FINAL EA 

Environmental Assessment for Watershed 

and 

Fisheries Conservation Treatments 

PUBLIC LANDS CENTER 

Rio Grande National Forest, US Forest Service, US 

Department of Agriculture and 

 San Luis Resource Area, Bureau of Land Management, US 

Department of the Interior 

April 2005
Environmental Assessment for Watershed and Fisheries Conservation Treatments 

Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact 

1 

Decision Notice 

And 

Finding of No Significant Impact 

Watershed and Fisheries Conservation Treatments 

SAN LUIS VALLEY 

PUBLIC LANDS CENTER 

USDA Forest Service 

Rocky Mountain Region 

Public Lands Center 

Rio Grande National Forest and 

San Luis Resource Area, BLM, Colorado 
Environmental Assessment for Watershed and Fisheries Conservation Treatments 

Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact 

2 

Decision Notice and 

Finding of No Significant Impact 

Watershed and Fisheries Conservation Treatments 

Introduction 

This Decision Notice documents my decision for the Watershed and Fisheries Conservation 

Treatments. This Decision Notice contains a brief summary of the environmental analysis completed 

for the treatments as well as my decision regarding which alternative to implement and the rationale 

for my decision. It also contains certain findings required by various laws, and information concerning 

the rights to administrative review of this decision. The Final Environmental Assessment for the 

Watershed and Fisheries Conservation Treatments is incorporated by reference to this decision 

document. 

 

The Watershed and Fisheries Conservation Treatments EA analyzes and implements watershed and 

fishery conservation treatments in a more expedient manner while meeting all legal and regulatory 

requirements. It would require a watershed checklist to be completed by specialists once a specific 

project is proposed. Watershed and fisheries treatments could be done on lands managed by the Rio 

Grande National Forest and the San Luis Resource Area, BLM, in south-central Colorado. Both BLM 

lands and National Forest lands are now managed under a joint partnership, and are collectively 

referred to as San Luis Valley Public Lands. 

There are good reasons why applying watershed and fisheries treatments makes sense for both 

agencies. Certainly, an important fishery on BLM lands in the lower elevations of a watershed would 

be benefited by watershed improvement treatments in the upper watershed on National Forest lands. 

Watershed and fisheries issues do not recognize agency boundaries and it makes sense to evaluate 

them from a watershed perspective. 

The Environmental Assessment (EA) For Comment for the Watershed and Fisheries Conservation 

Treatments was made available for public review and comment in January 2005. The EA describes the 

alternatives and the effects those alternatives may have on the environment. 
Environmental Assessment for Watershed and Fisheries Conservation Treatments 

Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact 

3 

Decision 

Based on the Final Environmental Assessment for Watershed and Fisheries Conservation Treatments 

(Final EA), as well as comments received from scoping and the 30-day public review of the EA For 

Comment, it is my decision to select Alternative 2, the Proposed Action. 

Rationale for the Decision 

In making this decision, I considered applicable laws, regulations, and policy, and the information 

disclosed in the Final EA, the planning record, and the Forest Plan. I considered how the alternatives 

meet the Purpose of and Need for Action and address the issues. I also carefully considered public and 

agency comments. 

I made my decision based upon the best science and information available. 

I considered the alternatives presented in the Final EA, and the potential environmental, social, and 

economic effects of the alternatives. I selected Alternative 2 because it implements an approach that is 

generally beneficial to resource protection and stewardship while incorporating public and 

interdisciplinary team issues. 

The Final EA describes that both the Forest Service and BLM in this south-central part of Colorado are 

moving toward a single unit management system. Both agencies have similar goals toward soil, water 

and fisheries protections and it makes sense that this decision would implement the watershed 

treatments for both agencies. 

The Final EA also tells me that impacts to watersheds and riparian areas would be protected by 

implementing Forest Plan standards and guidelines, BLM standards for public lands health and 

conformance with the Army Corp of Engineers 404 permits. 

The Final EA describes that effects to soil, plants and fisheries would be beneficial since a more 

efficient implementation of conservation treatments would protect soil and fisheries resources. 

The Final EA describes that the selected alternative best provides for wildlife by providing improved 

site-specific options for applying soil and water techniques to damaged sites. 

A programmatic biological assessment and biological evaluation was completed for both FS and BLM 

listed species. It determined that the selected action will have No Effect on Uncompahgre Fritillary 

Butterfly, and May Effect, But Not Likely to Adversely Affect Bald eagle, Canada Lynx, Mexican 

Spotted owl, and Southwestern Willow Flycatcher. A wildlife Biological Evaluation determined that 

the selected alternative would have No Impact on the majority of the Forest’s sensitive species and 

May Impact individuals of some species but are not likely to cause a trend towards Federal listing or a 

loss in viability. 
Environmental Assessment for Watershed and Fisheries Conservation Treatments 

Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact 

4 

A Management Indicator Species (MIS) Forest Plan amendment determined that the selected 

alternative is not expected to affect the viability of the species and that the selected alternative would 

result in habitat improvements that would improve or stabilize population trends. 

The Final EA describes that the selected alternative would use the Watershed Checklist to analyze and 

protect any cultural resources. It also states that specific watershed and fisheries projects would be 

scoped through the Rio Grande National Forest Tribal Consultation Bulletin. 

The Final EA describes that the selected alternative would minimize visual impacts through mitigation 

identified during the Watershed Checklist review for a specific project. 

The Final EA describes that the selected alternative would create a narrow opportunity for noxious 

weed establishment during ground-disturbing actions. However, use of certified weed-free seeds, 

mulches and materials would minimize this risk, and that long-term establishment of desired native 

species would reduce the likelihood of noxious weed establishment. 

One of the public responders stated that they were concerned about having a chance to comment when 

specific watershed and fisheries projects were being proposed. The Final EA describes that a legal 

notice would be placed in the Valley Courier newspaper inviting public comment when projects are 

proposed. 

The fact that both the watershed and wildlife checklists would be completed by specialists on proposed 

watershed and fisheries treatments assures me that a comprehensive review will occur on specific 

projects and that appropriate resource protection measures would be identified. 

The Final EA describes that economic benefits are difficult to quantify. There are no standard dollar 

values for a ton of erosion prevented, and the benefits to water quality and fisheries. However, the 

selected alternative would result in more acres being accomplished on the ground compared to 

Alternative 1, No Action. This would help stretch limited program dollars to treating more acres in 

need. Soil, water, fisheries, and wildlife resources would benefit from the increased accomplishment. 

One respondent to the EA for Comment suggested that the economic cost section for the treatments be 

updated. This suggestion was adopted and a new economic analysis was done using current costs. 

The selected alternative would cause no irretrievable or irreversible commitment of resources. There 

would be short term impacts to air quality due to heavy equipment use. The selected alternative does 

not have a disproportionately high nor adverse effect on minority or low income populations. Some of 

the watershed projects may create opportunities for minority contractors. 

There would be no effect to prime farmlands. There would be no adverse impacts to wetlands or 

floodplains. There would be no adverse impacts to environmentally-critical areas. There are no 

hazardous wastes or solids produced by the selected alternative. 

Alternatives Considered 

Two alternatives were considered in detail in the EA. Alternative 1, the No Action Alternative would 

result in no change to the current way of implementing necessary conservation treatments. Duplication 
Environmental Assessment for Watershed and Fisheries Conservation Treatments 

Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact 

5 

of similar environmental analyses would occur each year. Important watershed and fisheries treatments 

could be delayed due to duplicative analyses. 

Alternative 2 proposes to implement necessary watershed and fisheries conservation treatments by 

tiering to this programmatic Final EA. Annual watershed and fisheries projects would be announced to 

the public, analyzed through use of watershed and wildlife checklists, and implemented in a timely 

manner. 

Public Involvement 

The Forest Service invited public, tribal government, and other agency comment and participation 

throughout this planning process. The Watershed and Fisheries analysis was announced periodically in 

the quarterly Rio Grande National Forest Schedule of Proposed Actions. Public notification was 

provided through a public legal notice in the newspaper of record, public field visits, a scoping letter, 

and posting on the Rio Grande National Forest website. 

 

A letter inviting review on the EA For Comment was sent out to the entire Forest Plan mailing list in 

January 2005. The EA for Comment was also posted on the Rio Grande Forest website. A legal notice 

in the Valley Courier, January 20, 2005 announced the availability of the EA for Comment and invited 

comments. The Forest Service’s response to public comments is contained in Appendix E of the Final 

EA. In many cases, the public comments resulted in additions or revisions to the Final EA document. 

Consistency 

I find the Selected Alternative is consistent with applicable federal, state, and local laws and 

requirements for the protection of the environment and with both agency’s policy and direction. 

Applicable laws and regulations were considered in the Final EA. The Selected Alternative is also 

consistent with the 1996 Revised Land and Resource Management Plan for the Rio Grande National 

Forest, as amended, and the San Luis Resource Area Resource Management Plan, 1991, as amended. 

Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) 

I have reviewed the environmental effects described in the EA and evaluated whether the Selected 

Alternative constitutes a significant effect on the quality of the human environment or whether the 

environmental impacts would be significant based on their context and intensity as defined by the 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) using the criteria in the implementing regulations (40 CFR 

1508.27). 

I have determined that the implementation of the Selected Alternative will not result in any anticipated 

effects that exceed the level at which a significant effect on the human, biological, or physical 

environment in terms of context or intensity would occur. Both beneficial and adverse effects have 

been considered. The effects from the Selected Alternative are expected to be minor. The effects are 

not highly uncertain and do not involve unique and unknown risks. The action will not, in relation 

with other actions, cause cumulatively significant impacts. 
Environmental Assessment for Watershed and Fisheries Conservation Treatments 

Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact 

6 

Context: This project is local and would affect only the public lands in the San Luis Valley, 

Colorado, consisting of San Luis Resource Area, BLM and Rio Grande National Forest lands. The 

expected annual project effects would not exceed 300 acres across approximately 1.8 million acres of 

National Forest and 500,000 acres of BLM lands. 

Environmental Effects and Intensity: I find that the Selected Alternative can be implemented 

without significant effects on economic, cultural, and natural resources as documented in the Final EA. 

Effects are primarily beneficial and any adverse effects are expected to be minor. Any adverse effects 

can be mitigated during the checklist process. Soil erosion effects can be reduced by the selected 

alternative, based on WEPP (Water Erosion Prediction Program) modeling predictions. The expected 

effects to soil, water, fisheries, plant and MIS resources is expected to be beneficial. 

Public Health and Safety: There would be no risks brought about by the selected alternative that 

would pose a public safety concern. 

Unique Characteristics of the Area: I find there are no significant effects on unique characteristics 

of the Rio Grande National Forest or San Luis Resource Area, BLM, such as historic or cultural 

resources, parklands, prime farmlands, wetlands, floodplains, wild and scenic rivers, Wilderness areas, 

inventoried roadless areas, or ecologically critical areas. The Selected Alternative will have no adverse 

effect on districts, sites, highways, structures, or objects listed or eligible for listing in the National 

Register of Historic places, and there is no loss of significant scientific, cultural, or historical 

resources. 

Controversy: The Final EA discloses that watershed improvement work is not unexpected or 

controversial. 

Uncertainty: Watershed treatments proposed by the selected alternative are routine in nature, and do 

not involve unique or unknown risks. 

Cumulative Impact: I find that the cumulative impacts are not significant because the Final EA 

describes how the watershed and fisheries treatments are planned within the wide variety of uses 

described in the Forest Plan and BLM Resource Management Plan. The Selected Alternative, when 

considered with other past or reasonably foreseeable actions, is not expected to have a cumulatively 

significant impact. The Watershed Checklist requires an analysis of cumulative effects based on a 

specific proposed project.

Threatened, Endangered, Sensitive Species (TES) and Management Indicator Species (MIS): A 

programmatic biological assessment and biological evaluation was completed for both FS and BLM 

listed species. It determined that the selected action will have No Effect on Uncompahgre Fritillary 

Butterfly, and May Effect, But Not Likely to Adversely Affect Bald eagle, Canada Lynx, Mexican 

Spotted owl, and Southwestern Willow Flycatcher. A wildlife Biological Evaluation determined that 

the selected alternative would have No Impact on the majority of the Forest’s sensitive species and 

May Impact individuals of some species but are not likely to cause a trend towards Federal listing or a 

loss in viability. 
Environmental Assessment for Watershed and Fisheries Conservation Treatments 

Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact 

7 

A Management Indicator Species (MIS) Forest Plan Amendment determined that the selected 

alternative is not expected to affect the viability of the species and that the selected alternative would 

result in habitat improvements that would improve or stabilize population trends. 

A BE prepared for plants determined that the selected alternative should have No Impact upon three 

plant species and May Impact six plant species. Site-specific surveys would be completed prior to 

specific project implementation to develop any mitigation measures. 

I concur with the determinations made within these documents. 

Civil Rights: There are no civil rights issues, and none of the alternatives have any civil-rights-related 

effects because the Selected Alternative actions have no effect on rights protected under civil rights 

law. Local tribal governments were consulted during the analysis. The project will have no affect on 

local tribes. 

Legal Requirements for Environmental Protection: I find the Selected Alternative is consistent 

with all applicable federal, state, and local laws and requirements for the protection of the 

environment. The Selected Alternative is also consistent with the Revised Land and Resource 

Management Plan for the Rio Grande National Forest, as amended. The selected alternative is also 

consistent with the Resource Management Plan for the San Luis Resource Area, BLM and Record of 

Decision 1991 (BLM RMP) as amended. 

Finding and Conclusion 

Based on the environmental assessment and the above considerations, I find that the Selected 

Alternative is not a major action that will constitute a significant effect on the human environment. 

Therefore, it does not require the preparation of an environmental impact statement. 

Implementation 

Pursuant to 36 CFR 215.9(a), if no appeal is filed, implementation of this decision may occur on, but 

not before, the fifth day from the close of the appeal filing period. 

Right to Appeal or Administrative Review 

For appeals pertaining to the Rio Grande National Forest lands, the following applies. 

This Decision is subject to administrative review (appeal) pursuant to 36 CFR 215. Pursuant to 36 

CFR 215.13 (b), only those individuals or organizations who submitted substantive comments during 

the comment period may file an appeal. 

