DOCSLIB.ORG

The Effects of Spring Cattle Grazing on the Nutritional Ecology of Mule Deer

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Effects of Spring Cattle Grazing on the Nutritional Ecology of Mule Deer THE EFFECTS OF SPRING CATTLE GRAZING ON THE NUTRITIONAL ECOLOGY OF MULE DEER (ODOCOILEUS HEMIONUS) IN EASTERN WASHINGTON By SARA JANE WAGONER A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCES IN NATURAL RESOURCE SCIENCES WASHINGTON STATE UNIVERSITY Department of Natural Resource Sciences MAY 2011 To the Faculty of Washington State University The members of the Committee appointed to examine the thesis of SARA JANE WAGONER find it satisfactory and recommend that it be accepted ________________________________ Lisa A. Shipley, Ph.D., Chair ________________________________ Linda H. Hardesty, Ph.D. ________________________________ Kristen A. Johnson, Ph.D. ________________________________ Karen L. Launchbaugh, Ph.D. ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This project was fully funded and supported by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), and partnered by the Washington Cattlemen’s Association. My advisor, Dr. Lisa A. Shipley, whom was the brain-child and brawn-child behind this enormous endeavor, tirelessly offered perspective and assistance when I needed it, and I am forever indebted. A sincere thank you to my committee members: Linda Hardesty, Kristen Johnson, and Karen Launchbaugh for contributing their range science expertise and logistical input to our experimental design. I extend my appreciation to Rachel and John Cook, for giving me the opportunity to work along side them at Starkey; it gave me a real grasp on what I was getting into; especially to Rachel, for her professional guidance, friendship, and assistance towards this project. Thank you Laura Applegate, Taryn Clark, Becky Greenwood, Ben Maletzke, Tamara Johnstone-Yellin. and Sarah McCusker for selflessly pitching in, you are truly great friends. And, to the wonderful WDFW employees, especially to Bob Dice, for taking care of us graduate students, we are helpless at times. Curt and Jaime Creson, Sam “wise” Huset-Dwinell, Jeremy Brown, Meghan Camp, Ellen Miller, Elise Olk, Rachel Ambrosen, and Rachel Grandberg, assisted with the data collections and put up with me, I wouldn’t have. And to my deer friends, Sydney, Rogue, Cherry, Tea, and Lily, if only you could speak; to this day, I still dream of counting bites of P. spicata and T. dubius. To my husband and best friend, Brandon Rogers for all his encouragement, love, and altruistic computer services. And to my wonderful mother, if not for her, I wouldn’t be here; especially, for her loving support, hugs, and superb cooking skills. iii THE EFFECTS OF SPRING CATTLE GRAZING ON THE NUTRITIONAL ECOLOGY OF MULE DEER (ODOCOILEUS HEMIONUS) IN EASTERN WASHINGTON Abstract by Sara Jane Wagoner, M.S. Washington State University May 2011 Chair: Lisa A. Shipley In some grassland communities, livestock grazing may reduce residual grass and promote younger, more nutritious forages. However, no study has yet directly examined how spring cattle grazing affect the quantity and quality of forage available to mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus). Therefore, we created 2-sets of 3 plots of paired grazing treatments using electric fence exclosures within 3 pastures in bluebunch wheatgrass (Pseudoroegneria spicata) communities in southeastern Washington. In each grazed/ungrazed plot, we sampled the biomass and nutritional quality of all plants by species in both spring and fall. We constructed temporary pens in each grazed/ungrazed plot and measured diet composition selected by 4 tractable mule deer in each pen using bite count methods, collected representative diets for each deer in each plot, and analyzed them for digestible nitrogen and protein in spring and fall. In spring and fall, grazed pastures had 40% less total biomass, and significantly less perennial grasses and perennial forbs. As a consequence, across seasons, deer consumed about 40% less perennial and annual forbs, and 30% more perennial grasses grazed pens. Using Ivlev's selectivity index, we found that deer selected for iv annual forbs and subshrubs and avoided perennial and annual grasses. The dry matter digestibility and digestible energy of the deer's diets was similar between grazed and ungrazed plots, but digestible protein was higher in grazed plots in 2 pastures and lower in the third on than on grazed plots. Deer cropped larger bites (g/bite) in ungrazed plots than grazed plots in fall, had a higher instantaneous intake (g/min) in ungrazed plots in one pasture, and had a higher daily dry matter intake (g/day) and daily digestible energy intake (kJ/day) in ungrazed than grazed plots across pastures and seasons. Because biomass of forage was reduced up to 50% in grazed plots, while nutritional quality of forages, including P. spicata increased modestly, if at all, nutritional carrying capacity for deer was lower in grazed than ungrazed plots in 2 of the 3 pastures. Our results suggest that moderate spring cattle grazing in dry-stony ecological sites reduced the amount of digestible nutrients available to mule deer during the year of grazing. v TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...............................................................................................iii ABSTRACT .....................................................................................................................iv LIST OF TABLES.......................................................................................................... viii LIST OF FIGURES..........................................................................................................ix INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................. 