Proposed Action and Alternatives
|
|
- Mervin Sparks
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Chapter Proposed Action and Alternatives Page 15
2 CHAPTER 2 - PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES INTRODUCTION Chapter 2 describes and compares the Southwest Fence Relocation and Waterline Project s Proposed Action and its alternatives. This chapter also identifies several alternatives that were considered but eliminated from detailed study. This project s alternatives were developed in response to the key issues described in Chapter 1. While many potential alternatives exist, it is neither practical nor feasible to consider every possible option. The Proposed Action and alternatives described here represent a range of management approaches, which address the issues raised and meet the purpose of, and need for, the proposal. Note: NEPA regulations require the Forest Service to analyze a No Action Alternative as a baseline for comparing the effects of other alternatives (40 CFR (d), FSH , 23.1). DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES Three alternatives were considered in detail. These were: 1) the No Action Alternative, 2) the Proposed Action, and 3) the Modified Action Alternative. Specifics of these alternatives follow. Chapter 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives Page 16
3 Alternative 1: No Action The No Action Alternative would continue current management in the project area (Figure 3). The Kennedy (West) and Chester (West) pastures have existing, reliable water in the form of either water tanks or dams. These pastures would be grazed by livestock annually. The Stony Butte (#2), West Engen (Main), and Horsethief (East) pastures would be grazed intermittently when water supplies allowed. The Dry Hole (Chester) pasture would remain in multi-year rest. The existing deferred grazing rotation system would remain unchanged. The fence between the West Engen (Main) and Horsethief (West) pastures would remain in its current location (i.e. it would remain across Booth Dam). The electric fence separating the Camp Flat (East North) and Camp Flat (East South) pastures would remain electric. Figure 3. Map of the No Action Alternative showing the distribution of fence and water sources that would result after alternative implementation. Note that the water sources shown are not necessarily reliable for livestock watering uses; see Figure 2 for more information. Chapter 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives Page 17
4 Alternative 2: Proposed Action The Proposed Action Alternative (Figure 4) would install approximately 3.6 miles of waterline and install five water tanks into the following pastures: Kennedy (West), Stony Butte (#2), West Engen (Main), Horsethief (East), and Dry Hole (Chester). This would increase flexibility in the deferred rotation system by allowing managers to place all of the project area s pastures on either the rest schedule or the grazing schedule, based on particular resource needs in any given year. The Proposed Action Alternative would relocate the boundary fence between the West Engen (Main) and Horsethief (West) pastures. That fence currently crosses through Booth Dam. The fence would be relocated 0.25 mile to the north, on the north side of Forest Service Road 227. This would change the approximate pasture size for West Engen (Main) from 750 to 559 acres and Horsethief (West) from 352 to 543 acres. The electric fence separating Camp Flat (East North) and Camp Flat (East South) would be converted to a barbwire fence. Figure 4. Map of the Proposed Action Alternative showing the distribution of fence and water sources that would result after alternative implementation. Note that the water sources shown are not necessarily reliable for livestock watering uses; see Figure 2 for more information. Chapter 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives Page 18
5 Alternative 3: Modified Action The Modified Action Alternative would: Combine the Horsethief (East), Horsethief (I.T. #25), and Dry Hole (Chester) pastures into a single 940-acre pasture. Interior fences as well as a cattle guard along Forest Service Road 227 would then no longer be necessary and so would be removed. Temporary (i.e. 1-3 year) use of electric fence would be permissible for the purpose of vegetative management. Remove the existing fence from Booth Dam, relocating it north of Forest Service Road 227. Convert the existing electric fence between Camp Flat (East North) and Camp Flat (East South) pastures to a barbwire fence. Install approximately 3 miles of underground waterline and five water tanks. One tank would be placed in pastures: Kennedy (West), Stony Butte (#2), and West Engen (Main). Two tanks would be placed in the newly combined pasture. Compared to the Proposed Action, the pipeline s route under this alternative would be slightly different; specifically, the west tank in the combined pastures would be further south. Reclaim (i.e. fill-in) five water sources. The water sources affected would be: #810w10 (in Chester (Middle) pasture); #817w05 (in Dry Hole (Chester) pasture); #825w04 (in Horsethief (East) pasture); #854w04 (in West Engen (Main) pasture), and #848w03 (in Stony Butte (#2) pasture). The latter s dilapidated exclosure would also be removed. Figure 5. Map of the Modified Action Alternative showing the distribution of fence and water sources that would result after alternative implementation. Note that the water sources shown are not necessarily reliable for livestock watering uses; see Figure 2 for more information. Chapter 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives Page 19
