DOCSLIB.ORG

Submitted Electronically At: [email protected] and Via U.S

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Submitted Electronically At: Objections-Intermtn-Regional-Office@Fs.Fed.Us and Via U.S Submitted electronically at: [email protected] and via U.S. Post Service May 23, 2017 Forest Supervisor Patricia O’Connor, Reviewing Officer USDA Forest Service Bridger-Teton National Forest P.O. Box 1888 340 N. Cache Jackson, WY 83001 Objection to: True Oil—Lander Peak Area Exploratory Proposal Draft Decision Notice to the Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact, Big Piney Ranger District, Bridger-Teton National Forest Objector: Cathy Purves Trout Unlimited 220 North 8th Street Lander, Wyoming 82520 307-332-6700 ext. 10 [email protected] Project Being Objected To: True Oil – Lander Peak Area Exploratory Proposal Responsible Official: Donald Krandendonk, Responsible Official, Big Piney District Ranger Ranger District Project Location: Big Piney Ranger District, Bridger-Teton National Forest Dear Ms. O’Connor, Thank you for the opportunity to participate in the United States Forest Service (USFS) pre-decisional objection process. Trout Unlimited (TU) submitted scoping comments on the True Oil, LLC – Lander Peak Area Exploratory Proposal (the “Proposal) in both 2012 and 2015. Trout Unlimited respectfully objects to the Forest Service’s Draft Decision and Finding of No Significant Impact authorizing the Proposal for the reasons we will discuss below. Statement of the Issue(s): The Bridger-Teton National Forest Draft Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact by the Big Piney District Ranger for the True Oil—Lander Peak Area Exploratory Proposal does not meet the required “hard look” on environmental impacts for a major federal action. The Forest Service failed to analyze a proposed Master Development Plan (MDP) to drill up to 40 new wells in the South Cottonwood drainage submitted by True Oil, LLC, in October 2010 to the Bridger-Teton National Forest. This MDP was not analyzed or discussed in any length in the Environmental Assessment (EA). Instead, the USFS analyzed only two wells out of the reasonably foreseeable 40 wells that have been proposed by True Oil, LLC. This narrow scope of analysis violates federal law and regulation and leaves all other analysis conducted in the EA questionable. In order for plan decision to be improved, TU requests that the Forest Service prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) that analyzes the potential effects of all 40 proposed wells. The following issues are connected to this objection: 1) The Forest Service failed to analyze the cumulative effects of the Proposal by ignoring True Oil, LLC’s Master Development Plan. 2) The Forest Service has failed to take a hard look at the impacts associated with the Proposal. 3) The Forest Service should require additional Mitigation Measures and Bonding requirements. 4) The Forest Service should require additional Monitoring requirements. Demonstration Statement for Filing the Objection: Trout Unlimited has been a participant in the public process for this project proposal from the beginning, submitting comments to the Big Piney Ranger District during the original scoping process in 2012 and during the second scoping process in 2015.1 In addition, in June 2013 TU submitted additional watershed guidelines for this project to the Big Piney Ranger District based on new data that became available.2 In each set of scoping comments we have requested that an EIS be prepared in light of the numerous environment issues presented in the proponent’s project location and the presence of an MDP, and the numerous reference and research documents which support our requests. It is through these references and our history of participation that we provide the required “link” demonstrating prior substantive written comments. Discussion of the Issues: 1) The Forest Service failed to analyze the cumulative effects of the Proposal by ignoring True Oil, LLC’s Master Development Plan. In 2010, True Oil submitted a MDP for the Lander Peak Area that proposes drilling up to 40 wells on 5 pads over a six to ten year period. The MDP also details the need for additional road and pipeline construction associated with the project, and notes that True Oil expects to operate two drilling rigs simultaneously to construct and complete up to “six wells per year.” 3 Due to the small and compact area of the South Cottonwood and Bare Creek drainages, the sensitive fish and wildlife habitat contained therein, and the high value placed on the area by Wyoming sportsmen and sportswomen, we asked the Forest Service to conduct a full EIS based on the MDP in our scoping comments in both 2015 and 2012 (Attachments 1 and 2). 