DOCSLIB.ORG

Appendices Biological Resources

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Appendices Biological Resources Appendix A. Biological Report Technical Reports I-70 Mountain Corridor PEIS Appendix A August 2010 This page intentionally left blank. I-70 Mountain Corridor PEIS Biological Report Arapaho and Roosevelt and White River National Forests Approved by: _____________________________________ ___________________________________________ Date Christine Hirsch Date Forest Ecologist Fisheries Biologist Region 2, White River National Forest Region 2, White River National Forest _____________________________________ ______________________________________________ Lynne Deibel Date Kelly Larkin Date Forest Wildlife Biologist & Program Manager Fisheries Biologist Region 2, Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests Region 2, Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests TES Plants Prepared and Approved by: ___________________________________________ Steve J. Popovich Date Forest Botanist Region 2, Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests Biological Report This page intentionally left blank. Biological Report Table of Contents BR.1. Introduction.......................................................................................................................1 BR.2. Project Background and Corridor Impact Context........................................................2 BR.2.1 Description of the Project Area .................................................................................2 BR.2.2 Consultation History..................................................................................................3 BR.2.3 Existing Highway-Related Impacts ...........................................................................4 BR.2.4 Development Influence .............................................................................................5 BR.2.5 Project Alternatives...................................................................................................5 BR.2.5.1 Preferred Alternative......................................................................................5 BR.2.5.2 Alternatives Evaluated in the Draft PEIS .....................................................10 BR.2.6 Species Considered and Evaluated........................................................................15 BR.3. USFS Biological Assessment........................................................................................28 BR.3.1 Threatened and Endangered Species ....................................................................29 BR.3.1.1 Mammals.....................................................................................................29 BR.3.1.2 Birds ............................................................................................................49 BR.3.1.3 Fish..............................................................................................................55 BR.3.1.4 Plants...........................................................................................................70 BR.4. USFS Biological Evaluation...........................................................................................76 BR.4.1 Sensitive Species ...................................................................................................77 BR.4.1.1 Mammals.....................................................................................................77 BR.4.1.2 Birds ............................................................................................................98 BR.4.1.3 Amphibians................................................................................................129 BR.4.1.4 Fish............................................................................................................146 BR.4.1.5 Plants.........................................................................................................154 BR.4.2 Management Indicator Species ............................................................................169 BR.4.2.1 WRNF Species..........................................................................................170 BR.4.2.2 ARNF Species...........................................................................................189 BR.4.3 Summary of Determinations/Estimation of Effects (Before Implementing Mitigation) .........................................................................................................................220 BR.4.4 Responsibility for a Revised Biological Evaluation ...............................................224 BR.4.5 Monitoring.............................................................................................................224 BR.4.6 Wildlife Linkage Interference Zone Mapping ........................................................224 BR.4.7 References and/or Literature Cited.......................................................................224 August 2010 I-70 Mountain Corridor PEIS