DOCSLIB.ORG

National Mining Association

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
National Mining Association November 30, 2007 United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attn: Mr. Larry Camper, Director Division of Waste Management and Environmental Protection Office of Federal and State Materials and Environmental Management Programs One Two White Flint North 11545 Rockville Pike Rockville, MD 20852 Dear Mr. Camper: In February 2007, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) announced that it was considering the preparation of a generic environmental impact statement in anticipation of receiving up to fourteen potential license applications for new in situ uranium recovery (ISR) facilities (hereinafter “ISR GEIS”). After receiving a full briefing from NRC Staff on the proposed ISR GEIS, the Commission issued a Staff Requirements Memorandum (SRM) in which NRC Staff was directed to initiate the process of preparing an ISR GEIS. Pursuant to this Commission directive, on July 24, 2007, NRC issued a Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare an ISR GEIS and began the ISR GEIS development process by initiating a standard National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) scoping process, including an opportunity for interested stakeholders to submit comments on the issues to be addressed in the ISR GEIS. See generally 72 Fed. Reg. 40344 (July 24, 2007). In addition, two (2) public scoping meetings to be held in Casper, Wyoming on August 7, 2007 and Albuquerque, New Mexico on August 9, 2007 were announced. See id. After concluding these two public scoping meetings, NRC received requests for an extension of the scoping comment period. In response, NRC issued a revised NOI in which the public comment period was extended to October 31, 2007 and a third public scoping meeting was scheduled for Grants, New Mexico on September 27, 2007. This scoping comment period was then extended a further thirty days to November 30, 2007. See 72 Fed. Reg. 61912 (November 1, 2007). In response to NRC’s request for public scoping comments, the National Mining Association (NMA), on behalf of the members of its Uranium Environmental Subcommittee (UES), hereby submits these scoping comments and attachments in an effort to provide NRC with the benefit of NMA UES members’ over thirty years of ISR uranium recovery experience and data. NMA’s UES members consist of current conventional and/or ISR uranium recovery licensees, as well as potential future conventional and/or ISR uranium recovery license applicants. Mr. Larry Camper, Director United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission November 30, 2007 Page 2 NMA’s scoping comments will consist of the following components: (1) general comments regarding the scope of the proposed ISR GEIS; (2) specific comments addressing specific issues associated with ISR uranium recovery projects and scoping comments offered by interested stakeholders; and (3) an attachment consisting of a generic environmental report (GER) prepared by members of the uranium recovery industry. Given that NRC intends to prepare a GEIS in accordance with its 10 CFR Part 51 NEPA regulations and given that licensees/license applicants have the primary responsibility for the possession and management of AEA materials in a manner that adequately protects public health and safety and the environment, the attached GER has been prepared to comport with the licensee’s/license applicant’s responsibility to submit detailed technical and environmental evaluations in support of proposed NRC licensing actions. This GER reflects NRC guidance in NUREG-1748 entitled Environmental Review Guidance for Licensing Actions Associated with NMSS Programs and NUREG-1569 entitled Standard Review Plan for In Situ Leach Uranium Extraction License Applications in order to provide NRC with the most relevant format for utilizing the data and analyses generated by industry in these scoping comments and the attached GER. I. GENERAL COMMENTS NMA’s general comments focus on a broad overview of the statutory and regulatory programs associated with the preparation of an ISR GEIS and licensing of ISR uranium recovery projects. It is NMA’s experience that these issues are frequently mischaracterized or misunderstood by interested stakeholders and, therefore, it is of primary importance that all such stakeholders understand these issues so that the low-risk nature of ISR uranium recovery can be gauged properly. A. PREPARATION AND USE OF THE ISR GEIS 1. The specific intent in preparing these scoping comments and the attached GER is to facilitate the creation of a generic resource to be used in evaluating newly proposed ISR uranium recovery projects, including satellite wellfields to be added onto existing ISR projects or so- called remote ion-exchange (IX) facilities. As the operators of research and development (R&D) and full-scale commercial production operations over a thirty plus year period, the ISR uranium recovery industry possesses