DOCSLIB.ORG

Public Scoping Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Public Scoping Report Public Scoping Report Eastern Interior Resource Management Plans: Upper Black River Subunit Fortymile Subunit Steese National Conservation Area, and White Mountains National Recreation Area Bureau of Land Management Eastern Interior Field Office December 2008 Public Scoping Report Eastern Interior Resource iii Management Plans Table of Contents Public Scoping Report Eastern Interior Resource Management Plans ................................... xi Executive Summary .................................................................................................................... xiii 1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1 1.1. Overview ........................................................................................................................... 1 1.1.1. Background ............................................................................................................ 1 1.1.2. Purpose and Need .................................................................................................. 2 1.2. Planning Area .................................................................................................................... 3 1.2.1. Location ................................................................................................................. 3 1.2.2. Description ............................................................................................................. 5 1.3. Scoping Process ................................................................................................................ 8 1.3.1. Description of Process ........................................................................................... 8 1.3.2. Public Notice .......................................................................................................... 8 1.3.2.1. Federal Register .......................................................................................... 8 1.3.2.2. Mail list, Planning Flyers and Newsletters ................................................. 8 1.3.2.3. Media Releases and Public Service Announcements ................................. 9 1.3.2.3.1. Newspapers ...................................................................................... 9 1.3.2.3.2. Television and Radio ...................................................................... 10 1.3.2.4. Public Notice ............................................................................................. 10 1.3.2.5. Web Site .................................................................................................... 11 1.3.2.6. Other ......................................................................................................... 11 1.3.3. Public Meetings ................................................................................................... 12 1.4. Cooperating Agencies ..................................................................................................... 12 1.5. Collaborative Planning .................................................................................................... 13 1.5.1. Agency Coordination ........................................................................................... 13 1.5.2. Tribal Consultation .............................................................................................. 14 1.5.2.1. Tribal Issues .............................................................................................. 15 1.5.3. Public Interaction ................................................................................................. 15 2. Issue Summary ......................................................................................................................... 17 2.1. Comment Summary ........................................................................................................ 19 2.1.1. Method of Comment Collection and Analysis ..................................................... 19 2.1.2. Summary of Public Comments Received ............................................................ 19 2.1.2.1. Summary of Comments by Topic ............................................................. 20 2.2. Issues Identified During Scoping .................................................................................... 21 2.2.1. Issue 1: Climate Change ...................................................................................... 22 2.2.2. Issue 2: Water Quality ......................................................................................... 23 2.2.3. Issue 3: Fisheries Management ............................................................................ 24 2.2.4. Issue 4: Wildlife Management ............................................................................. 25 2.2.5. Issue 5: Subsistence ............................................................................................. 25 December 2008 Table of Contents iv Public Scoping Report Eastern Interior Resource Management Plans 2.2.6. Issue 6: Minerals Management ............................................................................ 26 2.2.7. Issue 7: Rights­of­way Management ................................................................... 28 2.2.8. Issue 8: Travel Management ................................................................................ 29 2.2.9. Issue 9: Recreation and Visitor Services ............................................................. 30 2.2.10. Issue 10: Wilderness Characteristics ................................................................. 31 2.3. Planning Process Comments to be Addressed ................................................................ 32 2.3.1. Combining Plans .................................................................................................. 32 2.4. Special Designations Including Nominations ................................................................. 34 2.4.1. Areas of Critical Environmental Concern and Research Natural Areas .............. 34 2.4.1.1. ACEC Nominations .................................................................................. 34 2.4.1.2. RNA Nominations .................................................................................... 35 2.4.2. National Natural Landmarks Program ................................................................. 