DOCSLIB.ORG

Gifford Pinchot National Forest Land Management Plan

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Gifford Pinchot National Forest Land Management Plan GPNF Land and Resource Management Plan, 1990 00_Preface.doc,1 Land and Resource Management Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement Gifford Pinchot National Forest Preface This Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) has been prepared according to Secretary of Agriculture regulations (36 CFR 219) which are based on the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act (RPA) as amended by the National Forest Management Act of 1976 (NFMA). The Plan has also been developed in accordance with regulations (40 CFR 1500) for implementing the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). Because this Plan is considered a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment, a detailed statement (environmental impact statement) has been prepared as required by NEPA. The Forest Plan represents the implementation of the Preferred Alternative as identified in the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the Forest Plan. If any particular provision of this Forest Plan, or the application thereof to any person or circumstances, is found to be invalid, the remainder of the Forest Plan and the application of that provision to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected. Additional information about this Plan is available from: Forest Supervisor Gifford Pinchot National Forest PO Box 8944 6926 E. Fourth Plain Blvd. Vancouver, WA 98668-8944 (206) 696-7500 GPNF Land and Resource Management Plan 01_Introduction.doc, 1 Chapter I Forest Plan Introduction Purpose of the Forest Plan The Forest Plan guides all natural resource management activities and establishes management Standards/Guidelines for the Gifford Pinchot National Forest. It describes resource management practices, levels of resource production and management, and the availability and suitability of lands for resource management. The Forest Plan: 1. Establishes Forest-wide multiple-use goals and objectives. 2. Establishes Forest-wide Standards/Guidelines applying to future activities. 3. Establishes management direction including Management Area Prescriptions and Standards/Guidelines applying to future management activities in that Management Area. 4. Establishes the allowable sale quantity for timber and identifies land suitable for timber management. 5. Establishes Monitoring and Evaluation requirements. 6. Establishes nonwilderness multiple-use allocations for the Wobbly Roadless Area that was reviewed under 36 CFR 219.17 and not recommended for Wilderness designation. The Forest Plan embodies the provisions of the National Forest Management Act, the implementing regulations, and other guiding documents. Land use determinations, Prescriptions, and Standards/Guidelines constitute a statement of the Plan's management direction; however, the projected outputs, services, and rates of implementation are dependent upon the annual budgeting process. The Plan will be revised on a 10-year cycle, or at least every 15 years. Relationship of the Forest Plan to Other Documents Relationship to the EIS and Record of Decision This Forest Plan sets forth the direction for managing the land and resources of the Gifford Pinchot National Forest. the Plan results from extensive analysis and considerations addressed in the accompanying Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) and Record of Decision (ROD). The planning process and the analysis procedures used to develop this Plan are described or referred to in the FEIS. The FEIS also describes other alternatives considered in the planning process. Specific activities and projects will be planned and implemented to carry out the direction of this Plan. The Forest will perform environmental analyses on these projects and activities. Subsequent environmental analysis will use the data and evaluations in the Plan and Environmental Impact Statement as its basis. Environmental analysis of projects will be tiered to the FEIS accompanying this Forest Plan. GPNF Land and Resource Management Plan 01_Introduction.doc, 2 Relationship to the Regional Guide The Regional Guide for the Pacific Northwest Region as amended December 8, 1988, provides direction for National Forest Plans. It includes Standards and Guidelines addressing the major issues and management concerns considered at the regional level to