DOCSLIB.ORG

Appendix B - 171 Flgure 6-37 AVERAGE ANNUAL QUANTIFIABLE RESOURCE OUTPUTS and ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS by ALTERNATIVE

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Figure 6-37 AVERAGE ANNUAL QUANTIFIABLE RESOURCE OUTPUTS AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS BY ALTERNATIVE Unit of No No Act. RPA Preferred OulputsIEffects Measure Change A B C E 0 Osprey Pairs Decade 1 125 125 125 125 125 125 Decade 2 140 140 125 125 125 125 Decade 5 180 180 80 80 125 180 Goshawk Pairs Decade 1 No Data 47 43 41 43 47 Decade 2 No Data 50 43 39 45 50 Decade 5 No Data 46 43 42 46 48 Northern 3-Toed Woodpecker Pairs Decade 1 No Data 70-1020 70-1020 70.1020 70-1 Mo 70-1Mo Decade 2 No Data 65880 30430 20320 30-420 50700 Decade 5 No Data 35510 40610 30.470 4m 45480 Pine Marten Pairs Decade 1 No Data 450-1285 45012ffi 450-1 285 450-1285 4501285 Decade 2 No Data 390-1120 375-1075 310885 375-1065 425-1220 Decade 5 No Data 28081 0 405-1150 280605 450-1285 400-1 150 Mule Deer Numbers Decade 1 20,300 20,300 20,300 20,300 24,900 20,300 Decade 2 20,300 20.300 23,300 23,300 24,900 16,700 Decade 5 20,300 20,300 28,600 32,300 24,900 16,700 Woodpeckers %of Potential 40% 4060% 40% x)% m0%4 80% Population Elk (summer) Numbers 600 1000 IC53 600 1500 2000 Resident Trout Quantative habltat capaclty outputs will be determined for each stream and river reach and lake based on the analysis of habitat survey information collected during the implementation of this Plan An overall increase is expected to result from each alternative due to the implementationof standards and guidelines Wolverine & Peregrine Falcon Occasional sightings of these species. S 8 Gs developed to continue to proteot fish habltat Great Blue Heron Approximately 40.50 pairs are present Rookeries (nest trees) are protected by S&Gs ‘Percent is for even age management, 80% will be available in uneven age management Appendix B - 171 Flgure 6-37 AVERAGE ANNUAL QUANTIFIABLE RESOURCE OUTPUTS AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS BY ALTERNATIVE unit ol No No Act. RPA Prderred OulputslEffecls Measure Change A B C E 0 Wildllfe Habitat improv Acre Decade 1 EquNa- 62 6.2 6.4 300 27 0 16.0 Decade 2 lents 62 62 44 30.0 27.0 160 Decade 5 62 62 27 300 27 0 160 Range-Permmed Grazing Capacity Thousands Decade 1 of Animal 35 35 35 35 35 30 Decade 2 Und 35 35 45 45 45 30 Decade 5 Months 35 35 45 60 45 30 Timber Offered' Allowable Sale Quantity Million Decade 1 Board R 219 142.1 146.5 191 2 998 860 Total Sale Program Quantlty Decade 1 219 177 1 188 5 2162 141 8 126.0 Timber Offered' Allowable Sale Quantlty Million Decade 1 Cubic 37 1 24 8 25 9 34.0 179 156 Decade 2 Feet 24 8 25 9 34.0 179 156 Decade 5 24 8 25.9 340 179 156 Total Sale Program QuanMy Decade 1 37 1 31 6 342 39 4 25 4 23.5 Decade 2 32.4 335 38 4 23 5 228 Decade 5 31 9 340 38.7 24 5 23 5 Allowable Sale Quantity Timber Offered by Species MIX Ponderosa