Any appeal of my Decision must be fully consistent with 36 CFR 215. It is an appellant’s 

responsibility to provide sufficient activity-specific evidence and rationale, 

focusing on the decision, to show why the Responsible Official’s decision should be reversed. 

Appeals (including attachments) must be in writing and contain, as a minimum, the following 

information (§ 215.14): 
Environmental Assessment for Watershed and Fisheries Conservation Treatments 

Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact 

8 

 (1) Appellant’s name and address (§ 215.2), with a telephone number, if available; 

(2) Signature or other verification of authorship upon request (a scanned signature for electronic mail 

may be filed with the appeal); 

(3) When multiple names are listed on an appeal, identification of the lead appellant (§ 215.2) and 

verification of the identity of the lead appellant upon request; 

(4) The name of the project or activity for which the decision was made, the name and title of the 

Responsible Official, and the date of the decision; 

(5) The regulation under which the appeal is being filed, when there is an option to appeal under either 

this part or part 251, subpart C (§ 215.11(d)); 

(6) Any specific change(s) in the decision that the appellant seeks and rationale for those changes; 

(7) Any portion(s) of the decision with which the appellant disagrees, and explanation for the 

disagreement; 

(8) Why the appellant believes the Responsible Official’s decision failed to consider the substantive 

comments; and 

(9) How the appellant believes the decision specifically violates law, regulation, or policy. 

Notices of Appeal that do not meet the requirements of 36 CFR 215.14 will be dismissed. 

A written notice of appeal must be filed (regular mail, fax, e-mail, hand-delivery, express delivery, or 

messenger service) with the Appeal Deciding Officer within 45 days following the date of publication 

of legal notice of this Decision in the Valley Courier, published in Alamosa, Colorado. The 

publication date of the legal notice in the newspaper of record is the exclusive means for calculating 

the time to file an appeal (§ 215.15 (a)). Those wishing to appeal should not rely upon dates or 

timeframe information provided by any other source. 

Electronic appeals must be in Microsoft Word or RTF. Other electronic forms of appeals such as 

Word Perfect and PDF are not acceptable. Electronic appeals should be sent to: appeals-rockymountain-regional-office@fs.fed.us. For electronically mailed comments or appeals, the sender should 

normally receive an automated electronic acknowledgment from the agency as confirmation of receipt. 

If the sender does not receive an automated acknowledgment of the receipt of the comments, it is the 

sender’s responsibility to ensure timely receipt by other means. 

Notices of appeal must be filed with: 

Attn: Appeal Deciding Officer 

USDA, Forest Service, Region 2 

P.O. Box 25127 

Lakewood, CO 80225-0127 
u-_n__-

. .. Environmental Assessment for Watershed and Fisheries ConservationTreatments

Decision Notice and Finding of No SignificantImpact

') Fax: 303-275-5134 - Email:appeals-rocky-mountain-regional-office@fs.fed.us

For protests that pertain to the BLM portion of this decision. the followin2 applies.

Within 30 days of receipt of this decision, you have the right of appeal to the Board of Land Appeals,

Office of the Secretary, in accordance with the regulations at 43 CFR 4.400. Appeal and stay

procedures are outlined in Form CO-050-1840-191.

For Additional Information

A copy of the Final EA is available for review at the Public Lands Center, 1803West Highway 160,

Monte Vista, CO 81144. The Final EA and decision document are also posted on the Rio Grande

National Forest web site: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/riogrande/proiects! under Forest Decisions. For a

copy ofthis Decision Notice and the EA, or for additional infonl1ation,please contactJohn J.

Rawinski, Project Leader at (719) 852-5941.

@JJ

Date~II$//r IFOREST

SUPERVISOR/CENTER

MANAGER

)

9
Final Environmental Assessment for Watershed and Fisheries Conservation Treatments 

- 1 - 

FINAL EA 

Environmental Assessment for Watershed and Fisheries 

Conservation Treatments 

Lead Agency: Rio Grande National Forest 

1803 West Hwy 160, Monte Vista, CO 81144 

Cooperating Agency: San Luis Resource Area 

Bureau of Land Management 

1803 West Hwy 160 

Monte Vista, CO 81144 

Responsible Official: Public Lands Center Manager 

1803 West Hwy 160 

Monte Vista, CO 81144 

719 852-5941 

For Further Information: John J. Rawinski 

 Rio Grande National Forest 

1803 West Hwy 160 

Monte Vista, CO 81144 

 719 852 5941 

Abstract: The Public Lands Center in south central Colorado, consisting of the 

Rio Grande National Forest and the San Luis Resource Area of BLM, have 

proposed to utilize a number of watershed and fisheries conservation treatments so 

that soils, watersheds and fisheries can be improved or maintained in productive 

capacity. When a project is proposed, a checklist would be completed by resource 

specialists to assure resources are protected. For example, when bare soil is eroding 

into a stream, seeding, mulching and fertilizing conservation treatments might be 

done to stop erosion and protect water quality and fisheries. Conservation 

treatments are beneficial in nature and seek to protect and restore resource values. 

This analysis would allow a more expedient application of these necessary 

treatments to be applied to lands administered by the Rio Grande Forest and San 

Luis Resource Area of BLM toward the beneficial protection of soil, water and 

fisheries resources. 

This document follows the format established in the Council of Environmental 

Quality regulations (40 Code of Federal Regulations). It is consistent with and tiered 

to both Land Management Plans of the BLM San Luis Resource Area and Rio 

Grande National Forest. 
Final Environmental Assessment for Watershed and Fisheries Conservation Treatments 

- 2 - 

Table of Contents 

 Page 

Introduction 3

Chapter 1 Purpose of and Need for Action 4 

1.1 The Proposed Action 4 

 1.2 Purpose of and Need for Action 5 

 1.3 Land Management Plan Direction 5 

 1.4 Analysis Area/Project Area 6 

 1.5 Management Area Prescriptions 6 

 1.6 Decisions to be Made based on the Analysis 7 

 1.7 Scoping and issues Associated with the Proposed Action 7 

 1.8 Opportunities 8 

 1.9 Non-discrimination Clause 8 

Chapter 2 Alternatives Including the Proposed Action 9 

2.1 Process Used to Develop Alternatives 9 

 2.2 Alternatives Considered in Detail 9 

 2.3 Mitigation Measures 13 

 2.4 Comparison of Alternatives 13 

Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 15 

3.1 Affected Environment 15 

 3.2 Cumulative Actions 15 

 3.3 Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects on Watersheds and Riparian 

 Areas and Air Quality 16 

 3.4 Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects on Soil Health 18 

 3.5 Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects on Fisheries Resources 22 

 3.6 Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects on Plant Resources 24 

 3.7 Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects on Wildlife, Management 

 Indicator Species, Migratory Birds, and TES Species 24 

 3.8 Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects on Heritage Resources 30 

 3.9 Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects on Scenic Resources 31 

 3.10 Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects on Socio-economics 32 

 3.11 Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects on Past, Present and 

 Future Actions 33 

 3.12 Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects on Noxious Weeds 33 

 3.13 Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects on Other Resources 34

List of Preparers 36 

Literature Cited 36 

Appendix A – RGNF Watershed Project Checklist 

Appendix B– Determination of Land Use Plan Conformance and NEPA Adequacy 

Appendix C - Definitions and Descriptions of Proposed Treatments 

Appendix D – Cost of Implementing Various Watershed and Fisheries Treatments 

and Economic Analysis 

Appendix E – Forest Service Responses to Public Comments 
Final Environmental Assessment for Watershed and Fisheries Conservation Treatments 

- 3 - 

Introduction 

Under the Service First Initiative, the US Forest Service and US Bureau of Land 

Management have coordinated to develop more efficient land management programs. 

The Rio Grande National Forest and San Luis Resource Area of the BLM have been 

combined administratively in the San Luis Valley of Colorado under the Service First 

initiative. This environmental analysis analyzes watershed treatments that could benefit 

the management of BLM and Rio Grande Forest lands (Public Lands of the San Luis 

Valley, hereafter Public Lands). The Forest Service is the lead agency in this analysis. 

The Rio Grande National Forest’s Revised Land and Resource Management Plan and 

Final Environmental Impact Statement (Revised Forest Plan) as amended describes goals 

and desired conditions for soil, water and fisheries resources. It states that the Forest shall 

improve watershed conditions to restore favorable soil relationships and water quality. It 

also states to conserve, protect and restore important terrestrial and aquatic habitats. The 

proposed action is consistent with the Revised Forest Plan. The Record of Decision for 

selected Plan alternative G specifically emphasizes protecting and improving watershed 

health. 

The Resource Management Plan for the San Luis Resource Area, BLM and Record of 

Decision 1991 (BLM RMP) as amended, directs the Bureau of Land Management to 

manage lands toward important watershed goals. It states that monitoring and evaluation 

of water quality and quantity, as well as control of erosion and sediment production, will 

remain high priority management goals. 

More recently, BLM Resource Management Plans throughout Colorado were amended to 

include Standards for Public Land Health, 1996, which added emphasis to protection and 

enhancement of soil and watershed values, including riparian areas and uplands. Erosion 

control structures are allowed with the primary purpose of stopping erosion. Examples 

are gully plugs and contour furrows. Structures are generally considered as one of a 

variety of management actions that are implemented to improve soil and water 

conditions, including grazing management guidelines. 

There have been efforts between the FS and BLM that call for a unified approach to 

watershed assessment. While that effort is broad in scope, this EA proposes a consistent 

and unified approach to soil, water, and fisheries improvements done at the ground level. 

In order to achieve efficiency, the watershed and fisheries treatments of the BLM and 

Forest Service are analyzed in the same analysis. Both agencies allow the use of 

conservation treatments, but encourage overall watershed and soil health through 

appropriate management actions over large areas. All of the conservation treatments 

would apply to Public Lands of the San Luis Valley. 
Final Environmental Assessment for Watershed and Fisheries Conservation Treatments 

- 4 - 

Soil erosion and sedimentation control measures are well documented in the literature. 

Erosion and sedimentation can be greatly reduced from forest roads and other systems 

through the use of mulches, surfacing, seeding, applying filter strips, hydromulching, 

fertilizing, and other conservation treatments (Burroughs and King, 1989). Their 

summation of studies found that erosion and sedimentation could be reduced by 36 to 88 

percent depending on practices applied. They also found that about half of the sediment 

production from fillslopes occurs in the first summer after disturbance. They concluded 

that erosion control measures that can be put in place immediately after construction have 

the best potential to reduce sediment production. 

This EA proposes to facilitate a more timely response to necessary watershed 

conservation measures. In the past, watershed projects have been approved after 

appropriate environmental analysis. This resulted in many units duplicating efforts by 

analyzing similar watershed treatments. This environmental analysis will serve as a 

programmatic analysis, upon which specific projects will be tiered and analyzed. This 

analysis will document the environmental consequences of various soil, water, and 

fisheries conservation treatments that would be applied across the Public Lands of the 

San Luis Valley. 

 Soil, water and fisheries conservation treatments are land and structural treatments that 

help restore or improve watershed, soil and fisheries health. They include measures that 

would help stabilize soils, apply revegetation, reduce sedimentation, and create or 

improve fish habitat in streams and lakes. It should be understood that conservation 

treatments are intended for streams, riparian areas and upland ecosystems. It is 

anticipated that watershed treatments would be applied to land where management 

changes are improving lands on a large scale. 

Chapter 1 - The Purpose of and Need for Action 

This chapter describes the proposed action, purpose of and need for action, Plan direction 

from each agency, analysis area, Plan management prescriptions, decisions to be made, 

issues associated with the proposed action, opportunities, and background information. 

1.1 The Proposed Action

The Agencies managing the Public Lands of the San Luis Valley propose to utilize a 

variety of soil, water and fisheries conservation treatments that will help restore, reclaim 

and protect soil, water and fisheries resources. The conservation treatments include 

construction of rolling dips and waterbars (also called cross drains), check dams, 

streambank stabilization, fisheries structures, soil subsoiling/aeration measures, erosion 

control structures, sediment traps, revegetation, fertilization, mulching, topsoiling, 

bioremediation, wetland enhancement or creation, and applying organic materials. The 

treatments also include practices that address road and trail issues, such as ripping, 

subsoiling, waterbarring and removing, installing, or maintaining culverts, correcting 

drainage problems, applying gravel on roads to harden crossings, applying buffer strips 
Final Environmental Assessment for Watershed and Fisheries Conservation Treatments 

- 5 - 

and physical barriers. Fisheries treatments include, among others, rock placements, jetties 

and fish barriers. 

The Proposed action also includes a more efficient analysis approach. This 

programmatic environmental analysis provides consistent analysis across Public Lands. 

Specific projects would be tiered to this analysis and evaluated through a resource 

checklist. The checklist assures that site-specific review is done by appropriate 

specialists, who provide clearances before watershed projects are initiated. This approach 

ensures resource protection and ensures legal site specific requirements are met. A more 

efficient improvements program allows more acres to be treated under a constrained 

budget. 

1.2 Purpose of and Need for Action

The purpose of the proposed action is to analyze alternatives to correct watershed 

problems on Public Lands in a timely and efficient manner. The action is needed so that 

the soil, water and fisheries objectives and goals of the Management Plans of each 

agency for watershed restoration, can be accomplished in a timely and efficient manner. 

1.3 Land Management Plan Direction

The Rio Grande National Forest Revised Land and Resource Management Plan was 

signed and approved in 1996. On March 29, 2001, the Acting Deputy Secretary of 

Agriculture (hereafter referred to as the Secretary) made a ruling on the review conducted 

by the Chief of the Forest Service, and directed the Rio Grande National Forest to 

conduct additional analysis pertaining largely to management indicator species in the 

1996 Revised Land and Resource Management Plan. The Forest has completed those 

analyses. This EA is consistent with the Forest Plan, as amended. 

A forest-wide objective of the Revised Forest Plan is to protect the basic soil, air, water, 

and land resources. It states that the Forest shall improve watershed conditions to restore 

favorable soil relationships and water quality. It also states to conserve, protect and 

restore important terrestrial and aquatic habitats. The proposed action is consistent with 

the Revised Forest Plan direction. 

The Proposed Resource Management Plan for the San Luis Resource Area (SLRA), BLM 

and Record of Decision 1991 (BLM RMP) directs the Bureau of Land Management to 

manage lands toward important watershed goals. It states that monitoring and evaluation 

of water quality and quantity, as well as control of erosion and sediment production, will 

remain high priority management goals. This EA and analysis is consistent with SLRA 

goals. 

