Lake Mead Complex Final Gather Plan: Environmental Assessment

This Environmental Assessment (EA) has been prepared by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Las Vegas Field Office (LVFO) to analyze the environmental effects of a gather to remove approximately 195 resident wild burros from National Park Service-administered lands adjacent to the El Dorado Mountains, Gold Butte and Muddy Mountains Herd Management Areas (HMAs) within the Lake Mead Complex (LMC) in March 2007. The LMC is located in southern Nevada in Clark County. The BLM Las Vegas Field Office and National Park Service coordinate management activities for wild burros on these public lands within their individual administrative responsibilities through a Memorandum of Understanding in place since 1994. Also proposed is removing any remaining horses from public lands in the Muddy Mountains HMA in order to achieve the Appropriate Management Level (AML) and prevent their suffering or death by starvation. Refer to Maps 1-2 for a map of the affected area (page 42-43). The EA contains the site-specific analysis of potential impacts that could result with the implementation of a proposed action or alternatives to the proposed action. The EA ensures compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA); it analyzes information to determine whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) or issue a “Finding of No Significant Impact” (FONSI). A FONSI documents why implementation of the selected action will not result in environmental impacts that significantly affect the quality of the human environment

Richfield Fire Management Plan Environmental Assessment

This Environmental Assessment (EA) documents results of an analysis of proposed changes to the current management of wildland fire and hazardous fuels for the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Richfield Support Center. Proposed revisions of the Richfield Fire Management Plan (FMP) serve as the “Proposed Action” for this EA. The revised FMP incorporates current planning requirements associated with fire management on public lands, including wildland fire management and fuel treatments. The EA analysis is designed to ensure compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). It allows determinations to be made as to whether any “significant,” as defined by the President’s Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) in Regulation 40 CFR 1508.27, impacts could result from the analyzed actions

Environmental Assessment, Decision Record, and Finding of No Significant Impact for the IXC Communications, Inc.\u27s Proposed Fiber Optic Telecommunications System, Denver, Colorado, to Salt Lake City, Utah

IXC proposes to install and operate a telecommunications system from Denver, Colorado, to Salt Lake City, Utah, to provide service to these and other western cities. The approximately 611-mile long cable would cross 116 miles of federal land administered by the BLM (all within Wyoming), 1 mile of National Forest lands administered by the Forest Service (all within Utah), and 494 miles of state, county, municipal, and private lands. Three 1.9-inch and three 2.4-inch high-density polyethylene conduits would be installed simultaneously and a fiber optic cable would be installed in one conduit; the other conduits would be used for future communication system upgrades. A ROW term of 30 years, with the right of renewal, would be granted. A temporary construction ROW of 40 feet and a permanent operations and maintenance ROW of 20 feet would be required. Direct surface disturbance width would average 15 feet and would occur on areas traversed by tracked machinery used to plow the duct into the ground. Additional disturbance would result from other traffic on the ROW, trenching, and excavation and installation of splice vaults and manholes. An area of up to 40 X 40 feet would be needed at each pit for boring under roads, driveways, railroads, pipelines, canal, streams, wetlands, and endangered species habitat. Nine optical amplifiers and two regeneration stations would be built along the route. All but one amplifier site and both regeneration stations would be built on private land. Approximately 1.8 acres/mile would be disturbed. Approximately 212 acres of BLM lands would be disturbed (all in Wyoming), as would 2 acres of Forest Service lands (all in Utah), and 899 acres of state and private lands (in Colorado, Wyoming, and Utah). Total disturbance would be approximately 1,113 acres

Moab Fire District Fire Management Plan: Environmental Assessment

This Environmental Assessment (EA) has been prepared to document results of an analysis of proposed changes to current management of wildland fire and hazardous fuels for the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Division of Fire Management. The Division of Fire Management oversees all fire-related activities for the Moab, Monticello, and Price Field Offices, referred to in this document as the Moab Fire District. Proposed revisions of the Moab Fire District Fire Management Plan (FMP) serve as the Proposed Action for this EA. The revised FMP incorporates current planning requirements associated with fire management on public lands, including wildland fire suppression and fuel treatments. The EA analysis is designed to ensure compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). It allows determinations to be made as to whether any “significant” impacts, as defined by the President’s Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) in regulation 40 CFR 1508.27, could result from the analyzed actions. An EA provides evidence for determining whether preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) or a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) statement is necessary. A Decision Record (DR) that includes a FONSI statement is a document that briefly presents reasons why implementation of the Proposed Action would not result in significant environmental impacts (effects) beyond those already addressed within other NEPA and BLM planning documents. If the decision-maker determines that this project would have significant impacts following the analysis in the EA, then an EIS would be prepared for the project. If not, a DR may be signed for the EA approving the alternative selected. The DR would identify fire management planning goals and objectives associated with the FMP and would provide language upon which future fire management planning and implementation actions could tier (as per 40 CFR 1502.20). Future site-specific projects would analyze issues in additional implementation-level NEPA documents

