NEPA--Environmental Assessment

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Cultural Resources _______________________________ AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT There is evidence of occupation of the analysis area from approximately 10,500 years ago to the present. During prehistoric times, the analysis area was primarily utilized on a seasonal basis for resource procurement activities such as hunting and plant gathering. This occupation is affiliated with paleoindian, archaic, and protohistoric (Ute) cultures. Evidence of historic occupation includes the remains logging, mining, ranching, and herding activities. The historic period occupation in the analysis area is affiliated with European-American, Hispanic-American, and Native-American cultures. The analysis area for this grazing assessment is the 195,050 acres of land within the Silverton Landscape. A review of existing San Juan National Forest, Bureau of Land Management, and Colorado Historical Society records was conducted to identify previous incidences of archaeological survey and known historic properties within the analysis area. Sixty seven cultural resource inventories have been completed in the analysis area within the past 30 years, resulting in approximately 3,560 acres of intensive level inventories. Reconnaissance surveys have also occurred in the analysis area, but the existing records do not typically specify the amount of acreage examined during this type of inventory. Most of the previous surveys were conducted in advance of abandoned mine reclamation, mine safety closures, livestock grazing, proactive cultural resource surveys, ski area development, minor land use authorizations, and timber management. The Colorado Historical Society’s records indicate that 444 cultural resources have been identified within the analysis area. The majority of sites in the general region of the analysis area consist of historic features associated with precious metal and mineral exploration and extraction. A smaller percentage are attributed to transportation, open range grazing and timber production. The northern portion of the analysis area experienced several hard rock mining boom and bust cycles, resulting in a high density of historic mining sites. The southern half of the analysis area experience a limited amount of mineral exploration and development, and consequently possesses a much lower site density. Records indicate a historic Ute presence in portions of the APE. Few prehistoric sites are known to be present in the analysis area. They are typically the remains of small open prehistoric camps evidenced by lithic artifacts or isolated incidences of lithic tool maintenance or manufacture. Area of Potential Effects Under 36 CFR 800.16(d) the Area of Potential Effects (APE) is the geographic area or areas within which an undertaking may directly or indirectly cause alterations in the character or use of historic properties, if any such properties exist. The Area of Potential Effects is influenced by the scale and nature of the undertaking and may be different for different kinds of effects caused by the undertaking. Under Alternatives 2 and 3, the potential to affect historic properties would be limited to the allotments which are proposed to remain active, or are proposed for emergency use. As Colorado is a fence-out state, and very little fencing of private property is present in the analysis area, grazing does occur on private property within the active allotments. As grazing on private property is considered a connected action, non-federal lands are included in the APE. Under Alternative 2, the APE would be those allotments that would remain active (82,890 acres). Forty three cultural resource inventories have been completed in the APE for Alternative 2 within the past 30 years, resulting in approximately 1,782 acres of intensive level inventories. Within the Alternative 2 APE, 410 cultural resources have been identified. Of this number, 236 are considered not eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Forty sites require additional data 99
prior to evaluating them for the NRHP and are currently considered potentially eligible. The remaining 134 sites are eligible for the NRHP. Under Alternative 3, the APE would be those allotments proposed as active and as forage reserve (99,058 acres). Fifty nine cultural resource inventories have been completed in the APE for Alternative 3 within the past 30 years, resulting in approximately 2,221 acres of intensive level inventories. Within the Alternative 3 APE, 422 cultural resources have been identified. Of this number, 236 are considered not eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Forty three sites require additional data prior to evaluating them for the NRHP and are currently considered potentially eligible. The remaining 143 sites are eligible for the NRHP. Compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act BLM Colorado Instructional Memorandum No. CO-2002-29 and Washington Office WO-IM-99- 039 outline the guidelines and procedures for evaluating the effect of issuing, renewing, and transferring grazing permits on historic properties. The San Juan National Forest drafted a document titled Standard Range Rescission Strategy for Cultural Resources to provide specific direction and guidance for accomplishing the Section 106 process for open range grazing permit renewal. Consultation with the Colorado State Historic Preservation Officer on this guidance was completed on June 25, 2008 (CHS #51571). Per the BLM instructional memorandum, the analysis on BLM lands focused on areas where livestock concentrations may have an adverse effect on historic properties (National Register eligible or listed sites). Per the San Juan National Forest Standard Range Rescission Strategy for Cultural Resources, the focus of the analysis is known livestock congregation areas and their intersection with areas known or likely to contain cultural resources. Such locations