NEPA--Environmental Assessment

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Species Olive-sided flycatcher (FS) Habitat Present In the Silverton Landscape? Yes – suitable nesting habitat in Landscape, known to nest in San Juan County. About 21,344 acres of habitat in Landscape Purple martin (FS) No – no suitable mature aspen stands in Landscape, not known to nest in San Juan County Short-eared owl (FS) No - no suitable wetlands or cattail marshes in Landscape, not known to nest in San Juan County Western Burrowing owl (FS) Western yellow-billed cuckoo (BLM and FS) No – no suitable extensive grassland or prairie dog colonies in Landscape not known to occur in San Juan County No – no suitable gallery cottonwood forest in Landscape, not known to occur in San Juan County White-faced ibis (BLM) No – no suitable wet meadows, marsh edges or reservoir shorelines in Landscape, not known to occur in San Juan County White-tailed ptarmigan (FS) Fish (4) Bluehead sucker (BLM and FS) Colorado River cutthroat trout (BLM and FS) Flannelmouth sucker (BLM and FS) Roundtail chub (BLM and FS) Yes- known to occur year round in Landscape No – no suitable streams or rivers in Landscape No – no conservation populations in Landscape No – no suitable streams or rivers in Landscape No – no suitable streams or rivers in Landscape Amphibians (2) Boreal toad (FS) No – not known to occur in the Landscape or in San Juan County Northern leopard frog (FS) Yes – possibly occurs at lowest elevations of Landscape and southern edge of San Juan County. About 3,430 acres of habitat in Landscape. Species or Habitat Impacted by Action Project Impact Alternatives? Determination No – nesting habitat (large, Selecting Alternative 2 or 3 live overstory conifer trees) will have “no impact” on and foraging habitat olive-sided flycatcher. No (aerial insects in tree further analysis is required canopy) not significantly affected by sheep grazing No Selecting Alternative 2 or 3 will have “no impact” on purple marten. No further discussion is required No Selecting Alternative 2 or 3 will have “no impact” on short-eared owl. No further discussion is required No Selecting Alternative 2 or 3 will have “no impact” on western burrowing owl. No further discussion is required No Selecting Alternative 2 or 3 will have “no impact” on western yellow-billed cuckoo. No further discussion is required No Selecting Alternative 2 or 3 will have “no impact” on white-faced ibis. No further discussion is required Yes – nesting and foraging habitat (willows) shows evidence of localized impacts from sheep grazing No – no water depletions from the Animas River basin No – sheep grazing is not significantly altering aquatic habitat structure, and, no water depletions from Animas River basin No – no water depletions from the Animas River basin No – no water depletions from the Animas River basin No – sheep grazing is not significantly altering aquatic habitat structure No - sheep grazing is not significantly altering aquatic habitat structure Selecting Alternative 2 or 3 “may impact individual white-tailed ptarmigan but is not likely to result in a loss of viability on the planning area, nor cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of species viability rangewide”. Selecting Alternative 2 or 3 will have “no impact” on bluehead sucker. No further discussion is required Selecting Alternative 2 or 3 will have “no impact” on Colorado River cutthroat trout. No further analysis is required Selecting Alternative 2 or 3 will have “no impact” on flannelmouth sucker. No further discussion is required Selecting Alternative 2 or 3 will have “no impact” on roundtail chub. No further discussion is required Selecting Alternative 2 or 3 will have “no impact” on boreal toad. No further discussion is required Selecting Alternative 2 or 3 will have “no impact” on northern leopard frog. No further analysis is required 113
Species Mammals (13) Allen’s big-eared bat (BLM) Habitat Present In the Silverton Landscape? No – Landscape too high in elevation, not known to occur in San Juan County American marten (FS) Yes – known to occur year round in Landscape. About 60,696 acres of habitat in Landscape. Big free-tailed bat (BLM) No – Landscape too high in elevation, not known to occur in San Juan County Desert bighorn sheep (FS) Fringed myotis (BLM and FS) Gunnison’s prairie dog (FS) New Mexico meadow jumping mouse (BLM and FS) North American wolverine (FS) No – no desert canyons in Landscape, not known to occur in San Juan County No – Landscape too high in elevation, not known to occur in San Juan County No – no suitable extensive grassland or prairie dog colonies in Landscape not known to occur in San Juan County No – Landscape too high in elevation, not known to occur in San Juan County Yes – denning and foraging habitat present in Landscape, but not confirmed to occur in San Juan County in past 50 years River otter (FS) Yes – known to occur in and near the main stem Animas River. About 103.6 miles of river habitat in Landscape. Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep (FS) Spotted bat (BLM and FS) Townsend’s big-eared bat (BLM and FS) Yes – known to occur in summer in the Landscape. About 38,767 acres of mapped (CDOW) summer range in Landscape. No – too high elevation, not known to occur in San Juan Co. No – Landscape too high in elevation, no open dry forests Species or Habitat Impacted by Action Alternatives? Project Impact Determination No Selecting Alternative 2 or 3 will have “no impact” on Allen’s big-eared bat. No further discussion is required No - foraging habitat (closed canopy spruce-fir forests) not significantly affected by sheep grazing Selecting Alternative 2 or 3 will have “no impact” on American marten. No further analysis is required No Selecting Alternative 2 or 3 will have “no impact” on Big free-tailed bat. No further discussion is required No Selecting Alternative 2 or 3 will have “no impact” on desert bighorn sheep. No further discussion is required No Selecting Alternative 2 or 3 will have “no impact” on Fringed myotis. No further discussion is required No Selecting Alternative 2 or 3 will have “no impact” on Gunnison’s prairie dog. No further discussion is required No Selecting Alternative 2 or 3 will have “no impact” on New Mexico meadow jumping mouse. No further discussion is required Yes – foraging habitat possibly affected by sheep grazing No - proposed action will not alter aquatic habitat structure Yes – potential for disease transmission with domestic sheep, and potential for forage competition Selecting Alternative 2 or 3 “may impact individual wolverines but is not likely to result in a loss of viability on the planning area, nor cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of species viability rangewide”. Selecting Alternative 2 or 3 will have “no impact” on river otter. No further discussion is required Selecting Alternative 2 or 3 “may impact individual bighorn sheep but is not likely to result in a loss of viability on the planning area, nor cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of species viability rangewide”. No Selecting Alternative 2 or 3 will have “no impact” on Spotted bat. No further discussion is required No Selecting Alternative 2 or 3 will have “no impact” on Townsend’s big-eared bat. No further discussion is required 114
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 and 114: Regional Office, Durango, CO. Weste
Page 115: Species Habitat Present In the Spec
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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?