DOCSLIB.ORG

Battle Mountain RMP Scoping Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Battle Mountain RMP Scoping Report US Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Battle Mountain District Office, Nevada Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement SCOPING SUMMARY REPORT JULY 2011 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................. S-1 1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 1-1 1.1 Purpose of and Need for the Resource Management Plan ................................................ 1-1 1.2 Description of the RMP Planning Area .................................................................................... 1-2 1.3 Overview of Public Involvement Process ............................................................................... 1-4 1.4 Description of the Scoping Process ......................................................................................... 1-5 1.4.1 Newsletter and Mailing List ......................................................................................... 1-5 1.4.2 Press Release .................................................................................................................. 1-5 1.4.3 Project Website ............................................................................................................. 1-6 1.4.4 Scoping Open Houses .................................................................................................. 1-6 1.4.5 Notice of Intent ............................................................................................................. 1-7 1.5 Collaborative Involvement Process .......................................................................................... 1-7 1.5.1 Cooperating Agencies .................................................................................................. 1-7 1.5.1 Resource Advisory Council......................................................................................... 1-9 1.5.2 Collaboration and Consultation with Tribes .......................................................... 1-9 2. COMMENT SUMMARY .................................................................................................... 2-1 2.1 Method of Comment Collection and Analysis ...................................................................... 2-1 2.2 Summary of Public Comments Received ................................................................................ 2-2 2.2.1 Oral Comments at Scoping Meetings ....................................................................... 2-2 2.2.2 Written Submissions by Affiliation ............................................................................ 2-4 2.2.3 Written Submissions by Geographical Area ........................................................... 2-4 2.2.4 Number of Comments by Process Category ......................................................... 2-7 2.2.5 Number of Comments by Planning Issue Category .............................................. 2-8 3. ISSUE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................ 3-1 3.1 Planning Issue Development ...................................................................................................... 3-1 3.2 Planning Issue Statements ........................................................................................................... 3-2 3.3 Summary of Public Comments by Resource Planning Issue Category .......................... 3-15 3.3.1 Issue No. 1: Restoring Ecological Health ............................................................... 3-15 3.3.2 Issue No. 2: Air and Atmospheric Values .............................................................. 3-16 3.3.3 Issue No. 3: Water ...................................................................................................... 3-16 3.3.4 Issue No. 4: Cultural Resources, Native American Concerns and Paleontology Resources ............................................................................................. 3-16 3.3.5 Issue No. 5: Visual Resource Management ............................................................ 3-17 3.3.6 Issue No. 6: Special Status Species .......................................................................... 3-17 3.3.7 Issue No. 7: Fish and Wildlife ................................................................................... 3-17 3.3.8 Issue No. 8: Wild Horses and Burros .................................................................... 3-17 3.3.9 Issue No. 9: Fire Management .................................................................................. 3-18 3.3.10 Issue No. 10: Livestock Grazing ............................................................................... 3-18 3.3.11 Issue No. 11: Recreation and Visitor Services ...................................................... 3-18 3.3.12 Issue No. 12: Lands and Realty ................................................................................. 3-18 3.3.13 Issue No. 13: Mineral Resources ............................................................................. 3-19 3.3.14 Issue No. 14: Hazardous Materials .......................................................................... 3-19 3.3.15 Issue No. 15: Special Designations .......................................................................... 3-19 3.3.16 Issue No. 16: Renewable Resources ....................................................................... 3-20 July 2011 Battle Mountain Resource Management Plan Revision and EIS i Scoping Summary Report TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) Chapter Page 3.3.17 Issue No. 17: Socio-Economics ................................................................................ 