within allotments that are currently active and proposed to remain open to sheep grazing were examined during field analysis efforts conducted for this undertaking. The Forest/BLM rangeland management staff defined areas where livestock are known to congregate within the APE. Predictive variables for sheep concentration included known bedding areas, salting locations, water sources, and landscape choke points that contributed to severe trailing. Known herder camp locations were also considered. A computer mapping site prediction model was run to identify areas likely to contain cultural resources. The model utilized environmental factors such as proximity to water, slope, and vegetation types. Site records, orthophotos and the San Juan Public Lands suitable sheep grazing acres GIS layer were used to further refine new survey areas. Additional intensive sample survey was also planned in suitable sheep forage areas on slopes of less than 30% to assess the accuracy of the inventory strategy. Three locations on National Forest lands within the Area of Potential Effects for Alternatives 2 and 3 were identified by the Rangeland Management Staff and the Archaeologist as meeting the definition of intersection areas between sheep concentration and areas known or likely to contain cultural resources. Seven locations on BLM were identified as areas where sheep concentration could be causing impacts to historic properties. Seventeen herder camps were identified within areas of higher site potential. The records search indicated that most of these locations lacked previous survey and that there are no known cultural resources in these locations. Approximately 158 acres of new survey was conducted for this analysis. Ninety one acres of new intensive survey was conducted in sheep concentration areas and herder camps that lacked previous survey and were likely to contain cultural resources. An additional sixty seven acres of intensive sample survey was conducted in sheep grazing areas outside of identified sheep congregation locations. 100
Page 1 and 2:
United States Department of Agricul
Page 3 and 4:
Silverton Landscape Grazing Analysi
Page 5 and 6:
These issues led the agency to deve
Page 7 and 8:
administered with shared facilities
Page 9 and 10:
Engine Creek/Deer Creek Allotment T
Page 11 and 12:
Gladstone Allotment This allotment
Page 13 and 14:
Gulch. In 1956, the numbers decreas
Page 15 and 16:
Figure 1-1. Project Analysis Area 1
Page 17 and 18:
Specific Management Emphasis Areas
Page 19 and 20:
Livestock Grazing Permits Livestock
Page 21 and 22:
Figure 1-3. Management Emphasis Are
Page 23 and 24:
Desired Conditions for Bighorn: Red
Page 25 and 26:
Figure 1-4. 2008 Data Collection Po
Page 27 and 28:
Figure 1-6. Wilderness Overlap 24
Page 29 and 30:
Issues ____________________________
Page 31 and 32:
CHAPTER 2 - ALTERNATIVES This chapt
Page 33 and 34:
Alternative Livestock Bedding 2 3 S
Page 35 and 36:
Alternative Noxious Plants/Invasive
Page 37 and 38:
Table 2-2. Project Design Criteria
Page 39 and 40:
Alternative Minimization of Threat
Page 41 and 42:
Alternative 2 - Current Management_
Page 43 and 44:
Elk Creek Allot • Do not use the
Page 45 and 46:
Figure 2-1. Proposed Action - Avoid
Page 47 and 48:
Monitoring for Alternative 3 Monito
Page 49 and 50:
• Photographs and Photo-points: P
Page 51 and 52: years in an emergency situation, su
Page 53 and 54: Comparison of Alternatives ________
Page 55 and 56: Water Quality _____________________
Page 57 and 58: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES Alternat
Page 59 and 60: from water or bedgrounds (Arnold an
Page 61 and 62: 2008). It differs from the wetland
Page 63 and 64: Red Mountain Allotment Yellow toadf
Page 65 and 66: unlikely that any of these species
Page 67 and 68: Recreation Special Use Permits for
Page 69 and 70: livestock management would not chan
Page 71 and 72: Concurrent to this grazing analysis
Page 73 and 74: Alternative 2 Habitat conditions fo
Page 75 and 76: intensity on alpine plants appeared
Page 77 and 78: the other two species due to the co
Page 79 and 80: lack bighorn sheep escape cover. Th
Page 81 and 82: trailing route, and lack of bighorn
Page 83 and 84: Similar to Alternative 2, selecting
Page 85 and 86: ptarmigan is expected under Alterna
Page 87 and 88: CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Global warming i
Page 89 and 90: Wildlife - Management Indicator Spe
Page 91 and 92: and it will not be discussed in det
Page 93 and 94: Selecting Alternative 2 would have
Page 95 and 96: for MIS in the landscape. Wildlife
Page 97 and 98: The alpine tundra group would benef
Page 99 and 100: species of conservation concern as
Page 101: management options, while others ma
Page 105 and 106: present state. In general, where un
Page 107 and 108: CHAPTER 4 - CONSULTATION AND COORDI
Page 109 and 110: APPENDIX B - CITATIONS AND REFERENC
Page 111 and 112: Martin, K.D., T.J. Schommer, and V.
Page 113 and 114: Regional Office, Durango, CO. Weste
Page 115 and 116: Species Habitat Present In the Spec
Page 117 and 118: Species Mammals (13) Allen’s big-
Page 119 and 120: MIS Species Preferred Habitat Broug
Page 121 and 122: Likelihood of Species Status* Prefe
Page 123 and 124: APPENDIX D - BIGHORN RISK ASSESSMEN
Page 125 and 126: Silverton Grazing Risk Assessment T
Page 127 and 128: Silverton Grazing Risk Assessment a
Page 129 and 130: Silverton Grazing Risk Assessment b
Page 131 and 132: Silverton Grazing Risk Assessment N
Page 133 and 134: Silverton Grazing Risk Assessment i
Page 139 and 140: Silverton Grazing Risk Assessment M
Page 143 and 144: Silverton Grazing Risk Assessment A
Page 145 and 146: Silverton Grazing Risk Assessment R
Page 147 and 148: Silverton Grazing Risk Assessment m
Page 151 and 152: Silverton Grazing Risk Assessment H
Page 153 and 154:
Silverton Grazing Risk Assessment F
Page 155 and 156:
Silverton Grazing Risk Assessment F
show all

NEPA--Environmental Assessment

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?