DOCSLIB.ORG

September 29, 2014 Land Management Plan Revision USDA

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
September 29, 2014 Land Management Plan Revision USDA September 29, 2014 Land Management Plan Revision USDA Forest Service Ecosystem Planning Staff 1323 Club Drive Vallejo, CA 94592 Submitted via Region 5 website Re: Comments on Notice of Intent and Detailed Proposed Action for the Forest Plan Revisions on the Inyo, Sequoia and Sierra National Forests To the Forest Plan Revision Team: These comments are provided on behalf of Sierra Forest Legacy and the above conservation organizations. We have reviewed the Notice of Intent (NOI), detailed Proposed Action (PA), and supporting materials posted on the Region 5 planning website and offer the following comments on these documents. We have submitted numerous comment letters since the forest plan revision process was initiated for the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra national forests. Specifically, we submitted comment letters on the forest assessments for each national forest (Sierra Forest Legacy et al. 2013a, Sierra Forest Legacy et al. 2013b, Sierra Forest Legacy et al. 2013c), comments on two need for change documents (Sierra Forest Legacy et al. 2014a, Sierra Forest Legacy et al. 2014b) and comments on detailed desired conditions (Sierra Forest Legacy et al. 2014c). We incorporate these comments by reference and attach the letters to these scoping comments. We have included these letters in our scoping comments because significant issues that we raised in these comments have not yet been addressed in the NOI, or the detailed PA creates significant conflict with resource areas on which we commented. Organization of Comments The following comments address first the content of the NOI, including the purpose and need for action, issues not addressed in the scoping notice, and regulatory compliance of the PA as written. Following this, we provide detailed comments on the PA with some recommendations on changes to those plan components to bring them into compliance with regulations and meet the direction SFL et al. comments on Notice of Intent and Detailed Proposed Action 9-29-14 1 in the planning rule. This section also includes recommendations for new wilderness areas and the evaluation and management of Wild and Scenic Rivers. In the last section, we present information and plan components that we ask you to address and incorporate in the development of alternatives. To improve readability, we have provided the following table of contents. Table of Contents I. Purpose and Need for Action 4 A. Defining an Economically-Viable Forest Products Industry 4 B. Carbon Storage 4 C. Declining Trends and Poor Habitat conditions for At-Risk Species 4 D. Aquatic/Riparian Ecosystems 5 E. Wild and Scenic Rivers (WSRs) 6 F. Designated Areas: Wilderness 7 II. Issues Not Identified in Scoping Notice 10 A. Fire as an Ecological Process and Its Positive Benefits 10 B. Conflicts between Logging Practices and Maintaining Habitat Quality 10 C. Analyzing Roadless Areas and Impacts to Roadless Areas in the DEIS 11 D. Road System as a Major issue that Must be Addressed in the Revision 14 E. Condition of Sierra Nevada Meadows 22 F. Fire Prevention Program to Address Human-caused Ignitions 23 III. Adequacy of Proposed Action to Meet Regulatory Requirements 23 A. Poorly Defined or Missing Plan Components 23 B. Ecological Integrity and At-risk Species 24 C. Ecological Integrity and the Integration of Plan Components 28 D. WSR Inventory and Evaluation 29 E. Climate Change 32 IV. Specific Comments on Resource Areas in the Proposed Action 33 A. Management and Geographic Areas 33 B. Forest-wide Vegetation 35 C. Westside Vegetation (Sequoia and Sierra National Forests) 48 D. At-Risk Species 53 E. Timber 82 F. Fire Management 85 G. Air 89 H. Aquatic/Riparian Ecosystems and Streams 89 I. Recreation 91 SFL et al. comments on Notice of Intent and Detailed Proposed Action 9-29-14 2 J. Wilderness 94 K. Wild and Scenic Rivers 114 L. Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail Corridor 120 V. Alternatives to consider in DEIS 121 VI. Conclusion 123 References 125 Appendices 140 Appendix A: Ecosystem Representation in Designated Wilderness Areas in Sierra, Sequoia, and Inyo National Forests Appendix B: Transportation Infrastructure and Access on National Forests and Grasslands: A Literature Review Appendix C: A Primer on Impacts of Forest Roads on Water Quality and Quantity in California Appendix D: Viability Evaluation for California Spotted Owl Appendix E: Aquatic Refuge Areas on the Sequoia, Sierra, and Inyo National Forests Appendix F: Britting et al. 2012, National Forests in the Sierra Nevada: A Conservation Strategy. Appendix G: Comment letters submitted on forest assessments, need for change and desired conditions. SFL et al. comments on Notice of Intent and Detailed Proposed Action 9-29-14 3 I. Purpose and Need for Action To a large extent, we agree with many of the purposes and needs for action. As a matter of policy, it is worth noting that the purpose and