DOCSLIB.ORG

Helicopter Landings in the Twin Peaks, Lone Peak, and Mount Timpanogos Wilderness Areas to Capture and Collar Mountain Goats

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Helicopter Landings in the Twin Peaks, Lone Peak, and Mount Timpanogos Wilderness Areas to Capture and Collar Mountain Goats United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Helicopter landings in the Twin Peaks, Lone Peak, and Mount Timpanogos wilderness areas to capture and collar mountain goats and bighorn sheep project Environmental Assessment Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest, Salt Lake and Pleasant Grove Ranger Districts, Salt Lake and Utah Counties, Utah July 2017 Environmental Assessment Helicopter landings in the Twin Peaks, Lone Peak, and Mount Timpanogos wilderness areas to capture and collar mountain goats and bighorn sheep Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest, Salt Lake and Pleasant Grove Ranger Districts, Salt Lake and Utah Counties, Utah Lead Agency: U.S. Forest Service Responsible Official: David C. Whittekiend, Forest Supervisor 857 West South Jordan Parkway South Jordan, UT 84095 For Information Contact: Pamela Manders, Forest Wildlife Program Manager 857 West South Jordan Parkway South Jordan, UT 84095 Cover Photo: Photo by Rusty Robinson. In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident. Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other than English. To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD- 3027, found online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form. To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 632-9992. Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by: (1) mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C. 20250-9410; (2) fax: (202) 690-7442; or (3) email: [email protected]. USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer and lender. Table of Contents Table of Contents .......................................................................................................................................... 3 Chapter 1: Purpose and Need ........................................................................................................................ 4 1.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................................... 4 1.2 Project Area ........................................................................................................................................ 4 1.3 Background ......................................................................................................................................... 5 1.3.1 Existing Condition ....................................................................................................................... 6 1.4 Proposed Action .................................................................................................................................. 8 1.5 Purpose and Need ............................................................................................................................... 9 1.6 Forest Plan Consistency ...................................................................................................................... 9 1.7 Public Involvement and Consultation ............................................................................................... 11 1.7.1 Scoping/Comment Period .......................................................................................................... 11 1.8 Decision Framework ......................................................................................................................... 11 1.9 Project Record ................................................................................................................................... 12 1.10 Issues ............................................................................................................................................... 12 1.10.1 Key Issues ................................................................................................................................ 12 1.10.2 Issues Addressed but not Analyzed in Detail ........................................................................... 13 Chapter 2: Alternatives ............................................................................................................................... 14 2.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 14 2.2 Alternatives Considered in Detail ..................................................................................................... 14 2.2.1 Alternative A (No Action) ......................................................................................................... 14 2.2.2 Alternative B (Proposed Action) ................................................................................................ 14 2.2.3 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study ................................................... 15 2.2.4 Summary Comparison of Alternatives ....................................................................................... 17 Chapter 3: Environmental Consequences ................................................................................................... 18 3.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 18 3.1.1 Wilderness Resources ................................................................................................................ 18 Chapter 4: Consultation and Coordination .................................................................................................. 26 4.1 Preparers and Contributors ................................................................................................................ 26 4.2 Consultation and Coordination ......................................................................................................... 26 4.3 Laws and Regulations ....................................................................................................................... 