DOCSLIB.ORG

Sierra Forest Legacy Objection to Inyo National Forest Plan and Final

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Sierra Forest Legacy Objection to Inyo National Forest Plan and Final October 3, 2018 Barnie Gyant Objection Reviewing Officer Pacific Southwest Region USDA Forest Service 1323 Club Drive Vallejo, CA 94592 Submitted via: [email protected] Re: Objections to the Inyo National Forest Plan Revision and Species of Conservation Concern Dear Mr. Gyant: Pursuant to 36 CFR Part 219 Subpart B, Sierra Forest Legacy, California Wilderness Coalition, The Wilderness Society, Friends of the Inyo, California Native Plant Society, Mono Lake Committee, Western Watersheds Project, Defenders of Wildlife, Sierra Club, Center for Sierra Nevada Conservation, Lassen Forest Preservation Group, and Forest Issues Group are objecting to portions of the Draft Record of Decision, Final Forest Plan, and Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Inyo National Forest. The responsible official for the Inyo plan revision is Tammy Randall-Parker, Forest Supervisor, Inyo National Forest. We are also objecting to the list of Species of Conservation Concern adopted by Regional Forester Randy Moore. Collectively, the objecting organizations have provided substantive formal comments throughout the forest planning process for the Inyo National Forest on the objection issues we raise below. We are deeply invested in securing a forest plan for the Inyo National Forest that protects important natural resources and provides for people. This objection covers a variety of issues related to resources affected by the revised forest plan and offers recommendations on how objection issues could be resolved. We appreciate the opportunity for review and possible resolution of issues contained in this objection prior to the approval of the final plan. We look forward to an opportunity to discuss our concerns with you. Sincerely, Susan Britting Lead Objector Sierra Forest Legacy SFL et al. Objection to the Inyo Revised Forest Plan (10/3/18) Fran Hunt Eastern Sierra Organizer Sierra Club Malcolm Clark Range of Light Group, Toiyabe Chapter Sierra Club Karen Schambach Executive Director Center for Sierra Nevada Conservation Steve Evans California Wilderness Coalition (CalWild) Laura Cunningham California Director Western Watersheds Project Jora Fogg Policy Director Friends of the Inyo Pamela Flick Senior California Representative Defenders of Wildlife Greg Suba Conservation Director California Native Plant Society Lisa Cutting Eastern Sierra Policy Director Mono Lake Committee Mike Anderson Senior Policy Analyst The Wilderness Society Don Rivenes Executive Director Forest Issues Group Trish Puterbaugh Lassen Forest Preservation Group SFL et al. Objection to the Inyo Revised Forest Plan (10/3/18) Contents I. Wilderness Recommendations .........................................................................................4 II. Inventoried Roadless Areas ........................................................................................... 24 III. Winter Recreational Opportunity Spectrum ................................................................... 26 IV. Northern Goshawk Should be A Species of Conservation Concern ................................ 33 V. At-Risk Wildlife Species ............................................................................................... 38 VI. Eligibility Determinations for Wild and Scenic Rivers ................................................... 53 VII. Meadows and Fens ........................................................................................................ 60 VIII. Complex Early Seral Forests .......................................................................................... 64 IX. At-Risk Plant Species .................................................................................................... 66 X. Restoring Fire As A Beneficial Ecological Disturbance ................................................. 68 XI. References ..................................................................................................................... 69 Attachment A: Evaluation of Underrepresented Ecosystem Types ............................................ 72 Attachment B: Habitat Conditions for California Spotted Owl .................................................. 