DOCSLIB.ORG

Federal Land Managers' Air Quality Related Values Work Group (FLAG

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Federal Land Managers' Air Quality Related Values Work Group (FLAG National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Natural Resource Program Center Federal Land Managers’ Air Quality Related Values Work Group (FLAG) Phase I Report—Revised (2010) Natural Resource Report NPS/NRPC/NRR—2010/232 ON THE COVER Courthouse Towers, Arches National Park, Utah. Photo by Debbie Miller. THIS PAGE: Jumping Cholla, Superstition Wilderness, Arizona. Photo by Steve Boutcher Federal Land Managers’ Air Quality Related Values Work Group (FLAG) Phase I Report—Revised (2010) Natural Resource Report NPS/NRPC/NRR—2010/232 U.S. Forest Service Air Quality Program 1400 Independence Ave, SW Washington, DC 20250 National Park Service Natural Resource Program Center Air Resources Division PO Box 25287 Denver, Colorado 80225 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Wildlife Refuge System Air Quality Branch 7333 W. Jefferson Ave., Suite 375 Lakewood, CO 80235 October 2010 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. This guidance document was jointly prepared by the National Park Service, U.S. Forest Service, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, in collaboration with the Environmental Protection Agency. Guidance contained herein has been reviewed by subject matter experts and the general public through formal public review and comment period. This guidance document provides information for Federal Land Managers, permitting authorities, and permit applicants to use when assessing air quality impacts to air quality related values. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use by the U.S. Government. This report is available from the Air Resources Division of the NPS (http://www.nature.nps.gov/air) and the Natural Resource Publications Management Web site (http://www.nature.nps.gov/publications/NRPM) on the Internet. Please cite this publication as: U.S. Forest Service, National Park Service, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010. Federal land managers’ air quality related values work group (FLAG): phase I report—revised (2010). Natural Resource Report NPS/ NRPC/NRR—2010/232. National Park Service, Denver, Colorado. NPS 999/105412, October 2010 USFS–NPS–USFWS iii iv FLAG Phase I Report—Revised (2010) Contents Figures ........................................................................................................................................................................... vii Tables ............................................................................................................................................................................ viii Preface to this Edition of the FLAG Phase I Report (New) .......................................................................................... ix Executive Summary (Revised) ...................................................................................................................................... xii 1. Background ............................................................................................................................................................... 1 1.1. History (Revised) ..................................................................................................................................................... 1 1.1.1. FLAG Approach (Revised) ................................................................................................................................ 1 1.1.2. FLAG Organization ......................................................................................................................................... 2 1.2. Overview of Resource Issues (Revised) .................................................................................................................... 2 1.2.1. Visibility .......................................................................................................................................................... 2 1.2.2. Vegetation ...................................................................................................................................................... 2 1.2.3. Soils and Surface Waters ................................................................................................................................. 3 1.3. Legal Responsibilities (Revised) ............................................................................................................................... 3 1.4. Commonalities Among Federal Land Managers ..................................................................................................... 4 1.4.1. Identifying AQRVs (Revised) ............................................................................................................................ 4 1.4.2. Determining the Levels of Pollution that Trigger Concern for the Well-Being of AQRVs (Revised) ..................... 4 1.4.3. Visibility .......................................................................................................................................................... 5 1.4.4. Biological and Physical Effects ......................................................................................................................... 5 1.4.5. Determining Pollution Levels of Concern (Revised) ........................................................................................... 5 1.4.6. FLM Databases (Revised) ................................................................................................................................. 5 1.5. Regulatory Developments Since FLAG 2000 (New) ................................................................................................. 5 2. Federal Land Managers’ Approach to AQRV Protection ........................................................................................ 7 2.1. AQRV Protection and Identification (Revised) ......................................................................................................... 7 2.2. New Source Review (Revised) ................................................................................................................................. 