Appendix E. Zuni Mountain Trails Environmental Assessment ERRATA SHEET

Transcription

1 Appendix E Zuni Mountain Trails Environmental Assessment ERRATA SHEET The following are corrected errors in the Environmental Assessment for the Zuni Mountain Trails project. The Environmental Assessment was released for public review and comment on June 30, Changes to the Environmental Assessment are errors discovered, modifications addressing substantive comments received during the 30 comment period, or to clarify points of confusion. Changes to the Environmental Assessment are outlined below. Purpose of and Need for Action Tribal Consultation EA, page 4, added paragraph 4: The Pueblo of Acoma expressed its support for the rehabilitation of some routes, and urged the Forest Service to consider the potential effects of creating new trails for bicycles. No comments were provided regarding potential impacts to traditional cultural properties or traditional uses in the Zuni Mountains. EA, page 4, Deleted: The Pueblo of Jemez noted its historical connection to the Zuni Mountains and noted that the increase in trail use could increase the likelihood that traditional activities could be disrupted and replaced with paragraph 5: The Pueblo of Jemez noted its historical connection to the Zuni Mountains, bud did not provide any information regarding potential current use of the area. The Pueblo noted that the increase in trail use could increase the likelihood that traditional activities could be disrupted, but did not provide any specific information regarding potential impacts to traditional cultural properties or traditional uses in the Zuni Mountains. EA, page 5, added paragraph 11: Only Alternatives C and D address the Navajo Nation s concerns about trails on the third feature. The Navajo Nation s concerns about trails on or near the fourth feature, the Hogback, are not addressed by Alternative B or C, and are fully addressed by Alternative D. EA, page 6, sentence 1, added 30-day comment period for the draft Environmental Assessment. EA, page 7, added 5 th issue statement: 5. The Proposed Action excludes equestrian use of the proposed mountain bike trails. Input from local equestrian groups, who had been involved in the early planning stages of the Zuni Mountain Trail system, was inadvertently omitted as the project developed. When the draft Environmental Assessment was released for the 30-day public comment period, these groups submitted comments expressing their concerns about being left of the process. These concerns resulted in the identification of a fifth issue related to the lack of equestrian opportunities in any of the action alternatives. The district IDT addressed this issue with a revised Alternative C, as described in Chapter 2. Alternatives Including the Proposed Action Alterative B Proposed Action EA, page 8, Alternative B, deleted: the prohibition of cross-country mountain bike travel was removed and Appendix E - Errata Sheet 1

2 EA, page 8-9, reformatted Alternative B description as follows: Alternative B proposes to: Add approximately 62 miles of unauthorized routes in the western and central parts of the project area to the system and managed for bicycles and hiker/pedestrians. Where feasible, the existing tread would be used, with construction of minor reroutes and maintenance features where needed. Construct about 119 miles of new trail and manage for bicycles and hiker/pedestrians. The trails would be designed in accordance with the design parameters for bicycles, since that is the managed use that requires the most demanding design, construction and maintenance, as outlined in Forest Service Handbook Install trails signs as required for way-finding and other information needs. Install approximately 53 mountain bike cattle guards where the trail cross pasture fences. Because foot traffic is allowed along these trails, the installation of the cattle guards would comply with EM regarding the requirements for clear passage around restriction devices in accordance with Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of Construct five new trailheads: Limekiln, Ojo Redondo, Twin Springs, Bluewater Creek 2, and Milk Ranch Trailheads would consist of a gravel parking area that would accommodate up to 10 passenger vehicles and 3 vehicles towing a trailer, with associated maneuvering space to unload trailers. The designed capacity would allow about 46 people at one time. Physical barriers, such as boulders or wooden fences, would be installed to restrict vehicles to the parking area. Kioskstyle bulletin boards would be erected to display information. Vault toilets would also be installed at each trailhead, with adequate capacity to accommodate anticipated use. Animalresistant trash receptacles would also be put in. All facilities provided at trailheads would comply with the Architectural Barriers Act or USFS Outdoor Recreation Areas Accessibility Guidelines, as applicable. Redesign and expand existing Quartz Hill parking area to accommodate up to 10 passenger vehicles and 3 vehicles towing a trailer, with associated maneuvering space to unload trailers. The designed capacity would allow about 46 people at one time. Installation of all the other features would be the same described for the rest of the trailheads: physical barriers to restrict vehicles to the parking area, bulletin board, vault toilet, and animal-resistant trash receptacles. Twenty-seven (27) miles of existing National Forest System road or motorized trail would be available as connector routes between trail loops as shown on Alternative B map. Improve watershed conditions by eliminating access to 132 miles of unauthorized route. This would be accomplished by rehabilitating the first ¼-mile segment where unauthorized routes intersect system roads or trails, for approximately 60 miles of ground disturbance. Rehabilitation would include actions such as restoring natural contours and slopes; reseeding; and installing physical barriers to prohibit motorized traffic. Physical barriers may include lopping and scattering trees cut on-site to a height of no more than one foot, depending on location, proximity to proposed trails, presence of vegetation and other factors; placing boulders; installing fences; and constructing earthen berms. Implementing Alternative B would add 181 miles of trail managed for bicycles and hiker/pedestrians, construct 5 trailheads and redesign one existing parking area. When combined with the 28 miles of existing system trail and trailheads at Hilso and in Strawberry Canyon, this alternative would result in 209 miles of trail in the Zuni Mountain Trail System. In addition, there are 27 miles of existing National Forest System road or motorized trail available as connector routes between stacked loop trail systems with in the project area. Soil, watershed, wildlife habitat, and scenic quality would be improved through the rehabilitation of unauthorized routes. Appendix E - Errata Sheet 2

