NEPA--Environmental Assessment

More documents

Recommendations

Info

on these willows was done by domestic sheep or elk. Benefits to wolverine from selecting Alternative 1 would primarily be in improved conditions for prey species in alpine cirque basins, and reduced disturbance in core wolverine habitat. However, the benefits to wolverine would be less pronounced than for bighorn sheep or ptarmigan, and would be limited to a few localized areas. In comparison to the very large average wolverine home range size, the benefits of selecting Alternative 1 would probably be small. Alternative 2 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 on these willows was done by domestic sheep or elk. Benefits to wolverine from selecting Alternative 1 would primarily be in improved conditions for prey species in alpine cirque basins, and reduced disturbance in core wolverine habitat. However, the benefits to wolverine would be less pronounced than for bighorn sheep or ptarmigan, and would be limited to a few localized areas. In comparison to the very large average wolverine home range size, the benefits of selecting Alternative 1 would probably be small. Alternative 3 Selecting Alternative 3 would be generally beneficial for sensitive species, although less than under Alternative 1, but more so than selecting Alternative 2. The improvements in habitat conditions for sensitive 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 current management practices (Alternative 2) about 31% (40,159 acres) of the total acres of spruce-fir and alpine habitats on Federal lands (130,866 acres) would be suitable for sheep grazing, compared to Alternative 3 where about 21% (26,844 acres) would be suitable for sheep grazing. 79
Similar to Alternative 2, selecting Alternative 3 would have both positive and negative effects for sensitive species. Selecting Alternative 3 would have beneficial effects for sensitive species, compared to Alternative 2, 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 sensitive species, compared to Alternative 1, because a few localized areas would continue to be affected by sheep grazing activities, such as near the alpine/spruce-fir interface, moist alpine areas adjacent to riparian zones or wet meadows, and upland willow stands in alpine basins. Selecting Alternative 3 would be more beneficial for sensitive species than selecting Alternative 2, but would be less beneficial than selecting Alternative 1. This is because improvement in habitat conditions would probably occur over a longer time frame than under Alternative 1, but a shorter time frame than Alternative 2 due to the application of adaptive management strategies and project design criteria. In general, habitat conditions for sensitive species are expected to continue to gradually improve in most areas under Alternative 3, but would continue to be impacted in a few localized areas. 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 bighorn sheep, white-tailed ptarmigan and wolverine 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 for these species in the Silverton Landscape. Selecting Alternative 3 would be much more beneficial for bighorn sheep than selecting Alternative 2, although less so than selecting Alternative 1. Alternative 3 would be less beneficial for bighorn sheep than Alternative 1 because five allotments with areas of mapped overlap between domestic sheep and bighorn sheep summer range (Picayne/Mineral Point, Engine Creek/Deer Creek, Eureka, and Gladstone active allotments, and Flume vacant allotment) would remain open to sheep grazing under Alternative 3. However, the potential for contact between domestic sheep and bighorn sheep in these five allotments with areas of mapped overlap would be reduced from High to Moderate (4 active allotments) or Low (1 vacant allotment). Alternative 3 would be much more beneficial for bighorn sheep than Alternative 2. This is because three vacant allotments would remain available for sheep grazing under Alternative 2 (Little Molas/West Needles Allotment, Needles Mountains Allotment, and Minnie Gulch Allotment) but would be permanently closed to grazing under Alternative 3 (Figure 3-1). These three allotments would have High Risk for contact if they were stocked with domestic sheep under Alternative 2, but would have Low Risk for contact if closed under Alternative 3. For this reason, the potential for physical contact between domestic sheep and bighorn sheep in these 3 allotments would be reduced from High to Low, and the project’s desired condition for bighorn sheep would be met in these three allotments. As a result of closing these three allotments, under Alternative 3 the amount of mapped overlap between areas suitable for domestic sheep and mapped bighorn sheep summer range in the Silverton Landscape would be reduced from about 10,285 acres (Alternative 2) to about 1,756 acres (Alternative 3). The areas of mapped overlap between bighorn sheep and domestic sheep ranges where risk of physical contact between bighorn and domestic sheep is thought to be High would all be reduced to Moderate Risk with the modification of allotment boundaries and the application of 80
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 and 80: lack bighorn sheep escape cover. Th
Page 81: trailing route, and lack of bighorn
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?