In 1997, the BLM, Colorado’s recommendations for healthy public lands were approved 

by Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt. The following standards were adopted 

including 1) Ensure healthy upland soils 2) protect and improve riparian areas 3) 

Maintain healthy productive plant communities 4) Maintain or enhance special status, 
Final Environmental Assessment for Watershed and Fisheries Conservation Treatments 

- 6 - 

threatened and endangered species, and other plants and animals officially designated by 

BLM, and 5) Ensure that water quality meets minimum Colorado standards. These 

standards apply to all BLM-administered lands in Colorado. The proposed treatments in 

this analysis would be used to promote and achieve those standards as listed. 

The Forest Service’s Watershed Conservation Practices (WCP) Handbook describes 

practices on the land that are necessary to achieve long-term soil, fisheries and watershed 

health. This EA analyzes treatments that would be used to achieve the WCP 

conservation practices. 

1.4 Analysis Area/Project Area

The project area consists of all of lands throughout the Rio Grande National Forest and 

San Luis Resource Area, BLM, where soil, water and fisheries improvements or 

enhancements are necessary. 

1.5 Management Area Prescriptions

The proposed conservation treatments would be utilized where they do not conflict with 

management area prescriptions. When site-specific projects are planned, management 

areas would be reviewed through use of a checklist to assure that no conflicts exist. For 
Final Environmental Assessment for Watershed and Fisheries Conservation Treatments 

- 7 - 

example, land treatments using motorized implements would not be done in Wilderness 

areas or Backcountry areas where motorized uses are prohibited. Actions will meet scenic 

integrity objectives and recreation opportunity spectrum for management areas. 

Treatment proposals on BLM lands would need to meet the goals, standards, and 

guidelines of the SLRA Resource Management Plan. When site-specific projects are 

proposed on BLM lands, a “Determination of Land Use Plan Conformance and NEPA 

Adequacy” form would be completed. 

1.6 Decisions to be Made Based on the Analysis 

The Authorized Deciding Officer will make the decision relative to BLM and NFS lands. 

The Forest Supervisor and BLM Area Manager would make a decision for their 

respective lands, unless through co-delegation, one Deciding officer could decide for 

both Agencies. The decisions for each Agency’s lands are subject to appeal or protest 

regulations of each Agency. 

 

1.7 Scoping and the Issues Associated with the Proposed Action 

The quarterly scoping document issued from the Rio Grande National Forest contained 

public notice that this project was being analyzed. It invited comments on the proposed 

project and received wide distribution. This analysis was listed in the Rio Grande 

Forest’s Schedule of Proposed Actions bulletins, issues May 26, 2000, November 8, 

2000, October 15, 2001, through 2004. 

A scoping letter was sent to potentially affected interest groups in March 2002. It 

described in brief the proposed analysis and invited comments. A number of letters were 

received. 

The Interdisciplinary Team for this project consisted of both FS and BLM specialists. 

The key issue to this analysis is whether conservation treatments should not be 

implemented or whether they should be analyzed and implemented in a more consistent 

and efficient manner that would allow a more timely response to soil, water and fisheries 

problems. 

Other issues raised during the course of this analysis include: 

♦ There is the need to meet the permit requirements of the Army Corp of Engineers. 

♦There is the need to develop unified approaches to watershed management between 

BLM and FS. This is National direction from the Departments of Interior and Agriculture 

as per “The Unified Federal Policy for Ensuring a Watershed Approach to Federal Land 

and Resource Management”. 

♦ The analysis must be protective of resource values and done in a manner that is 

consistent with each Agency’s land management and other plans. 
Final Environmental Assessment for Watershed and Fisheries Conservation Treatments 

- 8 - 

♦The analysis shall consider protection of Heritage Resources. Consultation with 

American Indian Nations shall occur. 

♦ The analysis shall consider noxious weeds and promote methods that reduce or limit 

the spread of those weeds. 

♦The analysis must protect Threatened, Endangered, Sensitive and Management 

Indicator Species. 

1.8 Opportunities 

The proposed action would help both the Forest Service and BLM meet important 

watershed goals. It also offers the opportunity to gain management consistency and 

efficiency across agency boundaries. 

In addition, the BLM Resource Management Plan, 2001-2005 Strategic Plan of Serving 

Current and Future Publics, Restoring and Maintaining the Health of the Land will be 

achieved. 

1.9 Non-discrimination Clause 

"The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs 

and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, 

political beliefs, sexual orientation, and marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases 

apply to all programs). Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for 

communication of program information (Braille, large print, audio tape, etc.) should 

contact USDA's TARGET Center at 202-720-2600 (Voice and TDD). 

To file a complaint of discrimination write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 

Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 14th and Independence Avenue, SW Washington DC 

20250-9410 or call (202) 720-5964 (voice or TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity 

provider and employer." 
 Final Environmental Assessment for Watershed and Fisheries Conservation Treatments 

 9 

Chapter 2 - Alternatives Including the Proposed Action 

This chapter describes the process used to develop the alternatives considered in detail. It 

also provides a comparison of alternatives as well as detailed descriptions of the proposed 

conservation treatments.

2.1 The Process Used to Develop the Alternatives

This environmental analysis complies with the National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) and Council of Environmental Quality (CEQ) Regulations. The regulations 

require that public scoping be conducted as part of the analysis process. The quarterly 

scoping document issued from the Rio Grande National Forest contained public notice 

that this project was being analyzed. It invited comments on the proposed project and was 

distributed to the Forest Plan mailing list, having over 400 potentially interested 

individuals and organizations. 

A scoping letter was sent to potentially affected interests in March 2002. The letter 

described the proposal and invited public comment. A legal notice was published in the 

paper of record Valley Courier March 5, 2002. 

NEPA policy requires the use of an interdisciplinary team in order to conduct 

environmental analysis. An interdisciplinary team consisting of FS and BLM specialists 

was assembled for the analysis. The List of Preparers section in this EA for Comment 

shows the disciplines and specialists who contributed toward this analysis. 

2.2 Alternatives Considered in Detail

Two alternatives were identified in the environmental analysis process to address the key 

issue. Each alternative presents an option that could be implemented within the 

framework of each agency’s Land Management Plans and meets the purpose of and need 

for action. 

 

Alternative 1 - No-Action

This alternative would result in no change to current system of doing business relative to 

watershed and fisheries conservation treatments. Individual projects would be analyzed 

separately, done on a piecemeal approach that would not be efficient. Duplication of 

analyses of similar projects would occur every year. Important watershed treatments may 

be delayed due to duplication of analyses. Higher costs for analysis would be needed and 

less funding would be available for on-the-ground treatments. 

The Proposed Action - Alternative 2

Alternative 2 is the proposed action. This alternative analyzes the effects of implementing 

important soil, water, and fisheries conservation treatments on Public Lands. This 
Final Environmental Assessment for Watershed and Fisheries Conservation Treatments 

10

alternative provides a programmatic analysis to all of the watershed and fisheries 

conservation treatments routinely practiced on the Public Lands thereby providing a 

consistent approach to analysis of effects. When Forest Service projects are proposed, 

specialists would then conduct site-specific analysis and summarize their findings on a 

checklist to ensure that the project is consistent with LMP goals and objectives and that 

effects are consistent with those described in this programmatic document (See Checklist 

Appendix A). When the BLM proposes projects, a similar process would occur through a 

Determination of Land Use Plan Conformance and NEPA Adequacy (DNA Form, See 

Appendix B). If a proposed project meets the scope and effects of the treatments 

described in this analysis, then no additional analysis would be necessary. A legal notice 

in the Valley Courier Newspaper would be issued annually so that the public would have 

opportunity to comment on proposed annual watershed and fisheries projects. 

 

The following treatments are routine watershed and fisheries treatments that are applied 

to Public Lands. Please refer to Appendix C, which contains definitions and descriptions 

of proposed treatments. 

Conservation Treatments and Description of Action

Erosion and Sediment Control 

Practices 

1. Use of erosion fabrics, 

mulches, hydromulches, 

tackifiers, fiber 

applications, sodding, fiberfilled wattles, plugging 

with native plants, 

weedfree straw and 

applications to stabilize 

soils from erosion. 

2. Use of erosion control 

structures such as slash 

check dams, silt fence, mulch ridges, rock check dams, wire-bound rock check 

dams, single and double fence rock check dams. These are structures designed to 

keep soils in place. 

3. Use of sediment traps such as pit catchments or sediment collection basins. 

4. Drainage structures, repairing, pulling, installing, relocating or cleaning culverts, 

improving drainage spacing, waterbarring, drainage dips, creating filter strips, 

disconnecting roads and trails from drainage systems, gravel spot surfacing. 

5. Construct physical earth barriers to restrict motorized uses in areas needing 

restoration. 

6. Fencing areas in need of reclamation 

7. Head-cut control structures 

8. Structures to divert stream or ditch flow in order to prevent channel erosion or 

redirect flow while restoration work is occurring. 

Applying seed to bare soil
Final Environmental Assessment for Watershed and Fisheries Conservation Treatments 

11

9. Minor stream restoration measures including vanes, jetties and grade control 

structures. 

10. Planting of willows and other vegetation for restoration of riparian areas, stream 

banks or disturbed areas. 

Reclamation or Restoration Practices 

1. Adding soil amendments such as lime, fertilizer, organic matter, compost, 

manure, and topsoil to soils for enhanced productivity. 

2. Bioremediation, which is the use of concentrated livestock to reclaim areas 

impoverished of topsoil. 

3. Seeding native plant materials if available when technically feasible. Use certified 

weed-free seed materials. Use local genotypes when available. 

4. Planting trees or shrubs to stabilize soils and watersheds (maximum size 20 acres 

in any one location). 

5. Using mechanical aerator (shown in photo) on compacted soils. The aerator is a 

farm implement that is drawn by tractor. Its knife-like teeth penetrate compacted 

soils, aerate the soil, without destroying the sod surface 

6. Rip or subsoil densely compacted 

layers to restore soil porosity, 

infiltration and productivity. The 

subsoiler is designed to improve 

infiltration and aeration of deeply 

compacted soils. 

Streambank Stabilization and Aquatic 

Habitat Practices 

1. Use of rock rip rap or other 

structures to stabilize 

streambanks only where 

necessary. Use natural reclamation and stabilization in other instances. 

2. Use suction dredging to remove sediments from streams. 

3. Construction of “soft” structures, using bio-engineering approaches. This 

technique includes the use of soft erosion control materials like straw wattles in 

combination with willow plantings. 

4. Construct headgates, drop structures or other structures that create or enhance 

wetlands so long as they are compatible with fisheries goals. 

5. Maintain or remove and reclaim stock water facilities such as earth ponds that are 

breached or non-functional. 

Fisheries Improvements 

1. Use rock or structural placements into stream systems to improve fish habitat 

2. Use logs, stumps and other structures to naturally restore fish habitat. 

3. Use fencing to enhance fisheries habitat 

4. Remove unnecessary structures where they cause damages to streams or soils 
Final Environmental Assessment for Watershed and Fisheries Conservation Treatments 

12

5. Construct or re-construct fish migration barriers for use in restoring native fish 

populations. 

6. Remove fish migration barriers when they are not desired. 

7. Develop spawning habitat through spawning channel development and placement 

of gravels. 

8. Enhance pool habitat through reconstruction of stream channel (restore meander 

pattern) or pool excavation. 

Conservation treatments are generally applied to small areas, locations, and specific 

streams. Project size may be a small as a few acres up to several hundred acres in size. 

They usually do not disturb extensive areas and are beneficial in the long-term to restore 

watershed health. 

Because the size of the restoration areas vary, and due to the wide variety of watershed 

and fisheries treatments that are needed across the Forest and BLM lands, it is difficult to 

define the upper limits of acres by treatment type. Actual treatment acres would be 

determined at the project level for a given year. For example, the BLM may need 10 

miles of waterbars installed along roads (60 equivalent treated acres). The Conejos Peak 

Ranger District might do 20 acres of willow plantings and 30 acres of rock check dams. 

Divide District might do 30 acres of soil aeration improvements and 30 acres of 

waterbars. Saguache District might do 40 acres of stream habitat structures. Each Forest 

District or would have to complete Project Checklist Appendix A for appropriate 

protection measures before implementation of their proposed projects. Similarly, the 

BLM would have to complete Appendix B DNA before implementation. In this example 

the Forest would accomplish 150 acres while BLM would accomplish 60 acres. 

The Forest Plan Alternative G was the selected alternative to manage the Rio Grande 

National Forest. In Alternative G, the watershed improvements program identified an 

annual need of 201 acres of watershed improvements per year. The Fisheries program 

projects an annual improvement need of 48 acres per year (8 miles of stream). The BLM 

projects a need of about 51 acres per year, for a grand total of 300 acres per year of 

improvements for the Public Lands. Any of the projected watershed and fisheries 

improvement needs are subject to funding levels in a given year so annual 

accomplishments can vary but will not exceed 300 acres in total. 

Based on the combined program needs, this EA proposes to treat no more than 300 acres 

per year. This amount is relatively small when compared to the more than 2.0 million 

acres of public lands included in the analysis. Yet even though the acreage amounts are 

small in comparison, they are focused on some of the most important watershed and 

fisheries issues across this area and would have beneficial impacts to those resources. 

Construction of these treatments may last from a few days to a few months, depending on 

the combination of treatments needed, weather, and other factors. Spring, summer and 

fall would be the implementation period when soils are unfrozen and workable. Actions 

may occur in combination as well. Treatments would be focused in priority watersheds. 
Final Environmental Assessment for Watershed and Fisheries Conservation Treatments 

13

2.3 Mitigation Measures 

 

The conservation treatments described in Alternative 2 are, in effect, specific mitigation 

measures that would be applied to restore or enhance problem areas. These practices are 

consistent with both agency’s land management plans and WCP direction to restore and 

protect watersheds and fisheries. All standards and guidelines of each Agency’s Land 

Management Plans would be followed. Any necessary specific mitigation measures for a 

specific project would be attached and included in the project file with the completed 

checklist. 