need for revision should be to alter existing plan components based on information provided in the assessment. Here we comment on specific purposes and needs that we believe should be clarified and reframed in the draft environmental impact statement (DEIS). We also provide additional purposes and needs for action that were not addressed in the NOI. A. Defining an Economically-Viable Forest Products Industry The NOI (p. 3) states a need, “to modify plan components to maintain levels of forest product and biomass production that support an economically-viable forest products industry, and to encourage local hiring.” We did not find a definition in the NOI or PA that describes an “economically-viable forest products industry.” A clear definition is needed because there are cases where the needs of the forest products industry, i.e., the demand for commercial timber, have been a stressor on ecosystems and in conflict with attaining ecological integrity. Examples of these conflicts include the removal of commercial timber from sensitive spotted owl habitat and salvage logging in areas recently burned by wildfire, e.g., American Fire, Aspen Fire and Rim Fire. It is important to emphasize here that there is a legal requirement for species viability, but not for economic viability. While the 2012 Planning Rule does require plan components for multiple uses, including timber, 219.10 is quite clear that those components must be compatible with sustainability and diversity requirements in 219.8 and 219.9. In addition to defining the term, the DEIS must evaluate the effects of plan components proposed for forest products industry viability on other plan components. B. Carbon Storage The NOI states “There is a need to modify plan direction for terrestrial ecosystems and fire, as described above, to increase the ability of forests to store and sequester carbon.”(NOI, p. 4). As stated here, it is not clear if the purpose is to increase the storage and sequestration of carbon regardless of ecological capacity or instead to sustain the landscapes’ ecological capability to sequester and store carbon. The desired condition provided in the PA (p. 4) provides an appropriate ecological context for carbon storage. Without this context, one could believe that the overriding goal was to increase stored carbon even at the expense of ecological sustainability. We ask that you clarify, consistent with the framing of the desired condition, that the focus is on supporting sequestration and storage of carbon that is ecologically appropriate. As an ecosystem service governed by 219.10, plan components for carbon storage must be evaluated against sustainability and diversity requirements to ensure compatibility. C. Declining Trends and Poor Habitat conditions for At-Risk Species The supplemental need for change document produced in June 2014 indicated that trends for population status and habitat condition were declining for a number of at-risk species. This situation should be identified as a purpose and need in changing the revised forest plans. Species in decline and with poor trend include those from terrestrial, riparian and aquatic ecosystems. SFL et al. comments on Notice of Intent and Detailed Proposed Action 9-29-14 4 Developing a plan that seeks to reverse declines and trends needs to be clearly stated as a purpose and need. D. Aquatic/Riparian Ecosystems The NOI focuses on a need to change the forest plans to allow for more prescribed fire in riparian areas and to integrate desired conditions to improve management outcomes. We agree that these are areas that should be improved, but we find that additional aspects of the existing aquatic management strategy (AMS) should be revised to better address resource conservation and protection. There are very few standards in the existing AMS for each forest plan. The current AMS is essentially an objective based strategy that allows activities to proceed near to these sensitive resources when they are consistent with a suite of goals and objectives. Currently, there are five elements to the AMS: 1) desired conditions; 2) land use allocations (RCAs and CARs); 3) a discrete salmon strategy for salmon-bearing areas of the Lassen NF; 4) adaptive management strategy focused on Yosemite toad and willow flycatcher; and 5) landscape analysis focused on restoration. Our concern with this approach, in large measure, is that the wording for some objectives allows management actions to slow or impede the rate of recovery in areas in poor condition and allows management actions that would limit the transition of a site from good to excellent condition. In addition, the plans provide for no accountability or requirement to take action in areas presently in poor condition, e.g., a poorly functioning road. These limitations jeopardize the ecosystem function and integrity of these sensitive resources. We recommend the AMS be amended to address these problems and specifically address the following: • Roads and trails can have negative impacts on meadow and stream condition (e.g., erosion, altering drainage patterns).
