DOCSLIB.ORG

Environmental Assessment Agriculture

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Environmental Assessment Agriculture United States Department of Environmental Assessment Agriculture Forest Service Byway Lakes Enhancement Project August 2013 Hell Canyon Ranger District, Black Hills National Forest Custer & Pennington Counties, South Dakota T02S, R05E Sections 11 T02S, R06E Sections 27, 28 T03S, R05E Sections 15, 22 Horsethief Lake 1938 For Information Contact: David Pickford 330 Mt. Rushmore Road Custer, SD 57730 Phone: (605) 673-4853 Email: [email protected] The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large-print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202)720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410, or call (800)795-3272 (voice) or (202)720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. Table of Contents SUMMARY ..................................................................................................................................... i CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................1 Document Structure ...................................................................................................................1 Background .................................................................................................................................1 Location .......................................................................................................................................2 Management Direction ...............................................................................................................4 Purpose and Need for Action .....................................................................................................5 Purposed Action..........................................................................................................................5 Decision Framework ..................................................................................................................6 Public Involvement .....................................................................................................................6 Issues ............................................................................................................................................6 CHAPTER 2: COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION ..........................................................................................................................................9 Alternatives Considered in Detail .............................................................................................9 Alternative 1 – No Action ......................................................................................................9 Alternative 2 – Modified Proposed Action ...........................................................................9 Design Criteria ..........................................................................................................................12 Alternatives Not Considered in Detail ....................................................................................12 Comparison of Alternatives .....................................................................................................13 CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES .......................................................................................................................14 Hydrology and Fisheries ..........................................................................................................14 Affected Environment ........................................................................................................... 14 Environmental Consequences ............................................................................................... 17 ALTERNATIVE 1 – NO ACTION ...................................................................................... 17 ALTERNATIVE 2 – MODIFIED PROPOSED ACTION ................................................... 17 Cumulative Effects for All Alternatives ................................................................................ 20 Heritage .....................................................................................................................................21 Affected Environment ........................................................................................................... 21 Environmental Consequences ............................................................................................... 23 ALTERNATIVE 1 – NO ACTION ...................................................................................... 23 ALTERNATIVE 2 – MODIFIED PROPOSED ACTION ................................................... 23 Cumulative Effects for All Alternatives ................................................................................ 23 Wildlife ......................................................................................................................................23 Affected Environment ........................................................................................................... 23 Norbeck Wildlife Preserve Focus Species ............................................................................. 26 Management Indicator Species (MIS) ................................................................................... 27 Species of Local Concern (SOLC)......................................................................................... 29 Threatened and Endangered Species .................................................................................... 31 Region 2 Sensitive Species (R2 SS) ....................................................................................... 31 Migratory Birds ..................................................................................................................... 33 Environmental Consequences ............................................................................................... 33 Norbeck Wildlife Preserve Focus Species ............................................................................. 33 Management Indicator Species (MIS) ................................................................................... 