Decision Notice & Finding of No Significant Impact Byway Lakes Enhancement Project
|
|
- Felix McDonald
- 6 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service October 2013 Decision Notice & Finding of No Significant Impact Byway Lakes Enhancement Project Hell Canyon Ranger District, Black Hills National Forest Custer & Pennington Counties, South Dakota T02S, R05E Sections 11 T02S, R06E Sections 27, 28 T03S, R05E Sections 15, 22 Horsethief Lake 1938 For Information Contact: David Pickford 330 Mt. Rushmore Road Custer, SD Phone: (605)
2 The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual s income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large-print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA s TARGET Center at (202) (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C , or call (800) (voice) or (202) (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.
3 DECISION NOTICE & FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT BYWAY LAKES ENHANCEMENT PROJECT USDA FOREST SERVICE HELL CANYON RANGER DISTRICT, BLACK HILLS NATIONAL FOREST CUSTER & PENNINGTON COUNTIES, SD Introduction A Decision Notice (DN) and Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) are provided here. The DN documents my decision and provides my explanation of the management and environmental reasons that I used to make my decision in selecting an alternative to implement. The FONSI presents the reasons why I find this action will not have a significant effect on the human environment and therefore why an environmental impact statement will not be prepared. The completed Byway Lakes Enhancement Environmental Assessment (EA) is incorporated by reference. Decision Based upon my review of the Byway Lakes Enhancement Environmental Assessment and project record, I have decided to implement Alternative 2-Modified Proposed Action. Alternative 2- Modified Proposed Action was developed to address the key issues identified during scoping: 1. Sediment Disposal concern that the sites for sediment deposit and hauling sediments by truck to these sites could affect other resources including scenery, wildlife, vegetation, birds, wetlands, water quality, public traffic and recreation. 2. Downstream Water Quality concern that this project could negatively impact water quality by increasing sediments to downstream water resources. To address issue #1, Alternative 2-Modified Proposed Action does not use the back sides of the dams as sediment deposit sites nor does it propose to use removed sediments in other projects. This alternative has no need for any new road construction, has proposed more simplified sediment erosion control methods, and reduces the risk of sediment entering sensitive stream environments. Transportation of the removed sediments is reduced due to the location of sediment deposit sites being located reasonably close to the lakes in the project area. Bismarck Lake sediment deposit site will be 0.75 mile from the lake and accessed on gravel Forest Service Road (FSR) 349 & 349.1A. Horsethief Lake sediment deposit site #1 will be 0.60 mile from the lake on an unclassified native surface campground maintenance road. Horsethief Lake sediment deposit site #2 would be 0.70 miles from the lake and accessed adjacent to Highway 244. Lakota Lake sediment deposit site will be 0.10 mile from the lake and accessed by Lakota Lake Recreation Site gravel parking lot. Two of the proposed sediment deposit sites, one near Horsethief Lake and one near Bismarck Lake are abandoned gravel pits which will be reclaimed to a forest opening by this project. The 1
4 other proposed sediment deposit site located near Horsethief Lake will reclaim a non-native brome grass meadow back to a native grass meadow. All proposed sediment deposit sites will include removing small non-commercial size pine trees and help maintain openings for wildlife habitat. The Horsethief Lake proposed gravel pit sediment deposit site is also the location for a section of the existing Centennial Trail 89 trail tread. An approximate 1,000 foot section of the affected trail will be permanently relocated to the other side of the gravel pit, out of the way of construction equipment, and built by a hand crew to hiking/horse trail standards. This will be an improvement over the existing trail section currently located on a native surface road used for maintaining campground utilities and a gravel pit. 2 Under this alternative the lakes will be drained beginning the week after the Labor Day holiday when recreation sites normally close to public use. The work to remove sediments would take place during the winter months and the lakes re-filled from spring run-off and precipitation. Recreation facilities at each lake will open as normal during the high-use recreation visitor period in mid-may. Based on hydrologist estimates, refilling the lakes is expected to be complete by mid-june for all lakes. Eroded lake shoreline areas will be repaired by placement of native rock (granite) while each lake is drained. Osprey nesting platforms may be placed at each lake to improve osprey habitat. Drained lake bottoms will be contoured and fish structures may be placed on lake bottoms to improve fisheries habitat. Wildlife exclusion areas, areas of no disturbance, have been determined and mapped for each lake to protect sensitive lake and shoreline habitat. Permits for this project will be obtained from appropriate agencies to help ensure it meets all state and federal water protection requirements. To address key issue #2: Alternative 2-Modified Proposed Action does not use the back sides of dams for sediment deposit. This eliminates the potential of sediments to escape erosion control methods on steeper slopes and enter downstream water resources located below each dam. There are no water resources located downstream from proposed sediment deposit sites, with the exception of Lakota Lake, where erosion protection measures will be effective. Lakota Lake itself will be buffered by a thick matt of meadow vegetation. In addition, the proposed sediment deposit sites represent areas that are naturally shaped to help hold sediments. Two of the proposed sediment deposit sites, one near Horsethief Lake and one near Bismarck Lake are abandoned gravel pits which will be reclaimed back to a natural forest opening from this project. Downstream water quality will be protected during the drawing down of lake water levels by the use of dam valves or if necessary gravity siphon pipe in the event that mechanical valves are not working. Dam valves can control disturbing lake bottom sediments or causing downstream erosion by adjusting the valve opening to the minimum necessary for water discharge. The siphon pipe method draws water from the top most layers of the lake which contain no sediment. The siphon pipe is positioned, sized and adjusted to prevent outlet water from creating downstream erosion/sedimentation. During project implementation plastic piping will be temporarily placed from lake inlet streams to each lake outlet, to maintain water flow and prevent downstream sedimentation. To minimize erosion and protect water quality, mitigation measures such as compost matting, silt fencing, compost socks, seeding of native vegetation, mulching, etc., will be applied until newly
