DOCSLIB.ORG

Huron-Manistee National Forests Land and Resource Management

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Huron-Manistee National Forests Land and Resource Management Huron-Manistee United States Department of Agriculture National Forests Forest Service Eastern Region Huron-Manistee National Forests March 2006 Land and Resource Management Plan (as Amended January 2012) Cooperating Agencies: United States Department of the Interior-Bureau of Land Management United States Department of the Interior-Fish and Wildlife Service United States Department of the Interior-National Park Service United States Environmental Protection Agency HURON-MANISTEE NATIONAL FORESTS Cadillac, Michigan September 2013 2006 FOREST PLAN, AMENDMENT NO. 1 Table 1. Guide to Page Numbers Where Amendment #1 has Resulted in Changes to the 2006 Forest Plan. WITH REPLACE Amendment #1 Replacement Page Original 2006 Forest Plan Page Numbers Numbers i through vi Same II-1 through II-2 Same II-11 through II-12 Same II-15 through II-24 Same II-29 through II-40 II-29 through II-41 Chapter III – Management Area Direction Same Table of Contents (not numbered) III-1 Same III-2.1-1 through III-2.1-2 Same III-4.2-1 through III-4.2-4 Same III-4.3-1 through III-4.3-2 Same III-4.4-1 through III-4.4-2 Same III-5.1-1 through III-5.1-2 Same III-6.1-1 through III-6.1-11 Remove all pages – no replacements. III-6.2-1 through III-6.2-2 Same III-7.1-1 through III-7.1-2 Same III-8.1-1 through III-8.1-4 Same III-8.2-1 through III-8.2-2 Same III-8.3-1 through III-8.3-2 Same III-8.4-1 through III-8.4-4 III-8.4-1 through III-8.4-14 III-9.1-1 through III-9.1-2 Same III-9.2-1 through III-9.2-2 Same Appendix A – Scenery Management System; Same A-13 through A-16 Appendix A – Scenery Management System; Same A-27 through A-30 Appendix B – Harvest Cutting Methods Table Same of Contents (not numbered) Appendix B – Harvest Cutting Methods; B-1 Same through B-23 Appendix D – Proposed and Probable Practices, Goods Produced and Other Same Information Table of Contents (not numbered) Appendix D – Proposed and Probable Practices, Goods Produced and Other D-7 through D-25 Information; D-7 through D-23 Table 2. Guide to Page Numbers Where Administrative Corrections (as of July 1, 2013) have Resulted in Changes to the 2006 Forest Plan. REPLACE WITH Administrative Correction Original 2006 Forest Plan Administrative Correction Number and Topic Page Numbers Replacement Page Numbers Administrative Correction #2 – Introduction ― Regarding delisting bald eagle from the I-1 through I-2 Same List of Endangered and Threatened Species. Administrative Correction #1 – D-8 Guideline ― Clarification II-13 through II-14 Same concerning use of motorized vehicles on trails. Administrative Correction #2 – Delisting bald eagle from the II-25 through II-26 Same List of Endangered and Threatened Species. Administrative Correction #2 – Maintains bald eagle on II-29 through II-30 Same Regional Forester Sensitive Species list. Administrative Correction #3 – Corrects Table D-1. Classification of National Appendix D – Proposed and Forest System Land for Probable Practices, Goods Timber Production. Line: Land Same Produced and Other not appropriate for timber Information; D-1 production due to other resource management (riparian areas, campgrounds, unique areas, etc.) Administrative Correction #6 – Corrects Figure D-1; long- term sustained yield. Appendix D – Proposed and Probable Practices, Goods Same Administrative Correction #7 – Produced and Other Corrects Table D-2 and Table Information; D-2 through D-3 D-3; million cubic feet volume for decade 1 and 2. Table 2. Guide to Page Numbers Where Administrative Corrections (as of July 1, 2013) have Resulted in Changes to the 2006 Forest Plan (Continued). REPLACE WITH Administrative Correction Original 2006 Forest Plan Administrative Correction Number