7 2.2.1. Roles and Responsibilities of FLMs (Revised) .................................................................................................... 7 2.2.2. Elements of Permit Review .............................................................................................................................. 9 2.2.3. FLM Permit Review Process ........................................................................................................................... 10 2.2.4. Criteria for Decision Making (Adverse Impact Considerations) (Revised) ......................................................... 12 2.2.5. Air Pollution Permit Conditions that Benefit Class I Areas .............................................................................. 12 2.2.6. Reducing Pollution in Nonattainment Areas (Nonattainment Permit Process) ................................................. 13 2.3. Other Air Quality Review Considerations (Revised) ............................................................................................... 13 2.3.1. Remedying Existing Adverse Impacts ............................................................................................................. 13 2.3.2. Requesting State Implementation Plan (SIP) Revisions to Address AQRV Adverse Impacts (Revised)................ 14 2.3.3. Periodic Increment Consumption Review (Revised) ........................................................................................ 14 2.4. Managing Emissions Generated in and Near FLM Areas (Revised) ......................................................................... 14 2.4.1. Prescribed Fire ............................................................................................................................................. 15 2.4.2. Strategies to Minimize Emissions from Sources In and Near FLM Areas (Revised) ........................................... 15 2.4.3. Conformity Requirements in Nonattainment Areas........................................................................................ 16 3. Subgroup Reports: Technical Analyses and Recommendations ........................................................................... 18 3.1. Subgroup Objectives and Tasks ............................................................................................................................ 18 3.2. Initial Screening Criteria (New) ............................................................................................................................. 18 USFS–NPS–USFWS v 3.3. Visibility ..............................................................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Effectiveness of Limiting Use in Wilderness Areas
    University of Montana ScholarWorks at University of Montana Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers Graduate School 1990 Effectiveness of limiting use in wilderness areas Mary Beth Hennessy The University of Montana Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.umt.edu/etd Let us know how access to this document benefits ou.y Recommended Citation Hennessy, Mary Beth, "Effectiveness of limiting use in wilderness areas" (1990). Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers. 2166. https://scholarworks.umt.edu/etd/2166 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at ScholarWorks at University of Montana. It has been accepted for inclusion in Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks at University of Montana. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Mike and Maureen MANSFIELD LIBRARY Copying allowed as provided under provisions of the Fair Use Section of the U.S. COPYRIGHT LAW, 1976. Any copying for commercial purposes or financial gain may be undertaken only with the author's written consent. MontanaUniversity of The Effectiveness of Limiting Use in Wilderness Areas By Mary Beth Hennessy B.A. University of California Santa Barbara, 1981 Presented in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Masters of Science University of Montana 1990 Approved by Chairman, Board of Examiners Dean, Graduate School IfthUocJu /f, Date UMI Number: EP35655 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted.
    [Show full text]
  • Play Fairway Analysis of the Central Cascades Arc-Backarc Regime, Oregon: Preliminary Indications
    GRC Transactions, Vol. 39, 2015 Play Fairway Analysis of the Central Cascades Arc-Backarc Regime, Oregon: Preliminary Indications Philip E. Wannamaker1, Andrew J. Meigs2, B. Mack Kennedy3, Joseph N. Moore1, Eric L. Sonnenthal3, Virginie Maris1, and John D. Trimble2 1University of Utah/EGI, Salt Lake City UT 2Oregon State University, College of Earth, Ocean and Atmospheric Sciences, Corvallis OR 3Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Center for Isotope Geochemistry, Berkeley CA [email protected] Keywords Play Fairway Analysis, geothermal exploration, Cascades, andesitic volcanism, rift volcanism, magnetotellurics, LiDAR, geothermometry ABSTRACT We are assessing the geothermal potential including possible blind systems of the Central Cascades arc-backarc regime of central Oregon through a Play Fairway Analysis (PFA) of existing geoscientific data. A PFA working model is adopted where MT low resistivity upwellings suggesting geothermal fluids may coincide with dilatent geological structural settings and observed thermal fluids with deep high-temperature contributions. A challenge in the Central Cascades region is to make useful Play assessments in the face of sparse data coverage. Magnetotelluric (MT) data from the relatively dense EMSLAB transect combined with regional Earthscope stations have undergone 3D inversion using a new edge finite element formulation. Inversion shows that low resistivity upwellings are associated with known geothermal areas Breitenbush and Kahneeta Hot Springs in the Mount Jefferson area, as well as others with no surface manifestations. At Earthscope sampling scales, several low-resistivity lineaments in the deep crust project from the east to the Cascades, most prominently perhaps beneath Three Sisters. Structural geology analysis facilitated by growing LiDAR coverage is revealing numerous new faults confirming that seemingly regional NW-SE fault trends intersect N-S, Cascades graben- related faults in areas of known hot springs including Breitenbush.