5 planted vegetation becomes established on sediment sites. Planting of vegetation will occur during the growing season following the winter hauling of sediments. Annual herbicide treatments will be applied to each sediment deposit site as needed until native vegetation becomes established. This alternative does not consider the use of lake sediments for other projects located elsewhere. The use of sediments for projects located elsewhere such as for highway construction or mine reclamation was too ambiguous to determine the effects to resources including downstream water quality. Table 1: Estimated Project Totals Estimate Lake Sediment Name Volume (Cubic Yards) Sediment Haul Miles FS Road/Paved Hwy Wildlife Exclusion Qty/Acres Sediment Sites Qty/Acres Horsethief 25, /0.70 1/0.32 2/1.0&1.2 Bismarck 24, /0 4/0.60 1/1.8 Lakota 22, /0 1/1.70 1/1.8 Total 71, /0.70 4/5.8 4/5.8 Decision Rationale The Byway Lakes Enhancement project was initiated to respond to recreation related needs identified within the Byway Lakes: Horsethief Lake, Lakota Lake, and Bismarck Lake. First, there is a need to take action to improve water quality in Horsethief, Bismarck and Lakota Lakes for recreation and fisheries. Over the year lifespan of these dammed lakes, sedimentation has caused a decline in water quality. Water depth has decreased, water temperatures have become warmer, near shore areas have become choked with mostly cattails which are preventing public access; water is more nutrient laden, prone to algae blooms, and habitat for fish survival has declined. Second, there is an overall decline of the quality environment for lakeshore recreation activities such as fishing, picnicking, and canoeing. These resource conditions could worsen over time as the lakes continue to accumulate sediment negatively affecting the quality of experience for future visitors to the Black Hills, as well as, the ability to provide quality fisheries. The purpose and need for action is to remove sediments from Bismarck, Lakota and Horsethief Lakes to improve water quality for fisheries and recreation. The Byway Lakes Enhancement project purpose and need provides the focus and scope for the proposed action and alternatives under direction of the 1997 Revised Black Hills National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, as amended by the 2006 Phase II Amendment (Forest Plan). Forest Plan direction is summarized in Chapter 1 of the Byway Lakes Enhancement EA. Given the purpose of and need for action, I reviewed Forest Plan direction, public comments received, key issues identified from those comments, information contained within the project record, and the analysis disclosed in the EA. My decision to implement Alternative 2-Modified Proposed Action is based on this review. Two alternatives were considered. Alternative 1-No Action and was used as a baseline to assess the effects of taking action versus maintaining the current management situation. Under Alternative 1-No Action, none of the proposed lakes enhancement activities would be implemented. Alternative 1-No Action was rejected due to the need to improve water quality for fisheries and recreation. 3
6 Alternative 2-Modified Proposed Action was developed to address key issues brought up during scoping, sediment disposal and downstream water quality. Under Alternative 2-Modified Proposed Action, the back sides of the dams will not be used as sediment deposit sites nor does this alternative propose to use removed sediments in other projects. This alternative has no need for any new road construction, has proposed more simplified sediment erosion control methods, and reduces the risk of sediment entering sensitive stream environments. This alternative also will reduce the risk to public motorists along Highway 244 by removing access needs by construction trucks on Highway 244 to access the backside of the dam. Transportation of the removed sediments is reduced due to the location of sediment deposit sites being located reasonably close to the lakes in the project area. I chose Alternative 2-Modified Proposed Action because I believe it best addresses the purpose and need for action, key issues, and public comments. The Byway Lakes Enhancement EA documents the analysis and conclusions upon which this decision is based. Other Alternatives Considered In addition to the selected action, I considered two other alternatives. A brief summary of these alternatives is presented below. Further information on the alternative can be found in Chapter 2 of the EA. Alternative 1 No Action NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act) requires the study of the No Action Alternative and that it be used as a basis for comparing the effects of the proposed action and other alternatives. The No Action alternative assumes no implementation of any elements of the proposed action or other action alternatives would take place in the project area. Actions analyzed under past projects or proposed by future projects may still occur. This alternative was not selected for reasons stated earlier. Alternative 2 Proposed Action This alternative was the original proposed action alternative. This alternative would have implemented dredging and sediment removal as described during scoping, which included the backside of dams as sediment deposit sites and considered the use of sediments for other projects located elsewhere, such as mine reclamation or highway projects. The use of the backside of dams for sediment storage was found to not be necessary as other more favorable sites with fewer effects to natural resources for this project were found during project planning. The use of the back side of lake dams would have created a number of potential challenges as sediment sites including transportation (hauling, construction activity & road building), presence of nearby sensitive streams and their associated flora and fauna located below dam faces, more complex erosion control and construction activity on steeper dam slopes. It was found to be too ambiguous and would not have been possible to analyze the effects for sediment disposal elsewhere for other, unidentified projects. Other alternatives not considered in detail include an alternative to that excluded sediment sites from the Norbeck Wildlife Preserve. Some commentors suggested that sediment disposal within the Norbeck Wildlife Preserve would negatively impact game animals and birds, and therefore sediment sites should be located outside of the Preserve. This alternative was considered but deferred from detailed analysis because suitable disposal sites were identified within the Norbeck Wildlife Preserve which could benefit or maintain habitat for game animals and birds. For example, proposed sediment deposit sites within the Norbeck Wildlife Preserve would reclaim a gravel pit near Horsethief Lake and remove pine encroachment from meadows near Lakota Lake and Horsethief Lake. From public comments, the effect of hauling large quantities of sediments on public roads was a concern. Due to the location of the project lakes within the boundaries of 4
