NEPA--Environmental Assessment

More documents

Recommendations

Info

heritage and sole financial support for most of them. Indicators for comparing alternatives: qualitative narrative description. 6) Cultural Resources (tracking issue): Cultural resources impacts were not identified as a significant issue because no adverse impacts to them from grazing have been identified. There are no alternatives or design criteria that were developed specifically to minimize cultural impacts, and impacts are generally the same across all alternatives. However, because of the importance of the cultural resources in the Silverton landscape, and because of statutory requirements, cultural resources will be analyzed and impacts will be disclosed. Indicators for comparing alternatives: Management of sheep reflected by Design Criteria; narrative description. 27
CHAPTER 2 - ALTERNATIVES This chapter describes and compares the alternatives considered for the Silverton Landscape Grazing Analysis. It includes a description of each alternative considered. This section also presents the alternatives in comparative form, defining the differences between each alternative and providing a clear basis for choice among options by the decision maker and the public. Some of the information used to compare the alternatives is based upon the design of the alternative (e.g., allotments to be closed) and some of the information is based upon the environmental, social and economic effects of implementing each alternative (e.g., the effects on vegetative conditions). Alternative 1 – No Action ___________________________ Under the No Action/No Livestock Grazing Alternative, no livestock grazing would be permitted on any of the allotments in the landscape. “No action” is synonymous with “no livestock grazing” and means that livestock grazing would not be authorized within the project area. Following current direction, existing permits would be phased out after giving permittees notice as provided for in Forest Service policy (FSH 2209.13, R2 ID, Chapter 10, section 16.1) which says that “…the authorized officer shall provide one year’s written notice before the modification takes effect, except in emergency situations.” According to direction given in FSH 2209.13, R2 ID, Chapter 90, section 94.1, “the ‘no livestock grazing’ alternative will always be fully developed and analyzed in detail” and is therefore considered a fully viable alternative in this analysis. Improvements such as corrals would eventually be removed as time and funding allow. This alternative provides an environmental baseline for evaluation of the action alternatives. Design Criteria for Alternatives 2 and 3 ______________ The Forest Service uses many measures to reduce or prevent negative impacts to the environment in the planning and implementation of management activities. The application of these measures begins at the planning and design phase of a project. The Forest Plan/RMP standards and guidelines and the direction contained in the Watershed Conservation Practices Handbook (FSH 2509.25) and the Range Management Handbook (FSH 2200) are the first protection measures to be applied to the project. These sources are incorporated by reference and are not reiterated here. Other Project Design Criteria are then developed, as the need is identified by the FS/BLM specialists and authorized officer. Some of the design criteria below have been used for years or are commonly used practices throughout the western United States and have been found to be effective in reducing potential impacts. Beside the commonly used practices, additional practices concerning the management of contact between domestic sheep and goats and Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep are included. Many of these recommended practices were taken from Wild Sheep Working Group Initial Subcommittee, Recommendations for Domestic Sheep and Goat Management in Wild Sheep Habitat (WAFWA, 2007). 28
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: Issues ____________________________
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?