NEPA--Environmental Assessment

More documents

Recommendations

Info

River very difficult without passing through mapped bighorn sheep summer range. In addition, the Rincon La Osa portion of the Pine River Allotment is within 1 to 2 air miles of mapped summer range of the S28 Vallecito Creek bighorn sheep herd. Historic livestock ingress/egress to the Pine River Allotment was from the south along the Pine- Piedra Stock Driveway, or along the Pine River Trail from Vallecito Reservoir. Both of these routes pass through the heart of the S28 Vallecito Creek bighorn sheep herd’s summer range and summer concentration area. The Pine River Trail is an extremely popular summer recreation trail and is the main access route for hikers and horseback riders into the central Weminuche Wilderness and the Pine River basin. Re-opening the Pine-Piedra Stock Driveway for use by sheep would require a significant amount of mechanical work, including moving large amounts of downed logs that were placed across the trail as fireline mitigation after the 2002 Missionary Ridge wildfire. To prevent having to trail domestic sheep up the Pine River trail and through the heart of the S28 Vallecito Creek bighorn sheep herd’s summer range and summer concentration area, or up the lengthy Pine Piedra Stock Driveway, it was proposed to access the Pine River Allotment from the north via Rio Grande Reservoir. The proposal was to truck domestic sheep to Rio Grande Reservoir, then trail sheep up the Weminuche Trail, south over Weminuche Pass, and into Rincon La Vaca and Rincon La Osa. Sheep would then be trailed back out via the Pine River Trail, over Weminuche Pass and back down to Rio Grande Reservoir. We were unable to obtain permission from the Rio Grande National Forest to use this access route. This route would take sheep through and very close to mapped summer range for the S16 Cimmarona/Hossick herd. If the Pine River Allotment were to be restocked with domestic sheep, potential for contact with bighorn sheep from the S16 Cimmarona/Hossick herd and the S28 Vallecito Creek herd appears to be high. Moving domestic sheep from a “High Risk” allotment in the Silverton Landscape to the upper Pine River Allotment would be moving sheep to an area of equal or greater risk for contact with bighorn sheep, thereby maintaining the same problem, just moving it to a different location. We recommend not stocking any portion of the Pine River Allotment due to its lengthy wilderness access route, lack of permission for access from Rio Grande Reservoir, substantial overlap with mapped summer range for the S16 Cimmarona/Hossick bighorn sheep herd, and need to trail through mapped summer range of the S28 Vallecito Creek bighorn sheep herd. • Fall Creek, Johnson Creek, Leviathan, Rock Creek, Cave Basin, and Flint Creek (FS, vacant allotments): These six allotments are all outside the Silverton Landscape. They have all been vacant for many years. They were vacated largely due to their location in remote areas of the Weminuche Wilderness with difficult access, and their relatively small size for a sustainable season of grazing. All of these allotments would have a high potential for contact with bighorn sheep, either by overlap with or close proximity to mapped bighorn summer range of the S28 Vallecito Creek bighorn sheep herd, or by overlap or close proximity with their associated stock driveways necessary for ingress/egress of domestic sheep bands. There have been few requests from the domestic sheep industry to use these remote areas. There is a slight possibility that if several of these allotments were combined, a logical grazing unit could be developed and managed effectively. However, the high potential for contact with the S28 bighorn herd would likely remain and would be difficult to mitigate. Moving domestic sheep from the Silverton Landscape to any one or combination of these six allotments would be moving sheep to an area of equal or greater risk for contact with bighorn sheep. For these reasons we recommend these six allotments not be considered for restocking with domestic sheep from active allotments in the Silverton Landscape. 49
Comparison of Alternatives ________________________ This section provides a summary of the effects of implementing each alternative. Information in the table is focused on activities and effects where different levels of effects or outputs can be distinguished quantitatively or qualitatively among alternatives. Issues Water Impacts Vegetation/Soil Impacts Recreation Impacts Wildlife Impacts Socio-Economic Impacts Cultural Resource Impacts Table 2-5. Comparison of Alternatives Based on Significant Issues Indicator for Comparison Acres Open to Grazing with Mineralized Soil Riparian Monitoring Alternative 1 No Grazing Alternative 2 Current Management 0 acres 1441 acres None for grazing purposes Infrequent PFC Alternative 3 Adaptive Management 169 acres PFC at ~5 yr. intervals Design Criteria None No Design Criteria Avoid mineralized soils, Design Criteria to reduce water impacts Acres Open for Grazing (Total in Allotments) Upland Monitoring 0 acres 191,600 acres (active or vacant allots): 8 active, 6 vacant, 1 previously closed None for grazing purposes 99,100 acres (active or vacant allots): 8 active, 2 forage reserve, 4 newly closed. 1 previously closed Infrequent monitoring RHM & LHA at ~5 yr. intervals; Cover Freq. or Rooted-Nested at ~ Design Criteria None 10 yr. intervals Design Criteria to reduce veg impacts Monitoring None for grazing purposes Informal monitoring Establish Photopoints Design Criteria None Avoid Animas Forks Avoid Animas Forks; Avoid CT and CDT; Other Design Criteria to reduce conflicts Design Criteria None None Bighorn Design Criteria (Table 2-2); UFB avoidance area Acres Open to 0 acres 41,400 acres overlap 6,000 acres overlap Grazing in (in active or vacant (in active or vacant Bighorn Range allots) allots) Acres of UFB avoidance area 0 acres 0 acres 70 acres Qualitative Five ranching No change Increased costs of Description families out of grazing business implementation and administration Design Criteria None None Design Criteria to reduce cultural impacts 50
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: years in an emergency situation, su
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?