7 the Norbeck Wildlife Preserve an alternative to haul sediments outside of Norbeck would have meant greater impacts to public roads, recreation travelers, safety and vehicle traffic. Public Involvement Scoping The original proposal was listed in the Schedule of Proposed Actions in April The proposal was provided to the public and other agencies for comment during scoping on July 8, As part of the public involvement process the Forest Service mailed a detailed scoping document to approximately 62 individuals, groups, tribal representatives, government agencies, and other interested members of the public. Federal, state, local, and Tribal governments and interested parties provided input during scoping efforts. South Dakota Game, Fish, and Parks (SDGFP) personnel joined members of the Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) in an initial planning meeting held in December 2010 and on a field review of the project area in March Scoping comments were used to confirm issues analyzed in this document and identify a reasonable range of project alternatives. EA Distribution On June 12, 2013, a legal notice was published in the Rapid City Journal notifying the public of their opportunity to comment on the Byway Lakes Enhancement Environmental Assessment (June 2013 EA). Copies of the June 2013 EA were mailed to 10 individuals, groups and state and local agencies who expressed interest in the project and to 33 tribal representatives. The EA was also posted on the Forest website. The comment period concluded on July 12, Four responses were received within the comment period; all were supportive of the project. See Appendix G in the EA for responses to comments. None of these comments generated a need for re-analysis or required major substantive changes in the document. All letters received are contained within the project file. Best Available Science My decision is based upon consideration for the best available science. I have reviewed the record and found it contains a thorough review of relevant scientific information and responsible opposing views. Where appropriate, the record acknowledges incomplete or unavailable information, and scientific uncertainty and risk. Specifically, the extensive literature citations in both the specialists reports in the project record and in Chapter 5 of the EA shows that relevant literature was reviewed and considered by resource specialists. Resource specialists acknowledge in the project file their use of the best science available to them in preparation of the EA. Finding of No Significant Impact I have reviewed the environmental effects of the selected alternative as disclosed in the EA. I have also evaluated whether the selected alternative constitutes a significant impact on the quality of the human environment or whether the environmental impacts would be significant based on their context and intensity, as defined by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) using the criteria in the implementing regulations (40 CFR ). After considering the effects of the actions analyzed, in terms of context and intensity, I have determined that these actions will not have significant effect on the quality of the human environment. Therefore an environmental impact statement will not be prepared. 1. Context This project is local and would affect only the project area. The issues identified during scoping and considered in alternative development and analysis are local in nature. Effects are limited to the vicinity of the planned activities. The selected alternative is consistent with the requirements of the Forest Plan and contributes to moving toward or meeting the goals 5
8 and objectives of the Forest Plan. None of the effects disclosed in the Byway Lakes Enhancement EA are different from those anticipated in the FEIS for the Forest Plan or the FEIS for the Phase II Amendment. 2. Intensity 6 My finding of no significant environmental effects is not biased by the beneficial effects of the action. Effects on public health and safety were considered. No significant public health and safety issues were identified during the analysis process. Public health and safety may be improved by the reduction sediment and improvement of water quality in the project area. There will be no significant effects on unique characteristics of the area. No adverse direct and indirect effects will occur to wetlands, prime farmlands, wild and scenic rivers or ecological critical areas, as they are either not present or will be protected by project design features, as shown in Chapter 3 of the EA. Project design criteria (EA, Appendix B) include measures to protect riparian areas and to protect and monitor cultural resources. There are no known eligible or unevaluated cultural sites within the project area. For these reasons, there will be no adverse effects on unique characteristics of the area. The effects on the quality of the human environment are not likely to be highly controversial because there is no known scientific controversy over the impacts of the project. The effects analysis shows the effects are not uncertain, and do not involve unique or unknown risk. The action is not likely to establish a precedent for future actions with significant effects. The action does not represent a decision in principle about future considerations. Similar projects conducted in the future will have to be evaluated under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for the significance of the effects of those specific actions. The cumulative impacts considered in the Byway Lakes Enhancement EA are discussed by resource in Chapter 3. The cumulative impacts of the proposed action, including connected actions, were considered with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions (EA, Chapter 3). The potential effects on cultural resources have been considered in the analysis. No adverse effects are anticipated. A heritage resource inventory was completed for the project area; results of the analysis were reported to the South Dakota SHPO and affiliated Native American Tribes for comment and concurrence on March 18, The South Dakota SHPO concurred with the findings of this report on March 26, The project will have no adverse effect on heritage resources. The action will not adversely affect endangered or threatened species or its habitat that has been determined to be critical under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 because none exist within the project area. A determination for Forest Service Region 2 sensitive species for the selected Alternative found that there will be no trend towards Federal listing or loss of viability in the planning area, including fish, wildlife and plants (EA, Chapter 3). The BA/BE s are part of the project record and were used in preparation of the EA. In addition, a Management Indicator Species (MIS) analysis for this project was completed and it determined that the proposed action, and its relationship to MIS species and the habitat types they represent, is not expected to impact the viability of these species in the future (EA, Chapter 3).
