DOCSLIB.ORG

Pilot Table Mountain Permit Renewal Environmental Assessment

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Pilot Table Mountain Permit Renewal Environmental Assessment Stillwater Field Office, Nevada Office, Field Stillwater ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Pilot Table Mountain Permit Renewal DOI-BLM-NV-C010-2018-0029-EA U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Carson City District Stillwater Field Office 5665 Morgan Mill Road Carson City, NV 89701 775-885-6000 August 2019 1 Table of Contents 1.0 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................... 5 1.1 Project Overview ................................................................................................................ 5 1.2 Identifying Project Information .......................................................................................... 5 1.3 Grazing Allotment Background .......................................................................................... 5 1.3.1 Livestock Grazing ................................................................................................... 6 1.3.2 Rangeland Health Assessment Results ................................................................... 6 1.4 Purpose and Need ............................................................................................................... 8 1.5 Decision to Be Made ........................................................................................................... 8 1.6 Land Use Plan Conformance Statement ............................................................................. 8 1.7 Relationships to Statutes, Regulations, Other Plans and Environmental Analysis Documents .......................................................................................................................... 8 2.0 ALTERNATIVES ................................................................................................................... 9 2.1 Management Common to Proposed Action and Year-Round Grazing ............................ 10 2.1.1 AUM and Water Base Property Overview ........................................................... 10 2.1.2 Proposed Improvements........................................................................................ 13 2.1.3 Existing Range Improvements .............................................................................. 13 2.1.4 Monitoring Goals and Objectives ......................................................................... 17 2.1.5 Other Terms and Conditions for Proposed Action and Alternative 2 ................... 19 2.2 Proposed Action: Cool-Season Only ................................................................................ 20 2.2.1 Grazing Plan.......................................................................................................... 20 2.2.2 Grazing Schedule .................................................................................................. 21 2.3 Alternative 2: Year-Round Grazing .................................................................................. 22 2.3.1 Grazing Plan.......................................................................................................... 22 2.3.2 Grazing Schedule .................................................................................................. 23 2.4 Alternative 3: Permittee Alternative: Graduated AUMs .................................................. 23 2.4.1 Proposed Permittee Range Improvements to be Maintained ................................ 25 2.5 Alternative 4: No Action Alternative ................................................................................ 26 2.6 Alternative 5: No Grazing Alternative .............................................................................. 28 2.7 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Analysis ................................................... 28 3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES, & CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ................................................................................................. 28 3.1 Scoping and Issue Identification ....................................................................................... 29 3.2 General Setting.................................................................................................................. 30 3.3 Supplemental Authorities .................................................................................................. 30 3.4 Resources or Uses other than Supplemental Authorities .................................................. 32 3.5 Resources Present and Brought Forward for Analysis ..................................................... 33 3.5.1 Threatened or Endangered Species ....................................................................... 33 3.5.2 Water Quality, Surface/Ground ............................................................................ 