DOCSLIB.ORG

South Zone Grassland Restoration Project Preliminary Environmental Assessment

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
South Zone Grassland Restoration Project Preliminary Environmental Assessment United States Department of Agriculture South Zone Grassland Restoration Project Preliminary Environmental Assessment Kaibab Williams & Tusayan Forest Service National Forest Ranger Districts August 2016 USDA Non-Discrimination Policy Statement DR 4300.003 USDA Equal Opportunity Public Notification Policy (June 2, 2015) In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident. Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720- 2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other than English. To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form. To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 632- 9992. Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by: (1) mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C. 20250-9410; (2) fax: (202) 690-7442; or (3) email: [email protected]. USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer and lender. SOUTH ZONE GRASSLAND RESTORATION PROJECT Preliminary Environmental Assessment Williams and Tusayan Ranger Districts Kaibab National Forest Coconino and Yavapai Counties, Arizona Lead Agency: USDA Forest Service Responsible Officials: Danelle D. Harrison, District Ranger Williams Ranger District 742 S. Clover Rd Williams, AZ 86046 Christina Pearson, Acting District Ranger Tusayan Ranger District 176 Lincoln Log Loop Grand Canyon, AZ 86023 For Information, Contact: Roger Joos, Wildlife Biologist Williams Ranger District 742 S. Clover Rd Williams, AZ 86046 (928) 635-5600 For Electronic Documents, Visit: http://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=44132 Table of Contents Chapter 1: Project Background and Purpose and Need for Action ...................................................................1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................1 Project Area ............................................................................................................................................................1 Existing and Desired Conditions ............................................................................................................................3 Purpose and Need for Action .................................................................................................................................9 Management Direction ...........................................................................................................................................9 Decision Framework ............................................................................................................................................10 Public Involvement ..............................................................................................................................................10 Issues ....................................................................................................................................................................10 Chapter 2: Proposed Action and Alternatives .....................................................................................................13 Introduction ..........................................................................................................................................................13 Process Used to Develop Alternatives .................................................................................................................13 Alternatives Analyzed in Detail ...........................................................................................................................13 Project Design Criteria and Mitigations ...............................................................................................................31 Monitoring ...........................................................................................................................................................35 Implementation ....................................................................................................................................................38 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study .............................................................................39 Chapter 3: Environmental Effects .......................................................................................................................41 Introduction ..........................................................................................................................................................41 Silviculture ...........................................................................................................................................................41 Fire and Fuels .......................................................................................................................................................52 Wildlife ................................................................................................................................................................61 Soils, Watershed, and Air.....................................................................................................................................72 Cultural Resources .............................................................................................................................................101 Range .................................................................................................................................................................109 Rare Plants .........................................................................................................................................................116 Weeds .................................................................................................................................................................135 Recreation and Visuals .......................................................................................................................................141 Chapter 4: Agencies and Persons Consulted .....................................................................................................151 Cooperating Agencies ........................................................................................................................................151 Interdisciplinary Team .......................................................................................................................................151 Federal, State, and Local Agencies ....................................................................................................................151 Tribal Consultation.............................................................................................................................................151 Other Persons Consulted ....................................................................................................................................153 Literature Cited ....................................................................................................................................................155 Appendix A: Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions ......................................................163 Appendix B: Roads Proposed for Obliteration ..................................................................................................167 If you have special needs for size and color to view details of maps in this document, please contact the Williams Ranger District, Kaibab National Forest, (928) 635-5600. South Zone Grassland Restoration Project Preliminary Environmental Assessment i Chapter 1: Project Background and Purpose and Need for Action Introduction The Williams and Tusayan Ranger Districts (South Zone) of the Kaibab National Forest (KNF) are proposing to implement thinning, prescribed burning, and other activities to restore the structure and function of grassland and pinyon-juniper grassland (also referred to as savanna) ecosystems in an effort to improve these ecosystems’ resilience to disturbance and changing climate regimes. The purpose of this Environmental Assessment (EA) is to analyze the potential effects of activities
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Response of Selected Plants to Fire on White Sands
    Session D—Ecology of Fire on White Sands Missile Range—Boykin Response of Selected Plants to Fire on 1 White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico 2 Kenneth G. Boykin Abstract Little was known about the ecology, impacts, effects, and history of fire related to many plants and communities within White Sands Missile Range. I began by identifying the known aspects and the gaps in knowledge for White Sands Missile Range. I analyzed existing data available for the Installation taken from the Integrated Training and Area Management (ITAM) program for 1988 to 1999. Burn plots were identified at 34 sites with fires occurring sometime within that 11 yr span. Selected plant species were analyzed to identify the response to fire including change in frequency, cover, and structure. Analysis of data indicated varied responses to fire and identified a need for long term monitoring to account for natural variability. Introduction Fire is a major factor influencing the ecology, evolution, and biogeography of many vegetation communities (Humphrey 1974, Ford and McPherson 1996). In the Southwest, semi-desert grasslands and shrublands have evolved with fires caused by lightning strikes (Pyne 1982, Betancourt and others 1990). Fires have maintained grasslands by reducing invading shrubs (Valentine 1971). The impact these fires have on the ecosystem depends not only on current biological and physical environment but also on past land use patterns (Ford and McPherson 1996). Fires impact communities by affecting species diversity, persistence, opportunistic invading species, insects, diseases, and herbivores. Plant species diversity often increases after fires and some communities are dependent on fire to maintain their structure (Jacoby 1998).
