DOCSLIB.ORG

Gros Envir Gran Wyom May 2 Ventre Ronmen Nd Teto Ming 2009 E Camp

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Gros Envir Gran Wyom May 2 Ventre Ronmen Nd Teto Ming 2009 E Camp National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Gros Ventre Campground Rehabilitation Environmental Assessment/Assessment of Effect Grand Teton National Park Wyoming May 2009 Environmental Assessment/Assessment of Effect Gros Ventre Campground Rehabilitation Grand Teton National Park Moose, WY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The National Park Service proposes to rehabilitate the Gros Ventre Campground with infrastructure and facility improvements that would benefit the visiting public, park employees, park operations and wildlife. The purpose of the project is to address health and safety concerns related to aging campground infrastructure, enhance the experience of park visitors, meet current and future visitor demands, reduce impervious surface and restore natural vegetation and wildlife habitat. The project is also needed to provide for additional seasonal National Park Service, concessioner, and partner RV administrative sites. This Environmental Assessment/Assessment of Effect evaluates two alternatives for rehabilitation of the Gros Ventre Campground. Alternative 1—No Action Alternative: Under this alternative, the Gros Ventre Campground would not be rehabilitated. There would be no new improvements and all existing infrastructure and facilities would remain in place including: the outdated water system; the existing water treatment building; the existing undersized dump station; and existing campground office/contact station and associated parking. The campground would remain non-compliant with the Architectural Barriers Act of 1968 and the lack of visitor amenities and administrative RV sites would continue. Alternative 2—Preferred Alternative: This alternative proposes to upgrade and/or replace critical campground infrastructure, including: a new water and waste water system; install up to 50 visitor electric hook ups sites; expand of existing administrative campsites; upgrade comfort stations to meet current accessibility standards; construct new shower and laundry facilities for visitor and administrative use; and permanently close two existing campground loops. The campground entry area, including the office, parking area, and dump station, would be realigned and expanded to meet current visitor needs. This alternative also proposes to reduce the existing campground footprint by up to eight acres and revegetate and restore valuable wildlife habitat. The two alternatives were evaluated for impacts to archaeological and ethnographic resources, soils, vegetation, water resources (surface, groundwater, and floodplains), wildlife, park operations, and visitor use and experience. There would be no major, adverse impacts to these resources. This Environmental Assessment/Assessment of Effect will be on public review for 30 days. If you wish to comment, you may mail comments to the address below or post comments online at http://parkplanning.nps.gov/grte. Superintendent Grand Teton National Park P.O. Drawer 170 Moose, WY 83012 Before including your address, phone number, e-mail address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment – including your personal identifying information – may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. United States Department of the Interior • National Park Service •Grand Teton National Park Summary –Page 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................................... 1 CHAPTER I: PURPOSE AND NEED ................................................................ 1 1.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Purpose & Need for Action ................................................................................................................ 2 1.3 Appropriate Use .................................................................................................................................. 6 1.4 Impairment and Conservation of Park Resources and values ........................................................ 7 1.5 Relationship of the Proposed Action to Previous Planning Efforts, Laws, and Policies ............... 7 1.6 Scoping and Relevant Issues .............................................................................................................. 9 1.7 Impact Topics .................................................................................................................................... 11 CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES ....................................................................... 22 2.1 Development of Alternatives ............................................................................................................ 22 2.2 Elements Common to all Alternatives ............................................................................................. 22 2.3 Alternative 1 – No Action ................................................................................................................. 23 2.4 Alternative 2: Gros Ventre Campground Improvements & Restoration (Preferred Alternative)27 2.5 Alternatives Considered but Dismissed ........................................................................................... 31 2.6 Mitigation Measures for Alternative 2 ............................................................................................ 32 2.7 Comparison of the Alternatives ....................................................................................................... 