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Imaginative Geographies of Mars: the Science and Significance of the Red Planet, 1877 - 1910
    Copyright by Kristina Maria Doyle Lane 2006 The Dissertation Committee for Kristina Maria Doyle Lane Certifies that this is the approved version of the following dissertation: IMAGINATIVE GEOGRAPHIES OF MARS: THE SCIENCE AND SIGNIFICANCE OF THE RED PLANET, 1877 - 1910 Committee: Ian R. Manners, Supervisor Kelley A. Crews-Meyer Diana K. Davis Roger Hart Steven D. Hoelscher Imaginative Geographies of Mars: The Science and Significance of the Red Planet, 1877 - 1910 by Kristina Maria Doyle Lane, B.A.; M.S.C.R.P. Dissertation Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of The University of Texas at Austin in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy The University of Texas at Austin August 2006 Dedication This dissertation is dedicated to Magdalena Maria Kost, who probably never would have understood why it had to be written and certainly would not have wanted to read it, but who would have been very proud nonetheless. Acknowledgments This dissertation would have been impossible without the assistance of many extremely capable and accommodating professionals. For patiently guiding me in the early research phases and then responding to countless followup email messages, I would like to thank Antoinette Beiser and Marty Hecht of the Lowell Observatory Library and Archives at Flagstaff. For introducing me to the many treasures held deep underground in our nation’s capital, I would like to thank Pam VanEe and Ed Redmond of the Geography and Map Division of the Library of Congress in Washington, D.C. For welcoming me during two brief but productive visits to the most beautiful library I have seen, I thank Brenda Corbin and Gregory Shelton of the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Ecology of the Sierra Nevada Gooseberry in Relation to Blister Rust Control
    4C z icology of the Sierra Nevada Gooseber n Relation to Mister Rust Control By Clarence R. Quick, Forest Ecologist, Forest Service Circular No. 937 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE CONTENTS Page Page Introduction 3 Effects of various forest dis- Plant ecology in the Sierra turbances 21 Nevada 5 Fire 21 Climatology 5 Logging 22 Sierran montane forest 6 Grazing 23 Forest ecology 7 Hand eradication 23 Autecologv of the Sierra Nevada Chemical eradication 25 gooseberry 7 Application of ecology to control Morphology 8 work 25 Diseases 8 Timing of eradication 25 Seeds and distribution 9 Estimation of gooseberry Seedling 11 occurrence potential 26 Seedling survival and growth. _ 13 Timber management 27 Fruit production 17 Decline of populations 18 Summary 28 Gooseberries and the fauna 19 Literature cited 29 Washington, D. C. March 1954 INTRODUCTION Ecological studies of the genus Ribes have been in progress in northern California for more than 20 years. A thorough under- standing of the ecology of native ribes in general, and of the Sierra Nevada gooseberry (Ribes roezli Regel) in particular, is necessary in connection with the control of the white pine blister rust in California. This disease of five-needled pines, caused by the fungus Cronartium ribicola Fischer growing on ribes as its alternate host, threatens to destroy sugar pine (Pinus lamberliana Dougi.) on about a million and a half acres of forest land that supports sufficient sugar pine to make rust control economical. Some of the conclusions from these studies are based on extensive field observations. For the most part, however, they are related directly to analyses of field data collected from several series of plots in California from 1936 to 1949.