75 SFL et al. Objection to the Inyo Revised Forest Plan (10/3/18) Objection Issues and Recommended Resolutions I. Wilderness Recommendations Introduction The opportunity to recommend wilderness designations is an integral component of the forest planning process and presents a rare opportunity to provide administrative protection to some of the most spectacular and ecologically important undeveloped lands on our national forests. These areas provide our drinking water, habitat for imperiled wildlife, physical, mental, and spiritual renewal for millions of Americans, and a buffer to the impacts of climate change. Thus, we are disappointed that only four additions to existing wilderness areas on the Inyo National Forest are recommended for wilderness designation in the Final Plan and Draft Record of Decision. While highly deserving of wilderness recommendation, those 37,039 acres represent only about 6 % of the final 614,516-acre inventory of wilderness-quality lands on the Inyo. By contrast, Alternative C would recommend 325,352 acres (about 53% of the final inventory), including many of the most deserving areas. For the reasons described below, the Record of Decision for the final plan should adopt Alternative C’s recommended wilderness to promote the forest’s ecological health and integrity, opportunities for sustainable recreation, and protection of imperiled species, among other social and ecological benefits. Prior Comments on Recommended Wilderness Issues We have previously raised the Recommended Wilderness issues contained in this objection in our extensive comments on the Draft Plan and DEIS1, which included an exhibit containing numerous other comment letters and input previously submitted during the wilderness inventory and evaluation process on the Inyo (and on the Sierra and Sequoia National Forests, at earlier stages of the process).2 In some instances, however, the Draft Record of Decision, Final Plan, and FEIS have presented new information and rationales relating to Recommended Wilderness, which has required us to newly address the issues in this objection. Summary of Objection Points in this Section: A. Many areas deserving wilderness protection are not recommended due to a flawed evaluation and analysis process that illegally biased the outcome. 1 Sierra Forest Legacy, et al., Comments on Draft Plan and DEIS, (August 25, 2016). 2 The Wilderness Society, et al., Comments on Ch. 70 wilderness evaluation process (Oct. 30, 2014) (identifying numerous deficiencies with the “Wilderness Evaluation Narrative Outline”) (Exhibit IX.1); The Wilderness Society, et al., Comments on Ch. 70 wilderness evaluation (June 3, 2015) (identifying process and range of alternatives deficiencies) (Exhibit IX.2); The Wilderness Society, et al., Comments on Ch. 70 wilderness evaluation (Aug. 28, 2015) (identifying numerous deficiencies with the wilderness evaluation process paper) (Exhibit IX.3); The Wilderness Society, et al., Comments on wilderness evaluation process (Dec. 1, 2015) (reiterating our process and range of alternatives concerns) (Exhibit IX.4); California Wilderness Coalition, Comments on early adopter forests wilderness evaluation process (Dec. 1, 2015) (providing site-specific comments on the evaluation of specific areas) (Exhibit IX.5); The Wilderness Society, et al., Comments on wilderness evaluation process and areas identified for DEIS analysis (Feb. 1, 2016) (identifying deficiencies in application of wilderness evaluation criteria, identification of areas to carry forward for analysis, and range of alternatives) (Exhibit IX.6). SFL et al. Objection to the Inyo Revised Forest Plan (10/3/18) 1. The Draft ROD misreads the Wilderness Act’s definition of wilderness 2. Consideration of ecological representation is misrepresented 3. The Draft ROD relies on the inaccurate assumption that at-risk species restoration cannot occur in Recommended Wilderness. 4. Wilderness analysis process lacks consistency and scientific credibility. 5. Wilderness suitability is not properly considered, resulting in tainted analysis and wilderness recommendations. 6. The FEIS and Draft ROD fail to take a hard look at the ecological benefits of recommended wilderness in violation of the National Environmental Policy Act. 7. The FEIS and Draft ROD fail to use the best available scientific information regarding wilderness benefits, in violation of the 2012 Planning Rule. 36 C.F.R. 219.3. 8. The Forest Service should adopt a strengthened Alternative C for recommended wilderness. B: Management of Recommended Wilderness C: The FEIS fails to analyze a reasonable range of alternatives for Recommended Wilderness Areas. A. Many areas deserving wilderness protection are not recommended due to a flawed evaluation and analysis process that illegally biased the outcome. The Draft Record of Decision recommends four areas totaling 37,029 acres for inclusion in the NWPS: South Sierra Addition (17,622 acres), Piper Mountain Addition 1 (11,840 acres), White Mountains Addition West (5,062 acres), and White Mountains Addition East (2,505 acres). The areas recommended in the preferred alternative (B-modified) are all adjacent to existing wilderness managed by the Inyo National Forest or the Bureau of Land Management. The four recommended areas represent only 6% of the 614,516 acres in the Inyo National Forest that