relevant technical and environmental database, as well as associated extensive site and regional-specific analyses of the geological, hydrological, geochemical, and other relevant conditions at sites where uranium resources amenable to the ISR uranium recovery technique are found. This array of data and analyses is spread throughout a variety of NRC and Agreement State licenses and license amendment applications and their accompanying technical and environmental reports and required considerable effort to compile and consolidate, to the extent reasonably achievable, within the allotted timeframe. As a result, NMA believes that NRC should make the attached GER available with these scoping comments, so the technical and environmental data and analyses provided promote a better understanding that ISR uranium recovery is an essentially benign form of AEA-regulated activity—indeed, the lowest risk activity in the nuclear fuel cycle by a significant margin. Mr. Larry Camper, Director United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission November 30, 2007 Page 3 2. In some instances, interested stakeholders participating in the scoping process have argued that the ISR GEIS is intended to obviate the need for site-specific assessments of proposed ISR uranium recovery projects. NMA states unequivocally that the preparation of an ISR GEIS cannot and will not obviate the need for site-specific technical and environmental analyses for each proposed ISR uranium recovery process facility. The point of a generic or programmatic assessment is, however, to promote the efficient use of time and resources by focusing detailed attention on the site-specific circumstances and issues that differ significantly from the ISR GEIS’ evaluations and conclusions regarding such issues. Indeed, a site-specific NRC Staff review which determines that the issues being assessed fall within the ISR GEIS’ assessment and conclusions effectively is a form of site-specific assessment. Indeed, NRC’s regulations and guidance prohibit the issuance of ISR uranium recovery licenses for new projects without some form of site-specific technical and environmental assessment to address any issues not assessed adequately in the ISR GEIS. The categorical exclusions in NRC’s 10 CFR Part 51 regulations do not apply to ISR uranium recovery projects. Thus, regardless of the existence of an ISR GEIS, NRC will perform a systematic analysis of the technical issues and potential environmental impacts presented by each proposed ISR uranium recovery project, but the level of site-specific review required likely will be different for each project. Specifically, NRC has a detailed systematic process for determining the level of environmental review required for ISR uranium recovery projects. (See Figure 1 in NUREG- 1748.) Initially, NRC is required to define the proposed licensing action and determine, if a categorical exclusion is not appropriate, whether an EIS is required. By preparing the ISR GEIS, NRC will satisfy the regulatory requirements of Part 51.20(b)(8) for EISs. However, NRC has made clear, and NMA does not disagree, that ISR uranium recovery projects do have site- specific aspects that will require assessment above and beyond the ISR GEIS. Accordingly, if NRC begins its systematic evaluation by concluding that, under Figure 1 and in light of an ISR GEIS, a site-specific EIS is not required, NRC will then proceed with the preparation of an environmental assessment (EA) for a proposed ISR project. After it completes the site-specific EA, NRC is required to determine whether the EA will yield a finding of no significant impact (FONSI) or whether additional assessment is required. In the event that a FONSI is warranted, NRC will complete its review and render a decision on the proposed licensing action. In the event that additional assessment is required, NRC will perform a site-specific EIS for the proposed licensing action. Thus, even given the existence of the ISR GEIS, NRC will still conduct site-specific analyses for proposed licensing actions, just in more or less detail, depending upon the site-specific issues that may be present. Therefore, assertions that the ISR GEIS is intended to obviate the need for site-specific assessments are incorrect. 3. Both Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations and past NRC practice contemplate and promote tiering of environmental analyses as with NRC’s proposed use of the ISR GEIS to allow for the “tiering” of site-specific EAs for proposed ISR uranium recovery projects. CEQ’s regulations directly address the process of “tiering.” As defined in 40 CFR § 1508.28, “tiering” “refers to the coverage of general matters in broader environmental impact statements . with subsequent
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Land Areas of the National Forest System, As of September 30, 2019