38 3.5.3 Wetlands/Riparian Areas ...................................................................................... 45 3.5.4 BLM Sensitive Species (animals and plants) ........................................................ 52 3.5.5 General Wildlife and Migratory Birds .................................................................. 59 3.5.6 Livestock Grazing ................................................................................................. 65 3.5.7 Soil ........................................................................................................................ 69 3.5.8 Vegetation ............................................................................................................. 75 3.5.9 Wild Horse and Burro ........................................................................................... 78 2 3.5.10 Noxious and Invasive, Non-native Species .......................................................... 80 3.5.11 Socioeconomics .................................................................................................... 83 3.5.12 Wilderness Study Area ......................................................................................... 84 3.5.13 Cumulative Impacts .............................................................................................. 88 4.0 PERSONS, GROUPS OR AGENCIES CONSULTED ..................................................... 98 4.1 List of Preparers ................................................................................................................ 98 5.0 LIST OF REFERENCES ..................................................................................................... 99 6.0 APPENDICES ..................................................................................................................... 103 Tables Table 1: Current Permitted Livestock Grazing ............................................................................... 6 Table 2: Summary of Results for the Rangeland Health Assessment and Determination .............. 7 Table 3: Summary of Alternative Actions ...................................................................................... 9 Table 4: Proposed Pasture Fences................................................................................................. 14 Table 5: Proposed Action Mandatory Terms and Conditions ...................................................... 20 Table 6: Proposed Action Grazing Rotation Schedule after Fencing Construction ..................... 21 Table 7: Mandatory Terms and Conditions for Year-round Grazing ........................................... 22 Table 8: Year-Round Rotational Grazing Schedule after Fencing Construction ......................... 23 Table 9: Permittee Alternative Mandatory Terms and Conditions ............................................... 24 Table 10: Permittee Alternative Range Improvements Identified for Maintenance ..................... 25 Table 11: No Action Alternative Mandatory Terms and Conditions ........................................... 27 Table 12: Supplemental Authorities ............................................................................................. 30 Table 13: Resources or Uses Other Than Supplemental Authorities ........................................... 32 Table 14: Persons, Groups, or Agencies Consulted ...................................................................... 98 Table 15: Stillwater Field Office Resource Specialists ................................................................ 98 Appendices Appendix A: List of Acronyms Appendix B: PTMA Rangeland Health Assessment and Evaluation Appendix C: PTMA Standard Determination Document Appendix D: Decisions and Objectives from the CCFO CRMP (2001) Applicable to the EA Appendix E: Federal Laws and Regulations, Plans, Programs, and Policies of Affiliated Tribes, other Federal Agencies, State, and Local Governments Applicable to the EA Appendix F: Monitoring Plan to Assess Whether Objectives are Being Met Appendix G: Standard Terms and Conditions Applicable to all BLM Livestock Grazing Permits Appendix H: Priority Range Improvements Appendix I: Project Design Features and Processes Appendix J: Base Water Suitability Status Appendix K: Cattlemen’s Texas Longhorn Registry and the Livestock Conservancy Letter Appendix L: Additional Maps not included in the RHA Map 1: Proposed Pasture Fencing Creating Pastures within the Allotment 3 Map 2: Proposed Pastures within the Allotment Map 3: Service Areas for Suitable Base Waters and Potential Transferable Waters Map 4: Priority Spring Improvements Map 5: Critical Water Resources for Livestock Distribution Map 6: Proposed Blue Link Spring Improvement Area Map 7:
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Northern Paiute and Western Shoshone Land Use in Northern Nevada: a Class I Ethnographic/Ethnohistoric Overview