36 2.8 Identification of the Environmentally Prefered Alternative ......................................................... 39 CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES............................................................................................ 41 3.1 Cultural Resources ............................................................................................................................ 44 3.2 Soils .................................................................................................................................................... 50 3.3 Vegetation .......................................................................................................................................... 53 3.4 Water Resources (Surface, Groundwater & Floodplains) ............................................................. 57 3.5 Wildlife, Including Threatened or Endangered Species ................................................................ 62 Gros Ventre Campground Rehabilitation Environmental Assessment Grand Teton National Park i May 2009 3.6 Park Operations and Partnerships .................................................................................................. 82 3.7 Visitor Use and Experience (Including Public Health and Safety) ............................................... 86 3.8 Unacceptable Impacts and Impairment Analysis ........................................................................... 90 CHAPTER 4: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION ........................... 91 4.1 List of Preparers ................................................................................................................................ 91 4.1 Agencies/ Tribes/ Organizations/ Individuals Contacted .............................................................. 91 REFERENCES .................................................................................................. 92 LIST OF TABLES Table 1.7 Impact Topics Retained or Dismissed from Detailed Analysis .......................... 20 Table 2.7a. Comparison of Alternatives by the Project Objectives ..................................... 37 Table 2.7b. Comparison of Impacts by Alternatives ............................................................. 38 Table 3.2. Description of Soil Survey Mapping Units within the Project Area. ................ 51 Table 3.5. Species of Concern that may occur in the Project Area. .................................... 69 Table 4.1 Preparers of this Gros Ventre Campground Rehabilitation Environmental Assessment ....................................................................................................... 91 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1.1 Project Vicinity Map ................................................................................................. 2 Figure 2.3a. Alternative 1 – Current Gros Ventre Campground Configuration .............. 25 Figure 2.3b. Alternative 1 – Location of Current Utilities throughout Gros Ventre Campground ......................................................................................................... 26 Figure 2.4a. Alternative 2 – Proposed Gros Ventre Campground Configuration ............ 29 Figure 2.4b. Alternative 2 – Proposed Utility Locations throughout Gros Ventre Campground ....................................................................................................................................................... 30 Gros Ventre Campground Rehabilitation Environmental Assessment Grand Teton National Park ii May 2009 Chapter 1 Grand Teton National Park CHAPTER I: PURPOSE AND NEED 1.1 INTRODUCTION Grand Teton National Park and the John D. Rockefeller Jr. Memorial Parkway are located in the northwest corner of Wyoming, just south of Yellowstone National Park. Grand
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Plant Species of Special Concern and Vascular Plant Flora of the National
    Plant Species of Special Concern and Vascular Plant Flora of the National Elk Refuge Prepared for the US Fish and Wildlife Service National Elk Refuge By Walter Fertig Wyoming Natural Diversity Database The Nature Conservancy 1604 Grand Avenue Laramie, WY 82070 February 28, 1998 Acknowledgements I would like to thank the following individuals for their assistance with this project: Jim Ozenberger, ecologist with the Jackson Ranger District of Bridger-Teton National Forest, for guiding me in his canoe on Flat Creek and for providing aerial photographs and lodging; Jennifer Whipple, Yellowstone National Park botanist, for field assistance and help with field identification of rare Carex species; Dr. David Cooper of Colorado State University, for sharing field information from his 1994 studies; Dr. Ron Hartman and Ernie Nelson of the Rocky Mountain Herbarium, for providing access to unmounted collections by Michele Potkin and others from the National Elk Refuge; Dr. Anton Reznicek of the University of Michigan, for confirming the identification of several problematic Carex specimens; Dr. Robert Dorn for confirming the identification of several vegetative Salix specimens; and lastly Bruce Smith and the staff of the National Elk Refuge for providing funding and logistical support and for allowing me free rein to roam the refuge for plants. 2 Table of Contents Page Introduction . 6 Study Area . 6 Methods . 8 Results . 10 Vascular Plant Flora of the National Elk Refuge . 10 Plant Species of Special Concern . 10 Species Summaries . 23 Aster borealis . 24 Astragalus terminalis . 26 Carex buxbaumii . 28 Carex parryana var. parryana . 30 Carex sartwellii . 32 Carex scirpoidea var. scirpiformis .