3 Construction of new trails would occur as funding becomes available and phased over a 15 year period. Phasing would follow the ZMTP prioritized construction ranking (Appendix C) as follows: Quartz Hill, Bluewater, McGaffey, Milk Ranch, Ramah, Ojo Redondo, Twin Springs, and Limekiln. Alternative C EA, page 10, Alternative C, added bullet: The Proposed Action does not accommodate equestrian use of the proposed mountain bike trails. EA, page 10, under Alternative C, added the following paragraph: In response to comments on the preliminary EA released in June 2015, the District IDT modified this alternative to manage the trails for pack and saddle, in addition to bicycles and hiker/pedestrians. The inclusion of equestrian use would change the designed use to pack and saddle (Forest Service Handbook ). Also, a section of trail near Bluewater would be constructed for hiker/pedestrian only (see Alt. C map). Fence openings or cowboy gates for horses to go through would be installed where mountain bike cattle guards occur. Installation of the cattle guards would comply with EM regarding the requirements for clear passage around restriction devices in accordance with Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of EA, page 10, Alternative C, replaced bullets: with Add approximately 71 miles of unauthorized routes to the system as mountain bike trails using the existing tread with construction of minor reroutes and maintenance features where needed, and installation of trail signs; Construct about 157 miles of new mountain bike trails and install trail signs; Install 58 mountain bike cattle guards where mountain bike trails cross pasture fences; Add approximately 70 miles of unauthorized routes to the system as pack and saddle, bicycle, and hiker/pedestrian trails, using existing tread with construction of minor reroutes and maintenance features where needed, and installation of trail signs; Construct 174 miles of new trails managed for pack and saddle, bicycle, and hiker/pedestrian; Install 50 mountain bike cattle guards and 50 cowboy gates or fence openings where trails cross pasture fences. Because foot traffic is allowed along these trails, the installation of the cattle guards and gates would comply with EM regarding the requirements for clear passage around restriction devices in accordance with Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of EA, page 10, Alternative C, added the following bullets: Install trail signs as needed for information and wayfinding; Construct about 8 miles of new trail managed exclusively for hiker/pedestrian use along Bluewater Creek, up onto Salitre Mesa; Include 27 miles of NFSRs and motorized trails as connector routes between trail loops as shown on Alternative C map. Re-align two sections of trail to create more distance from a Navajo traditional use area. EA, Alternative C, page 10-11, replaced the following paragraph: When added to the existing 28 miles of system trail managed for mountain bike use, implementing Alternative C would result in 256 miles of trails managed for mountain bike use and eight trailheads to provide access points, parking, and facilities. Soil, watershed, wildlife habitat, and scenic quality would be improved through the rehabilitation of unauthorized routes. with Implementation of Alternative C would add 244 miles of Appendix E - Errata Sheet 3

4 system trail managed for pack and saddle, bicycle, and hiker/pedestrian, and 8 miles of system trail managed for hiker/pedestrian. When added to the 28 miles of existing system trail, this alternative would result in 280 total miles of trails in the Zuni Mountain Trail System, five new trailheads and 1 redesigned and expanded trailhead. Soil, watershed, wildlife habitat, and scenic quality would be improved through the rehabilitation of unauthorized routes. Alternative D EA, page 11, replaced: mountain bike trails with trails managed for bicycles and hiker/pedestrians EA, page 11, replaced: mountain bike trails with bicycles and hiker/pedestrian EA, page 11, added bullet: Install trail signs where needed for information and way finding EA, page 11, replaced: culturally sensitive area with Navajo traditional use area EA, page 11, replaced bullet: Install 41 mountain bike cattle guards on pasture fences with Install 41 mountain bike cattle guards on pasture fences. Because foot traffic is allowed along these trails, the installation of the cattle guards would comply with EM regarding the requirements for clear passage around restriction devices in accordance with Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of EA, page 11, replace last paragraph: When added to the existing 28 miles of system trail managed for mountain bike use, implementing Alternative D would result in 149 miles of trails managed for mountain bike use and six trailheads to provide access points, parking, and facilities. Soil, watershed, wildlife habitat, and scenic quality would be improved through the rehabilitation of unauthorized routes. with Implementation of Alternative D would add 121 miles of system trail managed for bicycle, and hiker/pedestrian. When added to the 28 miles of existing system trail, this alternative would result in 149 total miles of trails in the Zuni Mountain Trail System, three new trailheads and 1 redesigned and expanded trailhead. Soil, watershed, wildlife habitat, and scenic quality would be improved through the rehabilitation of unauthorized routes. Design Criteria EA, page 12, replaced the following word in Design Criteria #1: August with September. EA, page 12, replaced Design Criteria #2: Mountain bike cattle guards would be installed at all allotment and pasture fences. and Fence openings or cowboy gates and mountain bike cattle guards would be installed at all allotment and pasture fences, outside the breeding seasons as described above. Because foot traffic is allowed along these trails, the installation of the cattle guards and gates would comply with EM regarding the requirements for clear passage around restriction devices in accordance with Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of EA, page 13, added Design Criteria #12: Trail etiquette information and trail yield signs would be posted at the trailhead kiosks and bulletin boards alerting pack and saddle users of encountering bicyclist and hikers on the trail. EA, page 14, Comparison of Alternatives, replaced Table 2-2: Resource Indicator Miles of existing system trails managed for mountain bike use Alternative A No Action Alternative B Proposed Action Alternative C Alternative D Appendix E - Errata Sheet 4

