NEPA--Environmental Assessment

More documents

Recommendations

Info

(from nearby less contaminated populations) and the lowest breeding densities of any ptarmigan population throughout the species’ range. For this reason, protecting and maintaining fall and winter habitat for adult female ptarmigan is likely to be a key factor in ensuring long-term population persistence in the landscape. Maintenance and protection of fall and winter ptarmigan habitat is especially important given the high site fidelity of wintering birds and the considerable numbers of adult females that are attracted from surrounding breeding habitats to the few suitable wintering sites (Braun et al. 1976). Increasing motorized and non-motorized recreation in preferred ptarmigan wintering areas along the Highway 550 corridor is likely to be reducing ptarmigan winter habitat quality through increasing the extent of compacted snow areas and increased disturbance to wintering birds. Ptarmigan populations in the Silverton Landscape may be especially vulnerable to loss or degradation of fall and winter habitat given that population densities in this area are lower than other parts of the species range and are likely not self-sustaining (Larison et al. 2000). Local bird watchers have reported consistent declines in numbers of white-tailed ptarmigan detected over the past 5-10 years in known historic winter concentration areas around Silverton and along the U.S. Highway 550 corridor. Most bird watchers attribute this perceived decline in the number of wintering birds as likely caused by a coincidental substantial increase in snowmobile and nonmotorized winter recreation in and around many historic ptarmigan wintering areas such as Gladstone, Cement Creek, Little Molas Lake, Andrews Lake, and South Mineral Creek. Perceived declines in the number of ptarmigan wintering around Andrews Lake, a non-motorized area, is attributed to increased numbers of non-motorized winter recreationists that are often accompanied by domestic dogs. Although many of these areas are within active sheep grazing allotments, no evidence has been found that indicates grazing impacts are significantly affecting habitat capability for ptarmigan in preferred wintering areas. Other activities that continue to influence habitat capability for sensitive species in the Silverton Landscape include development of private lands adjacent to public lands, increasing levels of jeep and OHV traffic on most roads in the landscape, and mine reclamation activities that are gradually improving water quality and downstream habitat capability. Influences that continue to affect vegetation in the landscape and therefore affect habitat capability for sensitive species include ongoing fire suppression, personal use firewood harvesting of standing dead trees for use as primary home heating purposes, and natural events such as wild fire, forest insect and disease outbreaks, wind throw events, and avalanches. All these activities have contributed to changes in the composition, structure, and function of forested habitats in the landscape, and habitat for sensitive species. As the number of off-highway vehicles (OHV’s) continues to increase on most roads in the Silverton Landscape, the potential for disturbance to wolverine in areas adjacent to popular OHV routes also continues to increase each year. The continual annual increase in OHV use observed over the past 5- 10 years in the Silverton Landscape is likely to continue for the foreseeable future. Wolverines are known to be very sensitive to human disturbance (Banci 1994). An aerial habitat inventory by the Colorado Division of Wildlife and wolverine researcher Jeff Copeland determined that the central San Juan Mountains near Silverton appeared to provide some of the highest quality potential wolverine habitat in the state of Colorado (S. Wait pers. comm.). There are nearly annual reports of wolverine sightings, all unconfirmed, from the central San Juan Mountains, mostly between Silverton, Ouray and Lake City (S. Wait pers. comm.). As motorized traffic and non-motorized recreation in formerly remote alpine areas increases, habitat capability for wolverine would be expected to continue to decline. 85
Wildlife – Management Indicator Species_____________ The 1983 San Juan National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (SJNF 1992) establishes management direction for Management Indicator Species (MIS). The BLM has no policies or direction to address MIS so the following discussion will address only those species listed in the Forest Plan, and only where those species occur on National Forest System lands. A wildlife review for MIS was written to analyze the impacts of alternatives to management indicator species, following agency and Forest Plan direction, and can be found in the project record (Schultz 2009c). The Forest Plan establishes management direction for maintaining healthy populations of wildlife and fish species. Due to the large number of species that occupy National Forest lands, a subset of species is identified for analysis purposes that are intended to represent the full range of species. This subset is collectively referred to as Management Indicator Species (MIS). The Forest Plan establishes goals, objectives, standards, guidelines, and monitoring requirements that are specific to MIS. Each action proposed by the agency is analyzed in a manner that discloses its effects to MIS and evaluates its consistency with the management direction contained in the Forest Plan. The analysis then determines what effect project-level impacts might have on Forest-level population and habitat trends for each MIS analyzed. This analysis is based on the best available science such as the most recent Forest-wide habitat and individual MIS assessments, expert professional opinions, and site-specific field review of the analysis area. These assessments explain the reasons for MIS selection in the Forest Plan, and contain information on the species life history, conservation status, distribution, abundance on Forest and each Ranger District, and population and habitat trends. This MIS analysis complies with the 2008 Planning Rule, 36 CFR Part 219. Management indicator species monitoring is not discussed in the final rule. The 1982 rule is not in effect (sec. 219.14(b)(4)). No obligations remain from that regulation (including MIS), except those that are specifically in a Forest Plan. Section 219.14 (b) (4) states, “For units with plans developed, amended, or revised using the provisions of the planning rule in effect prior to November 9, 2000 (See 36 CFR parts 200 to 299, Revised as of July 1, 2000), that rule is without effect. No obligations remain from that regulation, except those that are specifically in the plan.” This analysis meets the current MIS analysis requirements in the San Juan National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. The current Forest Plan does not rely solely on gathering/using quantitative population data, but specifically allows for the use of a variety of species information and data sources that can be used to conduct the MIS analysis. Table IV-1 on page IV-4 of the Forest Plan lists a variety of acceptable analysis data sources for monitoring populations and habitat trends of MIS, such as, population estimates by State Wildlife agencies, professional judgment of USFS Wildlife Biologists, habitat inventory assessments, resource information system data, and activity/program reviews. All MIS identified in the Forest Plan and reasons for their selection are considered during initial project screening. A detailed analysis was then conducted for those MIS that may be affected by the proposed action (Table 1). The analysis describes how the proposed action will affect Forest-wide habitat and population trends (direct and indirect effects section, below). A detailed analysis is intended to disclose the potential effects of the action on MIS and their habitats in a manner that identifies the relationship between the action being considered and the long-term viability of the MIS. For this analysis, the “effects of the action” include the direct and indirect effects to the species caused by the proposed project, and are effects that are reasonably certain to occur. “Reasonably certain to occur” requires existence of clear and convincing information that establishes an effect to the MIS will be caused by the proposed action. This 86
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 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: CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Global warming i
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 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?