9 As described in more detail below, the selected action will not violate federal, state, or local laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. Applicable laws and regulations were considered in the EA (EA, Chapter 3). All state water quality requirements will be met as well as other federal, state, and local requirements imposed for the protection of the environment. Effects on water quality, floodplains, and wetlands are documented in the EA and project file. Design criteria will be used to protect water quality and to meet standards imposed by the Forest Plan and the State. No violations of environmental laws and requirements were identified through the environmental effects analysis. The action is consistent with the Black Hills National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. Findings Required by Other Laws and Regulations Forest Plan This decision is consistent with the Black Hills National Forest s Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan). The project was designed in conformance with the following Forest Plan direction: Goal 1: Protect basic soil, air, water and cave resources. Objective 103: Maintain or improve long-term stream health. Achieve and maintain the integrity of aquatic ecosystems to provide stream-channel stability and aquatic habitats for water quality in accordance with state standards. Objective 104: Maintain or enhance watershed conditions to foster favorable soil relationships and water quality. a. Implement projects to improve watershed conditions on an average of at least 300 acres annually over the plan period. b. Achieve and maintain stable stream beds and banks, diverse riparian vegetation and effective ground cover that controls runoff and erosion. Objective 106: Manage water-use facilities to prevent gully erosion of slopes and to prevent sediment and bank damage to streams. Goal 4: Provide for scenic quality, a range of recreational opportunities, and protection of heritage resources in response to the needs of the Black Hills National Forest visitors and local communities. Objective 40: Review all existing projects and areas that do not meet the adopted Scenic Integrity Objective (SIO) specified for each management area, and set priorities for rehabilitation. Goal 7: Emphasize cooperation with individuals, organizations and other agencies while coordinating planning and project implementation. Objective 701: Continue to cooperate with interested parties and organizations in the development of plans and projects. Objective 703: Seek partnerships with other service providers federal, state, county, local and private sector to define complementary roles that best meet customer needs. A Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) and EA were considered. I determined these actions will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment, and an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) will not be prepared. 7
10 Federal Laws The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended All surveyed and inventoried cultural sites considered eligible or potentially eligible for the National Register of Historic Places will be buffered and avoided during resource management activities. New sites discovered during operations will be protected. Any identified Traditional Cultural Properties and sacred areas will be protected. The South Dakota State Historical Preservation Office (SHPO) concurred with the finding of no historical properties affected on March 26, The heritage resource section of the Environmental Assessment (EA) and the heritage resource report provide more details on this determination. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 1969 NEPA establishes the format and content requirements of environmental analysis and documentation. The process of preparing the Byway Lakes Enhancement EA and DN/FONSI was completed in accordance with NEPA. The Endangered Species Act, 1973 A Biological Evaluation (BE) has been prepared to document possible effects of any activities on endangered, threatened, proposed or sensitive species in the project area. A determination was made that no threatened or endangered species currently exist in the project area nor does the project area contain critical habitat for any listed species. Therefore, the project would have no effect on threatened or endangered species and no impact on critical habitat. Effects of the project on Region 2 Sensitive Species were analyzed and documented in the Wildife and Fisheries BE and in the Botany BE, which are summarized in Appendix D of the Byway Lakes Enhancement EA. A determination was made that the proposed activities may adversely impact individuals but are not likely to result in a loss of viability in the planning area, nor cause a trend toward federal listing. The Clean Water Act, 1982 The proposed action will conform to the Clean Water Act as amended in This act establishes a non-degradation policy for all federally proposed projects. The proposed action is not likely to degrade water quality below standards set by the State of South Dakota. This will be accomplished through planning, application, and monitoring of Best Management Practices and other design criteria of project activities. The National Forest Management Act (NFMA) 1976, which amends the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act (RPA) of 1974 The 1982 and 2000 planning rules are no longer in effect. Pursuant to the 2012 planning rule, project decisions must be consistent with the Forest Plan (36 CFR (c)). The scope of analysis for a Forest Plan s Management Indicator Species (MIS) is determined by the Forest Plan s management direction, specifically, its standards and guidelines (Chapter II) and monitoring direction (Chapter IV). The Black Hills National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) contains no obligation to conduct project-specific monitoring or surveying for MIS (Phase II ROD, pp. 8, 20; Forest Plan as Amended, p. I-11, Objective 238). The Forest Plan establishes monitoring and evaluation requirements that do not require population monitoring for MIS, but rather employ habitat capability relationships (Phase II ROD, pp. 20; Forest Plan as Amended, p. I-11, Objective 238). The Byway Lakes Enhancement Wildlife and Fisheries Report analyzed the following MIS because habitat for these species is available in the project area: beaver, white-tailed deer, song sparrow, and mountain sucker. 8
11 . USDA iiiii Administrative Review This decision was subject to objection pursuant to 36 CFR 2 18 Subparts A and B. A legal notice of this decision was printed on August 15,2013 in the Rapid City Journal (Rapid City, SD) and a 45 day objection period followed the publication date of the legal notice. No objections were filed within that period. The time for filing objections has passed. IMPLEMENTATION DATE Pursuant to 36 CFR (c) this decision may be issued no sooner than October 7, Implementation of this project may occur immediately after this decision is signed. CONTACT For additional information concerning this decision, contact Sherri Schwenke, District Ranger, or Dave Pickford, Recreation Specialist, Hell Canyon Ranger District, 330 Mt. Rushmore Road, Custer, SD 57730, by phone ( ), or (sschwenke@fs.fed.us or dpickford@fs.fed.us).. ~~~~ ~ '2~, 2.0\~ Sherri Schwenke District Ranger Hell Canyon Ranger District Date 9
12 Byway Lakes Enhancement Project Vicinity Map
DRAFT Decision Notice & Finding of No Significant Impact Byway Lakes Enhancement Project
United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service August 2013 DRAFT Decision Notice & Finding of No Significant Impact Byway Lakes Enhancement Project Hell Canyon Ranger District, Black Hills National
More informationDRAFT DECISION NOTICE AND FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ROAD/TRAIL DECOMMISSIONING AND SEASONAL CLOSURE PROJECT U.S.
DRAFT DECISION NOTICE AND FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ROAD/TRAIL DECOMMISSIONING AND SEASONAL CLOSURE PROJECT U.S. FOREST SERVICE CHATTAHOOCHEE-OCONEE NATIONAL FORESTS CONASAUGA RANGER DISTRICT FANNIN,
More informationKinder/Morgan Southern Natural Gas. Right-of-Way Maintenance Project Woody Vegetation Control. Decision Notice And Finding of No Significant Impact
Kinder/Morgan Southern Natural Gas United States Department of Agriculture Southern Region Forest Service March 2013 Right-of-Way Maintenance Project Woody Vegetation Control Decision Notice And Finding