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Jennie Lakes & Monarch Wilderness Detailed Trail Reports and Information
    2015, Wilderness, Hume Lake RD, Sequoia NF Jennie Lakes & Monarch Wilderness Detailed Trail Reports and Information (trailhead names are in bold type) By: Jeff Duneman, Wilderness Ranger Hume Lake Ranger District, Sequoia National Forest Last updated: August 3rd, 2015 *NOTES: “How long will it take?! Is it a hard hike?!” Difficulty and time required depends on you, the hiker, and your condition. An experienced, strong hiker will cover 3-4 miles (or more!) an hour carrying a full pack, without stopping. Someone who doesn’t hike much (or walk much, for that matter) will cover 1-2 miles (or less!) an hour, without a big pack, with frequent stops. Know your abilities! Always carry water, always check weather conditions, always tell people where you are going, and always familiarize yourself with the area (real maps recommended, not GPS). Pay attention to your surroundings, and enjoy your wilderness! *LEAVE NO TRACE: Please take a look at the seven Leave No Trace wilderness ethics before you head out to the trail – https://lnt.org/learn/7-principles *Never leave trash or toilet paper behind! Pack it all in, pack it all out. *When campfires are allowed (check with the forest service on current fire status), always completely drown your campfire so that it is completely out! Jennie Lakes Wilderness (JLW) 1) Big Meadows Trail (#?)/Weaver Lake Trail (#30E09) Big Meadows trailhead up to Weaver Lake: At about 3.5 miles one-way, this is one of the easiest and most popular hikes in the JLW. The trail winds through Lodgepole Pines near the trailhead, climbs slowly (with a nice view into Kings Canyon) into Red and White Firs, with another slight ascent once you are getting closer to the lake.
    [Show full text]
  • Giant Sequoia National Monument, Draft Environmental Impact Statement Volume 1 1 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences
    United States Department of Giant Sequoia Agriculture Forest Service National Monument Giant Sequoia National Monument Draft Environmental Impact Statement August 2010 Volume 1 The U. S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 14th and Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (202) 720-5964 (voice and TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. Chapter 4 - Environmental Consequences Giant Sequoia National Monument, Draft Environmental Impact Statement Volume 1 1 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Volume 1 Giant Sequoia National Monument, Draft Environmental Impact Statement 2 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Chapter 4 includes the environmental effects analysis. It is organized by resource area, in the same manner as Chapter 3. Effects are displayed for separate resource areas in terms of the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects associated with the six alternatives considered in detail. Effects can be neutral, beneficial, or adverse. This chapter also discusses the unavoidable adverse effects, the relationship between short-term uses and long-term productivity, and any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources. Environmental consequences form the scientific and analytical basis for comparison of the alternatives.
    [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]
  • Returntodeadmancanyon
    returntodeadmancanyon August 25 - September 3, 2017 Over the past decade or so, I've led small groups of Southern Arizona Hiking SAHC Hike Info Club members on week-long trips to California's Sierra Nevada. Back in 2010, I did this exact same trip and said I'd be back. This seems like the year Guide: Steve Singkofer for it. Days/Nites: 7/6 Rating: A This aggressive loop backpack trip from the Lodgepole Visitor Center delves Tot Distance: 53.7 mi through the backcountry of Kings Canyon and Sequoia National Parks, Tot Elev Gain: 9,500 ft building by slow degrees to a grand climax of a High Sierra crossing at Meet: Other Elizabeth Pass, and winding down again with another gradual passage down Time: 9:00 AM the north wall of the Kaweah River canyon. Glacier-carved cliffs and Type: Trail mountains, deep canyons, wildlife, and giant sequoias - this hike has it all! I Drive: 1450 mi think this trip is going to be the best yet! Join me for this amazing trip to one Maps: Lodgepole, Mount of the crown jewels of the American wilderness system. Silliman, Sphinx Lakes, Triple Divide Peak The Drive Area: Kings Canyon and We'll leave Tucson early on Friday, August 25th and make the eight-hour, Sequoia National Parks 520-mile drive to Sylmar, CA, where we'll spend the night in the Motel 6. See the links to the right, and make your reservations early. On Saturday, August 26th, we'll get up early and continue our drive, having breakfast along the way.