    [Show full text]
  • Paleontological Resources at Grand Teton National Park, Northwestern Wyoming Vincent L
    University of Wyoming National Park Service Research Center Annual Report Volume 22 22nd Annual Report, 1998 Article 7 1-1-1998 Paleontological Resources at Grand Teton National Park, Northwestern Wyoming Vincent L. Santucci National Park Service William P. Wall Georgia College and State University Follow this and additional works at: http://repository.uwyo.edu/uwnpsrc_reports Recommended Citation Santucci, Vincent L. and Wall, William P. (1998) "Paleontological Resources at Grand Teton National Park, Northwestern Wyoming," University of Wyoming National Park Service Research Center Annual Report: Vol. 22 , Article 7. Available at: http://repository.uwyo.edu/uwnpsrc_reports/vol22/iss1/7 This Grand Teton National Park Report is brought to you for free and open access by Wyoming Scholars Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in University of Wyoming National Park Service Research Center Annual Report by an authorized editor of Wyoming Scholars Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Santucci and Wall: Paleontological Resources at Grand Teton National Park, Northwest PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES AT GRAND TETON NATIONAL PARK, NORTHWESTERN WYOMING + VINCENT L. SANTUCCI+ NATIONAL PARK SERVICE KEMMERER + WY WILLIAM P. WALL+ DEPARTMENT OF BIOLOGY GEORGIA COLLEGE AND STATE UNIVERSITY MILLEDGEVILLE + GA + ABSTRACT landscape, and though the last great ice masses melted 15 ,000 years ago, some re-established small Paleontological resources occur throughout glaciers still exist. the formations exposed in Grand Teton National Park. A comprehensive paleontological survey has This report provides a preliminary not been attempted previously at Grand Teton assessment of paleontological resources identified at National Park. Preliminary paleontologic resource Grand Teton National Park. data is given in this report in order to establish baseline data.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 KECK PROPOSAL: Eocene Tectonic Evolution of the Teton-Absaroka
    KECK PROPOSAL: Eocene Tectonic Evolution of the Teton-Absaroka Ranges, Wyoming (Year 2) Project Leaders: John Craddock (Macalester College; [email protected]) and Dave Malone (Illinois State University; [email protected]) Host Institution: Macalester College, St. Paul, MN Project Dates: ~July 15-August 14, 2011 Student Prerequisites: Structural Geology, Sedimentology. Preamble: This project is an expansion of a 2010 Keck project that was funded at a reduced level (Craddock, 3 students); Malone and 4 students participated with separate funding. We completed or are currently working on three 2010 projects: 1. Structure, geochemistry and geochronology (U-Pb zircon) of carbonate pseudotachylite injection, White Mtn. (J. Geary, Macalester; note that this was not part of last year’s proposal but a new discovery in 2010 caused us to redirect our efforts), 2. Calcite twinning strains within the S. Fork detachment allochthon, northwest, WY (K. Kravitz, Smith; note because of a heavy snow pack in the Tetons this past summer, we chose a different structure to study), and 3. Provenance of heavy minerals and detrital zircon geochronology, Eocene Absaroka volcanics, northwest, WY (R. McGaughey, Carleton). We did not sample the footwall folds proposed in the previous proposal (under snow) and will focus on this project and mapping efforts of White Mountain and the 40 x 10 km S. Fork detachment area near Cody, WY, in part depending on the results (calcite strains, detrital zircons) of the 2010-11 effort. All seven students are working on the detrital zircon geochronology project, and two abstracts are accepted at the 2011 Denver GSA meeting. Overview: This proposal requests funding for 2 faculty to engage 6 students researching a variety of outstanding problems in the tectonic evolution of the Sevier-Laramide orogens as exposed in the Teton and Absaroka ranges in northwest Wyoming.
