DOCSLIB.ORG

SUMMARY of the FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT for the BOISE NATIONAL FOREST, PAYETTE NATIONAL FOREST, and SAWTOOTH NATIONAL FOREST FOREST PLAN REVISION

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
SUMMARY of the FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT for the BOISE NATIONAL FOREST, PAYETTE NATIONAL FOREST, and SAWTOOTH NATIONAL FOREST FOREST PLAN REVISION Summary Final Environmental Impact Statement SUMMARY Of The FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT For The BOISE NATIONAL FOREST, PAYETTE NATIONAL FOREST, And SAWTOOTH NATIONAL FOREST FOREST PLAN REVISION Ada, Adams, Blaine, Boise, Camas, Canyon, Cassia, Custer, Elmore, Gem, Gooding, Idaho, Jerome, Lincoln, Minidoka, Owyhee, Payette, Twin Falls, Valley, and Washington Counties, Idaho; Malheur County, Oregon; and Box Elder County, Utah Lead Agency: USDA Forest Service: Boise National Forest Payette National Forest Sawtooth National Forest 1249 South Vinnell Way, 800 W. Lakeside Avenue 2647 Kimberly Road East Suite 200 P.O. Box 1026 Twin Falls, ID 83301 Boise, ID 83709 McCall, ID 83638 208-737-3200 208-373-4100 208-634-0700 Responsible Official: Jack Troyer, Regional Forester Intermountain Region USDA Forest Service 324 25th Street Ogden, UT 84401 801-625-5605 For Further Information Contact: Richard Smith, Forest Supervisor Mark Madrid, Forest Supervisor Ruth Monahan, Boise National Forest Payette National Forest Forest Supervisor 1249 South Vinnell Way, Suite 200 800 W. Lakeside Avenue Sawtooth National Forest Boise, ID 83709 P.O. Box 1026 2647 Kimberly Road East 208-373-4100 McCall, ID 83638 Twin Falls, ID 83301 208-634-0700 208-737-3200 S - 1 Summary Final Environmental Impact Statement ABSTRACT: This Final Environmental Impact Statement Summary documents the analysis of seven alternatives, which were developed for possible management of the 2.2 million acres administered by the Boise National Forest in Idaho; 2.3 million acres administered by the Payette National Forest in Idaho; and 2.1 million acres administered by the Sawtooth National Forest in Idaho and Utah. Alternatives developed in detail are identified as 1B, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7. Alternative 1B (the No Action Alternative) continues management direction from the current Forest Plans as amended by Pacfish and Infish and as adjusted to include the terms of the Biological Opinions for fish species listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act. Alternative 2 (modified Proposed Action) provides for a mix of uses and restoration activities. Alternative 3 emphasizes watershed and vegetation restoration to achieve or approach historical range of variation for the biophysical resources. Alternative 4 reduces risks to species viability and ecological integrity by minimizing human-caused disturbance over the short term. Alternative 5 emphasizes production of goods and services within the sustainable limits of the ecosystem. Alternative 6 reduces human-caused risks to the ecological values of Inventoried Roadless Areas and unroaded areas by minimizing management activities and eliminating incompatible uses. Alternative 7 was developed between the Draft and Final EIS to address a number of comments on the Draft EIS that identified key issues and concerns, including listed species protection, watershed and aquatic restoration priority, roadless area conservation, National Fire Plan and Healthy Forests Initiative, and timber commodity production. The Selected Alternative will guide all natural resource management activities on the Forests; address changed conditions and direction that have occurred since the original plans were released; and meet the objectives of federal laws, regulations, and policies. The Selected Alternative is identified and described in the Records of Decision for this Final EIS. The policy of the United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, religion, sex, or disability, familial status, or political affiliation. Persons believing they have been discriminated against in any Forest Service related activity should write to: Chief, Forest Service USDA, P.O. Box 96090 Washington, DC 20090-6090 S - 2 Summary Final Environmental Impact Statement TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No. The Proposed Action....................................................................................................................S-3 Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action.................................................................................S-3 Purpose of the Proposed Action..............................................................................................S-3 Need for the Proposed Action.................................................................................................S-3 Changes from DEIS to FEIS...................................................................................................S-8 The Southwest Idaho Ecogroup ..............................................................................................S-9 Decisions To Be Made...............................................................................................................S-10 Issues..........................................................................................................................................S-11 Issue Identification................................................................................................................S-11 Significant Issues ..................................................................................................................S-12 Preliminary Issues Not Addressed in Detail .........................................................................S-25 National and Regional Issues................................................................................................S-27 Development of the Reasonable Range of Alternatives ............................................................S-31 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study..................................................S-32 Group 1: Alternatives Refined To Better Reflect Alternative Emphasis..............................S-32 Group 2: Alternatives That Did Not Meet Purpose and Need For Change and/or Did Not Address A Significant Issue to Drive Alternative Development ............................S-34 Group 