1 Trout Unlimited Scoping Comments for Lander Peak Area Exploratory Proposal.; December 1, 2015: Sent to Mike Thom, District Ranger, Big Piney Ranger District- Attachment 1.: Trout Unlimited Scoping Comments for Lander Peak Exploration Project EA; May 15, 2012: Sent to Eric J. Winthers, Acting District Ranger, Big Piney Ranger District- Attachment 2. 2 Trout Unlimited. June 2013. “Additional Watershed Guidelines Recommended for the Lander Peak Exploration Project within the Bridger-Teton National Forest”. Sent via email to Big Piney District Ranger. Attachment 3. 3 See Lander Peak Area Master Development Plan at p. 1, True Oil, LLC, October 2010, attached hereto as Attachment 2 Trout Unlimited – Objection Letter to Bridger-Teton National Forest – True Oil Lander Peak Proposal The Forest Service failed to analyze, or even acknowledge, the MDP in its EA of the Proposal and in its FONSI. Instead, the Forest Service analyzed only two wells out of the reasonably foreseeable 40 wells that have been proposed by True Oil, LLC. This narrow scope of analysis violates federal law and regulation in two ways. First, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires agencies to consider the cumulative effects of final actions and “reasonably foreseeable future actions,” which are defined as “Federal or non-Federal activities not yet undertaken, for which there are existing decisions, funding, or identified proposals.” 36 C.F.R. § 220.3. Here, True Oil, LLC has previously submitted an identified proposal in the form of its MDP for up to 40 wells in the Lander Peak Area. These 40 wells are reasonably foreseeable future actions that should have been analyzed in the EA. Second, the Council on Environmental Quality’s NEPA regulations require the Forest Service to consider “[p]roposals or parts of proposals which are related to each other closely enough to be, in effect, a single course of action,” to be evaluated in the same environmental impact statement. 40 CFR § 1502.4. Here, the Forest Service has evaluated Phase I of True Oil, LLC’s MDP without regard or analysis of Phase II and III and the additional impacts of 38 more wells on the area. In both circumstances, Federal law and regulation requires the Forest Service to take a hard look at the cumulative environmental impacts of Phase II and III of the MDP. Here, where the Proposed Action is in close proximity to both pure conservation populations of Colorado River Cutthroat trout (CRCT) and the longest mule deer migration route in the United States, the Forest Service should be sure to analyze the potential impacts of the MDP as a whole and be careful not to analyze piecemeal proposals that give the appearance of mitigated impacts. To remedy this, TU asks the Forest Service to consider all three phases of the MDP in one impact assessment, and to prepare and EIS that analyzes the potential effects of all 40 proposed wells. 2) The Forest Service has failed to take a hard look at the impacts associated with the Proposal. Under NEPA, the Forest Service was required to take a “hard look at all information related to the decision” when it analyzed the Proposal.4 Here, the EA supporting the Forest Service’s decision contains unreasonable assumptions that do not support a FONSI. In our scoping comments, TU asked the Forest Service to consider impacts to surface and groundwater resources and accountability for water quantity required for the Proposal, and warned the Forest Service about the minimal amount of truck traffic projected in the Proposal. (See Attachment 1, p. 2.) Here, the EA contains unreasonable assumptions about truck traffic and water usage that do not support a FONSI and should be reexamined in detail. First, the EA grossly underestimates the amount of truck traffic that will be required for dust suppression activities. Based on its own estimates of water required for dust control activities, the stated assumptions for truck traffic are 15 times lower than what will actually be required. See EA Tables 2.3-6 and 2.3-8. A miscalculation of this magnitude demonstrates that the USFS has failed to take a hard look at the impacts to fish and wildlife habitat, especially in an 4 Forest Guardians v. United States Fish and Wildlife Service, 611 F.3d 692, 711 (10th Cir. 2010). 