35 Species of Local Concern (SOLC)......................................................................................... 36 Threatened and Endangered Species .................................................................................... 37 Region 2 Sensitive Species (R2 SS) ....................................................................................... 37 Recreation ................................................................................................................................ 40 Affected Environment ........................................................................................................... 40 Bismarck Lake ....................................................................................................................... 41 Lakota Lake ........................................................................................................................... 42 Horsethief Lake ..................................................................................................................... 44 Project Area Special Use Permits ......................................................................................... 45 Environmental Consequences ............................................................................................... 46 ALTERNATIVE 2 – MODIFIED PROPOSED ACTION ................................................... 46 Cumulative Effects ................................................................................................................ 47 Botany ....................................................................................................................................... 48 Affected Environment ........................................................................................................... 48 Plant Species of Local Concern (SOLC) ............................................................................... 48 Region 2 Sensitive Species (R2 SS) ....................................................................................... 48 Environmental Consequences ............................................................................................... 49 South Dakota State Listed Species & SOLC .......................................................................... 49 Effects to all are similar and are analyzed together. .............................................................. 49 ALTERNATIVE 1 – NO ACTION ...................................................................................... 49 ALTERNATIVE 2 – MODIFIED PROPOSED ACTION ................................................... 49 Cumulative
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Secretary Richard Benda From
    To: Secretary Richard Benda From: Melissa Bump Date: 06/09/09 RE: May 2009 - 2010 Summary Accomplishing the 2010 Initiative will take the Office of Tourism, the visitor industry, and the State of South Dakota to a whole new level. Feedback and suggestions regarding this summary report are encouraged. GOAL ONE: Double Visitor Spending from $600 Million to $1.2 Billion by 2010 Tourism Office Funding Update: April 2008 April 2009 % Change Deadwood Gaming Tax $ 260,945 $ 244,384 -6.3% Tourism Promotion Tax $ 228,602 $ 252,709 10.5% Total Monthly Deposits $ 489,547 $ 497,093 1.5% FY 2008 vs. 2009 $8,345,367 $8,443,677 1.2% 1A. Change the way we market South Dakota. • Tour Operators: Hosted From the Prairies to the Mountains familiarization tour for 10 domestic tour operators: two from W. Bloomfield, Michigan; two from Chippewa Falls, Wisconsin; one from Mountain Home, Arkansas; two from Woodville, Mississippi; two from Winston-Salem, North Carolina; and one from Indianapolis, Indiana; plus three tour representatives from Suriname. 1C. greater use of partnerships and cooperative efforts. • Million Dollar Challenge: New projects for FY2010 include Cow-Spring Creek Peninsula Recreation Area for Tony Dean Festival, August 7-9; and Watertown CVB’s City Monopoly and Geocaching promotion. • MultiMedia Press Release Co-op: Fort Sisseton had an open rate of 31.84%; Mount Rushmore Facelift had an open rate of 39.45%; Mt. Rushmore Black Hills Gold Jewelry Co. had an open rate of 29.80%; and Reptile Gardens had an open rate of 36.31%. 1E. Capitalize on the existing outdoors opportunities in our state.
    [Show full text]
  • South Dakota's Forests Stores As Much Or More Carbon Than That in Neighboring States, Both Within and Across Forest-Type Groups (Fig
    South Dakota’s Forests 2005 Resource Bulletin NRS-35 United States Forest Northern Department of Agriculture Service Research Station Acknowledgments The authors thank the individuals who contributed both to the inventory and analysis of South Dakota’s forest resources. Staff with key responsibility for data management, processing, and estimation included Gary Brand, Mark Hansen, Pat Miles, Kevin Nimerfro, and Jim Solomakos. Staff with key responsibilities in selecting inventory plot locations and collecting field data included Bob Adams, Ryan Binder, James Blehm, Kelsie Chesley, Jessica Cline, Steve Flackey, Deborah Goard, Dick Kessler, Barbara Knight, Greg Liknes, Tim Halberg, Doug Hansen, John Hinners, Dan Huberty, Karlis Lazda, Greg Liknes, Matt Logghe, Mark Majewsky, Issac Moll, Adam Morris, Marc Much, Sheldon Murphy, Trent Murphy, Grant Nielsen, Cassandra Olson, Leah Raymond, Travis Rymal, Jeff Walle, and Kris Williams. Various individuals contributed their time and constructive comments during meetings and manuscript reviews: John Ball, Blaine Cook, John Coulston, Larry DeBlander, Gretchen Smith, and Tom Troxel. Note: Core tables, a glossary, and sample quality assurance/control methods will be included in a companion document, Plains States’ Forests, 2005: Statistics and Quality Assurance, Resource Bulletin NRS-xx, to be published online only. Data for the South Dakota forest inventory can be accessed at: http://fiatools.fs.fed.us Cover: Custer State Park. Photo used with permission by Gregory Josten, South Dakota Department of Agriculture. South Dakota’s Forests 2005 Ronald J. Piva, W. Keith Moser, Douglas D. Haugan, Gregory J. Josten, Gary J. Brand, Brett J. Butler, Susan J. Crocker, Mark H. Hansen, Dacia M. Meneguzzo, Charles H.
