº ºn 800A. © e º – º S=l;0 F= 0
Unall. 800A. 02-28 l AUM l AUM D=0 P= 10
NOne None
332 Nonint. 03-0 l Cattle DSP. None None Improve U= 0 G= 0
* gº º gº tº - Thru tº- tº- tº- º l60A. tº me º º S=20 F=0
5891, l60A. 02-28 l AUM l AUM D=0 P= 20
NOne D 9
333 Nonint. 03-01 Cattle DSP. None None Improve U= 0 G=0
º me tº º * - G - e º ºs Thru * - - tº e 560A. &= - me º S= 100 F=0
5931, 560A. 02–28 ll AUMS ll AUMS D=0 P= 100
None D 76
331; Nonint. 03-0 l Cattle DSP. None None Improve U=0 G-0
* = ′ = º tº -, -º º Thru tº e º 'º ... e. 60A. tº gº tº º S=30 F=0
5933 60A. 02-28 l AUM l AUM D=0 P=30
NOne D l;
335 Nonint. 03-0l Cattle DSP. None None Improve U=0 G=0
* * º ºs e-º º- º º Thru tº a tº . . . . . . l, 1,0A. tº ºs º º S=70 F=0
Unall. l!!!0A. 02–28 3 AUMs 3 AUMs D=0 P=70
NOne NOne
336 Nonint. 03-0 l Cattle DSP. None None Improve U=0 G=0
* - ºne º tº-e Thru * - Lº tº º l,0A. º º º ºs S= 1.0 F=0
57.27 l,0A. 02-28 l AUM l AUM D=0 P= 10
None D 2
337 Nonint. 03-0 l Cattle DSP. None None Improve U=0 G=0
*_º - º ºs &= ± = G- Thru tº-e º ºs 60A. gº tº º ºs S=30 F=0
Unalll. 60A. 02-28 l AUM l AUM D=0 P=30
None None
338 Nonint. 03-01 Cattle DSP. None None Improve U= 0 G=0
* * * * tº- tº- e º ºs Thru * - ºr e º 'º - l;91A. * - I -º º - S=391 F=3|ll
5868 378A. 02-28 ll, AUMs 22 AUMS D=0 P=80
None None
339 Nonint. 03-0l Cattle DSP. None None Improve U=0 G=0
* * = em. tº tº Thru tº e- cº-e ºs l,536A. tº e º ºs S=800 F=800
5923 l,536A. 02-28 58 AUMs 58 AUMs D=0 P=0
None None
31.0 Nonint. 03-0 l Cattle DSP. None None Improve U=0 G=0
* * * = tº e- - - Thru * > * > . º - l,0A. º “E - gº S=l;0 F=0
5907 l,0A. 02-28 l AUM l AUM D=0 P=l;0
NOne D 5
31, l Nonint. 03-01 Cattle DSP. None None Improve U=0 G=0
* * me me tº- (-º º º cº- Thru tº e º 'º º e l, 207A. tº- tº G- tº- S=210 F= 0
5713 l, 207A. 02–28 6 AUMs 6 AUMs D=0 P=210
NOne D lºl
31.2 Nonint. 03–0 l Cattle DSP. None None Improve U=0 G=30
* * me am, gº tº º q_º Thru tº e 776A. gº tº gº º S=150 F= 1,20
5803 776A. 02-28 37 AUMs 37 AUMs D=0 P=0
NOne D 31
B-36 — ROYAL GORGE ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT
RECOMMENDATION AND OBJECTIVE SUMMARY.
— Recommendations Objectives
Kind of
Stock/g
Season tº- tº gº tº
Mgt. Of Forage/h
Key No/a Mgt. Use/e Production Administ. Land Livestock Grazing
cº-º º tº º Status/c gº tº tºº º “E” Ef ººº tº º Treatment Treatment Mgt. Admin/m
FOrmer tº gº tº º ºs # * Key Mgt. Type Type Facility * - tº- º ºs Range Range
Allot. Federal Vegetative Adjust & & & Forage Trend Condition
NO/b Acreage/d Species/f AUMs/i Acreage/j Acreage/k Acreage/l Production/n Acres/o Acres/p
31,3 Nonint. 03–0 l Cattle DSP. NOne None Improve U=0 G=0
tº tº º º e-Is º º º Thru tº º º tºº gº 920A. º “R- E- º S=20 F=0
Unall. 920A. 02-28 l AUM l AUM D=0 P= 20
None None
31, l; Nonint. 03-0l Cattle DSP. NOne None Improve U=0 G=0
gº tº gº tº e e-º º ºs º-'s gº Thru &E - gE- tº 21,0A. cº-e ‘E- º º S=l20 F=l2O
578 l 21,0A. 02–28 l9 AUMS lº, AUMS D=0 P=0
NOne D 7
31, 5 Nonint. 03–0 l Cattle DSP. NOne None Improve U=0 G=l;0
tº- ºr- tº cº-º º-e sº- º Thru * = <- tº- l,0A. tº gº º gº S= 10 F=0
Unall. l,0A. 02–28 l, AUMs l, AUMs D=0 P=0
None NOne
31,6 Nonint. 03–0 l Cattle DSP. None None Improve U=0 G=l;0
tº º tº tº º ſº Thru tº gº º cº- l,0A. º º ºxº gº S=l;0 F=0
57.96 l,0A. 02–28 l, AUMs l, AUMs D=0 P=0
None None
3||7 Nonint. 03-0 l Cattle DSP. None None Improve U=0 G=l;0
gº º cº-e ū- e- - - - Thru cº- tº- (- ºr e l,0A. tº tº e S= l;0 F=0
5718 l,0A. 02-28 2 AUMS 2 AUMS D=0 P=0
NOne D 6
31,8 Nonint. 03-0l Cattle DSP. None None Improve U=0 G=0
wº-tº I-B tº tº-º º º º Thru tº - e l,0A. tº tº e º 'º S=l;0 F= l;0
57.27 l,0A. 02-28 l, AUMs 2 AUMS D=0 P=0
None D 3
31, 9 NOnint. 03-0 l Cattle DSP. None None Improve U=80 G=80
tº gº tº tº * - I - I - ºne Thru sº tº º ºs 680A. gº ºs º gº S=0 F=0
Unall. 680A. 02-28 3 AUMS 3 AUMs D=0 P=0
None None
350 Nonint. 03–0 l Cattle DSP NOne None Improve U=0 G=310
tº E. Lº gº º cº-e - Thru * - tº º ºs l, 200A. tº ºs º º S=310 F=0
5831, 960A. 02-28 l!2 AUMs l!9 AUMs D=0 P=0
NOne D ll,
35l Nonint. 03-0 l Cattle DSP. NOne None Improve U=0 G=0
« » . . . . . . . . gº º tº º Thru gº º cº- tº 600A. tº º S=20 F=20
5875 600A. 02-28 2 AUMS 2 AUMS D=0 P=0
NOne D 7
352 Nonint. 03-0 l Cattle DSP. None None Improve U=0 G=0
* - gº º- tº º tº º sº gº Thru tº e º 'º e º 200A. tº tº S=200 F=200
572l 200A. 02–28 l'7 AUMs 17 AUMs D=0 P=0
NOne D 8
353 Nonint. 03-0 l Cattle DSP. None None Improve U=0 G=80
( * * > . . . . . . tº -º e º 'º Thru tº- º º ºt 3,71,0A. gº º tº º S=200 F=l20
Unall. 3,710A. 02-28 5 AUMS 5 AUMs D=0 P=0
NOne None
351, Nonint. 03-01 Cattle DSP. None None Improve U=l;0 G=l;0
* - I -, - tº tº º º º Thru g-º gº - - 720A. tº-e ſº º sº º S=0 F=0
Unall. 720A. 02-28 2 AUMS 2 AUMS D=0 P=0
NOne
None
APPENDICES – B-37
RECOMMENDATION AND OBJECTIVE SUMMARY
*— Recommendations Objectives
Kind of
Stock/g
Season º º cº-º tº
Mgt. Of Forage/h
Key No/a Mgt. Use/e Production Administ. Land Livestock Grazing
* * * * Status/c ---- Gº tº - gº Treatment Treatment Mgt. Admin/m
Former º º º Eº Key Mgt. Type Type Facility tº-e G- ºr e º Lº Range Range
Allot. Federal Wegetative Adjust & & & Forage Trend Condition
No/b Acreage/d Species/f AUMs/i Acreage/j Acreage/k Acreage/l Production/n Acres/o Acres/p
355 . Nonint. 03-01 Cattle DSP. None None Improve U=0 G=l0
** = - º º ºs º- Thru * * * * * > * > 80A. gº º sº º S=lO F=0
Unall. 80A. 02-28 l AUM l AUM D=0 P=0
NOne None
356 Nonint. 03-01 Cattle DSP. None None Improve U= 0 G=60
** = - º gº º º Thru tº º cº-º º 71.6A. q = - Lº º S=60 F = 0
5930 71.6A. 02-28 9 AUMs 9 AUMS D=0 P=0
None D 37
357 Nonint. 03-01 Cattle DSP. None None Improve U= 0 G=0
** = - tº cº- tº- tº Thru tº gº tº gº tº l, 730A. tº º e º 'º S=20 F = 0
Unall. l,730A. 02–28 l AUM l AUM D=0 P= 20
NOne NOne
358 Nonint. 03–0 l Cattle DSP. None None Improve U=0 G=0
** = - * > * > * > * > Thru cº- tº e º 'º l,0A. tº º – ºs S=l.0 F= 0
Unall. l,0A. 02–28 l AUM l AUM D=0 P= 10
None None

B-38 – ROYAL GORGE ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT
TABLE B-2
PREDICTED VEGETATIVE coverl/
FOR MANAGEMENT UNITS
BY ALTERNATIVE
Alternative
Management Unit New2/ Present No Non- Flim of Mgmt Con-
Former Name Number Value Action Intensive Grazing Preferred straint
Table Mountain 193 23 23 24 25 28 28
Big Hole 192 27 27 28 29 30 29
Little Hole 191 24 24 25 26 27 26
Bear Creek 223 21 21 21 22 23 22
Wellsville 198 21 20 21 22 22 22
Kerr Gulch 227 19 17 20 21 22 21
Sand Gulch Common 231 22 22 23 24 25 25
Howard Creek 225 22 22 23 24 25 24
Cat Gulch 171 25 25 28 28 30 28
Sixmile 136 18 18 19 20 20 20
Rattlesnake 97 18 18 19 20 21 21
Stoney Face 172 32 32 34 35 37 35
Granite 230 30 30 31 32 33 - 33
Oak Creek 233 39 39 41 42 42 42
Soda Mountain 133 30 30 31 31 32 32
Copper Gulch Common 237 18 17 19 19 19 19
Sunnyside 141 21 21 21 20 22 22
Wright Res. E. 91 22 22 23 24 26 27
Underhill Gulch 133 18 18 19 20 21 20
Fernleaf 168 34 34 36 36 38 36
12 Mile Woods 190 21 21 21 22 23 22
Temple Canyon W. 238 25 25 25 25 26 25
One Creek 170 22 22 24 26 27 27
Calcite 225 20 20 21 22 23 22
Grouse Mountain 99 23 23 24 25 26 25
, Phantom Canyon 138 25 25 26 27 27 27
Grape Creek 243 20 20 20 21 22 21
S. Jack Hall 197 24 24 26 26 28 28
Pole Gulch 229 19 19 19 20 20 20
Geology Camp 143 16 16 16 17 17 17
Eldred 143A 18 18 18 19 19 19
Worley Country 147 17 17 18 19 20 20
Oil Well Flats 147 19 19 20 21 22 22
Reinke Ridge 173 32 32 34 35 37 35
Box Canyon West 224 21 21 21 22 23 22
Cottonwood Ridge 68 23 23 25 26 27 27
Methodist Mountain 222 21 21 21 22 23 22
Thirtyone Mile Mtn 66 23 23 25 26 27 27
Mill Creek 166 34 34 34 36 37 36
Two Creek 169 24 24 26 27 28 27
Felch Creek 146 21 21 21 22 23 22
Maverick Gulch 198 23 22 23 24 24 24
Poney Gulch 97 21 21 22 23 24 24
E. Eightmile 138 25 25 26 27 28 27
Cottonwood Creek 187 21 21 22 23 24 23
Oil Creek Common * 105 21 21 23 24 25 24
Lookout Point 97 19 19 20 21 23 24
Lower Basin 197 24 24 24 25 26 26
Upper Basin 197 25 25 27 27 30 30
Badger Creek ſº 197 26 26 27 28 29 27
Straub Mountain 106 23 23 25 26 27 26
High Park 75 23 23 25 26 27 27
Eight Mile Creek, E. 138A 24 24 24 25 25 25
1/ Percent ground covered by live vegetation.
2/ Where numbers are repeated the units have been combined.
APPENDICES – B-39
TABLE B-2
PREDICTED VEGETATIVE COVERI /
FOR MANAGEMENT UNITS
BY ALTERNATIVE
- Alternative
Management Unit New2/ Present NO NO n- Elim of Mgmt Con-
Former Name Number Value Action Intensive Grazing Preferred straint
Holbert Pasture 1 38 26 26 27 28 29 28
Cactus Mountain 190 22 22 20 22 23 22
Twelve Mile Hole 190 24 24 25 26 27 26
Sommerville 190 26 26 27 28 29 28
Spikebuck 190 23 23 24 25 26 25
Beaver Creek 126 22 22 23 24 25 25
Temple Canyon South 238 25 25 25 25 26 25
Box Canyon 133 31 31 31 31 33 33
Cedar Springs Mtn. 196 31 31 32 32 34 32
Twelve Mile Park 188 27 27 27 28 28 28
Phantom Canyon W. 138 24 24 25 26 27 26
Box Canyon 224 22 22 22 23 23 23
Crown Pt. 118 28 28 29 30 31 30
Red Gulch 194 23 23 23 24 25 24
Mud Gulch 195 26 26 27 28 29 28
Jack Hall 193 24 24 25 25 27 27
Reinke Ridge 173 23 23 24 25 26 26
Grand Canyon 238 27 27 27 27 28 27
Red Gulch 194 26 26 27 28 29 28
Twelve Mile Hill 158 21 2 1 22 22 23 23
Gribble Mtn. 158 24 24 24 25 26 26
Waugh Mtn. 167 34 34 36 36 38 26
Miners Gulch 158 22 22 23 24 25 25
Crampton Mtn. 189 23 23 24 25 26 25
Tallahassee Creek 189 22 23 23 24 25 24
Cooper Mtn. 140 19 19 21 21 22 22
Garden Park Ditch 148A 8 7 8 9 9 Q
Lower Shaw's Park 148 18 18 18 19 19 19
Six Mile Park 137 20 20 20 21 22 21
Canyon Creek 230 25 25 25 27 28 28
Webster Gulch 156 14 14 15 16 17 16
Nipple Mtn. 139 20 20 21 22 23 23
Race Path 192 22 23 23 24 23 24
Barnard Canyon 95 25 25 26 26 28 28
Garlin Gulch 141 18 18 18 19 19 19
Garden Park Gulch 141 15 15 15 16 16 16
Red Ridge 141 19 19 20 21 22 22
Red Mtn. Chain. 141 21 22 23 23 24 24
Helena Pasture 141 21 20 21 22 22 22
Wilson Creek 149 19 19 21 21 22 22
Twin Mtn. 150 17 17 19 19 20 19
Espanoza Gulch 142 16 16 1 17 17 18 18
W. Beaver Creek 128 22 23 23 24 25 23
Pass Creek 217 15 15 17 18 19 19
Mt. Shavano 216 19 19 20 21 22 22
Midland Hills 204 23 23 23 24 25 25
Playa Lakes 23 19 19 21 22 23 23
Granite-Upper Ark. 12 15 15 17 18 19 19
Rye Slough-West 58 15 15 17 18 19 19
Poncha Park 61 15 15 17 18 19 19
Heckla Junction 199 23 23 23 24 25 25
Browns Canyon 200 24 24 23 24 25 25
Ruby Mountain 202 23 23 23 25 25 25
1/ Percent ground covered by live vegetation.
2/ Where numbers are repeated the units have been combined.
B-40 – ROYAL GORGE ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT
TABLE
R– 3
VEGETATION GROUPS, TYPES, SUBTYPES AND MAJOR SPECIFS
*
- - * -ºm º "º * - . *- := -em, e- - , = -= . . sº--ms º -> *-** * * * * * ****** _ _--—- = -s. --> --> -- * * *
- - . - - - -
Subtype
Major Species
B1 the graina
Mountain muhly
Arizona fescue
Sedge-rush
meadow
9 rome meadow
Pinyon
Juniper
Gambel oak
Mountain
mahogany
Big sagebrush
Saltbush
Ponderosa
pine
Lodgepole pine
Douglas-fir
Engelmann
spruce
Quaking a spen
Group Type Acres Percent
Grassland Grass l, 456, 300 55
Meadow 76,000 3
Shrubland Pinyon- 596,500 23
juniper
Mountain 76,600 3
Shrub
Sagebrush 58,600 2
Saltbush 4,700 K1
Forestland Conifer 244, 400 9
Broad- 50,500 2
leaf
Narrowleaf
cottonwood
Plains
c Ottonwood
Blue grana, sand
dropseed, red
threeawn, fringed
Sage .
Mountain muhly,
Indian ricegrass,
rubberweed , junegrass
Arizona fescue,
junegrass, mountain
brone, prairie
oatgrass
Sedge (Carex spp.),
rush (Juncus spp.),
saltgrass
Brome (Bromus spp.),
bluegrass (Poa spp.),
hairgrass, shrubby
cinquefoil
Pinyon, Rocky
Mountain juniper,
Indian ricegrass,
needle-and-thread
Utah juniper, blue
grama, rabbitbrush
(Chrysothamnus spp.)
Gambel oak, bluegrass
(Poa spp.), sedge
(Carex spp.), currant
(Ribes spp.)
Mountain mahogany,
western snowberry,
blue grama, mountain
muhly
Big sagebrush,
junegrass, Arizona
fescue
Fourwing saltbush,
shadscale, Gardner
saltbush, alkali
Saca to In
Ponderosa pine, blue
grama, mountain muhly
Lodgepole pine,
bearberry, common
juniper
Douglas-fir, Rocky
Mountain juniper,
Gambel oak
Engelmann spruce,
white fir, bear berry,
common juniper
Quaking aspen,
bluegrass (Poa spp.),
junegrass, mountain
brome
Narrowleaf
cottonwood, Rocky
Mountain juniper,
thin leaf alder,
willow (Salix spp.),
sedge (Carex spp.)
Plains cottonwood,
sedge (Carex spp.),
brome (Bromus spp.),
Rocky Mountain maple
TABLE B-4
IMPLEMENTATION
SUMMARY OF UNITS
PROPOSED FOR INTENSIVE RANGE MANAGEMENT
Management AMP AMP Acres of Live stock
Unit No. Development Implementation Public Land Forage (AUMs)
12 1981 1982 3, 274 122
23 1981 1985 l,640 98
58 1981 1981 1, 240 64
61 1981 1981 9,728 395
66 1981 1983 3,338 134
68 1981 1982 2,512 69
75 1981 1983 2,792 196
91 1981 1992 4.32 15
95 1981 1982 1,013 43
96 1981 1981 1 4 3 10
97 1981 1985 5, 326 l 90
98 1981 1982 640 23
99 1981 1983 5, 305 196
100 1981 1985 2,268 4 3
105 1981 1982 2,268 34
117 1981 1985 1,538 32
1 18 1981 1981 2,682 52
126 1981 1984 6,676 69
127 1981 1985 5,755 38
128 1981 1984 3, 372 4
133 1981 1984 3,229 52
1 34 1981 1981 240 6
136 1981 1982 1,422 1 I
137 1981 1984 1,587 1 1
1 38 1981 1982 15,635 309
1 39 1981 1982 337 29
1 40 1981 1981 5, 188 60
141 1981 1985 6, 272 1 4.5
142 1981 1983 3,727 40
1 4 3 1981 1984 697 13
146 1981 1981 1,072 1()
147 1981 1984 6,580 99
148 1981 1981 1,009 3
149 1981 1985 7, 313 242
150 1981 1983 2,476 50
155 1981 1984 2,978 29
1.56 1981 1984 1,401 19
158 1981 1984 3, 548 51
APPENDICES – B-41
B-42 – ROYAL GORGE ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT
TABLF B-4
IMPLEMENTATION SUMMARY OF UNITS
PROPOSED FOR INTENSIVE RANGE MANAGEMENT
Management AMP AMP Acres of Livestock
Unit No. Development Implementation Public Land Forage (AUMs)
1.65 1981 1982 1,584 44
166 1981 1982 2,083 70
167 1981 1982 957 32
168 1981 1982 1,031 86
1 69 1981 1982 2,501 75
170 1981 1985 1,310 72
171 1981 1981 253 6
172 1981 1985 827 58
173 1981 1985 919 26
177 1981 1981 630 3
187 1981 1983 5,223 140
189 1981 1982 2,861 19
190 1981 1983 5,969 52
191 1981 1984 6,687 210
192 1981 1984 26,652 57.1
193 1981 1983 15,248 527
193A 1981 1981 195 4
194 1981 1981 2,462 37
1 95 1981 1982 685 13
1 96 1981 1982 278 2
197 1981 1983 38, 116 700
1 98 1981 1984 8,460 85
199 1981 1981 9,838 50
200 1981 1981 1, 150 7
202 1981 1981 5,250 19
204 1981 1983 6,415 29
213 1981 1982 651 33
216 1981 1983 5,274 72
217 1981 1983 3,286 57
222 1981 1983 . 2,470 13
224 1981 1985 5,211 32
225 1981 1984 925 18
227 1981 1983 5,964 123
230 1981 1985 3,579 123
231 1981 1984 4,775 93
233 1981 1982 1,084 142
237 1981 1982 52,229 204
238 1981 1984 6,027 42
243 1981 1983 14,579 1 16
TABLE B-5
LONG-TERM LOSS OF VEGETATION DUE TO CONSTRUCTION
OF WARIOUS RANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS
Disturbance Total Disturbance
Project Units Per Unit Short-term Long-term
Plow and Seed 200A Ol/
Burn 4,900 A Ol/
Th in 17,630 A Ol/
Fence2/ 80 Mi .5 - 1A 40 – 80A 8 – 1 6A
Pipeline 3. 3 Mi • 2 - 1.5A . 66 - 4.95A .22 - 1.65A
Tanks 1 Ea . 1 - 1A - 1 - 1A . 1 - 1A
Earthen Reservoirs 11 Ea . 5 – 3 5. 5 – 33A 4.4 – 26.4A
Water Troughs 4 Ea . 1 - .. 2 . 4 - . 8A .4 - . 8A
Spring Developments?/ 67 Ea - 1 - .. 5 6. 7 – 33.5A 2. 35 11. 75
Catchments 39 Ea 1 – 3 39 – 117A 3 1. 2 – 93. 6
Wells 2 Ea . 2 - .. 5 . 4 - 1A . 12 - .. 3
TOTAL
92.75 – 271. 25A
46. 8 – 15 1. 5A
1/ The vegetation disturbance on treated acres will be stabilized
in the short term (5 years) through seeding, where necessary.
2/ If an additional 71 miles of fence and 100 water developments were
constructed as part of AMP development, there would be an additional
4.7 acres of vegetation lost in the long term.
GUIDE FOR RATING
RANGE CONDITION
Excellent
Good
Fair
POO r
VEGETATION More than 75 percent 50 to 75 percent of the 25 to 50 percent of the Less than 25 percent
(Native) of the total vegeta- total vegetation is com- vegetation is composed of the vegetation is
tion is composed of posed of the potential of the potential nat- composed of the poten-
the potential natural natural vegetation. An ural vegetation. Mod- tial natural vegetation.
vegetation. An evenly evenly distributed mix- erate variations of Poor variation exists
distributed mixture of ture of grasses, forbs, grasses, forbs, and among grasses, forbs,
grasses, forbs, and and shrubs are present. shrubs exist. Some and shrubs with an over-
shrubs are present. Major native forage major native forage abundance of undesirable
Major native forage grasses occur on open grasses occur in open vegetation. Major na-
grasses occur on open unprotected areas. Un- unprotected areas. tive forage species are
unprotected areas. desirable vegetation is Limited amounts of generally protected by
Undesirable vegeta- nearly absent. undesirable vegeta- shrubs or rocks.
tion is absent. tion are present.
(Seeded) More than 75 percent 50 to 75 percent of the 25 to 50 percent of the Less than 25 percent of
of the total vegeta-
tion is composed of
seeded species. If
shrubs are present,
the seeded species
occur mainly in open
spaces between shrubs.
Undesirable vegeta-
tion is absent.
total vegetation is com-
posed of the seeded
species. If shrubs are
present, the seeded spe-
cies occur mainly in
open spaces between
shrubs. Undesirable
vegetation is absent.
vegetation is composed
of the seeded species.
If shrubs are present,
some seeded species oc-
cur in open unprotected
areas. Limited amounts
of undesirable vegeta-
tion are absent.
the vegetation is com-
posed of the seeded spe-
cies. Seeded species are
generally protected by
shrubs or rocks. There
is an over-abundance of
undesirable vegetation.
APPENDICES – B-43
B-44 – ROYAL GORGE ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT
TABLE B-7
GUIDE FOR RATING APPARENT RANGE TREND
Considering the potential for this site, class of live stock, season of use,
recreational use, fire, and other influences, rate the following by giving
each item a rating of 4 to 0. Interpolate between indicators for ratings
3, 2, and 1.
Apparent Trend Indicators
REPRODUCTION:
Major species of the potential plant community are producing
seedlings, plants are of mixed ages; there is evidence of active
tillers, rhizomes, stolons. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (4)
Major species not reproducing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (0)
PLANTS RESIDUE AND CURRENT UTILIZATION:
Litter produced by major species is abundant for the site and
Current utilization is moderate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (4)
Litter is absent and utilization is severe. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (0)
COMPOSITION CHANGES :
Dominant species of the potential plant community are maintaining
their place in the stand. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (4)
Dominant species are absent or noticeably decreasing in
percentage, while minor species and species not native to the
community a Te increasing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (0)
PLANT WIGOR:
Major species of the potential plant community are strong,
healthy, productive, and well rooted. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (4)
Major species are showing noticeable die-off. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (0)
SOIL SURFACE FACTORS:
Accelerated soil erosion is not evident. Past erosion signs have
healed. Water intake for the kind of soil is favorable. . . . . . . . . . (4)
Accelerated erosion is obvious. Soil stability is poor as seen
by failure of erosion signs to be healing. Water intake for the
kind Of soil is unfavorable . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (O)
Ratings between 0 and 7 inclusive = Improving Trend
Ratings between 8 and 13 inclusive = Static Trend
Ratings between 14 and 20 inclusive = Declining Trend
APPENDIX C
Soll Associations
Table C-1 describes the soil associations found in
the EIS area. Location of the soils is shown on Map 3-2.
Information was supplied by the Soil Conservation
Service.
The following are concepts that appear in the summary
table on soil characteristics.
1. Waterholding Capacity
This is the ability of a soil to store water for plant
growth. It indicates the amount of water that the soil
will hold between full capacity and wilting points. The
Classes are as follows:
High: 9 to 12 inches of water would be available for
plant growth.
Moderately high: 6 to 9 inches of water would be
available for plant growth.
Low to moderately low: 3 to 6 inches of water would be
available for plant growth.
2. Permeability
This is the quality of the soil which enables it to
transmit water or air. Soil permeability can be
quantified in terms of a rate of flow of water through a
Cross section of saturated soil in a given time.
