PINTO WATERSHED IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
|
|
- Owen Barnett
- 6 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Range Resource Specialist Report For The PINTO WATERSHED IMPROVEMENT PROJECT PINE VALLEY RANGER DISTRICT IRON COUNTY AND WASHINGTON COUNTY, UTAH Prepared by: Date: Randy Beckstrand, Range Specialist Pine Valley RD, Dixie National Forest Date: July 1, 2017
2 In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident. Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or USDA s TARGET Center at (202) (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other than English. To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form. To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by: (1) mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights 1400 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, D.C ; (2) fax: (202) ; or (3) program.intake@usda.gov. USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender. 2
3 Introduction The purpose of this report is to provide an analysis of the effects of the proposed Pinto Watershed Improvement Project on range and grazing resources. The analysis effects are based on professional judgement and a review of the range monitoring and grazing permit administration files. The objectives of this report are to describe the rangeland setting and to analyze potential impacts to the rangeland grazing program. Project Overview The Pinto Watershed Improvement Project is designed to improve the Pinto Creek and Little Pinto Creek watersheds through protection of riparian resources and improving water quality, creating a more fire resilient landscape within the wildland urban interface and creation of defensible fire space along the main access roads while enhancing scenic integrity and habitat diversity across the landscape. This project strives to improve current conditions on public lands so that they would fall into alignment with the desired conditions set forth in the Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) (USDA 1986 as amended). The proposed actions would aid in implementation of the Newcastle Reservoir Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Plan (Utah Department of Environmental Quality 2008). For a complete description of the project and full environmental analysis, see the Pinto Watershed Improvement Environmental Assessment (EA) (USDA 2017) which is incorporated here by reference. The Pinto Watershed Improvement Project is located within the Pine Valley Ranger District of the Dixie National Forest. The project lies within both Washington and Iron County, Utah. The project area is located adjacent to and around the communities of Pinto and Old Irontown which are rural in character. The legal description for the project area is T37S, R13W, Sections 4-9, 17, and 18; T37S, R14W, Sections 1-23, 26-31, 34, and 35; T37S, R15W, Sections 1-3, 12, 13, 15, 16, 20-29, and 31-36; T37.5S, R14W, Sections 31 and 32; T38S, R14W, Section 6; T38S, R15W, Sections 1-6, 8-12, 14, and 15 (Figure 1). Access to Pinto and Page Ranch are via Forest Road (FR) 30009, also known as Pinto Road. This through road runs east to west connecting HWY 56 to HWY18. This route intersects Forest Road which runs from the town of Newcastle South to Forest Road also known as the Pine Valley Highway. These two routes are the only ways to access the town of Pinto. The town of Old Irontown can be accessed by Forest Road off of HWY 56. The purpose of the project is to (1) improve water quality; (2) create a more fire resilient landscape; and (3) maintain and enhance landscape scenic quality. In order to fill the gap between the existing and desired conditions the Dixie National Forest has developed the following needs for action: 1. There is a need to improve water quality in accordance with the recommendations from the Newcastle TMDL Plan. 2. There is a need to reduce the risk of crown fire and projected flame lengths through vegetation modification to reduce and re-arrange fuels. 3. There is a need to improve scenic integrity of the project area from a Class C Landscape to a Class B Landscape. 3
4 Figure 1. Vicinity and proposed treatment map for the Pinto Watershed Improvement Project. Affected Environment Current fuel conditions within the project area would likely result in uncharacteristically large and severe fires. Preliminary fire behavior modeling indicates the potential for surface fire with four to eight foot flame lengths in grass/forb/sage vegetation and crown fire with eight to 20 foot flame lengths in P-J and riparian vegetation types at the 90th percentile weather conditions (see EA). Current conditions within meadows and chained areas, mature sagebrush (Aretemesia spp.), patches of mature mountain brush (Cercocarpus spp.), and encroachment of phase one pinyon-juniper (P-J) create uncharacteristically large areas of continuous fuels that are not limited by species diversity and mixed age classes. Within the P-J specifically, surface fuel loadings average approximately 5 tons per acre and range as high as 51 tons per acre. Presence of invasive cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum) contributes to the continuous fuel loading, flammability, and potential for increased rate of fire spread. Existing vegetative treatments (historic chainings) are not adequate to slow or safely suppress an approaching wildfire due to their present width and configuration. Few fuel reduction treatments have been implemented within the WUI values zone or project area. Continuous dense vegetation could lead to high intensity large scale fires and increase risk to suppression forces and adjacent landowners. Existing conditions limit fire management decision space and options related to initial attack. The presence of 90 degree angles along the boundary between Forest Service administered lands and private lands has historically been shown to reduce the success of fire suppression actions from within 4