    United States Department of Agriculture Land Areas of the National Forest System As of September 30, 2019 Forest Service WO Lands FS-383 November 2019 Metric Equivalents When you know: Multiply by: To fnd: Inches (in) 2.54 Centimeters Feet (ft) 0.305 Meters Miles (mi) 1.609 Kilometers Acres (ac) 0.405 Hectares Square feet (ft2) 0.0929 Square meters Yards (yd) 0.914 Meters Square miles (mi2) 2.59 Square kilometers Pounds (lb) 0.454 Kilograms United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Land Areas of the WO, Lands National Forest FS-383 System November 2019 As of September 30, 2019 Published by: USDA Forest Service 1400 Independence Ave., SW Washington, DC 20250-0003 Website: https://www.fs.fed.us/land/staff/lar-index.shtml Cover Photo: Mt. Hood, Mt. Hood National Forest, Oregon Courtesy of: Susan Ruzicka USDA Forest Service WO Lands and Realty Management Statistics are current as of: 10/17/2019 The National Forest System (NFS) is comprised of: 154 National Forests 58 Purchase Units 20 National Grasslands 7 Land Utilization Projects 17 Research and Experimental Areas 28 Other Areas NFS lands are found in 43 States as well as Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. TOTAL NFS ACRES = 192,994,068 NFS lands are organized into: 9 Forest Service Regions 112 Administrative Forest or Forest-level units 503 Ranger District or District-level units The Forest Service administers 149 Wild and Scenic Rivers in 23 States and 456 National Wilderness Areas in 39 States. The Forest Service also administers several other types of nationally designated
    [Show full text]
  • Land Areas of the National Forest System
    United States Department of Agriculture Land Areas of the National Forest System As of September 30, 2018 Forest Service WO Lands FS-383 November 2018 United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Land Areas of the WO, Lands National Forest FS-383 System November 2018 As of September 30, 2018 Published by: USDA Forest Service 1400 Independence Ave., SW Washington, D.C. 20250-0003 Web site: https://www.fs.fed.us/land/staff/lar-index.shtml Cover photo courtesy of: Chris Chavez Statistics are current as of: 10/15/2018 The National Forest System (NFS) is comprised of: 154 National Forests 58 Purchase Units 20 National Grasslands 7 Land Utilization Projects 17 Research and Experimental Areas 28 Other Areas NFS lands are found in 43 States as well as Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. TOTAL NFS ACRES = 192,948,059 NFS lands are organized into: 9 Forest Service Regions 112 Administrative Forest or Forest-level units 506 Ranger District or District-level units The Forest Service administers 128 Wild and Scenic Rivers in 23 States and 446 National Wilderness Areas in 39 States. The FS also administers several other types of nationally-designated areas: 1 National Historic Area in 1 State 1 National Scenic Research Area in 1 State 1 Scenic Recreation Area in 1 State 1 Scenic Wildlife Area in 1 State 2 National Botanical Areas in 1 State 2 National Volcanic Monument Areas in 2 States 2 Recreation Management Areas in 2 States 6 National Protection Areas in 3 States 8 National Scenic Areas in 6 States 12 National Monument Areas in 6 States 12 Special Management Areas in 5 States 21 National Game Refuge or Wildlife Preserves in 12 States 22 National Recreation Areas in 20 States Table of Contents Acreage Calculation ...........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Table 7 - National Wilderness Areas by State
    Table 7 - National Wilderness Areas by State * Unit is in two or more States ** Acres estimated pending final boundary determination + Special Area that is part of a proclaimed National Forest State National Wilderness Area NFS Other Total Unit Name Acreage Acreage Acreage Alabama Cheaha Wilderness Talladega National Forest 7,400 0 7,400 Dugger Mountain Wilderness** Talladega National Forest 9,048 0 9,048 Sipsey Wilderness William B. Bankhead National Forest 25,770 83 25,853 Alabama Totals 42,218 83 42,301 Alaska Chuck River Wilderness 74,876 520 75,396 Coronation Island Wilderness Tongass National Forest 19,118 0 19,118 Endicott River Wilderness Tongass National Forest 98,396 0 98,396 Karta River Wilderness Tongass National Forest 39,917 7 39,924 Kootznoowoo Wilderness Tongass National Forest 979,079 21,741 1,000,820 FS-administered, outside NFS bdy 0 654 654 Kuiu Wilderness Tongass National Forest 60,183 15 60,198 Maurille Islands Wilderness Tongass National Forest 4,814 0 4,814 Misty Fiords National Monument Wilderness Tongass National Forest 2,144,010 235 2,144,245 FS-administered, outside NFS bdy 0 15 15 Petersburg Creek-Duncan Salt Chuck Wilderness Tongass National Forest 46,758 0 46,758 Pleasant/Lemusurier/Inian Islands Wilderness Tongass National Forest 23,083 41 23,124 FS-administered, outside NFS bdy 0 15 15 Russell Fjord Wilderness Tongass National Forest 348,626 63 348,689 South Baranof Wilderness Tongass National Forest 315,833 0 315,833 South Etolin Wilderness Tongass National Forest 82,593 834 83,427 Refresh Date: 10/14/2017
    [Show full text]
  • Grand Canyon Council Oa Where to Go Camping Guide