3 Trout Unlimited – Objection Letter to Bridger-Teton National Forest – True Oil Lander Peak Proposal established migration corridor, when it determined that the Proposal will have no significant impacts and declined to prepare an EIS. Specifically, the EA states that its assumptions regarding water usage for dust control are based on 80 bbls of water being applied per mile to approximately 30 miles of unpaved roads. EA at Table 2.3-6. The EA notes that approximately 65% of the water used during the construction phase (112,800 bbls) will be used for dust control. Id. Despite this projection, in Table 2.3-8, the EA projects only 1 truck trip for dust control per day during the construction phase. This is unreasonable, and understates by 15 times the amount of truck traffic required for dust suppression activities. Based on the USFS’s own assumptions for water usage, the Proposal will require thirty truck trips in an 80 bbl truck every other day to meet the 112,800 bbl projection of water required for dust suppression.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Schedule of Proposed Action (SOPA)
    Schedule of Proposed Action (SOPA) 07/01/2017 to 09/30/2017 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 Bridger-Teton National Forest Big Piney Ranger District (excluding Projects occurring in more than one District) R4 - Intermountain Region Exxon/Mobil Lake Ridge Well - Minerals and Geology On Hold N/A N/A Justin Snyder T67X-14G1 307 367 5740 EA [email protected] Description: Authorize a Surface Use Plan of Operation to drill one natural gas exploratory well on an existing unit and lease. Location: UNIT - Big Piney Ranger District. STATE - Wyoming. COUNTY - Lincoln. LEGAL - T28N, R115W, Sec. 14, 6th P.M. 20 miles west of Big Piney, Wyoming. North Piney Post and Pole - Forest products Developing Proposal Expected:09/2017 09/2017 Dundonald Cochrane CE Est. Scoping Start 07/2017 307-276-5814 [email protected] Description: Commercial thinning of 70 ac. of lodgepole pine and mixed conifers to the west of Apperson Creek. Project proposes to increase structural diversity, manage hazardous fuel loading, & salvage forest products. Construct a half mile of temporary roads. Location: UNIT - Big Piney Ranger District. STATE - Wyoming. COUNTY - Sublette. LEGAL - T31, R115, Sec. 10,11,14,15. About 25 miles northwest of Big Piney, WY, in the Upper North Piney Creek watershed to the west of Apperson Creek and Forest Road 10370. Old Indian Trail Maki Creek - Recreation management In Progress: Expected:07/2017 08/2017 Chad Hayward Crossing - Wildlife, Fish, Rare plants Scoping Start 02/02/2015 307-367-5723 CE [email protected] Description: The Forest Service proposes to construct a bridge for both recreation use and livestock crossing on the Old Indian Trail at the Maki Creek stream crossing.
    [Show full text]
  • Bridger-Teton National Forest This Report Contains the Best Available Information at the Time of Publication
    Schedule of Proposed Action (SOPA) 07/01/2018 to 09/30/2018 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) 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 *UPDATED* 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,
    [Show full text]
  • Schedule of Proposed Action (SOPA)
    Schedule of Proposed Action (SOPA) 01/01/2017 to 03/31/2017 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) Rocky Mountain International - Special use management In Progress: Expected:12/2016 01/2017 Deidre Witsen Stage Stop Sled Dog Race Scoping Start 11/14/2016 307-739-5434 Reauthorization [email protected] CE Description: This event is a 9 day (7 of which will be on NFS lands) dog sled race with up to 35 teams of dogs and mushers. *NEW LISTING* Each day, one race occurs at a "stage" that is approximately 30 miles long. The teams then travel to the next stage for the next race. Location: UNIT - Kemmerer Ranger District, Greys River Ranger District, Teton Basin Ranger District, Big Piney Ranger District, Pinedale Ranger District, Wind River Ranger District, Evanston-Mountain View RD. STATE - Idaho, Wyoming. COUNTY - Teton, Sublette, Teton, Uinta, Fremont, Lincoln. LEGAL - Not Applicable. Various locations on the Bridger-Teton National Forest, the Caribou-Targhee National Forest, the Shoshone National Forest, and the Wasatch-Cache_Uinta National Forest. See maps with scoping document. Bridger-Teton National Forest, Occurring in more than one District (excluding Forestwide) R4 - Intermountain Region One Year Re-Authorization to - Special use management In Progress: Expected:12/2016 01/2017 Anita DeLong Operate Forest Park and Dell Scoping Start 11/18/2016 307-886-5329 Creek Feedgrounds [email protected] CE Description: Wyoming Game and Fish Commission purposes to operate and manage the Forest Park and Dell Creek *NEW LISTING* feedgrounds to supplementally feed wintering elk under a one year special use permit.
