DOCSLIB.ORG

Haystack Development

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

August 2, 2017 HAYSTACK DEVELOPMENT Moonlight Basin Overall Development Plan Wildlife Summary Report HAYSTACK DEVELOPMENT Wildlife Summary Report TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................... 1 2.0 EXISTING WILDLIFE AND HABITAT ..................................................................................... 4 2.1 HABITAT ........................................................................................................................................ 4 2.2 FEDERALLY LISTED SPECIES ......................................................................................................... 6 2.2.1 Grizzly Bear .......................................................................................................................... 6 2.2.2 Canada Lynx ......................................................................................................................... 7 2.2.3 Wolverine ............................................................................................................................ 10 2.3 OTHER SPECIES OF REGIONAL SIGNIFICANCE ............................................................................ 10 2.3.1 Species of Greatest Conservation Need .............................................................................. 10 2.3.2 Migratory Birds ................................................................................................................... 13 2.3.3 Big Game Species ............................................................................................................... 13 3.0 EFFECTS ON WILDLIFE AND HABITAT, RECOMMENDATIONS ................................ 16 3.1 FEDERALLY LISTED SPECIES ....................................................................................................... 18 3.2 SPECIES OF GREATEST CONSERVATION NEED AND OTHER MIGRATORY BIRDS........................ 19 3.3 BIG GAME SPECIES...................................................................................................................... 19 4.0 REFERENCES .............................................................................................................................. 21 FIGURES: FIGURE 1 EXISTING DEVELOPMENT...................................................................................... 2 FIGURE 2 EXISTING AND PROPOSED ODP DEVELOPMENT.............................................. 3 FIGURE 3 LAND COVER ............................................................................................................. 5 FIGURE 4 GRIZZLY BEAR HABITAT ASSOCIATION ............................................................ 8 FIGURE 5 CANADA LYNX HABITAT ASSOCIATION ........................................................... 9 FIGURE 6 WOLVERINE HABITAT ASSOCIATION ............................................................... 11 FIGURE 7 BIG GAME GENERAL AND WINTER RANGE .................................................... 15 TABLES: TABLE 1 THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES WITH POTENTIAL TO OCCUR IN OR NEAR THE PROJECT AREA ........................................................... 6 TABLE 2 SPECIES OF GREATEST CONSERVATION NEED DOCUMENTED TO OCCUR WITHIN THE PROJECT AREA ............................................................................... 12 APPENDICES: APPENDIX A SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES WITH POTENTIAL FOR OCCURRENCE ............. 23 APPENDIX B MONTANA NATURAL HERITAGE PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL SUMMARY REPORT FOR MOONLIGHT BASIN ODP ....................................... 26 HLY 199-069 (BOI PER 02 02 01) HAYSTACK (5/9/2017) 145724 PAGE i HAYSTACK DEVELOPMENT Wildlife Summary Report 1.0 INTRODUCTION MB MT Acquisition LLC/Lone Mountain Land Company is proposing to continue expanding residential, recreational, and commercial development at Moonlight Basin in eastern Madison County, located approximately 30 miles southwest of Bozeman, Montana and within/adjacent to Big Sky Resort. Development will proceed according to the Moonlight Basin Overall Development Plan (ODP; formerly the Moonlight Basin Ranch Overall Development Plan) which has been the guiding document for development within the 8,669-acre Moonlight Basin ODP area (Project Area). Development nodes included in the 2017 updated ODP have been established and refined throughout the duration of the ODP process using the constraints-based land use planning method. The objective has been to locate these nodes as sensitively as possible to protect the natural resource amenities of the area and to provide for public safety and convenience. Current land uses within the boundaries of Project Area consist of various residential developments which are primarily tied to the recreational nature of the area. Also included are undeveloped and recreational lands which