13.08.2013 Views

NEPA--Environmental Assessment

NEPA--Environmental Assessment

NEPA--Environmental Assessment

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

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

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!