5 the defensible fire space area. Pinto road, the main egress route for several rural communities within the Pinto vicinity, may be compromised in the event of wildfire and not provide safe passage for residents and firefighters. Proposed Action The following vegetation treatments (A-E) are designed to provide a multiple resource benefit and address all of the needs of the project. The P-J woodlands and brushlands lack species diversity. This lack of diversity allows more surface runoff to occur and less infiltration causing more sedimentation to the streams. P-J and brush treatments are designed to increase species diversity and promote infiltration thus helping to improve water quality within the Newcastle Watershed. These treatments will lower potential wildfire flame lengths under the 90 th percentile weather conditions below what the current flame length model shows (see EA) and lower the risk of active crown fires. Treatments are consistent with the Forest Plan and will also create conditions where firefighters can directly attack fires adjacent to private property. These proposed treatments would allow for and include the maintenance of the desired vegetative conditions within the area to maintain effectiveness. Lastly, these treatments were designed to make the landscape more aesthetically pleasing by removing hard lines and increasing overall visual diversity. Each of the treatments A-E involve 2 main components. 1) Brush treatment to promote early seral conditions and 2) P-J density reduction. For treatments A-D, the brush component will be treated to accomplish a target of 80-85% early seral stage condition for vegetation and have more diversity in grass, forb, and shrub species. P-J densities across the area will be reduced to approximately trees per acre. For treatment E, the brush component will be treated to accomplish a target of 80-85% early seral stage condition for vegetation and have more diversity in the representation of riparian species. P-J will be removed from these areas unless they are identified by the forest hydrologist and fisheries biologist to be required for bank stability or other aquatic concerns. To minimize the risk of additional cheatgrass establishment and to reduce soil erosion, project design feature WL-9 has been developed. A. Existing Chaining Re-treatments (3957 Acres) These areas were chained in the 1970s and created open meadows. Since then, P-J has been encroaching into these areas and they currently lack species diversity. These treatments in conjunction with the other treatments create defensible fire space around the communities of Pinto, Old Irontown and surrounding private property within the project area and provide access and egress routes for these communities in the event of a wildfire. B. Defensible Fire Space (3210 Acres) These treatments in conjunction with the other treatments would create an effective defensible fire space around the communities of Pinto, Old Irontown and surrounding private property within the project area in the event of a wildfire. C. P-J Removal (2492 Acres) Implementing these treatments in conjunction with the other treatments would create an effective defensible fire space around the communities of Pinto, Old Irontown and surrounding private property 5
6 within the project area and provide access and egress routes for these communities in the event of a wildfire. They would also improve stormwater infiltration due to greater vegetative cover after recruitment and seeding of forbs and grasses. D. Ingress/Egress (850 Acres) Treating along these routes would improve access and egress routes, allowing vehicles and machinery to enter and exit the area as needed in the event of a wildfire. F. Riparian Pastures (117 Acres) Approximately 22,000 feet of fencing will be constructed to create riparian pastures which will limit cattle access throughout most of the year. These pastures will be open to feed during certain parts of the grazing season as determined by the range specialist according to established guidelines and vegetative response. This will promote stream channel stability and maintain and increase representation of riparian species. G. Revetment Area (75 Acres) Stream bank armoring in the form of Juniper revetments will be implemented on approximately 1,200 feet of stream bank. These revetments will be situated on the outside bends in order to stabilize the bank and prevent further lateral stream migration. Revetment material will be selectively harvested from the adjacent hillsides. Approximately 100 trees will be cut and dragged into the stream. They will be secured into the bank with steel cable and anchored. Trees will be overlapped and cabled together to eliminate gaps in coverage of the streambank. While the full range of fuel reduction methods are authorized consistent with forest management area emphasis and direction, the treatments will likely fall into general implementation categories of: Mastication Dixie Harrow Hand cut, lop, and scatter Hand cut, pile, and pile burn Mastication is a treatment which is done by using tracked heavy equipment outfitted with a masticating head which grinds up vegetation. An operator will treat P-J or brush on slopes less than 30% and in areas which are accessible to the equipment without driving on slopes greater than 30%. Woody debris would be left in place scattered across the project site. Dixie Harrow will be used to treat brush on slopes less than 30%. On slopes greater than 30%, the P-J and brush will be treated one of two ways. The first option is hand cut, lop, and scatter. Using chainsaws, hand crews would selectively cut pinyon and juniper. Brush would be cut and scattered where appropriate as determined by the fuels specialist. The second option is hand cut, pile, and pile burn. Using chainsaws, hand crews would selectively cut P-J and brush on slopes greater than 30%. The slash would be piled in preparation for curing and pile burning in appropriate locations as determined by the fuels specialist. Mechanical treatment should focus mainly on P-J removal with some shrub removal in areas of thick density. Selective thinning should be designed to leave different age classes of browse species, may 6
7 include planting bitterbrush, willow or other plants where appropriate. Due to the prolific nature of juniper and less aggressive re-establishment of pinyon pine, in mixed stands, juniper will be selected for treatment and pinyon left standing for habitat where possible in conjunction with fuels reduction efforts. These treatments were designed to make the landscape more aesthetically pleasing by removing hard lines and increasing overall visual diversity. This will be accomplished by: Leaving P-J in clumps varying from 1-15 trees per clump along the length of roadways and trails. These clumps will need to leave 50% big game hiding cover along the length within 200 feet of the edge of the roadway and trails. Leaving P-J in clumps varying from 1-15 trees per clump along the forest/private boundaries. The boundaries of the areas being treated and the areas outside the treatments will follow an undulating pattern. This will be accomplished by following natural vegetative changes; landscape features such as rock outcroppings, ridgelines, and drainage bottoms; or in a pattern determined by the forest landscape architect during implementation. Although the treatments will undulate along their extents, they will remain within the footprint of the mapped treatment areas. Brush will be left in managed clumps and patches varying in size and in irregular shapes. Sizes will vary from 1 50 acres. Seeding would be accomplished using multiple tools such as; aerial seed, rangeland drill, and seed hopper and harrow. Two approved seed mixes would be used as determined by the Forest Botanist and other specialists. The seed mix used within the IRA would focus on native species appropriate for elevation and site potential. Outside of the IRA a seed mix including more non-native species would be allowed for the purposes of out-competing invasive plants and noxious weeds. Timing and sequence of treatment efforts would be strategically timed to give germinates a competitive advantage against invasive plants such as cheatgrass. For example, where feasible, the site would be seeded prior to mastication and harrowing, so that the mastication and harrowing process would further cover the seed and prepare the seed bed. Some of the treatments above occur in an IRA. Table 1 summarizes the number of treatment acres for each action which will occur in IRA. Table 1. Treatment acres and type proposed within an IRA for the Pinto Improvement Project. Roadless Area Treatment Type Atchinson Cove Mountain Kane Mountain Stoddard Mountain Grand Total Defensible Fire Space Ingress/Egress PJ Removal
