NEPA--Environmental Assessment

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Human disturbance as a result of increased vehicle and OHV use in the Silverton Landscape also has potential to impact lynx movement and habitat capability. It is possible that late springtime motorized use of roads and trails through denning and winter foraging habitat may have negative effects if lynx are forced to move kittens because of associated human disturbance (Ruggiero et al. 2000). Increased human recreation resulting in more human encounters has potential to increase lynx mortality. Numbers of motorized users on roads and trails in the landscape is expected to continue to increase for the foreseeable future, likely resulting in improvements and expansion of facilities for motorized users. The cumulative effect of increased motorized users and infrastructure development on habitat capability for listed species is unknown. Wildlife – Sensitive Species ________________________ Forest Service Manual (FSM) 2670 requires reviews of all Forest Service planned, funded, executed or permitted programs and activities for possible effects to Forest Service designated sensitive fish and wildlife species. The process used to evaluate the effects agency activities and programs may have on designated sensitive species is in accordance with the standards established in 50 CFR 402.12, and Forest Service Manual Direction (FSM 2671.2 and FSM 2672.4). U.S. Forest Service (USFS) Region 2 sensitive species are designated by the Regional Forester of the Rocky Mountain Region. BLM policy designates sensitive species to ensure these species receive full consideration in the <strong>NEPA</strong> process (BLM 6840 Manual Direction, Release 6-121). BLM sensitive species are designated by the Colorado State Director. A Biological Evaluation (BE) was conducted to analyze the impacts of alternatives to designated sensitive species following agency direction (Schultz 2009b). Table C-2 (Appendix C) lists the species designated as Sensitive by the BLM in the state of Colorado (USDI Bureau of Land Management 2000) and by the USFS Rocky Mountain Regional Forester (USDA Forest Service 2009) that are known to occur, may occur, or have habitat on BLM or NFS lands managed by the San Juan Public Lands Center. Table C-2 also provides a summary of how the proposed action might affect each species and their key habitat components, and affect/impact determinations for each species. Specific project affects or impacts are discussed in more detail for those species with habitat present in the Silverton Landscape and that are likely to be affected (positively or negatively) by the action alternatives. Details of the analysis leading to the summary can be found in the project record. Two species, yellow-billed cuckoo and New Mexico meadow jumping mouse, are also candidates for listing under the federal Endangered Species Act. Information on the habitat requirements, status, distribution, abundance and key habitat components of BLM and USFS designated Sensitive Species is on file at the Columbine Public Lands office in Bayfield, Colorado and will not be reviewed here. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT There are 45 species identified as sensitive on either the USFS Region 2 or BLM Colorado Sensitive Species lists. Of these, 42 species are not present in the Silverton Landscape due to the absence of suitable habitat, or, suitable habitat is present in the landscape, but domestic sheep grazing does not appear to be affecting the species or its key habitat components. Table C-2 provides rationale for why some sensitive species were brought forward for detailed project analysis and other species were not. A total of three species have habitat present in the Silverton Landscape and may be affected by domestic sheep grazing. The three species brought forward for detailed analysis for this domestic sheep grazing project include: white-tailed ptarmigan, North American wolverine, and Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep. Bighorn sheep are discussed in greater detail in this document than 73
the other two species due to the concern regarding possible disease transmission between domestic sheep and bighorn sheep. Existing habitat for sensitive species was determined by the use of computer modeling using vegetative information described in Forest-wide MIS <strong>Assessment</strong>s on National Forest System lands. Habitat modeling was conducted using habitat structural stage matrices described by Towry (1984). In addition, information on species’ distribution, professional judgment of FS wildlife biologists, coordination with Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW) biologists, coordination with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and field reconnaissance of the project area was also used. Bighorn Distribution Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep were historically distributed across the mountainous portions of Colorado and much of the San Juan Public Lands (Beecham et al. 2007). Desert bighorn sheep are not known or thought likely to occur in the Silverton Landscape. The Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep is designated a sensitive species in the U.S. Forest Service Rocky Mountain Region. This designation is based primarily on potential threats to the long-term viability of bighorn sheep populations in the Rocky Mountain Region, including diseases transmitted from domestic sheep, lack of connectivity and/or loss of genetic variability (fitness) due to habitat fragmentation, habitat loss, increased human disturbance on summer and winter grounds, competition for forage with domestic livestock, and predation on small isolated herds. Scientific observation and field studies demonstrate that contact between domestic sheep and bighorn sheep is possible under range conditions. This contact increases risk of subsequent bighorn sheep mortality and reduced recruitment, primarily due to respiratory diseases (WAFWA 2007). The complete range of mechanisms and/or causal agents that lead to disease events in bighorn sheep cannot be conclusively proven at this time and not all bighorn sheep disease events can be attributed to contact with domestic sheep (Onderka and Wishart 1984, Aune et al. 1998). However, when contact between wild sheep and domestic sheep and goats has been documented, the severity of the wild sheep die-off is typically more pronounced (Aune et al. 1998, Martin et al. 1996). For these reasons, it is prudent to implement management actions designed to reduce or eliminate the potential for contact between wild sheep and domestic sheep. The Silverton Landscape intersects the mapped range of two bighorn sheep herds, S71 the Animas Canyon Herd, and S33 the Pole Mountain/Upper Lake Fork Herd. There is about 41,430 acres of mapped overlap between these two herds and domestic livestock allotments in the landscape. However, it is equally apparent that most domestic sheep grazing and trailing activities in the Silverton Landscape occurs outside of currently mapped bighorn sheep summer range. Concern for contact between domestic sheep and bighorn sheep outside of mapped summer range is low because domestic sheep are present in the landscape only for about a two month period during summer, and bighorn occurrence outside of mapped summer range is irregular and unpredictable. The 2007 estimated population size of the Pole Mountain/Upper Lake Fork Herd was about 90 animals (George et al. 2008). Although not well documented, evidence from the Colorado Division of Wildlife (Diamond 2005) suggests that the S33 Pole Mountain/Upper Lake Fork Herd experienced a significant and widespread die-off in the late 1980’s. No specific disease monitoring has occurred in S33, nor have these sheep ever been treated with fenbendazole, an inoculant against respiratory disease. Based on the high level of recruitment observed in S33, it appears that this bighorn sheep herd is not experiencing any additive mortality from predation. Habitat quality in the unit is excellent (Beecham et al. 2007). Monitoring by the Colorado Division of Wildlife, along with recent (2009) sighting reports indicate this herd is in an expansion phase (Wait pers. comm.). CDOW believes it is likely that individual 74
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 and 74: Alternative 2 Habitat conditions fo
Page 75: intensity on alpine plants appeared
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:
Silverton Grazing Risk Assessment T
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:
Silverton Grazing Risk Assessment T
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?