Page BR-i Biological Report This page intentionally left blank. I-70 Mountain Corridor PEIS August 2010 Page BR-ii Biological Report BR.1. Introduction This Biological Report (BR) is in response to a Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) being conducted for I-70 from Glenwood Springs to C-470 (Corridor). The purpose of this BR is to determine the likely effects of the alternatives on federally listed species (endangered, threatened, and proposed), U.S. Forest Service (USFS)-sensitive species, management indicator species (MIS), and other species or habitats potentially affected by the project alternatives at a Tier 1 level of detail. This is in accordance with direction in the 1997 revision of the Land and Resource Management Plan for Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests and Pawnee National Grassland and the 2002 revision of the White River National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plans). The BR begins with a description of the project background, including the project area, consultation history, and details of each project alternative, as well as a description of Corridor context, detailing the species considered and evaluated in this BR. Following this background material, the BR includes the following principal sections. The BR addresses all alternatives for species according to their known distribution within the White River National Forest (WRNF) or Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests (ARNF), or by their designation as management indicators by either forest. BR.2 Project Background and Corridor Impact Context BR.2.6 Species Considered and Evaluated BR.3 USFS Biological Assessment BR.3.1 Threatened and Endangered Species BR.3.1.1 Mammals BR.3.1.2 Birds BR.3.1.3 Fish BR.3.1.4 Plants BR.4 USFS Biological Evaluation BR.4.1 Sensitive Species BR.4.1.1 Mammals BR.4.1.2 Birds BR.4.1.3 Amphibians BR.4.1.4 Fish BR.4.1.5 Plants BR.4.2 Management Indicator Species BR.4.2.1 WRNF Species BR.4.2.2 ARNF Species BR.4.3 Summary of Determinations/Estimation of Effects (Before Implementing Mitigation) BR.4.4 Responsibility for a Revised Biological Evaluation BR.4.5 Monitoring BR.4.6 Wildlife Linkage Interference Zone Mapping BR.4.7 References and/or Literature Cited Twenty-one alternatives were fully evaluated in the Draft PEIS to increase capacity, improve accessibility and mobility, and decrease congestion along the Corridor. This BR addresses the following issues related to biological resources in the Corridor: Wildlife and plant habitat loss August 2010 I-70 Mountain Corridor PEIS Page BR-1 Biological Report Road effects on adjacent habitats Increased barrier effect of I-70 on wildlife Increased noise Potential for induced growth More in-depth analyses will be conducted at the Tier 2 level of study, when specific projects are proposed in phases along the Corridor. BR.2. Project Background and Corridor Impact Context BR.2.1 Description of the Project Area The study corridor extends from Glenwood Springs (milepost 116) east to the connection with C-470 (milepost 260). This 144-mile stretch of I-70 traverses five counties—Garfield, Eagle, Summit, Clear Creek, and Jefferson—and more than 20 communities. The Corridor is located, in part, within both the WRNF and the ARNF. While National Forest System Lands exist throughout the Corridor, jurisdiction of adjacent lands alternates along the Corridor between private and public ownership. I-70 directly abuts National Forest System Lands for approximately 50 miles throughout the Corridor. The majority of National Forest System Lands directly adjacent to I-70 are within the WRNF, with a total of 41 miles along I-70 directly adjacent to WRNF lands and 9 miles of I-70 directly adjacent to ARNF lands. Throughout the remaining portions of the Corridor, I-70 is directly abutted by U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and privately owned lands. These National Forest System Lands contain various life zones and habitats. Elevations within the Corridor range from a low of approximately 6,000 feet at the eastern end of the Corridor to approximately 11,200 feet at the Eisenhower-Johnson Memorial Tunnels, located at the Continental Divide. The Corridor crosses four major life zones that are defined by changes in climate with elevation increases, which, in turn, are reflected by the broad changes in vegetation communities (Marr 1961; Nelson 1977). These life zones from lower to higher elevations are as follows: Foothills, Montane, Subalpine, and Alpine. The Foothills Zone occurs at lower elevations from less than 6,000 feet to approximately 8,000 feet but may extend to above 9,000 feet on south exposures. It is relatively complex and may contain ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa)
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Table of Contents