26 Appendix A: Scoping Report ...................................................................................................................... 30 Appendix B: Issues Addressed but not Analyzed in Detail ........................................................................ 99 Appendix C: Design Criteria & Mitigation Measures .............................................................................. 103 Appendix D: References ........................................................................................................................... 105 Chapter 1: Purpose and Need 1.1 Introduction This Environmental Assessment (EA) discloses the environmental impacts of landing helicopters and dropping materials from helicopters to collect biological samples and collar bighorn sheep and mountain goats in the Twin Peak, Lone Peak and Mount Timpanogos Wilderness areas within the Wasatch and Uinta National Forests. The Uinta-Wasatch-Cache (UWC) National Forest received this proposal from the Utah Department of Wildlife Resources (UDWR) as part of UDWR’s mission of conserving and managing protected wildlife populations. The biological samples enabled by the authorization of helicopter landings and drops would allow UDWR to test for disease and evaluate disease spread between the two species. The collaring enabled by the authorization of helicopter landings and drops would allow UDWR to monitor the two species’ interactions and movements in this area. This document has been prepared pursuant to the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 40 CFR 1500-1508, the National Forest Management Act (NFMA) implementing regulations of, including transition language at 36 CFR 219.14, and the 2003 Wasatch-Cache (WCFP) and Uinta (UFP) National Forests Revised Forest Land and Resource Management Plans (LRMP) (USDA 2003 and 2003a). Formal planning for this project was initiated on May 25, 2016 with a legal notice in the Provo Herald and the Salt Lake Tribune. The initial proposal included the capture and collaring of mountain goats. That proposal was modified by UDWR and expanded to also include bighorn sheep because of concern of disease transfer from one species to another. A revised legal notice was published after this change on February 9, 2017. 1.2 Project Area The project area falls within the UDWR’s Wasatch
Load more

Recommended publications
  • UMNP Mountains Manual 2017
    Mountain Adventures Manual utahmasternaturalist.org June 2017 UMN/Manual/2017-03pr Welcome to Utah Master Naturalist! Utah Master Naturalist was developed to help you initiate or continue your own personal journey to increase your understanding of, and appreciation for, Utah’s amazing natural world. We will explore and learn aBout the major ecosystems of Utah, the plant and animal communities that depend upon those systems, and our role in shaping our past, in determining our future, and as stewards of the land. Utah Master Naturalist is a certification program developed By Utah State University Extension with the partnership of more than 25 other organizations in Utah. The mission of Utah Master Naturalist is to develop well-informed volunteers and professionals who provide education, outreach, and service promoting stewardship of natural resources within their communities. Our goal, then, is to assist you in assisting others to develop a greater appreciation and respect for Utah’s Beautiful natural world. “When we see the land as a community to which we belong, we may begin to use it with love and respect.” - Aldo Leopold Participating in a Utah Master Naturalist course provides each of us opportunities to learn not only from the instructors and guest speaKers, But also from each other. We each arrive at a Utah Master Naturalist course with our own rich collection of knowledge and experiences, and we have a unique opportunity to share that Knowledge with each other. This helps us learn and grow not just as individuals, but together as a group with the understanding that there is always more to learn, and more to share.
    [Show full text]
  • Wilderness Visitors and Recreation Impacts: Baseline Data Available for Twentieth Century Conditions
    United States Department of Agriculture Wilderness Visitors and Forest Service Recreation Impacts: Baseline Rocky Mountain Research Station Data Available for Twentieth General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-117 Century Conditions September 2003 David N. Cole Vita Wright Abstract __________________________________________ Cole, David N.; Wright, Vita. 2003. Wilderness visitors and recreation impacts: baseline data available for twentieth century conditions. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-117. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 52 p. This report provides an assessment and compilation of recreation-related monitoring data sources across the National Wilderness Preservation System (NWPS). Telephone interviews with managers of all units of the NWPS and a literature search were conducted to locate studies that provide campsite impact data, trail impact data, and information about visitor characteristics. Of the 628 wildernesses that comprised the NWPS in January 2000, 51 percent had baseline campsite data, 9 percent had trail condition data and 24 percent had data on visitor characteristics. Wildernesses managed by the Forest Service and National Park Service were much more likely to have data than wildernesses managed by the Bureau of Land Management and Fish and Wildlife Service. Both unpublished data collected by the management agencies and data published in reports are included. Extensive appendices provide detailed information about available data for every study that we located. These have been organized by wilderness so that it is easy to locate all the information available for each wilderness in the NWPS. Keywords: campsite condition, monitoring, National Wilderness Preservation System, trail condition, visitor characteristics The Authors _______________________________________ David N.