6 DESIGN CRITERIA & FEATURES COMMON TO ALTERNATIVES Design criteria and features common to alternatives are described below: Archeological Clearance Alternatives 2 and 3 propose new range improvements. A cultural resource inventory and all required clearances would be completed prior to any ground disturbing activities. Fence Design Alternatives 2 and 3 propose new fences. All newly constructed fences would comply with LRMP recommendations for big game movement. In particular, all new fences would have a bottom smooth wire 16 above the ground surface to facilitate pronghorn passage. (see LRMP p. B-1). In addition, special care would be taken to reduce potential impact to a sharp-tailed grouse lek near Booth Dam; specifically, the relocated fence would be routed to avoid the lek (if it is active); fence markers would be placed on that portion of the fence closest to the lek site. Monitoring Monitoring would occur under all alternatives, though not all alternatives would require the same monitoring. See Table 3 for details. Noxious Weeds Alternatives 2 and 3 propose new range infrastructure. All construction equipment used for the installation of that infrastructure would be required to be cleaned of any noxious weed seeds prior to being moved into the project area. Any new noxious weed infestations resulting from ground disturbing activities would be treated as necessary. Reclamation Alternatives 2 and 3 propose new range improvements. Following the completion of each ground disturbing activity, the site would be seeded with native seed if seeding was determined to be necessary for vegetative recovery. Soil Disturbance Alternatives 2 and 3 propose new range improvements. To help reduce the potential for soil disturbance, the best management practices labeled: Watershed Conservation Practices (WCPs) Required for All Activities Associated with Project Implementation in the project file would be followed. See the Soil Specialist Report in the project file for more details. Timing of Construction Activities Alternatives 2 and 3 propose new range improvements. To help reduce disturbances to nesting and breeding sharp-tailed grouse and greater prairiechicken, construction activities would not be allowed from March 1 through June 15 within 1 mile of active display grounds. Water Tank Escape Ramps Alternatives 2 and 3 propose installing new water tanks. Each of these tanks would be required to have a wildlife escape ramp installed. See the Wildlife Specialist Report in the project file for more detail. Water Tank Placement Alternatives 2 and 3 propose installing new water tanks. Water tanks would be located to minimize visibility from roads, thus reducing the impact on the scenic integrity of the area. Chapter 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives Page 20
7 Table 3. Summary of monitoring that would be conducted in the project area. ISSUE DETAILS Livestock Management Grazing use distribution maps would be compiled by Forest Service personnel for the first 3 years of this project s implementation. Mapping would be done after livestock were rotated out of each grazed pasture. This information would help assess how range infrastructure has affected livestock distribution. This monitoring would be conducted under Alternatives 1, 2, or 3. Vegetation Under all alternatives, vegetative litter and species composition would be monitored by Forest Service personnel every 5-10 years. This information would help assess whether there has been changes in species composition. Under Alternatives 2 and 3, Forest Service personnel would monitor areas of ground-disturbance for the 3 years following that disturbance. This information would help assess the need for native grass seeding and identify any areas of noxious weed establishment. Wildlife Habitat Visual obstruction readings (VOR) would be taken by Forest Service personnel in the project area under Alternatives 1, 2, or 3. Monitoring protocol would follow the current methods already in use across the Fort Pierre National Grassland. This information would help assess availability of high structure vegetation for dependent wildlife. The South Dakota Game, Fish, and Parks Department currently conducts lek surveys in the project area. It is anticipated that these surveys would continue under all alternatives. This information would provide an index to population levels of greater prairie-chicken and sharp-tailed grouse. Chapter 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives Page 21
8 COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES This section provides three summaries of the alternatives. Table 4 compares the projects that are being proposed. Table 5 compares the expected environmental consequences. Table 6 displays the extent to which each alternative would meet the guidance provided in the LRMP. Table 4. Projects proposed by alternative ALTERNATIVE PROJECT Install waterlines No Yes; about 3.6 miles Yes; about 3.0 miles Install five water tanks No Yes Yes Relocate boundary fence No Yes Yes between West Engen (Main) and Horsethief (West) pastures Replace electric fence No Yes Yes separating Camp Flat (East North) and Camp Flat (East South) pastures with barbwire fence Reclaim 5 water sources No No Yes Chapter 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives Page 22
9 Table 5. Comparison of how alternatives would address key issues ALTERNATIVE ISSUE Livestock Management: cost of range improvements Livestock Management: electric fence Livestock Management: water sources Livestock Management: water source reclamation Livestock Management: grazing rotations Livestock Management: pasture size There will be no cost for range improvements. Fence between Camp Flat (East North) and Camp Flat (East South) would remain electric, maintenance would continue to be a long-term problem. No new water sources would be constructed. No water sources would be reclaimed. No changes would be made in current livestock managment. Certain pastures would continue to be grazed every year, some would be grazed only in years with high precipitation, while other pastures would remain in multi-year rest. No pastures would be combined. New range improvements would cost ~$15,928. The electric fence between Camp Flat (East North) and Camp Flat (East South) would be converted to a barbwire fence, maintenance needs would be lessened. New water sources would be installed, providing reliable water for livestock. See Alternative 1 regarding water source reclamation. Management flexibility would be increased in the ability to change grazing rotations. Pastures that are currently grazed on a yearly basis could be rested, while pastures that are currently in multi-year rest could be grazed. See Alternative 1 regarding pasture size. New range improvements would cost ~$14,428; reclamation of 5 existing water sources would cost ~$16,000. See Alternative 2 regarding electic fence. See Alternative 2 regarding water sources. Five water sources would be reclaimed. See Alternative 2 regarding grazing rotations. Horsethief (East), I.T. #25, and Dry Hole (Chester) would be combined into one pasture, increasing the average pasture size in the project area. Chapter 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives Page 23
