DOCSLIB.ORG

Trends in Easement Language and the Status of Current Monitoring on Working Forest Conservation Easements

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Trends in Easement Language and the Status of Current Monitoring on Working Forest Conservation Easements TRENDS IN EASEMENT LANGUAGE AND THE STATUS OF CURRENT MONITORING ON WORKING FOREST CONSERVATION EASEMENTS BY ADAM BLOCK KARA HARTIGAN ROBERT HEISER GREGORY HORNER LUKE LEWANDOWSKI JASON MULVIHILL-KUNTZ STEPHEN THORN A PROJECT SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE IN NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT SCHOOL OF NATURAL RESOURCES & ENVIRONMENT THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN APRIL 2004 FACULTY ADVISOR: ELIZABETH BRABEC, J.D., M.L.A. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We would like to thank Tina Hall, Conservation Director of The Nature Conservancy’s Upper Peninsula Conservation Center, Michigan Chapter, for her guidance, insight, and assistance throughout our project. Our research question closely paralleled an emerging area of research within TNC, which helped facilitate collaboration. Additional thanks to our faculty advisor, Elizabeth Brabec for her direction and commitment to making this work a success. We are grateful to Tammara Van Ryn, Director of Research and Easement Excellence at the Land Trust Alliance, for her advice on the project scope and topic. We also want to thank the Land Trust Alliance (LTA) for enabling us to participate at its Midwest Rally as well as attend its National Rally. LTA-sponsored research also provided a strong background from which to build our research. We would also like to thank the land trust community for its participation in our project. Its cooperation made this project a reality and hopefully a benefit to all land trust professionals involved in Working Forest Conservation Easements. In particular, Paul Doscher of the Society to Protect New Hampshire Forests, Connie Best of the Pacific Forest Trust, and John Henshaw of the USFS Forest Legacy Program provided critical insight into the project. Billy Heiser and Dana Jackman provided invaluable technical and analytical support for our project. Those who provided funding and in-kind support for this project deserve special mention: The Prentice Foundation, University of Michigan’s School of Natural Resources and Environment, the Ecosystem Management Initiative, The Nature Conservancy’s Upper Peninsula Conservation Center, and the Horace H. Rackham School of Graduate Studies. In particular, Kathy Holmes was instrumental in helping us secure funding for our participation at the Land Trust Alliance Rally in Sacramento, California. Lastly, we would like to thank our family and friends for their support and understanding. Their patience and comfort helped ground and energize us. The paper on which this project is printed is made from 100% post-consumer pulp in a chlorine-free pulping and bleaching process. ii PROJECT MEMBERS Adam Block Degree: M.S. in Natural Resources and Environment, Resource Policy and Behavior. Background: B.S. in Environmental Conservation, University of New Hampshire, NH, 2001. Interests: Collaborative approaches to resource management and land protection, community level land-use planning Kara Hartigan Degree: M.S. in Natural Resources and Environment, Resource Policy and Behavior. Background: B.S. in Environmental Geoscience and Human Development, Boston College, MA, 1998. Interests: Community-based conservation partnerships, psychology of environmental stewardship, environmental education Robert Heiser Degree: M.S. in Natural Resources and Environment, Resource Ecology and Management. Background: B.A. in Economics and Psychology, Amherst College, MA, 1991; M.B.A. The Amos Tuck School of Business, Dartmouth College, NH, 1996. Interests: Land conservation and ecosystem management in the Northeast Gregory Horner Degree: M.S. in Natural Resources and Environment, Resource Policy and Behavior. Background: B.A. in Environmental Studies, Middlebury College, VT, 1998. Interests: New England land conservation and sustainable growth, public-private partnerships for environmental solutions. Luke Lewandowski Degree: M.S. in Natural Resources and Environment, Resource Policy and Behavior: Conservation Biology and Ecosystem Management Concentration. Background: B.S., Preprofessional Sciences, University of Notre Dame, IN, 2000. Interests: Land Conservation in the Great Lakes Ecoregion, biodiversity protection, freshwater protection iii Jason Mulvihill-Kuntz Degree: M.S. in Natural Resources and Environment, Resource Policy and Behavior: Conservation Biology and Ecosystem Management Concentration. Background: B.A. in History and Environmental and Technology Studies, Carlton College, MN, 2001. Interests: Community-based land and resource conservation, collaborative ecosystem management, and public land management. Stephen Thorn Degree: Joint J.D. in Law School and M.S. in Natural Resources and Environment, Resource Policy and Behavior. Background: B.S. in Chemistry, Yale University, CT, 1997; M.S. in Organic Chemistry, University of Illinois, IL, 2000. Interests: The intersection of land conservation, private property rights, and environmental law. iv PROJECT ADVISOR AND CLIENT Elizabeth Brabec, J.D., M.L.A. Position: Associate Professor of Landscape Architecture, School