include those utilized for ski terrain and other recreational endeavors along with vast expanses of open spaces intended to protect the natural environment. The uses that are proposed as part of the 2017 ODP are similar in nature and consistent with those anticipated in each of the prior versions of the ODP. Proposed development within the 8,669-acre Project Area will include a mix of redevelopment types. Of the 1,651 allocated housing units that were approved with the current 2007 ODP, 453 of them have already been subdivided and/or developed (Figure 1) and 1,198 remain to be developed (Figure 2). Figure 1 identifies housing densities within currently developed or platted subdivisions, along with other existing developments including the ski area and golf course. Figure 2 identifies housing densities associated with all current and proposed development under the ODP. Most of the current and planned development has been focused into small, relatively densely developed subdivisions. Approximately 97 percent of the housing units are contained on approximately 15 percent of the total Project Area, leaving large tracts of sparsely developed to undeveloped land (Figure 1 and Figure 2). Proposed development will include single family homes, town homes, condominiums, employee housing, restaurants and retail spaces, and ski resort facilities. The areas proposed for development within the Project Area are focused in areas within or adjacent to existing developments or in areas that have been determined to likely have less impacts on natural resources (e.g., wildlife, wetlands and waterways, native vegetation). The majority of development will occur within established spaces, infilling in areas with previous development. Open space and wildlife movement corridors will be maintained to the greatest extent practicable to create a development that does not restrict wildlife or associated natural resource features of the area. The purpose of this document is to analyze the potential impacts from the proposed developments included in the 2017 ODP to wildlife species that are present within the Project Area. HLY 199-069 (BOI PER 02 02 01) HAYSTACK (5/9/2017) 145724 PAGE 1 Moonlliightt Terrrriittorry Arrea Strawberry Ridge Sub Lee's Pool Golf Timber Course Ridge Sub. Overlook Lower Madison Ulery's Hillside Village Lakes Sub. Hidden Ulery's Lake Moonlliightt Lake Eastt Arrea Three Peaks Lodge South Jack Pony Village Area Legend Silver Jefferson Moonlight Basin Bow Gallatin Project Area Golf Course Figure 1 Development Areas Ski and Moutain Bike Recreation Area Project Existing Location Development Neighborhoods Subdivision Housing Density: Acres per Platted Unit Madison 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 Roads Unit Higher Density: 0.0 - 10.0 Miles Rural Moderate Density: 10.1 - 25.0 Beaverhead Minor Rural or Local Lower Density 25.1 - 220.0 ´ Trail Path: W:\145724_HAYSTACK MOONLIGHTODP\PER\Environmental\GIS\Apps\Report_20170707\Fig1_Dev.mxd Date: 7/11/2017 Moonlliightt Terrrriittorry Arrea Strawberry Ridge Sub Lee's Pool Golf Timber Course Ridge Sub. Overlook Lower Madison Ulery's Hillside Village Lakes Sub. Hidden Ulery's Lake Moonlliightt Lake Eastt Arrea Three Peaks Lodge South Jack Pony Village Area Legend Silver Jefferson Moonlight Basin Bow Gallatin Project Area Golf Course Figure 2 Development Areas Ski and Moutain Bike Recreation Area Project Existing and Proposed Location OPD Development Subdivisions Subdivision Housing Density: Acres per Allocated Unit Madison 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 Roads Higher Density: 0.0 - 10.0 Miles Rural Moderate Density: 10.1 - 25.0 Beaverhead Minor Rural or Local Lower Density 25.1 - 220.0 ´ Trail Path: W:\145724_HAYSTACK MOONLIGHTODP\PER\Environmental\GIS\Apps\Report_20170707\Fig2_PropDev.mxd Date: 7/11/2017 HAYSTACK DEVELOPMENT Wildlife Summary Report 2.0 EXISTING WILDLIFE AND HABITAT 2.1 Habitat The Project Area is located in the upper Jack Creek drainage on the north side of Lone Peak. Elevations within the Project Area range from approximately 6,360 feet to 11,162 feet above mean sea level (amsl), with most of the housing development between 6,500 and 8,000 feet amsl. The Project Area is in the Madison Range within the Middle Rockies, Middle Elevation Sedimentary Mountains ecoregion (Woods et al. 2002). This ecoregion is dominated by conifer forest composed primarily of subalpine fir (Abies lasiocarpa), Engelmann spruce (c), Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), and lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta). This region is part of the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (GYE), a vast area of national park and wilderness areas which provides habitat for many species that require large tracts of wilderness, such as grizzly bear (Ursus arctos), Canada lynx
Recommended publications
  • 0 Vol 6, No 3 |Ey SPRING 1993 Newslettar of the Llontana Natlve Plant Srclety