and Topic Page Numbers Replacement Page Numbers Administrative Correction #4 – Appendix D – Proposed and Corrects Table D-4; Probable Practices, Goods Same typographical errors in Produced and Other projected acreage figures for Information; D-4 several vegetation classes. Administrative Correction #5 – Appendix D – Proposed and Corrects Table D-5; corrects Probable Practices, Goods Same typographical errors in Produced and Other projected acreage figures for Information; D-5 through D-6 several vegetation classes. Digest: Pursuant to a lawsuit filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit; Dep’t of Agriculture, No. 09-1712, 2010 WL 5393839 (6th Cir. Nov. 17, 2010), a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the Huron-Manistee National Forests 2006 Land and Resource Management Plan was prepared. This amendment documents the decision made based on the review of the analysis conducted in the Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement. BARRY PAULSON Forest Supervisor Table of Contents Table of Contents Description Page PREFACE vii Organization of the Forest Plan vii CHAPTER I – UNDERSTANDING THE FOREST PLAN I-1 Introduction I-1 Location of the Forests I-1 Purpose of the Forest Plan I-2 Revising the Forest Plan I-3 Relationship of the Forest Plan to Other Documents I-4 Implementing the Forest Plan I-7 CHAPTER II – FOREST-WIDE MANAGEMENT AREA DIRECTION II-1 Introduction II-1 CHAPTER III MANAGEMENT AREA DIRECTION III-1 Introduction III-1 Management Area 2.1 – Roaded Natural Rolling Plains and Morainal Hills III-2.1-1 Management Area 4.2 – Roaded Natural Sandy Plains and Hills III-4.2-1 Management Area 4.3 – Roaded Natural Wetlands III-4.3-1 Management Area 4.4 – Rural III-4.4-1 Management Area 5.1 – Wilderness III-5.1-1 Management Area 6.2 – Semiprimitive Motorized Areas III-6.2-1 Management Area 7.1 – Concentrated Recreation Areas III-7.1-1 Management Area 8.1 – Wild and Scenic Rivers III-8.1-1 Management Area 8.2 – Research Natural Areas III-8.2-1 Management Area 8.3 – Experimental Forests III-8.3-1 Management Area 8.4 – Special Areas III-8.4-1 Management Area 9.1 – Candidate Research Natural Areas III-9.1-1 Management Area 9.2 – Study Wild and Scenic Rivers III-9.2-1 CHAPTER IV – MONITORING AND EVALUATION IV-1 Introduction IV-1 Monitoring Categories IV-2 Legal Requirements IV-2 Guidelines and Components IV-3 APPENDIX A – SCENERY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM A-1 APPENDIX B – HARVEST CUTTING METHODS B-1 APPENDIX C – ECOLOGICAL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM DESCRIPTION C-1 APPENDIX D – PROPOSED AND PROBABLE PRACTICES, GOODS D-1 PRODUCED AND OTHER INFORMATION APPENDIX E – REFERENCES E-1 APPENDIX F – GLOSSARY F-1 Huron-Manistee National Forests i Forest Plan Table of Contents List of Tables Description Page CHAPTER II – FOREST-WIDE MANAGEMENT AREA DIRECTION II-1 Management Area Descriptions II-1 II-2 Desired Future Condition for Large Wood II-7 II-3 Vegetation Composition Objectives (End of First Decade) II-7 II-4 Forest Service Manual Numbering System II-8 II-5 Desired Recreation Development Level II-11 II-6 Trail Density on National Forest System Lands II-12 II-7 Sensitivity Level by Scenic Class by Management Area II-15 II-8 Assigned Scenic Integrity Objectives II-15 II-9 Activity Fuel (Slash) Treatment Guidelines for Aesthetics II-17 II-10 Rotation Age Guidelines II-17 II-11 Streamside Management Zones II-18 II-12 Wildlife Structure Prescriptions by Vegetative Treatment for All II-23 Management Areas Except 5.1, 8.2, 8.4 (Newaygo Prairie Ecological Study Area, Lumbermen’s Monument, and Loda Lake Wildflower Sanctuary), and 9.1 II-13 Maximum Average Miles of Roads per Square Mile by Type and II-40 Management Area CHAPTER III – MANAGEMENT AREA DIRECTION III-1 Huron-Manistee National Forests’ Management Areas III-1 III-2 Emphasis Areas