NEPA--Environmental Assessment

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Livestock Grazing Management Actions* Table 2-4. Potential Adaptive Options – Livestock Grazing Management Actions Possible Non-Structural Actions: Reseed with native grass, shrub and forb species (plow and seed, or broadcast seed) Planting native shrubs Interseed or furrow for native grass enhancement Fertilize existing meadows to stimulate herbaceous cover Use of integrated methods to control noxious and/or non-native plant species (including selective herbicides, biological control agents, and mechanical methods authorized under a separate EA) Possible Structural Actions: Construct fence to create riparian unit – allow livestock grazing under riparian livestock grazing guidelines Construct fence to exclude livestock from areas of concern (riparian, streams, springs, wetlands, mesic meadows, etc.) Construct temporary electric fence to control livestock distribution patterns Construct permanent fence to control livestock distribution patterns Control livestock distribution patterns using water (turn water on or off at developed water sites) Construct livestock water development (pipeline, tanks, windmill, sediment traps, well, stock dam, submersible pumps, solar) Construct water gaps to control livestock access to riparian areas Construct armored stream crossings Remove existing water development (pipeline, tanks, windmill, well, stock dam) Remove existing fence line (electric, standard, permanent or temporary) Possible Management Actions: Adjust livestock grazing system (i.e. – rest rotation, deferred rotation, rest, high intensity/short duration. etc.) Adjust use of salt or supplement to draw livestock toward or away from specific areas Incorporate a range rider to control livestock distribution (herding) Incorporate use of herding dogs to control livestock distribution Adjust season of use Adjust animal numbers Adjust number of days of livestock utilization Rest from livestock grazing for one or more seasons Do not allow livestock grazing Adjust/combine allotment boundaries Change pasture design Implement multiple unit rotation with permittees' private land 43
Monitoring for Alternative 3 Monitoring and evaluation lead to improved management and informed management decisions. Monitoring helps determine how the Forest Plan/RMP and <strong>NEPA</strong> decisions are being implemented, whether AMP implementation is achieving desired outcomes, and whether assumptions made in the planning process are valid. Monitoring and evaluation are key elements in adaptive management, allowing the FS/BLM to measure whether or not livestock grazing management is being effective in moving toward the desired conditions within the appropriate timeframes. Through adaptive management, AMP’s become dynamic, relevant and useful documents. Two types of monitoring are associated with AMP’s; implementation, or short-term, monitoring and effectiveness, or long-term, monitoring. Implementation monitoring will measure whether or not Forest Plan/RMP direction and desired conditions defined for this project are being met, while effectiveness monitoring will evaluate how successful management actions are at moving towards or achieving that direction and conditions. Monitoring is the responsibility of both the Forest Service/BLM and the range permittee. If at any time the results of monitoring indicate standards, guidelines, or desired resource conditions are not being achieved as predicted, then adaptive management options will be implemented to move towards and/or meet desired conditions. The monitoring described below is part of the Proposed Action. Implementation (Short-Term) Monitoring Annual monitoring techniques will be used in a dynamic and cyclic process. As results are received and analyzed each year, adjustments to the Annual Operating Instructions (AOI) can be made for the following year. The AOI’s clearly explain how each allotment is to be managed on a year-to-year basis. These instructions become part of the Term Livestock Grazing Permit for each permittee and responsibility for carrying out the instructions falls to the permit holder. The AOI’s include instructions for pasture rotations, numbers to be grazed, pasture on and off dates, standards for and determination of allowable use, improvement maintenance and construction, and general allotment operating procedures. This allows annual livestock grazing management to adapt to fluctuations in short-term factors such as range readiness, precipitation, and other local events like fire. By allowing these short-term adjustments to livestock grazing, Forest Plan Direction is likely to be met. The short-term conditions will be monitored annually using a variety of methods such as: • Rangeland Readiness: Indicators used to determine rangeland readiness are soil and vegetation conditions. Rangeland is generally ready for livestock grazing when soil has become firm after winter and spring precipitation, and when plants have reached the defined stage of growth at which livestock grazing may begin under the specific management plan without long-lasting damage. Range readiness will be evaluated on a landscape, rather than a site-specific basis. It will be checked annually beginning a few weeks prior to the scheduled on-date and continually evaluated until as needed until range readiness is achieved. The actual on-date is then determined for that year. • Allotment Inspections: Forest Service/BLM personnel make on-the-ground inspections of utilization, livestock numbers, correct pasture use, and improvement maintenance. Results are documented in allotment files, and corrective actions are taken as necessary. • Allowable Use Guides: These standards are designed to ensure that short-term effects of livestock grazing activities are able to provide for the long-term health and sustainability of rangeland resources. There are a variety of Allowable Use Guides that may be employed on any Key Area 44
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 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: Figure 2-1. Proposed Action - Avoid
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?