NEPA--Environmental Assessment
NEPA--Environmental Assessment
NEPA--Environmental Assessment
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
Issues __________________________________________<br />
The FS/BLM separated the issues into two groups: significant and non-significant issues. Significant<br />
issues are defined as those directly or indirectly caused by implementing the proposal. Significant<br />
issues also usually result in the generation of an alternative, design criteria, or mitigation measure<br />
that addresses that issue.<br />
Non-significant issues are identified as those: 1) outside the scope of the proposed action; 2) already<br />
decided by law, regulation, Plan, or other higher level decision; 3) irrelevant to the decision to be<br />
made; 4) conjectural and not supported by scientific or factual evidence; or 5) fully supportive of, or<br />
addressed by, the proposed action . The Council for <strong>Environmental</strong> Quality <strong>NEPA</strong> regulations<br />
require this delineation in Sec. 1501.7, “…identify and eliminate from detailed study the issues<br />
which are not significant or which have been covered by prior environmental review (Sec.<br />
1506.3)…” A list of non-significant issues and reasons regarding their categorization as nonsignificant<br />
may be found in the project record.<br />
The FS/BLM identified five significant issue topics generated from scoping. Additionally, one<br />
tracking issue will be analyzed. Tracking issues are a sub-set of non-significant issues, and are<br />
defined as those not identified as significant issues, but deemed important enough to track through<br />
the analysis and disclose impacts.<br />
Indicators which can be used to compare impacts between alternatives are listed for each issue.<br />
1) Soil/Water: Improper trailing and bedding of livestock has sometimes led to<br />
erosion (including trail tread damage and terracing), and water quality issues<br />
(sedimentation, increased dissolved metals, and fecal contamination).<br />
Indicators for comparing alternatives: Acres of mineralized soil grazed;<br />
monitoring measures (PFC), management of sheep reflected by Watershed<br />
Design Criteria.<br />
2) Vegetation: Improper trailing and bedding of livestock has sometimes led to<br />
undesirable species composition and damage to delicate alpine vegetation.<br />
Indicators for comparing alternatives: Acres grazed; monitoring measures<br />
(RHM and LHA); management of sheep reflected by Design Criteria;<br />
narrative descriptions.<br />
3) Recreational Experience: Sheep bands have sometimes negatively impact the<br />
recreational experience by noise and smell, by encounters with unruly herd<br />
dogs, by creating a non-wilderness experience, by reducing wildflowers, and<br />
by causing trail tread damage and braided trails. Indicators for comparing<br />
alternatives: Management of sheep reflected by Recreation Design Criteria;<br />
monitoring measures (photopoints); narrative descriptions.<br />
4) Wildlife: Domestic sheep could transmit disease to bighorn sheep, compete for<br />
forage with wildlife (bighorn sheep, ptarmigan, elk), and could damage<br />
Uncompahgre fritillary butterfly habitat. Indicators for comparing alternatives:<br />
Management of sheep reflected by Wildlife Design Criteria; acres of open<br />
(active or vacant) allotments overlapping with bighorn sheep summer range;<br />
acres of butterfly restriction areas.<br />
5) Socio-Economics: Loss or substantial curtailment of permitted grazing could lead<br />
to major economic and social damage to permittees, as this is their cultural<br />
26