North Rim Landscape Strategy Document Prepared April 2010 in cooperation with the: Black Canyon Audubon Society
Black Canyon Land Trust
Bureau of Land Management –Uncompahgre Field Office and Gunnison Gorge National Conservation Area Colorado Division of Wildlife
Colorado State University – Extension Service
Crawford Sage‐Grouse Working Group
Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture –Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunnison National Forests Grazing Permittees
Local Private Landowners
National Park Service –Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Park and Curecanti National Recreation Area Natural Resources Conservation Service, Delta Conservation District
U.S. Geological Survey
Western Area Power Administration
Uncompahgre Plateau Project
North Rim Landscape Strategy Document Table of Contents Acronyms and Abbreviations ....................................................................................................................... iv I. Vision Statement ................................................................................................................................... 1 II. Purpose of the Strategy Document ...................................................................................................... 2 III. Location ................................................................................................................................................. 3 IV. Goals ..................................................................................................................................................... 4 V. Members of the Workgroup ................................................................................................................. 5 VI. Future Organizational Management of the Workgroup ....................................................................... 7 VII. Concerns and Needs ............................................................................................................................. 9 A. Overview ........................................................................................................................................... 9 B. Specific Management Issues ........................................................................................................... 10 C. Landscape Level Strategy ................................................................................................................ 10 D. Process ............................................................................................................................................ 11 VIII. Characteristics of the Area .................................................................................................................. 12 A. Current Land Status ........................................................................................................................ 12 B. Vegetation ....................................................................................................................................... 14 Coniferous Forest ................................................................................................................................ 16 Aspen Forest ....................................................................................................................................... 16 Subalpine Meadow ............................................................................................................................. 16 Mountain Shrub .................................................................................................................................. 17 Pinyon‐Juniper Woodland ................................................................................................................... 17 Sagebrush Community ........................................................................................................................ 17 Agriculture .......................................................................................................................................... 18 Riparian ............................................................................................................................................... 18 Rock ..................................................................................................................................................... 18 C. Wildlife ............................................................................................................................................ 19 Gunnison Sage‐Grouse ........................................................................................................................ 20 Rocky Mountain Elk ............................................................................................................................ 20 Mule Deer ........................................................................................................................................... 21 Predators ............................................................................................................................................. 21 Avian Predators ................................................................................................................................... 22 Migratory Birds ................................................................................................................................... 22 D. Surface Water ................................................................................................................................. 23 E. Current uses of the land.................................................................................................................. 24 Farming and Ranching ......................................................................................................................... 24 Recreation ........................................................................................................................................... 24 Forest Products ................................................................................................................................... 25 Development and Infrastructure ........................................................................................................ 25 Mining and Energy .............................................................................................................................. 25 F. Roads ............................................................................................................................................... 25 G. Transmission Lines .......................................................................................................................... 26 H. History ............................................................................................................................................. 26 Cultural Resources .............................................................................................................................. 26 IX. Current Conditions and Trends ........................................................................................................... 28 A. Human Uses .................................................................................................................................... 28 Development ....................................................................................................................................... 28 Roads and Motorized Vehicle Use ...................................................................................................... 31 Recreation ........................................................................................................................................... 33 Livestock Grazing ................................................................................................................................ 36 Energy development ........................................................................................................................... 38 B. Wildlife ............................................................................................................................................ 39 Gunnison Sage‐Grouse ........................................................................................................................ 39 Rocky Mountain Elk ............................................................................................................................ 42 Other Wildlife Species ......................................................................................................................... 43 C. Vegetation ....................................................................................................................................... 43 X. References .......................................................................................................................................... 48 ii North Rim Landscape Strategy Document Appendix I. 2010 Plan of Work –Strategies and Recommendations ....................................................................... 1 A. General .............................................................................................................................................. 1 Human Uses .......................................................................................................................................... 1 Travel Management .............................................................................................................................. 4 Development ......................................................................................................................................... 5 Recreation ............................................................................................................................................. 6 B. Wildlife .............................................................................................................................................. 7 Gunnison Sage‐Grouse .......................................................................................................................... 7 Elk .......................................................................................................................................................... 9 Other Wildlife Species ......................................................................................................................... 10 C. Vegetation ....................................................................................................................................... 10 Maps ................................................................................................................................................... 12 Table of Contents II. iii North Rim Landscape Strategy Document Acronyms and Abbreviations Acronyms and Abbreviations ACEC ‐ Area of Critical Environmental Concern ATV ‐ all‐terrain vehicle AUM ‐ animal unit month BLM ‐ United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management CDOW ‐ Colorado Division of Wildlife FS ‐ United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service GGNCA ‐ Gunnison Gorge National Conservation Area GMU ‐ game management unit GUSG ‐ Gunnison sage‐grouse IBA ‐ Important Bird Area MIS ‐ management indicator species NEPA ‐ National Environmental Policy Act NPS ‐ National Park Service NRA ‐ National Recreation Area NRCS – Natural Resources Conservation Service NRLS ‐ North Rim Landscape Strategy OHV – off‐highway vehicle RMP ‐ resource management plan SAD ‐ Sudden Aspen Decline USFS ‐ United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service USGS ‐ United States Geological Survey WUI – Wildland Urban Interface iv North Rim Landscape Strategy Document I.
Vision Statement The vision of the North Rim Landscape Strategy (NRLS) workgroup is to work collaboratively at a landscape scale to build a shared science and knowledge base to inform decision‐making across jurisdictional boundaries and to develop strategies for land use management. The NRLS workgroup seeks to move beyond project‐by‐project and agency‐by‐agency management of the landscape and develop a collaborative landscape level strategy. Vision Statement 1 North Rim Landscape Strategy Document II.
Purpose of the Strategy Document Purpose of the Strategy Document The purpose of this North Rim Landscape Strategy Document is to make broad recommendations for the management of the area while operating under an adaptive management strategy that allows for revisions based on new information. This document will serve as a guide for land management agency administrators, resource professionals, county planners, local private land owners and the interested public for both short and long‐term planning at the landscape scale and as a resource in future site‐
specific project planning. The strategy is not a decision document and does not supersede the authority of the individual agencies and landowners. Site‐specific projects will be analyzed through subsequent National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analysis. Separate NEPA analysis and decision documents will be produced by the appropriate federal and state agencies prior to any active management. 2 North Rim Landscape Strategy Document III. Location Located in southwestern Colorado, the North Rim Landscape Strategy Area encompasses 345 square miles or approximately 220,693 acres. The Gunnison River, running through the Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Park, Curecanti National Recreation Area (NRA), and the Gunnison Gorge National Conservation Area (GGNCA), serves as the southern and western boundary of the NRLS area. The northern boundary follows the Smith Fork drainage. The eastern boundary follows the West Elk Wilderness boundary and Curecanti Creek. The NRLS area is divided among three counties: Delta, Montrose, and Gunnison and is near the communities of Crawford, Hotchkiss, Montrose, Olathe, and Delta. Location 3 IV. Goals 1. Influence land use decisions and patterns in ways that promote ecosystem health, emphasize connectivity of wildlife habitat and maintain the rural and agricultural character of the region. 2. Support the survival of the Gunnison sage‐grouse in the NRLS area through improving habitat, protecting birds, reducing stressors and establishing linkages between populations to promote genetic diversity. 3. Provide an environment that promotes natural fire while protecting life and property. 4. Manage human uses on the landscape in ways that benefit the health of the land and native species. 5. Manage habitat for the benefit of wildlife species in ways that promote a balance of diversity and overall landscape health. Goals 4 North Rim Landscape Strategy Document V.
Members of the Workgroup •
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Black Canyon Audubon Society Black Canyon Land Trust Bureau of Land Management –Uncompahgre Field Office and Gunnison Gorge National Conservation Area Colorado Division of Wildlife Colorado State University – Extension Service Crawford Gunnison Sage‐Grouse Working Group Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture –Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunnison National Forests, Paonia Ranger District Grazing Permittees Local Private Landowners National Park Service –Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Park and Curecanti National Recreation Area Natural Resources Conservation Service, Delta Conservation District Members of the Workgroup The NRLS workgroup developed as a result of growing recognition of several significant issues and trends impacting the North Rim landscape. Expanding the scope of the Crawford Gunnison Sage‐Grouse Working Group’s work to sustain the Crawford population of Gunnison sage‐grouse, the NRLS workgroup focused on the larger area and a broader array of issues. It was apparent from the start that an interagency, interdisciplinary effort would be essential to develop a collaborative strategy. The NRLS workgroup began meeting in November 2007. The main concerns identified by the workgroup included perceived changes in the landscape due to population growth increases and its associated effect on agricultural areas and Wildland Urban Interface (WUI); potential changes to the ecosystem due to climate change; recreational impacts to wildlife populations during sensitive times; continued concerns about the survival of local Gunnison sage‐grouse populations and management of Rocky Mountain Elk populations. After many meetings and discussions about the area, the group developed this strategy document with the goal of moving forward with concrete landscape‐level approaches. The key stakeholders of the North Rim Landscape Strategy workgroup were identified to be: 5 •
•
•
•
