NEPA--Environmental Assessment

More documents

Recommendations

Info

motorized opportunities and include: Colorado Trail (#507), Deer Creek Trail (#678), Coal Creek Trail (#677), Pass Creek Trail (#500), Engineer Mtn Trail (#508), and Cascade Creek Trail (#510). The use on the Pass Creek, Cascade and Colorado Trails is high with the remaining trails seeing moderate amounts of use. Backcountry skiing, snowshoeing and hybrid snowmobile/skiing occur during winter months in portions of this allotment. The travel management designations are “A”, where no motorized travel can occur at any time of the year, and “B” where snowmobiles during the winter can travel. Recreation Special Use Permits for outfitters and guides include educational backpacking groups, guided hunting, horseback rides, and bicycle tours. Special events include endurance foot, bicycle and uphill ski races. Within the Flume and Graysill Allotments, recreational uses include driving for pleasure, hiking, backpacking, horseback riding, bicycling, dispersed camping, hunting and historic site viewing. Cascade Divide Road (#579) and the upper two miles of Hermosa Park Road (#508) offer two scenic roads for motorized travel. Forest Road 508 goes over Bolam Pass to U.S. Hwy. 145, passing by the Graysill Mine and provides access to the Colorado Trail (#507). Use is heavy in the summer season (June - October). In the winter season (November - April) this area is used by snowmobilers and backcountry skiers and use is moderate. Recreation Special Use Permits for outfitters and guides include educational backpacking groups, guided hunting, jeep and bicycle tours, and snow cat skiing in the winter. Special events include endurance foot, bicycle and cross-country ski races. Roadless Areas The project area includes approximately 72,000 acres of inventoried roadless areas. These areas were inventoried for suitability of roadless characteristics in 2000, as part of the President’s Roadless Initiative (36 CFR 294). The inventory was updated in 2009 as part of the Colorado Roadless Rulemaking process, resulting in 54,000 acres of inventoried roadless areas (Figure 1-7). The reduction in acres is due primarily to removal of wilderness acres in the tally. These areas may contain some primitive old roads that are not maintained as part of the Forest Service classified system of roads. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES Alternative 1 –No Action Recreation impacts from the removal of sheep grazing in this landscape would eliminate the conflict that exists between recreationists and livestock grazing operations. There would be no sheep on system trails, no conflicts with guard dogs, no continued trailing and bedding and no sheep at popular lakes. The vegetation loss and soil compaction from trailing and bedding would restore itself over time, or at least be given the opportunity to heal. The wildflowers would remain for viewing throughout the growing season. Those people who feel that a “primitive” or “pristine” experience in the backcountry or wilderness should not include sheep would have an improved experience. The removal of livestock grazing would not affect the suitability of inventoried roadless areas or Wilderness Study Areas. Some visitors who enjoy and appreciate the “old west” experience and cultural history of livestock grazing would miss the presence of sheep and sheepherders. Alternative 2 Under this action alternative, the level of impacts on recreation in the project area would continue as they currently exist and would increase as the numbers of recreationists increase. For some visitors, the presence of sheep, the visible signs of grazing (trailing, tramping of vegetation and wildflowers), along with the noise, and negative sheep dog encounters are undesirable. Continuation of current 65
livestock management would not change impacts to recreationists. Currently sheep herders keep the sheep away from the historic mining town of Animas Forks and do not bed sheep near lake shores helping to mitigate sheep and recreation users from mixing at busy recreation sites. Wilderness impacts to vegetation from trailing and bedding (loss of vegetation and soil compaction) would continue to occur in “pristine” management areas of the Weminuche Wilderness. The system trails, especially the Continental Divide Trail, would continue being used and crossed by sheep. As a result, damage to the trail tread and trail widening would continue. Non-system trails would continue to be used within 1.1-pristine management areas where Wilderness Direction states that none shall exist. The solitude experience sought by many wilderness users may be impacted if during their trip, they encounter or camp within sound of a band of sheep. The ingress and egress of the sheep would occur in the same locations, which can cause recreation user impacts at the Cunningham corrals. Conflicts that occur with recreational users within this analysis area would continue to occur. Roadless Areas There would be no impacts to roadless areas under either action alternative, nor would livestock grazing affect the suitability of inventoried roadless areas or Wilderness Study Areas. There are no actions proposed for any livestock grazing purposes that would be prohibited by roadless area protection. Alternative 3 The impacts to recreation from Alternative 3 would help to alleviate some of the recreation/livestock issues. Allotment-specific design criteria would reduce recreational impacts compared to Alternative 2: Deer Park Allotment • By reducing the time spent on the west side of the Highland Mary Lakes basin, not allowing bedding within ¼ mile of the lakes in this allotment, and changing the allotment boundary to move the sheep into different areas, the impacts to the vegetation and the recreationists should be reduced. • Additional changes that might occur after 2-3 grazing seasons would change the ingress/egress route to Kendall Gulch, and/or change the class of livestock to yearlings; this would reduce the amount of time a user would encounter sheep and leave less sign (trampling of vegetation and wildflower loss) after the sheep pass through the wilderness, helping to improve the experience desired by some users. • Additional changes that might occur after another 2-3 grazing would remove the Highland Mary lakes basin from grazing and reduce the total grazing season; these changes would greatly reduce the recreation/livestock impacts discussed in Alternative 2. This high-use lake basin would have no livestock and no direct recreation/livestock encounters or impacts. • Through applying different grazing rotations in Spencer Basin and Highland Mary Lakes during high use times, improvements to the recreationist from grazing impacts would improve. Elk Creek Allotment • By minimizing the use of the Continental Divide trail by sheep, the impacts to the trail would improve, or not worsen, and future tread and drainage work on the trail would be more effective to maintaining the trail to standard. Engine Creek/Deer Creek 66
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: Recreation Special Use Permits for
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?