    [Show full text]
  • Southwestern Showy Sedge in the Black Hills National Forest, South Dakota and Wyoming
    United States Department of Agriculture Conservation Assessment Forest Service Rocky of the Southwestern Mountain Region Black Hills Showy Sedge in the Black National Forest Custer, Hills National Forest, South South Dakota May 2003 Dakota and Wyoming Bruce T. Glisson Conservation Assessment of Southwestern Showy Sedge in the Black Hills National Forest, South Dakota and Wyoming Bruce T. Glisson, Ph.D. 315 Matterhorn Drive Park City, UT 84098 email: [email protected] Bruce Glisson is a botanist and ecologist with over 10 years of consulting experience, located in Park City, Utah. He has earned a B.S. in Biology from Towson State University, an M.S. in Public Health from the University of Utah, and a Ph.D. in Botany from Brigham Young University EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Southwestern showy sedge, Carex bella Bailey, is a cespitose graminoid that occurs in the central and southern Rocky Mountain region of the western United States and Mexico, with a disjunct population in the Black Hills that may be a relict from the last Pleistocene glaciation (Cronquist et al., 1994; USDA NRCS, 2001; NatureServe, 2001). Southwestern showy sedge is quite restricted in range and habitat in the Black Hills. There is much that we don’t know about the species, as there has been no thorough surveys, no monitoring, and very few and limited studies on the species in the area. Long term persistence of southwestern showy sedge is enhanced due to the presence of at least several populations within the Black Elk Wilderness and Custer State Park. Populations in Custer State Park may be at greater risk due to recreational use and lack of protective regulations (Marriott 2001c).
    [Show full text]
  • THE AFTERMATH of the 1972 RAPID CITY FLOOD Arnett S
    THE AFTERMATHOF THE 1972 RAPID CITY FLOOD Arnett S. Dennis Rapid City, South Dakota Abstract. The aftermath of the 1972 Rapid City flood included a controversy over the propriety of cloud seeding on the day of the flood and a lawsuit against the U. S. Government.Preparation of the defense against the suit involved analyses of hourly rainfall accumulations, radar data from the seeded clouds, and possible microphysical and dynamic effects of seeding clouds with powdered sodium chloride (salt). Recent developments in numerical modeling offer some hope of improved understanding of the storm. However, mesoscale systems remain somewhat unpredictable, and realization of this fact has inhibited research dealing with the deliberate modification of large convective clouds. 1. ORIGIN OF THE CONTROVERSY until about 6:00 p.m. This storm was immediately recognized by our meteorologists as dangerous and The Institute of Atmospheric Sciences (IAS) was never seeded by our group," The Governor’s of the South Dakota School of Mines and Tech- office accepted Schleusener’s report and issued nology (School of Mines) conducted two cloud a statement asking the public to refrain from seeding flights at the eastern edge of the Black Hills spreading rumors. An investigative team sent on Friday, 9 June 1972. Late that evening, a flash to Rapid City by the Bureau of Reclamation flood swept down Rapid Creek and devastated (Reclamation) of the U. S. Departmentof the Interior Rapid City. On the following day, the IAS Director, (Interior), which sponsored the IAS cloud seeding Dr. Richard Schleusener, organized a telephone experiments, also reported in an internal memo- "tree," which produced the gratifying news that all randum dated 21 June that cloud seeding did not IAS staff membersand their immediate families cause the flood.
    [Show full text]
  • Full Investigations and Windshield Surveys
    Appendix 2: Full Investigations and Windshield Surveys During Phase III of the update project, the RCHPC sponsored the creation of nine focused investigations that explored specific aspects of Rapid City’s history. Each essay is available in full below. Each includes samples of historical documentation from newspapers and local archives as well as photographs of buildings and spaces relevant to each topic that still exist in Rapid City. The Ridgeline and the Creek: Landscape and Memory in Rapid City The Black Hills formed when a large, oblong section of igneous rock lifted through the earth’s mantle some 65 million years ago, breaking through the limestone crust to expose the large, stone center of the Hills. In and around this central ring, forests thick with ponderosa pines, blue spruce, and cedar trees cropped up. They intersperse in meadows with prairie grasses and shrubs and are home to an array of animals including deer, elk, beavers, squirrels, raccoons, skunks, rabbits, and more. Bison, grizzly bears, wolves, mountain lions, and coyote once inhabited the vast prairies surrounding the Black Hills. Most of the large predators and most of the bison were killed off or pushed out as Euro-Americans displaced early Indigenous inhabitants. Rapid City grew up at the vertex of water and stone. A long, narrow ridgeline juts from south to north. Residents can look up at the ridge from any side of town or peer down over the vast distance visible from Skyline Drive or Highway 16. The ridge forms the backbone of the Rapid City landscape and includes two main parts from south the north: Hangman’s Hill, which is traversed by Skyline Drive, and Cowboy Hill, which begins immediately north of Rapid Creek.