U.S. Geological Survey Western Area Power Administration Interested Members of the Public Uncompahgre Plateau Project Members of the Workgroup 6 North Rim Landscape Strategy Document VI. Future Organizational Management of the Workgroup Steering Committee The steering committee will consist of representatives from the following: • Bureau of Land Management • National Park Service • U.S. Forest Service • Colorado Division of Wildlife • Natural Resources Conservation Service • Private Landowners • Interest Groups (such as Crawford Gunnison Sage‐Grouse Working Group, Black Canyon Audubon, Black Canyon Land Trust) • At least one of the three federal land management agency line managers The steering committee will coordinate the overall strategy effort including ensuring strategy recommendations are prioritized, making contacts with various participants and interested parties, and pursuing additional funding. The committee will elect a chairperson to coordinate their efforts and to serve as the general representative of the NRLS workgroup. Specific tasks of the steering committee members include: 1. Serve as a contact for their agency/organization manager and staff, private landowners, and other governmental and non‐governmental organizations regarding the workgroup’s activities and issues that may arise in the NRLS area. • Develop a social network group to keep workgroup members informed, via email and a website, of activities and issues related to the NRLS area. • Coordinate with their agency/organization managers to procure staff support and other resources necessary to complete prioritized projects. 2. Provide outreach and education to private landowners, governmental and non‐governmental organizations and members of the public. • Develop outreach material as needed. • Organize and conduct at least one field trip per year to the NRLS area to educate the public, key decision makers, and the media about the importance of protecting public lands, and Future Organizational Management of the Workgroup It is the vision of the NRLS workgroup members that this effort remains highly relevant and effective for at least the next ten years. With the completion of this strategy document there is recognition that both the document, as well as its recommended projects, will need to be managed over the next several years. To this point, it has been determined that a three‐tier organization will be the most efficient: 1) a steering committee will coordinate the overall strategy effort, 2) small subgroups will be formed to oversee specific projects and issues and 3) the larger NRLS workgroup will continue to meet at least annually to develop an annual work plan and summarize the previous year’s accomplishments. 7 inspire individuals to participate constructively in increasing support for these areas. Field trips will be used to visit past and/or potential project areas, areas with special values, or areas with resource concerns. 3. Oversee regular review of the strategy document. • Organize an annual NRLS workgroup meeting, in late January, to develop an annual work plan and summarize the previous year’s accomplishments. Additional meetings of the entire workgroup may be called throughout the year if needed. • Lead regular prioritization of projects and efforts recommended by the strategy document. Ensure priority projects and efforts are being promoted, coordinated, planned and implemented by subgroups. 4. Develop and participate in subgroups as needed to address special projects and/or issues as they arise. Examples may include: travel management, recreation, fuels management in the WUI, elk and deer management and Gunnison sage‐grouse issues. 5. As needed, pursue funding from federal, state and private sources to support both landscape‐
wide recommendations and administrative, managerial and educational needs. Subgroups Project and/or issue‐specific subgroups will consist of individuals who are interested in a specific issue or effort or who have the necessary expertise. Subgroups will not be permanent but will come together and disband as needed. A subgroup will assemble in the early stages of a specific project and may disassemble following implementation. Subgroups will appoint a leader that will keep the steering committee informed and will regularly report out at NRLS workgroup and manager meetings. Individuals could be involved with more than one subgroup simultaneously. Specific tasks of the subgroups include: NRLS Workgroup The larger NRLS workgroup will meet at least annually to develop an annual work plan and summarize the previous year’s accomplishments. Workgroups members will participate in subgroups as needed to address special projects and/or issues as they arise. Future Organizational Management of the Workgroup 1. Develop specific project proposals. 2. Coordinate with agencies, groups and individuals having a stake in a proposal. 3. Develop NEPA documents, implementation documents and obtain project‐specific funding as needed. (Agency representatives in each sup group will complete these tasks for their respective lands.) 4. Oversee implementation/completion of projects. 5. Develop monitoring protocols as needed. 8 North Rim Landscape Strategy Document VII. Concerns and Needs A. Overview The North Rim landscape, like many areas in the western United States, is feeling the strain of sustaining varied multiple uses. The area contains habitat for active Gunnison sage‐grouse populations, abundant elk herds and numerous other wildlife. Public lands are used for cattle grazing, hunting and recreation. Recreational use in the area is increasing, creating more unauthorized roads and trails that fragment habitat. The majority of the private land is populated at a low density and under agricultural production, but county and regional trends suggest the potential for increases in human development in the future1. As human activities increase, conflicts with wildlife may occur. Specific threats to the area include a loss of important habitat; degradation of the natural vegetation; and increased fragmentation of habitat and natural processes, including fire, and soil erosion. Recognizing the need for a coordinated landscape‐scale vision for the area, the NRLS workgroup came together to formulate interagency and interdisciplinary strategies based on best available data, local knowledge and workgroup members’ expertise. Concerns and Needs 9 B. Specific Management Issues The management issues of concern identified by the workgroup include: •
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Impacts from current human development and the potential for expansion in the future. Decline in overall ecosystem health and natural functions: o Increase in invasive species; o Loss of old growth pinyon‐juniper; o Lack of aspen regeneration; and o Increase in insects and disease in tree species. Risk of uncharacteristically severe wildfire. Potential threat to life, property and other infrastructure from wildfire. Fracturing of the ecosystem to the extent that natural processes, specifically fire, cannot be managed at an appropriate scale or intensity. Impacts from current recreational use and the potential for increased use in the future. Impacts from the current number of roads and trails and the potential for additional user‐
created routes in the future. Potential threat to the health of native wildlife species. o Potential threat to the health of Gunnison sage‐grouse populations and habitat. o Current elk distribution and their potential disproportionate use of public and private lands. o A lack of understanding of the impacts of livestock and big game presence and grazing activities on Gunnison sage‐grouse habitat and their key life processes such as nesting and brood‐rearing. o Impacts from shed antler collecting activity during critical wildlife periods. o Limited water availability for wildlife. Potential threat to cultural and historical sites. Unfortunately, landscape and ecosystem data are rarely integrated across agency boundaries. However, this information is essential in accurately assessing the most critical issues and areas. Creating a landscape level vision provides an opportunity for developing and prioritizing strategies that work with natural systems and meet vital management objectives in spite of limited budgets and personnel. Spanning jurisdictional boundaries also allows for a team of professionals to be brought together that lend their different perspectives, experiences and expertise in the formulation of innovative management solutions. Collaboration leads to communication, trust, credibility, adaptive management and a better understanding of the environment and the effect we have on it. By employing a collaborative landscape level approach, the NRLS workgroup seeks to balance economic, cultural, social and ecological values. Concerns and Needs C. Landscape Level Strategy 10 North Rim Landscape Strategy Document D. Process Concerns and Needs The NRLS workgroup followed a conservation action process in the development of this strategy document. Key stakeholders were identified and invited to become involved in the project. The collaborative group defined the current conditions for the landscape and identified the critical management issues. Potential trends for human uses, wildlife and vegetation were identified. Relevant available ecological data and social information for the area was compiled and information gaps were determined. Using the best available data, local knowledge and workgroup members’ expertise, strategies to reduce the long term impacts of the identified critical issues and maintain or restore the selected resources were developed. The strategies have been prioritized and, where appropriate, roles and responsibilities have been identified for accomplishing action items. As management action is taken, indicators for measuring success will be developed and an adaptive management strategy that allows for revisions based on new information will be employed as necessary to ensure that the desired outcomes are achieved. 11 VIII. Characteristics of the Area A. Current Land Status Federal Lands Approximately 64% of the NRLS area is public land. The federal lands are managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) –Uncompahgre Field Office; Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture (USFS) –Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunnison National Forests, Paonia Ranger District; National Park Service (NPS) –Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Park; and the Curecanti National Recreation Area. NRLS Land Status BLM USFS NPS State Lands Private Total Acres 43,480
70,181
25,782
747
80,503
220,693
NRLS Land Status BLM
20%
NPS
12%
USFS
32%
State Lands
<1%
Characteristics of the Area Private
36%
12 North Rim Landscape Strategy Document Federal Lands The BLM lands include a portion of the Gunnison Gorge National Conservation Area (GGNCA), located downriver from the Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Park. The Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Park and Gunnison Gorge National Conservation Area were designated by an act of Congress in 1999 in recognition of their nationally significant resource, scientific and cultural values. With this legislation, Congress also designated the Black Canyon Wilderness Area, park lands located below the canyon rims, and the Gunnison Gorge Wilderness for additional protection within the National Wilderness Preservation System.
The GGNCA and Gunnison Gorge Wilderness are part of the BLM's National Landscape Conservation System. The majority of the BLM lands in the NRLS area are currently managed under the 2004 GGNCA Resource Management Plan31. The management objective for the GGNCA is to protect its resources while incorporating multiple uses to the extent that important resources are protected and the combination of uses takes into account the long‐term needs of future generations for renewable and nonrenewable resources. Approximately 11,000 acres of the Gunnison Gorge Wilderness lie within the NRLS area. The GGNCA also contains the 22,200 acre Gunnison Sage‐
Grouse Area of Critical Environmental Concern and Important Bird Area (ACEC/IBA) which is managed for maximum protection of Gunnison sage‐grouse habitat areas and important deer and elk winter range. The USFS lands within the NRLS area are known as the Black Mesa area. Black Mesa is the south‐west most extension of the West Elk Mountains. Elevations on the mesa vary from 7,600 ft. along Crystal Creek to 10,800 ft. at the top of Bald Mountain on the upper mesa. These lands are currently managed under the 1983 Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunnison National Forests Plan36. The Characteristics of the Area The Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Park lands and the Curecanti National Recreation Area (NRA) are currently managed under the National Park Services’ 1997 General Management Plan35. The primary objective for management of the Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Park is to guide the protection and preservation of the natural and cultural environments while permitting ecological processes to continue with a minimum of natural disturbances. 13 primary objective for management is to ensure sustainability of ecosystems, while providing a wide spectrum of social and economic benefits in a sustainable manner. State and Private Lands State lands within the NRLS include the 747‐acre Crawford State Park and Crawford Reservoir, managed by Colorado State Parks. Private lands account for 80,503 acres and are owned by over 700 landowners. The unincorporated community of Maher is located along Colorado Highway 92. Approximately 9,800 acres of the private lands are currently protected by conservation easements held by the Black Canyon Land Trust, Colorado Open Lands, Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, National Park Service, Colorado Division of Wildlife, Colorado Cattlemen's Agricultural Land Trust and The Nature Conservancy. This document provides key recommendations for managing these landscapes and resource values collaboratively with our partners under the principles of shared science and adaptive management while staying within the guidelines and management directions that are described in the aforementioned plans. B. Vegetation Vegetation Type Coniferous Forest Aspen Forest Subalpine Meadow Mountain Shrub Mix Pinyon‐Juniper Woodland Sagebrush Community Agriculture Riparian Rock Total Acres 33,104 22,069 19,862 28,690 19,862 41,932 46,346 4,414 4,414 220,693 Characteristics of the Area The NRLS supports a wide variety of plant communities created by diversity in topography, slope, aspect, vegetation, soils and climate. Elevation ranges from 5,154 ft. at the Gunnison River to 11,843 ft. at the USFS Wilderness Boundary. Annual precipitation varies from less than 12.5” at the lowest elevations to 32” at the higher mountain elevations. Winter snowfall accounts for the majority of the precipitation at the higher elevations. Monsoon precipitation between July and September is also an important source of moisture at all elevations. Major vegetation types include: coniferous and aspen forests, subalpine meadow, mountain shrub mix, pinyon‐juniper woodland, sagebrush community, agricultural lands, and riparian. 14 North Rim Landscape Strategy Document Major Vegetation Types
Rock
2%
Riparian
2%
Coniferous Forest
15%
Agriculture
21%
Aspen Forest
10%
Subalpine Meadow
9%
Sagebrush Community
19%
Pinyon‐Juniper Woodland
9%
Mountain Shrub Mix
13%