35 2.4.2.1. National Natural Landmark Nominations ................................................. 35 2.4.3. National Trails ...................................................................................................... 36 2.4.4. Wild and Scenic Rivers ........................................................................................ 36 2.5. Concerns or Issues Raised that are Outside the Scope of the RMPs .............................. 37 2.5.1. Full Metal Minerals .............................................................................................. 37 2.5.2. R.S. 2477 Rights­of­Way and ANCSA Section 17(b) Easements ....................... 37 2.5.3. Wilderness Review .............................................................................................. 37 2.5.4. State Mining Claims on the Mosquito Fork ......................................................... 38 2.5.5. Management of Taylor Highway Waysides ......................................................... 38 2.5.6. Hunting Regulations ............................................................................................ 38 2.5.7. Predator Control and Intensive Management ...................................................... 38 2.5.8. BLM Employees Abusing Their Authority ......................................................... 39 2.5.9. Law Enforcement ................................................................................................. 39 2.5.10. Old Salmon Village ............................................................................................ 40 2.5.11. NEPA Process Issues related to the Doyon Exchange EIS ................................ 40 2.5.11.1. Doyon Exchange EIS .............................................................................. 40 2.5.11.2. Range of Alternatives .............................................................................. 40 2.5.11.3. Simultaneous EIS .................................................................................... 41 2.5.11.4. Incompatibility with Beaver Creek National Wild River ........................ 41 2.6. Valid Existing Management ............................................................................................ 42 2.7. Anticipated Decisions ..................................................................................................... 42 3. Draft Planning Criteria ........................................................................................................... 45 4. Data Summary and Data Gaps ............................................................................................... 49 4.1. Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 51 4.2. Data Gaps and Relevant Data Provided or Identified During Scoping ........................... 51 5. Summary of Future Steps in the Planning Process ............................................................... 53 Appendix A. White Mountains RMP Amendment Scoping Report ....................................... 57 Appendix B. Scoping
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Geology of East-Central Alaska by Helen L. Foster, Terry E. C. Keith
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Geology of East-Central Alaska by Helen L. Foster, Terry E. C. Keith, and W. David Menzie* Open-File Report 87-188 This report is preliminary and has not been reviewed for conformity with U.S. Geological Survey editorial standards and stratigrahic nomenclature. Any use of trade names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the USGS. 1 Menlo Park, California East-Central Alaska Contributors and acknowledgements...........................................1 Introduction................................................................! Yukon-Tanana terrane............................ ...........................2 Yukon-Tanana terrane north of the Tanana River............................3 Stratigraphy............................................................3 Metamorphic rocks.....................................................3 Subterrane Yj (Northeastern Mount Hayes, southern Big Delta, southwestern Eagle, and northern Big Delta, southwestern Charley River, Livengood, and Fairbanks quadrangles)..............5 Subterrane ^^ (Circle, northern Big Delta, southwestern Charley River, Livengood, and Fairbanks quadrangles)......................? Quartzite and quartzitic schists (unit qq)......................7 Pelitic schist, quartzite, marble, and amphibolite (unit ps)....9 Eclogite and associated rocks (unit ec)........................10 Subterrane Y3 (Northern Big Delta, Fairbanks, southern Circle, Eagle, Charley River, and eastern Tanacross quadrangles)................11
    [Show full text]
  • Alaska Research Natural Area: 1. Mount Prindle."
    This file was created by scanning the printed publication. Text errors identified by the software have been corrected; however, some errors may remain. United States Department of Agriculture Alaska Research Forest Service Pacific Northwest Natural Area: Research Station General Technical Report PNW-GTR-224 1. Mount Prindle August 1988 Glen Patrick Juday I Author Glen Patrick Juday is assistant professor of forest ecology, and Alaska ecological reserves coordinator, Agricultural and Forestry Experiment Station, University of Fairbanks, Fairbanks, Alaska 99775 Foreword The concept of establishing natural areas for education and scientific research is not new. As early as 1917 in the United States, the Ecological Society of America set up the Committee on the Preservation of Natural Conditions and published its findings in 1926. Other professional societies-Society of American Foresters, the Society of Range Management, and the Soil Conservation Society of America––proposed programs to identify and set aside areas where natural forest, range, and soil conditions could be preserved and studied. The name Research Natural Area (RNA) was adopted and, in 1966, the Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior formed the Federal Committee on Research Natural Areas to inventory research sites established on Federal land and to coordinate their programs. A 1968 directory from the Federal committee listed 336 RNA's nationwide, of which 13 were in Alaska. By 1969, the International Biome Program (IBP) was active across the United States, and a tundra biome team was headquartered at the University of Alaska. The IBP proposed the establishment of an ecological reserves system for Alaska––"field sites uniquely suited for natural research and education.
