DOCSLIB.ORG

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Chapter 3 Affected Environment LITTLE SNAKE PROPOSED RMP/FINAL EIS CHAPTER 3 CHAPTER 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT This chapter addresses those resources and resource uses managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Little Snake Field Office (LSFO). Resource/resource use sections are separated into subsections that describe current conditions and characterization of each resource/resource use. The characterization of the resource/resource use includes the indicators (which assess the resource condition), trends (which express the direction of change between the present and some point in the past), and forecast (which predicts changes in the condition of resources given current management). 3.1 CURRENT RESOURCE CONDITION AND CHARACTERIZATION 3.1.1 Public Land Health 3.1.1.1 Background BLM implemented regulations in 1995 for fundamentals of rangeland health and standards and guidelines for grazing administration in response to public concern about management of livestock grazing on western public lands and to improve rangeland management. The regulations in Title 43 Code of Federal Regulations section 4180 (43 CFR 4180) require the State Directors, in consultation with Resource Advisory Councils (RAC), to develop rangeland health standards for lands within their jurisdictions. This process includes conducting local-level assessments and evaluations for ascertaining rangeland health status. Procedures and guidance to implement these regulations was provided in Washington Office (WO) Instruction Memorandum (IM) No. 2000-153 (Standards Assessment Procedures and Guidance). BLM has agreed to work with the RACs to expand these rangeland health standards so that public land health standards are relevant to all ecosystems, not just rangelands, and that they apply to all actions, not just livestock grazing (Manual Handbook H-1601-1 Land Use Planning). The Secretary of the Interior approved the Standards for Public Land Health and Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management for BLM offices within Colorado on February 3, 1997. The Colorado Standards for Public Land Health, Appendix A, describes conditions needed to sustain public land health, and relate to all uses of the public lands. The Colorado Standards are applied on a landscape scale and relate to the potential of the landscape for the following resources: Standard 1: Upland soils Standard 2: Riparian areas and wetland areas Standard 3: Native species Standard 4: Special status species Standard 5: Water quality. The Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management provides the management tools, methods, strategies, and techniques (e.g., best management practices [BMP]) for maintaining or achieving healthy public lands as defined by the Standards (listed above). 3.1.1.2 Little Snake Field Office Field offices are expected to conduct local assessments based on the Colorado Standards and to follow the developed guidelines. Information specific to each office is used to evaluate if the Standards are achieved. To provide a spatial framework for conducting local assessments, the LSFO has divided the Little Snake Resource Management Plan Planning Area (RMPPA) into 16 distinct landscapes (Map 3-1), within which LITTLE SNAKE FIELD OFFICE 3-1 CHAPTER 3 LITTLE SNAKE PROPOSED RMP/FINAL EIS the Standards are assessed. The landscape boundaries were delineated based on physical features, geographic boundaries, watershed boundaries, and landscape characteristics. The LSFO staff conducts systematic assessments and evaluations on numerous sites within each landscape to determine if the Standards and fundamentals for rangeland health are being achieved. The sites are selected so that each grazing allotment within that landscape contains a site, and ideally, that each range site within an allotment is represented (Map 3-2). The initial assessments were prioritized in conjunction with grazing permit renewals. These landscape health assessments determine whether areas are meeting the standards. The LSFO does not intend for these studies to be used for the purpose of monitoring or inventory. The studies are only intended to be qualitative assessments and determinations of site conditions. Methodology The field offices are to consider