    0 Vol 6, No 3 |Ey SPRING 1993 Newslettar of the Llontana Natlve Plant Srclety

    --'-'-- Kelseya uniflora cI 0 Vol 6, No 3 |ey SPRING 1993 Newslettar of the llontana Natlve Plant Srclety Type Localities and the Botanical Exploration of Montana - Peter Lesica lf you're a member of the Montana Native Plant Society, you're colfections of blanketflower (Gaillardia aristata), balsamroot probably getting usad to hearing plants referred to by their (Balsamorhiza sagittata), silvery lupine (Lupinus argenteusl and scientific name. Even though the/re often long and hard to mountain death-camas (Zgadenus elegans) - not bad for a da/s pronounce, perhaps you're even becoming convinced that they're work. Two weeks later he found scarlet globe-mallow useful. But where do these names come from, and how do (Sphaeralcea coccinea) near the Marias River in Toole County. taxonomists know what name clrrec.tly applies to which plant? Another early explorer in western Montana was Nathaniel When spotted knapweed first appeared in North America, how did Wyeth. He made a number of type collections from what he said taxonomists know that it was a European weed, Centaurea was the vicinity of the Flathead River. Among these were maculosa, instead of something else - perhaps an undescribed Columbia virgin's-bower (Clematis columbiana), low larkspur species? Taxonomy rests on a system of standards: for each (Delphinium bicololl and Wyeth's lupine (Luprnus wyethiil. He species that is described new to science, there is a type also made the first collections of white-head mule's-ears and specimen. This type specimen represents what the ta,ronomist northern mu le's-ears (Wy eth i a am pl e x i cau I i s artd W.
  • Report Clark Fork River Biomonitoring Macroinvertebrate Community

    Report Clark Fork River Biomonitoring Macroinvertebrate Community

    Report Clark Fork River Biomonitoring: Macroinvertebrate Community Assessments for 2019 Prepared by: David Stagliano Montana Biological Survey/Stag Benthics Prepared for: Boise, Idaho Submitted to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 8 June 2020 Executive Summary The upper Clark Fork River (CFR) Basin in western at Kohrs Bend (Station 10) to 85 percent at SBC Montana contains four contiguous Superfund below Warm Springs (Station 4.5) and the operable units that have been undergoing various Blackfoot River site (Station 14) (Figure ES-1). remediation activities for decades. Since 1986, Both SBC sites (stations 2.5 and 4.5) were rated as annual benthic macroinvertebrate-based (BMI) slightly impaired. Slight biological impairment monitoring has been performed at 13 CFR stream from nutrients was evident at two CFR stations reaches with ongoing or future remedial actions near Deer Lodge (8.5 and 9.0) and near Missoula (McGuire Consulting 1986-2017; Montana (Station 15.5), but the former sites have improved Biological Survey/Stag Benthics 2017-Present). markedly since 2017. The lower Blackfoot River Monitoring extended from Silver Bow Creek (SBC) (Station 14) was ranked slightly impaired again in sites upstream of the Warm Springs Ponds, 2019, likely due to metal related stressors. downstream through the upper CFR, bracketing During 2019, environmental conditions in SBC at the former Milltown Dam site to below the Opportunity (Station 2.5) improved after CFR-Bitterroot River confluence. In addition to experiencing declines in integrity scores in 2018. providing current assessments of ecological Likewise, SBC below the Warm Springs Ponds conditions, these sampling events extend the (Station 4.5) remained slightly impaired but BMI long-term data set for evaluating water quality integrity improved over 2017 scores.
  • Gallatin Forest Partnership Frequently Asked Questions

