DOCSLIB.ORG

Biologically Significant Illinois Streams

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Biologically Significant Illinois Streams H I LJ O S UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGN PRODUCTION NOTE University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Library Large-scale Digitization Project, 2007. Z2u3o-S lI( ý( ji(DI( ) BIOLOGICALLY SIGNIFICANT ILLINOIS STREAMS An Evaluation of the Streams of Illinois Based on Aquatic Biodiversity (Part I1: Text) Lawrence M. Page, Kevin S. Cummings, Christine A. Mayer, and Susan L. Post Center for Biodiversity Technical Report 1991(4) Illinois Natural History Survey 607 East Peabody Drive Champaign, Illinois 61820 repared for Illinois Department of Conservation 524 South Second Street Springfield, Illinois 62701-1787 and Illinois Department of Energy and Natural Resources 325 West Adams Springfield, Illinois 62704-1892 DRAFT 31 December 1991 TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction ......................................................................... 1 M ethods ............................................................................. 4 1. Galena, Apple, and Plum River Systems.......................... 10 Introduction............................................................... 11 Water Quality ............................................................. 12 Fishes..................................................................... 13 Mussels................................................................... 13 Crustaceans .............................................................. 14 Plants ...................................................................... 14 Biologically Significant Streams......................................14 2. Rock River System........................................................... 16 Introduction............................................................... 17 WaterQuality ............................................................ 19 Fishes.....................................................................20 Mussels....................................................................21 Crustaceans ............................................... .................23 Plants ...................................................................... 23 Biologically Significant Streams......................................23 3. Middle Mississippi River Tributaries ...................................... 24 Introduction...............................................................25 Water Quality ....... ................................................. 27 Fishes................................................................... .27 M ussels....................................................................28 Crustaceans ............................................................... 28 Plants ................................................................. 28 Biologically Significant Streams......................................29 4. Des Plaines River and Lake Michigan Tributaries.........................30 Introduction...............................................................31 Water Quality ............................................................ 32 Fishes..................................................................33 M ussels....................................................................33 Crustaceans ............................................................... 34 Plants ...................................................................... 34 Biologically Significant Streams........................................35 5. Fox River System.............................................................36 Introduction..............................................................37 Water Quality ............................................................ 38 Fishes..................................... .39 Mussels...................................................................40 Crustaceans .............................................................. 41 Plants .................................................................... 41 Biologically Significant Streams..................................... 43 6. Little Vermilion River, Big Bureau and Kickapoo Creek Systems......44 Introduction...............................................................45 Water Quality ............................................................. 46 Fishes......................................................................46 Mussels....................................................................46 Crustaceans ............................................................... 47 Plants ...... .......... .................................................. 47 Biologically Significant Streams........................................47 7. Kankakee-Iroquois River System........................................... 48 Introduction.............................................................49 Water Quality ............................................................ 50 Fishes...................................................................... 51 Mussels....................................................................52 Crustaceans ............................................................... 54 Plants ................................................................. 54 Biologically Significant Streams......................................54 8. Vermilion and Mazon River Systems.......................................56 Introduction ............................................................... 57 Water Quality ......................................................... 58 Fishes...................................................................... 58 Mussels..................................................................59 Crustaceans ......................................................... 60 Plants .................................................................. 60 Biologically Significant Streams........................................60 9. Spoon River System......................................................62 Introduction.............................................................63 Water Quality ........................................................... 63 Fishes..................................................................... 64 Mussels....................................................................64 Crustaceans .............................................................. 65 Plants ...................................................................... 66 Biologically Significant Streams.......................................66 10. La Moine River System..............................................68 Introduction .............................................................69 Water Quality ......................... .................................... 