5 Resource Indicator Miles of unauthorized routes added to system as mountain bike trails Miles of new mountain bike trail constructed Total miles of trails managed for mountain bike use Number of trailheads constructed or redesigned trailheads Number of existing parking areas redesigned Number of mountain bike cattle guards Miles of unauthorized routes rehabilitated with: Alternative A No Action Alternative B Proposed Action Alternative C Alternative D Resource Indicator Alternative A No Action Alternative B Proposed Action Alternative C Alternative D Miles of existing system trails managed for pack and saddle, bicycle, and hiker/pedestrian Miles of unauthorized routes added as NFS trails managed for bicycles and hiker/pedestrian Miles of unauthorized routes added as NFS trails managed for pack and saddle, bicycle, and hiker/pedestrian Miles of new trail constructed and managed for bicycles and hiker/pedestrian Miles of new trail constructed and managed pack and saddle, bicycle, and hiker/pedestrian Miles of new trail constructed and managed exclusively for hiker/pedestrian (Bluewater section) Total miles of NFS trails managed for hiker/pedestrian Total miles of NFS trails managed for bicycles and hiker/pedestrian Total miles of NFS trails managed for pack and saddle, bicycle, and hiker/pedestrian Total miles of trail in Zuni Mountain Trail system Existing National Forest System road or motorized trail available as connector routes ASSOCIATED INFRASTRUCTURE Number of new trailheads constructed Number of existing parking areas redesigned Number of mountain bike cattle guards Number of cowboy gates Appendix E - Errata Sheet 5

6 Resource Indicator Miles of unauthorized routes rehabilitated Alternative A No Action Alternative B Proposed Action Alternative C Alternative D Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Recreation, Alternative A No Action EA, page 16, added paragraph 3: This alternative does not provide trail riding opportunities for equestrian users. Equestrian users will continue to ride existing roads, unauthorized routes, or dispersed ride via cross-country travel. Existing trailheads do not accommodate equestrian use due lack of cowboy gates along system trails. There are no developed trailheads with pull through parking that would enhance equestrian outing experience. Horse riders seeking this type of experience would have an undesirable equestrian recreation experience. Recreation, Alternative B Proposed Action EA, page 17, added paragraph 2: Similar to Alternative A, this alternative does not provide trail riding opportunities for equestrian users. Equestrian users will continue to ride existing roads or dispersed ride via cross-country travel. Equestrian users are excluded from using developed trailheads with pull through parking. Horse riders seeking to enjoy trail riding and use of developed trailheads would have a discouraging equestrian recreation experience. Recreation, Alternative C EA, page 17, paragraph 1, replaced: 228 miles with 252 miles. EA, page 18, paragraph 1, replaced: mountain bike with pack and saddle, bicycle, and hiker/pedestrian EA, page 18, added paragraph 2: This alternative provides trail riding opportunities for equestrian users. Equestrian users are allowed to use the developed trailheads with pull through parking which allows better access to system trails. Horse riders seeking to enjoy the use of developed trailheads and trail riding would have a positive equestrian recreation experience. Marked and designated system trails would provide other equestrian recreation opportunities such as competitive equestrian events and endurance competitions. EA, page 18, added paragraph 3: Although minor, potential conflicts between mountain bikers and equestrian users may increase slightly when compared to the other action alternatives. Trail etiquette information and trail yield signs would be posted at the trailhead kiosks and bulletin boards alerting pack and saddle users of encountering bicyclist and hikers on the trail. Recreation, Alternative D EA, page 18, added paragraph 2: The effects to equestrian users would be as described in Alternative B. Socioeconomics, Affected Environment, Local Economy EA, page 20, paragraph 6, added: educational services and health care/social assistance occupations (33.6%), retail trade occupations (14.9%), and arts, entertainment, recreation, accommodation, and food services occupations (10.1%). Appendix E - Errata Sheet 6

