DOCSLIB.ORG

South Fork Lease Modifications EA

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
South Fork Lease Modifications EA U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management, Price Field Office and U.S. Department of Agriculture Fishlake and Manti La-Sal National Forests (Co-Leads) and U.S. Department of the Interior Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (Cooperating Agency) Environmental Assessment DOI-BLM-UT-G020-2017-0053-EA June 2018 South Fork Federal Coal Lease Modifications UTU-84102 and U-63214 Environmental Assessment Location: Sevier County, Utah Applicant/Address: Canyon Fuel Company, LLC 225 North 5th Street Suite 900 Grand Junction, Colorado 81501 U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Price Field Office 125 South 600 West Price, UT 84501 Phone: (435) 636-3600 Fax: (435) 636-3657 BLM Mission Statement The Bureau of Land Management is responsible for the stewardship of our public lands. It is committed to manage, protect, and improve these lands in a manner to serve the needs of the American people for all times. Management is based upon the principles of multiple use and sustained yield of our nation’s resources within a framework of environmental responsibility and scientific technology. These resources include recreation, rangelands, timber, minerals, watershed, fish and wildlife, wilderness, air and scenic, scientific, and cultural values. USDA EEO Statement In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident. Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other than English. To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form. To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 632-9992. Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by: (1) mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C. 20250-9410; (2) fax: (202) 690-7442; or (3) email: [email protected]. USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender. Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS Purpose and Need ..............................................................................................................1 1.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................1 1.2 Background ............................................................................................................................1 1.3 Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action ...........................................................................2 1.4 Conformance with Land Use Plans........................................................................................3 1.4.1 BLM .............................................................................................................................................. 3 1.4.2 Forest Service ................................................................................................................................ 3 1.5 Decisions to be Made .............................................................................................................4 1.6 Relationship to Statutes, Regulations, or Other Plans ...........................................................5 1.7 Scoping ..................................................................................................................................6 1.7.1 Public Scoping .............................................................................................................................. 6 1.7.2 Internal Scoping ............................................................................................................................ 6 1.8 Issues ......................................................................................................................................6 Alternatives, Including Proposed Action .........................................................................8 2.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................8 2.2 Proposed Action .....................................................................................................................8 2.3 No Action Alternative ..........................................................................................................10 2.4 Alternatives Considered, but Eliminated From Further Analysis ........................................10 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences ..........................................11 3.1 Introduction ..........................................................................................................................11 3.1.1 Effects Determinations ................................................................................................................ 12 3.2 Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Actions ............................................................12 3.3 Issue 1 – Approval of the lease modifications may result in adverse impacts to air quality ..................................................................................................................................14 3.3.1 Existing Conditions ..................................................................................................................... 14 3.3.2 Direct and Indirect Impacts of the Proposed Action Alternative ................................................ 15 3.3.3 Cumulative Impacts of the Proposed Action Alternative ............................................................ 19 3.3.4 Direct and Indirect Impacts of the No Action Alternative .......................................................... 19 3.4 Issue 2 – Approval of the lease modifications may result in adverse impacts from Greenhouse Gases ...............................................................................................................20 3.4.1 Existing Conditions ..................................................................................................................... 