all assessment requirements for the watershed or landscape being assessed and select assessment methods that will provide information needed to fulfill those requirements. When a field office invests its resources in a landscape health assessment, the end product should substantially meet all assessment needs to avoid conducting multiple assessments for multiple needs. There is no specific written protocol used by the LSFO to conduct a landscape health assessment; however, the staff uses a methodology similar to the evaluation processes outlined in BLM Handbook 4180. The methodology is an organized, flexible process that can be characterized as follows: Scoping/interdisciplinary (ID) team assembly Announce the evaluation process Initiate scoping Invite involvement Create or assemble the ID team (e.g., resource specialists, BLM, local parties, permittees) Evaluation process Determine evaluation areas and identify important or impaired sites to be analyzed Prioritize evaluation areas Select indicators Select evaluation methods Conduct evaluation Collect and evaluate data (2 to 7 days of field work) Characterize the landscape—climate, surface water quality and quantity, ground water, watershed function (erosion processes and stream channel characteristics), riparian and wetland areas, soils, geology, vegetation and plant communities, and human influences and uses Characterize the relative abundance and distribution of Species of Concern Complete upland and proper functioning condition (PFC) data forms through interactive group discussion and consensus-based decisions Synthesize and interpret information or results Landscape health assessment (LHA) report Prepare the LHA report, which summarizes the data collected from various sites within the landscape area assessed. The LSFO generally organizes LHA reports in the following fashion: Executive summary Assessment discussion List of the standards Map of watershed/landscape area Map of geology Map of riparian areas Catalog of U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) quadrangles within landscape Catalog of soil types 3-2 LITTLE SNAKE FIELD OFFICE LITTLE SNAKE PROPOSED RMP/FINAL EIS CHAPTER 3 Listing of range sites Listing of grazing allotments and permittees Summary of sites that meet/do not meet the standards Field data collection forms Photographs. Results of LSFO Landscape Health Assessment Reports Of the 16 landscapes within the RMPPA, 15 have been through, or are currently going through, the LHA process. The current status of the completed LSFO LHA reports and whether they meet or do not meet the standards is shown in Table 3-1 below. The table also summarizes the condition of the landscape relative to the factors used in evaluating whether the standards are met and identifies associated concerns. Table 3-1. Summary of Landscape Health Assessments Standard Assessment1 LANDSCAPE AXIAL Status Completed 2008—38 sites (all analyzed) All but one site met this standard. On this site, cheatgrass was the only contributor to soil Standard 1 M stability. The site was susceptible to accelerated erosion if cheatgrass cover was removed. With few exceptions, all riparian systems on public lands are at PFC or functioning at risk Standard 2 M with an upward trend. 42% of sites had an excessive abundance of non-native species such as bull thistle, Standard 3 NM hounds tongue, and whitetop or exhibited poor native plant diversity, density, and production. No threatened or endangered species of plants or animals occur within the watershed. Habitat conditions for 8 species which could occur in the watershed are acceptable. The Standard 4 M majority of Axial Basin has appropriate and acceptable habitat for greater sage-grouse, a BLM sensitive species. The Water Quality Standard for public land health is presently being met for the Axial Standard 5 M Basin landscape. LANDSCAPE DOUGLAS DRAW Status Completed 2005—21 sites (all analyzed) All but one site met the upland soil standard. Two sites lacked native plant diversity; and Standard 1 M three had high levels of invasive species which could lead to low soil stability in dry years. Riparian resources are limited in Douglas Draw; however the resources which do exist Standard 2 M appear to meet standards. Poor perennial grass diversity or abundance, poor sagebrush vigor, and excessive annual Standard 