Within Management Area 2.1 III-2.1-2 III-3 Emphasis Areas Within Management Area 4.2 III-4.2-2 III-4 Wildlife Structure and Forage Prescriptions by Vegetative III-4.2-8 Treatment for Management Area 4.2KW III-5 Oil and Gas Development Density III-4.2-12 III-6 Emphasis Areas Within Management Area 4.3 III-4.3-2 III-7 Emphasis Areas Within Management Area 4.4 III-4.4-2 III-8 Emphasis Areas Within Management Area 6.2 III-6.2-2 III-9 Semiprimitive Motorized Areas on the Huron-Manistee National III-6.2-2 Forests III-10 Wild and Scenic Rivers on the Huron-Manistee National Forests III-8.1-2 III-11 Research Natural Areas on the Huron-Manistee National Forests III-8.2-2 III-12 Experimental Forests on the Huron-Manistee National Forests III-8.3-2 III-13 Special Biological or Historic Areas on the Huron-Manistee III-8.4-3 National Forests III-14 Special Recreational Areas on the Huron-Manistee National III-8.4-4 Forests III-15 Candidate Research Natural Areas on the Huron-Manistee III-9.1-2 National Forests III-16 Study Wild and Scenic Rivers on the Huron-Manistee National III-9.2-2 Forests III-17 Emphasis Areas Within Management Area 9.2 III-9.2-2 Forest Plan ii Huron-Manistee National Forests Table of Contents List of Tables (Continued) Description Page CHAPTER IV – MONITORING AND EVALUATION IV-1 Monitoring Framework IV-4 IV-2 Definition of Components in the Monitoring Matrix IV-7 IV-3 Monitoring Matrix IV-8 APPENDIX A – SCENERY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM A-1 Matrix Used to Modify the Fire Regimes Beginning Product to the A-8 Final Scenic Attractiveness Maps A-2 Long-Term Scenic Integrity Objectives A-13 A-3 Matrix Used to Modify the Fire Regimes Beginning Product to the A-23 Final Scenic Attractiveness Maps A-4 Long-Term Scenic Integrity Objectives A-28 APPENDIX B – HARVEST CUTTING METHODS B-1 Common Harvest Methods by Vegetation Type B-9 B-2 Aspen Harvest Cutting Methods for Management Prescription B-10 Areas B-3 Low-Site Oak (Site Index Less Than 55) Harvest Methods for B-12 Management Prescription Areas B-4 High-Site Oak (Site Index Greater Than 55) Harvest Methods for B-12 Management
Load more

Recommended publications
  • National Forests in Michigan
    OriqiMI from Digitized by Go gle UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN NATIONAL FORESTS IN MICHIGAN UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE FOREST SERVICE NORTH CENTRAL REGION • MILWAUKEE, WIS. ON THE COVER. —Great Conglomerate Falls on the Black River. p-3e«M ERRATA Page Line 5 3 97,000,000 should be 45,000,000. 7 4 Porcupine should not be listed vvilh fur bearers. 17 7 Si.o'jld read "the red pine by its ClUoLC"G Cf t»Vj". 44 2-3 Should read "4 rniies east of Munising". UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON : 1941 sEr^ •*«$• . AU TRAIN FALLS ON THE HIAWATHA NATIONAL FOREST. Drama of Michigan Forests DRAMA of the forests of Michigan has been written in several acts THEeach with its colorful pageantry. The action has concerned the magni ficent woodlands of the redman, the rapid depletion of those forests in the last century, and their slow but sure rebuilding in the present. The elusive "northwest passage" to China, Indian furs and Indian souls, iron and land and copper brought the white men to Michigan. In 1621, only 1 year after the Pilgrims landed at Plymouth Rock, young Etienne Brule, protege of Champlain, reached Lake Superior and was disappointed to find its waters fresh. Thirteen years later, Jean Nicolet, another protege of the French governor of Canada, entered the unknown Lake Michigan through the Straits of Mackinac. Though he never found the longed-for route to the Orient, Nicolet did initiate the French fur trade with the Indians in this territory. Heroic followers of Brule and Nicolet were the Jesuit fathers Jogues and Raymbault, who preached to the Ojibwas in 1641 at Sault Ste.