2.4 Comparison of Alternatives

Table 2.4 shows a Comparison of Alternatives.
Final Environmental Assessment for Watershed and Fisheries Conservation Treatments 

14

Table 2.4 Comparison of Alternatives 

Feature Alternative 1 Proposed Action - 

Alternative 2 

Watershed treatment 

environmental analysis 

Continues current process. 

Many duplicating analyses 

would be done on similar 

projects. 

This programmatic analysis 

would provide a consistent 

analysis of conservation 

treatments. Site-specific 

analysis done thru public 

scoping and checklists/ 

DNA. 

Allows for efficient 

implementation of 

important conservation 

treatments 

Not as efficient More Efficient 

Uses the wide variety of 

conservation treatments 

described in Chapter 2 

Yes Yes 

Accomplishment of soil, 

water and fisheries goals 

Not as many acres 

accomplished 

More acres accomplished 

on the ground. Estimate 

20% more acres 

accomplished 

Would Use Checklists or 

DNA for site specific 

analysis and would provide 

an analysis to which sitespecific analysis would be 

tiered to. 

No Yes 

Would better ensure 

resource protection through 

interdisciplinary review 

Good Better assurances 

Would scope annual 

projects and invite public 

comment (legal notice 

Valley Courier Newspaper) 

Yes Yes 

Estimated Annual 

Improvement Acres 

Accomplished by FS and 

BLM 

200 240 

Maximum program acres 

treated annually 

300 300 
Final Environmental Assessment for Watershed and 

Fisheries Conservation Treatments 

 

-15- 

Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3.1 Affected Environment 

The Affected Environment for this analysis are those watersheds and resources that are 

described in the Affected Environment of both Agency’s Land Management Plans and 

EIS’s to which this analysis is tiered. This encompasses about 2.5 million acres of public 

lands within the San Luis Valley and Upper Rio Grande Drainage. Implementation of 

conservation treatments would occur where needed across the RGNF and SLRA lands. 

Activities often would focus in priority watersheds. 

Past activities have affected the soil, water and fisheries resources on certain public lands. 

The Revised Forest Plan EIS sections on Soil and Aquatic Health describe how 

watersheds and soil health have been impacted in some locations. Though management 

activities are carefully planned and monitored, some impacts to resources do occur from 

time to time. Those impacts are proposed for restoration using this EA and analysis. The 

FEIS for the San Luis Resource Area Land Management Plan also describes existing 

conditions on those affected lands. 

3.2 Cumulative Actions Planned on the Forest and BLM Lands over the next Plan 

period 

Treatments may or may not be implemented when other activities are planned in such 

watersheds. The list below is extracted from Forest Plans for each agency and shows past, 

present and reasonably expected future activities that could coincide with watershed 

treatments. For RGNF activities, FEIS Table S-2 was used to summarize activities based 

on the selected Alternative G. Table 3.2.1 shows Planned Activities for the Next 10-15 

Years on Public Lands but the complete list is contained in Revised Forest Plan and 

FEIS, Table S-2 and is adopted by this analysis. For SLRA activities, data was extracted 

from the FEIS for the Resource Management Plan, September 1991 or is based on 

information provided by resource specialists. 

Table 3.2.1 

Planned Activities for the Next 10-15 Years on Public Lands 

Planned Activities 

Summary for Next Plan Period (10-15 years) 

Proposed on 

RGNF 

Proposed on 

SLRA 

Recreation (Persons at One Time Days) 750,000 100,000 

Livestock Grazing (Head Months) 81,400 4,600 

Timber Harvest (Acres Even and Uneven aged 

management) 

15,938 340 

Fire or Fuel Treatment (Acres of desired fuel 

treatments) 

47,000 22,000 

Actual Road Construction and Reconstruction 39 100 
Final Environmental Assessment for Watershed and 

Fisheries Conservation Treatments 

 

-16- 

(Miles) 

Road Obliteration (Miles) 50 75 

Trail Construction (miles) 30 35 

Trail Reconstruction (Actual planned miles) 100 20 

Mining and Oil and Gas Acres Affected 219 400 

For RGNF lands, the Revised Forest Plan FEIS described past actions in detail. Please 

refer to the Aquatics section of the FEIS, 3-252 through 278 for a comprehensive 

discussion of past management actions affecting watersheds. In the BLM Resource Plan, 

Chapter 4 discusses trends and the implications from past actions. Both of those analyses 

are incorporated by reference. 

Watershed and Fisheries Conservation Treatments could be implemented in watersheds 

that have or are currently being managed under the above-described activities. Overlap 

may occur spatially (in the same watershed) or temporally (at the same time) of other 

activities. Watershed and fisheries treatments can be delayed and managed so that 

conflicts would be minimized. For example, if intensive recreation use occurs in an area 

during summer months, then watershed projects may be delayed until fall. Because 

watershed actions encompass a few acres up to a few hundred, the relative impact, 

incrementally to any of the planned actions above would be small. The likelihood of all 

of these actions occurring in one watershed at a time is relatively low, and more likely, a 

few of the actions are expected at one time in a given watershed. In addition, impacts 

expected to watersheds from watershed treatments are expected to be beneficial to 

resource conditions. The Watershed Project Checklist (Appendix A) and the BLM DNA 

(Appendix B) both contain a category for the review of cumulative effects before a 

specific project can proceed.

3.3 Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects on Watersheds, Riparian Areas, and 

Air Quality 

Forest Plan standards and guidelines are designed to protect watershed, stream, riparian 

area and wetland health. The BLM’s Standards for Public Land Health have similar 

protection standards (1997). The direction of both BLM 

and FS standards would be implemented to comply with 

Clean Water Act requirements to protect designated 

stream uses. 

Alternative 1: Impacts to watersheds, streams and 

wetlands from implementing projects covered by this EA 

should be the same under alternatives 1 and 2. Direct 

impacts should be very minor as long as routine 

protection measures are followed. Negative indirect and 

cumulative impacts to watershed, stream and wetland 

health would be greater under this alternative, because 

fewer restoration and improvement projects would be 

completed. 
Final Environmental Assessment for Watershed and 

Fisheries Conservation Treatments 

 

-17- 

The Forest is constrained by the time and money needed to do typical NEPA analysis. 

Project costs are higher under this alternative, because more specialist time is needed to 

complete NEPA analysis. Fewer projects would be accomplished, because it takes more 

time to do individual project NEPA analysis. 

Alternative 2: Corps of Engineer 404 permits regulate activities that can impact stream 

channels, floodplains and wetlands. Only projects that comply with nationwide or 

regional 404 permits are included under this alternative. 

One of the proposed treatments is to maintain or remove earthen catchment basins, 

commonly referred to as stock ponds, gully plugs or sediment catchments. Through time, 

agencies built numerous such structures; most built in the late 1950’s through early 

1970’s. The purpose of these structures included stock-water catchments, reducing “head 

cutting” erosion, building erosion control plugs, wildlife habitat enhancement, sediment 

traps, etc. Additional catchments have come into federal ownership through land 

exchange and land acquisitions. 

The associated dams, spillways, water elevation control valves, and containment pits are 

increasingly in need of maintenance, have failed (e.g. breached), or are soon to breach. 

Sometimes the dams redirect flows via the spillways and create erosion problems in 

newly formed side channels. Occasionally an ensuing release of stored sediments occurs 

and a new risk of “head-cut” can begin. In some instances, catchments actually inhibit 

down slope riparian values because they terminate low flows into previously 

captured/stored sands/sediments with little or no surface wetland values. In certain 

instances, ensuing water release could prove more beneficial if the catchment, if no 

longer deemed functional, were reclaimed. 

Watershed improvement activities covered under this action would be ability of the 

agencies, or stakeholders/permit holders, to either maintain a catchments original 

function (e.g. dredge, bulldoze, or otherwise remove accumulated sediments), repair 

those which have breached, or otherwise reclaim those no longer deemed useful; (e.g. 

surrounding uplands now healed, etc,) or in some instances, the removal to restore 

watershed function depending upon needs of affected interested parties. 

By implementing required protection measures, direct impacts to watersheds, wetlands 

and streams should be minor and fairly localized, usually less than a few acres. There 

would be more positive indirect and cumulative impacts with this alternative, because the 

BLM and Forest Service could complete more restoration and improvement projects. 

Projects covered by this EA are designed to correct problems that are causing, or have the 

potential to cause, negative impacts to watersheds, wetland and stream systems. 

The effects on air quality to the public lands of the San Luis Valley are expected to low 

from the proposed alternative. The FEIS for the Rio Grande Land Management Plan 

states that the air quality on the Forest rates among the best in the country and that 

management activities have never caused violations. The Forest currently meets National 

Ambient Air Quality standards. Watershed activities may affect local dust levels brought 
Final Environmental Assessment for Watershed and 

Fisheries Conservation Treatments 

 

-18- 

about by traffic on native-surface roads but this is expected to be a minor impact. Similar 

minimal effects are expected from activities on BLM lands. No burning is proposed in 

this EA. 

When wetland restoration or creation projects are proposed, they need to meet all federal 

and state regulatory requirements. Such requirements include the need to secure 

whatever water rights or substitute water supplies are deemed necessary by the Colorado 

Division of Water Resources. 

3.4 Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects on Soil Health 

Soil erosion, compaction, displacement, puddling, severely burned, nutrient depletions, 

and mass movement are soil health problems that would be addressed by the alternatives. 

These soil damages may be found on public lands in various locations and would be 

improved by the implementation of conservation 

treatments. 

The effects on soils from Alternative 1 are that 

erosion, sedimentation and fisheries projects 

could have delayed implementation. This would 

result from conducting individual analyses for 

practices that are routinely needed. In addition, 

fewer on-the-ground acres would be improved 

due to redundant NEPA analyses for similar 

projects. 

 Alternative 2 would have beneficial effects to soils since quicker implementation of 

practices results in less erosion over time. In addition, more acres could be accomplished 

on the ground since a more efficient analysis process would be implemented. 

Alternative 2 would allow bioremediation of small areas, which is the use of livestock to 

restore organic matter content in soils that are impoverished of organic materials. It 

would be used on mined and reclaimed areas and would improve soil and plant health. 

Fabrics, mulches, hydromulches, tackifiers, fiber applications, sodding, wattles, plugging, 

and weed-free straw that are applied to the land are used to stabilize soils from erosion. 

Such materials protect the soil from detachment and transportation by rainwater impact. 

There are no harmful effects to the soils and ecosystems. All materials used would be 

weed-free. Results of these practices benefit soils by maintaining soil productivity, 

reducing sedimentation, and improving habitat.

Use of erosion control structures such as slash check dams (shown in photo) and rock 

check dams and similar structures reduce soil movement and help prevent the 

downcutting of channelized flows. The long-term objective of such structures is to 

establish natural vegetation on the soil (Heede, 1976). In many instances, gullies were 

once level soils (with no channels) and the goal is to build the soil so that downcutting 
Final Environmental Assessment for Watershed and 

 Fisheries Conservation Treatments 

19

and headcutting are halted and the system can start building soil to stable levels. Such 

structures may require periodic maintenance to remain sound and effective. 

The effectiveness of rock check dams is documented in a Rio Grande National Forest 

study by Olson, 1999. She inspected 581 structures on the Conejos Peak District. She 

found that rock check dams were 88% successful in reducing soil erosion and allowing 

vegetation to stabilize the system. Rock check dams, if properly constructed, can be 

effective for more than 40 years (Heede, 1966). Of the 12% that failed, livestock 

trampling, construction problems, and contour furrows contributed to the failures. 

Headcut structures were found to be largely ineffective at controlling soil erosion as were 

contour furrows. Improper construction may have caused the failure. 

Sediment traps capture erosion and sediments in areas where there will be a continuous 

flow of sediment such as from main roadsides. These must be emptied periodically to 

remain effective. 

Drainage structures, reclaiming culverts, improving drainage spacing, waterbarring, 

drainage dips, creating filter strips are practices designed to divert flows into places 

where erosion and sediments can be effectively filtered and stabilized. This would benefit 

soil health by keeping soils in place. 

Constructing physical barriers to restrict uses in areas needing restoration can be done 

through earth barriers, falling trees, gating or fencing. Such measures are important and 

effective in allowing areas to revegetate and recover from past impacts. Effects would 

benefit soil health by maintaining soil productivity. The before and after photos show 

reclamation efforts that were implemented to reduce soil, water and fisheries impacts 

from off-road vehicles. The after photo demonstrates land recontouring, seeding and 

mulching as well as tree falling for traffic control at a low water crossing through an 

important fishery. 

Structures such as head-cut control structures can be used to reduce gully headcuts which 

result in a loss of soil productivity and lowering of water tables. Head-cut control 

structures would be used to protect the soils and fisheries as well. Periodic maintenance is 

expected so that the structure functions properly. Other structures include those necessary 

to divert streamflow to prevent channel erosion. Diverting flows would be beneficial in 

Erosion from off-road vehicle 

use..before treatment

Recontouring, seeding mulching, 

and barrier after treatment 
Final Environmental Assessment for Watershed and 

 Fisheries Conservation Treatments 

20

keeping streambanks in good health. Structures such as vanes, jetties, and grade control 

structures are in-stream structures used to enhance stream habitat for fisheries or to 

protect banks from eroding. All of these structures have long-term benefits, though there 

could be small amounts of erosion and sedimentation during construction. 

 

Use of erosion control practices such as mulching, fertilizing, applying fabrics, 

topsoiling, applying fiber wattles, applying lime, slashing with branches, and reseeding 

have all worked with success in various applications. Long-term goal is to re-establish 

natural vegetation to hold soil in place so that little maintenance is required. Soil erosion 

and sedimentation control measures are well documented in the literature. Erosion and 

sedimentation can be greatly reduced from forest roads and other systems through the use 

of mulches, surfacing, seeding, applying filter strips, hydromulching, fertilizing, and 

other conservation treatments (Burroughs and King, 1989). Their summation of studies 

found that erosion and sedimentation could be reduced by 36 to 88 percent depending on 

practices applied. They also found that about half of the sediment production from 

fillslopes occurs in the first summer after disturbance. They concluded that erosion 

control measures that can be put in place immediately after construction have the best 

potential to reduce sediment production. 

Wetland restoration, enhancement and creation can often be done through use of 

structures that elevate water tables. By elevating and restoring water tables, waterdependent vegetation is encouraged, providing better soil stability through dense root 

mats. Important wetland values are restored. 