Pine Million Decade 1 Cubic 28 2 14.4 37 7.3 79 73 Decade 2 Feet 11 9 44 154 66 27 Decade 5 91 166 15 5 56 05 Lodgepole Pine Million Decade 1 Cubic 89 0.5 06 1.I 50 01 Decade 2 Feet 10 53 38 26 2.2 Decade 5 10.1 64 142 85 66 Appendix B - 172 Figure 8-37 AVERAGE ANNUAL QUANTIFIABLE RESOURCE OUTPUTS AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS BY ALTERNATIVE Unit of No No Act RPA Preferred Outputs/Effects Measure Change A B C E 0 Mixed Conifer Million In Decade 1 Cubic Pond 99 209 25 6 35 83 Decade 2 Feet Pine 11 9 15 1 102 58 102 Decade 5 above 51 26 23 27 83 Mountain Hemlock Million Decade 1 Cubio 0 07 01 1.5 0 Decade 2 Feet 01 11 46 29 05 Decade 5 05 .3 20 11 02 Personal Use Fuel Wood M Cords No Data 40 40 9 40 40 Reforestation M Acres Decade 1 per year No 1 91 135 96 41 Decade 2 Data 3 92 13.1 84 20 Decade 5 7.7 9.3 89 95 65 Timber Stand Improvement M Acres Decade 1 per year 98 104 67 183 11.9 67 Decade 2 87 19 132 86 45 Decade 5 7.5 93 7.7 98 3.1 LongRun Sustained Yield Million cubic n. 37 1 24 8 259 340 20.7 15.5 Timber Growth In Decade 5 Million Cubic Ft No Data 29.8 31.8 40.3 269 18.3 Reforestation Backlog Decade 1 Acres 0 0 0 0 0 0 Decade 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 Decade 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reforestation Backlog Decade 1 Dollars 0 0 0 0 0 0 Decade 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 Decade 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 Appendix B - 173 Figure 8-37 AVERAGE ANNUAL QUANTIFIABLE RESOURCE OUTPUTS AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS BY ALTERNATIVE Unit of No No Act RPA Preferred Outputs/Effects Measure Change A B C E G soil Decade 1 Risk No 9.0 14.7 20 7 150 10 2 Decade 2 Index Data 13 9 105 135 11.0 94 Decade 5 45 2 10 6 10 4 10 5 86 Available Geothermal Leasable Acres High Potential M Acres 85 85 90 125 100 50 Moderate Potential 485 485 460 485 470 435 Low Potential 400 400 400 41 0 400 400 Fire Management Effectiveness Index Decade 1 $M No 2881 2876 2594 2696 2764 Decade 2 Protected Data 2910 2799 2896 2764 2943 Decade 5 Acres 2820 2553 2512 2594 2758 Forest Road Program Road Construction Decade 1 Miles 5 5 4 8 5 3 Decade 2 4 4 4 9 5 3 Decade 5 2 2 3 6 3 2 Road Reconstruction Decade 1 Miles 10 10 10 12 11 9 Decade 2 9 9 9 14 11 8 Decade 5 6 6 8 10 9 5 Timber Purchaser Road Construction Decade 1 Miles 11 11 10 17 10 9 Decade 2 6 8 10 18 9 6 Decade 5 3 3 6 10 5 3 Road Reconstruction Decade 1 Miles 40 40 38 53 43 31 Decade 2 34 34 37 55 40 26 Decade 5 20 20 20 43 32 I8 Roads Available for Passenger Car Use Decade 1 Miles 800 800 800 1100 850 650 Decade 2 850 850 900 1200 950 650 Decade 5 900 900 950 1300 1000 650 Appendix B - 174 Figure 6-37 AVERAGE ANNUAL QUANTIFIABLE RESOURCE OUTPUTS AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS BY ALTERNATIVE unit Of No No Act. RPA Preferred outpuis/Effecls Measure Change A B C E 0 Roads Available for High Clearance Vehicles & Closed Roads Decade 1 Miles 7700 7700 7700 7400 7650 6850 Decade 2 7150 7150 7100 7100 7050 5850 Decade 5 6100 6100 6050 6700 60W 4350 Fuel Treatment Thousands Decade 1 of Acres 10 5 10 5 17.8 31.8 7.1 4.6 Decade 2 168 16.8 11.1 26 3 5.8 4.8 Decade 5 15 2 152 186 16.6 13.4 42 Operatianal Costs Million $ Decade 1 No 9.4 128 15 1 12.2 8.1 Decade 2 Data 10 0 11 9 13.9 11 1 80 Decade 5 95 11 8 140 180 85 Capttal Investment Costs Million $ Decade 1 No 53 7.7 9.1 5.2 49 Decade 2 Data 589 71 84 50 48 Decade 5 58 71 85 55 51 Planned Budget Million $ Decade 1 No 142 20.5 24.2 17.4 13.0 Decade 2 Data 150 19.0 223 16 1 12.8 Decade 5 153 189 225 185 13.6 Returns to Government Million $ Decade 1 No 178 15 6 19.9 106 9.1 Decade 2 Data 194 12.0 20.7 14 1 109 Decade 5 25 2 29.9 29.5 21 6 18.7 Changes in Jobs Number Decade 1 Of MM$ No Data 248 338 667 219 41 Changes in Income Change in Decade 1 Total MM5 No Data - 534 -.468 4 693 -2 674 -5.124 Payments to Counties Million 5 Decade 1 90 45 39 50 22 2.2 Decade 2 No 49 30 52 31 27 Decade 5 Data 63 75 74 55 47 Appendix B - 175 Figure 8-37 AVERAGE ANNUAL QUANTIFIABLE RESOURCE OUTPUTS AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS, BY ALTEdNNlVE Unit of No No Act RPA Preferred Outpuis/Effects Measure Change A B C E Lands Tentatively Suitable for Timber Production M Acres 1,2720 1 .I 50.9 1,150.9 1,1509 1,1509 1,150.9 Lands Suitable & Appropriate for Regulated M Acres 12720 667 7 877 9 1,022 6 e41 .I 635 1 Programmed Timber Harvesting Lands Suitable &Appropriate for Regulated Programmed Timber Hawestlng by Yield Category Full Yield M Acres No 593 5 642.2 823 2 573.3 495.3 5099% of Full Yield Data 274.2 235 7 199.4 267.8 139.8 149% of Full Yield 00 00 00 00 00 Tentatively Scheduled Timber Harvest Decade 1 M Acres Clearcut No 0 17 5.1 15 0 Shelterwood Data 0 10 1.5 5.9 .O Selection (uneven-age) .O 64 69 4.4 122 Overstory Removal 104 6 3 22 36 Commercial Thin 19 84 80 4 0 TOTAL 23.1 12.3 18.1 21.8 14.1 15.8 Decade 2 Clearcut M Acres No 1 9 62 35 0 Shelterwood Data .2 53 6.4 0.1 '2 Selection (uneven-age) 0 36 2.0 53 1.3 Overstory Removal 8.3 .6 .2 04 4.2 Commercial Thin 5.7 7.1 8.2 4.7 6.6 TOTAL 14.3 17.5 23.0 14.0 123 Decade 5 Clearcut M Acres No 2.8 43 4.0 1.7 1.3 Shelterwood Data 61 10.5 14 4 4.2 36 Selection (uneven-age) 2 2.0 02 56 11 OvelSt0ry .O .O .O .O .O Commercial Thin 15.6 132 14.4 6.6 7.7 TOTAL 24.7 24.7 30.0 33.0 18.1 13.9 Wild and Scenic Rivers Wild 0 Miles NA 91 9 91 9 91.9 91.9 91.9 Scenic (S) Miles NA 369 36 9 36 9 36 9 369 Recreation (R) Miles NA 66 6.6 66 66 66 Eligible (R) Miles NA 342 Appendix B - 176 I Many of the outputs and effects that would result from the implementation of an aiternatwe can not be easily expressed in quantitative terms For these cases, qualitative statements are necessary to summarize the respective consequences of each alternative.
Recommended publications
  • P L a N T L I S T Water-Wise Trees and Shrubs for the High Plains