3-20 3.3.18 Issue No. 18: Environmental Justice ........................................................................ 3-21 3.3.19 Issue No. 19: Sustainable Development ................................................................. 3-21 3.3.20 Issue No. 20: Transportation facilities .................................................................... 3-21 3.3.21 Issue No. 21: Comprehensive Travel and Transportation Management........ 3-21 3.3.22 Issue No. 21: Cave and Karst Resources ............................................................... 3-22 3.3.23 Other Issues to Be Addressed in the RMP ........................................................... 3-22 3.4 Issues That Will Not Be Addressed in the RMP ................................................................. 3-22 3.5 Anticipated Decisions ................................................................................................................ 3-22 3.5.1 Future Land Use Plan-level Decisions ..................................................................... 3-23 3.5.2 Future Implementation-level Decisions .................................................................. 3-24 3.6 Valid Existing Management ....................................................................................................... 3-24 3.7 Special Designations, Including Nominations ....................................................................... 3-24 4. PLANNING CRITERIA ..................................................................................................... 4-1 4.1 Preliminary Planning Criteria ..................................................................................................... 4-1 5. DATA SUMMARY/DATA GAPS ....................................................................................... 5-1 6. FUTURE STEPS .............................................................................................................. 6-1 6.1 Future Steps and Public Participation Opportunities ........................................................... 6-1 6.2 Contact Information .................................................................................................................... 6-2 7. REFERENCES .................................................................................................................. 7-1 FIGURES Page 1-1 Battle Mountain RMP Planning Area ....................................................................................................... 1-3 2-1 Comments by Commenter Affiliation .................................................................................................... 2-5 2-2 Commenters by Geographic Area .......................................................................................................... 2-6 TABLES Page 1-1 Scoping Open Houses ................................................................................................................................ 1-6 1-2 Cooperating Agency Participation ........................................................................................................... 1-8 2-1 Comments by Commenter Affiliation .................................................................................................... 2-5 2-2 Commenters by Geographic Area .......................................................................................................... 2-6 2-3 Commenter Location within the Planning Area ................................................................................... 2-7 2-4 Comments by Process Category ............................................................................................................. 2-7 2-5 Comments by Planning Issue....................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Comparative Review of a Dozen National Energy Plans: Focus on Renewable and Efficient Energy
    Technical Report A Comparative Review of a Dozen NREL/TP-6A2-45046 National Energy Plans: Focus on March 2009 Renewable and Efficient Energy Jeffrey Logan and Ted L. James Technical Report A Comparative Review of a Dozen NREL/TP-6A2-45046 National Energy Plans: Focus on March 2009 Renewable and Efficient Energy Jeffrey Logan and Ted L. James Prepared under Task No. SAO7.9C50 National Renewable Energy Laboratory 1617 Cole Boulevard, Golden, Colorado 80401-3393 303-275-3000 • www.nrel.gov NREL is a national laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Operated by the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC Contract No. DE-AC36-08-GO28308 NOTICE This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States government. Neither the United States government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States government or any agency thereof. Available electronically at http://www.osti.gov/bridge Available for a processing fee to U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • The BRIDGE Linking Engin Ee Ring and Soci E T Y
    Spring 2010 THE ELECTRICITY GRID The BRIDGE LINKING ENGIN ee RING AND SOCI E TY The Impact of Renewable Resources on the Performance and Reliability of the Electricity Grid Vijay Vittal Securing the Electricity Grid S. Massoud Amin New Products and Services for the Electric Power Industry Clark W. Gellings Energy Independence: Can the U.S. Finally Get It Right? John F. Caskey Educating the Workforce for the Modern Electric Power System: University–Industry Collaboration B. Don Russell The Smart Grid: A Bridge between Emerging Technologies, Society, and the Environment Richard E. Schuler Promoting the technological welfare of the nation by marshalling the knowledge and insights of eminent members of the engineering profession. The BRIDGE NatiOnaL AcaDemY OF Engineering Irwin M. Jacobs, Chair Charles M. Vest, President Maxine L. Savitz, Vice President Thomas F. Budinger, Home Secretary George Bugliarello, Foreign Secretary C.D. (Dan) Mote Jr., Treasurer Editor in Chief (interim): George Bugliarello Managing Editor: Carol R. Arenberg Production Assistant: Penelope Gibbs The Bridge (ISSN 0737-6278) is published quarterly by the National Aca- demy of Engineering, 2101 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20418. Periodicals postage paid at Washington, DC. Vol. 40, No. 1, Spring 2010 Postmaster: Send address changes to The Bridge, 2101 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20418. Papers are presented in The Bridge on the basis of general interest and time- liness. They reflect the views of the authors and not necessarily the position of the National Academy of Engineering. The Bridge is printed on recycled paper. © 2010 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