10 ALTERNATIVE ISSUE Livestock Management: Booth Dam fence Fence currently at Booth Dam would remain in place; fence maintenance and effectiveness would continue to be an issue. Booth Dam would still be split between two pastures, requiring both pastures rotations to be altered to modify grazing use around the dam. Fence currently at Booth Dam would be moved north of Forest Service Road 227 thus removing it from the water s edge at Booth Dam. Also, the dam would be located solely within Horsethief (West) so that only one pasture s use would have to be changed to modify grazing use around See Alternative 2 regarding Booth Dam fence. Vegetation: Invasive & native grass species composition Vegetation: noxious weeds Current vegetative would continue. Invasive species such as smooth brome would persist and potentially continue to spread. There would be no ground disturbing activities, therefore there would be no potential for the associated machinery to introduce noxious weeds. the dam. Through prescribed grazing management, invasive grass species would likely decrease and native species increase. There is potential for noxious weed introduction during construction of proposed improvements. These potential effects would be mitigated. See Alternative 2 regarding species composition. See Alternative 2 regarding noxious weeds. Chapter 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives Page 24
11 ALTERNATIVE ISSUE Vegetative structure Amount and See Alternative 2 would not be distribution of high regarding vegetative changed due to structure vegetation structure. changes in may change in the livestock project area as more distribution form pastures are able to creation of new be grazed or rested; water sources; 10% 10% of the Fort of the Fort Pierre Pierre National National Grassland Grassland would be would be rested rested each year. each year. Vegetation: vegetative structure Wildlife Habitat: water source reclamation Wildlife Habitat: sensitive species viability and management indicator species population trends Wildlife Habitat: disturbance No existing water source would be reclaimed. Sensitive species would be affected, though viability would not be threatened. Management indicator species would be affected, though population trends would remain unchanged. No new range infrastrure would be installed; sensitive and management indicator species would not be disturbed by construction. See Alternative 1 regarding water source reclamation. See Alternative 1 regarding sensitive and management indicator species. New range infrastructure would be installed; sensitive and management indicator species may be disturbed by construction, though the level and duration of disturbance is likely to be minor. Five existing water sources would be reclaimed. Species such as northern leopard frog may be affected, positively or negatively, depending on the quality of wetland habitat that would have otherwise been provided. See Alternative 1 regarding sensitive and management indicator species. See Alternative 2 regarding disturbance to wildlife. Chapter 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives Page 25
12 Table 6. Comparison of how Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 would meet guidance contained in the Nebraska National Forest s Land and Resource Management Plan ALTERNATIVE Proposed Activity Goal 1.c: Increase the amount of forests and grasslands restored to or maintained in a healthy condition with reduced risk and damage from fires, insects and diseases, and invasive species. Goal 2.c: Improve the capability of the Nation s forests and grasslands to provide a desired sustainable level of uses, values, products, and services. B-13 Water: Design activities to protect and manage the riparian ecosystem. Maintain the integrity of the ecosystem including quantity and quality of water. (Standard) F-4 Fish, Widlife, and Rare Plants: Design and build new structures, including fences, to reduce hazards to big game and to allow big game movement throughout the year (Appendix B). This doesn t include fences designed to specifically exclude wildlife. (Guideline) I-9 Livestock Grazing: Prioritize and remove any fences or water developments that are not contributing to achieving desired. (Guideline) J-6 Non-native and Invasive Species, Noxious Weeds and Insect Management: Utilize all methods feasible, including livestock grazing strategies, in the integrated pest management program. (Guideline) Q-6 Infrastructure Use and Management: Build new and reconstructed fences to provide for big game movement (Appendix B) and access for recreation, fire protection, and mineral development. (Guideline) Does not meet or move towards LRMP with with with with with with with with with with Chapter 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives Page 26
13 ALTERNATIVE Proposed Activity Q-10 Infrastructure Use and Management: Prioritize and reconstruct those fences that do not meet big game specifications. (Guideline) Infrastructure 1: Increase the average pasture size by 25 percent over the decade. (Objective) Rest 1: Maintain at least 10 percent of the suitable rangeland in rest each year. (Objective) Infrastructure 1: Allow no net decrease in the average pasture size. (Guideline) Infrastructure 2: Allow no net gain in the number of water developments... (Guideline) Does not meet or move towards LRMP Does not meet or move towards LRMP, i.e. while there would be an increase in water developments compared to existing, there would not be an increase compared to the present when this guideline was established with with with, i.e. there would be no net gain in water developments even compared to existing Chapter 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives Page 27