Problem Analysis for the Vegetation Diversity Project

Management of the majority of public rangeland in the Great Basin and Columbia-Snake River Plateau falls under the authority of the Bureau of Land Management. The flora of this land ranges from highly diverse native plant communities to deteriorated lands dominated by exotic annuals. Approximately nine percent of the BLM’s 78 million acres of public land in this region is degraded to such a degree that changes in land management alone will not result in significant improvement. The BLM intends to restore native plant communities on these deteriorated lands, but current revegetation techniques used to establish introduced perennial grasses are often unsuccessful in establishing native plants. On lands where native communities exist, the BLM desires to maintain and to enhance native plant diversity. Encroachment of highly competitive exotic forbs and annual grasses in native plant communities raises concern among managers over the appropriate management to maintain native communities. Coupled with these concerns are impacts on vegetation of the documented increase in CO, and of predicted global climate change. The BLM therefore recognizes the need for research to understand and solve these problems and for the results of this research to be transferred to land managers. The Great Basin and Columbia Plateau region consists of two major ecosystems: the sagebrush ecosystem, generally located in the northern half of the region; and the salt-desert shrub ecosystem, located in the southern half. These ecosystems differ greatly in their composition of plant species and in their climatic and soil conditions. Therefore, techniques developed in one ecosystem may not be directly transferred to the other ecosystem. We propose to initially concentrate studies in the Wyoming big sagebrush communities of the sagebrush ecosystem, because: (1) these communities represent a large amount of the BLM lands in Oregon, Idaho, northeastern California, Nevada and Utah; and (2) the low precipitation within these communities limits the success of standard revegetation methods. Shadscale communities of the salt-desert shrub ecosystem were given the next priority for study. These communities are a major component in four of the five participating states. Since the shadscale communities differ greatly from sagebrush communities, studies of shadscale communities will be initiated when the project reaches full funding. Similar studies to those proposed here for sagebrush communities would be conducted on this new suite of species and environmental conditions. Low sagebrush communities would be given the lowest priority and are unlikely to be initiated. Plant associations in low sagebrush and Wyoming sagebrush communities are similar and thus promising techniques for the Wyoming sagebrush communities may work well in low sagebrush communities and may be attempted later in the project

Land Health Assessment for the Colorado Canyons National Conservation Area

The Colorado Canyons National Conservation Area (CCNCA) is located about 7 miles west of Grand Junction, Colorado. The CCNCA includes rolling saltbush-covered hills, pinyon-junpier and sagebrush-covered mesas, a 24-mile corridor along the Colorado River through Horsethief and Ruby Canyons, and over 70,000 acres of sheer-sided, red-rock canyons, natural arches, caves and alcoves. The 75,550-acre Black Ridge Canyons Wilderness comprises the heart of the CCNCA, with another 5,200 acres stretching into Utah. The CCNCA was given a high priority for land health assessment, a valuable tool in developing the CCNCA Resource Management Plan (RMP)

Potential for Post-Fire Recovery of Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat

In the western United States, fire has become a significant concern in the management of big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata Nutt.) ecosystems. This is due to large‐scale increases in cover of the fire‐prone invasive annual cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum L.) and, concurrently, concerns about declining quantity and quality of habitat for Greater Sage‐grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus). The prevailing paradigm is that fire results in a loss of sage‐grouse habitat on timescales relevant to conservation planning (i.e., 1–20 yr), since sagebrush cover can take many more years to recover post‐fire. However, fire can have effects that improve sage‐grouse habitat, including stimulating perennial grass and forb production. The conditions under which fire results in the permanent loss or enhancement of sage‐grouse habitat are not well understood. We used long‐term data from the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources Range Trend Project to assess short‐term (1–4 yr post‐treatment) and long‐term (6–10 yr post‐treatment) effects of fire on vegetation cover at 16 sites relative to sage‐grouse habitat vegetation guidelines. Sagebrush cover remained low post‐fire at sites considered historically unsuitable for sage‐grouse (10%) pre‐fire sagebrush cover, sagebrush cover decreased to10% cover. Post‐fire sagebrush cover was positively related to elevation. Across all sites, perennial grasses and forbs increased in cover to approximately meet the habitat vegetation guidelines for sage‐grouse. Cheatgrass cover did not change in response to fire, and increased perennial grass cover appears to have played an important role in suppressing cheatgrass. Our results indicate that, while fire poses a potential risk for sage‐grouse habitat loss and degradation, burned sites do not necessarily need to be considered permanently altered, especially if they are located at higher elevation, have high sagebrush cover pre‐fire, and are reseeded with perennial grasses and forbs post‐fire. However, our results confirm that fire at more degraded sites, for example, those wit

Areas of critical concern in Wallowa County as identified by the Bureau of Land Management

Areas of Critical Concern in Wallowa County as identified by the BLM.This product is for informational purposes and may not have been prepared for, or be suitable for legal, engineering, or surveying purposes. Users of this information should review or consult the primary data and information sources to verify the purpose and limitations. The data is provided as-is, without warranty