Permeability rates are expressed in inches per hour.
The classes are as follows:
Slow: .06 to .20 inch per hour
Moderately slow: .20 to .60 inch per hour
Moderate: .60 to 2.00 inches per hour
Moderately rapid: 2.00 to 6.00 inches per hour
Rapid: 6.00 to 20.00 inches per hour
3. Surface Runoff
This refers to the relative rate water flows over the
surface of the soil. The classes are defined as follows:
Slow: Surface water flows away so slowly that free
water covers the soil for a significant period or enters
the soil rapidly.
Moderate: Surface water flows away at such a rate that
a moderate portion of the water enters the soil and free
water lies on the surface for only a short period of time.
Rapid: A large portion of the precipitation moves
rapidly over the surface of the soil and a small part
moves through the soil.
4. Erosion Susceptibility
This is a rating based on expected losses of surface soil
when all vegetation cover including litter is removed.
The classes are as follows:
Slight: Little loss of soil material is expected. Minor
sheet or rill erosion will OCCur.
Moderate: Some loss of Surface Soil material can be
expected. Rills, small gullies, and sheet erosion may
OCCUſ.
Severe: Considerable loss of surface soil material can
be expected. Rills, small gullies, and sheet erosion may
OCCUſ.
TABLE C-1
APPENDICES – C-1
5. Soil Hydrologic Groupings
The soil associations have been placed into four
hydrologic groups that indicate the general infiltration
and water movement ability of the soils and the
bedrock. The four groups are defined as follows:
Group A: Soils having high infiltration rates even when
thoroughly wetted, consisting chiefly of deep, well- to
excessively-drained sand and/or gravel. These soils
have a high rate of water transmission and would result
in a low runoff potential.
Group B: Soils having moderate infiltration rates when
thoroughly wetted, consisting chiefly of moderately
deep to deep, moderately well- to well-drained soils
with moderately fine to moderately coarse textures.
These Soils have a moderate rate of water
transmission.
Group C; Soils having slow infiltration rates when
thoroughly wetted, consisting chiefly of (1) soils with a
layer that impedes the downward movement of water
or (2) soils with a moderately fine to fine texture and a
Slow infiltration rate. These soils have a slow rate Of
water transmission.
6. Drainage Class
Very poorly drained: The water table remains at or near
the surface a greater part of the time.
Poorly drained: Water is removed so slowly that the soil
remains wet for a large part of the time. Water table is
commonly at or near the surface.
Somewhat poorly drained: Soil is wet for significant
periods, but not all of the time, usually because of a
slowly permeable layer or a high water table.
Moderately well drained: Water is removed from the
soil somewhat slowly so that the soil is wet for a small
but significant part of the time.
Somewhat excessively drained: Water is moved from
these soils rapidly.
SUMMARY OF SOIL CHARACTERISTICS
Soi TAssociation TFosition. On Effective Water Erosion Hydrologic
Number, Name Landscape & Parent Taxonomy Depth Soil Root Depth Holding Perme- Surface Suscepti- Soil Soil
and Components Slope Ranges Material Texture Class (Inches) Reaction (Inches) Capacity ability Runoff bility Group Drainage
3. Traves silla Uplands Sandstone Loamy Lithic 2O Moderately 14–20 Low Moderate Rapid Severe D Well
Rock outcrop 5 - 55% Ustic Alkaline
Torrior-
thents
7. Las Bottomland Stratified Clayloam Aquic 30–40 Moderately 60+ High Moderate Medium Moderate C Poorly
& Low Terraces Alluvium Usti fluvents Alkaline to Rapid
O - 3%
Glenberg Walleys Alluvium Sandy Ustic 20-40 Moderately 60+ Moderate Mod. Slow Moderate B Well
O - 3% Loam Torrifluvents Alkaline Rapid
Apishapa Bottomland & Saline Clay Loam Wertic 6O Moderately 60+ High Slow Slow Slight C Poorly
Low Terraces Alluvium Fluvaquents Alkaline
O - 3%
8. Manvel Uplands Calcareous Silt Ustic 60+ Strongly 40–60 High Moderate Medium High B Well
l – 9% Alluvium Loam TOrrior- Alkaline
thents
Minnequa Uplands Calcareous Silt Ustic 20-40 Strongly 20-40 Moderate Moderate Med: to High B Well
l - 9% Alluvium Loam TOrrior- Alkaline Rapid
Thents
g tº L tº ſº gº & Rapid High D Well
Penrose Sideslopes Limestone oamy Lithic 10–20 Moderately 10–20 very Low Mod. ap
& Ridgetops & Shale Ustic alkaline Rapid
2 – 15% Torrior-
thents
e * t B Well
9. Baca Uplands Calcareous Loam ustollic 6O+ Moderately 60 High Mod. Medium Moderate
2 - 5% Loess to Clay Haplargids Alkaline Slow
Loam
e e g igh B Well
Wil Uplands Calcareous Silt Ustollic 6O+ Moderately 60 High Moderate Medium Hig
ey 3 - 5% Loess Loam Haplargids Alkaline
C-2 – ROYAL GORGE ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT
APPENDICES – C-3
TABLE C-l
SUMMARY OF SOIL CHARACTERISTICS
Sºº-
TABLE C-l Soil Association TFosition. On Effective W g
ater Erosion Hydrologic
SUMMARY OF SOIL CHARACTERISTICS :*::: Name Landscape & Parent Taxonomy Depth Soil. Roºt Depth Holding Perme- Surface Suscepti- soil soil
Soil Association Position On Effective Water Erosion Hydrologic Onents Slope Ranges Material Texture Class (Inches) eaction (Inches) Capacity ability Runoff bility Group Drainage
e tº tº e ti- Soil Soil
Number, Name Landscape & Parent Taxonomy Depth Soil Roºt Depth Holding Perme- surface suscep e Neville Foothills Alluvium Sand Torrior- 40+ Moderatel O-6O º
and Components Slope Ranges Material Texture Class (Inches) Reaction (Inches) Capacity ability Runoff bility Group Drainage and l Ulv : thents Alkaline y 4 Low Moderate Medium Moderate B Well
º T
Campo Uplands Calcareous Clay Us tollic 6O+ Moderately 60 High Slow Slow Moderate C Well *::::::
O - 3% Loess Loam & Paleargids Alkaline
Silty 54. Wiley See Assoc. 9
Clay
Loam Kim Foot Slopes Calcareous Loam Torrior- 40+ Moderately 40-60 High Moderate Medium Severe B Well
* e & F © t to Cla th Alkali
10. Stoneham Uplands Alluvium Loam Us tollic 20–48 Moderately 6O Medium Moderate Medium Moderate B Well O º: :::::::::. Loam y ents 8 l l Iſle
3 - 9% to Clay Haplargids Alkaline stone &
Loam Shale
Wona Ridges Calcareous Sandy Ustollic 6O+ :* 6O Low Rapid Slow Moderate A-B Well 35. *aleboralfs- Mountain Crystal- Sandy Boralf's 20-60 Slightly 20-60 Medium Moderate Medium Moderate C Well
2 - 9% Loess Loam Haplargids 8. Ll Cryoboralfs- Slopes line & to Clay Acid to to Rapid
to Sand Rock outcrop 15 - 20% Sediment- Neutral
Harvey Uplands Calcareous Loam US tollic 60+ Moderately 60 Medium Moderate Medium Moderate B Well ary rocks
2 - 5% Alluvium Calciorthids Alkaline 56. Bond Upland Sandstone Sandy Lithic 2O Midly 10-20 Low Moderate- Rapid Moderate D Well
Hilltops & Shale Loam to Ustollic Alkaline ly Slow
18. Haplaquolls Flood Alluvium Loam Haplaquolls 60+ Neutral 20-40 High Moderate Medium Moderate B Some 2 - 15% * Haplargids
Plains what Loam
O – 2% Poorly
Bresser Sideslope Sandstone Sand Aridic 6O+ Mildl 6O High e
Haplus tolls Low Alluvium Loam Haplus tolls 60+ Neutral 40-60 High Moderate Medium Moderate B Well & :::::::" & Shale iºts Arguistolls iºns & Moderate Medium Moderate B Well
Terraces l – 8% Sandy
& Flood Clay
Plains Loam
O - 3% T
- e olman Mtn. Side- Sandst Sand Lithic 2O Neutral 10-20 Lw tº-e
Fluvents Flood Alluvium Sandy Fluvents 6O+ Neutral 10-60 Low Rapid Slow High A-B Poorly º * and St. One i. Arciborolls *::::: Rapid Severe D Well
Plains Loam ridges
O - 2% to Sand 25 - 80%
19. Nunn Terraces Alluvium Clay Aridic 60. Moderately 60 High *:::::- Medium Moderate B Well Denver Sloping Up- Rediduum Clay Argius tolls 40–60 Neutral to 6O High Slow Moderate- Moderate C Well
O - 2% Loam Argius tolls Alkaline y OW lands & & Collu- Loam to Moderately ly Rapid
Foot Slopes vi f Cl Alkaline
Havers On Flood Alluvium Loamy Torri- 60+ Moderately 6O Low Moderate- Medium Moderate B Well 5 - 15% p i. rom ay
Plains to fluvents Arlkaline ly Rapid
O - 2% Sandy Louviers Steep Side- Shale Sandy Ustic 2O Neutral 1O-2O Low Slow Rapid Severe D Well
Loam slopes in Loam Torrior-
Foothills thents
- 25%
20. As calon Walley Alluvium Loam Argius tolls 60+ Mildly 6O High Moderate Medium Slight B Well 3
Floor to Clay Alkaline Travessilla Sideslopes Sandstone Sandy Lithic 2O Mildly 10-20 Low Slow Rapid Severe D Well
2 - 5% Loam 3 - 25% Loam Ustic Alkaline
g Torrior thents
Platner Walley Alluvium Loam Argius tolls 60+ Mildly 6O High Moderate Medium Slight B Well 3
Floor to Clay Alkaline * Bond-Bresser See Assoc. 56.
2 - 5% Loam
Rombo Mtn. Side Colluvium Cobbly Ustochrepts 20-40 Neutral 20-40 High Slow Rapid S
© tº- ©
Stoneham Uplands Alluvium Loam Us tollic 20–48 Moderately 6O Medium Moderate Medium Moderate B Well slopes from Shale Clay to Mildly p Were D Well
2 – 9% to Clay Haplargids Alkaline 20 - 50% & Silt Alkaline
Loam Stone
tº * tº- 3
21. Wona Ridges Calcareous Sandy us tollic 60+ Moderately 6O Low Rapid Slow Moderate A-B Well 8. Fughes Footslopes Colluvium Sandy Argiborolls 60+ Neutral to 60 High Slow Medium Moderate C Well
2 - 9% Loess Loam Haplargids Alkaline & Benches Shale & Clay Mildly
to Sand 3 - 15% Sandstone Loam to Alkaline
e º Clay
Olney Uplands Calcareous Sandy Us tollic 6O+ Moderately 6O Medium Moderate- Slow to Moderate B Well Holderness Footslopes Colluvium Sandy Argiborolls 60+ Neutral to 60 High Slow Medium Moderate C Well
2 - 5% Matls. from Loam Haplargids Alkaline to High ly Rapid Medium & Benches Shale & Clay Mildly
Sandstone & to 4 - 20% Sandstone Loam to alkaline
Aoelin Mat. Sandy t Clay
clay
Loam Rombo See Assoc. 57
Dwyer Sandhills Loess Sandy Torri- 60+ Mildly 6O Low Rapid Slow Low A Well 59. "olderness See Assoc. 58
2 - 15% Psamment Alkaline
Tolman ©
23. Nunn Terraces Alluvium Clay Aridic 60+ Moderately 60 High Moderate- Medium Moderate B Well See Assoc. 56
Loam Argius tolls Alkaline ly Slow Ring Slopes—Terraces Alluvium Sandy Mollic 60+ Neutral 6O High Moderate Moderate- Moderate– C Well
* 2O - on old Loam Futro-
Ft Collins 0 - 2% Calcareous Loam Ustollic 60+ Moderately 60 Medium Moderate- Moderate- Moderate- B Well 2 - 4” outwash to Cobbly ºr. ly Rapid ly Severe
Alluvium to Clay Haplargids Alkaline ly Rapid ly Slow ly Rapid Clay
Uplands & Loam 40
Terraces * Ring See Assoc. 59
0 - 9% Waner Hilltops & Sideslopes Clayey Lithic 2O Mildly 10–50 High Moderate- Moderate- Moderate- C Well
tº e Eutro- Alkaline ly Slow ly Rapid ly Severe
24. Olney- Uplands Sandstone Sandy Ustollic 20-60 Moderately 10-20 High Moderate Rapid Moderate C Well 2 - 15% boralfs y y Rapid ly
Progresso 3 - 15% Loam to Haplargids Alkaline to Severe 43
Sandy "ouviers- See Assoc. 56
Clay
Loam **avessilla
°omplex
Louviers- 3 - 25% -- See Assoc. 36 4. T
Traves silla *riorthents Uplands, Low Sandstone Sandy * - 20-40 Moderate- 2O Low Moderate Moderate- Severe B-C Well
Hills & Colluvial& Shale Loam to ly Alkaline to Rapid
Louviers- 25 - 85% -- See Assoc. 36 Slopes Loam •
Traves silla * 5 - 9%
Rock Outcrop
31. Rednun Terraces Alluvium Clay Aridic 6O+ Moderately 60 High Moderate- Medium Moderate B Well
O - 2% Loam Argius tolls Alkaline ly Slow
APPENDICES —
C-4 – ROYAL GORGE ENVIRONMENTAL STATE MENT S – C-5
TABLE C-l
TABLE C-l SUMMARY OF SOIL CHARACTERISTICS
SUMMARY OF SOIL CHARACTERISTICS
SRF--
gº * e —” : Association TFosition. On gº Effective Water Erosion Hydrologic
Soil Association Position On Effective Water Erosion Hydrologic e and *F, Name Landscape & Parent Taxonomy Depth Soil Root Depth Holding Perme- Surface Suscepti- Soil Soil
Number, Name Landscape & Parent Taxonomy Depth Soil Root Depth Holding Perme- surface suscepti- soil soil Somponents Slope Ranges Material Texture Class (Inches) Reaction (Inches) capacity ability Runoff bility Group Drainage
and Components Slope Ranges Material Texture Class Inches) Reaction (Inches) Capacity ability Runoff bility Group Drainagº
*troboroalf Mtn. Slopes Ile Iº e Sandy gº 2O Neutral lO-2O Ile Iº e Ile Iº e Ile Iº e Moderate C Well
Penrose See Assoc. 46 Rock outcrop 15 - 50% §
ay
45. Otero Uplands Calcareous Sandy Torrior- 6O+ Moderate- 1O Moderate Moderate- Slow Moderate B Well Loam
2 - 15% Sandy Loam thents ly Alkaline ly Rapid to Severe 56
Material º *siborolls Parks, Alluvium Loam tº 6O+ Neutral to 6O High Moderate Moderate- Slight B Mod.
Walleys & Mildly ly Slow Well-
Canyon Upland Shale Clay Torrior- 15 Moderate- 15 High Slow to Rapid Severe D Well Meadows Alkaline Poorly
Breaks Loam thents ly Alkaline Moderate O – 5%
15 - 30% *Plaquolls Low Terraces Alluvium Loamy to tº º 60+ Slightly 2O Moderate Moderate Slow Slight A-B Mod.
& Floodplains Sandy Loam Acid to Well
46. Penrose- Low Hills, Limestone Loamy Lithic 2O Moderate- lO-20 Low Moderate- Rapid Severe D Well O - 2% Moderately Poorly
Rock outcrop Upland Ustic ly Alkaline ly Rapid Alkaline
Breaks & Torrior-
Colluvial thents
Slopes *Ploborolls Drainways Alluvium Sandy º 6O Neutral 20-60 Moderate Moderate Moderate slight B Mod.
2 - 30% 2 - 18% Loam Well
47. Gaynor Uplands Shale Silty Torrior- 20-40 Strongly 2O High Moderate- Rapid . Severe C Well 58. °urecanti Low Coarse Loamy, Aridic 6O Neutral 6O Medium Moderate Medium Slight B
Terraces Alluvium Skeletal Argi–
3 - 9% Clay thents Alkaline ly Slow & Fans borolls
2 - 8%
Samsil Footslopes Shale Silty Typic Us- 10–60 Strongly IO Low Slow Rapid Severe D Well 59
of Upland Clay torthents 'Alkaline "ouviers Hill Ridges Shale Clay Shallow l6-20 Neutral IO High Slow Rapid Severe D Well
Hills Loam to & Sideslopes Loam Ustic
3 - 15% Silty 10-40% torrior-
Clay Pri thents
r e tº g tº
Limon Terraces Shale Silty Torrior- 4O+ Strongly 4-10 High Slow Rapid Moderate C Well eta *:::::::::. iºn- Clayey ::iii. 16 Neutral 10-16 High Slow Rapid Severe D Well
& Flood Clay thents Alkaline to Severe 5 - 35% p Haplar-
Plains Loam to gids
O - 3% Silty
Clay Ft Collins Drainways Sandstone Loam Ustollic 40-60 Neutral 40-60 High Moderate- Rapid High C Well
48. Farista Side Sandstone Gravel- Torrior- 24 Moderate- 10-20 Low Moderate- Rapid Severe C Well : *::: & Shale is, º: ly Slow
slopes ly thents ly Alkaline ly Rapid Loam
15 - 60% Sandy
Loam Dargol Mtn. Side- Sandstone Stony Eutro- 20-40 Slightly 2O High Slow Rapid Severe C Well
Oleny- Uplands Sandstone Sandy Ustollic 20-60 Moderate- 10-20 High Moderate Rapid Moderate- C Well :*::, & Shale ºis, boralf's ::::::
Progresso 3 - 15% Loam to Haplargids ly Alkaline to Severe : Loam
Sandy *
Clay Fuera Footslopes Colluvium Sandy Loam Eutro- 20-40 Slightly 2O High Slow Rapid Severe C Well
Loam 10 - 45% to Clay boralf's Acid to
- Loam Neutral
49. Cryoboralf High Mtn. Crystal- Sandy Cryo- 10–60 Medium 1O-40 Medium Moderate n. r. Ile Iº e B-C Well
& Rock outcrop slopes Line Rock to boralfs Acid to to Rapid Wamer See Assoc. 40
2 - 30% Clayey Neutral 60
ºnd-Bresser see Assoc. 36
50. Argiborolls See Assoc. 55 °omplex
Haploborolls Terraces, Colluvial Clay tº-e 6O Mildly 6O High Moderate Slow Moderate B Well Bresser See Assoc 36.
Fans, Sediments Loam Alkaline
Narrow 9lney- See Assoc 48
Walley & -
Floodplains **ogresso
2 - 5 % 9mplex
Eutroboralfs Mtn. Slopes, Sandstone Sandy tº e 20-40 Neutral 2O Moderate- Moderate Moderate- Moderate Well 6l. *resser & See Assoc. 56
Ridgetops & & Shale Loam to ly High to Slow ly Rapid Bond -
Foothills Clay
20 - 50% Loam Moden See Assoc. 54
5l. Cyroborolls Mtn. Slopes n. r. Loamy Cyro- 40–60 Med. Acid 20-60 High Slow to Ile I’e Moderate B-C Well Bouviers & See Assoc 36
& Fans Skeletal borolls to Neutral Moderate *aves.silla
5 - 30% Bo
hd - Rock See Assoc. 156
52. Argiborolls Mtn. Slopes n. r. Loamy Argiborolls 20–60 Med. Acid 20-60 High Slow to Ile Iº e Moderate B-C Well °utcrop
& Fans to Clay to Neutral Moderate 62. T
Loam **iorthents Hills, Side- Calcareous Sandy * > 20-60 Moderate- 10 - 40 Moderate Moderate Severe B-C Well
slopes & Colluvium Loam ly Alkaline
Haploborolls Mtn. Slopes n. r. Loamy Haplo- 20-60 Med. Acid 20-60 Medium Moderate n, r. Moderate B Well Draws & Alluvium
& Fans borolls to Neutral 5 - 30%
5 - 30% 63. Tº
°utville Mountain Glacial Gravelly Cryoboralfs lo–50 Slightly 6O+ Low Moderate- Medium Moderate B Well
55. Argiborolls Footslopes, Igneous, Loam to Aridic 20-60 Mildly 20-60 Moderate- Moderate Ile I’e Moderate B Well Slopes Till Sandy Acid ly Rapid
Mesas & Fans Sandstone Clay Loam Argiborolls : Alkaline ly High 3 - 35% Loam
2 - 30% & Shale L
*adville Mountain Glacial Sandy *_º 1O-3O Medium 6O+ Moderate Moderate– Medium Moderate B Well
54. Willowman Terraces Aluvium Sandy Aridic 6O+ Mildly 45 Low Rapid Slow Slight B Well Slopes outwash Loam Acid ly Slow
3 – 8% & Out- Loam to Argius tolls alkaline 3 – 35%
wash Cobbly 64. R
Sandy Ock Outcrop Mountain tºº tº tº {- sºme E- {--> G-: Very Slight tº * *
Slopes & Rapid
Noden Uplands & Mixed Loam Aridic 60+ Neutral to 40-60 High Moderate Medium Low B Well Cliffs
Walley Size– Sediments to Argius tolls Mildly 65. St
slopes Clay Alkaline * Elmo High Terraces Glacial Gravelly Calciborolls 20–40 Moderate- 60+ Low Very Slow Slight A Well
1 - 9% Loam Generally Outwash Sandy ly Alkaline Rapid (Increases
- . { } b Loam &
55. Haploborolls Mtn. Slopes n. r. Loam tº-> 2O-4O Neutral 6O Moderate Moderate n > r, Moderate B Well º with slope)
15 - 25%
to 45%
C-6 — ROYAL GORGE ENVIRONMENTAL STATE MENT
TABLE C-l
SUMMARY OF SOIL CHARACTERISTICS.
—º
Soil Association Position On & Effective Water Erosion Hydrologic
Number, Name Landscape & Parent Taxonomy Depth Soil Root Depth Holding Perme- Surface Suscepti- Soil Soil
and Components Slope Ranges Material Texture Class (Inches) Reaction (Inches) Capacity ability Runoff bility Group Drainagº
Manhattan High Alluvium Sandy Typic 2O-4O Moderate- 60+ Low Moderate- Slow Slight A Well
Terraces Loam Calciborolls ly Alkaline ly Rapid (Increases
l - 9% with Slope)
66. Dominson Terraces & Glacial Gravelly Haploborolls 8-16 Neutral 6O+ Low Very Rapid Medium Moderate B+ Some-
Terrace Outwash Sandy Loam (Increases what
Edges l–9% with slope) Excess'
& 9-45% ive
San Isabel Walley Eolian Loamy Torripsam- 10–20 Neutral 60+ Low Rapid Slow Moderate A Well
Slopes & Low Sands Sands ments (High wind
Terraces erosion)
3 - 9%
67. Cotopaxi Walley Slopes Eolian Loamy Torripsam- 10–20 Neutral 6O+ Low Rapid Slow Moderate A Well
& Low Sands (High Wind
Terraces Erosion
3 - 9%
Ouray High Terraces Alluvium Sandy Haploborolls 20–40 Neutral 6O+ Low Moderate- Slow Moderate B Well
l – 5% Loam ly Slow
68. Pierian High Terraces Glacial Gravelly Cryoborolls 8-16 Slightly 6O+ Low Very Slow slight A Well
3 -45% Outwash Sandy Loam Acid (Increases
with Slope)
Poncha Alluvial Alluvium Gravelly tº-e lº–24 Neutral 6O+ Low Moderate- Slow Slight B Well
Fans & Sandy ly Rapid
High Loam
Terraces
69. Rough Mountain Sediments Wariable Ile I’e Varies n. r. Waries Waries Waries Rapid Moderate D Ile I'e
Broken Land Slopes to Severe
5 - 50%
Badland Mountain Sediments Variable Ile Iº e Waries n. r. Waries Waries Waries Rapid Severe D Ile Iº e
Slopes
10-50%
7O. Gas Creek Low Terraces Alluvium Gravelly Haplaquolls 10–18 Neutral 60+ Low Rapid Slow Slight B Poorly
1 - 3% Sandy
Loam
Wet Alluvial Alluvium Gravels, Ile Iº e Ile I’e Iſle Iº e Ile Iº e Ile Iº e Iſle Iº e Ile Iº e Ile Iº e n.r. Poorly
Alluvial Bottoms Sands, &
O - 3% Loams {
76. Newfork Low Terraces Alluvium Gravelly Cryaquolls 10–18 Neutral 6O+ Low Rapid Slow Slight B Poorly
l - 3% Sandy *
Loam
Marsh Walley Alluvium Medium Cryaquolls Varies Neutral Waries Water Table at or Near the Surface tº º Poorly
Bottoms
Rosane Upland Alluvium Loam Cryaquolls n. r. Neutral 6O+ Low Moderate- Slow no re B Poorly
Swales ly Rapid
78. Renohill Uplands Sandstone Sandy Ustollic 20-60 Mildly 15 High Moderate Moderate- Slight 'B Well
3 - 5% & Shale Loam to Haplar- Alkaline ly Rapid
Clay gids
Loam
Stoneham See Assoc. 10
82. Fluvents Flood Alluvium Sandy Fluvents 6O+ Ile Iº e 20-60 Low Rapid Slow Slight B Well
Plains & to Silty
Low Terraces Clay
O - 3% Loam
Haplaquolls Floor Alluvium Silty Hapla- 6O+ Ile I’e 20-60 Low Rapid Slow Slight B Well
Plains & Clay quolls
Low Terraces Loam
O - 3%
87. Weld Uplands Shale Silty Paleu- 60+ Moderate- 6O High Moderate- Slow Slight B Well
O - 3% Clay stolls ly Alkaline ly Slow
Loam
Baca & Wiley See Assoc. 9
92. Woden See Assoc. 54
Bresser 3 - 9% Slopes. See Assoc. 36
Bresser Footslopes Sandstone Sandy aridic 6O+ Neutral 6O Moderate- Moderate Rapid Moderate- D Well
9 - 25% & Shale Loam Argiu- ly High ly Severe
to Clay Stolls
Loam
TABLE C-l
SUMMARY OF SOIL CHARACTERISTICS
APPENDICES – C-7
Soil-T-
l Association TFosition. On
Ž
Numb gº Effective Water Erosion Hydrologic
&nd er, Name Landscape & Parent Taxonomy Depth Soil Root Depth Holding Perme- Surface Suscepti- Soil Soil
§§§ Components Slope Ranges Material Texture Class (Inches) Reaction (Inches) capacity ability Runoff bility Group Drainage
93. Haplargids Mesas & Sandstone Sandy tºº 60+ Moderate- Ile I’s High Moderate- Moderate Moderate B Well
& Camborthids Terraces & Shale Loam ly Alkaline
2 - 15% to Clay
Loam
97. Cryoborolls See Assoc. 5l
Haploborolls See Assoc. 52
Cryorthents Benches & Granite Sandy tº º 20-40 Neutral 2O Low Rapid Moderate- Severe C Well
Mtn. Slopes Loam ly Rapid -
15 - 50% gº
98. Cryoboralfs Mtn. Slopes Sandstone º 20-60 Slightly 2O High Moderate Moderate- n. r. C Well
15 - 50% & Shale acid to Low ly Rapid
loo. Ustic Uplands next Sediments Sandy • * > 6O+ Moderate- 6O Moderate- Moderate- Moderate Moderate B Well
Torriorthents to Foothills from shale Loam ly Alkaline ly High ly High
l - 9% & Sandstone
ll6. Similar to Assoc. 52
llg. Cryaquolls Flood Alluvium Loamy Q_º 60+ Med. Acid 10-50 Moderate- Moderate- Medium Slight B Some-
Plains ly High ly Slow what
O – 5% Poorly
l2O. Cryoborolls Mountain Ile I’e Loamy tº- 20-40 Med. Acid 4O+ High Moderate Iſle Iº e Moderate B Well
Slopes & Skeletal to Neutral
Fans
5 - 30%
Ariborolls Mountain n.r. Loam to tº 20-40 Med. Acid 20-60 High Slow to Ile Iº e Moderate B-C Well
Slopes & Clay Loam to Neutral Moderate
Fans
5 – 30%
l28. Cryaquepts Bottomland Ile Iſ e Ile Iº e gº n. r. h. r. 4O+ Seasonal Water Table at or Near Surface n. r. Very
O - 30% Poorly
Cryaquolls Bottomland Tl e Te Tl e Te Gº- The C e Tl e Te 40+ As Above, But Slightly Better Drained Tl e Te Verv
* = cy &
O 3% Poorly
133. Sanchez- Mtn. Slopes Sandstone Loamy Li thic 15 Neutral I ()-1 5 Very Moderately Rapid Severe C–D Well
Rock outcrop 5 – 357 Skeletal Futro- low Papid
boralfs
Maitland Footslopes Colluvium Sandy Mollic 60+ Slightly 40 High Moderately Rapid Severe B We ll
7 - 20% from Loam to Eutro- Acid to Rapid
Sands tone Clay boralf s Neutral
Loam
- Flenchado Mtn. Slopes Sandstone Loam to Typic 28 Medium 28 Low Moderately Rapid Severe C Well
30 – 60% Sandy Eutro- Acid Rapid
Loam bora lºfs
136. Bond- Mtn. Slopes Sandstone Sandy Lithic 10-20 Neutral 10–20 Low Moderately Rapid Moderate C Well
Rock outcrop 15 - 45% Loam to IJs tollic Slow
Sandy Ha plar-
Clay gids
Loam
Bond-Bresser See Assoc. 36
l:57. Cyroborolls- Mtn. Slopes Colluvial Loam to º 40-60 Slightly 20-40 Moderate Moderate Moderate- Moderate B Well