20 3.4.2 Direct and Indirect Impacts of the Proposed Action Alternative ................................................ 20 3.4.3 Cumulative Impacts of the Proposed Action Alternative ............................................................ 22 3.4.4 Direct and Indirect Impacts of the No Action Alternative .......................................................... 22 3.5 Issue 3 - Approval of the lease modifications may result in adverse impacts to Water Resources .............................................................................................................................23 3.5.1 Existing Conditions ..................................................................................................................... 23 3.5.2 Direct and Indirect Impacts of the Proposed Action Alternative ................................................ 26 3.5.3 Cumulative Impacts of the Proposed Action Alternative ............................................................ 28 3.5.4 Direct and Indirect Impacts of the No Action Alternative .......................................................... 29 Consultation and Coordination ......................................................................................30 4.1 People, Groups, and Agencies Consulted ............................................................................30 June 2018 i Table of Contents References .........................................................................................................................33 5.1 References Cited ..................................................................................................................33 LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Annual Coal Production and Average Number of Employees at the Sufco Mine ................11 Table 2. Shipments from Sufco Mine to U.S. Power Plants (short tons) ............................................11 Table 3. Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Actions ..............................................................13 Table 4. 2014 Triennial Emissions Inventory (Tons per Year) for Sevier, Sanpete, and Emery Counties, Utah.................................................................................................................14 Table 5. Sufco Mine Permitted Emissions per Year from Mining Operations ....................................15
Load more

Recommended publications
  • EVALUATION REPORT Areas of Critical Environmental Concern Richfield Resource Management Plan
    EVALUATION REPORT Areas of Critical Environmental Concern Richfield Resource Management Plan Dirty Devil and Henry Mountains Potential ACECs Richfield Field Office Bureau of Land Management January 2005 Evaluation Report Richfield Field Office EVALUATION REPORT—AREAS OF CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN—RICHFIELD RMP/DEIS1 BACKGROUND ...........................................................................................................................................................1 The Law: FLPMA................................................................................................................................................1 The Regulation: 43 CFR 1610.7-2 .......................................................................................................................1 The Policy: BLM Manual 1613 ...........................................................................................................................1 EVALUATION PROCESS ..............................................................................................................................................2 Existing ACECs ...................................................................................................................................................2 ACEC Nominations .............................................................................................................................................2 Potential ACECs ..................................................................................................................................................6
    [Show full text]
  • Emery County Pre-Disaster Hazard Mitigation Plan 2018
    Emery County Pre-Disaster Hazard Mitigation Plan 2018 Emery County Page 1 Emery County Pre-Disaster Hazard Mitigation Plan 2018 Table of Contents Emery County 4 PDM Project Quick Reference 5 PDM Introduction 7 Demographics and Population Growth 13 Economy 15 Transportation and Commuting Trends 16 Land Use and Development Trends 17 Risk Assessment (Working Group) 19 Critical Facilities 20 Natural Hazards Profiles 28 Dam Failures 37 Flood 45 Landslides 48 Wildland Fires 53 Problem Soils 55 Infestation 58 Severe Weather 59 Earthquake 64 Drought Hazard History 68 Mitigation Goals, Objectives and Actions 77 Drought 77 Flood 80 Wildland Fires 92 Severe Weather 93 Earthquake 95 Landslides 96 Dam Failure 97 Problem Soils 99 Infestation 100 Hazus Report Appendix 1 Plan Maintenance, Evaluation and Implementation Appendix 2 PDM Planning Process Appendix 3 General Mitigation Strategies Appendix 4 Environmental Considerations Appendix 5 Research Sources Appendix 6 Emery County Community Wildfire Preparedness Plan (CWPP) Appendix 7 Emery County Page 2 Emery County Pre-Disaster Hazard Mitigation Plan 2018 Utah Information Resource Guide Emery County Page 3 Emery County Pre-Disaster Hazard Mitigation Plan 2018 Emery County Emery County is located where the desert meets the mountains in Southeastern Utah. It encompasses 4,452 square miles making it Utah’s seventh largest county. On the western side of the County is the Wasatch Plateau, which is the major water supply for the County. The San Rafael Swell dominates the County’s center with its rugged reefs, “castles”, and gorges. East of the San Rafael Swell is the Green River Desert, an arid district which has been historically important to ranching operations located in the lower San Rafael Valley.