70 Fishes......................................................................70 Mussels ........... ......................................................... 71 Crustaceans ................................... .........................71 Plants .................................................. ............. 71 Biologically Significant Streams......... ................... .. 71 11. Mackinaw River System..................................................72 Introduction.............................................................73 Water Quality ............................................................. 74 Fishes....................................................................74 Mussels..................................................................74 Crustaceans ............................................................... 75 Plants ...................................................................... 75 Biologically Significant Streams.......................................76 12. Sangamon River System................................ ............... 78 Introduction.......................................... ........ ............ 79 Water Quality ............................................................ 80 Fishes.................................................................. 81 Mussels....................................... ...................... 81 Crustaceans ........................................................... ... 83 Plants ..................................................................... 83 Biologically Significant Streams.....................................84 13. Lower Illinois River Tributaries and American Bottoms................86 Introduction........................................ ...... ............. 87 Water Quality .................... ................................. 90 Fishes.................................................. .................. 90 Mussels.......... .................................................. 90 Crustaceans ........................................................... 91 Plants . ............................................................... 91 Biologically Significant Streams........................................91 14. Kaskaskia River System .................................................92 Introduction ........... ............................... ..................93 Water Quality ........................................................... 94 Fishes ................................................................... 95 Mussels........ .................................... ......................... 95 Crustaceans .............................................................. 97 Plants ...................................................................... 97 Biologically Significant Streams.. ....... ........................97 15. Big Muddy River System
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Upper Mississippi River Conservation Opportunity Area Wildlife Action Plan
    Version 3 Summer 2012 UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER CONSERVATION OPPORTUNITY AREA WILDLIFE ACTION PLAN Daniel Moorehouse Mississippi River Pool 19 A cooperative, inter-agency partnership for the implementation of the Illinois Wildlife Action Plan in the Upper Mississippi River Conservation Opportunity Area Prepared by: Angella Moorehouse Illinois Nature Preserves Commission Elliot Brinkman Prairie Rivers Network We gratefully acknowledge the Grand Victoria Foundation's financial support for the preparation of this plan. Table of Contents List of Figures .............................................................................................................................. ii Acronym List .............................................................................................................................. iii I. Introduction to Conservation Opportunity Areas ....................................................................1 II. Upper Mississippi River COA ..................................................................................................3 COAs Embedded within Upper Mississippi River COA ..............................................................5 III. Plan Organization .................................................................................................................7 IV. Vision Statement ..................................................................................................................8 V. Climate Change .......................................................................................................................9
    [Show full text]
  • Freshwater Mussels of the Mississippi River Tributaries: North, North Central, and Central Drainages
    Freshwater mussels of the Mississippi River tributaries: North, North Central, and Central drainages Alison P. Stodola, Sarah A. Bales, Diane K. Shasteen INHS Technical Report 2013 (09) Prepared for: Illinois Department of Natural Resources: Office of Resource Conservation U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Illinois Natural History Survey Issued February 22, 2013 Prairie Research Institute, University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign William Shilts, Executive Director Illinois Natural History Survey Brian D. Anderson, Director 1816 South Oak Street Champaign, IL 61820 217-333-6830 Freshwater mussels of the Mississippi River tributaries: North, North Central and Central drainages 2013 Illinois Natural History Survey, Prairie Research Institute, University of Illinois Illinois Department of Natural Resources Alison P. Stodola, Sarah A. Bales, Diane K. Shasteen 0 Preface While broad geographic information is available on the distribution and abundance of mussels in Illinois, systematically collected mussel-community data sets required to integrate mussels into aquatic community assessments do not exist. In 2009, a project funded by a US Fish and Wildlife Service State Wildlife Grant was undertaken to survey and assess the freshwater mussel populations at wadeable sites from 33 stream basins in conjunction with the Illinois Department of Natural Resources (IDNR)/Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA) basin surveys. Inclusion of mussels into these basin surveys contributes to the comprehensive basin monitoring programs that include water and sediment chemistry, instream habitat, macroinvertebrate, and fish, which reflect a broad spectrum of abiotic and biotic stream resources. These mussel surveys will provide reliable and repeatable techniques for assessing the freshwater mussel community in sampled streams. These surveys also provide data for future monitoring of freshwater mussel populations on a local, regional, and watershed basis.