    [Show full text]
  • Wilderness Visitors and Recreation Impacts: Baseline Data Available for Twentieth Century Conditions
    United States Department of Agriculture Wilderness Visitors and Forest Service Recreation Impacts: Baseline Rocky Mountain Research Station Data Available for Twentieth General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-117 Century Conditions September 2003 David N. Cole Vita Wright Abstract __________________________________________ Cole, David N.; Wright, Vita. 2003. Wilderness visitors and recreation impacts: baseline data available for twentieth century conditions. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-117. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 52 p. This report provides an assessment and compilation of recreation-related monitoring data sources across the National Wilderness Preservation System (NWPS). Telephone interviews with managers of all units of the NWPS and a literature search were conducted to locate studies that provide campsite impact data, trail impact data, and information about visitor characteristics. Of the 628 wildernesses that comprised the NWPS in January 2000, 51 percent had baseline campsite data, 9 percent had trail condition data and 24 percent had data on visitor characteristics. Wildernesses managed by the Forest Service and National Park Service were much more likely to have data than wildernesses managed by the Bureau of Land Management and Fish and Wildlife Service. Both unpublished data collected by the management agencies and data published in reports are included. Extensive appendices provide detailed information about available data for every study that we located. These have been organized by wilderness so that it is easy to locate all the information available for each wilderness in the NWPS. Keywords: campsite condition, monitoring, National Wilderness Preservation System, trail condition, visitor characteristics The Authors _______________________________________ David N.
    [Show full text]
  • Mountain Memories
    MOUNTAIN MEMORIES WILD, WONDERFUL WEST VIRGINIA YOU’LL FIND IT HERE. Why just “vacation” when you can travel? Here in the Mountain State, we get real. The best way to dig beyond the attractions and into our rich local culture is, of course, to ask a local. So we covered that for you—and man, did they have a lot to share! Get off the beaten path and onto a real adventure with this one-of-a-kind map that takes you to some of the wildest, wonderful-est and realest places around. Brought To You By KANAWHA COUNTY POPULATION: 191,275 Charleston CLAY CENTER Take in a play or Convention BRIDGE ROAD BISTRO & Visitors stretch your intellect at the Clay Nationally and regionally Bureau Center, which is dedicated to acclaimed for its cuisine and wine Visitor or promoting arts and sciences in selection, Bridge Road Bistro Welcome the Mountain State. Center supports local farmers, producers 79 and communities. HADDAD RIVERFRONT PARK 77 River With an amphitheater that seats COONSKIN PARK 119 Elk up to 2,500 spectators to lovely South Coonskin has over 1,000 acres of Charleston riverfront and downtown views, fun with hiking and biking, disc 64 Haddad Riverfront Park hosts golf and a swimming pool. Don’t 60 a variety of events, including forget to take a trip around the Coal River Live on the Levee, a free concert Charleston skate park and feed a few ducks 119 series every May-September. while you’re there. Kanawha State Forest EAST END EATERIES 60 TIPS FROM The East End is home to an eclectic Kanawha mix of eateries, including Bluegrass 77 64 River THE LOCALS Kitchen, Tricky Fish, Little India, The Red Carpet, The Empty Glass and Starling’s Coffee & Provisions.