    GRAND CANYON COUNCIL OA WHERE TO GO CAMPING GUIDE GRAND CANYON COUNCIL, BSA OA WHERE TO GO CAMPING GUIDE Table of Contents Introduction to The Order of the Arrow ....................................................................... 1 Wipala Wiki, The Man .................................................................................................. 1 General Information ...................................................................................................... 3 Desert Survival Safety Tips ........................................................................................... 4 Further Information ....................................................................................................... 4 Contact Agencies and Organizations ............................................................................. 5 National Forests ............................................................................................................. 5 U. S. Department Of The Interior - Bureau Of Land Management ................................ 7 Maricopa County Parks And Recreation System: .......................................................... 8 Arizona State Parks: .................................................................................................... 10 National Parks & National Monuments: ...................................................................... 11 Tribal Jurisdictions: ..................................................................................................... 13 On the Road: National
    [Show full text]
  • American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
    USDA Forest Service American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Projects as of June 2, 2009 TABLE OF CONTENTS ALABAMA 4 ALASKA 6 ARIZONA 12 CALIFORNIA 18 COLORADO 26 DELAWARE 30 FLORIDA 30 GEORGIA 31 HAWAII 34 IDAHO 34 ILLINOIS 41 INDIANA 43 KENTUCKY 45 MAINE 48 MASSACHUSETTS 50 MICHIGAN 51 MISSISSIPPI 60 MISSOURI 61 MONTANA 63 NEVADA 71 NEW HAMPSHIRE 75 NEW MEXICO 76 NEW YORK 78 NORTH CAROLINA 79 OHIO 81 Page 2 of 119 OREGON 84 PENNSYLVANIA 97 PUERTO RICO 99 RHODE ISLAND 100 SOUTH CAROLINA 100 TENNESSEE 102 VERMONT 103 VIRGINIA 106 UTAH 107 VIRGIN ISLANDS 107 WASHINGTON 108 WEST VIRGINIA 115 WISCONSIN 117 Page 3 of 119 Alabama Auburn HVAC Repair, Energy Upgrade and LEED-EB Certification Date of Announcement: March 9, 2009 Estimated Funding: $ 550,000 for Capital Improvement and Maintenance County: Lee Jobs will be created to replace this Southern Research Station (SRS) laboratory's antiquated and failing HVAC system and make the facility a model for energy efficiency. The SRS has completed 60-percent of the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design for Existing Buildings' (LEED-EB) certification process, as established by the U.S. Green Building Council, for the 23,340 square foot facility. These updates include retro-commissioning, water reduction measures, waste management and recycling programs, and storm water management projects. The project will replace major components of the 38-year-old system and will add new fresh air economizers and a new direct digital control system. The project will create an estimated energy savings of 35-percent. The G.W. Andrews Forestry Sciences Laboratory will be the first LEED- EB certified facility in the Forest Service inventory.
    [Show full text]
  • Arizona Statewide Elk Management Plan
    Arizona Statewide Elk Management Plan Arizona Game and Fish Department 5000 W. Carefree Highway Phoenix, Arizona 85086 Revision Date: December 3, 2011 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 3 Plan Goal 5 Plan Objectives 6 Future Management Needs 6 STATEWIDE SUMMARY 7 Survey Efforts 7 Population Status 7 Disease Surveillance 8 Management Issues and Opportunities 8 REGIONAL HERD PLANS 11 Region 1 11 Region 2 21 Regions 3 and 4 26 Region 5 41 Region 6 43 2 Arizona Elk Management Plan December 2011 INTRODUCTION The native Merriam's elk were historically distributed in Arizona from the White Mountains westward along the Mogollon Rim to near the San Francisco Peaks. These native elk were extirpated just prior to 1900. In February 1913, private conservationists released 83 elk from Yellowstone National Park into Cabin Draw near Chevelon Creek. Two other transplants of Yellowstone elk followed in the 1920s—one south of Alpine and another north of Williams. As a result of these original transplants, Arizona’s elk population has grown to levels that support annual harvests of 8,000 or more elk. Regulated hunting of the transplanted Yellowstone elk began in 1935 and continues today, with only a brief hiatus during 1944 and 1945 due to World War II. During the late 1940s and early 1950s, concerns over growing elk herds lead managers to increase permits, culminating in 1953 when 6,288 permits were issued and 1,558 elk were taken, more than 1,000 of which were cows. Elk permits leveled off and remained below 5,000 through the mid-1960s, when they were again increased in response to expanding populations.