    [Show full text]
  • DRAFT TMDL Salt Fork Vermilion River Watershed
    DRAFT TMDL Salt Fork Vermilion River Watershed Prepared for: Illinois Environmental Protection Agency July 2007 Spoon Branch (IL_BPJD-02): Dissolved oxygen Salt Fork Vermilion River (IL_BPJ-10): Nitrate, pH Salt Fork Vermilion River (IL_BPJ-08): Nitrate, pH Salt Fork Vermilion River (IL_BPJ-03): Nitrate, fecal coliform bacteria Ann Arbor, Michigan www.limno.com This page is blank to facilitate double sided printing. Draft TMDL July 2007 Salt Fork Vermilion River Watershed TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction..........................................................................................................................1 1. Problem Identification .....................................................................................................3 2. Required TMDL Elements...............................................................................................5 3. Watershed Characterization...........................................................................................19 4. Description of Applicable Standards and Numeric Targets ..........................................25 4.1 Designated Uses and Use Support .........................................................................25 4.2 Water Quality Criteria............................................................................................25 4.3 Development of TMDL Targets ............................................................................26 5. Development of water quality modelS ..........................................................................29
    [Show full text]
  • River Mileages and Drainage Areas for Illinois Streams—Volume 2, Illinois River Basin
    RIVER MILEAGES AND DRAINAGE AREAS FOR ILLINOIS STREAMS—VOLUME 2, ILLINOIS RIVER BASIN U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Water-Resources Investigations Report 79-111 Prepared in cooperation with the U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS RIVER MILEAGES AND DRAINAGE AREAS FOR ILLINOIS STREAMS—VOLUME 2, ILLINOIS RIVER BASIN By R. W. Healy U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Water-Resources Investigations Report 79-111 Prepared in cooperation with the U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS 1979 CONTENTS Conversion Table . .iv Abstract . .1 Introduction . .1 Methods . .2 Explanation of tables . .2 References . .3 Index . .291 ILLUSTRATIONS Figure 1. Map showing Illinois counties . .4 2. Map showing stream systems, hydrologic units, and major cities in Illinois. .6 TABLE Table 1. River mileages and drainage areas for Illinois streams . .8 i CONVERSION TABLE Multiply inch-pound unit By To obtain SI (metric) unit mile (mi) 1.609 kilometer (km) square mile (mi2) 2.590 square kilometer (km2) iv RIVER MILEAGES AND DRAINAGE FOR ILLINOIS STREAMS— Volume 2, Illinois River Basin By R. W. Healy ABSTRACT River mileages are presented for points of interest on Illinois streams draining 10 square miles or more. Points of interest include bridges, dams, gaging stations, county lines, hydrologic unit boundaries, and major tributaries. Drainage areas are presented for selected sites, including total drainage area for any streams draining at least 100 square miles. INTRODUCTION Expansion of water-resource investigations within the State of Illinois has amplified the need for a common index to locations on streams. A common index would aid in the coordination of various stream-related activities by facilitating data collection and interpretation.
    [Show full text]
  • Lakes in the Vermilion (Wabash) River Watershed