    [Show full text]
  • Wilderness & Land Ethic Curriculum
    the WILDERNESS & LAND ETHIC CURRICULUM NINTH THROUGH TWELFTH GRADE FIRST EDITION Arthur Carhart National Wilderness Training Center TABLE OF CONTENTS FOREWORD..................................................................................i INTRODUCTION............................................................................ii WILDERNESS: AN OVERVIEW. .1 LEAVE NO TRACE FIELD EXPERIENCEE. .. .31 Lesson 1: The Best Trip is Well Planned! Activity 1: Are You Ready? Activity 2: Will You Make It? Activity 3: Developing a “Total Food Planning” List Activity 4: The Skills Trail Lesson 2: A Wilderness Backpacking Trip Activity 1: Planning a Wilderness Backpacking Trip Activity 2: Activities for a Backpacking Trip Lesson 3: Reflections on Wild Places-A Journal-Making Activity Activity 1: Setting the Stage Activity 2: Journaling Layers of the Landscape SOCIAL STUDIES American Government. ....................................................................75 Lesson 1: Who Manages Wilderness? Activity 1: Legislation and Management American Government; Geography. ........................................................ 79 Lesson 2: National Wilderness Preservation System, Geographic Locations Activity 1: National Wilderness Preservation System Communication Arts: English; Speech/Debate. ..........................................82 Lesson 3: Fact vs. Opinion Activity 1: Opposing Viewpoints Activity 2: We Can’t Always Believe What We Read! Lesson 4: Wilderness Issues: Community Attitude Survey Activity 1: Wilderness Issues: Community Attitude Survey
    [Show full text]
  • Mountain Guide Manual 2018 Edition
    Mountain Guide Manual 2018 edition CONFIRMATION OF RECEIPT OF GUIDES MANUAL I (print employee’s name) ____________________________have been provided a copy of JHMG’s Guide’s Manual. In receiving this manual, I agree to read and be responsible for knowing all information included in this manual. Employee signature __________________________ Date ______________ JHMG MISSION STATEMENT & APPROACH Our philosophy is simple: enrich people's lives by providing exceptional service and unforgettable experiences. We do this by: • Offering fun and rewarding Mountain Adventures unique to JHMG by promoting client education, participation, environmental awareness and protection, and sound risk management on real climbs. • Operating professionally in all aspects of guiding and business operations. • Considering and minimizing our visibility and impact as commercial operators in the areas in which we operate. • Taking pride and ownership in our operations: office and field. TABLE OF CONTENTS Section 1. Introduction- Goals and Purposes of Manual Section 2. Guide and Porter Qualifications/Hiring Section 3. Employment Expectations, Evaluation, Termination Section 4. Wages and Benefits Section 5. Training Section 6. Office Procedure & Policy Section 7. Transportation & Travel Section 8. Equipment Section 9. Food Section 10. Field Procedures and Policy Section 11. Corbet High Camp Section 12. Risk Management Section 13. Class Guidelines Section 14. New Guide Teton Hit List APPENDICES Appendix A Emergency Phone Numbers Appendix B First Aid Kit-Contents Appendix
    [Show full text]
  • Lincoln County, Wyoming
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY ' GEORGE OTIS SMITH, DIRECTOR BULLETIN 543 GEOLOGY AND GEOGRAPHY OF A PORTION OF LINCOLN COUNTY, WYOMING BY ALFRED REGINALD SCHULTZ WASHINGTON GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1914 CONTENTS. Page. Introduction.............................................................. 7 Location and area..................................................... 7 Field work........................................................... 7 Base map............................................................ 8 ' Acknowledgments.... v............................................... 10 Geographic and geologic explorations...*..................................... 11 Hayden Survey (1868-1878)............................................ 11 Present period (1881-1906).................:........................... 12 Geography................................................,.............. 13 Geographic positions.................................................. 13 Topogi-aphy........................................................... 14 Relief.............................................................. 14 Drainage............................................................ 18 Altitudes............................................................. 19 Railroad and stage routes.............................................. 19 Geographic names..............-..................'..................... 21 Climate.............................................................. 23 A.rable land.........................................................
