Final Environmental Impact Statement For Rangeland Ecosystem Management on he Uinta National Forest, Provo, Utah

This Final Environmental Impact Statement describes alternatives, including a No Action alternative for management of National Forest Rangeland Resources on the Uinta National Forest. Alternatives range from no change from past management practices, which in some instances have resulted in less than favorable ecological conditions on National Forest Rangelands and riparian resources, to managing these resources to achieve the Potential Natural Community in terms of vegetative cover types and condition. The environmental consequences of all alternatives considered in detail are displayed. The alternatives selected for implementation will become an amendment to the Uinta National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. The Utah Division of Wildlife Resources is a cooperating agency in the preparation of this Final Environmental Impact Statement

White River Aspen Management Project

Comments Welcome The White River National Forest (WRNF) welcomes your comments on its proposal to conduct vegetation management activities designed to sustain and expand aspen (Populus tremuloides) forests on National Forest System (NFS) lands. Your comments will help us further develop the proposed action, potential alternatives, and complete an environmental assessment. The assessment will be used to determine whether to prepare an environmental impact statement or a finding of no significant impact. Instructions for submitting comments are described on the last page. Additional project information is available here: https://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=59419 This Notice of Proposed Action (NOPA) is also requesting your comments under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, as amended (NHPA). Consultation under the NHPA seeks to consider the views about an undertaking and its effects on historic properties for the agency official to consider in decision making (36 CFR 800). Introduction The WRNF is proposing to conduct vegetation management activities (mechanical and prescribed fire) within forest stands1 that contain aspen. Management activities would be designed to improve the resiliency of aspen forests to disturbance agents, improve wildlife habitat, increase the distribution of aspen on NFS lands, manage aspen along scenic corridors, and contribute to the Forest’s allowable sale quantity. Mechanical operations would use existing roads where possible and would also include the use of temporary roads to access treatment areas. Management activities and locations would be selected based on the applicable Forest Plan Management Area direction, project objectives, stand conditions, and constraints

Pretty Tree Bench Vegetation Project, Draft Environmental Impact Statement

This Draft Environmental Impact Statement documents the analysis of the No Action, Proposed Action, and three action alternatives developed for the Pretty Tree Bench Project area. The Proposed Action and action alternatives considered in detail, are consistent with current management direction. Each alternative responds differently to the issues associated with the Proposed Action. The Proposed Action prescribes disturbances within a number of different vegetation types throughout the project area. One disturbance practice uses prescribed fire. The acres of treatment by vegetation type through the use of prescribed fire are: Sagebrush (200-250 acres), Gambel Oak (450-500 acres), Pinyon/Juniper (3000-3500 acres), Ponderosa Pine underburn (7000 acres), Mixed conifer underburn (300-350 acres), and Aspen regeneration burn (700 acres). A second disturbance practice that is proposed will be the commercial and non-commercial cutting of trees. Where aspen is being invaded by conifer trees, the conifer trees will be cut and removed (1000 acres). Where aspen can be commercially harvested, the aspen will be sold by bid (302 acres). The Proposed Action will also seed burn areas within the sagebrush and pinyon/juniper vegetation types, if ground cover does not establish. Native plant seed will be emphasized, but non-native plant seed can be used. Seeding will be done by hand or by aerial application. Travel management is also a part of the Proposed Action. No road construction or reconstruction would occur. The overall travel management strategy provides for a variety of vehicle uses, and describes year long and seasonal use opportunities. An OHV trail starting from the Dry Lake Trailhead and looping around Haws Pasture would be provided. The overall management would follow a closed unless designated open philosophy. Alternative I uses prescribed fire rather than commercial cutting of aspen. Alternative 2 has reduced commercial and non commercial aspen cutting by only using chainsaw disturbance outside of previously inventoried roadless areas. Alternative 3 reduces commercial aspen harvest to those areas west of the allotment fence. All action alternatives include different travel management practices. Alternatives 1 and 3 reconstruct a short portion of Road Draw Road. Alternatives 2 uses native seed for ground cover establishment in those areas that need seeding. The agency has not identified a preferred alternative at this time

Final Environmental Impact Statement for Management of the High Uinta Wilderness

The Final Environmental Impact Statement analyzes four alternatives to amend the Ashley and Wasatch-Cache National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) to include Desired Future Condition for mapped Condition Classes with accompanying indicators and standards for the High Uintas Wilderness. The No Action Alternative is analyzed in depth also. Significant issues considered include effects of human overuse on ecosystem components, the extent visitor experience is impacted by rules and regulations, the extent visitor solitude is impacted by other users, structures, and resource impacts, the extent trails meet wilderness objectives, the threat of human and animal waste to water quality, the threat of non-native plant species on the ecosystem, effects on threatened endangered and sensitive species, effects on air quality, the extent fire plays a natural role in the ecosystem, effects on archeological and historic sites, effect on Research Natural Areas, and the effects of stocking fish on aquatic natural processes

