NEPA--Environmental Assessment

More documents

Recommendations

Info

SUMMARY The proposed action analyzed in this Environmental Assessment (EA) constitutes a federal action with the potential to affect the quality of the human environment on Forest Service (FS) and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) lands. Therefore, these projects must be analyzed pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), which directs federal agencies to carefully consider environmental concerns in the decision-making process and provide relevant information to the public for review and comment. The FS/BLM has prepared this EA in compliance with NEPA and other relevant Federal and state laws and regulations. This EA discloses potential direct, indirect, and cumulative effects on the human and biological environment estimated to result from the implementation of the alternatives analyzed. The Columbine Ranger District/Field Office proposes to continue to authorize livestock grazing on all or portions of the Silverton Landscape in such a manner that will meet or move resource conditions toward desired conditions, and be consistent with the Forest Plan and Resource Management Plan direction, standards and guidelines. The proposed action is designed to increase the flexibility of livestock grazing systems through adaptive management, which will allow quicker and more effective response to problems areas when they are revealed. Problems will be revealed through the use of short- and long-term monitoring. Application of adaptive management practices should result in healthier soil, watershed, and vegetative conditions. The analysis area encompasses approximately 195,050 acres on 8 active sheep allotments, 6 vacant sheep allotments, and one previously closed allotment. The area is located near Silverton, Colorado, in San Juan, La Plata, and Ouray Counties, in Townships 38-43 North, Ranges 6-10 West, N.M.P.M. and is within the Columbine Ranger District/Field Office, San Juan Public Lands, Colorado. Livestock grazing has been identified in the Forest Plan and Resource Management Plan as an appropriate use of the public lands and falls under congressional multiple-use mandates (P.L. 86-517, 1960; P.L. 94-579, 1976). This action is needed at this time because in the early 1990’s, the courts determined that livestock grazing permits should not be re-issued without sufficient National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analysis. Internal and external scoping has revealed five significant issue topics relating to livestock grazing on the landscape: • Soil/Water Impacts • Vegetation Impacts • Recreational Experience Impacts • Wildlife Impacts • Socio-Economic Impacts 1
These issues led the agency to develop three alternatives: • Alt. 1 : No Action – No Livestock Grazing (required by law) • Alt. 2: No Change – Current Management • Alt. 3: Proposed Action – Adaptive Management Major conclusions are that while the landscape is general in good condition, most natural resources benefit from Alternative 3 over Alternative 2, including Water Quality, Vegetation and Soils, Recreation, Wildlife, and Cultural Resources. Alternative 3 includes design criteria specifically designed to address issues regarding such things as bighorn sheep, Uncompahgre fritillary butterfly, and certain areas of recreational conflict. Alternative 1 would be of greatest benefit to natural resources, but would have negative socio-economic impacts. Based upon the effects of the alternatives, the responsible official will decide whether livestock grazing will proceed as proposed, as modified, or not at all; on all or part of the Silverton Landscape; and if grazing proceeds, will decide what activities, monitoring, and mitigation will be implemented. 2
Page 1 and 2: United States Department of Agricul
Page 3: Silverton Landscape Grazing Analysi
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 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?