    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management NEVADA NORTHERN PAIUTE AND WESTERN SHOSHONE LAND USE IN NORTHERN NEVADA: A CLASS I ETHNOGRAPHIC/ETHNOHISTORIC OVERVIEW Ginny Bengston CULTURAL RESOURCE SERIES NO. 12 2003 SWCA ENVIROHMENTAL CON..·S:.. .U LTt;NTS . iitew.a,e.El t:ti.r B'i!lt e.a:b ~f l-amd :Nf'arat:1.iern'.~nt N~:¥G~GI Sl$i~-'®'ffl'c~. P,rceP,GJ r.ei l l§y. SWGA.,,En:v,ir.e.m"me'Y-tfol I €on's.wlf.arats NORTHERN PAIUTE AND WESTERN SHOSHONE LAND USE IN NORTHERN NEVADA: A CLASS I ETHNOGRAPHIC/ETHNOHISTORIC OVERVIEW Submitted to BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT Nevada State Office 1340 Financial Boulevard Reno, Nevada 89520-0008 Submitted by SWCA, INC. Environmental Consultants 5370 Kietzke Lane, Suite 205 Reno, Nevada 89511 (775) 826-1700 Prepared by Ginny Bengston SWCA Cultural Resources Report No. 02-551 December 16, 2002 TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Figures ................................................................v List of Tables .................................................................v List of Appendixes ............................................................ vi CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION .................................................1 CHAPTER 2. ETHNOGRAPHIC OVERVIEW .....................................4 Northern Paiute ............................................................4 Habitation Patterns .......................................................8 Subsistence .............................................................9 Burial Practices ........................................................11
    [Show full text]
  • Yellowstone National Park Geologic Resource Evaluation Scoping
    Geologic Resource Evaluation Scoping Summary Yellowstone National Park This document summarizes the results of a geologic resource evaluation scoping session that was held at Yellowstone National Park on May 16–17, 2005. The NPS Geologic Resources Division (GRD) organized this scoping session in order to view and discuss the park’s geologic resources, address the status of geologic maps and digitizing, and assess resource management issues and needs. In addition to GRD staff, participants included park staff and cooperators from the U.S. Geological Survey and Colorado State University (table 1). Table 1. Participants of Yellowstone’s GRE Scoping Session Name Affiliation Phone E-Mail Bob Volcanologist, USGS–Menlo Park 650-329-5201 [email protected] Christiansen Geologist/GRE Program GIS Lead, NPS Tim Connors 303-969-2093 [email protected] Geologic Resources Division Data Stewardship Coordinator, Greater Rob Daley 406-994-4124 [email protected] Yellowstone Network Supervisory Geologist, Yellowstone Hank Heasler 307-344-2441 [email protected] National Park Geologist, NPS Geologic Resources Bruce Heise 303-969-2017 [email protected] Division Cheryl Geologist, Yellowstone National Park 307-344-2208 [email protected] Jaworowski Katie Geologist/Senior Research Associate, 970-586-7243 [email protected] KellerLynn Colorado State University Branch Chief, NPS Geologic Resources Carol McCoy 303-969-2096 [email protected] Division Ken Pierce Surficial Geologist, USGS–Bozeman 406-994-5085 [email protected] Supervisory GIS Specialist, Yellowstone Anne Rodman 307-344-7381 [email protected] National Park Shannon GIS Specialist, Yellowstone National Park 307-344-7381 [email protected] Savage Monday, May 16, involved a welcome to Yellowstone National Park and an introduction to the Geologic Resource Evaluation (GRE) Program, including status of reports and digital maps.
    [Show full text]
  • Backcountry Discovery Trail
    Have you ever wanted to get into the backcountry Backcountry of a National Forest? Have you wondered if you have Discovery Trail what it takes? Rest assured: exploring the backcountry doesn’t necessarily require an ATV or a dirt bike. You can do it in a high clearance vehicle or a 4WD sport utility vehicle. This guide gives directions for the route from point to point, gives tips on what to bring and how to prepare, provides background information on history and general topics, and directs travelers to points of interest along the way. This 150-mile-long discovery trail is a perfect place to begin your explorations of the Plumas National Forest! Plumas National Forest Plumas National Forest Backcountry Discovery Trail The Plumas Backcountry Discovery Trail is published by the USDA Forest Service, in cooperation with the California State Parks OHV Division. Printed in the USA 2013 ISBN: Welcome to the Plumas Backcountry Discovery Trail The Plumas Backcountry Discovery Trail (BDT) invites exploration of the remote areas of the Plumas National Forest. You can expect rough road conditions on gravel and dirt roads and a slow pace of travel, maybe only 30-50 miles a day. Be prepared for downed trees or rocks on the road, rough and rocky surfaces, and brush encroaching on the road- way. Much of the route is under snow in the winter and early spring. There are no restaurants, grocery stores, or gas stations along the main route and cell phone coverage is intermittent. The non-paved roads are currently maintained for travel by sport utility vehicles (SUVs) and high-clearance vehicles.