    [Show full text]
  • Updated Site Characterization Data Inventory
    INL/MIS-16-38127-D DE-EE0007159 Rev. 1 Updated Site Characterization Data Inventory May 2016 DISCLAIMER This information was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the U.S. Government. Neither the U.S. Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, expressed or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness, of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. References herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trade mark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the U.S. Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the U.S. Government or any agency thereof. INL/MIS-16-38127-D Rev. 1 Updated Site Characterization Data Inventory May 2016 Snake River Geothermal Consortium Hosted by Idaho National Laboratory Idaho Falls, Idaho www.snakerivergeothermal.org Prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Under DOE Idaho Operations Office Contract DE-AC07-05ID14517 CONTENTS ACRONYMS ............................................................................................................................................... ix 1. DATA MADE AVAILABLE THROUGH THE GEOTHERMAL DATA REPOSITORY ARCHIVE .........................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Geologic Map of the Twin Falls 30 X 60 Minute Quadrangle, Idaho
    Geologic Map of the Twin Falls 30 x 60 Minute Quadrangle, Idaho Compiled and Mapped by Kurt L. Othberg, John D. Kauffman, Virginia S. Gillerman, and Dean L. Garwood 2012 Idaho Geological Survey Third Floor, Morrill Hall University of Idaho Geologic Map 49 Moscow, Idaho 83843-3014 2012 Geologic Map of the Twin Falls 30 x 60 Minute Quadrangle, Idaho Compiled and Mapped by Kurt L. Othberg, John D. Kauffman, Virginia S. Gillerman, and Dean L. Garwood INTRODUCTION 43˚ 115˚ The geology in the 1:100,000-scale Twin Falls 30 x 23 13 18 7 8 25 60 minute quadrangle is based on field work conduct- ed by the authors from 2002 through 2005, previous 24 17 14 16 19 20 26 1:24,000-scale maps published by the Idaho Geological Survey, mapping by other researchers, and compilation 11 10 from previous work. Mapping sources are identified 9 15 12 6 in Figures 1 and 2. The geologic mapping was funded in part by the STATEMAP and EDMAP components 5 1 2 22 21 of the U.S. Geological Survey’s National Cooperative 4 3 42˚ 30' Geologic Mapping Program (Figure 1). We recognize 114˚ that small map units in the Snake River Canyon are dif- 1. Bonnichsen and Godchaux, 1995a 15. Kauffman and Othberg, 2005a ficult to identify at this map scale and we direct readers 2. Bonnichsen and Godchaux, 16. Kauffman and Othberg, 2005b to the 1:24,000-scale geologic maps shown in Figure 1. 1995b; Othberg and others, 2005 17. Kauffman and others, 2005a 3.
    [Show full text]
  • Species Status Assessment Report for the Columbia Spotted Frog (Rana Luteiventris), Great Basin Distinct Population Segment
    Species Status Assessment Report for the Columbia Spotted Frog (Rana luteiventris) Great Basin Distinct Population Segment Photo by Jim Harvey Photo: Jim Harvey U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 8 Reno Fish and Wildlife Office Reno, Nevada Suggested reference: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2015. Species status assessment report for the Columbia spotted frog (Rana luteiventris), Great Basin Distinct Population Segment. Reno Fish and Wildlife Office, Reno, Nevada. vii + 86 pp. ii Executive Summary In this Species Status Assessment (SSA), we evaluate the biological status of Columbia spotted frogs (Rana luteiventris) in the Great Basin both currently and into the future through the lens of the species’ resiliency, redundancy, and representation. This SSA Report provides a comprehensive assessment of biology and natural history of Columbia spotted frogs and assesses demographic risks, stressors, and limiting factors. Herein, we compile biological data and a description of past, present, and likely future stressors (causes and effects) facing Columbia spotted frogs in the Great Basin. Columbia spotted frogs are highly aquatic frogs endemic to the Great Basin, northern Rocky Mountains, British Columbia, and southeast Alaska. Columbia spotted frogs in southeastern Oregon, southwestern Idaho, and northeastern and central Nevada make up the Great Basin Distinct Population Segment (DPS; Service 2015, pp. 1–10). Columbia spotted frogs are closely associated with clear, slow-moving streams or ponded surface waters with permanent hydroperiods and relatively cool constant water temperatures (Arkle and Pilliod 2015, pp. 9–11). In addition to permanently wet habitat, streams with beaver ponds, deep maximum depth, abundant shoreline vegetation, and non-salmonid fish species have the greatest probability of being occupied by Columbia spotted frogs within the Great Basin (Arkle and Pilliod 2015, pp.