    [Show full text]
  • Characterization of Ecoregions of Idaho
    1 0 . C o l u m b i a P l a t e a u 1 3 . C e n t r a l B a s i n a n d R a n g e Ecoregion 10 is an arid grassland and sagebrush steppe that is surrounded by moister, predominantly forested, mountainous ecoregions. It is Ecoregion 13 is internally-drained and composed of north-trending, fault-block ranges and intervening, drier basins. It is vast and includes parts underlain by thick basalt. In the east, where precipitation is greater, deep loess soils have been extensively cultivated for wheat. of Nevada, Utah, California, and Idaho. In Idaho, sagebrush grassland, saltbush–greasewood, mountain brush, and woodland occur; forests are absent unlike in the cooler, wetter, more rugged Ecoregion 19. Grazing is widespread. Cropland is less common than in Ecoregions 12 and 80. Ecoregions of Idaho The unforested hills and plateaus of the Dissected Loess Uplands ecoregion are cut by the canyons of Ecoregion 10l and are disjunct. 10f Pure grasslands dominate lower elevations. Mountain brush grows on higher, moister sites. Grazing and farming have eliminated The arid Shadscale-Dominated Saline Basins ecoregion is nearly flat, internally-drained, and has light-colored alkaline soils that are Ecoregions denote areas of general similarity in ecosystems and in the type, quality, and America into 15 ecological regions. Level II divides the continent into 52 regions Literature Cited: much of the original plant cover. Nevertheless, Ecoregion 10f is not as suited to farming as Ecoregions 10h and 10j because it has thinner soils.
    [Show full text]
  • Stanislaus National Forest Pacific Southwest Region 5 *****Outreach Notice*****
    02/12 STANISLAUS NATIONAL FOREST PACIFIC SOUTHWEST REGION 5 *****OUTREACH NOTICE***** TITLE: Various- See Below DUTY LOCATION: Stanislaus National Forest SERIES: GS-462 Various Locations- See Below GRADE: GS- 6, 7, 8, 9 FOREST: The Stanislaus National Forest (http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/stanislaus/) totals approximately 1,090,000 acres within its boundaries. The Forest is bordered on the south by the Merced River and the Sierra National Forest. The Mokelumne River and the Eldorado National Forest comprise the northern border. Yosemite National Park and the Toiyabe National Forest make up the eastern boundaries. The Forest Supervisor’s Office is located in Sonora, California, county seat for Tuolumne County. The four Ranger Districts, Mi-Wok, Calaveras, Summit and Groveland, are within 45 minutes of the Supervisor’s Office. To view the AVUE vacancy announcement summary, click the announcement number link. This will give you salary, qualification and application information regarding the position. GROVELAND RANGER DISTRICT: Please use the “AVUE Location” listed in the tables below as the preferred location on your application. Number of Position Series and AVUE Resource/Duty Merit Promotion DEMO Announcement positions Grade Location Station Announcement Number Number Forestry Groveland, 1 Technician (Fire GS-462-7 Kinsley Engine OCRP-462-FEO(H)-7G OCRP-462-FEO(H)-7DP CA Engine Operator) Forestry Technician (Hand Groveland, Buck Meadows OCRP-462- OCRP-462- 1 GS-462-7 Crew Supervisor) CA HANDCREW-7G HANDCREW-7DP For technical questions regarding the above positions, please contact Division Chief Alec Lane at: [email protected] or (209) 962-7825 x519 MI-WOK RANGER DISTRICT: Please use the “AVUE Location” listed in the tables below as the preferred location on your application.