14 OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Federal agencies are required to rigorously explore and objectively evaluate all reasonable alternatives developed in detail (40 CFR ). Comments received in response to the Proposed Action provided suggestions for alternatives for achieving the purpose and need. Some of these alternatives may have been outside the scope of the need for the proposal, duplicative of the alternatives considered in detail, or determined to have components that would cause unnecessary environmental harm. Several such alternatives were considered and are summarized below: Combine Pastures and Trade Water Sources: One commenter suggested an alternative that would combine eight pastures into four larger pastures and would eliminate livestock access to three existing water sources while installing three new water sources. This alternative as a whole would decrease management flexibility in grazing rotations and therefore would not meet the purpose and need of the proposed action. Parts of this proposal, however, were used to create the Modified Action Alternative. Specifically, that alternative included the concept of trading water sources (i.e. creating new sources with the pipeline and stock tanks while eliminating access to livestock from an equal number of existing water sources) so that there would be no net gain in the number of water sources on the Fort Pierre National Grassland from what currently exists. The Modified Action Alternative also included the concept of combining some pastures to create a larger pasture. The commenter also requested that any exclosures that would be constructed be mowed annually, which is outside the scope of this project. Drill Wells: The option of drilling 5 wells in the project area was also identified as an alternative to putting in a pipeline. The average depth of water wells in this area is 1,800 to 2,400 feet; the average cost is $80,000 to $100,000 per well. Well drilling was therefore not considered to be an economically-viable alternative to pipeline installation. Haul Water: The option of hauling water to dispersed locations in the project area was also identified as an alternative to putting in a pipeline. This would require hauling water to each selected location several times a week during the summer grazing season. Due to the volume and frequency of trips this would entail, about 1 mile of newly road would have to be built. This option was also deemed less responsive to the project s purpose to increase management flexibility by increasing water reliability. Furthermore, this alternative is already very similar to the No Action Alternative (i.e. permittees already have the option to haul water). Chapter 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives Page 28
Proposed Action and Alternatives
Chapter Proposed Action and Alternatives Chapter 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives Page 15 CHAPTER 2 - PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES INTRODUCTION Chapter 2 describes and compares the Southwest Fence
More informationDECISION MEMO FOR USDA FOREST SERVICE DAKOTA PRAIRIE GRASSLANDS LITTLE MISSOURI NATIONAL GRASSLAND MEDORA RANGER DISTRICT SLOPE COUNTY, NORTH DAKOTA
DECISION MEMO FOR TWO (2) MEDORA RANGER DISTIRICT RANGE WATER PROJECTS ON ALLOTMENTS 023 AND 037 RANGE WATER STOCK TANKS AND PIPELINES AND RECLAIM and FENCE OUT DAMS USDA FOREST SERVICE DAKOTA PRAIRIE
More informationAppendix B Adaptive Management Strategy
Adaptive Management Strategy This appendix identifies the adaptive management strategy that would be implemented as part of the proposed action. This strategy and the processes contained and described
More informationUnited States Department of the Interior
United States Department of the Interior BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT Baker Resource Area PO Box 947 Baker City, OR 97814 4100 (#3606260) Notice of Field Manager s Final Decision for Renewal of Grazing Permit
More informationMiller Pasture Livestock Water Pipeline Extension Proposed Action
Introduction Miller Pasture Livestock Water Pipeline Extension Proposed Action USDA Forest Service Williams Ranger District, Kaibab National Forest Coconino County, Arizona February 10, 2017 The Miller
More informationAPPENDIX F LIVESTOCK MANAGEMENT TOOLS
APPENDIX F LIVESTOCK MANAGEMENT TOOLS Management of livestock grazing has always been a fluid process that requires the flexibility to address resource issues/concerns as they occur, there is not a one
More information1.2 How is Grazing Managed on the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest
1. Introduction We are proposing to update the allotment management plans for four grazing allotments on the Whitman Ranger District of the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest. We are proposing to prepare
More informationFSM 2000 NATIONAL FOREST RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ZERO CODE 2080 NOXIOUS WEED MANAGEMENT
FOREST SERVICE MANUAL NORTHERN REGION (REGION 1) MISSOULA, MT. ZERO CODE NOXIOUS WEED MANAGEMENT Supplement No.: R1 2000-2001-1 Effective Date: May 14, 2001 Duration: Effective until superseded or removed
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 informationBurns Paiute Tribe s s Wildlife Acquisitions
Burns Paiute Tribe s s Wildlife Acquisitions Logan Valley 2000-009 009-00 Purchased: April 2000 Malheur River 2000-027 027-0000 Purchased: November 2000 Location of Properties Malheur Malheur River Subbasin
More information3.8 Key Issue: Grazing Economics
3.8 Key Issue: Grazing Economics Several scoping respondents and EA commenters identified the economic impacts of the proposed actions as an issue. Many of the actions proposed in this document would have
More informationDECISION MEMO. Vipond Water Development
Page 1 of 5 DECISION MEMO USDA Forest Service Wise River Ranger District Beaverhead County T2S, R10W, Sections 12, 13, 14, &18 Background This project is located in the Pioneer Landscape, East Face Management
More informationPrescribed Grazing Plan
FWC 17/18-77 EXHIBIT III Prescribed Grazing Plan Prepared for Babcock - Cecil Webb WMA Charlotte County, Florida In cooperation with Charlotte Soil & Water Conservation District And United States Department
More informationIn 2013, Gunnison sage-grouse was proposed for an "endangered" listing by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service under the Endangered Species Act.
Gunnison County, CO Community Development Department 221 N. Wisconsin St. Ste. D Gunnison, CO 81230 (970) 641-0360 Website: www.gunnisoncounty.org Email: planning@gunnisoncounty.org Information Sheet:
More informationSUMMARY OF THE MARTIN BASIN RANGELAND PROJECT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT BACKGROUND
SUMMARY OF THE MARTIN BASIN RANGELAND PROJECT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT BACKGROUND Project Area The Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest is proposing to continue livestock grazing under a specific
More informationChapter 2 36 Snowies Little Belts EA
Proposed Action: This ranch was recently purchased by the present owners. The public land was historically overgrazed by the previous permittee. The current owner has reduced livestock numbers which is
More informationAPPENDIX B Allotment Summaries
Final Environmental Impact Statement B-1 for Allotment Management Planning in the McKelvie GA APPENDIX B Allotment Summaries Objectives Common to All Allotments... B-2 Monitoring Common to All Allotments...