    [Show full text]
  • VPHS RCHPC Draft Essay Ri
    The Ridgeline and the Creek Landscape and Memory in Rapid City Executive Summary For millennia, the natural resources and allure of the Black Hills have drawn people to the region to hunt, explore, pray, recreate, and live in and around what is now Rapid City. The community sits where the open prairie meets rocky hills and thick forests. For generations, area residents have shaped their lives, in terms of both work and play, in response to the opportunities and limitations presented by these surroundings. High ridges on Skyline Drive and Cowboy Hill, flowing waters in Rapid Creek and Canyon Lake, and pine forests and grasslands fill the city limits. Rapid City’s scenery attracts visitors and transplants to the area. Although connections to place are articulated through different cultural and spiritual lenses, many residents feel a strong connection to the landscapes, waterscapes, and skyscapes in and around Rapid City. The settlement of Rapid City was part of the imposition of Euro-American land ethics onto the Northern Plains. Throughout Rapid City’s history, as in much of the American West, competition for land and natural resources has fueled tensions over public and private management, industry and development, and preservation and conservation. These tensions have shaped and reshaped the landscape even as natural forces have altered the environment through slow processes like erosion or climate change, as well as sudden disasters like floods, fires, and blizzards. The landscape that endures, reflected in public parks and open spaces, has played a critical part in building and sustaining community identity and character. In many cases, it has been preserved by private citizens and public policymakers at the behest of their constituents.
    [Show full text]
  • Black Hills, Badlands & Mount Rushmore
    COMPLIMENTARY $3.95 2019/2020 YOUR COMPLETE GUIDE TO THE PARKS BLACK HILLS, BADLANDS & MOUNT RUSHMORE ACTIVITIES • SIGHTSEEING • PRESERVATION EVENTS • TRAILS • HISTORY • MAPS • MORE OFFICIAL PARTNERS T:5.375” S:4.75” WELCOME S:7.375” SO TASTY EVERYONE WILL WANT A BITE. T:8.375” Welcome to the Black Hills and Badlands of South Dakota! As you explore our fine state, I’m confident you’ll find some of the best scenery, most unique attractions and friendliest people in the country. Our scenic drives, such as Spearfish Canyon and the 70-mile Peter Norbeck Scenic Byway, will surprise you with amazing views around every corner. Just 50 miles east, you’ll find a moon-like landscape in Badlands National Park. If you need to stretch your legs, you’ll find more than 400 miles of nature walks and hikes. South Dakota is also home to two of the world’s largest Chad Coppess/South Dakota Dept. of Tourism mountain carvings: patriotic Mount Rushmore National Me- Governor Dennis Daugaard & First Lady Linda Daugaard morial and Crazy Horse Memorial, a tribute to Native Ameri- cans. I encourage you to visit both and learn the history and story behind each of these magnificent sculptures. I also encourage you to take a drive through Custer State Park, the country’s second largest state park, where wildlife abounds. Along Wildlife Loop Road, you’ll have a chance to see antelope, deer, prairie dogs, “beg- ging” burros and the park’s 1,300-member bison herd. In fact, Austin-Lehman Adventures named Custer State Park one of the world’s Top 10 Wildlife Destinations.
