NEPA--Environmental Assessment

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Silverton Grazing Risk <strong>Assessment</strong> West Lime Allotment (FS, vacant allotment): In the vacant FS West Lime Allotment there is no overlap with mapped bighorn sheep summer range. However, for the past several summers Colorado Division of Wildlife has received regular reports of small numbers of bighorn sheep summering in Ice Lakes Basin near the headwaters of South Mineral Creek. It is not known with certainty which bighorn herd these individuals are likely to be coming from, or how far and from where they are travelling to reach this area. There is no evidence to indicate these animals are wintering in the basin. The allotment has been grazed since at least the 1950’s, with stocking rates that are about 3 times the currently permitted numbers. The allotment has been vacant since 1999. Much of the allotment is heavily forested with dense extensive areas of mature spruce-fir forest. The allotment also contains a substantial amount of rocky and rugged mountainous terrain with elevations that vary from about 9,000 feet to well over 13,000 feet. Much of the alpine zone of this allotment is steep, rugged mountain peaks with deep canyons, waterfalls, cliffs, and many rocky areas and talus slopes providing good bighorn escape cover. The allotment is a popular summer recreation area, especially in the South Mineral Creek drainage and along the Colorado Trail corridor. Summary of Risk Rating for West Lime Allotment: Risk Rating: Alternative 2 – High Alternative 3 – Low - Closed Under Alternative 2, if the West Lime Allotment were to be restocked, the presence of bighorn sheep summering in the Ice Lakes Basin area would result in a rating of “High Risk” for contact. The Ice Lakes Basin area would be needed to provide an effective allotment configuration and prevent new resource damage associated with domestic sheep grazing activities. If however, the allotment were to remain vacant under Alternative 2, the rating would be “Low Risk” because domestic sheep would not be permitted in the allotment and there would be a low risk for contact. However, because the allotment could be restocked administratively at any time, the overall rating of this allotment under Alternative 2 would be “High Risk”. Under Alternative 3, the West Lime Allotment would be closed to domestic sheep grazing. The rating would be “Low Risk” because domestic sheep would not be permitted in the allotment and there would be a low risk for contact. D-21
Silverton Grazing Risk <strong>Assessment</strong> Remaining Allotments (BLM and FS): The 5 remaining allotments in the Silverton Landscape are Red Mountain (FS - active), Elk Creek (FS and BLM - active), Deer Park (FS and BLM - active), Graysill (FS - vacant), and Silverton Watershed (FS - closed). There is no overlap in any of these allotments with mapped bighorn sheep summer range. All allotments are well removed from mapped bighorn sheep summer range. For these reasons, the rating would be “Low Risk” for contact between domestic sheep and bighorn sheep in Red Mountain, Elk Creek, Deer Park, Graysill, and Silverton Watershed allotments. RESULTS Risk Rating: Alternative 2 – Low Alternative 3 – Low Of the 15 allotments analyzed in the Silverton Landscape EA (see Table 2, below), 8 overlap with mapped bighorn sheep summer range (see Figures 1 and 2, below). Under Alternative 2, current management, 6 of these 8 allotments were rated as having “High Risk” for contact with bighorn sheep, including the vacant allotments if they were restocked (see Figure 3, below). The remaining two allotments with overlap were rated as “Low Risk” due to site specific factors (see Figure 3, below). Under Alternative 3, the three active allotments having overlap with bighorn sheep summer range would all receive a rating of “Moderate Risk” (see Figure 4, below). These allotments are: Engine Creek/Deer Creek (FS), Eureka/California Gulch (BLM), and Picayne/Mineral Point (BLM). The two allotments with a “Low Risk” rating under Alternative 2 would remain “Low Risk” under Alternative 3 These allotments are: Gladstone (BLM), and Flume (FS). The three allotments with a “High Risk” rating under Alternative 2 that would be closed under Alternative 3 would receive a rating of “Low Risk” under Alternative 3. These allotments are: Little Molas/West Needles (FS), Minnie Gulch (BLM), and Needles Mountains (FS). Of the 7 remaining allotments that do not overlap with mapped bighorn summer range, 5 are rated as “Low Risk” for contact under both Alternative 2 and Alternative 3 (see Figures 3 and 4, below). These allotments are: Red Mountain (FS), Elk Creek (FS/BLM), Deer Park (FS/BLM), Graysill (FS), and Silverton Watershed (FS). Of the final two allotments, one allotment is rated as “Moderate Risk” for contact with bighorn sheep under both Alternative 2 and Alternative 3 (Maggie Gulch, BLM), and the second is rated as “High Risk” under Alternative 2 and “Low Risk” under Alternative 3 (West Lime, FS). Under Alternative 2, current management, there is a total of about 41,430 acres of overlap between active and vacant domestic sheep grazing allotments and mapped bighorn sheep summer range in the Silverton Landscape. Of these overlap areas, about 5,639 acres are in active allotments, and 35,792 acres are in currently vacant allotments (see Figure 1, below). Under Alternative 2, about 40,430 acres of overlap would occur in allotments rated as “High Risk” for contact between domestic sheep and bighorn sheep (see Figure 3, below). Under Alternative 3, only about 7,105 acres of overlap would remain between active and vacant domestic sheep allotments and bighorn sheep summer range. Within these 7,105 acres of overlap, about 6,132 acres would be rated as “Moderate Risk” for contact, and 973 acres would be rated as “Low Risk” for contact (see Figure 4, below). Under Alternative 3, no acres of overlap would remain in “High Risk” areas. D-22
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 and 134: Silverton Grazing Risk Assessment i
Page 139 and 140: Silverton Grazing Risk Assessment M
Page 143: Silverton Grazing Risk Assessment A
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?