Characteristics of the Area 15 Coniferous Forest The coniferous forest type exists at elevations above 8,000 ft. receiving 20” or more of precipitation annually. This community may also occur on the north aspect of steep slopes at lower elevations. Engelman spruce (Picea engelmannii) and subalpine fir (Abies lasiocarpa) are the major species, with occurrences of ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa), Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) and quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides). Aspen Forest The aspen forest type also exists at higher elevations, generally close to surface or subsurface water. The primary overstory species is quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides), with interspersed Engelman spruce and Douglas fir. Pockets of aspen can be found on mesic sites at the highest elevations in the NRLS area. Grasses and forbs expand in diversity and number particularly in areas with relatively open canopies. Subalpine Meadow Characteristics of the Area The subalpine meadows are open areas at higher elevations (7,600 ft. to 10,800 ft.) and contain a mixture of grasses, forbs and shrubs, with over 30 species found. Major species found in these areas include Thurber’s fescue (Festuca thurberi), Rocky Mountain fescue (Festuca saximontana), Letterman’s needlegrass (Achnatherum lettermanii), Columbia needlegrass (Achnatherum nelsonii), Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis), mountain brome (Bromus marginatus), slender wheatgrass (Elymus trachycaulus), sliver lupine (Lupinus albifrons), wild geranium (Geranium maculatum), American vetch (Vicia Americana), aspen peavine (Lathyrus laetivirens), showy daisy (Erigeron species), dandelion (Taraxacum sp.), western yarrow (Achillea millefolium), mountain parsley (Cymopterus lemmonii), low larkspur (Delphinium nuttallianum), and pussytoes (Antennaria neglecta). 16 North Rim Landscape Strategy Document Mountain Shrub The mountain shrub type includes untimbered lands where shrubs other than sagebrush and rabbit brush predominate. It exists in areas of 14 to 18” of annual precipitation, on elevations from about 7,000 to 9,000 ft.. The major overstory species are gambel oak (Quercus gambelii) and Utah serviceberry (Amelanchier utahensis). This vegetation type occurs slightly higher in elevation than the big sagebrush vegetation community. Other species occurring in this community are common serviceberry (Amelanchier alnifolia), squawapple (Peraphyllum ramosissimum), mountain big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata vaseyena), chokecherry (Prunus virginiana), birch leaf mountain mahogany (Cercocarpus montanus) and elk sedge (Carex geyeri). Pinyon‐Juniper Woodland The pinyon‐juniper woodland type is situated below the mountain shrub type on the foothills, mesas and benchlands. It exists in an elevation range of 6,200 to 7,400 ft., where annual precipitation averages 10 to 16”. The pinyon‐juniper woodland is dominated by Colorado pinyon (Pinus edulis) and Utah juniper (Juniperus osteosperma) with an understory of green Mormon tea (Ephedra viridis), yucca (Yucca harrimaniae), rock goldenrod (Petradoria pumila), bottlebrush squirreltail (Elymus elymoides), Indian ricegrass (Oryzopsis hymenoides), needle‐and‐thread grass (Hesperostipa comata) and muttongrass (Poa fendleriana) on more mesic sites. The sagebrush type is generally adjacent to the pinyon‐juniper type, existing in the same elevation and precipitation zones. The dominant species are big sagebrush (Artemisa tridentata) and black sagebrush (Artemisia nova), in addition to rabbitbrush (Chrysothamnus spp. depressus and nauseosus). Understory species include blue grama (Bouteloua gracilis), galleta grass (Pleuraphis jamesii), bottlebrush squirreltail, bluegrass (Poa sp.), Indian ricegrass, and globemallow (Sphaeralcea sp.). The lower Characteristics of the Area Sagebrush Community 17 elevation sagebrush community contains Wyoming big sagebrush (Artemisa tridentate wyomingensis), some basin big sagebrush (Artemisa tridentata tridentata), black sagebrush, western wheatgrass (Pascopyrum smithii), and sandberg bluegrass (Poa secunda). At higher elevations, particularly on Fruitland Mesa and nearby mesas, the sagebrush community grades into a mountain big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata vaseyana) type that contains Utah serviceberry, together with a productive understory of muttongrass, prairie junegrass (Koeleria macrantha) and numerous forbs. Within the sagebrush community, grasslands exist in open areas relatively free of trees and shrubs. Small pockets of natural grassland vegetation occur which include western wheatgrass, galleta grass and needle‐and‐thread grass. Other areas of artificial grassland have been created by removal of the shrubs and planting of exotic grasses such as crested wheatgrass (Agropyron cristatum) and intermediate wheatgrasses (Thinopyrum intermedium). Grassy areas have also been created by burns. Agriculture Agricultural lands are found on private land in the NRLS area. Crops include alfalfa, grass and small grains. Cattle and sheep grazing occur on agricultural lands. These lands are also used by wildlife for forage. Riparian The riparian type (vegetation that requires free water or moist conditions) exists along intermittent and perennial streams, around ponds and springs and in seeps and bogs. Of the naturally occurring vegetation types in the NRLS area, riparian vegetation occupies the least acreage and has one of the highest vegetation production rates per acre. At lower elevations the vegetation is characterized by the presence of cottonwoods (Populus angustifolia and fremontii) usually accompanied by sandbar willow (Salix exigua), box elder (Acer negunda), skunkbush sumac (Rhus trilobata), clematis (Clematis ligusticifolia), goldenrod (Solidago sp.), sedges (Carex sp.), rushes (Juncus sp.), horsetails (Equisetum sp.) and a number of grasses. Upper elevation riparian areas include Douglas fir, blue spruce, thinleaf alder (Alnus tenuifolia), a variety of willow species and Rocky Mountain maple (Acer glabbrum). Rock Barren rock accounts for 2% of the NRLS area. It is dispersed among all vegetation types and elevations. Characteristics of the Area 18 North Rim Landscape Strategy Document C. Wildlife The NRLS area supports numerous upland, riparian and aquatic wildlife species. Some species are year‐long residents, while others are migratory. A variety of habitat types exists because of the diversity in topography, slope, aspect, vegetation, soils and climate. The CDOW manages wildlife populations within the area in coordination with the land management agencies. The NRLS area includes portions of game management units 53 and 63. Species Gunnison sage‐grouse (Centrocercus minimus) Rocky Mountain elk (Cervus elaphus nelsoni) Mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus) Mountain lion (Felis concolor) Coyote (Canis latrans) Black bear (Ursus americanus) Avian predators Migratory birds Vegetation Type Sagebrush community, sagebrush/grass mix, grass/forb rangeland, sagebrush/mesic mountain shrub Coniferous forest, aspen forest, sagebrush community, pinyon‐Juniper, gambel oak, pinyon‐
juniper mountain shrub mix, riparian, grass/forb rangeland. Coniferous forest, aspen forest, sagebrush community, pinyon‐juniper, gambel oak, pinyon‐
juniper mountain shrub mix, riparian, grass/forb rangeland. All types, mostly along rim‐rock areas. All types Montane forests and shrublands, and subalpine forests All types All types Characteristics of the Area Although the NRLS area is home to a variety of wildlife, a few species are considered more important for coordinating future planning efforts because of their limited numbers, status or potential to impact vegetative communities and the overall landscape. These species include: Gunnison sage‐grouse, Rocky Mountain elk, mule deer, predators (mountain lion, coyote and black bear), avian predators and migratory birds. Key Wildlife Species in the NRLS Area and Their Associated Vegetation Type 19 Gunnison Sage‐Grouse Rocky Mountain Elk Rocky Mountain elk (Cervus elaphus nelsoni) are large ungulates. Their general body color is pale tan or brown. There is a contrastingly darker mane of long hairs on the neck and a paler yellowish tan rump patch. The tail is short and blends in with the rump patch. The hair is relatively long and coarse. The legs are long and the ears are large and conspicuous. Characteristics of the Area Gunnison sage‐grouse (Centrocercus minimus) were classified as a candidate species under the Endangered Species Act, as amended, on December 28, 2000. After review in 2006, the species was not listed as threatened. In January 2007, a lawsuit was filed challenging the April 2006 decision. At the time of publishing this strategy document, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is undergoing a 12‐month review to determine whether the species warrant protection under the Endangered Species Act. The review will be completed on June 30, 2010. The species remains a Species of Special Concern for State and Federal agencies. In 2006, the Audubon Society designated the Gunnison sage‐grouse one of America’s Top Ten Most Endangered Birds. The CDOW eliminated hunting in areas occupied by Gunnison sage‐grouse in 20004. Gunnison sage‐grouse are large (2.4 – 7.2 pounds) brown/gray chicken‐like birds with a conspicuous black belly and underthroat, white markings on the breast and undertail converts, and rounded brown wings. Males during the breeding season (March‐May) have conspicuous neck plumes, white upper breast with yellow‐green air sacs and prominent, long spiked tail feathers3. The sagebrush vegetation community provides both food and cover for Gunnison sage‐grouse. In the fall and winter, the leathery leaves of sagebrush are one of its only foods. The rest of the year, the birds are largely dependent on forbs and insects commonly found in the sagebrush communities. Nesting begins in mid‐April and continues into July. Females typically lay six to eight eggs, which are incubated for 25 to 27 days4. (For information on the current status of Gunnison sage‐grouse within the NRLS area, please refer to Section IX: Current Conditions and Trends.) 20 North Rim Landscape Strategy Document Elk inhabit semi‐open forests or forest edges adjacent to parks, meadows, and alpine tundra. In Colorado, elk inhabit the western two‐thirds of the state generally at elevations above 6,000 ft. Their diet consists of grasses, shrubs, and forbs4. Elk are managed as a big game species by the CDOW. (For information on the current status of elk populations within the NRLS area, please refer to Section IX: Current Conditions and Trends.) Mule Deer Mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus) are medium‐sized ungulates with conspicuously long ears and a coarse coat. The color in summer is reddish tan, and the winter pelage is brownish gray. The rump and belly are white. The face is marked; the paler muzzle contrasts with the gray forehead and brownish spots on either side of the rostrum. The tail is short and pale except for a black tip. Mule deer occupy all ecosystems in Colorado from grasslands to alpine tundra. They reach their greatest densities in shrublands on rough, broken terrain, which provide abundant browse and cover. Winter diets of mule deer consist of browse from a variety of trees and shrubs (74%) and forbs (15%). Summer diets are 50% browse, and forb consumption increases to 46%.5 Mule deer are managed as a big game species by the CDOW.4 Mountain lion, black bear and coyote are considered key wildlife species for future coordinated planning efforts in the NRLS area because they are known predators of Rocky Mountain elk, mule deer and, in the case of coyote, Gunnison sage‐grouse.5 Mountain lion (Felis concolor) are large brownish to reddish brown cats with paler underparts. Mountain lion are most commonly found in rough, broken foothills and canyon country, often in association with montane forests, shrublands, and pinyon‐juniper woodlands. The species is still common in much of the western two‐thirds of Colorado. Mountain lions prey mainly on deer but also occasionally take elk and moose. In some situations they prey on mice, ground squirrels, beavers, rabbits, porcupines, wild hogs, raccoons, armadillos and domestic livestock. Other carnivores, including raccoons, bobcats, and gray fox are also eaten, especially in winter.6 Some insects are eaten as well as birds, fish, and berries.5 Mountain lions are managed as a big game species by the CDOW. Black bear (Ursus americanus) are Colorado's largest surviving carnivore. Black bears typically inhabit montane shrublands and subalpine forests at moderate elevations. Black bears are locally common in suitable habitats in the western two‐thirds of Colorado. They are omnivorous and the diet depends largely on what kinds of food are seasonally available, although their mainstay is vegetation. In spring, emerging grasses and succulent forbs are favored. In summer and early fall, bears take advantage of a variety of berries and other fruits, but they may take newborn mammals and birds.33 In late fall preferences are for berries and acorns, where Characteristics of the Area Predators 21 available. When the opportunity is present, black bears eat a diversity of insects, including beetle larvae and social insects (ants, wasps, bees, termites, etc.), and they kill a variety of mammals, including rodents, rabbits and young or unwary ungulates.5 Black bears are managed as a big game species by the CDOW. Coyote (Canis latrans) are slender, furry canids about the size of a small German shepherd dog. Coyotes occur at all elevations and in all ecosystems in Colorado; they are least abundant in dense coniferous forest. Coyotes are omnivorous. Their diet varies greatly seasonally and geographically, and are highly successful scavengers.34 Locally, their diet consists primarily of jackrabbits, cottontail rabbits and rodents7, with rodents most important as summer prey and rabbits important as winter prey. Plant material consumed generally consists of fruit, berries, and cultivated crops including melons and carrots.5 Avian Predators Birds of prey are generally thought of as birds that hunt for food primarily on the wing, using their keen senses (especially vision), and hunt other animals. Usually raptors, or birds with talons or “killing ft.”, come to mind when we speak of birds of prey (peregrine falcon, red‐tailed hawk, great‐horned owl). However, they are not the only avian predators. As an example, common ravens are also key avian predators in the area. Peregrine falcons and common ravens are considered key wildlife species for future coordinated planning efforts in the NRLS area because they are known predators of Gunnison sage‐grouse.8 Peregrine falcons (Falco peregrinus) are birds of prey in the family Falconidae. They are large, crow‐sized falcons, with a blue‐gray back, barred white underparts, and a black head and "moustache". Breeding individuals are usually associated with tall cliffs for nesting, but can forage long distances (10 miles) in search of food). Migrants and winter residents occur mostly around reservoirs, rivers, and marshes, but may also be seen in grasslands and agricultural areas.5, 27, 28 Migratory Birds The NRLS area supports a diverse range of migratory and non‐migratory bird species. Migratory birds are highlighted in this strategy document because several species are management indicator species (MIS) and, therefore, are used as an indicator of overall ecosystem health. They are also included because several species are Birds of Conservation Concern (indicated Characteristics of the Area Common ravens (Corvus corax) are large all‐black passerine birds in the crow family (Corvidae). Throughout Colorado, ravens are resident in semideserts, foothills, mesas and mountains to above timberline. They are most common in canyons and around cliffs in foothills and lower mountains. Ravens inhabit mostly grasslands and shrublands, but also riparian and agricultural areas5. Ravens are generally omnivorous, but are known to be quite intelligent and capable in their search for food. Ravens are known to predate Gunnison sage‐grouse eggs and chicks.8 22 North Rim Landscape Strategy Document below with an *) because their status is uncertain and should be monitored. (A few of the Birds of Conservation Concern may only rarely occur in the NRLS area.) Examples of Migratory Bird Species in the NRLS Area and Their Associated Vegetation Type Key Bird Species Three‐toed and hairy woodpeckers, ruby‐crowned kinglet, hermit thrush, red‐ breasted nuthatch, red crossbill, Grace’s warbler*, black rosyfinch*, brown‐capped rosyfinch*, Cassin’s finch* Flammulated owl*, northern goshawk, red‐naped sapsucker, tree and/or violet‐green swallow Pinyon jay*, black‐throated gray warbler, gray flycatcher, ash‐throated flycatcher, gray vireo*, juniper titmouse* Virginia's warbler, green‐tailed towhee, spotted towhee Brewer's sparrow*, vesper sparrow, sage thrasher Willow flycatcher* and Lincoln's sparrow Yellow warbler, long‐billed curlew*, yellow‐billed cuckoo*, veery*, American bittern* Ferruginous hawk*, golden eagle*, prairie falcon*, burrowing owl*, chestnut‐collared longspur* Vegetation Type Coniferous forest Aspen forest Pinyon‐juniper woodlands Mountain shrub mix Sagebrush community High riparian Low riparian Grassland/agricultural D. Surface Water The NRLS area lies within the Gunnison River drainage basin, a major sub basin of the Upper Colorado River basin. Major water ways include the Gunnison River, Crystal Creek, Smith Fork of the Gunnison River, Curecanti Creek, Crawford Reservoir and Gould Reservoir. Several perennial and intermittent streams and ephemeral drainages as well as numerous ditches (predominately on private lands) also exist in the NRLS area. Surface water is used for irrigation as well as by livestock and wildlife. Characteristics of the Area 23 E. Current uses of the land Farming and Ranching Farming and ranching are important industries on private lands in the NRLS area. Crops include alfalfa, grass and small grains. Cattle grazing occurs on BLM, NPS and USFS lands. Sheep grazing also occurs on BLM lands. On the BLM‐managed lands, grazing occurs primarily on the Fruitland Mesa/Green Mountain Lands. (For more information on current ranching activities within the NRLS area, please refer to Section IX: Current Conditions and Trends.) Recreation •
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Hunting Fishing Off‐Highway Vehicle (OHV) use Bicycling Hiking Camping Scenic Driving/sightseeing Wildflower viewing Rafting and kayaking Rock Climbing Snowmobiling Shed antler collecting Bird watching Horseback riding Characteristics of the Area Recreation is the principal use of public lands in the NRLS area. In particular, the Gunnison Gorge National Conservation Area, Gunnison Gorge Wilderness, Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Park and Black Canyon Wilderness Area are destinations for a variety of recreationists and are recognized for their outstanding scenic values and recreational opportunities, including Gold Medal trout fishery. (For more information on current recreation activities within the NRLS area, please refer to Section IX: Current Conditions and Trends.) Current recreational uses include: 24 North Rim Landscape Strategy Document •
•
