camp ripley and arden hills minnesota army national guard training ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

land use activities between military operations and other natural resource agencies. The environmental personnel who work directly for the Post Commander are responsible for MNARNG‟s Conservation Programs statewide. Environmental personnel who work directly for the Facilities Management Office (FMO) have statewide responsibility for MNARNG‟s Compliance, Restoration, and Pollution Prevention Programs. 2009 Conservation Program Report PARTNERSHIPS In the interest of sound conservation, the MNARNG has developed partnerships with a variety of organizations and resource agencies. Some of these partnerships have resulted in formal cooperative agreements with the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MNDNR), Division of Ecological Resources (Appendices C and D) and Division of Forestry, Saint Cloud State University, and Central Lakes College in Brainerd. These have been extremely cost effective and beneficial. The MNARNG also relies on expertise of personnel from other state agencies and organizations who contribute significantly to the support of the MNARNG Conservation Program, including: Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources, The Nature Conservancy, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Minnesota Department of Corrections, Minnesota Department of Transportation, Minnesota Department of Agriculture, Minnesota Department of Health, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota Deer Hunters Association, and Minnesota State Archery Association. Other partners include, Morrison County Soil and Water Conservation District, Crow Wing County Soil and Water Conservation District, and Cass County Soil and Water Conservation District. The success of the Conservation Program for the MNARNG is also attributed to a partnership between the environmental and military operations offices, represented by a shared Training Area Coordinator position. This partnership has enabled the MNARNG to provide a quality training experience for its soldiers without sacrificing the integrity of the Conservation Program. PROGRAM AREAS For the purpose of documenting accomplishments for 2009, the Conservation Program of the MNARNG will be divided into the following program areas: cultural resources, natural resources, land use management, geographic information systems (GIS), and outreach and recreation. Cultural Resources During 2009, the Minnesota State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) responded with concurrence on several projects previously submitted for their review. In March, the SHPO responded that the “Campus” area at AHATS contained no cultural or historic features which cleared the way for the construction of the proposed Readiness Center. Their comments, however included the contingency that the construction would not negatively impact potentially eligible properties located Page 4
on TCCAP land, and that the four sites potentially eligible on AHATS would be protected until further evaluation determined eligibility or a protection plan was in place. In April, the SHPO responded that no adverse effect would be caused by the pending construction on the Camp Ripley Cantonment Area under the Economic Stimulus Incentive initiative. In June, the SHPO concurred with the determination of the Cold War Thematic Study (1946- 1989) and Inventory of Early Cold War Era Properties (1946-1961) as revised, stating that: 1) no properties evaluated on Camp Ripley were eligible , 2) none of the inventoried armories were eligible for their association with the Cold War, but they may have local association significance under Criterion A, and 3) the Hibbing Armory did meet National Register criteria as an example of Bettenburg, Townsend, and Stolte design. In August, the SHPO concurred with the determination made by the Heritage Sites firm that no historic properties would be impacted by the construction of a parking lot at the Chisholm Armory. In a separate response the SHPO responded that the design of the elevator construction at the NR eligible or listed Armories at Madison and New Ulm were in compliance with the Secretary of the Interior‟s Standards for Rehabilitation. In October, the SHPO concurred with the archaeologist‟s findings that on the south side of Training Area 1 an historic site needs to be protected until further evaluated and that the remainder of Training Area 1 contained no historic or prehistoric features. In September, the SHPO concurred with the findings of the evaluation made by Heritage Sites of the Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Lane on Chorwan Road that found no cultural materials within the project area but did locate a prehistoric site just east of the project area that is being protected until further evaluation. Heritage Sites also completed the field investigations for the Forward Operating Base (FOB)- North that located a prehistoric site between two small wetland areas. That site location was one factor that necessitated the relocation of the FOB site further north. The north site was also evaluated by Heritage Sites. Field work was completed on the proposed site for the construction of a Field Maintenance Shop (FMS) for the Mankato Armory. That contract was the first to require a Tribal monitor. The utilization of a Tribal monitor in this instance proved to be most productive. The final reports will be submitted to the SHPO for concurrence. During the summer of 2009, work was completed on the revision of the Integrated Cultural Resource Plan (ICRMP). The ICRMP was submitted to NGB for review and signature. The Integrated Cultural Resource Management Plan 2009-2013 is now approved, signed and a working document. As of the end of 2009, 15,932 acres on Camp Ripley had been evaluated for prehistoric and historic sites (Figure 2). On AHATS, the entire 1,500 acres have been evaluated for historic features and all of the 128 acres of undisturbed soils have been evaluated for prehistoric features. In addition, Page 5 2009 Conservation Program Report
Page 1 and 2: This document is made available ele
Page 3 and 4: Camp Ripley and Arden Hills Minneso
Page 7 and 8: TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page 9 and 10: Program Overview ..................