    [Show full text]
  • Bronco Utah Operations LLC, Emery Underground Mine FSSOB UT0022616 Page 1
    Bronco Utah Operations LLC, Emery Underground Mine FSSOB UT0022616 Page 1 FACT SHEET AND STATEMENT OF BASIS BRONCO UTAH OPERATIONS LLC, EMERY UNDERGROUND MINE RENEWAL PERMIT: DISCHARGE & STORM WATER UPDES PERMIT NUMBER: UT0022616 UPDES MULTI-SECTOR STORM WATER GENERAL PERMIT NUMBER: UTR000000 MAJOR INDUSTRIAL FACILITY CONTACTS Person Name: Dan R Baker Position: CEO/President, Bronco Utah Operations LLC Phone Number: (801) 286-2301 Person Name: John C. (Kit) Pappas Position: Environmental Manager Phone Number: (435) 650-7339 DESCRIPTION OF FACILITY Facility Name: Emery Underground Mine Mailing and Facility Address: P.O. Box 527 Emery, Utah 84522 Telephone: 435-650-7339 Actual Address: 3300 North 1200 West Classification (SIC): 1222 - Bituminous Coal Underground Mining (NAICS 212112) Bronco Utah Operations, LLC (Formerly Consol Coal) owns and operates an underground coal mine located 4 miles south of the town of Emery in Emery County, Utah, Township 22 South, Range 6 East. In 2009, the Emery Mine produced about 1.2 million short tons of coal. Production at the mine ceased. The mine has been idle for several years, but recent progress is being made to re-open the mine and resume the mining operation. It is anticipated that within this permit cycle, Emery Underground Mine will be operational. Bronco Utah Operations LLC, Emery Underground Mine FSSOB UT0022616 Page 2 SUMMARY OF CHANGES FROM PREVIOUS PERMIT Biomonitoring requirements have changed to remove Acute WET testing, with the addition of Chronic WET testing being required quarterly. DISCHARGE Over the last 5 years, Emery Mine has only had need to discharged from Outfall 003. There has not been enough accumulated storm water to discharge from any of the storm water settling ponds for over 15 years.
    [Show full text]
  • Hydrology and Effects of Mining in the Quitchupah and Pines Coal-Lease Tracts, Central Utah U.S
    HYDROLOGY AND EFFECTS OF MINING IN THE QUITCHUPAH AND PINES COAL-LEASE TRACTS, CENTRAL UTAH U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Water-Resources Investigations Report 90-4084 COVER: Sketch by Charles E. Turner depicting fracturing in the Castlegate Sandstone and the potential for coal mining in the Quitch- upah and Pines coal-lease tracts. HYDROLOGY AND POTENTIAL EFFECTS OF MINING IN THE QUITCHUPAH AND PINES GOAL-LEASE TRACTS, CENTRAL UTAH By S.A. Thiros and G.E. Cordy U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Water-Resources Investigations Report 90-4084 Prepared in cooperation with the U.S. BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT Salt Lake City, Utah 1991 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR MANUEL LUJAN, JR., Secretary U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Dallas L. Peck, Director For additional information Copies of this report can be write to: purchased from: District Chief U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Geological Survey, WRD Books and Open-File Reports Section Room 1016 Administration Building Federal Center, Bldg. 810 1745 West 1700 South Box 25425 Salt Lake City, Utah 84104 Denver, Colorado 80225 ii CONTENTS Page Abstract ............................................................. 1 Introduction ......................................................... 2 Purpose and scope ............................................... 2 Methods of investigation ........................................ 2 Ground-water site-numbering system .............................. 5 Acknowledgments ................................................. 5 Physical setting ................................................ 5 Topography
    [Show full text]
  • A History of Water Development in Emery County, Utah
    A History of Water Development in Emery County, Utah Edward A. Geary Brigham Young University Department of English Provo, Utah 84602 Emery County is a dramatically varied region in east-central Utah, ranging in elevation from under 4,000 feet in the depths of Labyrinth Canyon on the Green River to well above 10,000 feet on the higher ridges of the Wasatch Plateau to the west. The central part of the county is dominated by the San Rafael Swell, a deeply eroded anticlinal uplift characterized by imposing buttes, rugged canyons, and great mural cliffs. Between the Wasatch Plateau and the San Rafael Swell lies Castle Valley, home to most of the county’s agricultural and industrial development and population. The county’s other developed area is in and around the community of Green River on the eastern border. Emery County is an arid region with an annual average of less than ten inches of precipitation. However, there is significant local variation. The highest levels of the Wasatch Plateau receive more than forty inches of precipita- tion in an average year, most of it in the form of snow during the winter months. The prevailing westerly winds deposit the snow in massive drifts just below the skyline ridge. These snowbanks feed the four major creeks that drain into Castle Valley. There is sufficient moisture on the higher benches of Castle Valley and the San Rafael Swell to support native bunchgrasses and pinion-juniper woodlands. In the lower parts of the county the natural vegetation is desert growth including shadscale, greasewood, prickly pear, and a low saltbush locally known as "Castle Valley clover." No cultivated crops can be grown without irrigation.