More informationDECISION NOTICE FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT (FONSI)
DECISION NOTICE AND FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT (FONSI) FOR CASA LOMA RECREATION RESIDENCE PERMIT RENEWAL U.S. FOREST SERVICE CIBOLA NATIONAL FOREST SANDIA RANGER DISTRICT BERNALILLO COUNTY, NEW MEXICO
More informationPROJECT INFORMATION Manchester Ranger District Apple Tree Release and Maintenance Project
PROJECT INFORMATION Manchester Ranger District Apple Tree Release and Maintenance Project The USDA Forest Service is proposing to release and prune living apple trees in the Manchester Ranger District,
More informationDECISION NOTICE AND FINDING OF No SIGNIFICANT IMPACT HOPKINS FIRE SALVAGE
DECISION NOTICE AND FINDING OF No SIGNIFICANT IMPACT HOPKINS FIRE SALVAGE DECISION U.S. FOREST SERVICE OCALA NATIONAL FOREST SEMINOLE RANGER DISTRICT MARION COUNTY, FLORIDA Based upon my review of the
More informationProposed Action: In response to resource specialist concerns raised during internal scoping, the following restrictions will apply:
DECISION MEMO USDA Forest Service Inyan Kara Riders Motorcycle Enduro Event Rocky Mountain Region Thunder Basin National Grassland Medicine Bow-Routt National Forests Douglas Ranger District April 2011
More informationDraft Decision Memo OHV Trails 22 and 42 Reroute Project
Draft Decision Memo OHV Trails 22 and 42 Reroute Project USDA Forest Service McKenzie River Ranger District Willamette National Forest Linn County, OR T13S, R7E, Sections 25 and 34 Willamette Meridian
More informationDecision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact
Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact Gold Lake Bog Research Natural Area Boundary Adjustment and Nonsignificant Forest Plan Amendment #53 USDA Forest Service Middle Fork Ranger District,
More informationPreliminary Decision Memo Recreation Residence Septic Repairs
Preliminary Decision Memo 2014 Recreation Residence Septic Repairs USDA Forest Service McKenzie River Ranger District Willamette National Forest Lane County, Oregon T. 16 S., R. 5 E, Section 16 Willamette
More informationDECISION MEMO. East Fork Blacktail Trail Reroute
Page 1 of 6 DECISION MEMO USDA Forest Service Madison Ranger District Madison County Background The East Fork Blacktail Trail #6069 is a mainline trail in the Snowcrest Mountains. The Two Meadows Trail
More informationDECISION NOTICE & FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT RAT RIVER RECREATIONAL TRAIL
DECISION NOTICE & FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT RAT RIVER RECREATIONAL TRAIL USDA FOREST SERVICE, CHEQUAMEGON-NICOLET NATIONAL FOREST LAKEWOOD-LAONA RANGER DISTRICT FOREST COUNTY, WISCONSIN T35N, R15E,
More informationDECISION MEMO SFA EXPERIMENTAL FOREST HERBACEOUS POND RESTORATION AUGUST, 2009 ANGELINA/SABINE RANGER DISTRICT ANGELINA NATIONAL FOREST
402 C B B DECISION MEMO SFA EXPERIMENTAL FOREST HERBACEOUS POND RESTORATION AUGUST, 2009 ANGELINA/SABINE RANGER DISTRICT ANGELINA NATIONAL FOREST NACOGDOCHES COUNTY, TEXAS USDA FOREST SERVICE, REGION 8
More informationDECISION MEMO FOURTH OF JULY PARK 2 USDA Forest Service, Northern Region Red River Ranger District, Nez Perce National Forest Idaho County, Idaho
DECISION MEMO FOURTH OF JULY PARK 2 USDA Forest Service, Northern Region Red River Ranger District, Nez Perce National Forest Idaho County, Idaho I. Decision II. I have decided to authorize issuance of
More informationOn/Off periods Improvements Grazing System. 2 fence segments. 1 water development, 2 cattle guards
DECISION NOTICE HENRY CREEK AND SWAMP CREEK RANGE ALLOTMENT MANAGEMENT PLANS REVISION U.S. FOREST SERVICE PLAINS/THOMPSON FALLS RANGER DISTRICT LOLO NATIONAL FOREST SANDERS COUNTY, MONTANA DECISION Based
More informationEnvironmental Assessment
United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service May 2009 Environmental Assessment Powder River Campground Decommissioning Powder River Ranger District, Bighorn National Forest Johnson and Washakie
More informationDECISION MEMO Eureka Fire Whitebark Pine Planting
Page 1 of 6 DECISION MEMO Eureka Fire Whitebark Pine Planting USDA Forest Service Madison Ranger District Madison County T11S, R2W, Sections16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 29, 30, 31 & 32 T11S, R3W, Sections 25 &
More informationDraft Decision Memo Santiam Junction Maintenance Station Truck Shop Extension
Draft Decision Memo Santiam Junction Maintenance Station Truck Shop Extension USDA Forest Service McKenzie River Ranger District Willamette National Forest Linn County, OR T.13 S., R.7 E., Section 14,
More informationDECISION MEMO JASON MINE-BAT HABITAT IMPROVEMENT AND MINE CLOSURE Section 22, T. 13S., R. 2W. Union County, Illinois
DECISION MEMO JASON MINE-BAT HABITAT IMPROVEMENT AND MINE CLOSURE Section 22, T. 13S., R. 2W. Union County, Illinois USDA Forest Service Mississippi Bluffs Ranger District, Shawnee National Forest Background
More informationDECISION MEMO MANHATTAN FUELS REDUCTION PROJECT U.S. FOREST SERVICE CANYON LAKES RANGER DISTRICT LARIMER COUNTY, CO
DECISION MEMO MANHATTAN FUELS REDUCTION PROJECT U.S. FOREST SERVICE CANYON LAKES RANGER DISTRICT LARIMER COUNTY, CO Background and Project Description In order to improve forest health and reduce hazardous
More informationDECISION MEMO. Steve Simpson and Associates, Inc. Simpson #114 & #116 Gas Well Project Compartment 106
DECISION MEMO Steve Simpson and Associates, Inc. Simpson #114 & #116 Gas Well Project Compartment 106 USDA FOREST SERVICE REGION 8 NATIONAL FORESTS AND GRASSLANDS IN TEXAS SABINE NATIONAL FOREST ANGELINA/SABINE
More informationDECISION MEMO Divide Creek Barrier Enhancement
Page 1 of 7 Background DECISION MEMO USDA Forest Service Butte Ranger District Silver Bow County, Montana T. 2 N., R. 9 W., Section 32 The North Fork of Divide Creek is approximately 4 miles west of the
More informationDecision Memo - Elko Grade Improvement Project, Jarbidge Ranger District, Elko County, Nevada
Forest Service Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest Ruby Mountains/Jarbidge Ranger Districts P. O. Box 246 Wells, NV 89835 File Code: 7730 Date: February 28, 2011 Route To: (7730) Subject: To: Decision Memo
More informationSAN LUIS VALLEY PUBLIC LANDS CENTER
Decision Notice And Finding of No Significant Impact Watershed and Fisheries Conservation Treatments SAN LUIS VALLEY PUBLIC LANDS CENTER USDA Forest Service Rocky Mountain Region Public Lands Center Rio
More informationDecision Memo Sawtooth Trail #3634 Reroute
Decision Memo Sawtooth Trail #3634 Reroute USDA Forest Service Middle Fork Ranger District Willamette National Forest Lane County, OR T.25S, R.5.5E, Section 22, Willamette Meridian Purpose and Need The
More informationDECISION MEMO. Griz Thin (Stand )
Background DECISION MEMO Griz Thin (Stand 507089) USDA Forest Service Siuslaw National Forest Central Coast Ranger District Lane County, Oregon Township 16 South, Range 10 West, Sections 6 and 7 The Cummins-Tenmile
More informationSHASTA-MCCLOUD MANAGEMENT UNIT OVER SNOW VEHICLE TRAIL GROOMING AND SNOWMOBILE FACILITY MAINTENANCE PROPOSAL
DRAFT DECISION MEMO SHASTA-MCCLOUD MANAGEMENT UNIT OVER SNOW VEHICLE TRAIL GROOMING AND SNOWMOBILE FACILITY MAINTENANCE PROPOSAL U.S. FOREST SERVICE TOWNSHIP 40, 41, 42 AND 43 NORTH, RANGE 1, 2, 3 WEST,
More informationDECISION MEMO SMART CREEK MINERAL EXPLORATION PROJECT
Page 1 of 7 DECISION MEMO SMART CREEK MINERAL EXPLORATION PROJECT Background USDA Forest Service Pintler Ranger District Granite County, Montana T8N, R13W, sections 5, 6 and 7 The Kennecott Exploration