8 Existing Chaining- Retreatments Grand Total PROJECT MANAGEMENT AREAS The project area includes the following Forest Plan Management Areas: 1 - General Forest direction, 2A Semi-Primitive Recreation Opportunities, 4C Wildlife Habitat (Brushy Range), 5A Big Game Winter Range (Non-Forest), 6A Livestock Grazing, and 9A Riparian Management. Guidance for development of the purpose and need for action came from the Forest Plan (USDA 1986), Utah Fire Amendment(USDA 2001), and the Scenery Management System Amendment (USDA 2000a). DURATION AND TIMING The timing and duration of the Proposed Action would be as follows: (1) Mechanical thinning, mulching activities and seeding in the fuel break areas could begin as early as fall of 2017; (2) Pile burning could begin in the spring or fall of 2017 and continue 1 to 2 years post treatment. In general, project activities may remain active for up to 15 years post decision. Climate Change Effects Climate change can have direct effects on wildlife lifecycles and can indirectly affect factors such as food availability, quality and quantity (Chambers, Devoe, & Evenden, eds. 2008). Some animals have very specific climatic adaptations, such as requirements for snow, sea ice, or temperatures within a narrow range for hibernation. Some have distributions that are dependent on climate. The effects of climate changes on mammals can sometimes be ascertained directly through the study of their biology and physiology. For most mammals, however, climate broadly defines their ecological niche (McKelvey, Perry, & Mills 2013). Managing lands in the face of climate change requires an acknowledgement of both the range of different effects and the high levels of uncertainty involved in local projections. Overall, a connected landscape allows animals to seek appropriate habitats and prevents the negative consequences faced by small isolated populations. Diverse landscapes increase overall resilience and provide opportunities for adaptation. Habitat improvement helps maintain a large, healthy population, which may improve its likelihood of persistence (McKelvey, Perry, & Mills 2013). Discussions regarding climate change effects to vegetation are summarized from the report Effects of Climatic Variability and Change on Forest Ecosystems: A Comprehensive Science Synthesis for the U.S. Forest Sector and is incorporated into this report by reference (Vose, Peterson and Patel-Weynand 2012). Human activities such as fuel burning, land-use change, and agriculture have led to increases in ambient greenhouse gases (GHGs), including carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide. GHGs contribute to the greenhouse effect and are causing the surface temperature of the Earth to increase with a number of associated large scale changes (USDA 2015). Carbon sequestration by forests is one way to mitigate GHG emissions by offsetting losses through removal and storage of carbon. Carbon dioxide uptake by 8
9 forests in the conterminous United States offset approximately 16 percent of our national total carbon dioxide emissions in 2011 (US EPA 2013). Recent estimates of net annual storage indicate forests are an important carbon sink, removing more carbon from the atmosphere than they are emitting (Pan et al. 2011). Carbon stored in U.S. forests is projected to peak between 2020 and 2040 and then decline through This decline will be primarily due to removal of trees as private forest lands are converted to urban and other developed land uses (USDA 2012). Western forest ecosystems may also emit greater amounts of carbon if wildfire and insect disturbance increase as expected (Vose et al. 2012). Cumulative Effects Area The cumulative effects area (CEA) selected for this analysis, is based on known or suspected habitat used by identified wildlife species of concern during all or a large portion of their life cycle that is continuous with and surrounds the proposed project area. This determination is based on information, experience, and recommendations in coordination with the district biologist. The CEA consist of a mix of federally managed and private land. It represents a landscape surrounding the project area where past, present, and future management actions by humans have and/or will occur. The wildlife species discussed in this document use all or parts of these areas. Delineation of the CEA for this project is based on estimated species use of the landscape and includes the project boundary plus Little Pinto Creek 6 th Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC), Pinto Creek 6 th HUC, and portions of Dry Wash, Big Hollow Wash, Duncan Creek, and Holt Canyon 6 th HUC watersheds and encompasses 84,646 acres (Figure 2). Ongoing actions, or actions expected to occur in the reasonably foreseeable future include livestock grazing, recreation projects (such as trails maintenance), access management (road maintenance), private land development, and recreation. Recreational use within the project areas includes dispersed camping, hiking, mountain biking, ATV/UTV use, and hunting. Private in-holdings include the hamlets of Pinto and Old Irontown and several private subdivisions within the project boundary. The cumulative effects area (CEA) in this analysis has seen considerable vegetation management activity over the past years that has contributed to the characteristic of the landscape over time. Approximately 3,957 acres within the project were previously chained in the 1970s and again around Pinyon pine and juniper are again encroaching into these areas. Active livestock allotments within the project include portions of the West Pinto, East Pinto and Iron Town cattle allotments. In total, these allotments are permitted to have up to 496 cow/calf pairs annually. Total general season of use ranges from May 21 to October 15. Capable grazing areas are located mainly in the sagebrush and mountain brush vegetation types. Cows will generally trail through denser conifer types to access other more suitable grazing areas. 9