    [Show full text]
  • Standards of Quality for Waters of the State (2020) (PDF)
    Presented below are water quality standards that are in effect for Clean Water Act purposes. EPA is posting these standards as a convenience to users and has made a reasonable effort to assure their accuracy. Additionally, EPA has made a reasonable effort to identify parts of the standards that are not approved, disapproved, or are otherwise not in effect for Clean Water Act purposes. R317. Environmental Quality, Water Quality. R317-2. Standards of Quality for Waters of the State. R317-2-1A. Statement of Intent. Whereas the pollution of the waters of this state constitute a menace to public health and welfare, creates public nuisances, is harmful to wildlife, fish and aquatic life, and impairs domestic, agricultural, industrial, recreational and other legitimate beneficial uses of water, and whereas such pollution is contrary to the best interests of the state and its policy for the conservation of the water resources of the state, it is hereby declared to be the public policy of this state to conserve the waters of the state and to protect, maintain and improve the quality thereof for public water supplies, for the propagation of wildlife, fish and aquatic life, and for domestic, agricultural, industrial, recreational and other legitimate beneficial uses; to provide that no waste be discharged into any waters of the state without first being given the degree of treatment necessary to protect the legitimate beneficial uses of such waters; to provide for the prevention, abatement and control of new or existing water pollution; to place first in priority those control measures directed toward elimination of pollution which creates hazards to the public health; to insure due consideration of financial problems imposed on water polluters through pursuit of these objectives; and to cooperate with other agencies of the state, agencies of other states and the federal government in carrying out these objectives.
    [Show full text]
  • Dissolved-Solids Transport in Surface Water of the Muddy Creek Basin, Utah
    Prepared in cooperation with the Bureau of Land Management and the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum Dissolved-Solids Transport in Surface Water of the Muddy Creek Basin, Utah Scientific Investigations Report 2008–5001 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Cover photo: Muddy Creek near U.S. Geological Survey streamgage 09332800 . (Photo credit: Steven Gerner, USGS, Salt Lake City, Utah.) Dissolved-Solids Transport in Surface Water of the Muddy Creek Basin, Utah By Steven J. Gerner Prepared in coooperation with the Bureau of Land Management and the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum Scientific Investigations Report 2008–5001 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Department of the Interior DIRK KEMPTHORNE, Secretary U.S. Geological Survey Mark D. Myers, Director U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2008 For product and ordering information: World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment: World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. Although this report is in the public domain, permission must be secured from the individual copyright owners to reproduce any copyrighted materials contained within this report. Suggested reference: Gerner, S.J., 2008, Dissolved-solids transport in surface water of the Muddy Creek Basin, Utah: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2008–5001, 57 p.