of Natural Resources & Environment, The University of Michigan Interests: TheT legal and economic implications of land and resource conservation, historic and cultural landscape documentation evaluation and protection, cross-cultural participation in land-use planning and design processes Tina Hall, Ph.D. Position: Conservation Director of The Nature Conservancy’s Upper Peninsula Conservation Center, Michigan Chapter. Interests: Landscape-scale conservation; monitoring protected properties for conservation values v TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSTU UT ................................................................................................ ii PROJECTTU MEMBERSUT ......................................................................................................iii PROJECTTU ADVISOR AND CLIENTUT ................................................................................ v TABLETU OF CONTENTSUT ................................................................................................... vi LISTTU OF TABLESUT ............................................................................................................. ix LISTTU OF FIGURESUT .........................................................................................................xiii ABSTRACTTU UT ...................................................................................................................... xv I.TU INTRODUCTIONUT ......................................................................................................... 16 I.1TU Why Protect America’s Forests?UT ............................................................................. 16 I.2TU What is a Working Forest Conservation Easement?UT ............................................... 16 I.3TU The StudyUT ................................................................................................................. 17 I.3.1TU Description........................................................................................................UT 18 I.3.2TU Importance of Research and Scope of AnalysisUT ............................................... 19 I.3.3TU ObjectivesUT ......................................................................................................... 19 I.3.4TU Research Questions..........................................................................................UT 20 II.TU LITERATURE REVIEWUT ............................................................................................. 22 II.1TU Working Forest Conservation EasementsUT .............................................................. 22 II.2TU Defining Characteristics: Forest Management RequirementsUT ................................ 23 II.2.1TU PurposesUT .......................................................................................................... 24 II.2.2TU RestrictionsUT ...................................................................................................... 24 II.2.3TU Forest Management Plans (FMPs)UT .................................................................. 25 II.2.4TU Best Management Practices (BMPs)UT ............................................................... 26 II.3TU Who Utilizes WFCEs?UT ........................................................................................... 27 II.4TU What May Be Protected?UT........................................................................................ 28 II.5TU Special Federal and State Conservation ProgramsUT ................................................. 28 II.5.1TU USDA Forest Service, Forest Legacy ProgramUT .............................................. 29 II.5.2TU Land for Maine’s FutureUT ................................................................................. 29 II.6TU Easement DraftingUT .................................................................................................. 30 II.6.1TU Easement PurposesUT .......................................................................................... 31 II.6.2TU Baseline DocumentationUT ................................................................................. 32 II.7TU Landowner Relations..............................................................................................UT 32 II.8TU Monitoring Conservation EasementsUT ..................................................................... 33 II.8.1TU Available Monitoring TechniquesUT ..................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Concepts and Applications in Veterinary Toxicology an Interactive Guide Concepts and Applications in Veterinary Toxicology PK Gupta
    PK Gupta Concepts and Applications in Veterinary Toxicology An Interactive Guide Concepts and Applications in Veterinary Toxicology PK Gupta Concepts and Applications in Veterinary Toxicology An Interactive Guide PK Gupta Toxicology Consulting Group Academy of Sciences for Animal Welfare Bareilly, Uttar Pradesh, India ISBN 978-3-030-22249-9 ISBN 978-3-030-22250-5 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-22250-5 © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland Preface The book entitled Concepts and Applications in Veterinary Toxicology: An Interactive Guide covers a broad spectrum of topics for the students specializing in veterinary toxicology and veterinary medical practitioners.