3: Alternatives Already Represented within the Range of Alternatives Considered in Detail..............................................................................................................S-38 Alternatives Considered in Detail..............................................................................................S-39 Elements Common to All Alternatives .................................................................................S-39 Alternative 1B.......................................................................................................................S-45 Alternative 2..........................................................................................................................S-47 Alternative 3..........................................................................................................................S-51 Alternative 4..........................................................................................................................S-53 Alternative 5..........................................................................................................................S-56 Alternative 6..........................................................................................................................S-58 Alternative 7..........................................................................................................................S-61 Comparison of Alternatives .......................................................................................................S-65 Selected Outcomes and Activities by Alternative ................................................................S-65 Comparison of Alternative Effects on Resource Issues and Indicators................................S-67 The Preferred Alternative Identified in the DEIS ....................................................................S-128 S - 3 Summary Final Environmental Impact Statement THE PROPOSED ACTION The Forest Service proposes to revise the Land and Resource Management Plans (hereafter referred to as “Forest Plans”) for the Sawtooth, Payette, and Boise National Forests. These revisions are proposed to meet legal and regulatory requirements, and to address changes, issues, and concerns that have arisen since the Forest Plans were originally released for the Sawtooth National Forest (1987), Payette National Forest (1988), and the Boise National Forest (1990). The area covered under this revision includes the National Forests in the Southwest Idaho Ecogroup, shown in Figure 1-1. The Notice of Intent to revise the Boise and Payette Forest Plans, and amend the Sawtooth Forest Plan was published in the Federal Register on April 24, 1998. A revised Notice of Intent to revise all three Forest Plans was published in the Federal Register on May 17, 1999. The Federal Register was also used to announce the release of the Draft and Final Environmental Impact Statements and the Records of Decision. PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION Purpose of the Proposed Action The purpose of the Proposed Action is to provide revised Boise, Payette, and Sawtooth Forest Plans that will: (1) guide all natural resource management activities on the Forests, (2) address changed conditions and direction that have occurred since the original plans were released, and (3) meet the objectives of federal laws, regulations, and policies. This purpose will be met by selecting a management strategy that best achieves a combination of the following goals: · Maintain or restore long-term ecosystem health
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Updated Site Characterization Data Inventory
    INL/MIS-16-38127-D DE-EE0007159 Rev. 1 Updated Site Characterization Data Inventory May 2016 DISCLAIMER This information was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the U.S. Government. Neither the U.S. Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, expressed or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness, of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. References herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trade mark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the U.S. Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the U.S. Government or any agency thereof. INL/MIS-16-38127-D Rev. 1 Updated Site Characterization Data Inventory May 2016 Snake River Geothermal Consortium Hosted by Idaho National Laboratory Idaho Falls, Idaho www.snakerivergeothermal.org Prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Under DOE Idaho Operations Office Contract DE-AC07-05ID14517 CONTENTS ACRONYMS ............................................................................................................................................... ix 1. DATA MADE AVAILABLE THROUGH THE GEOTHERMAL DATA REPOSITORY ARCHIVE .........................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Geologic Map of the Twin Falls 30 X 60 Minute Quadrangle, Idaho
    Geologic Map of the Twin Falls 30 x 60 Minute Quadrangle, Idaho Compiled and Mapped by Kurt L. Othberg, John D. Kauffman, Virginia S. Gillerman, and Dean L. Garwood 2012 Idaho Geological Survey Third Floor, Morrill Hall University of Idaho Geologic Map 49 Moscow, Idaho 83843-3014 2012 Geologic Map of the Twin Falls 30 x 60 Minute Quadrangle, Idaho Compiled and Mapped by Kurt L. Othberg, John D. Kauffman, Virginia S. Gillerman, and Dean L. Garwood INTRODUCTION 43˚ 115˚ The geology in the 1:100,000-scale Twin Falls 30 x 23 13 18 7 8 25 60 minute quadrangle is based on field work conduct- ed by the authors from 2002 through 2005, previous 24 17 14 16 19 20 26 1:24,000-scale maps published by the Idaho Geological Survey, mapping by other researchers, and compilation 11 10 from previous work. Mapping sources are identified 9 15 12 6 in Figures 1 and 2. The geologic mapping was funded in part by the STATEMAP and EDMAP components 5 1 2 22 21 of the U.S. Geological Survey’s National Cooperative 4 3 42˚ 30' Geologic Mapping Program (Figure 1). We recognize 114˚ that small map units in the Snake River Canyon are dif- 1. Bonnichsen and Godchaux, 1995a 15. Kauffman and Othberg, 2005a ficult to identify at this map scale and we direct readers 2. Bonnichsen and Godchaux, 16. Kauffman and Othberg, 2005b to the 1:24,000-scale geologic maps shown in Figure 1. 1995b; Othberg and others, 2005 17. Kauffman and others, 2005a 3.