    P L a N T L I S T Water-Wise Trees and Shrubs for the High Plains

    P L A N T L I S T Water-Wise Trees and Shrubs for the High Plains By Steve Scott, Cheyenne Botanic Gardens Horticulturist 03302004 © Cheyenne Botanic Gardens 2003 710 S. Lions Park Dr., Cheyenne WY, 82001 www.botanic.org The following is a list of suitable water-wise trees and shrubs that are suitable for water- wise landscaping also known as xeriscapes. Many of these plants may suffer if they are placed in areas receiving more than ¾ of an inch of water per week in summer. Even drought tolerant trees and shrubs are doomed to failure if grasses or weeds are growing directly under and around the plant, especially during the first few years. It is best to practice tillage, hoeing, hand pulling or an approved herbicide to kill all competing vegetation for the first five to eight years of establishment. Avoid sweetening the planting hole with manure or compost. If the soil is needs improvement, improve the whole area, not just the planting hole. Trees and shrubs generally do best well with no amendments. Many of the plants listed here are not available in department type stores. Your best bets for finding these plants will be in local nurseries- shop your hometown first! Take this list with you. Encourage nurseries and landscapers to carry these plants! For more information on any of these plants please contact the Cheyenne Botanic Gardens (307-637-6458), the Cheyenne Forestry Department (307-637-6428) or your favorite local nursery. CODE KEY- The code key below will assist you in selecting for appropriate characteristics.
  • Enduring Gifts of Seasons Gone by WV Clubs Reach out to Share An

    Enduring Gifts of Seasons Gone by WV Clubs Reach out to Share An

    PRSRT STD Love to * ECRWSS * US Postage Residential PAID Permit 162 Journey Unusual An Cus tomer Peoria, AZ Soulmates Found - Page 24 Page - Found Soulmates to Share Share to Out Reach Clubs WV Feast of Lights & Christmas Caring - Pages 20 and 33 33 and 20 Pages - Caring Christmas & Lights of Feast Seasons Gone By By Gone Seasons of Gifts Enduring More Blessed to Give - Pages 8 and 11 and 8 Pages - Give to Blessed More 39th Issue 39th December 2020 December $539,000 19456 N 87th Drive Vista Pinnacle MLS 6127556 Joy! WishingYou Home Staging IS KEY to a Great Sale! Lindsey Lori 602.828.1455 Shoultes Reiland December 2020 CONTENTSand FEATURES 7 Honoring John Schiff 8 Always Remembered 10 WV Veteran Treasure Page 16 11 WVA Reports A special Christmas memory 18 Cooking at WV 26 Posse News Deadline for submissions for the January issue is December 1st. Page 15 Kind strangers giving Call Judy Carrucciu at 623-321-2209 for advertising rates or send an email to: [email protected]. Disclaimer: Westbrook Village Living Magazine is independently owned and operated by Westbrook Living, Please also send all ideas, articles, club news L.L.C. It is not affiliated with the Westbrook Village Homeowners Association. No part of this publication may and memories to Judy. be reproduced without written consent of the publisher. Advertising does not constitute an endorsement of any product or service. Please independently investigate any Company that you do business with. Merchandise/ services are expected to be as advertised. Columns, articles, or advertising appearing in Westbrook Village This publication is delivered at the end of Living does not constitute endorsement by the Publisher of products, services or opinions advertised.
  • Propagation of Colorado Natives at Little Valley©

