NEPA--Environmental Assessment

More documents

Recommendations

Info

natural barrier to bighorn sheep movement. There have been no recent sightings of bighorn sheep in the mapped overlap area. This allotment has been vacant since 1989. Under Alternative 2, if the Flume Allotment were to be restocked, the lack of suitable habitat for domestic sheep or bighorn sheep in or near the zone of overlap, and the distance from the Animas River canyon (about 3.5 miles) results in a rating of “Low Risk” for contact. Under Alternative 3, the Flume Allotment would be managed as a forage reserve allotment and grazed by domestic sheep on an irregular basis. Project design criteria would be applied to the allotment when it was active, and the habitat conditions described above would result in a “Low Risk” for contact. Most of the vacant BLM Minnie Gulch Allotment is mapped as overlap with the S33 Pole Mountain/Upper Lake Fork bighorn sheep herd. There is about 2,536 acres of overlap in the allotment but only about 319 acres (13%) is suitable domestic sheep grazing range. Formal surveys conducted in the allotment have failed to detect bighorn sheep but the CDOW continues to receive reports of bighorn sheep in the gulch during summer. It is thought likely that bighorn sheep reported in the gulch may be coming from the nearby Crown Mountain or Pole Creek Mountain subpopulations. This grazing allotment has been vacant since 1983. Under Alternative 2, if the allotment were to be restocked, the substantial area of overlap between mapped bighorn sheep summer range, regular reports of bighorn occurrence in the overlap areas, and close proximity to known bighorn use 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 active BLM Gladstone Allotment there is a small area in the southern end of the allotment that overlaps with mapped summer range for the S71 West Needles bighorn sheep herd. Under current management, there is about 320 acres of overlap, with only about 11 acres (3%) being suitable domestic sheep grazing range. This area of mapped overlap is well removed from areas actually used by domestic sheep. The area of overlap is immediately adjacent to the town of Silverton. The area bighorns would have to pass through, and much of the overlap area itself, 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. Under Alternative 2, the permittee does not use the south end of the allotment where the zone of overlap occurs due to dense forest cover and lack of forage. For this reason, the rating for this area is “Low Risk” for contact. Under Alternative 3, the allotment would be closed to domestic sheep grazing in the south end of the allotment resulting in a “Low Risk” for contact. Most of the active BLM Picayne/Mineral Point Allotment is mapped as overlap with the S33 Pole Mountain/Upper Lake Fork bighorn sheep herd. There is about 2,158 acres of mapped overlap in this allotment. Within this area, about 378 acres (18%) is suitable domestic sheep grazing range. Extensive surveys for bighorn sheep have been conducted in the area of overlap over the past four summer seasons and no bighorn sheep have been detected or reported by the domestic sheep permittee. Immediately across the Animas River canyon however, surveys have regularly detected small bands of bighorn sheep using Grouse and Burns Gulches. The bighorn use areas are within ¼ mile of a route permitted for domestic sheep trailing into and out of the allotment under Alternative 2. The allotment is heavily used by the public for motorized recreation with an extensive network of heavily traveled 4x4 roads and no bighorn sheep have been reported in the area of overlap. Although much of the allotment is steep, there is little rocky terrain or other structures preferred by bighorn sheep as escape cover. Under Alternative 2, the close proximity (about 1 mile) of domestic sheep and bighorn sheep in the Grouse and Burns Gulch areas results in a rating of “High Risk” for contact in the Picayne/Mineral Point Allotment. Under Alternative 3, the application of project design criteria, use of the adjusted 77
trailing route, and lack of bighorn sheep sightings in the allotment combine for a rating of “Moderate Risk” for contact. In the active BLM Eureka Allotment there is only about 183 acres of overlap with mapped summer range for the S33 Pole Mountain/Upper Lake Fork bighorn sheep herd. Within this area, only about 43 acres (23%) is suitable domestic sheep grazing range. Surveys for bighorn sheep have been conducted over the past four summer seasons and no bighorn sheep have been detected or reported by the domestic sheep permittee. The area is also heavily used by the public for motorized recreation with an extensive network of heavily traveled 4x4 roads and no bighorn sheep have been reported in the area of overlap. The area of mapped overlap provides little suitable domestic sheep grazing opportunities and is well removed from the portions of the allotment that are used by domestic sheep. Portions of Burns Gulch where bighorn sheep have been detected are about 2.0 miles to the northeast of the mapped overlap area. Crown Mountain and Niagara Peak, known summer areas for bighorn sheep, are about 3.0 miles east of the allotment, and the Eureka corrals where the domestic sheep are unloaded and loaded each season are about 1.5 miles from west of Crown Mountain and only about ¼ mile outside bighorn mapped summer range. Under Alternative 2, the close proximity of the Eureka corrals and sheep driveway to bighorn use areas (about 1.5 miles), and the proximity of the mapped overlap area to known bighorn use areas (about 2.0 miles) combine for a rating of “High Risk” for contact in the Eureka Allotment. Under Alternative 3, the application of project design criteria, lack of bighorn sheep sightings in the overlap area, and lack of preferred bighorn habitat in the allotment combine for a rating of “Moderate Risk” for contact. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES Alternative 1 –No Action Alternative 1, the No Action Alternative, would be wholly beneficial for all designated sensitive species because domestic sheep grazing would not be re-authorized in the Silverton Landscape. There would be no impact on habitats used by sensitive species or impacts to individual animals from selecting Alternative 1. There would be no potential impacts from sheep grazing activities to key habitat components for sensitive species. Selection of Alternative 1 has the potential to provide direct benefits to sensitive species but the degree of benefit for most sensitive species would probably be small in any given year and limited in scale on the landscape. Benefits to sensitive species from selecting Alternative 1 would probably be long term (> 10 years). Benefits to designated sensitive species from selecting Alternative 1 would be most pronounced for Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep in the S33 Pole Mountain/Upper Lake Fork, and S71 West Needles herds by removing areas of currently mapped overlap with active domestic sheep grazing allotments, thereby eliminating the possibility of disease transmission between the two species. Selecting Alternative 1 would also benefit bighorn sheep by removing the possibility of forage competition between bighorns and domestic sheep. The benefits of selecting Alternative 1 would be long term (> 10 years) and cover extensive areas of currently mapped bighorn sheep summer ranges (about 41,430 acres). Benefits would also come from gradual, long term improvements in the condition of moist alpine areas adjacent to riparian zones or wet meadows. These potential improvements however would be limited to a few localized areas where current domestic sheep utilization levels are high and impacts to soil and vegetation have historically occurred or are continuing to occur. Benefits to white-tailed ptarmigan would be primarily in improved condition of fall/early winter foraging and hiding cover in alpine basins, but these improvements would likely be limited in scope because upland willow stands where browsing impacts were observed were localized and not widespread. In addition, it was difficult to determine with certainty whether the browsing observed 78
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 and 78: the other two species due to the co
Page 79: lack bighorn sheep escape cover. Th
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?