    [Show full text]
  • The Alaska Vegetation Classification
    The Alaska Vegetation Forest Service Pacific Northwest Research Station General Technical Classification Report PNW-GTR-286 July 1992 L.A. Viereck, CT. Dyrness, A.R. Batten, and K.J. Wenzlick Authors L.A. VIERECK is a principal plant ecologist, C.T. DYRNESS was a research soil scientist (now retired), and K.J. WENZLICK was a secretary (currently is an editorial assistant, Research information Services, Portland, Oregon 97208), ‘Institute of Northern Forestry, 308 Tanana Drive, Fairbanks, Alaska 99775-5500; and A.R. BATTEN is research associate at University of Alaska Museum, Fairbanks, Alaska 99775-l200. Abstract Viereck, L.A.; Dyrness, C.T.; Batten, A.R.; Wenzlick, K.J. 1992. The Alaska vegetation classification. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-286. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 278 p. The Alaska vegetation classification presented here is a comprehensive, statewide system that has been under development since 1976. The classification is based, as much as possible, on the characteristics of the vegetation itself and is designed to categorize existing vegetation, not potential vegetation. A hierarchical system with five levels of resolution is used for classifying Alaska vegetation. The system, an agglomerative one, starts with 888 known Alaska plant communities, which are listed and referenced. At the broadest level of resolution, the system contains three formations-forest, scrub, and herbaceous vegetation. In addition to the classification, this report contains a key to levels I, II, and III; complete descriptions of all level IV units; and a glossary of terms used. Keywords: Vegetation, classification, Alaska, tundra, boreal forest, coastal forest, plant communities.
    [Show full text]
  • Dall Sheep Management Report of Survey-Inventory Activities 1 July 1998–30 June 2001
    Dall Sheep Management Report of survey-inventory activities 1 July 1998–30 June 2001 Carole Healy, Editor Alaska Department of Fish and Game Division of Wildlife Conservation December 2002 ADF&G Please note that population and harvest data in this report are estimates and may be refined at a later date. If this report is used in its entirety, please reference as: Alaska Department of Fish and Game. 2002. Dall Sheep management report of survey-inventory activities 1 July 1998–30 June 2001. C. Healy, editor. Project 6.0. Juneau, Alaska. If used in part, the reference would include the author’s name, unit number, and page numbers. Authors’ names and the reference for using part of this report can be found at the end of each unit section. Funded in part through Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration, Proj. 6, Grants W-27-2, W-27-3 and W-27-4. SPECIES Alaska Department of Fish and Game Division of Wildlife Conservation (907) 465-4190 PO BOX 25526 MANAGEMENT REPORT JUNEAU, AK 99802-5526 DALL SHEEP MANAGEMENT REPORT From: 1 July 1998 To: 30 June 2001 LOCATION 2 GAME MANAGEMENT UNIT: 7 And 15 (8,397 mi ) GEOGRAPHICAL DESCRIPTION: Kenai Mountains BACKGROUND U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) reports indicate aerial sheep surveys were initiated on the Refuge portion of the Kenai Mountains in 1949. Records after statehood (ADF&G and FWS files) show the Kenai Mountains sheep population steadily increased from 1949 to 1968, before sharply declining until 1977 and 1978, when the lowest counts were recorded. Since the late 1970s the sheep population has been rebuilding from its previous low levels; the controlling factors were effects of weather and habitat.
    [Show full text]
  • U.S. DEPARTMENT of the INTERIOR U.S.GEOLOGICAL SURVEY ALK.BIB a Selected Bibliography of Alkaline Igneous Rocks and Related Mine
    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR U.S.GEOLOGICAL SURVEY ALK.BIB A selected bibliography of alkaline igneous rocks and related mineral deposits, with an emphasis on western North America compiled by Felix E. Mutschler, D. Chad Johnson, and Thomas C. Mooney Open-File Report 94-624 1994 This report is preliminary and has not been reviewed for conformity with U.S. Geological Survey editorial standards and stratigraphic nomenclature. Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. INTRODUCTION This bibliography contains 3,406 references on alkaline igneous rocks and related mineral deposits compiled in conjunction with ongoing studies of alkaline igneous rocks, metallogeny, and tectonics in western North America. Much of the literature on these topics is not readily recovered by searches of current bibliographies and computerized reference systems. We hope that by making this bibliography available, it will help other workers to access this occasionally hard to find literature. The bibliography is available in two formats: (1) paper hardcopy and (2) Apple Macintosh computer-readable 3.5 inch double density diskette. The computer-readable version of the bibliography is a 725 KB WORD (version 5.0) document. Individual literature citations are arranged alphabetically by author(s) and the order of items in each citation follows the standard U.S. Geological Survey format. Version 3.4 1 February 1994 BIBLIOGRAPHY Abbott, J. G., Gordey, S. P., and Tempelman-Kluit, D. J., 1986, Setting of stratiform, sediment- hosted lead-zinc deposits in Yukon and northeastern British Columbia, in Morin, J.