10 Range Resources Affected Environment General Setting The East Pinto, West Pinto and Iron Town Allotments are located in Washington County and Iron County, Utah on the Dixie National Forest Pine Valley Ranger District (PVRD). These grazing allotments lie adjacent to the towns of Pinto and Iron Town, Utah. The rangeland vegetation communities on these allotments have been used for livestock grazing since European settlement. Early livestock grazing had limited intensive management, with no established livestock numbers or seasons of use during this early settlement period. When grazing allotments were created the number and kind of livestock, as well as season of use, were established for the area. Over time, adjustments have been made to ensure vegetation communities are grazed in a sustainable manner. Table 1 below identifies the permitted seasons of use for allotments in the proposed project area. Permitted Livestock Use Allotment Number Class Season East Pinto 146 Cow/calf 06/01-10/15 West Pinto 257 Cow/calf 05/21-10/10 Iron Town 93 Cow/calf 06/01-10/15 Table 2. Grazing Allotments and permitted use for allotments within the Pinto Watershed Improvement Project. Resource Review Overall the proposed action would result in a modest impact to range and grazing resources. The short term impact of the proposed action would be that livestock may not have access to an area while vegetation treatment activity was occurring. Livestock could also access unauthorized locations if gates were left open and/or fences were compromised by fuel break activities. The long term impact would likely be a modest increase in the amount of available forage on the allotments. However, such an increase in available forage is not expected to result in an increase in cattle numbers or available forage allotted for the allotments in the proposed project area. It could however, result in an increase in extra forage available to help defer drought impacts and decrease likelihood of needing to leave areas sooner due to hitting utilization standards. 10
11 Mitigation Measures: 1) Temporary fences and/or existing fence or gate repair may be required at the discretion of the authorized officer and the appropriate technical specialists if livestock are in the area at the time of vegetation treatment activity. 2) Proper notification of the Rangeland Management Specialist who would then notify the affected permitees when vegetation treatment work activity is scheduled to occur within a given allotment or pasture. 3) Every effort should be made to ensure that livestock in the area are not disturbed. 4) Any suspected impacts to livestock should be reported to the Rangeland Management Specialist. Direct and Indirect Effects Proposed Action The timing and duration of the Proposed Action would be as follows: (1) Mechanical thinning, mulching activities and seeding vegetation treatment areas could begin as early as fall of 2017; in general, project activities may remain active for up to 5 years post decision. In general, there is a potential for short-term direct disturbance to livestock if project activities were to occur during the authorized grazing season. Vegetation treatment activities would produce noise and commotion in the area. The presence of people, noise, and equipment could disturb livestock in the immediate vicinity for one-to-seven days. For this analysis, short term is defined as effects occurring during implementation and up to 5 years afterwards. Long-term effects are defined as occurring 5 years or more after implementation of treatments are completed. No-Action Alternative Maintaining the Project Area in its existing condition would preclude any vegetation treatment. The habitat conditions described in the affected environment section would continue in the short term. In the long term, pinyon-juniper and pinyon-pine trees will continue to encroach into the project area and will decrease the amount of ground cover leading to a lack of diversity of grass and shrub component for livestock to use. Under the no action alternative, current fuel levels would remain high and may increase as fuel loading and fuel continuity across the surface increases. Snags would continue to increase from disturbance 11
12 from disease and insects and eventually fall and accumulate on the forest floor which increases the surface fuels that contribute to increased fire intensity, burn severity on soils and crown fire initiation. Increased fuel loading and continuity would increase the chance of wildfires with high burn severity within the project area (See Fuels Specialist Report). III. Cumulative Effects Common to all Action Alternatives There are no foreseeable cumulative impacts to Range and Grazing Resources. Range/Grazing Project Design Features RG-1.Treated areas would be rested from livestock grazing for two to three growing seasons post implementation where residual understory vegetation is at less than 40% desired effective ground cover, and possibly three years in some areas to reduce livestock browse pressure on new aspen sprouts where present. RG-2. Livestock grazing will continue to be administered through existing range allotment decisions and annual operating instructions to minimize impacts on regeneration and seeding establishment of vegetation. Measures may include livestock management activities such as herding, salt placement, timing of grazing, fencing, and rest. Rest will follow established DNF guidelines. Normally, the Forest requires that burned or treated areas be rested for two full years. Prior to stocking these areas an evaluation is needed to make sure that the rangelands are within 80% of desired effective ground cover values for the site and desirable plant species are established and producing seed. These timeframes may be modified based on documented consensus from an Interdisciplinary Team. Utilization standards are described in the Forest Plan and apply to this project. Table 3. Project design features to minimize impacts of the proposed actions on range and grazing. 12
Logo Department Name Agency Organization Organization Address Information 196 East Tabernacle Suite 40 St. George, UT Agriculture
Logo Department Name Agency Organization Organization Address Information United States Forest Dixie National Forest 196 East Tabernacle Suite 40 Department of Service Pine Valley Ranger District St. George,
More informationOUTREACH NOTICE 2018 TEMPORARY POSITIONS BEAVERHEAD-DEERLODGE NATIONAL FOREST HOW TO APPLY: RECREATION POSITIONS BEING HIRED:
OUTREACH NOTICE 2018 TEMPORARY POSITIONS BEAVERHEAD-DEERLODGE NATIONAL FOREST The Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest will be filling multiple temporary (seasonal) positions for the upcoming 2018 field
More informationPROJECT INFORMATION Manchester Ranger District Apple Tree Release and Maintenance Project
PROJECT INFORMATION Manchester Ranger District Apple Tree Release and Maintenance Project The USDA Forest Service is proposing to release and prune living apple trees in the Manchester Ranger District,
More informationPublic Rock Collection