7 Wildlife, Threatened and Endangered Species EA, page 23, Table 3.3, row 4, added: Southwestern willow flycatcher, Empidonax trailii extimus, Endangered. EA, page 23, Table 3.3, row 5, added: Zuni bluehead sucker, Catostomus discobolus yarrow, Endangered EA, page 23, Table 3.3, row 6, added: Mexican Wolf, Canus lupus bailevi, Non-essential experimental population, Endangered EA, page 23, Table 3.4, row 1, deleted: Southwest willow flycatcher, Empidonax trailii extimus, Have not been found within the analysis area, Endangered EA, page 23, Table 3.4, row 2, deleted: Zuni bluehead sucker, Catostomus discobolus yarrow, No habitat in analysis area, Endangered, Sensitive Mexican Spotted Owl, Alternatives B, C, and D EA, page 26, Table 3.5, row 1 & 2, Merged Protected Activity Centers (PACs) column and added Hiking Only under the trail type column with values of 0 for Alternative B, 0 for Alternative C, 0 for Alternative D, replaced Alternative C new trail type value of 5 with 23, and unauthorized trail type value of 3 with EA, page 26, Table 3.5, row 3 & 4, Merged Critical Habitat column and added Hiking Only under the trail type column with values of 0 for Alternative B, 8 for Alternative C, and 0 for Alternative D, replaced Alternative C new trail type value of 5 with 23, and unauthorized trail type value of 24 with 23. EA, page 26, Table 3.5, row 5 & 6, Merged: Protected and Restricted Habitat column, renamed it Recovery Habitat and added Hiking Only under the trail type column with values of 0 for Alternative B, 8.2 for Alternative C, 0 for Alternative D, replaced Alternative C new trail type value: 98 with 154, and unauthorized trail type value: 29 with Alternative C EA, page 27, paragraph 2, replaced: Direct effects to MSO may but is expected to be minimal. Alternative C would result in about 256 miles of mountain bike trails, which is 47 miles more than Alternative B. Miles of trail within PACs will total 8 miles: 5 miles of new construction, and 3 miles of unauthorized routes, as in Alternative B. One hundred and twenty three miles of trail will go through MSO critical habitat (99 new, 24 unauthorized). Protected and restricted habitat will contain 127 miles of trails (98 new, 29 unauthorized). The determination for Alternative C is May affect species, not likely to adversely affect species. with No direct effects are expected for the proposed installation of 53 cattleguards or the construction of five new trailheads because this will occur outside of the breeding season (September 1- February 28) in areas of restricted and nesting habitat. Proposed trailheads are located along roads with regular disturbance, not within immediate roosting/foraging/nesting habitat. EA, page 27, added paragraph 3: Indirect effects are primarily related to potential for disturbance due to recreational use of the proposed trail system. Over time, as populations increase, recreational use of trails would also be expected to increase. Building the trail system proposed in this alternative may increase use above the baseline expectation if it attracts additional visitors to the area. However, additional trailheads would help distribute use across the landscape. With approximately 9 times the Appendix E - Errata Sheet 7

8 existing mileage of trails, frequency and duration of impacts from individual disturbance events would be reduced in any given location. Additionally, unauthorized use is already occurring, and managing these routes could mitigate issues with correct trail design and specifications and re-routing where appropriate. Swarthout and Steidl (2003) found that depending on visitation rates, owl populations are not likely threatened by hiking. Since anticipated visitation rates are not expected to exceed 50 hikers per day, indirect effects from proposed hiking only trails would be discountable. Also, these areas get measurable snowfall and winter snow accumulation which keeps users out until the snow has melted and the trail is in a dryer condition, which means these areas could see use later in the spring, mitigating indirect disturbance early in the breeding season. EA, page 27-28, added paragraph 4: Proposed new and unauthorized trail portions travel through Mexican Spotted owl PACs. Currently there are five PACs that would have mountain bike trails within their boundaries. Pole PAC was burned during the Sedgwick Fire, and no longer contains suitable habitat for MSO occupancy. Swarthout and Steidl (2001) found that buffering trails by 40 to 80 feet would eliminate 80 95% of flush responses, and placing a 180 ft. buffer around roost sites would eliminate virtually all behavioral responses. Therefore, there is no effect anticipated for Ojo or Diener PACs since trails are proposed 638 and 1,147 ft. respectively from known historic nest sites. Known nest sites within the Milk Ranch PAC are between 98 and 117 ft. from trails proposed, outside the 80 ft. buffer zone, and additionally these trails are existing unauthorized trails currently experiencing use, so effects are expected to be minimal within this area. Hogback PAC was established based on observations from surveys related to the proposed project, however, nest sites have not been located. If nest sites are located prior to implementation, trails would be routed to avoid disturbance within this area. Adaptive management could consider trail closures if future resource conflicts arise. Also these PACs are near motorized roads which see heavy vehicular use but surveys have shown owls continued to remain in the area. EA, page 28, added paragraph 5: Implementation of rehabilitation and decommissioning of unauthorized roads is expected to reduce degradation to all habitat types within the project area which could improve vegetation for prey species indirectly, which would be beneficial to the species. Closing these unauthorized routes would limit human disturbance and minimize fragmentation of the landscape. In areas of nesting owls and suitable habitat, this would occur outside the breeding season, eliminating any direct effects. EA, page 28, added paragraph 6: Construction and redesign of trailheads is not expected to have an effect on MSO because these areas are already disturbed and near high traffic motorized roads, thus vegetation structure and habitat would not change. Two proposed new trailheads are not within suitable habitat, and while the three remaining proposed new trailheads do occur within potential habitat, any direct effects of disturbance would be mitigated through timing restrictions. There is no effect from construction of new mountain bike trails and cattle guards because this would occur outside the breeding season and there would not be a change in vegetation. Mexican Spotted Owl Critical Habitat EA, page 29, paragraph 1, replaced: The project area contains about 203,000 acres of Critical Habitat for MSO, along with 14 PACs or nesting territories. The project area lies within the Colorado Plateau Recovery Unit (RU). According to the Mexican Spotted Owl Recovery Plan, the greatest threats to recovery in the RU are catastrophic fire, some forms of timber harvest and fuel wood harvest. Management guidelines for the Mexican spotted owl are specified in the LRMP (Amendment No. 7, pages ). with About 203,000 acres of Critical Habitat for Mexican spotted owl is present within the analysis area, along with 16 PAC s or nesting territories. Of the contiguous Critical Habitat polygon, approximately 123,300 acres is identified as suitable recovery habitat. There is an additional 35,000 acres of potentially suitable habitat outside the designated Critical Habitat. The project area is in Appendix E - Errata Sheet 8