    29. Vermilion (Wabash) River Watershed N Good BPKS Fair Poor Watershed Boundary County Boundaries Reference Communities VERMILION BPG BPKQ BPGD BPKP BPGE FORD BPKK CHAMPAIGN BPKI BPKL BPGC BPJI BPK BPJG BPGB STREAM CODES BPKF BPK BO Little Vermilion River BPJD BOB Yankee Branch BPKE BPKB BPF BOC Fairview Ditch BPJM BOD Fayette Creek BPJC BPJL BPG BOE Swank Creek BOG Archie Creek BOH Baum Branch BPK BOI Freedwell Branch BPJB BOJ Goodall Branch BP BOZ Ellis Branch BPJN BP Vermilion River BPJCA BPF BPE Grape Creek BPI Stoney Creek BPF BP BPG North Fork Vermilion River BPJ BPE BPGB Painter Creek BPJA BOD Jordan Creek BPGC BPJF BPGD Hoopeston Branch BOZ PBGE Middle Branch BPI Butler Branch BO BOE BOC BPJ Salt Fork Vermilion River BOI BO BPJA Jordan Creek Stony Creek BPJB BOH BPJC Saline Branch BOJ BPJCA Boneyard Creek BOB BPJD Spoon Branch BPJF Olive Branch BOG BPJG Upper Salt Fork Drainage Ditch BPJI Flatville Branch Water Quality Comparison BPJL Feather Creek BPJM Union Drainage Ditch 59.3% 5 0 5 10 Miles BPJN Conkey Branch 88.1% 1.3% 0.8% BPK Middle Fork Vermilion River 10.6% BPKB Windfall Creek 39.9% BPKE Collison Branch BPKF Knights Branch BPKI Bluegrass Creek Basin 29 Statewide BPKK Sugar Creek PBKL Prairie Creek BPKP Big Four Ditch BPKQ Big Four Ditch Tributary Illinois Environmental Protection Agency BPKS Wall Town Ditch Bureau of Water Surface Water Section 29. Vermilion (Wabash) River Watershed LAKE CODES N CLEAR (VERMILION) RBR CRYSTAL (CHAMPAIGN) RBU GEORGETOWN RBS HOMER RBO LONG (VERMILION) RBM MINGO RBN VERMILION RBD WILLOW CREEK RBY FORD VERMILION CHAMPAIGN # RBN RBD# RBR# # # RBM RBU RBO# # RBY # RBS 5 0 5 10 15 20 Miles # Good Water Quality Comparison # Fair # Poor 9.4% 15.9% Watershed Boundary 90.6% 74.2% 9.9% County Boundaries Rivers and Streams Illinois Environmental Protection Agency Reference Communities Bureau of Water Surface Water Section Basin 29 Statewide.
    [Show full text]
  • Upper Kishwaukee River Watershed Plan Technical Report
    Upper Kishwaukee River Watershed Plan Technical Report November 2008 Upper Kishwaukee River Watershed Plan November 2008 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This report was prepared using U.S. Environmental Protection Agency funds under Section 319 of the Clean Water Act distributed through the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency. The findings and rec- ommendations contained herein are not necessarily those of the funding agencies. Additionally, the Chi- cago Metropolitan Agency for Planning (CMAP) provided a cash-match contribution as did the Kish- waukee River Ecosystem Partnership (KREP) through a grant from the Grand Victoria Foundation that was administered by the Natural Land Institute. Openlands also provided in-kind match. The planning process was coordinated by KREP and CMAP. Contributors to the plan include Jesse Elam, Kristin Heery, Lori Heringa, and Tim Loftus of CMAP and Ders Anderson of Openlands/KREP. Nathan Hill of KREP provided GIS consultation and map analysis. Hey and Associates, Inc. provided assistance with urban best management practices and ecosystem restoration recommendations. The authors grate- fully acknowledge the many contributors to this planning process and especially thank the staff of the Village of Lakewood, City of Crystal Lake, City of Woodstock, McHenry County Department of Planning and Development, McHenry County Conservation District, McHenry County Soil and Water Conserva- tion District, Natural Resources Conservation Service, McHenry County Health Department, and mem- bers of the Kishwaukee River Ecosystem Partnership. Finally, the authors wish to acknowledge the work and stewardship role of the Kishwaukee River Ecosys- tem Partnership. Prior to this planning process, KREP developed initial watershed plans for each of the 42 subwatersheds of the Kishwaukee River Basin.
