DOCSLIB.ORG

Overland Pass Habitat Improvement Project Preliminary Environmental

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Overland Pass Habitat Improvement Project Preliminary Environmental B USFS L U.S. Department of the Interior M Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service Preliminary Environmental Assessment DOI-BLM-NV-L010-2011-0036-EA September, 2014 Overland Pass Habitat Improvement Project South Ruby Mountains White Pine and Elko Counties, Nevada PREPARING OFFICE U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Egan Field Office Ely, Nevada Phone: (775) 289-1800 Fax: (775) 289-1910 and U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service Ruby Mountains Ranger District Wells, Nevada Phone: (775) 752-3357 Fax: (775) 752-1799 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................................1 1.1 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION ......................................................................................1 1.1.1 Project Location ...........................................................................................1 1.2 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION .............................................................................2 1.2.1 Background ..................................................................................................2 1.2.2 Need for Project ...........................................................................................2 1.2.3 Purpose of the Project (Goals) .....................................................................2 1.2.4 Objectives ....................................................................................................3 1.3 RELATIONSHIP TO PLANNING ....................................................................................3 1.3.1 BLM .............................................................................................................3 1.3.2 USFS ............................................................................................................7 1.3.3 Relationship to Statutes, Regulations, or Other Plans ...............................12 1.3.4 Tiered to NEPA Documents ......................................................................14 1.4 DECISION TO BE MADE ...........................................................................................14 1.5 SCOPING, PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT, AND TRIBAL COORDINATION .............................15 1.6 IDENTIFICATION OF ISSUES .....................................................................................16 2.0 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES ..........................................................17 2.1 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................17 2.2 ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT .......................................................................................17 2.3 PROPOSED ACTION..................................................................................................17 2.3.1 Treatment Methods ....................................................................................18 2.3.1.1 Chaining ........................................................................................19 2.3.1.2 Mastication or Mechanical Whole Tree Thinning ........................20 2.3.1.3 Prescribed Fire ..............................................................................21 2.3.1.4 Hand Thinning ..............................................................................21 2.3.1.5 Greenwood and Fuelwood Harvest ...............................................22 2.3.1.6 Seeding ..........................................................................................22 2.3.1.7 Riparian Restoration .....................................................................22 2.3.1.8 Invasive Species Suppression .......................................................23 2.3.2 Treatment Units .........................................................................................24 2.3.3 Treatment Design Features ........................................................................33 2.3.3.1 Wildlife .........................................................................................33 2.3.3.2 Old-Growth Pinyon and Juniper Trees .........................................34 2.3.3.3 Visual Resources ...........................................................................34 2.3.3.4 National Historic Trails.................................................................36 2.3.3.5 Cultural Resources ........................................................................37 2.3.3.6 Mineral Resources ........................................................................37 2.3.3.7 Land Use and Access ....................................................................38 2.3.3.8 Grazing Management ....................................................................38 2.3.3.9 Wild Horses ..................................................................................39 2.3.3.10 Sensitive Plant Species ...............................................................39 2.3.3.11 Hydrology ...................................................................................39 2.3.3.12 Cadastral Resources ....................................................................40 2.3.3.13 Private Land ................................................................................40 OVERLAND PASS HABITAT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT SEPTEMBER 2014 BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT AND UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE i 2.3.3.14 Air Quality ..................................................................................40 2.3.3.15 Non-Native, Invasive and Noxious Species ................................40 