9 the Colorado Plateau (CP) Ecological Management Unit (EMU). According to the Mexican Spotted Owl Recovery Plan, the greatest threats to recovery in the EMU are catastrophic fire, some forms of timber harvest and fuel wood harvest. Management guidelines for the Mexican spotted owl are specified in the amended Forest Plan (USDA 1996). Alternatives B, C, and D EA, page 30, added paragraph 1: When considering effects to CH, primary constituent habitat elements are reviewed to determine a project s potential affect. Primary Constituent elements for MSO are related to maintenance of desired forest structure, desired canyon habitat structure and maintenance of adequate prey species habitat. EA, page 30, replaced paragraph 2: Under these alternatives, there is no effect expected for MSO critical habitat. There is critical habitat present within the project area, but the action alternatives are not expected to alter or change vegetation conditions. with, Under these alternatives there are no direct effect expected for Mexican spotted owl Critical Habitat. There is critical habitat present within the project area, but these alternatives are not expected to alter or change vegetation conditions. There is no effect of construction of new mountain bike trails because this would not cause a change in vegetation or habitat. EA, page 30, added paragraph 3: The presence of mountain bikers, hikers and equestrian users is not expected to have an effect on critical habitat because it is expected that they stay on designated trails and would not reduce vegetation within other areas. Zuni Fleabane, Alternatives B, C, and D EA, page 31, paragraph 1, sentence 1, added: hikers and equestrian use Pecos Sunflower, Affected Habitat EA, page 32, added paragraph 2, Surveys were done for the species statewide throughout New Mexico. The species has been located near the town of Grants, adjacent to the Mt. Taylor Ranger District. However, current information indicates that there is no habitat for this species on National Forest Service system lands in New Mexico (Kathryn Kennedy, pers. comm.). Information about this species was obtained from the New Mexico rare plant website ( Pecos Sunflower, Alternatives B, C, and D EA, page 32-33, replaced paragraph 1, Effects may occur because mountain bikers would be allowed to travel off designated mountain bike routes where the sunflower occurs. Effects are not expected to be adverse because the trail width is less than a foot and there is suitable habitat for this plant to grow in the surrounding area. with No effects are expected for the Pecos sunflower for the preferred alternative because riparian/wetland areas within the analysis area are not suitable for the species. The Pecos sunflower is not known to occur within the area so no impacts are expected. Installation of proposed facilities is not expected to effect the Pecos sunflower because these locations are already disturbed areas and new areas are not within riparian corridors. Rehabilitating 132 miles of unauthorized routes is not expected to have an effect on the Pecos sunflower because this would return the landscape to its natural form. Returning routes to the point where vegetation can grow would cover up old trails that may have led to wet areas and so disturbance would be reduced. EA, page 33, paragraph 3, deleted, Installation of mountain bike cattleguards and development of trailheads, are not expected to affect the Pecos sunflower, because these areas have already been Appendix E - Errata Sheet 9

10 disturbed, they are near high traffic roads, and because these activities would not change vegetation structure. EA, page 33, paragraph 3, replaced May affect species, not likely to adversely affect species or its habitat with No effect Zuni Bluehead Sucker & Critical Habitat EA, page 33-35, added Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences section for Zuni Bluehead Sucker & Critical Habitat EA, page 35-37, added Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences section for Mexican Wolf EA, page 37-38, added Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences section for Southwestern Willow flycatcher Spotted Bat, Alternative C EA, page 43, replaced: 256 with 252 Zuni Milkvetch EA, page 45, deleted: This plant is perennial; plants are low, tufted, stemless or with short stem (4 to 6 cm long), stems are prostrate; herbage usually silvery; foliage densely strigose with rather coarse straight and parallel, appressed, dolabriform hairs; stipulaes not connate; leaves cm long; leaflets 7-15, obovate to oval, 2-8 cm long, prostrate in fruit; inflorescence (3) 5-14 flowered, axis little elongating in fruit; calyx mm long, with mixed black and white or sometimes all white hairs; flowers pea-like; petal ochroleucous with indistinct lilac veins, or banner and wings distally tinged with dull lilac, longest petals (wings) mm long; banner abruptly recurved degrees, mm long; pod spreading or ascending, long-persistent, plumply ovoid or oblong-ellipsoid, + straight, 9-18 mm long, 4-7 (8) mm in diameter, rounded at base, abruptly contracted at tip into a stout cusp, exterior fleshy, green, smooth, strigulose, becoming leathery, brown or black, roughly netlike, either no septum or a rudimentary one up to 1.2 mm wide, dehiscing apically and ultimately through the length of the ventral (adaxial or upper) suture, the tips curling backward and gaping to release the seeds. Villous groundcover milkvetch EA, page 46, deleted: This plant is perennial; pubescence gray-villous, villosulous, or subtomentose, the longer hairs basifixed, the shorter dolabriform; stems prostrate, divaricately branched, dm long; stipules near base of stem mm long, fully encircling the stem; leaves 1-5 cm long, with narrowly lanceolate to ovate, usually acute leaflets 2-14 mm long; racemes 3-15 flowered, the axis 1-3 cm long in fruit; petals white, or whitish and faintly pink-tined, banner mm long, wings slightly shorter than banner, keel mm long, the blade half-ovate and incurved about 90 degrees to the sharply deltoid apex; pods usually lying on ground at maturity, sessile, 1-celled, 8-10 mm long, thinly papery, strigulose-villosulous, lunately half-ellipsoid, incurved through ¼-1/2 circle, laterally compressed and obscurely 3-sided, low-convex or shallowly grooved dorsally in lower half, carinate ventrally by the suture, cuspidate at apex; ovules 6-9. EA, page 46, added: In addition to its natural habitat, it occurs on road banks that are open but well vegetated. (New Mexico Rare Plants website) Appendix E - Errata Sheet 10