Rock Outcrop & High & Alluvial Clay Acid ly Rapid
Benches Mat. & Chryst- Loam
15 - 50% alline &
Sedimentary
Rocks
l e
58. Argiborolls Fans & Granite Sandy º 20-60 Neutral 20-60 Moderate Moderate Medium Moderate B Well
Rock Outcrop Valley Gneiss & Loam to
Side Slopes Schist Clay
15 - 50% Loam
l
59. Argiborolls Uplands, Yle Iº e Clay tºº 60+ Neutral 6O High Moderate Medium Moderate B Mod.
Benches & Loam Well
Terraces
2 - 20%
Ring See Assoc. 59
Sanchez- Slopes & Sandstone Stony Lithic 15 Neutral 12–15 Wery Moderate- Rapid Severe C-D Well
Rock outcrop Terraces Sandy Eutro- Low ly Rapid
35 - 65% Clay bo ralfs
Loam
l
40. Argiborolls See Assoc.
Eutroboralfs Side Slopes Sandstone Sandy Boralfs 10–60 Acid to 10–60 Low - Moderate Moderate Moderate C Well
& Rock & Footslopes & Shale Loam to Neutral High to Rapid to Rapid to Severe
Outcrop Clay
Loam
C-8 – ROYAL GORGE ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT
SUMMARY OF SOIL CHARACTERISTICS
TABLE
Soil Association Postion. On
Fffective
Water
Erosion Hydrologic
Number, Name Landscape & Parent Taxonomy Depth Soil Root Depth Holding Perme- Surface Suscepti- Soil Soil
and Components Slope Ranges Material Texture Class (Inches) Reaction (Inches) Capacity ability Runoff bility Group Drainage
147. Capulin Basalt Bassalt Loam to Aridic 60+ Moderately 60 High Moderate Moderate Moderate B Well
Mesa Tops Clay Loam Argui- Alkaline
0 - 2% stolls
Apache Side Slopes Bas salt Gravelly Lithic l 5 Moderately 15 Low Moderate Rapid Severe D Some-
15 - 30% Loam Haplus tolls Alkaline what
Excess-
ive
163. Kim See Assoc. 34
Scholle Uplands Alluvium Loam Us to 1 lic 60+ Moderately 20-60 High Moderate Moderate Moderate B-C Well
O – 9% to Clay Haplargids Alka line
Loam
Casca jo Uplands Gravelly Gravelly Us tollic 60+ Moderately l() Low Rapid Moderate- Low R Some-
5 – 20% outwash Loam Calcior- Alka line ly Slow what
thids Excess
ive
Raton Mesas & • * Clayey, Li thic 10–20 Mildly 10–2 () Mode r- Slow Moder- Moder- C Well
Benches Skeletal Argi– Alkaline a tely a tely ately
5 - 1.5% borolls High Rapid Severe
182. Ba rela Mesas & * * * Loan to Typic 20-40 Mildly ſle Iſ e High Moderate Moderate Moderate R Well
Benches Clay Argi– Alkaline
5 – 15% Loam
NOTE: n. r. - Not Rated
:
:
APPENDICES – D-1
APPENDIX D
Stream Profile Rating System
The "stream habitat inventory profile" is a system
for rating the condition of streams. Five factors are
Considered—stream cover, streambank condition,
Streambank stability, stream channel stability, and
Sedimentation of streambed. Aquatic resource
Specialists assign a numerical rating ranging from 1 to
* (4 being the highest or best rating) and the ratings of
all factors are combined. This numerical total is
"ntended to give an "average" score that gives a
9eneral picture of stream condition while taking into
*CCount variability among the separate factors.
A sample stream habitat inventory profile is shown
in Table D-1. Badger Creek has little shade, the banks
have large bare areas and are badly damaged, the
channel shows recent evidence of movement, and the
streambed contains large amounts of silt. Badger
Creek has a stream profile rating of “5” on the 4 miles
that were surveyed.
As profile ratings improve from poor to fair to good
to excellent, fish production also increases. Studies
indicate that in arid western states production has
improved as much as 570 percent between poor and
excellent.
The trend of a stream profile can be determined by
comparing 2 years of profile ratings. Streams in the EIS
area have been rated only once so far so no trend can
be determined using the profile rating system, but
TABLE D-1
STREAM HABITAT INVENTORY PROFILE
Stream Radaºx Creek Date whi/4 Surveyor (s) Pric Word
Planning Unit Ros |al Goxge. Site Number /
Field surveykó42A º URA
Aerial Photograph
aquatic resource specialists have determined apparent
trend by use of professional judgment and through
comparisons with adjacent riparian areas (Table D-2).
Impacts of Three Management Alternatives on
Aquatic Resources
Impacts of the Preferred Alternative are shown in
Table D-3, the Management Constraints Alternative in
Table D-4, and the Nonintensive Alternative in D-5. No
table was prepared for the No Action Alternative since
there would be no change in livestock management
and therefore no change in the condition of aquatic
resources. Neither was a table prepared for the
Elimination of Grazing Alternative since all streams
would improve to the limits of site potential. Only
Badger Creek and Grape Creek would not reach good
Or excellent condition.

State 40 Dist. 40.50
Length of Stream Surveyed 40 miſes
(Check One)

STREAM COWER - /n
(% Shade) 80% or more 4 60 to 80% 3 40 to 60% 2 | 40% or less (D
STREAMBANK CONDITION >
(%. Bare Soil) 5% or less 4 6 to 15% 3 16 to 25% 2 25% or more l/
STREAMBANK STABILITY : 7,
(% Bank Damage) 0 to 10% 4 : 20% or less ſ 3 40% or 1ess * 2 41% or more /
| i -
STREAM CHANNEL STABILITY * : TN
(% Channel Movement) 5% or less ; 4 6% to 10% 3 11 to 15% 2 16% or more (12
i * .
SEDIMENTATION OF STREAMBED ! .
(% Silt) | 10% or less 3 11 to 25% 2 26% or more (0.
Column Totals : . | 5.
Stream Condition Rating for Length of Stream Excellent 17 Good 14–15
Evaluated – (Enter Total score in appropriate space)
Fair 10–13
SUMMARY (Last page of inventory for each stream)
Field Inventory Total Number Stream Sites 4. O
Stream Condition Rating Number Miles:
Excellent O
Photo Interpretation Total Number Stream Miles Inventoried
Stream Condition Rating Number Miles:
`--
Excellent
Good | )
Goo H-
Poor 5-1 Q Ix (s)
Fair ( ) Poor ºl
Fair Poor
D-2 – ROYAL GORGE ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT
TABLE D-2
AQUATIC AND RIPARIAN PROFILE RATINGS ON STREAMS
IN ROYAL GORGE E. I. S. ARFA
Stream Miles or Lake
Surface Acres Profile Stability
Stream Name On Public Land Rating Rating
Arkans.2 s River 40 1/4 Good Stable
Colorado Gulch 3/4 Good Stable
Lake Fork 1/8 Excellent Stable
Rock Creek 1/4 Excellent Stable
Iowa Gulch 2 1/2 Good Stable
Twin Lakes 31 S. A. Good Stable
Clear Creek Reservoir 30 S. A. Good Stable
Low Pass Gulch 1 1/2 Excellent Stable
Two Bits Gulch 1/2 Good Stable
Tarryall Creek 3/4 Fair Declining
High Creek 1/3 PO Or Declining
High Creek Reservoir 10 S. A. Good Stable
Sheep Creek 1/4 Good Stable
Twelvemile Creek 1/4 PO Or Declining
Salt Creek 1/4 PO Or Declining
Antero Reservoir 50 S. A. Good Stable
Elevenmile Reservoir 80 S. A. Good Stable
Pruden Creek 1/4 PO Or Declining
Currant Creek 3 PO Or Declining
South Catamount Reservoir 5 S. A. Good Stable
North Catamount Reservoir 10 S. A. Good Stable
Box Canyon 2 1/2 Fair Declining
Fourmile Creek (Shelf Road Area) 3 1/4 PO or Declining
Skagway Reservoir 12 S. A. Good Stable
Beaver Creek 1/2 Fair Stable
Eightmile Creek 8 Fair Declining
Cottonwood Creek 6 Fair Declining
Tallahassee Creek 2 1/2 Poor Declining
Texas Creek 3 Fair Declining
Badger Creek 4 PO.Or Declining
Fourmile Creek (Buena Vista Area) 1/4 Fair Stable
Trout Creek 1/2 Good Stable
Green Creek 1/4 Good Declining
Pass Creek 1 1/2 Fair Improving
Little Coche topa Creek 1/2 Fair Stable
Poncha Creek l Good Stable
Bear Creek 3/8 Fair Stable
West Creek 1/8 PO Or Declining
Hamilton Creek 2 Fair Declining
Big Cottonwood Creek 3/4 Fair Declining
Hayden Creek 1/4 Good Stable
Grape Creek 10 Fair Declining
DeWeese Reservoir 4 S. A. Good Stable
N. Taylor Creek 1/2 Excellent Stable
M. Taylor Creek 1/2 Fxcellent Stable
Crystal Falls 1/2 Excellent Stable
JM Reservoir 18 S. A. Excellent Stable
Muddy Creek l Fair Stable
Wilson Reservoir 1 S. A. Excellent Stable
Huerfano River 1/4 Excellent Stable
Palo Duro Creek 3 1/4 Fair Declining
May Creek 1 1/4 Fair Declining
Pass Creek 1/8 PO Or Declining
N. Abeyta Creek 3 1/2 Fair Stable
S. Abeyta Creek 1/4 Fair Stable
APPENDICES – D-3
TABLE D-3
AQUATIC IMPACTS OF THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
Miles or Surface
Unit Stream or Acres of Public Short-term Impacts Long-term Impacts
Number Lake Name Land Impacted on Aquatic Resource On Aquatic Resource
l, 4, 8, 12, Arkansas River 40 1/4 Mi. No Change Rating of "good" would be retained
151, 190, 191,
193, 197, 198,
199,200,202,
203,206, 207,
223,224
5 Colorado Gulch 3/4 Mi. No Chage Rating of "good" would be retained
5 Lake Fork 1/8 Mi. No Change Rating of "excellent" would be
retained
5 Rock Creek 1/4 Mi. No Change Rating of "excellent" would be
retained
6 Iowa Gulch 2 1/2 Mi. No Change Rating of "good" would be retained
9 Twin Lakes 31 S. A. No Change Quality of habitat would be
maintained as "good"
11 Clear Creek 30 S. A. No Change Quality of habitat would be maintained
Reservoir as "good"
12 Low Pass Gulch 1 1/2 Mi. No Change Rating of "good" would be retained.
12 Two Bits Gulch 1/2 Mi. No Change Rating of "good" would be retained.
15 Tarryall Creek 3/4 Mi. Increase in cover and Rating would increase from "fair"
bank stability to "excellent"
34 High Creek 1/3 Mi. No Change Rating of "poor" would be retained
34 High Creek 10 S. A. No Change Quality of habitat would be maintained
Reservoir as "good"
41 Sheep Creek 1/4 Mi. No Change Rating of "fair" would be retained
44 Twelvemile 1/4 Mi. No Change Rating of "good" would be retained
Creek
46 Salt Creek 1/4 Mi. No Change Rating of "poor" would be retained
48 Antero Reservoir 50 S. A. No Change Quality of habitat would be maintained
as "good"
50 Elevenmile - 80 S. A. No Change Quality of habitat would be maintained
Reservoir as "good"
50 Pruden Creek 1/4 Mi. Increase in cover and Rating would increase from "poor"
bank stability to "good"
50A Elevenmile 30 S. A. No Change Quality of habitat would be maintained
Reservoir as "good"
68, 158, Currant Creek 3 Mi. No Change Rating of "poor" would be retained
189, 190
87 South Catamount 5 S. A. No Change Quality of habitat would be maintained
Reservoir as "good"
D-4 – ROYAL GORGE ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT
TABLE D-3
AQUATIC IMPACTS OF THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
Miles or Surface
Unit Stream or Acres of Public Short-term Impacts Long-term Impacts
Number Lake Name Land Impacted on Aquatic Resource On Aquatic Resource
87 North Catamount 10 S. A. No Change Quality of habitat would be maintained
Reservoir as "good"
97 Box Canyon 2 1/2 Mi. No Change Rating of "fair" would be retained
98, 99, 141, Fourmile Creek 3 1/4 Mi. No Change Rating of "poor" would be retained
147,148 (Shelf Road Area)
119 Skagway 12 S. A. No Change Quality of habitat would be maintained
Reservoir as "good"
127 Beaver Creek 1/2 Mi. No Change Rating of "fair" would be retained
1 38 Eightmile Creek 3 Mi. No Change Rating of "fair" would be retained
160, 184, Cottonwood 4 Mi. No Change Rating of "fair" would be retained
186 Creek
187 Cottonwood 2 Mi. No Change Rating of "fair" would be retained
Creek º
189 Tallahassee 1 1/4 Mi. No Change Rating of "poor" would be retained
Creek
190 Tallahassee 1 1/4 Mi. No Change Rating of "poor" would be retained
Creek
192 Texas Creek 3 Mi. No Change Some increase in bank stability.
Rating of "fair" would be retained
197 Badger Creek 4 Mi. No Change Rating of "poor" would be retained
204 Fourmile Creek 1/4 Mi. No Change Some increase in cover and bank
(Buena Vista Area) stability. Rating would increase
from "fair" to "good"
204 Trout Creek 1/2 Mi. Increase in cover and Rating of "good" would be retained
bank stability .
217 Green Creek 1/4 Mi. Some increase in Rating would increase from "fair"
cover and bank stability to "good" .
217 Pass Creek 1 1/2 Mi. Some increase in cover Rating would increase from "fair"
and bank stability to "good" º
218 Little Cochetopa 1/2 Mi. No Change Rating of "fair" would be retained *
Creek t
220 Poncha Creek 1 Mi. No Change Rating of "good" would be retained
223 Bear Creek 3/8 Mi. No Change Rating of "fair" would be retained
225 West Creek 1/8 Mi. No Change Rating of "poor" would be retained
227 Hamilton Creek 2 Mi. No Change Rating of "fair" would be retained .
229 Big Cottonwood 3/4 Mi. Increase in cover and Rating would increase from "fair" to "good".
bank stability
i
t
~.
APPENDICES – D-5
TABLE D-3
AQUATIC IMPACTS OF THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
Miles or Surface
Unit Stream or Acres of Public Short-term Impacts Long-term Impacts
Number Lake Name Land Impacted on Aquatic Resource On Aquatic Resource
229 Hayden Creek 1/4 Mi. No Change Rating of "good" would be retained.
237,238,243 Grape Creek 10 Mi. No Change Rating of "fair" would be retained
244 DeWeese 4 S. A. No Change Quality of habitat would be maintained
Reservoir as "good"
262 N. Taylor Creek 1/2 Mi. No Change Rating of "excellent" would be retained
262 M. Taylor Creek 1/2 Mi. No Change Rating of "excellent" would be retained
282 Crystal Falls 1/2 Mi. No Change Rating of "excellent" would be retained
Creek
284 JM Reservoir 18 S. A. No Change Quality of habitat would be maintained
as "excellent"
285 Muddy Creek 1 Mi. No Change Rating of "fair" would be retained
320,321 May Creek 1 1/4 Mi. No Change Rating of "fair" would be retained
323 Wilson Reservoir 1 Mi. No Change Quality of habitat would be maintained
as "excellent"
326 Huerfano River 1/4 Mi. No Change Rating of "excellent" would be retained
328,339 Palo Duro Creek 3 1/4 Mi. No Change Rating of "fair" would be retained
342 Pass Creek 1/8 Mi. No Change Rating of "poor" would be retained
353 N. Abeyta Creek 3 1/2 Mi. No Change Rating of "fair" would be retained
356 S. Abeyta Creek 1/4 Mi. No Change Rating of "fair" would be retained
TABLE D-4
AQUATIC IMPACTS OF THE MANAGEMENT CONSTRAINTS ALTERNATIVE
Miles or Surface
Unit Stream or Acres of Public Short-term Impacts Long-term Impacts
Number Lake Name Land Impacted on Aquatic Resource on Aquatic Resource
197 Badger Creek 4 Mi. Increase in bank stability Rating of "poor" will be retained
187 Cottonwood Creek l. 75 Mi. Reduced sediment and increase Rating would increase from "fair"
in cover and bank stability to "excellent"
155 Currant Creek 2.5 Mi. Reduced sediment and increase Rating would increase from "poor"
in cover and bank stability to "excellent"
141 Fourmile Creek 1.5 Mi. Reduced sediment and increase Rating would increase from "poor"
(Shelf Road Area) in cover and bank stability to "good"
243 Grape Creek 10 Mi. Some increase in cover and Rating of "fair" would be retained
bank stability
217 Green Creek . 25 Mi. Reduced sediment and increase Rating would increase from "good"
in cover and bank stability to "excellent"
D-6 — ROYAL GORGE ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT
TABLE D-4
AQUATIC IMPACTS OF THE MANAGEMENT CONSTRAINTS ALTERNATIVE
Miles or Surface
Unit Stream or Acres of Public Short-term Impacts Long-term Impacts
Number Lake Name Land Impacted on Aquatic Resource On Aquatic Resource
34 High Creek Reservoir 4.5 S. A. Some increase in cover and Quality of habitat would be maintained
shore stability as "good"
217 Pass Creek 1.5 Mi. Reduced sediment and increase Rating would increase from "fair"
in cover and bank stability to "excellent"
50 Pruden Creek . 25 Mi. Increase in cover and bank Rating would increase from "poor"
stability to "good"
15 Tarryall Creek . 75 Mi. Increase in cover and bank Rating would increase from "fair"
stability to "excellent"
192 Texas Creek 3. O Mi. Reduced sediment and increase Rating would increase from "fair"
in cover and bank stability to "excellent"
204 Trout Creek . 5 Mi. Increase in cover and bank Rating of "good" would be retained
stability
TABLE D-5
AQUATIC IMPACTS OF THE NONINTENSIVE ALTERNATIVE
Miles or Surface
Unit Stream or Acres of Public Short-term Impacts Long-term Impacts
Number Lake Name Land Impacted on Aquatic Resource on Aquatic Resource
197 Badger Creek 4 Mi. Increase in cover and bank Rating of "poor" would be
stability retained
187 Cottonwood Creek 1.75 Mi. Increase in cover and bank Rating would increase
stability from "fair" to "excellent"
155 Currant Creek 2.5 Mi. Reduced sediment and increase Rating would increase from "poor"
in cover and bank stability to "excellent"
141 Four:mile Creek 1.5 Mi. Reduced sediment and increase Rating would increase from "poor"
(Shelf Road Area) in cover and bank stability to "good"
243 Grape Creek 10 Mi. Some increase in cover and Rating of "fair" would be retained
bank stability
217 Green Creek . 25 Mi. Increase in cover and bank Rating would increase
stability from "good" to "excellent"
34 High Creek Reservoir 4.5 S. A. Some increase in cover and Rating would increase from "good"
shore stability to "excellent"
217 Pass Creek 1.5 Mi. Reduced sediment and increase Rating would increase from "fair"
in cover and bank stability to "excellent"
50 Pruden Creek . 25 Mi. Increase in cover and bank Rating would increase from "poor"
stability to "good"
15 Tarryall Creek . 75 Mi. Increase in cover and bank Rating would increase from "fair"
stability to "excellent"
192 Texas Creek 3.0 Mi. Reduced sediment and increase Rating would increase from "fair"
in cover and bank stability to "excellent"
204 Trout Creek .50 Mi. Increase in cover and bank Rating of "good" would be retained
stability
APPENDICES — E-1
APPENDIX E
Recreational Use Data
The following summaries of hunting data were
Collected with the assistance of the Colorado Division
Of Wildlife.
TABLE E-1
1977 BIG GAME HUNTING DATA
Total
Harvest Percent Harvest Visitor
in Of Total Oſl Percent Days on
Planning Statewide Visitor Public , of State . Public
Areal Harvest Days Lands2/ Harvest?/ Lands
Mule Deer (Rifle) 1,846 3.2 23, 145 225 0.4 2,777
Mule Deer (Archery) 59 3. 7 3,521 7 0.4 423
Elk (Rifle) 549 2. 1 11,923 109 0.4 2,384
Elk (Archery) 33 4. 9 2,268 6 1.0 453
Antelope 7 0. 1 61 l g- 12
Bighorn Sheep 26 37. O 489 13 18.5 245
Black Bear 54 8. 2 2,352 27 4. 1 1, 176
Mountain Lion 39 47. O __500 31 37. 6 400
Totals 44,259 7,870
TABLE E-2
1977 SMALL GAME HUNTING DATA
Total
Harvest Percent Harvest Visitor
in of Total O Il Percent Days on
Planning Statewide Visitor Public of State Public
Areak Harvest Days Lands?/ Harvest?/ Lands
Waterfowl 1,756 .03 3,895 17 gº 40
Dove 11,683 2. 3 3,370 1 17 gº 34
Pigeon, Band tail 967 59. 2 755 10 0.6 8
Turkey 24 4.0 1 15 4 * - 17
Pheasant 31 ... 07 63 l º l
Blue Grouse 887 3.9 1,605 9 *E= 16
Rabbit (Cottontail) 21,519 9. 6 24,914 11,835 4.8 13,702
Squirrel (Fox) 357 5. 7 979 36 0.6 98
Squirrel (Pine) 2,568 23 3,219 256 2. 3 321
Bobcat 88 21 28 26 6. 3 85
Coyote 784 3. 5 4,783 1 18 0. 5 717
Prairie Dog 3,863 1. 8 3,403 77 eº 68
Totals 47, 129 15, 107
l
/
Data Source:
2.
/
3.
/
percent)
Sour Ce:
Estimates, taken from Wildlife portion, URA III
1977 Colorado Big Game Harvest Statistics
Royal Gorge URA - Recreation Appendix – Visitor Use
Where dashes appear, percentage of state harvest is negligible (less than 0.05 .
E-2 — ROYAL GORGE ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT
TABLE E-3
1976 BIG GAME HUNTING DATA
Total
Harvest Percent Harvest Visitor
in of Total On Percent Days on
Planning Statewide Visitor Public of State Public
Area Harvest Days Landsl/ Harvest Lands
Mule Deer 857 2 5,571 48 0. 1 312
Elk . 190 0.1 3,629 9 tº- 172
Antelope 182 5 309 3 0. 1 5
Black Bear 32 6 2,047 _0 O —%
Totals 60 A89
1/ Estimates taken from Wildlife portion, URA III
TABLE E-4
1976 SMALL GAME HUNTING DATA
Total
Harvest Percent Harvest Visitor
in Of Total On Percent Days on
Planning Statewide Visitor Public of State Public
Area Harvest Days Landsl/ Harvest Lands
Duck 900 0.4 1, 170 8 O 10
Goose?/ 375 2 2,099 4 O 22
Turkey 290 66 1,305 8 2 36
Dove 18,252 3 5,577 609 0.1 18
Scaled Quail 2,052 16 537 21 0.2 l
Grouse 707 3 869 167 0.8 168
Rabbit 8,592 4 8,685 187 0. 1 189
Coyote 496 2 4,425 26 0.1 232
Prairie Dog 11,576 4 198 O O O
Pheasant 700 l 1, 197 20 tº º _34.
Totals 1,050 71
1/ Estimates taken from Wildlife portion, URA III
2/ 1974 data
Source: Raton Basin URA - Recreation Visitor Use
APPENDICES — F-1
APPENDIX F
Ranch Economics
The ranch economic analysis in this appendix is
based on a study conducted by the Range Science
Department at Colorado State University. The study
was funded by the State of Colorado, U.S. Forest
Service, and the Bureau of Land Management.
The study involved extensive survey work on 135
ranching operations in Colorado that graze livestock
on federally-owned lands. The survey method was
personal interview and the ranching operations were
randomly selected from all ranches in Colorado that
graze livestock on federally-owned lands.
The study divided Colorado into five regions, each
of which exhibited certain ranching characteristics.
A variety of ranch models was developed for each
region, depending upon size and livestock class
groupings evident from the survey work. The Royal
Gorge Grazing Environmental Impact Statement area
is in the southeast study region.
Linear programming techniques were applied to
the models in order to make estimates of gross
revenue, net revenue, property tax, and hired ranch
employment changes for this document.
The 93 EIS ranching operations which graze
livestock on public lands were grouped by size and
livestock class into the two ranch models. Present BLM
forage use and forage use reductions resulting from
the proposed action and alternatives were tracked
from each allotment to the individual ranching
operations. When these forage use considerations
involved common use allotments, a proration of use
among operators was made based on 1978 use
proportions. Private grazing lands within the
allotments were also considered in tracking forage use
changes to the ranching operations since their use is
regulated on a proportioned basis to BLM forage use
as a condition of the allotment program. Thus, any
combination of BLM forage use, whether it is on one or
several allotments or is of single or combined use or is
in combination with private land use, has been
associated with the respective ranching operations.
The BLM forage use, and, where appropriate,
associated private forage use, was used to identify the
average forage use and forage use changes which are
indicated in tables of this document. Average forage
use (in AUMs) numbers were applied to the two ranch
models to estimate ranch economic effects from BLM
forage use.
The ranch budgets for the two models follow
(Tables F-1 through 8). Certain operating expenses
such as ranch business and utilities were judged to be
relatively fixed and thus were not varied between the
levels of BLM forage use. Other expenses such as
marketing and veterinary were varied to accommodate
changes in herd size.