    Appendix C Botanical Resources Table of Contents Purpose Of This Appendix ............................................................................................................. Below Tables C-1. Federal and State Status, Current and Proposed Forest Service Status, and Global Distribution of the TEPCS Plant Species on the Sawtooth National Forest ........................... C-1 C-2. Habit, Lifeform, Population Trend, and Habitat Grouping of the TEPCS Plant Species for the Sawtooth National Forest ............................................................................... C-3 C-3. Rare Communities, Federal and State Status, Rarity Class, Threats, Trends, and Research Natural Area Distribution for the Sawtooth National Forest ................................... C-5 C-4. Plant Species of Cultural Importance for the Sawtooth National Forest ................................... C-6 PURPOSE OF THIS APPENDIX This appendix is designed to provide detailed information about habitat, lifeform, status, distribution, and habitat grouping for the Threatened, Proposed, Candidate, and Sensitive (current and proposed) plant species found on the Sawtooth National Forest. The detailed information is provided to enable managers to more efficiently direct the implementation of Botanical Resources goals, objectives, standards, and guidelines. Additionally, this appendix provides detailed information about the rare plant communities located on the Sawtooth National Forest and should provide additional support of Forest-wide objectives. Species of cultural
    [Show full text]
  • Colorado Wildlife Action Plan: Proposed Rare Plant Addendum
    Colorado Wildlife Action Plan: Proposed Rare Plant Addendum By Colorado Natural Heritage Program For The Colorado Rare Plant Conservation Initiative June 2011 Colorado Wildlife Action Plan: Proposed Rare Plant Addendum Colorado Rare Plant Conservation Initiative Members David Anderson, Colorado Natural Heritage Program (CNHP) Rob Billerbeck, Colorado Natural Areas Program (CNAP) Leo P. Bruederle, University of Colorado Denver (UCD) Lynn Cleveland, Colorado Federation of Garden Clubs (CFGC) Carol Dawson, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Michelle DePrenger-Levin, Denver Botanic Gardens (DBG) Brian Elliott, Environmental Consulting Mo Ewing, Colorado Open Lands (COL) Tom Grant, Colorado State University (CSU) Jill Handwerk, Colorado Natural Heritage Program (CNHP) Tim Hogan, University of Colorado Herbarium (COLO) Steve Kettler, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Andrew Kratz, U.S. Forest Service (USFS) Sarada Krishnan, Colorado Native Plant Society (CoNPS), Denver Botanic Gardens Brian Kurzel, Colorado Natural Areas Program Eric Lane, Colorado Department of Agriculture (CDA) Paige Lewis, The Nature Conservancy (TNC) Ellen Mayo, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Mitchell McGlaughlin, University of Northern Colorado (UNC) Jennifer Neale, Denver Botanic Gardens Betsy Neely, The Nature Conservancy Ann Oliver, The Nature Conservancy Steve Olson, U.S. Forest Service Susan Spackman Panjabi, Colorado Natural Heritage Program Jeff Peterson, Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) Josh Pollock, Center for Native Ecosystems (CNE) Nicola Ripley,
    [Show full text]
  • Thistles of Colorado
    Thistles of Colorado About This Guide Identification and Management Guide Many individuals, organizations and agencies from throughout the state (acknowledgements on inside back cover) contributed ideas, content, photos, plant descriptions, management information and printing support toward the completion of this guide. Mountain thistle (Cirsium scopulorum) growing above timberline Casey Cisneros, Tim D’Amato and the Larimer County Department of Natural Resources Weed District collected, compiled and edited information, content and photos for this guide. Produced by the We welcome your comments, corrections, suggestions, and high Larimer County quality photos. If you would like to contribute to future editions, please contact the Larimer County Weed District at 970-498- Weed District 5769 or email [email protected] or [email protected]. Front cover photo of Cirsium eatonii var. hesperium by Janis Huggins Partners in Land Stewardship 2nd Edition 1 2 Table of Contents Introduction 4 Introduction Native Thistles (Pages 6-20) Barneyby’s Thistle (Cirsium barnebyi) 6 Cainville Thistle (Cirsium clacareum) 6 Native thistles are dispersed broadly Eaton’s Thistle (Cirsium eatonii) 8 across many Colorado ecosystems. Individual species occupy niches from Elk or Meadow Thistle (Cirsium scariosum) 8 3,500 feet to above timberline. These Flodman’s Thistle (Cirsium flodmanii) 10 plants are valuable to pollinators, seed Fringed or Fish Lake Thistle (Cirsium 10 feeders, browsing wildlife and to the centaureae or C. clavatum var. beauty and diversity of our native plant americanum) communities. Some non-native species Mountain Thistle (Cirsium scopulorum) 12 have become an invasive threat to New Mexico Thistle (Cirsium 12 agriculture and natural areas. For this reason, native and non-native thistles neomexicanum) alike are often pulled, mowed, clipped or Ousterhout’s or Aspen Thistle (Cirsium 14 sprayed indiscriminately.