    [Show full text]
  • Profiles of Colorado Roadless Areas
    PROFILES OF COLORADO ROADLESS AREAS Prepared by the USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region July 23, 2008 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 2 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS ARAPAHO-ROOSEVELT NATIONAL FOREST ......................................................................................................10 Bard Creek (23,000 acres) .......................................................................................................................................10 Byers Peak (10,200 acres)........................................................................................................................................12 Cache la Poudre Adjacent Area (3,200 acres)..........................................................................................................13 Cherokee Park (7,600 acres) ....................................................................................................................................14 Comanche Peak Adjacent Areas A - H (45,200 acres).............................................................................................15 Copper Mountain (13,500 acres) .............................................................................................................................19 Crosier Mountain (7,200 acres) ...............................................................................................................................20 Gold Run (6,600 acres) ............................................................................................................................................21
    [Show full text]
  • Ar Iz Onautah California Cal If Orn Ia Oregon Idaho
    DESIGNATED GROUNDWATER BASINS OF NEVADA £ * # £ 47N £ £ J OREGON IDAHO k a 11 e Jackpot r 18E 19E 10 24E 25E e b 20E 21E 5 McDermitt r 47N Denio £ 22E 26E 28E i 23E C 27E d E E Owyhee g e 2 2 68E 69E 70E / / 1 66E 67E 1 55E 6 1 47N 63E 64E 65E 4 46N 3 44E 46E 49E 50E 51E 52E 53E 57E 59E 60E 61E 62E 45E 47E 48E 5 2 54E 47N 56E 58E 30E 31E 32E 33E s 140 34E 35E 38E 41E B l 36E 37E 39E l 13 U 40E 42E 43E ru C V a K n a r e n F i R 46N n e a y g 39 o v u Mountain i n s i v 41 R 12 R e iv r Jarbidge Peak City e * 45N 2 *Capitol Peak 34 46N r 46N * Matterhorn C O re w ek 45N No y Copper Mtn. rth h n Fo e * o R rk e 33B 37 lm i L R a 44N v it 45N S 30A e t iv 4 140 r le e VU r 7 45N H u m Sun C 44N n bo 38 reek n ld 0 i t 40 u 68 9 Q Granite Peak 35 Wildhorse 44N 1 43N 33A * 8 3 29 Reservoir 9 44N 43N Vya U M a r 42N 43N ys Orovada* Santa Rosa Peak 30B 43N T 42N 27 *McAfee Peak 14 67 41N *Jacks Peak 42N A R S N 42N out h i F o v 41N e o r r r k t h 189B 189C L i 189A H t t l 40N Chimney e 41N 15 F 41N H Reservoir o u r r 25 e m k Tecoma v 42 40N i b 44 R o l d Humboldt t 36 R 40N i 39N 69 v r e 40N r e 93 v H U M B O L D T i £ 26 ¤ 189D 39N R t Montello ld 63 o b 39N 32 m R 38N 39N u E Li K O v 233 H e VU r 38N e 225 n l t VU in t u i Q ¤£95 L 31 38N 38N 66 Cobre 37N 16 37N Wells Ma 28 gg 80 ie ¨¦§ 37N Pilot Peak* A 37N Oasis 36N 36N C I r R e 93 e o ¤£ k c k 36N * Hole in the 36N Mtn.