    [Show full text]
  • Arizona Missing Linkages
    ARIZONA MISSING LINKAGES Munds Mountain – Black Hills Linkage Design Paul Beier, Daniel Majka, Emily Garding submitted September 2006 last revised March 13, 2007 MUNDS MOUNTAIN -BLACK HILLS LINKAGE DESIGN Acknowledgments This project would not have been possible without the help of many individuals. We thank Chasa O’Brien, and Dr. Jason Marshal for parameterizing models for focal species and suggesting focal species. Catherine Wightman, Fenner Yarborough, Janet Lynn, Mylea Bayless, Andi Rogers, Mikele Painter, Valerie Horncastle, Matthew Johnson, Jeff Gagnon, Erica Nowak, Lee Luedeker, Allen Haden, Shaula Hedwall, and Martin Lawrence helped identify focal species and species experts. Robert Shantz provided photos for many of the species accounts. Shawn Newell, Jeff Jenness, Megan Friggens, and Matt Clark provided helpful advice on analyses and reviewed portions of the results. Funding This project was funded by a grant from Arizona Game and Fish Department to Northern Arizona University. Recommended Citation Beier, P., D. Majka, and E. Garding. 2006. Arizona Missing Linkages: Munds Mountain – Black Hills Linkage Design. Report to Arizona Game and Fish Department. School of Forestry, Northern Arizona University. Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................................................ I LIST OF TABLES & FIGURES............................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Prescott National Forest
    Prescott National Forest United States Department of Agriculture Forest Plan Monitoring and Forest Service Evaluation Report Southwestern Region Fiscal Year 2014 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. FY2014 Monitoring and Evaluation Report Page ii Table of Contents Section 1: Introduction .............................................................................................. 5 Section 2: Monitoring Summary ............................................................................... 7 Fire Management .................................................................................................................................... 7 Heritage Resources ............................................................................................................................... 11 Insects and Disease ..............................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Register/Vol. 85, No. 207/Monday, October 26, 2020
    67818 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 207 / Monday, October 26, 2020 / Proposed Rules ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION All submissions received must include 1. General Operation and Maintenance AGENCY the Docket ID No. for this rulemaking. 2. Biofouling Management Comments received may be posted 3. Oil Management 40 CFR Part 139 without change to https:// 4. Training and Education B. Discharges Incidental to the Normal [EPA–HQ–OW–2019–0482; FRL–10015–54– www.regulations.gov, including any Operation of a Vessel—Specific OW] personal information provided. For Standards detailed instructions on sending 1. Ballast Tanks RIN 2040–AF92 comments and additional information 2. Bilges on the rulemaking process, see the 3. Boilers Vessel Incidental Discharge National 4. Cathodic Protection Standards of Performance ‘‘General Information’’ heading of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 5. Chain Lockers 6. Decks AGENCY: Environmental Protection this document. Out of an abundance of 7. Desalination and Purification Systems Agency (EPA). caution for members of the public and 8. Elevator Pits ACTION: Proposed rule. our staff, the EPA Docket Center and 9. Exhaust Gas Emission Control Systems Reading Room are closed to the public, 10. Fire Protection Equipment SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental with limited exceptions, to reduce the 11. Gas Turbines Protection Agency (EPA) is publishing risk of transmitting COVID–19. Our 12. Graywater Systems for public comment a proposed rule Docket Center staff will continue to 13. Hulls and Associated Niche Areas under the Vessel Incidental Discharge provide remote customer service via 14. Inert Gas Systems Act that would establish national email, phone, and webform. We 15. Motor Gasoline and Compensating standards of performance for marine Systems encourage the public to submit 16.