    [Show full text]
  • Forest Insect Conditions in the United States 1966
    FOREST INSECT CONDITIONS IN THE UNITED STATES 1966 FOREST SERVICE ' U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Foreword This report is the 18th annual account of the scope, severity, and trend of the more important forest insect infestations in the United States, and of the programs undertaken to check resulting damage and loss. It is compiled primarily for managers of public and private forest lands, but has become useful to students and others interested in outbreak trends and in the location and extent of pest populations. The report also makes possible n greater awareness of the insect prob­ lem and of losses to the timber resource. The opening section highlights the more important conditions Nationwide, and each section that pertains to a forest region is prefaced by its own brief summary. Under the Federal Forest Pest Control Act, a sharing by Federal and State Governments the costs of surveys and control is resulting in a stronger program of forest insect and disease detection and evaluation surveys on non-Federal lands. As more States avail themselves of this financial assistance from the Federal Government, damage and loss from forest insects will become less. The screening and testing of nonpersistent pesticides for use in suppressing forest defoliators continued in 1966. The carbamate insecticide Zectran in a pilot study of its effectiveness against the spruce budworm in Montana and Idaho appeared both successful and safe. More extensive 'tests are planned for 1967. Since only the smallest of the spray droplets reach the target, plans call for reducing the spray to a fine mist. The course of the fine spray, resulting from diffusion and atmospheric currents, will be tracked by lidar, a radar-laser combination.
    [Show full text]
  • Sierra National Forest’S Spectacular Wilderness Areas
    Sierra National Summer Forest 2018 Wilderness Ranger Intern Application u have what it t yo ake Do Wilderness Intern Rangers s? are integral members of the wilderness team working in the Sierra National Forest’s spectacular wilderness areas. Interns have an opportunity to take on most or all of the same duties as a full-time wilderness ranger. Interns will primarily be working with a full-time wilderness ranger, but may be required to work alone or with volunteer groups from time to time. lderness isite Wi Ranger equ Ski er Excellent physical fitness required; ll r s: P backpacking and wilderness experience a plus! to backpack with 50+ lbs on your back for up to 9 days in steep terrain and high elevations Ability The Wilderness Act, wilderness ethics, Desire to Learn About and Leave-No-Trace (LNT) principles Basic computer and of ce skills for data entry, running reports, and f ling Ability to communicate ef ectively and ef ciently Adventurous Spirit with both coworkers and members of the public Skills Typically Taught and Certifications Typically Received: e Crosscut Saw Course and Certification e Methods of Making Public Contacts e Radio Communications e First Aid/CPR Certifcation e Leave-No-Trace (LNT) Training e Trail Maintenance Theory andT echniques e Campsite Inventorying and Rehabilitation e Working with Partners and Other Volunteers e Documentation Procedures for Data Collection e Pack Stock (Horses & Mules) Training* *Intern Rangers may be required to work with or around stock or may encounter stock users during the summer. Interns will be taught the basics of riding and han- dling stock as well as LNT techniques for wilderness stock use.
    [Show full text]
  • Sierra Nevada Mountain Yellow-Legged Frog
    BEFORE THE SECRETARY OF INTERIOR CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL ) PETITION TO LIST THE SIERRA DIVERSITY AND PACIFIC RIVERS ) NEVADA MOUNTAIN YELLOW- COUNCIL ) LEGGED FROG (RANA MUSCOSA) AS ) AN ENDANGERED SPECIES UNDER ) THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT Petitioners ) ________________________________ ) February 8, 2000 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Center for Biological Diversity and Pacific Rivers Council formally request that the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (“USFWS”) list the Sierra Nevada population of the mountain yellow-legged frog (Rana muscosa) as endangered under the federal Endangered Species Act (“ESA”), 16 U.S.C. § 1531 - 1544. These organizations also request that mountain yellow- legged frog critical habitat be designated concurrent with its listing. The petitioners are conservation organizations with an interest in protecting the mountain yellow-legged frog and all of earth’s remaining biodiversity. The mountain yellow-legged frog in the Sierra Nevada is geographically, morphologically and genetically distinct from mountain yellow legged frogs in southern California. It is undisputedly a “species” under the ESA’s listing criteria and warrants recognition as such. The mountain yellow-legged frog was historically the most abundant frog in the Sierra Nevada. It was ubiquitously distributed in high elevation water bodies from southern Plumas County to southern Tulare County. It has since declined precipitously. Recent surveys have found that the species has disappeared from between 70 and 90 percent of its historic localities. What populations remain are widely scattered and consist of few breeding adults. Declines were first noticed in the 1950's, escalated in the 1970's and 1980's, and continue today. What was recently thought to be one of the largest remaining populations, containing over 2000 adult frogs in 1996, completely crashed in the past three years; only 2 frogs were found in the same area in 1999.