    [Show full text]
  • Interagency Wilderness Fire Management1
    The Biswell Symposium: Fire Issues and Solutions in Urban Interface and Wildland Ecosystems Concurrent Session I Interagency Wilderness Fire Management1 Jim Desmond2 Abstract: Wilderness fire managers are often confronted with that encompasses more than one million continuous acres in natural fire ignitions that start and/or burn near an adjoining agency’s the Sierra Nevada. wilderness area boundary. Management strategies for prescribed In the Central Sierra Nevada, National Forest wilderness natural fires (PNF) are often developed using the adjoining agency’s areas and National Parks adjoin along common boundaries. wilderness boundary as the maximum allowable perimeter (control These boundaries were established for a variety of line) for the PNF. When this occurs, fire’s natural role in the administrative reasons and may or may not make sense wilderness ecosystem may be restricted. The difficulty of burning near another agency’s jurisdictional boundary can be overcome by when managing a prescribed natural fire. In this area, the strong planning, close communications, and timely coordination National Park Service currently operates with approved Fire between the two affected agencies. Communications and coordi- Management Plans allowing for PNF in wilderness areas. nation can be achieved only through developing and maintaining a The Forest Service is in the plan development stage. In this strong working relationship with the fire manager of the adjoining current situation, park fire managers have to manage natural agency. Keys to good interagency coordination are (1) investing ignitions according to current agency procedures and time, (2) understanding the policies and procedures of the adjoin- restrictions if the natural ignition is close to the park/forest ing agency, (3) developing and maintaining open communications, boundary.
    [Show full text]
  • Trail Protecti N
    Trail Protecti n By Brendan Taylor, PCTA Associate Regional Representative n Labor Day, I stood on the PCT in the Kiavah Wilderness of Southern California, staring at an enormous black smoke cloud billowing up from a canyon south of me. I had a sinking feeling that some part of the Trail was burning. When I got back into cell phone range later that day, my phone bombarded me with messages saying that Oak Creek Canyon and the PCT were on fire. own, sometimes raging despite tireless efforts of firefighters. If fires go unchecked, the impact to the PCT can be significant. Almost The fire, started by a plane crash in a side canyon, spread quickly, certainly, the agency that manages the land will close the trail to destroying many private residences and raging over the trail itself, users because of the many hazards present in a burn area, especially eventually burning 30,000 acres outside Tehachapi. Firefighters even- burned trees that could come down with the slightest wind gust. tually brought the Canyon Fire under control, but a 30-mile section Eventually, all of those trees will come down, many of them onto of the PCT around Oak Creek Canyon is now closed. This closure is the trail. The resulting log piles and the rapid regrowth of sun-loving just one of five caused by fire on the PCT at the time of this writing brush will make the PCT near impassable until a crew clears the in late September. In many ways, fire is the most challenging trail trail – a rather onerous task in remote wilderness settings.
    [Show full text]
  • Monarch Wilderness Sequoia National Forest Giant Sequoia National Monument Hume Lake Ranger District
    United States Department of Agriculture Monarch Wilderness Sequoia National Forest Giant Sequoia National Monument Hume Lake Ranger District About: Trails: The Monarch Wilderness is located in the northeast corner Three main trailheads provide access to the Monarch of the Hume Lake Ranger District. Beautiful and dramatic, Wilderness and several of the trails also connect to Kings this extremely rugged 45,000 acres of wilder ness rises from Canyon National Park backcountry. Visitors can enjoy 2,000 feet elevation at the South Fork of the Kings River to overnight stays or a day hike into a less populated, more over 11,000 feet at Hogback Peak and provides amazing secluded wilderness and find outstanding opportunities for views of the Kings River canyon. The vegetation ranges solitude. Due to the ever-changing rugged terrain, most from chaparral to sub-alpine. There are mountain meadows, trails are not maintained and hikers may come across large lakes and spectacular geological formations. obstacles such as down trees and rockslides. For more information, contact the district office or the Wilderness The Monarch Wilderness spans two National Forests and is Ranger. divided by Hwy 180 Scenic Byway. The Hume Lake ranger District of Sequoia National Forest and the Giant Sequoia Central Monarch: National Monument manages the central and southern The one main access to the central portion of the portions while the northern portion is managed by the Sierra Wilderness is through Deer Cove Trailhead. Be aware National Forest. that these trails are not regularly maintained. The trail climbs 3,000 feet elevation in about four miles.