    [Show full text]
  • Burley Field Office Business Plan Lud Drexler Park and Milner Historic Recreation Area
    U.S. Department of the Interior | Bureau of Land Management | Idaho Burley Field Office Business Plan Lud Drexler Park and Milner Historic Recreation Area June 2020 U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Twin Falls District Burley Field Office 15 East 200 South Burley, ID 83318 Burley Field Office Business Plan Milner Historic Recreation Area and Lud Drexler Park I. Executive Summary The following document introduces a proposed fee increase by the Burley Field Office of the Bureau of Land Management for the recreation fee areas it manages in southern Idaho. The need for this action as well as the history of the fee program, expenses generated by the recreation sites and plans for future expenditures are outlined and explained in the pages below. The BLM Twin Falls District has two recreation fee sites, Milner Historic Recreation Area and Lud Drexler Park, both located in the Burley Field Office. The sites are the most popular recreation sites within the District hosting 40,000 plus people annually per site, with visits steadily increasing every year. This visitor increase along with aging infrastructure is contributing to resource damage and decreasing visitor safety and experiences, while budgets are stretched to keep up with maintenance and growing needs for improvements. Milner Historic Recreation Area The Milner Historic Recreation Area (MHRA) is situated along the Snake River, 9 miles west of Burley, Idaho. Both primitive and developed camp sites and boating facilities dot the 4.5-mile shoreline. The area’s basalt cliffs, sagebrush, and grasslands provide habitat to a variety of songbirds and waterfowl.
    [Show full text]
  • Jacobson and Delucchi (2009) Electricity Transport Heat/Cool 100% WWS All New Energy: 2030
    Energy Policy 39 (2011) 1154–1169 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Energy Policy journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/enpol Providing all global energy with wind, water, and solar power, Part I: Technologies, energy resources, quantities and areas of infrastructure, and materials Mark Z. Jacobson a,n, Mark A. Delucchi b,1 a Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305-4020, USA b Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California at Davis, Davis, CA 95616, USA article info abstract Article history: Climate change, pollution, and energy insecurity are among the greatest problems of our time. Addressing Received 3 September 2010 them requires major changes in our energy infrastructure. Here, we analyze the feasibility of providing Accepted 22 November 2010 worldwide energy for all purposes (electric power, transportation, heating/cooling, etc.) from wind, Available online 30 December 2010 water, and sunlight (WWS). In Part I, we discuss WWS energy system characteristics, current and future Keywords: energy demand, availability of WWS resources, numbers of WWS devices, and area and material Wind power requirements. In Part II, we address variability, economics, and policy of WWS energy. We estimate that Solar power 3,800,000 5 MW wind turbines, 49,000 300 MW concentrated solar plants, 40,000 300 MW solar Water power PV power plants, 1.7 billion 3 kW rooftop PV systems, 5350 100 MW geothermal power plants, 270 new 1300 MW hydroelectric power plants, 720,000 0.75 MW wave devices, and 490,000 1 MW tidal turbines can power a 2030 WWS world that uses electricity and electrolytic hydrogen for all purposes.
    [Show full text]
  • 4 References
    4 References Agricultural Extension Office. 2000. Sedges. Available at: http://aquaplant.tamu.edu/Emergent%20Plants/Sedges/Sedges.htm Accessed April 2004 Allen, D.B., B.J. Flatter, J. Nelson and C. Medrow. 1998. Redband Trout Oncorhynchus mykiss gairdneri Population and Stream Habitat Surveys in Northern Owyhee County and the Owyhee River and Its Tributaries. 1997. Idaho BLM Technical Bulletin No. 98-14. American Fisheries Society, Idaho Chapter (AFS). 2000. Fishes of Idaho. Available at < http://www.fisheries.org/idaho/fishes_of_idaho.htm>. Accessed November 2003. American Ornithologists’ Union (AOU). 1957. Check-list of North American Birds. 5th edition. American Ornithological Union, Washington, DC. Anderson, A. E., and O. C. Wallmo. 1984. Odocoileus hemionus. Mammalian Species 219:1– 9. Anderson, J. L., K. Bacon, and K. Denny. 2002. Salmon River Habitat Enhancement. Annual Report 2001. Shoshone-Bannock Tribes, Fort Hall, ID. 14 pp. Anderson, M., P. Bourgeron, M. T. Bryer, R. Crawford, L. Engelking, D. Faber-Langendoen, M. Gallyoun, K. Goodin, D. H. Grossman, S. Landaal, K. Metzler, K. D. Patterson, M. Pyne, M. Reid, L. Sneddon, and A. S. Weakley. 1998. International Classification of Ecological Communities: Terrestrial Vegetation of the United States. Volume II. The National Vegetation Classification System: List of Types. The Nature Conservancy, Arlington, VA. Arno, S. F. 1979. Forest Regions of Montana. Research Paper INT-218. U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. Arno, S.F. 1980. Forest Fire History in the Northern Rockies. Journal of Forestry 78:460–464. Aubry, K. B., Koehler, G. M., and J. R. Squires.