Soil aerators could be used for land treatments. This farm implement causes very little 

surface disturbance, while improving soil aeration and infiltration. The vegetation vigor 

and growth is often improved. There is no significant erosion from the treatment. 

The use of a winged-subsoiler would be implemented on deeply compacted soils. The 

subsoiler is an implement that improves soil health (aeration, infiltration and vegetation 

response). It would be used to reclaim old roads, two-tracked areas, on old skid trails, 

dispersed camp areas and other applications. There is no significant erosion from this 

practice. Kolka and Smidt (2004) evaluated different systems of forest road amelioration 

and concluded that subsoiling may represent the most economically-viable road 

retirement method. 

Maintenance or removal of water impoundment structures would be done through the 

Watershed Project Checklist. Maintenance or removal would likely involve earthwork 

done by a bulldozer. Reshaping or eliminating the structure would expose soil, which 

would then need to be seeded or mulched. Long-term effects would be a better facility 

that would be able to function properly. For those removed, stream health would be 

restored along that stretch. These impacts are often less than an acre in size. 

 The proposed action Alternative 2 would not affect large areas. Therefore the 

consequences are generally limited in scope to those locations where treatments are 

implemented. Indirect effects are that soil particles are less likely to reach water systems. 
Final Environmental Assessment for Watershed and 

 Fisheries Conservation Treatments 

21

Cumulative effects are that soils over the entire Forest are restored to properly 

functioning soil health condition. 

Many of the proposed treatments would reduce erosion. This will result in reduced 

sedimentation of streams and fisheries. To demonstrate this, the Water Erosion 

Prediction Program (WEPP Model) was used to show potential effects of some of the 

proposed treatments (see Table 3.4.1). For example, the following table shows the 

estimated reduction in erosion and sedimentation achieved by installing more closely 

spaced drainage dips (decreasing the spacing between cross drains, for example on a 

forest road). For this analysis, we will assume that the road is 12 feet wide, in clay loam, 

road gradient is 8 percent, the climate is taken from Hermit Lake (on the RGNF), buffer 

length is 33 feet and the buffer gradient is 10%. 

Table 3.4.1 

Effects on Erosion by Reducing Cross Drain Spacing 

Cross Drain 

Spacing Feet 

WEPP Average Annual Erosion/Sediment Yield 

in Pounds Delivered to end of buffer 

 Erosion 

Reduction 

400 600 

200 120 5 fold 

reduction 

100 17 35 fold 

reduction 

The WEPP model shows reductions of erosion and sedimentation can occur by reducing 

the spacing between cross drains. Waterbars, rolling dips, culverts are all proposed 

treatments that would be used to achieve these reductions. Be aware that the model does 

not produce absolute values and should be used only to show comparative differences 

and effects. 

The WEPP model can also be used to show the potential erosion reductions from seeding, 

mulching, erosion fabrics and fertilizing treatments. 

In order to model these treatments, we assumed the following. We selected climatic 

stations from the Great Sand Dunes National Park to reflect conditions we would 

encounter on BLM lands. This zone is not dissimilar from BLM lands located around the 

foothills of the San Luis Valley. We selected Hermit Lakes, on the RGNF, to reflect 

forest conditions. 

We assumed that 20 acres of lands in each case was sparsely vegetated before treatments 

and better vegetated after treatments (seeding, mulching, fertilizing, erosion fabrics). 

Slopes are 30%, texture is clay loam, and slope length 300 feet. 

Data is presented in the Table 3.4.2 below and is based on 30 year projection of climatic 

data for the selected locations. 
Final Environmental Assessment for Watershed and 

 Fisheries Conservation Treatments 

22

Table 3.4.2 

Erosion Probabilities Reduced by Erosion Control Treatments 

Probabilities of Occurrence first year 

following disturbance based on 30 years 

of climate 

Climate Station Treatment 

Probability 

there is 

Runoff 

Probability 

there is 

Erosion 

Probability 

of Sediment 

Delivery 

Great Sand Dunes Before Seeding, 

Mulching, Erosion 

Fabric or/and 

Fertilization 

77% 77% 77% 

Great Sand Dunes After Seeding, 

Mulching, Erosion 

Fabric or/and 

Fertilization 

40% 33% 40% 

Hermit Lakes area, 

RGNF 

Before Seeding, 

Mulching, Erosion 

Fabric or/and 

Fertilization 

90% 87% 87% 

Hermit Lakes area, 

RGNF 

After Seeding, 

Mulching, Erosion 

Fabric or/and 

Fertilization 

50% 40% 40% 

The results show that when we increase surface cover using seeding, mulches, fabrics, 

and fertilization, that the risk of runoff, soil erosion and sedimentation are reduced on 

both BLM and Rio Grande National Forest lands. 

The cumulative effects of the activities listed in section 3.12 may occur simultaneously 

with watershed treatments, but generally the effects from watershed treatments are 

expected to be beneficial, and not add adversely to any other activities planned relative to 

soils. There may be some short term, small extent soil disturbances, but in the long term, 

soil health is expected to improve. Stabilization of soil erosion through watershed 

treatments will reduce erosion and sedimentation, thereby having beneficial effects on the 

entire watershed. 

3.5 Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects on Fisheries Resources 

The alternatives address several fish habitat enhancement, protection and restoration 

treatments including installation of structures to protect or enhance pool, spawning and 

cover habitat; construction of fish migration barriers for native fish restoration projects; 

removal of migration barriers when free movement of aquatic life is desired; removal of 

structures when they are detrimental to fish habitat; vegetation plantings to restore 
Final Environmental Assessment for Watershed and 

 Fisheries Conservation Treatments 

23

riparian condition; fencing to provide faster recovery of riparian condition/fish habitat; 

and sediment control devices to minimize sedimentation of fish habitat. Opportunities 

for fish habitat enhancement, restoration and protection occur across the Forest and on 

some BLM lands. Fish habitat would be improved by implementation of the conservation 

treatments of Alternative 2. 

Fisheries treatments can be broken into 

several general groups for the purpose 

of considering direct and indirect 

effects: 1) installation or removal of 

instream structures, such as migration 

barriers and log or boulder structures; 

2) erosion control structures that are 

not placed within the stream channel; 

3) vegetation plantings; and 4) channel 

alteration. 

Direct effects from fisheries treatment 

1) can include temporary disturbance of banks, possibly resulting in some sediment 

delivery to the channel. Indirect effects of sedimentation can reduce spawning habitat or 

smother existing eggs that have been deposited; reduction of invertebrate habitat. 

Mitigation to reduce these possible effects includes: timing these activities to avoid the 

period when eggs would be incubating; on-site sediment traps to catch sediment before 

delivery to the stream; revegetation of the disturbed area with weed-free seed 

immediately after completion of project to stabilize soils; use of soil stabilizing mats to 

further encourage revegetation; fencing the area to provide extra protection while the area 

recovers. Overall, however, the effects from this activity would be very beneficial to fish 

and fish habitat. The creation of new sources of cover in areas where cover is likely a 

limiting factor will provide critical habitat. Removal of structures where they are 

degrading habitat will eliminate the risk for further degradation, and allow recovery of 

those areas. Migration barriers are an extremely important tool for use in native fish 

restoration work. These structures provide the physical barrier necessary to separate 

native fish populations from non-native populations. Non-native species have the ability 

to outcompete, prey on, displace, or hybridize with the native fish. 

Fisheries treatment 2) would have fewer potential negative effects to fish and fish habitat 

than fisheries treatment 1, because work takes place away from the stream channel. The 

positive effects from this work would be beneficial. Restricting sediment inputs to stream 

systems maintains important spawning habitats, invertebrate habitat, and stream health. 

Planting vegetation (Fisheries treatment 3) would also have positive effects to fish and 

fish habitat. 

Alternative 1 would result in less timely responses to fish habitat improvement 

opportunities. Individual analyses would be necessary, increasing cost and time for 

implementation. There may be instances where the slower response could result in 

Fisheries treatments on the 

Conejos River 
Final Environmental Assessment for Watershed and 

 Fisheries Conservation Treatments 

24

adverse effects to the fish population (for example, if a migration barrier fails, the risk of 

invasion increases as time increases). 

Alternative 2 would be beneficial to fish and fish habitat, and allow for faster 

implementation of conservation treatments. Conservation treatments promote high 

quality fish habitat and healthy stream and riparian systems. Cover is provided by stable 

streambanks, deep pools, large woody debris (or other instream structure) and 

overhanging vegetation. Spawning habitat requires clean gravel substrates, free from 

excessive sediment deposition. Food resources are enhanced with sufficient riparian 

vegetation (invertebrates). 

3.6 Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects on Plant Resources 

Watershed treatments may cause short-term impacts to vegetative cover where the soil 

surface is disturbed by some treatments. However, long-term establishment of native 

species should have beneficial effects to the plants, animals and effects to soil, fisheries 

and watersheds. Noxious weeds and TE&S plants are appropriately discussed elsewhere 

in the EA. Forest and rangeland cover alteration is not being proposed by this action. 

3.7 Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects on Wildlife, Management Indicator 

Species, Migratory Birds, and TES Species 

Wildlife habitat quality is a function of soil, water and riparian health. This section 

discusses the relationship between these resources, the alternatives, wildlife and wildlife 

habitat. 

Alternative 1: Alternative 1 will continue to result in watershed related projects being 

completed. However, it will result in many “emergency” projects being delayed in 

implementation due to project specific NEPA requirements needing to be met prior to 

implementation. 

Treatments which improve soil health are necessary to help meet wildlife standards and 

guidelines in the Forest Plan. This alternative would allow these treatments to continue 

but project effectiveness and success would be decreased. 

Delayed or restricted implementation could impact individual wildlife species and in 

some cases, populations. Many species dependent upon water and riparian quality 

(amphibians) typically are very susceptible to small changes in water characteristics (ph, 

turbidity, temperature). A sudden change in these characteristics could impact survival 

and recruitment of these species for several years. Delayed implementation of soil and 

watershed projects could potentially impact not only individual but population dynamics 

in the short term. 

Alternative 2: This alternative best provides for wildlife by providing additional and 

improved site-specific options for applying soil and watershed techniques to damaged 

sites. 
Final Environmental Assessment for Watershed and 

 Fisheries Conservation Treatments 

25

Under this alternative, there will be very little delay in implementing projects particularly 

in emergency situations. A quicker response to soil and watershed damage decreases the 

amount of time that water and riparian areas could be negatively impacted. Riparian 

species would benefit by a faster response and faster healing periods in riparian habitats. 

The Watershed Project Checklist (Appendix A) would assure that implementation is 

consistent with Forest Plan goals and objectives and will ensure that TE&S wildlife and 

migratory birds will be considered when projects are proposed. 

The proposed action should have little to no negative impacts upon wildlife habitat. There 

should be no conflicts between the proposed action and the objectives and policies of 

other Federal, State and local agencies who help manage wildlife habitat or populations. 

Alternative 2 allows for wetland creation, restoration or enhancement. Wetlands are very 

important for wetland dependent species of plants, amphibians and wildlife. There would 

be no negative effects to critical wildlife habitat. Effects upon wildlife habitat would be 

beneficial and would not cause any adverse effects. Habitat conditions would be restored 

or enhanced by applying treatments to restore damaged soils and watersheds. 

The proposed action does not involve any unknown risks to wildlife or wildlife habitat. 

Habitat enhancement and restoration would be the objectives of this proposal. 

A Progammatic Biological Assessment (BA) and Biological Evaluation (BE) was 

completed for this project in 2003. The BE also incorporates Bureau of Land 

Management Sensitive species. It is maintained in the project record and is available 

upon request. The BA determined that the proposed actions will have No Effect upon 

Uncompahgre Fritillary Butterfly and May Effect, but are Not Likely to Adversely Affect 

Bald Eagle, Canada Lynx, Mexican Spotted Owl and the Southwestern Willow 

Flycatcher. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) concurred with the BA’s 

determinations on October 14, 2003. A copy of the BA is available in the project file. 

The BE completed for plant species determined that the proposed actions should have No 

Impact upon three plant species and May Impact six plant species. However, site-specific 

surveys for sensitive plants will be completed prior to specific project implementation to 

mitigate any potential impacts. The wildlife BE determined that the proposal will have 

No Impact upon the majority of the Forest’s Sensitive species and May Impact 

individuals of some species but are not likely to cause a trend towards Federal listing or 

result in loss of viability in the planning area. Species-specific information is included in 

the plant and wildlife BE’s located within the project record. Also included in the project 

record available upon request but not included in this EA are Management Indicator 

Species Reports and a Wildlife Program Checklist as that would be completed by the 

Biologist for each specific watershed project. 

An MIS Forest Plan Amendment was completed and determined that the proposed 

actions and their relationship to MIS species and the habitat types they represent, are not 
Final Environmental Assessment for Watershed and 

 Fisheries Conservation Treatments 

26

expected to impact the viability of these species in the future nor will they cause a 

significant shift or change in population numbers within the planning area or Forest as a 

whole. The treatments are expected to result in improvements to MIS habitats, and will 

contribute to stable or improving MIS population trends. 

Proposed watershed treatments may be implemented on Public Lands. Implementation of 

these treatments will be prioritized by watersheds of need, and will occur on sites in need 

of restoration. These treatments will be implemented consistent with Forest Plan 

Standards and Guidelines and are not expected to have significant impacts, individually 

or cumulatively. Each project will be reviewed through the use of the wildlife checklist 

to ensure necessary design criteria are in place so as to minimize site-specific impacts. 

Forest-level monitoring of TES and MIS species and their habitats should be sufficient to 

determine if undesirable cumulative effects are occurring. 

A Wildlife Program Checklist has been developed to avoid or mitigate project-level 

effects to species and their associated habitat types. This Checklist includes MIS species, 

FS and BLM Sensitive species and species listed under the Endangered Species Act. The 

Checklist would be completed by biologists for each project in order to document a 

thorough project-level analysis and consistency with the programmatic documents. The 

Checklist serves as the signed documentation needed for project-specific analysis. The 

exception would be for Canada lynx, where a May Affect determination would require 

FWS consultation. The Wildlife Program Checklist is available upon request from the 

project record. 