More informationBald Fire Salvage and Restoration Project
Bald Fire Salvage and Restoration Project Range Report Prepared by: KC Pasero Rangeland Management Specialist Hat Creek Ranger District /s/ KC Pasero April 27, 2015 Introduction The Bald Fire Salvage and
More informationUSDA FOREST SERVICE DAKOTA PRAIRIE GRASSLANDS LITTLE MISSOURI NATIONAL GRASSLAND MEDORA RANGER DISTRICT BILLINGS COUNTY, NORTH DAKOTA
GMX RESOURCES INC. LITTLE MISSOURI FEDERAL 24-10-1H OIL AND GAS WELL AND ACCESS ROAD #734-22 LOCATED WITHIN SW¼ of SE¼, SECTION 10, T141N, R100W BILLINGS COUNTY, NORTH DAKOTA USDA FOREST SERVICE DAKOTA
More informationGaliuro Exploration Drilling Project
Galiuro Exploration Drilling Project Range and Noxious Weeds Report Prepared by: Gwen Dominguez Range Staff for: Safford Ranger District Coronado National Forest Date September 2, 2016 Forest Plan/Policy
More informationClarks Fork of the Yellowstone Comprehensive River Management Plan
Clarks Fork of the Yellowstone Comprehensive River Management Plan Background The Clarks Fork of the Yellowstone River is located on the Shoshone National Forest, approximately 30 miles north-northwest
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 informationChilds Meadow Fence Project Almanor Ranger District, Lassen National Forest
Childs Meadow Fence Project Almanor Ranger District, Lassen National Forest Tehama County, California April 6, 2015 Introduction The Almanor Ranger District (ALRD) of the Lassen National Forest (LNF) proposes
More informationU.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE OKLAHOMA ECOLOGICAL SERVICES FIELD OFFICE
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE OKLAHOMA ECOLOGICAL SERVICES FIELD OFFICE May 11, 2009 STANDARD RECOMMENDATIONS TO AVOID, MINIMIZE AND MITIGATE POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF WIND ENERGY
More informationPoker Chip Project. Noxious Weed Risk Assessment Almanor Ranger District Lassen National Forest
Noxious Weed Risk Assessment Almanor Ranger District Lassen National Forest June 3, 2013 Introduction When a ground-disturbing action or activity is proposed, a Noxious Weed Risk Assessment (NWRA) determines
More informationCalifornia s Rangelands. Annual Grassland Dominated Systems
*Grazing Systems on California s Rangelands Annual Grassland Dominated Systems What is a Grazing System & are they applicable for California Grazing Systems refers to specialized grazing management that
More informationDECISION MEMO ISSUE AN AMENDMENT TO AN EXISTING SPECIAL USE PERMIT
DECISION MEMO ISSUE AN AMENDMENT TO AN EXISTING SPECIAL USE PERMIT HIGH WEST ENERGY, INC. For A Single-Phase (2-Wire), Overhead Power Line US FOREST SERVICE Arapaho & Roosevelt National Forests and Pawnee
More informationAlberta Conservation Association 2008/09 Project Summary Report
Alberta Conservation Association 2008/09 Project Summary Report Project name: MULTISAR Project leader: Paul Jones Primary ACA staff on this project (including seasonals): Brad Downey, Julie Landry-DeBoer,
More informationThe following recommendations will need to be re-evaluated given the recent fire at the Kennedy Meadows Pack Station.
Kennedy Meadows Planning Unit The following recommendations will need to be re-evaluated given the recent fire at the Kennedy Meadows Pack Station. Sustainable Forestry Evaluate existing timber inventory
More informationReading Project Noxious Weed Risk Assessment Hat Creek Ranger District Lassen National Forest April 3, 2013
Reading Project Noxious Weed Risk Assessment Hat Creek Ranger District Lassen National Forest April 3, 2013 Prepared By: /s/ Tim Kellison Date: 05-31-2013 Tim Kellison Assistant Forest Botanist Reviewed
More informationMorapos Creek, Wilson Mesa and Deer Creek Sheep & Goat Grazing Allotments
Decision Notice Morapos Creek, Wilson Mesa and Deer Creek Sheep & Goat Grazing Allotments USDA Forest Service Blanco District, White River National Forest Rio Blanco & Moffat Counties, Colorado Township
More informationGunnison Sage Grouse (2006) Primary threats to be addressed under a CCAA o Habitat loss o Fragmentation and degradation from urban/human population
Identification of Conservation Measures and Management Activities Property owner and the Service should o Describe the nature, extent, timing, duration, and other pertinent details of the conservation
More informationAppendix C: Analysis of BLM Required Design Features for Greater Sage Grouse
Appendix C: Analysis of BLM Required Design Features The Study team analyzed Required Design Features (RDFs) from the Nevada and Northeastern California Greater Sage-Grouse Approved Resource Management
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 informationPublic Lands Grazing Overview and Opportunities
Public Lands Grazing Overview and Opportunities Grazing as a Management Tool The upland grasslands and interspersed wetlands of the Great Plains evolved under an intense disturbance regime that included
More informationDecision Memo. Delta A Septic Repair (#33)
Decision Memo Delta A Septic Repair (#33) USDA Forest Service Willamette National Forest McKenzie River Ranger District T16S, R5E, Section 16 Lane County, OR Proposed Action The McKenzie River Ranger District
More informationDecision Notice for the Sunflower Allotment Grazing Analysis Project
for the Sunflower Allotment Grazing Analysis Project USDA Forest Service Mesa Ranger District Tonto National Forest Gila and Maricopa Counties, Arizona Introduction The Sunflower Allotment encompasses
More informationRE: Request for public comments on a proposal to construct Cattle Watering Systems
United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Midewin National Tallgrass Prairie 30239 South State Route 53 Wilmington, IL 60481 (815) 423-6370.. File Code: 1950 Date: January 14, 2009 Dear Friends
More informationAPPENDIX B: DRAFT ALLOTMENT MANAGEMENT PLANS
APPENDIX B: DRAFT ALLOTMENT MANAGEMENT PLANS DRAFT BURNT FORK CATTLE AND HORSE ALLOTMENT MANAGEMENT PLAN Evanston -Mountain View Ranger District Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest Uinta County, Wyoming
More information3-13 Other Required Findings and Regulatory Compliance
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3-13 Other Required Findings and Regulatory Compliance 3-13.1 Short-term Uses and Long-term Productivity NEPA requires consideration of the relationship