    [Show full text]
  • Norbeck Wildlife Preserve Landscape Assessment
    Norbeck Wildlife Preserve Landscape Assessment Black Hills National Forest Completed by: Continuing Education in Ecosystem Management Group Module XII June 12 – June 23, 2006 Acknowledgements This assessment would not have been possible without the assistance and patience of numerous individuals. We hope we spelled your name correctly and we are extremely grateful for all your help and assistance. Shelly Deisch – Ecologist, SD Game, Fish and Parks Gerard Baker - Superintendent, Mt. Rushmore National Memorial Bill Hill – Forester, Custer State Park Joe McFarland - Custer County, County Commissioner Ken Davis - Pennington County, County Commissioner Jim Brickley - Mayor Hill City Gary Brundige - Wildlife Biologist, Custer State Park Craig Pugsley - Recreation, Custer State Park Greg Josten – SD State Forestry Coe Foss – SD State Forestry Mike Pflaun, Chief Ranger Mt. Rushmore National Memorial Dan Licht, Reg. WL Biologist, Custer State Park Al Johnson – Owner, Palmer Gulch KOA Dave Ressler - Custer Chamber of Commerce Jim Sellars - Keystone Chamber of Commerce Mike Verchio - Hill City Chamber of Commerce Bob Demerssenan - Rapid City Chamber of Commerce John Forney - SD Tourism Committee Aaron Everett - Black Hills Forest Resource Association Justin Cutler - Recreational Adventures Co. Mike Jacobs – Black Hills Aerial Adventures Mike Dennyson - Developer Brian Brademeyer - Defenders of the Black Hills Sam Clawson - Sierra Club Jeremy Nichols - Biodiversity Conservation Alliance Colin Paterson - The Norbeck Society Nancy Hilding - Audubon
    [Show full text]
  • Download Download
    The Journal of Weather Modification 2002 Texas Weather Modification Scientific Management Seeded Control Simple Ratio Increase Prec. Mass 1439.3 kton 667.4 kton 2.16 (1.89) 116 (89) After modeling the increase dropped to 89 % Volume 35 April 2003 WEATHER MODIFICATION ASSOCIATION North American Weather Our weather modification Consultants (NAWC) is the services span the full spectrum, world’s longest-standing from a) feasibility studies to b) private weather modification turn-key design, conduct, and company. evaluation of projects to c) total A recognized leader since technology transfer. By 1950, many consider us the combining practical technical world’s premier company in this advances with field-proven dynamic field. We are proud of methods and operational our sterling record and long list of expertise, we provide expert satisfied customers. assistance to water managers and users in the agricultural, governmental, and hydroelectric communities worldwide. together the best-suited We offer ground-based and/or methods, materials, equipment airborne, summer and winter systems and talent to provide operational and research you with the greatest project programs. Additional specialties value. in extreme storm studies, climatic When you put it all together, surveys, air quality, NAWC is the logical choice meteorological observing for high value weather systems, forensic meteorology modification services. Visit our and weather forecasting, broaden website at www.nawcinc.com for our meteorological perspective. more information, and call us at Whatever your weather (801) 942-9005 to discuss your modification needs, we can help. needs. You can also reach us We will tailor a project to your by email: [email protected].
    [Show full text]
  • 2016 Guide To
    Tatanka CUSTER STATE 2016PARK GUIDE TO Buffalo are dangerous. Please do not approach. RESERVATIONS: CAMPSD.COM | 1.800.710.2267 1 Welcome Welcome to Custer State Park. This Additional year you’ll notice big changes that will improvements in enhance your visit. the park include the replacement In the spring of 2016, a new, of 15 cabins with 8,000-square-foot visitor center will new modern, open showcasing the variety of amenities larger-style cabins in the Game Lodge Custer State Park has to offer. Visitors and Sylvan Lake areas. New reunion can ask questions, learn about the park’s cabins have been added at Game Lodge, iconic buffalo, walk through a replica of Blue Bell and Sylvan Lake. Legion Lake the Needle’s Eye and let the kids try out Lodge has been replaced with a new the climbing wall. facility where the restaurant patrons can The visitor center even features a 100- enjoy their meal while overlooking the VHDWWKHDWHUZLWKDVKRUW¿OPIHDWXULQJ lake. Custer State Park’s landmarks and 7KHODVWVLJQL¿FDQWLPSURYHPHQWVDUH activities. ongoing renovations to the Sylvan Lake The Peter Norbeck Visitor Center is also tent sites and a new comfort station going through a transition to become for the Sylvan Lake Campground. This the Peter Norbeck Outdoor Education facility will offer individual showers and Center. This center has always been the bathroom facilities. hub for interpretive programming and There is no better way to start your will continue to be. The education center Custer State Park adventure than by will offer indoor and outdoor classrooms, stopping by the new visitor center and naturalist-lead programs and interactive taking in a program at the education displays allowing for self-exploration.
