NEPA--Environmental Assessment

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Alternative Permitted domestic sheep stray management 2 3 Accountability of Permittee Extensive efforts will be made by the permittee to remove every authorized domestic sheep from the Analysis Area following the grazing season. All sheep must be accounted for (dead or alive) as they enter and exit each allotment, and as they exit the Analysis Area at the end of the season. Special attention should be given to accounting for sheep at all times. If sheep are unaccounted for, diligent efforts should be made to locate them as quickly as possible. If the FS/BLM feels that appropriate efforts are not being implemented, a count-on/count-off inventory will be required as a condition of operation. (2.24) Permittees will be required to respond to reports of stray domestic sheep within 24 hours of notice by the FS/BLM. Stray domestic sheep will be gathered or disposed of within 72 hours of notification. A followup report (verbal or written) will be provided to the FS/BLM on time, date and action taken to resolve the matter; within four days from the notice given by the FS/BLM. (2.25) Driveways and trails between grazing areas will be revisited to ensure no stray domestics have been left behind. (2.26) Trailing Random on-site compliance monitoring to minimize strays will be conducted by the Forest Service. Trucking of domestic sheep and goats is preferred to trailing except in situations where risk of contact is possible (i.e., trucking drop off points in subpopulation areas). In most cases trucking reduces the chance of stray domestics, and lessens the chance of opportunistic contact by wandering wild sheep. Domestic sheep will be kept in a tight group during trailing. (2.27) Domestic sheep identification Permittees will be required to freshly mark (sheep paint) their sheep before they enter onto the National Forest/BLM. The FS/BLM will coordinate with the permittees annually with specific information regarding color of paint used in marking their sheep, brands used, ear tags used and colors, earmarks, and other distinguishing marks or characteristics that may be used in identifying their sheep. In the event, a permittee does not wish to paint brand their sheep due to conflicts with marketing dye free wool, that permittee will be assigned a region that they will be responsible for responding to all reports of stray domestic sheep ( even if it is not their sheep ). (2.28) Permit Action Repeated non-compliance with domestic sheep stray management will result in appropriate permit action. (2.29) x x x x x x 37
Alternative 2 – Current Management_________________ Under the Current Management Alternative, livestock grazing would continue with current AMP’s or, in the absence of such, a plan, or if the existing plan is not being followed for a variety of reasons, under the Annual Operating Instructions (AOI’s). As provided for in Forest Service policy (FSH 2209.13, R2 ID, Chapter 90, section 94.1), “Current management will also be analyzed in detail as an alternative to the proposed action if current management will meet the stated purpose and need for action. This alternative is based on the current management action being implemented. Current management direction may be contained in an AMP, AOI, a biological opinion, or a combination thereof.” Livestock grazing would continue to be authorized as it has been in the recent past using a predefined number of livestock, seasons of use, and pasture rotation systems. For the allotments in this analysis, this would be as shown in Table 2-3. Allotment Table 2-3. Current Grazing Management by Allotment Grazing System Permitted Livestock Numbers AUM’s Season Deer Park rotation 1000 413 7/16-9/20 Elk Creek rotation 1000 446 7/11-9/15 Engine/Creek Deer Creek rotation 1000 513 7/1-9/15 Eureka/California Gulch rotation 1275 569 7/10-9/15 Gladstone rotation 924 351 7/10-9/5 Maggie Gulch rotation 1000 433 7/11-9/14 Picayne/Mineral Point rotation 1031 460 7/10-9/15 Red Mountain rotation 1000 513 7/1-9/15 Permitted livestock numbers would not change. For sheep allotments, permitted numbers refer to the number of ewes, each of which may have one or more lambs. Existing improvements would continue to be maintained as assigned in Term Livestock Grazing Permits and may be re-constructed once the useful life has been met and the need identified. New improvements would not be developed unless they are authorized in a <strong>NEPA</strong> decision. Sheep allotments typically do not have structural improvements except for corrals and loading facilities. Design Criteria Those design criteria as indicated in Tables 2-1 and 2-2 (p.29+) by an “x” in the Alternative 2 column are included as part of Alternative 2. These criteria apply to all active allotments across the landscape at all times. Alternative 3 – Adaptive Management/Proposed Action_ The proposed action is to continue to permit livestock grazing on the Silverton Landscape by incorporating adaptive management strategies that will allow the lands within the landscape to meet or move towards meeting Forest Plan/RMP direction standards, and guidelines and desired conditions identified in this EA. Adaptive management is a process where land managers implement management practices that are designed to meet Forest Plan/RMP standards and guidelines, and would likely achieve the desired conditions in a timely manner. However, if monitoring shows that desired conditions are not being met, or if movement toward achieving the desired conditions in an acceptable timeframe is not occurring, then an alternate set of management actions, as described and evaluated under this <strong>NEPA</strong> analysis, would be implemented to achieve the desired results. Adaptive Management is designed to be flexible in nature, and is based on conditions on the ground; not 38
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 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: Alternative Minimization of Threat
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?