Page 11 and 12: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Conservation
Page 13: In 2009, the environmental team gav
Page 18 and 19: Figure 1. Location of Camp Ripley a
Page 22 and 23: all of the buildings on AHATS have
Page 24 and 25: Figure 3. Forest stands re-inventor
Page 26 and 27: Figure 4. Forest Inventory and Anal
Page 28 and 29: Figure 5. Location of timber sales
Page 30 and 31: Table 4. Timber sale summary at Cam
Page 32 and 33: 2009 Sales Hodgden Logging B011023
Page 34 and 35: Specific information regarding thes
Page 36 and 37: Figure 10. VEGETATION MANAGEMENT Ca
Page 38 and 39: Figure 11. Fire units burned for ec
Page 40 and 41: Camp Ripley and Arden Hills Army Tr
Page 42 and 43: Figure 14. Picture of the large sca
Page 44 and 45: Figure 17. Results from spraying a
Page 46 and 47: techniques, to current 2009 updates
Page 48 and 49: Figure 20. Total phosphorus results
Page 50 and 51: Totals and Trends Camp Ripley provi
Page 52 and 53: The ovenbird, one of the most commo
Page 54 and 55: methodology were also considered, h
Page 56 and 57: shrubland/grassland sparrow was hig
Page 58 and 59: Woods (3 single boxes) and Camp Rip
Page 60 and 61: Figure 26. Wood duck nesting box lo
Page 62 and 63: Figure 28. Bald eagle nests at and
Page 64 and 65: Figure 29. Owl survey route at Camp
Page 66 and 67: Red-shouldered Hawk (Buteo lineatus
Page 68 and 69: Figure 33. Red-shouldered hawk call
Page 70 and 71:
Ruffed Grouse (Bonasa umbellus) Ruf
Page 72 and 73:
Figure 37. Ruffed grouse drumming s
Page 74 and 75:
(Helianthus spp.), and grass (Poa s
Page 76 and 77:
Table 11. Gray wolves captured at C
Page 78 and 79:
Figure 40. Locations for Wolf #31 a
Page 80 and 81:
Wolf Mortalities Wolf #28 was first
Page 82 and 83:
monitoring of reproduction and cub
Page 84 and 85:
Figure 44. Bear #2079‟s (7 year o
Page 86 and 87:
Figure 45. Bear #2081‟s home rang
Page 88 and 89:
Scent Post Survey The MNDNR has con
Page 90 and 91:
Cougar (Puma concolor) and Canada L
Page 92 and 93:
Figure 50. Cougar and Canada lynx d
Page 94 and 95:
Ground and aerial tracking were use
Page 96 and 97:
Figure 51. Calculated 90% minimum c
Page 98 and 99:
Many problem areas can be addressed
Page 100 and 101:
Figure 54. Locations of ANABAT surv
Page 102 and 103:
Table 16. Summary of Blanding‟s t
Page 104 and 105:
Figure 56. Observations and nest lo
Page 106 and 107:
Figure 59. Precipitation (inches) a
Page 108 and 109:
Figure 62. Anuran survey routes at
Page 110 and 111:
Table 17. Anuran survey index data
Page 112 and 113:
Grassland plots (n=7) contained 20
Page 114 and 115:
Average Number of Species per Plot
Page 116 and 117:
Henslow’s sparrow (Ammodramus hen
Page 118 and 119:
large (See Hunting Programs section
Page 120 and 121:
Table 22. Small mammal live trappin
Page 122 and 123:
and was completed by 3:30 PM. Surve
Page 124 and 125:
Table 24. Bird species observed at
Page 126 and 127:
Lake Allot is managed for a wide di
Page 128 and 129:
Complete details regarding the ACUB
Page 130 and 131:
Figure 72. Camp Ripley ACUB fiscal
Page 132 and 133:
Range and Training Land Assessment
Page 134 and 135:
Figure 73. Farmstead mitigation sit
Page 136 and 137:
A natural resource damage assessmen
Page 138 and 139:
UTILIZATION Derived Digital Terrain
Page 140 and 141:
HUNTING PROGRAMS Camp Ripley has ha
Page 142 and 143:
Table 32. Deployed soldier‟s arch
Page 144 and 145:
Table 34. General public archery wh
Page 146 and 147:
AHATS Volunteer Archery Deer Hunt T
Page 148 and 149:
2009 Conservation Program Report RE
Page 150 and 151:
Koper, N. and R. J. Brooks. 2000. E
Page 152 and 153:
U.S. Department of Agriculture. 200
Page 154 and 155:
Section INRMP Goal INRMP Ensure ade
Page 156 and 157:
Section INRMP Goal Section INRMP Go
Page 158 and 159:
Section INRMP Goal 2009 Conservatio
Page 160 and 161:
Section INRMP Goal Forestry Emphasi
Page 162 and 163:
Section INRMP Goal Forestry Monitor
Page 164 and 165:
Section INRMP Goal Goal Created Sec
Page 166 and 167:
Section INRMP Goal Land Use Minimiz
Page 168 and 169:
Section INRMP Goal Wildlife Monitor
Page 170 and 171:
Section INRMP Goal Wildlife Monitor
Page 172 and 173:
Section INRMP Goal Fisheries Contin
Page 174 and 175:
Section INRMP Goal 2009 Conservatio
Page 176 and 177:
Section INRMP Goal RTLA Provide inf
Page 178 and 179:
Section INRMP Goal GIS Maintain har
Page 180 and 181:
Section INRMP Goal TRI Provide mili
Page 182 and 183:
Section INRMP Goal SRA Instill a se
Page 184 and 185:
2009 Conservation Program Report AD
Page 186 and 187:
2009 Conservation Program Report RT
Page 188 and 189:
Section INRMP Goal Goal Created TRI
Page 190 and 191:
Section INRMP Goal Goal Created 200
Page 192 and 193:
Section INRMP Goal Goal Created 200
Page 194 and 195:
2009 Conservation Program Report FI
Page 196 and 197:
2009 Conservation Program Report FI
Page 198 and 199:
2009 Conservation Program Report Pa
Page 200 and 201:
Page 202 and 203:
Page 204 and 205:
Page 206 and 207:
Page 208 and 209:
2. Opening Remarks. COL Weaver welc
Page 210 and 211:
4. Fifteen of the most hazardous fa
Page 212 and 213:
Natural Resources: There was an inf
Page 214 and 215:
Page 216 and 217:
Page 218 and 219:
Page 220 and 221:
2008 Minnesota Statutes 190.25 LAND
Page 222 and 223:
2009 Conservation Program Report BY
Page 224 and 225:
d. Old business e. New business f.
Page 226 and 227:
Page 228 and 229:
# of ECS subsections Tax Scientific
Page 230 and 231:
Page 232 and 233:
Page 234 and 235:
To meet thermoregulatory demands as
Page 236 and 237:
Hillerman, J. P., F. H. Kratzer, an
Page 238 and 239:
Page 240 and 241:
Principal Investigator: Dr. John Kr
Page 242 and 243:
3. Determine characteristics used b
Page 244 and 245:
calculated following Kuehn (1985).
Page 246 and 247:
Zielinski, W. J., F. V. Schlexer, K
Page 248 and 249:
2009 Conservation Program Report Na
Page 250 and 251:
Project Title: Training Area 4 Nati
Page 252 and 253:
Project Title: Training Area 8 Borr
Page 254 and 255:
Project Title: Training Area 9 Wild
Page 256 and 257:
Project Title: Training Area 10 Wil
Page 258 and 259:
Listed below is a summery table tha
Page 260 and 261:
Page 244 2009 Conservation Program
Page 264:
Equal opportunity to participate in
show all

camp ripley and arden hills minnesota army national guard training ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?