    [Show full text]
  • BACKCOUNTRY CACHE a Newsletter for Members of CMC Backpacking Section
    BACKCOUNTRY CACHE A Newsletter for Members of CMC Backpacking Section May 2021 CHAIR'S CORNER - Uwe Sartori Members often ask what do trip leaders do in getting a trip built and across the finish line? Tied into the answer is the awesome value CMC members receive each time they sign up and do a CMC trip. (Think about it. If you go to a guide service, you are likely paying hundreds of dollars a day.) The chart below shows my investment for an upcoming backpacking trip. This personal investment is repeated by many of our trip leaders regardless of the recreational activity. For this 2 day backpacking trip, there are 24 hours of prep/debrief/admin work and 20 hours of trip activity time; 44 hours total. You can begin to understand why the BPX Section is super keen on having our members keep their commitment and help us AVOID ROSTER CHURN. Having trips cancel due to CMC members dropping out is the bane of trip leaders. Show respect and community by keeping your commitment when signing up for a CMC adventure. I guarantee you will not regret it. BPX TRIPS FOR NEXT 2 MONTHS E=Easy M=Moderate D=Difficult June - July Trips With Openings* Jun 1-3 Tue-Thu M Camping, Hiking, Fishing at Browns Canyon Nat'l Monument Jun 9-11 Wed-Fri E Mayflower and Mohawk Lakes, White River NF Jun 11-13 Fri-Sun M Just-in-Time Wigwam Park, Lost Creek Wilderness Jun 25-28 Fri-Mon D Colorado Trail - Collegiate West Exploratory Jun 29- Tue-Thu D Willow and Salmon Lakes, Eagles Nest Wilderness Jul 1 Jul 1-2 Thu-Fri D Macey Lakes and Colony Baldy, Sangre de Cristo Wilderness
    [Show full text]
  • December 2012 Number 1
    Calochortiana December 2012 Number 1 December 2012 Number 1 CONTENTS Proceedings of the Fifth South- western Rare and Endangered Plant Conference Calochortiana, a new publication of the Utah Native Plant Society . 3 The Fifth Southwestern Rare and En- dangered Plant Conference, Salt Lake City, Utah, March 2009 . 3 Abstracts of presentations and posters not submitted for the proceedings . 4 Southwestern cienegas: Rare habitats for endangered wetland plants. Robert Sivinski . 17 A new look at ranking plant rarity for conservation purposes, with an em- phasis on the flora of the American Southwest. John R. Spence . 25 The contribution of Cedar Breaks Na- tional Monument to the conservation of vascular plant diversity in Utah. Walter Fertig and Douglas N. Rey- nolds . 35 Studying the seed bank dynamics of rare plants. Susan Meyer . 46 East meets west: Rare desert Alliums in Arizona. John L. Anderson . 56 Calochortus nuttallii (Sego lily), Spatial patterns of endemic plant spe- state flower of Utah. By Kaye cies of the Colorado Plateau. Crystal Thorne. Krause . 63 Continued on page 2 Copyright 2012 Utah Native Plant Society. All Rights Reserved. Utah Native Plant Society Utah Native Plant Society, PO Box 520041, Salt Lake Copyright 2012 Utah Native Plant Society. All Rights City, Utah, 84152-0041. www.unps.org Reserved. Calochortiana is a publication of the Utah Native Plant Society, a 501(c)(3) not-for-profit organi- Editor: Walter Fertig ([email protected]), zation dedicated to conserving and promoting steward- Editorial Committee: Walter Fertig, Mindy Wheeler, ship of our native plants. Leila Shultz, and Susan Meyer CONTENTS, continued Biogeography of rare plants of the Ash Meadows National Wildlife Refuge, Nevada.