The present situation for each of the models was
used to estimate revenue levels per ranch and in
aggregate given existing BLM forage use levels for the
93 ranches. This information appears in Table 3-4.
Table 4-8 indicates the estimated reduction in
local property taxes that would be paid per ranch and
in total if livestock grazing on BLM lands were
eliminated. An estimation of local property tax
reductions based on changing values of ranch
livestock herds was made and included in the
document wherever appropriate.
A method similar to the above was used to estimate
changes in hired employment. Table 4–7 indicates the
reduction in person-years of hired employment per
TABLE F-1
CHANGES IN REVENUES
PREFERRED AND NONINTENSIVE ALTERNATIVES
ranch and in total as a result of elimination of livestock
grazing on public lands. An estimation of person-year
employment reductions based on changing ranch
livestock herds was made and included in the
document whenever appropriate.
All analysis is based on active use qualifications. It
is possible that actual forage use on an allotment may
vary as much as 10 percent below the indicated present
use levels indicated. Consequently, the economic
impacts indicated by the two ranch models may be
viewed as maximum impacts for each of the
alternatives.
Individual EIS area ranches may not exactly match
the budget displays for the ranch models. The models
are averages for the survey ranches in each category.
Nevertheless, overall impacts for respective categories
should be fairly accurate.
Recreation-Related Income
As wildlife habitat improves, wildlife populations
would be expected to increase. Increases in
populations would have impacts on recreation. Wildlife
viewing and hunting opportunities would increase and
while actual recreation days would not necessarily
increase in direct proportion, more people would be
expected to pursue recreational activities related to
wildlife in the EIS area (Tables F-9 through F-14).
Increases in activity would occur principally in
hunting and fishing with a concomitant increase
inexpenditures for goods and services associated with
hunting and fishing (bait stores, gun shops, motels,
gas stations, etc.). Prediction of the precise economic
result is difficult. For the purpose of this EIS, figures
from a 1973 study were adjusted to 1978 to derive
changes in sportsmen's expenditures relating to
changes in expected hunting and fishing days within
the resource area (Table F-15).
Per Operator Present Short-term Long-term
(Preferred Only)l/
Model: Cattle # 1 (0–199 Head)
Gross Revenue ($) 16,001 10, 564 13, 823
Total Operating
Cost ($) 15,744 14,444 15,546
Net Revenue2/ 257 –3,880 –1, 723
Model: Cattle #2 (200+ Head)
Gross Revenue ($) 129,908 119,638 125, 451
Total Operating
Cost ($) 92,408 89, 117 90,879
Net Revenue2/ 37,500 30,521 34,572
1/ Long-term impacts would be the same as short-term impacts under
the Nonintensive Alternative.
2/ Excludes depreciation and owner-operator labor costs.
F-2 — ROYAL GORGE ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT
TABLE F-2
OPERATING EXPENSES - PREFERRED AND NONINTENSIVE ALTERNATIVES
Region: Southeast
Model : Cattle # 1 (0–199 Head)
Number of Units/Total Expense .
Operating Expenses Unit Rate/Unit Present Short-term Long-termſ/
Taxes $ 1114 1 114 1114
Marketing Expenses $ 167 124 150
Ranch Business Š 167 167 167
J nterest on Production Š 674 499 607
General Supplies S 16 1 4 1614 1614
Utilities Š 729 729 729
Veterinary S 1 4 3 106 129
Insurance Š 433 433 433
Equipment Rental Š 14 14 14
Fuel - Lube Š 1443 1443 1443
Fence - Building Repair $ 350 350 350
Machine - Equipment Repair $ 1500 1500 1500
Custom Hire $ 1629 1629 1629
Fertilizer - Chemicals Š 629 629 629
Seed $ 86 86 86
Feed Purchases:
1. Alfalfa - Hay TOn 58 4.0/2.32 4/232 4/232
2. Supplement TOn 154 2. 1/323 2. 1/323 2. 1/323
3. Salt TOn 73 2.7/197 2.7/197 2.7/197
Trucking $ 136 101 122
Labor:
1. Manager Man-Yr. 89.52 .286/2560 . 216/1934 . 286/2560
2. Seasonal Man-Yr.
3. Temporary Man-Yr. .016/43 .016/43 .016/43
4. Annual Man-Yr.
Land Leases
1. Range AUM 6. 38 9. 15/58 9. 15/58 9. 15/58
2. Irrigated Pasture AUM 6.63 30.90/205 30.90/205 30.90/205
Grazing Fees:
1. Forest Service AUM 1.60 85. 20/136 85. 20/136 85. 20/136
2. BLM AUM 1.51 210/317 66/100 153/231
3. State AUM 3.11 3. 15/10 3. 15/10 3. 15/10
Yearling Calf Purchases Head 167 5/835 4/668 5/835
TOTAL 15,744 14,444 15,546
1/ Preferred Alternative only, short and long-term costs for the Nonintensive
Alternative are the same.
APPENDICES — F-3
TABLE F-3
OPERATING EXPENSES - PREFERRED AND NONINTENSIVE ALTERNATIVES
Region: Southeast
Model : Cattle #2 (200+ Head)
Number of Units/Total Expense .
Operating Expenses Unit Rate/Unit Present Short-term Long-terml/
Taxes $ 5300 5300 5300
Marketing Expenses $ 200 190 198
Ranch Business $ 2960 2960 2960
Interest on Production Š 1838 1746 1820
General Supplies Š 5540 5540 5540
Utilities $ 252O 2520 252O
Veterinary $ 2420 2229 23.48
Insurance $ 2800 2800 2800
Equipment Rental $ O O O
Fuel - Lube Š 4.860 4.860 4.860
Fence - Building Repair Š 1400 1400 1400
Machine - Equipment Repair Š 2200 2200 2200
Custom Hire Š 680 680 680
Fertilizer - Chemicals Š 2400 2400 2400
Seed Š 200 200 200
Feed Purchases:
1. Alfalfa - Hay TOn 58 285/165.30 285/165.30 285/16530
2. Supplement TOn 154 22/3380 22/3388 22/3388
3. Salt TOn 73 7. 3/ 533 7.3/533 7.3/533
4. Grain TOn 1.90 148/281 148/281 148/281
Trucking Š 71 1 675 704
Labor:
1. Manager Man-Yr. 8952 . 125/1 119 .065/582 . 119/1065
2. Seasonal Man-Yr. 3444 .09.4/324 .034/117 . O89/307
3. Temporary Man-Yr. 6,386 .044/281 O/O .04.2/145
4. Annual Man-Yr. 6960 1.75/12 180 1.66/11554 1.69/11762
Land Leases
1. Range AUM 6. 38 355. 50/2268 355.50/2268 355.50/2268
2. Irrigated Pasture AUM 6. 63 110. 40/732 110. 40/732 110. 40/732
Grazing Fees:
1. Forest Service AUM 1. 60 1771. 35/2834 1771. 35/2834 1771. 35/2834
2. BLM AUM 1.51 316/477 1 1 1/168 225/340
3. State AUM 3. 11 236.65/736 236.65/736 236.65/736
Yearling Calf Purchases Head 167 88/14696 82/13694 84/14028
TOTAL 92,408 89, 117 90,879
l/ Preferred Alternative only, short and long-term costs for the Nonintensive
Alternative are the same.
E-4 – ROYAL GORGE ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT
TABLE F-4
CHANGES IN REVENUES
MANAGEMENT CONSTRAINTS AND ELIMINATION ALTERNATIVES
Management Constraints
Short-term Long-term
Elimination
Short & Long-term
Per Operator
Model: Cattle # 1 (0 – 199 Head)
Gross Revenue ($) 9, 186 10,340 8, 107
Total Operating
Cost ($ ) 14,007 14,420 13,777
Net Revenuel/ –4,821 –4,080 –5, 670
Model: Cattle #2 (200+ Head)
Gross Revenue ($) 116,616 1 18, 204 113,713
Total Operating
Cost (S) 93,779 94,249 86,205
Net Revenue1/ (s) 22,837 23,955 27,508
1/ Excludes depreciation and owner-operator labor costs.
TABLE F-5
OPERATING EXPENSES - ELIMINATION OF GRAZING ALTERNATIVE
Region: Southeast
Model : Cattle # 1 (0–199 Head)
Number of Units/Total Expense
Operating Expenses Unit Rate/Unit Present Short & Long-term
Taxes S 1 114 1 114
Marketing Expenses S 167 105
Ranch Business $ 167 167
Interest on Production S 674 4.25
General Supplies S 16 1 4 1614
Utilities S 729 729
Veterinary $ 143 90
Insurance S 4.33 433
Equipment Rental S 14 14
Fuel - Lube $ 1443 1443
Fence - Building Repair S 350 350
Machine - Equipment Repair S 1500 1500
Custom Hire S 1629 1629
Fertilizer - Chemicals S 629 629
Seed S 86 86
Feed Purchases:
1. Alfalfa - Hay TOn 58 4.0/2.32 232
2. Supplement TOn 154 2. 1/323 323
3. Salt TOn 73 2.7/197 197
Trucking $ 136 86
Labor:
1. Manager Man-Yr. 89.52 . 286/2560 . 18/161 l
2. Seasonal Man-Yr.
3. Temporary Man-Yr. .016/43 .01/90
4. Annual Man-Yr.
Land Leases
1. Range AUM 6. 38 9. 15/58 9. 15/58
2. Irrigated Pasture AUM 6. 38 30.90/205 30.90/205
Grazing Fees:
1. Forest Service AUM 1. 60 85. 20/136 85. 20/136
2. BLM AUM 1. 5.1 210/317 0/0
3. State AUM 3. 11 3. 15/10 3. 15/10
Yearling Calf Purchases Head 167 5/835 3/501
TOTAL 15,744 13,777
APPENDICES — F-5
TABLE F-6
OPERATING EXPENSES - ELIMINATION OF GRAZING ALTERNATIVE
Region: Southeast
Model :
Cattle #2 (200+ Head)
Number of Units/Total Expense
Operating Expenses Unit Rate/Unit Present Short & Long-term
Taxes $ 5300 5300
Marketing Expenses $ 200 180
Ranch Business $ 2960 2960
Interest on Production $ 1838 1654
General Supplies $ 5540 5540
Utilities $ 2520 2520
Veterinary $ 24.20 21.78
Insurance $ 2800 2800
Equipment Rental $ O O
Fuel - Lube $ 4860 4860
Fence - Building Repair S 1400 1400
Machine - Equipment Repair $ 2200 2200
Custom Hire S 680 680
Fertilizer - Chemicals $ 2400 2400
Seed S 200 200
Feed Purchases:
1. Alfalfa - Hay Ton 58 285/165.30 285/165.30
2. Supplement Ton 154 22/3380 22/3388
3. Salt TOn 73 7. 3/ 533 7. 3/ 533
4. Grain Ton 1 - 90 148/281 148/281
Trucking S 711 640
Labor:
1. Manager Man-Yr. 89.52 . 125/1 119 . 1 1/985
2. Seasonal Man-Yr. .09.4/324 .08/276
3. Temporary Man-Yr. .044/281 . 04/1 38
4. Annual Man-Yr. 1.75/12 18O 1.58/10996
Land Leases
1. Range AUM 6. 38 355.5/2268 355.5/2268
2. Irrigated Pasture AUM 6. 38 1 10.4/732 1 10.4/732
Grazing Fees:
1. Forest Service AUM 1. 60 1771.35/2834 1771. 35/28
2. BLM AUM 1.5 l 316/477 0/0
3. State {JM 3. 11 236.65/736 236.65/736
Yearling Calf Purchases Head 167 88/14696 79/13 193
TOTAL 92,408 86,205
TABLF F-7
OPERATING FXPENSES - MANAGEMENT CONSTRAINT ALTERNATIVE
Region: Southeast
Model : Cattle #1 (0–199 Head)
Number of Units/Total Expense
Operating Expenses Unit Rate/Unit Present Short-term Long-term
Taxes S 1 l l 4 1 114 1 114
Marketing Expenses $ 167 1 14 122
Ranch Business $ 167 167 167
Interest on Production S 674 458 492
General Supplies S 16 1 4 1614 16 1 4
Utilities S 729 729 729
Veterinary S 1 4 3 Q7 104
Insurance $ 4 33 433 433
Fouipment Rental S 14 14 14
Fuel - Lube S 1443 1443 144 3
Fence - Building Repair S 350 350 350
Machine - Equipment Repair S 1500 1500 1500
Custom Hire S 1629 1629 1629
Fertilizer - Chemicals S 629 629 629
Seed S 86 86 86
Feed Purchases:
1. Alfalfa – Hay TOn 58 4.0/2.32 232 232
2. Supplement Ton 154 2. 1/323 323 323
3. Salt TOn 73 2.7/197 197 197
Trucking S 136 Q2 99
Labor:
1. Manager Man-Yr. 89.52 . 286/2560 . 194/1737 .209/1871
2. Seasonal Man-Yr.
3. Temporary Man-Yr. .016/43 ... O l l /98 . 012/107
4. Annual Man—Yr.
Land Leases
1. Range AUM 6. 38 9. 15/58 9. 15/58 9. 15/58
2. Irrigated Pasture AUM 6.63 30.90/205 30.90/205 30.90/205
Grazing Fees:
1. Forest Service AUM 1. 60 85. 20/136 85. 20/136 85. 20/136
2. BLM AUM 1. 5.1 210/317 27/4 1 58/88
3. State AUM 3. l 1 3. 15/10 3. 15/10 3. 15/10
Yearling Calf Purchases Head 167 5/835 4/501 4/668
TOTAL 15,744 14,007 14,420
F-6
Region:
Model :
Southeast
Cattle #2 (200+ Head)
— ROYAL GORGE ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT
TABLE F-8
OPERATING EXPENSES - MANAGEMENT CONSTRAINT ALTERNATIVES
Number of Units/Total Expense
Operating Expenses Unit Rate/Unit Present Short-term Long-term
Taxes $ 5300 5300 5300
Marketing Expenses $ 200 184 186
Ranch Business S 2960 2960 2960
Interest on Production S 1838 6226 6334
General Supplies $ 554() 5540 5540
Utilities S 2520 2520 2520
Veterinary $ 24.20 2266 2251
Insurance S 2800 2800 2800
Fouipment Rental S O O O
Fuel - Lube $ 4860 4860 4.860
Fence - Building Repair S 1 400 1400 1 400
Machine - Equipment Repair Š 2200 2200 2200
Custom Hire S 680 680 680
Fertilizer - Chemicals S 2400 2400 2400
Seed S 200 200 200
Feed Purchases:
1. Alfalfa - Hay TO n 58 285/165.30 285/165.30 285/165.30
2. Supplement TOn 154 22/3380 22/3388 22/3388
2. Salt TOn 73 7.3/533 7. 3/ 533 7. 3/ 533
4. Grain TOn 1 - 90 148/281 148/281 148/281
Trucking S 71 1 654 66 1
Labor:
1. Manager Man-Yr. 8952 . 125/1 l 19 . 115/l 029 ... l 16/1038
2. Seasonal Man-Yr. .094/324 .086/.296 .087/300
3. Temporary Man-Yr. .044/281 . 040/1 38 .04 1/l 4 l
4. Annual Man-Yr. 1. 75 / 12 180 1.61 / 1 1206 1.63/1 1345
Land Leases
l. Range AUM 6. 38 355. 50/2268 355.50/2268 355. 50/226
2. Irrigated Pasture AUM 6. 63 1 10. 40/732 1 10.40/732 l 10.40/732
Grazing Fees:
1. Forest Service AUM 1. 60 1771. 35/2834 1771. 35/2834 1771. 35/28
2. BLM AUM l. 51 316/477 60/91 91 / 1.37
3. State AUM 3. l 1 236. 6.5/736 236. 6.5/736 236.65/736
Yearling Calf Purchases Head 167 88/14696 81/13527 82/13694
TOTAL 92,408 93,779 94,249
TABLE F-9
PER CAPITA SPORTSMAN EXPENDITURES
IN COLORADO BY ACTIVITY PARTICIPATION
IN 1973 AND INDEXED TO 1978
Total Per Capita Per Capitalſ
Activity (1973) (1973) (1978)
Deer $ 47,613,608 $264. 36 $388. 10
Elk $ 36, 361,218 $3 13.49 $460. 22
Sheep $ 79,754 $538.88 $791. 11
Hunting (Total) $ 85,054,580
Fishing $215,443,254 $358. 29 $525.99
Hunting and Fishing $299, 497,834
l/ Derived by projecting per capita expenditures using
Consumer Price Index (1967=100; 1978=195. 4.)
Source: Ross, L.A., D. M. Blood, and K. G. Nobe, 1975. A survey
of Sportsmen Expenditures for Hunting and Fishing In
Colorado, 1973, Dept. of Econ. , Colorado State University,
Ft Collins, Colorado NRE-20
APPENDICES — F-7
NUMBER OF HUNTING AND FISHING DAYS
PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE,
TABLE F-10
LONG TERM
Contribution
To Sportsmen
Expenditures
Intensive Percent With in the
Baseline Management Change Change F.I.S Area (1978)
Deer $ 3,512 $ 4,565 $1,053 30 $139,716
Elk 3,009 3,279 270 9 25,772
Sheep 245 382 137 56 __ ] ,076
Hunting (Total) $ 6,766 $ 8,226 $1,460 22 $176,564
Fishing $122,620 $123,620 $1,000 l § 36,560
Hunting and Fishing $129,386 $131,846 $2,460 2 $213, 133
TABLE F-11
NUMBER OF HUNTING AND FISHING DAYs
No Act ION, LONG TERM
<-------->|-> gº ºsºs -------------------------------ºrrºr;---
To Sportsmon
fxpenditures
Percent "With in the
Raseline *No Action Change Change E IS Area (1978)
Deer S 3,512 $ 3, 212 $ –300 –9 S-39, 974
Elk 3,009 2,959 – 50 2 — 4,602
Sheep 245 —“” —--- () —-------
Hunting (Total) $ 6,766 $ 6,416 $ -350 -5 S-44, 576
Fishing $122,624) $122,620 S –– () $ tº ſº
ilunting and Fishing $129,386 $129,036 S -350 () S-44, 576
TABLE F-12
NUMBER OF HUNTING AND FISHING DAYS
ELIMINATION OF GRAZING, LONG TERM
Contri Sution T
To Sportsmen
Fxpenditures
Elimination Percent With in the
Baseline of Grazing Change Change FIS Area (1978)
Deer $ 3,512 $ 4,412 $ 900 26 $119,535
Elk 3,009 3,359 350 12 33,596
Sheep 245 385 140 57 11,867
Hunting (Total) $ 6,766 $ 8, 156 $ 1,390 21 $164,998
Fishing $122,620 $135,000 $12,380 1() $452,351
Hunting and Fishing $129,386 $143, 156 s13,770 1 I $617,349
F-8 – ROYAL GORGE ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT
TABLE F-13
NUMBER OF HUNTING AND FISHING DAYS
MANAGEMENT CONSTRAINTS, LONG TERM
Contribution
To Sportsmen
Expenditures
Management Percent Within the
Baseline Constraints Change Change EIS Area (1978)
Deer $ 3,512 $ 4,962 $1,450 41 $192,498
Elk 3,009 3,379 370 12 25,772
Sheep 245 430 185 76 15,031
Hunting (Total) $ 6,766 $ 8,771 $2,005 30 $233,301
Fishing $122,620 $129,620 $7,000 6 $225,631
Hunting and Fishing $129,386 $138,391 $9,005 7 $458,932
TABLE F-14
NUMBER OF HUNTING AND FISHING DAYS
NONINTENSIVE ALTERNATIVE, LONG TERM
Contribution
To Sportsmen
Expenditures
Nonintensive Percent Within the
Baseline Management Change Change EIS Area (1978)
Deer $ 3,512 $ 4, 212 $ 700 20 $ 92,756
Elk 3,009 3,259 250 8 23,931
Sheep 245 355 1 10 45 9,493
Hunting (Total) $ 6,766 $ 7,826 $1,060 16 $126, 180
Fishing $122,620 $127,530 $4,910 4 $179,363
Hunting and Fishing $129,386 $135,356 $5,970 5 $305,543
TABLE F-15
CALCULATIONS USED TO DERIVE
REGIONAL SPORTSMEN EXPENDITURES
1. Change in Number of Hunting Days X
Days per Animal Harvested
Average Number of Hunters
per Animal Harvested
Total Sportsmen Expenditures
in Region to Hunting Activity
X Per Capita Sportsman Expenditures
in Region (1978 Dollars)
2. Change in Number of Fishing Days X
Average Number of Days Fished
per Fisherman
Per Capita Sportsman
Expenditures in Region
(1978 Dollars)
= Total Sportsmen Expenditures in Region to Fishing Activity
APPENDICES - G-1
APPENDIX G
Runoff and Peak Flows
wn." estimates for Table G-1 were made by
}. the method in BLM Manual, Sections 78313 and
meth (the SCS Flood Hydrograph Method). The
basi Od uses precipitation, SOils, ground cover, and
Wer ^ Characteristics as variables. Precipitation values
is © taken from weather bureau maps showing
°Pluvials of rainfall of various return periods. The 10-
* 6-hour storm was selected as a rainfall that is not
Und y rare, yet sufficient to produce substantial runoff
w. most watershed conditions. Soils information
obtained from Soil Conservation Service maps.
... Cover was taken from the 1978 range survey
to . from watershed surveys conducted from 1973
Dre 76. Predicted changes in runoff were based on
dicted changes in ground cover for each
*ternative.
*c Procedure for Estimating sediment yield
Sediment estimates were made using the method
*loped by the Pacific Southwest Interagency
'"mittee, water Management Subcommittee,
*mentation Task Force (the PSAC method) with
modifications found in BLM Manual, Section 7317. The
variables required by this method were obtained from
the Sources mentioned above.
The material that follows was used in the
evaluation of sediment yield. It was originally prepared
by the Sedimentation Task Force, PSIAC, in October
1968 for use in the Pacific Southwest area. It is,
however, equally applicable to all areas administered
by BLM in the Western States. This procedure is
intended as an aid to the evaluation of sediment yield
for the variety of conditions in this area.
Nine factors are considered in estimating the
sediment yield. These are geology, soils, climate,
runoff, topography, ground cover, land use, upland
erosion and channel erosion, and sediment transport.
The sediment yield characteristics of each factor are
assigned a numerical value representing its relative
significance in the yield rating. The numerical values
are summed and this yield rating compared to the
Sediment Yield Classification Table (G-2) to determine
sediment yield in acre-feet per square mile or in tons
per acre.
The factors are generally described, for the
purposes of avoiding complexity, as independently
influencing the amount of Seidment yield. In reality,
TABLE G-1
EXPECTED CHANGES IN
BY INTENSIVE MANAGEMENT UNITl/
this is not the case. The variable impact of any one
factor is the result of influence by the others. To
account for this variable influence in this procedure
would require intensive investigational procedures not
desirable for the intended purposes.
Ground cover is used as an example to indicate the
interdependence of these factors. If there is no
vegetation, litter, or rock fragments
protecting the surface, the rock, soil, and topography
express their uniqueness on erosion and sediment
yield. If the surface is very well protected by cover, the
characteristics of the other factors are obscured by this
circumstance. In similar vein, an arid region has a high
potential for erosion and sediment yield because of
little or no ground cover, sensitive soils, and rugged
topography. Given very low intensity rainfall and rare
intervals of runoff, the sediment yield could be quite
|OW.
Each of the nine factors on Form 73.10–16 are
paired influences with the exception of topography.
That is, geology and soils are directly related as are
climate and runoff, ground cover and land use, and
upland and channel erosion. Ground COver and land
use have a negative influence under average or better
conditions. Their impact on sediment yield is therefore
indicated as a negative influence when affording better
protection than this average.
RUNOFF VOLUMES, PEAK FLOW, AND SEDIMENT YIELD
Unit 1
Vol. Percent Peak Percent Sediment Percent
AF.2/ Change cSM3/ Change Yield*/ Change
Existing 11.2 54 . 26
Preferred 11.2 O 54 O . 26 O
No Action 11.2 O 54 O . 26 O
Elimination 11.2 O 54 O . 26 O
Constraints 11.2 O 54 O .26 O
Non-Intens. 11.2 O 54 O . 26 O
Unit 2
Vol. Percent Peak Percent Sediment Percent
AF.2/ Change CSM3/ Change Yield*/ Change
Existing 3. 8 18 - 18
Preferred 3. 8 O 18 O - 18 O
No Action 3.8 O 18 O . 18 ()
Elimination 3. 8 O 18 O . 18 O
Constraints 3. 8 O 18 O . 18 O
Non-Intens. 3.8 O 18 O . 18 O
1/ Elimination of Grazing units are included.
2/ Volume in acre-feet-per year.
3/ Peak Flow in cubic feet-per second-per square mile of area.
4./ Sediment yield in tons—per acre-per year.