Cross country skiing Shooting sports Forest Products The USFS has conducted numerous commercial timber harvest operations within the NRLS area and is anticipated to do so in the future, especially to facilitate aspen forest regeneration. Firewood collection also occurs on USFS lands by permit. On BLM lands, forest products are predominantly fence post cutting and firewood collection in the pinyon‐juniper woodlands. Commercial logging and fence post cutting is currently prohibited within the GGNCA and on NPS lands. Development and Infrastructure Private lands account for 36% of the NRLS area and are owned by over 700 landowners. The unincorporated community of Maher is located along Colorado Highway 92. (For more information on current development activities within the NRLS area, please refer to Section IX: Current Conditions and Trends.) Mining and Energy Current mining and energy development activity within the NRLS area is minimal. The GGNCA, Gunnison Gorge Wilderness, Black Canyon Wilderness Area and the Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Park have been withdrawn from the mineral leasing act. Montrose County operates a free‐use gravel pit along the North Rim Road. Two small flagstone quarries exist, near Crawford and Gould Reservoir, at which members of the public with personal use permits are allowed to collect in. (For more information on current mining energy development activities within the NRLS area, please refer to Section IX: Current Conditions and Trends.) F. Roads Colorado Highway 92 bisects the area. In addition, a network of major and minor roads have been created by land management agencies, counties, hunters, loggers, ranchers, motorized recreationists and others. Other major roads include: C‐77 Rd., Crystal Creek Rd., Black Canyon Rd., Clear Fork Rd., B‐76 Rd., Poison Springs Rd., Fruitland Mesa Rd., D‐77 Rd., D‐00 Rd. and A‐75 Rd. Vehicular traffic is restricted to existing roads and trails on all public lands in the NRLS area. Not all inventoried roads and trails in the NRLS area have legal access for public use. Characteristics of the Area Roads in the NRLS area consist of four types: • State highways; • Delta, Montrose and Gunnison County roads; • Inventoried roads and trails; and • Unauthorized user‐created routes. 25 G. Transmission Lines Western Area Power Administration maintains a 230kV transmission line from Rifle to Curecanti that runs through private and USFS lands within the NRLS area. Local and regional archaeological studies suggest there was nearly continuous human occupation of west‐central Colorado for the past 12,000 years. Evidence of Paleoindian Tradition, the Archaic Tradition, Formative Cultures and Protohistoric/Historic Utes has been found in the area.10 Archaeological and linguistic evidence indicates that the Ute Indians entered the region between A.D. 1200 and 1400. Sites believed to represent Ute occupation are numerous throughout the strategy area in the form of projectile points, wickiups, open campsites, rock art, and lithic scatters.10 The Tabeguache of the Uncompahgre Ute band wintered along the Uncompahgre and Gunnison Rivers between present‐day Montrose and Grand Junction. During the summer they hunted at higher elevations in the San Juan Mountains to the south and in the Upper Gunnison Basin to the east. Many of the small temporary campsites located in the vicinity of Blue Mesa Reservoir and along the rims of the National Park and Gunnison Gorge are apparently related to this late prehistoric and early historic occupation.11 The Red Canyon Trail, within the NRLS area, was used during prehistoric and historic times to access the Gunnison Gorge and the lands north and south of the Gorge. The actual location of the Red Canyon Trail on the east side of the Gorge is uncertain. Prehistoric peoples probably used many trails following wild game.2 During historic times the trails were used for driving cattle. Historic records suggest occupation or use by Euro American trappers, settlers, miners, and ranchers.9 The Historic Period began with well documented Spanish explorations and expeditions in the 1700s.10 In 1765, the Juan de Rivera expedition came across the Black Canyon area of the Gunnison River while searching for silver. In 1776, the Dominguez‐Escalante Expedition crossed the North Fork of the Gunnison, which they called San Javier. Exploration of the region resumed in the 1830s with the arrival of fur trappers. In the winter of 1882‐83, the first known attempt to survey the Black Canyon was made to study the river canyon for a possible water diversion to Montrose. In 1900, there was an attempt made to float through the Black Canyon. A year later, the first successful trip through the Black Canyon and Gunnison Gorge was completed.2, 9, 10 Little is known about the history within Gunnison Gorge. Cabins, most likely belonging to prospectors, are found within the Ute Park area in the Gunnison Gorge Wilderness. Sheep and cattle were once grazed within Gunnison Gorge. The last major cattle drive from Crawford to Delta across the Gorge occurred in 1958.2, 9, 10 Both alum and mica were historically mined within the Gunnison Gorge. Cultural Resources Cultural resources are locations of human activity, occupation or use. The term includes archaeological, historic, or architectural sites, structures, or places with important public and Characteristics of the Area H. History 26 North Rim Landscape Strategy Document Characteristics of the Area scientific uses, and locations of traditional cultural or religious importance to specified social and/or cultural groups.2 Measures to protect and manage known cultural resource sites within the NRLS area, as well as any new sites found in the future, will be required in all land use activity plans. Compliance inventories will be conducted prior to all surface‐disturbing or other activities that could affect cultural resources. 27 North Rim Landscape Strategy Document IX. Current Conditions and Trends A. Human Uses Development •
Main concern – Current human development (homes, infrastructure) and the potential for expansion in the future. •
The Office of Colorado State Demographer expects the population of three western Colorado counties (San Miguel, Montrose, and Delta) to rise significantly faster than the statewide average over the next 25 years. The anticipated increase is estimated to be caused by immigration of retiring baby boomers and a sustained regional energy boom. Both of these trends appear to be long‐term (20+ years).1 Although the NRLS area is located in a portion of Delta and Montrose counties that is currently rural in character and may not experience this same level of development, use of the NRLS area is expected to increase significantly. •
Potential for development on the private lands within the NRLS area: o
Delta County– Water in this area, particularly south of the Smith Fork, is of questionable quality in some locations and could limit residential and subdivision development potential. Subdivision activity has occurred west of Crawford and north of the Smith Fork. There is potential for subdivisions south of Highway 92 and west of Hotchkiss on several large parcels, with the Sketch Plans showing approximately 80 lots on one parcel with an interior domestic water system. Before the current economic down turn the subdivision development was primarily around the City of Delta and the Town of Cedaredge.12 o
Montrose County– No commercial development is anticipated in the near future. Development density requirements are currently at a 3‐acre minimum. Current Conditions and Trends 28 North Rim Landscape Strategy Document The county is moving toward trying to increase lot sizes to keep the area rural in nature (possibly 35‐acre minimum). Little to no water is available in this area, making subdivisions less desirable due to the fact that the county will not entertain subdivision applications without road and water plans. The current density across the landscape is low, with development only in isolated locations; significant amounts of the area are projected to stay agricultural. No major infrastructure (water/roads) exists and the county does not have plans for future development projects, particularly for water. A developer would need significant revenue to develop a water system for any large subdivision.13 o
Gunnison County– Currently the area within Gunnison County has limited potential for small acreage subdivisions due to winter access issues. Gunnison County has established regulations to limit the impacts of development on land beyond snowplowed access. Development of land beyond snowplowed access or expansion or extension of existing snowplowed road access poses issues that land use by non‐snowplowed over‐the‐snow access does not pose including road damage; creation or expectation about the availability of public and emergency services; increased risk(s) to emergency personnel who may be called upon to respond; disruption of significant, existing land uses of modes of travel; and creation of new roads or increased detrimental, environmental impact to roads and or lands. Gunnison County requires review of any development of land beyond snowplowed access.14 •
Current land use policies: o Any developments greater than 35‐acre parcels are exempt from most county regulations. They can, therefore, occur with limited control by the counties unless there is a water or access issue. o Delta County– This is an isolated area of Delta County which has seen a bit of activity recently but the development activity is low in relation to the rest of the county. Delta County is not zoned. The county’s Land Use Plan is designed to place new density close to existing density and therefore reduce conflict between existing uses such as agriculture and new residential uses.12 o
Montrose County– Current zoning is restricted to a 3‐acre minimum. Relevant subdivision regulations pertain to roads and water availability. The county will not issue subdivision approvals without a viable water source. The new Current Conditions and Trends 29 master plan, which is now in progress, will attempt to maintain the rural and agricultural aspect of this landscape.13 o
•
•
Gunnison County– Gunnison County has an effective building code, permit and inspection process in place. The Gunnison County Land Use Resolution, adopted in 2001 and codified in 2006, is the regulatory document that guides development in Gunnison County.14 (For more information on policy see the Land Use Resolution dated February 2006 at: www.gunnisoncounty.org) Demographics – Possible types of new residents will include: villagers, suburbanites, livestock owners and estate owners. Baby boomers are now planning on retiring in greater numbers and are seeking moderate climates in lower density areas such as the western slope of Colorado.1 Surrounding Communities – The communities of Austin, Cedaredge, Crawford, Hotchkiss, and Orchard City have an economic relationship with agriculture and mining, as well as ties to the City of Delta. Many residents in these areas commute to the City of Delta or are retirees, which has increased socioeconomic diversity. Communities adjacent to BLM and Forest Service lands view themselves as gateway communities for outdoor recreation and want to maximize their economic potential as such. Residents value their access to public lands, the sense of community, good quality of life, recreational opportunities and the scenic beauty of the landscapes.15 •
Density – Currently, the density of development is generally 35 to 40‐acre parcels because of county regulations. (Montrose County regulations require at 3‐acre minimum parcel size.) Low density development may continue because of limited water supplies and winter access. •
Related Growth – A concern with development of any density, particularly when associated with second homes, is that the development footprint expands exponentially because of the service workers needed to support retirees and second home owners. The result is the generation of jobs and traffic far in excess of general per capita or per household norms. Many service jobs are relatively low paying. Therefore, luxury housing tends to generate the need for lower income housing. In the North Rim area, one may expect that if expensive home development is allowed or encouraged on the broad landscape, the surrounding towns will feel growth pressure in the lower cost housing sector. They can also anticipate service demand in social and health care services, and many of the new residents may be poorly insured or uninsured.1 Current Conditions and Trends 30 North Rim Landscape Strategy Document •
Location – Because counties encourage development on non‐agricultural lands, there is concern that new development will expand into the non‐agricultural lands at the lower elevations and valley bottoms. This would affect the remaining native vegetation, thus affecting wildlife habitats and corridors for migration. •
Infrastructure – With new development, additional infrastructure such as roads and utility corridors will be needed that could further fragment habitat. Roads initiate many changes because they provide for mechanized access. Even lacking constructed changes, roads and their vehicular traffic introduce invasive species, human access to the broad landscape, alterations to hydrology, chemical contamination and fragmentation of habitat. 1 •
Potential limiting factors to increased development: o
o
Winter access – Winter access is considered a limiting factor for development. Adequate access routes that can be maintained year‐round would need to be installed first. At this time, the counties will not take on the winter maintenance of additional roads. Water – For major new developments, both the quality and quantity of current water availability is considered a limiting factor for development. These developments would require a significant investment in constructing and maintaining a water system and treatment plant. Although a study of water usage in Colorado in 2000 showed that over 90% of water use was devoted to irrigation.18 This suggests enormous potential for diverting water from agricultural to domestic use. High profits for developers and increases in tax base for local governments have repeatedly encouraged the purchase of water rights from irrigators for transfer to domestic use. There are no obvious balancing forces that would prevent these transfers in the NRLS area.1 Main concerns – • Impacts from the current number of roads and trails and the potential for additional user‐
created routes in the future. Current Conditions and Trends: • Volume of Motorized Traffic – The area has seen an increase in motorized vehicle traffic. An increase in motorized use typically leads to an increase in the number of user‐created routes. A proliferation of roads and trails leads to habitat fragmentation and an increase in off‐road vehicle use. Current Conditions and Trends Roads and Motorized Vehicle Use 31 •
A continued increase in motorized recreation is anticipated. Due to aging populations and the availability of a variety of recreational vehicles, trends suggest a shift away from physically demanding types of recreation to motorized types. As an example, a shift from backpacking and hiking to off‐road vehicle uses, motorcycles and vehicle sightseeing is anticipated. •
Amount of Roads – Roads and routes initiate many changes because they provide for mechanized access. Lacking roads, little change can occur on the landscape; when roads provide access for mechanized vehicles there is practically no limit to the changes that can occur. Even lacking constructed changes, roads and their vehicular traffic introduce invasive species, human access to the broad landscape, alteration of hydrology, chemical contamination, fragmentation of habitat and many other documented effects. The pervasiveness of these effects on public lands has increased substantially since the introduction and rise in popularity of all terrain vehicles.1 •
Current road closures: o
o
o
o
County Road C‐77 is closed from December 1 – April 30 to motorized use. The Black Ridge Road is closed from December 1 – April 30 to motorized use. The Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Park North Rim Drive is closed from just after Thanksgiving until late April. The exact dates are dependent on snow depth and road damage. The USFS is in the process of updating travel management regulations for this area, which may result in substantial changes to motorized access on National Forest lands. The roads on National Forest lands in this area are typically closed from December into April due to snow conditions, but are open to use by over‐
the‐snow vehicles. Site‐specific closures to wheeled vehicles have been put in place in various locations to meet current management requirements. Current Conditions and Trends 32 North Rim Landscape Strategy Document o
The BLM is currently implementing travel management decisions and regulations throughout the GGNCA and adjacent public lands, which may result in changes to motorized access on public lands. •
Illegal Access – Public land agencies have reported an increase in people accessing closed areas and wilderness illegally. As an example, incidents of illegal access through Smith Fork Way, Black Ridge Rd. and C‐77 Rd have been reported. Main concerns – • Impacts from current recreational use and the potential for increased use in the future. • Impacts from shed antler collecting during critical wildlife periods. • Potential threat to cultural and historical sites. Current Conditions and Trends: • Current recreational uses include: snowmobiling, fishing, scenic driving/sightseeing, wildflower viewing, bird watching, cross country skiing, shooting sports, bicycling, off‐