    [Show full text]
  • SOTA Table Ref
    Summits on the Air U.S.A. (W7Y-Wyoming) Association Reference Manual Document Reference S58.1 Issue number 1.05 Date of issue 12-Feb-2014 Participation start date 01-Nov-2010 Authorised Date 01-Nov-2010 obo SOTA Management Team Association Manager Guy Hamblen, N7UN Summits-on-the-Air an original concept by G3WGV and developed with G3CWI Notice “Summits on the Air” SOTA and the SOTA logo are trademarks of the Programme. This document is copyright of the Programme. All other trademarks and copyrights referenced herein are acknowledged. Summits on the Air – ARM for U.S.A. (W7Y-Wyoming) Table of Contents 1 ASSOCIATION REFERENCE DATA ........................................................................................... 4 1.1 PROGRAM DERIVATION ..................................................................................................................... 4 1.2 GENERAL INFORMATION ................................................................................................................... 5 1.3 FINAL ASCENT AND ACTIVATION ZONE EXPLAINED ............................................................................. 5 1.4 RIGHTS OF WAY AND ACCESS ISSUES ................................................................................................ 6 1.5 MAPS AND NAVIGATION .................................................................................................................... 6 1.6 SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS ...............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Record of Decision Oil & Gas Leasing U.S. Forest Service
    USDA RECORD OF DECISION OIL & GAS LEASING U.S. FOREST SERVICE WYOMING RANGE BRIDGER-TETON NATIONAL FOREST SUBLETTE COUNTY, WYOMING DECISION I have decided to select Alternative 1, not authorizing the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to offer 35 lease parcels located within the Wyoming Range and totaling 44,720 acres, at this time. This decision supersedes prior Forest Service decisions made in June 2005 to authorize BLM to offer these lease parcels (See Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (FSEIS) Appendix E). BACKGROUND The Forest Service determined in the Bridger-Teton National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) adopted on March 2, 1990 that the subject land would be administratively available for oil and gas leasing, subject to certain constraints, in accordance with 36 CFR 228.102. The Forest Plan also contains goals, objectives, standards, and guidelines that impose further limitations on activities that may affect surface resources, such as operations and development related to oil and gas leases. This decision and the supporting environmental analysis was reviewed, and some of the constraints on oil and gas leasing activities further refined for each of the involved Management Areas in three environmental assessments and Decision Notices prepared in 1990, 1991 and 1993. Then in January and February of 2004, the Forest Service completed a Supplemental Biological Assessment, Supplemental Biological Evaluation, and a Supplemental Information Report, determining that no further environmental analysis would be needed to authorize BLM to offer the subject lands for lease. On June 15, 2005, the Forest Service authorized the BLM to offer the subject lands for lease with specified stipulations in accordance with 36 CFR 228.102(e).
    [Show full text]
  • Pinedale Roundup 1904-1999 Compiled by Judi Myers (Full Credits & Copyright at the Bottom)
    Index to the Pinedale Roundup 1904-1999 compiled by Judi Myers (Full credits & copyright at the bottom) 09/08/1904 Vol. 1 # 1 - Cattle Roundup - depressed market. County Commissioner Ed Steele orders lumber for Boulder Creek bridge. Pinedale and Olson become separate voting districts. Truax Blacksmith shop open Patterson buys Graham ranch. Sommers recovers stolen horses. Spicer store in Boulder. Mills Bros. road house near Big Piney shut for repairs. Fitzhugh Hotel to open in Big Piney area lauded. Mail route to Lander needed. Bougher baby boy. LOCAL NAMES MENTIONED Ed Steele, Nels Jorgensen, Mr. Bowman, Fred Boyce, George Truax, F. C. Fisher, Ray Glover, J. F. Patterson, R. D. Graham, P. V. Sornmers, Fannie Tartar, Mr. Spicer, Dr. Gilligan, D. A. Winn, Alva Thompson, Fred Ballou, A. M. Vandy, Charles Nettleton, Henry Binning, Judge H. C. Johnson, James Noble, Dr. and Mrs. S. J. Ross, Elizabeth Sumner, "Uncle" George Smith, J. L. Fleming, Amos Smith, Louise and Emma Ross, Jass Bougher, B. R. Ordway, Robert Fitzhugh, John Budd, Keys, Joe Smith, Wm. Wells, Jack Reynolds, Will Lafferty Jack Ward, F. E. McGrew, Superintendent Anderson, W. F. Nolan, C.D. Reaser, Snider, R. C. Irwin, Pat Cornwell, Thomas Odle, L. W. Sargent, Joe McGovern, Douglas Leckie, Mrs. Roy, C. W. Brandon. LOCAL ADS - Franklin Mercantile Co. Brands - HT McCoy and Shanley, Alfred Coolidge I, Harry K. Hoff 09/15/1904 McCoy and Shanley haystacks. Pershall recommends Fremont dam. Peterson and Bourm sawmill in Pinedale. Harnessing Pine Creek rapids discussed. Luman kills bear. Pinedale cattle Roundup Association meets. Foreman W. Bloom.