facilitate Forest planning. Relationship to the Mount St. Helens National Volcanic Monument The eruption of Mount St. Helens occurred in May of 1980 In August 1982, Congress passed an Act establishing the Mount St. Helens National Volcanic Monument. It required development of a detailed Comprehensive Management Plan (CMP) for the area. Prepared after extensive public involvement, the CMP was approved in October 1985, and is incorporated into this Forest Plan. This complies with 36 CFR 219.2(b) which states, ì...in a particular case, special area authorities require the preparation of a separate special area plan, the direction of any such plan may be incorporated without modification in plans prepared under these regulations. The CMP is incorporated as a part of the Forest Plan because it is a current and long-term plan, providing research, recreation, and other opportunities. In addition, the CMP provides for the construction of roads and recreational and other facilities expected to be worth more than $60 million by the time they are completed. All construction contracts related to the CMP are expected to be awarded by the end of 1991. To date, approximately $40 million in contracts have been awarded. The May 1989 budget provided for an additional $17.7 million in federal funds and $5.9 million in state and county matching funds. Congress is expected to approve additional funding for the Coldwater Lake/Johnston Ridge Recreation Area, scheduled for completion in 1993/94. Inasmuch as the design, construction, and funding of these projects requires a number of years for completion, it is desirable that the CMP remain in force for that period of time. When the Forest Plan is revised (scheduled for 10 - 15 years after approval), the CMP shall be integrated with, and periodically revised as a component of, the Forest Plan. Relationship to the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area The recently-created Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area includes lands within and adjacent to both the Mt. Hood and Gifford Pinchot National Forests. Plans for the National Scenic Area will not be included in the Forest Plans presently being prepared for each Forest. When completed, these Forest Plans may be amended or revised to include all or portions of plans for the National Scenic Area, if the Regional Forester determines that such changes are desirable. Relationship to the Vegetative Management Plan The Forest Plan incorporates the Pacific Northwest Region’s FEIS for Managing Competing and Unwanted Vegetation. In implementing the Forest Plan through project activities, the Forest will comply with the Record of Decision issued by the Regional Forester dated December 8, 1988, and the Mediated Agreement of May, 1989. Use of vegetation treatment methods (biological, manual, technical, prescribed fire, and herbicides) is allowed only when other strategies (e.g., prevention) are ineffective or will unreasonably increase project costs. Relationship to Other Plans GPNF Land and Resource Management Plan 01_Introduction.doc, 3 The Forest Plan serves as the single Land Management Plan for the Gifford Pinchot National Forest. This plan replaces the following land management plans: Clear Creek Unit Plan 10/21/76 Upper Lewis Unit Plan 11/03/76 Trapper/Siouxon Unit Plan 09/20/77 Bear Creek Unit Plan 04/20/78 Upper Cispus Unit Plan 05/12/78 Lone Tree Unit Plan 05/16/78 Cowlitz Unit Plan 06/21/79 Mount St. Helens Land Management Plan 10/15/81 Multiple Use Plans on those portions of the Forest not covered by unit plans. In addition, this plan replaces the "Part One Land Management Plan" (11/01/79) Upon implementation of this plan, all management activities must comply with it. In addition, all permits, contracts, and other instruments for the use and occupancy of National Forest System lands and resource uses must be made to conform with the Forest Plan as soon as possible (36 CFR 219.10(e)). Certain implementation and action plans providing detailed direction are under the "umbrella" of this Forest Plan. They either conform to direction in the Forest Plan or will be brought into compliance. All other resource management plans are invalid upon approval of the Forest Plan. Included under the umbrella of the Plan are: • Plant and Wildlife Sensitive Species Management Guides • Plant Association and Management Guides • Five-Year Nursery Improvement and Development Plan • Tree Improvement Plan • Soil Management Guidelines • Geologic