    [Show full text]
  • Peak and Route List (Routes Grade IV Or Higher in Red; Attempts Not Listed)
    Peak and Route List (routes grade IV or higher in red; attempts not listed) International Barbeau Peak West ridge Ellesmere Island, Canadian Arctic Peak N. of Barbeau SE ridge? Ellesmere Island Wilson's Wall SW face, first ascent Baffin Island, Canadian Arctic (VI, 5.11 A4) Dhalagiri VII (Putha Hiunchuli) East ridge Dhualagiri Range, Nepal Turka Himal East ridge, first ascent? Dhualagiri Range, Nepal Cerro Aconcagua False Polish Glacier Andes, Argentina Cerro Las Menas trail Honduras (high point) Mt. Arrowsmith reg. couloir Vancouver Island, Canada Lowell Peak South Face, first ascent St. Elias Range, Canada Mt. Alverstone NE 5 North Ridge, first ascent St. Elias Range, Canada Peak 12,792 South Ridge Altai Mountains, Russian Siberia Alaska Denali West Buttress Alaska Range Mt. Marathon trail Kenai Peninsula Institute Peak SW face, winter ascent Eastern Alaska Range (Delta Range) Mt. Prindle Giradelli (III 5.9) White Mountains, Interior Gunnysack Creek peak W side Eastern Alaska Range (Delta Range) Chena Dome (2x) trail Chena River State Rec. Area Falsoola Peak north col Endicott Mountains, Brooks Range Green Steps (Keystone Canyon) (IV, WI 4-5) Valdez ice Silvertip Peak west side (day push) Eastern Alaska Range (Delta Range) Pinnell Mountain trail Porcupine Dome trail Mt. Sukakpak Reg. Route Arctic National Wildlife Refuge Unnamed peak East ridge South of Black Rapids Glacier, (Eastern Alaska Range) The Moose's Tooth Ham and Eggs (V, AI5 M4) Central Alaska Range Arizona Humphreys Peak (state highpoint) Weatherford Canyon marathon California: Yosemite only: El Capitan Zodiac (2x) Tangerine Trip The Nose Salathe Wall Zenyatta Mondatta Half Dome NW face, Regular Route (2x, incl.
    [Show full text]
  • 2018 Dall's Sheep in the White Mountains
    U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Distribution, movements, and survival of Dall’s Sheep (Ovis dalli dalli) in the White Mountains, Alaska Yukon Flats National Wildlife Mark R. Bertram1, Jim Herriges2, C. Tom Seaton3, Jim Lawler4, Kimberlee Beckmen3 and Sheila Dufford1 Refuge Report 2018-002 October 2018 1 Yukon Flats National Wildlife Refuge 2 Bureau of Land Management th 101 12 Avenue, Room 264 1150 University Avenue Fairbanks, Alaska 99701 Fairbanks, Alaska 99709 3 Alaska Department of Fish and Game 4 National Park Service 1300 College Road 240 West 5th Avenue Fairbanks, Alaska 99701 Anchorage, AK 99501 2 Citation: Bertram, M.R., J. Herriges, C.T. Seaton, J. Lawler, K. Beckmen, and S. Dufford. 2018. Distribution movements, and survival of Dall’s sheep (Ovis dalli dalli) in the White Mountains, Alaska. Refuge report 2018-002. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Fairbanks, Alaska. Keywords: Sheep, Ovis dalli dalli, distribution, movements, survival, White Mountains, Alaska. Disclaimer: The use of trade names of commercial products in this report deos not constitute endorsement or recommendations for use by the federal government. On the cover A family group of Dall’s sheep traverse elevated terrain near Victoria Mountain in the White Mountain. Photgraph courtesy of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES .................................................................................................................................... 4 LIST OF TABLES .....................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Geology and Mineral Resources of the White Mountains National