2.3.3.16 Rights-of-Way.............................................................................41 2.3.3.17 Fencing ........................................................................................41 2.3.4 Monitoring .................................................................................................42 2.4 NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE ......................................................................................42 2.5 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT NOT ANALYZED IN DETAIL ...............................43 2.5.1 Elimination of Treatment Methods ............................................................43 2.5.2 Hand Thinning Only ..................................................................................43 3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS ....................44 3.1 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................44 3.2 AIR QUALITY ..........................................................................................................46 3.2.1 Affected Environment ................................................................................46 3.2.2 Direct and Indirect Effects of Proposed Action .........................................47 3.2.3 Direct and Indirect Effects of No Action Alternative ................................48 3.3 CULTURAL RESOURCES ..........................................................................................48 3.3.1 Affected Environment ................................................................................48 3.3.2 Direct and Indirect Effects of Proposed Action .........................................48 3.3.3 Direct and Indirect Effects of No Action Alternative ................................49 3.4 HUMAN HEALTH AND SAFETY (HERBICIDE PROJECTS) ...........................................49 3.4.1 Affected Environment ................................................................................49 3.4.2 Direct and Indirect Effects of Proposed Action .........................................49 3.4.3 Direct and Indirect Effects of No Action Alternative ................................49 3.5 MIGRATORY BIRDS .................................................................................................49 3.5.1 Affected Environment ................................................................................49 3.5.2 Direct and Indirect Effects of Proposed Action .........................................51 3.5.3 Direct and Indirect Effects of No Action Alternative ................................51 3.6 NATIVE AMERICAN RELIGIOUS CONCERNS .............................................................51 3.6.1 Affected Environment ................................................................................51 3.6.2 Direct and Indirect Effects of Proposed Action .........................................52 3.6.3 Direct and Indirect Effects of No Action Alternative ................................52 3.7 NON-NATIVE, INVASIVE AND NOXIOUS SPECIES ....................................................52 3.7.1 Affected Environment ................................................................................52 3.7.2 Direct and Indirect Effects of Proposed Action .........................................54 3.7.3 Direct and Indirect Effects of No Action Alternative ................................54 3.8 WATER QUALITY ....................................................................................................55 3.8.1 Affected Environment ................................................................................55 3.8.2 Direct and Indirect Effects of Proposed Action .........................................55 3.8.3 Direct and Indirect Effects of No Action Alternative ................................56 3.9 WETLANDS AND RIPARIAN ZONES ..........................................................................56 3.9.1 Affected Environment
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Management Plan for the Great Basin National Heritage Area Approved April 30, 2013
    Management Plan for the Great Basin National Heritage Area Approved April 30, 2013 Prepared by the Great Basin Heritage Area Partnership Baker, Nevada i ii Great Basin National Heritage Area Management Plan September 23, 2011 Plans prepared previously by several National Heritage Areas provided inspiration for the framework and format for the Great Basin National Heritage Area Management Plan. National Park Service staff and documents provided guidance. We gratefully acknowledge these contributions. This Management Plan was made possible through funding provided by the National Park Service, the State of Nevada, the State of Utah and the generosity of local citizens. 2011 Great Basin National Heritage Area Disclaimer Restriction of Liability The Great Basin Heritage Area Partnership (GBHAP) and the authors of this document have made every reasonable effort to insur e accuracy and objectivity in preparing this plan. However, based on limitations of time, funding and references available, the parties involved make no claims, promises or guarantees about the absolute accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the contents of this document and expressly disclaim liability for errors and omissions in the contents of this plan. No warranty of any kind, implied, expressed or statutory, including but not limited to the warranties of non-infringement of third party rights, title, merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, is given with respect to the contents of this document or its references. Reference in this document to any specific commercial products, processes, or services, or the use of any trade, firm or corporation name is for the inf ormation and convenience of the public, and does not constitute endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the GBHAP or the authors.