Public Rock Collection Eagle-Holy Cross Ranger District, White River national Forest Eagle County, Colorado T7S, R80W, Section 18 & T6S, R84W, Section 16 Comments Welcome The Eagle-Holy Cross Ranger District
More informationPRESCRIBED FIRE IN SOUTHWEST IDAHO
2016 PRESCRIBED FIRE IN SOUTHWEST IDAHO In southwest Idaho, public land managers work to: address public health and safety concerns; treat insect and disease infestations; reduce the risk of severe wildfires
More informationProposed Action for Motorized Travel Management on the North Kaibab Ranger District
United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Proposed Action for Motorized Travel Management on the North Kaibab Ranger District Kaibab National Forest March 2010 The U.S. Department of Agriculture
More informationTelegraph Forest Management Project
Telegraph Forest Management Project Black Hills National Forest Northern Hills Ranger District Lawrence and Pennington Counties, South Dakota Proposed Action and Request for Comments March 2008 Table of
More informationIntroduction. Methodology for Analysis
1 Medicine Lake Caldera Vegetation Treatment Project Scenic Report Prepared by: /s/gary Kedish Natural Resources Specialist for: Big Valley and Doublehead Ranger Districts Modoc National Forest February
More informationIntroduction. Methodology for Analysis
Scenic Report Prepared by: /s/gary Kedish Natural Resources Specialist for: Warner Mountain Ranger District Modoc National Forest January 20, 2016 Introduction This report focuses on the Visual Quality
More informationDecision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact
Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact Gold Lake Bog Research Natural Area Boundary Adjustment and Nonsignificant Forest Plan Amendment #53 USDA Forest Service Middle Fork Ranger District,
More informationDear Interested Party,
United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Medicine Bow Routt National Forests and Thunder Basin National Grassland Parks Ranger District 100 Main Street, PO Box 158 Walden, CO 80480-0158 970-723-2700
More informationAcres within Planning Area. Total Acres Burned
Calf-Copeland Project Description Figure 1: Dead sugar pine in the Calf-Copeland planning area. Sugar pine grow best in open conditions. In the absence of fire disturbance, high densities of Douglas-fir
More informationDecision Memo Tongass National Forest. Wrangell Ranger District. Pre-Commercial Thinning CE 2010
Decision Memo Tongass National Forest Pre-Commercial Thinning CE 2010 Decision It is my decision to authorize pre-commercial thinning (PCT) on approximately 7,500 acres of overstocked young-growth forest
More informationHuron-Manistee National Forests Mio Ranger District 107 McKinley Road Mio, MI 48647
United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Huron-Manistee National Forests Mio Ranger District 107 McKinley Road Mio, MI 48647 989-826-3252 (Voice) 989-826-6073 (Fax) Dial 711 for relay service
More informationDECISION MEMO Divide Creek Barrier Enhancement
Page 1 of 7 Background DECISION MEMO USDA Forest Service Butte Ranger District Silver Bow County, Montana T. 2 N., R. 9 W., Section 32 The North Fork of Divide Creek is approximately 4 miles west of the
More informationCOUNTY, OREGON T20 S R14E SECTIONS 25 AND 36; T20S R15E SECTIONS 19-34; AND T21S R15E SECTIONS 3-9 AND
PINE MOUNTAIN SAGE GROUSE HABITAT RESTORATION PROJECT Bend/ Fort Rock Ranger District Deschutes National Forest DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON T20 S R14E SECTIONS 25 AND 36; T20S R15E SECTIONS 19-34; AND T21S
More informationFontana Project Scoping Record August 2013
Fontana Project Scoping Record August 2013 The Cheoah Ranger District, Nantahala National Forest, is conducting an interdisciplinary analysis of a proposed project, called the Fontana Project, in Graham
More informationMississippi River Basin Healthy Watershed Initiative
Mississippi River Basin Healthy Watershed Initiative A Progress Report for Arkansas Presented by: Mike Sullivan, State Conservationist FY 2010 12 States 41 Focus Areas FY 2011 Added two focus areas: SD/MS
More informationNRCS Standards and Criteria for Dead Animal Composting
Helping People Help the Land NRCS Standards and Criteria for Dead Animal Composting Matthew Robert, PE Agricultural Engineer Champaign, Illinois www.il.nrcs.usda.gov Matthew.Robert@il.usda.gov Following
More informationForest Resources of the Black Hills National Forest
United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research Station August 22 Forest Resources of the Black Hills National Forest Larry T. DeBlander About the author Larry T. DeBlander
More informationDraft Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact (DN/FONSI)
United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service January 2016 Draft Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact (DN/FONSI) Rock Creek Vegetation and Fuels Healthy Forest Restoration Act
More informationProtection of Rangeland and Pastures from Wildfire
Protection of Rangeland and Pastures from Wildfire Grazing lands are subject to wildfire because of an abundance of fine fuel (grass), frequent dry conditions, and proximity to an ignition source -usually
More informationConservation Practices. Conservation Choices. These five icons will show the benefits each practice offers... 6/4/2014
Conservation Choices Your guide to conservation and environmental farming practices. Conservation Choices These five icons will show the benefits each practice offers... The practice reduces soil erosion
More informationDECISION NOTICE FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT (FONSI)
DECISION NOTICE AND FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT (FONSI) FOR CASA LOMA RECREATION RESIDENCE PERMIT RENEWAL U.S. FOREST SERVICE CIBOLA NATIONAL FOREST SANDIA RANGER DISTRICT BERNALILLO COUNTY, NEW MEXICO
More informationSupervisor s Office 5162 Valleypointe Parkway Roanoke, VA
Supervisor s Office 5162 Valleypointe Parkway Roanoke, VA 24019 540-265-5100 www.fs.fed.us/r8/gwj James River Ranger District Glenwood-Pedlar Ranger District 810A East Madison Avenue 27 Ranger Lane Covington,
More informationWater Talk Series
Kansas Water Talk Series - 2017 Joel A. Willhoft, NRCS Resource Conservationist 785.624.3127 joel.willhoft@ks.usda.gov NRCS Conservation Programs NRCS provides eligible producers financial assistance to
More informationClimate Change Specialist Report final
United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Rocky Mountain Region Climate Change Specialist Report final La Garita Hills Restoration Submitted by: Trey Schillie R2 Climate Change Coordinator
More informationCamp Lick Project. Recreation Report. Prepared by: Teresa L. Dixon Recreation Program Manager. for:
Prepared by: Teresa L. Dixon Recreation Program Manager for: Blue Mountain Ranger District Malheur National Forest June 8, 2017 In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture
More informationEffect of Cattle Grazing, Seeded Grass, and an Herbicide on Ponderosa Pine Seedling Survival and Growth
United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Pacific Southwest Research Station http://www.psw.fs.fed.us/ Research Paper PSW-RP-242 Effect of Cattle Grazing, Seeded Grass, and an Herbicide on
More informationScenery Report Salmon Reforestation Project
United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service May 12, 2014 Scenery Report Salmon/Scott River Ranger District, Klamath National Forest Siskiyou County, California For Information Contact: Bob Talley
More informationNatural Resources Conservation Service
Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Health 101 What is soil health and how do we measure it? Name: Tom Roth Title: Conservation Agronomist Location, Salina Kansas Email: thomas.roth@ks.usda.gov
More informationSKIBO PROJECT SCOPING REPORT Laurentian Ranger District, Superior National Forest
SKIBO PROJECT SCOPING REPORT Laurentian Ranger District, Superior National Forest I. Introduction The Laurentian Ranger District of the Superior National Forest is proposing management activities within
More informationCamp Lick Project. Range Report. Prepared by: Nick Stiner/Isaac Whitman Rangeland Management Specialist. For:
Prepared by: Nick Stiner/Isaac Whitman Rangeland Management Specialist For: Blue Mountain Ranger District Malheur National Forest June 12, 2017 In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department
More informationKeefer Pasture Drift Fence Project. Challis-Yankee Fork Ranger District Salmon-Challis National Forest
Keefer Pasture Drift Fence Project Challis-Yankee Fork Ranger District Salmon-Challis National Forest PROPOSED ACTION The Challis-Yankee Fork Ranger District proposes construction of approximately.11 miles
More informationCATEGORICAL EXCLUSION WORKSHEET: RESOURCE CONSIDERATIONS
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION WORKSHEET: RESOURCE CONSIDERATIONS Developed Recreation/Trails, Wilderness & Roadless Jasper Mountain Priest Lake Ranger District Idaho Panhandle National Forest Description of the
More informationChapter 13: Wildlife and Vegetation
Chapter 13: Wildlife and Vegetation Introduction and Setting Nevada County contains an extremely wide range of plants, animals and habitat types. With topographic elevations ranging from 300 feet in the
More informationBig Hill Insect and Disease Project Proposed Action
Big Hill Insect and Disease Project Proposed Action Project Background and 2014 Farm Bill The Big Hill Insect and Disease project on the Challis-Yankee Fork Ranger District of the Salmon-Challis National
More informationNew Mexico Forest Restoration Principles
New Mexico Forest Restoration Principles Preamble These principles were collaboratively developed by a team of dedicated professionals representing industry, conservation organizations, land management
More informationYankee Hill Fuel Treatment Project Decision Notice & Finding of No Significant Impact
Yankee Hill Fuel Treatment Project Decision Notice & Finding of No Significant Impact USDA Forest Service Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests And Pawnee National Grassland Clear Creek Ranger District
More informationWildlife Conservation Strategy
Wildlife Conservation Strategy Boise National Forest What is the Wildlife Conservation Strategy? The Boise National Forest is developing a Wildlife Conservation Strategy (WCS) in accordance with its Land
More informationWest Branch LeClerc Creek Watershed Restoration Project Environmental Assessment
West Branch LeClerc Creek Watershed Restoration Project Environmental Assessment Decision Notice, Finding of No Significant Impact, and Response to Public Comments April 2015 USDA Forest Service Colville
More informationRagged Ruby Project. Pre-Scoping Planning Area Information. Prepared by: Blue Mountain Ranger District Malheur National Forest
Ragged Ruby Project Pre-Scoping Planning Area Information Prepared by: Blue Mountain Ranger District Malheur National Forest May 2016 In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of
More informationStream Reaches and Hydrologic Units
Chapter United States 6 Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service Chapter 6 Stream Reaches and Hydrologic Units Rain clouds Cloud formation Precipitation Surface runoff Evaporation
More informationInvasive Dandelion Removal in the Alpine Zone. Decision Memo. White Mountain National Forest, NH and ME
United States Department of Agriculture Invasive Dandelion Removal in the Alpine Zone White Mountain National Forest, NH and ME Decision Memo For Information Contact: Dan Sperduto Supervisor s Office 71
More informationDECISION MEMO CATARACT CREEK-MOUNTAIN MEADOW PLAN OF OPERATIONS
Page 1 of 8 DECISION MEMO CATARACT CREEK-MOUNTAIN MEADOW PLAN OF OPERATIONS USDA Forest Service Madison Ranger District Madison County, Montana T2S, R3W, sections 16 & 21 Background Moen Excavation of
More informationJUNE 20, Collaborative Initiatives: Restoring watersheds and large landscapes across boundaries through State and Federal partnerships
TESTIMONY of LESLIE WELDON DEPUTY CHIEF, NATIONAL FOREST SYSTEM UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE FOREST SERVICE BEFORE THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES SUBCOMMITTEE ON PUBLIC
More informationRangeland Conservation Effects Assessment Program (CEAP)
Rangeland Conservation Effects Assessment Program (CEAP) Program Overview with Emphasis on the Literature Review of Rangeland Practices Pat L. Shaver, PhD Rangeland Management Specialist USDA-NRCS West
More informationMechanical Site Preparation
Mechanical Site Preparation 1 Mechanical Site Preparation Introduction...3 CONTENTS The Benefits of Guidelines...3 Considerations...5 Design Outcomes To Maintain Soil Productivity...6 Planning...7 Planning
More informationDECISION MEMO. West Fork Blacktail Deer Creek Hardened Crossing
Page 1 of 6 Background DECISION MEMO USDA Forest Service Madison Ranger District Madison County T12S, R4W, Section 30 The project is in the Gravelly Landscape, Snowcrest Recommended Wilderness Management
More informationLocally Led Conservation & The Local Work Group. Mark Habiger NRCS
Locally Led Conservation & The Local Work Group Mark Habiger NRCS 1 What Is Locally Led Conservation? Community Stakeholders 1. Assessing their natural resource conservation needs 2. Setting community
More informationBEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES. CHAPTER 34 Estimating Corn Seedling Emergence and Variability
CORN BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES CHAPTER 34 Estimating Corn Seedling Emergence and Variability C. Gregg Carlson (Gregg.Carlson@sdstate.edu) and David E. Clay (David.Clay@sdstate.edu) The ability to nurture
More informationAppendix A Silvicultural Prescription Matrix Spruce Beetle Epidemic and Aspen Decline Management Response