highway vehicle (OHV) use, rafting, kayaking, hiking, camping, horseback riding, rock climbing, shed antler collecting in the spring, and wildlife hunting in the fall. • Demographics – Interagency Senior Pass sales (62 years and older) for the Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Park and GGNCA are increasing as the baby boomer population ages. • Gunnison Gorge NCA: The BLM estimated a total of 9,700 recreational visits to the North Rim area of the GGNCA in 2008. This number is expected to increase in the future. • Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Park: The NPS has recognized an upward trend in visitor numbers in the past few years. • Recreational data trends developed by the Sonoran Institute's Economic Profile System (www.sonoraninstitute.org) on the area anticipate increased activity from: o Backcountry driving and vehicular camping associated with big game hunting; o Private upland bird hunting in the Scenic Mesa area; Current Conditions and Trends Recreation 33 Shed antler collecting (This activity is somewhat dependent on market value.); Fishing, camping, boating and picnicking at Crawford State Park; and Sightseeing, hiking, camping and rock climbing at Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Park, Curecanti NRA and the GGNCA. Shed antler collecting – The land management agencies have seen an increase in this activity. Shed antler hunters violating NPS regulations and BLM area closures are becoming more common. This activity has the potential of disturbing Gunnison sage‐grouse during sensitive times. Horseback riding – The land management agencies have seen an increase in this activity, including larger groups. Horseback riding is seen in the West Elk Wilderness area of the USFS lands, with users accessing trail systems through trailheads in the NRLS area. Dispersed Camping – As the dispersed camping opportunities (camping outside of designated camping areas) in the Front Range area of the state decrease due to more stringent regulations, the North Rim area may see an increase in recreational users seeking this type of experience. o
o
o
•
•
•
•
•
Hunting – Current big game hunting activity on private and low elevation BLM lands is low during the archery, muzzleloader and first two rifle seasons (typically mid – late October). On BLM lands, the 3rd hunting season is currently the busiest in the Green Mountain area and is followed by the 4th hunting season due to the animals moving down from higher elevations (typically November). On the USFS lands, the archery and muzzleloader are the busier times of year, both for foot, horse and motorized use. o Hunting regulations and restrictions in the Gunnison Basin may displace users from Gunnison to the North Rim area, increasing use in this area. o Private bird hunting: This activity includes hunting pheasant and chucker and is projected to increase on private lands north of the NRLS area (north of the Smith Fork). Current activity is not known to impact known Gunnison sage‐
grouse areas. However, if future GPS transmitter studies find that the Gunnison sage‐grouse are moving farther than what is currently believed, issues such as human presence, game bird diseases and intra‐specific competition for resources that impact the Gunnison sage‐grouse populations may need to be addressed. Current BLM hunting permits: o
o
o
o
Bookcliff Outfitters ‐ Lion Buglin' Bill Outfitters ‐ Big game Gunsmoke Outfitters ‐ Lion Hubbard Creek ‐ Big game & small game Current Conditions and Trends 34 North Rim Landscape Strategy Document o
o
o
•
•
Current USFS hunting permits: o One lion hunter permitted in the area, with focus in the Curecanti Creek drainage. o One outfitter permitted during deer and elk hunting season with limitations on use. Hunting seasons within the NRLS are: o Lion season: Nov. 1 – March 31 o Big game season (includes Deer, Elk, & bear): August 15 – Jan. 31 o Small game seasons: varies throughout the year depending on species. Backcountry Use: o
o
Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Park , Curecanti NRA and Black Canyon Wilderness Area: •
Backcountry overnight stays have remained the same from 2001 – 2007 (approximately 1,700 visitors). •
Inner canyon hiking use has steadily declined with 2,699 users in 2001 and 1,366 users in 2007. •
Rock climbing has seen a dramatic increase, doubling in the last few years (from 656 users in 2001 to 1,213 users in 2007). Rock climbing poses potential impacts to cliff‐nesting birds such as peregrine falcons, and facilitated erosion from cleaning of rocks because routes typically have permanent or semi‐permanent installation of climbing hardware. GGNCA and Gunnison Gorge Wilderness Area: •
An increase in backcountry use has been seen. Use is predicted to increase in the future. Current Conditions and Trends •
Needle Rock Outfitters ‐ Lion, big game, small game Saddle Mountain Outfitters ‐ Big game West Elk Outfitters ‐ Big game 35 Livestock Grazing Main concern – There is a lack of understanding of the impact of livestock presence during Gunnison sage‐grouse nesting and brooding seasons. BLM‐Managed Lands Most grazing activity in the NRLS area occurs on the Fruitland Mesa/Green Mountain Lands, with one sheep allotment, one cattle/sheep allotment and seven cattle allotments. The sheep allotments are entirely on public land. Most of the cattle allotments contain a high percentage of private land that is grazed in conjunction with the public land. The season of use in the cattle allotments is spring and summer except for the Grizzly Gulch Allotment which has fall use. In the sheep allotments, one has fall use and one has winter use. In the sheep allotments, bed‐ground areas are limited to a five day stay. Sheepherder camps are also required to move as frequently as reasonable to avoid impacts. The Gunnison sage‐
grouse habitat in the area consists mostly of mesa tops, benches and gulches dominated by Pinyon‐Juniper and mountain shrub vegetation communities.2 • Poison Spring #05014 – Cattle Allotment: The grazing period extends from May 20 to June 26 with 60 to 100 mature cows or cow/calf pairs (50 AUMs). Cattle trail in from the north on Black Canyon Road, covering the entire allotment quickly and graze for three to four weeks. • Iron Canyon #05013 – Cattle Allotment: The grazing period is May 15 to June 30 with approximately 90 cow/calf pairs (95 AUMs). This allotment has three pastures that are grazed in varied rotations each year. The west side pasture is closest to the Crawford Gunnison sage‐grouse population, and has an even mix of sagebrush, oak, and pinyon‐juniper habitat. It receives consistent grazing use each year, for an average of 15 to 21 days. This use is easily observed from the Poison Springs Road which runs north/south through this pasture. A Gunnison sage‐grouse drinker was installed in this allotment in 2008. • Gould Reservoir #05011 – Cattle Allotment: The grazing period is May 14 to July 14 with approximately 150 mature cows or cow/calf pairs (305 AUMs). This allotment utilizes a four‐pasture deferred rotation grazing strategy. All pastures have a mix of sagebrush, oak and pinyon‐juniper habitat. All pastures receive consistent grazing use each year, for a total of approximately 45 days. This use is easily observed from the Poison Springs Road which runs through this allotment. About 350 acres in this allotment were treated by roller chop and reseeding in 2003. •
Dead Horse Common #05010 – Cattle Allotment: The grazing period is June 1 to October 10 with approximately 150 cattle (97 AUMs). This allotment area is Current Conditions and Trends Current Conditions: 36 North Rim Landscape Strategy Document considered “extended Gunnison sage‐grouse range”, but little is known about actual bird numbers. •
Spring Gulch #05029 – Cattle Allotment: The grazing period is June 1 to September 20 with approximately 100 cattle (111 AUMs). This allotment is not considered to be located in Gunnison sage‐grouse range. •
Rabbit Gulch #05022 – Cattle Allotment: The grazing period is April 18 to May 9 with approximately 300 cattle (77 AUMs). This allotment is not considered to be located in Gunnison sage‐grouse range. •
Green Mountain #05017 – Cattle and Sheep Allotment: The cattle grazing period is May 15 to July 5 with approximately 250 cow/calf pairs (1070 AUMs). A four‐
pasture deferred rest‐rotation strategy has been used for the last 8 years. The cattle will usually trail into and exit the allotment at the intersection of Black Canyon and C‐77 roads. The sheep grazing period extends from October 15 to December 15 with about 1,200 sheep (586 AUMs). Annual grazing by sheep will normally occur in the east, middle, and west pastures for a maximum of 45 consecutive days at varied times within the grazing period. Sheep are herded throughout the allotment with the intent of maintaining use levels at no greater than 40% in any single use area. Snow cover is important for the appropriate distribution and constant movement of sheep throughout the allotment pastures. This allotment contains active Gunnison sage‐grouse leks and habitat. •
Black Ridge #05020 – Sheep Allotment: The grazing period is December 12 to February 15 with approximately 1,200 Sheep (552 AUMs). This allotment has no fenced pastures as the sheep are managed and moved by herders from one use area to another. Normally, grazing use occurs for no more than 30 consecutive days within the grazing period. Use always occurs in the winter and since this area is quite arid with no natural water supply, the sheep are reliant on snow cover for water. The area has a large and significant sagebrush/grass component that occurs mostly in open spaces among the pinyon‐juniper. Several roller chop and reseeding treatments (about 700 acres) have occurred in the allotment within the last 10 years. Aside from use by elk and mule deer, spring and summer livestock use is not authorized here. A Gunnison sage‐grouse drinker is scheduled to be installed in this allotment in 2010. Recent Changes in Livestock Grazing Use on BLM‐Managed Lands The number of livestock on BLM‐managed lands has decreased since 2001. As an example, a revised livestock grazing management plan was initiated on the Green Mountain allotment Current Conditions and Trends 37 in 2001. This plan uses a short duration, deferred rotation strategy to address desired objectives such as Gunnison sage‐grouse habitat and maintained native plant communities. In addition, the BLM acquired approximately 1,227 acres of private land located south of the Green Mountain allotment and adjacent to NPS lands. These lands, referred to as the Jensen‐Ware properties, have been grazed in the past but are not currently grazed.16 Records also show that in 1982, 330 head of permitted cattle and 1,400 head of permitted sheep were trailed and herded across the Green Mountain allotment in spring. In addition, adjacent private landowners trailed approximately 275 head of cattle across the east and middle part of the Green Mountain allotment. These numbers were trailed back across the allotment to get to their later summer range. In contrast, there are currently only 250 head of cattle on the Green Mountain allotment.16 NPS‐Managed Lands Grizzly Gulch #05015: There are currently 1,920 acres of NPS lands that are grazed by 250 cattle (309 AUMs) from September 15 to November 15. The allotment area consists of 79% NPS lands and 21% BLM lands 21%. The BLM administers the allotment for the NPS. A larger, adjacent portion of this allotment was retired in December 2007. USFS‐Managed Lands Forest Service lands in this area encompass two large allotments and portions of others. Within allotments, stock is rotated throughout pastures, with individual pastures rested at specific times of the year and rotations changed from year to year to vary use on specific locations. Target forage utilization is no more than 405 AUMs, with lower actual usage in most locations. Energy development •
•
•
•
The potential for expanded energy development within the NRLS area is low.29 The Gunnison Gorge NCA, Gunnison Gorge Wilderness and the Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Park have been withdrawn from the mineral leasing act. Coal – There is potential for mining of Dakota coal. This type of coal, although lower quality, is currently being mined in Nucla for the Nucla Power Plant. The Dakota Sandstone is the only coal bearing formation in the NRLS area, with a few discontinuous, lenticular layers of minimal thickness within it. The majority of these layers do not have tremendous potential to produce coal so have not been extensively explored.29 Oil and Gas – Currently there are no oil and gas leases within the NRLS area. The USFS and BLM lands that have not been withdrawn from the mineral leasing act could be Current Conditions and Trends Main concern – Energy development activities such as oil and gas drilling and mineral extraction have increased in the regional area. 38 North Rim Landscape Strategy Document leased if the lands are nominated for leasing. The potential for activity diminishes near the rim of the Black Canyon and Curecanti because the bearing layers become thinner, pinch out, or do not exist. There are current leases just north of the NRLS area.29 •
Minerals – There are currently no mining claims located within the NRLS area. •
Gravel – Montrose County operates a free‐use gravel pit along the North Rim Road. This is currently the only gravel pit known in the area. •
Flagstone –The Gunnison Gorge NCA, Gunnison Gorge Wilderness, and the Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Park and Curecanti NRA are not open to flagstone collection. The remaining BLM lands are open to collection. However, if members of the public request a permit for the area, an Environmental Assessment would need to be completed. This requirement has discouraged activity. Two small quarries exist, near Crawford and Gould Reservoir, at which members of the public with personal use permits are allowed to collect.29 B. Wildlife Gunnison Sage‐Grouse Main concern ‐ Increased development and human uses that fragment habitat, diminish connectivity and disturb the Gunnison sage‐grouse during sensitive times. Current Condition: Historically, Gunnison sage‐grouse were found throughout the southwestern portion of Colorado and southeastern Utah. Currently, approximately 3,500 breeding sage‐grouse occur among seven separate populations throughout this regional area. The largest population (about 2,500 birds) inhabits the Gunnison Basin.17 A small population of 200 or fewer Gunnison sage‐
grouse, known as the Crawford population, is present in the NRLS area and use the extensive sagebrush area east from Green Mountain. The BLM has designated 22,200 acres in this area as the Gunnison Sage‐Grouse Area of Critical Environmental Concern and Important Bird Area (ACEC/IBA) which is managed for maximum protection of Gunnison sage‐grouse habitat areas. It is believed that the Crawford population interacts with the larger population in the Gunnison Basin3. In response to rising concerns about the long‐term status of the Gunnison sage‐grouse in the Crawford area, the CDOW, NPS, BLM, US Fish and Wildlife Service, local landowners and interested individuals and groups formed the Crawford Gunnison Sage‐Grouse Working Group to address declining trends of sage‐grouse numbers. In 1998, the working group completed a Current Conditions and Trends 39 Current Conditions and Trends conservation plan that outlines a framework to guide a coordinated management effort to improve sage‐grouse habitat and reverse the downward trend.3 Primary sage‐grouse occupied habitat in the NRLS area is depicted on Map H in Appendix II. The elevation of this area ranges between 6,560 and 8,200 ft.. Active leks are on BLM‐managed lands within this area, spaced fairly evenly for about seven miles west from the Black Canyon County Road. Most of the sage‐grouse activity (strutting, breeding, nesting and wintering) occurs within the first four miles of this area west of the Black Canyon County Road. This strip is the largest contiguous sagebrush‐dominated site within the Crawford area. Vegetation in the strip blends from sagebrush in the middle along C‐77 Road, to invading pinyon‐juniper on the north edge at lower elevations near Red Canyon, and to mountain shrubs on the south edge at higher elevations toward the Black Canyon.3 The CDOW completed a range‐wide Gunnison sage‐
grouse study by which they assessed movements and habitat selection. In 2000, six birds were radio tagged and results indicate that the birds are not moving far from the strutting grounds. Sage‐grouse sightings also have been reported in other locations within the Crawford and North Fork Valley and in Bostwick Park; however, there is no evidence of long‐term occupation.3,17 The BLM have completed several Gunnison sage‐grouse habitat improvement projects in the NRLS area. From 1998 to 2006, the BLM completed the following projects with the goal of enhancing and restoring current and former sage‐grouse habitat. o Total number of acres of brush beat: 795 acres o Total number of acres of hydro‐axed: 319 acres o Total number of acres of cut pinyon‐juniper: 800 acres o Total number of acres burned: 300 acres o Total number of acres reseeded after treatment: 750 acres The BLM has also created or enhanced small wet areas to benefit sage‐grouse nesting and brood rearing habitat. In addition, approximately 1,000 acres of pinyon‐juniper trees have been cut, burned or hydro‐axed within ½ mile of active leks to reduce predation by raptors.17 A preliminary analysis by the CDOW of the past habitat treatments show that: o The 795 acres of brush beating treatments on new and old lek sites has increased Gunnison sage‐grouse use. However, that use seems to be declining possibly due to the vegetation growing out. The CDOW suggests that the leks should be re‐treated to improve their effectiveness. o The removal of pinyon‐juniper in the C‐77 road area has been beneficial to sage‐grouse resulting in less predation on strutting males in the spring. o The rollerchop treatment on the Tom Ware property increased both elk and sage‐
