NEPA--Environmental Assessment

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Alternative Working Dogs and Pack Stock 2 3 Working dogs will be under the herder’s control and must be non-threatening to recreation or other visitors. Threatening for this purpose will be defined as a dog that comes within approximately 20 feet of a person in an aggressive manner, (i.e. barking and snarling) and continues to follow the person as they attempt to retreat. This applies only if the visitor is not within the bounds of the grazing sheep band. (1.26) Working dogs that do not meet the above requirements will be immediately removed by the permittee from the Analysis Area. (1.27) Signs will be placed at trailheads giving public notice of the presence of sheep herder working dogs in the Analysis Area (posted by the FS/BLM). (1.28) There will be an upper limit on the maximum number of dogs that will be allowed to be used in conjunction with the sheep operation. No more than eight dogs in combination ( guard dogs and border collies or other working dogs ) will be allowed per sheep band. (1.29) Pack and saddle stock as allowed in the permit are to be used for management of permitted livestock only. Stock may be waived only when the entire grazing permit is waived. (1.30) x x x x x x Alternative Animal Damage Management 2 3 Animal damage management activities will be conducted in accordance with both Federal regulations and State law. Requests for assistance will be done in compliance with the current Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) Animal Damage Management Plan (for example, APHIS 2005) and must be in compliance with the Forest Plan/RMP. (1.31) Predator control (i.e., black bears, mountain lions, bobcats, and coyotes) will not be conducted without following the correct State, APHIS, and Forest Service/BLM procedures. These procedures will be provided to permittees in writing (part of the Annual Operating Instructions). (1.32) It is illegal to kill a grizzly bear, Canada lynx, wolverine, wolf, or any birds of prey. Publications will be made available to permittees to help distinguish the difference between certain protected species and several look-alike species as follows: Grizzly bear and black bear – a bear identification sheet will be given to permittees. Canada lynx and bobcat – an identification sheet will be given to permittees Wolves and dogs – an identification sheet will be given to permittees(1.33) x x x x x x 31
Alternative Noxious Plants/Invasive Species 2 3 Any hay, straw or other feeds used on the allotment will be either certified as being free of noxious plants (also called noxious weeds), or will consist of heat-treated pelletized feeds. (1.34) Any seed used on the allotment will be tested for “all states noxious weeds” according to Association of Official Seed Analysts (AOSA) standards and will be certified by a Registered Seed Technologist or Seed Analyst as meeting the requirements of the Federal Seed Act (7 U.S.C. Chapter 37: Sections 1551-1611) and the Rules and Regulations of the Colorado Seed Act pursuant to 35-27-101 through 125, C.R.S. (1993 Supp. as amended by Senate Bill 93-17). (1.35) Conduct prevention, control, and eradication strategies for targeted invasive plant species, utilizing integrated weed management techniques through implementation of the San Juan NF Invasives Action Plan. (1.36) Permittees will make every effort to ensure that livestock do not contribute to the transport of noxious plants onto the allotment(s). Permittees will be given identification information on State of Colorado “noxious weeds” during annual meetings with the FS/BLM. The Colorado noxious weed list is available on the internet at: http://www.ag.state.co.us/CSD/Weeds/statutes/weedrules.pdf Noxious plant photos are available at: http://kiowa.colostate.edu/cwis109/noxious_weeds/Noxious_weeds.cfm (1.37) Note: in addition to Project Design Criteria, the following are recommended practices that will be discussed with permittees at the time of the Annual Operating Instructions meeting with agency personnel: Permittees are asked to help in locating noxious plant sites and reporting them to the Agency Officer. Permittees willing to assist in treating noxious plants should communicate with the Agency Officer before taking any action. Livestock coming onto the Forest/BLM from lands known to contain noxious plants should be held on clean forage or fed weed-free hay for several days to allow the majority of seeds to pass before turn on. Any equipment used in the transport of livestock, including horse trailers and stock trucks, should be washed before coming onto the allotment if they have been used in areas where noxious plants were present. x x x x x x Alternative Access and Travel Management 2 3 Permittees are required to abide by all FS/BLM road and trail restrictions and closures. Use of closed roads, and use of motorized equipment in areas designated as non-motorized requires a separate road use permit to be obtained prior to use. (1.38) x x Alternative Wilderness 2 3 Livestock will be managed within wilderness to minimize impacts on the wilderness environment and to minimize potential conflict with other users of the area. (1.39) x x Alternative Information Notifications 2 3 Provide the public information about the presence of working dogs and the “Do’s and Don’ts” when recreating near domestic sheep bands. (1.40) Information will be made available at the Silverton Columbine Ranger District/Field Office about livestock grazing rotation schedules so that those recreation visitors who wish to, may avoid encounters with domestic sheep and the resultant activities. (1.41) x x 32
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 and 30: Issues ____________________________
Page 31 and 32: CHAPTER 2 - ALTERNATIVES This chapt
Page 33: Alternative Livestock Bedding 2 3 S
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?