Appendix A Silvicultural Prescription Matrix Spruce Beetle Epidemic and Aspen Decline Management Response Treatment objectives within the matrix are a combination of objectives for silvicultural, fuels,
More informationDECISION MEMO. Non-Commercial Thinning on the Ocala National Forest (PALS project # 39238)
Decision DECISION MEMO Non-Commercial Thinning on the Ocala National Forest (PALS project # 39238) USDA Forest Service Ocala National Forest Lake, Marion, and Putnam County, Florida Based on the analysis
More informationPRELIMINARY DECISION MEMO
PRELIMINARY DECISION MEMO Snoqualmie Christmas Tree Project USDA Forest Service Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Snoqualmie Ranger District King County, Washington Proposed Action, Purpose and Need
More informationThe Galton Project Kootenai National Forest. The Galton Project
Introduction The Galton Project The Fortine Ranger District of the Kootenai National Forest is in the early stages of developing a project entitled Galton, named for the mountain range dominating the eastern
More informationFARM BILL 2002 Colorado Conservation Provisions
United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service FARM BILL 2002 Colorado Conservation Provisions Conserving Natural Resources on Colorado s Privately Owned Farmland Farm Bill
More informationRocky Mountain Regional Office
Forest Service File Code: 1570 Route To: Rocky Mountain Regional Office 740 Simms Street Golden, CO 80401-4702 Voice: 303-275-5350 TDD: 303-275-5367 Date: June 13, 2013 Subject: To: Recommendation Memorandum
More informationEffects of All-Terrain Vehicles on Forested Lands and Grasslands
United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service National Technology & Development Program Recreation Management 0823 1811 SDTDC December 2008 U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration
More informationDECISION NOTICE AND FINDING OF No SIGNIFICANT IMPACT HOPKINS FIRE SALVAGE
DECISION NOTICE AND FINDING OF No SIGNIFICANT IMPACT HOPKINS FIRE SALVAGE DECISION U.S. FOREST SERVICE OCALA NATIONAL FOREST SEMINOLE RANGER DISTRICT MARION COUNTY, FLORIDA Based upon my review of the
More informationProposed Action: In response to resource specialist concerns raised during internal scoping, the following restrictions will apply:
DECISION MEMO USDA Forest Service Inyan Kara Riders Motorcycle Enduro Event Rocky Mountain Region Thunder Basin National Grassland Medicine Bow-Routt National Forests Douglas Ranger District April 2011
More informationCold Springs Project
Cold Springs Project Scenery Management Resource Report Prepared by: Nicole R. Hill Landscape Architect for: Northern Hills Ranger District Black Hills National Forest July 26, 2011 Scenery Management
More informationNational Best Management Practices Monitoring Summary Report
United States Department of Agriculture National Best Management Practices Monitoring Summary Report Fiscal Year 2013 Forest Service FS-1042 January 2015 United States Department of Agriculture Forest
More informationProposed Wildlife Habitat Restoration Project At Walking Iron Wildlife Area August 6, 2015
Proposed Wildlife Habitat Restoration Project At Walking Iron Wildlife Area August 6, 2015 Walking Iron County Wildlife Area is 898 acres situated in the Town of Mazomanie between Walking Iron County Park
More informationForsythe II Project. September 2015
Forsythe II Project September 2015 The Boulder Ranger District (BRD) of the Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests is proposing vegetation treatments on 3,840 acres of National Forest System (NFS) lands
More informationTRENDS IN DELAWARE S FORESTS
United States Department of Agriculture TRENDS IN DELAWARE S FORESTS Forest Service Northeastern Research Station NE-INF-150-02 Delaware Department of Agriculture Forest Service DELAWARE FORESTS Forests
More informationFish and Wildlife Structure Wildlife Brush and Rock Piles Conservation Practice Job Sheet May 2012
Fish and Wildlife Structure Wildlife Brush and Rock Piles Conservation Practice 734 - Job Sheet DEFINITION A structure designed and installed specifically for fish or wildlife. PURPOSE To improve overall
More informationHydrology Specialist Report. ROCK CREEK FUELS AND VEGETATION MANAGEMENT ANALYSIS Minidoka Ranger District
Sawtooth National Forest Hydrology Specialist Report ROCK CREEK FUELS AND VEGETATION MANAGEMENT ANALYSIS Minidoka Ranger District Mark Dallon Hydrologist, Minidoka Ranger District /s/ Mark Dallon 9/22/2015
More informationUnited States Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service
Jericho Winter, USDA NRCS Resource Soil Scientist Jeremy Baker, Rural Conservationist, East Multnomah SWCD Kim Galland, Multnomah Co. District Conservationist United States Department of Agriculture Natural
More informationFINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT OWL CREEK GRAVEL PIT EXPANSION U.S. FOREST SERVICE
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT OWL CREEK GRAVEL PIT EXPANSION U.S. FOREST SERVICE OURAY RANGER DISTRICT OURAY COUNTY, COLORADO BACKGROUND The Owl Creek Gravel Pit, also known as the Spruce Ridge Pit,
More informationDust Bowl and USDA - NRCS. Kim Wright USDA-NRCS Program Liaison Bryan, Texas
Dust Bowl and USDA - NRCS Kim Wright USDA-NRCS Program Liaison Bryan, Texas Who is the NRCS? The Natural Resources Conservation Service is a Federal agency that works in partnership with the American people
More informationWildlife Management Intensity Standards
Habitat Control Practices Required Intensity Description Grazing Management The planned manipulation of livestock numbers and grazing intensities to increase food, The planned manipulation of livestock
More informationPROPOSED ACTION Cooperative Horse Removal with Fort McDermitt Paiute-Shoshone Tribe
PROPOSED ACTION Cooperative Horse Removal with Fort McDermitt Paiute-Shoshone Tribe Proposed Action The Santa Rosa Ranger District of the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest is proposing to remove all unauthorized
More information3.6 Riparian Ecosystem Wildlife
3.6 Riparian Ecosystem Wildlife 3.6.1 Introduction and Methodology Riparian areas and associated wetlands are widely recognized for the significant and diverse roles they play in the landscape. They clean
More informationRecord of Decision. Green-Horse Habitat Restoration and Maintenance Project. November 2016
United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Pacific Southwest Region November 2016 Record of Decision Green-Horse Habitat Restoration and Maintenance Project National Recreation Area Management
More informationKreist Creek. Environmental Assessment. United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service
United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Kreist Creek Environmental Assessment Bonners Ferry Ranger District, Idaho Panhandle National Forests, Boundary County, Idaho May 2014 For More Information
More informationRECORD OF DECISION BATTLE PARK C&H ALLOTMENTS FOR LIVESTOCK GRAZING ON THE AND MISTY MOON S&G. United States Department of Agriculture.