    [Show full text]
  • Riau Natural Gas Power Project ESIA Vol.5 Technical Appendices Part F
    DRAFT Environmental and Social Impact Assessment Report Project Number: 50182-001 November 2018 INO: Riau Natural Gas Power Project ESIA Vol.5_Technical Appendices Part F Prepared by ESC for the Asian Development Bank The environmental and social impact assessment is a document of the project sponsor. The views expressed herein do not necessarily represent those of ADB’s Board of Directors, Management, or staff, and may be preliminary in nature. Your attention is directed to the “Terms of Use” section of this website. In preparing any country program or strategy, financing any project, or by making any designation of or reference to a particular territory or geographic area in this document, the Asian Development Bank does not intend to make any judgments as to the legal or other status of or any territory or area. Volume 5: Technical Appendices Appendix E. KA-ANDAL Approval Letter 6 AM039100-400-GN-RPT-1014 Volume 5: Technical Appendices Appendix F. The Ministry of Agraria and Spatial Planning issued Recommendation Letter 7 AM039100-400-GN-RPT-1014 Volume 5: Technical Appendices Appendix G. Comparison of WBG EHS Guidelines with Indonesian Regulations 8 AM039100-400-GN-RPT-1014 Appendix A. Comparisons of Standards Comparison of World Bank Group IFC Environmental Health and Safety (EHS) Guidelines with Indonesian Environmental Standards Table A1: Gaseous emission for Natural Gas (all turbine types) IFC Guidelines for Thermal Power Plant Indonesian Standard** Parameter Remark Non DA (mg/m3) DA (mg/m3) Limit (mg/Nm3) Particulate Indonesian standards are N/A N/A 30 mg/Nm3 Matter stricter CO NA NA NA - NOx 51* 51* 400 mg/Nm3 IFC guidelines are stricter Indonesian standards are SO2 NA NA 150 mg/Nm3 stricter Opacity NA NA N/A - Note: The figures in red are the more stringent requirements **At dry gas, excess O2 content 15% **Gas volume counted on standard (25 deg C and 1 bar atm) **this is for 95% normal operation in 3 (three) months period ***Source: Ministry of Environmental Regulation No.
    [Show full text]
  • Land Areas of the National Forest System, As of September 30, 2019
    United States Department of Agriculture Land Areas of the National Forest System As of September 30, 2019 Forest Service WO Lands FS-383 November 2019 Metric Equivalents When you know: Multiply by: To fnd: Inches (in) 2.54 Centimeters Feet (ft) 0.305 Meters Miles (mi) 1.609 Kilometers Acres (ac) 0.405 Hectares Square feet (ft2) 0.0929 Square meters Yards (yd) 0.914 Meters Square miles (mi2) 2.59 Square kilometers Pounds (lb) 0.454 Kilograms United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Land Areas of the WO, Lands National Forest FS-383 System November 2019 As of September 30, 2019 Published by: USDA Forest Service 1400 Independence Ave., SW Washington, DC 20250-0003 Website: https://www.fs.fed.us/land/staff/lar-index.shtml Cover Photo: Mt. Hood, Mt. Hood National Forest, Oregon Courtesy of: Susan Ruzicka USDA Forest Service WO Lands and Realty Management Statistics are current as of: 10/17/2019 The National Forest System (NFS) is comprised of: 154 National Forests 58 Purchase Units 20 National Grasslands 7 Land Utilization Projects 17 Research and Experimental Areas 28 Other Areas NFS lands are found in 43 States as well as Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. TOTAL NFS ACRES = 192,994,068 NFS lands are organized into: 9 Forest Service Regions 112 Administrative Forest or Forest-level units 503 Ranger District or District-level units The Forest Service administers 149 Wild and Scenic Rivers in 23 States and 456 National Wilderness Areas in 39 States. The Forest Service also administers several other types of nationally designated
    [Show full text]
  • Social and Environmental Impact Assessment for the Proposed Rössing Uranium Desalination Plant Near Swakopmund, Namibia
    Rössing Uranium Limited SOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FOR THE PROPOSED RÖSSING URANIUM DESALINATION PLANT NEAR SWAKOPMUND, NAMIBIA DRAFT SOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN PROJECT REFERENCE NO: 110914 DATE: NOVEMBER 2014 PREPARED BY ON BEHALF OF Rössing Uranium Desalination Plant: Draft SEMP PROJECT DETAILS PROJECT: Social and Environmental Impact Assessment for the Proposed Rössing Uranium Desalination Plant, near Swakopmund, Namibia AUTHORS: Andries van der Merwe (Aurecon) Patrick Killick (Aurecon) Simon Charter (SLR Namibia) Werner Petrick (SLR Namibia) SEIA SPECIALISTS: Birds –Mike and Ann Scott (African Conservation Services CC) Heritage – Dr John Kinahan (Quaternary Research Services) Marine ecology – Dr Andrea Pulfrich (Pisces Environmental Services (Pty) Ltd) Noise - Nicolette von Reiche (Airshed Planning Professionals) Socio-economic - Auriol Ashby (Ashby Associates CC) - Dr Jonthan Barnes (Design and Development ServicesCC) Visual – Stephen Stead (Visual Resource Management Africa) Wastewater discharge modelling –Christoph Soltau (WSP Group) Shoreline dynamics - Christoph Soltau (WSP Group) PROPONENT: Rio Tinto Rössing Uranium Limited REPORT STATUS: Draft Social and Environmental Management Plan REPORT NUMBER: 9408/110914 STATUS DATE: 28 November 2014 .......................................... .......................................... Patrick Killick Simon Charter Senior Practitioner: Aurecon Environment and Advisory Senior Practitioner: SLR Environmental Consulting .........................................