    Gallatin Forest Partnership Frequently Asked Questions

    Gallatin Forest Partnership Frequently Asked Questions What is the Gallatin Forest Partnership? The Gallatin Forest Partnership is a group of local conservationists, hunters, anglers, mountain bikers, horseback riders, guest ranchers, skiers, paddlers, and citizens who care deeply about the Gallatin and Madison Ranges. We come from different backgrounds and have different perspectives. Still, we work together because we’ve seen for ourselves that it is how we can find real-life solutions. In 2018, after over a year of work, the Partnership reached agreement on a shared vision for the future of the Madison and Gallatin Ranges. We submitted the Gallatin Forest Partnership Agreement to the Custer Gallatin National Forest for consideration as it determines how to manage the Forest for the next 20 to 30 years. What is the Gallatin Forest Partnership Agreement all about? The agreement maps out a future for the Gallatin and Madison Ranges that protects the wildlife, clean water, wilderness, and recreation opportunities that are important to all of us. The agreement calls for a unique package of land management designations. These include recommended wilderness, watershed and recreation protections, and wildlife management areas spanning hundreds of thousands of acres in the Gallatin and Madison Ranges. Who supports the Agreement? Since it was released in 2018, over 800 individuals and 100 organizations and businesses have endorsed the agreement, including the Park, Gallatin, and Madison County Commissions. Mountain bikers, hunters, anglers, equestrians, conservationists, businesses, guest ranchers, and many others have signed on, because we all recognize that the agreement provides a real road map to protect what makes the Gallatin and Madison Ranges special.
  • Comprehensive Conservation Plan Benton Lake National Wildlife

    Comprehensive Conservation Plan Benton Lake National Wildlife

    Glossary accessible—Pertaining to physical access to areas breeding habitat—Environment used by migratory and activities for people of different abilities, es- birds or other animals during the breeding sea- pecially those with physical impairments. son. A.D.—Anno Domini, “in the year of the Lord.” canopy—Layer of foliage, generally the uppermost adaptive resource management (ARM)—The rigorous layer, in a vegetative stand; mid-level or under- application of management, research, and moni- story vegetation in multilayered stands. Canopy toring to gain information and experience neces- closure (also canopy cover) is an estimate of the sary to assess and change management activities. amount of overhead vegetative cover. It is a process that uses feedback from research, CCP—See comprehensive conservation plan. monitoring, and evaluation of management ac- CFR—See Code of Federal Regulations. tions to support or change objectives and strate- CO2—Carbon dioxide. gies at all planning levels. It is also a process in Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)—Codification of which the Service carries out policy decisions the general and permanent rules published in the within a framework of scientifically driven ex- Federal Register by the Executive departments periments to test predictions and assumptions and agencies of the Federal Government. Each inherent in management plans. Analysis of re- volume of the CFR is updated once each calendar sults helps managers decide whether current year. management should continue as is or whether it compact—Montana House bill 717–Bill to Ratify should be modified to achieve desired conditions. Water Rights Compact. alternative—Reasonable way to solve an identi- compatibility determination—See compatible use.
  • Conservation in Yellowstone National Park Final Report on the COVER Wolverine Tracks in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem

    Conservation in Yellowstone National Park Final Report on the COVER Wolverine Tracks in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem

    Wolverine Conservation in Yellowstone National Park Final Report ON THE COVER Wolverine tracks in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. Photo by Jason Wilmot. Wolverine Conservation in Yellowstone National Park Final Report Authors John Squires Kerry Murphy US Forest Service US Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research Station Jackson Ranger District 800 East Beckwith Avenue PO Box 25 Missoula, Montana 59801 Jackson, Wyoming 83001 [email protected] [email protected] (formerly Yellowstone Center for Resources, With contributions from Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming) Robert M. Inman Wildlife Conservation Society Jason Wilmot Wolverine Program Field Office Northern Rockies Conservation Cooperative 222 East Main Street PO Box 2705 Lone Elk 3B Jackson, Wyoming 83001 Ennis, Montana 59729 [email protected] [email protected] Jeff Copeland Mark L. Packila US Forest Service Wildlife Conservation Society Rocky Mountain Research Station Wolverine Program Field Office 800 East Beckwith Avenue 222 East Main Street Missoula, Montana 59801 Lone Elk 3B [email protected] Ennis, Montana 59729 [email protected] Dan Tyers US Forest Service Doug McWhirter Gardiner Ranger District Wyoming Game and Fish Regional Office PO Box 5 2820 State Highway 120 Gardiner, Montana 59030 Cody, Wyoming 82414 [email protected] National Park Service Yellowstone National Park Yellowstone Center for Resources Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming YCR-2011-02 March 2011 Suggested citation: Murphy, K., J. Wilmot, J. Copeland, D. Tyers, J. Squires, R. M. Inman, M. L. Packila, D. McWhirter. 2011. Wolverine conservation in Yellowstone National Park: Final report. YCR-2011-02. National Park Service, Yellowstone National Park, Yellowstone Center for Resources, Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming.
  • 2010 Animal Species of Concern

    2010 Animal Species of Concern

    MONTANA NATURAL HERITAGE PROGRAM Animal Species of Concern Species List Last Updated 08/05/2010 219 Species of Concern 86 Potential Species of Concern All Records (no filtering) A program of the University of Montana and Natural Resource Information Systems, Montana State Library Introduction The Montana Natural Heritage Program (MTNHP) serves as the state's information source for animals, plants, and plant communities with a focus on species and communities that are rare, threatened, and/or have declining trends and as a result are at risk or potentially at risk of extirpation in Montana. This report on Montana Animal Species of Concern is produced jointly by the Montana Natural Heritage Program (MTNHP) and Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks (MFWP). Montana Animal Species of Concern are native Montana animals that are considered to be "at risk" due to declining population trends, threats to their habitats, and/or restricted distribution. Also included in this report are Potential Animal Species of Concern -- animals for which current, often limited, information suggests potential vulnerability or for which additional data are needed before an accurate status assessment can be made. Over the last 200 years, 5 species with historic breeding ranges in Montana have been extirpated from the state; Woodland Caribou (Rangifer tarandus), Greater Prairie-Chicken (Tympanuchus cupido), Passenger Pigeon (Ectopistes migratorius), Pilose Crayfish (Pacifastacus gambelii), and Rocky Mountain Locust (Melanoplus spretus). Designation as a Montana Animal Species of Concern or Potential Animal Species of Concern is not a statutory or regulatory classification. Instead, these designations provide a basis for resource managers and decision-makers to make proactive decisions regarding species conservation and data collection priorities in order to avoid additional extirpations.
  • Gallatin Forest Partnership Agreement Final January 2018

    Gallatin Forest Partnership Agreement Final January 2018

    Gallatin Forest Partnership Agreement Final January 2018 1 Table of Contents Introduction 3 Membership 4 Shared Interest Statement 6 Summary of Individual Recommendations 7 Gallatin and Madison Geographic Area 8 Gallatin Forest Partnership Agreement Map 10 Designations 11 Hyalite Watershed Protection and Recreation Area 11 Porcupine-Buffalo Horn Wildlife Management Area 14 Recommended Wilderness 16 West Pine Wildlife Management Area 19 Recreation 21 Gallatin Range, outside of proposed designations 21 Gallatin Corridor Day Use Management Area 22 East side Paradise Valley – Mill Creek & Mission Creek Travel Planning Areas 23 Invasive Weeds 25 Wildlife 27 Water 29 Outfitting and Guiding 31 Wildland, Prescribed Fire and Timber 33 Appendix A: Gallatin Forest Partnership Charter 35 2 Gallatin Forest Partnership Introduction: The Gallatin Forest Partnership formed in November 2016 as a diverse group of citizens, landowners, entrepreneurs, recreational interests, businesses and natural resource professionals with a shared and direct connection to southwest Montana’s Gallatin and Madison Ranges. The Partnership’s shared goal was to craft management recommendations for the Custer Gallatin National Forest’s management plan revision process. Over the course of 2017, the Gallatin Forest Partnership worked together with the primary purpose of creating a shared vision and management recommendations for the public lands managed by the Custer Gallatin National Forest in the Gallatin and Madison Ranges. This proposal will be presented to Custer Gallatin National Forest officials as part of the scoping process on the draft Forest Plan/ Proposed Action released by the CGNF in early January 2018. The following Gallatin Forest Partnership Agreement represents the results of our collaborative discussions.
  • Biodiversity of Minnesota Caddisflies (Insecta: Trichoptera)

