NEPA--Environmental Assessment

More documents

Recommendations

Info

a more open canopy cover, less species diversity and abundance, and more bare soil. In addition to the species mentioned above, other common species in the turf type include Bistorta bistortoides, Bistorta vivipara, Agoseris aurantiaca, Allium geyeri, Arnica mollis, Carex microptera, Castilleja haydenii, Castilleja occidentalis, Clementsia rhodantha, Deschampsia cespitosa, Dugaldia hoopesii, Elymus glaucus, Elymus trachycaulus, Erigeron coulteri, Erigeron simplex, Festuca brachyphylla ssp. coloradensis, Ligularia amplectens, Micranthes rhomboidea, Oreoxis bakeri, Phleum commutatum, Poa arctica, Polemonium viscosum, Potentilla subjuga, Rydbergia grandiflora, Sibbaldia procumbens, Solidago simplex var. nana, and Trisetum spicatum ssp. congdonii. Small patches or individuals of Salix planifolia and Salix brachycarpa also occur within this type. The abundance and distribution of these species within a particular alpine avens plant community is highly variable dependant on site characteristics as described above and on the degree of historic and current sheep utilization. Sites that have experienced heavy long-term sheep grazing display less diversity of forage species, particularly forbs. Sheep foraging is heavy in the alpine avens type of this project area as many of the common plants in that type are preferred sheep forage species including Agoseris aurantiaca, Allium geyeri, Deschampsia cespitosa, Erigeron coulteri, Erigeron simplex, Ligularia amplectens, Sibbaldia procumbens, Solidago simplex var. nana, and Caltha leptosepala (Johnson 1962, Paulsen 1960, Redders 2008). Alpine avens is not readily used until the fall following a hard frost (Paulsen 1960). Sheep trailing and trampling, which cause soil displacement and sheet erosion in this type are evident in some places, but they are minor in most of this type due to the high density and canopy cover of plants that protect the soils from hoof action. Most sheep trails are likely remnants of those created in the distant past when sheep numbers and grazing intensity were high. Sheep bedgrounds commonly occur in the alpine avens vegetation type which results in sheep spending significant amounts of time there including multiple days in succession, year after year. In some places within this project area, this has resulted in overgrazing and trampling leading to a decrease in the diversity and abundance of forbs, reduced forb vigor, and increased sheet erosion. Riparian areas and wetlands are abundant in the alpine zone of the project area occurring on lowlying sites with poorly to very-poorly-drained soils that classify predominantly as Cryaquolls, Cryaquents, and Cryofibrists (Pannell 2006, Redders personal observation 2008). They display high diversity and high canopy cover of hydrophytic plants and are in mid to late-seral stages (Redders personnel observations, 2007 and 2008). The wetland willow type occurs on streambanks and in adjacent floodplains and includes Salix planifolia/Salix brachycarpa, Salix planifolia/Carex aquatilis, Salix planifolia/Caltha leptosepala, and Salix brachycarpa/Mesic forbs plant communities (Redders 2003). The herbaceous wetland type occurs along stream channels and in adjacent floodplains and includes Caltha leptosepala, Caltha leptosepala/Carex aquatilis, Carex aquatilis, Calamagrostis canadensis, and Cardamine cordifolia/ Mertensia ciliata/Senecio triangularis plant communities (Redders 2003). In addition to the species mentioned above, other common herbaceous species in the general riparian-wetland type include Pedicularis groenlandica, Rhodiola integrifolia, Clementsia rhodantha, Primula parryi, Deschampsia cespitosa, Canada reedgrass, Drummond rush, and water sedge. Eriophorum altaicum, a rare species, is also common in the Caltha leptosepala and Carex aquatilis types. Sheep browsing on both Salix planifolia and Salix brachycarpa is moderate to heavy in some places (ID team observation 2008) and sheep readily forage on Caltha leptosepala and Carex aquatilis (Redders personal observation 2008). The upland willow type found on mountain sideslopes is associated with springs or sites that provide an abundance of moisture throughout the year. It is dominated by Salix planifolia and/or Salix brachycarpa and usually displays high density and canopy cover of willows. Soils classify predominantly as Typic Dystrochrepts, loamy-skeletal (Pannell 2006, Redders personal observation 57
2008). It differs from the wetland willow type by its better-drained soils and its upland landscape position. Sheep readily browse on both of the willows of this type (ID team observation 2008), but Salix planifolia seems to be preferred. Most willow plants and plant communities are vigorous, but some heavy browsing is occurring in some places as reflected in hedged plants. Some sheep trailing is also evident in this vegetation type. Current species composition and distribution in this type are likely similar to conditions found during the reference period. Krummholz, which is an upland type dominated by dwarfed conifers (mostly Picea engelmannii) and herbaceous species, is a transition type that occurs between spruce-fir forests of the subalpine climate zone and the treeless alpine zone. Sheep foraging in this type is relatively minor. Current species composition and distribution in this type are likely similar to conditions found during the reference period. The spruce-fir forest type is an upland type dominated by Engelmann spruce and subalpine fir trees and generally displays high tree densities and closed canopy covers, which limit forage production. Within the project area, this type has been mostly unaffected by sheep grazing. Threatened, Endangered, or Proposed Plant Species There are no plant species federally listed as threatened, endangered, or proposed under the Endangered Species Act known to occur on the San Juan Public Lands or within this Project Area. Sensitive Plant Species There are nineteen R2 Regional Forester’s sensitive species that occur on the Forest Service lands within the San Juan Public Lands and six others that have the potential to occur there; and eight BLM sensitive species that occur on the BLM lands within the San Juan Public Lands and one other that has the potential to occur there. Most of them were removed from further analysis because there are no known occurrences of those species within or near the project area, because it is highly unlikely that they would be in the project area, or because the project area did not contain potential habitat for them. Five sensitive plant species (Eriophorum altaicum var. neogaeum, Parnassia kotzebuei, Machaeranthera coloradoensis, Cryptogramma stelleri, and Carex viridula were evaluated in detail because they are known to occur in this project area, and three others (Eriophorum chamissonis, Eriophorum gracile, and Gilia sedifolia) were evaluated in detail because the project area contains potential habitat for them. Detailed descriptions and analysis of these species can be found in the Biological Evaluation for Plants in the project record. Noxious Weeds Noxious weeds are the invasive or non-native species that are generally considered the worst because of their negative impacts on native ecosystems, and are defined by the State of Colorado (C.R.S. 1990). The most common noxious weeds within the Silverton landscape area are Yellow toadflax and Canada thistle. Since 2002, noxious weed treatment has been concentrated along the main travel corridors, including BLM Roads, some abandoned mining roads and sites, some system trails, and dispersed camping areas. Control of weed populations has been relatively successful in areas where treatment has occurred in the past years. Much of the project area is remote and inaccessible by vehicles. Noxious weeds, especially yellow toadflax are continuing to spread but are largely confined to motorized travel corridors. Biological control insects could be the most efficient way to treat remote areas. The following summaries describe challenges unique to specified grazing allotments within the project area. Engine Creek/Deer Creek Allotment Noxious weeds are not an issue on this allotment. There is some Canada thistle in the Engine Creek and Deer Creek drainages. There is occasionally some musk thistle in the US Hwy 550 right of way. 58
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: from water or bedgrounds (Arnold an
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?