    [Show full text]
  • Record of Decision (ROD)
    U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY EPA REGION 1 – NEW ENGLAND RECORD OF DECISION NYANZA CHEMICAL WASTE DUMP SUPERFUND SITE OPERABLE UNIT 02 ASHLAND, MASSACHUSETTS JULY 2020 PART 1: THE DECLARATION FOR THE RECORD OF DECISION A. SITE NAME AND LOCATION B. STATEMENT OF BASIS AND PURPOSE C. ASSESSMENT OF SITE D. DESCRIPTION OF SELECTED REMEDY E. STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS F. SPECIAL FINDINGS G. DATA CERTIFICATION CHECKLIST H. AUTHORIZING SIGNATURES PART 2: THE DECISION SUMMARY A. SITE NAME, LOCATION, AND BRIEF DESCRIPTION B. SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES 1. History of Site Activities 2. History of Federal and State Investigations and Removal and Remedial Actions 3. History of CERCLA Enforcement Activities C. COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION D. SCOPE AND ROLE OF OPERABLE UNIT OR RESPONSE ACTION E. SITE CHARACTERISTICS F. CURRENT AND POTENTIAL FUTURE SITE AND RESOURCE USES G. SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS 1. Human Health Risk Assessment 2. Supplemental Human Health Risk Assessment 3. Supplemental Evaluation Following Risk Assessment 4. Ecological Risk Assessment 5. Basis for Remedial Action H. REMEDIAL ACTION OBJECTIVES I. DEVELOPMENT AND SCREENING OF ALTERNATIVES J. DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES K. SUMMARY OF COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES L. THE SELECTED REMEDY M. STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS N. DOCUMENTATION OF NO SIGNIFICANT CHANGES O. STATE ROLE Record of Decision Nyanza Chemical Waste Dump Superfund Site: OU2 July 2020 Ashland, Massachusetts Page 2 of 73 PART 3: THE RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY APPENDICES Appendix A: MassDEP Letter of Concurrence Appendix B: Tables Appendix C: Figures Appendix D: ARARs Tables Appendix E: References Appendix F: Acronyms and Abbreviations Appendix G: Administrative Record Index and Guidance Documents Record of Decision Nyanza Chemical Waste Dump Superfund Site: OU2 July 2020 Ashland, Massachusetts Page 3 of 73 PART 1: THE DECLARATION FOR THE RECORD OF DECISION A.
    [Show full text]
  • Rule 391-3-6-.03. Water Use Classifications and Water Quality Standards
    Presented below are water quality standards that are in effect for Clean Water Act purposes. EPA is posting these standards as a convenience to users and has made a reasonable effort to assure their accuracy. Additionally, EPA has made a reasonable effort to identify parts of the standards that are not approved, disapproved, or are otherwise not in effect for Clean Water Act purposes. Rule 391-3-6-.03. Water Use Classifications and Water Quality Standards ( 1) Purpose. The establishment of water quality standards. (2) W ate r Quality Enhancement: (a) The purposes and intent of the State in establishing Water Quality Standards are to provide enhancement of water quality and prevention of pollution; to protect the public health or welfare in accordance with the public interest for drinking water supplies, conservation of fish, wildlife and other beneficial aquatic life, and agricultural, industrial, recreational, and other reasonable and necessary uses and to maintain and improve the biological integrity of the waters of the State. ( b) The following paragraphs describe the three tiers of the State's waters. (i) Tier 1 - Existing instream water uses and the level of water quality necessary to protect the existing uses shall be maintained and protected. (ii) Tier 2 - Where the quality of the waters exceed levels necessary to support propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife and recreation in and on the water, that quality shall be maintained and protected unless the division finds, after full satisfaction of the intergovernmental coordination and public participation provisions of the division's continuing planning process, that allowing lower water quality is necessary to accommodate important economic or social development in the area in which the waters are located.
