Proposed Resource Management Plan/Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Ely District

Ely Proposed Resource Management Plan/Final Environmental Impact Statement Ely Field Ofﬁce / Nevada Ely Field Ofﬁce Appendices November 2007 COOPERATING AGENCIES: Great Basin National Park Lincoln County Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest Nye County Nellis Air Force Base White Pine County Nevada Department of Wildlife Duckwater Shoshone Tribe Nevada Division of Minerals Ely Shoshone Tribe Nevada Division of Transportation Moapa Band of Paiutes Nevada State Historic Preservation Office Yomba Shoshone Tribe BLM Mission Statement It is the mission of the Bureau of Land Management to sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of the public lands for the use and enjoyment of present and future generations. BLM/EL/PL-07/09+1793 DOI No. FES 07-40 Cover Photo: Cottonwood Canyon – Fortification Range Wilderness, Lincoln County, Nevada. Ely BLM photo. May, 2002. LIST OF APPENDICES APPENDIX A - PHASES OF THE WATERSHED ANALYSIS PROCESS AND THE GRAZING ALLOTMENT EVALUATION PROCESS APPENDIX B - RESOURCE ADVISORY COUNCIL STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES APPENDIX C - STATE AND TRANSITION MODELS, LANDFIRE AND FIRE REGIME CONDITION CLASS APPENDIX D - AREAS OF CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN APPENDIX E - SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES APPENDIX F - CONSOLIDATED BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES Section 1 – Resource Program Best Management Practices Section 2 – Fluid Minerals Lease Notices and Stipulations Section 3 – BLM Wind Energy Development Program Policies and Best Management Practices APPENDIX G - TOOLS AND TECHNIQUES AND PROGRAMMATIC EMERGENCY STABILIZATION AND REHABILITATION PLAN APPENDIX H - LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS FOR POTENTIAL LAND DISPOSAL APPENDIX I - COMMENTS AND RESPONSES ON THE DRAFT RMP/EIS APPENDIX A PHASES OF THE WATERSHED ANALYSIS PROCESS AND THE GRAZING ALLOTMENT EVALUATION PROCESS APPENDIX A APPENDIX A PHASES OF THE WATERSHED ANALYSIS PROCESSES AND THE GRAZING ALLOTMENT EVALUATION PROCESS The watershed analysis process described in the BLM Handbook, H-4180-1 Rangeland Health Standards is being used to analyze 61 watersheds and associated grazing allotments in the planning area. This watershed approach allows the BLM to focus on the flexible management techniques necessary to accommodate the functionality of the watershed. It allows for a shift from species and individual use-driven management to the natural systems that support watersheds in properly functioning conditions (see the Glossary). Assessment Phase The assessment of the watershed is the first step in the analysis process. It involves the collection of indicator data pertinent to the Resource Advisory Council Standards and Guidelines for Rangeland Health (Appendix B). An interdisciplinary team coordinates the collection of indicator data such as ground cover, ecological site inventory data, fire regime condition classes (see Appendix C), riparian proper function and condition ratings, vegetation structure and composition, or other indicator data such as road density, current cultural resource inventory data, and noxious and invasive weed data. The data is collected at an appropriate intensity and scale. In this phase of the analysis, the status of resource conditions is assessed and summarized. Information pertinent to livestock grazing management such as utilization, and trend and use pattern mapping, also is gathered and summarized. These data and information are then compiled and organized for the development of an overview of the physical and biological conditions of the watershed. Evaluation Phase To evaluate a watershed, assessment data is compared against the Resource Advisory Council Standards for rangeland health using methods outlined in H-4180-1 Rangeland Health Standards. The evaluation phase is done in accordance with Title 43 Code of Federal Regulation, subpart 4180; BLM Handbook H-4180-1 Rangeland Health Standards; and Resource Advisory Council Standards and Guidelines. The purpose of the standards and guidelines at Title 43 Code of Federal Regulations § 4180 is to provide measures (standards) to determine land health, and methods (guidelines) to improve the health of the public rangelands. The standards are intended to help the BLM, public land users, and others focus on a common understanding of acceptable resource conditions. The guidelines provide a basis for working together to achieve that vision. The standards are used to communicate current and desired resource conditions among the various groups. Four fundamentals of rangeland health are listed in Title 43 Code of Federal Regulation § 4180.1. They combine the basic precepts of physical function and biological health with elements of law relating to water quality and