    [Show full text]
  • Outreachnotice
    OUTREACH NOTICE USDA FOREST SERVICE INTERMOUNTAIN REGION, R4 Manti-La Sal National Forest Phone (435) 636-3354 Natural Resource Specialist GS-0401-5/7/9 Response requested by December 7, 2016 Position Description The purpose of this outreach notice is to (1) gauge interest in the position, (2) to alert interested individuals of this upcoming employment opportunity. The position is expected to be advertised on www.usajobs.gov/ in the fall of 2016. (Interested persons should respond using the Outreach Response on page 6). The Moab/Monticello Ranger District of the Manti-La Sal National Forest will be seeking to fill two GS-0410-5/7/9 Natural Resource Specialist positions. The duty stations for the position will be Moab, Utah. Duties include but are not limited to the following: Duties: The duties of these position are varied and diverse. One appointee will perform work associated with the Lands and Recreation Special Uses Program, Minerals and Roads Programs and the other appointee will work primarily in the Recreation Program dealing with developed recreation, interpretation and Recreation Special Uses. Compiles material and supply estimates for recreation facilities, maintenance, and operation. Participates in the drafting of annual work action plans for carrying out recreation management 1 decisions. Participates in the implementation of recreation plan objectives and the full range of recreation uses, administration of special authorization for recreation events and concessionaire operations. Inspects campgrounds and other recreation areas to determine that improvements are properly maintained; gathers data for studies of campground use; conducts compliance checks; assists in preparation of recreation reports; and identifies potential recreation sites.
    [Show full text]
  • ACEC Evaluations for Existing and Nominated ACEC – Relevance and Importance
    Evaluations for Existing and Nominated ACECs, Relevance and Importance, Monticello Field Office, July 2005 ACEC Evaluations for Existing and Nominated ACEC – Relevance and Importance TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Background - Areas of Environmental Concern ………………….……….. 3 FLPMA …………………………………………. 3 43CFR 1610.7-2 ………………………………… 3 BLM Manual 1613 ……………………………… 3 NOI – BLM Monticello Field Office ……………. 4 San Juan County Perspectives on ACECs ………. 4 State of Utah Perspectives on ACECs …………… 4 ACECs and Wilderness Study Areas ……………... 5 2. The ACEC Process – Table ……………………………………………….. 6 3. Summary ………………………………………………………………….. 7 Table 3.1 MFO ACECs from 1991 RMP ……..…... 7 Table 3.2 Nominated ACEC by BLM FOs ..……… 7 Table 3.3 Nominated ACECs by SUWA ………… 8 Table 3,4 Summary Table of Potential ACECs …. 8 Table 3.5 MFO ID Team …………………………. 9 4. Existing ACECs – Monticello Field Office ………………………………. 10 Alkali Ridge ACEC ……………………………... 10 Bridger Jack Mesa ACEC ……………………… 10 Butler Wash ACEC ……………………………… 11 Cedar Mesa ACEC ……………………………… 12 Dark Canyon ACEC …………………………….. 13 Hovenweep ACEC ……………………………….. 14 Indian Creek ACEC ……………………………… 15 Lavender Mesa ACEC …………………………… 16 Scenic Highway Corridor ACEC ………………… 16 Shay Canyon ACEC ……………………………... 17 Table 4.1: Special Management Consideration for BLM ACECs designated in the 1991 RMP ………….. 18 5. Nominated ACECs ………………………………………………………. 19 Lockhart Basin …………………………............... 19 Valley of the Gods ……………………………… 20 Letter from SUWA ………………………………. .. 22 Table 5.2 - Nominated by SUWA ………………… 24 1. Canyonlands ………………………………… 24 2. Cedar Mesa ………………………………….. 27 3. Dark Canyon ………………………………… 29 4. Monument Canyon ………………………….. 31 5. Redrock Plateau ……………………………… 33 6. San Juan River ………………………………. 36 7. White Canyon ……………………………….. 39 Evaluations for Existing and Nominated ACECs, Monticello Field Office, Relevance and Importance, July 2005 6. Evaluation Process and Relevance and Importance Criteria …………… 42 The Scope of the Evaluation Process 6.1 Evaluation of existing ACECs ………………..
    [Show full text]
  • Complete Meeting Packet
    PUBLIC MEETING NOTICE Nevada Land Management Task Force (Established Pursuant to Assembly Bill 227 enacted in the 2013 Legislative Session) August 16, 2013, 1:00 p.m. Eureka Opera House 31 S. Main St. Eureka, NV 89316 AGENDA Some Task Force members may attend via telephone from other locations. Items on the agenda may be taken out of order. The Task Force may combine two or more agenda items for consideration. The Task Force may remove an item from the agenda or delay discussion relating to an item on the agenda at any time. Call to Order, Roll Call 1. Public Comment. Please Limit Comments to 3 Minutes 2. Approval of Agenda. For Possible Action. 3. Approval of the Minutes of the June 28, 2013 Meeting of the Nevada Land Management Task Force. For Possible Action. (Attachment) 4. Overview of Legislation in Other Western States Regarding the Transfer of Public Lands. 5. Presentation on Studies Commissioned by Eureka County in 1994 and 1996 on Public Lands Transfer Issues. 6. Initial Discussion on Potential Lands to be Included in a Transfer of Public Lands from the Federal Government to Nevada. (Attachment) 7. Initial Discussion of Cost and Revenue Implications of the Transfer of Public Lands to Nevada. (Attachment) 8. Initial Discussion on Transferring Multiple Uses, Including but not Limited to Outdoor Recreation, Mining and Prospecting, Timber, Grazing, and Fish and Wildlife Purposes, with the Transfer of Public Lands. 9. Initial Discussion on Which Public Lands, if Transferred to State Ownership, Should be Sold or Exchanged into the Private Sector and How Should the Sales Take Place? 10.