    [Show full text]
  • VGP) Version 2/5/2009
    Vessel General Permit (VGP) Version 2/5/2009 United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) VESSEL GENERAL PERMIT FOR DISCHARGES INCIDENTAL TO THE NORMAL OPERATION OF VESSELS (VGP) AUTHORIZATION TO DISCHARGE UNDER THE NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM In compliance with the provisions of the Clean Water Act (CWA), as amended (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), any owner or operator of a vessel being operated in a capacity as a means of transportation who: • Is eligible for permit coverage under Part 1.2; • If required by Part 1.5.1, submits a complete and accurate Notice of Intent (NOI) is authorized to discharge in accordance with the requirements of this permit. General effluent limits for all eligible vessels are given in Part 2. Further vessel class or type specific requirements are given in Part 5 for select vessels and apply in addition to any general effluent limits in Part 2. Specific requirements that apply in individual States and Indian Country Lands are found in Part 6. Definitions of permit-specific terms used in this permit are provided in Appendix A. This permit becomes effective on December 19, 2008 for all jurisdictions except Alaska and Hawaii. This permit and the authorization to discharge expire at midnight, December 19, 2013 i Vessel General Permit (VGP) Version 2/5/2009 Signed and issued this 18th day of December, 2008 William K. Honker, Acting Director Robert W. Varney, Water Quality Protection Division, EPA Region Regional Administrator, EPA Region 1 6 Signed and issued this 18th day of December, 2008 Signed and issued this 18th day of December, Barbara A.
    [Show full text]
  • Research Natural Areas on National Forest System Lands in Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Utah, and Western Wyoming: a Guidebook for Scientists, Managers, and Educators
    USDA United States Department of Agriculture Research Natural Areas on Forest Service National Forest System Lands Rocky Mountain Research Station in Idaho, Montana, Nevada, General Technical Report RMRS-CTR-69 Utah, and Western Wyoming: February 2001 A Guidebook for Scientists, Managers, and E'ducators Angela G. Evenden Melinda Moeur J. Stephen Shelly Shannon F. Kimball Charles A. Wellner Abstract Evenden, Angela G.; Moeur, Melinda; Shelly, J. Stephen; Kimball, Shannon F.; Wellner, Charles A. 2001. Research Natural Areas on National Forest System Lands in Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Utah, and Western Wyoming: A Guidebook for Scientists, Managers, and Educators. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-69. Ogden, UT: U.S. Departmentof Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 84 p. This guidebook is intended to familiarize land resource managers, scientists, educators, and others with Research Natural Areas (RNAs) managed by the USDA Forest Service in the Northern Rocky Mountains and lntermountain West. This guidebook facilitates broader recognitionand use of these valuable natural areas by describing the RNA network, past and current research and monitoring, management, and how to use RNAs. About The Authors Angela G. Evenden is biological inventory and monitoring project leader with the National Park Service -NorthernColorado Plateau Network in Moab, UT. She was formerly the Natural Areas Program Manager for the Rocky Mountain Research Station, Northern Region and lntermountain Region of the USDA Forest Service. Melinda Moeur is Research Forester with the USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain ResearchStation in Moscow, ID, and one of four Research Natural Areas Coordinators from the Rocky Mountain Research Station. J. Stephen Shelly is Regional Botanist and Research Natural Areas Coordinator with the USDA Forest Service, Northern Region Headquarters Office in Missoula, MT.