1 MATERIALS AND METHODS ........................................................................................ 5 Study area............................................................................................................... 5 Experimental design................................................................................................ 7 Treatments.............................................................................................................. 9 Biomass, composition, and nutrition of available forages........................................ 9 Diet composition and foraging behavior of mule deer ........................................... 11 Diet selection of mule deer.................................................................................... 13 Nutritional quality of forages and mule deer diets. ................................................ 14 Nutrient intake of mule deer .................................................................................. 15 Nutritional carrying capacity for mule deer ............................................................ 15 Statistical analyses................................................................................................ 16 RESULTS...................................................................................................................... 17 Preliminary analyses of study sites ....................................................................... 17 Biomass and composition ..................................................................................... 18 Nutritional quality of forages and carrying capacity ............................................... 20 Deer diet composition and selection ..................................................................... 22 Diet quality and nutrient intake of deer.................................................................. 25 vi DISCUSSION................................................................................................................ 26 Forage biomass and intake rate of mule deer ....................................................... 27 Diet quality, nutrient intake rate, and carrying capacity ......................................... 30 APPENDICES ............................................................................................................... 80 Appendix A: SPECIES LIST.................................................................................. 81 vii LIST OF TABLES 1. Cattle grazing schedule and sampling dates......................................................... 40 2. Changes in biomass and species composition by grazing treatment .................... 41 3. Nutrient of common forbs and grasses.................................................................. 42 4. Diet composition and selection.............................................................................. 43 5. Nutrient content of mule deer diets ....................................................................... 44 6. Deer activity budgets............................................................................................. 45 7. Nutrient intake rates by treatment and season...................................................... 46 viii LIST OF FIGURES 1. Study area map ................................................................................................................. 47 2. Average monthly precipitation......................................................................................... 48 3. Average monthly temperature......................................................................................... 49 4. Diagram of experimental design .................................................................................... 50 5. Pellet group transect layout ............................................................................................. 51 6. Pellet
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Wild Cascades
    THE WILD CASCADES October-November 1969 2 THE WILD CASCADES FARTHEST EAST: CHOPAKA MOUNTAIN Field Notes of an N3C Reconnaissance State of Washington, school lands managed by May 1969 the Department of Natural Resources. The absolute easternmost peak of the North Cascades is Chopaka Mountain, 7882 feet. An This probably is the most spectacular chunk abrupt and impressive 6700-foot scarp drops of alpine terrain owned by the state. Certain­ from the flowery summit to blue waters of ly its fame will soon spread far beyond the Palmer Lake and meanders of the Similka- Okanogan. Certainly the state should take a mean River, surrounded by green pastures new, close look at Chopaka and develop a re­ and orchards. Beyond, across this wide vised management plan that takes into account trough of a Pleistocene glacier, roll brown the scenic and recreational resources. hills of the Okanogan Highlands. Northward are distant, snowy beginnings of Canadian ranges. Far south, Tiffany Mountain stands above forested branches of Toats Coulee Our gang became aware of Chopaka on the Creek. Close to the west is the Pasayten Fourth of July weekend of 1968 while explor­ Wilderness Area, dominated here by Windy ing Horseshoe Basin -- now protected (except Peak, Horseshoe Mountain, Arnold Peak — from Emmet Smith's cattle) within the Pasay­ the Horseshoe Basin country. Farther west, ten Wilderness Area. We looked east to the hazy-dreamy on the horizon, rise summits of wide-open ridges of Chopaka Mountain and the Chelan Crest and Washington Pass. were intrigued. To get there, drive the Okanogan Valley to On our way to Horseshoe Basin we met Wil­ Tonasket and turn west to Loomis in the Sin- lis Erwin, one of the Okanoganites chiefly lahekin Valley.