G-2 — ROYAL GORGE ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT
TABLE G-1
EXPECTED CHANGES IN
RUNOFF VOLUMES, PEAK FLOW, AND SEDIMENT YIELD
BY INTENSIVE MANAGEMENT UNIT1/
Unit 5 -
Vol. Percent Peak Percent Sediment Percent
AF.2/ Change cSM3/ Change Yield*/ Change
Existing 11.2 54 . 22
Preferred 11.2 O 54 O .22 O
No Action 11.2 O 54 O . 22 O
Elimination 11.2 O 54 O .22 O
Constraints 11.2 O 54 O • 22 O
Non-Intens. 11.2 O 54 O . 22 O
Unit 12
Vol. Percent Peak Percent Sediment Percent
AF.2/ Change cSM3/ Change Yield*/ Change
Existing 10.4 49 . 32
Preferred 10.2 -2 49 O • 38 +19
No Action 10.4 O 49 O • 35 +9
Elimination 9.3 - 1 1 44 - 10 • 16 –50
Constraints 10.2 –2 49 O • 38 + 19
Non-Intens • 10.2 –2 49 O . 40 +25
Unit 23
Wol. Percent Peak Percent Sediment Percent
AF.2/ Change cSM3/ Change Yield*/ Change
Existing 2.6 11.5 • 32
No Action 2.6 O 11.5 O .31 –3
Elimination 2. l — 19 9.2 –20 • 18 –44
Constraints 2. l - 19 9. 2 –20 .26 - 19
Unit 23 (Plowed)
Vol. Percent Peak Percent Sediment Percent
AF.2/ Change cSM3/ Change Yield*/ Change
Existing 2.6 11.5 . 38
Long-Term 2. 1 — 19 9, 2 –20 . 36 –5
APPENDICES — G-3
TABLE G-1
EXPECTED CHANGES IN
RUNOFF VOLUMES, PEAK FLOW, AND SEDIMENT YIELD
BY INTENSIVE MANAGEMENT UNITl/
Unit 50A
Vol. Percent Peak Percent Sediment Percent
AF.2/ Change cSM3/ Change Yield*/ Change
Existing 25. 1 151 .24
Preferred 25. 1 O 151 O . 24 O
No Action 25. 1 O 151 O .24 O
Elimination 25. 1 O 151 O .24 O
Constraints 25. 1 O 151 O . 24 O
Non-Intens. 25. 1 O 151 - O . 24 O
Unit 58
Vol. Percent Peak Percent Sediment Percent
AF.2/ Change CSM3/ Change Yield*/ Change
Existing 10. 7 51 .48
Preferred 10.4 –3 51 O .40 — 1 7
No Action 10. 7 O 51 O . 48 O
Elimination 9.8 –8 46 – 10 . 24 –50
Constraints 10.4 –3 51 O .40 – 17
Non-Intens. 10.4 –3 51 O .40 – 17
Unit 61
Vol. Percent Peak Percent Sediment Percent
AF.2/ Change cSM3/ Change Yield*/ Change
Existing 15.0 72 .56
Preferred 14.6 –3 69 –4 .46 - 18
No Action 15.0 O 72 O . 56 O
Elimination 13. 8 –8 67 –7 • 29 –48
Constraints 14.6 –3 69 –4 .46 – 18
Non-Intens . 14.6 –3 69 –4 .48 – 14
Unit 66
Vol. Percent Peak Percent Sediment Percent
AF.2/ Change cSM3/ Change Yield*/ Change
Existing 19.2 94 .63
Preferred 19.2 O 93 - 1 .46 –27
No Action 19.2 O 94 O . 68 +8
Elimination 18. 1 –6 88 –6 • 20 –68
Constraints 19.2 O 93 - 1 • 23 –58
G-4 – ROYAL GORGE ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT
TABLE G-1
EXPECTED CHANGES IN
RUNOFF VOLUMES, PEAK FLOW, AND SEDIMENT YIELD
BY INTENSIVE MANAGEMENT UNITl/
Unit 68
Vol. Percent Peak Percent Sediment Percent
AF.2/ Change cSM3/ Change Yieldé/ Change
Existing 19.2 94 .63
Preferred 19. 2 O 93 – 1 .46 –27
No Action 19. 2 O 94 O .68 +8
Elimination 18. 1 –6 88 –6 . 20 –68
Constraints 19 - 2 O 93 - 1 • 23 –58
Non-Intens. 19.2 O 93 — 1 .48 –24
Unit 75
Vol. Percent Peak Percent Sediment Percent
AF.2/ Change CSM3/ Change Yield*/ Change
Existing 24.4 1 18 .44
Preferred 24.3 -. 4 118 O .40 –9
No Action 24.4 O 118 O .44 O
Elimination 24.2 – 1 116 –2 . 24 –45
Constraints 24.3 -. 4 1 18 O .40 –9
Non-Intens. 24.2 – 1 116 –2 .42 –5
Unit 87
Vol. Percent Peak Percent Sediment Percent
AF.2/ Change cSM3/ Change Yield*/ Change
Existing 20.8 100 . 27
Preferred 20.8 O 100 O . 27 O
No Action 20.8 O 100 O . 27 O
Elimination 20.8 O 100 O . 27 O
Constraints 20.8 O 100 O . 27 O
Non-Intens. 20.8 O 100 O . 27 O
Unit 91
Vol. Percent Peak Percent Sediment Percent
AF.2/ Change cSM3/ Change Yield*/ Change
Existing 19 - 5 95 . 52
Preferred 19. 1 –2 93 –2 .42 — 19
No Action 19.5 O 95 O .52 O
Elimination 17.8 –9 85 – 11 • 18 –65
Constraints 18.9 –3 90 –5 • 18 -65
Non-Intens. 19.5 O 95 O . 52 O
APPENDICES — G-5
TABLE G-1
EXPECTED CHANGES IN
RUNOFF VOLUMES, PEAK FLOW, AND SEDIMENT YIELD
BY INTENSIVE MANAGEMENT UNIT1/
Unit 95
Vol. Percent Peak Percent Sediment Percent
AF.2/ Change CSM3/ Change Yield*/ Change
Existing 26.7 128 . 53
Preferred 26.4 - 1 128 O . 40 —25
No Action 26.7 O 128 O . 53 O
Elimination 25.6 –4 123 –4 • 18 –66
Constraints 26.4 - 1 128 O .40 —25
Non-Intens. 26.6 - .. 3 128 O .42 –21
Unit 97
Wol. Percent Peak Percent Sediment Percent
AF.2/ Change cSM3/ Change Yield*/ Change
Existing 23.8 116 • 63
Preferred 23.5 - 1 113 –3 . 48 –24
No Action 23.8 O 116 O .63 O
Elimination 22.3 –6 108 –7 • 21 -67
Constraints 23.5 - 1 1 13 –3 . 48 –24
Non-Intens. 23.8 O 116 O .50 –21
Unit 99
Wol. Percent Peak Percent Sediment Percent
.2 Change cSM3/ Change Yield*/ Change
Existing 22.7 1 11 . 48
Preferred 22.6 -- 4 108 –3 .46 –4
No Action 22.7 O 111 O • 52 +8
Elimination 22.2 -2 108 –3 • 20 –58
Constraints 22.2 –2 108 –3 • 20 –58
Non-Intens. 22.6 -. 4 108 -3 .46 -4
Unit 105
Vol. Percent Peak Percent Sediment Percent
.2 Change cSM3/ Change Yield*/ Change
Existing 19.6 95 • 55
Preferred 19.2 –2 93 –2 .44 –20
No Action 19.6 O 95 O • 58 +5
Elimination 17.8 –9 85 - 11 • 19 –65
Constraints 17.8 –9 85 - 11 • 19 –65
Non-Intens. 19.5 - 1 95 O • 46 – 16
G-6 — ROYAL GORGE ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT
BY INTENSIVE MANAGEMENT UNIT1/
TABLE G-1
EXPECTED CHANGES IN
RUNOFF VOLUMES, PEAK FLOW, AND SEDIMENT YIELD
Unit 126
Vol. Percent Peak Percent Sediment Percent
AF.2/ Change CSM3/ Change Yield*/ Change
Existing 17. 5 85 . 48
Preferred 16.8 –4 80 –6 . 36 —25
No Action 17. 5 O 85 O . 48 O
Elimination 12.6 –28 62 –27 . 18 –63
Constraints 16.8 –4 80 –6 . 36 —25
Non-Intens. 17.2 –2 82 –4 . 36 —25
Unit 128
Vol. Percent Peak Percent Sediment Percent
AF.2/ Change cSM3/ Change Yield*/ Change
Existing 21.9 105 2 .46 O
Preferred 21.5 2 103 –2 .31 –33
No Action 21.6 l 103 –2 .46 O
Elimination 18.5 16 90 -14 . 18 –61
Constraints 21.6 l 103 –2 . 18 –61
Non-Intens. 21.6 l 103 –2 . 31 –33
Unit 133 Box Canyon
Vol. Percent Peak Percent Sediment Percent
.2/ Change CSM3/ Change Yield*/ Change
Existing 33.8 163 . 40
Preferred 32.8 3 161 - 1 . 31 –23
No Action 33.8 O 163 O .40 O
Elimination 27 - 3 19 131 –20 • 16 –60
Constraints 32.8 3 * 16.1 – 1 . 31 –23
Non-Intens. 33.8 O 163 O . 31 –23
Unit 133 Underhill Gulch
Vol. Percent Peak Percent Sediment Percent
AF.2/ Change CSM3/ Change Yield*/ Change
Existing 37.5 217 . 56
Preferred 36.4 3 206 –5 .42 —25
No Action 37.5 O 217 O . 56 O
Elimination 29.8 21 148 –32 • 23 –59
Constraints 36.4 3 206 –5 .42 —25
Non-Intens. 36.4 3 206 –5 .42 –25
APPEND|CES — G-7
TABLE G-1
EXPECTED CHANGES IN
RUNOFF VOLUMES, PEAK FLOW, AND SEDIMENT YIELD
BY INTENSIVE MANAGEMENT UNITl/
Unit 136
Vol. Percent Peak Percent Sediment Percent
AF.2/ Change cSM3/ Change Yield*/ Change
Existing 30.6 177 .82
Preferred 29. 6 –3 167 –6 . 58 –29
No Action 30.6 O 177 O . 87 +6
Elimination 24.0 –28 1 19 –33 . 24 –71
Constraints 24.0 –28 119 –33 . 24 –71
Non-Intens . 29. 6 –3 167 • —6 . 58 –29
Unit 137
Vol. Percent Peak Percent Sediment Percent
AF.2/ Change CSM3/ Change Yield*/ Change
Existing 21.8 106 - 68
Preferred 21.2 –3 103 –3 . 48 –29
No Action 21.8 O 106 O . 73 +7
Elimination 17.3 –21 85 –20 . 20 –71
Constraints 17.3 –21 85 –20 . 20 –71
Non-Intens. 21.8 O 106 O . 52 –24
Unit 138
Wol. Percent Peak Percent Sediment Percent
AF.2/ Change CSM3/ Change Yield*/ Change
Existing 20.0 95 . 38
Preferred 19.2 –4 90 –5 . 31 – 18
No Action 20. 0 O 95 O . 38 O
Elimination 17.2 – 14 80 – 10 . 16 –58
Constraints 19 - 2 –4 90 —5 . 16 –58
Non-Intens. 19. 2 –4 90 –5 . 30 –21
Unit 138A
Vol. Percent Peak Percent Sediment Percent
AF.2/ Change CSM3/ Change Yield*/ Change
Existing 18.8 90 • 50
Preferred 18.8 O 90 O . 38 –24
No Action 18.8 O 90 O . 50 O
Elimination 16.4 — 13 80 – 11 - 20 –60
Constraints 16.4 — 13 80 – 1 1 . 20 –60
Non-Intens. 18.8 O 90 O . 38 –24
G-8 – ROYAL GORGE ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT
TABLE G-1
EXPECTED CHANGES IN
RUNOFF VOLUMES, PEAK FLOW, AND SEDIMENT YIELD
BY INTENSIVE MANAGEMENT UNITl/
Unit 139
Vol. Percent Peak Percent Sediment Percent
AF.2/ Change cSM3/ Change Yield*/ Change
Existing 19.9 95 . 53
Preferred 19 - 5 –2 95 O . 40 —25
No Action 19.9 O 95 O . 56 +6
Elimination 17. 5 – 12 85 – 11 . 17 –68
Constraints 19 - 5 –2 95 O . 40 —25
Non-Intens. 19. 6 –2 95 O .42 –21
Unit 140
Vol. Percent Peak Percent Sediment Percent
AF.2/ Change CSM3/ Change Yield*/ Change
Existing 21.5 103 .44
Preferred 21.2 – 1 103 O . 44 O
No Action 21.5 O 103 O .48 +9
Elimination 20.0 –7 98 –5 . 20 –55
Constraints 21.2 – 1 103 O .44 O
Non-Intens. 21.3 – 1 103 O .46 +5
Unit 141 Helena Pasture, Sunnyside, and Red Mountain
Vol. Percent Peak Percent Sediment Percent
AF.2/ Change cSM3/ Change Yield*/ Change
Existing 26.2 126 • 68 O
Preferred 26. 1 – 1 126 O • 50 –26
No Action 26.2 O 126 O . 73 +7
Elimination 25.9 - 1 126 O - 22 –68
Constraints 26. 1 – F 126 O .22 –68
Non-Intens. 26.2 O 126 O . 52 –24
Unit 141 Garlin Gulch, Red Ridge
Wol. Percent Peak Percent Sediment Percent
AF.2/ Change cSM3/ Change Yield*/ Change
Existing 26.2 126 .68
Preferred 26. 1 .03 126 O - 50 -26
No Action 26.2 O 126 O • 73 +7
Elimination 25.9 — . 03 126 O . 22 –68
Constraints 26. 1 — . 03 126 O . 22 –68
Non-Intens. 26.2 O 126 O . 52 –24
APPENDICES — G-9
Unit 141 Garden Park Gulch
EXPECTED CHANGES IN
RUNOFF VOLUMES, PEAK FLOW, AND SEDIMENT YIELD
TABLE G-1
BY INTENSIVE MANAGEMENT UNITl/
Vol. Percent Peak Percent Sediment Percent
AF.2/ Change CSM3/ Change Yield*/ Change
Existing 26. 3 62 . 60
Preferred 26. 3 O 62 O .44 –27
No Action 26. 3 O 62 O . 65 +8
Elimination 26.0 – 1 62 O • 20 –67
Constraints 26. 3 O 62 O . 20 –67
Non-Intens. 26. 3 O 62 • O .46 –23
Unit 142
Vol. Percent Peak Percent Sediment Percent
AF.2/ Change cSM3/ Change Yield*/ Change
Existing 19. 3 O 93 • 60
Preferred 18.8 –3 90 –3 .42 –30
No Action 19. 3 O 93 O . 65 +8
Elimination 17.2 – 11 82 – 12 . 18 –70
Constraints 18.8 –3 90 –3 .42 –30
Non-Intens. 19. 3 O 93 O .42 –30
Unit 143
Vol. Percent Peak Percent Sediment Percent
AF.2/ Change cSM3/ Change Yield*/ Change
Existing 12.2 59 . 58
Preferred 12.2 O 59 O .42 –28
No Action 12.2 O 59 O .63 +9
Elimination 9 - 3 –24 44 —25 . 17 –71
Constraints 9. 3 –24 44 —25 . 17 –71
Non-Intens. 12.2 O 59 O . 44 –24
Unit 143A
Vol. Percent Peak Percent Sediment Percent
AF.2/ Change CSM3/ Change Yield*/ Change
Existing 28.6 154 ... 79
Preferred 22.8 –24 1 11 –28 .44 –44
No Action 28.6 O 154 O . 85 +8
Elimination 22.8 –24 1 11 –28 . 22 –72
Constraints 22.8 –24 1 11 –28 . 22 –72
Non-Intens. 28.6 O 154 O . 55 -30
G-10 – ROYAL GORGE ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT
e FXPECTED CHANGES IN
RUNOFF VOLUMES, PEAK FLOW, AND SEDIMENT YIELD
TABLE G-1
BY INTENSIVE MANAGEMENT UNIT1/
Unit 144
Vol. Percent Peak Percent Sediment Percent
AF.2/ Change CSM3/ Change Yield*/ Change
Existing 25.0 155 . 38
Preferred 25.0 O 155 O . 38 O
No Action 25. O O 155 O . 38 O
Elimination 25 - 0 O 155 O . 38 O
Constraints 25.0 O 155 O . 38 O
Non-Intens. 25 - O O 155 O . 38 O
Unit 146
Vol. Percent Peak Percent Sediment Percent
AF.2/ Change CSM3/ Change Yield*/ Change
Existing 19.6 95 .63
Preferred 19.4 – 1 93 –2 .44 –30
No Action 19.6 O 95 O . 68 +8
Elimination 19.0 –3 93 –2 . 20 –68
Constraints 19.0 –3 93 –2 . 20 –68
Non-Intens. 19.6 O 95 O .48 –24
Unit 147
Vol. Percent Peak Percent Sediment Percent
AF.2/ Change cSM3/ Change Yield*/ Change
Existing 26.6 141 - 68
Preferred 26.0 –2 138 –2 . 60 – 12
No Action 26.6 O 141 O . 73 +7
Elimination 22.4 — 16 108 –23 .26 –62
Constraints 26.0 –2 138 –2 . 26 –62
Non-Intens. 26. 1 –2 138 –2 • 60 – 12
Unit 148
Wol. Percent Peak Percent Sediment Percent
AF.2/ Change CSM3/ Change Yield*/ Change
Existing 38. 3 223 ... 79
Preferred 37 - 2 –3 217 –3 • 58 –27
No Action 38. 3 O 223 O . 85 +8
Elimination 32.8 – 12 176 –22 .24 –70
Constraints 32.8 - 12 176 –22 .24 –70
Non-Intens. 38. 3 O 223 O • 58 –27
APPENDICES — G-11
EXPECTED CHANGES IN
RUNOFF VOLUMES, PEAK FLOW, AND SEDIMENT YIELD
TABLE G-1
BY INTENSIVE MANAGEMENT UNITl/
Unit 148A
Wol. Percent Peak Percent Sediment Percent
AF.2/ Change cSM3/ Change Yield*/ Change
Existing 34. 1 204 .95
Preferred 28 - 5 — 16 153 –25 . 55 –42
No Action 34. 1 O 204 O 1.0 +5
Elimination 28 - 5 — 16 153 —25 • 27 –72
Constraints 28.5 — 16 153 —25 . 27 –72
Non-Intens. 34. 1 O 204 O . 65 –32
Unit 149
Vol. Percent Peak Percent Sediment Percent
AF.2/ Change CSM3/ Change Yield*/ Change
Existing 21.3 103 .56
Preferred 21.0 – 1 100 –3 .42 —25
No Action 21 .. 3 O 103 O • 60 +7
Elimination 17 - 5 – 18 85 – 17 . 19 –66
Constraints 21.0 – 1 100 –3 . 19 –66
Non-Intens. 21.3 O 103 O .44 –21
Unit 150
Vol. Percent Peak Percent Sediment Percent
AF.2/ Change cSM3/ Change Yield*/ Change
Existing 19 - 8. 95 . 56
Preferred 19 - O –4 93 –2 .42 —25
No Action 19 - 8 O 95 O . 60 +7
Elimination 16.3 –21 80 – 16 . 18 –68
Constraints 16. 3 –21 80 – 16 . 36 –36
Non-Intens. 19 - O –4 93 –2 .42 —25
Unit 156
Vol. Percent Peak Percent Sediment Percent
AF.2/ Change cSM3/ Change Yield*/ Change
Existing 19. 1 93 .56
Preferred 18.5 –3 90 –3 .44 –21
No Action 19. 1 O 93 O • 60 +7
Elimination 16.3 – 15 80 -14 . 18 –68
Constraints 16.3 – 15 8O - 14 . 18 –68
Non-Intens. 18.5 –3 90 –3 .44 –21
G-12 — ROYAL GORGE ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT
EXPECTED CHANGES IN
RUNOFF VOLUMES, PEAK FLOW, AND SEDIMENT YIELD
TABLE G-1
BY INTENSIVE MANAGEMENT UNITl/
Unit 158
Vol. Percent Peak Percent Sediment Percent
AF.2/ Change CSM3/ Change Yield*/ Change
Existing 13.6 64 . 55
Preferred 13. 1 –4 64 O .40 –27
No Action 13.6 O 64 O . 58 +5
Elimination 11.3 – 17 54 — 16 . 16 –71
Constraints 13. 1 –4 64 O . 16 –71
Non-Intens. 13.2 –3 64 O . 40 –27
Unit 166
Vol. Percent Peak Percent Sediment Percent
AF.2/ Change cSM3/ Change Yield*/ Change
Existing 18.5 90 .40
Preferred 18. 3 – 1 87 –3 . 34 -15
No Action 18.5 O 90 O .44 +10
Elimination 17.2 –7 82 –9 . 16 –60
Constraints 17.2 –7 82 –9 . 76 –60
Non-Intens. 18.5 O 90 O . 34 – 15
Unit 167 -
Vol. Percent Peak Percent Sediment Percent
AF.2/ Change CSM3/ Change Yield*/ Change
Existing 29. 6 141 . 36
Preferred 29.3 – 1 141 O . 32 – 11
No Action 29.6 O 141 O . 38 +6
Elimination 28.8 –3 76 –46 . 16 –56
Constraints 28.8 -3 76 –46 . 16 –56
Non-Intens. 29.4 - 1 141 O . 34 –6
Unit 168
Vol. Percent Peak Percent Sediment Percent
AF.2/ Change cSM3/ Change Yield*/ Change
Existing 28.8 139 .40
Preferred 28.8 O 139 O • 35 — 13
No Action 28.8 O 139 O .42 +5
Elimination 28.8 O 139 O . 18 –55
Constraints 28.8 O 139 O • 18 –55
Non-Intens. 28.8 O 139 O . 38 –5
APPENDICES – G-13
EXPECTED CHANGES IN
RUNOFF VOLUMES, PEAK FLOW, AND SEDIMENT YIELD
TABLE G-1
BY INTENSIVE MANAGEMENT UNITl/
Unit 169
Vol. Percent Peak Percent Sediment Percent
AF.2/ Change cSM3/ Change Yield*/ Change
Existing 21.3 112 • 50
Preferred 20.8 –7 109 –3 . 36 –28
No Action 21.3 O 1 12 O . 53 +6
Elimination 19.4 –9 101 – 10 . 18 –64
Constraints 20.8 –7 109 –3 • 20 –60
Non-Intens. 20.8 –7 109 –3 . 38 –24
Unit 170
Vol. Percent Peak Percent Sediment Percent
AF.2/ Change cSM3/ Change Yield*/ Change
Existing 16.7 80 .40
Preferred 16.3 –2 80 O . 34 - 15
No Action 16. 7 O 80 O .42 +5
Elimination 14.8 - 1 1 72 O . 16 –60
Constraints 16.3 -2 80 O . 34 - 15
Non-Intens. 16.6 - 1 80 O • 36 – 10
Unit 171
Vol. Percent Peak Percent Sediment Percent
AF.2/ Change cSM3/ Change Yield*/ Change
Existing 19.2 93 . 52
Preferred 18.9 –2 90 –3 • 36 –31
No Action 19.2 O 93 O • 55 +6
Elimination 17.6 –8 85 –9 • 18 -65
Constraints 17.6 -8 85 -9 • 18 –65
Non-Intens. 18.9 -2 90 -3. • 38 –27
Unit 172
Vol. Percent Peak Percent Sediment Percent
AF.2/ Change cSM3/ Change Yield*/ Change
Existing 19.9 95 .44
Preferred 19.8 - 1 95 O • 36 – 18
No Action 19 - 9 O 95 O . 48 9
Elimination 19.4 –3 93 –2 - 18 –59
Constraints 19.4 –3 93 –2 - 18 –59
Non-Intens. 19.9 O 95 O • 38 -14
G-14 – ROYAL GORGE ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT
TABLE G-1
EXPECTED CHANGES IN
RUNOFF VOLUMES, PEAK FLOW, AND SEDIMENT YIELD
BY INTENSIVE MANAGEMENT UNITl/
Unit 172 (Thinned)
Vol. Percent Peak Percent Sediment Percent
AF.2/ Change CSM3/ Change Yield*/ Change
Existing 22.4 108 .44
Short-Term 26.7 + 19.2 129 +19. 4 .47 +6.8
Long-Term 26.7 + 19.2 129 +19. 4 . 47 +6.8
Unit 173
Vol. Percent Peak Percent Sediment Percent
AF.2/ Change cSM3/ Change Yield*/ Change
Existing 18.5 90 .52
Preferred 18. 3 – 1 87 –3 • 38 –27
No Action 18.5 O 90 O . 55 +6
Elimination 17.2 –7 82 –9 . 18 –65
Constraints 17.2 –7 82 –9 . 32 –38
Non-Intens. 18.5 O 90 O . 38 –27
Unit 187
Vol. Percent Peak Percent Sediment Percent
AF.2/ Change cSM3/ Change Yield*/ Change
Existing 18.7 90 - 53
Preferred 18.2 –3 87 –3 . 40 —25
No Action 18 - 7 O 90 O • 56 +6
Elimination 16. 1 – 14 77 – 14 • 20 –62
Constraints 16. 1 – 14 77 – 14 • 20 –62
Non-Intens. 18.5 – 1 90 O - 40 —25
Unit 188
Vol. Percent Peak Percent Sediment Percent
AF.2/ Change cSM3/ Change Yield*/ Change
Existing 15. 3 75 .48
Preferred 13.4 – 12 64 – 15 . 28 –42
No Action 15. 3 O 75 O .52 +8
Elimination 13.4 – 12 64 – 15 . 16 –67
Constraints 13.4 – 12 64 – 15 . 16 –67
Non-Intens. 15. 3 O 75 O . 34 –29
APPENDICES — G-15
TABLE G-1
EXPECTED CHANGES IN
RUNOFF VOLUMES, PEAK FLOW, AND SEDIMENT YIELD
BY INTENSIVE MANAGEMENT UNIT1/
Unit 189
Vol. Percent Peak Percent Sediment Percent
AF.2/ Change CSM3/ Change Yield*/ Change
Existing 29.8 157 . 56
Preferred 29. 6 - 1 153 –3 . 40 –29
No Action 29.8 O 157 O . 60 +7
Elimination 27. 1 –9 131 – 17 • 20 –64
Constraints 27. 1 –9 131 – 17 . 20 –64
Non-Intens. 29.8 O 158 +1 .40 –29
Unit 190
Vol. Percent Peak Percent Sediment Percent
.2/ Change cSM3/ Change Yield*/ Change
Existing 15. 1 72 .53
Preferred 14.7 –3 72 O . 40 —25
No Action 15. 1 O 72 O .56 +6
Elimination 13. 3 – 12 64 – 11 . 20 –62
Constraints 13. 3 – 12 64 — 1 1 . 20 –62
Non-Intens. 15. O – 1 72 O . 40 —25
Unit 190A
Vol. Percent Peak Percent Sediment Percent
AF.2/ Change cSM3/ Change Yield*/ Change
Existing 16.5 80 . 21
Preferred 16.5 O 80 O .21 O
No Action 16.5 O 80 O . 21 O
Elimination 16.5 O 80 O • 21 O
Constraints 16.5 O 80 O • 21 O
Non-Intens. 16.5 O 80 O • 21 O
Unit 191 ©
Vol. Percent Peak Percent Sediment Percent
AF.2/ Change cSM3/ Change Yield*/ Change
Existing 17.8 85 .44
Preferred 17.3 –3 83 –2 . 38 -14
No Action 17.8 O 85 O .48 +9
Elimination 15.8 – 11 77 –9 . 18 –59
Constraints 15.8 - 1 1 77 –9 . 18 –59
Non-Intens. 17.6 – 1 85 O • 38 – 14
G-16 — ROYAL GORGE ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT
TABLE G-1
EXPECTED CHANGES IN
RUNOFF VOLUMES, PEAK FLOW, AND SEDIMENT YIELD
BY INTENSIVE MANAGEMENT UNITl/
Unit 192 Echo
Vol. Percent Peak Percent Sediment Percent
AF.2/ Change cSM3/ Change Yield*/ Change
Existing 14.9 73 . 40
Preferred 14.9 O 73 O . 34 — 15
No Action 14.9 O 73 O .44 +10
Elimination 13.6 –9 65 — 1 1 . 17 –58
Constraints 13.6 –9 65 – 11 • 19 –53
Non-Intens. 14.9 O 73 O . 34 — 15
Unit 192 Hindman Gulch
Vol. Percent Peak Percent Sediment Percent
AF.2/ Change CSM3/ Change Yield*/ Change
Existing 14.9 78 . 53
Preferred 14.9 O 78 O . 40 —25
No Action 14.9 O 78 O . 60 +13
Flimination 13.6 –9 70 – 10 . 18 –66
Constraints 13.6 –9 70 - 10 . 20 –62
Non-Intens. 14.9 O 78 O .40 —25
Unit 193
Vol. Percent Peak Percent Sediment Percent
AF.2/ Change cSM3/ Change Yield*/ Change
Existing 21.6 105 .40
Preferred 21. 1 –2 100 –5 . 34 – 15
No Action 21.6 O 105 O .44 +10
Elimination 19.6 –9 95 - 10 . 17 –58
Constraints 21.1 -2 100 –5 . 34 –5
Non-Intens. 21.6 O 105 O . 38 — 15
Unit 194