More informationDECISION MEMO OREGON DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (ODOT) SAND SHED CINDER PIT EXPLORATION PROJECT
DECISION MEMO OREGON DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (ODOT) SAND SHED CINDER PIT EXPLORATION PROJECT USDA Forest Service Bend/Fort Rock Ranger District, Deschutes National Forest Deschutes County, Oregon
More informationLong-term Management Plan For The Mitigation Bank
Note: The California multi-agency Project Delivery Team developed this general outline to assist in the development of the Long-term Management Plan for mitigation banks. Objectives and tasks are provided
More informationLong-term Management Plan For The Mitigation Bank
Note: The California multi-agency Project Delivery Team developed this general outline to assist in the development of the Long-term Management Plan for mitigation banks. Objectives and tasks are provided
More informationSTONY BUTTE ASSESSMENT
STONY BUTTE ASSESSMENT Fort Pierre National Grassland By Darrin Jons, Kelly Fuoss, Ruben Mares, Ryan Cumbow, Dan Svingen June 2016 1 Cover photo: Stony Butte Creek. Photo August 2015 by Kelly Fuoss. Recommended
More informationNCORPE Project - Public Lands & Programs Edition
PROJECT - PUBLIC LANDS & PROGRAMS EDITION Issue 2 Project - Public Lands & Programs Edition Northern Harrier PUBLIC ACCESS PROGRAM - HUNTING IN THIS ISSUE Public Access Program Update Public Access Program
More informationWildlife Habitat Restoration and Improvements FY 2007 Project
United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Pacific Northwest Region Wildlife Habitat Restoration and Improvements FY 2007 Project Umpqua National Forest Diamond Lake Ranger District April 2008
More informationEngaging Livestock in Weed Management
Engaging Livestock in Weed Management Grazing is Powerful Over Grazing Saudi Arabia A Western Perspective Rangeland Ecology & Management University of Idaho Karen Launchbaugh Sheep Reduce Forbs Goats Reduce
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 informationPreliminary Decision Memo 2017 BPA Utility Corridor Maintenance and Danger Tree Project
Preliminary Decision Memo 2017 BPA Utility Corridor Maintenance and Danger Tree Project USDA Forest Service Crescent Ranger District, Deschutes National Forest Klamath County, Oregon The Crescent Ranger
More informationUnited States Department of Agriculture. Forest Service. Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest. September 2014
United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest September 2014 Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan Explanation Supporting
More informationMANTI-LA SAL NATIONAL FOREST
MANTI-LA SAL NATIONAL FOREST FERRON RANGER DISTRICT CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION REVIEW FILE NUMBER: 2240 PROJECT TITLE: Olsen-McCadden Livestock Water Development PROJECT LEAD: Steven Cox ESTIMATED DATE FOR
More informationDocumentation of Land Use Plan Conformance and NEPA Adequacy (DNA) OR014 DNA 04-11
Documentation of Land Use Plan Conformance and NEPA Adequacy (DNA) OR014 DNA 04-11 U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Note: This worksheet is to be completed consistent with
More informationDECISION NOTICE AND FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT BLACK HILLS NATIONAL FOREST NOXIOUS WEED MANAGEMENT PLAN. United States Department of Agriculture
United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Black Hills National Forest January 2003 BLACK HILLS NATIONAL FOREST NOXIOUS WEED MANAGEMENT PLAN DECISION NOTICE AND FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
More informationFOREST SERVICE MANUAL NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS (WO) WASHINGTON, DC
Page 1 of 12 FOREST SERVICE MANUAL NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS (WO) WASHINGTON, DC CHAPTER VEGETATION ECOLOGY Amendment No.: 2000-2008-1 Effective Date: February 13, 2008 Duration: This amendment is effective
More informationDOI BLM ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT LIVESTOCK GRAZING AUTHORIZATION. Calcutta Allotment. Surprise Field Office DOI-BLM-CA-N EA 5/29/2009
DOI BLM ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT LIVESTOCK GRAZING AUTHORIZATION Calcutta Allotment Surprise Field Office DOI-BLM-CA-N070-2009-0008-EA 5/29/2009 Contents CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION...5 Background...5 Current
More informationFACT SHEET: BLM, USFS Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Effort
EMBARGOED UNTIL SEPTEMBER 22, 2015 @ 12:00PM ET FACT SHEET: BLM, USFS Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Effort Overview Effective conservation of the greater sage-grouse and its habitat requires a collaborative,
More informationPROJECT HIGHLIGHTS,
PROJECT HIGHLIGHTS, 2012-003 935 linear feet of fence encompassing livestock pond 1 water tank, 2 water troughs, 3800 linear feet pipeline Project: 2012-003 Watershed: Tomales Bay, East Shore Practices:
More informationDECISION MEMO. Missoula Electric Cooperative Point 118. MEC - Buried Electric Powerline (Along West Fork Butte Access Road #37 to Point 118)
DECISION MEMO Missoula Electric Cooperative Point 118 MEC - Buried Electric Powerline (Along West Fork Butte Access Road #37 to Point 118) USDA Forest Service - Lolo National Forest Missoula Ranger District
More informationRe: Powerline Road Access Project, Pryor Mountains, Beartooth District Custer Gallatin National Forest
United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Custer Gallatin National Forests Beartooth Ranger District 6811 Highway 212 S. Red Lodge, MT 59068 Re: Powerline Road Access Project, Pryor Mountains,
More informationEnvironmental Assessment
United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service May 2009 Environmental Assessment Powder River Campground Decommissioning Powder River Ranger District, Bighorn National Forest Johnson and Washakie
More informationWildlife-Friendly Fences: Tools for Healthy Riparian Areas
CLICK HERE TO TAKE SURVEY Prepared by Big Hole River Foundation Wildlife-Friendly Fences: Tools for Healthy Riparian Areas Technical Guidance Series V o l u m e 1, N u m b e r 1 J u n e 2 0 1 0 A Resource
More informationCHAPTER 2 - ALTERNATIVES
CHAPTER 2 - ALTERNATIVES Introduction This chapter describes the proposed action and 2 alternatives to the proposed action. This chapter is intended to provide the decision-maker the basis for choice.
