NEPA--Environmental Assessment

More documents

Recommendations

Info

depending on the resource concerns. The most commonly used include trigger stubble height, residual stubble height (occurring at the end of the livestock grazing season or the end of the growing season, whichever occurs later), riparian shrub utilization, stream-bank impacts, and so forth. • Grazing Response Index (GRI): The GRI is used to assess the effects of annual livestock grazing pressures, and the effects of repetitive defoliation during the growing season. Looking at GRI scores for certain pastures or allotments over a five to ten year period provides a general indicator as to whether or not management is providing the required combination of livestock grazing frequency, intensity and rest opportunity to best meet physiological needs of forage resources. • Actual Use Reports: Permittees are responsible for reporting actual use of the allotment at the end of each livestock grazing season. When combined with analysis of other factors such as allotment inspections, the need for annual adjustments to livestock grazing strategy can be determined. • Use forage-use mapping and key species utilization measurements to document achievement of Forest Plan standards and Desired Conditions for this landscape. • Animas Forks Townsite should be annually monitored to ensure the associated design criteria is being followed and grazing rotations are not disturbing the site. Animas Forks is currently monitored annually by the San Juan Mountains Association’s Cultural Site Stewardship Program. Effectiveness (Long-Term Trend) Monitoring The most important role of monitoring is to determine whether management is successful at moving rangeland resources towards desired conditions in an acceptable timeframe. Determining trend toward or away from allotment objectives allows rangeland managers to accurately determine the relative success of the management system and to adjust management to speed the accomplishment of objectives. Trend for a variety of rangeland resource parameters may need to be monitored. These trends tend to be long-term, and relatively slow in responding to changing conditions; therefore, these methods will be based on analysis at five-year intervals. The long-term health of upland resources will be monitored at upland sites on active allotments at approximately five-year intervals using a variety of methods such as: • Rangeland Health Matrix (RHM): This evaluation provides a general look at critical rangeland health features on Forest Service lands. Qualitative evaluation using professional judgment of these features can lead the examiner towards an accurate initial assessment of the rangeland and subsequent management of that land. Comparison of future rangeland health evaluations to initial evaluations provides a glimpse of trend in overall rangeland health. This method is usually conducted with interdisciplinary teams. • Standards for Public Land Health <strong>Assessment</strong> (LHA): This methodology is used for BLM land and is similar to the RHM, in that it leads to an initial assessment of the rangeland using qualitative professional judgment. It focuses on the five BLM Standards for Public Land Health, and whether those standards are being met on an allotment (USDI 1997): Standard 1 relates to uplands soils, Standard 2 relates to riparian systems, Standard 3 relates to plant and animal communities, Standard 4 relates to special status, threatened and endangered species, Standard 5 relates to water quality. 45
• Photographs and Photo-points: Photographs are extremely useful in documenting change on the landscape. Photos need to capture the essence of the plot, point or transect, including important characteristics and features of the site. Photos need to include enough of the horizon-line to allow the photographer to easily repeat the photograph from the same angle at a different time. If the above qualitative monitoring indicates that conditions are not satisfactory, or at approximately ten-year intervals, the following types of more intensive quantitative monitoring will be performed (or other similar methods that are endorsed by the agencies at that time): • Cover Frequency Transects: This inventory method commonly used by the FS provides quantitative measurements of canopy cover and frequency by plant species, ground cover, and production by life form. It is useful when a replicated sampling design and statistical analysis is required. It is also used to calibrate ocular estimates of canopy cover. • Rooted-Nested Frequency Transects: This inventory method commonly used by the BLM provides quantitative measurements of plant species composition and frequency. It also is useful as a replicable, statistical sampling design for comparison over time. The long-term health of riparian areas will be monitored at riparian sites on active allotments at approximately five-year intervals using a variety of methods, such as: • Proper Functioning Condition (PFC): This assessment process classifies riparian as being in “Proper Functioning Condition”; “Functional-at risk”, with either an upward or downward trend; “Non-functional”; or “Unknown.” These ratings evaluate riparian condition based in part on presence/absence and abundance of specific vegetation and the interactions of that vegetation with geology, hydrology, and soils. • The line intercept method consists of horizontal linear measurements of plant intercepts along the course of a line (tape). It is used primarily for quantitative measurements of shrub canopy cover, and is used to calibrate ocular estimates of shrub canopy cover. This method will be used to determine the canopy cover percent of willows needed to determine seral stages. • Cover Frequency Transects: This inventory method provides quantitative measurements of canopy cover and frequency by plant species, ground cover, and production by life form. It is useful when a replicated sampling design and statistical analysis is required. It is also used to calibrate ocular estimates of canopy cover. • Photographs and Photo-points: Photographs are extremely useful in documenting change on the landscape. Photos should capture the essence of the plot, point or transect, including important characteristics and features of the site. Photos should include enough of the horizon-line to allow the photographer to easily repeat the photograph from the same angle at a different time. 46
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 and 46: Figure 2-1. Proposed Action - Avoid
Page 47: Monitoring for Alternative 3 Monito
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?