Vol. Percent Peak Percent Sediment Percent
AF.2/ Change cSM3/ Change Yield*/ Change
Existing 25.6 124 . 48
Preferred 25.6 O 124 O • 35 –27
No Action 25.6 O 124 O • 52 +8
Elimination 25.6 O 124 O • 18 –63
Constraints 25.6 O 124 O • 31 –35
Non-Intens. 25.6 O 124 O • 35 –27
APPENDICES — G-17
TABLE G-1
EXPECTED CHANGES IN
RUNOFF VOLUMES, PEAK FLOW, AND SEDIMENT YIELD
BY INTENSIVE MANAGEMENT UNITl/
Unit 196
Vol. Percent Peak Percent Sediment Percent
AF.2/ Change CSM3/ Change Yield*/ Change
Existing 21.2 103 . 48
Preferred 21.2 O 103 O . 34 • 29
No Action 21.2 O 103 O . 52 +8
Elimination 20. 1 –5 98 –5 . 16 –67
Constraints 20. 1 –5 98 –5 • 16 –67
Non-Intens. 21.2 O 103 O . 26 –46
Unit 197
Vol. Percent Peak Percent Sediment Percent
AF.2/ Change CSM3/ Change Yield*/ Change
Existing 19. 1 93 .46
Preferred 18.7 –2 90 –3 • 35 –24
No Action 19. 1 O 93 O . 50 +9
Elimination 17.2 – 10 82 – 12 . 17 –63
Constraints 18.7 –2 90 –3 • 35 –24
Non-Intens. 18.8 –2 90 –3 . 38 – 17
Unit 197 (Thinned)
Vol. Percent Peak Percent Sediment Percent
AF.2/ Change cSM3/ Change Yield*/ Change
Existing 30. 9 164 • 50
Short-Term 33. 1 193 . 38 –24
Long-Term 33. 1 193 . 38 –24
Unit 198
Vol. Percent Peak Percent Sediment Percent
AF.2/ Change CSM3/ Change Yield*/ Change
Existing 4.1.8 250 .56
Preferred 41.7 - .. 2 250 O . 40 –29
No Action 4.1.8 O 250 O • 60 +7
Elimination 40.0 –4 221 – 12 .21 –63
Constraints 41.7 - .. 2 250 O .40 –29
Non-Intens. 4.1.8 O 250 O .42 —25
G-18 – ROYAL GORGE ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT
EXPECTED CHANGES IN
RUNOFF VOLUMES, PEAK FLOW, AND SEDIMENT YIELD
TABLE G-1
BY INTENSIVE MANAGEMENT UNIT1/
Unit 1.99
Vol. Percent Peak Percent Sediment Percent
AF.2/ Change cSM3/ Change Yield*/ Change
Existing 38.9 234 . 58
Preferred 38. 6 – 1 220 –6 . 50 – 14
No Action 38.9 O 234 O .63 +9
Elimination 37. 3 –4 199 — 15 . 21 –64
Constraints 38. 6 – 1 220 –6 • 50 – 14
Non-Intens. 38.9 O 234 O . 52 - 10
Unit 200
Vol. Percent Peak Percent Sediment Percent
AF.2/ Change cSM3/ Change Yield*/ Change
Existing 44.3 278 . 75
Preferred 44.0 – 1 278 O .48 –36
No Action 44.3 O 278 O - 70 –7
Elimination 42.2 –5 243 – 13 • 20 –73
Constraints 44.0 - 1 278 O . 48 –36
Non-Intens. 43.2 –2 255 –8 .48 –36
Unit 202
Vol. Percent Peak Percent Sediment Percent
AF.2/ Change cSM3/ Change Yield*/ Change
Existing 42.5 252 .56
Preferred 42.4 - .. 2 252 O .40 –29
No Action 42.5 O 252 O • 53 —5
Elimination 41 - 1 –3 225 — 1 1 • 18 –68
Constraints 4.1. 1 –3 225 – 11 . 36 –36
Non-Intens. 42.5 O 252 O .42 —25
Unit 204
Vol. Percent Peak Percent Sediment Percent
AF.2/ Change CSM3/ Change Yield*/ Change
Existing 46.5 267 . 68
Preferred 46.4 -. 2 261 –2 .40 –41
No Action 46.5 O 267 O . 63 –7
Elimination 46. 1 – 1 237 — 1 1 . 18 –74
Constraints 46.4 - .. 2 261 –2 . 40 –41
Non-Intens. 46.5 O 267 O .42 –38
APPENDICES — G-19
TABLE G-1
EXPECTED CHANGES IN
RUNOFF VOLUMES, PEAK FLOW, AND SEDIMENT YIELD
BY INTENSIVE MANAGEMENT UNITl/
Unit 216
Vol. Percent Peak Percent Sediment Percent
AF.2/ Change CSM3/ Change Yield*/ Change
Existing 15. 1 72 - 68
Preferred 14.9 – 1 72 O • 46 –32
No Action 15. 1 O 72 O . 63 –7
Elimination 12.6 – 17 62 – 14 • 19 –72
Constraints 14.9 – 1 72 O . 23 –66
Non-Intens. 15. 1 O 72 O .46 –32
Unit 217
Vol. Percent Peak Percent Sediment Percent
AF.2/ Change CSM3/ Change Yield*/ Change
Existing 22. 3 1 16 .82
Preferred 21.0 –6 104 – 10 • 52 –37
No Action 22.3 O 116 O . 75 –9
Elimination 17.4 –22 85 –27 .20 –76
Constraints. 21.0 –6 104 – 10 . 52 –37
Non-Intens. 21.7 –3 1 13 –3 . 55 –33
Unit 220
Vol. Percent Peak Percent Sediment Percent
AF.2/ Change cSM3/ Change Yield*/ Change
Existing 17.6 100 . 34
Preferred 17.6 O 100 O . 34 O
No Action 17. 6 O 100 O . 34 O
Elimination 17.6 O 100 O . 34 O
Constraints 17. 6 O 100 O . 34 O
Non-Intens . 17.6 O 100 O . 34 O
Unit 222
Vol. Percent Peak Percent Sediment Percent
.2/ Change CSM3/ Change Yield*/ Change
Existing 49.8 392 - 82
Preferred 49.8 O 392 O . 58 –29
No Action 49.8 O 392 O . 87 +6
Elimination 4.7. 9 –4 371 –5 . 26 –68
Constraints 4.7. 9 –4 371 –5 .26 –68
Non-Intens. 49.8 O 392 O . 58 –29
G-20 – ROYAL GORGE ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT
EXPECTED CHANGES IN
RUNOFF VOLUMES, PEAK FLOW, AND SEDIMENT YIELD
TABLE G-1
BY INTENSIVE MANAGEMENT UNITl/
Unit 223
Vol. Percent Peak Percent Sediment Percent
AF.2/ Change CSM3/ Change Yield*/ Change
Existing 20. 7 100 ... 79
Preferred 20. 7 O 100 O . 36 –54
No Action 20. 7 O 100 O .91 + 1.5
Elimination 19 - 2 –7 93 –7 . 26 –67
Constraints 19. 2 –7 93 –7 . 26 –67
Non-Intens. 20. 7 O 100 O . 36 –54
Unit 224
Vol. Percent Peak Percent Sediment Percent
AF.2/ Change CSM3/ Change Yield*/ Change
Existing 23.9 116 . 73
Preferred 23.8 -. 4 116 O . 50 –32
No Action 23.9 O 116 O . 85 +1.6
Elimination 22.6 –5 108 –7 . 24 –67
Constraints 22.6 –5 108 –7 .46 –37
Non-Intens. 23.9 O 116 O . 50 –32
Unit 225
Vol. Percent Peak Percent Sediment Percent
AF.2/ Change CSM3/ Change Yield*/ Change
Existing 22.9 1 11 . 65
Preferred 22.6 – 1 108 –3 .46 –29
No Action 22.9 O 1 11 O . 75 +15
Elimination 21.8 —5 105 –5 • 23 –65
Constraints 21.8 –5 105 –5 • 23 –65
Non-Intens. 22.9 O 1 11 O . 48 –26
Unit 227
Vol. Percent Peak Percent Sediment Percent
AF.2/ Change cSM3/ Change Yield*/ Change
Existing 16.0 78 . 58
Preferred 15. 7 –2 75 –4 .44 –24
No Action 16.0 O 78 O .68 +17
Elimination 14.6 –9 70 – 10 • 21 –64
Constraints 14.6 –9 70 – 10 • 22 –62
Non-Intens. 16.0 O 78 O .48 – 17
APPENDICES — G-21
Unit 227 (Burned)
EXPECTED CHANGES IN
RUNOFF VOLUMES, PEAK FLOW, AND SEDIMENT YIELD
TABLE G-1
BY INTENSIVE MANAGEMENT UNIT!/
Vol. Percent Peak Percent Sediment Percent
.2/ Change CSM3/ Change Yield*/ Change
Existing 17.3 83 • 58
Short Term 26.3 +52 147 +77 ... 79 +36
Long Term 22.9 +32 112 +35 . 48 -17
Unit 229
Vol. Percent Peak Percent Sediment Percent
AF.2/ Change cSM3/ Change Yield*/ Change
Existing 18.4 90 . 73
Preferred 17.2 –7 82 –9 • 30 –59
No Action 18.4 O 90 O • 85 +1.6
Elimination 17.2 –7 82 –9 • 21 –71
Constraints 17.2 –7 82 –9 • 23 –68
Non-Intens. 18.4 O 90 O . 34 –53
Unit 230 Granite
Wol. Percent Peak Percent Sediment Percent
AF.2/ Change cSM3/ Change Yield*/ Change
Existing 8. 1 38 • 36
Preferred 7.7 –5 36 –5 • 32 - 11
No Action 8. 1 O 38 O .40 +1 1
Elimination 6.9 - 15 33 - 13 . 16 –56
Constraints 7.7 –5 36 –5 • 32 – 11
Non-Intens. 8. 1 O 39 +3 .32 – 11
Unit 230 Canyon Creek
Vol. Percent Peak Percent Sediment Percent
AF.2/ Change cSM3/ Change Yield*/ Change
Existing 8.7 41 . 38
Preferred 8.2 –6 39 –5 • 35 –8
No Action 8.7 O 41 O .44 +1.6
Elimination 7.3 — 16 36 – 12 . 17 –55
Constraints 8.2 –6 39 –5 • 35 –8
Non-Intens. 8.7 O 41 O • 35 –8
G-22 – ROYAL GORGE ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT
EXPECTED CHANGES IN
RUNOFF VOLUMES, PEAK FLOW, AND SEDIMENT YIELD
TABLE G-1
BY INTENSIVE MANAGEMENT UNITl/
Unit 231
Vol. Percent Peak Percent Sediment Percent
AF.2/ Change cSM3/ Change Yield*/ Change
Existing 12.9 62 . 55
Preferred 12. 3 –5 59 –5 . 36 –35
No Action 12.9 O 62 O .63 + 1.5
Elimination 11.2 – 13 54 — 13 . 17 –69
Constraints 12.3 –5 59 –5 • 36 –35
Non-Intens. 12.8 - 1 62 O • 38 –31
Unit 233
Vol. Percent Peak Percent Sediment Percent
AF.2/ Change cSM3/ Change Yield*/ Change
Existing l 1.9 57 • 31
Preferred 11.6 –3 57 O . 34 +10
No Action 11.9 O 57 O • 36 +1.6
Elimination 11.2 –6 54 –5 . 16 –48
Constraints 11.6 –3 57 O • 18 -42
Non-Intens. 11.7 –2 57 O . 34 +10
Unit 237
Vol. Percent Peak Percent Sediment Percent
AF.2/ Change cSM3 Change Yield*/ Change
Existing 19 - 5 95 - 70
Preferred 19.0 –3 93 –2 .48 –31
No Action 19.6 +1 95 O • 85 +21
Elimination 17.2 – 12 82 -14 .22 –69
Constraints 19.0 –3 93 –2 .26 –63
Non-Intens. 19.0 –3 93 –2 .48 –31
Unit 238
Vol. Percent Peak Percent Sediment Percent
AF.2 Change cSM3/ Change Yield*/ Change
Existing 30.5 165 . 73
Preferred 30.5 O 1.65 O • 50 –32
No Action 30.5 O 1.65 O .85 +1.6
Elimination 28.2 –8 145 - 12 . 24 –67
Constraints 28.2 –8 145 – 12 .24 –67
Non-Intens. 30.5 O 1.65 O • 50 –32
APPENDICES — G-23
EXPECTED CHANGES IN
TABLE G-1
RUNOFF VOLUMES, PEAK FLOW, AND SEDIMENT YIELD
By INTENSIVE MANAGEMENT UNITl/
Unit 243
Wol. Percent Peak Percent Sediment Percent
AF.2/ Change cSM3/ Change Yield*/ Change
Existing 19.4 93 • 73
Preferred 19.3 - 1 93 O • 50 –32
No Action 19.4 O 93 O • 85 +1.6
Elimination 18.2 -6 87 -6 .24 –67
Constraints 18.2 -6 87 –6 • 24 –67
Non-Intens. 19.4 O 93 O • 50 –32
Elimination of Grazing units are included.
2/ volume in acre-feet-per year.
3/ Peak Flow in cubic feet-per second-per square mile of area.
4./ Sediment yield in tons-per acre-per year.
TABLE G-1 (Summary)
SUMMARY OF RUNOFF VOLUME, PEAK FLOW, SEDIMENT YIELD
FROM 77 INTENSIVE MANAGEMENT UNITS AND
TOTAL SEDIMENT ENTERING THE ARKANSAS RIVER ABOVE
PORTLAND, COLORADO
Runoff Percent Peak Percent Sediment Percent Sediment Percent
Alternative volumel. Change Flow2/ Change Yield 3/ Change Introduction* Change
Existing
Situation 22.23 * † 112.92 gº º 1. 55 tº- 1 - 90 º- >
Preferred 21.66 –3 109. 12 –3 1. 16 –25 1. 72 –9
No Action 22.22 O 112.87 O 1.64 6 1.90 O
Elimination 20. 10 -10 97.87 –13 .54 –65 1.49 –22
Constraints 20.98 –6 103.89 –8 .82 –47 1.62 -15
Non-Intens. 22.06 -1 111. 67 -1 1. 19 –23 1. 73 –9
1/ Average volume of water yielded per square mile of drainage from a 10-year, 6-hour
storm in acre-feet on 77 intensive management units.
2/ Average peak flow in cubic feet-per second-per square mile of drainage
from a 10-year storm on 77 intensive management units.
3/ Average sediment yield in tons-per acre-per year on 77 intensive management units.
*/ Tons of sediment entering the Arkansas River annually (millions) above Portland,
Colorado
G-24 – ROYAL GORGE ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT
TABLE G-2
SEDIMENT YIELD CLASSIFICATION TABLE In
Sediment. Yield– P
Classification Rating Ac. Ft. / Sq. Mi Tons/Acre
Extreme 1 00 >3.0 <8.7
Heavy 75–99 1.0-2.99 2.9-8. 7
Moderate 50–71, 0.5–0.99 1. 1,5–2.89
Slight
Negligible
25–119 0.2–0. 119 0.58–1. l. l;
0–21, K0.2 K0.58
Source:
BLM Manual 7317 –
EROSION
—’
GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS characteristics to which full value may be assigned.
District Office prepares one copy for District file. Interpolation between the sediment yield levels may be
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR made. High values for columns (a) through (g) should
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT SPECIFIC INSTRUCTIONS correspond to high values for (h) and (i). If they do not,
factors (a) through (g) should be reevaluated. If they
(Items not listed are self-explanatory) º &
- sEDIMENT YIELD FACTOR RATING f-exp • do not correspond, then a special erosion condi-
SOILS CLIMATE RUNOFF TOPOGRAPHY * - - - - tion exists.
were: groº (b) (c) (d) (e) Numbers indicate values assigned appropriate charac-
tº - - - * - -
teristics. Letters a, b, c, and d refer to independent Convert Total Rating to sediment yield by use of graph.
(10) (10) (10) (10) (20) —º
a. Marine shales and re- a. Fine textured, e as 1- |a. Storms of several a. High peak flows per a. Steep upland slopes
lated mudstones and ly dispersed, saline- days’ duration with unit are a (1 n excess of 30° - ) |O.O
siltstones alkaline; high shrink- short periods of in- b. Large volume of flow . b. High relief, little or
swell characteristics tense rainfall per unit are a no floodplain devel- 9.O
b. Single grain silts and Ib. Frequent intense con- opment 8.O
fine sands vective storms
c. Freeze-thaw {}^ Cu f- 7.O
rence
(5) (5) (5) (5) (10) 6.O
a. Rocks of medium | a. Medium textured soil |a. Storms of moderatel a. Moderate peak flows | a. Moderate upland
hardness b. Occasional rock frag- duration and intensity per unit area slopes (less than 20%) 5. O
b. Moderately weathered rn ent S b. Infrequent convective|b. Moderate volume of b. Moderate f an or flood- \
c. Moderately fractured c. Caliche layers $t Orms flow per unit are a plain development 4.O
• * &
(0) (0) (0) (0) (0) 5.
a. Massive, hard form a- a. High percent age of |a. Humid climate with a. Low peak flows per a. Gentle upland slopes : 3.0
! I on S rock fragments rainfall of low inten- unit are a (less than 5%) or "
b. Aggregated clays sity b. Low volume of runoff b. Extensive alluvial Ch.
c. High in organic matter |b. Precipitation in form per unit area plains Cº.
of snow c. Rare runoff events E
c. And climate, low in-
tensity storms sº 2.O
d. Arid climate, rare g
C Onvect 1 v e s to frns cy
(ſ) r
* |
Factor @ i
value | CA.
º }
LAND USE t CHANNEL EROSION AND Q9
GROUND COVER U PLAND EROSION SE DIMENT TRANSPORT *
Q9
( ( ) (g) (h) (1) 5 |.. O
(10) (10) (25) (25) P O.9
Ground cover does not ex- a. More than 50°, cultivated a. More than 50°. of the a. Eroding banks continu- x2 O.8
ceed 20°. b. Almost all of area 1 nt tº n- are a characterized by r ill ously or at frequent in- sº O.7
a. Vegetation sparse, little sively grazed and gully or landslide tervals with large depths > U.
or no l i t t er c. All of are a recently e ros. 1 on and long flow duration º: t
b. No rock in surface soil burned b. Active he adcuts and de- Q9 O.6
gradation in tributary E
channels to O.5
§
(0) (0) (10) (10) vº ſ
Cover not exceeding 40 . a. Less than 25°, cultivated as About 25° of the are a a. Moderate flow depths, Se O.4 |
a. Not i ce able litter b. 50°. , or less recently characterized by rill and medium ſlow duration É
b. If trees present under- logged gully or landslide erosion with occasionally eroding * -
story not well developed c. Less than 50 c intensive- b. Wind erosion with depo- banks or bed 7, O.3
ly grazed s it ion in stream channels Lal
d. Ordinary road and other
C On 5 tru C ( 1 On
(-10) ( – 10) (0) (O) O.2
a. Area completely protect - a. No cult i v at lon a. No apparent signs of 2. Wide shallow channels |
ed by vegetation, rock b. No recent logging erosion with flat gradients and
fragments, litter c. Low intensity grazing short flow duration |
b. Little opport unity for b. Channels lſº fºr as sive -
ra infall to reach erodible rock, large boulders, or
material well vegetated
c. Art ificially controlled
channels
O. I l
Factor 3.
value e g & !
TOTAL Sediment Yield Roting Foctor
Subtotal (a) — (g) | Subtotal (h) — (1) – * . |
- RATING – — — — — — . — a c. ft. ." sq. mi. 7 yr.
{ | n s fºr la ( t t t , n 5 ri y rr tº r s a Form 73 10–16 (July 1971) G Po **

APPENDICES -k, H-1
l
.l.
Pref
The long-term impacts on big game habitat for the
Management Constraints
erred
APPENDIX H
# I
"*cts on Big Game Habitat
Alternative,
Alternative, and the Nonintensive Alternative are
shown in Tables H-1, H-2, and H-3, respectively.
Estimates were made by BLM wildlife biologists, who
considered among other things type of management
facility proposed, size of vegetative treatment, the
anticipated reduction in livestock use, proposed
In Some cases, estimates of impacts were not
made. Since there would be no changes in livestock
management under No Action, no impacts on big game
habitat would occur. Elimination of Grazing would
provide neither additional forage nor water to big game
habitat.
period of livestock use, and condition of big game
habitat within each management unit.
TABLE H-1
ANTICIPATED LONG-TERM IMPACTS
OF THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE ON BIG GAME HABITAT
Management 1/ Mule Deer (Acres)2/ Elk (Acres) Bighorn Sheep (Acres)
Units Degraded unchanged?/Improved Degraded Unchanged Improved
l2 e-e tº & e 3,271, G- E - 2,671, 600 tº gº gº º {-, -º
23 100 l,540 e- tº & eº- l, 140 160 g-º º tº e e-º º
58 • * * * l,280 t- tº e Cº-e wº g-> * > cº- tº tº º tº e - • * -º
6l cº-º º 8,738 * - e ſº-, -e 5,738 3,000 & e-º º tº º
66 º º gº tº 3,338 * -e cº- 3,238 100 {- tº tº-e sº « º gº tº
68 tº e º e * - tº 2,512 {-º º 2,512 * - ſº tºº * - e tº £ tº
75 l,292 l,500 gº tº G- --> tº-e wº tº e º E tº ºt g-º º tº º e
91 tº e --> 1,32 tº e tº º l!32 º tº º tº º tº tº e º
95 º l,013 tº º tº cº-e tº-º º e-º º * - tº tº gº tº e º 'º
96 tº e º e ll;3 * - I - tº- tº e tº º {-e ‘I'- tº º tº-e ‘º gº tº
97 tº-e 5,026 300 tº tº tº º tº º tº º &= - tº º
98 • - 6110 tº $ tº * - ſº- tº G- E - tº e tº º gº tº
99 tº e º 'º 1,805 500 gº º º tº-e ‘º- tº ºp tº º- tº º º tº- tº-
100 e-º- l,538 * - º * e gº tº tº º tº º 538 l,000
105 2,268 tº- tº * - tº a § - tº º ſº º tº º ę tº e g- > -->
ll 7 20 l,539 * - º * > * > & º º g-e e 20 l,519 gº tº
ll3 * - tº e 2,682 * - Cº- gº º 2,682 * > . . . cº-e e 2,682 tº e º º
l26 tº e i º 6,676 tº gº g-º tº cº-e wº * - sº tº e º 'º 6,000 676
127 10 1,545 l,200 tº sº. 3 tº º tº 10 5, 145 cº-e sº
128 * - e 2,372 l,000 tº tº gº tº tº-e wº {- tº tº tº tº º
l33 * - Lº 1,949 1,280 e- tº e cº-º º tº º tº º g-º gº * -e gº
l31, tº e º 'º 21:0 gº º gº º * > t > * … tº tº $º º * > * >
l36 * * * * l, 1,22 * - tº cº-º º & º * - tº- tº-e ‘º º º tº e
137 * e l,587 gº º e- - tº-º º is tº tº o tº tº tº e º º tº e º 'º
l38 º º 14,635 1,000 gº tº tº-e ‘º tº tº º tº tº e 15,635 e-º º
l:39 g- > - 337 gº tº tº º- tº º º E tº cº-e wº 337 <- E-e
ll;0 gº º º 5,188 * - I - g-e F- tº e º 'º tº tº tº e º ſº 5, 188 tº º
ll, l tº gº 1,272 2,000 gº º tº º tº Lº gº tº º 6,272 gº tº
ll!2 * - e 2,227 l,500 tº tº * > * > * : * > cº- tº tº gº tº gº
ll;3 tº º 697 e-et-s tº tº º tº e º e tº sº º tº e º Le tº º tº-e ºs
ll,6 tº-e ‘E l,072 g-e F- º º “Exe E tº sº tº e º º tº º tº-e sº
ll;7 6,580 gº tº * - º tº tº tº - E - tº . E º tº e º 'º tº º º tº e º 'º
ll,8 * - Gº l,009 tº tº gº tº « tº E tº tº e tº-º º tº º- tº º-
ll.9 & 5,313 2,000 tº tº # tº tº º sº e tº * - tº * - sº
150 tº º * - 2, 1,76 tº º tº e º o * e i º º gº * - tº * - cº-
155 { º e l, 178 l,800 e-º º gº tº * tº tº º tº cº-
156 tº tº e- tº l, 101 cº º tº e º 'º &= - • º tº tº tº-e sº
158 ( * { …} 2,918 600 * * * * * > * > tº tº & Lº º e- º tº ſº º
l65 tº º l,348 200 * . . . l,548 tº e º º tº º tº tº &= -º
l66 º- tº- 2,043 l;0 tº 2,083 tº e tº cº- tº-º º gº tº tº
l67 tº 957 tº e tº º 95.7 tº-e tº tº e º 'º' º º tº- tº
168 tº tº l,031 gº º- tº º e 831 200 * -º cº- tº gº { . . . .
169 gº tº 2, 101 l,00 tº e º {- tº º 2,501 tº dº º < * - tº
170 tº- tº l, 310 º tº l, 310 tº 2 tº º tº lº tº gº &= g-
171 gº tº 253 tº e º 'º * - I - & e tº-º º tº º tº º * - sº
172 tº - 827 gº tº gº tº eº e º º gº tº tº º tº-ºº º tº º ſº tº
l?3 gº º 919 { * tº tº º 919 tº gº tº tº º tº gº tº-e wº
177 * º ſº º 630 tº º * > * > tº tº-e wº tº tº e tº º tº gº
187 tº- tº º l, 223 l,000 tº e º º tº º * - sº tº cº- gº tº § 2 - e.
189 tº-º-º: 86l 2,000 gº º- tº tº e § - tº- tº º- a º º gº tº
190 e- tº 1,969 1,000 gº tº g- > E. tº-e sº wº- º 5,969 º- tº
l91 g- tº 1,687 2,000 tº e º º 6,687 * - tº tº tº º 6,687 * EP
192 gº tº 22,652 l,000 tº e º e tº e - e. tº-º º -- 26,652 tº- tº º
l93 g- || > ll, 228 1,020 gº º- tº º * - ſº e tº º tº- tº- tº- ºr-
l93A e-e G- 195 e-º º tº e = e * - º & º tº gº tº º tº gº
191, tº - 2, l?2 320 gº tº * -º º e- tº tº º tº º tº tº
195 tº 685 • tº º tº tº e tº- tº tº-e sº- tº_º - >
l96 tº-e e 278 tº-º º tº º e * > *- : cº º & Tº tº tº º § - nº
197 30 33,036 5,050 -- 37,636 l,80 & tº tº Gº º
198 tº 8, 1,60 gº tº tº e 8, 1,60 * - L. e. tº º º º *-* Gºº
199 gº º 9,838 tº- tº- tº tº tº tº e § 2 ºr e cº-e ºs 9,838 * > . . .