    Biodiversity of Minnesota Caddisflies (Insecta: Trichoptera)

    Conservation Biology Research Grants Program Division of Ecological Services Minnesota Department of Natural Resources BIODIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA CADDISFLIES (INSECTA: TRICHOPTERA) A THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA BY DAVID CHARLES HOUGHTON IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Ralph W. Holzenthal, Advisor August 2002 1 © David Charles Houghton 2002 2 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS As is often the case, the research that appears here under my name only could not have possibly been accomplished without the assistance of numerous individuals. First and foremost, I sincerely appreciate the assistance of my graduate advisor, Dr. Ralph. W. Holzenthal. His enthusiasm, guidance, and support of this project made it a reality. I also extend my gratitude to my graduate committee, Drs. Leonard C. Ferrington, Jr., Roger D. Moon, and Bruce Vondracek, for their helpful ideas and advice. I appreciate the efforts of all who have collected Minnesota caddisflies and accessioned them into the University of Minnesota Insect Museum, particularly Roger J. Blahnik, Donald G. Denning, David A. Etnier, Ralph W. Holzenthal, Jolanda Huisman, David B. MacLean, Margot P. Monson, and Phil A. Nasby. I also thank David A. Etnier (University of Tennessee), Colin Favret (Illinois Natural History Survey), and Oliver S. Flint, Jr. (National Museum of Natural History) for making caddisfly collections available for my examination. The laboratory assistance of the following individuals-my undergraduate "army"-was critical to the processing of the approximately one half million caddisfly specimens examined during this study and I extend my thanks: Geoffery D. Archibald, Anne M.
  • Table of Contents I. Foreword

    Table of Contents I. Foreword

    TABLE OF CONTENTS I. FOREWORD................................................................................................................ 4 II. REGIONAL SETTING................................................................................................. 5 III. EXISTING LAND USES............................................................................................. 7 IV. DISTRICT HISTORY ................................................................................................. 9 A. THE BIG SKY, INC. "MASTER PLAN" ................................................ 11 B. 1972 GALLATIN CANYON STUDY..................................................... 11 V. POPULATION AND DEMOGRAPHICS ................................................................... 13 VI. INFRASTRUCTURE................................................................................................ 18 A. UTILITIES............................................................................................ 18 1. Wastewater Treatment.............................................................. 18 2. Water Distribution...................................................................... 19 3. Electric And Telephone Service ................................................ 19 B. TRANSPORTATION ........................................................................... 20 1. Streets And Highways............................................................... 20 2. Air Service................................................................................. 20
  • MONTANA N7 4Qea

    MONTANA N7 4Qea

    E 12, p( /F- o77 (r 2) Sf(jji PGJ/F-077(82) National Uranium Resource Evaluation 6 BOZEMAN QUADRANGLE 41 MONTANA n7 4QeA/ University of Montana Missoula, Montana and Montana State University Bozeman, Montana E2T oFi Issue Date August 1982 SATESO9 PREPARED FOR THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Assistant Secretary for Nuclear Energy Grand Junction Area Office, Colorado rmetadc957781 Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed in this report, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference therein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof. This report is a result of work performed by the University of Montana and Montana State University, through a Bendix Field Engineering Corporation subcontract, as part of the National Uranium Resource Evaluation. NURE was a program of the U.S. Department of Energy's Grand Junction, Colorado, Office to acquire and compile geologic and other information with which to assess the magnitude and distribution of uranium resources and to determine areas favorable for the occurrence of uranium in the United States. Available from: Technical Library Bendix Field Engineering Corporation P.O.
  • Microsoft Outlook