    [Show full text]
  • Species Status Assessment Report for the Columbia Spotted Frog (Rana Luteiventris), Great Basin Distinct Population Segment
    Species Status Assessment Report for the Columbia Spotted Frog (Rana luteiventris) Great Basin Distinct Population Segment Photo by Jim Harvey Photo: Jim Harvey U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 8 Reno Fish and Wildlife Office Reno, Nevada Suggested reference: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2015. Species status assessment report for the Columbia spotted frog (Rana luteiventris), Great Basin Distinct Population Segment. Reno Fish and Wildlife Office, Reno, Nevada. vii + 86 pp. ii Executive Summary In this Species Status Assessment (SSA), we evaluate the biological status of Columbia spotted frogs (Rana luteiventris) in the Great Basin both currently and into the future through the lens of the species’ resiliency, redundancy, and representation. This SSA Report provides a comprehensive assessment of biology and natural history of Columbia spotted frogs and assesses demographic risks, stressors, and limiting factors. Herein, we compile biological data and a description of past, present, and likely future stressors (causes and effects) facing Columbia spotted frogs in the Great Basin. Columbia spotted frogs are highly aquatic frogs endemic to the Great Basin, northern Rocky Mountains, British Columbia, and southeast Alaska. Columbia spotted frogs in southeastern Oregon, southwestern Idaho, and northeastern and central Nevada make up the Great Basin Distinct Population Segment (DPS; Service 2015, pp. 1–10). Columbia spotted frogs are closely associated with clear, slow-moving streams or ponded surface waters with permanent hydroperiods and relatively cool constant water temperatures (Arkle and Pilliod 2015, pp. 9–11). In addition to permanently wet habitat, streams with beaver ponds, deep maximum depth, abundant shoreline vegetation, and non-salmonid fish species have the greatest probability of being occupied by Columbia spotted frogs within the Great Basin (Arkle and Pilliod 2015, pp.
    [Show full text]
  • Burley Field Office Business Plan Lud Drexler Park and Milner Historic Recreation Area
    U.S. Department of the Interior | Bureau of Land Management | Idaho Burley Field Office Business Plan Lud Drexler Park and Milner Historic Recreation Area June 2020 U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Twin Falls District Burley Field Office 15 East 200 South Burley, ID 83318 Burley Field Office Business Plan Milner Historic Recreation Area and Lud Drexler Park I. Executive Summary The following document introduces a proposed fee increase by the Burley Field Office of the Bureau of Land Management for the recreation fee areas it manages in southern Idaho. The need for this action as well as the history of the fee program, expenses generated by the recreation sites and plans for future expenditures are outlined and explained in the pages below. The BLM Twin Falls District has two recreation fee sites, Milner Historic Recreation Area and Lud Drexler Park, both located in the Burley Field Office. The sites are the most popular recreation sites within the District hosting 40,000 plus people annually per site, with visits steadily increasing every year. This visitor increase along with aging infrastructure is contributing to resource damage and decreasing visitor safety and experiences, while budgets are stretched to keep up with maintenance and growing needs for improvements. Milner Historic Recreation Area The Milner Historic Recreation Area (MHRA) is situated along the Snake River, 9 miles west of Burley, Idaho. Both primitive and developed camp sites and boating facilities dot the 4.5-mile shoreline. The area’s basalt cliffs, sagebrush, and grasslands provide habitat to a variety of songbirds and waterfowl.