    [Show full text]
  • Stock Users Guide to the Wilderness of Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks a Tool for Planning Stock-Supported Wilderness Trips
    Sequoia & Kings Canyon National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior National Parks Stock Users Guide to the Wilderness of Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks A tool for planning stock-supported wilderness trips SEQUOIA & KINGS CANYON NATIONAL PARKS Wilderness Office 47050 Generals Highway Three Rivers, California 93271 559-565-3766 [email protected] www.nps.gov/seki/planyourvisit/wilderness.htm Revised May 6th, 2021 EAST CREEK .............................................................................. 19 TABLE OF CONTENTS SPHINX CREEK .......................................................................... 19 INTRO TO GUIDE ........................................................................ 2 ROARING RIVER ....................................................................... 19 LAYOUT OF THE GUIDE............................................................. 3 CLOUD CANYON ....................................................................... 20 STOCK USE & GRAZING RESTRICTIONS: DEADMAN CANYON ................................................................ 20 KINGS CANYON NATIONAL PARK .................................... 4 SUGARLOAF AND FERGUSON CREEKS ................................. 21 SEQUOIA NATIONAL PARK ................................................ 6 CLOVER AND SILLIMAN CREEKS .......................................... 23 MINIMUM IMPACT STOCK USE ................................................ 8 LONE PINE CREEK .................................................................... 23 MINIMUM
    [Show full text]
  • Field Assessment of Whitebark Pine in the Sierra Nevada
    FIELD ASSESSMENT OF WHITEBARK PINE IN THE SIERRA NEVADA Sara Taylor, Daniel Hastings, and Julie Evens Purpose of field work: 1. Verify distribution of whitebark pine in its southern extent (pure and mixed stands) 2. Assess the health and status of whitebark pine 3. Ground truth polygons designated by CALVEG as whitebark pine Regional Dominant 4. Conduct rapid assessment or reconnaissance surveys California National Forest Overview Areas surveyed: July 2013 Sequoia National Forest Areas surveyed: August 2013 Eldorado National Forest Areas surveyed: September 2013 Stanislaus National Forest Field Protocol and Forms: • Modified CNPS/CDFW Vegetation Rapid Assessment protocol Additions to CNPS/CDFW Rapid Assessment protocol: CNDDB • Individuals/stand • Phenology • Overall viability (health/status) Marc Meyer • Level of beetle attack • % absolute dead cover • % of whitebark cones CNPS • Impacts and % mortality from rust and beetle Field Protocol and Forms: • CNPS/CDFW Field Reconnaissance (recon) protocol is a simplified Rapid Assessment (RA) protocol 3 reasons to conduct a recon: 1. WBP stand is largely diseased/infested 2. CALVEG polygon was incorrect 3. WBP stand was close to other RA Results: Sequoia National Forest • Whitebark pine was not found during survey in Golden Trout Wilderness • Calveg polygons assessed (36 total) were mostly foxtail pine (Pinus balfouriana) • Highest survey conducted was at 11,129 ft at the SEKI and NF border Results: Eldorado National Forest (N to S) Desolation Wilderness: • 3 rapid assessments and 8 recons were conducted • 9,061 to 9,225 ft in elevation • Lower elevation stands were more impacted from MPB Mokelumne Wilderness: • 5 rapid assessments and 10 recons were conducted • 8,673 to 9,566 ft.