Direction concerning landbird conservation in Forest Service Region 2 is to interface with 

the State and Bird Conservation Region (BCR) working groups for actions and objectives to 

pursue concerning migratory bird conservation. Bird Conservation Regions consist of a 

hierarchical framework of nested ecological units that allow for the use of multiple scalespecific approaches to on-the-ground management. 

There are 37 BCRs in North America with four of these occurring at least partially in 

Colorado. The Rio Grande National Forest occurs within the Southern Rockies Colorado 

Plateau Bird Conservation Region (BCR 16), which encompasses portions of Colorado, New 

Mexico, Arizona, Utah and Wyoming (USFWS, 2002). Information from BCR 16 was 

synthesized for use in Colorado through the development of the Colorado Landbird 

Conservation Plan (BCP). 
Final Environmental Assessment for Watershed and 

 Fisheries Conservation Treatments 

27

The Colorado Landbird Conservation Plan (BCP, Version 1, 2000) identified priority 

species and habitats for each physiographic area in the state based on the Partners-InFlight Species Prioritization Process. Priority habitats identified for the Southern Rocky 

Mountains Physiographic Area include alpine tundra, aspen, cliff/rock, high elevation 

riparian, lowland riparian, mixed-conifer, mountain shrubland, ponderosa pine, sagebrush 

shrubland, spruce-fir, and wetlands. All 11 of these habitat types also occur on the Rio 

Grande National Forest, with spruce-fir the most extensive and both sagebrush shrubland 

and lowland riparian the least common. 

One hundred and fifty-eight of the 169 migratory birds that occur or could potentially 

occur on the Rio Grande National Forest were assessed through the MIS Amendment to 

the Forest Plan, based on information identified for the Southern Rocky Mountains 

(Physiographic Area 62) in the Colorado Landbird Conservation Plan. The assessment 

process used was based upon the priority habitats and species identified in the BCP and 

their relationship to the Forest Land Type Associations. The potential conservation issues 

identified in the BCP were compared to the issues and management activities identified 

for each LTA. All priority habitats identified in the BCP are, at a minimum, provided a 

coarse filter assessment that evaluates broad-scale habitat changes and ecosystem 

processes over time, and except for the aspen LTA, a fine filter assessment is applied to 

Forest LTAs so that there is an expected adequate level of monitoring provided for these 

avian species. 

The Colorado Landbird Conservation Plan (BCP) identifies ten primary goals and 

objectives that must be met on a statewide basis in order to meet the overall conservation 

goals concerning migratory and resident birds in Colorado. Each of these goals was 

reviewed during the Forest Plan MIS Amendment process in order to evaluate the 

potential effects of the Plan implementation on migratory birds. The Forest Plan and its 

MIS Amendment incorporate and address these goals through standards and guidelines, 

Forest Plan monitoring and MIS monitoring. 

The U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) has developed a list of birds of conservation 

concern based on BCRs. Birds identified on that list were reviewed in conjunction with 

the Species Conservation Project (SCP) and the 2003 update to the Region 2 Forester’s 

list of sensitive species. Those species identified in BCR 16 applicable to the Rio Grande 

National Forest are considered and conserved as part of Forest Plan Standards and 

Guidelines and Forest Plan monitoring for TES or MIS species. 

Species that were assessed through the MIS Amendment to the Forest Plan are displayed 

in the Migratory Bird Supplemental Information Report (USDA 2003). Species not 

evaluated in that assessment, but included on the FWS list and evaluated as part of the 

Regional Forester’s sensitive species review are displayed in Table3.7.1. 
Final Environmental Assessment for Watershed and 

 Fisheries Conservation Treatments 

28

Table 3.7.1. FWS Species of Conservation Concern in 

BCR 16, specific to the RGNF. 

Species Regional Forester’s Sensitive 

Species Review Disposition 

RGNF Conservation Measures 

Swainson’s 

Hawk 

Consider as an emphasis species, 

protect nest sites 

Forest Plan Wildlife Standard 5 

Forest Plan Wildlife Standard 21 

Golden Eagle Consider as an emphasis species, 

protect nest sites 

Forest Plan Wildlife Standard 5 

Forest Plan Wildlife Standard 21 

Prairie Falcon Consider as an emphasis species, 

protect nest sites 

Forest Plan Wildlife Standard 5 

Forest Plan Wildlife Standard 21 

Pinyon Jay Common breeder on R2 units Forest Plan Wildlife Standard 21 

Proposed watershed treatments may be implemented Forest-wide, across all Landtype 

Associations (LTAs). Implementation of these treatments will be prioritized for 

watersheds of need, and will occur on sites in need of restoration. These treatments will 

be implemented consistent with Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines and are not 

expected to have significant impacts, individually or cumulatively. Each project will be 

reviewed through the use of the wildlife checklist to ensure necessary design criteria are 

in place so as to minimize site-specific impacts. Forest-level monitoring of TES and MIS 

species and their habitats should be sufficient to determine if undesirable cumulative 

effects are occurring. 

The BLM would also analyze migratory birds as part of watershed project planning and 

review. The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) of 1918 was passed to put an end to the 

commercial trade of birds and their feathers that, by the early years of the 20th century, 

had severely impacted the populations of many native birds. The MBTA protected all 

migratory birds and their parts (including eggs, nests, and feathers). The MBTA is a 

domestic law that enforces treaties between the US, Mexico and Canada, for the 

protection of a shared migratory bird resource. The primary concern for migratory birds 

from actions authorized by this EA is in regards to the loss or disturbance of occupied 

nests and of individual birds. 

An Executive Order (EO 13186) enacted in 2001 requires federal agencies to consider the 

effect of projects on migratory birds, and it directs agencies to review the list of Birds of 

Conservation Concern (USFWS 2002) for species that may occur in the project area. For 

the San Luis Valley BLM, the BCR list includes 28 species that may occur in the 

planning area and is applicable for project analysis of migratory birds of concern. 

Neotropical migrants are not covered in the BLM San Luis Resource Area Resource 

Management Plan or in the Determination of NEPA Adequacy checklist. Therefore, in 

accordance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, BLM must incorporate into the wildlife 

checklist the Bird Conservation Regions Checklist (BCR 16). The BCR 16 checklist 

includes the 22 species listed below. Non-presence of six birds excludes them from the 

list of birds affected by management actions including gray vireo, Grace’s warbler, 
Final Environmental Assessment for Watershed and 

 Fisheries Conservation Treatments 

29

chestnut collared longspur, Sprague’s pipit, and Crissal thrasher. Two of the species, the 

Marbled Godwit and Solitary Sandpiper, have never been documented to breed in this 

area, but do migrate through this area (Andrews and Righter, 1996). A review of this list 

(Bird Conservation Region 16) found bird species that could breed in the analysis area 

and whose nests might be affected by the proposed action. These species include: 

1) Northern Harrier 12) Flammulated Owl 

2) Swainson’s Hawk 13) Burrowing Owl 

3) Ferruginous Hawk 14) Short-eared Owl 

4) Golden Eagle 15) Black Swift 

5) Peregrine Falcon 16) Lewis’s Woodpecker 

6) Snowy Plover 17) Williamson’s Sapsucker 

7) Mountain Plover 18) Piñon Jay 

8) Solitary Sandpiper 19) Bendire’s Thrasher 

9) Marbled Godwit 20) Virginia’s Warbler 

10) Wilson’s Phalarope 21) Sage Sparrow 

11) Yellow-billed Cuckoo 22) Prairie Falcon 

 

Each of these species will be addressed in the Wildlife Program Checklist to ensure that 

no ‘take’ will occur due to management treatments. By implementing the checklist the 

actions authorized by this Environmental Assessment (EA) are consistent with the 

MBTA and the conservation measures set forth in Section 3 of the Executive Order. The 

Wildlife Program Checklist is designed to serve as project level documentation for the 

migratory bird analysis. The MBTA regulates actions that directly effect individual 

migratory birds. When watershed projects are proposed, the biologist analyzes the effects 

to neotropical migrants through use of the Wildlife Program Checklist. This will ensure 

that proposed watershed treatments are consistent with MBTA and will not result in 

‘take’ of neotropical migrants. 

Routine watershed and fisheries treatments applied to needed areas on BLM lands 

include erosion and sediment control practices, reclamation or restoration practices, 

fisheries improvements, as well as streambank stabilization and aquatic habitat 

improvements. Many of these actions require mechanical equipment to restore habitat or 

begin the reclamation process. Mechanical treatments may affect migratory birds during 

the breeding and nesting season (May 15 to July 15) through disturbance and resource 

alteration. Disturbance to nesting birds includes physical ground changing disturbance, 

presence of humans, auditory disturbance, nest destruction, any action that results in nest 

abandonment, direct injuring or death of a bird. On-site investigations by a wildlife 

biologist would be used to determine whether a seasonal restriction is necessary before a 

watershed project may be implemented. 

Alternative 1 would not have a streamlined approach to management activities so would 

have delayed or restricted implementation of improvement of habitat conditions. 

Alternative 1 requires individual analysis of each project done in a non-efficient 

piecemeal approach. Without treatment, degradation of habitat may continue and may 

result in poor quality habitat for nesting birds. This alternative will not result in ‘take’ 
Final Environmental Assessment for Watershed and 

 Fisheries Conservation Treatments 

30

individuals or nests of migratory birds but poor habitat conditions will ultimately not be 

considered productive nesting and breeding habitat. 

Under either alternative, treatments would still be applied. Individually these projects 

would have minimal effects. Cumulatively across public lands, the treatments are 

intended to improve habitat conditions which may provide nesting and breeding habitat 

for migratory birds over time. Better habitat conditions allow diversity of nesting sites 

which likely contributes to the viability of the species. With the design criteria (surveys 

and timing of implementation) in the Wildlife Program Checklist, the actions authorized 

by this EA are consistent with the MBTA and therefore no direct, indirect, or cumulative 

impacts are anticipated. Design criteria for species conservation are not discretionary, 

they are required to prevent ‘take’ of neotropical migrants. 

Mitigation needs may vary dependent on whether mechanical treatment or hand 

treatments are proposed. The scope and timing of the treatment effects must be 

considered differently depending on treatment type. Mechanical treatments are of more 

concern than non-mechanical treatments due to the level of disturbance. The scope of the 

treatment is greater when mechanical treatment is required than when hand treatments are 

utilized. 

Birds present in treatment areas during the non-breeding/ nesting season are generally 

able to move from the area (they are in migratory status) during the period of disturbance 

to other suitable habitat. Therefore, the action is less likely to result in ‘take’ of a 

migratory bird. For BLM lands, the Watershed Treatments EA will have reduced risk of 

‘take’ of adult birds if implemented outside of the May 15 to July 15 nesting period. The 

chances of encountering a nesting site during the breeding season is low and a quick 

check of the project site before treatment can confirm the presence or absence of the 

twenty two neotropical migrant birds for this area. 

3.8 Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects on Heritage Resources and American 

Indians 

The heritage resource analysis and assessment focused on areas of lands throughout the 

Public Lands where soil, water, and fisheries improvements are needed. Past activities 

that have affected cultural resources on the Public Lands include intensive livestock 

grazing in the late 1800’s and early 1900’s. Resultant erosion from this past activity is 

seen across the Forest, especially in lower elevation areas. Jeep roads and other smaller 

roads that were not engineered, usually formed many years ago, also produce affects 

relating to erosion that may impact cultural resource sites. 

Previous heritage resource inventories, completed on approximately 150,000 acres in this 

area, have resulted in the recording of about 700 documented cultural resource sites. 

Most sites are within areas of past or proposed timber harvest, or within inventoried 

range allotments. The majority of lands administered by the USFS and BLM have not 

been inventoried for cultural resources. 
Final Environmental Assessment for Watershed and 

 Fisheries Conservation Treatments 

31

Under Alternative 1, soil erosion, compaction, and displacement are soil health problems 

that have the potential to impact cultural resource sites throughout the area. Soil, water, 

and fisheries conservation treatment activities have the potential to impact cultural 

resources, if there is ground disturbance involved. Cultural resource inventory of specific 

project proposals, followed by mitigation pertaining to individual or groups of cultural 

resource sites, would protect National Register of Historic Places eligible cultural 

resources. Alternative 1 addresses these concerns, but projects may be delayed due to the 

present inefficient manner of project implementation. 

Under Alternative 2, soil erosion, compaction, and displacement are soil health problems 

that have the potential to impact cultural resource sites throughout the Forest. These soil 

problems would be improved by the implementation of more efficient conservation 

treatments, thereby reducing the effects on both documented and as-yet undocumented 

cultural resources. Cultural resource inventory of lands involved with specific project 

proposals, if done in project planning stages, would identify any National Register of 

Historic Places eligible cultural resources. Mitigation or avoidance could then be used to 

protect National Register of Historic Places eligible cultural resources. The Watershed 

Project Checklist that would be used in this Alternative would require heritage resource 

clearance and mitigation prior to any ground-disturbing actions to restore soil, water and 

fisheries. 

Past and future forest management projects can cause surface disturbance that affect the 

integrity of cultural resources. Cumulative effects that are the result of non-sanctioned 

management activities, such as vandalism or illegal excavation, also can occur. Natural 

weathering and erosion, fires and other types of ongoing processes contribute to 

cumulative effects to heritage resources. 

Specific conservation treatment proposals, to be assembled and prioritized each year, will 

immediately be summarized and included in the Rio Grande National Forest Tribal 

Consultation Bulletin. The Tribal Consultation Bulletin presents initial information about 

proposed projects by describing proposed project activities, the geography of the area, 

and the nature of known cultural sites that may be important to American Indian People. 

Consultation Bulletin, February 2001, contained the information on the watershed 

analysis and invited comments. Arrangements for meetings or requested site-visits will 

be made, if requested. 

3.9 Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects on Scenic Resources 

Both alternatives will meet the Scenic Integrity Objectives and Recreation Opportunity 

spectrum for the areas. Improvements for watershed or fisheries will meet the scale and 

size of the appropriate Scenic Integrity Objective, borrowing from the form, line, color, 

and texture of the characteristic landscape. During the improvement of watershed or 

fisheries habitat, it is expected that viewers may see some temporary deviations to the 

landscape. These areas will have up to 2 years to come into compliance with scenic 

objectives. This is also specifically stated in the Forest Plan Forestwide Standard and 
Final Environmental Assessment for Watershed and 

 Fisheries Conservation Treatments 

32

Guidelines III-30 #1. The Watershed Project Checklist (Appendix A) would include 

visual and recreation management considerations. 