Resource and Conditions Map • Rock Resource Management Plan • Road Management Plan • Forest Travel Plan • Peeled Cedar Management Plan • Management Policy Statement for Bear Creek Watershed, 1967 • "1932 Handshake Agreement" between Chief Yallup and Forest Supervisor Bruckert granting Native American exclusive berrypicking rights to a portion of the Sawtooth Berryfields east of Forest Road 24. • "Establishment Reports and Management Prescriptions for each Research Natural Area." GPNF Land and Resource Management Plan 01_Introduction.doc, 4 Plan Structure The Forest Plan is organized into five chapters, a glossary, and appendix material. It includes: Chapter I - An Introduction describes the purpose of the Forest Plan, summarizes its contents, describes the land to which it will be applied, and places
Load more

Recommended publications
  • GEOLOGIC MAP of the Mccoy PEAK QUADRANGLE, SOUTHERN CASCADE RANGE, WASHINGTON
    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Geologic map of the McCoy Peak quadrangle, southern Cascade Range, Washington by Donald A. Swanson1 Open-File Report 92-336 This report is preliminary and has not been reviewed for conformity with U.S. Geological Survey editorial standards or with the North American Stratigraphic Code. Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. 'U.S. Geological Survey, Department of Geological Sciences AJ-20, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington 98195 CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ........................ 1 5. Locations of samples collected in McCoy Peak ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................... 1 {quadrangle ......................... 6 ROCK TERMINOLOGY AND CHEMICAL 6. Alkali-lime classification diagram for Tertiary CLASSIFICATION .................... 2 rocks in McCoy Peak quadrangle .......... 7 GENERAL GEOLOGY .................... 6 7. Plot of FeO*/MgO vs. SiO2 for rocks from TERTIARY ROCKS OLDER THAN INTRUSIVE McCoy Peak quadrangle ................ 7 SUITE OF KIDD CREEK ............... 7 8. Plot of total alkalis vs. SiO2 for rocks in McCoy Volcaniclastic rocks ................... 7 Peak quadrangle ..................... 8 Chaotic volcanic breccia ................ 8 9. Plot of K2O vs. SiO2 for rocks from McCoy Vitroclastic dacite and andesite breccia ...... 9 Peak quadrangle ..................... 8 Volcanic centers ...................... 10 10. Distrbution of pyroxene andesite and basaltic Regional dike swarm .................. 11 andesite dikes in French Butte, Greenhorn Age .............................. 13 Buttes, Tower Rock, and McCoy Peak INTRUSIVE SUITE OF KIDD CREEK ......... 13 quadrangles ........................ 12 Dikes ............................. 14 11. Rose diagrams of strikes of dikes and beds in Sills .............................. 16 McCoy Peak and other quadrangles ....... 13 Relation of dikes and sills ............... 16 12. Plcts of TiO2, FeO*, and MnO vs.
    [Show full text]
  • Anthropological Study of Yakama Tribe
    1 Anthropological Study of Yakama Tribe: Traditional Resource Harvest Sites West of the Crest of the Cascades Mountains in Washington State and below the Cascades of the Columbia River Eugene Hunn Department of Anthropology Box 353100 University of Washington Seattle, WA 98195-3100 [email protected] for State of Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife WDFW contract # 38030449 preliminary draft October 11, 2003 2 Table of Contents Acknowledgements 4 Executive Summary 5 Map 1 5f 1. Goals and scope of this report 6 2. Defining the relevant Indian groups 7 2.1. How Sahaptin names for Indian groups are formed 7 2.2. The Yakama Nation 8 Table 1: Yakama signatory tribes and bands 8 Table 2: Yakama headmen and chiefs 8-9 2.3. Who are the ―Klickitat‖? 10 2.4. Who are the ―Cascade Indians‖? 11 2.5. Who are the ―Cowlitz‖/Taitnapam? 11 2.6. The Plateau/Northwest Coast cultural divide: Treaty lines versus cultural 12 divides 2.6.1. The Handbook of North American Indians: Northwest Coast versus 13 Plateau 2.7. Conclusions 14 3. Historical questions 15 3.1. A brief summary of early Euroamerican influences in the region 15 3.2. How did Sahaptin-speakers end up west of the Cascade crest? 17 Map 2 18f 3.3. James Teit‘s hypothesis 18 3.4. Melville Jacobs‘s counter argument 19 4. The Taitnapam 21 4.1. Taitnapam sources 21 4.2. Taitnapam affiliations 22 4.3. Taitnapam territory 23 4.3.1. Jim Yoke and Lewy Costima on Taitnapam territory 24 4.4.