    [Show full text]
  • 3 Emigrant Lake
    26 • Sierra Nevada EMIGRANT LAKE 3 Length: 9 miles round-trip Hiking time: 5 hours or overnight High point: 8,600 feet Total elevation gain: 950 feet Difficulty: easy Season: mid-July through late October Water: available from Caples Lake and Emigrant Lake (purify first) Maps: USGS 7.5’ Caples Lake, USFS Mokelumne Wilderness Information: Amador Ranger District, Eldorado National Forest One-way 8600' 8500' tower high above. Day hikers do not need permits. 8400' Overnight hikers need to contact the Amador 8300' Ranger Station for more information on obtaining 8200' 8100' a permit (209-295-4251; www.fs.fed.us/r5/eldorado; 8000' during the summer season you can also call the 7900' 7800' Carson Pass Information Station, 209-258-8606.) 0 mile 2.25 4.5 No fires are allowed, so bring your backpacking ThisHike 3. Emigr trailant Lakofferse an easy day hike or overnight trip stove. Groups are limited to a maximum size of that’s suitable for all. You’ll travel through small, twelve for day hikes and eight for overnight trips. flower-filled meadows and a mixed pine/fir forest The trailhead parking area, signed for Caples to deep Emigrant Lake, where mountain peaks Lake, is on the south side of Highway 88 by the To Carson Pass Caples Lake Emigrant Lake Mokelumne Wilderness P Covered Wagon To Sacramento Peak 0 1 88 MILES Thimble Peak Emigrant Lake • 27 Caples Lake Dam, which is 4.9 miles west of Car- A rock hop across Emigrant Lake’s outlet son Pass (parking fee). stream awaits at 4 miles, after which you’ll have The signed trail begins near the bathrooms occasional eastward views through the trees of and, after passing a few quaking aspen, contours The Sisters’ rocky spires as the climb continues.
    [Show full text]
  • Practices for Wilderness and Backcountry David N
    United States Department of Agriculture Low-Impact Recreational Forest Service Intermountain Practices for Wilderness Research Station General Technical and Backcountry Report INT-265 August 1989 David N. Cole THE AUTHOR There are three primary ways of accessing information on specific practices. Someone interested in all of the practices DAVID N. COLE is research biologist and Project Leader for useful in avoiding specific problems can use the lists follow- the Intermountain Station’s Wilderness Management Re- ing the discussions of each management problem. Major search Work Unit at the Forestry Sciences Laboratory, categories of practices, such as all those that pertain to the Missoula. Dr. Cole received his B.A. degree in geography use of campfires, can be located in the table of contents. from the University of California, Berkeley, in 1972. He Specific practices are listed in appendix A. received his Ph.D., also in geography, from the University of Oregon in 1977. He has written many papers on wilderness CONTENTS management, particularly the ecological effects of recrea- tional use. Introduction ..........................................................................l Education-A Personal Perspective ................................... .2 PREFACE Management Problems.. ......................................................3 Trail Problems ................................................................. 3 This report summarizes information on low-impact recrea- Campsite Problems .........................................................5
    [Show full text]
  • Draft Small Vessel General Permit
    ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM PUBLIC NOTICE The United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 W. Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois has requested a determination from the Illinois Department of Natural Resources if their Vessel General Permit (VGP) and Small Vessel General Permit (sVGP) are consistent with the enforceable policies of the Illinois Coastal Management Program (ICMP). VGP regulates discharges incidental to the normal operation of commercial vessels and non-recreational vessels greater than or equal to 79 ft. in length. sVGP regulates discharges incidental to the normal operation of commercial vessels and non- recreational vessels less than 79 ft. in length. VGP and sVGP can be viewed in their entirety at the ICMP web site http://www.dnr.illinois.gov/cmp/Pages/CMPFederalConsistencyRegister.aspx Inquiries concerning this request may be directed to Jim Casey of the Department’s Chicago Office at (312) 793-5947 or [email protected]. You are invited to send written comments regarding this consistency request to the Michael A. Bilandic Building, 160 N. LaSalle Street, Suite S-703, Chicago, Illinois 60601. All comments claiming the proposed actions would not meet federal consistency must cite the state law or laws and how they would be violated. All comments must be received by July 19, 2012. Proposed Small Vessel General Permit (sVGP) United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) SMALL VESSEL GENERAL PERMIT FOR DISCHARGES INCIDENTAL TO THE NORMAL OPERATION OF VESSELS LESS THAN 79 FEET (sVGP) AUTHORIZATION TO DISCHARGE UNDER THE NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM In compliance with the provisions of the Clean Water Act, as amended (33 U.S.C.
    [Show full text]