3 NM weeds were indicators that led 20% (4 of 20) sites visited to fail this standard. No threatened or endangered species of plants or animals occur within the watershed. Habitat conditions for 3 species which could occur in the watershed are acceptable. Standard 4 M Sheephead basin has appropriate and acceptable habitat for greater sage-grouse, a BLM sensitive species. The Water Quality Standard for public land health is presently being met for the Douglas Standard 5 M Draw Watershed. LANDSCAPE COLD SPRING MOUNTAIN Status Completed in 2000—27 sites (all analyzed) LITTLE SNAKE FIELD OFFICE 3-3 CHAPTER 3 LITTLE SNAKE PROPOSED RMP/FINAL EIS Standard Assessment1 Generally meets standard—except for toe slope or bench soils in canyon bottoms along Standard 1 M Vermillion, Canyon, and Talamantes Creeks. Physical indicators were generally intermediate or plus; vegetation indicators were generally intermediate. Vermillion, Canyon, and Talamantes Creeks were mostly functioning at risk (FAR) and slightly to moderately incised with high
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Table of Contents
    Part I: Conservation Assessment Northwest Colorado Greater Sage-Grouse Final for Signature Conservation Plan 4 April 2008 PART I. CONSERVATION ASSESSMENT A. DESCRIPTION OF NORTHWEST COLORADO GREATER SAGE-GROUSE TAXONOMY AND LIFE HISTORY, AND MORTALITY FACTORS Area Description Moffat County is located in the extreme northwest corner of Colorado (Figure 1) and is bordered by Routt County on the east, Rio Blanco County to the south, Utah on the west and Wyoming to the north. This Conservation Plan addresses a contiguous greater sage-grouse population centered in Moffat County with outlying areas extending into western Routt County and northwestern Rio Blanco County (Figure 2). Moffat County supports the vast majority of breeding greater sage-grouse in the Northwest Colorado population. Routt County also supports several significant concentrations of birds, while habitat in Rio Blanco County is used only incidentally by small numbers of sage grouse or during winter months. This greater sage-grouse population is the largest in the state of Colorado. The boundary for this Conservation Plan was drawn along topographic divides and other natural features to the extent possible to provide clear boundaries and to separate greater sage-grouse populations covered by this Plan from adjacent planning areas. The area covered by this Conservation Plan includes 4,275,964 acres of land and 2,563,033 acres of occupied sage grouse habitat. Table 1 identifies the amount of area and sage grouse habitat by county. Greater sage-grouse populations in southern Routt County and the Meeker and Piceance Creek portions of Rio Blanco County are not covered by this Plan.
    [Show full text]
  • LSFO REC OP (OUT)-2007.Ai
    IIRISHRISH CCANYONANYON (OUT)-2007.ai(OUT)-2007.ai 4/23/074/23/07 10:14:4510:14:45 AMAM DESCRIPTION: Irish Canyon is a relatively chukar. This semi-arid country supports sagebrush and pinyon-juniper woodlands with Irish Canyon remote and highly scenic canyon. It is designated as an Area of Critical several rare plant communities. ACEC Environmental Concern (ACEC) because of Summers are generally warm and dry with its unique geology, scenery, plant species, and cool nights. There is no water available in the cultural resources. Twelve of the twenty-two area. geologic formations found in the eastern end 11,680 acres of the Uinta Mountains occur here. The ACCESS: From Maybell, Colorado on U. S. beginning of the canyon is not more than 50 Highway 40 turn northwest onto Colorado yards wide with steep walls with layers of red, Highway 318 to Moffat County Road 1ON green, and gray. Elevations range from 6100 (41 miles) which runs through Irish Canyon to 8636 feet. Such outlaws as Butch Cassidy (4.5 miles from Colorado 318). and the Wild Bunch, Matt Warner, Isom Dart, and others spent much time in the surrounding MAPS: BLM Canyon of Lodore Color Quads Browns Park area at the turn of the century. (scale = 1:100,000) are available from BLM C offices. USGS Topographic Maps (Scale) = M There is an is an interpretative exhibit of 1:24,000) - Canyon of Lodore, is available Y ancient petroglyphs at the south entrance to from USGS Branch of Distribution (map sales), P.O. Box 25286, Building 41, Denver CM Irish Canyon.