    [Show full text]
  • Wilderness Study Areas
    I ___- .-ll..l .“..l..““l.--..- I. _.^.___” _^.__.._._ - ._____.-.-.. ------ FEDERAL LAND M.ANAGEMENT Status and Uses of Wilderness Study Areas I 150156 RESTRICTED--Not to be released outside the General Accounting Wice unless specifically approved by the Office of Congressional Relations. ssBO4’8 RELEASED ---- ---. - (;Ao/li:( ‘I:I)-!L~-l~~lL - United States General Accounting OfTice GAO Washington, D.C. 20548 Resources, Community, and Economic Development Division B-262989 September 23,1993 The Honorable Bruce F. Vento Chairman, Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests, and Public Lands Committee on Natural Resources House of Representatives Dear Mr. Chairman: Concerned about alleged degradation of areas being considered for possible inclusion in the National Wilderness Preservation System (wilderness study areas), you requested that we provide you with information on the types and effects of activities in these study areas. As agreed with your office, we gathered information on areas managed by two agencies: the Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Land Management (BLN) and the Department of Agriculture’s Forest Service. Specifically, this report provides information on (1) legislative guidance and the agency policies governing wilderness study area management, (2) the various activities and uses occurring in the agencies’ study areas, (3) the ways these activities and uses affect the areas, and (4) agency actions to monitor and restrict these uses and to repair damage resulting from them. Appendixes I and II provide data on the number, acreage, and locations of wilderness study areas managed by BLM and the Forest Service, as well as data on the types of uses occurring in the areas.
    [Show full text]
  • THE WILD CASCADES April - May 1971 2 the WILD CASCADES TRAILBIKES and STUMPS: the PROPOSED MT
    THE WILD CASCADES April - May 1971 2 THE WILD CASCADES TRAILBIKES AND STUMPS: THE PROPOSED MT. ST. HELENS RECREATION AREA Having clearcut all the way up to the moraines on three sides of the volcano, the U. S. Forest Service now proposes to designate the ruins as a Mt. St. Helens Recreation Area. At public informational meetings in Vancouver on April 21, the plan was described in detail. As the map shows, the area includes the mountain, Spirit Lake, the St. Helens Lava Caves, and the Mt. Margaret Backcountry. Not much timber — and logging will continue in the Recreation Area, though under the direction of landscape architects (formerly known as logging engineers). Motor­ ized travel is allowed on most trails, the Hondas and hikers and horsemen all mixed together in one glorious multiple-use muddle. Spirit Lake is no longer a place to commune with spirits, not with water-skiers razzing around. Conservationists at the April 21 meetings criticized the proposal as little more than an attempt to give a touch of sexiness to the miserable and deteriorating status quo. There are recreation areas and recreation areas. (That's what Disneyland is, after all.) This adminis­ tratively-designated recreation area would be a far cry from, for example, the Lake Chelan National Recreation Area, or the proposed Alpine Lakes National Recreation Area, which have (or are proposed to have) a much higher degree of protection — protection guaranteed by Congress. The officials of Gifford Pinchot National Forest are friendly, decent folk, and hopefully are good listeners. If so, their final proposal, to be revealed next fall or winter, and subjected to further commentary at public hearings before adoption, will be considerably enlarged in size of area included and improved in quality of management.
    [Show full text]
  • WA Wild Newsletter Fall 2013.Indd
    WashingtonWild FALL NEWSLETTER 2013 Including: Our BLM Lands: Washington’s Unheralded Backcountry BLM Lands in Washington State Conservation Voices: Representative Reichert Wild Sky Wilderness: Five Years Later 1 Washington Wild Dear Friends: S t a ff In 2014 we celebrate the 50th anniversary of the passage Jim Hook of the Wilderness Act of 1964, a landmark act of Congress Executive Director and a signifi cant step towards preserving the country’s last remaining wild places. Signed by President Lyndon Johnson, the Act designated over nine million acres of permanently Lyndsay Gordon protected Wilderness across the country. But there is even Membership Assistant more to celebrate in 2014 besides this epic anniversary for Wilderness protection. Next year marks Washington Wild’s 35th anniversary as the premier Alison Rosenstock state-wide Wilderness grassroots advocacy organization, one that has played an invaluable Telephone Outreach role since 1979 in permanently protecting nearly three million acres of Wilderness within Washington State. As many of you may recall, WA Wild was instrumental in bringing together bi-partisan support leading to the passage of the Washington Wilderness Act in 1984, another Christine Scheele milestone anniversary to observe next year. Volunteer Coordinator Given the signifi cance of next year’s anniversaries, we started celebrating a little early. In August Tom Uniack this year, WA Wild staff gathered with over 60 others in Index, Washington, to commemorate Conservation Director the fi ve-year anniversary of the passage of the Wild Sky Wilderness Act, which protected Our BLM Lands: 106,000 acres of mature and old growth forests and salmon spawning streams just over an hour Jill Wasberg from downtown Seattle.