3.10 Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects on Socio-Economics 

The economic benefits of the proposed action are difficult to quantify since the value of 

soil erosion and sediment prevented is difficult to apply valuation in monetary terms. The 

same would apply to fisheries resources. 

There are intangible benefits that affect downstream water users. As 

watersheds are restored and enhanced, water quality and the quality of 

human life are enhanced. Fisheries can flourish, providing both 

consumptive and nonconsumptive values to the public. 

Alternative 2 proposes to implement more efficient conservation treatments. 

These would be done through direct program funds, cooperative partnerships, and 

volunteers. The benefits from this proposed action are healthier resource conditions for 

soils, water, and fisheries on Public Lands. 

This EA is tiered to the Revised Forest Plan EIS as amended to meet the Secretary of 

Agriculture’s decision. It is also tiered to the BLM Resource Management Plan and EIS. 

Those two analyses describe the appropriate economic effects of resource management of 

the affected lands. 

A Quick-Silver Program economic analysis was conducted on the two alternatives. Some 

of the basic assumptions of the model are as follows: 

1) Unit costs of the treatments are categorized and cost the same in either 

alternative. We used $84 per acre for Structural Treatments; $320 per 

habitat treatment, $600/acre for land treatments and $2100 per fish 

structure. The types of activities covered in each class of treatments can 

be seen in Appendix D 

2) The model can only show costs. The benefits of erosion prevented, 

fisheries enhanced or improved, and water quality and habitat improved 

are not easily quantified. As such, benefits can only be addressed in this 

section in narrative form. 

3) We anticipate that Alternative 2 has reduced analysis costs due to more 

efficient NEPA process. As such, more targets (acres, structures etc) can 

be accomplished over time. 

We analyzed the No Action and Proposed Action alternatives. We used an experienced 

budget constraint of about $132,500 and analyzed four categories of treatments: 

structures, habitat treatments, land treatments and fish structures. A major difference 

between alternatives is the amount of investment in NEPA analysis. In the No Action, 

annual NEPA cost is high because each District needs to do an environmental analysis 

annually. In the proposed action, each District completes a checklist annually which has 

lower cost than an EA document. 
Final Environmental Assessment for Watershed and 

 Fisheries Conservation Treatments 

33

Results of the economic analysis for a 10 year period show the following costs and units. 

Table 3.10 

Present Value Costs by Alternative 

Parameter No Action Proposed Action 

Present Value Costs (10 

years) 

-$1,116,500 -$1,119,368 

Units Accomplished 260 335 

 

The Table shows that because of improved efficiency in NEPA analysis, more dollars in 

a constrained budget can go to on-the-ground improvements and accomplish 22% more 

acres/targets. 

The social impacts of this proposal are minimal. Each Agency’s LMPs and FEIS’s 

describe social impacts from land management activities on a broad scale. 

Implementation of watershed treatments may create a small number of job opportunities 

through contracts or employment to accomplish watershed work. 

3.11 Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects on Past, Present or Future Actions 

Conservation treatments in both alternatives can correct past watershed problems. In the 

present and future, watershed projects under Alternative 2 would be carried out 

efficiently, when the treatments can have the most positive effect. Present and future 

conservation actions may take longer under Alternative 1 to implement since each project 

would have its own environmental analysis to conduct for routine watershed 

improvements. 

Section 3.2 describes the past, present and reasonably forseeable future actions that occur 

on public lands. Watershed treatments may have short term impacts, but in the long-term, 

there would be a reduction in cumulative effects to watersheds and an improvement in 

watershed and fisheries conditions. 

3.12 Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects on Noxious Weeds 

Noxious weeds occur on both FS and BLM lands in the San Luis Valley. Noxious weeds 

are a concern because of potential impacts to biodiversity and productivity. Their 

establishment and spread is largely a result of ground-disturbing activities. Treatments 

proposed in alternative 2 such as drainage structures, waterbars, dips, and barriers, adding 

some soil amendments, aerating or ripping increase the likelihood that noxious weeds 

become established as those actions cause soil disturbance. To prevent noxious weed 

infestation, disturbed areas would be treated with native weed free seed and mulches. All 

materials used on BLM or Forest lands would be Certified weed-free. 
Final Environmental Assessment for Watershed and 

 Fisheries Conservation Treatments 

34

Noxious weeds may be reduced by these conservation treatments in that establishment of 

native ground cover by the proposed treatments would reduce the sites available for 

noxious weed encroachment. It should be noted that the treatments proposed in this EA 

often attempt to correct soil and water problems created by other management activities 

such as logging, grazing, recreation and mining. The best actions to prevent noxious 

weeds are the careful prevention of them getting onto a site. 

3.13 Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects on Other Resources 

The proposed action should have no consequence to other Federal and State Agencies. 

There should be no conflicts between the proposed action and the objectives, policies and 

land use plans of Federal, Regional, local, State, and Reservations since the proposed 

action focuses on Forest Service and BLM watershed needs. There are no policies of 

other agencies that would conflict with watershed and fisheries restoration treatments. 

The proposed action causes no irretrievable or irreversible commitment of resources. This 

is because the actions being proposed would help impaired resources recover to healthy 

status. 

There would be minor impact to air quality resulting from the use of heavy equipment 

(bulldozers, backhoes, etc) on some projects. Dust may be created by some treatments as 

well. A slight amount of short-term noise may be generated when heavy equipment is 

used as a conservation treatment. 

The proposal and alternatives will not have a disproportionately high and adverse human 

health or environmental effect on minority or low income populations. Some of the 

watershed treatments may create opportunities to minority contractors. 

There would be no affect to public health or safety. The actions proposed do not pose any 

kind of public risk. There would be no effects to prime farmlands since none of the BLM 

or FS lands in the San Luis Valley meet the Colorado state criteria. The effects to 

floodplains or wetlands would be beneficial and would not cause any adverse effects. 

Projects would comply with nationwide or regional Corps of Engineers 404 permits and 

would not require application for individual permits. This would limit size of projects 

and impacts to those that are readily acceptable by State and Federal regulations. 

 There would be no adverse impacts to ecologically-critical areas. The potential use of 

these conservation treatments would be beneficial to ecologically-critical areas. The 

proposed action would not adversely affect Wild and Scenic rivers and may actually 

improve those conditions by restoring soils, watershed and fisheries. The proposed 

action is not highly controversial. These treatments are generally routine in nature. The 

proposed action does not involve unique or unknown risks. Most of these treatments are 

well established and have had documented success. The proposed action does not set 

any new precedents. Watershed and fisheries work is not unexpected on the Forest. The 

proposed action does not create significant cumulative effects. The proposed action 

would help to reduce cumulative effects of existing resource problems. Threatened, 
Final Environmental Assessment for Watershed and 

 Fisheries Conservation Treatments 

35

Endangered, and Sensitive Species effects are described earlier in this EA. The proposed 

action would not violate Federal, State or local laws protecting the environment. The 

intensity of impacts, based on the discussion above, is low. 

Some of the watershed and fisheries treatments may be suitable for Wild and Scenic 

Rivers, Wilderness Areas or Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) areas. The 

treatments would have to be compatible with the management requirements of those 

management areas. For example, any treatment involving motorized equipment would 

generally not be allowed. Any disturbance from the proposed treatments is expected to be 

short-term in nature and will improve and enhance Wild and Scenic, Wilderness and 

ACEC resource values. 

There are no hazardous wastes or solids produced by any of the treatments. 
Final Environmental Assessment for Watershed and 

 Fisheries Conservation Treatments 

36

List of Preparers 

Kelly Ortiz – Landscape Architect 

Les Dobson – Hydrologist 

Dean H. Erhard – Ecologist 

Dale Gomez – Wildlife Biologist 

Mark Marshall –Recreation Staff 

Steve Sanchez - Natural Resource 

Specialist 

John J. Rawinski – Soil Scientist, 

Interdisciplinary Team Leader 

Vince Spero – Forest Archaeologist 

Sue Swift-Miller – Wildlife Biologist 

Laurel Kagan-Wiley –Wildlife Biologist 

Barry Wiley- Fisheries Biologist 

Dave Gilbert – Fisheries Biologist 

Melissa Garcia – Wildlife Biologist 

Literature Cited 

Agnew, William, 2001. Practical Approaches for Effective Erosion and Sediment 

Control. International Erosion Control Association publication, Steamboat Springs, 

Colorado. 

Andrews and Righter, 1992. Colorado Birds. Denver Museum of Natural History, 442 

pages. 

 Burroughs, E. R. and J. G. King, 1989. Reduction of Soil Erosion on Forest Roads. 

USDA. Forest Service. Intermountain Research Station, General Technical Report INT264. 

Heede, B. H. 1966. Design, Construction, and Cost of Rock Check Dams. RM Forest and 

Range Exp Stn. Res. Paper RM20. 

Heede, B. H. 1976. Gully Development and Control. The status of our knowledge. US FS 

Res Stn Research paper 169. 

Kolka, R.K. and M. F. Smidt, 2004. In: Forest and Ecology management 202 (2004) 313-

323. Effects of forest road amelioration techniques on soil bulk density, surface runoff, 

sediment transport, soil moisture and seedling growth. USDA Forest Service, North 

central Experiment Station, Grand rapids, MN. 

USDA, 1996. Revised Land and Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact 

Statement, Rio Grande National Forest. 

USDI, Proposed Resource Management Plan for the San Luis Resource Area, BLM and 

Record of Decision 1991 (BLM RMP) 

USDI, Colorado BLM Standards for Public Land Health, 1997. 
Final Environmental Assessment for Watershed and 

Fisheries Conservation Treatments 

 

Appendix A – Rio Grande National Forest 

Watershed Project Checklist (4-2005) 

Project Name: ________________________________________________ 

Expected Implementation Date:________________________________ 

The following checklist would be completed before watershed projects are implemented. 

Public scoping would be done. The appropriate specialist would check site-specific 

conditions of the project and respond. Any negative responses may require additional 

analysis. Documentation can be attached as necessary for the project file. 

Project Checklist 

1. Is the project proposal consistent with the FS LMP’s goals, 

standards, desired conditions and management area prescriptions?

Y/N Initials 

and 

date 

2. There would be no effects to Heritage Resources? 

3. There are no mass movement concerns? 

4. TE&S Plants are not affected 

5. TES and MIS species would not be adversely affected by the 

project? (based on site specific project ba/be) 

 

6. There are no conflicts with other land uses planned in this area? 

7. There are no conflicts with adjacent Agencies or landowners? 

8. There are no unusual soil conditions that would require more 

intensive analysis? 

 

9. The adverse impacts to watersheds would be negligible? 

10. Fisheries would not be adversely affected by the project? 

11. Adverse impacts to native vegetation by noxious weeds would 

be negligible. 

 

12. Does the activity meet the Scenic Integrity Objective and 

appropriate Recreation Opportunity Spectrum? 

 

13. Project complies with nationwide or regional Corps of 

Engineers 404 permits and implements best management practices 

associated with the appropriate 404 permit. Corps of Engineer has 

been contacted about this project. 

 

14. Project is appropriate for the stream type and does not cause 

indirect impacts to stream health. 

 

15. The project will not add unacceptable cumulative effects to 

other management activities occurring in this watershed. 

 

16. This project has been scoped in the legal notices of the Valley 

Courier 

 
Final Environmental Assessment for Watershed and 

Fisheries Conservation Treatments 

Recommended by Teamleader: _______________________________ 

Date:____________ 

Approved by Line Officer 

District Ranger: ______________________________________Date__________ 

Mitigation measures specific to this project (List or attach).
Final Environmental Assessment for Watershed and 

Fisheries Conservation Treatments 

Appendix B 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

Bureau of Land Management 

___________ Field Office 

________________ 

__________, CO 8____ 

DETERMINATION OF LAND USE PLAN 

CONFORMANCE AND NEPA ADEQUACY 

NUMBER: CO-___-2004-00__ DNA 

CASEFILE/PROJECT NUMBER (optional): 

PROJECT NAME: 

PLANNING UNIT: 

LEGAL DESCRIPTION: 

APPLICANT: 

ISSUES AND CONCERNS (optional): 

DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION: 

LAND USE PLAN (LUP) CONFORMANCE REVIEW: The proposed action is subject 

to the following plan: 

 Name of Plan: ___________ Resource Management Plan 

 Date Approved: 

____ The Proposed Action is in conformance with the LUP because it is specifically 

provided for in the following LUP decision(s): 

 Decision Language: 

____ The Proposed Action is in conformance with the LUP, even though it is not 

specifically provided for, because it is clearly consistent with the following LUP 

decisions (objectives, terms, and conditions): 

 Decision Language: 

REVIEW OF EXISTING NEPA DOCUMENTS: 
Final Environmental Assessment for Watershed and 

Fisheries Conservation Treatments 

 List by name and date all existing NEPA documents that cover the Proposed 

Action. 

 Name of Document: 

 Date Approved: 

 List by name and date any other documentation relevant to the Proposed Action 

(e.g., biological assessment, biological opinion, watershed assessment, allotment 

evaluation, and monitoring report). 

 Name of Document: 

 Date Approved: 

NEPA ADEQUACY CRITERIA: 

Is the Proposed Action substantially the same action and at the site specifically analyzed 

in an existing document? 

Documentation of answer and explanation: 

Was a reasonable range of alternatives to the Proposed Action analyzed in the existing 

NEPA document(s), and does that range and analysis appropriately consider current 

environmental concerns, interests, and resource values? 

Documentation of answer and explanation: 

Does the information or circumstances upon which the existing NEPA document(s) are 

based remain valid and germane to the Proposed Action? Is the analysis still valid in 

light of new studies or resource assessment information? 

Documentation of answer and explanation: 

Does the methodology and analytical approach used in the existing NEPA document(s) 

continue to be appropriate for the Proposed Action? 

Documentation of answer and explanation: 

Are the direct and indirect impacts of the Proposed Action unchanged from those 

identified in the existing NEPA document? 

Documentation of answer and explanation: 
Final Environmental Assessment for Watershed and 

Fisheries Conservation Treatments 

Are the cumulative impacts that would result from implementation of the Proposed 

Action unchanged from those analyzed in the existing NEPA document(s)? 