More informationDecision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact
Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact Indigo and Middle Fork Willamette Enhancement Project USDA Forest Service Middle Fork Ranger District Willamette National Forest Lane County, Oregon
More informationDECISION MEMO. West Fork Blacktail Deer Creek Hardened Crossing
Page 1 of 6 Background DECISION MEMO USDA Forest Service Madison Ranger District Madison County T12S, R4W, Section 30 The project is in the Gravelly Landscape, Snowcrest Recommended Wilderness Management
More informationDecision Memo for the City of Detroit Root Rot Timber Sale Project
Decision Memo for the City of Detroit Root Rot Timber Sale Project USDA Forest Service Detroit Ranger District Willamette National Forest Marion and Linn Counties, OR T.10S., R.5 E., Section 2, Willamette
More informationDECISION MEMO. Newfield Exploration Company Mineral Proposal PDU ASH #K1MB Compartment 16
DECISION MEMO Newfield Exploration Company Mineral Proposal PDU ASH #K1MB Compartment 16 USDA Forest Service Region 8 National Forests & Grasslands in Texas Sabine National Forest Angelina/Sabine Ranger
More informationDecision Memo. North Fork Calispell Creek Restoration Project
Project Description Decision Memo North Fork Calispell Creek Restoration Project USDA Forest Service Newport-Sullivan Lake Ranger Districts Colville National Forest Pend Oreille County, Washington Surveys
More informationDecision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact for the Arizona Interconnection Project Access Roads Permitting EA
Background Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact for the Arizona Interconnection Project Access Roads Permitting EA USDA Forest Service Black Range, Quemado, and Reserve Ranger Districts
More informationUSDA Forest Service Decision Memo. Mattie V Creek Minesite Rehabilitation Project
USDA Forest Service Decision Memo Mattie V Creek Minesite Rehabilitation Project Ninemile Ranger District Lolo National Forest Mineral County, Montana I. DECISION TO BE IMPLEMENTED A. Decision Description:
More informationDECISION MEMO 4-H Tree Farm LLC Driveway Permit
DECISION MEMO 4-H Tree Farm LLC Driveway Permit I. DECISION USDA Forest Service, Eastern Region, Hoosier National Forest Tell City Ranger District Perry County, Indiana T73S, R2W, SESE Section 36 A. Description
More informationDecision Memo. Cabin #5 Electric, Water, Septic Improvements
Decision Memo Cabin #5 Electric, Water, Septic Improvements USDA Forest Service Ocoee/ Hiwassee Ranger District, Cherokee National Forest Polk County, Tennessee Section 18, Township 2, Range 3 East; Lot
More informationScoping and 30-Day Notice and Comment Period for. Grassy Knob American Chestnut Planting
United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Monongahela National Forest Greenbrier Ranger District Box 67 Bartow, WV 24920 Phone (304) 456-3335 File Code: 2020/2070/1950 Date: November 15, 2012
More informationUnited States Department of Agriculture. Forest Service. Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest. September 2014
United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest September 2014 Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan Explanation Supporting
More informationDECISION MEMO. Wildlife Habitat Improvement Project Wildlife Opening Construction, Rehabilitation and Expansion FY
DECISION MEMO Wildlife Habitat Improvement Project Wildlife Opening Construction, Rehabilitation and Expansion FY 2007-2013 USDA Forest Service Bankhead National Forest - National Forests in Alabama Winston
More informationTenmile and Priest Pass Restoration Project Scoping Notice
Introduction Tenmile and Priest Pass Restoration Project Scoping Notice USDA Forest Service Helena National Forest Helena Ranger District Lewis and Clark County, Montana The Helena Ranger District of the
More informationDECISION MEMO Robinhood Creek Helicopter Log Deck June, 2008
DECISION MEMO Robinhood Creek Helicopter Log Deck June, 2008 USDA Forest Service, Mt. Hood National Forest Hood River Ranger District Hood River County, Oregon Flooding in the fall of 2006 caused significant
More informationLaguna Water System Improvement Environmental Assessment (EA)
Laguna Water System Improvement Environmental Assessment (EA) USDA Forest Service San Diego County, California 1. Background The Mount Laguna water system presently serves over eight recreation sites,
More informationRed Mountain OHV Restoration
United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Red Mountain OHV Restoration Environmental Assessment High Sierra Ranger District, Sierra National Forest, Fresno County, California T8S, R26E, Sections
More informationI. Decision to be Implemented. II. Reasons for Categorically Excluding the Decision. A. Description of Decision - 1 -
Decision Memo Guitonville Penelec Power Line Right-of-Way Special Use Permit USDA Forest Service, Eastern Region 9 Allegheny National Forest Marienville Ranger District Warrant 5133, Green Township Forest
More informationThe location of the valve site is displayed on a map in the project file.
DECISION MEMO Special Use Permit # RAR401201 Amendment #7 Hiawatha National Forest Rapid River Ranger District Delta County, Michigan I DECISION A. Description My decision is to issue an amendment to the
More informationDecision Memo Tongass National Forest. Wrangell Ranger District. Pre-Commercial Thinning CE 2010
Decision Memo Tongass National Forest Pre-Commercial Thinning CE 2010 Decision It is my decision to authorize pre-commercial thinning (PCT) on approximately 7,500 acres of overstocked young-growth forest
More informationFinal Decision Memo. Murphy Meadow Restoration Project. USDA Forest Service Willamette National Forest McKenzie River Ranger District
Final Decision Memo Murphy Meadow Restoration Project USDA Forest Service Willamette National Forest McKenzie River Ranger District T19S, R5E, Sec. 23, 24. Lane County Oregon BACKGROUND The Murphy Meadow
More informationMichigan Wing-Civil Air Patrol
DECISION MEMO Michigan Wing-Civil Air Patrol (CAP) Navigational Equipment Special Use Permit #MUN250 Hiawatha National Forest Munising Ranger District Alger County, Michigan I DECISION A. Description My
More informationDECISION MEMO. Crow Creek Hardened Crossing
Page 1 of 5 DECISION MEMO USDA Forest Service Madison Ranger District Madison County T12S, R4W in Section 35 Background A perennial cattle crossing on Crow Creek in in the Gravelly Landscape in the Centennial
More informationDECISION MEMO SPECIAL USE AUTHORIZATION FOR GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELLS
DECISION MEMO SPECIAL USE AUTHORIZATION FOR GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELLS USDA-Forest Service, Eastern Region Huron-Manistee National Forests, Baldwin/White Cloud Ranger District Newaygo County, Michigan
More informationMy Decision. Page 1 0/9
DECISION NOTICE FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT Lake Hemet Telecommunication Project San Jacinto Ranger District San Bernardino National Forest USDA Forest Service, Riverside County, California The United
More informationDecision Memo Starkey Elk Handling Facility Water System Improvements
Decision Memo Starkey Elk Handling Facility Water System Improvements USDA Forest Service Wallowa-Whitman National Forest La Grande Ranger District Union County, Oregon I. DECISION TO BE IMPLEMENTED A.