    Propagation of Colorado Natives at Little Valley©

    224 Combined Proceedings International Plant Propagators’ Society, Volume 58, 2008 Propagation of Colorado Natives at Little Valley © Brian Core Little Valley Wholesale Nursery, 13022 E. 136th Ave., Brighton, Colorado 80601 U.S.A. Email: [email protected] INTRODUCTION Little Valley Wholesale Nursery was established in 1979 with 15 acres of field and container stock and a staff of four people. Over the years, it has expanded to en- compass 141 acres and a peak-season staff of more than 150 people. The plant palette now includes more than 500 taxa of perennials, 275 taxa of shrubs, and over 130 taxa of trees. The area served by Little Valley’s distribution system includes Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico, and Arizona. Little Valley’s motto “The Rocky Mountain Standard” expresses the commitment to be the best wholesale plant dis- tributor in the western region. Native plants have been an important part of Little Valley’s plant mix for many years. Native plants are ideal for low-input sustainable landscapes. The Denver Metro area receives 8–15 inches of rain per year; in contrast, many eastern cities receive 50 or even 60 inches of annual precipitation. Colorado has a rapidly expanding population that threatens to deplete the water supply within a few decades. Many native plants require no supplemental water when established in the landscape; water that is not wasted on bluegrass lawns is water that can be used for human consumption. Native plants also require less frequent fertilizer and pesticide appli- cations; overuse of fertilizer and pesticide can lead to contamination of groundwater supplies with carcinogens.
  • PEAK to PRAIRIE: BOTANICAL LANDSCAPES of the PIKES PEAK REGION Tass Kelso Dept of Biology Colorado College 2012

    PEAK to PRAIRIE: BOTANICAL LANDSCAPES of the PIKES PEAK REGION Tass Kelso Dept of Biology Colorado College 2012

    !"#$%&'%!(#)()"*%+'&#,)-#.%.#,/0-#!"0%'1%&2"%!)$"0% !"#$%("3)',% &455%$6758% /69:%8;%+<878=>% -878?4@8%-8776=6% ABCA% Kelso-Peak to Prairie Biodiversity and Place: Landscape’s Coat of Many Colors Mountain peaks often capture our imaginations, spark our instincts to explore and conquer, or heighten our artistic senses. Mt. Olympus, mythological home of the Greek gods, Yosemite’s Half Dome, the ever-classic Matterhorn, Alaska’s Denali, and Colorado’s Pikes Peak all share the quality of compelling attraction that a charismatic alpine profile evokes. At the base of our peak along the confluence of two small, nondescript streams, Native Americans gathered thousands of years ago. Explorers, immigrants, city-visionaries and fortune-seekers arrived successively, all shaping in turn the region and communities that today spread from the flanks of Pikes Peak. From any vantage point along the Interstate 25 corridor, the Colorado plains, or the Arkansas River Valley escarpments, Pikes Peak looms as the dominant feature of a diverse “bioregion”, a geographical area with a distinct flora and fauna, that stretches from alpine tundra to desert grasslands. “Biodiversity” is shorthand for biological diversity: a term covering a broad array of contexts from the genetics of individual organisms to ecosystem interactions. The news tells us daily of ongoing threats from the loss of biodiversity on global and regional levels as humans extend their influence across the face of the earth and into its sustaining processes. On a regional level, biologists look for measures of biodiversity, celebrate when they find sites where those measures are high and mourn when they diminish; conservation organizations and in some cases, legal statutes, try to protect biodiversity, and communities often struggle to balance human needs for social infrastructure with desirable elements of the natural landscape.
  • Amazon Alive: a Decade of Discoveries 1999-2009

    Amazon Alive: a Decade of Discoveries 1999-2009

    Amazon Alive! A decade of discovery 1999-2009 The Amazon is the planet’s largest rainforest and river basin. It supports countless thousands of species, as well as 30 million people. © Brent Stirton / Getty Images / WWF-UK © Brent Stirton / Getty Images The Amazon is the largest rainforest on Earth. It’s famed for its unrivalled biological diversity, with wildlife that includes jaguars, river dolphins, manatees, giant otters, capybaras, harpy eagles, anacondas and piranhas. The many unique habitats in this globally significant region conceal a wealth of hidden species, which scientists continue to discover at an incredible rate. Between 1999 and 2009, at least 1,200 new species of plants and vertebrates have been discovered in the Amazon biome (see page 6 for a map showing the extent of the region that this spans). The new species include 637 plants, 257 fish, 216 amphibians, 55 reptiles, 16 birds and 39 mammals. In addition, thousands of new invertebrate species have been uncovered. Owing to the sheer number of the latter, these are not covered in detail by this report. This report has tried to be comprehensive in its listing of new plants and vertebrates described from the Amazon biome in the last decade. But for the largest groups of life on Earth, such as invertebrates, such lists do not exist – so the number of new species presented here is no doubt an underestimate. Cover image: Ranitomeya benedicta, new poison frog species © Evan Twomey amazon alive! i a decade of discovery 1999-2009 1 Ahmed Djoghlaf, Executive Secretary, Foreword Convention on Biological Diversity The vital importance of the Amazon rainforest is very basic work on the natural history of the well known.
  • Representativeness Assessment of Research Natural Areas on National Forest System Lands in Idaho

