Important Notice: Our web hosting provider recently started charging us for additional visits, which was unexpected. In response, we're seeking donations. Depending on the situation, we may explore different monetization options for our Community and Expert Contributors. It's crucial to provide more returns for their expertise and offer more Expert Validated Answers or AI Validated Answers. Learn more about our hosting issue here.

Republic, WA: Which, if not all of these alternatives will bring the BLM and Forest Service in compliance with the federal Noxious Weed Act and the Carlson-Foley Noxious Weed Act?

0
Posted

Republic, WA: Which, if not all of these alternatives will bring the BLM and Forest Service in compliance with the federal Noxious Weed Act and the Carlson-Foley Noxious Weed Act?

0

Implementation of an Integrated Weed Management (IWM) strategy, by Forest Service and BLM administrative units, in coordination with other governments and agencies, across political and jurisdictional boundaries, will be in compliance with the Federal Noxious Weed Act and the Carlson-Foley Act of 1968. The alternatives that put forth this IWM strategy are Alternatives 3 through 7. WILDLIFE 131. Walla Walla, WA: Assuming that DRFCs intent is to restore stands to some sort of historical range of variability, won’t open “park-like” stands result in loss of thermal cover and force big game to its historic winter range which is mostly private lowlands, or will there be a reduction of big game to its historic levels? Answer: Conditions providing elk cover will still be present on the landscape, because an ecosystem management approach attempts to provide habitat for a wide variety of species. In some instances, hiding cover may be reduced in some areas while young forests are thinned. Howeve

Related Questions

What is your question?

*Sadly, we had to bring back ads too. Hopefully more targeted.

Experts123