My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP01334
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
1001-2000
>
WSP01334
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 12:30:32 PM
Creation date
10/11/2006 10:20:18 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8273.400
Description
Colorado River Basin Salinity Control - Federal Agencies - Bureau of Land Management
Basin
Colorado Mainstem
Water Division
5
Date
11/1/1996
Author
BLM
Title
Decision Record and Finding of No Significant Impact for Adoption of Standards for Public Land Health and Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management in Colorado
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
EIS
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
29
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />The following steps describe a typical sequence for assessing public land health and trend on <br />f\:) established priority areas. The authorized officer will: <br /> <br />(0 <br />-,J 1. Using publlcscoping, identify issues and values in detail; identify existing management objectives' <br />to- from sources such as the Resource Management Plan (RMP), and activity plans. <br /> <br />2. Assess publiC land health and If possible determine the trend relating to public land health, <br /> <br />3. Determine the relationship between existing land uses and the assessed health of the land. <br /> <br />4. If needed, establish measurable objectives or redefine/modify existing management objectives <br />that will result.in desired conditions.. (Note: If significant changes.to RMPdecislons areneede<i, an <br />amendment to the RMP will be needed.) <br /> <br />5. Identify which land use actions will achieve the desired objectives and resource conditions. <br /> <br />NOTE: This document addresses the livestock grazing guidelines; guidelines that relate to other land <br />uses will be consulted or developed as necessary to deal with the appropriate objectives. <br /> <br />6. Identify specific management practices, In conformance with the guidelines, and attach as terms <br />and conditions on grazing permits, or as stipulations on specific projects or actions. <br /> <br />7. Establish an eyaluation schedule to determine if the standard Is being achieved or ifsignificant .. <br />progress is being made. <br /> <br />- If the evaluation indicates that objectives are being achieved or there is movement towards the. <br />objective, continue with management practices. <br /> <br />- If the evaluation indicates nO movement or movement away from the objectives, reassess the <br />. objectivesandm~nagement actions. Determine the objectives and management actions necessary <br />.to assure significant progress toward achieving the standards. Amend plans and permits as <br />necessary. <br /> <br />.. . <br />The authorized officer wUl tak.e immediate administrative action to implement.appropriate guidelines <br />upona.determination that the following three circumstances all apply: <br /> <br />1 <br />~ <br />., <br />>i <br /> <br />1. Publjc land health is unaccepatable; <br /> <br />2. Existing management is not likely to produce significant progress towards public land health; and <br /> <br /> <br />3. The consultation process has failed to yield a negotiated resolution. <br /> <br />If needed, future modifications to the Standards and Guidelines may be made. Typically, a proposal <br />for modification is presented to the local Designated Field Official (DFO); The DFO then forwards <br />the proposal for modification to other DFOs throughout the state for consideration in consultation <br />with the RACs. (A copy of the proposal for modification is also submitted to the State Director). <br />The DFOs considering advise from the RACs then submit to the State Director recommendations <br />regarding the proposal for modification. The State Director decides if the proposal for modification <br />has merit. If so, a'determination is made whether the modification is a maintenance change to the <br />Resource Management Plans or requires a plan amendment. Maintenance changes require no action <br />except to make a notation in the RMPs (43 CFR 1610.5-4). Actions requiring a RMP amendment <br />will require NEPA analysis and conformance with 43 CFR 1610.5. <br /> <br />-~ <br /> <br /> <br />10 <br /> <br />1 <br />,4<_, <br /> <br />.--Mti.~ <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.