    [Show full text]
  • 4 References
    4 References Agricultural Extension Office. 2000. Sedges. Available at: http://aquaplant.tamu.edu/Emergent%20Plants/Sedges/Sedges.htm Accessed April 2004 Allen, D.B., B.J. Flatter, J. Nelson and C. Medrow. 1998. Redband Trout Oncorhynchus mykiss gairdneri Population and Stream Habitat Surveys in Northern Owyhee County and the Owyhee River and Its Tributaries. 1997. Idaho BLM Technical Bulletin No. 98-14. American Fisheries Society, Idaho Chapter (AFS). 2000. Fishes of Idaho. Available at < http://www.fisheries.org/idaho/fishes_of_idaho.htm>. Accessed November 2003. American Ornithologists’ Union (AOU). 1957. Check-list of North American Birds. 5th edition. American Ornithological Union, Washington, DC. Anderson, A. E., and O. C. Wallmo. 1984. Odocoileus hemionus. Mammalian Species 219:1– 9. Anderson, J. L., K. Bacon, and K. Denny. 2002. Salmon River Habitat Enhancement. Annual Report 2001. Shoshone-Bannock Tribes, Fort Hall, ID. 14 pp. Anderson, M., P. Bourgeron, M. T. Bryer, R. Crawford, L. Engelking, D. Faber-Langendoen, M. Gallyoun, K. Goodin, D. H. Grossman, S. Landaal, K. Metzler, K. D. Patterson, M. Pyne, M. Reid, L. Sneddon, and A. S. Weakley. 1998. International Classification of Ecological Communities: Terrestrial Vegetation of the United States. Volume II. The National Vegetation Classification System: List of Types. The Nature Conservancy, Arlington, VA. Arno, S. F. 1979. Forest Regions of Montana. Research Paper INT-218. U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. Arno, S.F. 1980. Forest Fire History in the Northern Rockies. Journal of Forestry 78:460–464. Aubry, K. B., Koehler, G. M., and J. R. Squires.
    [Show full text]
  • Owyhee County, Qg Homedale Idaho Tps Qg 78 Qg 0 5 10 Miles Marsing
    117o0133 43o4100 Owyhee County, Qg Homedale Idaho Tps Qg 78 Qg 0 5 10 miles Marsing S 0 8 16 kilometers Tmb n a k Tps e Tmf R iv e Tps r TmfTps 95 Tmf Tms Tmb Tfm Kgd Tpf Tmf Qa Tmb Kgd Tpb Murphy Qb Qs Kgd Tps S n a k Qs Qw e Kgd Tps Ri Tms Tpb v er Tmf Qb Tmf QTs QTs Qb Qs Tmb Kgd 78 Silver Tpb C.J. Stri City Tpf Grand View ke Re Tmb Tpb serv War Eagle o i Mountain Tpb r 115o2700 QTs Qb Tmb 42o5600 Tpb Tpf Qg QTs Qa Tmf Tpb Tmb Qg Qs Qg Tmf QTs Qw Qg QTs Qg Digital Atlas of Idaho, Nov. 2002 Qa Bruneau Qa QTs http://imnh.isu.edu/digitalatlas Qs Compiled by Paul K. Link, Qs Idaho State University, Geosciences Dept. Qs http://www.isu.edu/departments/geology/ Kgd Tps Tps QTs Qa Ki Qw Qw o Tps 115 0200 Tmb Qs 42o4600 B Pzu r Tpb Tpb u Qs Tcv Qw n Kgd e QTs a u Qg Pzu Tpb R Tpb i Tpf v Tpb e Tmf Tpb r Tpf Tps Tpb Qa Qs Tmf Tpf Tpf Tpb Tpb Tpb Tpb Tpb Qg 51 Tpb Tpf Tpf Tpb Tpb Tpf Tpb Tpb Tpf Tpf Tpb Tpb Qs Grasmere Tps Tpf Tpb Qs Tpf Tpf Tpb Tpb J a Tpb r Juniper Butte Owyhee River b Tpf i d Tpb ge Tpf R iv Tpb e r Tpf Riddle Qs Tpf Tpb Tpb Tpb Tpb Tpb B Tpb r u n Tpb e Tpb a Murphy Tpb Tps Qa u Tpf R Hot Srings Qa i Tpb v Tpb Tpf e Duck Valley Indian Reservation r 41o5945 41o5956 Tpb Tpb Tpb 115o0200 117o0144 Owyhee County Owyhee County covers a huge area in southwest Idaho, south of the Snake River.
