NEPA--Environmental Assessment

More documents

Recommendations

Info

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES The Canada lynx, southwestern willow flycatcher, and Uncompahgre fritillary butterfly are the only federally listed species with suitable habitat in the Silverton Landscape. Therefore they were carried forward for additional analysis. Information on the habitat requirements, status, distribution, abundance, threats, and key habitat components of these species is included in the BA and will not be reviewed here. For Canada lynx, there is a total of about 75,100 acres of suitable lynx habitat in the landscape, of which about 18% (15,900 acres) is suitable for livestock grazing under current management. The landscape intersects five Lynx Analysis Units (LAUs), the Animas River Headwaters LAU, Cascade Creek LAU, Hermosa Creek LAU, Needles LAU, and Silverton LAU. The landscape also intersects four mapped lynx linkage areas, Silverton-Lake City, Red Mountain/South Mineral, Molas-Coal Bank, and North La Plata Mountains. For southwestern willow flycatcher, there is a total of about 150 acres of potential flycatcher habitat on Federal lands in the landscape. Of this, a total of about 116 acres is in closed allotments or vacant allotments that are proposed for closing under the proposed action. About 34 acres of potential flycatcher habitat is in three active livestock grazing allotments. Of the 33 acres in active livestock allotments, only 1.3 acres are in areas suitable for domestic sheep grazing. The remaining 32.7 acres are in areas unsuitable for sheep grazing. For Uncompahgre fritillary butterfly, there are no known butterfly colonies in the Silverton Landscape, although snow willow is widely distributed and relatively abundant in the alpine zone across the landscape. The landscape has been extensively surveyed for butterflies over many years and no colonies have been located. There is however, one location in the landscape that appears to have suitable habitat attributes and the potential for butterfly occurrence seems high. This site has been visited but conclusive survey results were not obtained. For this reason, until the site can be conclusively surveyed the site will be presumed to be occupied by butterflies and domestic sheep will be managed accordingly. Alternative 1 –No Action Alternative 1, the No Action Alternative, would be wholly beneficial for all three federally listed species because domestic sheep grazing would not be re-authorized in the Silverton Landscape. There would be no potential impacts from sheep grazing activities to key habitat components for listed species. Selection of Alternative 1 has the potential to provide direct benefits to listed species but the degree of benefit would probably be small in any given year and limited in scale on the landscape. Benefits to listed species from selecting Alternative 1 would probably be long term (> 10 years). Benefits to listed species from selecting Alternative 1 would probably be most pronounced for Canada lynx at or near the spruce-fir forest/alpine interface. Benefits to Uncompahgre fritillary butterfly would probably be less pronounced than for Canada lynx because the one area where butterflies might occur in the landscape shows little sign of impacts from current sheep grazing practices. Field visits to the three active allotments containing potential flycatcher habitat failed to find any habitat patches that meet the US Fish and Wildlife Service minimum flycatcher patch size of 30 feet by 30 feet by average 5 feet in height in areas that are regularly grazed by domestic sheep. Because environmental reasons not related to sheep grazing indicate that potential for flycatcher occupancy is low, improvements in flycatcher habitat capability from selecting Alternative 1 are likely to be gradual, long term and limited to a few localized areas. 69
Alternative 2 Habitat conditions for listed species would be expected to continue to gradually improve under Alternative 2 because there has been a continued decline in the number of domestic sheep grazed in the Silverton Landscape over the past 40 years. Numbers of domestic sheep grazing in the Silverton Landscape have dropped about 51% from a high of about 16,000 animals in the 1960’s to about 8,230 currently. In addition, numbers of sheep grazing on the San Juan National Forest have dropped about 95% from a high of about 216,600 animals in the 1930’s to about 10,800 currently. Selecting Alternative 2 would have both positive and negative effects for listed species. Selecting Alternative 2 would have beneficial effects for listed species because current livestock management practices would maintain current gradual improvement in habitat capability for listed species across much of the landscape, especially when compared to historical livestock management practices. Alternative 2 would also have negative effects for listed species, compared to Alternative 1, because a few localized areas would continue to be affected by sheep grazing activities, such as in some spruce-fir stands near the alpine interface. Selecting Alternative 2 would be generally beneficial for listed species, but less so than selecting Alternative 1 because improvement in habitat conditions would probably occur over a longer time frame than under Alternative 1. In general, habitat conditions are expected to gradually improve in most areas under Alternative 2 but impacts to habitat for listed species would continue in a few localized areas. Alternative 3 Selecting Alternative 3 would be generally beneficial for listed species, although likely considerably less than under Alternative 1 but probably somewhat more beneficial than selecting Alternative 2. The improvements in habitat conditions for listed species expected to occur over time under Alternative 3 are likely to be generally small and limited to a few localized areas where habitat conditions are being affected by sheep grazing activities under current management practices. For example, under Alternative 3 there would be a 31% reduction in the acres of alpine and spruce-fir habitats suitable for domestic sheep grazing (about 27,700 acres), compared to Alternative 2 (about 40,100 acres). Under Alternative 3 only 18% of the lynx habitat in the Silverton Landscape would occur in areas suitable for livestock grazing. Similar to Alternative 2, selecting Alternative 3 would have both positive and negative effects for listed species. Selecting Alternative 3 would have beneficial effects for listed species because application of adaptive management strategies and project design criteria should result in more rapid improvements in habitat conditions in some localized areas where sheep grazing impacts are currently occurring. Also similar to Alternative 2, Alternative 3 would have negative effects for listed species, compared to Alternative 1, because a few localized areas would continue to be affected by sheep grazing activities, such as in some spruce-fir stands near the alpine interface. Selecting Alternative 3 would be generally beneficial for listed species, more so than selecting Alternative 2 but less than selecting Alternative 1 because improvement in habitat conditions would probably occur over a longer time frame than under Alternative 1. In general, habitat conditions are expected to gradually improve in most areas under Alternative 3 but impacts to habitat for listed species would continue in a few localized areas. During the 2008 field season, a total of 28 vegetation monitoring points were sampled across the eight livestock allotments in the Silverton Landscape that would be open to sheep grazing under Alternative 3. Eight of the nine RHM samples met the desired conditions, with one (FS Deer Park Allotment) at risk, but moving towards meeting the desired condition. Eleven of 12 of the LHA samples met desired conditions, with one (Picayne/Mineral Point Allotment) not meeting desired conditions. All seven of the riparian proper functioning condition samples in riparian areas on FS 70
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 and 68: Recreation Special Use Permits for
Page 69 and 70: livestock management would not chan
Page 71: Concurrent to this grazing analysis
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?