    [Show full text]
  • Mesa Cortina / South Willow Falls
    U. S. Department of Agriculture Dillon Ranger District 680 Blue River Parkway Silverthorne, CO 80498 (970) 468-5400 MESA CORTINA / SOUTH WILLOW FALLS - FDT 32 / 60 Difficulty: EASY TO MODERATE Trail Use: Moderate Length: 2.7 miles one-way to the Gore Range Trail (FDT 60) 4.2 miles one-way to the South Willow Falls Elevation: Start at 9,217 feet and ends at 10,007 feet (highest point 10,007 feet) Elevation Gain: +1,043 feet - 253 feet = +790 feet Open To: HIKING, HORSE, X-C SKIING, SNOWSHOEING Access: From I-70 take Exit 205, Silverthorne / Dillon, and travel north on HWY 9 to the first traffic light at the intersection of Rainbow Drive / Wildernest Road. Turn left onto Wildernest Road / Ryan Gulch Rd. Continue through two stoplights onto Buffalo Mountain Drive. After 0.8 miles, turn right onto Lakeview Drive. Travel 0.45 miles and turn left onto Aspen Drive. The Mesa Cortina trailhead and parking area will be on your right in 0.15 miles. Trail Highlights: This trail enters the Eagles Nest Wilderness Area. There are great views of Dillon Reservoir and the entire Blue River Valley from the trailhead. The trail winds through aspen groves into a meadow which offers a good view of the Ptarmigan Peak Wilderness. After the meadow is the Eagles Nest Wilderness boundary. The trail then travels through lodgepole pine forests and crosses South Willow Creek just before intersecting the Gore Range Trail (FDT 60). Continue left (west) on the Gore Range Trail toward South Willow Falls. Eventually you will come to a junction which is the dead-end spur trail to the falls.
    [Show full text]
  • Dissertation Predatory and Energetic Relations of Woodpeckers to the Engela~N
    DISSERTATION PREDATORY AND ENERGETIC RELATIONS OF WOODPECKERS TO THE ENGELA~N SPRUCE BEETLE Submitted by James Ray Koplin In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy Colorado State University Fort Collins, Colorado June, 1967 COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY June 1967 IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT THE DISSERTATION PREPARED BY ---- JAMES RAY KOPLIN ENTITLED PREDATORY AND ENERGETIC RELATIONS OF V\UODPECKERS TO THE ENGELMANN SPRUCE BEETLE BE ACCEPTED AS FULFILLING THIS PART OF THE REQUIRE~ffiNT FOR THE DEGREE OF OOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY. Committee £Q Graduate Work Major Professor Examination Satisfactory Chairman Permission to publish this dissertation or any part of it must be obtained from the Dean of the Graduate School. ii Abstract of Dissertation PREDATORY AND ENERGETIC RELATIONS OF WOODPECKERS TO THE ENGELMANN SPRUCE BEETLE A general theory of the population dynamics of predator­ prey systems was developed from a survey of pertinent literature. According to the theory, populations of simplified predator-prey systems fluctuate wildly and periodically. Complicating factors dampen the amplitude of the population fluctuations and thus exert a stabilizing influence on the systems. The predator-prey system between the Northern Three-toed, Hairy and Downy Woodpeckers, and the Engelmann spruce beetle was chosen for an investigation of the population dynamics of a natural predator-prey system. The population densities of several species of bark beetles attracted to trees killed and damaged by a fire on the study area in Northern Colorado, increased to levels that attracted the feeding attention of the woodpeckers. The numerical response of the woodpeckers to prey density was graded, that of the Northern Three-toed Woodpecker was the most pronounced and that of the Downy Woodpecker was the least pronounced.