    [Show full text]
  • LLNVL01000. L51100000.GN0000. LVEMF1601180 241A; NVN-090443 and NVN
    This document is scheduled to be published in the Federal Register on 06/24/2016 and available online at http://federalregister.gov/a/2016-15017, and on FDsys.gov 4310-HC DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management [LLNVL01000. L51100000.GN0000. LVEMF1601180 241A; NVN-090443 and NVN- 082888; 13-08807; MO#4500047785; TAS: 14X5017] Notice of Availability of the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Bald Mountain Mine North and South Operations Area Projects, White Pine County, Nevada AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Department of Interior. ACTION: Notice of Availability. SUMMARY: In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended, and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) of 1976, as amended, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Egan Field Office, Ely, Nevada has prepared a Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the proposed Bald Mountain Mine North and South Operations Area Projects (Project) and by this notice is announcing its availability. DATES: The BLM will not issue a final decision for a minimum of 30 days after the date that the Environmental Protection Agency publishes its Notice of Availability in the Federal Register. ADDRESSES: Copies of the Final EIS for the Bald Mountain Mine North and South Operations Area Projects are available for public inspection at the BLM Ely District Office and at http://on.doi.gov/14R9rZ8. Additional information is available at http://on.doi.gov/14vXckC. 2 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information contact Stephanie Trujillo, BLM Ely District Project Manager, telephone: (775) 289-1831; address: 702 North Industrial Way, Ely, NV 89301; email: [email protected].
    [Show full text]
  • Elko County Public Land Use & Natural Resource Management Plan
    Elko County Public Land Use & Natural Resource Management Plan 2010 0 2010 Elko County Public Land Use & Natural Resource Management Plan Executive Summary: The Elko County Public Land Use and Natural Resource Management Plan was created in the effort to maintain and promote traditional multiple uses in unison with conservation measures of publicly managed lands within Elko County. The directives of the plan are intended to promote active progressive leadership from all levels of our local, state and federal land management agencies. The directives provide directions in developing and improving cooperative relationships between federal public land management and local government and its citizens. The directives also provide insight to help maintain existing uses and establish diversified multiple uses of Elko County’s federally managed public lands. Promotion and implementation of education plans are the keys for the users of our public lands as well as the federal land management agencies to cohesively work for continued and expanding multiple uses and conservation. The plan addresses conservation, preservation and land stewardship that has been the custom and culture of the citizens of Elko County for much of man’s existence in the west. The plan offers detailed history and current science related to the local area conservation and preservation measures, policies and methods implemented by many ranchers, mining operations, recreationist and the general public. The plan also addresses regional and local economics and economic diversity. The plan identifies the need for the development of cooperative agreements and active progressive planning on all levels of public land management to provide the diversity that our economy will require to continue to expand and sustain current levels.
    [Show full text]
  • A Shoshone/Goshute Traditional Cultural Property and Cultural Landscape, Spring Valley, Nevada
    A Shoshone/Goshute Traditional Cultural Property and Cultural Landscape, Spring Valley, Nevada Prepared at the Request of the Confederated Tribes of the Goshute Reservation P.O. Box 6104 Ibapah, UT 84034 Cooperating Tribes Ely Shoshone Tribe 16 Shoshone Circle Ely, NV 89310 Duckwater Shoshone Tribe P.O. Box 1400068 Duckwater, Nevada 89310 By Sylvester L. Lahren, Jr. Ph.D. Tribal Ethnographer/ Principal Investigator Confederated Tribes of the Goshute Reservation Note: Confidential and Proprietary Report for the Goshute Tribal Council First Draft August 9, 2010 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction........................................................................................................................................... 4 Ethnographer’s Qualifications ........................................................................................................... 