200 * - « » l 9 159 * - * > t > g- tº tº-ºº-e e- tº tº e tº- tº-
202 gº tº º 5,285 º º tº cº-e tº e º 'º tº ºne sº º tº tº * - tº
201; tº is 6,015 l,00 tº º 6, 1,15 tº sº º tº e tº e cº-e tº e
213 tº e º 'º 551 100 tº E- 65l º gº tº º gº tº gº tº
216 ( > 0 º 5, 171, 100 tº e. 5,271, gº tº gº tº tº º & tº º
217 tº-º º 2,886 l!00 t-e º 3, 186 100 & Lº e- º gº tº e
222 gº- 3, 161, tº c = } tº º ſº º tº sº- º º tº º- tº tº gº º-
22l, tº º 3,791 l, 1,20 tº e º 'º $º º tº e º º ( ; ; º g-e īe tº º
225 tº º 925 tº- tº- cº-e ºs tº º * > t > º tº º ºs g-º º º
227 tº- º 1,961, 1,000 « e gº tº { * ~ * tº º * † º tº gº
230 tº º 3,579 200 l,000 2,579 tº º tº cº-e & e tº tº
231 g- tº l,075 3,700 * - sº & tº º tº º tº gº cº º & º
233 200 881, tº º *E* sº l,081, * > g.º.º. tº sº # * - * - sº
237 * - 50,229 2,000 tº tº º e-º º • º tº º ºs tº º tº º º
238 tº-et- 5,627 l!00 tº º * … tº e * - tº & -º tº e --> * > *-
243 tº-e ‘º 12,079 2,500 tº-e l3,079 1,000 tº º tº º gº ºne
10,500 310, 1,119 58. 1,31 1.000 1 11, 1,55 8, 11, 1 30 92. l;62 2.276
TOTAL 77
‘peãueuouſ, Jepun papntouſ sp sepaeds Áq perdnooo qou uop 3.1od euq
“3Tun euq anoušno Juq Ātmuojtun qou and 3 Jun e uſual a punoj sp. eue? 8; Q Jo seroeds out, JI /t
'spuet of tand ſtuo epntour seaow /z
“Jeuueu spua up pequn Teae sea; qBudeaTe
T Te up pasn ue eq aaeu S3 run quame 3euen LL auts au% ‘uosº Jeduloo Jo osod.ind euº, Jod /T
9Lz" a 26t" 26 OO Ogl’h 918" FIT000T I95'Og LIg’ OzE 205T LL TWLOI,
tº-º º * -º º tº e OO!! 61.9°CT * > → 009 ‘T 6LO'91 tº e º 'º 9 ha.
tº º tº º * - e tº º * - tº sºme eme , <-e Gº LZO'9 * > . . . 982
tº e º e * º ºr e tº e º 'º g-e º gº ºs g- º OO!! 629 “Ig & 182
gº e * . . . . . G. º * † tº h90“I * . . . . 002 h98 tº ecº- 882
tº gº gº º cº-º cº- * > * > tº e tº- tº e OOL'8 GLO ‘T * - º T82
* - e tº .º tº º Q_º tº e 61.9°2 000 “I 002 619 “8 {-, - 082
& -e tº tº … * -e -º tº e º 'º gº tº 000°2 h96‘8 * - º 122
tº º º tº _ _º * > . . . tº tº e tº º tº e º 'º 926 “L-º- 922
tº tº & e º º gº º tº- º * - e * - º Ozh “T T61 ‘8 tº e haz
* - ºg gº sº -- tº gº tº e-º º * - * = h9T ‘8 tº 222
< * * * cº-º º tº º º OOI 99T ‘8 * - e. OOh 999 “2 * - º J.I.2
cº º g-º º {º tº tº º .º tºlz'g tº . º. OOI till “g * > . . 9T2
tº gº tº - tº-º º gº- ( e. T99 gº º tº º º T99 gº º 8T2
tº e º º º º tº º e tº º gth ‘9 º º tº º gth ‘9 * > . . .3 tº O2
Gº Gº cº-º º . tº gº tº º gº tº º tº e º . . 992'g tº cº- 2O2
tº º cº-e tº gº &= --> tº e º 'º dº tº e - tº º 69T “I tº º 002
tº-e ºs 98.9°6 tº e º º g- sº * - tº gº 98.9°6 tº º 66T
tº cº-e tº º & º e- º 09h'9 * - º cº-º.º. 09h'9 tº cº- 96T
tº e i tº * = < * g-e ºs O8tſ 99.9° 18' -- O90'g 980 ‘88. 08 L6T
tº e º e tº º º * > º tº e º º tº e º º gº tº 912 º º 96T
tº tº e º º gº tº e- tº tº º º º gº tº a 999 tº º 96T
tº cº-e cº-º * - I - * > . . .º tº a - º 028 28T “2 tº h6t
tº º -- « . . . .3 « . . . .º tº º gº º -- . g6T º - W86T
& e * - º tº º ºs tº cº- * - tº tº º tº a º 9h3°gT * * * > 86T
º º 239°92 -- tº e º º * -e ºs gº º 000°C zg.9°82 gº tº 26T
tº > 199°9 * tº e º º 199°9 º e 009 ‘I 19T “g tº º T6T
tº gº 696°g tº e º 'º tº -> * … º g-e ºs O09 698 “g tº e O6T
º º tº --> * º * * * tº º º & e tº 000°2 I99 tº º 69T
tº a - º º * tº tº- tº * - - gº 000°h 822*T cº-º- 19T
* - ſº- * † - gº ºn 2 tº-º º tº º & 3 cº-º 089 tº- tº Lll
tº º * - tº * - cº- tº º 6T6 * - cº-e tº 6T6 tº º º SLT
tº gº * > . . < * * > * - tº gº tº º tº º º ^ 129 * > * 2LT
* - cº-e cº º * º 'º - * - -e tº- º • * ~ * * > * > 892 Q- e T.I.T
tº tº tº-º-º: e º 'º tº sº º OTS ‘I tº a tº º OI8 “T tº ºg º OLT
e cº-º ( - cº º gº tº e TOg"2 tº º tº e º . TOg"2 tº º 69T
tº e * > * > tº º 002 I89 * > . . . * * > . .” T£O'T == 99T
* - * - tº tº º tº 1.96 * > * > cº º- 1.96 <--> --> 19T
tº º cº º tº e <--> - º £90°2 º * > * > £90°2 gº º º 99T
º º tº e º e Q = º e-º º 9ttg"T tºº tº dº e 9ttg"T tº º 99T
cº º tº e tº e tº et - * - º q = q > 009 9t:6'2 & ºt. 99T
gº tº e º º & e * * * * tº- º tº e TOh ‘I * - sº tº º 99T
tº º tº e tº gº tº º gº tº gº tº º 009"T 9LT “I tº evº 99T
-- cº-º º * → tº º-e wº * - º * > * > 9 Lt. “2 tº e º 'º * > * > O9T
* > * * tº e º 'º G. et - tº º * > . .º tº º º 000°C £Ig ‘h 6tt
{ * > * > tº e º 'º * - º * > * > gº tº º º 600*T * > * > 9trl
* - e º º tº e º tº e * - tº º tº º • * * * O99'9 J.H.I
º ºs • = . tº º tº º * … lº * º º º 2LO"I º º 9ht
tº tº tº-º-º- gº tº e tº ºi º tº e º 'º * e º 'º tº tº 169 tº e tº £h I
tº º e. tº-º º º “Tº tº- tº e e- - 009 ‘I Lzz"2 * > º ZhT
* : * > 212° 9 tº º ºg tº * > . . . tº e º 'º 000°2 2L2° tº tº e e It'ſ
e- - 99T “g * . . . . .” tº tº * - e • * * > tº º 99T “g tº gº Ohl
* - Lºº L88 * - ſº * -e ºr e tº º tº e tº gº 188 tº gº 68T
cº-e sº 98.9° GT -- tº e * - gº º e 008 988 “gſ & > 99T
* - I - * tº gº º * - a ( → * > e º 'º * - tº 199"I Gºº º 18T
gº º º * - sº tº º º gº º Lº * - e e- º e 22h ‘I -º º 99T
* - e * > * > g-º º tº tº cº º-º e-ºº- tº e º 'º Ohz gº º º h9T
º tº e º 'º gº tº tº tº * > tº tº º * - º 622°g tº º ºs 88T
º e cº º & e tºº-e tº a º cº- 000°T 218 °2 tº gº 92T
009 ggl‘g º dº tº e. tº tº * * * * 000°T 99.1 “h * > * * I,2T
91.9 000°9 tº º & º tº º ºs tº º e-egº 91.9°9 & º 92T
* - sº 289°2 e - * > º 299°2 tº-e Es gº tº º 299°2 * > * > 9IT
tº º 689 “T gº º- * * * > gº º º - ºf e 689 "T * - I - III
‘. . . . . tº º e tº º tº gº tº-e tº e tº . . OOH 999 “I * > * > 90T
000° I 989 & Leº tº º º * - e. tº e * - º 98.9"I ‘. … ... e OOI
* > . . . * > … e. tº º gº tº e tº e º º * - C_b gº º go9 ‘g * * * * > 66
* … º * * * > tº gº tº º º & lº Q ºf ſº gº tº Oh9 * Lºº 96
gº º tº º tº º * > * > * = º tº º 008 920'g gº º 16
* -º º tº º • * ~ e-º º tº Ee e-ºp g-º º Stil * - 96
* † e e- tº * * * * tº e º tº º tº e º 'º £IO*T tº º 96
e tº * - dºº- 28 tº * ºf lº 6 º' --> 28th -- . . T6
tº e º º tº e tº º tº º º tº º tº-e Lº tº a º 009 ‘T 262"t 91.
* - tº tº º tº * - a tº ºt. 2Ig'a tº- ( a 2Ig" 2 gº tº * …º.º. 99
* > * > º “Tº tº º tº º e 988 “g tº Ee 988 “g * * * * º e 99
* - º * > º tº º 000°8 98.1"g gº tº tº lº 98.1".9 tº … I9
tº e º e tº º º tº- tº tº º º * = tº tº-e tº 09.2°I gº º 99
* . . . . . tº e tº º * Lºº Oh9“I tº-e º tº e º Lº Oh9“I cº-º-º: 82
( → ~ tº º º {- tº 009 tl.9°2 tº lº thó ‘2 088 Gº Lº 2T
pskogamºr-pagueubuſſ-papersed pºrºmr-pºsuuusum-paperssø bºxbºurſ/assauwusum–Espvassd Sº Tuſ)
(se Jow) deau's udou?pg (selow) MT3 Az(seuow) deed at nº /T quomoseuuw
J.W.LIGWH &WW5) OI8 NO GAILWNHCJ.T.W. J.NIWMJ.SNOO LNGIWGR)WNWW GHL &O
SJ.OW dwi WM3 J." ONOT (ICJ.W.II.O.I.LNW
2-H 3T3 WI.
LNEWELV1S TVLNEWNOHIANE 398O9) TVAOH - Z-H
APPENDICES – H-3
OF THE NONINTENSIVE MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVE ON BIG GAME HABITAT
TABLE H-3
ANTICIPATED LONG-TERM IMPACTS
Management 1/
Mule Deer (Acres)2/
Elk (Acres)
Bighorn Sheep (Acres)
Units Degraded unchanged?/improved Degraded unchanged Improved Degraded Unchanged Improved
l2 g-e ºs 3,071, 200 4. tº e 2,671, 600 cº-e ºs tº º tº º
23 * > * > l,640 tº-e - tº - l, 1,80 l60 tº tº e * - º cº-e e
58 g Lº l, 280 º- tº e t- tº- tº tº ºs º- gº º tº-º º tº-e ºs
6l * - tº 8,738 tº º & 6,238 2,500 * - º ( > 0 , tº e º 'º
66 tº- (- 500 2,838 * - F- 3,338 tº º gº tº tº e º º tº-e ºs
68 e-º º 2,512 tº º tº gº 2,512 GE sº tº e tº e tº tº- tº-
75 l, 1,92 l, 300 tº tº º tº tº º tº cº- e º 'º tº * tº
91 gº tº l!32 tº gº º l!32 gº tº * > . . . tº tº º (E. e
95 sº tº l,013 tº- (- tº e º 'º gº tº º º “Tº sº º tº cº- * *
96 tº º ll!3 tº e º 'º º gº e tº e º 'º gº tº e tº e Lº tº-e gºe g-e ‘º
97 tº-e tº 5,326 tº º tº tº tº ſº tº tº gº tº gº {-º ºr e
98 tº º 61:0 cº-º- tº gº t- tº º tº tº tº Lº ( * tº º e
99 gº º 5,305 tº cº-e tº dº tº gº tº gº tº º |-- * - ? tº e
100 tº º l,538 tº ºt- > * > * > º- º tº gº tº º 638 900
105 2,268 tº º G. : E → tº e ∈ <- tº gº º tº e ∈ tº-e gº { } e
ll 7 tº gº l,539 & e tº e º e tº gº * 2 º' tº tº l,539 tº- tº-e
ll 8 tº dº sº 2,682 & tº * * * * 2,682 tº- (- & º º 2,682 * . . . e.
126 100 6,576 * > t > t-º º tº gº tº º º 6,676 tº-e sº
127 tº L_º 1,755 l,000 tº e tº gº gº tº cº- tº 5,755 º- tº-e
128 gº º 2,372 l,000 tº e º tº º tº sº wº- tº-e dº nº tº º
133 tº º º 3,229 g-º º * > * > º E º tº gº g- º tº º tº º
13|| tº - 21.0 sº tº tº º e tº º- gº º tº ſº $. e e -
l36 tº tº º l, 1,22 tº º tº e º º gº tº e tº E cº-º º tº º tº a gº
l37 cº º- l,587 tº tº tº º tº tº tº - tº º tº º º tº- tº
l38 tº º 15,635 * > t > tº º tº-e sº tº º tº E_ 15,635 §
l39 tº-> -º 337 º gº tº tº I- * > º cº- tº- 337 tº tº
ll.0 tº e 5, 188 gº tº e gº tº * - tº e tº e º 'º tº º º 5, 188 tº gº
ll, l tº º 5,272 l,000 tº tº tº º tº cº- tº º 6,272 * * *-*.
l!!2 tº tº e 3,227 500 sº tº (E_* tº tº gº º emº tº ſº- º tº gº
ll;3 *-ū-º 697 gº tº tº cº- “. . . .” tº gº tº "º º tº º tº gº
ll,6 tº e l,072 g gº º tº E- tº E tº-e ‘E tº-e º tº tº
ll;7 500 6,580 eº tº tº e º * > * > gº tº tº gº tº e ſº-º º
l!8 tº º- l,009 t-º gº tº e º 'º tº º tº gº tº º &E Eº * -
l!9 tº 7, 313 * > * > º gº cº- tº- tº gº me tº º tº E e
150 tº gº l, 1,76 l,000 e- -º tº e º o tº e º 'º * > * > tº- tº *_º ->
155 tº - l, 1.78 l,500 tº- tº-e tº-e is tº e º ſº * > * * tº º tº
lº,6 tº tº º l, 1.01 º “Tº gº tº gº º ºr p gº tº tº tº tº- (- *_º -º
158 gº tº 3, ll,8 !00 tº º gº º gº gº tº gº cº-e E- * - sº
165 tº-e ‘º l,518 tº- tº tº tº l,518 tº gº tº º ‘Lºº gº &= -
166 cº º- 2,083 tº º gº tº 2,083 sº tº tº tº tº e & e L-
l67 & º 95.7 tº e gº tº 95.7 e-º º gº tº * - º tº gº
168 * > . . l,031 e-ºº º tº º ſº º 831 200 gº tº © tº e tº º
169 e-º º 2,50l q- me & 2 2,50l tº º tº - tº e tº º
170 * - l, 310 tº ſº tº e º 'º l, 310 e- tº * † -º gº º * > -e,
17l tº ſº 253 ſº tº º *- C - tº-e - * * * tº º tº-e gº- & º tº º º
172 tº 827 tº º tº e º e gº º * > . . . * . . .” G- tº {__* ºr º
173 gº tº 919 tº - e-Lº sº 919 gº tº gº tº º tº e -º-
177 g-eº. 630 * : * ~ * tº gº e G- E - tº tº tº dº tº gº tº cº-e
187 tº l, 723 3,500 tº º gº º º * > --> tº º tº gº tº º
189 tº-sº º l,061 l,800 g-e tº e cº º tº- e tº º tº e
190 gº º 5,569 100 tº-e e * - I - tº-e ‘ * > --> 5,969 * : * *
l91 {_* 6,687 g-º º º g- 6,687 º ºg * - G - 6,687 tº º º
192 tº-e º 26,652 * - tº e * - e & tº º * - sº * - º 26,652 tº º
193 * > * > 15,248 gº º tº º tº --> tº- tº- tº- tº cº º-e gº º
193A * - tº 195 tº-e Tº e- e * > --> tº gº º * tº * > -e,
l91, tº e 2, 1,62 e tº º tº º q > Gº Gº tº º º cº º * > -e,
195 tº- tº 685 tº e - tº tº º tº º º * - gºe * - sº º tº e *E º
l96 * > . . 278 g-º º tº º º º tº e º ſº tº e º 'º tº e º e tº e
197 g-e 38, lló * - tº e gº º 38, 116 § - tº- tº tº º tº e
198 tº-º- 8, 1,60 tº e cº- º 8, 1,60 e- tº tº gº gº º tº tº e
199 e º 9,838 tº e º 'º gº º « » « » tº-º º -- 9,838 tº º
200 & º l, 159 tº E- gº tº tº gº tº gº tº º tº e tº & º
202 5,285 * -º º tº-e º eme º {-e gº-ºº: G-: ºº tº is * e ſ -º
201; º º 6, 1,15 tº º ºs tº gº 6, 1,15 tº gº tº gº º tº gº º º
213 tº e º 'º 651 tº º tº tº º q_º 65l tº º tº º tº tº gº º * - I e
216 tº cº- 5,271, tº e º 'º tº-º º 5,271, « . » tº º tº e º 'º * * * * * > -e
217 * - e 3,286 tº º gº tº 3, 186 100 tº º-e tº tº º e
222 & 3, 161, e-e e tº º tº-º- tº º tº tº gº tº * > -->
221, * - e 3,211 2,000 º “Tº * > * > {_* tº º $º º g-e ‘Te tº -
225 tº > 925 * º º tº-e tº e gº tº tº- tº tº gº tº tº gº
227 tº tº 5,964 tº º ºs gº º tº tº tº gº & º ºs tº e L- tº º
230 gº tº 3,579 tº e tº º 3,579 * > t > º- tº e º e * - sº
231 gº tº 1,775 q-e `e tº º e e-º º gº tº tº tº * > gº
233 tº º 881, 200 t-e e l,081. * - º º - {- tº * > * >
237 sº º 51,829 l!00 tº º {- º tº-º gº {-e gº & e-º º
238 gº º 5,927 100 tº º- {-º º tº-º º tº º tº & Tº tº
21,3 tº Eº ll, 179 l,00 g-e tº ll. , 179 l,00 tº E- tº cº- tº º
TOTAL 77 l. 360 356,782 l8.238 00 ll6,636 3,960 00 93.868 900
1/ . For the purpose of comparison, the same 77 management units have been used in all
alternatives evaluated in this manner. -
2/ Acres include only public lands.
3/ If the species of big game is found within a unit but not uniformly throughout the unit,
the portion not occupied by species is included under Unchanged.
LC-1 – ROYAL GORGE ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT
LITERATURE CITED
Ames, Charles R. 1977. Wildlife conflicts in riparian
management: grazing. Importance, Preservation,
and Management of Riparian Habitat: A Symposium
(Tucson, Ariz., July 9, 1977) 215 p.
Anderson, E. W. and R. J. Scherinzinger. 1975.
Improving quality of winter forage for elk by cattle
grazing. J. Range Manage. 28(2)120-125.
Armour, Carl L. n.d. Effects of deteriorated range
streams on trout. Unpubl.
Arnold, J.R., Jameson, D.A., and E.H. Reid. 1964. The
pinyon-juniper types of Arizona. Effects of Grazing,
Fire, and Tree Control; U.S. Dept. Agr. Production
Res. Pap. 84.
Bartlett, E.T., Taylor, R.G., and L.E. Mack. 1979.
Economic effects of reduction in federal grazing
upon the economy of Colorado, draft report. Dept.
Range Sci., Colo. State Univ., Fort Collins.
Barney, M.A. and N.C. Frischknecht. 1974. Vegetation
changes following fire in the pinyon-juniper type of
west central Utah. J. Range Manage. 27(2).
Beardall, L.E. and V.E. Sylvester. 1973. Spring burn for
removal of sagebrush competition in Nevada. Proc.
Tall Timbers Fire Ecol. Conf. 14:539-547.
Beardsly, John, and Marcia Kelly. n.d. Human use and
occupation narrative for the Canon City District. In
progress.
Burkhardt, J.W., and E. W. Tisdale. 1976. Causes of
juniper invasion in southwestern Idaho. Ecology
57:481.
Carder, D.R. 1977. Multi-resource management
research in the southwest—the Beaver Creek
program. J. Forestry 75(9).
Carmichael, G.A. and L. Loendorf. Archaeological
work in the path of phase V of the Bighorn Canyon
Transpark Road. National Park Service Contract
No. 2000–3-0065.
Colorado Air Pollution Control Commission. 1977.
Colorado Air Cuality Control Regulations and
Abient Air Quality Standards. Colo. Dept. of Health.
Colorado Department of Labor and Employment. 1978.
Colorado manpower review, Vol. XV, No. 6, June
1978, Labor Market Information Branch. Denver,
Colo.
Colorado Division of Property Taxation. 1978. Dept. of
Local Affairs, Eighth Annual Report, Denver, Colo.
Colorado Division of Wildlife. 1977. Colorado Big
Game Harvest.
Colorado Division of Wildlife. 1978. Colorado Big
Game Harvest.
Colorado Land Use Commission. 1974. Sediment Yield
Map.
Colorado State Historical Society. 1967. Colorado
Inventory—Colorado Historic Preservation Plan.
Cook, C.W. Personal communication. 1974, 1975,
1977, 1979.
Duff, D.A. 1978. Riparian habitat recovery on Big
Creek, Rich County, Utah. Bur. Land Manage. Res.
Rep.
Fuchs, C., D. Kaufman and A. Ronen. 1977. Erosion
and artifact distribution in open-air epi-pleistocene
sites on the coastal plains of Israel. Field Archaeol.
vol. 4.
Galliziolis, S. 1977. Improving fish and wildlife benefits
in range management. U.S. Dep. Interior, Fish and
Wild. Serv. FWS/BS-77-1.
Graul, W.D. and S.J. Bissell, tech. coord. 1978.
Lowland river and stream habitat in Colorado: a
symposium (Greeley, Colo., Oct. 4-5, 1978). Colo.
Chap. Wildl. Soc. and Colo. Audubon Count., 195 p.
Hansen, R.M. and L.D. Reid. 1975. Diet overlap of deer,
elk, and cattle in southern Colorado. J. Range
Manage. 28(1)43--47.
Humphrey, R.R. 1962. Range Ecology (1st ed.) Ronald
Press Co., New York, N.Y.
Hurst, W.D. 1976. Management strategies within the
pinyon-juniper ecosystem. Rangeman's J. 3(1).
Hyde, R.M., C.W. Cook, and J.J. Trlica. Personal
communication. 1979.
Johnson, A. 1977. Preliminary cultural resource survey
of Spring Creek, Miguel District, Grand Mesa,
Uncompaghre & Gunnison National Forest. Ms. On
file, Office of State Archaeologist, Denver.
Kimball, J. and F. Savage. 1977. Diamond Fork aquatic
and range habitat improvement. U.S. Dep. Agr., For.
Serv. Res. Rep.
Knight, G. 1978. Position letter to the Grand Junction
District, Bur. Land Manage.
Komarek, R. 1973. Fire and the changing wildlife
habitat. Proc. Tall Timbers Fire Ecol. Conf. 2:35–43.
Lawhorn, W. Personal communication. 1978, 1979.
Litzinger, W. 1975. Effect of sheep grazing on the
Hovenweep environment. Ms. On file at Mesa Verde
National Park.
Lusby, G.C., G.T. Turner, J.E. Thompson, and V.H.
Reid. 1963. Hydrologic and biotic characteristics of
grazed and ungrazed watersheds of the Badger
Wash basin in western Colorado, 1953-58. U.S.
Geol. Survey Water-Supply Paper 1532-B:1-73.
Mackie, R.J. 1978. Impacts of livestock grazing on wild
ungulates. Presented 43rd N. Ameri. Wildl. Nat.
Resour. Conf.
Martin, S.C. 1978. Grazing systems—what they can
accomplish. Rangeman's J. 5(1).
McKean, W.R. and F.M. Bartman. 1971. Deer-livestock
relations on a pinon-juniper range in northwestern
Colorado. Fed. Aid in Wildl. Restoration, Proj. W-
101-R.
Minnich, D.W. 1969. Vegetative response and pattern
of deer use following chaining of pinon and juniper
forest. Colo. Div. Game, Fish and Parks. Denver,
Colo.
Muchmore, D.C. 1969. Livestock grazing effects on all
season mule deer ranges. Wyo. Game and Fish
Comm. Proj. No. FW-3-R-15.
Mueller-Dombois, D. and H. Ellenberg. 1974. Aims and
methods of vegetation ecology (1st ed.) John Wiley
& Sons, Inc., New York, N.Y.
Oxley, J.W. Personal communication. 1975.
Papez, N.J. 1976. The Ruby-Butte deer herd. Nev. Fish
and Game Dep. Biol. Bull. No. 5.
Pase, C.P. and C.E. Granfelt. 1977. The use of fif
Arizona rangelands. Ariz. Interagency º
Committee Publ. No. 4. Game and Fish Commſ l
NO. FW-3-4-15.
Pase, C.P. and A.W. Lindenmuth. 1971. Eſsº,
prescribed fire on vegetation and sediment in'.
mountain mahogany chapparal. J. Forest. 69' U
Platts, W.S. and C. Rountree. 1972. Bear Valley c
Idaho, aquatic environment and fisheries 3"
U.S. Forest Serv.
U
Rogers, G. n.d. Game-livestock forage compel
study in Colorado. Unpub.
Roney. J. n.d. Livestock and lithics: the effect
trampling. , V
prelim. draft Bur. Land Manage. Winemucca,"
Ross, L.A., D.M. Blood, and K.C. Nobe. 1975. Asſ.
of sportsmen expenditures for hunting and ſº V
in Colorado, 1973. Dept. of Econ., Colo. State U
Ft. Collins, Colo., 1975. (NRE-20).
Short, H.L. and C.Y. McCulloch. 1977. Mané W
pinon-juniper ranges for wildlife. U.S. Dept. A
Forest Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-47 W
Sims, P.L. Personal communication. 1974.
W
Skovlin, J.M., et al. 1968. The influence of }
management on deer and elk. Trans. N. Am..W
and Nat. Resour. Con. 33:169-181.
Steger, R.E. 1970. Grazing systems for range care"Y
Mex. State Univ. Coop. Ext. Serv. Cir. 427.
*
Stoddart, L.A. and A.D. Smith. 1955. R*,
management (2nd ed.), McGraw-Hill Book Co.'
York, N.Y.
Stoddart, L.A., A.D. Smith, and T.W. Box. 1975. a.
management (3rd ed.), McGraw-Hill Book Co.
York, N.Y.
Trlica, M.J., M. Bowai, and J.W. Menke. 1977. Effe.
rest following defoliations on the recovery of sº
range species. J. Range Manage. 30(1).
AA
Trlica, M.J. and P. Hackney. 1977. Vegetative,
wildlife inventory of Sommerville Table. Unpº
t;
Tully, R.J., L.J. Griess, L. Kroeckel. 1978 wº
conservation officers creel census report. sta A
Colo., Dept. of Nat. Res., Div. of Wildlife.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conser".
Service. 1976. National Range Handbook. NR
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservºia
Service. 1975. Soil survey of Chaffee-Lake'
Colorado.
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Eco".
Analysis. 1978. Personal income by major sou'
1976. Washington, D.C. Computer printouts.
§
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Ceſa
1972. Census of population: 1970, general %
and economic characteristics, Colorado. U.S.
Print. Off., Washington, D.C.
#
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the cº
1974. Statistical abstract of the U.S. Soc. & 6 Al
Statistics Admin.
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the cºal
1979. Survey of current business. Vol. 59., Nº
U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of"
Management. 1977. Raton Basin Unit Re50
Analysis (URA).
GLOSSARY – GL-1
U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land
f Management. 1978. Royal Gorge Resource Area
ſº Unit Resource Analysis (URA).
1ſ U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land
Management. 1978. San Luis Resource Area
grazing final environmental statement. Canon City
... District, Colo.
ſ".
9| U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land
Management. 1979. Caliente draft environmental
statement, proposed domestic livestock grazing
management program. Las Vegas District, Nev.
C:
U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land
ſel Management. 1979. Grand Junction Resource Area
grazing management draft environmental
act Statement. Grand Junction District, Colo.