plant and animal populations and communities. The fundamentals provide the basis for the development and implementation of the standards for land health. The standards were developed by regional Resource Advisory Councils. A-1 APPENDIX A Standards are statements of physical and biological condition or degree of function required for healthy sustainable rangelands. Achieving or making “significant” progress towards these functions and conditions is required of all uses of public rangelands as stated in Title 43 Code of Federal Regulation 4180.1. Guidelines are practices, methods, or techniques. They are also tools such as grazing systems, and vegetation treatments that help achieve standards. Guidelines are used to describe or communicate techniques for managing activities to achieve desired healthy watershed conditions. Standards often make reference to site potential. This potential can be described in ecological site descriptions at a site-specific level or when applied generally at a landscape scale. LANDFIRE biophysical setting models (Appendix C) also describe reference conditions at the landscape scale. These descriptions and models may be applied as reference conditions for the evaluation process. The evaluation is done at the landscape scale and not the site-specific scale. During the evaluation process, interdisciplinary team members, cooperating agency, landowners and public land user groups meet during the evaluation process in both a formal setting and in the field to evaluate the assessment data against these reference conditions. When one or more standard(s) is not achieved or making substantial progress toward achievement, or when there is a lack of conformance with guidelines, causal factors would be identified by resource. The interdisciplinary team then makes recommendations of actions necessary to meet the standard. These recommendations form the foundation of the implementation strategy. If the standards are met, then monitoring would continue to occur as necessary to ensure that standards would continue to be met. If current livestock management or levels of livestock use are determined to be significant factors in failing to achieve the standards and conform with the guidelines, then appropriate action as soon as practicable but not later than the start of the next grazing year is to occur through current BLM regulation. The evaluation process is documented in a report. Determination Phase Once the evaluation is complete, and if standards are not being met, the determination that existing activity management is a significant causal factor for not achieving standards must be documented. Because the standards are developed to ensure the conditions described in 43 Code of Federal Regulation § 4180.1 exist, achievement of standards would mean that the four fundamentals of rangeland health are “in or making significant progress toward” being met. The determination includes at a minimum: 1. Statement of achievement or non-achievement for each standard; 2. List of causal factors for not achieving standards; 3. Statement of conformance or non-conformance with guidelines; and 4. Date determination is made and signature of the authorized officer. A-2 APPENDIX A Documentation of causal factors should clearly identify the evidence used to reach conclusions regarding whether a standard is or is not being met, and which activities are causal factors for not achieving the standard. The grazing-related questions that must be answered “Yes” or “No” as part of the determination process are listed below: 1. Is it more likely than not that existing grazing management practices or levels of grazing use are significant factors in failing to either achieve the standards or conform to the guidelines? 2. Is it more likely than not that existing grazing management should be modified to ensure that the fundamentals of rangeland health are met, or are making significant progress toward being met? The authorized officer is responsible for making the determination based on the evaluation provided by the interdisciplinary team, and information gathered from other sources. The determination document is completed as soon as the evaluation is complete and any additional information is reviewed, normally no more than four months from completion of the evaluation. Following the determination, grazing permits will be fully processed using information from the land health standards evaluation to complete the environmental analysis. Implementation Phase In this final phase, the watershed interdisciplinary team would develop an implementation strategy, which would address all of the standards not achieved, or condition where fundamentals of land health are not met or are not making substantial progress toward being met. The strategy would promote an interdisciplinary process to address all programs, and would use applicable BLM technical manuals, handbooks, etc. The

Load more