5 Spring Valley Nevada............................................................................................................................ 6 Prehistoric Period.............................................................................................................................. 6 Ethnographic Context........................................................................................................................ 6 Julian H. Steward 1938 ..................................................................................................................... 6 Steward’s Spring Valley Villages .............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Damaged and Threatened National Historic Landmarks 1995
    Damaged and Threatened National Historic Landmarks 1995 U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Service Cultural Resources Heritage Preservation Services This is an overview of the condition of National Historic Landmarks in the United States in 1995. To see the complete text concerning Landmarks judged to be at risk, including descriptions and recommendations for mitigation of threat or damage, please visit the National Park Service Cultural Resources web site at: http://www.cr.nps.gov. This site has extensive information on preservation and documentation programs administered by the National Park Service as well as information on financial assistance and tax credits for historic preservation. This year's report on damaged and threatened National Historic Landmarks may be downloaded from the National Park Service Cultural Programs FTP site at: ftp.cr.nps.gov/pub/hps/nhlrisk.w51. Damaged and Threatened National Historic Landmarks 1995 U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Service Washington, D.C. CERTIFICATES OF APPRECIATION FOR ASSISTANCE TO NATIONAL HISTORIC LANDMARKS The National Park Service wishes to acknowledge the outstanding contributions of the following individuals and organizations to the preservation of National Historic Landmarks: Alabama Historical Commission, for stabilization and repointing of Fort Morgan and preservation of its Endicott concrete and wooden structures: Baldwin County, Alabama The University of Tampa, for repairs to the roof and foundation of the Tampa Bay Hotel and for restoration of its
    [Show full text]
  • Protecting Habitat and History
    Protecting Habitat and History A 2008 Progress Report Responding to Section 3(c) of Executive Order 13287, “Preserve America” U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service September 2008 Protecting Habitat and History A 2008 Progress Report Responding to Section 3(c) of Executive Order 13287, “Preserve America” U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service September 2008 Cover photos: Pua Akala Cabin (Top left) Railroad Tie Cabin from Desert National Wildlife Refuge (bottom left), Volunteers excavating at Ruby Lake National Wildlife Refuge (lower right), Volunteers cleaning debris from the floor of the Railroad Tie cabin, Desert National Wildlife Refuge (upper right), Junior archaeologists at Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge (center) 2 Each agency with real property management responsibilities shall, by September 30, 2005, and every third year thereafter, prepares a report on its progress in identifying, protecting, and using historic properties in its ownership. Section 3(c), Executive Order 13287 3 Table of Contents Report Organization 5 Introduction 6 I. Identification, Evaluation, and Policies—Heritage Asset Identification and Reporting 7 A. Heritage Asset Reporting 7 1. Historic Structures 7 2. Archaeological resources 8 3. Museum Property 9 4. Reliability and Review of FWS Reports 9 B. Program and Policy Review 10 1. Current FWS Policies 10 2. Continuing Stewardship 10 II. Protecting and Promoting History 11 A. Archaeological and Historic Properties Monitoring 11 B. Site Stabilization 11 C. Law Enforcement 12 D. FWS and the Heritage Asset Partnership 12 E. Expanding Opportunities through Partnerships 13 1. Opportunities for the Public—Passport in Time Projects 13 2.
    [Show full text]
  • A Report on Federal Historic Property Management 2009