    [Show full text]
  • South Rainier Elk Herd
    Washington State Elk Herd Plan SOUTH RAINIER ELK HERD Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Wildlife Program 600 Capitol Way North Olympia, WA 98501-1091 Prepared by Min T. Huang Patrick J. Miller Frederick C. Dobler January 2002 Director, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Date January 2002 i Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife STATE OF WASHINGTON GARY LOCKE, GOVERNOR DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE JEFF KOENINGS, PH. D., DIRECTOR WILDLIFE PROGRAM DAVE BRITTELL, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR GAME DIVISION DAVE WARE, MANAGER This Program Receives Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration funds. Project W-96-R-10, Category A, Project 1, Job 4 This report should be cited as: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2002. South Rainier Elk Herd Plan. Wildlife Program, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia. 32 pp. This program receives Federal financial assistance from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. The U.S. Department of the Interior and its bureaus prohibit discrimination on the bases of race, color, national origin, age, disability and sex. If you believe that you have been discriminated against in any program, activity or facility, please write to: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of External Programs, 4040 N. Fairfax Drive, Suite 130, Arlington, VA 22203 TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS……………………………………………………………….. iv EXECUTIVE SUMMARY…………………………………………………………………. v INTRODUCTION…………………………………………………………………………. 1 The Plan…………………………………………………………………………………….
    [Show full text]
  • 2009 Coulee Dam Section)
    National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Natural Resource Program Center Upper Columbia Basin Network Osprey Monitoring Protocol Narrative Version 1.0 Natural Resource Report NPS/UCBN/NRR—2010/269 ON THE COVER Osprey (Pandion haliaetus) landing on a nest at Lake Roosevelt NRA Photograph from Lake Roosevelt National Recreation Area, courtesy of Jeffrey Joh (SCA Intern) Upper Columbia Basin Network Osprey Monitoring Protocol Narrative Version 1.0 Natural Resource Report NPS/UCBN/NRR—2010/269 Lisa K. Garrett National Park Service, Upper Columbia Basin Network 105 East 2nd St. Suite #5 Moscow, ID 83843 Thomas J. Rodhouse National Park Service, Upper Columbia Basin Network 20310 Empire Ave. Suite A100 Bend, OR 97701 Gordon H. Dicus National Park Service, Upper Columbia Basin Network 105 East 2nd St. Suite #6 Moscow, ID 83843 Paulina F. Tobar-Starkey National Park Service, Upper Columbia Basin Network 105 East 2nd St. Suite #7 Moscow, ID 83843 December 2010 U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Service Natural Resource Program Center Fort Collins, Colorado The National Park Service, Natural Resource Program Center publishes a range of reports that address natural resource topics of interest and applicability to a broad audience in the National Park Service and others in natural resource management, including scientists, conservation and environmental constituencies, and the public. The Natural Resource Report Series is used to disseminate high-priority, current natural resource management information with managerial application. The series targets a general, diverse audience, and may contain NPS policy considerations or address sensitive issues of management applicability. All manuscripts in the series receive the appropriate level of peer review to ensure that the information is scientifically credible, technically accurate, appropriately written for the intended audience, and designed and published in a professional manner.
    [Show full text]
  • The Big Bottom (Lewis County) 1833-1933
    THE BIG BOTTOM (LEWIS COUNTY) 1833-1933 An important desideratum of Washington's first white settle­ ment at Tumwater, was a direct route across the Cascade Range to The Dalles. In the spring of 1854, two Tumwater pioneers set out on an exploring expedition to locate a low pass to connect Puget Sound with the Oregon Trail. Their names have since become emblazoned in Washington's hall of fame : James Longmire, discoverer of the springs in Rainier National Park now bearing his name; and William Packwood, for whom a postoffice, lake and mountain saddle in eastern Lewis Coun- . ty have been named. Led by a trio of Nisqually Indian guides, the pioneer pair skirted the stream known as Skate Creek southward from Mount Rainier, and came out upon a huge bottomland bisected by the up­ per Cowlitz River. At that time, according to the statement of Jim Yoak, aged patriarch of the Cowlitz tribe, I."ongmire and Packwood found a thriving Indian village on the banks of the river, with several hun­ dred members of the Cowlitz tribe living there. The two trail-blazers returned to Tumwater with the word that they had discovered the long-hoped-for low pass to The Dalles. A subsequent trip of course proved this belief was erroneous, for the summit was still many miles to the eastward. Even to this day, man has not pierced White Pass with a road; but this will soon become an actuality. Although failing in their original purpose, Longmire and Pack­ wood did not make that exploring trip in vain, for they were the first white men to glimpse the "Big Bottom" country.