grouse use for the first couple of years after the treatment. This is believed to be to due to the increase in forbs used by hens and chicks in the late spring. o The controlled burn completed by the BLM in the draw just west of Dam lek was probably at first detrimental to sage‐grouse because of the loss of sagebrush. However, that burn created more grasses which attracted deer on the first years after the burn. 40 North Rim Landscape Strategy Document Sagebrush eventually re‐pioneered the draw and thus benefited the sage‐grouse in the long‐term.26 Trends: • Recreation and roads – Recreational use and the creation of unauthorized roads and trails in the NRLS area are increasing. Increased user‐created roads and trails, specifically from shed antler collecting and wildlife hunting, likely have great impact on Gunnison sage‐
grouse. • Habitat fragmentation – There is potential for increased habitat fragmentation caused by illegal off‐road use, development and associated infrastructure. • Habitat quality – There is concern over the quality of the existing and former habitat. • Disturbance to Gunnison sage‐grouse from human presence – There is a trend toward increased human presence near lek sites and brood rearing areas during sensitive times of the year. This activity may adversely affect birds. • Potential disturbance of Gunnison sage‐grouse from elk – There is a trend toward larger numbers of elk. This results in greater interaction with Gunnison sage‐grouse during elk migration periods. There is also potential for an overlap of use of the habitat treatment areas, water development and riparian areas that Gunnison sage‐grouse require for brood rearing. Potential disturbance to Gunnison sage‐grouse from cattle – There is a question if current cattle turnout dates (May 15) for the Green Mountain allotment may present potential interaction with the Gunnison sage‐grouse brood rearing season, resulting in potential disturbance to nests. At this time, there is no documentation of conflicts. More research is needed to determine if livestock movement is a concern to Gunnison sage‐grouse numbers. As stated in the Gunnison Sage‐Grouse Rangewide Conservation Plan, “It is recognized that current livestock stocking rates are substantially lower than historic levels, when Gunnison sage‐grouse numbers were presumed to be high. However, it is impossible to identify and/or quantify all other factors related to Gunnison sage‐grouse populations and habitat during the same time period. Thus, we are unable to derive a direct correlation between causative historic conditions.”8 Current Conditions and Trends •
41 • Predation of Gunnison sage‐grouse from various species –There is a general concern that predators such as coyotes and raptors may be having impacts on Gunnison sage‐grouse populations in the Crawford area.8 Rocky Mountain Elk Main concern – Current elk distribution and disproportionate use on public and private lands. Current status of ungulates within the NRLS: The NLRS area contains Game Management Units (GMU) 53 and 63, managed by the CDOW. Deer are managed separately for each GMU. For elk, the CDOW manages Units 53 and 63 together. Estimated Population of Deer and Elk in the NRLS Area for 2008 The BLM, in partnership with the Habitat Partnership Program sponsored by CDOW, have completed several big game habitat improvement projects in the NRLS area. The projects were aimed at improving the quality of available winter range habitat on public land in order to reduce big game damage to fences and forage on private land.18 The USFS has completed 408 acres of similar habitat improvement on their lands within the NRLS in the past ten years. A preliminary analysis by the CDOW of past habitat treatments shows that: o There is some use by ungulates on all treatments that did not occur prior to the treatment. o Deer and elk have benefitted from habitat treatments on Gunnison sage‐grouse leks. Their use of these areas is significant in the spring. Ungulates browse on shrubs that have been set back to an earlier seral stage. Controlled burns on lek sites created more grasses which attract deer and elk in the first couple of years post treatment. o Controlled burns completed on oak brush in the Green Mountain area were attractive to elk soon after the burn but are now in need of re‐treatment.26 Trends: •
Increase in the number of elk – The long‐term (15 to 20 year) elk population trend is increasing slightly, although since 1991 the numbers have been decreasing, possibly the Current Conditions and Trends Population DAU/GMU Estimate DAU Objective Elk: GMU 53/63 3893 2200 to 2400 Deer: GMU 53 5767 5500 to 6500 Deer: GMU 63 7151 7000 to 8000 (Information obtained from the Colorado Division of Wildlife) 42 North Rim Landscape Strategy Document result of more liberal hunting regulations.19 The number of elk using this area yearlong is steadily increasing and is occurring mostly in areas adjacent to the Gunnison Gorge.2 Increased pressure from hunting – There is a concern that hunting activities in the area are forcing elk migration in disproportionate numbers onto NPS and private lands. Increased impacts to public and private lands from disproportionate use – With larger numbers and disproportionate use, elk are having greater impacts on public and private lands over time. •
•
•
Habitat quality on public lands – There is concern about habitat degradation. •
Distribution ‐ Data from the USGS Elk Migration Study indicate that some elk spend the full year west of Highway 92 and do not go onto USFS lands.32 Other Wildlife Species Main concerns: • Changes in human uses, particularly development and motorized recreation, may impact other wildlife populations, habitats and migration patterns. • Limited water availability and water developments for wildlife. Trends: • Increased human presence may adversely impact population numbers, disturb migration patterns and degrade/fragment habitats. C. Vegetation •
Decline in overall ecosystem health and natural functions: o Increase in invasive species; o Loss of old growth pinyon‐juniper; o Lack of aspen regeneration; and o Increase in insects and disease. •
•
•
Risk of uncharacteristically severe wildfire. Potential threat to life, property and other infrastructure from wildfire. Fracturing of the ecosystem to the extent that natural processes, specifically fire, cannot be managed at an appropriate scale or intensity. Current Conditions and Trends Main concerns: 43 In 2001, the BLM completed a Land Health Assessment for the Gunnison Gorge Area.19 This area includes the majority of the BLM lands found in the NRLS area. While many areas were found to be healthy, some problems were found. These problems include: • Low perennial plant basal cover was found in parts of the Green Mountain and Poison Spring areas. • Low perennial grass cover was found in the eastern portion of Green Mountain, near Crawford Reservoir, and in parts of Black Ridge. • Low perennial forb canopy cover was found in Black Ridge, Iron Canyon, Gould Reservoir and near Crawford Reservoir. • Areas of pinyon‐juniper invasion were identified in the central part of Green Mountain and around Poison Spring. • Invasive species were a problem in parts of Black Ridge, the Dedication Site and Shamrock, and much of the Smith Fork, Gould Reservoir and Allen Reservoir areas. • Excessive browsing on shrubs was evident throughout Green Mountain and above Smith Fork and Shamrock Allotment. • Poor shrub vigor was found to occur on Black Ridge, above the Smith Fork and across the eastern portion of BLM lands. • Winter range quantity and quality is declining in the some areas, due mostly to: 1) the lack of disturbances scattered throughout the unit to reset succession, hence creating a more desirable mosaic of feeding and cover areas, and improving the herbaceous species composition and vigor of browse plants, 2) existing browse stands are advancing in seral stage, and in some areas browse plants are being replaced by pinyon‐juniper mostly and, 3) over use by mule deer and elk, caused by their number being concentrated on the remaining amount of shrinking winter range, thus quickening the decline of winter range condition. The Montrose Interagency Fire Management Unit assessed the current conditions of the NRLS as part of a larger Black Canyon Fire Management Unit. The report estimated that prior to fire suppression activities, the natural fire regimes of the North of the Gunnison Gorge up to the Paonia area created a high percentage of early seral stages in the native vegetation with small patch sizes. These low intensity and mixed severity fires produced diverse, productive and desired plant communities with high vegetative basal area cover in the uplands. The exclusion of fire from the landscape has thus had the effect of creating later seral stage conditions across larger areas of the landscape than would be expected under a natural fire regime. Unique Vegetation Communities There are three stands of relict pinyon‐juniper trees totaling 387 acres located on the east side of Gunnison Gorge in the Fruitland Mesa/Green Mountain Lands. Two stands are located within the Wilderness on Buttermilk Ridge, and one stand is located immediately east of the Wilderness boundary on Black Ridge. All the areas are covered by Utah juniper and pinyon pine Current Conditions and Trends Current Conditions: 44 North Rim Landscape Strategy Document that are unusually large in diameter and estimated to be well over 500 years old. Relict pinyon‐
juniper communities also have been documented in the Green Mountain area inside NPS wilderness boundaries. The stands on NPS lands have not yet been quantified. While pinyon‐juniper woodlands are extensive throughout western Colorado, because of their trunk circumference, these stands are very unusual and unique. The primary threats to these stands are vegetation management treatments, cutting (accidental or otherwise), and wildfire. Invasive Plants Invasive plants are introduced species that can thrive in areas beyond their natural range of dispersal. These plants are characteristically adaptable, aggressive and have a high reproductive capacity. Their vigor combined with a lack of natural enemies often leads to outbreak populations.20 Noxious weeds are a type of invasive species and are defined as any living stage (including seeds and reproductive parts) of a parasitic or other plant of a kind that is of foreign origin, is new to or not widely prevalent in the United States, and can directly or indirectly injure crops other useful plants, livestock, poultry, or other interests of agriculture, including irrigation, navigation, fish and wildlife resources, or the public health.21 The State of Colorado defines a noxious weed as a non‐native species to the state that meets one or more of the following criteria:
(a) Aggressively invades or is detrimental to economic crops or native plant communities; (b) Is poisonous to livestock; (c) Is a carrier of detrimental insects, diseases or parasites; or (d) The direct or indirect effect of the presence of this plant is detrimental to the environmentally sound management of natural or agricultural ecosystems.22 The State of Colorado has classified noxious weeds into three prioritized categories or lists (A, B and C). List A Species List A noxious weeds have minimal distributions or have not yet been detected within the state. They have demonstrated an ability to spread rapidly or cause significant harm. Eradication is the mandatory management objective. List B Species List B noxious weed species have varying distribution within the state and are subject to eradication, containment or suppression. The development and implementation of noxious weed management plans designed to stop the continued spread of these species is mandated. If possible, eradication of these species is most desirable. Current Conditions and Trends 45 List C Species List C noxious weed species are the lowest priority because their populations are widespread throughout the state. If possible, suppression of the species is most desirable. The major invasive species found in the NRLS area include: whitetop (Lepidium draba) –State List B; Russian knapweed (Centaurea repens) –State List B; spotted knapweed (Centaurea maculosa) –State List B; yellow toadflax (Linaria vulgaris) –State List B; cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum) –State List C; jointed goatgrass (Aegilops cylindrica) –State List B; bull thistle (Cirsium vulgare) –State List C; musk thistle (Carduss nutans) –State List C; and Canada thistle (Cirsium Canadensis) –State List C. Yellow star thistle (Centaurea solstitialis) –State List A; oxeye daisy (Leucanthemum vulgare) –State List B; houndstongue (Cynoglossum officinale) –State List B; and leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula) –State List A are known to occur in the region but are not yet been mapped in the NRLS area. Spotted knapweed is considered the species of greatest priority for eradication in this area as it is still an isolated occurrence. Sudden Aspen Decline Some aspen stands within the NRLS area are experiencing Sudden Aspen Decline (SAD). Sudden Aspen Decline is defined as widespread, severe, rapid dieback and mortality. In 2007 the USFS reported that the number of affected acres statewide more than doubled from 2006, reaching over 358,000 acres and affecting about 13% of the aspen acreage. Sudden Aspen Decline is different from the typical aspen successional changes in the following ways: o Landscape‐Scale: The change is evident on a landscape scale, as opposed to the individual stand‐level changes we have typically seen in the past. o Rapidity of mortality: The current phenomenon has increased dramatically over a few years, as opposed to the typical changes that we see over decades. o Mortality agents: The relative importance of pathogens and insects associated with SAD are different from those typically associated with mortality in old stands in Colorado.30 Trends: •
•
Pinyon decline – Continued pinyon decline is anticipated in existing pinyon‐juniper stands, resulting from a combination of drought and ips beetle infestation. There is a need to protect the relic pinyon‐juniper stands on Black Ridge. Aspen decline – SAD is anticipated to continue in the NRLS area. Current Conditions and Trends The USFS reports that where aspen has been regenerated through management in the past and SAD is present, healthy green regenerated patches can often be seen beside dying, unmanaged stands. It appears that the diversification of age structure through management has increased the resilience of the landscape to SAD.30 In 2008, the last date for which information is available, USFS data showed SAD affecting 11,675 acres within the NRLS area. 46 North Rim Landscape Strategy Document •
•
•
•
•
•
Oak top‐kill – A series of unseasonable late spring and early summer frosts have repeatedly killed mature oak stems, and this has been exacerbated by large infestations of oak defoliating insects like Linden looper caterpillars. These trends are expected to continue, perhaps reducing the amount and extent of oak communities on the landscape. Increased invasive species infestations – An increase in the density and spread of invasive species (such as cheatgrass) is anticipated due to increased disturbances from human activities. Decreased opportunities to manage fire as a natural process – As development increases, there is an increase in “values at risk” across the landscape such as homes and utility lines, which will decrease or limit the potential to manage fire as a natural process. The artificial exclusion of fire from the landscape may have a detrimental effect on Gunnison sage‐grouse and elk habitat. On the other hand, naturally and human‐ignited fires can have detrimental effects on both human and wildlife habitat. Decreased opportunities to manage natural hydrologic processes – Increased development and the associated water diversion and storage will decrease the potential to manage for natural hydrologic processes. The proliferation of roads further alters natural hydrology. Fire Suppression – Due to fire suppression and increase human presence, an increase in vegetative fuels in WUI areas is anticipated. Climate change – Changes in climate may add to the decline of the ecosystem health. It may accelerate the spread of invasive species due to environment stress on native species, and increase the rate of SAD, pinyon and oak declines, as well as trigger other species to decline or increase. Current Conditions and Trends 47 North Rim Landscape Strategy Document X.