    [Show full text]
  • Region Forest Roadless Name GIS Acres 1 Beaverhead-Deerlodge
    These acres were calculated from GIS data Available on the Forest Service Roadless website for the 2001 Roadless EIS. The data was downloaded on 8/24/2011 by Suzanne Johnson WO Minerals & Geology‐ GIS/Database Specialist. It was discovered that the Santa Fe NF in NM has errors. This spreadsheet holds the corrected data from the Santa Fe NF. The GIS data was downloaded from the eGIS data center SDE instance on 8/25/2011 Region Forest Roadless Name GIS Acres 1 Beaverhead‐Deerlodge Anderson Mountain 31,500.98 1 Beaverhead‐Deerlodge Basin Creek 9,499.51 1 Beaverhead‐Deerlodge Bear Creek 8,122.88 1 Beaverhead‐Deerlodge Beaver Lake 11,862.81 1 Beaverhead‐Deerlodge Big Horn Mountain 50,845.85 1 Beaverhead‐Deerlodge Black Butte 39,160.06 1 Beaverhead‐Deerlodge Call Mountain 8,795.54 1 Beaverhead‐Deerlodge Cattle Gulch 19,390.45 1 Beaverhead‐Deerlodge Cherry Lakes 19,945.49 1 Beaverhead‐Deerlodge Dixon Mountain 3,674.46 1 Beaverhead‐Deerlodge East Pioneer 145,082.05 1 Beaverhead‐Deerlodge Electric Peak 17,997.26 1 Beaverhead‐Deerlodge Emerine 14,282.26 1 Beaverhead‐Deerlodge Fleecer 31,585.50 1 Beaverhead‐Deerlodge Flint Range / Dolus Lakes 59,213.30 1 Beaverhead‐Deerlodge Four Eyes Canyon 7,029.38 1 Beaverhead‐Deerlodge Fred Burr 5,814.01 1 Beaverhead‐Deerlodge Freezeout Mountain 97,304.68 1 Beaverhead‐Deerlodge Garfield Mountain 41,891.22 1 Beaverhead‐Deerlodge Goat Mountain 9,347.87 1 Beaverhead‐Deerlodge Granulated Mountain 14,950.11 1 Beaverhead‐Deerlodge Highlands 20,043.87 1 Beaverhead‐Deerlodge Italian Peak 90,401.31 1 Beaverhead‐Deerlodge Lone Butte 13,725.16 1 Beaverhead‐Deerlodge Mckenzie Canyon 33,350.48 1 Beaverhead‐Deerlodge Middle Mtn.
    [Show full text]
  • By David M. Miller Open-File Report 81-463 This Report Is Preliminary
    UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR GEOLOGICAL SURVEY PROPOSED CORRELATION OF AN ALLOCHTHONOUS QUARTZITE SEQUENCE IN THE ALBION MOUNTAINS, IDAHO, WITH PROTEROZOIC Z AND LOWER CAMBRIAN STRATA OF THE PILOT RANGE, UTAH AND NEVADA by David M. Miller Open-File Report 81-463 This report is preliminary and has not been reviewed for conformity with U. S. Geological Survey editorial standards and stratigraphic nomenclature. ABSTRACT A thick sequence of quartzite and schist exposed on Mount Harrison in the Albion Mountains, Idaho, is described and tentatively correlated with the upper part of Proterozoic Z McCoy Creek Group and Proterozoic Z and Lower Cambrian Prospect Mountain Quartzite (restricted) in the Pilot Range, Utah and Nevada, on the basis of lithology, thickness, and sedimentary structures. Correlations with early Paleozoic or middle Proterozoic strata exposed in central Idaho are considered to be less probable. Rapid thickness changes and locally thick conglomerates in Unit G of McCoy Creek Group (and its proposed correlatives in the Albion Mountains) indicate that cJepositional environments were variable locally. Environments were more uniform during the deposition of limy shaly and limestone in the top of Unit G and quartz sandstone in subsequent strata. The strata on Mount Harrison identified as Proterozoic Z and Lower Cambrian in this study are part of an overturned, structurally complicated sequence of metasedimentary rocks that lie tec topically on overturned, metamorphosed Ordovician carbonate strata and possible metamorphosed Cambrian shale, suggesting that a typical miogeoclinal sequence (Proterozoic Z to Ordovician) was possibly once present near the Albion Mountains area. Elsewhere in the Albion Mountains and the adjoining Raft River and Grouse Creek Mountains, however, Ordovician carbonate rocks appear to stratigraphically overlie metamorphosed clastic rocks of uncertain age that are dissimilar to miogeoclinal rocks of the region.