    [Show full text]
  • Analysis of the Management Situation
    Analysis of the Management Situation Eastern Washington and San Juan Resource Management Plan March 2011 For More Information Contact: BLM Spokane District Office 1103 N. Fancher Rd. Spokane Valley, WA 99212 Phone: 509-536-1200 Email: [email protected] Or visit the project website: www.blm.gov/or/districts/spokane/plans/ewsjrmp Analysis of the Management Situation Table of Contents Chapter 1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................1 1.1 Purpose of the Analysis of the Management Situation .......................................................................1 1.2 General Description of the Planning Area ..........................................................................................2 Chapter 2 Area Profile ...................................................................................................................................3 2.1 Resources ............................................................................................................................................3 2.1.1 Regional Context ..........................................................................................................................3 2.1.1.1 Physiographic Regions .........................................................................................................3 2.1.1.2 Ecoregions ............................................................................................................................3 2.1.1.3
    [Show full text]
  • CHAPTER 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
    CHAPTER 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Changes Between Draft and Final Environment Impact Statement Updated the visitor use information. Added environmental analysis of Alternative 4 Added environmental analysis of forest plan amendment concerning camps within 200 feet of meadows, streams, lakes, and key interest areas. Expanded analysis in each section to address DEIS comments and concerns. Incorporated information from 2012 Needs Assessment. Added an Economic and Social Analysis. Made numerous, minor editorial and spelling corrections. Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Introduction This chapter summarizes the affected physical, biological, social, and economic environments of the project area and the effects of implementing each alternative. The scientific and analytic basis is presented for the comparison of alternatives listed in Chapter 2. The effects disclosed are based on the effectiveness of the design criteria and mitigation measures outlined in Chapter 2. The analysis of resources uses varying measures due to management direction, research, or field practice. Therefore, the effect of similar resources cannot always be directly compared, although analysis for each alternative can be compared for the same resource. The effects resulting from each action are described in terms of their context, intensity, speed, direction, magnitude and duration. Other activities occurring in the same area over time, under certain circumstances, may have incremental effects that produce cumulative effects. It is sometimes necessary to look beyond the defined project area to determine the cumulative effects on certain resources. The effects disclose the direct and indirect effects plus the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions that define cumulative effect in this chapter.
    [Show full text]
  • Loomis Natural Resources Conservation Area Management Plan
    R E S O U R C E S Loomis Natural Resources Conservation Area Management Plan ............................................................ Okanogan County N A T U R A L Washington September 2005 WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF Natural Resources Doug Sutherland - Commissioner of Public Lands ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Community Participants Backcountry Horsemen, Okanogan Chapter Okanogan County Commissioners British Columbia Parks Okanogan County Snowmobile Advisory Board Butte Buster Snowmobile Club Okanogan Resource Council Cattlemen Association Okanogan Public Utility District Colville Confederated Tribes Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Friends of the Loomis Forest White Stone Irrigation District Goldhill Homeowners Association U.S. Forest Service Kettle Range Conservation Group U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Loomis Forest Action Committee Yakama Indian Nation Natural Resource Conservation Service Northwest Ecosystem Alliance Washington State Department of Natural Resources Doug Sutherland, Commissioner of Public Lands Bonnie Bunning, Executive Director, Policy & Administration Northeast Region John Viada, Region Manager Roy Henderson, Assistant Manager, State Lands Loren Torgerson, Assistant Manager, Resource Protection Tim Vugteveen, Highlands District Manager Andrew Stenbeck, Arcadia District Manager, former Loomis Forest Planning Coordinator Arne Johnson, Planning and Special Lands Manager Greg Roberts, Resource Protection, Highlands District Chris Marcolin, Permit Range Manager, Highlands District Asset Management & Protection Division
    [Show full text]
  • Wilderness 50Th Anniversary Brochure
    The Bureau of Land Management’s Role in Managing America’s Wilderness Wilderness Act The BLM’s Wilderness Role Benefits of Wilderness BLM Wilderness Management BLM Many wilderness lands are managed by the Bureau A central piece of the BLM’s National System of Wilderness is everyone’s to share and enjoy: and international audience. Local communities of 1964 of Land Management (BLM), which manages more Public Lands is the National Landscape Conservation may benefit economically from nearby Program Emphasis Areas Wilderness • Wilderness provides time than 245 million acres of public land, the most of System, otherwise known as “National Conservation wilderness through increased visitation and local In 1964, Congress passed the Wilderness Act, to reflect and find solitude PRESERVING WILDERNESS any other federal agency. BLM public lands, known Lands.” These lands include approximately 8.7 million expenditures, as well as through the protection Management and solace. CHARACTER which established the National Wilderness as the National System of Public Lands, are primarily acres of wilderness areas and 12.8 million acres of and enhancement of amenities related to quality • Wilderness provides Preserving wilderness character is at located in 12 western states, including Alaska. wilderness study areas (WSAs), containing some of of life. Preservation System and designated the first opportunities for the heart of the BLM’s responsibility Program the wildest and most remote places in America. • Many local outfitters and guides specialize in recreation, including to ensure its wilderness areas are wilderness areas. The purpose of the Wilderness The BLM’s multiple-use mission is to sustain leading comfortable and exciting wilderness hiking, camping, protected for future generations.
