NEPA--Environmental Assessment

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Silverton Grazing Risk Assessment LITERATURE CITED Aune, K., N. Anderson, D. Worley, L. Stackhouse, J. Henderson, and J. Daniel. 1998. A comparison of population and health histories among seven Montana bighorn sheep populations. Biennial Symposium of the Northern Wild Sheep and goat Council. 11:46-69. Beecham, J. J., C. P. Collins, and T. D. Reynolds 2007. Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep (ovis canadensis): a technical conservation assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available on the internet at: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/rockymountainbighornsheep.p df. Colorado Division of Wildlife. 2009. memorandum of understanding for management of domestic sheep and bighorn sheep. February 11, 2009. Diamond, B. 2005. Abbreviated summary for Unit S-33, the Pole Mountain/Upper Lake Fork bighorn sheep herd. Unpublished report, Colorado Division of Wildlife, Fort Collins, CO. 6 pp. George, J. L., R. Kahn, M. W. Miller, and B. Watkins. 2008. Colorado bighorn sheep management plan 2008 – 2018. Colorado Division of Wildlife, 6060 Broadway, Denver, CO, 80216. 96 pp. Martin, K. D., T. J. Schommer, and V. L. Coggins. 1996. Literature review regarding the compatibility between bighorn and domestic sheep. Proceedings of the Tenth Biennial Symposium of the Northern Wild Sheep and Goat Council 10:72-77. Onderka, D. K., and W. D. Wishart. 1984. A major bighorn sheep die-off from pneumonia in southern Alberta. Proceedings of the Fourth Biennial Symposium of the Northern Wild Sheep and Goat Council 4:356-363. Schommer, T., and M. Woolever. 2001. A process for finding management solutions to the incompatibility between domestic and bighorn sheep. USDA Forest Service, Washington, DC. 62 pp. USDI Bureau of Land Management. 1998. Instruction memorandum 98-140. Revised guidelines for management of domestic sheep and goats in native wild sheep habitats. USDI-BLM, Washington, DC. 6 pp. Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. 2007. Recommendations for domestic sheep and goat management in wild sheep habitat. Wild Sheep Working Group, Initial Subcommittee, K. Hurley, Chair, June 21, 2007. Available on the internet at: http://www.mwvcrc.org/bighorn/wafwawildsheepreport.pdf. D-25
Silverton Grazing Risk Assessment Table 3. Project Design Criteria to minimize contact between Bighorn and Domestic Sheep. High Risk Allotments: Alternative Risk Assessments (in the project record) 2 3 Permitted domestic sheep and goat grazing will not be authorized within high risk areas of the allotment. In most instances, domestic sheep may still be authorized within the allotment but management will ensure routing and other design criteria to avoid the high risk areas. This can be accomplished through adaptive management tools. Moderate Risk Allotments: Permitted domestic sheep and goat grazing may be authorized. However, design criteria will still be implemented to strive to reduce the potential for contact even farther. Low Risk Allotments: Permitted domestic sheep and goat grazing may be authorized. Permitted domestic sheep grazing will be focused towards these areas. However, design criteria should still be implemented to strive to reduce the potential for contact even farther. x Alternative Minimization of Threat of Disease Transmission 2 3 Follow the response protocol for confirmed contact or threat of impending contact between permitted domestic sheep and bighorn: Permittee: The permittee or their agent will contact the Columbine Ranger District/Field Office range personnel immediately if bighorn come into contact or there is a threat of impending contact with domestic sheep. Contact information as well as phone numbers will be included in the Annual Operating Instructions. Permittees authorized to graze in areas rated as “Moderate Risk”, will require herders to carry and use a “SPOT satellite messenger” to allow for the immediate notification and location of domestic sheep and bighorn contact or impending contact due to unforeseen movements of the domestic sheep and/or bighorn. Information about the “SPOT” device is available at: http://www.findmespot.com/en/ As an immediate response, the permittee and/or the herders will be authorized to haze bighorn that are threatening to make contact with domestic sheep. This will be accomplished through an agreement between the grazing permittee and the CDOW. The agreement will include circumstances requiring hazing response, appropriate type of hazing and reporting requirements. Forest Service/BLM: When informed about potential bighorn/domestic sheep contact, the FS/BLM will contact the permittee immediately notifying them of the situation. At this point, the FS/BLM and the permittee will implement other design criteria if needed to prevent or reduce the threat of impending contact. At this time an alternate plan of grazing for the remainder of the season, “flexible management” may be implemented to strive to prevent contact from occurring. Concurrently, as contact or the threat of contact is made known, the FS/BLM will contact the CDOW (contact information will be provided to the FS and the permittee prior to the grazing season). Actions that the CDOW will take is at their discretion concerning wildlife health intervention and management of the bighorn. CDOW will inform the FS/BLM if the situation is rectified and discussion/planning will occur with the permittee to implement an alternate management strategy if needed. The CDOW may implement post contact monitoring. The FS/BLM will make the particular domestic sheep band (and the area) a high priority for monitoring to determine if there is bighorn activity in the area or if the risk analysis should be revisited. The FS/BLM will work with CDOW to prioritize and implement coordinated annual monitoring of bighorn x D-26
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 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: 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?