    [Show full text]
  • A Bove the Pacific
    Lieutenant Colonel William J. Horvat A bove the Pacific Printed and Published in the United States by Aero Publishers, Inc., 1966 ABOVE THE PACIFIC By LT. COL. WILLIAM J. HORVAT This is the first complete story of the flights “Above the Pacific” from the first Hawaiian balloon ascent in 1880 and the first Curtiss flights in1910 up to the prevent time (1966). Modern day coverage includes a discussion of the airlines that serve the area, as well as information on the satellite tracking facilities located on the island. This fascinating page of history includes the story of Hawaii’s vital role in the development of World Aviation History. Hawaii can truthfully be called the “Springboard to Aerospace” in the Pacific. As a halfway spot across the ocean, it has been used by sea-faring navigators for thousands of years; and the island’s strategic position in the midst of 5,000 miles of ocean has focused attention on this Garden Spot as an aid to aviation development. This authentic book is truthfully a documentary of flights “Above the Pacific.” Included are stories of the military interest, in addition to the civilian interest, in Hawaiian aviation. The succession of events is given in chronological order, with military as well as commercial activities being covered. An illustrated story of Pearl Harbor and World War II is also included. Editor’s Note: Above the Pacific was published by Aero Publishers, Inc. in 1966. The book is no longer in print. The publisher is no longer in business. The author Lt. Col. William J.
    [Show full text]
  • Nevada Interstates
    to SUSANVILLE 78 mi. to PYRAMID LAKE 23 mi. to PYRAMID LAKE 18 mi. to TONOPAH 189 mi. to ST GEORGE 102 mi. LAKE TAHOE REGION 2 445 Snow Desert National Wildlife Range 0246810 mi Peavine Spanish Springs Mtn Peak LEMMON Airport Indian El 8266 4 ROAD CONDITIONS 5 RenoStead Floyd Lamb 6 445 Reservation 04 812 16 km Airport EAGLE State Park Phone (Toll Free)............................ DR 5 3 C Nellis A RD 2 3 N LEMMON 4 2 Y 103 O 95 8 Air Force DR BLVD N Outside Nevada.....................(877) NVROADS RED ROCK RD ECHO AVE 2.5 425 2 Sparks VALLEY Base 58 (877) 687- 6237 3 KYLE CANYON10 TAHOE DR 97Verdi Web Site............................www.nvroads.com Mogul BLVD 157 3 to FERNLEY 17 mi. LEAR 1 River BLVD BLVD 12.8 BELTW 395 MILITARY AY Stampede Reno 1.7 215 93 T r ERN to QUINCY 52 mi. Reservoir u e LA POSADA DR Las Vegas Dunes Radio Frequencies 4 Reno-Tahoe ck e TH 15 A OR 54 6.4 604 MOY DURANGO N North Airport S P 3 E Carson City ........................................1610 AM NATIONAL 7 EDWA Recreation Lands 6 PKWY 52 Y 1 ALIANTE Las Vegas 101 BLVD P 1.9 AB Lake Tahoe...........................................530 AM RD RD 11 VD CO 10 ST Verdi Peak 395 STEAD BLVD DR ANN RD BL Las Vegas Las Vegas ..........................................1610 AM El 8444 ANN RD Independence to SUSANVILLE 72 mi. Motor HUMBOLDT- HOLLYWOOD BLVD STOREY 2.3 H O Lake 89 SIERRA WASHOE PACIFIC IG RD Reno ....................................................530 AM UNION N V H DR N Speedway Nellis 35 10 mi.