    Representativeness Assessment of Research Natural Areas on National Forest System Lands in Idaho

    USDA United States Department of Representativeness Assessment of Agriculture Forest Service Research Natural Areas on Rocky Mountain Research Station National Forest System Lands General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-45 in Idaho March 2000 Steven K. Rust Abstract Rust, Steven K. 2000. Representativeness assessment of research natural areas on National Forest System lands in Idaho. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-45. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 129 p. A representativeness assessment of National Forest System (N FS) Research Natural Areas in ldaho summarizes information on the status of the natural area network and priorities for identification of new Research Natural Areas. Natural distribution and abundance of plant associations is compared to the representation of plant associations within natural areas. Natural distribution and abundance is estimated using modeled potential natural vegetation, published classification and inventory data, and Heritage plant community element occur- rence data. Minimum criteria are applied to select only viable, high quality plant association occurrences. In assigning natural area selection priorities, decision rules are applied to encompass consideration of the adequacy and viability of representation. Selected for analysis were 1,024 plant association occurrences within 21 4 natural areas (including 115 NFS Research Natural Areas). Of the 1,566 combinations of association within ecological sections, 28 percent require additional data for further analysis; 8, 40, and 12 percent, respectively, are ranked from high to low conservation priority; 13 percent are fully represented. Patterns in natural area needs vary between ecological section. The result provides an operational prioritization of Research Natural Area needs at landscape and subregional scales.
  • Volcanic Vistas Discover National Forests in Central Oregon Summer 2009 Celebrating the Re-Opening of Lava Lands Visitor Center Inside

    Volcanic Vistas Discover National Forests in Central Oregon Summer 2009 Celebrating the Re-Opening of Lava Lands Visitor Center Inside

    Volcanic Vistas Discover National Forests in Central Oregon Summer 2009 Celebrating the re-opening of Lava Lands Visitor Center Inside.... Be Safe! 2 LAWRENCE A. CHITWOOD Go To Special Places 3 EXHIBIT HALL Lava Lands Visitor Center 4-5 DEDICATED MAY 30, 2009 Experience Today 6 For a Better Tomorrow 7 The Exhibit Hall at Lava Lands Visitor Center is dedicated in memory of Explore Newberry Volcano 8-9 Larry Chitwood with deep gratitude for his significant contributions enlightening many students of the landscape now and in the future. Forest Restoration 10 Discover the Natural World 11-13 Lawrence A. Chitwood Discovery in the Kids Corner 14 (August 4, 1942 - January 4, 2008) Take the Road Less Traveled 15 Larry was a geologist for the Deschutes National Forest from 1972 until his Get High on Nature 16 retirement in June 2007. Larry was deeply involved in the creation of Newberry National Volcanic Monument and with the exhibits dedicated in 2009 at Lava Lands What's Your Interest? Visitor Center. He was well known throughout the The Deschutes and Ochoco National Forests are a recre- geologic and scientific communities for his enthusiastic support for those wishing ation haven. There are 2.5 million acres of forest including to learn more about Central Oregon. seven wilderness areas comprising 200,000 acres, six rivers, Larry was a gifted storyteller and an ever- 157 lakes and reservoirs, approximately 1,600 miles of trails, flowing source of knowledge. Lava Lands Visitor Center and the unique landscape of Newberry National Volcanic Monument. Explore snow- capped mountains or splash through whitewater rapids; there is something for everyone.
  • Western Juniper Expansion on Adjacent Disturbed and Near-Relict Sites