    [Show full text]
  • Volume 32, Issue 36 September 5, 2008 Pages 14367-14620
    Volume 32, Issue 36 September 5, 2008 Pages 14367-14620 TABLE OF CONTENTS September 05, 2008 Volume 32, Issue 36 PROPOSED RULES CENTRAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES, DEPARTMENT OF Extensions of Jurisdiction 80 Ill. Adm. Code 305 .............................................................................14367 HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION Procedural Rules 56 Ill. Adm. Code 5300 ...........................................................................14371 NATURAL RESOURCES, DEPARTMENT OF The Taking of Wild Turkeys - Spring Season 17 Ill. Adm. Code 710 .............................................................................14378 Viral Hemorrhagic Septicemia Virus 17 Ill. Adm. Code 875 .............................................................................14401 Special Wildlife Funds Grant Program 17 Ill. Adm. Code 3060 ...........................................................................14413 Dam Safety Requirements 17 Ill. Adm. Code 3703 ...........................................................................14445 PUBLIC HEALTH, DEPARTMENT OF Loan Repayment Assistance for Dentists 77 Ill. Adm. Code 580 .............................................................................14455 Child Health Examination Code 77 Ill. Adm. Code 665 .............................................................................14465 STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION Incentive Grants for Agricultural Science Teacher Education 23 Ill. Adm. Code 75 ...............................................................................14489 ADOPTED RULES COMMERCE COMMISSION,
    [Show full text]
  • Water Resources Research Center in the District of Columbia: Water
    DC WRRC Report. No. 36 UNIVERSITY OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Water Resources Research Center WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Water Supply Management In the District of Columbia: An Institutional Assessment by Daniel P. Beard, Principal Investigator February 1982 WATER SUPPLY MANAGEMENT IN TI-M DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: AN INSTITUTIONAL ASSESSMENT WRRC Report No. 36 by Or. Daniel Beard ERRATA The following errors should be corrected as follows: Page V-5, Line 11 - The diameter of the conduit from Great Falls is 9 ft. not 90 ft. Page V-6, Line 18 - The operation of the water department of the District is not under the Chief of Engineers. Page V-8, Figure 14 - The line of supply to the Federal Government in Virginia is through the D.C.-DES, not through Arlington County. Page VI-8 - Mr. Jean B. Levesque was the Administrator of the Water Resources Management Administration of the Department of Environmental Services. DISCLAIMER "Contents of this publication do not necessarily reflect the views and policies of the United States Department of the Interior, Office of Water Research and Technology, nor does mention of trade names or commercial products constitute their endorsement or recommendation for use by the United States Government”. ABSTRACT This study defines the District of Columbia's water management structure, explains how it operates, delineates the issues it will have to deal with in the 1980's, and assesses how the District is prepared to deal with these issues. The study begins with a description of the Potomac River Basin and the physical environment water managers in the Washington Metropolitan have to deal with.
    [Show full text]
  • Charles Springer of Cranehook-On-The-Delaware His Descendants and Allied Families by Jessie Evelyn Springer
    Charles Springer of Cranehook-on-the-Delaware His Descendants and Allied Families By JESSIE EVELYN SPRINGER ACKNOWLEDGMENTS For help on Springer research grateful acknow­ ledgment is extended to Mrs. Courtland B. Springer of Upper Darby, Pennsylvania, Mrs. Louise Eddleman, -Springfield, Kentucky, Mable Warner Milligan, Indian­ apolis, now deceased; the allied families, Gary Edward Young; John McKendree Springer, now deceased; Thomas Oglesby Springer and Lucinda Irwin, deceased; and Mary, Raymond and Theora Hahn. Much material has been secured from genealogies previously pub­ lished on the Benedicts, Saffords, Bontecous, and others, brought down to date by correspondence or interviews with Cora Taintor Brown, Springfield, Illi­ nois; Evelyn Safford Dew, Newark, Delaware; Isabell Gillham Crowder Helgevold, Chicago; John Harris Watts, Grand Junction, Iowa, and Glenn L. Head, Springfield, Illinois Charles Springer of Cranehook-on-the-Delaware His Descendants and Allied Families by Jessie Evelyn Springer OUR HERITAGE FORWORD Sarah John English has said "Genealogy, or the history of families, is not a service to the past gener­ ations, or a glorification of the dead, but a service to the living, and to coming generations." A study of those who gave us life can help us understand what makes us tick, and help us tolerate ourselves and each other. As this is the story of the heritage of four Springer sisters - Mary Springer Jackson, Florence Springer Volk, Carolyn Springer Dalton, and Jessie Springer, spinster, it seems best, to the writer, after