Vallentine, J.F. 1971. Range development and
3' improvement. Brigham Young Univ. Pr. Provo,
Utah.
s'
*Van Poolen, Hw, and J.R. Lacey, 1979. Herbage
2 response to grazing intensities and stocking
intensities. J. Range Manage. 32(4).
n& Wadle, J.D. 1962. Balancing forage use by wildlife and
l, livestock. Unpubl.
Wasser, C.W. Personal communication. 1974.
A"ght H.A. 1976. Northern desert shrub-grassland:
f W review of fire literature—state of the art. Unpubl.
|
Wurm, D. Personal communication. 1978.
re'Yokum, J.D. 1977. Managing rangelands for the
American pronghorn antelope. Interstate Antelope
, Conference Transactions.
flá,
o'
te. GLOSSARY
36
*ACRE-Foot. A unit for measuring volume, equal to
! the quantity of water or other material required to
Cover 1 acre to a depth of 1 foot or a volume of 43,560
º Cubic feet.
W!"
;t& ADVERSE visuAL IMPAcT. Any impact on the land or
Water form, vegetation, or any introduction of a
* structure which adversely changes or interrupts the
. Visual character of the landscape and disrupts the
harmony of the natural elements.
cºlorMENT. An area of land where one or more
6 Operators graze their livestock. It generally consists
of public lands but may include parcels of private or
! state-owned lands. The number of livestock and
f period of use are stipulated for each allotment. An
2" allotment may consist of several pastures or be only
5. One pasture. It is the same as a management unit.
$
*lorMENT MANAGEMENT PLAN (AMP). A
* Concisely written program of livestock grazing
3 management, including supportive measures, if
"equired, designed to attain specific management
& 90als in a grazing allotment.
61%
|
ALLOTTEE. Holder of a license or permit for grazing
°n an allotment. A permittee.
*lluvium. Unconsolidated rock or soil material
10 "eposited by running water, including gravel, sand,
| t &
!" *iſt, clay, and various mixtures of these.
30
ALLUVIAL SOIL. A soil developing from recently
deposited alluvium and exhibiting essentially no
horizon development nor modification of the
recently deposited materials.
ANIMAL UNIT MONTH (AUM). The forage needed to
support one cow, one horse, or five sheep for a
month or one elk, five deer, or five antelope for the
same period of time (1800 lbs./AUM on a 50 percent
utilization basis).
ANNUALS. Plants produced from seed which
complete their life cycle in one growing season.
ARCHEOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Sites, areas,
structures, objects, or other evidence of prehistoric
human activities.
ASPECT. The orientation of a slope in respect to the
compass; a position facing or fronting a particular
direction.
ASPECT (VEGETATIVE). The appearance that a
dominant or most common species of vegetation
gives to the viewer, i.e., shortgrass, pinyon-juniper,
big sagebrush, see vegetation type.
AUM. See Animal Unit Month.
BASIC ELEMENTS. The four major elements (form,
line, color, and texture) which determine how the
character of a landscape is perceived.
BIOMASS. The weight of all (or the specified) living
organisms over a unit of area.
BROWSE. The part of leaf and twig growth of shrubs,
woody vines, and trees available for animal
consumption.
CATCHMENT. A structure built to collect and retain
Water.
CFR. Code of Federal Regulations.
CHECK DAM. Man-made structure which will slow
down or temporarily stop runoff. Check dams
reduce water velocity and channel erosion and
cause sediment deposition in the channels above
the Structures.
CLIMAX VEGETATION. Relatively stable vegetation in
equilibrium with its environment and with good
reproduction of the dominant plants.
COLOR. Color is a phenomenon of light or visual
perception that enables one to distinguish between
otherwise identical objects, as hue, as contrasted
with black, white, or gray. Color as perceived in the
landscape is usually most prominent in the
vegetation, but may be expressed in the soil, rocks,
water, etc., and may vary with the time of day, time of
year, and the weather.
CONTRAST. The effect of a striking difference in the
form, line, color, or texture of the landscape features
within the area being viewed.
CONTRAST RATING. A method of determining the
extent of visual impact for an existing or proposed
activity that will modify any landscape feature (land
and water form, vegetation, and structures).
COMPETITION. Two or more organisms or species
sustaining damage due to a limited resource
mutually required.
COOL-SEASON GRASS. A grass which makes the
major portion of its growth during late winter, early
spring, and again in the fall (during the cool
seasons) or at higher elevations during the summer.
CRITICAL WILDLIFE HABITAT. That portion of the
living area of a wildlife species that is essential to the
survival and perpetuation of the species either as
individuals or as a population.
CULTURAL MODIFICATION. Any man-caused
change in the land or water form or vegetation or the
addition of a structure which creates a visual
contrast in the basic elements (form, line, color,
texture) of the naturalistic character of a landscape.
CULTURAL RESOURCES. Those fragile and
nonrenewable remains of human activity,
occupation, or endeavor, reflected in districts, sites,
structures, buildings, objects, artifacts, ruins, works
Of art, architecture, and natural features, that were
of importance in human events.
DISSOLVED SOLIDS. 'Solids that originate mostly
from rocks and are in solution. Some colloidal
material is treated as if it were in solution in
determining dissolved solids. The total dissolved
mineral COnstituents of water.
EASEMENT. An easement is a right acquired by the
U.S. to use or control private property for a road,
trail, or other specified purposes.
EDGE EFFECT. An area where the types of food and
cover are more diverse thus creating a more
favorable wildlife habitat, i.e., meadow abutting
forest or logged area adjacent to or surrounded by
"natural" vegetation.
ENDANGERED SPECIES. Any species which is in
danger of extinction throughout all or a significant
portion of its ranges.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (EA). A report
analyzing the impacts of some proposed action on a
given environment. It is similar to an environmental
impact statement (EIS) except that it is generally
smaller in scope and makes recommendations for
action. EAs are sometimes preliminary to EISs.
EROSION. The process by which soil particles are
Cetached and moved.
EROSION CONDITION CLASS. A classification
System for Soil erosion which allows a site to be
ranked on a scale of 0-100, in increments of 20
points. Value classes are: 0–20 stable; 21-40
slight; 41-60 moderate; 61-80 critical; 81-100
Severe. The terms used for value classes are largely
self-explanatory.
FLOODPLAIN. The nearly level alluvial plain that
borders a stream and is subject to inundation during
high water.
FLORAL. All plant life of a particular period or region.
FLOW PATTERN. A microchannel(s) collecting and/or
redistributing water resulting from precipitation
events; a flow pattern is smaller than a rill.
FORB. Herbaceous plants neither grass nor
resembling grass.
FOREGROUND-MIDDLEGROUND. The area visible
from a travel route, use area, Or Other Observer
position to a distance of 3 to 5 miles. The outer
boundary of this zone is defined as the point where
the texture and form of individual plants are no
longer apparent in the landscape. Vegetation is
apparent only in patterns or outline.
FORM. Form is generally considered as the mass or
shape of an object. It is most strongly expressed in
the shape of the land surface, usually the result of
some type of erosion, but may also be reflected in
the shape of the openings or changes in vegetation,
or in the structures placed on the landscape.
ÇL-2 – ROYAL GORGE ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT
GROUND COVER (SOIL). The material covering the
soil and providing protection from, or resistance to,
the impact of raindrops, and expressed in percent of
the area covered. Composed of vegetation, litter,
erosion, pavement, and rock.
GROUND WATER. That part of subsurface water that
completely saturates the rocks and is under
hydrostatic pressure.
HABITAT. A specific set of physical conditions that
Surround the single species, a gro, p of species, or a
large Community. In wildlife management, the major
COmponents Of habitat are considered to be food,
water, Cover, and living space.
HIGH-INTENSITY STORMS. Storms producing
rainfall at rates exceeding the ability of the ground
surface to absorb the water, thus resulting in the
runoff of water. These storms are usually the
convective, or thunderstorm, type.
HISTORICAL RESOURCES. All evidences of human
activity that date from historic (i.e., recorded
history) periods.
INFILTRATION. The downward entry of water into the
SOil.
INTRUSION. A feature (land and water form,
vegetation, or structure) which is generally
considered out of Context with the characteristic
landscape.
INVERTEBRATE. An animal without a backbone. This
group includes such animals as insects, Clams,
Snails, and worms.
LANDSCAPE FEATURES. The land and water form,
vegetation, and structures which compose the
characteristic landscape.
LINE. Lines found in the natural landscape are usually
the result of an abrupt contrast in form, texture, or
color. Lines may be found as ridges, skylines,
Structures, changes in vegetative types, or
individual trees and branches.
LITHIC SCATTER. Stone debris left as the result of
tool manufacture or reshaping.
LITTER. The uppermost layer of undecomposed,
organic debris on or near the soil surface.
MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK PLAN (MFP). Land use
plan for public lands which provides a set of goals,
objectives, and constraints for a specific planning
area to guide the development of detailed plans for
the mangement of each resource.
MANAGEMENT UNIT. See allotment.
MESA. A broad, nearly flat-topped and usually isolated
upland mass.
NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES. The
official list, established by the Historic Preservation
Act of 1966, of the nation's Cultural resources
worthy of preservation.
OUTDOOR RECREATION OPPORT UNIT | ES
(ACTIVITIES). A general categorization of leisure
pursuits which Occur in the Outdoors.
PALEO-INDIAN. Culture remains of human groups
which coexisted with Pleistocene megafauna in
North America.
PALEONTOLOGY. A science dealing with the life of
past geological periods as known from fossil
remains.
||||||||||||
PARENT MATERIAL. The unconsolidated and more-
or-less chemically weathered mineral or organic
matter from which soil develops.
PASTURE. As used in this docuoment, a pasture is a
Subdivision of a grazing allotment on public lands.
For example, the allotment is divided into three
pastures.
PEDESTALLING. A phenomenon of erosion where
plants or rocks are left standing on pedestals of soil.
Pedestals are formed because a rock or plant has
held the soil underneath in place.
PERMITTEE. Holder of a license or permit for grazing
On an allotment. An allottee.
PERIOD OF USE. The scheduled time under a given
system of rangeland management that livestock are
allowed to graze a certain area.
PHENOLOGY. The progress of plants through their
growth cycle.
PHYSIOGRAPHIC REGION. An extensive portion of
the landscape normally encompassing many
hundreds of square miles which portrays similar
qualities of Soil, rock, slope, and vegetation of the
same geomorphic origin.
PLANT COVER. The percent of an area covered by any
part of living plant material (aerial plant cover), or
that percent area occupied by the portion of living
plants at the point of emergence from the ground
(basal plant cover).
PLANT DENSITY. The number of vegetative
individuals per unit of area. Refers to the relative
closeness of individual vegetation to one another.
PUBLIC LAND. Land administered by the Bureau of
Land Management.
RANGE CONDITION AND TREND. A description of
the Current status and estimated future
improvement or deterioration of the vegetation and
SOil.
RECREATION RESOURCES. Any resource or feature
that contributes to outdoor leisure pursuits or
experiences.
REST. Deferment of grazing on a range area to allow
plants to replenish their food reserves. In this
statement refers to year-long relief from livestock
grazing.
REST STANDARD. The period of time free from
grazing required for a forage plant to complete its
physiological requirements.
RILL. A small intermittent water course with steep
sides, less than 6 inches deep.
RIPARIAN. Situated on or pertaining to the bank of a
river, stream, or other body of water. Normally used
to refer to the plants of all types that grow rooted in
the water table or streams, ponds, and springs, etc.
SCENIC QUALITY. The degree of harmony, contrast,
and variety within a landscape.
SEDIMENT YIELD. The amount of sediment given up
by a watershed over a specified time period, usually
a year. Ordinarily, it is expressed as tons, acre feet,
or cubic yards of Sediment per unit of drainage area
per year.
SERAL. Pertaining to the successional stages of biotic
COmmunities.
SILT. Sedimentary material consisting primarily 0.
mineral particles intermediate in size between saſ
and Clay.
soil Association. A mapping unit used on genera
soil maps, in which two or more defined taxonomiſ
units occurring together in a characteristic patterſ
are combined because the scale of the map of th?
purpose for which it is being made does not requiſ?
Celineation Of the individual soils.
SOIL ERODIBILITY FACTOR. The measure of the raté
at which a soil will permit a high level of croſſ
productivity to be sustained economically and
indefinitely; also called permissible soil loss.
SOIL PRODUCTIVITY. The capability of a soil fo
producing a specified plant or sequence of plant;
under a specified system of managment.
SOIL SURFACE FACTOR. A factor reflecting th?
present erosion activity on the ground surface. It iſ
used to reflect the general condition of the are?
represented by an associated transect used in th?
determination of hydrologic condition fo!
watershed COver.
STAND. An aggregation of trees or other growth
occupying a specific area and sufficiently uniforſ"
in composition (species), age, arrangement, and
condition, to be distinguishable from the forest of
other growth on adjoining areas.
STOCKING I.EVEL. The maximum number o,
livestock that can graze a given area for a specifić,
period of time. .
TEXTURE. Texture is the result of the size, Shape, and
placement of parts, their uniformity, and th?
distance from which they are being observed
Texture, as it is perceived in the landscape, ſº
usually the result of the vegetation or vegetativº
patterns on the landscape. Texture may also be thº
result of the erosive patterns in rocks or soil.
$
!
THREATENED SPECIES. Any species which is like
to become an endangered species within thº
foreseeable future throughout all or a significaſ'
portion of its range.
{
s
*
#
TOPSOIL. Presumed fertile soil or SOil maº
usually rich in Organic matter, used to top-dres
road banks, parks, etc.
*
UNDERSTORY. That portion of a plant communit.
that grows underneath taller plants growing on th’
Same Site.
UNGULATE. A hooved animal.
UNIT RESOURCE ANALYSIS. The system of dat?
gathering and analysis that precedes land u%
planning for public lands. See Manageme"
Framework Plan.
UNSUITABLE RANGE. An area which may have valu'.
for wildlife but has no value for, or should not b%
used by, livestock because of steep topograph)
barrenness, dense timber, lack of forage, 0.
unstable Soils.
USE. The proportion of current year's forag'
production that is consumed or destroyed by
grazing animals. May refer either to a single specié
or to the vegetation as a whole. -
UTILIZATION. See use. i
VEGETATION TYPE. A plant community wiſ'
immediately distinguishable characteristics, base
upon and named after the apparent dominate pla";
species. *
INDEX – I-1
VISUAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT CLASSES. The
degree of visual change that is acceptable within the
Characteristic landscape. It is based upon the
physical and socio-logical characteristics of any
given homogeneous area and serves as a
management objective.
WARM SEAsoN GRAss. A plant which makes most or
all of its growth during the spring, summer, or fall
and is usually dormant in winter; grows during the
Warm SeaSOn.
VERTEBRATE. An animal having a backbone or spinal
Column.
VIGOR (PLANTS). The state of health of a plant. The
capacity of a plant to respond to growing
conditions, to make and store food, produce food,
produce seed, or reproduce vegetatively, that is, by
Stolons or rhizomes.
VISUAL RESOURCE. The land, water, vegetative,
animal, and other features that are visible On all
lands.
WILDERNESS CHARACTERISTICS. The definition
contained in section 2(c) of the Wilderness Act (78
Stat. 891).
WILDERNESS STUDY AREA. A roadless area which
has been found to have wilderness characteristics
(thus having the potential of being included in the
National Wilderness System), and which will be
Subjected to intensive analysis in the Bureau's
planning System, and public review to determine
wilderness suitability, and is not yet the subject of a
Congressional decision regarding its designation as
WickIUP. A frame hut covered with matting, bark, or wilderneSS.
brush. VISUAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT (VRM). The
planning, design, and implementation of
WILDERNESS AREA. An area formally designated by management objectives to provide acceptable
Congress as a part of the National Wilderness levels of visual impacts for all BLM resource
Preservation System. management activities.
INDEX
Page
^ctual Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Forest Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
^djustment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Soil Conservation Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
^quatic Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Water and POwer Resources Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Assumptions and Analysis Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Programs, Local . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Benefit/Cost Analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Programs, State
°ondition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Colorado State Land Office . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Stoplands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Colorado Division of Wildlife . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Sultural Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Qualifications (see Licensed Use) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Smployment • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 34 Range Improvements (see also Facilities) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
nergy Conservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Range Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Valuation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Recreation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
facilities.................................. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Rest Treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
lood Plains/Flood Hazard Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Riparian Vegetation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
'mpacts on: Short Term . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Aquatic Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45, 52, 56, 60, 64 Soils. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Archaeology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50, 54, 57, 62,65 Stocking Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Economics and Social Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46, 53, 56, 60, 65 Threatened and Endangered Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23, 30
Forestry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50, 54, 58,62, 66 Trend, Apparent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Livestock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40, 52, 54, 58, 63 Utilization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Recreation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46, 53, 56,60, 64 Vegetative Types
Soils. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49, 54, 57, 62,65 Forestland Group
Vegetation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38, 52, 54, 58, 63 Broadleaf Tree . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Visual Resources Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50, 54, 58,62, 66 Conifer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Water Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49, 54, 57, 62,65 Grassland Group
Wildlife . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40, 52, 55, 58, 63 Grass . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
"come Meadow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Shrubland Group
Government. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Mountain Shrub . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Ranch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Pinyon-Juniper . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Key Species. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Sagebrush . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
$nd Treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Saltbush . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
"Sensed Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Water Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
"estock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 WilderneSS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Song Term . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Wildlife
anagement, Levels of Antelope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
'ntensive. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Bighorn Sheep . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Nonintensive . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Conifer-Associated Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
°nitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Flk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Sisonous and Noxious Plants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Grassland-Associated Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
'oduction, Vegetative. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Mountain Shrub-Associated Species. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
tograms, Federal Mule Deer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Bureau of Land Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Riparian-Broadleaf-ASSOciated Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Fish and Wildlife Service. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
41
D5/9B02–013-0 ºr
state of colorado
--------------------------- —------2'-
-------- - H
ºn 9 º'
---------------
------->
colo state office
District office -
Resource area office
– District eoundary |
------source are a Bou--a- |
:
-
-
-
-
º;i





S0b0038 WT8 w 3H10 CJN w ºws 1. Nº o 301A was 83 AN30
"ĐNi ddw w nw 1034s 40 solº + o : Nouvwaewoº Ni do 3 ounos
|-
|
|----
----
|-… ···
_–@！~.
ſſ | H LºnOS 210x100 TVÅ OM
|----
|
|-0……maen -
ggºsºupoºs
iI1iTTt-r）
sºlſ w 0:1soļuepunog uo ºurouo-
đuſouo）
ºzºz6zsuſun nuouuoº euerw w 18
'S 82 ſ.l.soļuepunoa nuouņotiv
|
+----Ř(ponnolleun) (1:1SOdOſad0Nil Sixth
|š0861 Awiwn Nyt (13 linnaeidae+AO NOLLYW MOHNI ONIZVR10
- - -•
†īvno>
' ' ;8
ș}">
TI·
…s|-Prae·
----uomº anºw|·••••••|COE)|ſuae，�|waeO|•uenºſ:
_-------------+-----—–+–*----|-
|-----lewºo ||--，|----
S / 2 ： L----• nºvo ||~ | ~ ~ |||-0•••• •łº
---- ----…v… ！=3，–|· ----|·|-----… - ……….
…|….………ºo •| wºue， i T’， ‘‘”-----~… …now
·.-----_|-
----+----------
•••••• !|•••••••ºwo----|
！u…………-|lir-se•|- ••••••••---------*::| -：-":::::::
·-----–----+-·----
º| nºw. ••••••I wao:|…………o·|…ſ----•••• • •ı 1 -oooºoo…'，#####
|·−+–––4••••ın sn|-−••• • • •
| sw nw••••••|-|-
o."" || ~ || I. ··· || ~ || …“，•••• ••• I •*（）;
|-···|-----_
|-|·
∞u'，-·…lr-o·
*{opeao， ſ…i，º|• "$• • • • • ! –::::::：:::
_-_!-----+----------|--------|-
|·| ~ ~p， vidae
-->•••••s i e…s…aeſ，*:）;| ~ Þºrszaws…-…
----------_- _ _-----|-----
~~ ~~·|···| ~ ~，7īčīā ,•ðu…
‘S 92 （1.！ ！！！••••• I • | „;“;;••ı，*（fr） || — †）;# | sus eiuſ
| º•••• • ¡ ¿№T-_-· TTT：sºn ºſ
© º| • wen muo|：| ， ، ، ، ، ، ،-oro-ºo:::::- - - -|，'*';'）;
+---+---+--------TOETOET， ……...…
::：：：:|-•••• • • • • •………-|- -----
·.…….……………|●|…|####-----.ſº…o|•，，:|
·|-+-------------+–––-}-
|-|
•••• • • • • •|�|- - - -|www.wo pwen
– ++-_-----
•eo i||
wewwe， ſ+wae…awo- - -|aequado
| • • ••••••••• .
r------T+-_-
H || ~ ~ | °~ | ~ | ~ ~ | ~~~~… | — — || …:
|---------_-_-----_|-|-
·T·†
•，,.
•••••• ! * | sºuro ng 1 -o-••••::| ------- | •«łu „º，|
- -|-·
----+--------+---+--------
… ………|-| ，---------…s- - - -
'S G2 ： L… ……|| ••••••ºn *:• “ſ:5
|--1，0|… .|，_-••••••-… in…|-
№.3|-•w• • •|-|（~~~~daewae ��T pe .………o
loquÁs | eun, dø+|loquiasºunſoº3 | loquuÅs | eunļ004 | loquuks | eumųoo-loquuÁS | ºun, de-
||-||
(ſuauuefeuew puen jo meaing &q
palaisſuțupv) pueri oſ[qna
‘S Ez （1.
'w 69 'ae'ºm 0， '&l'^^ ^.^ ！!！'^^ {c/. ºb
OGIWRIOTOO















ae
<í xī）;
.9„º
* ) -; CO \ y'ſ
• • •�
( )• →
~,~ ° / \, \ ，
'*<<.~~ ~ ~^

9：
-
6v ，
■ Oº la
s G \ ，
€/I LSAM CHOMHOO TVÅOR.
s*uel aðeuous uoueae
souſlodha
suubuqome o Iſeguen
suſovu osoa uuoquea
sdºos º sºuuds
ºutuuſų laanbolºs
ºutuung poquosa）
ºuſwold puelųsnug
leuolo
----spuenº ºlume O
----sºļue punog uo ºuroua.„
----8ulouaa
#s600---
laesuſun nuouuoº.euerw w 18
sºluepunog nuºuuuoliv
(pouholleun)
(13 SOdOſadºonilisixº
o861 Awiwnnwr 03 LN1&idx+3AO NOI LVW （10+Ni ĐNIzvºriº)
OGIWAŁOTOO
sou oołu w na uaſlo omw ºu alı，o ao lauas usambo
"Đ，v，w nvlogaes ao aoaeaeo -， ouvwaedami do Bounos
|-•••••|
----••••••|•---------
|Œ.………→••••••••O|•v•aº::
----|-----+）|--
lewºo |-…：|
-----•• • • |----… …mae|Q----- r.
*--_-_-I-
---------………• |-…s ：----|-|……………
••••••7·~o ~| vºus， l （~~~~……~| …':'，''，
———————--------_|---—_
·un， i-ur -ºs !！}:-------------|----
||-|•••••••••••…ºg
-———|––1–
|----
º-- - - -->…………o I·„::：::ſeº:
|-|-•••• • sn|……… "……
•••• ： 1 …en----· -
o.------------،o………………
-， ， , ， s- ----
|-|-|-|-–
…s…ur-o|----
•ło••••••••----…·-eae • uwo
|-|-----|-T
………| … • • • •|
-->·s----…s----| …)--…|------
|-----+| –
±-----·••••••|…rs……
=-------… ----|••••••••••••• • • • • • • •
-----…o…s)T ← → ·
©--~n …o∞…ºn ……-->|…o.o.|•••••••，,
|-|-----|- |-••••
№ſſº---- - ----(~~~~ …)…oI
§§---…-…*|-| •
----|-|+|-
~>------|……… ……
|- ºg|- -|----––
**–••••••••+………o- 1 ---- ----- - - 1|-
•• •••••••••.|………|-…o
|------+–---––
|-1+…º…o
••• • • • • •*••••----… ……|…- -|•••••■5
||
|--+--------_––
||•）›.
~----！…o aema-o- | ****::::::------- | •«，|
||-- ----
------------ |
_* !__+–|-
… ••••••， !·†|
z ~~';:: | ， ، || …:|| ~ ~:: | ---- | . ：::::
|-|--|-
-- .…»…••|-|••••••----- … ! -·-
i •r，•••-- .-.-.-…
---- |•••••-，-…
| ºun,do） | loquaes
loquuÁS T•un,dº）ſºusaunqooº | loquuÅs
• „nų.00，loquuÁS•ın, bº-）
SīõāWOESTEWW
ahovnovs
• sau ou neuon en
•puri •••ıs
•puri ponuº， u
nuºuuºº.eu -w puri jo n-aing •ų,
Aq pasanaeuquupy) ºpueri ºnqnu
MostRost
|-------
· · ·
…ae, v
----
---------- »
= ！------•|-
- ----
haeºlvae
~ ！！ ！！!!！
(IN3031 smlwls unwi
！！！！！！
---- --
， ！
----+----★
|-
.
|-
&
， !
Nºt ºr ºvº,
………….….…
T
••ı， 0.
^^. 6. ***^^ oº ， ！
^^ ze -























sœ003-ba-e-ba-lo 0， 'ualaeo ao lauras uraamao
ºbwidºw w nviosºs do aoſ ºso nouvwaedam ao apunos
----
-----------
ºs 91 （1.
+-
-
---
---
-
-
--
|--
-
-
-
--
|-|-|-
• •••••••• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •ı
…………
---- ……
-- ……… --------- ----
••••••• • • •••••• ----------
· · · -
• ••••••• • • • • •u• … ………
•••• ••••••• • • • • • • • • •••••• ••••••
----
---- ----
-º-，
• • • • … …n … ---
•••••• • • • ••••••• ••••••• • • • • •■■ºs 6 - 1
• • • • •ą n-n …… … … ……*
•••••••• • • • • • ••••••••
••• • • •m•••••••• • • • • • • • • • • •••
•••• • • • • • • • • •••••••
…ma • ••••••• ••••••••••• • •••
•••• • •n•••••• • • • • • • • • • • "---
nuou aºeuryw pueri jo neauna ºvu
sųºnou 1. jane w«q paroistunuupv) spuri xtiqna
sxuellººeious uoueaetºn，
• • • • • •••••••• ••••••• • • ••••••••
••••• • • • •••••••)
souſtºdia
suuauuupied imejupe» di Naotati snilvis unvaei
snou osoa urbųında
…n … 01 …0-
silºae
sdºs y sºuuds
ºs º "l
ºutuuſų lawnºſºs
ºutuuna poquºsava
ºuſwolae puetusmuº
000 d’º- ºn tº a
sºupoosr───────────────r
--… d.6
r-
}T:Tt-t-t-t-ı
--
---
uoneindiuew uontuºsaa
-o-oreuod
--------sprensammed
----------sauepunoa uo ºurouaa
--*-*=-，----ºurouaa
-c …·suſun nuºu aº euerw wriaeOGIVARIOTOO|- 's ： 'l
sºutpunoa nuºtumotiv
€ / 1 LSVGH GHOBHOO TVÅORI
-
(panuotteun)
clas0，10）son il six-i
ossi aewnnwr dal Niniania ao Nollywºod Ni ĐNizvºłº
*aw ， ！