DOCSLIB.ORG

Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 25/Friday, February 6, 1998/Notices

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 25/Friday, February 6, 1998/Notices Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 25 / Friday, February 6, 1998 / Notices 6179 measures, incorporating state and local recommended additional alternatives be Summary: EPA expressed lack of measures whenever possible, for only developed to minimize water quality objection to the preferred alternative those projects which request federal impacts, disclosure of the effects of described in the Final EIS. financial assistance. ``motorized'' mine exploration and ERP No. F±AFS±J65257±UT, High development and incorporation of total Uintas Wilderness Forest Plan VII. Summary maximum daily loads for water Amendment, Implementation, Ashley This determination affects only the pollutants in the EIS. and Wasatch-Cache National Forests, Poolesville Area Aquifer System located ERP No. D±AFS±J65281±UT Rating Duchesne and Summit Counties, UT. in Western Montgomery County, MD. LO, Spruce Ecosystem Recovery Project, Summary: EPA expressed lack of As a result of this Sole Source Aquifer Implementation, Dixie National Forest, objections with the preferred determination, all federal financially- Cedar City Ranger District, Iron County, alternative. assisted projects proposed in the UT. ERP No. F±AFS±J65258±MT, Lewis designated area will be subject to EPA SUMMARY: EPA expressed lack of and Clark National Forest Plan, review to ensure that they do not create objections. Implementation, Oil and Gas Leasing a significant hazard to public health. ERP No. D±AFS±K65201±CA Rating Analysis, Upper Missouri River Basin, Once designated, the Poolesville Area EC2, Liberty Forest Health Improvement several counties, MT. Aquifer System will become part of the Project, Implementation, Tahoe National Summary: EPA expressed existing MD Piedmont SSA area. Forests, Sierraville Ranger District, environmental concerns regarding the Dated: January 14, 1998. Sierra and Nevada Counties, CA. cumulative impacts analysis, and Thomas C. Voltaggio, SUMMARY: EPA expressed impacts to wetlands and air quality. Acting Regional Administrator, U.S. environmental concerns involving EPA recommended that air and water Environmental Protection AgencyÐRegion III. threshold of concern (TOC) exceedences quality monitoring be implemented at [FR Doc. 98±3042 Filed 2±5±98; 8:45 am] in three sub-watersheds and road the lease proposal stage to verify site management proposals. BILLING CODE 6560±50±P conditions and validate predictions. ERP No. D±BLM±J01076±WY Rating ERP No. F±AFS±J65264±UT, EC2, Powder River (WYW136142) and Sheepherder Hill Sanitation Salvage ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Thundercloud (WYW136458) Coal Sale, Management of Selected AGENCY Lease Applications, Federal Coal Vegetation Stands, Implementation, Leasing, Campbell and Converse Uinta National Forest, Spanish Fork [ER±FRL±5488±7] Counties, WY. District, Nebo Management Area, Utah SUMMARY: EPA expressed County, UT. Environmental Impact Statements and environmental concerns and requested Regulations; Availability of EPA Summary: The final EIS addressed additional information related to Air EPA's concerns. Comments Quality and Irreverable and Irretrievable Dated: February 3, 1998. Availability of EPA comments Commitment of Resources. William D. Dickerson, prepared January 19, 1998 through ERP No. D±BLM±L65295±OR Rating January 23, 1998 pursuant to the EC2, Northeastern Oregon Assembled Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal Activities. Environmental Review Process (ERP), Land Exchange Resource Management under Section 309 of the Clean Air Act Plan (RMP), Implementation, Site [FR Doc. 98±3082 Filed 2±5±98; 8:45 am] and Section 102(2)(c) of the National Specific, John Day, Umatilla, Granda BILLING CODE 6560±50±U Environmental Policy Act as amended. Ronde, Power River Basins, Grant, Requests for copies of EPA comments Umatilla, Morrow, Wheeler, Baker, Wallowa and Union, OR. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION can be directed to the Office of Federal AGENCY Activities at (202) 564±7267. SUMMARY: EPA expressed An explanation of the ratings assigned environmental concerns based on [ER±FRL±5488±6] to draft environmental impact potential water quality and riparian statements (EISs) was published in FR habitat impacts, loss of Columbia Basin Environmental Impact Statements; dated April 11, 1997 (62 FR 16154). shrub-steppe habitat, and loss of old Notice of Availability growth forest habitat. Draft EISs ERP No. DS±AFS±J65213±MT Rating Responsible Agency: Office of Federal ERP No. D±AFS±J65277±CO Rating LO, Helena National Forest and Elkhorn Activities, General Information (202) EC2, Sheep Flats Diversity Unit, Timber Mountain portion of the Deerlodge 564±7167 OR (202) 564±7153. Sales and Related Road Construction, National Forest Land and Resource Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Management Plan, Updated Information Statements Gunnison National Forests, Collbran on Oil and Gas Leasing, Filed January 26, 1998 Through January Ranger District, Mesa County, CO. Implementation, several counties, MT. 30, 1998 Summary: EPA expressed SUMMARY: EPA expressed lack of Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9 environmental concerns and requested objections. EIS No. 980016, Draft EIS, NSF, additional information related to Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station, Final EISs sedimentation potential, surface water Proposal to Modernize through resource buffer zone mitigation and ERP No. F±AFS±J02034±UT, Western Reconstruction and Replacement of intermittent road closure BMPs. Uinta Basin Oil and Gas Leasing, Key Facilities, Antarctica, Due: March ERP No. D±AFS±J65279±MT Rating Implementation, Federal Oil and Gas 23, 1998, Contact: Joyce A. Jatko (703) EC2, Wayup Mine/Fourth of July Road Estate on Land Administrated by the 306±1032. Access, Right-of-Way Grant, Kootenai Uinta and Ashley National Forests in EIS No. 980017, Final EIS, IBR, CA, National Forest, Libby Ranger District, the western portion of the National Hamilton City Pumping Plant, Fish Lincoln County, MT. Forests in the Western portion of the Screen Improvement Project, COE Summary: EPA expressed Uinta Basin, Wasatch and Duchesne Section 10 and 404 Permits, Central environmental concerns and Counties, UT. Valley, Butte, Colusa, Glenn and 6180 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 25 / Friday, February 6, 1998 / Notices Tehama Counties, CA, Due: March 9, Permits, Endangered Species Act Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water 1998, Contact: Matt Davis (916) 557± (ESA) and NPDE's permits, US Treatment Rule (LT2ESWTR) and the 6708. Canada border at Woodland Stage 2 Disinfectants/Disinfection EIS No. 980018, Draft EIS, AFS, AK, (Burleyville) Maine and Westbrook Byproducts Rule (Stage 2 DBP). The Crane and Rowan Mountain Timber Maine, Due: March 23, 1998, Contact: Agency is developing this set of rules to Sales, Implementation, Tongass Paul McKee (202) 208±1088. take into account risk trade-offs between National Forest, Stikine Area, Kuiu EIS No. 980026, Draft EIS, FTA, FL, microbial contaminants and chemical Island, AK, Due: March 23, 1998, Miami North Corridor Project, Transit byproducts of disinfection processes, as Contact: Everett Kissenger (907) 772± Improvements between NW 62 Street well as to consider the need for 3841. at Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Station improved control in each of these areas. EIS No. 980019, Final EIS, FHW, WI, La and NW 215th Street at the Dade/ Information exchange and technical Crosse North-South Transportation Broward Counties Line, Funding, discussions in these meetings will Corridor Study, I±90 to US 14/61 Major Investment Study, Dade address analysis of source water (South Avenue) Transportation County, FL , Due: March 23, 1998, occurrence data and drinking water Improvements including US 53, WI± Contact: Elizabeth B. Martin (404) treatment plant and distribution system 35 and WI±16, Funding and COE 562±3500. data collected under EPA's Information Section 404 Permit Issuance, La EIS No. 980027, Regulatory Draft EIS, Collection Rule (ICR). Topics such as Crosse County, WI, Due: March 9, NOA, ME, American Lobster Fishery microbial and disinfection byproduct 1998, Contact: Jaclyn Lawton (608) Management Plan, Implementation, research, methods development, 829±7517. To Prevent Overfishing of American supplemental survey data or other EIS No. 980020, Final EIS, AFS, CO, Lobster, Exclusive Economic Zone related issues may also be discussed Dome Peak Timber Sale, Timber (EEZ) off the New England and Mid- under this series of meetings. As part of Harvesting and Road Construction, Atlantic, ME, Due: March 23, 1998, this series, a public meeting is White River National Forest, Eagle Contact: Rolland A. Schmitten (301) scheduled for February 18, and 19 at the Ranger District, Glenwood