    [Show full text]
  • Final Recreation Needs Analysis Study Plan for Energy Northwest's Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC No. 2244 Lewis County, Washington
    Final Recreation Needs Analysis Study Plan for Energy Northwest's Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC No. 2244 Lewis County, Washington Submitted to P.O. Box 968 Richland, Washington 99352-0968 Submitted by EES Consulting Deborah A. Howe 570 Kirkland Way, Suite 200 Kirkland, WA 98033 425-889-2700 or 206-542-6146 May 2007 Recreation Needs Analysis Study Plan Energy Northwest Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. 2244 May 2007 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Title Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION..........................................................................................................................1 1.1 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES .............................................................................................................................1 2.0 AGENCY AND TRIBE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES........3 2.1 USDA FOREST SERVICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES ............................................3 2.2 OTHER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT GOALS ..................................................................................................3 3.0 EXISTING INFORMATION AND NEED FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION...............4 3.1 EXISTING INFORMATION ..............................................................................................................................4 3.2 NEED FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION .......................................................................................................5 4.0 NEXUS BETWEEN PROJECT OPERATIONS AND EFFECTS ON RESOURCES...........5 5.0 STUDY AREA AND METHODS.................................................................................................6
    [Show full text]
  • Roadless Rule and Dark Divide the Dark Divide Was Once Much Larger Than Its Current 76,000 Acres
    Exploring the PRING S RA Dark Divide I Despite its intimidating name, the Dark Divide is a place of sunny ridges and tremendous wildflower meadows. The region is endangered, however, by threats from off-road vehicle use. Southwest Washington’s threatened gem By Andrew Engelson soils and meadows. The region was A thick layer of ash from the 1980 excluded from the protections of the eruption of Mount St. Helens is still Don’t be afraid of the Dark Divide. 1984 Washington Wilderness Bill. prominent. Even with a somewhat ominous But hikers are slowly reclaiming the The region is home to a variety of name, this spectacular roadless area ridges with their boots. And there are forest ecosystems, all dependent on between Mount St. Helens and Mt. many reasons to go: unique geology, wildfires. Huge wildfires in the early Adams is actually filled with light: sun- abundant wildflowers and wildlife, 1900s left many of the open meadows baked ridges, subalpine forests, and and superb views. and silver-gray snags you’ll find there meadows exploding with wildflowers. The lava flows that are the founda- today. Even so, the region is home to Named for the 19th century miner tion of the 76,000-acre region are huge trees. Just outside the Dark and settler John Dark, the Dark approximately 20 to 25 million years Divide roadless area, you can find the Divide long served as hunting and old. Areas such as Juniper and world’s largest noble fir, near gathering grounds for American Langille Ridge were actually once Yellowjacket Creek.
    [Show full text]
  • Gifford Pinchot
    THE FORGOTTEN FOREST: EXPLORING THE GIFFORD PINCHOT A Publication of the Washington Trails Association1 7A 9 4 8 3 1 10 7C 2 6 5 7B Cover Photo by Ira Spring 2 Table of Contents About Washington Trails Association Page 4 A Million Acres of outdoor Recreation Page 5 Before You Hit the Trail Page 6 Leave No Trace 101 Page 7 The Outings (see map on facing page) 1. Climbing Mount Adams Pages 8-9 2. Cross Country Skiing: Oldman Pass Pages 10-11 3. Horseback Riding: Quartz Creek Pages 12-13 4. Hiking: Juniper Ridge Pages 14-15 5. Backpacking the Pacific Crest Trail: Indian Heaven Wilderness Pages 16-17 6. Mountain Biking: Siouxon Trail Pages 18-19 7. Wildlife Observation: Pages 20-21 A. Goat Rocks Wilderness B. Trapper Creek Wilderness C. Lone Butte Wildlife Emphasis Area 8. Camping at Takhlakh Lake Pages 22-23 9. Fly Fishing the Cowlitz River Pages 24-25 10. Berry Picking in the Sawtooth Berry Fields Pages 26-27 Acknowledgements Page 28 How to Join WTA Page 29-30 Volunteer Trail Maintenance Page 31 Important Contacts Page 32 3 About Washington Trails Association Washington Trails Association (WTA) is the voice for hikers in Washington state. We advocate protection of hiking trails, take volunteers out to maintain them, and promote hiking as a healthy, fun way to explore Washington. Ira Spring and Louise Marshall co-founded WTA in 1966 as a response to the lack of a political voice for Washington’s hiking community. WTA is now the largest state-based hiker advocacy organization in the country, with over 5,500 members and more than 1,800 volunteers.