United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Rocky Mountain Region Bighorn National Forest RECORD OF DECISION FOR LIVESTOCK GRAZING ON THE BATTLE PARK C&H AND MISTY MOON S&G ALLOTMENTS September
More informationD2 Range Improvement Project Decision Notice
Forest Service United States Department of Agriculture August 2017 D2 Range Improvement Project Decision Notice Ashley National Forest Flaming Gorge-Vernal Ranger District Uintah County, Utah Responsible
More informationREQUEST FOR PROPOSALS 2015 Woodland Restoration Contracting in Arroyo de los Pinos Reales
Rio de las Trampas Watershed Restoration Phase I: State Trust Lands Trampas-NMSLO CFRP Implementation of Savanna and Woodland Restoration on State Trust Land in Cañoncito REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS 2015 Woodland
More informationOchoco, Umatilla, Wallowa-Whitman National Forests; Oregon and Washington; Blue Mountains
[3410-11- P] DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Ochoco, Umatilla, Wallowa-Whitman National Forests; Oregon and Washington; Blue Mountains Forest Resiliency Project AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA. ACTION:
More informationSummary Alternative 1 No Action
Summary The Sierra National Forest, Bass Lake Ranger District proposes to create a network of strategically placed landscape area treatments (SPLATs) and defensible fuels profiles near key transportation
More informationAppendix C. Activity Codes
Appendix C Activity Codes Activity Code Groupings 1000 Fire 2000 - Range 3000 Cultural Resources and Recreation 4000 Timber and Silviculture 5000 Soil, Air and Watershed 6000 Wildlife; Threatened, Endangered,
More informationJames Creek Fuel Reduction Project Decision Notice & Finding of No Significant Impact
James Creek Fuel Reduction Project Decision Notice & Finding of No Significant Impact Introduction USDA Forest Service Arapaho-Roosevelt National Forests And Pawnee National Grassland Boulder Ranger District
More informationBURNED-AREA REPORT (Reference FSH ) PART I - TYPE OF REQUEST
Forest Service San Juan National Forest 15 Burnett Court Durango, CO 81301 Voice: 970-247-4874 TDD: 970-385-1257 FAX: 970-385-1243 http://www.fs.usda.gov/sanjuan File Code: 2520 Date: December 20, 2012
More informationEAST TORRANCE SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT. LONG RANGE PLAN July 1, 2009 June 30, 2019
EAST TORRANCE SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT LONG RANGE PLAN July 1, 2009 June 30, 2019 INTRODUCTION The East Torrance Soil and Water Conservation District covers 1,142,028 acres of land in Torrance
More informationIdaho Panhandle National Forests
United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Idaho Panhandle National Forests Sandpoint Ranger District 1602 Ontario Road Sandpoint, ID 83864-9509 (208)263-5111 File Code: 1950 Date: July 14,
More informationForest Products Specialist Report
United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Southwestern Region Cibola National Forest and National Grasslands Forest Products Specialist Report Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle and McClellan
More informationMapping the Cheatgrass-Caused Departure From Historical Natural Fire Regimes in the Great Basin, USA
Mapping the Cheatgrass-Caused Departure From Historical Natural Fire Regimes in the Great Basin, USA James P. Menakis 1, Dianne Osborne 2, and Melanie Miller 3 Abstract Cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum) is
More informationEnvironmental Assessment
United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service November 2008 Environmental Assessment Sisters Area Fuels Reduction (SAFR) Project Sisters Ranger District, Deschutes National Forest Deschutes County,
More informationThe Regeneration of Aspen Stands in Southern Utah
The Regeneration of Aspen Stands in Southern Utah By: Justin Britton, Justin DeRose, James Long, Karen Mock, Darren McAvoy Background Quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides) is an important species in southern
More informationCORN BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES APPENDIX A. Corn Planting Guide
CORN BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES APPENDIX A Corn Planting Guide Obtaining maximum profit from a corn crop depends on the timely planting of an appropriate hybrid, at the proper depth, with a planter that
More informationChase Red Pine Fuels Project
United States Department of Agriculture Chase Red Pine Fuels Project Draft Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact USDA Forest Service, Huron-Manistee National Forests Lake and Newaygo Counties,
More informationFire Management CONTENTS. The Benefits of Guidelines...3 Considerations...4
Fire Management CONTENTS Fire Management 1 Introduction...3 The Benefits of Guidelines...3 Considerations...4 Planning...5 Burn Plan Development...5 Operational Activities...8 Pre-Ignition Activities...8
More informationApplying Ecosystem Services to Collaborative Forest Management Elk River Public Meeting
Applying Ecosystem Services to Collaborative Forest Management Elk River Public Meeting Nikola Smith Ecologist and Ecosystem Services Specialist U.S. Forest Service Port Orford City Hall February 2, 2017
More informationProvince Integrated Resource Management Project
United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service July 2012 Province Integrated Resource Management Project Township of Chatham, Carroll County, New Hampshire Scoping Report Prepared By Saco Ranger
More informationNEW Vision 2020 CFLRP Work Plan Template 2012
Responses to the prompts on this work plan should be typed directly into this template 1. Describe the manner in which the proposal will be implemented to achieve ecological and community economic benefit,
More informationElkhorn Project Proposed Action
Elkhorn Project Proposed Action PROJECT LOCATION The Elkhorn project area is defined by the Cache la Poudre River and Highway 14 to the south, the Manhattan Road (CR 69) to the east, the Deadman Road to
More informationUSDA-NRCS Programs and Interpretation of Haney Soil Health Test Results
USDA-NRCS Programs and Interpretation of Haney Soil Health Test Results Carissa Spencer MN NRCS State Agronomist Jennifer Hahn MN NRCS Resource Soil Scientist 1 Nutrient and Pest Management Standards Upcoming
More informationThe project will be conducted in partnership with the Nez Perce Tribe.
DECISION MEMO Tributary to Brushy Fork Culvert Replacements Private Land USDA Forest Service, Northern Region Powell Ranger District Nez Perce Clearwater National Forests Idaho County, Idaho I. Decision
More informationChapter 1. Purpose and Need for Action
Final Environmental Impact Statement Plumas National Forest Chapter 1. Purpose and Need for Action Document Structure The Forest Service has prepared this Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) in
More informationChapter 10 Natural Environment
Chapter 10 Natural Environment Existing Conditions The Natural Environment Element addresses the protection, conservation, preservation, and restoration of the natural resources the Bayview Ridge Subarea,
More information