NEPA--Environmental Assessment

More documents

Recommendations

Info

egulated by fixed livestock numbers or seasons of use. It can be compared to a performance-based contract that is written with specifications for the end results, rather than written with detailed specifications on how to accomplish the job. Under adaptive management, the proposed action is a set of specific initial actions that are chosen as the starting point believed to best meet or move toward desired conditions in rangeland health, vegetation composition and abundance, and watershed conditions relative to livestock grazing within the landscape, and is designed to meet Forest Plan standards and guidelines. This initial course of proposed action is described below: The proposed action would reissue eight grazing permits on the following active allotments:, Deer Park, Elk Creek, Engine Creek/Deer Creek Eureka/California Gulch, Gladstone, Maggie Gulch, Picayne/Mineral Point, and Red Mountain. Four vacant allotments would be closed to grazing; Little Molas/West Needles, Minnie Gulch, Needles Mountains, and West Lime. Two vacant allotments would be designated as forage reserves: Flume and Graysill. Incorporate Design Criteria as described below. Design Criteria for Alternative 3 Design Criteria Those design criteria as indicated in Tables 2-1 and 2-2 (p.29+) by an “x” in the Alternative 3 column are included as part of Alternative 3. These criteria apply to all active allotments across the landscape at all times. Site-Specific Design Criteria for Alternative 3 The design criteria above are applicable to the entire project area. During 2008 field analysis, some specific locations were identified as having a “need for change”. These sites were determined to have a need for change if they do not currently meet the Desired Condition. See Figure 2-1. Deer Park Allot • Grazing rotations will be designed to minimize conflict with recreation use to the extent possible in the following areas: Spencer Basin and Highland Mary Lakes, especially during high traffic times, holiday weekends, wildflower season etc. (S-S.1) • Reduce the time spent on the west side of the Highland Mary Lakes Basin – in order to do so, make up more days on other areas of the allotment like Spencer Basin, Kendall Gulch, Deer Park, and the area on the east side of the Highland Mary lakes. ( S-S.2) • Move the allotment boundary with Elk Creek Allotment to the top of the basin east of Highland Mary lakes so that the Deer Park band can use the east side of the lakes basin. (S-S.3) • No bedding within ¼ mile of the lakes (S-S.4) After 2-3 grazing seasons, re-visit the bed grounds. If still not in satisfactory condition: • Change ingress/egress route to Kendall Gulch, improving rotation scheme. (S-S.5) • And/or change the class of livestock to yearlings. (S-S.6) After 2-3 more grazing seasons, re-visit the bed grounds, If still not in satisfactory condition: • Remove the Highland Mary Lakes basin from grazing and reduce the total grazing season by appropriate number of days. (S-S.7) 39
Elk Creek Allot • Do not use the Continental Divide Trail #813 as a driveway (except with ingress/egress to the Cunningham Corrals) and minimize the number of times sheep cross the trail. Keep sheep away from the trail as much as possible. (S-S.8) Engine Creek/Deer Creek • The boundary of the Engine Creek/Deer Creek Allotment would be altered to eliminate all area southwest of Highway 550 (except for ingress/egress to the Lime Creek corrals), and to eliminate the area around Coal Bank Pass. Area would be added on the northeast side to allow use of corrals on BLM land north of the highway near Molas Lake. See new allotment configurations in Figure 3-1 (addresses bighorn issues). (S-S.9) • No bedding within ¼ mile of Little Molas Campground. (S-S.10) • Do not use the Colorado Trail #555 as a driveway and minimize the number of times sheep cross the trail. Keep sheep away from the trail as much as possible. (S-S.11) Eureka Allot. • Grazing rotations will be designed to minimize conflict with recreation use and cultural resources, to the extent possible, in the Animas Forks townsite, especially during high traffic times, holiday weekends, wildflower season etc. This will be accomplished by trailing around the townsite and avoiding high-traffic times of day. (S-S.12) Gladstone Allot • Do not use the area south of Ohio Gulch on the west side of Cement Creek, and south of Hancock gulch on the east side of Cement Creek (addresses mineralized soils issue). (S-S.13) • Limit the number of days in Prospect Gulch (addresses mineralized soils issue). (S-S.14) Maggie Allot • Avoid salting, bedding and intentional grazing of sheep within the Uncompahgre fritillary butterfly habitat polygon in the allotment. Trailing through the polygon will be permitted under controlled circumstances only and must be approved in advance by the authorized officer. (S- S.15) Picayne/Mineral Point • Grazing rotations will be designed to minimize conflict with recreation use and cultural resources, to the extent possible, in the Animas Forks townsite, especially during high traffic times, holiday weekends, wildflower season etc. This will be accomplished by trailing around the townsite and avoiding high-traffic times of day. (S-S.16) Red Mt Allot • Do not use the area south of Ohio Peak (addresses mineralized soils issue). This could be included as permit instructions or by eliminating this portion from allotment by re-drawing the boundary. (S-S.17) A further list of potential actions is listed in Table 2-4 (p.43). These actions could be incorporated at any time in the future to supplement those identified as design criteria, or to accelerate the rate at which existing conditions are moving toward the desired conditions. This list is not all-inclusive. 40
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: Alternative 2 - Current Management_
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 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138:
Page 139 and 140:
Silverton Grazing Risk Assessment M
Page 141 and 142:
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:
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?