    [Show full text]
  • VGP) Version 2/5/2009
    Vessel General Permit (VGP) Version 2/5/2009 United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) VESSEL GENERAL PERMIT FOR DISCHARGES INCIDENTAL TO THE NORMAL OPERATION OF VESSELS (VGP) AUTHORIZATION TO DISCHARGE UNDER THE NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM In compliance with the provisions of the Clean Water Act (CWA), as amended (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), any owner or operator of a vessel being operated in a capacity as a means of transportation who: • Is eligible for permit coverage under Part 1.2; • If required by Part 1.5.1, submits a complete and accurate Notice of Intent (NOI) is authorized to discharge in accordance with the requirements of this permit. General effluent limits for all eligible vessels are given in Part 2. Further vessel class or type specific requirements are given in Part 5 for select vessels and apply in addition to any general effluent limits in Part 2. Specific requirements that apply in individual States and Indian Country Lands are found in Part 6. Definitions of permit-specific terms used in this permit are provided in Appendix A. This permit becomes effective on December 19, 2008 for all jurisdictions except Alaska and Hawaii. This permit and the authorization to discharge expire at midnight, December 19, 2013 i Vessel General Permit (VGP) Version 2/5/2009 Signed and issued this 18th day of December, 2008 William K. Honker, Acting Director Robert W. Varney, Water Quality Protection Division, EPA Region Regional Administrator, EPA Region 1 6 Signed and issued this 18th day of December, 2008 Signed and issued this 18th day of December, Barbara A.
    [Show full text]
  • Land Areas of the National Forest System
    United States Department of Agriculture Land Areas of the National Forest System As of September 30, 2018 Forest Service WO Lands FS-383 November 2018 United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Land Areas of the WO, Lands National Forest FS-383 System November 2018 As of September 30, 2018 Published by: USDA Forest Service 1400 Independence Ave., SW Washington, D.C. 20250-0003 Web site: https://www.fs.fed.us/land/staff/lar-index.shtml Cover photo courtesy of: Chris Chavez Statistics are current as of: 10/15/2018 The National Forest System (NFS) is comprised of: 154 National Forests 58 Purchase Units 20 National Grasslands 7 Land Utilization Projects 17 Research and Experimental Areas 28 Other Areas NFS lands are found in 43 States as well as Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. TOTAL NFS ACRES = 192,948,059 NFS lands are organized into: 9 Forest Service Regions 112 Administrative Forest or Forest-level units 506 Ranger District or District-level units The Forest Service administers 128 Wild and Scenic Rivers in 23 States and 446 National Wilderness Areas in 39 States. The FS also administers several other types of nationally-designated areas: 1 National Historic Area in 1 State 1 National Scenic Research Area in 1 State 1 Scenic Recreation Area in 1 State 1 Scenic Wildlife Area in 1 State 2 National Botanical Areas in 1 State 2 National Volcanic Monument Areas in 2 States 2 Recreation Management Areas in 2 States 6 National Protection Areas in 3 States 8 National Scenic Areas in 6 States 12 National Monument Areas in 6 States 12 Special Management Areas in 5 States 21 National Game Refuge or Wildlife Preserves in 12 States 22 National Recreation Areas in 20 States Table of Contents Acreage Calculation ...........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Mountain Goat Unit Management Plan | Wasatch and Central Mountains