More information3.28 RESEARCH NATURAL AREAS
3.28 RESEARCH NATURAL AREAS Introduction Research Natural Areas (RNAs) are areas designated, in perpetuity, for non-manipulative research and educational purposes, as well as to help maintain ecological
More informationFOREST SERVICE MANUAL NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS (WO) WASHINGTON, DC
Page 1 of 20 FOREST SERVICE MANUAL NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS (WO) WASHINGTON, DC Amendment No.: 2500-2010-1 Effective Date: November 23, 2010 Duration: This amendment is effective until superseded or removed.
More informationProposed Plan High Level Overview
Introduction Navigating the Document Key Appendices Proposed Plan Primary Threats in Oregon Addressing Threats Mitigation Strategy Adaptive Management Strategy Next Steps Questions Proposed Plan High Level
More informationBureau of Land Management National Sage-Grouse Habitat Conservation Strategy
Bureau of Land Management National Sage-Grouse Habitat Conservation Strategy 1.3.1 Guidance for Addressing Sagebrush Habitat Conservation in BLM Land Use Plans U.S. Department of the Interior November
More informationBLM Office: Lakeview District, Klamath Falls Resource Area Phone #:
Decision Memorandum on Action and for Application of: Categorical Exclusion 516 DM2, Appendix 1, 1.12 Hazardous Fuel Reduction (PLAN CONFORMANCE AND CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION DETERMINATION) CX Log #: CX-04-17
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 informationLARRY D. COSPER Black Range District Ranger cc: Teresa Smergut, Lisa Mizuno. Forest Service
United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Black Range Ranger District Voice: 575.894.6677 FAX: 575.894.3597 1804 N. Date Street Truth or Consequences, NM 87901 Internet: www.fs.fed.us/r3/gila/
More informationRe: Initial Comments on the Mount Laguna and Pine Valley Community Defense and Healthy Forest Restoration Project
Marian Kadota Adaptive Management Services Enterprise Team U.S. Forest Service 1072 Casitas Pass Road #288 Carpinteria, CA 93013 mkadota@fs.fed.us Re: Initial Comments on the Mount Laguna and Pine Valley
More informationMonitoring Grazing Lands in Oregon 1
Oregon State University BEEF023 Beef Cattle Library Beef Cattle Sciences Monitoring Grazing Lands in Oregon 1 Dustin D. Johnson 2 Introduction A critical, but often overlooked step in the development of
More informationLignite Mining and Reclamation Process. Kayla Torgerson The Coteau Properties Co.
Lignite Mining and Reclamation Process Kayla Torgerson The Coteau Properties Co. 1 Presentation Overview History of Regulation The Process of Mining and Reclamation Harmony Lake 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Which
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 informationMONITORING QUESTIONS AND TASKS FOR THE GEORGE WASHINGTON PLAN
MONITORING QUESTIONS AND TASKS FOR THE GEORGE WASHINGTON PLAN MONITORING THEME 1 CONSERVATION OF BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY FOR ECOSYSTEMS MQ 1: How are ecological conditions maintaining or making progress toward
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 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 informationAPPENDIX B EFFECTS TO PHYSICAL AND BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT
APPENDIX B EFFECTS TO PHYSICAL AND BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT Botany No known proposed, endangered, threatened, and sensitive vascular plant, bryophyte, lichen and fungi (PETS) species are present within the
More informationMAWG "Middle Ground" Proposal Jackson Hole Conservation Area Prescriptions
MAWG "Middle Ground" Proposal Jackson Hole Conservation Area Prescriptions We recommend the designation of several Jackson Hole Conservation Areas (JHCA) totaling approximately 214,000 acres to be comprised
More informationNational Forests in North Carolina Croatan National Forest Croatan Ranger District
United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service National Forests in North Carolina Croatan National Forest Croatan Ranger District 141 East Fisher Avenue New Bern, NC 28560-8468 252-638-5628 File
More informationDECISION MEMO. Crow Creek Hardened Crossing
Page 1 of 5 DECISION MEMO USDA Forest Service Madison Ranger District Madison County T12S, R4W in Section 35 Background A perennial cattle crossing on Crow Creek in in the Gravelly Landscape in the Centennial
More informationThe Wyoming Wildlife Advocates also value the Caribou-Targhee National
May 20, 2016 Jay Pence District Ranger USDA Forest Service Caribou-Targhee National Forest P.O. Box 777 Driggs, ID 83422 Re: Comments on the proposed Southern Valley Recreation Project, submitted to the
More informationPRESCRIBED GRAZING (Ac.)