    [Show full text]
  • Supporting Analysis
    APPENDIX A Supporting Analysis Table of Contents A.1 PARK SETTING ................................................................................................................................................ 2 A.2 DEMOGRAPHICS ............................................................................................................................................ 4 A.3 HISTORY OF THE LUDINGTON AREA ........................................................................................................... 6 A.4 HISTORY OF LUDINGTON STATE PARK ....................................................................................................... 7 A.5 LAND OWNERSHIP AND ACQUISITIONS ................................................................................................... 10 A.6 RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER RECREATION RESOURCES ............................................................................. 13 A.7 LEGAL MANDATES ........................................................................................................................................ 19 A.8 NATURAL SYSTEMS AND NATURAL RESOURCES ..................................................................................... 23 A.9 CULTURAL RESOURCES ............................................................................................................................... 27 A.10 EDUCATION AND INTERPRETATION ......................................................................................................... 30 A.11 RECREATION RESOURCES .........................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • From the Gilbert Lake Project, Huron-Manistee National Forests
    BIOLOGICAL OPINION Effects to the Indiana Bat (Myotis sodalis) from the Gilbert Lake Project, Huron-Manistee National Forests Prepared by: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Michigan Ecological Services Field Office East Lansing, MI Log # 18-R3-ELFO-03 July 19, 2018 INTRODUCTION This document transmits the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (Service) Biological Opinion (BO) based on our review of the U.S. Forest Service’s (USFS) proposed Gilbert Lake Project on the Huron-Manistee National Forests (HMNF) and the Project’s effects on the Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis) in accordance with Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). The HMNF determined that the proposed project was “likely to adversely affect” Indiana bat and the northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis, NLEB), and was “not likely to adversely affect” the eastern massasauga rattlesnake (Sistrurus catenatus, EMR). The HMNF’s request for formal consultation was received on January 24, 2018. Additional information about the proposed project and the project’s effects to listed species was provided on March 15, 2018. On March 2, 2006, the Service issued a programmatic Biological Opinion (programmatic BO) for the HMNF revised 2006 Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan). In the programmatic BO, we evaluated the effects of HMNF Forest Plan activities on bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), Kirtland's warbler (Setophaga kirtlandii), piping plover (Charadrius melodus) and its critical habitat, Pitcher's thistle (Cirsium pitcheri), Indiana bat, and Karner blue butterfly (Lycaeides melissa samuelis). We concurred that implementation of the Forest Plan was likely to adversely affect these species, but not likely to adversely affect piping plover critical habitat.
    [Show full text]
  • United States Department of the Interior
    United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE East Lansing Field Office (ES) 2651 Coolidge Road, Suite 101 IN REPLY REFER TO: East Lansing, Michigan 48823-6316 May 1, 2015 Leslie Auriermno, Forest Supervisor Huron-Manistee National Forests 1755 South Mitchell St. Cadillac, MI 49601-8533 Re: Fonnal Section 7 Consultation on the Huron-Manistee National Forests' Ongoing and Planned Actions- Log# 1O-R3-ELF0-03 Dear Ms. Amiemmo: This letter transmits the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Biological Opinion for the Huron­ Manistee National Forests' (HMNF) ongoing and planned actions in accordance with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S .C. 1531 et seq.). The HMNF detennined that the proposed actions were "Likely to Adversely Affect" the norihern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis). We base the enclosed Opinion on information provided in several documents, including your northern long-eared project matrix and Biological Assessment, the Programmatic Biological Assessment and Opinion for the HMNF's Land and Resource Management Plan, and our April 1, 2015, Conference Opinion. Other sources ofinfonnation include previous telephone conversations, e-mails and meetings. A complete administrative record of this consultation is on file at our East Lansing Field Office. After reviewing the current status of northern long-eared bat, the environmental baseline for the action area, the effects of the proposed action, and the cumulative effects, it is our biological opinion that the action, as proposed, is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of northern long-eared bat With respect to ESA compliance, all aspects of the project description are binding.