    [Show full text]
  • Owyhee County, Qg Homedale Idaho Tps Qg 78 Qg 0 5 10 Miles Marsing
    117o0133 43o4100 Owyhee County, Qg Homedale Idaho Tps Qg 78 Qg 0 5 10 miles Marsing S 0 8 16 kilometers Tmb n a k Tps e Tmf R iv e Tps r TmfTps 95 Tmf Tms Tmb Tfm Kgd Tpf Tmf Qa Tmb Kgd Tpb Murphy Qb Qs Kgd Tps S n a k Qs Qw e Kgd Tps Ri Tms Tpb v er Tmf Qb Tmf QTs QTs Qb Qs Tmb Kgd 78 Silver Tpb C.J. Stri City Tpf Grand View ke Re Tmb Tpb serv War Eagle o i Mountain Tpb r 115o2700 QTs Qb Tmb 42o5600 Tpb Tpf Qg QTs Qa Tmf Tpb Tmb Qg Qs Qg Tmf QTs Qw Qg QTs Qg Digital Atlas of Idaho, Nov. 2002 Qa Bruneau Qa QTs http://imnh.isu.edu/digitalatlas Qs Compiled by Paul K. Link, Qs Idaho State University, Geosciences Dept. Qs http://www.isu.edu/departments/geology/ Kgd Tps Tps QTs Qa Ki Qw Qw o Tps 115 0200 Tmb Qs 42o4600 B Pzu r Tpb Tpb u Qs Tcv Qw n Kgd e QTs a u Qg Pzu Tpb R Tpb i Tpf v Tpb e Tmf Tpb r Tpf Tps Tpb Qa Qs Tmf Tpf Tpf Tpb Tpb Tpb Tpb Tpb Qg 51 Tpb Tpf Tpf Tpb Tpb Tpf Tpb Tpb Tpf Tpf Tpb Tpb Qs Grasmere Tps Tpf Tpb Qs Tpf Tpf Tpb Tpb J a Tpb r Juniper Butte Owyhee River b Tpf i d Tpb ge Tpf R iv Tpb e r Tpf Riddle Qs Tpf Tpb Tpb Tpb Tpb Tpb B Tpb r u n Tpb e Tpb a Murphy Tpb Tps Qa u Tpf R Hot Srings Qa i Tpb v Tpb Tpf e Duck Valley Indian Reservation r 41o5945 41o5956 Tpb Tpb Tpb 115o0200 117o0144 Owyhee County Owyhee County covers a huge area in southwest Idaho, south of the Snake River.
    [Show full text]
  • United States Department of The
    - ..... ,. ~ UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT JARBIDGE RESOURCE AREA 2620 KIMBERLY ROAD TWIN FALLS, 10AHO 83301 In Reply Refer To: 6840 February 25, 1994 MfllTlOrandUll To: Bull Trout Task Force Participant Fran: Jarbidge Wildlife Biologist Subject: Bull Trout Task Force Meeting. The following is a brief syncpsis of the bull trout task force,meeting held in Jackpot, Nevada (February 2, 1994). Generally, the meeting went as outlined. This synopsis in not intended to reflect all of the topics or comments made during the meeting. Chuck Warren (Idaho Department of Fish &Game) gave a brief overview of historic and present distribution of bull trout in southern Idaho. Generally, there are reports of bull trout being present in the main stenl of the Snake River, up Salmon Falls Creek, and in the Jarbidge River. They think there may have been bull trout in the Bruneau and Owyhee River systems but there isn't any documentation to support that. IDF&G thought that the biggest limiting factor for bull trout in these river systems is water temperature and secondarily water quality. Information regarding bull trout habitat requirements suggest that, they need water colder than 65°F. Information on bull trout in the Jarbidge River is very limited as far as seasonal use by bull trout and factors other than temperature that may be limiting bull trout distribution. Bull trout have been caught below the junction of the east and west forks of the Jarbidge River. chuck commented that bull trout may use the main Jarbidge River in the winter through spring when water temperatures are cooler.