    [Show full text]
  • Ecology, Siliviculture, and Management of Black Hills Ponderosa Pine
    United States Department Ecology, Silviculture, and of Agriculture Forest Service Management of Black Hills Rocky Mountain Research Station Ponderosa Pine General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-97 Wayne D. Shepperd and Michael A. Battaglia September 2002 Shepperd, Wayne D.; Battaglia, Michael A. 2002. Ecology, siliviculture, and management of Black Hills ponderosa pine. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-97. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 112 p. Abstract This paper presents a broad-based synthesis of the general ecology of the ponderosa pine ecosystem in the Black Hills. This synthesis contains information and results of research on ponderosa pine from numerous sources within the Black Hills ecosystem. We discuss the silvical characteristics of ponderosa pine, natural disturbances that govern ecosystem processes, wildlife habitat and management, various silvicultural methods to manage ponderosa pine forests, and watershed management of the Black Hills. Keywords: Black Hills, silviculture, ecology, ponderosa pine, even-aged management, uneven-aged management, reforestation, wildlife habitat, natural disturbance, snags, insects, disease, fire history Authors Wayne D. Shepperd is a Research Silviculturist, at the U.S. Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research Station in Fort Collins, CO. He is also administrator of the Manitou Experimental Forest, near Woodland Park, Colorado. He holds a B.S. in Outdoor Recreation, and M.S. and Ph.D. degrees in Silviculture from Colorado State University. A Colorado native, Dr. Shepperd has been with the Forest Service since 1969. The author of over 70 research publications, he is a recognized expert on the ecology, growth, and management of Rocky Mountain Forests.
    [Show full text]
  • Dipper Petition for Listing
    IN THE OFFICE OF ENDANGERED SPECIES U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR By Certified Mail Black Hills Distinct Vertebrate Population Segment of American Dipper (Cinclus mexicanus unicolor) Biodiversity Conservation Alliance ) Petition for a Rule to list the Black PO Box 1512 ) Hills of South Dakota distinct Laramie, WY 82073 ) population segment of American (307) 742-7978 ) dipper (Cinclus mexicanus unicolor), ) as THREATENED or Center for Native Ecosystems ) ENDANGERED under the PO Box 1365 ) Endangered Species Act 16 USC § Paonia, CO 81428 ) 1531 et seq. (1973 as amended) and (970) 527-8993 ) for the designation of Critical Habitat; ) Petition for an Emergency Listing Native Ecosystems Council ) Rule under the Endangered Species Black Hills Regional Office ) Act 16 USC §§ 1533(b)(1)(c)(iii) and PO Box 2003 ) 1533(b)(7) and 50 CFR § 424.20 Rapid City, SD 57709 ) (605) 348-8404 ) Dated: March 15, 2003 ) Prairie Hills Audubon Society ) of Western South Dakota ) PO Box 792 ) Rapid City, SD 57709 ) (605) 787-6466 ) ) Jeremy Nichols ) 656 N. 14th B ) Laramie, WY 82073 ) (307) 721-2118 ) ) PETITIONERS ) American Dipper (Cinclus mexicanus unicolor) Photo: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biodiversity Conservation Alliance et al. Petition to List the Black Hills DPS of American Dipper, March 2003 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY……………………………………………………………………. 8 I. INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………………………... 11 A. The Black Hills…………………………………………………………………….. 11 B. The American dipper………………………………………………………………. 13 II. PETITIONERS………………………………………………………………………… 16 III. SPECIES INFORMATION………...…………………………………………………. 17 A. Description……..…………………………………………………………………... 17 B. Taxonomy………….………………………………………………………………. 17 C. Adaptations and Behavior……………………..…………………………………… 18 D. Breeding…..………………………………………………………………………... 19 E. Post-breeding and Movements……………….…………………………………….. 21 F. Foraging and Food….……………………………………………………………… 24 G.
    [Show full text]