    [Show full text]
  • Elk Management Plan for E-1 Data Analysis Unit
    ELK MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR E-1 DATA ANALYSIS UNIT Game Management Units: 2 and 201 Prepared By Darby Finley Colorado Parks and Wildlife Meeker Service Center PO Box 1181 Meeker, CO 81641 2013 Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................................... 1 CPW Commission Recommendation ....................................................................................................................... 4 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE .......................................................................................................... 5 Primary Goals ......................................................................................................................................................... 5 Secondary Goals ....................................................................................................................................................... 5 Management by Objective ........................................................................................................................ 5 DESCRIPTION OF DAU ........................................................................................................................... 7 Location ............................................................................................................................................ 7 Physiography ...................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Colorado Gunnison's & White-Tailed Prairie Dog Conservation Strategy
    Colorado Gunnison’s and White-tailed Prairie Dog Conservation Strategy July 2010 COLORADO GUNNISON’S AND WHITE-TAILED PRAIRIE DOG CONSERVATION STRATEGY This document should be cited as: Seglund, A.E. and P.M Schnurr. 2010. Colorado Gunnison’s and white-tailed prairie dog conservation strategy. Colorado Division of Wildlife, Denver, Colorado, USA. STATE OF COLORADO Bill Ritter, Jr., Governor DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION OF WILDLIFE AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER Thomas E. Remington, Director 6060 Broadway Denver, Colorado 80216 Telephone: (303) 297-1192 wildlife. state. co. us It is with pleasure that I sign the Colorado Gunnison's and White-tailed Prairie Dog Conservation Strategy. This strategy document forms the basis of future management decisions for these two species in Colorado through a public process that selects the top- priority actions for the nine Individual Population Areas (IPAs) described therein. The Western Association ofFish and Wildlife Agencies has coordinated prairie dog conservation activities throughout the western United States, and this strategy is an outgrowth of that effort, The actions described in this strategy and the associated IPA Action Plans are aimed latproviding for the continued existence of these two prairie dog species, thereby offsetting the need for either species to be listed under the federal Endangered Species Act. Through the involvement of local and statewide stakeholders in the development ofthi strategy, the social and economic needs of Colorado's citizens have been incorporated. A workshop that included landowners, conservation organization members, scientists, an agency personnel was held in May of 2007 to formulate specific strategies. Continued involvement of these stakeholders has produced an approach that explicitly considers the needs of all concerned parties in developing local IPA plans for prairie dog cjnServatiot.
    [Show full text]
  • 2008 Daggett County General Plan Update & Regional Planning Guide
    2017 Daggett County General Plan Resource Management Plan Appendix Appendix - Public Lands Element Page 2 Daggett County General Plan 2017 - Appendix Appendix - Public Lands Element Resource Management Plan Introduction: Utah State Statute provides for the development of county-level plans under Title 17-27a-401. Components which are required to be addressed within these plans include: land use, transportation, environmental issues, public services and facilities, rehabilitation and redevelopment, economic concerns, recommendations for plan implementation, and "any other elements that the county considers appropriate". In 2015, the Utah Legislature amended UCA 17-27a-401 to also require that county general plans include a “resource management plan” (RMP) to provide a basis for communicating and coordinating with the federal government on land and resource management issues. The intent of the county's resource management plan is to: 1. establish findings pertaining to the issue; 2. establish defined objectives; and 3. outline general policies and guidelines on how the objectives described in Subsection (3)(c)(ii) are to be accomplished. Daggett County will continue to encourage the responsible use and development of its natural resources and support associated industries and businesses. Decisions affecting public land resource use and development directly impact the County. In this regard, it is in the County's interest, and their expectation, that federal and state resource management planning efforts provide the County with every opportunity
    [Show full text]
  • Executive Summary