    Western Juniper Expansion on Adjacent Disturbed and Near-Relict Sites

    Western juniper expansion on adjacent disturbed and near-relict sites By: Peter T. Soulé and Paul A. Knapp Soulé, P.T., and Knapp, P.A. (1999) Western juniper expansion on adjacent disturbed and near-relict sites. Journal of Range Management 52(5):525-533. Made available courtesy of Society for Range Management: http://www.rangelands.org/ ***Reprinted with permission. No further reproduction is authorized without written permission from the Society for Range Management. This version of the document is not the version of record. Figures and/or pictures may be missing from this format of the document.*** Abstract: We determined rates of western juniper (Juniperus occidentalis spp. occidentalis Hook.) density and cover change during the period 1951 to 1994 at 3 adjacent sites with nearly identical elevation, slope, aspect, soils, plant communities, and climate, but different land-use histories. The 3 sites are located in central Oregon at the confluence of the Deschutes and Crooked Rivers. Two of the sites are typical of central Oregon rangelands in that they have a history of anthropogenic disturbance including active fire suppression and domestic livestock grazing. The third site is a relict mesa that is a protected Research Natural Area and has experienced minimal anthropogenic impacts. We used large scale aerial photography to determine cover and density of western juniper in 1951, 1956, 1961, 1972, 1982, and 1994. We found that western juniper density and cover during the last 4 decades increased at all sites, with changes on the relict site similar to those on one of the disturbed sites. We suggest that even though 2 of the traditionally cited causes of western juniper expansion since the late 1800s (altered fire regimes, domestic livestock grazing) may have contributed to expansion on our disturbed sites, these mechanisms can not explain expansion on the near-relict mesa.
  • DOI-BLM-OR-P060-2010-0026-EA BLM Beach Site

    DOI-BLM-OR-P060-2010-0026-EA BLM Beach Site

    BLM Beach EA Number: DOI-BLM-OR-P060-2010-0026-EA Date of Preparation: September, 2010 Deschutes Resource Area, Prineville, Oregon BLM Beach EA # DOI-BLM-OR-P060-2010-0026 Contents CONTENTS......................................................................................................................... I LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................II 1.0 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION ...............................................................1 1.1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................1 1.2 SCOPE OF ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS ....................................................1 1.3 PROPOSED ACTION ..........................................................................................3 1.4 PURPOSE AND NEED........................................................................................9 1.5 PUBLIC AND AGENCY INVOLVEMENT .......................................................9 1.6 CONFORMANCE WITH LAND USE PLANS, REGULATIONS, AND LAWS .................................................................................................................11 2.0 ALTERNATIVES...............................................................................................12 2.1 ALTERNATIVES EVALUATED IN DETAIL .................................................12 2.2 ALTERNATIVES AND ACTION ELEMENTS CONSIDERED BUT ELIMINATED FROM DETAILED EVALUATION ........................................21
  • Appendix a List of Preparers and Reviewers