    Microsoft Outlook

    Joey Steil From: Leslie Jordan <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2018 1:13 PM To: Angela Ruberto Subject: Potential Environmental Beneficial Users of Surface Water in Your GSA Attachments: Paso Basin - County of San Luis Obispo Groundwater Sustainabilit_detail.xls; Field_Descriptions.xlsx; Freshwater_Species_Data_Sources.xls; FW_Paper_PLOSONE.pdf; FW_Paper_PLOSONE_S1.pdf; FW_Paper_PLOSONE_S2.pdf; FW_Paper_PLOSONE_S3.pdf; FW_Paper_PLOSONE_S4.pdf CALIFORNIA WATER | GROUNDWATER To: GSAs We write to provide a starting point for addressing environmental beneficial users of surface water, as required under the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA). SGMA seeks to achieve sustainability, which is defined as the absence of several undesirable results, including “depletions of interconnected surface water that have significant and unreasonable adverse impacts on beneficial users of surface water” (Water Code §10721). The Nature Conservancy (TNC) is a science-based, nonprofit organization with a mission to conserve the lands and waters on which all life depends. Like humans, plants and animals often rely on groundwater for survival, which is why TNC helped develop, and is now helping to implement, SGMA. Earlier this year, we launched the Groundwater Resource Hub, which is an online resource intended to help make it easier and cheaper to address environmental requirements under SGMA. As a first step in addressing when depletions might have an adverse impact, The Nature Conservancy recommends identifying the beneficial users of surface water, which include environmental users. This is a critical step, as it is impossible to define “significant and unreasonable adverse impacts” without knowing what is being impacted. To make this easy, we are providing this letter and the accompanying documents as the best available science on the freshwater species within the boundary of your groundwater sustainability agency (GSA).
  • Big Sky Area Sustainable Watershed Stewardship Plan

    Big Sky Area Sustainable Watershed Stewardship Plan

    Big Sky Area Sustainable Watershed Stewardship Plan January 26, 2018 BIG SKY AREA SUSTAINABLE WATERSHED STEWARDSHIP PLAN Prepared by Jeff Dunn, Watershed Hydrologist Troy Benn, Water Resources Engineer Zac Collins, GIS Analyst And Karen Filipovich, Facilitator and Analyst Gary Ingman, Water Resources Scientist, Headwaters Hydrology Prepared for And Big Sky Sustainable Water Solutions Forum Big Sky, MT January 26, 2018 PO Box 160513 Big Sky, MT 59716 Over 2016-2017, the Gallatin River Task Force hosted a collaborative stakeholder driven effort to develop the Big Sky Area Sustainable Watershed Stewardship Plan. The Gallatin River Task Force (Task Force) is a nonprofit organization headquartered in Big Sky, with a focus on protecting and improving the health of the Upper Gallatin River and its tributaries. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the many entities and individuals involved in this effort. The main funders of plan development included the Big Sky Resort Area Tax District, and Gallatin and Madison Counties. Initial seed funding was provided by the Big Sky Water and Sewer District, Lone Mountain Land Company, and the Yellowstone Club. Thank you to the stakeholders and their representative organizations that contributed time, energy, and brain power to become educated in water issues in the Big Sky Community, roll up their sleeves and spend countless hours developing creative solutions to complex water issues. Thank you to the many member of the public who provided input by attending stakeholder and public meetings or taking our survey. Implementation of this plan will ensure that the ecological health of our treasured river systems are enhanced and protected as our community and region continue to grow in residential and visitor population.