    [Show full text]
  • Autumn Willow in Rocky Mountain Region the Black Hills National
    United States Department of Agriculture Conservation Assessment Forest Service for the Autumn Willow in Rocky Mountain Region the Black Hills National Black Hills National Forest, South Dakota and Forest Custer, South Dakota Wyoming April 2003 J.Hope Hornbeck, Carolyn Hull Sieg, and Deanna J. Reyher Species Assessment of Autumn willow in the Black Hills National Forest, South Dakota and Wyoming J. Hope Hornbeck, Carolyn Hull Sieg and Deanna J. Reyher J. Hope Hornbeck is a Botanist with the Black Hills National Forest in Custer, South Dakota. She completed a B.S. in Environmental Biology (botany emphasis) at The University of Montana and a M.S. in Plant Biology (plant community ecology emphasis) at the University of Minnesota-Twin Cities. Carolyn Hull Sieg is a Research Plant Ecologist with the Rocky Mountain Research Station in Flagstaff, Arizona. She completed a B.S. in Wildlife Biology and M.S. in Range Science from Colorado State University and a Ph.D. in Range and Wildlife Management (fire ecology) at Texas Tech University. Deanna J. Reyher is Ecologist/Soil Scientist with the Black Hills National Forest in Custer, South Dakota. She completed a B.S. degree in Agronomy (soil science and crop production emphasis) from the University of Nebraska – Lincoln. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Autumn willow, Salix serissima (Bailey) Fern., is an obligate wetland shrub that occurs in fens and bogs in the northeastern United States and eastern Canada. Disjunct populations of autumn willow occur in the Black Hills of South Dakota. Only two populations occur on Black Hills National Forest lands: a large population at McIntosh Fen and a small population on Middle Boxelder Creek.
    [Show full text]
  • National List of Vascular Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands 1996
    National List of Vascular Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands: 1996 National Summary Indicator by Region and Subregion Scientific Name/ North North Central South Inter- National Subregion Northeast Southeast Central Plains Plains Plains Southwest mountain Northwest California Alaska Caribbean Hawaii Indicator Range Abies amabilis (Dougl. ex Loud.) Dougl. ex Forbes FACU FACU UPL UPL,FACU Abies balsamea (L.) P. Mill. FAC FACW FAC,FACW Abies concolor (Gord. & Glend.) Lindl. ex Hildebr. NI NI NI NI NI UPL UPL Abies fraseri (Pursh) Poir. FACU FACU FACU Abies grandis (Dougl. ex D. Don) Lindl. FACU-* NI FACU-* Abies lasiocarpa (Hook.) Nutt. NI NI FACU+ FACU- FACU FAC UPL UPL,FAC Abies magnifica A. Murr. NI UPL NI FACU UPL,FACU Abildgaardia ovata (Burm. f.) Kral FACW+ FAC+ FAC+,FACW+ Abutilon theophrasti Medik. UPL FACU- FACU- UPL UPL UPL UPL UPL NI NI UPL,FACU- Acacia choriophylla Benth. FAC* FAC* Acacia farnesiana (L.) Willd. FACU NI NI* NI NI FACU Acacia greggii Gray UPL UPL FACU FACU UPL,FACU Acacia macracantha Humb. & Bonpl. ex Willd. NI FAC FAC Acacia minuta ssp. minuta (M.E. Jones) Beauchamp FACU FACU Acaena exigua Gray OBL OBL Acalypha bisetosa Bertol. ex Spreng. FACW FACW Acalypha virginica L. FACU- FACU- FAC- FACU- FACU- FACU* FACU-,FAC- Acalypha virginica var. rhomboidea (Raf.) Cooperrider FACU- FAC- FACU FACU- FACU- FACU* FACU-,FAC- Acanthocereus tetragonus (L.) Humm. FAC* NI NI FAC* Acanthomintha ilicifolia (Gray) Gray FAC* FAC* Acanthus ebracteatus Vahl OBL OBL Acer circinatum Pursh FAC- FAC NI FAC-,FAC Acer glabrum Torr. FAC FAC FAC FACU FACU* FAC FACU FACU*,FAC Acer grandidentatum Nutt.