References 1. Trends of Human Use in the Gunnison‐Uncompahgre Valleys: Reflections on a Conversation with Jim Weskott, Office of the Colorado State Demographer. Raymond D. Watts, U.S. Geological Survey. February 12, 2008. 2. Gunnison Gorge National Conservation Area Draft Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement Volume 1 (Affected Environment Section). March 2003. BLM, Colorado State Office, Montrose District, Uncompahgre Field Office, Montrose, Colorado. 3. Gunnison Sage‐Grouse Conservation Plan, Crawford Area, Colorado. July 22, 1998 4. Colorado Div. of Wildlife website: http://wildlife.state.co.us/WildlifeSpecies 5. Natural Diversity Information Source – CDOW http://ndis.nrel.colostate.edu/wildlife.asp?sf=c&ss=gunnison%20sage%20grouse • Fitzgerald, JP, Meaney, CA, Armstrong, DM. 1994.Mammals of Colorado. Niwot: Denver Museum of Natural History and University Press of Colorado. • Andrews, R, Righter, R. 1992. Colorado Birds. Denver: Denver Museum of Natural History. • Hammerson, GA. 2000. Amphibians and Reptiles in Colorado, Revised Edition. Niwot: University Press of Colorado. • Woodling, J. 1984. Game Fish of Colorado. Denver: Colorado Division of Wildlife. • Woodling, J. 1985. Colorado's Little Fish. Denver: Colorado Division of Wildlife. 6. Mountain Lion. Lindzey, F. G. 1987. Pages. 657–668. in M. Novak, J. A. Baker, M. E. Obbard, and B. Malloch, editors. Wild furbearer management and conservation in North America. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Toronto, Canada. 7. Ecology of Coyotes in Iowa. Andrews, R.D. and E.K. Boggess. 1978. Pages 249‐65 in M. Bekoff, ed. Coyotes: Biology, behavior, and management. Academic Press, New York. 8. Gunnison Sage‐Grouse Rangewide Conservation Plan. 2005. Gunnison sage‐grouse Rangewide Steering Committee. Colorado Division of Wildlife, Denver, Colorado, USA. 9. Class I Cultural Resource Inventory for the Gunnison Gorge NCA and Wilderness Area. Conner, C.E. and B.J. Davenport. 2001. Administered by the Uncompahgre Field Office, Bureau of Land Management, Order No. CCp010045. GRI Project No. 2128. Grand River Institute, Grand Junction, Colorado. 10 pp. plus appendix. 10. Draft Uncompahgre Basin Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement. BLM, Colorado State Office, Montrose District, Uncompahgre Field Office, Montrose, Colorado. 11. Final Recreation Management Plan for the Gunnison Gorge Recreation Lands Colorado. BLM, Montrose District, Uncompahgre Field Office, Montrose, Colorado. 57 pp. 12. Eric Sowell, Planning and Community Development, Delta County, CO (Personal Communication December 2007 and May 2009) 13. Steve White, Planning & Development Director, Montrose County, CO (Personal Communication December 2007 and May 2009) 14. Neil Starkebaum, Assistant Director, Offices of Planning, Building & Environmental Health, Gunnison County, CO (Personal Communication December 2007 and May 2009) 15. Draft Resource Management Plan. BLM, Colorado State Office, Montrose District, Uncompahgre Field Office, Montrose, Colorado. April 2009 16. Hank Le Valley, NRLS permittee (personal communication) References 48 North Rim Landscape Strategy Document 17. Crawford Sage‐Grouse Population, Habitat Improvement Projects and Conservation Plan Progress Evaluation. November 2006. BLM, Montrose District, Uncompahgre Field Office, Montrose, Colorado. 18. Estimated Use of Water in the United States in 2000. Hutson, S.S., N.L. Barber, J.F. Kenny, K.S. Linsey, D.S. Lumia, and M.A. Maupin. 2004. U.S. Geological Survey. 19. Gunnison Gorge Land Health Assessment. BLM, Montrose District, Uncompahgre Field Office, Montrose, Colorado. 86 pp. 20. National Invasive Species Information Center 21. Federal Noxious Weed Act of 1974 22. Colorado Noxious Weed Act Title 35 Article 5.5 23. http://en.wikipedia.org 24. Gunnison Sage‐Grouse Conservation Plan, Crawford Area – Colorado 1998 25. Gunnison Gorge Land Health Assessment. BLM, Montrose District, Uncompahgre Field Office, Montrose, Colorado. 86 pp. 26. Doug Homan, Colorado Division of Wildlife (personal communication) 27. All About The Peregrine Falcon. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (1999), retrieved on 2007‐08‐13 28. Handbook of Birds of the World: New World Vultures to Guineafowl, 2. White, C.M. et al. (1994), "Family Falconidae", in del Hoyo, J., Elliot, A. and Sargatal, J., Barcelona: Lynx Edicions, pp. 216–
275, plates 24–28, ISBN 84‐87334‐15‐ 29. Lynn Lewis and Desty Dyer, Bureau of Land Management, Uncompahgre Field Office, Montrose, Colorado. (personal communication, 11/16/07 and 12/10/07). 30. Sudden Aspen Decline in Colorado. Forest Health Management, Rocky Mountain Region, USDA Forest Service, 2008 March 19. Susan Gray, Group Leader, Forest Health Protection, Rocky Mountain Region; susangray@fs.fed.us, 303‐275‐5061. Roy Mask, Supervisor, Gunnison Service Center, Forest Health Protection, Rocky Mountain Region; rmask@fs.fed.us, 970‐642‐1133 31. Gunnison Gorge National Conservation Area Resource Management Plan. November 2004. BLM, Colorado State Office, Montrose District, Uncompahgre Field Office, Montrose, Colorado. 32. Doug Ouren, USGS Fort Collins Science Center (personal communication) 33. The Smithsonian Book of North American Mammals. 1999. Wilson, DE and S Ruff (eds.) Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington. Pg. 157 – 160. 34. The Smithsonian Book of North American Mammals. 1999. Wilson, DE & S Ruff (eds). Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington. Pg 139‐141 35. General Management Plan for the Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Monument and Curecanti National Recreation Area. December 1997. National Park Service. 36. Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunnison National Forests 1983 Land and Resource Management Plan. 1983. USDA Forest Service. 37. References 49 North Rim Landscape Strategy Document Appendix I. 2010 Plan of Work –Strategies and Recommendations The following strategies and recommendations were developed collaboratively by the NRLS workgroup to address the current conditions, needs and future trends of the area. Those projects that have been identified as ‘priority’ are expected to be initiated in the next three years. Projects identified as ‘long‐
term’ are proposals that the workgroup has recognized as important for the future health of the NRLS area but no plans for initiation have begun. Many of the projects listed do not have adequate funding in place or may have funding only to initiate the project. Both long and short‐term funding will need to be pursued from federal, state and private sources to support landscape‐wide recommendations and administrative, managerial and educational needs. The NRLS workgroup will regularly review and prioritize these projects as a collaborative group to ensure critical efforts are being promoted, coordinated, planned and implemented by the appointed subgroups. The success of projects will be regularly reviewed as well as new issues and proposals brought forward. Adaptive management will be implemented as necessary to ensure that the workgroup and this document remain vital, current and effective. * Denotes strategies that have been given highest priority. Objective: To work collaboratively at a landscape scale to build a shared science and knowledge base to inform decision‐making across jurisdictional boundaries. Significance: The NRLS area has been identified as an area that would benefit from collaborative conservation efforts. On‐going Responsible Entity Funding in Place to Begin Project • Develop an annual work plan that details priority objectives. Collaboratively discuss and give input into federal and state agencies' * proposed projects. • Develop a Strategy Steering Committee to coordinate the overall strategy effort for the long term. Appoint a chair for the committee to * serve as the point of contact for the NRLS workgroup. Long‐Term Strategies and Recommendations for the Management of the North Rim Landscape Area Priority (1 ‐ 3 yrs) Human Uses X NRLS group Yes X NRLS group Yes 2010 Plan of Work –Strategies and Recommendations A. General 1 On‐going Responsible Entity Funding in Place to Begin Project * X NRLS group Yes * X NRLS group No * X NRLS group Yes * X NRLS group Yes X X NRLS group Yes X X NRLS group Yes X X NRLS group No x X • Identify areas with unique values, and sensitive areas. Develop plans to protect these areas and monitor protocols to track changes in X resource conditions. As this information is shared with the NRLS group, make recommendations to agencies on conservation strategies. X Federal Agencies and NRLS group Federal Agencies and NRLS group No No 2010 Plan of Work –Strategies and Recommendations • Develop a map of the NRLS area for the public that identifies appropriate usage areas. Provide this information at key access points using kiosks. Update information on a routine basis. Long‐Term • Develop Subgroups to oversee specific projects and issues from start to finish. • Develop education, interpretation and outreach programs and materials to explain the NRLS workgroup and our goals, highlighting landscape health issues, special values, and protection strategies. Materials may include: brochures, website, PowerPoint presentations, kiosks, etc. Make contact with current and new stakeholders to present information. • Contact and maintain relationships with key decision makers (county commissioners and planners, soil conservation districts), informing them of the existence of the NRLS workgroup. Educate them on wildlife and landscape health issues, special values, and protection strategies. • Organize and conduct at least one field trip per year to the NRLS area to educate the public, key decision makers, and the media about the importance of protecting public lands and inspire individuals to participate constructively in increasing support for these areas. Visit past and/or potential project areas, areas with special values, or areas with resource concerns. Coordinate with the Crawford Gunnison Sage ‐Grouse Working Group on this effort. • Oversee regular review of the strategy document. Lead regular prioritization of projects and efforts recommended by the strategy document. Ensure priority projects and efforts are being promoted, coordinated, planned, and implemented by subgroups. • Create and strengthen partnerships among key stakeholders in the NRLS area, identifying new stakeholders. Build relationships with these groups and individuals to foster collaborative stewardship of public and private lands. • Pursue funding from federal, state, and private sources to support both landscape wide recommendations and administrative, managerial and educational needs. Priority (1 ‐ 3 yrs) Strategies and Recommendations for the Management of the North Rim Landscape Area 2 North Rim Landscape Strategy Document Responsible Entity Funding in Place to Begin Project X X NRLS group No X X NRLS group No X X NRLS group No X X Federal Agencies No X X NRLS group No 2010 Plan of Work –Strategies and Recommendations On‐going • Continue leveraging funds through place‐based partnerships, including Friends Groups, Cooperating Associations, counties, etc., as well as volunteer resources to encourage appropriate recreation activities. • Engage academia in the development of restoration projects and cooperative research opportunities. • Disseminate scientific information from research conducted on the NRLS area (research protocols, best management practices, adaptive management strategies, etc.) to other resource managers to ensure broad benefit. • Develop, implement and showcase examples of best management practices, cooperative conservation and restoration projects that have wider landscape‐level applicability and demonstrate accomplishment of strategic performance goals. • Pursue funding to develop on‐the‐ground laboratories (learning landscapes, living classrooms, etc.) and science study areas. Long‐Term Strategies and Recommendations for the Management of the North Rim Landscape Area Priority (1 ‐ 3 yrs) 3 Travel Management • Work in a cooperative manner with stakeholders on the development and implementation of travel management plans for public lands within the NRLS area. Work with the BLM on travel management strategies in conjunction with the Land Health Assessment for the area in 2011 ‐2012. • Continue to collect traffic counter data. • Pursue funding to install permanent OHV monitoring stations. Funding in Place to Begin Project • Pursue funding to inventory current road and trail system in the NRLS area. Responsible Entity * On‐going • Encourage counties and agencies to enforce appropriate travel restrictions and road closures that support the protection of Gunnison sage ‐grouse. Tie this objective to field trips. Long‐Term Strategies and Recommendations for the Management of the North Rim Landscape Area Priority (1 ‐ 3 yrs) Objective: Encourage transportation systems and management plans that maintain or improve current ecosystem health. Significance: Current and future travel management practices have an impact on the overall health of the strategy area. X NRLS group Yes No No * Federal Agencies and NRLS Group * X NRLS group * X X USGS NRLS group Yes No 2010 Plan of Work –Strategies and Recommendations 4 North Rim Landscape Strategy Document Development Long‐Term On‐going Responsible Entity Funding in Place to Begin Project • Work collaboratively with stakeholders and other interest groups to influence land use decisions and patterns in ways that promote ecosystem health, emphasize connectivity of wildlife habitat, protect cultural resources, and maintain the rural and agricultural character of