    [Show full text]
  • SUMMARY of the FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT for the BOISE NATIONAL FOREST, PAYETTE NATIONAL FOREST, and SAWTOOTH NATIONAL FOREST FOREST PLAN REVISION
    Summary Final Environmental Impact Statement SUMMARY Of The FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT For The BOISE NATIONAL FOREST, PAYETTE NATIONAL FOREST, And SAWTOOTH NATIONAL FOREST FOREST PLAN REVISION Ada, Adams, Blaine, Boise, Camas, Canyon, Cassia, Custer, Elmore, Gem, Gooding, Idaho, Jerome, Lincoln, Minidoka, Owyhee, Payette, Twin Falls, Valley, and Washington Counties, Idaho; Malheur County, Oregon; and Box Elder County, Utah Lead Agency: USDA Forest Service: Boise National Forest Payette National Forest Sawtooth National Forest 1249 South Vinnell Way, 800 W. Lakeside Avenue 2647 Kimberly Road East Suite 200 P.O. Box 1026 Twin Falls, ID 83301 Boise, ID 83709 McCall, ID 83638 208-737-3200 208-373-4100 208-634-0700 Responsible Official: Jack Troyer, Regional Forester Intermountain Region USDA Forest Service 324 25th Street Ogden, UT 84401 801-625-5605 For Further Information Contact: Richard Smith, Forest Supervisor Mark Madrid, Forest Supervisor Ruth Monahan, Boise National Forest Payette National Forest Forest Supervisor 1249 South Vinnell Way, Suite 200 800 W. Lakeside Avenue Sawtooth National Forest Boise, ID 83709 P.O. Box 1026 2647 Kimberly Road East 208-373-4100 McCall, ID 83638 Twin Falls, ID 83301 208-634-0700 208-737-3200 S - 1 Summary Final Environmental Impact Statement ABSTRACT: This Final Environmental Impact Statement Summary documents the analysis of seven alternatives, which were developed for possible management of the 2.2 million acres administered by the Boise National Forest in Idaho; 2.3 million acres administered by the Payette National Forest in Idaho; and 2.1 million acres administered by the Sawtooth National Forest in Idaho and Utah. Alternatives developed in detail are identified as 1B, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7.
    [Show full text]
  • Alternative & Renewable Energy
    Alternatives_Cover_Jan2009:Layout 1 1/6/2009 9:43 AM Page 1 Equity Research Industry Report January 2009 Alternative & Renewable Energy Down…But Not Out 10 Reasons We Remain Long-Term Bulls Financing Renewables in a Post-Credit Crunch World Playing the Consolidation Theme Kick-Start 2009 with Free Development Pipelines A Solar Shakeout Is Inevitable Utilities – Ben Isaacson, MBA, CFA – (416) 945-5310 Alternative & Renewable Energy For Reg AC Certification and important disclosures see Appendix A of this report. Down…But Not Out January 2009 Contents Down… 4 …But Not Out 5 Stock Recommendations 6 Sector Outperforms 6 Sector Underperforms 6 The Rest of the Pack 7 Why Renewable Power Stocks Were Down 70% in 2008 10 Global Energy Complex Worth Materially Less 10 Weak Credit and Equity Markets 12 10 Reasons We Remain Long-Term Bulls 15 Renewable Portfolio Standards Keep Growing 15 The Failed Kyoto Protocol Requires a Successor Program by 2012 15 Renewable Power Capital Costs Should Start to Flatten Shortly 16 The Implementation of Carbon-Pricing Mechanisms Are Accelerating 17 Long-Term Global Demand for Limited Fossil Fuels Continues to Rise 17 Increased Transmission to Accommodate Renewables Is Evolving 18 Political Support Continues to Strengthen for Alternative Energy 19 Energy Security and Independence Remain a Strong Societal Concern 19 Renewable Subsidy and Incentive Growth Remain Intact 20 Weak Credit and Equity Markets will Eventually Recover 20 Financing Renewables in a Post-Credit Crunch World 21 Renewable Power Project Capital
    [Show full text]