    [Show full text]
  • 77.0 Bibliography
    77.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY Construction Industry Compliance Assistance (CICA). 2005. “Wetland Regulations/Permits.” Retrieved 30 September 2005 from www.cicacenter.org/wetpermits.html#a2. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2005. “Section 404 of the Clean Water Act: an Overview.” Retrieved 30 September 2005 from www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/facts/fact10.html Red Lodge Clearinghouse (RLC). 2005. “Clean Water Act. Process Essentials: Section 404 Dredge and Fill Permits.” Retrieved 30 September 2005 from www.redlodgeclearinghouse.org/legislation/cleanwater4.html. US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 1987. Corps of engineers wetlands delineation manual. Technical Report Y-87-1. Environmental laboratory, US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi. Adams, L., and Geis, A. 1983. Effects of roads on small mammals. Journal of Applied Ecology. 20, 403-415. Aikens, C.M. and D.B. Madsen. 1986. Prehistory of the Eastern Area. In Great Basin, edited by Warren D=Azevedo, pp. 149-160. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 11. William G. Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington D.C. Armstrong, L. 1999. BLM Richfield Field Office, Botanist. Personal Communication with Greg Brown of JBR Environmental Consultants, Inc., Sandy, Utah. June and December 1999. Atwood, D., J. Holland, R. Bollander, B. Franklin, D.E. House, L. Armstrong, K. Thorne and L. England. 1991. Utah endangered, threatened and sensitive plant field guide. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Region. Balda, R.P., B.C. McKnight and C.D. Johnson. 1975. Flammulated owl migration in the southwestern United States. Wilson Bull. 87(4):520-533. Barnes, F.A. 1982. Canyon Country: Prehistoric Rock Art. Wasatch Publishers, Inc., Salt Lake City.
    [Show full text]
  • Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Fishlake National Forest Off-Highway Vehicle Route Designation Project
    United States Department of Agriculture Final Environmental Forest Service Impact Statement for Intermountain Region the Fishlake National Forest Off-Highway Vehicle Route Designation Project On the cover: Once the final preferred alternative is implemented, the Fishlake National Forest will begin producing motor vehicle use maps that will be updated annually and distributed free to the public. Forest users will need to obtain and use a current motor vehicle use map to know where and when routes and areas are open to motorized use. These maps will be available on the Internet and at district and forest headquarters. This requirement applies to all National Forests in the nation. A motor vehicle use map is as necessary to travel on National Forest System lands as a hunting proclamation is necessary to know how and where to legally hunt. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or family status. (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 USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326- W, Whitten Building, 14th and Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (202) 720-5964 (voice
    [Show full text]
  • Population Genetic Analysis of Bluehead Sucker [Catostomus (Pantosteus) Discobolus] Across the Species’ Range
    Population Genetic Analysis of Bluehead Sucker [Catostomus (Pantosteus) discobolus] Across the Species’ Range Draft Final Report Principal Investigators: Dr. Marlis R. Douglas PH: 217-333-6896; FX: 217-244-0729 Email: [email protected] Dr. Michael E. Douglas PH: 217-333-3685; FX: 217-333-4949 Email: [email protected] Mr. Matthew W. Hopken PH: 217-244-4975; FX: 217-244-0729 Email: [email protected] Illinois Natural History Survey Institute of Resource Sustainability University of Illinois – Champaign/Urbana Champaign, IL 61820 NPS Contract H1200040001 CSURM-79 CSU Contract 5-31781 Respectfully submitted 28-I-2009 TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary ............................................................................................2 Introduction .........................................................................................................7 Methods ............................................................................................................. 11 Study organism ................................................................................................ 11 DNA extraction................................................................................................. 12 Microsatellite loci.............................................................................................. 12 Genetic diversity .............................................................................................. 13 Population structure and divergence................................................................ 13 Historical