    [Show full text]
  • Comparison of Selected in Vitro Assays for Assessing the Toxicity of Chemicals and Their Mixtures
    COMPARISON OF SELECTED IN VITRO ASSAYS FOR ASSESSING THE TOXICITY OF CHEMICALS AND THEIR MIXTURES Rola Azzi A thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Chemical Safety and Applied Toxicology Laboratories School of Safety Science Faculty of Science The University of New South Wales June 2006 Certificate of Originality Certificate of Originality I hereby declare that this submission is my own work and that, to the best of my knowledge it contains no materials previously published or written by another person, nor material which to a substantial extent has been accepted for the award of any degree at UNSW or any other education institution, except where due acknowledgment is made in the thesis. Any contributions made to the research by others, which whom I have worked, is explicitly acknowledged in the thesis. I also declare that the intellectual content of this thesis is the product of my own work, except to the extent that assistance from others in the project’s design and conception or in style, presentation and linguistic expression is acknowledged. Rola Azzi June 2006 i Acknowledgments Acknowledgments I would like to express my sincerest gratitude to my supervisor Dr Amanda Hayes for her assistance, constant encouragement and expertise. Without her support and guidance this project would not have been possible. I am also grateful to Associate Professor Chris Winder, for his constant support, advice, and scientific expertise throughout my work on this project. I would also like to express my sincerest gratitude and appreciation to my uncle, Associate Professor Rachad Saliba, who was a constant support during the writing of this thesis, and was devoted to helping me grasp the science of statistics, and its ability to transform numbers into a story.
    [Show full text]
  • 12–3–08 Vol. 73 No. 233 Wednesday Dec. 3, 2008 Pages 73545–73760
    12–3–08 Wednesday Vol. 73 No. 233 Dec. 3, 2008 Pages 73545–73760 VerDate Aug 31 2005 18:03 Dec 02, 2008 Jkt 217001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4710 Sfmt 4710 E:\FR\FM\03DEWS.LOC 03DEWS sroberts on PROD1PC70 with FRONTMATTER II Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 233 / Wednesday, December 3, 2008 The FEDERAL REGISTER (ISSN 0097–6326) is published daily, SUBSCRIPTIONS AND COPIES Monday through Friday, except official holidays, by the Office PUBLIC of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration, Washington, DC 20408, under the Federal Register Subscriptions: Act (44 U.S.C. Ch. 15) and the regulations of the Administrative Paper or fiche 202–512–1800 Committee of the Federal Register (1 CFR Ch. I). The Assistance with public subscriptions 202–512–1806 Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402 is the exclusive distributor of the official General online information 202–512–1530; 1–888–293–6498 edition. Periodicals postage is paid at Washington, DC. Single copies/back copies: The FEDERAL REGISTER provides a uniform system for making Paper or fiche 202–512–1800 available to the public regulations and legal notices issued by Assistance with public single copies 1–866–512–1800 Federal agencies. These include Presidential proclamations and (Toll-Free) Executive Orders, Federal agency documents having general FEDERAL AGENCIES applicability and legal effect, documents required to be published Subscriptions: by act of Congress, and other Federal agency documents of public interest. Paper or fiche 202–741–6005 Documents are on file for public inspection in the Office of the Assistance with Federal agency subscriptions 202–741–6005 Federal Register the day before they are published, unless the issuing agency requests earlier filing.
    [Show full text]
  • Strategic Plan 2012‐2017
    U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Ecological Services Asheville, North Carolina Field Office STRATEGIC PLAN 2012‐2017 THE U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, WORKING WITH OTHERS, CONSERVES, PROTECTS, AND ENHANCES FISH, WILDLIFE, AND PLANTS AND THEIR HABITATS FOR THE CONTINUING BENEFIT OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND______________________________________3 STRATEGIC PLAN GOALS AND OBJECTIVES_______________________________8 AFO STAFFING AND DIVERSITY PLAN____________________________________13 APPENDIX A: AFO STRATEGIC PLAN PRIORITY WORK AREA MAP/GIS METHODOLOGY__18 MAP OF AFO STRATEGIC PLAN (FIGURE 2)_______________________________33 APPENDIX B: ENDANGERED AND THREATENED SPECIES FOR WHICH AFO HAS RESPONSIBILITIES__________________________________________________________34 APPENDIX C: REFERENCES AND CITATIONS______________________________38 APPENDIX D: STAFF ACTION PLANS_________________________________________52 APPENDIX E: TABLE OF ACRONYMS_____________________________________79 2 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (Service) Asheville Field Office (AFO), an Ecological Services facility, was established in the late 1970s. Forty-one counties make up the AFO’s core work area in western North Carolina, which includes many publicly owned conservation lands, especially in the higher elevations, as well as the metropolitan areas of Charlotte, Winston- Salem, and Asheville (Figure 1). This area primarily encompasses portions of the Blue Ridge and Piedmont physiographic provinces. In addition
    [Show full text]
  • In the Circuit Court of the Stateof Oregon for Jackson County