Spring, 713±2239. office of RESOLVE, 1255 23rd Street, Eagle and Garfield Counties, CO, Due: NW, Suite 275, Washington, DC, that March 9, 1998, Contact: David T. Van Amended Notices will include technical discussion on Norman (970) 827±5715. EIS No. 980011, Draft Supplement, defining analyses of the ICR and plans EIS No. 980021, Final EIS, FHW, PA, BLM, CO, NM, TransColorado Gas to extract data from the ICR Federal Southern Beltway Transportation Pipeline Transmission Project, Database to support those analyses. Project, Construction from PA±60 in Updated Resource Information, Discussions regarding data extraction Finlay Township to US 22 in Construction, Operation and planning will continue on February 20 Robinson Township, Funding and Maintenance, COE Section 404 and 10 at the EPA Systems Development COE Section 404 Permit, Allegheny Permits, Right-of-Way Grants and Center, 200 North
Load more

Recommended publications
  • IMBCR Report
    Integrated Monitoring in Bird Conservation Regions (IMBCR): 2015 Field Season Report June 2016 Bird Conservancy of the Rockies 14500 Lark Bunting Lane Brighton, CO 80603 303-659-4348 www.birdconservancy.org Tech. Report # SC-IMBCR-06 Bird Conservancy of the Rockies Connecting people, birds and land Mission: Conserving birds and their habitats through science, education and land stewardship Vision: Native bird populations are sustained in healthy ecosystems Bird Conservancy of the Rockies conserves birds and their habitats through an integrated approach of science, education and land stewardship. Our work radiates from the Rockies to the Great Plains, Mexico and beyond. Our mission is advanced through sound science, achieved through empowering people, realized through stewardship and sustained through partnerships. Together, we are improving native bird populations, the land and the lives of people. Core Values: 1. Science provides the foundation for effective bird conservation. 2. Education is critical to the success of bird conservation. 3. Stewardship of birds and their habitats is a shared responsibility. Goals: 1. Guide conservation action where it is needed most by conducting scientifically rigorous monitoring and research on birds and their habitats within the context of their full annual cycle. 2. Inspire conservation action in people by developing relationships through community outreach and science-based, experiential education programs. 3. Contribute to bird population viability and help sustain working lands by partnering with landowners and managers to enhance wildlife habitat. 4. Promote conservation and inform land management decisions by disseminating scientific knowledge and developing tools and recommendations. Suggested Citation: White, C. M., M. F. McLaren, N. J.
    [Show full text]
  • Fishlake National Forest
    FISHLAKE NATIONAL FOREST RESPONSE TO COMMENTS for the FISHLAKE OHV ROUTE DESIGNATION PROJECT 12 October 2006 INTRODUCTION The forest incorporated existing comments from prior public participation processes during the pre- NEPA (NFMA) assessment. The following documents from these efforts are incorporated by reference: Public comments received for the 2001 OHV Event Environmental Assessment for the Rocky Mountain and Fillmore Jamborees. The assessment covered all of the Fishlake and portions of the Dixie and Manti-LaSal National Forests as well as Richfield BLM. OHV and travel management comments received by mail or at public meetings for Forest Plan revision efforts. Meeting notes and final presentations and reports from the Forest Plan revision Topical Working Groups (TWiGs) for OHVs, dispersed camping, and undeveloped area suitability. These records are included in the OHV project file and are incorporated by reference. The Notice of Intent (NOI) for the Fishlake OHV Route Designation Project was published in the Federal Register on June 7, 2004. The NOI included a proposed action (Alternative 2) that designated routes and areas open to motorized use on the Fishlake National Forest. The effect of these designations is to close the forest to unrestricted motorized cross-country travel. The NOI asked for comments on the proposed action by July 30, 2004. Immediately prior to release of the NOI, the Forest Service briefed local governmental officials, motorized advocacy groups, businesses, and environmental groups. The project web site http://www.fs.fed.us/r4/fishlake/projects/ohv.shtml, press release, and postings at some trailheads were used to disseminate information and gather comments.