    [Show full text]
  • GOOSEBERRYLEAF GLOBEMALLOW Sphaeralcea Grossulariifolia (Hook
    GOOSEBERRYLEAF GLOBEMALLOW Sphaeralcea grossulariifolia (Hook. & Arn.) Rydb. Malvaceae – Mallow family Corey L. Gucker & Nancy L. Shaw | 2018 ORGANIZATION NOMENCLATURE Sphaeralcea grossulariifolia (Hook. & Arn.) Names, subtaxa, chromosome number(s), hybridization. Rydb., hereafter referred to as gooseberryleaf globemallow, belongs to the Malveae tribe of the Malvaceae or mallow family (Kearney 1935; La Duke 2016). Range, habitat, plant associations, elevation, soils. NRCS Plant Code. SPGR2 (USDA NRCS 2017). Subtaxa. The Flora of North America (La Duke 2016) does not recognize any varieties or Life form, morphology, distinguishing characteristics, reproduction. subspecies. Synonyms. Malvastrum coccineum (Nuttall) A. Gray var. grossulariifolium (Hooker & Arnott) Growth rate, successional status, disturbance ecology, importance to animals/people. Torrey, M. grossulariifolium (Hooker & Arnott) A. Gray, Sida grossulariifolia Hooker & Arnott, Sphaeralcea grossulariifolia subsp. pedata Current or potential uses in restoration. (Torrey ex A. Gray) Kearney, S. grossulariifolia var. pedata (Torrey ex A. Gray) Kearney, S. pedata Torrey ex A. Gray (La Duke 2016). Seed sourcing, wildland seed collection, seed cleaning, storage, Common Names. Gooseberryleaf globemallow, testing and marketing standards. current-leaf globemallow (La Duke 2016). Chromosome Number. Chromosome number is stable, 2n = 20, and plants are diploid (La Duke Recommendations/guidelines for producing seed. 2016). Hybridization. Hybridization occurs within the Sphaeralcea genus.
    [Show full text]
  • A Reciprocal Transplant Experiment with Winterfat (Krascheninnikovia Lanata) Melanie Barnes
    University of New Mexico UNM Digital Repository Biology ETDs Electronic Theses and Dissertations 12-1-2009 The effect of plant source location on restoration success: a reciprocal transplant experiment with winterfat (Krascheninnikovia lanata) Melanie Barnes Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalrepository.unm.edu/biol_etds Recommended Citation Barnes, Melanie. "The effect of plant source location on restoration success: a reciprocal transplant experiment with winterfat (Krascheninnikovia lanata)." (2009). https://digitalrepository.unm.edu/biol_etds/4 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Electronic Theses and Dissertations at UNM Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Biology ETDs by an authorized administrator of UNM Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The effect of plant source location on restoration success: a reciprocal transplant experiment with winterfat (Krascheninnikovia lanata) BY Melanie G. Barnes B.A., Biology, Reed College, 2001 DISSERTATION Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy Biology The University of New Mexico Albuquerque, New Mexico December, 2009 DEDICATION In memory of my mother, Georgene Grace Barnes. The completion of this dissertation is also dedicated to my friends and family who have supported me in this endeavor and who taught me many things about life that gave me the perspective I needed to complete this work. I would like to thank Heather Simpson, Jerusha Reynolds, Terri Koontz, Nathan Abrahamson, Jeremy Barlow, Brittany Barker, Laura Calabrese, Jennifer Hollis, Maureen Peters, Helen Barnes, and Tom Barnes. Finally, I want to thank Lisa for her love and emotional support; it means the world to me.