    3/17/2021 4:49 PM 21CV10291 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATEOF OREGON FOR JACKSON COUNTY LARRY JOHNSON and GAYLE JOHNSON CASE NO. Plaintiffs, JURY TRIAL DEMANDED v. COMPLAINT FOR PRODUCTS LIABILITY, NEGLIGENCE, FRAUD, MONSANTO COMPANY, a corporation; BREACH OF WARRANTIES, LOSS OF EAGLE POINT HARDWARE, LLC, a CONSORTIUM corporation. Total Claim: $39,037,679.39 Defendants. Claim is Not Subject to Mandatory Arbitration Fee Authority: ORS 21.160(1)(e) COMPLAINT COMES NOW Plaintiffs, Larry Johnson and Gayle Johnson, by and through their undersigned counsel, and for their cause of action against Defendants Monsanto Company and Eagle Point Hardware, LLC, alleging the following upon information and belief (including investigation made by and through Plaintiffs’ counsel), except those allegations that pertain to Plaintiffs, which are based on personal knowledge: INTRODUCTION All claims in this action are a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ negligent, willful, and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, distribution, and/or sale of the products as Roundup®. Plaintiffs in this action seek recovery for damages as a result of LARRY JOHNSON developing Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma (“NHL”), which was directly and proximately caused by such wrongful conduct by Defendant, the unreasonably dangerous and defective nature of Roundup®, and its active ingredient, glyphosate, and the attendant effects of developing NHL. Plaintiffs did not know of an association between exposure to Roundup® and the increased risk of developing NHL until well after the International Agency for Research on Cancer (“IARC”), an agency of the World Health Organization (“WHO”), first published its evaluation of glyphosate.
    [Show full text]
  • Fiscal Year 2015 Budget Justification
    FY 2015 Budget Justification USDA Forest Service United States Department of Agriculture Fiscal Year 2015 Budget Justification Forest Service March 2014 FY 2015 Budget Justification USDA Forest Service Page intentionally left blank. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program. (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, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. FY 2015 Budget Justification USDA Forest Service Forest Service FY 2015 Budget Justification Table of Contents Page Annual Performance Report ...............................................................................................1-1 Appropriations Language Changes....................................................................................2-1 Forest and Rangeland Research .........................................................................................3-1
    [Show full text]
  • South Carolina's Statewide Forest Resource Assessment and Strategy
    South Carolina’s Statewide Forest Resource Assessment and Strategy Conditions, Trends, Threats, Benefits, and Issues June 2010 Funding source Funding for this project was provided through a grant from the USDA Forest Service. USDA Nondiscrimination Statement “The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program. (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 to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.” A Message from the State Forester South Carolina is blessed with a rich diversity of forest resources. Comprising approximately 13 million acres, these forests range from hardwood coves in the foothills of the Appalachian Mountains to maritime forests along the Atlantic Coast. Along with this diversity comes a myriad of benefits that these forests provide as well as a range of challenges that threaten their very existence. One of the most tangible benefits is the economic impact of forestry, contributing over $17.4 billion to the state’s economy and providing nearly 45,000 jobs.
    [Show full text]
  • Heritage Program Management Handbook
    2309.12-2012-1_ transmittal Page 1 of 2 FOREST SERVICE HANDBOOK NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS (WO) WASHINGTON, DC FSH 2309.12 – HERITAGE PROGRAM MANAGEMENT HANDBOOK Amendment No.: 2309.12-2015-1 Effective Date: April 14, 2015 Duration: This amendment is effective until superseded or removed. Approved: LESLIE A.C. WELDON Date Approved: 04/08/2015 Deputy Chief, NFS Posting Instructions: Amendments are numbered consecutively by handbook number and calendar year. Post by document; remove the entire document and replace it with this amendment. Retain this transmittal as the first page(s) of this document. New Document 2309.12-2015-1_transmittal 2 Pages 2309.12_contents 1 Page 2309.12_zero_code 29 Pages 2309.12_10 18 Pages 2309.12_20 14 Pages 2309.12_30 23 Pages 2309.12_40 49 Pages 2309.12_50 15 Pages 2309.12_60 15 Pages 2309.12_70 15 Pages 2309.12_80 13 Pages Superseded Document(s) by Issuance Number and Effective Date Digest: 2309.12 - Establishes new handbook “FSH 2309.12, Heritage Program Management Handbook.” Zero code - Establishes codes, captions, and sets forth new direction for the management of the Heritage Program. WO AMENDMENT 2309.12-2015-1 2309.12-2015-1_transmittal EFFECTIVE DATE: 04/14/2015 Page 2 of 2 DURATION: This amendment is effective until superseded or removed. FSH 2309.12 - HERITAGE PROGRAM MANAGEMENT HANDBOOK Digest--Continued: 10 - Establishes codes, captions, and sets forth direction for the coordination and consultation requirements for the Heritage Program. 20 - Establishes codes, captions, and sets forth direction for the planning requirements for the Heritage Program. 30 - Establishes codes, captions, and sets forth direction for the identification, evaluation, and allocation for management use requirements for the Heritage Program.