    MOUNTAIN GOAT UNIT MANAGEMENT PLAN Wasatch and Central Mountains Lone Peak / Box Elder Peak / Timpanogos / Provo Peak / Nebo August 2019 BOUNDARY DESCRIPTIONS Lone Peak – Salt Lake County: Boundary begins at the junction of I-15 and I-80 in Salt Lake City; east on I-80 to the Salt Lake-Summit county line; south along this county line to the Salt Lake-Wasatch county line; southwest along this county line to the Salt Lake-Utah county line; southwest along this county line to I-15; north on I-15 to I-80 in Salt Lake City. Box Elder Peak – Utah County: Boundary begins at I-15 and the Salt Lake-Utah county line; east along this county line to the Utah-Wasatch county line; south along this county line to “Pole Line Pass” on the Snake Creek-North Fork American Fork Canyon road; west on this road to SR-92; west on SR-92 to I-15; north on I-15 to the Salt Lake-Utah county line. Timpanogos – Utah County: Boundary begins at the junction of SR-92 and SR-146; southeast on SR-92 to US-189; southwest on US-189 to SR-52; west on SR-52 to US-89; north on US-89 to SR-146; north on SR-146 to SR-92. Provo Peak – Utah County: Boundary begins at the junction of I-15 and US-6 at Spanish Fork; north on I-15 to SR-52; east on SR-52 to US-189; northeast on US-189 to the South Fork Drainage of Provo Canyon; east along this drainage bottom to the Berryport trail; south along this trail to the Left Fork of Hobble Creek road; south on this road to the Right Fork of Hobble Creek road; east on this road to Cedar Canyon; south along this canyon bottom to Wanrhodes Canyon; south along this canyon bottom to Diamond Fork Creek; southwest along this creek to US-6; northeast on US-6 to I-15.
    [Show full text]
  • December 2012 Number 1
    Calochortiana December 2012 Number 1 December 2012 Number 1 CONTENTS Proceedings of the Fifth South- western Rare and Endangered Plant Conference Calochortiana, a new publication of the Utah Native Plant Society . 3 The Fifth Southwestern Rare and En- dangered Plant Conference, Salt Lake City, Utah, March 2009 . 3 Abstracts of presentations and posters not submitted for the proceedings . 4 Southwestern cienegas: Rare habitats for endangered wetland plants. Robert Sivinski . 17 A new look at ranking plant rarity for conservation purposes, with an em- phasis on the flora of the American Southwest. John R. Spence . 25 The contribution of Cedar Breaks Na- tional Monument to the conservation of vascular plant diversity in Utah. Walter Fertig and Douglas N. Rey- nolds . 35 Studying the seed bank dynamics of rare plants. Susan Meyer . 46 East meets west: Rare desert Alliums in Arizona. John L. Anderson . 56 Calochortus nuttallii (Sego lily), Spatial patterns of endemic plant spe- state flower of Utah. By Kaye cies of the Colorado Plateau. Crystal Thorne. Krause . 63 Continued on page 2 Copyright 2012 Utah Native Plant Society. All Rights Reserved. Utah Native Plant Society Utah Native Plant Society, PO Box 520041, Salt Lake Copyright 2012 Utah Native Plant Society. All Rights City, Utah, 84152-0041. www.unps.org Reserved. Calochortiana is a publication of the Utah Native Plant Society, a 501(c)(3) not-for-profit organi- Editor: Walter Fertig ([email protected]), zation dedicated to conserving and promoting steward- Editorial Committee: Walter Fertig, Mindy Wheeler, ship of our native plants. Leila Shultz, and Susan Meyer CONTENTS, continued Biogeography of rare plants of the Ash Meadows National Wildlife Refuge, Nevada.