    [Show full text]
  • Food Habits of Rodents Inhabiting Arid and Semi-Arid Ecosystems of Central New Mexico." (2007)
    University of New Mexico UNM Digital Repository Special Publications Museum of Southwestern Biology 5-10-2007 Food Habits of Rodents Inhabiting Arid and Semi- arid Ecosystems of Central New Mexico Andrew G. Hope Robert R. Parmenter Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalrepository.unm.edu/msb_special_publications Recommended Citation Hope, Andrew G. and Robert R. Parmenter. "Food Habits of Rodents Inhabiting Arid and Semi-arid Ecosystems of Central New Mexico." (2007). https://digitalrepository.unm.edu/msb_special_publications/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Museum of Southwestern Biology at UNM Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Special Publications by an authorized administrator of UNM Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. SPECIAL PUBLICATION OF THE MUSEUM OF SOUTHWESTERN BIOLOGY NUMBER 9, pp. 1–75 10 May 2007 Food Habits of Rodents Inhabiting Arid and Semi-arid Ecosystems of Central New Mexico ANDREW G. HOPE AND ROBERT R. PARMENTER1 Special Publication of the Museum of Southwestern Biology 1 CONTENTS Abstract................................................................................................................................................ 5 Introduction ......................................................................................................................................... 5 Study Sites ..........................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Open Space Master Plan for Louisville Owned Parcels
    CITY OF LOUISVILLE OPEN SPACE MASTER PLAN covering the following properties: AQUARIUS CTC DAUGHENBAUGH DAVIDSON MESA LAKE PARK NORTH TAMARISK WAREMBOURG LEON A. WURL WILDLIFE SANCTUARY MISCELLANEOUS January 2004 City of Louisville Department of Land Management and Louisville Open Space Citizens Advisory Board TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF MAPS ...............................................................................................................................2 SUMMARY.....................................................................................................................................3 CLASSIFICATION SUMMARY CHART OF OPEN SPACE LANDS........................................4 1.0 INTRODUCTION ..............................................................................................................5 1.1 Report Organization.................................................................................................6 2.0 RELEVANT GOALS AND POLICIES..............................................................................6 3.0 MANAGEMENT GOALS AND PROTOCOL ..................................................................6 4.0 LANDSCAPE SETTING AND PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS.................................8 4.1 Location ....................................................................................................................8 4.2 Climate ......................................................................................................................9 4.3 Topography...............................................................................................................9
    [Show full text]
  • Supplemental Botany Report
    United States Department of Agriculture Supplemental Botany Forest Service Specialist Report Southwestern Region November 2013 Coconino Forest Plan Revision DEIS Submitted by: __/s/ _________________________ Debra L. Crisp. Forest Botanist Coconino NF Botany Specialist Report Coconino NF 12/9/2013 5:05 PM The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination against its customers, employees, and applicants for employment on the bases of race, color, national origin, age, disability, sex, gender identity, religion, reprisal, and where applicable, political beliefs, marital status, familial or parental status, sexual orientation, or all or part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program, or protected genetic information in employment or in any program or activity conducted or funded by the Department. (Not all prohibited bases will apply to all programs and/or employment activities. i Botany Specialist Report Coconino NF 12/9/2013 5:05 PM Preface The information in this specialist report reflects analysis that was completed prior to and in conjunction with the completion of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the revision of the 1987 Coconino National Forest Land Management Plan (the Plan). The primary purpose of specialist reports associated with the DEIS is to provide detailed information to assist in the preparation of the DEIS. As the DEIS was prepared, review-driven edits to the broader DEIS resulted in modifications to some of the information contained in some of the specialist reports. As a result, some reports no longer contain information and analysis that was updated through an interdisciplinary review process and is included in the DEIS in its entirety.
    [Show full text]
  • Winterfat Tested Class of Natural Germplasm
    UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE BRIDGER, MONTANA and MONTANA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION BOZEMAN, MONTANA and WYOMING AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION LARAMIE, WYOMING NOTICE OF RELEASE OF OPEN RANGE WINTERFAT TESTED CLASS OF NATURAL GERMPLASM The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Montana and Wyoming Agricultural Experiment Stations announce the release of a ‘Tested Class Germplasm’ of winterfat (Krascheninnikovia lanata [Pursh] Guldenstaedt, syn. Ceratoides lanata [Pursh] J.T. Howell, syn. Eurotia lanata [Pursh] Moq.), a low growing, shrub, native to the northern Great Plains and Intermountain Desertic Basin. Winterfat has also been referred to as whitesage, lambstail, or sweetsage. This release was evaluated and selected by the USDA-NRCS Plant Materials Center (PMC) at Bridger, Montana. Collection Site Information: Open Range Tested Class Germplasm of winterfat is a composite of three accessions: 9039363 collected near Terry, Montana (Custer County), by D. Grandbois (1985), 9039365 collected near Bridger, Montana (Carbon County), by B. Thompson (1985), and 9039416 collected near Rawlins, Wyoming (Carbon County), by R. Baumgartner (1985). Description: The Open Range release is typical of the species, having the same general morphological and physiological characteristics. Winterfat is a half-shrub measuring 0.3 to 0.75 meters (1.0 to 2.5 ft.) tall. From a woody base, the plants produce numerous erect, annual branches. The stems and leaves are covered with soft, woolly hairs that give the plants a whitish to gray-green appearance. The sessile to short-petioled, lanceolate leaves have enrolled edges and persist through the winter season. The plants are monoecious.