    [Show full text]
  • Oregon's Forest Action Plan
    OREGON DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY Oregon’s Forest Action Plan Summary – Oregon's Forest Action Plan was developed in June 2010 by a team of Oregon Department of Forestry subject matter, geographic information and communications specialists to fulfill requirements of the 2008 Farm Bill that all States complete a Forest Assessment and Resource Strategy to maintain eligibility for U.S. Department of Forest Service State and Private Forestry funding for programs authorized by the federal Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act. Statewide Forest Assessment States were required to conduct an assessment of the current conditions of all forestland regardless of ownership type, and trends leading up to these conditions. In addition, states were required to identify threats to forests and opportunities for addressing threats. The final task of completing the assessment was to identify priority landscapes for implementing opportunities. What Oregon Did – Current conditions and trends leading up to these conditions were displayed in an external web-based Oregon's Forest Atlas. Threats and opportunities were organized around 6 priority issues – Communities at Risk of Wildfire, Maintain the Forestland Base, Diversity of Upland and Aquatic Habitats, Invasive Species, Water Quality and Climate Change. These are contained in Oregon’s DRAFT Statewide Forest Assessment Document. The issues were cross referenced to the USDA Forest Service’s National State and Private Forestry Themes and Subthemes and the Oregon Board of Forestry’s Goals for the Forestry Program for Oregon. Priority landscapes were developed for: 1) Urban/Rural Forest Priority Areas, 2) Communities at Risk of Wildfire, 3) Forests Vulnerable to Loosing Timber Markets, 4) Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation and 5) General Forestland Considerations (a composite prioritization across Communities at Risk of Wildfire, Forests Vulnerable to Loosing Timber Markets and Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation.
    [Show full text]
  • ABANDONED MINE SITE CHARACTERIZATION and CLEANUP HANDBOOK Reply to Attn Of: ECL-117
    Region 8 Region 9 Region 10 EPA 910-B-00-001 Denver, CO San Francisco, CA Seattle, WA August 2000 ABANDONED MINE SITE CHARACTERIZATION and CLEANUP HANDBOOK Reply To Attn Of: ECL-117 Handbook Users: The Abandoned Mine Site Characterization and Cleanup Handbook (Handbook) is the result of the collective efforts and contributions of a number of individuals. During the earliest days of Handbook development, Mike Bishop of EPA Region 8 lead the effort to develop a Superfund Mine Waste Reference Document for EPA project managers working on mine site cleanup. That effort evolved into the Handbook in recognition of the many regulatory and non-regulatory mechanisms that are used today to manage the characterization and cleanup of mines sites. Users are encouraged to consider the information presented in the Handbook against the backdrop of site specific environmental and regulatory factors. The Handbook has been developed as a source of information and ideas for project managers involved in the characterization and cleanup of inactive mine sites. It is not guidance or policy. The list that follows acknowledges the efforts of writers, reviewers, editors, and other contributors that made development of the Handbook possible. It is always a bit risky to develop a list of contributors because it is inevitable that someone gets left out; to those we have neglected to acknowledge here we apologize. Nick Ceto Regional Mining Coordinator EPA Region 10 Seattle, Washington Shahid Mahmud OSWER EPA HQ Washington, D.C. Abandoned Mine Site Characterization
    [Show full text]