NEPA--Environmental Assessment

More documents

Recommendations

Info

in the Silverton Landscape found that browsing appears to be affecting willows in some small and localized areas. Sheep readily browse on willows in riparian and wetland areas but most of the willow riparian areas across the landscape are in upper mid-seral successional stage, or are in an upward trend and therefore are meeting land management plan direction for riparian condition. The remaining three bird species in the riparian/wetland analysis group are also commonly found in tall willows on mountain side slopes associated with springs or sites with a heavy snowpack that extends late into the summer. Some heavy browsing was observed on willows in a few localized areas, however it was difficult to determine with certainty whether the primary cause of this browsing was domestic sheep or elk. Sheep trailing was also evident in some riparian and willow dominated areas but current plant species composition and distribution are likely similar to conditions found during the reference period. All of the riparian monitoring samples on both BLM and FS lands met the project’s desired conditions. Therefore, overall, the effects of sheep grazing and trailing in riparian/wetland areas appears to be small and/or limited to localized areas. For these reasons, selection of Alternative 2 would be beneficial to birds in the riparian/wetland analysis group, but the benefits would probably be small and localized in scale but continue to improve over the long term. The benefits for these species of selecting Alternative 2 would however be less than for selecting Alternative 1. The spruce-fir analysis group is unlikely to be significantly affected by domestic sheep grazing activities because sheep spend little time in this habitat type, preferring instead to pass rapidly through closed canopy forests on their way too and from preferred alpine foraging areas. In general, sheep spend little time in these areas because of the lack of forage under closed canopy conifer forests. Usually, sheep grazing impacts in closed canopy spruce-fir forests are small in scale and limited in scope as animals rest near the edges of parks or alpine zones. Spruce-fir forests make up about 37% of the Silverton Landscape and 43% of the area currently suitable for sheep grazing in the landscape. Spruce-fir forests are also in close proximity to some preferred sheep grazing areas and therefore some small and localized areas of grazing impacts were observed. The three species in the spruce-fir analysis group (Hammond’s flycatcher, northern goshawk, and olive-sided flycatcher) are unlikely to be significantly affected by sheep grazing activities because they prefer to nest and forage in overstory trees that are generally not affected by sheep grazing. However, in areas where localized grazing impacts are occurring, there may be small reductions in the abundance or diversity of potential insect prey or small birds and mammals that provide prey for northern goshawk. For this reason, selection of Alternative 2 could provide small and localized benefits to birds in the spruce-fir analysis group but this benefit would probably be less than for selecting Alternative 1. Alternative 3 Selection of Alternative 3 is likely to result in some improvement in habitat conditions for bird species of conservation concern in the alpine, riparian/wetland, and spruce-fir analysis groups. The improvements however are likely to be generally small and limited to localized areas. Improvement in habitat conditions for birds in these analysis groups are likely to be considerably less under Alternative 3 than under Alternative 1, but somewhat more than under alternative 2. Under Alternative 3 there would be a 31% reduction in the acres of alpine and spruce-fir habitats suitable for domestic sheep grazing (about 27,700 acres), compared to Alternative 2 (about 40,100 acres). Compared to Alternative 2, the application of adaptive management strategies and project design criteria under Alternative 3 should result in more rapid improvement in habitat conditions for these three bird analysis groups because adaptive management strategies are not being fully applied under current grazing management practices. Although more rapid improvement in habitat conditions is expected under Alternative 3 than under Alternative 2, improvements in habitat conditions for bird 95
species of conservation concern as a result of the adaptive management approach are likely to be too small to affect populations or the total amount of habitat available in the Silverton Landscape. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Selection of Alternative 3 is likely to result in some improvement in habitat conditions for bird species of conservation concern in the alpine, riparian/wetland, and spruce-fir analysis groups. The improvements however are likely to be generally small and limited to localized areas. Improvement in habitat conditions for birds in these analysis groups are likely to be considerably less under Alternative 3 than under Alternative 1, but somewhat more than under alternative 2. Under Alternative 3 there would be a 31% reduction in the acres of alpine and spruce-fir habitats suitable for domestic sheep grazing (about 27,700 acres), compared to Alternative 2 (about 40,100 acres). Compared to Alternative 2, the application of adaptive management strategies and project design criteria under Alternative 3 should result in more rapid improvement in habitat conditions for these three bird analysis groups because adaptive management strategies are not being fully applied under current grazing management practices. Although more rapid improvement in habitat conditions is expected under Alternative 3 than under Alternative 2, improvements in habitat conditions for bird species of conservation concern as a result of the adaptive management approach are likely to be too small to affect populations or the total amount of habitat available in the Silverton Landscape. Socioeconomics _________________________________ AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT The social and economic implications of forest resource management are of interest to local residents surrounding federal lands, Forest and BLM users, and other people throughout the area. The project area contains approximately 171,600 acres in San Juan County, 23,000 acres in La Plata County, and approximately 500 acres in Ouray County. The current five permittees, along with their herders, live in Montrose County. Although the land covered by the grazing permits are mostly within San Juan County, there is little economic impact on that county. The communities most likely to be impacted are those in which the permittees and/or their primary business managers live, pay taxes, and do business. Those communities are Montrose and Olathe, which are located within Montrose County; therefore only demographic information and statistics for Montrose County will be used. Much of the following information is taken from A SocioEconomic Profile of Montrose County, Colorado (EPS, 2009) and from US Census Bureau 2000 data . Geography: Montrose County encompasses 2,2,43 square miles of land area, making it the 16 th largest county in the state of Colorado. The federal government owns approximately 70% of the land in Montrose County. Demographic Information: Montrose County is located in the southwestern region of the state, with its population center being the city of Montrose. Montrose County has around 40,000 residents, making it the 17 th most populated county in the state, with a population density of 18 inhabitants per square mile. The population growth rate for Montrose County has been 2% since 1970, which is slower than for the state of Colorado as a whole, but faster than the nation. Employment and Income: The majority of employment in Montrose County is in the service industry, followed by government, construction, and then agricultural jobs. Per-capita income for people in Montrose County is slightly lower than the state-wide and national average. The percentage of county residents living below the poverty line in 1999 was 12.6%. Farm employment, 96
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 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: The alpine tundra group would benef
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?