PA528 1 NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE CONSERVATION PRACTICE STANDARD PRESCRIBED GRAZING (Ac.) CODE 528 DEFINITION Managing the harvest of vegetation with grazing and/or browsing animals. PURPOSE
More informationPre and Post Vegetation Management Decisions around Burning & Grazing
Pre and Post Vegetation Management Decisions around Burning & Grazing Stephanie Larson, PhD Livestock & Range Management Advisor Sonoma & Marin Counties Prescriptive Burning Weather Fire Spread, Severity
More informationApril 5th Meeting Agenda
Pend Oreille County Voluntary Stewardship Program April 5th Meeting Agenda Welcome and Meeting Overview Follow up from last Work Group meeting Review details in Sections 2 and 3 prepared since last meeting
More informationDecision Memo Halliburton Ann Exploration Project U.S. Forest Service Austin Ranger District, Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest Nye County, Nevada
Decision Memo Halliburton Ann Exploration Project U.S. Forest Service Austin Ranger District, Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest Nye County, Nevada Background The Ann Exploration Project is located on the
More informationSierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment Volume 1, Summary, Chapters 1 & 2
reader's guide Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment Table of Contents Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment Volume 1, Summary, Chapters 1 & 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS The Table of Contents is divided into 3 Sections.
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 informationCONSERVATION GRAZING TECHNICAL GUIDANCE DOCUMENT. Table of Contents MINNESOTA WETLAND RESTORATION GUIDE INTRODUCTION. Species Characteristics CATTLE
MINNESOTA WETLAND RESTORATION GUIDE CONSERVATION GRAZING TECHNICAL GUIDANCE DOCUMENT Document No.: WRG 6A-5 Publication Date: 1/30/2014 Table of Contents Introduction Application Other Considerations Costs
More informationMeeting the Challenge: Invasive Plants in Pacific Northwest Ecosystems
September 2006 Meeting the Challenge: Invasive Plants in Pacific Northwest Ecosystems Ann Bartuska Deputy Chief, FS R&D USDA Forest Service Washington, DC Organization of Presentation The Threat Forest
More informationManaging Weeds with Grazing. Managing Weeds with Grazing. 1) Prescribed grazing and weed management
Adaptive Grazing Management for Weed Control Leslie Roche, Ken Tate, Josh Davy, DJ Eastburn University of California Davis, UC Cooperative Extension 1) Prescribed grazing and weed management 2) Case studies
More informationAntelope Creek. Habitat Development Area GPS Collar Analysis. Antelope Creek Technical Committee
Antelope Creek 2018 Habitat Development Area 2016 GPS Collar Analysis Antelope Creek Technical Committee Introduction Crested wheatgrass (Agropyron cristatum) invasion in the Dry Mixegrass Natural Subregion
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 informationRECORD OF PLAN CONFORMANCE AND CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION (CX) DETERMINATION
RECORD OF PLAN CONFORMANCE AND CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION (CX) DETERMINATION CX Log #: OR-014-CX-04-24 Lease or Serial #: N/A Project Name: Surveyor Salvage CX Location: T.38S., R.5E., Sections 25,26,35,36;
More informationEnvironmental Assessment Gold Digger Mining Plan of Operations
Environmental Assessment Gold Digger Mining Plan of Operations June 2016 i ;..-.I ' Lead Agency Responsible Official For Further Information, Contact: US Forest Service Seward Ranger District Francisco
More informationLake Britton Planning Unit. Fish, Plant, and Wildlife Habitat LAKE BRITTON PLANNING UNIT
LAKE BRITTON PLANNING UNIT Pit-McCloud River Watershed Lake Britton Planning Unit Fish, Plant, and Wildlife Habitat Conduct surveys of lands outside the FERC boundary to identify biological resources and
More informationRangeland Weed Management: Practices and Perspectives. Leslie Roche, K Tate, Josh Davy, DJ Eastburn, Elise Gornish, Tracy Schohr, Julea Shaw
Rangeland Weed Management: Practices and Perspectives Leslie Roche, K Tate, Josh Davy, DJ Eastburn, Elise Gornish, Tracy Schohr, Julea Shaw Grazing Management Prescribed grazing is the controlled implementation
More informationRiparian Buffer Requirements. Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Watershed Management
102.14 - Riparian Buffer Requirements Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Watershed Management 102.2 Scope and Purpose BMPs to protect, maintain, and restore water quality and existing designated
More informationDECISION NOTICE AND FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. Bend-Fort Rock Ranger District Deschutes National Forest Lake County, Oregon
DECISION NOTICE AND FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT Bend-Fort Rock Ranger District Deschutes National Forest Lake County, Oregon Devil's Garden Planning Area Hole-in-the-Ground Subunit Environmental Assessment
More informationClimate variation, range management mechanisms, limitations and opportunities on public lands: a land Management agency s perspective
Climate variation, range management mechanisms, limitations and opportunities on public lands: a land Management agency s perspective Kathryn Dyer BLM Nevada State Range Program Lead Fundamentals of Range
More information