NEPA--Environmental Assessment

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Silverton Grazing Risk Assessment MANAGEMENT PRACTICES The documents described below provide suggestions for consideration by land management agencies evaluating domestic sheep grazing activities within or in proximity to wild sheep range. These documents provide recommendations similar to “best management practices” and as such are not required. However, as generally accepted principles for achieving consensus based conservation of bighorn sheep, these documents provide key concepts that can help land management agencies achieve species conservation goals. All of these documents were reviewed and key concepts were considered in the development of project design criteria for the Silverton Landscape. These concepts were also considered in the development of this Risk Assessment. • Instruction Memorandum 98-140 (USDI Bureau of Land Management): provides guidelines for BLM Field Offices in the western United States for the management of domestic sheep in occupied bighorn sheep range on BLM lands. The guidelines provide “a balanced approach” for management of domestic sheep in native wild sheep habitats, and should be followed whenever reintroductions, transplants, or augmentations of wild sheep populations, or proposed changes in a livestock grazing permit on BLM administered lands are being considered. This IM expired on September 30, 1999 and has not been updated or replaced. Although this IM has expired, we believe the management actions proposed in Alternative 3 are consistent with the content of this IM. • A Process for Finding Management Solutions to the Incompatibility Between Domestic and Bighorn Sheep (Schommer and Woolever 2001): provides Forest Service staff with recommendations for using a collaborative approach to find management solutions to reduce or eliminate contact between wild sheep and domestic sheep. We believe the process used and solutions proposed in Alternative 3 are consistent with the recommendations of this report. • Colorado Bighorn Sheep Management Plan (George et al. 2008): adopted in 2009, directs CDOW to, among other things, prioritize conservation of bighorn sheep herds in Colorado on the basis of herd size, native status, management history, and potential for interaction with domestic sheep. State management goals for the bighorn sheep herds affected by this project were considered by local CDOW staff that provided information regarding affects this project might have on bighorn sheep. • Memorandum of Understanding (Colorado Division of Wildlife 2009): signed in March of 2009 by Forest Service Rocky Mountain Region, Bureau of Land Management Colorado State Office, Colorado Division of Wildlife, Colorado Department of Agriculture, and the Colorado Woolgrowers Association. This document recognizes, among other things, that contact between domestic sheep and bighorn sheep increases the probability of respiratory disease outbreaks in bighorn sheep, but not all outbreaks can be attributed to contact with domestic sheep. The goal is to minimize contact by decreasing the opportunities for domestic/bighorn sheep interaction; while still recognizing that some vacant sheep allotments are important to the domestic sheep industry as forage reserves or for other economic or management reasons. • Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies Wild Sheep Report (WAFWA 2007): a report published by a collection of state and provincial wildlife management agencies that seeks to work collaboratively with livestock industry to reduce the potential for wild sheep die-offs. This report articulates concerns about potential disease transmission between domestic livestock and wildlife, and suggests an array of management approaches to minimize such risks. This report D-3
Silverton Grazing Risk Assessment advocates, among other things, that effective separation (both temporal and/or spatial) of wild and domestic sheep should be a primary management goal. Effective separation does not necessarily require the removal of domestic sheep. AFFECTED BIGHORN SHEEP HERDS The Silverton Landscape intersects the mapped summer range of two bighorn sheep herds, S33, the Pole Mountain/Upper Lake Fork Herd, and S71, the West Needles Herd. The S33 bighorn herd is considered by CDOW to represent one large meta-population with S21, the Ouray/Cow Creek herd, to the north and west. There is no mapped overlap between domestic sheep allotments in the Silverton Landscape and mapped summer range for S21, although S21 mapped summer range is about 5 air miles to the north of the Picayne/Mineral Point Allotment. For this reason, there is a possibility that decisions about domestic livestock grazing in the Silverton Landscape could have indirect effects on the S21 Ouray/Cow Creek bighorn sheep herd. The level of risk to S21 from this indirect effect is thought to be low compared to the direct effect of domestic sheep grazing within much closer proximity, and in direct overlap with mapped summer range for S21, currently permitted by the Ouray Ranger District of the Uncompahgre National Forest, and the Gunnison Field Office of the BLM. One of the alternatives that was considered but dismissed from further analysis suggested moving domestic sheep from “High Risk” allotments in the Silverton Landscape to one or more of 6 currently vacant allotments along the Vallecito Creek drainage in the Weminuche Wilderness. The 6 allotments in the Vallecito Creek drainage all either overlap with mapped summer range of the S28 Vallecito Creek bighorn sheep herd, or the stock driveways that are necessary for ingress/egress to these 6 allotments overlap with mapped summer range. Therefore, this suggestion could have resulted in indirect effects to the S28 Vallecito Creek bighorn sheep herd. The risk of indirect effects to S28 are low because this alternative was considered but dismissed from further analysis (see discussion below). There is about 41,430 acres of mapped overlap in the Silverton Landscape between the summer range of these two bighorn sheep herds and active and vacant domestic sheep grazing allotments. It is apparent however, that most domestic sheep grazing and trailing activities in the Silverton Landscape occurs outside of currently mapped bighorn sheep summer range. Because domestic sheep are only present in the Landscape during summer, generally the months of July and August, the following Risk Assessment analysis will focus on overlap between domestic sheep grazing allotments and mapped summer range and summer concentration areas for bighorn sheep. Mapped bighorn winter range, winter concentration areas, and production areas were not considered in this analysis because domestic sheep are not present in the landscape during winter or spring. If CDOW data suggested sufficient bighorn occurrence during summer months on the areas mapped as winter range or production areas, those areas were also mapped by CDOW as summer range or summer concentration areas. Conversely, bighorn occurrence outside of mapped summer range is irregular and unpredictable and therefore the concern for contact between domestic sheep and bighorn sheep outside of mapped summer range is low. Pole Mountain/Upper Lake Fork Herd (S33): The 2007 estimated population size of the Pole Mountain/Upper Lake Fork Herd was about 90 animals (George et al. 2008). Although not well documented, evidence from the Colorado Division of Wildlife (Diamond 2005) suggests that the S33 Pole Mountain/Upper Lake Fork Herd experienced a significant and widespread die-off in the late 1980’s. No D-4
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 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: Silverton Grazing Risk Assessment T
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 135 and 136: Silverton Grazing Risk Assessment a
Page 137 and 138: Silverton Grazing Risk Assessment a
Page 139 and 140: Silverton Grazing Risk Assessment M
Page 141 and 142: Silverton Grazing Risk Assessment T
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 149 and 150: Silverton Grazing Risk Assessment T
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?