11 Sivinski s fleabane EA, page 47, added: barren shale slopes of the Arizona Leatherflower and Clustered Leatherflower EA, page 48, deleted: "Stems generally simple, erect. Leaf blade: primary leaflets 7-13 or not distinctly differentiated; leaflets and larger lobes narrowly linear to narrowly lanceolate, 1-6 cm 0.5-6(-10) mm; surfaces nearly glabrous to densely silky-hirsute. 2 n = 16. It flowers in spring and summer. Moist mountain meadows, prairies, and open woods and thickets; m; Ariz., Colo., Idaho, Mont., N.Mex., Oreg., Utah, Wash., Wyo. Plants from the vicinity of Flagstaff, Coconino County, Arizona (and in post-1943 identifications, some from New Mexico), with the lobes of the leaflets ca. 1 mm wide, were recognized by R. O. Erickson (1943) as C. hirsutissima var. arizonica, but these scarcely appear to constitute a distinct taxon; some plants from Washington, Oregon, Colorado, and elsewhere have leaflets quite as narrowly lobed, and other plants in the Flagstaff area have more widely lobed leaflets. The widely spreading leaves allegedly characteristic of C. hirsutissima var. arizonica likewise occur elsewhere in the range of the species. Clematis hirsutissima var. hirsutissima, as circumscribed here, is highly variable in the density of leaf pubescence throughout most of its range. EA, page 48, added paragraph: The Arizona leatherflower/clustered Leatherflower is found in moist mountain meadows, prairies and open woods and thickets usually in limestone soils of ponderosa pine and mixed conifer forests, 6,800 to 9,00ft elevation. (Cibola NF unpub.) EA, page 48, deleted: Arizona Chaco milkvetch EA, page 40, deleted: Perennial herb; stems 5-30 cm long, prostrate, silvery-hairy, bearing densely crowded small leaves; leaves 4-20 mm long, pinnately compound with 3-9 leaflets; flowers usually solitary or in pairs, pea-like, about 6 mm long, petals greenish-white with pale purple veins or tips; pods ovoid, 4-5 mm long, slightly longer than broad, unilocular, the tip forming a flattened beak. It flowers in July and August. Similar Species: Astragalus humistratus and A. chuskanus both have a similar prostrate (humistrate) growth form, but both have leaves and flowers at least twice the size of A. micromerius. Also, most of the hairs of A. humistratus are attached in the middle leaving both ends free (dolabriform), whereas A. micromerius and A. chuskanus have basally attached hairs. EA, page 68, Soil, paragraph 3, added: Impacts related to equestrian use are generally greater than those associated with mountain bikes and hiking due to the greater weight and resulting greater pressure per unit area. In addition, the majority of research has shown that horse riding has the potential to cause degradation even at low levels of use (Pickering et al 2010). Red-naped Sapsucker EA, page 56, added: Breeding Bird Surveys EA, page 57, added: management indicator species Appendix E - Errata Sheet 11

12 House Wren, Alternative C EA, page 58, replaced: 47 with 71 Soil EA, page 69, added to paragraph 3: "Impacts related to equestrian use are generally greater than those associated with mountain bikes and hiking due to the greater weight and resulting greater pressure per unit area. In addition, the majority of research has shown that horse riding has the potential to cause degradation even at low levels of use (Pickering et al 2010). EA, page 69, added paragraph 4: There currently 28 miles of designated mountain bikes trails in the project area. There are currently 159 miles of mapped unauthorized routes within the project area. These routes are compacted, and lack vegetation and stability, resulting in unsatisfactory soil conditions in these areas. There are currently no designated equestrian trails in the project area. However, equestrian use does occur in the project area. It is possible there are areas where equestrian use has caused soil degradation but levels and locations are not well known. Resource Features EA, page 75, paragraph 1, deleted: From this table it can be seen that watershed condition and bacterial input to water quality are not expected to change as a result of the proposed actions. Bacterial inputs are not expected to change since toilets will be constructed at new trail heads, thereby preventing the potential for waste to enter the environment at these focused locations. EA, page 75, paragraph 1, added: Bacterial and other pathogen inputs associated with people are not expected to change related to new trail heads since toilets will be constructed at new trail heads, thereby preventing the potential for waste to enter the environment at these focused locations. However, pathogen inputs and other water quality effects such as nutrients and sediment related to equestrian use are potential effects that will be carried through the alternatives. As a result, effects to watershed condition and water quality changes from pathogens related to the presence of people will not be carried through the alternatives. Soil condition, sediment inputs to water quality, water quality changes related to equestrian use, and impacts to streams, springs, and riparian areas will be carried through the alternatives. EA, page 75-76, replaced: Table 3-8 Actions Add unauthorized route to the system as mountain bike trails in the Zuni Mountains Construct new mountain bike trails Construct new trail heads with restrooms to Soil Condition Quality Bacteria (pathogens) Quality - Sediment Resource Feature streams and riparian Resource Features - springs shed Condition no change no change increase increase no change no change reduce no change increase increase no change no change reduce no change increase no change no change no change Appendix E - Errata Sheet 12