    [Show full text]
  • MINUTES of the REGULAR MEETING of the BOARD of EMERY COUNTY COMMISSIONERS HELD in the EMERY COUNTY COURTHOUSE JANUARY 5, 2016 Pr
    MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF EMERY COUNTY COMMISSIONERS HELD IN THE EMERY COUNTY COURTHOUSE JANUARY 5, 2016 Present at the meeting was Commission Chairman Ethan Migliori, Commissioner Keith Brady, Commissioner Keith Brady, Commissioner Paul Cowley, Attorney Mike Olsen, Deputy Clerk/Auditor Carol Cox, elected officials and citizens. CONSENT AGENDA (1) APPROVAL OF CHECK EDIT LIST, REQUISITIONS AND DISPOSITIONS. (2) APPROVAL OF COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES DATED DECEMBER 15, 2015. (3) APPROVAL OF BUSINESS LICENSE FOR BERWICK ELECTRIC COMPANY. (4) NOTIFICATION. WAYNE SENN HAS BEEN SELECTED AS A PART TIME JANITOR FOR THE GREEN RIVER LIBRARY. (5) APPROVAL OF JAMIE PEACOCK TO BE A VOLUNTEER AT THE CASTLE DALE LIBRARY. (6) APPROVAL AUTHORIZING JEFF GUYMON A 3% MERIT INCREASE FOR ACCEPTING THE PLANNING AND ZONING ADMINISTRATOR RESPONSIBILITIES BACK IN JULY 2015. EFFECTIVE FIRST PAY PERIOD IN 2016. (7) APPROVAL AUTHORIZING NADINE THOMPSON A 6% MERIT INCREASE FOR INCREASED RESPONSIBILITIES WHEN THE SR. APPRAISER RETIRED AND THE POSITION WAS NOT BACKFILLED. EFFECTIVE FIRST PAY PERIOD IN 2016. (8) APPROVAL AUTHORIZING GARRETT STILSON AND JESSICA OLSEN (LIFEGUARDS) A 3% WAGE INCREASE FOR SUCCESSFUL COMPLETION OF THE 6 MONTH ORIENTATION PERIOD. (9) APPROVAL AUTHORIZING CLAIR MALDONADO A 3% WAGE INCREASE FOR SUCCESSFUL COMPLETION OF THE 6 MONTH ORIENTATION PERIOD. (10) RATIFICATION OF EMERY TOWN APPOINTMENT OF JUSTIN CHILD TO THE EMERY COUNTY FIRE PROTECTION SPECIAL SERVICE DISTRICT. (11) RATIFY OUT OF STATE TRAVEL TO LAS VEGAS, NEVADA FOR RAY PETERSEN TO ATTEND COLORADO RIVER WATER USER ASSOCIATION CONFERENCE DECEMBER 16-18, 2015. DISCUSSION AGENDA (1) ITEMS PULLED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA (2) APPROVAL OF CHAIRMAN FOR 2016 (3) CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF COMMISSION RESPONSIBILITIES FOR 2016.
    [Show full text]
  • Riparian Ecosystems of the Manti-La Sal National Forest: an Assessment of Current Conditions in Relation to Natural Range of Variability
    United States Department of Agriculture Riparian Ecosystems of the Manti-La Sal National Forest: An Assessment of Current Conditions in Relation to Natural Range of Variability Katelyn P. Driscoll D. Max Smith Deborah M. Finch Forest Rocky Mountain General Technical Report Service Research Station RMRS-GTR-386 March 2019 Driscoll, K.P.; Smith, D. Max; Finch, Deborah M. 2019. Riparian ecosystems of the Manti-La Sal National Forest: An assessment of current conditions in relation to natural range of variability. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-386. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 160 p Abstract We conducted this assessment to provide information on the current conditions of riparian and wetland ecosystems in reference to their natural range of variability on the Manti-La Sal National Forest during forest plan revision. We used peer-reviewed literature, data from the Forest and other partners, and site visits to evaluate the status of four key ecosystem characteristics: (1) distribution of riparian ecosystems, (2) groundwater and surface water fluctuations, (3) channel and bank stability, and (4) floodplain condition. We determined that riparian and wetland ecosystems of the National Forest have experienced many stressors that have influenced their current conditions, including livestock and wild ungulate grazing, altered flow and fire regimes, road construction, timber harvest, invasive and encroaching species, vegetation mortality due to insects and disease, and altered temperature and precipitation regimes. Some geographical units of the Forest, particularly the Abajo Mountains, Mesas, and Canyons, appear to be more resistant to stressors. Our results have been incorporated in the assessment completed during the Forest plan revision process and will continue to be useful to resource managers and planners during efforts to restore and/or maintain riparian and wetland ecosystems on the Manti-La Sal National Forest.
    [Show full text]