NEPA--Environmental Assessment

More documents

Recommendations

Info

ighorns from S33 may pioneer into historic range as the population increases. If so, dispersal and range expansion may result in bighorns filling vacant habitat and occupying areas where they have not been documented in recent years, potentially placing S33 at an increased risk for contact with domestic sheep in nearby active allotments. S33 is recognized by the CDOW as comprising one large meta-population with S21, the Ouray-Cow Creek Herd, to the north and west. Together, this meta-population is estimated to be over 200 animals in size. The recently adopted Colorado Bighorn Sheep Management Plan (George et al. 2008) designates S33 as a primary (“Tier 1”) population and ranked as a high priority for conservation at a statewide level. This designation places S33 and S21 in the top priority for inventory, habitat protection and improvement, disease prevention, and research. There is no direct overlap between domestic sheep allotments in the Silverton Landscape and mapped summer range for the S21 Ouray/Cow Creek herd. Under current management, the S33 bighorn herd overlaps with 3 active or vacant domestic sheep allotments: Picayne/Mineral Point (active), Eureka (active), and Minnie Gulch (vacant). All sheep grazing allotments that overlap with S33 summer range are BLM allotments. No FS grazing allotments in the Silverton Landscape overlap with S33 bighorn summer range. Together, there is about 4,877 acres of overlap between these allotments and mapped summer range of the S33 herd. Within this area of overlap, about 821 acres (17%) are suitable for domestic sheep grazing. The S71 West Needles Herd was established with animals translocated from the Georgetown Herd in 2000, and 2002-2003. The 2007 estimated population size of the Animas Canyon herd was 75 animals (George et al. 2008), and reproduction and survival have been good (Beecham et al. 2007). Sheep use the entire Animas River canyon from Rockwood up to Needle Creek, with primary summer range being the West Needle Mountains, and primary winter and lambing range being the Animas River canyon from Rockwood up to the Cascade Wye. Immediately after release, two bighorns dispersed into the S21 Ouray-Cow Creek herd. Based on ear tag observations, several sheep dispersed into the S33 Pole Mountain/Upper Lake Fork herd. Six or seven sheep moved into the Hermosa Cliffs area where they have remained and have produced lambs every year. S71 is considered a translocated herd by CDOW and therefore is lower priority for conservation at a statewide level (George et al. 2008). As a translocated population, CDOW recognizes the existence of pre-existing domestic sheep grazing to the north, east, and west of S71, and does not advocate closure of active domestic sheep allotments on public land based solely on the potential for interaction between domestic and bighorn sheep (Colorado Division of Wildlife 2009). Under current management, the S71 bighorn herd overlaps with 6 active or vacant domestic sheep allotments. Of these, 5 are FS allotments: West Lime (vacant), Little Molas/West needles (vacant), Needles Mountains (vacant), Flume (vacant), and Deer Creek/Engine Creek (active). One active BLM grazing allotment, Gladstone, overlaps with mapped summer range for S71. Together, there is about 36,554 acres of overlap between these 6 allotments and mapped summer range of the S71 herd. Within this area of overlap, about 9,464 acres (26%) is suitable for domestic sheep grazing. A wildlife review was conducted to analyze the potential impacts to native Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep of grazing domestic sheep under each of the project alternatives. Details of the analysis leading to the summary described below can be found in the project record (Schultz 2009b). This analysis found overlap between mapped ranges for wild bighorn sheep and eight domestic sheep grazing allotments in the Silverton Landscape. In the active National Forest Engine Creek/Deer Creek Allotment there is a small area of overlap with the mapped summer range of the S71 West Needles bighorn sheep herd. Much of the mapped overlap area is heavily forested and those portions that are part of an old open burn area generally 75
lack bighorn sheep escape cover. The area is also bisected by 2 heavily traveled roads. The mapped overlap area is normally used by domestic sheep for only 1 day as they come on to the allotment, and 1 day when they leave the allotment. Prior to 2009, there was no evidence that the portions of the mapped bighorn summer range that overlap with the Engine Creek/Deer Creek Allotment were regularly used by bighorn sheep. However, in summer 2009 several small groups of bighorn sheep were observed licking salt along the side of U.S. Highway 550 about 1.0 mile west of the Lime Creek corral, and slightly outside the mapped summer range overlap area. This section of highway is closely surrounded on both sides by a broad band of dense mature spruce-fir forest that is consistent with the description in Schommer and Woolever (2001) of a continuous forest that could serve as a natural barrier to bighorn sheep movement. The area has few structures that provide typical bighorn sheep escape cover. This area is also slightly outside the boundary of the allotment, as it would be modified under Alternative 3. Under Alternative 2, the close proximity (about 1 mile) of domestic sheep and bighorn sheep near the Lime Creek corrals in summer 2009 results in a rating of “High Risk” for contact. Under Alternative 3, the application of project design criteria, use of the Lime Creek corrals only once per season, and modification of the boundary of the allotment result in a rating of “Moderate Risk” of contact. In the vacant National Forest Little Molas/West Needles Allotment there is a significant area of mapped overlap (about 7,556 acres) between suitable domestic sheep grazing and the S71 West Needles bighorn sheep herd. The area of overlap is mostly with mapped bighorn summer range but also with a small portion of mapped summer concentration area on the north end of the West Needle Mountains. The mapped summer concentration area is regularly used by bighorn sheep, as are portions of the mapped summer range. Much of the areas of mapped overlap also provide suitable domestic sheep grazing opportunities, although the allotment has been vacant since 1999. Under Alternative 2, if the allotment were to be restocked, the substantial area of overlap between known bighorn sheep use areas and suitable domestic sheep grazing areas results in a rating of “High Risk” for contact. Under Alternative 3, the allotment would be closed to domestic sheep grazing and the rating would be “Low Risk” for contact because domestic sheep would not be permitted in the allotment. In the vacant National Forest Needles Mountains Allotment there is about 11,898 acres of overlap in the allotment with mapped summer range of the S71 West Needles bighorn sheep herd. Within this area, only about 615 acres (5%) is suitable domestic sheep grazing range. The area of overlap is mostly with mapped bighorn summer concentration and winter range in the center of the West Needle Mountains. The mapped summer concentration area is regularly used by bighorn sheep, as is the mapped winter range, even during summer. Much of the area of mapped overlap is very steep and rocky terrain providing few suitable opportunities for domestic sheep grazing. There are no records of any permitted livestock being grazed on this allotment. Under Alternative 2, if the allotment were to be restocked, the substantial area of overlap between known bighorn sheep use areas and suitable domestic sheep grazing areas results in a rating of “High Risk” for contact. Under Alternative 3, the allotment would be closed to domestic sheep grazing and the rating would be “Low Risk” for contact because domestic sheep would not be permitted in the allotment. In the vacant Flume Allotment there is about 653 acres of overlap in the allotment with mapped summer range for the S71 West Needles bighorn sheep herd. Within this area, only about 29 acres (4%) is suitable domestic sheep grazing range. This area of mapped overlap however is heavily forested with few rock outcrops and provides little suitable habitat for bighorn sheep and little suitable forage for domestic sheep. The habitats in this portion of the allotment are consistent with the description in Schommer and Woolever (2001) of a continuous forest that could serve as a 76
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 and 76: intensity on alpine plants appeared
Page 77: the other two species due to the co
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:
Silverton Grazing Risk Assessment a
Page 137 and 138:
Silverton Grazing Risk Assessment a
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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?