    [Show full text]
  • Projectile Point Fragments As Indicators of Site Function
    Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology Vol. 13, No. 2, pp. 180-193(1991). The Diamond Lil Site: Projectile Point Fragments as Indicators of Site Function J. JEFFREY FLENNIKEN, Lithic Analysts, P.O. Box 684, Pullman, WA 99163. J. HE Diamond Lil archaeological site (35LA However, savanna and prairie, not coniferous 807) located on the western slopes of the forest, was the vegetation zone of the hills Cascade Range, is situated on a ridge approxi­ bordering the Willamette Valley in the pre- mately one kilometer from, and 277 m. above, Euroamerican environment. This environmental the Middle Fork of the Willamette River near zone dominated the Middle Fork of the Willam­ Oakridge, Oregon (Fig. 1). Fifty contiguous 1 ette River drainage below 683 m. elevation such X 1-m. excavation units yielded over 20,000 as High Prairie (Fig. 1), an area of approxi­ lithic artifacts and nearly 800 bone fragments, mately 4.8 km.^ of tableland on the east side of mostly (52%) identified as medium-sized mam­ the North Fork of the Middle Fork of the Wil­ mal remains. A technological analysis of all lamette River above the present town of Oak­ formed artifacts (n=147) and a representative ridge (Patterson 1857). A mixed-conifer forest sample of the debitage (65%) indicates that this has gradually replaced what was once prairie unlikely site location was intensively utilized for and scattered trees. a short period of time relatively late in pre­ Periodic, noncatastrophic fires were com­ history. Ethnographic data, environmental in­ mon in this area before modern fire suppression formation, and a site structural analysis of the techniques were employed, which suggests the spatial distribution of bone and debitage, suggest possibility of intentional underburning by ab­ that the site location was employed to process original peoples.
    [Show full text]
  • Summary of Public Comment, Appendix B
    Summary of Public Comment on Roadless Area Conservation Appendix B Requests for Inclusion or Exemption of Specific Areas Table B-1. Requested Inclusions Under the Proposed Rulemaking. Region 1 Northern NATIONAL FOREST OR AREA STATE GRASSLAND The state of Idaho Multiple ID (Individual, Boise, ID - #6033.10200) Roadless areas in Idaho Multiple ID (Individual, Olga, WA - #16638.10110) Inventoried and uninventoried roadless areas (including those Multiple ID, MT encompassed in the Northern Rockies Ecosystem Protection Act) (Individual, Bemidji, MN - #7964.64351) Roadless areas in Montana Multiple MT (Individual, Olga, WA - #16638.10110) Pioneer Scenic Byway in southwest Montana Beaverhead MT (Individual, Butte, MT - #50515.64351) West Big Hole area Beaverhead MT (Individual, Minneapolis, MN - #2892.83000) Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness, along the Selway River, and the Beaverhead-Deerlodge, MT Anaconda-Pintler Wilderness, at Johnson lake, the Pioneer Bitterroot Mountains in the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest and the Great Bear Wilderness (Individual, Missoula, MT - #16940.90200) CLEARWATER NATIONAL FOREST: NORTH FORK Bighorn, Clearwater, Idaho ID, MT, COUNTRY- Panhandle, Lolo WY MALLARD-LARKINS--1300 (also on the Idaho Panhandle National Forest)….encompasses most of the high country between the St. Joe and North Fork Clearwater Rivers….a low elevation section of the North Fork Clearwater….Logging sales (Lower Salmon and Dworshak Blowdown) …a potential wild and scenic river section of the North Fork... THE GREAT BURN--1301 (or Hoodoo also on the Lolo National Forest) … harbors the incomparable Kelly Creek and includes its confluence with Cayuse Creek. This area forms a major headwaters for the North Fork of the Clearwater. …Fish Lake… the Jap, Siam, Goose and Shell Creek drainages WEITAS CREEK--1306 (Bighorn-Weitas)…Weitas Creek…North Fork Clearwater.