    [Show full text]
  • Wilderness Study Areas
    OR/WA State Data Standards Bureau of Land Management WILDERNESS STUDY AREAS SPATIAL DATA STANDARD Wilderness Study Areas 2/20/2014 Page 1 of 33 OR/WA State Data Standards Bureau of Land Management Wilderness Study Areas Table of Contents SECTION TITLE PAGE 1 General Information 4 1.1 Roles and Responsibilities 4 1.2 FOIA Category 4 1.3 Records Retention Schedule 5 1.4 Security/Access/Sensitivity 5 1.5 Keywords 5 2 Dataset Overview 5 2.1 Description 5 2.2 Usage 5 2.3 Sponsor/Affected Parties 5 2.4 Data Category/Architecture Link 5 2.5 Relationship to the Department of the Interior Enterprise 6 Architecture-Data Resource Model 2.6 Wilderness Study Areas Data Organization/Structure 7 3 Data Management Protocols 8 3.1 Accuracy Requirements 8 3.2 Collection, Input and Maintenance Protocols 8 3.3 Update Frequency and Archival Protocols 9 4 Wilderness Study Areas Schema (Simplified) 9 4.1 WSA_POLY 10 4.2 WSA_ARC 10 5 Projection and Spatial Extent 10 6 Spatial Entity Characteristics 10 7 Attribute Characteristics and Definitions 11 7.1 ACCURACY_FT 11 7.2 AUTH_NAME 11 7.3 BLM_ORG_CD 12 7.4 COORD_SRC 12 7.5 DEF_FEATURE 13 7.6 VERSION_NAME 13 7.7 WSA_NO 14 7.8 WSA_NAME 14 7.9 WSA_SUIT 14 8 Associated Files or Databases 15 9 Layer Files (Publication Views) 15 10 Editing Procedures 15 10.1 Managing Overlap 15 10.2 Editing Quality Control 17 10.3 Vertical Integration 18 10.4 Theme Specific Guidance 18 Wilderness Study Areas 2/20/2014 Page 2 of 33 OR/WA State Data Standards Bureau of Land Management 11 Oregon/Washington Data Framework Overview 19 12 Abbreviations and Acronyms Used in this Standard 20 Appendix A Domains (Valid Values) 21 A.1 BLM_ORG_CD 21 A.2 COORD_SRC 23 A.3 DEF_FEATURE 23 A.4 EVAL 24 A.5 WSA_NAME 25 A.6 WSA_NO 30 Wilderness Study Areas 2/20/2014 Page 3 of 33 OR/WA State Data Standards Bureau of Land Management 1.