    [Show full text]
  • Pilot Creek Valley (Updated 2014)
    Site Description Pilot Creek Valley (Updated 2014) Geologic setting: The Pilot Creek Valley is located near the border of Nevada and Utah approximately 30 kilometers northwest of West Wendover, Nevada. Pilot Creek Valley also lies between the Toano Range towards the west and the Pilot Range towards the east. The Pilot Range is composed of slate, argillite, phyllite, metasiltstone, quartzite, and conglomerate and is exposed throughout the range (Woodward, 1967). The Pilot Range is a north trending mountain range located west of the Nevada-Utah border. The range is composed of metamorphosed Cambrian and Proterozoic strata with Mesozoic igneous rocks that are overlain by Quaternary sedimentary rocks and other unconsolidated material. Multiple faults and folds are prominent throughout the range including bedding plane faults, low angle faults, and high angle Tertiary strike-slip and normal faults. These normal faults are range bounding faults parallel to the range fronts (Miller and Lush, 1981). The southern Toano range is composed primarily of Cambrian and Ordovician carbonate and shale units that have been deformed into northeast plunging folds. Metamorphism has occurred in this region resulting in bleached and marbleized limestone with shale units being converted to slate and phyllite with some minor muscovite schist. These units make up the Silver Zone terrane which was intruded by the Middle Jurassic Silver Zone Pass pluton (Ketner et al, 1998). Geothermal features: A warm spring on the western side of Pilot Creek Valley (T36N, R68E, Sec. 34?) was sampled by NBMG in 2008. The spring had been converted into a tractor tire cattle trough. Samplers reported “Water flows upward through a pipe, with algae and white salt deposits visible inside the tube.
    [Show full text]
  • National Fish and Wildlife Foundation
    national fish and wildlife foundation 2014 conservation investments Front cover: Elk (National Geographic) Back cover: Monarch Butterfly The National Fish and Wildlife Foundation works to protect and restore the health of ecosystems so our native species can thrive. Since our founding in 1984, we’ve become one of the largest conservation funders in the world. We bring public and private partners together to support science-based projects and community-driven solutions. In Fiscal Year 2014, NFWF funded more than 800 conservation projects across the nation, generating an on-the-ground conservation impact of more than $668 million. UNITED STATES Dauphin Island Park & Beach Board National Wildlife Federation Dauphin Island Audubon Bird Alabama Longleaf Pine Restoration ALABAMA Sanctuary Restoration on Private Lands — III Alabama Wildlife Federation Restore and properly manage 133 acres Implement a proven model of active Native Warm Season Grass Establishment of globally important birding habitat landowner outreach, education and technical and Capacity Building — II on Dauphin Island by implementing a assistance to restore 4,000 new acres of Increase grassland habitat in Alabama by comprehensive prescribed burn regiment. longleaf pine and impact an additional breaking down the barriers to grassland $56,275 20,000 acres of longleaf pine. habitat creation through demonstration $125,000 sites, expanded partnerships and Environmental Defense Fund, Inc. educational materials. Evaluating a Catch Shares Pilot of Gulf Texas A&M University $105,360 of Mexico Headboats (AL, FL, TX) Reducing Incidental Capture of Evaluate performance of catch shares pilot Loggerhead Sea Turtles in Gulf of American Bird Conservancy program for Gulf of Mexico headboats.
    [Show full text]
  • John C. Freemont's Expeditions Into Utah: an Historical Analysis of the Explorer's Contributions and Significance To
    Brigham Young University BYU ScholarsArchive Theses and Dissertations 1986-12-01 John C. Freemont's Expeditions into Utah: An Historical Analysis of the Explorer's Contributions and Significance ot the Region Alexander L. Baugh Brigham Young University - Provo Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/etd Part of the Mormon Studies Commons, and the United States History Commons BYU ScholarsArchive Citation Baugh, Alexander L., "John C. Freemont's Expeditions into Utah: An Historical Analysis of the Explorer's Contributions and Significance ot the Region" (1986). Theses and Dissertations. 4511. https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/etd/4511 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by BYU ScholarsArchive. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of BYU ScholarsArchive. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. JOHN C FREMONTS expeditions UTAH historical ANALYSIS EXPLOREREXPLORERS contributions significance REGION thesis presented department history brigham young university partial fulfillment requirements degree master arts aleaiealenanderalexanderandtandir L baugh december 10198686 thesis alexander L baugh accepted present form department history brigham young university satisfying thesis requirement degree master arts B allenailencommittee chairman av er committee member 7 jez532 datejjz D michael quinn Ggraduateduatecuate coordinator00oordiadinator acknowledgementsACKNOWLEDGE MENTS my sincere thanks must
    [Show full text]