    [Show full text]
  • Washington State's Scenic Byways & Road Trips
    waShington State’S Scenic BywayS & Road tRipS inSide: Road Maps & Scenic drives planning tips points of interest 2 taBLe of contentS waShington State’S Scenic BywayS & Road tRipS introduction 3 Washington State’s Scenic Byways & Road Trips guide has been made possible State Map overview of Scenic Byways 4 through funding from the Federal Highway Administration’s National Scenic Byways Program, Washington State Department of Transportation and aLL aMeRican RoadS Washington State Tourism. waShington State depaRtMent of coMMeRce Chinook Pass Scenic Byway 9 director, Rogers Weed International Selkirk Loop 15 waShington State touRiSM executive director, Marsha Massey nationaL Scenic BywayS Marketing Manager, Betsy Gabel product development Manager, Michelle Campbell Coulee Corridor 21 waShington State depaRtMent of tRanSpoRtation Mountains to Sound Greenway 25 Secretary of transportation, Paula Hammond director, highways and Local programs, Kathleen Davis Stevens Pass Greenway 29 Scenic Byways coordinator, Ed Spilker Strait of Juan de Fuca - Highway 112 33 Byway leaders and an interagency advisory group with representatives from the White Pass Scenic Byway 37 Washington State Department of Transportation, Washington State Department of Agriculture, Washington State Department of Fish & Wildlife, Washington State Tourism, Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission and State Scenic BywayS Audubon Washington were also instrumental in the creation of this guide. Cape Flattery Tribal Scenic Byway 40 puBLiShing SeRviceS pRovided By deStination
    [Show full text]
  • Gold and Fish Pamphlet: Rules for Mineral Prospecting and Placer Mining
    WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE Gold and Fish Rules for Mineral Prospecting and Placer Mining May 2021 WDFW | 2020 GOLD and FISH - 2nd Edition Table of Contents Mineral Prospecting and Placer Mining Rules 1 Agencies with an Interest in Mineral Prospecting 1 Definitions of Terms 8 Mineral Prospecting in Freshwater Without Timing Restrictions 12 Mineral Prospecting in Freshwaters With Timing Restrictions 14 Mineral Prospecting on Ocean Beaches 16 Authorized Work Times 17 Penalties 42 List of Figures Figure 1. High-banker 9 Figure 2. Mini high-banker 9 Figure 3. Mini rocker box (top view and bottom view) 9 Figure 4. Pan 10 Figure 5. Power sluice/suction dredge combination 10 Figure 6. Cross section of a typical redd 10 Fig u re 7. Rocker box (top view and bottom view) 10 Figure 8. Sluice 11 Figure 9. Spiral wheel 11 Figure 10. Suction dredge . 11 Figure 11. Cross section of a typical body of water, showing areas where excavation is not permitted under rules for mineral prospecting without timing restrictions Dashed lines indicate areas where excavation is not permitted 12 Figure 12. Permitted and prohibited excavation sites in a typical body of water under rules for mineral prospecting without timing restrictions Dashed lines indicate areas where excavation is not permitted 12 Figure 13. Limits on excavating, collecting, and removing aggregate on stream banks 14 Figure 14. Excavating, collecting, and removing aggregate within the wetted perimeter is not permitted 1 4 Figure 15. Cross section of a typical body of water showing unstable slopes, stable areas, and permissible or prohibited excavation sites under rules for mineral prospecting with timing restrictions Dashed lines indicates areas where excavation is not permitted 15 Figure 16.
    [Show full text]