    [Show full text]
  • Battle Mountain RMP Scoping Report
    US Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Battle Mountain District Office, Nevada Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement SCOPING SUMMARY REPORT JULY 2011 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................. S-1 1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 1-1 1.1 Purpose of and Need for the Resource Management Plan ................................................ 1-1 1.2 Description of the RMP Planning Area .................................................................................... 1-2 1.3 Overview of Public Involvement Process ............................................................................... 1-4 1.4 Description of the Scoping Process ......................................................................................... 1-5 1.4.1 Newsletter and Mailing List ......................................................................................... 1-5 1.4.2 Press Release .................................................................................................................. 1-5 1.4.3 Project Website ............................................................................................................. 1-6 1.4.4 Scoping Open Houses .................................................................................................. 1-6 1.4.5 Notice of Intent ............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • United States Department of The
    - ..... ,. ~ UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT JARBIDGE RESOURCE AREA 2620 KIMBERLY ROAD TWIN FALLS, 10AHO 83301 In Reply Refer To: 6840 February 25, 1994 MfllTlOrandUll To: Bull Trout Task Force Participant Fran: Jarbidge Wildlife Biologist Subject: Bull Trout Task Force Meeting. The following is a brief syncpsis of the bull trout task force,meeting held in Jackpot, Nevada (February 2, 1994). Generally, the meeting went as outlined. This synopsis in not intended to reflect all of the topics or comments made during the meeting. Chuck Warren (Idaho Department of Fish &Game) gave a brief overview of historic and present distribution of bull trout in southern Idaho. Generally, there are reports of bull trout being present in the main stenl of the Snake River, up Salmon Falls Creek, and in the Jarbidge River. They think there may have been bull trout in the Bruneau and Owyhee River systems but there isn't any documentation to support that. IDF&G thought that the biggest limiting factor for bull trout in these river systems is water temperature and secondarily water quality. Information regarding bull trout habitat requirements suggest that, they need water colder than 65°F. Information on bull trout in the Jarbidge River is very limited as far as seasonal use by bull trout and factors other than temperature that may be limiting bull trout distribution. Bull trout have been caught below the junction of the east and west forks of the Jarbidge River. chuck commented that bull trout may use the main Jarbidge River in the winter through spring when water temperatures are cooler.
    [Show full text]
  • Returning Salmon to Elko County Streams
    Returning Salmon to Elko County Streams The Owyhee Dam in Oregon first cut off passage of salmon into Elko County Various groups and politicians are working to re-establish salmon spawning runs in local streams. Both chinook salmon and steelhead trout historically swam over a thousand miles from the Pacific Ocean to spawn in the Owyhee, Bruneau, and Jarbidge Rivers along with Salmon Falls Creek. Numerous accounts and newspaper articles record Elkoans feasting on huge salmon caught in our northern streams. Each year, about 120,000 chinook salmon completed three runs up the Snake River and 150,000 sockeye salmon made yearly runs. The Snake River drainage and its tributaries was one of the most important spawning areas for these salmon. Salmon that could grow to 30 pounds provided an important food source to Shoshone people across the Snake River drainage and Shoshone Falls near today’s Twin Falls was an important fishing area. These falls also blocked salmon from the upper reaches of the Snake River. Overfishing reduced fish numbers in the early 1900s and salmon were blocked from their annual spawning runs into Elko County in 1932 when the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation completed Oregon’s Owyhee Dam. Salmon have been absent from all of the Snake River System since 1961 when dams closed off the lower Snake River. Renewed interest has been generated to either remove dams on the Snake and Owyhee Rivers or at least require them to install structures that would allow salmon to continue their way upstream as was mandated in their original 1955 license.