Documentation of answer and explanation: 

Are the public involvement and interagency review associated with the existing NEPA 

document(s) adequate for the Proposed Action? 

Documentation of answer and explanation: 

INTERDISCIPLINARY REVIEW: Identify those team members conducting or 

participating in the NEPA analysis and preparation of this work sheet (by name and title). 

 Name Title Review Completed 

 

REMARKS: 

Cultural Resources: 

Native American Religious Concerns: 

Threatened and Endangered Species: 

MITIGATION: 

COMPLIANCE PLAN (optional): 

NAME OF PREPARER: 

NAME OF ENVIRONMENTAL COORDINATOR: 

DATE: 

CONCLUSION 

CO-___-2004-00__ DNA 

Based on the review documented above, I conclude that this proposal conforms to the 

land use plan and that the NEPA documentation previously prepared fully covers the 

Proposed Action and constitutes BLM’s compliance with the requirements of NEPA. 

Based on the review documented above, I conclude that either the proposal does not 

conform with the land use plan, or that additional NEPA analysis is needed. 
Final Environmental Assessment for Watershed and 

Fisheries Conservation Treatments 

SIGNATURE OF RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: _______________________________ 

 ______________, Field Manager 

DATE SIGNED: 

Note: The signed Conclusion on this worksheet is part of an interim step in the BLM’s 

internal decision process and does not constitute an appealable decision. 
Final Environmental Assessment for Watershed and 

Fisheries Conservation Treatments 

Appendix C- Definitions and Descriptions of 

Proposed Treatments 

Aerator, mechanical: This is a farm implement that has knife-like blades that gently lift 

soil layers, improving aeration and infiltration. It keeps the vegetation layer intact and 

does not contribute to erosion. 

Bioremediation: Use of living organisms to reclaim harshly impacted soils and sites. 

Example is to use livestock to add important organic matter to an impoverished site. 

Buffer strips: Areas having native vegetation where erosion can be filtered by natural or 

created filtration techniques. These help keep soil and sediment from reaching stream 

waters. 

Check Dams: There are a number of types and variations that would be used. These are 

generally rock structures placed in rills and gullies to stop head and downcutting so that 

vegetation can establish and stabilize the system for the long-term. Periodic up-keep is 

necessary. 

Coir: Erosion fibers made from coconut husks. 

Fish Improvement Structures: In-stream structures that create or improve fish spawning, 

resting or hiding habitat. Often includes use of rock, stumps or woody materials. May 

include fencing, removal of structures if deemed unnecessary, and vegetative 

improvements like willow plantings. 

Gully: Eroding “v” cut into soil that is generally deeper than 1 foot. 

Hydromulching: Spraying a slurry of wood or other fiber materials onto eroding soils to 

create a mulch layer. Often, a tackifier (soil adhesive) is also added to keep the fibers 

from blowing away in severe winds. 

Rill: An erosional “v” in the soil surface, generally from 1 inch to 12 inches deep. 

Ripping (or Subsoiling): Use of ripping teeth or winged subsoiler on the back of a 

bulldozer to de-compact soils and restore soils to better aeration and infiltration. 

Sediment Trap: Structure designed to capture sediment where long-term vegetative goals 

may not be possible. Periodic maintenance and sediment removal would be expected. 

Sheet Erosion: Lateral movement of soil particles downslope due to raindrop impact and 

surface runoff. 
Final Environmental Assessment for Watershed and 

Fisheries Conservation Treatments 

Slashing, Slash Check Dams: This erosion control treatment involves the scattering of 

logging slash or tree debris to slow soil movement. Long term objective is to stabilize the 

erosion with native vegetation. 

Streambank stabilization: This treatment would use rock materials or other materials to 

stabilize an unstable and eroding streambank. Vegetation plantings or treatments would 

also help achieve this objective. 

Subsoiler Implement, Subsoiling: A 3-shanked ripping tool designed to alleviate soil 

compaction. It is drawn by a bulldozer. 

Suction Dredging: Use of hosed equipment and motor that sucks sediment from 

important stream channel locations to improve stream and fish habitat. 

Water bars (drainage dips): These structures are constructed in native surface roads so 

that erosion and drainage are taken off the road surface and ditch and filtered into proper 

buffer strips. 

Wattles: Consist of 8 to 12 inch diameter flexible tubes of straw, coconut fiber or other 

material used on the contour to reduce erosion. 
Final Environmental Assessment for Watershed and 

Fisheries Conservation Treatments 

 

Appendix D 

Cost of Implementing Various Watershed and Fisheries Treatments and 

Economic Analysis Updated to Most Recent Costs 

Costs and Structural Watershed and Fisheries Treatments (updated to 2004 costs) 

Watershed Treatments Estimated Costs of 

Implementation $$$’s per 

structure 

Sources of Values 

Each waterbar, earth 

barriers 

$62 FS work crew production 

rate 

Checkdam, rock, slash, 

filter bales, waddles, mulch 

dams 

$32 to $320 FS work crew production 

rate 

Wetland Restoration 

Structures 

$2100 FS work crew production 

rate 

Sediment Trap $84 FS work crew production 

rate 

Cleaning Culverts $84 FS work crew production 

rate 

Diversion Structures $525-2100/250 feet of 

treatment 

Engineering cost estimate 

Costs Per Acre of Watershed Treatments 

Land Treatments Per Acre Cost Source 

Seeding $32 seed cost 

$52.00 travel 

$105.00 labor 

Colorado Seed Company 

Cost of seed mix per acre 

montane mix (3/2001) 

Mulching 2tons/ac straw $140.00 straw 

$105.00 labor 

$105.00 transport 

Cost of weed free straw San 

Luis Valley. Estimated 

transport and labor. 

Fertilization $18.00 bagged fertilizer, 

$53/acre labor 

$53 Transportation 

Monte Vista Coop Prices 

Plus estimated deliver and 

application. 

Erosion Fabrics $7350 to $12,600 International Erosion 

Control Association, 

Agnew, 2001. 

Bioremediation with $3670.00 Actual Forest costs at 
Final Environmental Assessment for Watershed and 

Fisheries Conservation Treatments 

Animals Treasure Trove Project 

(3/2001) 

Silt fence, tackifiers, 

polymers, 

Varies $53 to $1575.00 FS work crew production 

rate 

Planting Trees/shrubs $315.00 FS work crew production 

rate 

Hydromulching $1575 International Erosion 

Control Association, 

Agnew, 2001 

Mechanical Aeration, 

aerway or subsoiling 

$37.00-$74.00 Based on contract 

summer/2000 on RGNF, 

Difficult Creek Project 

Mechanical 

Mulchers/Hydroaxe 

$105 to $158 Dale Gomez discussions 

with contractor who 

performs this service. 

(3/2001) 

Unit Costs of Habitat/Stream Improvements 

Habitat Treatments Unit Cost Source 

Vanes, jettys, grade control 

structures 

$525-2100 Forest costs estimates 

Planting Willows $1.58 per running foot Natural Resource Cons 

Service estimates 

Soft Structures, willow and 

erosion waddles etc, 

reshaping cutbanks, traffic 

control 

$1050.00/100 foot segment Medano Creek project 

(2000), 

Hard Structures/ rip rap $5250/250 feet Crooked Creek Rip Rap 

project 

Suction dredging $315/100 foot segment. Forest level costs based on 

Hydrologist estimates, Big 

Springs Project. 

Fencing $5000.00/mile Forest Service cost 

estimates 

Quick-Silver Investment Analysis 

A Quick-Silver investment analysis was completed for this environmental analysis. We 

analyzed the No Action and proposed Action alternatives. We used an experienced 

budget constraint of about $132,500 and analyzed four categories of treatments: 

structures, habitat treatments, land treatments and fish structures. A major difference 

between alternatives is the amount of investment in NEPA analysis. In the No Action, 

annual NEPA cost is high because each District needs to do an environmental analysis. In 
Final Environmental Assessment for Watershed and 

Fisheries Conservation Treatments 

the proposed action, each District completes a checklist which has lower cost than and 

EA document. 

Results of the economic analysis for a 10 year period show the following costs and units. 

Parameter No Action Proposed Action 

Present Value Costs (10 

years) 

-$1,116,500 -$1,119,368 

Units Accomplished 260 335 

 

The Table shows that because of improved efficiency in NEPA analysis, more dollars in 

a constrained budget can go to on-the-ground improvements and accomplish 22% more 

acres/targets. 
Final Environmental Assessment for Watershed and 

Fisheries Conservation Treatments 

APPENDIX E 

FOREST SERVICE RESPONSES TO PUBLIC COMMENTS 

The Rio Grande National Forest issued a legal notice inviting public comment for a 30 

day period. The legal notice was published in the Valley Courier on January 20, 2005. 

Comments were accepted if they were postmarked no later than February 22, 2005 since 

the exact due date would have fallen on a holiday weekend. A press release was also 

issued about that same time and an article was published in the Valley Courier 

announcing the Watershed Treatment EA. 

The Rio Grande national Forest also notified the public of this proposal in quarterly 

scoping documents. American Indian Tribes were consulted directly about the proposed 

environmental assessment. 

 The Forest received two written comments and one comment via phonecall record. 

Public Comment: The Colorado Division of Water Resources offers the following 

comments regarding the subject public notice. Our comments are based upon the limited 

information provided in the notice and are restricted to the potential impacts this proposal 

has to water resources and the protection of other vested water rights. The proposed 

conservation treatments include stream stabilization treatments, wetland creation, and 

improving fisheries through fish habitat techniques within the San Luis Valley and Upper 

Rio Grande Drainage. 

The creation of wetlands and detention of water in basins will cause depletions to the 

stream system through evaporation from the water surface and the consumptive use of 

water by plant life. The impoundment of water in the basins may also alter the timing of 

the availability of water to vested water rights. The Rio Grande River is overappropriated and the stream system must be compensated for these depletions in time, 

place and amount through a court approved augmentation plan or a State Engineer 

approved substitute supply plan. Additionally, if the wetlands mitigation occurs in 

locations that affect drainages other than those where the impacts occur, or if more 

wetlands are created than are eradicated in a drainage, the wetland mitigation may 

adversely impact vested water rights. To assist in avoiding this potential injury, we 

recommend that you consult with our Division office regarding the locations of the 

proposed wetlands relative to the existing wetlands locations. 

Forest Service Response: The Forest Service recognizes the need to coordinate with the 

Colorado Division of Water Resources on any project that could cause a depletion of 

water and that would consequently need a water right or an augmentation plan. 

Completion of this EA, in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act, does 

not eliminate the need to fulfill all obligations to secure necessary water through the 

Colorado Division of Water Resources. This language will be added to the EA, so that 

the public knows that we are aware of, and committed to meeting, those requirements. 
Final Environmental Assessment for Watershed and 

Fisheries Conservation Treatments 

Public Comment: SW Willow Flycatcher: We received a communication record that a 

reviewer saw no mention of Southwestern Willow Flycatcher in the EA for Comment. 

Forest Service Response: The EA for Comment, p 25, 6th paragraph describes the 

situation whereby the proposed action has the determination of “May Affect, but Not 

Likely to Adversely Affect”....Southwestern Willow Flycatcher. The Southwestern 

Willow Flycatcher effects would also be considered at the site-specific project and is an 

evaluation item in the Wildlife Checklist that would be completed for each specific 

project. 

Public Comment: In a phonecall dialogue, a reviewer was concerned about whether the 

public would have chance to provide comments at some later stage. He felt that as long as 

there was another level at which to comment, he did not want to “hold up progress” by 

having an attorney intervene or submit a letter on the draft. 

Forest Service Response: The DEIS, page 10 1st paragraph describes that a legal notice 

would be placed in the Valley Courier newpaper so that the public would have the 

opportunity to comment on any specific watershed and fisheries proposed projects. 

Public Comment A reviewer was concerned that we were proposing headgates and 

drop structures to enhance and restore wetlands. He said that that would tie up water in 

wetlands and deny downstream users of water. 

Forest Service Response: No specific projects are proposed by this EA, nor does this EA 

eliminate the need to secure necessary state and federal permits. Each specific project 

proposed in the future will still have to meet all federal and state regulatory requirements. 

Such requirements include the need to secure whatever water rights or substitute water 

supplies are deemed necessary by the Colorado Division of Water Resources. Similarly, 

if other permits such as an Army Corps of Engineer Section 404 permit are required, they 

would have to be secured before that project could proceed. 

Public Comment A reviewer was also concerned about us removing stock water ponds 

as it affects livestock allotments and water rights. 

Forest Service Response: The removal and restoration of old stock water ponds is done 

only where ponds have not been maintained or are no longer needed. It was not a 

wholesale removal, but on a case by case basis. Some of the structures were intended as 

gully-plugs, structures aimed at stopping gully advancement and have failed in that effort. 

Stockwater ponds currently being maintained and used by livestock permittees would not 

be removed. 

The Forest Service owns water rights for livestock water developments on the Rio 

Grande National Forest and is aware of the need to secure such rights before any new 

developments are constructed. The Forest is also aware of the need to protect existing 

water rights to ensure the continued use of livestock allotments on the Forest. The Forest 

has no intent to relinquish its water rights or jeopardize future options for use of livestock 
Final Environmental Assessment for Watershed and 

Fisheries Conservation Treatments 

allotments. If livestock developments need work, replacement or enhancements, this EA 

will fulfill the NEPA requirements and allow the Forest to proceed with necessary work 

more efficiently. The need for any specific project will still be determined in the future 

and affected parties will be included in those discussions. 

Public Comment A reviewer stated that as a ski trail designer and builder, the processes 

described in Alternative 2 (the proposed action) would not unduly burden the Wolf Creek 

Ski Area’s already existing erosion control efforts. He recommended that Appendix D 

(Cost of Implementing Various Watershed and Fisheries Treatments and Economic 

Analysis)...that these cost projections are low. It might be worthwhile to review this 

Appendix before the final decision is released. 

Forest Service Response: The economic analysis for these projects was completed in 

2001. This issuance of this EA was delayed until such time as the Forest Plan 

Amendment, relative to Management Indicator Species, was completed. Since that time 

costs have risen. We have made adjustments in costs and reanalyzed the economics using 

the Quick-Silver model. Costs were increased based on using the gross domestic product 

inflator (GDP) values to account for the increase in costs due to inflation over those 

years.