NEPA--Environmental Assessment

More documents

Recommendations

Info

equires that a cause and effect relationship be established that is not merely speculative or based on remote possibilities. Principals of population ecology using the concept of species limiting factors as they relate to reproduction, growth, mortality rates, and distribution of MIS are applied whenever possible. Most MIS species analyzed in detail have either been observed or reported on NFS lands in the Silverton Landscape. Additionally, most MIS species have habitat that is well distributed across the San Juan National Forest, with the exception of Colorado River cutthroat trout and Uncompahgre fritillary butterfly. It should also be noted that within and adjacent to NFS lands in the Silverton Landscape there are large amounts of habitat in similar condition, and this habitat is well distributed across the landscape and connected to the larger National Forest administrative unit. The Silverton Landscape does not provide unique or isolated habitats within which discrete populations are restricted. Aside from Canada lynx and southwestern willow flycatcher, most MIS are not species at risk nor are they species that are trending towards protected status and are well distributed across the San Juan National Forest. For some species, such as mule deer and elk, there appears to be no relationship between habitat trends and population trends, with population trends regulated by State hunting season structures. For other species, such as Canada lynx and river otter, population trends are dependant primarily on the results of Colorado Division of Wildlife reintroduction efforts, rather than the amount or distribution of habitat on National Forest System lands. For other species, such as deer mouse, populations are highly variable and regulated primarily by local annual weather patterns, rather than the amount or distribution of habitat. Again, MIS regulations do not apply to non-National Forest System lands and thus this analysis will be limited solely to those species and acres of habitat that occur on National Forest System lands. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT There are 23 species identified as MIS in the SJNF Forest Plan. Some species are not present in the Silverton Landscape due to the absence of suitable habitat, or, suitable habitat is present in the landscape but the proposed action (domestic sheep grazing) will not affect the species or its key habitat components. Table C-3 (Appendix C) provides rationale for why some MIS species were brought forward for detailed project analysis and other species were not. A total of five species have habitat present in the Silverton Landscape and may be affected by domestic sheep grazing (Table 3- 1, below). The five species brought forward for detailed analysis for this range analysis project include: Canada lynx, elk, mule deer, green-tailed towhee, and mountain bluebird. Affects of domestic sheep grazing to federally listed species (Canada lynx) was also discussed in the project’s Biological <strong>Assessment</strong>. Affects to Forest Service designated Sensitive Species were also discussed in the project’s Biological Evaluation. Existing habitat for each MIS was determined by the use of a computer mapping model 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 across the Forest, professional judgment of FS wildlife biologists, coordination with CDOW biologists, coordination with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and field reconnaissance of the project area was also used. A brief description of suitable habitat for each MIS species brought forward for detailed project analysis, their likely period of use, and Forest-wide habitat and population trend estimates for each of these MIS species are provided in the Wildlife Review (Schultz 2009c) in the project record. More detailed information about species natural history requirements, distribution, and habitat and population trends is on file at the Columbine Ranger District Office located in Bayfield, Colorado 87
and it will not be discussed in detail here. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES The Wildlife Review analyzed the impacts of alternatives to MIS. Table 3-1 summarizes the impacts to Forest-wide habitat and population trends that would result from each of the proposed alternatives. Details of the analysis leading to the summary can be found in the project record (Schultz 2009c). MIS Forestwide Habitat Trend Canada lynx Stable Elk (Cervus elaphus) Green-tailed towhee (Pipilo chlorurus) Mountain bluebird (Sialia currucoides) Mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus) Stable downward Stable upward Table 3-1. Forest-wide habitat and population trends for MIS. Forest-wide Population Trend Upward due to reintroduction efforts by Colorado Division of Wildlife Stable Stable Stable Downward Stable Forest-wide Habitat Habitat in Landscape Suitable for Sheep Grazing under Current Management (Alternative 2) Habitat in Landscape Suitable for Sheep Grazing under Preferred Alternative (Alternative 3) 992,264 19,199 (2%) 10,446 (1%) Forage – 568,898 Cover – 1,002,716 Winter – 471,234 Forage - 9,102 (2%) Cover - 15,738 (2%) Winter - 0 Forage – 4,644 (
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 and 88: CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Global warming i
Page 89: Wildlife - Management Indicator Spe
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

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

Delete template?

Save as template?