    [Show full text]
  • The Kishwaukee River Ecosystem Partnership (KREP)
    Andrew Hulin Illinois Department Natural Resources Office of Resource Conservation 1 Natural Resources Way Springfield, IL 62702 The Kishwaukee River Ecosystem Partnership (KREP) respectfully requests that the boundaries of the Crow’s Foot Marsh – Coon Creek Kishwaukee River Conservation Opportunity Area (COA) as defined in the THE ILLINOIS COMPREHENSIVE WILDLIFE CONSERVATION PLAN & STRATEGY (THE PLAN) be amended to reflect the conservation priorities developed through the watershed planning work that KREP completed in 2006. KREP also requests the name be changed to the Kishwaukee River COA. KREP is confident that the proposed COA boundary encompasses those areas that are currently being managed in support of the plan, as well as areas that are IMPERATIVE for its implementation and that meet ecological objectives. KREP was formed around the Kishwaukee River Resource Rich Area in 1997 as part of the Conservation 2000 and Critical Trends and Assessment Program established by the Illinois Department of Natural Resources (IDNR). A diverse set of watershed stakeholders serve on the board of KREP, representing resource agencies like County Conservation and Forest Preserve Districts, non profit land conservancies, NRCS/SWCD’s and Park Districts, as well as municipalities, landowners and academia (NIU). In 2006, KREP published the results of an extensive Natural Resource Inventory and Strategic Plan for Habitat Restoration and Conservation for the Kishwaukee River Watershed (See attached documents). KREPS Strategic plan and report (available online: http://krep.bios.niu.edu) includes all of the mapped natural resource information available within the watershed at the time it was developed. KREP collected, created or modified a 5 GB Geographic Information Systems (GIS) spatial database of this natural resource information.
    [Show full text]
  • 1988007W.Pdf
    TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE LIST OF FIGURES n LIST OF TABLES w LIST OF APPENDICES iv ABSTRACT 1 INTRODUCTION 1 I OBJECTIVES OF STUDY 3 ∎ METHODS 3 I DESCRIPTION OF STUDY AREA 7 RESULTS 7 SPECIES ACCOUNTS 13 Federally Endangered Species 13 Federal Candidate Species 15 I Proposed State Endangered Species 15 Proposed State Threatened Species 16 Watch List Species 16 Other Species 17 I Introduced Species 33 ∎ DISCUSSION 33 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 35 LITERATURE CITED 36 I I I I LIST OF FIGURES PAGE Figure 1 . Collection sites in the Little Wabash River drainage, 1988 6 Figure 2. The Little Wabash River and its tributaries 8 Figure 3. Number of individuals collected liver per site in the Little Wabash River (main channel) in 1988 12 I Figure 4 . Number of species collected per site in the Little Wabash River (main channel) in 1988 12 I I I I I I LIST OF TABLES PAGE Table 1 . Comparison of the mussel species of the Little Wabash River reported by Baker (1906) and others [pre-1950], Fechtner (1963) [1951-53], Parmalee [1954], Matteson [1956], INHS [1957-88], and this study 4 Table 2 . Collection sites in the Little Wabash River drainage, 1988 5 Table 3 . Total,rank order of abundance and percent composition of the mussel species collected live in the Little Wabash River drainage, 1988 9 Table 4. Site by site listing of all mussel species collected in the Little Wabash River drainage, 1988 10-11 Table 5. Site by site listing of all mussel species collected by M .R . Matteson in the Little Wabash River, 1956 14 I I iii LIST OF APPENDICES PAGE Appendix I .
    [Show full text]
  • Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices
    This document can be accessed on the Shawnee National Forest website: www.fs.fed.us/r9/forests/shawnee. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 14th and Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (202) 720-5964 (voice and TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. Shawnee National Forest Forest Plan FEIS Appendix A – Forest Plan Revision Issues and Public Involvement APPENDIX A FOREST PLAN REVISION ISSUES AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT I. INTRODUCTION The first SNF Land and Resource Management Plan (Plan) was approved on November 24, 1986. In 1988, following 23 administrative appeals, the Forest met with appellants and reached a settlement agreement. Significant changes in the Plan resulted in an amended Forest Plan signed in 1992. A lawsuit on nine counts was filed against the Plan in 1994. The court ruled in favor of the Forest Service on five counts and in favor of the plaintiffs on four. The court remanded the entire Plan, but allowed implementation, enjoining specific activities, including commercial, hardwood-timber harvest, ATV trail designation and oil and gas development.
    [Show full text]