    [Show full text]
  • Arizona Rare Plant Advisory Group Sensitive Plant List -June 2014
    ARIZONA RARE PLANT ADVISORY GROUP SENSITIVE PLANT LIST -JUNE 2014 •.. -e 'I"': ~ ~ •.. ·s o 0 .g o rn u rn '•".. ..>: ::s ~ ~ ~ 0"' tU I': ~ ~ Z ..•.. ~ '" u ::... 0 ~ E 0 u -; •.. is '5 rn 0 0 ~ ;::l ~ "g u d iL< ..>: ~ 0 •.. ~ s •.... "B .. § 0 ; 0 ~ ~ U ~ il< < ~ E-< ~ VERY HIGH CONCERN Agave delamateri Hodgs. & Slauson Asparagaceae w.e L Tonto Basin Agave 7 7 7 c Asparagaceae Agave phillipsiana w.e Hodgs wand Canvon Centurv Plant 7 7 7 nc Aotragalus crt!mnophylax uar: crt!mnophylax Bameby Fabaceae Sentrv Milk-vetch 7 8 7.5 c AOfragalus holmgreniomm Bameby Fabaceae Holmgren (Paradox) Milk-vetch 7 7 7 c Orobanchaceae Castilleja mogollonica PeJ2lJell Mogollon Paintbrush 7 8 7.5 Lv c Apiaceae Eryngium sparganophyllum HemsL Ribbonleaf Button Snakeroot 6 8 7 v? nc Lotus meamsii var. equisolensis].L Anderson Fabaccae Horseshoe Deer Vetch 6 8 7 nc Cactaceae Pediacactus brat!Ji L Benson Brady Pincushion Cactus 7 7 7 c Boraginaceae Phacelia cronquistiana S.L Wel,.h Cronquist's Phacelia 7 8 7.5 nc PotClltil1a arizona Greene Rosaceae Arizone Cinquefoil 6 8 7 nc Sphaeralcea gierischii N.D. Atwood & S.L Welsh Malvaceae Gierisch globemallow 7 7 7 nc HIGH CONCERN Ranunculaceae Actaea arizonica (S. Watson) J. Compton Arizona Buzbane 6 6 6 c Agave murpheyi F. Gibson Asparagaeeae Hohokam Agave 6 6 6 c Asnaragaceae Agave yavapaiensis Yavapai Agave 6 7 6.5 ne Aletes macdougalli ssp. macdougaftiJM. Coulto & Rose Apiaceae MacDougal's Indian parsley 6 6 6 nc Alide/la cliffordii J.M. Potter Polernoniaceae Clifford's Gilia 5 7 6 nc Antic/ea vaginata Rydb.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix C: Vegetation Management Biozones See District-Specific Posters for More Detailed Biozone Location Information
    Appendix C: Vegetation Management Biozones See District-specific posters for more detailed biozone location information. The following pages give details on each biozone. Contact Roadside Resources to receive a biozone poster if your office does not have one available. 59 CONIFER FOREST • Needleleaf evergreen trees dominate in this biozone • Ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa) is the most common tree species, occurring at the lower elevations • Occasionally found at the lower elevations are the deciduous trees Gambel oak (Quercus gambelii) and New Mexico locust (Robinia neomexicana). • The most common mid- elevation conifer is Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii). • Engelmann spruce (Picea engelmannii) and other spruces are found at the higher elevations of the conifer forest. Temperature • Quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides) fills a 100 niche role in vegetational succession, appearing after fire or other forest 80 disturbance 60 Average Maximum Temperature (F) • Shrubs, grasses, and forbs are not common 40 in the understory, but may occur in natural Average Minimum Temperature (F) openings and at the edge of the forest 20 Freezing (F) • Mountain slopes, high plateaus, as well as 0 canyons, support conifer forest vegetation Jan Oct Apr Feb July Dec Aug Nov Mar May Sept • Soils found within this biozone include June Month andesite, basalt, granite, limestone, and Precipitation sandstone 25 • Elevations range from 3,900 to 8,300 feet • Summer precipitation (July, August, 20 Average Total September) accounts for nearly half of the Precipitation
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 126 / Friday, June 30, 1995 / Proposed Rules 34225
    Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 126 / Friday, June 30, 1995 / Proposed Rules 34225 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR northwest portion of the North Slope. ACTION: Notice of candidate species Recent surveys suggest the species no reclassification. Fish and Wildlife Service longer nests in certain areas in which it originally occurred on the North Slope. SUMMARY: In this document, the U.S. 50 CFR Part 17 Factors causing the decline of the Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) RIN: 1018±AC19 species and the contraction of its provides explanation for changes in the breeding range in Alaska are not known. candidate status of 32 species of plants Endangered and Threatened Wildlife Due to the reduction in numbers and and animals that are under review for