NEPA--Environmental Assessment

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Desired Conditions _______________________________ The need for a change in management is identified by comparing specific descriptions of what is desired across the landscape (desired conditions) to what currently exists on the landscape in the analysis area (existing conditions). The FS analysis team defined project-specific desired conditions for this landscape. If project-specific desired conditions are being met, then Forest Plan/RMP Direction will also be met. Desired conditions are defined, and existing conditions are measured under the following methodologies: Methodology: The Proper Functioning Condition (PFC) methodology was chosen for primary monitoring of riparian areas (Prichard 1998). The PFC ratings qualitatively evaluate riparian condition based in part on presence/absence and abundance of specific vegetation and the interactions of that vegetation with geology, hydrology, and soils. If unsatisfactory ratings indicate the need for more intensive monitoring, other quantitative methods would also be used. Two different upland vegetation methodologies were chosen in order to follow appropriate nationwide agency direction for each agency. Both methodologies are qualitative assessments for rangeland conditions which consider similar factors such as vegetative and soil conditions. Upland vegetation communities were measured using the Rangeland Health Matrix (RHM) methodology on Forest Service lands, and the Standards for Public Land Health <strong>Assessment</strong> (LHA) method on BLM lands. These methods are described further under Monitoring for Alternative 3 (p.44). Desired Conditions for Riparian Areas: Riparian areas are functioning properly as indicated by a rating of “Proper Functioning Condition.” Attaining a PFC rating provides a stable foundation and a physically functioning riparian area that can withstand low to moderate flood events. Desired Conditions for Upland Areas on Forest Service lands: Upland areas are in a healthy condition, as indicated by an RHM rating of “healthy” or “at risk with an upward trend” (moving towards meeting), and lands which are currently “healthy” must maintain that rating. Desired Conditions for BLM lands: BLM lands are in a healthy condition, as indicated by a LHA rating of “meeting the standard” or “not meeting the standard, but making significant progress towards meeting the standard” for all five Colorado Standards for Public Land Health: Standard 1 relates to uplands soils, Standard 2 relates to riparian systems, Standard 3 relates to plant and animal communities, Standard 4 relates to special status, threatened and endangered species, Standard 5 relates to water quality; Lands which are currently “meeting the standard” must maintain that rating. Additionally, the LHA should indicate that upland areas “Conform with Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management.” 19
Desired Conditions for Bighorn: Reduce or eliminate the likelihood of contact between wild sheep and domestic sheep and goats. Manage domestic sheep grazing practices to reduce potential for geographical and/or temporal overlap between domestic sheep and bighorn sheep in active domestic sheep allotments. In areas of mapped overlap and/or close proximity of domestic sheep and bighorn sheep summer ranges, apply design criteria to reduce or eliminate potential for contact between domestic sheep and wild sheep. Manage domestic sheep to achieve more effective separation from wild sheep. Desired Conditions for Wilderness: “Natural succession occurs on all existing vegetative communities, and is influenced by natural processes and disturbance. The structure, composition, function and spatial distribution of vegetative types are the result of natural-successional processes. Human influence on vegetation is unnoticeable. Plant species are indigenous to the immediate area, with exotic plants being extremely rare. Non-indigenous species composition does not increase from an established baseline….A range of habitats is sustained for all naturally occurring species. Sensitive species do not move toward Threatened and Endangered listing. … Human influence on physical features such as soils and geologic materials is unnoticeable (SJNF 1998).” Existing Conditions ______________________________ The need for a change in management is identified by comparing specific descriptions of what is desired across the landscape (desired conditions) to what currently exists on the landscape in the analysis area (existing conditions). In 2008, the FS/BLM collected data to document existing conditions using the above-described methodologies. Existing Conditions for Riparian and Upland Vegetation: A map of the 2008 riparian and upland vegetation existing conditions is found in Figure 1-4. Of a total of 28 data points (includes PFC, RHM, and LHA), 27 (96%) were meeting desired conditions. In addition to qualitative data collected in 2008, the FS/BLM also has data relating to existing conditions in the files in the form of quantitative Rooted-Nested transect data from 2006-2007, qualitative Public Land Health Standards from 2000-2001, and Lentic Riparian conditions from 1998 and 2001. Examination of the body of available data reveals that, for the project area at the overall landscape level, vegetative conditions are meeting desired conditions. However, there are isolated areas of concern noted by FS/BLM personnel, specifically at bed grounds and trailing “choke points.” More detailed descriptions of the data can be found in Affected Environment of the Water and Vegetation sections in Chapter 3. Existing Conditions for Bighorn: Figure 1-5 displays current grazing allotments and bighorn sheep summer range. There are currently about 41,400 acres of potential mapped overlap in the Silverton Landscape. This existing condition is undesirable due to potential for contact between domestic sheep and wild sheep leading to the possibility of disease transmission between the two species. Existing Conditions for Wilderness: Figure 1-6 displays where grazing allotments and wilderness overlap. Because the desired conditions for wilderness are related primarily to vegetation conditions, the conclusions for existing wilderness conditions are generally the same as for vegetative existing 20
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: Figure 1-3. Management Emphasis Are
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

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

Delete template?

Save as template?