NEPA--Environmental Assessment

More documents

Recommendations

Info

and BLM lands met the desired conditions. Therefore in total, of the 28 vegetation condition samples conducted during the 2008 field season, 26 met the project’s desired conditions and two did not meet the project’s desired conditions. Compared to Alternative 2, the application of adaptive management strategies and project design criteria under Alternative 3 should result in more rapid improvements in habitat conditions in some localized areas where sheep grazing impacts are currently occurring because adaptive management strategies would not be fully applied under Alternative 2. Although more rapid improvement in habitat conditions for listed species is expected under Alternative 3 than under Alternative 2, improvements in habitat conditions as a result of the adaptive management approach are likely to be too small to affect populations or the total amount of habitat available in the Silverton Landscape. Domestic sheep grazing does not appear to be having measurable direct or indirect effects to Canada lynx habitat in closed canopy spruce-fir and cool-moist mixed conifer forests in the Silverton Landscape. In general, sheep spend little time in these areas because of the lack of forage under closed canopy conifer forests. The few areas of noticeable sheep grazing impacts in closed canopy spruce-fir forests were found to be small in scale and limited in scope where sheep rested near the edges of parks or alpine zones. For this reason, domestic sheep grazing under Alternative 3 and Alternative 2 is not likely to substantially adversely impact habitat structure for lynx primary prey, such as younger age class conifers used by snowshoe hare in winter, or downed log piles and other woody debris used as hare cover and lynx denning habitat. Most of the willow riparian areas (potential habitat for Canada lynx and southwestern willow flycatcher) across the landscape are currently in upper mid-seral successional stage, or are in an upward trend and therefore are meeting land management plan direction for riparian condition. Little evidence of willow browsing was observed in willow dominated riparian areas at or near timberline. All seven of the riparian monitoring points visited during the 2008 field season met the project’s desired conditions. Sheep readily browse on willows in riparian and wetland areas and some heavy browsing was observed on willows in a few localized areas. However it was difficult to determine with certainty whether the primary cause of this browsing was domestic sheep or elk because both were present in these localized areas. Sheep trailing was also evident in some riparian and willow dominated areas but current plant species composition and distribution are likely similar to conditions found during the reference period. Overall, the effects of sheep grazing and trailing in riparian and wetland areas appears to be small and/or limited to localized areas. For these reasons, selection of Alternative 3 would be generally beneficial to lynx and flycatcher habitat conditions, compared to Alternative 2, but the benefits would probably be small and localized in scale but continue to improve over the long term (10+ years). Under Alternative 3, a “restricted area” polygon has been delineated around the area where Uncompahgre fritillary butterfly might occur. Under this alternative, domestic sheep activities would be restricted to allow only trailing under controlled circumstances through this polygon; no bedding, salting or intentional grazing would be permitted within the polygon to ensure that sheep grazing does not degrade butterfly key habitat attributes. This “restricted area” polygon was designed to have boundaries that could be readily identified on the ground by sheep herders managing the flocks. Monitoring of domestic sheep grazing patterns in and near the “restricted area” polygon in summer 2008 found no evidence that domestic sheep grazing was affecting snow willow abundance, distribution or plant vigor. The minor use of the restriction area polygon by sheep from an adjacent allotment did not appear to be impacting alpine plant abundance or species diversity. Grazing 71
intensity on alpine plants appeared to be well within desired conditions. There was no evidence of recent bedding, salting or sheep trailing in the “restricted area” polygon. For this reason, design criteria applied under Alternative 3 should provide for continued gradual improvement in butterfly habitat conditions over time. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Intensive historic levels of livestock grazing, increasing levels of jeep and OHV traffic on most roads in the landscape, development of private lands within surrounding Federal lands, water diversion, and 100 years of surface and subsurface mining operations have likely contributed to substantial cumulative effects in lynx and flycatcher habitat. Some of the impacts of these past activities have been reduced or mitigated through natural re-vegetation of formerly impacted areas and improvements in water quality as abandoned mines have been reclaimed. Mining was the past human activity that likely had the most extensive and negative impact on lynx and flycatcher habitat conditions through out the Silverton Landscape. The effects of more than 100 years of mining have likely been extensive and heavy on willow distribution and structure in the upper Animas River basin. For example, prior to the advent of mining in the late 1800’s, areas such as the upper main stem of the Animas River between Howardsville and Eureka probably provided extensive willow stands capable of supporting flycatchers. Willow stands are gradually revegetating portions of this area, though the process is slow and few areas yet meet the definition of flycatcher habitat. Many of the small stream headwaters and upper drainage basins were also heavily impacted by mining, mostly in the form of water degradation due to mine waste runoff significantly altering downstream vegetation structure and composition and carrying substantial quantities of toxic metals that can affect wildlife species and habitat capability directly and indirectly (Larison et al. 2000). Today, water quality and downstream vegetation structure have been substantially improved by reclamation activities but remain impaired to varying degrees by mine tailings and acid runoff from draining adits. Many of these point sources of water quality degradation are on privately owned lands, and many are long abandoned mining claims on lands now managed by Federal agencies. Currently, development of private lands within a surrounding matrix of primarily public lands is occurring at an increasing rate and is contributing to increased cumulative effects on wildlife habitat capability and connectivity across the broader Silverton landscape. Most developments are single family homes for use during snow free seasons. Many of these new recreation residences are being built in the spruce-fir and alpine habitat types. In addition to increased human presence and activity in areas formerly removed from human settlement, recreation residences also result in small losses of primary habitat for listed species. The footprint for most of these residences involves the home itself, a small cleared or heavily used area around the home, and an access road of varying length across a steep hillside from an adjacent county road that services the home. Although most use of these homes is during the snow free seasons, some are also used in winter as overnight huts for backcountry skiers and snowmobilers and personal recreation by the owners. The residential development that has recently occurred in the alpine zone does not appear to be affecting domestic sheep grazing practices or patterns on surrounding federal lands but increased human presence in winter has resulted in declines in winter habitat capability for some wildlife species. The rate of development of privately owned parcels in the immediate vicinity of the town of Silverton appears to be stable or increasing over the past five years as the economy of the town continues to gradually expand. The amount and distribution of motorized recreation in winter is expected to continue to gradually expand with corresponding gradual reductions in habitat capability for some wildlife species. Cumulatively, the proposed action may offset some expected impacts from continued increased winter use by gradually improving summer habitat conditions for listed species. 72
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 and 72: Concurrent to this grazing analysis
Page 73: Alternative 2 Habitat conditions fo
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?