NEPA--Environmental Assessment

More documents

Recommendations

Info

As the Graysill Allotment has not been grazed since 1966, it is likely that rangeland health conditions very good. The Flume Allotment was last grazed on a regular basis in 1983. During the Missionary Ridge Fire, a band permitted on the Missionary Ridge S&G allotment grazed in this allotment. It is probable that rangeland health conditions have improved greatly in the Flume. Former problem areas due to historic livestock congregation areas or overstocking are unlikely to be readily apparent in these allotments. Emergency use of these allotments is likely to be infrequent, suggesting that rangeland health conditions will follow a general trend of future improvement. All eligible and potentially eligible sites should be avoided by future rangeland management improvements and grazing management practices such as herder camp locations, heavily utilized bedding grounds and salting locations, repeated sheep trailing, and corral reconstruction. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Activities and actions other than livestock grazing that have or will be occurring in the analysis area could impact cultural resources. These include recreational use, fire suppression activities, fuels reduction (mechanical and prescribed burning), and timber harvest activities. Typically, planned actions of the Forest Service such as timber harvest, trail constriction, and fuels reduction require a cultural resource clearance which would require avoidance of negative impacts to cultural resources. However, unforeseen or unregulated activities have greater potential for impacting cultural resources. For example, wildfire could burn standing structures, or fire suppression activities could disturb artifacts during fireline construction. Personal firewood gathering has the potential to remove aspen art. Illegal artifact collection occurs and can be exacerbated by increased public access. Natural or man-caused erosion could expose or wash artifacts away. The northern portion of the analysis area contains a higher site density, and a concentration of thematic sites, and could be considered a cultural landscape. However, cumulative impacts to cultural resources in the northern portion of the analysis area would typically be isolated incidences, rather than landscape level impacts. 103
CHAPTER 4 - CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION The FS/BLM informed the following Federal, state, and local agencies, and tribes during the development of this environmental assessment: FS/BLM TEAM MEMBERS: Team Leader/Recreation: Cam Hooley Hydrologist: Kay Zillich <strong>NEPA</strong> Coordinator: Cam Hooley Archeologist: Bruce Bourcy Range Specialist: Rowdy Wood Ecologist: Jeff Redders Wildlife Biologist: Chris Schultz Recreation/Wilderness: Nancy Berry FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL AGENCIES: Colorado Division of Wildlife Ouray County Colorado State Historic Preservation San Juan County Officer Town of Silverton Colorado State Land Board La Plata County USDI Fish and Wildlife Service TRIBES: Hopi Tribe Jicarilla Apache Nation Navajo Nation Northern Ute Tribe Ohkay Owinge Pueblo of Acoma Pueblo de Cochiti Pueblo of Isleta Pueblo of Jemez Pueblo of Laguna Pueblo of Nambe Pueblo of Picuris Pueblo of Pojoaque Pueblo of Sandia Pueblo of San Felipe Pueblo of San Ildefonso Pueblo of Santa Ana Pueblo of Santa Clara Pueblo of Santo Domingo Pueblo of Taos Pueblo of Tesuque Pueblo of Zia Southern Ute Indian Tribe Ute Mountain Ute Tribe Zuni Pueblo 104
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 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: present state. In general, where un
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 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 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?