    [Show full text]
  • News Release
    NEWS RELEASE USDA FOREST SERVICE ● Intermountain Region 324 25th STREET OGDEN, UTAH 84401 ● Web: http://www.fs.fed.us/r4 Release No. R4-1201 Contact: Erin O’Connor 801-625-5347 Mitch Snow 202-912-7368 National Forests Added and Comment Period Formally Extended on Planning for Sage Grouse Conservation Measures In cooperation with the Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management will issue a corrected Notice of Intent to address sage-grouse in 10 additional National Forest System Lands and Resource Management Plans and formally extended the comment period through March 23, 2012. The notice will appear in the February 10, 2012 Federal Register. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) are seeking public comment on issues that should be addressed in Environmental Impact Statements (EIS’s) and Supplemental Environmental Impact Statements (SEIS’s) that will evaluate and provide greater sage-grouse conservation measures in land use plans in 10 Western states. This notice continues public comment on the scoping process for the EISs/SEISs through March 23, 2012. The EIS’s/SEIS’s will be coordinated under two regions: The Rocky Mountain Region, previously designated as the Eastern Region, which includes land use plans in the states of Colorado, Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota and portions of Utah and Montana; and the Great Basin Region, previously designated as the Western Region, which includes land use plans in northeastern California, Oregon, Idaho, Nevada, and portions of Utah and Montana. Within the Rocky Mountain Region, the potentially affected National Forest System Land Management Plans include: Colorado’s Routt National Forest Wyoming’s Thunder Basin National Grassland, Medicine Bow National Forest and the Bridger-Tetons National Forest.
    [Show full text]
  • Uinta NF Ranger Stations
    United States Department of Agriculture The Enchantment of Forest Service Intermountain Region Ranger Life in the Hills UINTA NATIONAL FOREST JULY 2016 Administrative Facilities of the Uinta National Forest, 1905-1965 Historic Context & Evaluations Forest Service Report No. UWC-16-1328 Cover: Lake Creek Ranger Station, 1949 Pleasant Grove Ranger Station, 1965 “I had a carpenter hired and boarded up the house around the foundation. It was from 6 in. to 2 feet off the ground and skunks and animals frequently got under the house, which detracted some of the enchantment of Ranger Life in the Hills.” Aaron Parley Christiansen, April 26, 1919 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.
    [Show full text]
  • Idaho's Registry of Champion Big Trees 06.13.2019 Yvonne Barkley, Director Idaho Big Tree Program TEL: (208) 885-7718; Email: [email protected]
    Idaho's Registry of Champion Big Trees 06.13.2019 Yvonne Barkley, Director Idaho Big Tree Program TEL: (208) 885-7718; Email: [email protected] The Idaho Big Tree Program is part of a national program to locate, measure, and recognize the largest individual tree of each species in Idaho. The nominator(s) and owner(s) are recognized with a certificate, and the owners are encouraged to help protect the tree. Most states, including Idaho, keep records of state champion trees and forward contenders to the national program. To search the National Registry of Champion Big Trees, go to http://www.americanforests.org/bigtrees/bigtrees- search/ The National Big Tree program defines trees as woody plants that have one erect perennial stem or trunk at least 9½ inches in circumference at DBH, with a definitively formed crown of foliage and at least 13 feet in height. There are more than 870 species and varieties eligible for the National Register of Big Trees. Hybrids, minor varieties, and cultivars are excluded from the National listing but all but cultivars are accepted for the Idaho listing. The currently accepted scientific and common names are from the USDA Plants Database (PLANTS) http://plants.usda.gov/java/ and the Integrated Taxonomic Information System (ITIS) http://www.itis.gov/ Champion trees status is awarded using a point system. To calculate a tree’s total point value, American Forests uses the following equation: Trunk circumference (inches) + height (feet) + ¼ average crown spread (feet) = total points. The registered champion tree is the one in the nation with the most points.
    [Show full text]
  • Albert F. Potter, First Chief of Grazing, US Forest
    Utah State University DigitalCommons@USU All U.S. Government Documents (Utah Regional U.S. Government Documents (Utah Regional Depository) Depository) 7-2005 Beginnings of Range Management: Albert F. Potter, First Chief of Grazing, U.S. Forest Service, and Photographic Comparison of his 1902 Forest Reserve Survey in Utah with Conditions 100 Year Later David A. Prevedel Curtis M. Johnson Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/govdocs Part of the Earth Sciences Commons, and the Environmental Sciences Commons Recommended Citation Prevedel, David A. and Johnson, Curtis M., "Beginnings of Range Management: Albert F. Potter, First Chief of Grazing, U.S. Forest Service, and Photographic Comparison of his 1902 Forest Reserve Survey in Utah with Conditions 100 Year Later" (2005). All U.S. Government Documents (Utah Regional Depository). Paper 70. https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/govdocs/70 This Report is brought to you for free and open access by the U.S. Government Documents (Utah Regional Depository) at DigitalCommons@USU. It has been accepted for inclusion in All U.S. Government Documents (Utah Regional Depository) by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@USU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. United States Department of Beginnings of Range Agriculture Management: Forest Service Intermountain Albert F. Potter, First Chief of Region Grazing, U.S. Forest Service, and Ogden, Utah R4-VM 2005-01 a Photographic Comparison of July 2005 his 1902 Forest Reserve Survey in Utah with Conditions 100 Years Later David A. Prevedel Curtis M. Johnson Abstract The period from 1880 to 1900 is regarded as the period of “spoilation” of western rangelands.
