3 Bars Ecosystem and Landscape Restoration Project
Subtitle: final environmental impact statement
By: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Mount Lewis Field Office ; cooperating agencies : Eureka County ; National Park Service ; Nevada Department of Wildlife
Contributors: Eureka County (Nev.); United States. Bureau of Land Management; United States. National Park Service; Nevada. Department of Wildlife
Publisher: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Mount Lewis Field Office
Published: 2016
Place of publication: [Washington, D.C.]
Language: eng
Subjects: Restoration ecology; Ecosystem management; Vegetation management; Public lands; Management; 3 Bars Ecosystem and Landscape Restoration Project (Nev.)
Other titles: 3 Bars Project final EIS; Three Bars Ecosystem and Landscape Restoration Project: final environmental impact statement
Description: This Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) analyzes the potential direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts associated with the Bureau of Land Management's (BLM's) proposed land restoration treatments on the approximately 749,810-acre 3 Bars ecosystem. The BLM evaluated three action alternatives and the No Action Alternative. Alternative A is the BLM's Preferred Alternative. Under this alternative, the BLM would treat about 127,000 acres during the life of the project using manual and mechanical methods, fire (both prescribed and wildland fire for resource benefit), and biological control (use of livestock and classic biological control [nematodes, fungi, mites, and insects], primarily to control noxious weeds and other invasive non-native vegetation). Alternative B differs from Alternative A in that the BLM would not use prescribed fire and wildland fire for resource benefit, and the BLM would treat only about 63,500 acres. Under Alternative C, the BLM would only treat vegetation within treatment areas using manual methods and classical biological control; use of livestock for biological control would not be allowed. The BLM would also not be able to use mechanical methods or fire, and would treat only about 31,750 acres. The focus of treatments under all three action alternatives would be to restore riparian, aspen, and sagebrush habitats; slow singleleaf pinyon pine and Utah juniper encroachment into and infilling within these habitats; and thin historic pinyon-juniper communities to promote woodland health. Under Alternative D, the No Action Alternative, no new treatments would be authorized as a result of this project. However, the BLM would continue to conduct treatments approved under earlier NEPA authorizations.
Notes: "BLM-NV-BM/ES/16-07+1793."

"October 2016."

Includes bibliographical references (volume 2, pages 5-1-5-45) and index.
Table of contents: title: Volume 1. Abstract, executive summary, and chapters 1 through 3; title: Volume 2. Chapters 4 through 7, appendices, and response to comments on draft EIS.