    [Show full text]
  • VITAL SIGNS 2016 This Report Is Made Possible Through Generous Support from Grand Teton National Park Foundation and Grand Teton Association
    Science and Resource Management National Park Service Grand Teton National Park U.S. Department of the Interior & John D. Rockefeller, Jr. Memorial Parkway GRAND TETON NATIONAL PARK & John D. Rockefeller, Jr. Memorial Parkway Natural and Cultural Resources VITAL SIGNS 2016 This report is made possible through generous support from Grand Teton National Park Foundation and Grand Teton Association. Science and Resource Managment Grand Teton National Park & John D. Rockefeller, Jr. Memorial Parkway P.O. Drawer 170 Moose, WY 83012 www.nps.gov/grte 2 Vital Signs 2016 • Grand Teton National Park Acknowledgments To supplement the work done by Grand Teton National Park staff, the following organizations provided data and/or analysis that were used in preparing this report: • Biodiversity Research Institute • Craighead Beringia South • Colorado State University, Federal Land Manager Environmental Database • Grand Teton Fire Management Program • Greater Yellowstone Inventory and Monitoring Network • Greater Yellowstone Whitebark Pine Monitoring Working Group • Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team (U.S. Geological Survey–Biological Resources Division, National Park Service, U.S. Forest Service, and the states of Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming) • National Park Service Air Resources Division • National Park Service Northern Rockies Exotic Plant Management Team • Northern Rockies Conservation Cooperative • Sky Aviation • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Elk Refuge • U.S. Forest Service, Bridger Teton National Forest • U.S. Geological Survey, Northern
    [Show full text]
  • Draft Bison and Elk Management Plan
    CONTENTS CHAPTER 2. ALTERNATIVE MANAGEMENT PLANS Introduction...............................................................................................................................................................39 Criteria for Determining a Reasonable Range of Alternatives ................................................................39 Actions Independent of the Alternatives .....................................................................................................40 Elements Common to All Alternatives.........................................................................................................40 Structure of the Alternatives.........................................................................................................................41 Alternative 1: No Action..........................................................................................................................................42 Alternative 2: Minimal Management of Habitat and Populations, with Support for Migrations..................44 Alternative 3: Restore Habitat, Support Migration, and Phase Back Supplemental Feeding .....................46 Alternative 4: Adaptively Manage Habitat and Populations (Preferred Alternative)...................................48 Alternative 5: Restore Habitat, Improve Forage, and Continue Supplemental Feeding .............................50 Alternative 6: Restore Habitat, Adaptively Manage Populations, and Phase Out Supplemental Feeding 52 Alternative Comparison by Goal............................................................................................................................54
    [Show full text]
  • Bridger-Teton National Forest Evaluation of Areas with Wilderness Potential
    BTNF Evaluation of Areas with Wilderness Potential 2008 BRIDGER-TETON NATIONAL FOREST EVALUATION OF AREAS WITH WILDERNESS POTENTIAL Phillips Ridge Roadless Area 9/23/2009 1 CONTENTS Introduction ..................................................................................................................................2 The 2001 roadless rule, areas with wilderness potential, and process for integration .................2 Capability factors defined ............................................................................................................4 Availability defined .....................................................................................................................9 Need defined ................................................................................................................................9 BTNF areas with wilderness potential .........................................................................................11 Eligibility factors by area .............................................................................................................15 Summary of capability factors .....................................................................................................68 Areas with Wilderness potential and Forest Plan revision ..........................................................70 INTRODUCTION Roadless areas were identified during the Roadless Area Review and Evaluation II (RARE II) analysis conducted in 1978 and re-evaluated in 1983 to include all areas of at least
    [Show full text]
  • Status of Plant Species of Special Concern in US Forest Service
    Status of Plant Species of Special Concern In US Forest Service Region 4 In Wyoming Report prepared for the US Forest Service By Walter Fertig Wyoming Natural Diversity Database University of Wyoming PO Box 3381 Laramie, WY 82071 20 January 2000 INTRODUCTION The US Forest Service is directed by the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and internal policy (through the Forest Service Manual) to manage for listed and candidate Threatened and Endangered plant species on lands under its jurisdiction. The Intermountain Region of the Forest Service (USFS Region 4) has developed a Sensitive species policy to address the management needs of rare plants that might qualify for listing under the ESA (Joslin 1994). The objective of this policy is to prevent Forest Service actions from contributing to the further endangerment of Sensitive species and their subsequent listing under the ESA. In addition, the Forest Service is required to manage for other rare species and biological diversity under provisions of the National Forest Management Act. The current Sensitive plant species list for Region 4 (covering Ashley, Bridger-Teton, Caribou, Targhee, and Wasatch-Cache National Forests and Flaming Gorge National Recreation Area in Wyoming) was last revised in 1994 (Joslin 1994). Field studies by botanists with the Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Herbarium, Wyoming Natural Diversity Database (WYNDD), and private consulting firms since 1994 have shown that several currently listed species may no longer warrant Sensitive designation, while some new species should be considered for listing. Region 4 is currently reviewing its Sensitive plant list and criteria for listing. This report has been prepared to provide baseline information on the statewide distribution and abundance of 127 plants listed as “species of special concern” by WYNDD (Table 1) (Fertig and Beauvais 1999).