    [Show full text]
  • Lake Huron, Off the Northeast Coast of Location
    www.thunderbay.noaa.gov (989) 356-8805 Alpena, MI 49707 500 West Fletcher Street Heritage Center Great Lakes Maritime Contact Information N T ATIONAL ATIONAL HUNDER 83°30'W 83°15'W 83°00'W New Presque Isle Lighthouse Park 120 120 30 50 80 M 5 60 120 20 120 ARINE North Bay 90 10 70 82°45'W Wreck 50 110 130 5 100 Old Presque Isle Lighthouse Park 120 B 110 130 Presque Isle 40 140 Harbor S 120 ANCTUARY AY North Albany Point Cornelia B. 120 140 Windiate 140 130 Albany 110 • Types of Vessels Lost at Thunder Bay 110 130 South Albany Point Sail Powered • • • Scows Ships, Brigs, Schooners Barks 130 Lake Esau Grand Norman Island Wreck Point 130 140 Presque Isle 120 140 Lotus Lake 160 Typo Lake of the Florida • 140 Woods Steam Powered Brown • • 150 Island Sidewheelers Propellers John J. 110 170 Grand Audubon LAKE Lake 110 iver 110 R ll e 140 B 110 HURON 120 Whiskey False Presque Isle 150 Point Knight Bay • 110 Other 60 • • Unpowered Combustion Motor Powered 45°15'N 45°15'N Bell Czar 120 Bolton Point 140 Besser State Besser Bell Natural Area Wreck 120 Defiance (by quantity of loss for all wrecks) Cargoes Lost at Thunder Bay 130 • • • • 20 Iron ore Grain Coal Lumber products Ferron Point 120 Mackinaw 20 State Forest 30 Dump Scow 10 100 Rockport 130 70 80 • • • • 60 90 100 23 Middle Island Sinkhole Fish Salt Package freight Stone Long Portsmouth 50 Lake 40 100 120 Middle Island Middle Island Lighthouse 120 5 5 5 110 5 120 110 Middle 20 Lake • • • Copper ore Passengers Steel Monaghan Point New Orleans 100 120 90 220 Long Lake Creek 20 Morris D.M.
    [Show full text]
  • Ottawa National Forest
    0614spj1 Ottawa National Forest United States Department of Agriculture Record of Decision Forest Service Eastern Region Final Environmental Impact Statement March 2006 To accompany the Land and Resource Management Plan Cover Photo: Burned Dam, Watersmeet Ranger District, Ottawa National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement Record of Decision Baraga, Gogebic, Houghton, Iron, Marquette, and Ontonagon Counties Responsible Official: Randy Moore, Regional Forester USDA Forest Service Eastern Region 626 E. Wisconsin Avenue Milwaukee, WI 53202 414-297-3428 For Further Information Contact: Ottawa National Forest Forest Supervisor E6248 US Hwy. 2 Ironwood, MI 49938 Phone: 906-932-1330 Fax: 906-932-0122 TTY: 906-932-0301 Table of Contents PREFACE......................................................................................................................................................I RECORD OF DECISION ........................................................................................................................... 1 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................................ 1 THE OTTAWA NATIONAL FOREST .............................................................................................................. 2 A VISION OF THE FUTURE........................................................................................................................... 3 DECISION AND RATIONALE.................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Schedule of Proposed Action (SOPA)
    Schedule of Proposed Action (SOPA) 04/01/2020 to 06/30/2020 Huron-Manistee 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 Nationwide Locatable Mining Rule - 36 CFR - Regulations, Directives, In Progress: Expected:12/2021 12/2021 Nancy Rusho 228, subpart A Orders DEIS NOA in Federal Register 202-731-9196 EIS 09/13/2018 [email protected] *NEW LISTING* Est. FEIS NOA in Federal Register 11/2021 Description: The U.S. Department of Agriculture proposes revisions to its regulations at 36 CFR 228, Subpart A governing locatable minerals operations on National Forest System lands.A draft EIS & proposed rule should be available for review/comment in late 2020 Web Link: http://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=57214 Location: UNIT - All Districts-level Units. STATE - All States. COUNTY - All Counties. LEGAL - Not Applicable. These regulations will be applicable to all NFS lands open to mineral entry under the United States Mining Law. Huron-Manistee National Forest, Forestwide (excluding Projects occurring in more than one Forest) R9 - Eastern Region Forest-wide Aquatic Organism - Wildlife, Fish, Rare plants Completed Actual: 01/08/2020 01/2020 Andrea Ania Passage - Watershed management 231-775-5023 x8763 CE - Road management [email protected] *UPDATED* Description: Replace or remove road stream crossing structures such as bridges or culverts to allow for fish & other aquatic organism to pass under roads & restore natural stream flow. Web Link: http://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=56111 Location: UNIT - Huron-Manistee National Forest All Units.