    [Show full text]
  • A Visitor's Guide to the Sierra National Forest
    Sierra Traveler A Visitor’s Guide to the Sierra National Forest Photo by Joshua Courter by Joshua Photo Anne Lake, Ansel Adams Wilderness - Sierra National Forest What are you interested in doing in the Sierra? Can we help you find what you want to do in the Sierra? Visit Your National Forest! Destinations ......................................................................................................... 2 Sierra National Forest Supervisors Office Camping Guide .................................................................................................. 3 1600 Tollhouse Rd. Clovis, CA 93611 Helpful Hints ........................................................................................................ 4 (559) 297-0706 Merced River Country ...................................................................................... 5 Yosemite South/Highway 41 .......................................................................... 6 High Sierra Ranger District Bass Lake ............................................................................................................... 7 29688 Auberry Rd. Prather, CA 93651 Mammoth Pool Reservoir ............................................................................... 8 (559) 855-5355 San Joaquin River Gorge Management ..................................................... 9 Bass Lake Ranger District Sierra Vista National Scenic Byway ...................................................... 10-12 57003 Road 225 North Fork, CA 93643 Dinkey Creek/McKinley Grove ....................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Of 3 25 January 2016 Dean Gould, Forest Supervisor Sierra National
    25 January 2016 Dean Gould, Forest Supervisor Sierra National Forest 1600 Tollhouse Rd. Clovis, CA 93611 SUBMITTED ELECTRONICALLY VIA EMAIL: To: [email protected] Re: French Project: Logging in Roadless Areas COMMENT #2 Dear Mr. Gould, On behalf of Sequoia Forest Keeper, Kern-Kaweah Chapter Sierra Club, and Sierra Club California/Nevada Wildlife Team, I am submitting these comments on the Forest Service’s proposal to conduct over 1,000 acres of post-fire logging of live and dead trees including clearcutting of live and dead old growth trees, within Roadless Areas in the French fire of 2014 on the Sierra National Forest. We reviewed the two documents associated with the Sierra National Forest's proposal to build or re-create roads, and conduct post-fire logging and clearcutting of live and dead trees, in two Roadless Areas in the French fire--specifically, we refer to the Wilderness Report and the Burkindine Declaration. These documents simply make unverified assertions about half-mile "pinch-points" between long unused roads, old underground water pipes that the Forest Service is calling "aqueducts", and a powerline at the edge of one Roadless Area. The Forest Service then uses these assertions to argue, essentially, that the Roadless Areas are not really roadless and thus no harm to roadless or wilderness characteristics need be evaluated. Page 1 of 3 However, without having the ability to safely access the physical locations of these areas, and do so while there is not snow covering the ground, we cannot meaningfully and fully address the veracity of the arguments used by the Forest Service to disqualify the great majority of the Roadless Areas from Roadless designation, and we cannot gather evidence--photographic and otherwise--to provide to the Forest Service about these so called "developments".
    [Show full text]
  • Key Issues in the Sequoia & Sierra Revised Draft Forest
    KEY ISSUES IN THE SEQUOIA & SIERRA REVISED DRAFT FOREST PLANS The revised draft Sequoia and Sierra Forest Plans are analyzed in the Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement (RDEIS) as the Preferred Alternative B. Conservation groups urge the public to support Alternative C with the changes noted below. Alternative C recommends far more wilderness protection, proposes more acres of forest restored through prescribed and managed fire, and more riparian and meadow restoration than Alternative B. Wilderness Recommendations What’s Good: The RDEIS identifies more than 800,000 acres of wilderness-quality lands across the two forests. The conservation-oriented Alternative C recommends over 452,000 acres of new wilderness. The new Alternative E also creates a Backcountry Management Area designation for roadless lands not recommended as wilderness. However, the Forest Service’s preferred Alternative B only adds a paltry 4,900 acres of new wilderness on the Sequoia NF and recommends no new wilderness on the Sierra NF despite hundreds of thousands of eligible acres. Significant Improvements Needed: The Forest Service should adopt Alternative C or strengthen Alternative B to include more recommended wilderness areas on both forests, with an emphasis on low-elevation areas not typically protected by the wilderness system (see below for specific areas). Both plans should also apply Alternative E’s Backcountry Management Area designation to protect roadless areas not recommended for wilderness protection. Sequoia National Forest: Recommended wilderness areas should include the Golden Trout Wilderness Addition, Stormy Canyon, Oat Mountain, Cannell Peak, and the Domeland Wilderness West Addition, using boundaries developed by conservation groups to reduce conflicts with motorized and mountain bike trails (as displayed in Alternative E).