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Geology and Mineral Resources of the White Mountains National Recreation Area, East-central Alaska Edited by 1 O Florence R. Weber , Richard B. McCammon , C. Dean Rinehart , Thomas D. Light , and Karen L. Wheeler Open-File Report 88-284 This report is preliminary and has not been reviewed for conformity with U.S. Geological Survey editorial standards and stratigraphic nomenclature. Any use of trade names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the USGS. luSGS Fairbanks, AK; 2USGS Reston, VA; 3USGS Menlo Park, CA; 4USGS Anchorage, AK TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract ................................................... 1 I. Introduction ............................................... 2 II. Geologic Framework ......................................... 4 III. Geophysical Studies ........................................ 59 IV. Geochemistry ............................................... 77 Appendices IV-A. Histograms and frequency distributions of rock sample data Appendix IV-B. Histograms and frequency distributions of heavy-mineral-concentrate sample data Appendix IV-C. Histograms and frequency distributions of stream-sediment sample data V. Mineral Resource Assessment ................................ 95 Appendix V-A. MARK3 program ............................. 121 LIST OF PLATES (plates in pocket) II-A. Geologic map of WMNRA II-B. Geologic cross section, WMNRA III-A. Aeromagnetic map of the WMNRA III-B. Gravity map of the WMNRA IV-A. Map showing distribution of Ag, As, and Au in heavy-mineral- concentrate samples, WMNRA IV-B. Map showing distribution of Cd, Pb, and Zn in heavy-mineral- concentrate samples, WMNRA IV-C. Map showing distribution of Cu, Fe, Mo, Sb and W in heavy-mineral- concentrate samples, WMNRA IV-D. Map showing distribution of B, Be, Bi, Nb, and Th in heavy-mineral- concentrate samples, WMNRA IV-E.
    [Show full text]
  • 1982 Annual Report on Alaska/S Mineral Resources
    1982 Annual Report on Alaska/s Mineral Resources ,IS ., SURVEY CIRCULAR 884 QE 75 .C5 no.884 r f Contributors /0 the report: David Carnes, Bureau of Mines Fred Chiei, Department of Energy ARLI John Cook, National Park Service Ala"'1.- ~ He ouree! Kendell Dickinson, U.S. Geological Stt.'1'5fan &• m t n Srrvtces Fred Harnisch, Forest Service . Oon Hendrickson, Bureau 0r Land Management ·$ka Joseph Jones, Minerals Management Service Robert McMullin, U.S. Geological Survey Thomas Miller, U.S. Geological Survey John Mulligan. Bureau of Mines Katherine Reed. U.S. Geological Survey (compiler) Wayne Roberts, Department of Energy Keith Schreiner, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Richard Stenmark, National Park Service Gary Stricker. U.S. Geological Survey Gary Winkler, U.S. Geological Survey Donovan Yingst, Bureau of Land Management 1982 Annual Report on Alaska's Mineral Resources GEOLOGICAL SURVEY CIRCULAR 884 Prepared in cooperation with the Bureau of Mines, the Bureau of Land Management, the National Park Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Minerals Management Service, the Department of Agriculture-Forest Service, and the Department of Energy As mandated by Section 107 7 of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, Public Law 96-487, of December 2, 1980 United States Department of the Interior JAMES G. WATT, Secretary Geological Survey Dallas L. Peck, Director Free on application to Distribution Branch, Text Products Section, U. S. Geological Survey, 604 South Pickett Street, Alexandria, VA 22304 CONTENTS Coal and peat Executive summary --------L---------------------- ...................................... Activity by Federal agencies in 1980 and 1981 -------- Oil and gas -----L------------------------------- Cooperative State-Federal studies of peat resources -- Uranium ------------------L-um--------um-----um- Coal and peat Industry activity of 1980 and 1981 ----------------- References cited Geothermal resources ...............................