    [Show full text]
  • Mingus Mountain Scenic Road
    i ii iii INTRODUCTION SR 89A in the Verde Valley of central Arizona can be called a main route to one fascinating encounter after another. Three segments of this roadway – Mingus Mountain Scenic Road; Jerome, Clarkdale, Cottonwood Historic Road; and Dry Creek Scenic Road – combine to offer travelers a magical mix of history and culture, as well as recreational and scenic experiences. Splendorous vistas of remarkable Red Rock Country landforms can be enjoyed from the cushioned ease of an air- conditioned tour bus or personal car. The same can be said for the perched haunts of Cleopatra Hill and for the glistening energies of Deception Canyon. However, the real power of this region is best experienced on foot. Whether it is along the trails that crisscross though jagged cliffs and colorful canyons, beside winding arroyos and creeks, or on the well-worn sidewalks and back streets of Jerome, Clarkdale, Cottonwood or Sedona – this area is best enjoyed up close and personal. The area is easily accessible off of Interstate 17 and is approximately 90 miles north of Phoenix and 50 miles south of Flagstaff. THE BYWAY STORY The Mingus Mountain Scenic Corridor begins at milepost (MP) 332, on the Prescott Valley side of SR 89A in Yaeger Canyon at the base of the Black Hills. As the roadway begins its climb up Mingus, Ponderosa Pine hug the roadway and can be seen dotting the sides of the mountain among pockets of basalt. Mingus Mountain is the most significant VIEW OF MINGUS MOUNTAIN - PHOTO BY JUDY MILLER outcropping in the Black Hills range and is the dominant background view as the highway meanders through the canyon formed by the Hickey, Woodchute and Mingus Mountains.
    [Show full text]
  • Wilderness Need Assessment Instructions
    2/11/11 Updated Coconino National Forest Wilderness Need Evaluation Introduction Anything in this document that has been changed since the last version has been highlighted in Green. The purpose of the Wilderness Need Assessment is to identify the need for additional wilderness on the Coconino National Forest and in the US Forest Service’s Southwest Region (Region 3 or Region) based on a variety of factors including visitor demand, the need to provide protections for various fish, wildlife, and plant species, and provididsng a reasonable representation of landforms and ecosystems within the National Wilderness Preservation System. Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 1909.12, Subsection 72.3 describes the factors that are to be considered. The following report provides the complete documentation of consideration of these factors following the Forest Service’s Southwest Region working group guidance. Because most of these factors are intended to be evaluated at a regional scale, the majority of table and figures were created using data from the Region 3 Wilderness Needs Evaluation (Forest Service 2007a). Factor #1 Factor #1, Item #1 The location, size, and type of other wildernesses in the general vicinity and their distance from the proposed area. 1. How many, what size (# of acres), and what types of other wilderness areas exist within the general vicinity of your forest (within 100 air miles)? There are 15 wilderness areas within the Coconino National Forest (the Forest or Coconino NF) and there are 32 Wilderness Areas within 100 air miles of the Coconino NF, including those on other National Forests (Tonto, Prescott, and Kaibab National Forests), National Park Service (NPS) administered lands, and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) administered lands (Table 1).
    [Show full text]
  • Land Areas of the National Forest System
    United States Department of Agriculture Land Areas of the National Forest System As of September 30, 2020 Forest Service WO Lands FS–383 November 2020 Metric Equivalents When you know: Multiply by: To find: Inches (in) 2.54 Centimeters (cm) Feet (ft) 0.305 Meters (m) Miles (mi) 1.609 Kilometers (km) Acres (ac) 0.405 Hectares (ha) Square feet (ft2) 0.0929 Square meters (m2) Yards (yd) 0.914 Meters (m) Square miles (mi2) 2.59 Square kilometers (km2) Pounds (lb) 0.454 Kilograms (kg) United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Land Areas of the WO, Lands National Forest FS–383 System November 2020 As of September 30, 2020 USDA Forest Service 1400 Independence Ave., SW Washington, DC 20250–0003 Website: https://www.fs.fed.us/land/staff/lar-index.shtml Cover photo: Mount Ogden, Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest, Utah Photo by Eric Greenwood, USDA Forest Service, Region 4, Recreation Lands & Minerals i Statistics are current as of: 10/19/2020 The National Forest System (NFS) is comprised of: 154 National Forests 58 Purchase Units 20 National Grasslands 7 Land Utilization Projects 17 Research and Experimental Areas 28 Other Areas NFS lands are found in 43 States as well as Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. TOTAL NFS ACRES = 193,041,851 NFS lands are organized into: 9 Forest Service Regions 112 Administrative Forest or Forest-level units 503 Ranger District or District-level units The Forest Service, an agency of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), administers 134 Wild and Scenic Rivers in 23 States and 449 National Wilderness Areas in 39 States.
    [Show full text]