    [Show full text]
  • A.1 List of Preparers
    A.1 List of Preparers Core Interdisciplinary Team Name Area(s) of Expertise Education Years Experience Bob Campbell Ecology B.S., Botany; B.S., Plant Science 25 M.S., Forestry (Ecology) Linda Chappell Air Quality, Fuels B.S., Forest Management; B.S., Range Science 15 Ivan Erskine Fire Management B.S., Watershed Mgmt. and Forestry 31 B.S., Elementary Education David Hatfield Team Leader, Planning B.A., M.S., Geology 17 Karen Ogle Team Leader, Fire Ecology B.S., Forest Management; M.S., Fire Ecology 12 Frances Reynolds Public Involvement B.A., British History and Literature 22 Linda Wadleigh Fire Ecology, Fuels, TESP B.S., Forest Management; M.S., Fire Ecology 12 Extended Interdisciplinary Team Name Area(s) of Expertise Education Years Experience Ellen Daniels Support Services 10 Sherel Goodrich Ecology B.S., Range Management; M.S., Plant Taxonomy 30 Kevin Greenhalgh Fire Planning, Fuels B.S., Forest Mgt.; B.S., Recreation Res. Mgt. 10 Arlene Heap GIS/Database Mgt. 24 Stan McDonald Cultural Resources B.S., M.A., Anthropology 20 Steve Robertson Aquatic Biota B.S., Fisheries Management; M.S., Zoology 25 Tom Scott Recreation, Visual B.A, History; M.A., Anthropology 25 Mgt., Human Uses Kelly Shanahan Hydrology, Watershed B.S., Geology; M.S., Watershed Science 11 Michael Smith Soils B.S. Natural Resource Management 20 Liz Van Genderen Editing B.S. Natural Resource Management 13 Richard Williams Terrestrial Wildlife B.S., Wildlife Management 26 A.2 Glossary of Terms Activity Fuels - Fuels generated from management activities (i.e., timber harvest). Air Quality - The characteristics of the ambient air (all locations accessible to the general public) as indicated by concentrations of the six air pollutants for which national standards have been established (e.g., particulate matter, sulphur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, ozone, carbon monoxide, and lead), and by visibility in mandatory Federal Class I areas.
    [Show full text]
  • Cedar Breaks National Monument NRCA
    National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Natural Resource Stewardship and Science Cedar Breaks National Monument Natural Resource Condition Assessment Natural Resource Report NPS/NCPN/NRR—2018/1631 ON THIS PAGE Markagunt Penstemon. Photo Credit: NPS ON THE COVER Clouds over Red Rock. Photo Credit:© Rob Whitmore Cedar Breaks National Monument Natural Resource Condition Assessment Natural Resource Report NPS/NCPN/NRR—2018/1631 Author Name(s) Lisa Baril, Kimberly Struthers, and Patricia Valentine-Darby Utah State University Department of Environment and Society Logan, Utah Editing and Design Kimberly Struthers May 2018 U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Service Natural Resource Stewardship and Science Fort Collins, Colorado The National Park Service, Natural Resource Stewardship and Science office in Fort Collins, Colorado, publishes a range of reports that address natural resource topics. These reports are of interest and applicability to a broad audience in the National Park Service and others in natural resource management, including scientists, conservation and environmental constituencies, and the public. The Natural Resource Report Series is used to disseminate comprehensive information and analysis about natural resources and related topics concerning lands managed by the National Park Service. The series supports the advancement of science, informed decision-making, and the achievement of the National Park Service mission. The series also provides a forum for presenting more lengthy results that may not be accepted by publications with page limitations. All manuscripts in the series receive the appropriate level of peer review to ensure that the information is scientifically credible, technically accurate, appropriately written for the intended audience, and designed and published in a professional manner.
    [Show full text]
  • Manti-La Sal Ranger Stations
    United States Department of Agriculture Commodious Cabins & Forest Service Intermountain Region Handsome Structures MANTI-LA SAL NATIONAL FOREST MAY 2013 Administrative Facilities of the Manti-La Sal National Forest, 1905-1962 Historic Context Statement & Evaluations, Forest Service Report No. ML-13-1437 Cover: Ranger David Williams with his family at the Clay Springs Ranger Station, 1908 “A commodious cabin is being built, and other improvements which will be made will make the station a very convenient one.” – “Building New Ranger Station on Wilson Mesa,” Times Independent, November 18, 1920, 1 The new Moab building “is a handsome structure and affords ample space for the supervisor’s office. eventually the forest headquarters will be one of the most attractive locations in town.” – “Forest Service In New Building,” Times Independent, September 12, 1940, 1. Commodious Cabins and Handsome Structures Administrative Facilities of the Manti-La Sal National Forest, 1905-1962 Historic Context Statement and Evaluations Forest Service Report No. ML-13-1437 By Richa Wilson Regional Architectural Historian USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Region 324 25th Street Ogden, UT 84401 May 2013 TABLE OF CONTENTS PREFACE .................................................................................................................................................. V CHAPTER 1: OVERVIEW ........................................................................................................................... 1 SPATIAL BOUNDARIES ......................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]