NEPA--Environmental Assessment

More documents

Recommendations

Info

APPENDIX C - WILDLIFE SPECIES LISTS Species Federal Status Table C-1. Federally Listed Species for the San Juan Public Lands. Habitat Present In the Landscape? Canada lynx Threatened Yes - mature spruce fir, cool-moist mixedconifer, and willow - riparian areas; 3 designated linkage areas intersect the Landscape Mexican spotted owl Southwestern willow flycatcher Threatened No – no narrow rockwalled canyons with mixed-conifer Endangered Yes – 2 patches of apparently suitable habitat occur in the Landscape Bonytail Endangered No - does not occur in or downstream of Animas River Basin Colorado pikeminnow Endangered No – does not occur in Animas River Basin Humpback chub Endangered No - does not occur in or downstream of Animas River Basin Razorback sucker Uncompahgre fritillary butterfly Endangered No – does not occur in Animas River Basin Endangered Yes – 1 patch of habitat thought suitable, but protocol surveys not conducted Species Habitat Present In the Silverton Landscape? Birds (23) American bittern (FS) No – no marsh, swamp, or bog with cattails, rushes, grasses, & sedges, not known to occur in San Juan County American peregrine falcon (BLM and FS) Probability of Occurrence in the Landscape High - animals documented to occur in the Landscape. Carried Forward for Further Analysis? Yes, see discussion Low No, dismissed from further Low – birds not documented to occur during breeding season in or near the Landscape, but suitable habitat is present Low – no water depletions from the San Juan River basin Low – no water depletions from the San Juan River basin Low – no water depletions from the San Juan River basin Low – no water depletions from the San Juan River basin High - 1 patch of habitat thought suitable, but protocol surveys not conducted evaluation. Yes, see discussion. No, dismissed from further evaluation. No, dismissed from further evaluation. No, dismissed from further evaluation. No, dismissed from further evaluation. Yes, see discussion Table C-2. FS Region 2 and Colorado BLM Sensitive Species. Yes – suitable foraging habitat, but not known to nest in San Juan County. Species or Habitat Impacted by Action Alternatives? Project Effects Determination May Effect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect No Effect May Effect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect No Effect No Effect No Effect No Effect May Effect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect Project Impact Determination No Selecting Alternative 2 or 3 will have “no impact” on American bittern. No further discussion is required. No –foraging habitat not significantly affected by sheep grazing Selecting Alternative 2 or 3 will have “no impact” on American peregrine falcon. No further analysis is required. 111
Species Habitat Present In the Species or Habitat Impacted by Action Project Impact Silverton Landscape? Alternatives? Determination American three-toed Yes – species occurs in No – nesting and foraging Selecting Alternative 2 or 3 woodpecker (FS) Landscape year round. About habitat (standing dead will have “no impact” on 60,696 acres of habitat in trees) not significantly American three-toed Landscape. affected by sheep grazing woodpecker. No further analysis is required. Bald eagle (BLM and FS) No – no nesting or foraging No Selecting Alternative 2 or 3 habitat in Landscape, not known will have “no impact” on to nest and rarely observed in bald eagle. No further San Juan County discussion is required. Black swift (FS) Yes – known to nest and forage in No – nesting (waterfalls) Selecting Alternative 2 or 3 Landscape and foraging habitat (in air will have “no impact” on above alpine peaks) not black swift. No further affected by sheep grazing analysis is required. Black tern (BLM) No – no bulrush or cattail No Selecting Alternative 2 or 3 marshes in Landscape, not will have “no impact” on known to occur in San Juan black tern. No further County discussion is required Boreal owl (FS) Yes – known to nest and occur No – nesting habitat Selecting Alternative 2 or 3 year round in the landscape and (standing dead trees) and will have “no impact” on San Juan County. About 44,383 foraging habitat (closed boreal owl. No further acres of habitat in Landscape. canopy spruce-fir forests) not significantly affected by sheep grazing analysis is required. Brewer’s sparrow (FS) No – no sagebrush in Landscape; No Selecting Alternative 2 or 3 not known to occur in San Juan will have “no impact” on County Brewer’s sparrow. No further discussion is required Columbian sharp-tailed No – no habitat in Landscape; not No Selecting Alternative 2 or 3 grouse (FS) known to occur in San Juan will have “no impact” on County Columbian sharp-tailed grouse. No further discussion is required Ferruginous hawk (BLM No – no suitable extensive No Selecting Alternative 2 or 3 and FS) grassland or prairie dog colonies will have “no impact” on in Landscape; not known to occur ferruginous hawk. No further in San Juan County discussion is required Flammulated owl (FS) Yes – known to nest and occur No – nesting habitat Selecting Alternative 2 or 3 year round in the landscape and (standing dead trees) and will have “no impact” on San Juan County. About 7,965 foraging habitat (mixed- flammulated owl. No further acres of habitat in Landscape. conifer and ponderosa pine forests) not significantly affected by sheep grazing analysis is required. Gunnison sage grouse No – no sagebrush in Landscape; No Selecting Alternative 2 or 3 (BLM) not known to occur in San Juan will have “no impact” on County Gunnison sage grouse. No further discussion is required Lewis’s Woodpecker (FS) No – no mature ponderosa pine No Selecting Alternative 2 or 3 or gambel oak in Landscape, not will have “no impact” on known to occur in San Juan Lewis’s woodpecker. No County further discussion is required Loggerhead shrike (FS) No – no sagebrush or thorn shrub No Selecting Alternative 2 or 3 habitats in Landscape, not will have “no impact” on known to occur in San Juan loggerhead shrike. No further County discussion is required Northern goshawk (BLM Yes – foraging and nesting No – nesting habitat not Selecting Alternative 2 or 3 and FS) habitat in Landscape, known to affected, and, foraging will have “no impact” on nest in San Juan County. About habitat not significantly northern goshawk. No 48,606 acres of habitat in landscape. affected by sheep grazing further analysis is required Northern harrier (FS) No - no suitable wetlands or No Selecting Alternative 2 or 3 cattail marshes in Landscape, not will have “no impact” on known to nest in San Juan northern harrier. No further County discussion is required 112
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 and 102: management options, while others ma
Page 103 and 104: prior to evaluating them for the NR
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: Regional Office, Durango, CO. Weste
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?