SERA Internal Task No. 56-07 Submitted by:

This is a revision to SERA TR-056-05-02-02a, Scoping/Screening Level Risk Assessment on Fluazifop-P-butyl, dated March 28, 2014. The report has been modified for compliance with Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 as amended by the Workforce Investment Act of 1998. The compliance report is attached to the PDF version of this risk assessment

An Analysis of the Water Situation in the United States: 1989-2040

Several Federal agencies have historically had responsibilities for conducting assessments of the Nation\u27s water resources. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Department of Agriculture\u27s Soil Conservation Service (SCS), and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and its predecessor agencies, among others, have conducted studies assessing the current situation and future prospects for water in particular regions of the country. Responsibility for national water assessments was assigned to the U.S. Water Resources Council (WRC) by the Water Resources Planning Act of 1965. With the demise of the WRC in 1981, several member agencies have attempted to take over parts of the WRC role and improve their own analyses. USGS began to publish an annual National Water Summary in 1984. The first three annual reports, Water-Supply Paper 2250 (USGS 1984), 2275 (USGS 1985), and 2300 (USGS 1986), have been used extensively in the preparation of this Assessment. In some cases, extended portions of text have been lifted from those reports; in other cases, topics are presented in the same order. The 1986 Summary (USGS 1988) was published after preparation of this report was completed. Similarly , EPA publishes biennial reports to Congress on the National Water Quality Inventory. Information from these reports has also been extracted for this Assessment. The Forests and Rangelands Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 (88 Stat. 476, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 1601-1614) (RPA) directs the Secretary of Agriculture to conduct an assessment of the Nation\u27s forest and rangeland resource situation covering all renewable resources within the purview of the Forest Service. Water is one of the renewable resources. RPA legislation also directed the Forest Service to follow two principles in conducting assessments. First, assessments were to analyze the resource situation from a national perspective-including all ownerships, public and private. Second, the Forest Service was to use, to the extent practicable, information collected by other public agencies on the resources studied. This report faithfully follows that direction. This report has nine chapters beginning with a broad overview of the current water resource situation in the United States. The extensive reference citations are a road map directing readers to more detailed discussions of individual topics in the reports of other agencies. One requirement of the RPA legislation is an analysis, looking 50 years into the future, of prospective demands and supplies of each resource. Chapter 3 contains an analysis of historical trends in withdrawals and consumption and projections to 2040 based on data from USGS and SCS. In this report, withdrawals and consumption are treated as two different forms of demand for water. Both forms of demand are projected independently of supplies. Consumption is used in later chapters as the preferred definition of demand. Chapter 4 contains an analysis of historical trends in water supplies and projections to 2040 based upon generalized water budgets. The projections of demand and supply are the results of new analyses by the author. It is important to recognize that trends projected in these chapters are not in any sense most likely. Rather, they portray what might occur if factors determining water resource management and use continue unchanged from those in effect since 1970. Obviously, projections of past trends will demonstrate conflicts between the level of consumptive use demanded and the level of supply projected to be available. A discussion of those conflicts is presented in Chapter 5 and the social, environmental, and economic implications of those conflicts is presented in Chapter 6. Chapters 5 and 6 also contain analyses of some alternative future scenarios for water resources having the potential to alter the demand and supply projections which were based upon recent trends. Although projections of consumption demands and available supplies differ-creating either surpluses or shortages-these differences will not really occur. Rather, the economy will function and prices for water and other goods and services (such as water treatment) will change, thereby bringing supplies and demand into equilibrium. These adjustments, if not planned in advance, can lead to undesirable consequences. Water resource users and managers have opportunities to alter use and management practices inherent in the recent trends to achieve a more desirable future water resource situation. These opportunities are outlined in Chapter 7. Similarly, there are some obstacles-economic, social, environmental, institutional, and regulatory-to taking advantage of opportunities. These obstacles are discussed in Chapter 8. Chapter 9 discusses implications of these opportunities and obstacles on Forest Service resource management and research programs, providing guidance for agency strategic planning

Southwest Ecological Restoration Institutes (SWERI) five year evaluation report

The Southwest Forest Health and Wildfire Prevention Act establishes a unique program of applied research and service via three university-based restoration Institutes. The primary purpose of the Institutes is to develop, translate, and provide the best available science to land managers, practitioners and stakeholders designing and implementing forest restoration and hazardous fuel reduction treatments