    [Show full text]
  • Recreation in Idaho: Campgrounds, Sites and Destinations
    U.S. Department of the Interior BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT Recreation in Idaho Campgrounds, Sites and Destinations Locations to Explore Four BLM district offices, 12 field offices and the Idaho State Office administer almost 12 million acres of public lands in Idaho. Please reference the colors and map throughout the booklet for specific regions of Idaho. You may also contact our offices with questions or more information. East-Central and Eastern Idaho Northern Idaho BLM IDAHO FALLS DISTRICT BLM COEUR D’ALENE DISTRICT 1405 Hollipark Drive | Idaho Falls, ID 83401 3815 Schreiber Way | Coeur d’Alene, ID 83815 208-524-7500 208-769-5000 BLM Challis Field Office BLM Coeur d’Alene Field Office 721 East Main Avenue, Suite 8 3815 Schreiber Way | Coeur d’Alene, ID 83815 Challis, ID 83226 208-769-5000 208-879-6200 BLM Cottonwood Field Office BLM Pocatello Field Office 2 Butte Drive | Cottonwood, ID 83522 4350 Cliffs Drive | Pocatello, ID 83204 208-962-3245 208-478-6340 Southwestern Idaho BLM Salmon Field Office BLM BOISE DISTRICT 1206 S. Challis St. | Salmon, ID 83467 3948 Development Avenue | Boise, ID 83705 208-756-5400 208-384-3300 BLM Upper Snake Field Office BLM Bruneau Field Office 1405 Hollipark Dr. | Idaho Falls, ID 83401 3948 Development Ave. | Boise, ID 83705 208-524-7500 208-384-3300 South-Central Idaho BLM Four Rivers Field Office and the BLM TWIN FALLS DISTRICT Morley Nelson Snake River Birds of Prey 2536 Kimberly Road | Twin Falls, ID 83301 National Conservation Area 208-735-2060 3948 Development Ave. | Boise, ID 83705 208-384-3300 BLM Burley Field Office 15 East 200 South | Burley, ID 83318 BLM Owyhee Field Office 208-677-6600 20 First Avenue West | Marsing, ID 83639 208-896-5912 BLM Jarbidge Field Office 2536 Kimberly Road | Twin Falls, ID 83301 208-735-2060 BLM Shoshone Field Office including the Craters of the Moon National Monument and Preserve 400 West “F” Street | Shoshone, ID 83352 208-732-7200 Whitewater fun for the family on one of many Idaho rivers.
    [Show full text]
  • Download This
    NPS Form 10-900 (Oct. 1990) United States Department of the Interior National Park Service National Register of Historic Places NAT. REGlStlR OF HilfORie Registration Form NATIONAL PARK SERVI This form is for use in nominating or requesting determinations for individual properties and districts. See instructions in How to Complete the National Register of Historic Places Registration Form (National Register Bulletin 16A). Complete each item by marking "x" in the appropriate box or by entering the information requested. If an item does not apply to the property being documented, enter "N/A" for "not applicable." For functions, architectural classification, materials, and areas of significance, enter only categories and subcategories from the instructions. Place additional entries and narrative items on continuation sheets (NPS Form 10-900a). Use a typewriter, word processor, or computer, to complete all items. 1. Name of Property historic name: Salmon Falls Dam_______________________________ other name/site number: 83-17897_____________________________ 2. Location street & number Three Creek Highway ] not for publication city or town Roqerson X] vicinity state IDAHO code ID county Twin Falls code 083 zip code 83301 3. State/Federal Agency Certification As the designated authority under the National Historic Preservation Act, as amended, I hereby certify that this [ X ] nomination [ ] request for determination of eligibility meets the documentation standards for registering properties in the National Register of Historic Places and meets the procedural and professional requirements set forth in 36 CFR Part 60. In my opinion, the property [ X ] meets [ Jdoes not meet the National Register Criteria. I recommend that this property be considered significant [ ] nationalkf [ ] state\yide [ XJ^CTjally^f ]9/&e continuation sheet for additional comments.] Signature of certifying official/Tim Kenneth C.
    [Show full text]
  • Sawtooth National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 2007 Monitoring and Evaluation Report
    SAWTOOTH NATIONAL FOREST LAND AND RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN 2007 MONITORING AND EVALUATION REPORT FY 2008 2007 Sawtooth NF Monitoring and Evaluation Report (September 2008) Page - 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................4 II. 2007 FOREST PLAN MONITORING and EVALUATION REPORT ORGANIZATION ..........................................................................................................6 III. SUMMARY OF MONITORING RESULTS ......................................................6 III-A: Five Annual Monitoring Elements Found in Table IV-1 of the Forest Plan....6 1. A quantitative estimate of performance comparing outputs to services with those predicted in the Forest Plan (Forest Plan, p. IV-5) .......................6 Threatened, Endangered, Proposed and Candidate Species Objectives .................. 7 Air Quality and Smoke Management Objectives .................................................... 9 Soil, Water, Riparian and Aquatic Resources Goals and Objectives ...................... 9 Wildlife Resources Objectives ................................................................................ 9 Vegetation Resources Objectives ............................................................................9 Botanical Resources Objectives ............................................................................ 10 Nonnative Plants Objectives.................................................................................. 10 Fire Management
    [Show full text]