    In a spirit of Stewardship IN A SPIRIT OF STEWARDSHIP: A REPORT ON FEDERAL HISTORIC PROPERTY MANAGEMENT 2009 In a INspirit A SPIRIT OF STEWARDSHIP: of A REPORT ON FEDERAL HISTORIC PROPERTY MANAGEMENT Stewardship In a INspirit A SPIRIT OF STEWARDSHIP: of A REPORT ON FEDERAL HISTORIC PROPERTY MANAGEMENT Stewardship THE PRESERVE AMERICA EXECUTIVE ORDER REPORT TO THE PRESIDENT FEBRUARY 15, 2009 ACHP INFORMATION PAGE Preserving America’s Heritage An independent federal agency, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) promotes the preservation, enhancement, and productive use of our nation’s historic resources and advises the President and Congress on national historic preservation policy. It also provides a forum for influencing federal activities, programs, and policies that affect historic properties. In addition, the ACHP has a key role in carrying out the Preserve America initiative. John L. Nau, III, of Houston, Texas, is chairman of the 23-member ACHP, which is served by a professional staff in Washington, D.C. For more information about the ACHP, contact: Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Suite 803 Washington, DC 20004 Phone: 202-606-8503 Web sites: www.achp.gov and www.preserveamerica.gov 2 Front cover photography (left to right): GSA; Kurt Holter/Fotolia; NASA; DOD photo by Tech. Sgt. Andy Dunaway, U.S. Air Force; © Allen Livingston (ShutterPoint) Back cover photography (left to right): USPS, ACHP, ACHP, U.S. Navy, Westlake Reed Leskosky TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgements
    [Show full text]
  • Journal 4940 (PDF)
    Journal #4940 from sdc 5.17.21 Trillions of cicadas about to emerge from underground in 15 US states 'Mother Tree' Ecologist Suzanne Simard Shares Secrets Of Tree Communication #NVLeg Week 15: The End Is Nigh The government wants to pay your internet bill for a while How to Open a Book Ancient Mud Reveals an Explanation for Sudden Collapse of the Mayan Empire Why a Thriving Civilization in Malta Collapsed 4,000 Years Ago The Hoover Dam Made Life in the West Possible. Or So We Thought Tribe Fends Off Dangerous Open Pit Mine Plan Want to Raise Successful Kids? Seven Secrets EPA Environmental Justice and Systemic Racism Speaker Series Coleville Land Program EPA Announces Additional Environmental Justice Grant Funds and Extended Deadline From Indian Country Today Nevada Lawmaker Calls Into Question the History of Native American Massacres - Backlash Decolonising Museums isn’t Part of a ‘Culture War’. It’s about Keeping them Relevant The Filing Cabinet: A Material History Posing in front of Mark Twain the 1,341 years old, 331 ft tall giant Sequoia, California, 1892 They didn't mince words on this anti-smoking sign in Illinois from 1915! Trillions of cicadas about to emerge from underground in 15 US states They'll be in 15 states from Indiana to Georgia to New York; they're coming out now in mass numbers in Tennessee and North Carolina. When the entire brood emerges, backyards can look like undulating waves, and the bug chorus is lawnmower loud.May 5, 2021 https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/may/05/brood-x-cicadas-2021-15-states-us-trillions May 5, 2021 — Her own medical journey inspired her recent research into, among other things, the way yew trees communicate chemically with neighboring trees for their mutual defense.
    [Show full text]
  • National Register of Historic Places Registration Form
    NFS Form 10-000 0MB Mo. fOM-OOM (R«v. 846) United States Department of the Interior National Park Service National Register of Historic Places Registration Form m is tor use in nominating or requesting determinations of eligibility for Individual properties or districts. See Instructions In Qu/0t//nta tor Competing National Rotator Forma (National Register Bulletin 16). Complete each Item by marking "x" In the appropriate box or by entering the requested Information. If an Item does not apply to the property being documented, enter "N/A" for "not applicable." For functions, styles, materials, and areas of significance, enter only the categories and subcategorles listed In the Instructions. For additional space use continuation sheets (Form 10-900a). Type all entries. 1. Nama of Proptrty "~ """"""" historic name Bear River Massacre other names/site number Massacre at Boa Osoi. Battle of Bear River 2, Location street & number n,,c > . Hi ghway 91 BS not for publication city, town Prri ^ -J- on f¥ Vicinity Rani da (^hiflrl state code TD county Franklin code 041 ZIP OOde 83237 3, Classification Ownership of Property Category of Property Number of Resources within Property ^private bulldlng(s) Contributing Noncontrlbutlng K_ public-local district .buildings(5 farmsteda £_ public-State Ite .sites . public-Federal structure .structures^3 roads object .objects 2 power lines 19 Total 1 canal & 1 gravel Name of related multiple property listing: Number of contributing resources previously pit) listed In the National Register 1. 4. Statt/Ftdtral Agency Certification As the designated authority under the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, I hereby certify that this D nomination D request for determination of eligibility meets the documentation standards for registering properties In the National Register of Historic Places and meets the procedural and professional requirements set forth In 36 CFR Part 60.