    [Show full text]
  • Public Law 94-352 94Th Congress an Act
    90 STAT. 870 PUBLIC LAW 94-352—JULY 12, 1976 Public Law 94-352 94th Congress An Act July 12, 1976 To designate the Eagles Nest Wilderness, Arapaho and Wliite River National [S. 268] Forests, in the State of Colorado. Be it enacted ty the Senate and House of Representatives of the Eagles Nest United States of ATuerica in Congress assenibled^ That, in accordance Wilderness, Colo. with subsection 3(b) of the Wilderness Act (78 Stat. 891; 16 U.S.C. Designation. 1132(b)), the area classified as the Gore Range-Eagles Nest Primitive 16 use 1132 Area, with the proposed additions thereto and deletions therefrom, as note. generally depicted on a map entitled "Eagles Nest Wilderness—Pro­ posed", dated June 1976, which is on file and available for public inspection in the office of the Chief, Forest Service, Department of Agriculture, is hereby designated as the "Eagles Nest Wilderness" within and as part of the Arapaho and White River National Forests comprising an area of approximately one hundred thirty-three thou­ sand nine hundred ten acres. Map and SEC. 2. As soon as practicable after this Act takes effect, the Secre­ description, filing tary of Agriculture shall file a map and a legal description of the with Eagles Nest Wilderness with the Committees on Interior and Insular congressional Affairs of the United States Senate and House of Representatives, and committees. such map and description shall have the same force and effect as if 16 use 1132 included in this Act: Provided^ hoicever, That correction of clerical note. and typographical errors in such map and description may be made.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix C - Roadless Areas
    Appendix C - Roadless Areas Purpose The purpose of this appendix is to describe roadless areas and the analysis factors used in evaluating individual roadless areas on the Routt National Forest. It includes a description of the physical and biological features, primitive recreation and education opportunities, resources, and present management situation for each area. Background Roadless Area Review and Evaluation In 1970, the Forest Service studied all administratively designated primitive areas and inventoried and reviewed all roadless areas in the National Forest System greater than 5,000 acres. This study was known as the Roadless Area Review and Evaluation (RARE). RARE was halted in 1972 due to legal challenge. RARE identified 711,043 acres of roadless area on the Routt National Forest. In 1977, the Forest Service began another nation-wide Roadless Area Review and Evaluation (RARE II) to identify roadless and undeveloped areas within the National Forest System that were suitable for inclusion in the National Wilderness Preservation System. Twenty nine areas, totalling 566,756 acres, were inventoried on the Routt National Forest (including the Middle Park Ranger District of the Arapaho-Roosevelt National Forest). As a result of RARE II, four areas on the forest - Williams Fork, St. Louis Peak, Service Creek, and Davis Peak - were administratively designated as Further Planning Areas (FPA). This further planning area designation meant that more information was needed before the Forest Service would recommend any of these areas to Congress for wilderness designation. In January 1979, the Forest Service issued nationally a Final Environmental Impact Statement documenting a review of 62 million acres of roadless and undeveloped areas within the 191-million-acre National Forest System.
    [Show full text]
  • Integrated Noxious Weed Management Plan: US Air Force Academy and Farish Recreation Area, El Paso County, CO
    Integrated Noxious Weed Management Plan US Air Force Academy and Farish Recreation Area August 2015 CNHP’s mission is to preserve the natural diversity of life by contributing the essential scientific foundation that leads to lasting conservation of Colorado's biological wealth. Colorado Natural Heritage Program Warner College of Natural Resources Colorado State University 1475 Campus Delivery Fort Collins, CO 80523 (970) 491-7331 Report Prepared for: United States Air Force Academy Department of Natural Resources Recommended Citation: Smith, P., S. S. Panjabi, and J. Handwerk. 2015. Integrated Noxious Weed Management Plan: US Air Force Academy and Farish Recreation Area, El Paso County, CO. Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado. Front Cover: Documenting weeds at the US Air Force Academy. Photos courtesy of the Colorado Natural Heritage Program © Integrated Noxious Weed Management Plan US Air Force Academy and Farish Recreation Area El Paso County, CO Pam Smith, Susan Spackman Panjabi, and Jill Handwerk Colorado Natural Heritage Program Warner College of Natural Resources Colorado State University Fort Collins, Colorado 80523 August 2015 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Various federal, state, and local laws, ordinances, orders, and policies require land managers to control noxious weeds. The purpose of this plan is to provide a guide to manage, in the most efficient and effective manner, the noxious weeds on the US Air Force Academy (Academy) and Farish Recreation Area (Farish) over the next 10 years (through 2025), in accordance with their respective integrated natural resources management plans. This plan pertains to the “natural” portions of the Academy and excludes highly developed areas, such as around buildings, recreation fields, and lawns.
    [Show full text]