More informationDECISION MEMO LOWER STILLWATER FISHERY ENHANCEMENT U.S. FOREST SERVICE DUCHESNE RANGER DISTRICT ASHLEY NATIONAL FOREST DUCHESNE COUNTY, UTAH
DECISION MEMO LOWER STILLWATER FISHERY ENHANCEMENT U.S. FOREST SERVICE DUCHESNE RANGER DISTRICT ASHLEY NATIONAL FOREST DUCHESNE COUNTY, UTAH BACKGROUND The Rock Creek drainage is a very popular recreation
More informationPROPOSED ACTION FOR THE NAVAJO CINDER PIT RECLAMATION PROJECT
PROPOSED ACTION FOR THE NAVAJO CINDER PIT RECLAMATION PROJECT U.S. FOREST SERVICE DIXIE NATIONAL FOREST CEDAR CITY RANGER DISTRICT KANE COUNTY, UTAH PROJECT BACKGROUND AND SUMMARY The Navajo Cinder Pit,
More informationDECISION MEMO OREGON DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (ODOT) SAND SHED CINDER PIT EXPLORATION PROJECT
DECISION MEMO OREGON DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (ODOT) SAND SHED CINDER PIT EXPLORATION PROJECT USDA Forest Service Bend/Fort Rock Ranger District, Deschutes National Forest Deschutes County, Oregon
More informationFINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT OWL CREEK GRAVEL PIT EXPANSION U.S. FOREST SERVICE
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT OWL CREEK GRAVEL PIT EXPANSION U.S. FOREST SERVICE OURAY RANGER DISTRICT OURAY COUNTY, COLORADO BACKGROUND The Owl Creek Gravel Pit, also known as the Spruce Ridge Pit,
More informationTub Run Abandoned Coal Mine Restoration Decision Notice & Finding of No Significant Impact
Tub Run Abandoned Coal Mine Restoration USDA Forest Service, Eastern Region 9 Monongahela National Forest, Cheat Potomac Ranger District Pocahontas County, West Virginia January 2013 Introduction The Tub
More informationDECISION MEMO. Bull Bear 1H-18 Oil and Gas Pipeline
DECISION MEMO Bull Bear 1H-18 Oil and Gas Pipeline USDA, Forest Service Cibola National Forest, Black Kettle National Grasslands Roger Mills County, Oklahoma BACKGROUND: Laredo Petroleum, Inc., in order
More informationHungry Creek Watershed Road Maintenance and Stony Quarry Development
Notice of Proposed Action Opportunity to Provide Scoping Comments Hungry Creek Watershed Road Maintenance and Stony Quarry Development Mt. Hough Ranger District Plumas National Forest Plumas County, California
More informationDecision Memo Raptor 1 and 9 Prescribed Burns Project
Decision Memo Raptor 1 and 9 Prescribed Burns Project USDA Forest Service Chemult Ranger District, Fremont-Winema National Forests Klamath County, OR Township (T) 29 South (S), Range (R) 6 East (E), Section
More informationDecision Memo. Programmatic Forest Plan Amendment for Cultural Resource Protection Standards and Guidelines. United States Department of Agriculture
United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Decision Memo Programmatic Forest Plan Amendment for Cultural Resource Protection Standards and Guidelines Coconino National Forest Coconino, Gila,
More informationDECISION MEMO POT MOUNTAIN TRAIL CONSTRUCTION USDA
DECISION MEMO POT MOUNTAIN TRAIL CONSTRUCTION USDA Forest Service, Northern Region North Fork Ranger District, Clearwater National Forest Clearwater County, Idaho I. Decision I have decided to authorize
More informationDraft Pine Mountain Late- Successional Reserve Habitat Protection and Enhancement Project
Draft Pine Mountain Late- Successional Reserve Habitat Protection and Enhancement Project RecreationReport Prepared by: for: Upper Lake Ranger District Mendocino National Forest Month, Date, YEAR The U.S.
More informationPROJECT INFORMATION Warren Falls Parking Lot Expansion Project
PROJECT INFORMATION Warren Falls Parking Lot Expansion Project The USDA Forest Service (USFS) has initiated an environmental analysis process for the proposed Warren Falls Parking Lot Expansion Project
More informationDECISION MEMO WILLOW CREEK RECREATION AREA FACILITY RESTORATION U.S. FOREST SERVICE WILLOW CREEK RESERVE RANGER DISTRICT CATRON COUNTY, NEW MEXICO
DECISION MEMO WILLOW CREEK RECREATION AREA FACILITY RESTORATION U.S. FOREST SERVICE WILLOW CREEK RESERVE RANGER DISTRICT CATRON COUNTY, NEW MEXICO BACKGROUND The Willow Creek recreational area is located
More informationDECISION MEMO. Kelly s Pond / NFSR 204 Hazard Tree Removal. USDA Forest Service Sam Houston National Forest Montgomery County, Texas
DECISION MEMO Kelly s Pond / NFSR 204 Hazard Tree Removal USDA Forest Service Sam Houston National Forest Montgomery County, Texas Decision I have decided to remove approximately 500 hazard trees in and
More informationU.S.D.A. Forest Service National Forest & Grasslands in Texas Angelina National Forest Angelina/Sabine Ranger District Jasper County, Texas
DECISION MEMO WESTWOOD WATER SUPPLY CORPORATION SPECIAL USE PERMIT REISSUANCE AND MODIFICATION PROJECT U.S.D.A. Forest Service National Forest & Grasslands in Texas Angelina National Forest Angelina/Sabine
More informationSupervisor s Office 5162 Valleypointe Parkway Roanoke, VA
Supervisor s Office 5162 Valleypointe Parkway Roanoke, VA 24019 540-265-5100 www.fs.fed.us/r8/gwj James River Ranger District Glenwood-Pedlar Ranger District 810A East Madison Avenue 27 Ranger Lane Covington,
More informationEnvironmental Assessment
Forest Service February 2012 United States Department of Agriculture Environmental Assessment Henry Y.H. Kim Airbase Expansion Prescott National Forest Yavapai County, Arizona For Information Contact:
More informationBACKGROUND DECISION. June 2016 Page 1 of 6
BACKGROUND DECISION MEMO HOUSE ROCK WILDLIFE AREA PASTURE FENCE USDA FOREST SERVICE, SOUTHWEST REGION (R3) KAIBAB NATIONAL FOREST - NORTH KAIBAB RANGER DISTRICT COCONINO COUNTY, ARIZONA The Kaibab National
More informationStorrie and Rich Fire Area Watershed Improvement and Forest Road 26N67 Re-alignment Project
Notice of Proposed Action Opportunity to Provide Scoping Comments Storrie and Rich Fire Area Watershed Improvement and Forest Road 26N67 Re-alignment Project Mt. Hough Ranger District Plumas National Forest
More informationPRELIMINARY DECISION MEMO
PRELIMINARY DECISION MEMO Snoqualmie Christmas Tree Project USDA Forest Service Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Snoqualmie Ranger District King County, Washington Proposed Action, Purpose and Need
More informationDecision Memo for Juniper Ridge Opal Mine
for USDA Forest Service Pacific Northwest Region Fremont-Winema National Forests Bly Ranger District Klamath County, Oregon Introduction The Bly Ranger District has received a proposed operating plan for
More informationDECISION MEMO. Vipond Water Development
Page 1 of 5 DECISION MEMO USDA Forest Service Wise River Ranger District Beaverhead County T2S, R10W, Sections 12, 13, 14, &18 Background This project is located in the Pioneer Landscape, East Face Management
More informationDecision Memo Hungry Creek Watershed Road Maintenance and Stony Quarry Development Project
Decision Memo Hungry Creek Watershed Road Maintenance and Stony Quarry Development Project USDA Forest Service Mount Hough and Beckwourth Ranger Districts Plumas County, CA Background We, (the USDA Forest
More informationEast Aspen Metro District Mosquito Abatement Environmental Assessment
United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Rocky Mountain Region May 2015 East Aspen Metro District Mosquito Abatement Environmental Assessment Final Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant
More informationHelicopter landings in the Twin Peaks, Lone Peak, and Mount Timpanogos wilderness areas to capture and collar mountain goats and bighorn sheep Project