    [Show full text]
  • Land Areas of the National Forest System
    United States Department of Agriculture Land Areas of the National Forest System As of September 30, 2018 Forest Service WO Lands FS-383 November 2018 United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Land Areas of the WO, Lands National Forest FS-383 System November 2018 As of September 30, 2018 Published by: USDA Forest Service 1400 Independence Ave., SW Washington, D.C. 20250-0003 Web site: https://www.fs.fed.us/land/staff/lar-index.shtml Cover photo courtesy of: Chris Chavez Statistics are current as of: 10/15/2018 The National Forest System (NFS) is comprised of: 154 National Forests 58 Purchase Units 20 National Grasslands 7 Land Utilization Projects 17 Research and Experimental Areas 28 Other Areas NFS lands are found in 43 States as well as Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. TOTAL NFS ACRES = 192,948,059 NFS lands are organized into: 9 Forest Service Regions 112 Administrative Forest or Forest-level units 506 Ranger District or District-level units The Forest Service administers 128 Wild and Scenic Rivers in 23 States and 446 National Wilderness Areas in 39 States. The FS also administers several other types of nationally-designated areas: 1 National Historic Area in 1 State 1 National Scenic Research Area in 1 State 1 Scenic Recreation Area in 1 State 1 Scenic Wildlife Area in 1 State 2 National Botanical Areas in 1 State 2 National Volcanic Monument Areas in 2 States 2 Recreation Management Areas in 2 States 6 National Protection Areas in 3 States 8 National Scenic Areas in 6 States 12 National Monument Areas in 6 States 12 Special Management Areas in 5 States 21 National Game Refuge or Wildlife Preserves in 12 States 22 National Recreation Areas in 20 States Table of Contents Acreage Calculation ...........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 1137 Hon. Allyson Y. Schwartz Hon. Nick J. Rahall Ii
    January 29, 2008 EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS, Vol. 154, Pt. 1 1137 United Nations Economic and Social Commis- Madam Speaker, I ask that my colleagues 78,041 acres: Otter Creek, Dolly Sods, Laurel sion for Asia and the Pacific, ESCAP, Dr. Han join me in celebrating Coach Jim Algeo’s 40th Fork North and South, and the Cranberry Wil- noted the need for rapid economic growth in anniversary milestone and in wishing him derness. Asia and the Pacific—home to two-thirds of many more years of enriching the lives of As part of the revision of the Forest Plan the world’s poor. However, he pointed out, ac- those around him. In the many roles Coach completed in 2006, 18 roadless areas were tions on climate change could be compatible Alego has been blessed to fulfill in his life, he inventoried and evaluated for their wilderness with economic growth, saying: ‘‘We can turn has set an example for all of us to follow potential. As a result of this process, the West the crisis of climate change into a new eco- f Virginia Delegation to the U.S. House of Rep- nomic opportunity.’’ resentatives is proposing to designate seven The choice of Dr. Han Seung-soo to be WILD MONONGAHELA: A NATIONAL of the evaluated areas as wilderness. Totaling Prime Minister by President-Elect Lee Myung- LEGACY FOR WEST VIRGINIA’S 47,128 acres, three of the areas are additions Bak provides excellent evidence that the U.S.- SPECIAL PLACES to existing wilderness: the Cranberry Expan- Korea alliance partnership will continue to fur- sion in Webster and Pocahontas Counties, the ther consolidate and deepen under their lead- HON.
    [Show full text]
  • Wilderness Inventory and Evaluation Planning
    U.S. Forest Service Pacific Southwest Region Wilderness May 2015 Update Wilderness Inventory and Evaluation Background: The Inyo, Sequoia and Sierra National Forests are revising their land and resource management plans using the 2012 Planning Rule. This rule requires the agency to identify and evaluate lands that may be suitable for inclusion in the National Wilderness Preservation System (NWPS). In 1964, Congress created the NWPS to protect some of the most natural and undisturbed places in America. Only Congress can designate wilderness; however, federal land managers, citizens or other groups can make wilderness recommendations to Congress. In August 2014, the Forest Service shared a preliminary wilderness inventory with the public and tribes to gather feedback on the lands that had been inventoried to determine those areas that should or should not be further considered for wilderness recommendation. Forest Service Current Work: The inventory and evaluation (steps 1 and 2 of the 4-step wilderness inventory process) on the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests have been completed. The results will be included as an appendix in the draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) being prepared for these forest plan revisions. Not all lands included in the inventory and subsequent evaluations are required to be carried forward. In total, the Forest Service is considering 10 areas for analysis as recommended wilderness. Of these areas, 3 are potential new recommended wilderness areas, and 7 are potential recommended additions to current
    [Show full text]