    [Show full text]
  • Sensitive and Rare Plant Species Inventory in the Salt River and Wyoming Ranges, Bridger-Teton National Forest
    Sensitive and Rare Plant Species Inventory in the Salt River and Wyoming Ranges, Bridger-Teton National Forest Prepared for Bridger-Teton National Forest P.O. Box 1888 Jackson, WY 83001 by Bonnie Heidel Wyoming Natural Diversity Database University of Wyoming Dept 3381, 1000 E. University Avenue University of Wyoming Laramie, WY 21 February 2012 Cooperative Agreement No. 07-CS-11040300-019 ABSTRACT Three sensitive and two other Wyoming species of concern were inventoried in the Wyoming and Salt River Ranges at over 20 locations. The results provided a significant set of trend data for Payson’s milkvetch (Astragalus paysonii), expanded the known distribution of Robbin’s milkvetch (Astragalus robbinsii var. minor), and relocated and expanded the local distributions of three calciphilic species at select sites as a springboard for expanded surveys. Results to date are presented with the rest of species’ information for sensitive species program reference. This report is submitted as an interim report representing the format of a final report. Tentative priorities for 2012 work include new Payson’s milkvetch surveys in major recent wildfires, and expanded Rockcress draba (Draba globosa) surveys, both intended to fill key gaps in status information that contribute to maintenance of sensitive plant resources and information on the Forest. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS All 2011 field surveys of Payson’s milkvetch (Astragalus paysonii) were conducted by Klara Varga. These and the rest of 2011 surveys built on the 2010 work of Hollis Marriott and the earlier work of she and Walter Fertig as lead botanists of Wyoming Natural Diversity Database. This project was initially coordinated by Faith Ryan (Bridger-Teton National Forest), with the current coordination and consultation of Gary Hanvey and Tyler Johnson.
    [Show full text]
  • Preliminary Investigation of Quaternary Faults in Eastern Jackson Hole, Wyoming
    Interpreting the past, providing for the future Preliminary Investigation of Quaternary Faults in Eastern Jackson Hole, Wyoming By Seth J. Wittke Open File Report 2017-1 March 2017 Wyoming State Geological Survey Thomas A. Drean, Director and State Geologist Preliminary Investigation of Quaternary Faults in Eastern Jackson Hole, Wyoming By Seth J. Wittke Layout by Christina D. George Open File Report 2017-1 Wyoming State Geological Survey Laramie, Wyoming: 2017 For more information on the WSGS, or to download a copy of this Open File Report, visit www.wsgs.wyo. gov or call 307-766-2286. This Wyoming State Geological Survey (WSGS) Open File Report is preliminary and may require additional compilation and analysis. Additional data and review may be provided in subsequent years. The WSGS welcomes any comments and suggestions on this research. Please contact the WSGS at 307-766-2286, or email [email protected]. Citation: Wittke, S.J., 2017, Preliminary investigation of Quaternary faults in eastern Jackson Hole, Wyoming: Wyoming State Geological Survey Open File Report 2017-1, 11 p. ii Table of Contents Abstract . .1 Introduction . 1 Previous Work ........................................................................2 Geologic Setting . .2 Methods . .3 Antelope Flats . .3 General Description. .3 Geomorphology. 4 Scarp Profiles. 5 Summary. .6 Faults South of Blacktail Butte ............................................................6 General Description. .6 Geomorphology. 7 Scarp Profiles .......................................................................7
    [Show full text]
  • Chronic Wasting Disease Surveillance Jackson Elk Herd Unit 2015
    Chronic Wasting Disease Surveillance Jackson Elk Herd Unit 2015 Report prepared for the National Elk Refuge, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Prepared by Ben Wise, Brucellosis-Feedground-Habitat Biologist, WGFD February 18th, 2016 ____________________________________________________________________________________ The National Elk Refuge (NER) provided funds to the Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WGFD) to support Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD) surveillance in the Jackson elk herd and adjacent elk, deer, and moose herds during the 2015 hunting seasons. The funding was used to hire two temporary CWD technicians, one employed with the WGFD, and one employed by the National Elk Refuge from mid- September through December 2015. The WGFD technician logged 800 hours and 10,000 miles, mostly while conducting field contacts with hunters and pulling samples (medial retropharyngeal lymph nodes) from carcasses. Having two technicians allowed field presence nearly every day of open hunting seasons in the Jackson area, and helped maximize the number of samples collected from all species throughout the Jackson WGFD Region. The highest yielding method of collecting elk samples for subsequent CWD testing in the Jackson region comes from hunter contacts in the field, especially those within Grand Teton National Park (GTNP) and the NER. Hunter contacts are made throughout the fall in an effort to increase sample size and participation, and to educate hunters on CWD. NER parking areas and highly used locations in GTNP, such as the Kelly Hayfields and Blacktail Butte, are reliable places to make hunter contacts and collect samples. Frequent communication among NER law enforcement, elk retrieval operators and other WGFD personnel is essential for locating successful hunters soon after they’ve harvested their elk.
