NEPA--Environmental Assessment

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Silverton Grazing Risk Assessment Under Alternative 3, the preferred alternative, the amount of overlap between active and vacant domestic sheep allotments and mapped bighorn sheep summer range in the Silverton Landscape would be reduced by 83%, primarily by closing allotments that have remained vacant for the past decade or more. Of the 7,105 acres of overlap under Alternative 3, about 6,452 acres would be in active allotments and 653 acres would be in a forage reserve allotment. Alternative 3 would therefore result in an increase of 813 acres over Alternative 2 of overlap between domestic sheep grazing in active allotments and mapped bighorn summer range, all in the Engine Creek/Deer Creek Allotment. For the reasons stated above, we believe this increase in overlap acres under Alternative 3 ultimately benefits bighorn sheep. This is because the 813 additional acres of overlap in this active allotment would be in an area judged to be “Moderate Risk” for contact. Including these 813 additional acres in a “Moderate Risk” area would allow the closing of about 19,891 acres in areas rated as “High Risk” under Alternative 2. To summarize the results in a different way, under Alternative 2 about 40,458 acres of overlap would be in areas rated as “High Risk” for contact, there would be 0 acres in areas rated as “Moderate Risk”, and 973 acres would be in areas rated as “Low Risk”. Under Alternative 3, there would be 0 acres of overlap in areas rated as “High Risk” for contact, there would be 6,132 acres in areas rated as “Moderate Risk”, and 35,298 acres would be in areas rated as “Low Risk”. The domestic livestock permittees and agency livestock permit administrator meet each winter to discuss annual operating instructions for the upcoming grazing season. In conjunction with this meeting, the agency wildlife biologist and CDOW staff will meet with the permittee to review the effectiveness of project Design Criteria implementation and any new bighorn sheep information obtained over the previous year. At this time, the risk assessment rating for each allotment will be reviewed as necessary, and updated with new information as appropriate. Discussion with permittees about management actions, observations, and opinions are a critical component for finding consensus based solution opportunities to new issues as they arise. These meetings will include staff from adjacent land management administrative units, as necessary, to facilitate discussions of opportunities for utilizing grazing options on adjacent units. The objective of these discussions would be to explore mutually acceptable ways to reduce the risk of contact between bighorn sheep and domestic sheep using a flexible adaptive approach to problem solving, and to be more responsive to the management needs of livestock permittees and the dynamic nature of a highly mobile wildlife species. Annual reviews of risk assessment ratings and the potential for contact between domestic and bighorn sheep may be necessary because the S33 Pole Mountain/Upper Lake Fork bighorn sheep herd appears to be increasing in numbers and possibly expanding in range. For this reason, the extent of occupied summer range may vary from one season to the next, necessitating an adaptive approach to where and how domestic sheep are managed on the landscape. Wildlife staff of the FS/BLM will work with the local staff of the Colorado Division of Wildlife to develop and implement a coordinated annual monitoring plan for bighorn sheep in the upper Animas River basin. Given the designation by CDOW of the S33 bighorn herd as a primary (“Tier 1”) population ranked as a high priority for conservation at a statewide level, it is logical for CDOW and BLM to place a greater emphasis on D-23
Silverton Grazing Risk Assessment monitoring the occurrence, distribution, and use patterns of bighorn sheep in BLM portions of the Silverton Landscape. Monitoring information would then be used to inform and revise the Risk Assessment process for the affected allotments. Annual monitoring activities could include coordinated ground counts, expanded aerial counts, radio/GPS collars, etc. A key component of the monitoring plan should be to implement a system for immediate cross-agency sharing of bighorn sighting reports and monitoring information to keep all parties informed about bighorn use of the upper Animas River Basin. Table 2. Risk rating of allotments under Alternative 2 (current management) and under Alternative 3 (the preferred alternative) in the Silverton Landscape grazing analysis area. Allotment (Agency) Red Mountain (FS) Elk Creek (FS/BLM) Deer Park (FS/BLM) Engine Creek/Deer Creek (FS) Gladstone (BLM) Eureka/California Gulch (BLM) Picayne/Mineral Point (BLM) Maggie Gulch (BLM) Overlap with Bighorn Herd Allotment Risk under Risk under Status Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Active Low Low Active Low Low Active Low Low S71 Active High Moderate S71 Active Low Low S33 Active High Moderate S33 Active High Moderate Active Moderate Moderate West Lime (FS) Vacant High Low - Closed Little Molas/West Needles (FS) S71 Vacant High Low - Closed Minnie Gulch (BLM) S33 Vacant High Low - Closed Needles Mountains (FS) S71 Vacant High Low - Closed Graysill (FS) Vacant Low Low Flume (FS) S71 Vacant Low Low – Forage Reserve Silverton Watershed (FS) Closed Low Low D-24
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 and 144: Silverton Grazing Risk Assessment A
Page 145: Silverton Grazing Risk Assessment R
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?