for the Helicopter landings in the Twin Peaks, Lone Peak, and Mount Timpanogos wilderness areas to capture and collar mountain goats and bighorn sheep Project USDA Forest Service Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National
More informationWest Branch LeClerc Creek Watershed Restoration Project Environmental Assessment
West Branch LeClerc Creek Watershed Restoration Project Environmental Assessment Decision Notice, Finding of No Significant Impact, and Response to Public Comments April 2015 USDA Forest Service Colville
More informationNational Forests in North Carolina Pisgah National Forest Grandfather Ranger District
United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service National Forests in North Carolina Pisgah National Forest Grandfather Ranger District 109 E Lawing Dr Nebo, NC 28761-9827 828-652-2144 File Code:
More informationAgency Organization Organization Address Information. Name United States Department of Agriculture
Logo Department Name United States Department of Agriculture Agency Organization Organization Address Information Forest Service Pacific Northwest Region 1220 SW Third Avenue (97204) P.O. Box 3623 Portland,
More informationRecreation Report Kimball Hill Stands Management Gold Beach Ranger District, Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest Date: April 27, 2016
Kimball Hill Stands Management Gold Beach Ranger District, Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest /s/ Date: April 27, 2016 Lorelei Haukness, Resource Specialist Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest In accordance
More informationFarnsworth Project. Draft Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impacts. United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service
United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Farnsworth Project Draft Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impacts Bradford Ranger District, Allegheny National Forest, Warren County,
More informationDECISION MEMO Clay Butte Radio Repeater Relocation Project
Background DECISION MEMO Clay Butte Radio Repeater Relocation Project USDA FOREST SERVICE Rocky Mountain Region (R2) Shoshone National Forest Park County, Wyoming The Shoshone National Forest, Clarks Fork
More informationDecision Memo Halliburton Ann Exploration Project U.S. Forest Service Austin Ranger District, Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest Nye County, Nevada
Decision Memo Halliburton Ann Exploration Project U.S. Forest Service Austin Ranger District, Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest Nye County, Nevada Background The Ann Exploration Project is located on the
More informationDraft DECISION NOTICE And Finding of No Significant Impact
Draft DECISION NOTICE And Finding of No Significant Impact Number Two Canyon Trails Project USDA Forest Service Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest Wenatchee River Ranger District Chelan County, Washington
More informationWhy does the Forest Service need to propose this activity at this time?
United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Uinta-Wasatch-Cache NF Supervisor s Office www.fs.usda.gov/uwcnf 857 W. South Jordan Parkway South Jordan, UT 84095 Tel. (801) 999-2103 FAX (801)
More informationDraft Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact (DN/FONSI)
United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service January 2016 Draft Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact (DN/FONSI) Rock Creek Vegetation and Fuels Healthy Forest Restoration Act
More informationDECISION NOTICE AND FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. Bend-Fort Rock Ranger District Deschutes National Forest Lake County, Oregon
DECISION NOTICE AND FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT Bend-Fort Rock Ranger District Deschutes National Forest Lake County, Oregon Devil's Garden Planning Area Hole-in-the-Ground Subunit Environmental Assessment
More informationBlanche Park Reservoir Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact
Blanche Park Reservoir Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact U.S. Forest Service Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National Forests Delta County, Colorado INTRODUCTION The Grand Mesa
More informationYankee Hill Fuel Treatment Project Decision Notice & Finding of No Significant Impact
Yankee Hill Fuel Treatment Project Decision Notice & Finding of No Significant Impact USDA Forest Service Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests And Pawnee National Grassland Clear Creek Ranger District
More informationLambson Draw On/Off Allotment Livestock Conversion Decision Notice
United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Lambson Draw On/Off Allotment Livestock Conversion Decision Notice Ashley National Forest Flaming Gorge-Vernal Ranger District Uintah County, Utah
More informationDECISION MEMO. Cheat-Potomac Ranger District Multiple Recreation Facilities and Related Granger-Thye Concessions Special Use Permit
DECISION MEMO Cheat-Potomac Ranger District Multiple Recreation Facilities and Related Granger-Thye Concessions Special Use Permit United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service (FS) Eastern Region
More informationThe project will be conducted in partnership with the Nez Perce Tribe.
DECISION MEMO Tributary to Brushy Fork Culvert Replacements Private Land USDA Forest Service, Northern Region Powell Ranger District Nez Perce Clearwater National Forests Idaho County, Idaho I. Decision
More informationDECISION MEMO Pony Whitebark Pine Planting
Page 1 of 5 DECISION MEMO Pony Whitebark Pine Planting USDA Forest Service Jefferson Ranger District Madison County T2S, R3W, Sections 4 & 9 Background The Pony Fire of 2012 burned 5,157 acres on the (BDNF).
More informationMoonlight Aquatic Organism Passage Project
Notice of Proposed Action Moonlight Aquatic Organism Passage Project Mt. Hough Ranger District Plumas National Forest Plumas County, California Figure 1. Hungry 1 aquatic organism passage outlet showing
More informationBANDIT TIMBER SALE Highlights Iron River Ranger District OTTAWA NATIONAL FOREST The Bandit Timber Sale Area is along the south side of FR 3110, 2.1 mi
BANDIT TIMBER SALE Highlights Iron River Ranger District OTTAWA NATIONAL FOREST The Bandit Timber Sale Area is along the south side of FR 3110, 2.1 miles south of Iron County Highway 436 (Smokey Lake Road),
More informationDECISION MEMO. Non-Commercial Thinning on the Ocala National Forest (PALS project # 39238)
Decision DECISION MEMO Non-Commercial Thinning on the Ocala National Forest (PALS project # 39238) USDA Forest Service Ocala National Forest Lake, Marion, and Putnam County, Florida Based on the analysis
More informationVestal Project Proposed Action Hell Canyon Ranger District Black Hills National Forest April 2011
Vestal Project Proposed Action Hell Canyon Ranger District Black Hills National Forest April 2011 Introduction: The Vestal Project area is located surrounding the city of Custer, South Dakota within Custer
More informationPublic Rock Collection
Public Rock Collection Eagle-Holy Cross Ranger District, White River national Forest Eagle County, Colorado T7S, R80W, Section 18 & T6S, R84W, Section 16 Comments Welcome The Eagle-Holy Cross Ranger District
More information