    [Show full text]
  • Schedule of Proposed Action (SOPA)
    Schedule of Proposed Action (SOPA) 07/01/2019 to 09/30/2019 Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest This report contains the best available information at the time of publication. Questions may be directed to the Project Contact. Expected Project Name Project Purpose Planning Status Decision Implementation Project Contact Projects Occurring in more than one Region (excluding Nationwide) Amendments to Land - Land management planning In Progress: Expected:01/2019 02/2019 John Shivik Management Plans Regarding - Wildlife, Fish, Rare plants NOI in Federal Register 801-625-5667 Sage-grouse Conservation 11/21/2017 [email protected] EIS Est. DEIS NOA in Federal Register 06/2018 Description: The Forest Service is considering amending its land management plans to address new and evolving issues arising since implementing sage-grouse plans in 2015. This project is in cooperation with the USDI Bureau of Land Management. Web Link: https://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/r4/home/?cid=stelprd3843381 Location: UNIT - Ashley National Forest All Units, Boise National Forest All Units, Bridger-Teton National Forest All Units, Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest All Units, Medicine Bow-Routt National Forest All Units, Dixie National Forest All Units, Fishlake National Forest All Units, Salmon-Challis National Forest All Units, Sawtooth National Forest All Units, Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest All Units, Manti-La Sal National Forest All Units, Caribou- Targhee National Forest All Units, Uinta-Wasatch-Cache All Units. STATE - Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Utah,
    [Show full text]
  • Scenery Assessment Report for the Ashley National Forest, Public Draft
    Ashley National Forest Assessment Scenery Report Public Draft Prepared by: Ryan Buerkle Forest Recreation Program Manager for: Ashley National Forest May 2017 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.
    [Show full text]
  • PROVO RIVER PEDESTRIAN COVERED BRIDGE, Wasatch County, Utah
    PROVO RIVER PEDESTRIAN COVERED BRIDGE, Wasatch County, Utah Type: Covered pedestrian bridge with glued-laminated/fiber reinforced polymer wood beams and transverse glued-laminated deck County: Wasatch Owner: Wasatch County Built in: 2001 Fabricator: Perma Post Products & Euclid Timber Frames Engineer: Merv Eriksson, USDA Forest Service Architect: George Olson, Architect, Midway, UT Spans over: Provo River Bridge length: 125’-1” (2 spans) Roadway width: 12’-0” Directions: The bridge carries the Heber City-Midway Trail over the Provo River between Heber City, UT and Midway, UT. The trail parallels State Route 113. River N US 40 Midway ○○○○○○○ ○○○ Soldier Hollow SR 113 Heber City ○○ Bridge Site 2002 Olympic ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ Cross Country Heber City-Midway Ski Venue Trail Provo US 189 USDA Forest Service The National Wood In Transportation Program WIT-015-0034 GEOMETRY Number of Spans: 2 Design loads: Snow load - 50 lbs/sq. ft. Total wood quantity: 33,000 bf Out-to-out length: 125’-1” (on roof); Pedestrian load - 65 lbs/sq. ft. Wood quantity in bridge cover: 11,850 bf Center-of-bearing length: 124’-5” (on deck); H10 vehicle load Wood quantity in remainder of bridge: Skew: 0 degrees Design by: Merv Eriksson, USDA Forest 21,150 bf Out-to-out width: 13’-5-1/2” Service Total structure cost: $155,000 Rail-to-rail width: 12’-0” Total substructure cost: $30,000 Number of beams: 4 Total superstructure cost: $125,000 Superstructure square footage: 1683 Total superstructure cost /sq. ft.: $74.27 MATERIAL DECK STRINGERS COVER/HANDRAIL Material: Glued-laminated
    [Show full text]
  • Schedule of Proposed Action (SOPA)