13 Actions serve the designated trails Construct mountain bike cattle guards Rehabilitate routes with: Actions Add unauthorized route to the system as mountain bike trails in the Zuni Mountains Add unauthorized route to the system as mountain bike and equestrian trails in the Zuni Mountains Construct new mountain bike trails Construct new mountain bike hiking, and equestrian trails Construct new hiking trail along Bluewater Construct new trail heads with restrooms to serve the designated trails Construct mountain bike cattle guards Soil Condition Quality Bacteria (pathogens) Quality - Sediment Resource Feature streams and riparian Resource Features - springs shed Condition reduce no change increase increase no change no change improve no change decrease decrease improve no change Soil Condition Quality Bacteria (pathogens) Quality - Sediment Resource Feature streams and riparian Resource Features - springs no change no change increase increase No change none within 300 feet of mapped springs No change none No change increase increase increase within 300 feet of mapped springs No change none reduce no change increase increase within 300 feet of mapped springs No change none reduce increase increase increase within 300 feet of mapped springs reduce No change increase increase No change none within 300 feet of mapped springs shed Condition no change No change no change No change No change reduce no change increase no change no change no change reduce no change increase increase no change no change Appendix E - Errata Sheet 13

14 Actions Rehabilitate routes Soil Condition Quality Bacteria (pathogens) Quality - Sediment Resource Feature streams and riparian Resource Features - springs shed Condition improve no change decrease decrease improve no change Soils EA, page 75, Soils, paragraph 1, sentence 2, added for soils and deleted references to mountain bike in paragraph 1. EA, page 75, Soils, paragraph 2, sentence 4, added and cowboy gates and added While the equestrian use proposed in alternative C would result in worse soil conditions than alternatives without equestrian use (Pickering et al 2010), unsatisfactory soils are the result of all the proposed uses for the trail footprint. Because of this, the effects to soil condition from adding are combined for all trails as a measure. EA, page 76-77, replaced Table 3-9: Proposed Activity Add unauthorized route to the system as mountain bike trails in the Zuni Mountains Construct new mountain bike trails Construct new trail heads with restrooms and expand one trail head and add restroom Construct mountain bike cattle guards Rehabilitate routes with: Direct and Indirect Effects to Soil Condition no change since soil condition is already unsatisfactory due to compaction and lack of vegetation Loss of vegetation, increased compaction, reduced soil functions Loss of vegetation, increased compaction, reduced soil functions Loss of vegetation, increased compaction, reduced soil functions Revegetation, reduced compaction, improved soil condition Measure No measure needed. Not carried through the analysis Acres of new trail Number of new trail heads Acres of soil disturbance Acres of routes rehabilitated Proposed Activity Direct and Indirect Effects to Soil Condition Measure Add unauthorized route to the system as mountain bike, hiking, and equestrian trails in the Zuni Mountains No change since soil condition is already unsatisfactory due to compaction and lack of vegetation. Disturbed width is the same for all types of trails. Construct new mountain bike trails, hiking, and equestrian trails Construct new trail heads with restrooms and expand one trail head and add restroom Construct mountain bike cattle guards and cowboy gates Loss of vegetation, increased compaction, reduced soil functions Loss of vegetation, increased compaction, reduced soil functions Loss of vegetation, increased compaction, reduced soil functions No measure needed. Not carried through the analysis Acres of new trail Number of new trail heads Acres of soil disturbance Appendix E - Errata Sheet 14

15 Proposed Activity Direct and Indirect Effects to Soil Condition Measure Rehabilitate routes Revegetation, reduced compaction, improved soil Acres of routes condition rehabilitated EA, page 77, Soils, paragraph 3, sentence 1, added and cowboy gates, sentence 2, replaced mountain bike with proposed, sentence 3, added and Forest Service trail design guidelines (USDA 2016), sentence 5, replaced to soils with and the greater impacts associated with equestrian use, and sentence 8, added and cowboy gates. EA, page 77, replaced Table 3-10: Proposed Activity Construct new mountain bike trails Construct new trail heads and expand one existing trail head Construct mountain bike cattle guards Rehabilitate routes with: Proposed Activity Construct new mountain bike, hiking, and equestrian trails Construct new trail heads and expand one existing trail head Construct mountain bike cattle guards and cowboy gates Rehabilitate routes Measure Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Acres of new trail Acres of new trail heads Acres of mountain bike cattle guards Acres of routes rehabilitated Measure Alternative Alternative Alternative Alternative A B C D Acres of new trail Acres of new trail heads Acres of mountain bike cattle guards Acres of routes rehabilitated Alternative B EA, page 78, Alternative B, paragraph 1, last sentence, replace acres value of 61 with 106. EA, page 78, Alternative B, paragraph 2, last sentence, replace acres value of 71 with 72. Appendix E - Errata Sheet 15