    [Show full text]
  • Naturalist Pocket Reference
    Table of Contents Naturalist Phone Numbers 1 Park info 5 Pocket GRTE Statistics 6 Reference Timeline 8 Name Origins 10 Mountains 12 Things to Do 19 Hiking Trails 20 Historic Areas 23 Wildlife Viewing 24 Visitor Centers 27 Driving Times 28 Natural History 31 Wildlife Statistics 32 Geology 36 Grand Teton Trees & Flowers 41 National Park Bears 45 revised 12/12 AM Weather, Wind Scale, Metric 46 Phone Numbers Other Emergency Avalanche Forecast 733-2664 Bridger-Teton Nat. Forest 739-5500 Dispatch 739-3301 Caribou-Targhee NF (208) 524-7500 Out of Park 911 Grand Targhee Resort 353-2300 Jackson Chamber of Comm. 733-3316 Recorded Information Jackson Fish Hatchery 733-2510 JH Airport 733-7682 Weather 739-3611 JH Mountain Resort 733-2292 Park Road Conditions 739-3682 Information Line 733-2291 Wyoming Roads 1-888-996-7623 National Elk Refuge 733-9212 511 Post Office – Jackson 733-3650 Park Road Construction 739-3614 Post Office – Moose 733-3336 Backcountry 739-3602 Post Office – Moran 543-2527 Campgrounds 739-3603 Snow King Resort 733-5200 Climbing 739-3604 St. John’s Hospital 733-3636 Elk Reduction 739-3681 Teton Co. Sheriff 733-2331 Information Packets 739-3600 Teton Science Schools 733-4765 Wyoming Game and Fish 733-2321 YELL Visitor Info. (307) 344-7381 Wyoming Highway Patrol 733-3869 YELL Roads (307) 344-2117 WYDOT Road Report 1-888-442-9090 YELL Fill Times (307) 344-2114 YELL Visitor Services 344-2107 YELL South Gate 543-2559 1 3 2 Concessions AMK Ranch 543-2463 Campgrounds - Colter Bay, Gros Ventre, Jenny Lake 543-2811 Campgrounds - Lizard Creek, Signal Mtn.
    [Show full text]
  • Identification of Interflow Pathways and Potential Wetland Sites in the Kelly Hayfields
    Marlow and Anderson: Identification of Interflow Pathways and Potential Wetland Sites 69 IDENTIFICATION OF INTERFLOW PATHWAYS AND POTENTIAL WETLAND SITES IN THE KELLY HAYFIELDS CLAYTON B. MARLOW DUSTIN ANDERSON ANIMAL AND RANGE SCIENCES MONTANA STATE UNIVERSITY BOZEMAN ABSTRACT Service Specialists decide if wetland recovery would In support of Grand Teton National Park be supported by the current hydrologic patterns, or if Service plans to restore the Kelly Hayfields to pre- extensive wetland reclamation should be part of the homesteading conditions an inventory of soils and Park‘s restoration plan for the Antelope Flats area. associated vegetation was conducted over a two year The study began in the spring of 2010 and continued period, 2010 and 2011. Measurements from 37 soil through the fall of 2011. During the study 28 soil pits pits and 19 associated vegetation descriptions were excavated and 9 bore holes drilled (mechanical revealed little evidence for the presence of riparian Giddings probe) seeking evidence for a persistent wetlands anywhere within the historic hayfields. The groundwater table which would have supported exception was a small area near the north eastern end historic wetlands in the Kelly Hayfield. Following of Blacktail Butte. Faint soil redoximorphic features the soil survey an extensive vegetation inventory was associated with about 5% wetland indicator plant conducted in late summer 2011 to identify the present cover implies the existence of riparian wetlands at the vegetation community structure and diversity time of homesteading. Differences in soil texture associated with the soil pits and bore holes. across the hayfields indicates that a mosaic of herbaceous and mountain big sagebrush/grass communities existed when agricultural conversion STUDY AREA began.
    [Show full text]