the region. * X NRLS group Yes • Have the workgroup chairperson and sub group leaders get on the county and state mailing lists to be advised of actions within or adjacent to this area. * X NRLS group Yes • Identify entities that are involved in conservation easements (land trust agencies). Offer to write letters of support to secure private lands for conservation of key habitat and migration corridors. Potential strategies identified to influence development impacts include Conservation Easements, Land Exchanges, Land and Water Conservation Fund, Transfer of Development, and providing locations of key habitat and issue areas to the CDOW for use in State‐wide Mapping. * X NRLS group Yes No • Support on‐going efforts of agencies in determining the effectiveness of current road closures and the need to modify them for the protection of Gunnison Sage‐Grouse. • Draft a letter to the counties, recommending the following for the NRLS area: 1) that a minimum parcel size of at least 35 acres is maintained within the NRLS area, 2) that water use continue to be allocated to agricultural uses rather than domestic, and 3) encouraging an increase in open space. Offer to meet with counties to discuss these issues and tie this objective to field trips. • As plans arise, provide input to the counties about placement of roads, road improvements, road use, housing developments and zoning. Recommendations should relate to protection of lands and resources while respecting the rights of private landowners. * X Federal Agencies and NRLS group X X NRLS group Yes X X NRLS group Yes 2010 Plan of Work –Strategies and Recommendations Strategies and Recommendations for the Management of the North Rim Landscape Area Priority (1 ‐ 3 yrs) Objective: Encourage human development that maintains or improves ecosystem health. Significance: Current and future development practices have an impact on the overall health of the strategy area. 5 X X Funding in Place to Begin Project Long‐Term Responsible Entity Priority (1 ‐ 3 yrs) • Coordinate with stakeholders to update existing maps, identifying areas that are most desirable for conservation and those that are at highest risk for denser development. On‐going Strategies and Recommendations for the Management of the North Rim Landscape Area NRLS group No Recreation Responsible Entity Funding in Place to Begin Project X Federal agencies and NRLS group No X X X X Federal Agencies and NRLS group Federal Agencies and NRLS group No No 2010 Plan of Work –Strategies and Recommendations • Support agencies in creating and updating travel information and education for visitors through improved signing, mapping, and websites. X On‐going • Work collaboratively to promote safe and appropriate public access. Support agencies in the development of a monitoring strategy to detect illegal activities and the establishment of action plans that will reduce or eliminate inappropriate activity. Increase interagency involvement. • Encourage agencies to identify areas and analyze impacts of high use concentration i.e. dispersed camping sites, OHV staging areas, sheep bed grounds, on public lands. Provide input in the development of management plans in key areas. Long‐Term Strategies and Recommendations for the Management of the North Rim Landscape Area Priority (1 ‐ 3 yrs) Objective: Encourage appropriate recreation activities that promote ecosystem health, maintain the character of the area, and protect cultural resources. Significance: Current and future recreational activities have an impact on the overall health of the strategy area. 6 North Rim Landscape Strategy Document B. Wildlife Gunnison Sage‐Grouse Strategies and Recommendations for the Management of the North Rim Landscape Area Priority (1 ‐ 3 yrs) Long‐Term On‐going Responsible Entity Funding in Place to Begin Project Objective: Support the survival of the Gunnison sage‐grouse through improving habitat, protecting birds, reducing stressors, and promoting genetic diversity. Significance: Gunnison sage‐grouse are classified as a Species of Special Concern for State and Federal agencies. • Hire a seasonal to assist with grouse monitoring program and maintain grouse improvement projects. As a workgroup, support this effort as needed. * BLM and NRLS group Yes • Conduct a study to examine the range and seasonal movements of the Crawford population using GPS‐marking techniques. As a workgroup, support and give input into the study as needed. * * • Develop a lek site probability model for the Crawford population * using existing data. As a workgroup, support and give input into the study as needed. • Restore Gunnison sage‐grouse habitat in the Grizzly Gulch area through a project that includes: removing and replacing stockponds with native plant communities; using prescribed fire and some * mechanical removal to set‐back vegetation succession in areas invaded by juniper, scrub oak and serviceberry. As a workgroup, support this effort as needed. • Cooperate with the Crawford Sage‐Grouse Working Group in * meeting the goals outlined in their Conservation Plan and the 2005 Gunnison Sage‐Grouse Rangewide Conservation Plan. • Encourage the BLM to install a climate station near known lek sites to better understand climate effects on habitat. • Implement Gunnison sage‐grouse habitat improvements on BLM lands. Contract locally to install drinker facility to improve habitat by providing needed water supply and a small wetland in an arid landscape. As a workgroup, support this effort as needed. * * Federal Agencies and NRLS group USGS, BLM, DOW, NPS X and NRLS group Yes Yes X USGS and NRLS group Yes NPS and NRLS group Yes NRLS and X Crawford GUSG group No BLM and NRLS group No BLM and NRLS group No 2010 Plan of Work –Strategies and Recommendations • Conduct habitat restoration treatments with the GG NCA. As a workgroup, support this effort as needed. 7 No No Yes Yes No No No No No No 2010 Plan of Work –Strategies and Recommendations • Encourage the BLM to conduct an analysis of the extent and effectiveness of past habitat treatments during the Land Health BLM and X X Assessment process in 2011. Provide collaborative input to the NRLS group analysis. • Encourage the BLM to obtain a comprehensive picture of utilization and range health. Use existing range data to look at BLM and patterns of use, actual use, access points, movement patterns, and X X NRLS group water sources. Incorporate known lek and nesting sites into grazing plans. Specific recommendations and support for the Crawford Sage‐Grouse Working Group NRLS and • Support the working group in updating the 1998 Conservation X Crawford Plan. GUSG group • Cooperate with the working group in drafting a letter to Montrose NRLS and and Delta Counties requesting that they adopt building regulations X Crawford similar to Gunnison County. GUSG group NRLS and • Support the working group in pursuing on‐going funding to X X Crawford maintain a part time coordinator. GUSG group • Assist the working group in gathering, reviewing and distributing NRLS and existing literature on ‘Living in Gunnison Sage‐Grouse Country’ to X Crawford counties and private landowners. Pursue funding for printing. GUSG group • Assist the working group in coordinating with the San Miguel NRLS and Sage‐Grouse Working Group in updating the educational video and X Crawford brochure developed by the Gunnison Basin Sage Grouse Working GUSG group Group. Assist in wide distribution of the material. • Recommend to the working group that they work collaboratively to encourage the establishment of linkages between populations to NRLS and promote genetic diversity using strategies such as land X Crawford exchanges/easements to secure critical private lands adjacent to GUSG group sage grouse habitat. Examples of potential areas include the Subdivision of Old Elk Ranch and property on Black Canyon Road. • Support the working group in pursuing on‐going funding to NRLS and further research the interactions between cattle, ungulates, historic X X Crawford and new predators and Gunnison sage‐grouse. GUSG group • Support the working group in pursuing funding to develop Gunnison sage‐grouse literature (for all user types, including NRLS and recreationalists) specifically for the NRLS area, outlining Best X Crawford Management Practices. A review of existing literature from GUSG group adjacent areas could be used as a template. Funding in Place to Begin Project Responsible Entity On‐going Long‐Term Priority (1 ‐ 3 yrs) Strategies and Recommendations for the Management of the North Rim Landscape Area 8 North Rim Landscape Strategy Document Elk • Encourage agencies to conduct appropriate habitat improvement projects. * • Review and analyze existing DOW research on deer migration. X Federal Agencies X and NRLS group USGS and X NRLS group X Federal Agencies x and NRLS group DOW and NRLS group • Encourage distribution of existing DOW literature on Best Management Practices for living with elk and deer (particularly X landowners who are new to the area). • Encourage the BLM to conduct an analysis of the extent and effectiveness of past habitat treatments for ungulates during the Land X Health Assessment process in 2011. Provide collaborative input to the analysis. USGS and NRLS group Funding in Place to Begin Project No No No No Yes DOW and NRLS group Yes BLM and NRLS group No 2010 Plan of Work –Strategies and Recommendations • Encourage the federal agencies to develop and validate water availability maps that show ponds, riparian areas, and stock tanks. * Using the water maps, assist the agencies in determining if additional water sites for wildlife are needed. • Support the development of migration maps to show elk movement * and distribution. Validate data and encourage release of study. • Support further research on elk distribution, specifically as it relates * to disproportionate use, and migration patterns/timing. Support the USGS in analyzing, publishing and distributing research results. Responsible Entity Strategies and Recommendations for the Management of the North Rim Landscape Area Priority (1 ‐ 3 yrs) Long‐Term On‐going Objective: Develop appropriate management plans for reducing impacts to public and private lands by elk based on best available data on current elk distribution and use. Significance: Elk distribution and use have an impact on the public and private lands within the NRLS area. 9 Other Wildlife Species • Encourage agencies and counties to promote the health of wildlife species in their management activities. In particular, future planning efforts should emphasize connectivity of wildlife habitat. • Pursue funding for research on other wildlife species, including non‐
game species. X X X
X Funding in Place to Begin Project Responsible Entity On‐going Strategies and Recommendations for the Management of the North Rim Landscape Area Priority (1 ‐ 3 yrs) Long‐Term Objective: Support management strategies that promote the overall health of wildlife species. Significance: Conserving and protecting wildlife species and their habitat is a priority for the NRLS workgroup. Federal Agencies and NRLS group NRLS group No No C. Vegetation • Encourage vegetation management efforts on private lands that enhance healthy urban interface and wildlife habitats. • Encourage agencies to develop landscapes that can be sustained by using or mimicking natural disturbances regimes, thereby achieving diverse, productive, and desired plant communities with high vegetative basal area cover. Identify opportunities for using appropriate wildland fire to enhance native plant communities. * * X X Federal agencies and NRLS group Funding in Place to Begin Project Responsible Entity On‐going Federal agencies X and NRLS group NRCS, State X Forest and NRLS group Yes Yes No 2010 Plan of Work –Strategies and Recommendations • Encourage agencies to develop necessary fuels reduction treatments based on appropriate land management plans. Incorporate habitat and ecosystem enhancing attributes into fuels treatments whenever possible. Long‐Term Strategies and Recommendations for the Management of the North Rim Landscape Area Priority (1 ‐ 3 yrs) Objective: Encourage management of the NRLS area that contributes to the stability and productivity of native plant communities. Significance: Maintaining and enhancing native plant communities is a priority for the NRLS workgroup. 10 North Rim Landscape Strategy Document X X NRLS group No X X NRLS group No X No NRLS group 2010 Plan of Work –Strategies and Recommendations • Seek funding for the drafting and implementation of a Coordinated Weed Management Area Plan that identifies and prioritizes invasive species and treatment strategies across jurisdictional boundaries. • Identify relic vegetation communities that require protection from disturbance such as wildland fire and mechanical treatments. One proposed area is the known old growth pinyon‐juniper stand on Black Ridge. • Pursue funding to determine the current age class and health and the Historic Range of Variability of the major vegetation types within the NRLS area. Use this data to identify departures. Specifically address gaps in the data needed to support land use plan implementation priorities. Review existing weather and tree ring data for this area to assess trends. 11 II. Maps A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
I.
J.
K.
North Rim Landscape Strategy Area Boundary Map Black Canyon Land Trust Priority Areas Conservation Areas Vegetation Invasive Species Population Densities Roads and Road Densities Gunnison Sage‐Grouse Habitat Severe Winter Habitat for Deer and Elk Past Mechanical Treatments Sudden Aspen Decline Data for Southwest Colorado Maps 12