    [Show full text]
  • Supplement to the U.S. Department of Energy's Environmental Impact Statement for a Geologic Repository For
    NUREG-2184 Supplement to the U.S. Department of Energy’s Environmental Impact Statement for a Geologic Repository for the Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste at Yucca Mountain, Nye County, Nevada Draft Report for Comment Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards AVAILABILITY OF REFERENCE MATERIALS IN NRC PUBLICATIONS NRC Reference Material Non-NRC Reference Material As of November 1999, you may electronically access Documents available from public and special technical NUREG-series publications and other NRC records at libraries include all open literature items, such as books, NRC’s Library at www.nrc.gov/reading-rm.html. Publicly journal articles, transactions, Federal Register notices, released records include, to name a few, NUREG-series Federal and State legislation, and congressional reports. publications; Federal Register notices; applicant, Such documents as theses, dissertations, foreign reports licensee, and vendor documents and correspondence; and translations, and non-NRC conference proceedings NRC correspondence and internal memoranda; bulletins may be purchased from their sponsoring organization. and information notices; inspection and investigative reports; licensee event reports; and Commission papers Copies of industry codes and standards used in a and their attachments. substantive manner in the NRC regulatory process are maintained at— NRC publications in the NUREG series, NRC regulations, The NRC Technical Library and Title 10, “Energy,” in the Code of Federal Regulations Two White Flint North may also be purchased from one of these two sources. 11545 Rockville Pike Rockville, MD 20852-2738 1. The Superintendent of Documents U.S. Government Publishing Office These standards are available in the library for reference Mail Stop IDCC use by the public.
    [Show full text]
  • Regional Order No. 21-07 Emergency Forest Closures
    Regional Order No. 21-07 USDA Forest Service Pacific Southwest Region Emergency Forest Closure Pursuant to 16 U.S.C. § 551 and 36 C.F.R. § 261.50(a) and (b), and to provide for public safety and protect natural resources, the following acts are prohibited on National Forest System lands within the Pacific Southwest Region. This Order supersedes Regional Order No. 21-04 and is effective from August 31, 2021, at 11:59 p.m. through September 17, 2021, at 11:59 p.m. 1. Going into or being upon National Forest System lands within the National Forests listed below. a. Tahoe National Forest b. Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit c. Plumas National Forest d. Lassen National Forest e. Mendocino National Forest f. Klamath National Forest g. Six Rivers National Forest h. Shasta-Trinity National Forest i. Modoc National Forest j. Cleveland National Forest k. San Bernardino National Forest l. Angeles National Forest m. Los Padres National Forest n. Sequoia National Forest o. Sierra National Forest p. Stanislaus National Forest q. Inyo National Forest 36 C.F.R. § 261.52(e). 2. Being on a National Forest System road within the National Forests listed below. a. Tahoe National Forest b. Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit c. Plumas National Forest d. Lassen National Forest e. Mendocino National Forest f. Klamath National Forest g. Six Rivers National Forest h. Shasta-Trinity National Forest i. Modoc National Forest j. Cleveland National Forest k. San Bernardino National Forest l. Angeles National Forest m. Los Padres National Forest n. Sequoia National Forest o. Sierra National Forest p.
    [Show full text]