NEPA--Environmental Assessment

More documents

Recommendations

Info

approximately 9,030 acres (28%) of the total BLM acres within project area are generally suitable for grazing (Figure 1-2). Resource Management Plans establish programmatic direction for the management of BLM lands. General Grazing Objectives in the RMP state: “Maintaining or improving the vegetation component of the ecosystem is key to enhancing the resource values of the planning area to permit a balanced mix of uses to ensure sustained yield. (p.5)” BLM policy directs the BLM to focus available funding and resources on those areas where problems and conflicts exist. The RMP places grazing allotments in one of three categories: “I”, Improve; “M”, Maintain; or “C”, Custodial. The allotments in this landscape are all considered “M” class - Maintain current satisfactory conditions - and will accordingly, receive attention as a second priority (RMP p.6). The RMP designates the BLM areas within the project boundary as emphasis areas: • A - Livestock Management – “Manage suitable vegetation types for increased, sustained livestock production. One goal is to improve range condition and productivity on native rangelands. Use improved management systems such as rest-rotation and deferred-rotation if appropriate…Develop AMP’s on 71 priority allotments. (p.27)” • C - Recreation – “Manage livestock under reduced intensity to utilize available forage and maintain plant vigor while not degrading recreation values…Manage livestock grazing to make it compatible with recreation use. (p.35)” • Kw - Municipal Watershed – “Manage suitable vegetation types under low to moderate intensity for livestock production with the intent to use available forage and maintain plant vigor. Reduce the number and/or season of use for livestock where needed to achieve soil and water program objectives. (p.55)” This Management Area is found within the project area boundary, but not within an active allotment. These are used as the foundation to compare the current conditions of allotments to the desired conditions for the allotments. The desired condition is then further defined at the project level (p.19). An examination of whether each applicable RMP direction item is being met can be found in the project record. A brief summary of that examination reveals that RMP direction is being met, or conditions are moving towards the described direction. Allotment Management Plans (AMP’s) and <strong>NEPA</strong> Analysis While the Forest Plan/RMP establishes the general suitability of an area for livestock grazing, the decision to authorize livestock grazing on a particular area of land is the outcome of a comprehensive, integrated resource analysis for the particular allotment(s). This analysis, conducted according to <strong>NEPA</strong>, is required in order to authorize livestock grazing on the project area, to prescribe site-specific management of the rangeland resources, and to ensure management is capable of meeting or moving toward desired conditions. Analysis and associated decisions made at this level are documented in an EA (such as this document) or an EIS and a decision document, and implemented through the permit, AMP, and annual operating instructions. 15
Livestock Grazing Permits Livestock grazing permits authorize a permittee to graze livestock on National Forest System Lands or BLM lands, and are issued for a ten-year period on specific portions of the project area. The permittee is required by the permit to graze under specified terms and conditions designed for resource protection and enhancement, as described in the AMP, which is incorporated as part of the permit. Permits are administered annually through issuance of Annual Operating Instructions (AOI’s), which can vary from year to year. Livestock grazing permits by themselves do not authorize the permit holder to develop water, construct fences, build roads or trails, manipulate vegetation, or do other ground disturbing activities. Grazing permits may require the permittee to maintain assigned rangeland improvements. 16
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: Specific Management Emphasis Areas
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 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 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138:
Page 139 and 140:
Silverton Grazing Risk Assessment M
Page 141 and 142:
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:
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?