    [Show full text]
  • Historical Happenings 2015
    HISTORICAL HAPPENINGS 2015 Historical Happenings Notes on Cultural Resource Management in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service December TYPE TAGLINE HERE IN THIS ISSUE WONDERFUL THINGS Connor and the volunteer soldiers looked around and were not pleased with the prospect of building a fort in such a remote location – as Connor wrote … “Understand Fort Ruby is a What’s New at HQ? bleak, inhospitable place”… and the men agreed with Connor Our webpage as a new look! Check it out at requesting that they be sent to the East Coast to fight in the http://www.fws.gov/HistoricPreservation/ Civil War rather than stay at this post. But Fort Ruby was in a key location to guard the Central Route, The next offering of our Cultural Resources Overview a wagon road. The road was vital for commerce and training will be February 8-26, 2016. See communication between East and West coasts. With the Civil http://www.fws.gov/historicPreservation/employeeTraining/i War raging in the East – westerners took on a new ndex.html for more information and to register responsibility of supporting the Union. Contact Eugene Marino for more information Fort Ruby was always a rough outpost, with simple log buildings, no surrounding palisade or defensive structures. The post operated with volunteers from California in 1862-1863; Around the Regions…. Nevada volunteers in 1864-1865; and regular U.S. 9th Infantry, Region 1/8 from 1866 to 1869 when the post was closed and the men were moved to Fort Halleck. After its closing the site was abandoned and the buildings auctioned off.
    [Show full text]
  • Bald Mountain Mine North and South Operations Area Projects Final EIS Executive Summary ES-1
    Bald Mountain Mine North and South Operations Area Projects Final EIS Executive Summary ES-1 Executive Summary ES1.1 Introduction The following sections summarize the Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Bald Mountain Mine (BMM) North and South Operations Area Projects (project). This information is provided as a synopsis for the public, but it is not a substitute for the review of the complete Final EIS. The document is structured into seven chapters and one appendix section containing ten appendices. The document structure is as follows: Chapter 1.0 provides an introduction to the project; Chapter 2.0 describes the Proposed Action and Alternatives, provides information on Cumulative Effects Study Areas (CESA) by resource, and discusses the past and present actions and reasonably foreseeable future actions occurring within the cumulative effects study area for each resource; Chapter 3.0 discusses the affected environment, identifies each resource examined in the Final EIS, discloses the environmental consequences and the potential impacts to each resource, and the cumulative effects that would occur with each of the alternatives when combined with the past and present actions and reasonably foreseeable future actions discussed in Chapter 2.0; Chapter 4.0 discusses the consultation and coordination that was conducted during the EIS process, including a description of the scoping and Draft EIS comment process; Chapter 5.0 provides a list of preparers and reviewers of the Final EIS; Chapter 6.0 lists the references that were used in the Final EIS to document the source or sources of information; Chapter 7.0 includes a glossary of terms the readers can use to obtain definitions for scientific or technical terms in addition to an index of other common terms throughout the Final EIS; the appendices are the last section of the Final EIS.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix C State Historic Preservation Office Programmatic Agreement
    Programmatic Agreement Between Bureau of Land Management, Egan Field Office And Nevada State Historic Preservation Office And Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest And U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ruby Lake National Refuge And Regarding Overland Pass/Big Wash Habitat Improvement Project White Pine County, Nevada WHEREAS, the Egan Field Office of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), The Ruby Mountains Ranger District of the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest (HTNF), the Ruby Lake National Wildlife Refuge of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (RLNR) and the Nevada Department of Wildlife (NDOW) are preparing a plan to conduct multiple phased vegetation treatments on public lands for various locations within Huntington and South Ruby Watershed; Southern Ruby Valley—Overland Pass Area, White Pine County, Nevada (hereinafter referred to as the “Undertaking” as defined in 36 C.F.R. § 800.16[y]); and WHEREAS, the BLM, HTNF, RLNR, and NDOW, hereinafter identified as the “Agencies”, propose to implement the undertaking to comply with all relevant Federal regulations, policies, and laws; and implementing these policies subject to the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA); the Agencies are responsible for completing NEPA and ensuring that it is in compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (NHPA), 16 U.S.C. § 470f, and its implementing regulations, 36 C.F.R. § 800; and WHEREAS, the Agencies agree that the BLM shall be the lead federal agency responsible for ensuring compliance with NHPA; and WHEREAS, the Area of Potential Effect (APE) includes lands managed by the RLNR and the HTNF.
    [Show full text]