NEPA--Environmental Assessment

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Further Analysis Federal agencies are required by <strong>NEPA</strong> to rigorously explore and objectively evaluate all reasonable alternatives and to briefly discuss the reasons for eliminating any alternatives that were not developed in detail (40 CFR 1502.14). Public comments received in response to the Proposed Action did not suggest any entire new alternatives, but several suggestions were provided. Some of these suggestions were outside the scope of the decision space for this project or already decided by a higher-level decision. These included suggestions for such things as grazing fee increases, comments regarding elk population management, and concerns with recreation management. Because these kinds of issues are beyond the scope of the decision space for this project, an alternative was not crafted to address them. Many ideas were provided regarding what should be included as part of this analysis, such as analyses of recreational impacts, watershed conditions, impacts to wildlife, monitoring plans, and description of vegetative conditions. These kinds of items have been included in this document; there was no need to craft an additional alternative to include them. Other suggestions were already included in one or more of the alternatives considered in detail. These included: suggestions to close grazing on the landscape or part of the landscape, with specific areas to be closed often suggested (included in Alternative 1, No Action); and to leave vacant areas vacant instead of closing them (included in Alternative 2). Other suggestions were considered, but not included in any alternative for the reasons stated: • Remove grazing from the Silverton Ski Area basin. The Silverton Ski Area FEIS included acknowledgement that grazing was existing prior to the ski area permit, and will continue after the issuance of the permit (USDI 2004). • Prohibit grazing within a prescribed distance from the Colorado Trail and Continental Divide Trail. This suggestion would be impractical to implement on the ground. While permittees are encouraged to avoid the major recreation trails, it is not possible to manage sheep grazing to such a level of precision. There are also cases where a trail follows the only logical route of ingress or egress, which is due to the fact that many trails were originally livestock driveways before they were used by recreationists. • Consider management direction that is currently still in draft stages (e.g. draft Forest Plan and draft Silverton Recreation Area Management Plan): while draft documents and guidance should be considered, it cannot be adopted into this decision, as that would be considered predecisional. We considered the possibility of moving domestic sheep bands from currently active allotments where the perceived risk of contact with bighorn sheep is high to other currently vacant allotments where the perceived risk of contact with bighorns is low. Below is a brief discussion of the possible other allotments considered but eliminated, and the reasons for their elimination. • Graysill and Flume allotments (FS, vacant allotments): these allotments have been vacant since 1989. They have been successfully used as a forage reserve as recently as 2002 with no adverse impacts to vegetation and soils. There are few if any conflicts with recreation. There is a small area of overlap with mapped summer range of the S71 West Needles bighorn sheep herd in the extreme south end of the Flume Allotment. Due to difficult access, potential conflicts with a summer home group, and generally steep slopes with potentially sensitive soil types, we recommend these allotments be placed into forage reserve status. When active however, all of the project design criteria and adaptive management practices for active allotments should be applied to these allotments, when used. We anticipate these allotments may be used once per 15 47
years in an emergency situation, such as the Missionary Ridge fire of 2002. Restocking with a full band of domestic sheep annually is likely to create new adverse impacts to soils and vegetation. • Little Molas-West Needles (BLM & FS, vacant allotment): this allotment has been in non-use for many years and became officially vacant in 2007. We recommend the closing of this allotment for its close proximity and large area of overlap with mapped summer range and summer concentration areas with the S71 West Needles bighorn sheep herd. Almost the entire allotment overlaps with mapped bighorn sheep summer range. The areas of this allotment that did not overlap with mapped bighorn summer range were previously incorporated into the currently active Engine Creek/Deer Creek allotment. If this allotment were to be restocked with domestic sheep, potential for contact with bighorn sheep appears to be high. • West Lime (FS, vacant allotment): The West Lime allotment has been in non-use for many years and became officially vacant in 2007. While this allotment has sufficient capacity and is in good ecological condition, bighorn rams have recently expanded into western portions of this allotment during summer, overlapping with the domestic sheep grazing season. High recreation activity in the entire South Mineral Creek drainage makes domestic sheep ingress and egress to this allotment difficult and highly contentious. Several modifications to the boundaries of this allotment were proposed to remove areas of potential bighorn sheep overlap and avoid high use recreation areas. However, all reasonable options for boundary adjustments left insufficient capacity remaining to sustain a band of domestic sheep for a viable grazing season without creating adverse impacts to soils and vegetation, and likely conflicts with popular recreation use areas. • Minnie Gulch (BLM, vacant allotment): The Minnie Gulch allotment is believed to have been vacant since 1983, although incidental use has occurred occasionally. This allotment is managed in conjunction with the Cottonwood allotment administered by the Gunnison Ranger District of the Gunnison National Forest. Almost the entire allotment overlaps with mapped bighorn sheep summer range. If this allotment were to be restocked with domestic sheep, potential for contact with bighorn sheep appears to be high. We recommend the closing of this allotment for its close proximity and large area of overlap with mapped summer range of the Pole Mountain/Upper Lake Fork bighorn sheep herd (S33). • Needles Mountains (FS, vacant allotment): No records are available for this area while it was an active allotment. Very little suitable domestic sheep range exists in the allotment due to generally steep and rugged mountainous terrain. In addition, there are very limited access routes into the allotment. There is a large area of overlap with mapped summer range, summer concentration, and winter range areas with the S71 West Needles bighorn sheep herd. If this allotment were to be restocked with domestic sheep, potential for contact with bighorn sheep appears to be high. For this reason, we recommend closing this allotment. • Pine River Allotment (FS, vacant allotment): This is a large vacant allotment that includes much of the headwaters of the Pine River in the central Weminuche Wilderness. There is substantial summer recreation in the Granite Lake, Snowslide Canyon, Rincon La Vaca, and Rincon La Osa portions of this allotment, and the Continental Divide Trail parallels the boundary of this allotment for a number of miles. This allotment has been vacant since the early 1980’s. There is substantial overlap between the Pine River Allotment and mapped summer range of the S16 Cimmarona/Hossick bighorn sheep herd, including all of Snowslide Canyon. Mapped bighorn summer range for S16 extends from the headwaters of the Piedra River drainage west to the Pine River at the mouth of Rincon La Osa, making domestic sheep access to or from the Pine 48
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: • Photographs and Photo-points: P
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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?