and Plants; Reopening of Comment contraction of the species' breeding possible addition to the List of Period on Proposed Threatened Status range in Alaska, the Service believes Endangered and Threatened Wildlife for the Alaska Breeding Population of that the remaining population of and Plants (List) under the Endangered the Steller's Eider Steller's eiders is increasingly Species Act (Act) of 1973, as amended. vulnerable to extirpation. The changes for which explanation is AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, provided in this document were Interior. On July 14, 1994, the Service published a proposed rule (59 FR 35896; previously published for 20 plants in ACTION: Extension of proposed rule; July 1, 1994) to list the Alaska breeding the 1993 Plant Notice of Review and for reopening of comment period. population of Steller's eiders as 12 animals in the 1994 Animal Notice of Review.
    [Show full text]
  • Red Gap Ranch Biological Resource Evaluation
    RED GAP RANCH BIOLOGICAL RESOURCE EVALUATION Prepared for: Southwest Ground-water Consultants, Inc. Prepared by: WestLand Resources, Inc. Date: February 14, 2014 Project No.: 1822.01 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES ................................................................................................ 1 2. EXISTING ENVIRONMENT AND BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ................................................... 2 2.1. Approach ...................................................................................................................................... 2 2.2. Physical Environment ................................................................................................................... 2 2.3. Biological Environment and Resources ....................................................................................... 3 3. SCREENING ANALYSIS FOR SPECIES OF CONCERN ................................................................ 5 3.1. Approach ...................................................................................................................................... 5 3.2. Screening Analysis Results .......................................................................................................... 7 3.2.1. USFWS-listed Species ...................................................................................................... 7 3.2.2. USFS Coconino National Forest Sensitive Species ........................................................ 15 3.2.3. USFS Management Indicator Species ............................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix a Figure 1: Diameter Distributions-East Fork Units
    Appendix A Figure 1: Diameter Distributions-East Fork Units East Fork Control Unit East Fork Goshawk Guidelines Unit East Fork Evidence-based Ecological Restoration Unit Figure 2: Diameter Distributions-Redondo Units Redondo Control Unit Redondo Goshawk Guidelines Unit Redondo Evidence-based Ecological Restoration Unit Figure 3: FlamMap Simulated Crown Fire Behavior: East Fork Project Area 20 mph Southwest Wind 25 mph 30 mph 35 mph 40 mph Map Legend Crown Fire Activity N No crown fire Passive crown activity fire (torching) Active crown fire (spreading) Important Note: Expected Crown Fire Behavior by Percent The 97th percentile of low fuel of Project Area moistures for June from 34 No Crown Passive years of data from the Kaibab Fire Crown Fire Active National Forest, Arizona were used in all simulations. This Windspeed Activity (torching) Crown Fire 20 79.9 0.9 19.2 input represents potential 25 71.2 1.9 26.9 extremes of fire weather during the peak of the fire 30 64.9 2.9 32.3 season, not average fire 35 57.3 4.7 38.0 season conditions. 40 48.7 9.4 42.0 Figure 4: FlamMap Simulated Crown Fire Behavior: Redondo Project Area 20 mph Southwest Wind 25 mph 30 mph 35 mph 40 mph Map Legend Crown Fire Activity N Highway 4 Valles Caldera No crown fire Passive crown activity entrance road fire (torching) Active crown fire (spreading) Important Note: Expected Crown Fire Behavior by Percent The 97th percentile of low fuel of Project Area moistures for June from 34 Passive years of data from the Kaibab No Crown Crown Fire Active Crown National Forest, Arizona were Windspeed Fire Activity (torching) Fire used in all simulations.
    [Show full text]