    Proposed RMP and Final EIS Executive Summary EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES.1 INTRODUCTION The Vernal Field Office (VFO) of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Utah is revising and integrating the Book Cliffs and Diamond Mountain Resource Management Plans (RMPs) into a single new RMP. The revised RMP will be called the Vernal Field Office Resource Management Plan (VFO RMP) and will provide planning guidance for public land and the federal mineral estate managed by the VFO in Daggett, Duchesne, and Uintah counties, as well as in a small portion of Grand County in northeastern Utah. The consolidated Diamond Mountain and Book Cliffs areas will be referred to as the Vernal Planning Area (VPA) or the VFO. There are 5,518,859 acres within the boundary of the VFO, of which 1,725,512 acres (approximately 30%) are BLM-managed surface lands. The VFO administers energy-related mineral activities on 3.9 million acres of federal mineral lands, including 1.3 million acres of U.S. Forest Service (USFS) lands, and post-lease mineral operations on Indian Trust mineral lands. The 1,911,000 acres of BLM-managed mineral estate includes the split-estate mineral lands within the Hill Creek Extension, comprising 185,500 acres of mineral estate underlying Indian Trust surface. Table 1.4.1 clarifies in detail land ownership in the VPA and surrounding areas. Most of the land that the BLM manages is in the eastern and southern portions of the VPA and is generally characterized by habitats associated with the Uinta Basin and Colorado Plateau. Other agencies managing land in the vicinity of the VFO include the USFS, Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), National Park Service (NPS), U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Browns Park Narrative Report January
    BROWNS PARK NARRATIVE REPORT JANUARY - DECEMBER 1965 A BRIEF HISTORY OF IHK BROWNS PARK VALLEY Browns Park has a colorful past, complete with mountainmen, cowboys, Indians, and Outlaw Kings and Queens, Situated in the northwestern corner of what is now the state of Colorado, this oasis from the snows and bitter cold characteristic of the surrounding territories long was a favorite winter retreat of the Indian, toiy artifacts and teepee rings remain today to attest this fact. The first recorded white man to visit Browns ^ark was William ^enry Ashley, a prominent Missouri politician, who, having suffered financial reverses, sought to recoupe his fortunes by entering the fur trade. In 1825 General Ashley, seeking a site for an annual "rendezvous" — an ingenious commercial device which, elinimating the necessity of maintaining permanent trading posts in the manner of his principal competitors, the American Fur Company and Hudson's Bay Company, made it possible for him simultaneously to supply his trapping parties in the field, gather up a yea^s accumulation of pelts, and trade with the "free" mountainmen and Indians0 In his book. The Colorado, Frank Waters has given us a graphic des­ cription of the Ashley parties entry into the valley: "The red rock walls kept rising almost perpendicularly from the water to an immense height." - (Flaming Gorge and Swallow Canyons) m "The current increased. There was no getting out. Running rapids, going six days without food (they wece) in despair of ever escaping the canyon , Then suddenly the mountain walls drew back, the river widened, and they shot out into beautiful Browns Hole, Ten miles below was a great camping ground where thousands of Indians had wintered -—," Commencing in 1826 and continuing through 1840, Browns Hole was the scene of the greatest of all the rendezvous staged by the fur companies.
    [Show full text]
  • Cenozoic Geology of The
    Cenozoic Geology of the By CHARLES B. HUNT UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON : 1956 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Douglas McKay, Secretary GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Thomas B. Nolan, Director ' For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U. S. Government Printing Office Washington 25, D. C. - Price 75 cents (paper cover) Page Page Abstract. __________________________________________ 1 Cenozoic deposits Continued Tn troduction_______________________________________ 1. Upper Tertiary deposits (Miocene and Pliocene) Con. Purpose of report and acknowledgments____-________ 1 Deposits around the edges of the Colorado Plateau General geographic setting of the Colorado Plateau.__ 2 Continued Pre-Cambrian basement rocks._______________________ 11 San Juan Mountains.___-_--_----_-_-----___-_ 31 Summary of Paleozoic and Mesozoic stratigraphy._____ 11 Rio Grande Valley____________________________ 32 Cenozoic deposits.__________________________________ 15 Grand Wash trough_____________________._____ 33 Lower Tertiary deposits (Paleocene and Eocene)______ 15 Quaternary deposits____ ~__________________________ 35 Uinta Basin and High PJateaus___________________ 17 Pre-Wisconsin deposits. _________________________ 35 Nor tli Horn formation _________________________ 17 Wisconsin deposits._____________________________ 38 Flagstaff limestone and Wasatch formation in High Recent deposits._._____________________________ 38 Plateaus.__________________________________ ' 18 Cenozoic igneous rocks________.._____-_-_--__________ 39 Tuscher,
    [Show full text]