    Schedule of Proposed Action (SOPA) 01/01/2009 to 03/31/2009 Bridger-Teton National Forest This report contains the best available information at the time of publication. Questions may be directed to the Project Contact. Expected Project Name Project Purpose Planning Status Decision Implementation Project Contact Projects Occurring in more than one Region (excluding Nationwide) 01/01/2009 Page 1 of 14 Bridger-Teton National Forest Expected Project Name Project Purpose Planning Status Decision Implementation Project Contact Projects Occurring in more than one Region (excluding Nationwide) Geothermal Leasing - Regulations, Directives, In Progress: Expected:12/2008 02/2009 Peter Gaulke Programmatic Environmental Orders DEIS NOA in Federal Register 703-605-4796 Impact Statement 06/13/2008 [email protected] EIS Est. FEIS NOA in Federal Register 10/2008 Description: The Bureau of Land Management and Forest Service are preparing a joint Programmatic Environmental Impac Statement to analyze the leasing of BLM and USFS administered lands with moderate to high potential for geothermal resources in 11 western states. Web Link: http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/energy/geothermal/geothermal_nationwide.html Location: UNIT - Clearwater National Forest All Units, Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest All Units, Bitterroot National Forest All Units, Lewis And Clark National Forest All Units, Medicine Bow-Routt National Forest All Units, San Juan National Forest All Units, White River National Forest All Units, Carson National Forest All Units, Cibola National
    [Show full text]
  • Forest Resources of the Wasatch-Cache National Forest(7
    United States Department of Agriculture Forest Resources of Forest Service Intermountain Research Station the Wasatch-Cache July 1997 National Forest Renee A. O’Brien Reese Pope This summary of the forest resources of the Wasatch-Cache National Forest is based on a comprehensive inventory of all forested lands in Utah. The inventory was conducted in 1995 by the Interior West Resource Inventory, Monitoring, and Evaluation (IWRIME) Program of the U.S. Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, as part of its National Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) duties. About the authors _________________________ Renee A. O’Brien is Lead Ecologist with the Forest Inventory Project. Reese Pope is a Forester planner for the Wasatch-Cache and Uinta National Forests. Contents __________________________________ Page What forest resources are found on the Wasatch-Cache National Forest? .... 1 How does the forest change? ......................................................................... 5 What about damage from insects? ................................................................. 6 Are aspen forests declining? ........................................................................... 7 How does the Wasatch-Cache compare with the rest of Utah’s forests? ....... 7 How was the inventory conducted? ................................................................ 8 Scientific documentation ................................................................................. 9 For further information....................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Showing the Regional Setting of the Bridger-Teton National Forest
    sites and road numbers. Includes “Key Map” showing the regional setting of the Bridger-Teton National Forest and “Source Diagram.” “Forest Service Map Class C.” “Sixth Principal Meridian.” Holdings: Colorado School of Mines; Univ. of Connecticut; Florida State Univ.; Northern Illinois Univ.; Univ. of Kansas; Univ. of Central Oklahoma; Univ. of Wisconsin, Green Bay; Univ. of Wyoming; LC OCLC: 7952655 CACHE NATIONAL FOREST, UTAH – IDAHO 1908-Present The Cache National Forest derives its name from the Cache Valley an agricultural valley in northern Utah and extending into southern Idaho, bounded by the Bear River Mountains on the east, the Bannock and Wellsville Ranges on the west, and the Wasatch Mountains on the south. This valley was first known as Willow Valley, but as mountain men began to cache their furs and trapping gear in the valley, the name was changed by common usage to Cache Valley (Van Cott, p. 61) & (Boone, p. 60). The central portion of the Cache National Forest, the Bear Range, was reserved by President Theodore Roosevelt in 1903 at the request of the residents of Cache and Rich Counties in Utah. The forest reserve was needed for the purpose of controlling grazing by sheep and cattle. Watersheds in the Bear River Range had been so heavily grazed that summer floods and mud-rock flows endangered the water supplies and threatened irrigation works with silting. President Roosevelt first established the Logan Forest Reserve on May 29, 1903 on 182,080 acres. The Logan Forest Reserve later merged with over 500,000 acres of public land to create the new Bear River Forest Reserve in 1906 on 683,280 acres.
    [Show full text]