NEPA--Environmental Assessment

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Silverton Grazing Risk Assessment FACTORS CONSIDERED IN THE RISK ASSESSMENT PROCESS • Bighorn sheep mapped summer range and summer concentration areas (provided by the Colorado Division of Wildlife): o Summer range is that part of the overall range where 90% of individual bighorn sheep are located between spring green-up and the first heavy snowfall. Summer range is not necessarily exclusive of winter range; in some areas winter range and summer range may overlap. Summer range does not necessarily include all occurrences during the summer season. o Summer concentration areas are those areas where bighorn sheep concentrate from mid-June through mid-August. High quality forage, security, and lack of disturbance may be characteristic of these areas to meet the high energy demands of lactation and lamb rearing. o Mapped production areas were not considered because there is no overlap between them with active or vacant allotments in the Silverton Landscape. Mapped winter range areas were not considered because domestic sheep are not in the allotments during winter. • Domestic sheep allotment activity status (FS and BLM); • Changes in allotment boundary configuration (FS and BLM); • Domestic sheep grazing suitability maps (FS and BLM); • Vegetation types and topographic features within the allotment (FS and BLM); • Colorado Division of Wildlife local staff’s professional opinions (District Wildlife Managers and Terrestrial Biologists); • FS and BLM local staff’s professional opinions (Wildlife Biologists, Range Management Specialists, NEPA Specialists, Decision Maker); • Domestic sheep permittees’ herding practices and bighorn sheep observations; • Project Design Criteria (see Table 3 attached at the end of this document). RISK ASSESSMENT OUTCOMES This Risk Analysis found overlap between mapped summer ranges for wild bighorn sheep and 8 domestic sheep grazing allotments in the Silverton Landscape (see Figures 1 and 2, below). The analysis and findings for each allotment and alternative will be discussed individually and are displayed below in Figures 3 and 4. Engine Creek/Deer Creek Allotment (FS, active allotment): Under current management, there is about 2,978 acres of overlap in the allotment with mapped summer range of the S71 West Needles bighorn sheep herd. Within this area, about 1,253 acres (42%) is suitable domestic sheep grazing range. Under Alternative 3, there would be about 3,791 acres of overlap in the allotment with mapped summer range for S71. Within this area, about 1,293 acres are considered suitable domestic sheep grazing range, of which 1,122 acres are on NFS lands and 171 acres are on BLM lands. Under Alternative 3, allotment boundary adjustments would be done specifically to reduce the total amount of overlap between active and vacant allotments and mapped summer range for the S71 bighorn sheep herd in the Silverton Landscape. This would be accomplished, in part, by closing the vacant Little Molas/West Needles Allotment. This adjustment of the boundary between the active Engine Creek/Deer Creek Allotment and vacant Little Molas/West Needles Allotment would result in a 21% increase in the area of overlap in the Engine Creek/Deer Creek Allotment under Alternative 3 (3,791 acres) compared to Alternative 2 (2,978 acres). The boundary adjustment would also include the presence of overlap on BLM lands under Alternative 3 that was not present under Alternative 2. This boundary adjustment however, would provide a more functional D-11
Silverton Grazing Risk Assessment allotment configuration for the livestock permittee in the active Engine Creek/Deer Creek Allotment. The benefit to bighorn sheep of the boundary adjustment proposed under Alternative 3 is that under Alternative 3 all of the currently vacant Little Molas/West Needles Allotment east of U.S. Highway 550, with the exception of a small “doughnut hole” around the Lime Creek corrals, would be closed, eliminating about 19,891 acres of mapped overlap with S71 summer range. Under Alternative 2, the entire 20,705 acre Little Molas/West Needles Allotment would remain vacant and therefore available for stocking administratively at any time. Because of the boundary adjustment proposed under Alternative 3, there would be a modest increase (813 acres) in overlap with S71 for the Engine Creek/Deer Creek Allotment between Alternative 2 and Alternative 3. This increase would be due to some areas of the vacant Little Molas/West Needles Allotment being added into the active Engine Creek/Deer Creek Allotment. The areas of mapped overlap in the Engine Creek/Deer Creek Allotment are in two discrete areas. The first area is a small “doughnut hole” around the Lime Creek corrals. The Lime Creek corrals provide one of the few places along U.S. Highway 550 in the Engine Creek/Deer Creek Allotment where livestock can be loaded or unloaded from trucks. For this reason, the corrals provide a very important function for the permittee of the Engine Creek/Deer Creek Allotment. Under Alternative 2, domestic sheep are unloaded at these corrals, trailed rapidly uphill to the primary forage areas to the west, then collected at the end of the grazing season and rapidly trailed back down to the corrals for removal from the allotment. The area is used for one day each going into the allotment and leaving the allotment. Under Alternative 3 the Lime Creek corrals would be used for bringing sheep into the allotment, but sheep would then be moved across the new allotment configuration to the east and picked up in the Molas Pass area at the end of the grazing season. Ideally, the allotment would then be used in the opposite rotation the following year. The result of this grazing pattern is that under Alternative 2, domestic sheep are passing through a small area of mapped S71 summer range near the Lime Creek corrals for one day, twice each grazing season; one day each on allotment entry and exit. Under Alternative 3, each season sheep would pass through the S71 summer range once at the Lime Creek corrals and once in the Molas Pass area. The Lime Creek corrals sit 0.6 miles below Highway 550, and about 0.8 miles inside the mapped boundary of S71 summer range. For the first time, during summer 2009, several small groups of bighorn sheep were observed along the shoulder of Highway 550 about 1 mile west of the corrals. This section of highway is closely surrounded on both sides by a broad band of dense mature spruce-fir forest on steep north facing slopes. The forest is consistent with the description provided by Schommer and Woolever (2001) of a continuous forest that could serve as a natural barrier to bighorn sheep movement. The area has few rock outcrops or other structures that provide typical bighorn sheep escape cover. This area is slightly outside the boundary of S71 mapped summer range and just outside the boundary of the Engine Creek/Deer Creek Allotment as it would be modified under Alternative 3. The area is within the allotment under the Alternative 2 boundary configuration. Regardless of allotment boundary configuration, the location of these sightings was about 1 mile south of the route typically used by domestic sheep to access the allotment. The domestic sheep permittee has not reported any bighorn sheep sightings within the portion of the allotment traditionally used by domestic sheep and none have been reported to the CDOW. D-12
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 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: Silverton Grazing Risk Assessment i
Page 137 and 138: Silverton Grazing Risk Assessment a
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?