    [Show full text]
  • Limestone Jags PNW-GTR-237 May 1989 Glenn Patrick Juday
    This file was created by scanning the printed publication. Text errors identified by the software have been corrected; however, some errors may remain. United States Department of Agriculture Alaska Research Forest Service Pacific Northwest Natural Areas. Research Station General Technical Report 2: Limestone Jags PNW-GTR-237 May 1989 Glenn Patrick Juday I Study and documentation of Limestone Jags Research Natural Area was supported by the Bureau of Land Management, USDA Forest Service, and the University of Alaska Fairbanks. About the cover: A large limestone pinnacle with Windy Arch on the top is depicted in the foreground. The slopes in front of Windy Arch support a few fire-remnant trees. Behind Windy Arch are the Fossil Creek lowlands with mature white spruce forest to the right and a pocket of black spruce permafrost to the left. An aufeis zone shows along Fossil Creek in the right background. A lady's slipper orchid (Cypripedium guttatum) and dryas (Dryas octopetala), species typical of limestone habitats; are depicted in the inset. Authors GLENN PATRICK JUDAY is assistant professor of plant ecology and Alaska ecological reserves coordinator, Agricultural and Forestry Experiment Station, University of Alaska Fairbanks, Fairbanks, Alaska 99775. Foreword The concept of establishing natural areas for education and scientific research is not new. As early as 1917 in the United States, the Ecological Society of America set up the Committee on the Preservation of Natural Conditions and published its findings in 1926. Other professional societies-Society of American Foresters, the Society of Range Management, and the Soil Conservation Society of America––proposed pro- grams to identify and set aside areas where natural forest, range, and soil conditions could be preserved and studied.
    [Show full text]
  • Pleistocene Maximum and Late Wisconsinan Glacier Extents Across Alaska, U.S.A
    Pleistocene Maximum and Late Wisconsinan glacier extents across Alaska, U.S.A. Darrell S. Kaufman 1 and William F. Manley 2 1 Department of Geology, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff AZ 86011-4099, U.S.A.; E-mail: [email protected] 2 Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research, University of Colorado, Boulder CO 80309-0450, U.S.A.; E-mail: [email protected] Contributors: Ager, T.A., Axford, Y., Balascio, N.L., Begét, J.E., Brigham-Grette, J., Briner, J.P., Bundtzen, T.K., Carrara, P., Hamilton, T.D., Lubinski, D.J., Reger, R.D., Schmoll, H.R., Thorson, R.M., Waythomas, C.F., Weber, F.R., Werner, A. and Wilson, F.H. Introduction The digital map and this report focus on the two glacial limits that can most confidently be determined across the This report summarises the results of a collaborative effort state (Fig. 1): (1) the maximum extent of glaciers; and (2) among glacial geologists working in Alaska to produce an the Late Wisconsinan. The maximum extent of glaciers updated compilation of statewide glacier extents. It largely coincides with the outer limit of drift mapped by summarises evidence used to draw glacial limits in 15 Coulter et al. (1965). It does not represent a single ice regions across the state and highlights the most significant advance, but ranges in age from late Tertiary (e.g., the changes from previous mapping. This report also provides Nenana River valley) to Middle Pleistocene (e.g., the an overview of the glacial-geological record in Alaska, Baldwin Peninsula). The placement of the maximum glacial identifies prior efforts to synthesise data on Alaskan glacial limit in many places is essentially an educated guess, based geology and briefly discusses the broader implications of on extrapolation of limited data and guided by regional the newly mapped glacial extents.
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 178 / Monday, September 15, 1997 / Notices
    48300 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 178 / Monday, September 15, 1997 / Notices Office of the Bureau of Land DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Northern District Manager is prohibited Management, Las Vegas Field Office, in the Nome Creek valley. 4765 W. Vegas Drive, Las Vegas, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) d. Using motorized equipment, Nevada. [AK±020±07±1220±00±241A] including generators and chainsaws, in the Nome Creek valley must be in Upon publication of this notice in the accordance with posted rules. Federal Register, the above described Notice of Special Rules and e. Using hovercraft or airboats is land will be segregated from all other Regulations for the White Mountains National Recreation Area (WMNRA) prohibited. forms of appropriation under the public and Associated Recreation Facilities land laws, including the general mining 2. Occupancy and Use laws, except for lease/conveyance under This notice rescinds and replaces the a. Camping at one site within the area the Recreation and Public Purposes Act, White Mountains National Recreation covered by this order for a period longer leasing under the mineral leasing laws Area Special Rules and Regulations than ten (10) days in any one calendar and disposal under the mineral material previously published in the Federal year without written authorization from disposal laws. Register (53 FR 25696, July 8, 1988). BLM's Northern District Manager is This notice corrects omissions made in For a period of 45 days from the date prohibited. Camping in a campground the original notice and has been of publication of this notice in the within the area covered by this order for updated pursuant to the White Federal Register, interested parties may a period longer than ten (10) Mountains Gateway Project consecutive days in any one calendar submit comments regarding the environmental assessment.
    [Show full text]