    [Show full text]
  • Huron-Manistee National Forest: Ginseng Restoration Project
    Huron-Manistee National Forest: Ginseng Restoration Project Prepared By: Rachel A. Hackett, Helen D. Enander, Phyllis J. Higman Michigan Natural Features Inventory Michigan State University Extension P.O. Box 13036 Lansing, MI 48901 Prepared For: United States Forest Service Huron-Manistee National Forest 12/31/2020 MNFI Report No. 2020-29 Suggested Citation: Hackett, R.A., H.D. Enander, P.J. Higman. 2020. Huron-Manistee National Forest: Ginseng Restoration Project. Michigan Natural Features Inventory, Report No. 2020-29, Lansing, MI. Copyright 2020 Michigan State University Board of Trustees. MSU Extension programs and ma- terials are open to all without regard to race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, marital status or family status. Cover: Ginseng (Panax quinquefolius) with unripe fruits in Manistee National Forest, Wexford County, Michigan (EO ID 18994) on August 6, 2020. Photograph by Rachel Hackett. Table of Contents Abstract....................................................................................................................................... v Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1 Study area ................................................................................................................................. 1 Methods ....................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Huron-Manistee National Forests Land and Resource Management Plan
    Huron-Manistee United States Department of National Forests Agriculture Forest Service Eastern Region Huron-Manistee National Forests March 2006 Land and Resource Management Plan (as Amended January 2012) Cooperating Agencies: United States Department of the Interior-Bureau of Land Management United States Department of the Interior-Fish and Wildlife Service United States Department of the Interior-National Park Service United States Environmental Protection Agency HURON-MANISTEE NATIONAL FORESTS Cadillac, Michigan September 2013 2006 FOREST PLAN, AMENDMENT NO. 1 Table 1. Guide to Page Numbers Where Amendment #1 has Resulted in Changes to the 2006 Forest Plan. WITH REPLACE Amendment #1 Replacement Page Original 2006 Forest Plan Page Numbers Numbers i through vi Same II-1 through II-2 Same II-11 through II-12 Same II-15 through II-24 Same II-29 through II-40 II-29 through II-41 Chapter III – Management Area Direction Same Table of Contents (not numbered) III-1 Same III-2.1-1 through III-2.1-2 Same III-4.2-1 through III-4.2-4 Same III-4.3-1 through III-4.3-2 Same III-4.4-1 through III-4.4-2 Same III-5.1-1 through III-5.1-2 Same III-6.1-1 through III-6.1-11 Remove all pages – no replacements. III-6.2-1 through III-6.2-2 Same III-7.1-1 through III-7.1-2 Same III-8.1-1 through III-8.1-4 Same III-8.2-1 through III-8.2-2 Same III-8.3-1 through III-8.3-2 Same III-8.4-1 through III-8.4-4 III-8.4-1 through III-8.4-14 III-9.1-1 through III-9.1-2 Same III-9.2-1 through III-9.2-2 Same Appendix A – Scenery Management System; Same A-13 through A-16 Appendix A – Scenery Management System; Same A-27 through A-30 Appendix B – Harvest Cutting Methods Table Same of Contents (not numbered) Appendix B – Harvest Cutting Methods; B-1 Same through B-23 Appendix D – Proposed and Probable Practices, Goods Produced and Other Same Information Table of Contents (not numbered) Appendix D – Proposed and Probable Practices, Goods Produced and Other D-7 through D-25 Information; D-7 through D-23 Table 2.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 5, Final Environmental Impact Statement Distribution
    Chapter 5 – FEIS Distribution Table of Contents FEIS RECIPIENTS................................................................................................................................................. 5-1 ELECTED OFFICIALS .............................................................................................................................................. 5-1 FEDERAL AGENCIES .............................................................................................................................................. 5-1 STATE AGENCIES................................................................................................................................................... 5-2 NATIVE AMERICAN TRIBES ................................................................................................................................... 