    [Show full text]
  • Glacier, Wyoming
    STUDIES RELATED TO WILDERNESS PRIMITIVE AREAS GLACIER, WYOMING GEOLOGICAL SURVEY BULLETIN 1319-F Mineral Resources of the Glacier Primitive Area, Wyoming By H. C. GRANGER, E. J. McKAY and R. E. MATTICK, U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY, and by LOWELL L. PATTEN and PAUL McILROY, U.S. BUREAU OF MINES STUDIES RELATED TO WILDERNESS PRIMITIVE AREAS GEOLOGICAL SURVEY BULLETIN 1319-F An evaluation of the mineral potential of the area UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON : 1971 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR GEOLOGICAL SURVEY William T. Pecora, Director Library of Congress catalog-card No. 73-609781 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, D.C. 20402 STUDIES RELATED TO WILDERNESS PRIMITIVE AREAS In accordance with the provisions of the Wilderness Act (Public Law 88-577, September 3, 1964) and the Conference Report on Senate bill 4, 88th Congress, the U.S. Geological Survey and the U.S. Bureau of Mines are making mineral surveys of wilderness and primi­ tive areas. Areas officially designated as "wilderness," "wild," or "canoe" when the act was passed were incorporated into the National Wilderness Preservation System. Areas classed as "primitive" were not included in the Wilderness System, but the act provides that each primitive area be studied for its suitability for incorporation into the Wilderness System. The mineral surveys constitute one aspect of the suitability studies. This bulletin reports the results of a mineral survey in the Glacier Primitive Area and vicinity, Wyoming. The area discussed in the report includes the primitive area, as denned, and some bordering areas that may come under discussion when the area is considered for wilderness status.
    [Show full text]
  • Here the Desert Meets the Mountains”
    BigBig PineyPiney && MarbletonMarbleton WyomingWyoming VISITOR’S GUIDE “Where the Desert Meets the Mountains” WWW.BIGPINEY-MARBLETON.COM @Big-Piney-Marbleton-Community-Development @bigpineymarbleton HISTORY The commonly asked question “Why are there two towns so close together – Marbleton and Big Piney?” has a simple answer: difference of opinion. Local historians agree that Daniel B. Budd created the town of Big Piney by locating the basics of a blacksmith shop, general store, post office and hotel, at the site of his 1879 homestead. Soon after his family joined him there, he donated land for a school, effectively designating a permanent town at the present-day location. When Daniel B. Budd died in 1902, his family continued to homestead and develop the outlying areas as part of a greater community. Early pictures make it seem that there was plenty of room for a town to grow at Big Piney, but one of the sons, Charles, felt that Big Piney’s location was constricted by the boggy, wet meadows which surrounded the town incorporated in 1913. A mile north of Middle Piney Creek and Big Piney, Charles Budd built on property of his own, offering an adjacent town on higher, dryer soil. That town, Marbleton, was incorporated in 1914. Budd and his partner Hugh McKay brought a thousand head of cattle from Nevada hop- ing to ship them at Point of Rocks, but winter caught up to them here in the Green River Valley. The following year Dan Budd moved his family here and that is how the settle- ment of this town began.
    [Show full text]
  • Environmental Assessment Record
    Environmental United States Department of Assessment Agriculture Forest True Oil LLC - Lander Peak Area Service Exploratory Proposal March Bridger-Teton National Forest 2017 Sublette County, Wyoming Township 32 North, Range 115 West, Sections 15, 16, 22, & 27 For further information contact: Don Kranendonk, District Ranger Big Piney Ranger District P. O. Box 218 Big Piney, Wyoming 83113 307-736-5500 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. Lander Peak Area Exploratory Proposal Environmental Assessment TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1 1.2
    [Show full text]