    [Show full text]
  • State of Washington
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY GEORGE OTIS SMITH, DIBECTOR BULLETIN 557 STATE OF WASHINGTON 1896 TO 1913, INCLUSIVE R. B. MARSHALL, CHIEF GEOGRAPHER WORK FROM 1909 TO 1913, INCLUSIVE, DONE IN COOPERATION WITH THE STATE HENRY LANDES, STATE GEOLOGIST WASHINGTON GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1914 ELEVATION OF MOUNT BAINIEB. The elevation of the highest snow-capped summit of Mount Rainier was determined by C. H. Birdseye in 1913 from carefully checked vertical angles based on spirit-level elevation of McClure Rock. The distance between McClure Rock and Crater, a station marked by a rock cairn on the bare south rim of the mountain, was computed from triangulation data. The distance from Crater to the summit, which is 980 feet, was measured by stadia and checked by plane-table intersections. The elevation of Crater is 14,267 feet and that of the summit 14,408 feet. Mount Rainier is, so far as known, the second highest point in the United States. CONTENTS. Page. Introduction............................................................... 5 Cooperation..........................-...............:.................. 5 Previous publication.................................................. 5 Personnel............................................................. 5 Classification.......................................................... 5 Bench marks........................................................... 6 Datum............................................................... 6 Topographic maps.....................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Class G Tables of Geographic Cutter Numbers
    G4212 PACIFIC AND MOUNTAIN STATES. REGIONS, G4212 NATURAL FEATURES, ETC. .G7 Great Basin [geological basin] .I3 Idaho and California Stage Road 1502 G4222 ROCKY MOUNTAIN STATES. REGIONS, NATURAL G4222 FEATURES, ETC. .B4 Bear River [ID, UT & WY] .B6 Bonneville, Lake .C3 Caribou National Forest .C35 Caribou-Targhee National Forest .C65 Continental Divide National Scenic Trail .G7 Green River .G72 Green River Formation .M3 Mancos Shale .R6 Rocky Mountains 1503 G4232 PACIFIC STATES. REGIONS, NATURAL FEATURES, G4232 ETC. .C3 Cascade Range .C55 Coast Ranges .C6 Coasts .I5 Interstate 5 .P3 Pacific Crest Trail 1504 G4242 PACIFIC NORTHWEST. REGIONS, NATURAL G4242 FEATURES, ETC. .B45 Belt Supergroup .C62 Columbia River .I5 Inland Empire .K3 Kaniksu National Forest .K6 Kootenai River .N4 Nez Perce National Historic Trail .P46 Pend Oreille River .S6 Snake River [Wyo.-Wash.] .S62 Snake River [wild & scenic river] 1505 G4252 MONTANA. REGIONS, NATURAL FEATURES, ETC. G4252 .A2 Absaroka-Beartooth Wilderness [MT & WY] .A23 Absaroka Range [MT & WY] .A6 Anaconda Pintler Wilderness .A63 Andesite Mountain .A8 Ashley Lake State Recreation Area .B12 Baker, Lake [Fallon County] .B126 Baker Watershed Dam .B13 Bannack State Park .B17 Bannock Pass .B2 Bearpaw Mountains .B25 Bearpaw Ski Area .B28 Bearpaw State Recreation Area .B29 Beartooth Mountains [MT & WY] .B3 Beartooth Plateau .B35 Beartooth State Recreation Area .B4 Beaverhead National Forest .B42 Beaverhead River .B423 Beavertail Hill State Recreation Area .B425 Beef Trail Ski Area .B432 Benton Lake National
    [Show full text]
  • Acess Fund American Rivers American Whitewater Conservation Northwest Evergreen Mountain Bike Alliance North
    ACESS FUND AMERICAN RIVERS AMERICAN WHITEWATER CONSERVATION NORTHWEST EVERGREEN MOUNTAIN BIKE ALLIANCE NORTH CASCADES CONSERVATION COUNCIL SEATTLE AUDUBON SOCIETY SIERRA CLUB – WASHINGTON CHAPTER THE MOUNTAINEERS THE WILDERNESS SOCIETY WASHINGTON AUDUBON WASHINGTONTON BIKES WASHINGTON TRAILS ASSOCIATION WASHINGTON WILD January 15, 2014 Daniel Picard Spokane District Manager Bureau of Land Management 1103 N Fancher Road Spokane, WA 99212 RE: Request for West Side Public Meetings for Eastern Washington Resource Management Plan Dear Mr. Picard: Our organizations are looking forward to the upcoming draft Resource Management Plan (RMP) for the Spokane District this spring. The RMP will have a significant impact on wildlife, recreational and wilderness quality resources on Bureau of Land Management (BLM) managed lands and waters throughout the state. While we recognize that Washington has just over 400,000 acres of BLM lands – the least of the 12 western states – we also recognize that these lands have considerable values that matter to the members and supporters our organizations represent. These lands include natural and recreational assets like the Juniper Dunes Wilderness, the Chopaka Mountain WSA and Wild and Scenic eligible segments of the Yakima and Similkameen Rivers as well as some of the last best remaining habitat for the imperiled sage grouse. Many of the members we represent use these areas either because of the proximity to where they live or as travel destinations during specific times of the year. We are writing today to formally request that the public meetings associated with the draft plan for BLM lands in eastern WA include at least one venue west of the Cascade Mountains .
    [Show full text]