    Appendix a List of Preparers and Reviewers

    Glossary adfluvial —Referring to fish that live in lakes and no significant impact, aids an agency’s compliance migrate to rivers and streams. with the National Environmental Policy Act when Beyond the Boundaries —National Wildlife Refuge no environmental impact statement is necessary, Association program to expand conservation work and facilitates preparation of a statement when to areas outside national wildlife refuge borders. one is necessary. BRWCA —Bear River Watershed Conservation Area. fluvial —Referring to fish that live in rivers and candidate species —A species of plant or animal for streams. which the USFWS has sufficient information on GCN —(A species of) greatest conservation need. their biological status and threats to propose them HAPET —Habitat and Population Evaluation Team. as endangered or threatened under the Endan- Important Bird Areas Program —A global effort to gered Species Act, but for which development of find and conserve areas that are vital to birds a proposed listing regulation is precluded by other and other biodiversity sponsored by the National higher priority listing activities. Audubon Society. CFR —Code of Federal Regulations. Intermountain West Joint Venture —Diverse partner- CO2 —Carbon dioxide. ship of 18 entities including Federal agencies, conservation easement —A legally enforceable State agencies, nonprofit conservation organiza- encumbrance or transfer of property rights to a tions, and for-profit organizations representing government agency or land trust for the purposes agriculture and industry. IWJV was founded in of conservation. Rights transferred could include 1994 to facilitate bird conservation across the vast the discretion to subdivide or develop land, change 495 million acres of the Intermountain West.
  • Landscaping with Native Plants by Stephen L

    Landscaping with Native Plants by Stephen L

    SHORT-SEASON, HIGH-ALTITUDE GARDENING BULLETIN 862 Landscaping with native plants by Stephen L. Love, Kathy Noble, Jo Ann Robbins, Bob Wilson, and Tony McCammon INTRODUCTION There are many reasons to consider a native plant landscape in Idaho’s short- season, high-altitude regions, including water savings, decreased mainte- nance, healthy and adapted plants, and a desire to create a local theme CONTENTS around your home. Most plants sold for landscaping are native to the eastern Introduction . 1 United States and the moist climates of Europe. They require acid soils, con- The concept of native . 3 stant moisture, and humid air to survive and remain attractive. Most also Landscaping Principles for Native Plant Gardens . 3 require a longer growing season than we have available in the harshest cli- Establishing Native Landscapes and Gardens . 4 mates of Idaho. Choosing to landscape with these unadapted plants means Designing a Dry High-Desert Landscape . 5 Designing a Modified High-Desert Landscape . 6 accepting the work and problems of constantly recreating a suitable artificial Designing a High-Elevation Mountain Landscape . 6 environment. Native plants will help create a landscape that is more “com- Designing a Northern Idaho Mountain/Valley fortable” in the climates and soils that surround us, and will reduce the Landscape . 8 resources necessary to maintain the landscape. Finding Sources of Native Plants . 21 The single major factor that influences Idaho’s short-season, high-altitude climates is limited summer moisture. Snow and rainfall are relatively abun- dant in the winter, but for 3 to 4 months beginning in June, we receive only a YOU ARE A SHORT-SEASON, few inches of rain.
  • Conservation Strategy for Spokane River Basin Wetlands

    Conservation Strategy for Spokane River Basin Wetlands

    CONSERVATION STRATEGY FOR SPOKANE RIVER BASIN WETLANDS Prepared by Mabel Jankovsky-Jones Conservation Data Center June 1999 Idaho Department of Fish and Game Natural Resource Policy Bureau 600 South Walnut, P.O. Box 25 Boise, ID 83707 Jerry Mallet, Interim Director Report prepared with funding from the United States Environmental Protection Agency through Section 104(b) (3) of the Clean Water Act Grant No. CD990620-01-0 SUMMARY The Idaho Conservation Data Center has received wetland protection grant funding from the Environmental Protection Agency under the authority of Section 104 (b)(3) of the Clean Water Act to enhance existing wetland information systems. The information summarized here can be applied to state biodiversity, conservation, and water quality enhancement projects on a watershed basis. Previous project areas included the Henrys Fork Basin, Big Wood River Basin, southeastern Idaho watersheds, the Idaho Panhandle, and east-central basins. This document is a summary of information compiled for the Spokane River Basin. We used the United States Fish and Wildlife Service National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) to gain a broad perspective on the areal extant and types of wetlands in the survey area. Land ownership and management layers were overlaid on the NWI to determine ownership and the protected status of wetlands. Plant communities occurring in the survey area were placed into the hierarchical NWI classification and provide information relative to on-the-ground resource management. Assessment of the quality and condition of plant communities and the occurrence of rare plant and animal species allowed us to categorize twenty-four wetland sites based on conservation intent.