5-2 LOCAL GOVERNMENTS.......................................................................................................................................... 5-3 LIBRARIES ............................................................................................................................................................. 5-3 BUSINESSES AND ORGANIZATIONS ........................................................................................................................ 5-3 INDIVIDUALS ......................................................................................................................................................... 5-3 Chapter 5 Final EIS Distribution Chapter
    [Show full text]
  • 06 MI HMNFLRMP.Pdf
    Biological Opinion for the Huron-Manistee National Forests Land and Resource Management Plan March 2006 Prepared by: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service East Lansing Field Office 2651 Coolidge Road, Suite 101 East Lansing, Michigan 48823 CONSULTATION HISTORY • August 23, 2005: The Service received the Huron-Manistee National Forests’ (Forest) August 19, 2005 request for formal consultation on the Revised Land and Resource Management Plan (proposed Plan). The request included a BA that described the proposed Plan and made determinations of “may effect, likely to adversely affect” for the Pitcher's thistle, Kirtland's warbler, bald eagle, piping plover, Karner blue butterfly, and Indiana bat. The Forest made a determination of “may effect, not likely to adversely affect” for designated piping plover critical habitat. • September 16, 2005: The Service responded to the Forest’s request for formal consultation, indicating that the information received in the BA constituted a complete initiation package. • September – December 2005: Jessica Hogrefe (USFWS) worked with Forest biologists via email and telephone to discuss the proposed Plan and effects to listed species. • December 20, 2005: The Service transmitted a Draft Programmatic Biological Opinion to the Forest for review. • January 2006: The Forest transmitted several sets of comments to the Service on the Draft Programmatic Biological Opinion. Jessica Hogrefe discussed these comments with the Forest biologists and incorporated changes, where appropriate. • February 6, 2006: The Service transmitted a Draft Final Programmatic Biological Opinion to the Forest for review. BIOLOGICAL OPINION DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION Proposed Action The U.S. Forest Service proposes to revise the 1986 Forest Land and Resource Management Plan for the Huron-Manistee National Forests (HMNF, Forest, Forest Service).
    [Show full text]
  • National Forests on the Edge D E V E L O P M E N T Pressures on a M E R I C A’S Nat I O N a L Forests and Grasslands
    1 NATIONAL FORESTS ON THE EDGE D E V E L O P M E N T PRESSURES ON A M E R I C A’S NAT I O N A L FORESTS AND GRASSLANDS U.S. Department of Agriculture Susan M. Stein, Ralph J. Alig, Eric M. White, Forest Service Sara J. Comas, Mary Carr, Mike Eley, Kelly Elverum, Mike O’Donnell, David M. Pacific Northwest Research Station Theobald, Ken Cordell, Jonathan Haber, and General Technical Report Theodore W. Beauvais PNW-GTR-728 August 2007 2 ABSTRACT Keywords: Land use change, national forest, housing density, road density, ecosystem services, amenity resources, amenity Stein, Susan M.; Alig, Ralph J.; White, Eric M.; Comas, migration, housing development, planning. Sara J.; Carr, Mary; Eley, Mike; Elverum, Kelly; O’Donnell, Mike; Theobald, David M.; Cordell, Ken; Haber, Jonathan; Beauvais, Theodore W. 2007. National AUTHORS forests on the edge: development pressures on America’s Susan M. Stein is a private forest-land studies coordinator, national forests and grasslands. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW- Sara J. Comas is a natural resource specialist, and Theodore GTR-728. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, W. Beauvais is an assistant director, U.S. Department of Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 26 p. Agriculture, Forest Service, Cooperative Forestry Staff, Many of America’s national forests and grasslands—collectively Mailstop 1123, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, called the National Forest System—face increased risks and DC 20250-1123. Ralph J. Alig is a research forester and team alterations from escalating housing development on private rural leader, and Eric M.
    [Show full text]