16 Alternative C EA, page 78, Alternative C, paragraph 1, sentence 1, replace acres value of: with EA, page 78, Alternative C, paragraph 1, sentence 2, replace acres value of: 152 with 176, deleted mountain bike, and replace acres value of 1.8 with 1. EA, page 78, Alternative C, paragraph 1, sentence 3, replace total acres value of: with EA, page 78, Alternative C, paragraph 1, sentence 5, replace acres value of: 61 with 106. EA, page 78, Alternative C, paragraph 2, sentence 1, replace acres value of: with EA, page 78, Alternative C, paragraph 2, sentence 2, replace acres value of: 33.7 with Soil Condition - Summary EA, page 79, Soil Condition Summary, sentence 5, added: and cowboy gates. Resources EA, page 80, Resources, paragraph 2, sentence 2, added: In addition. EA, page 80, Resources, paragraph 2, added sentence 3: Equestrian use has a greater impact than mountain bikes and hiking (Pickering et al 2010). EA, page 80, Resources, paragraph 3, sentence 2, added: and cowboy gates. EA, page 80, Resources, paragraph 3, sentence 4, added: and cowboy gates. EA, page 80, Resources, paragraph 3, sentence 5, replaced: Sediment and soil disturbance with Soil disturbance and associated sediment. EA, page 80, Resources, paragraph 3, sentence 6, added: mapped and as indicated by GIS analysis. EA, page 81, Table 3.11, row 3, column 2, added: and pathogens. EA, page 81, Resources, paragraph 4, sentence 2: deleted bike and added hiking and equestrian. EA, page 81, deleted Table 3-12 Measures for Streams, Springs, and Quality by Alternatives. Appendix E - Errata Sheet 16

17 Streams, Riparian Areas, Springs, and Quality EA, page 82, Deleted reference to Table 3-12: Measures used to assess effects to streams, springs, and water quality are combined in Table 3-12 to show the overall effect by grouping potential positive and negative measure for each alternative.. EA, page 82, (updated table numbering to reflect deleted table 3-12) replaced Table 3-13: Measure Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Number of perennial stream crossings on new trails and added unauthorized routes Number of intermittent/ephemeral stream crossings on new trails and added unauthorized routes Number of perennial stream crossings within ¼ mile active rehabilitation areas Number of intermittent/ephemeral stream crossings within ¼ mile active rehabilitation areas Miles of perennial stream within 300 feet of new trails, added unauthorized routes, 0 and new or expanded trail heads and (percent of total) (50%) (50%) (50%) Miles of intermittent/ephemeral stream within 300 feet of new trails, added 0 unauthorized routes, and new or expanded trail heads and (percent of total) (3.3%) (4.7%) (1.9%) Miles of perennial stream within 300 feet of rehabilitated routes and (percent of 0 total) (8.8%) (8.8%) (8.8%) Miles of intermittent/ephemeral stream within 300 feet of rehabilitation routes and 0 (percent of total) (4.1%) (4.1%) (4.1%) Number of Springs within 300 feet of rehabilitation routes Number of springs within 300 feet of new, added unauthorized trails, and trail heads Acres of riparian within 300 feet of new, added unauthorized trails, and trail heads with: Measure Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Number of perennial stream crossings on new trails and added unauthorized routes Number of intermittent/ephemeral stream crossings on new trails and added unauthorized routes Number of perennial stream crossings within ¼ mile active rehabilitation areas Number of intermittent/ephemeral stream crossings within ¼ mile active rehabilitation areas Miles of perennial stream within 300 feet of new trails, added unauthorized routes, 0 and new or expanded trail heads and (percent of total) (33.8%) (33.8%) (33.8%) Appendix E - Errata Sheet 17

18 Measure Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Miles of intermittent/ephemeral stream within 300 feet of new trails, added 0 unauthorized routes, and new or expanded trail heads and (percent of total) (3.3%) (5.6%) (3.3%) Miles of perennial stream within 300 feet of rehabilitated routes and (percent of 0 total) (8.8%) (8.8%) (8.8%) Miles of intermittent/ephemeral stream within 300 feet of rehabilitation routes and 0 (percent of total) (4.1%) (4.1%) (4.1%) Number of Springs within 300 feet of rehabilitation routes Number of springs within 300 feet of new, added unauthorized trails, and trail heads Acres of riparian within 300 feet of new, 0 added unauthorized trails, and trail heads (15.6%) (17.7%) (7.8%) Acres of riparian within 300 feet of 0 rehabilitated routes (4.3%) (4.3%) (4.3%) Alternative B EA, page 84, Alternative B, Streams, Quality, and Springs, paragraph 3, sentence 5, replaced percent value of: 50% with 33.8%. EA, page 84, Alternative B, under Streams, Quality, and Springs, paragraph 3, sentence 7, deleted: In addition, the end of the proposed new trail does not led anywhere on the downstream end which means trailing could continue beyond the proposed constructed trail, leading to additional impacts to the stream. EA, page 84, Alternative B, Streams, Quality, and Springs, paragraph 3, sentence 8, added: and temperature. EA, page 84, Alternative B, Streams, Quality, and Springs, paragraph 3, sentence 8, added: due to proximity to the stream, number of crossings, and effects to riparian vegetation. EA, page 84, Alternative B, Riparian Areas, paragraph 1, sentence 5, replaced acres value of: 407 with 398. EA, page 84, Alternative B, Riparian Areas, paragraph 2, added last sentence: This is 4.3% of the total mapped riparian acres in the project area. EA, page 85, replaced figure 3.4: Appendix E - Errata Sheet 18