DOCSLIB.ORG

Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Integrated Treatment of Noxious

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Integrated Treatment of Noxious United States Department of Agriculture Final Environmental Impact Forest Service Statement for Integrated Southwestern Region Treatment of Noxious or Invasive Weeds Coconino, Kaibab, and Prescott National Forests within Coconino, Gila, Mojave, and Yavapai Counties, Arizona The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or family status. (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) 720-2600 (voice and TTY). To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326- W, Whitten Building, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (202) 720-5964 (voice and TTY). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. Printed on recycled paper • January 2005 Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Integrated Treatment of Noxious or Invasive Weeds Coconino, Kaibab, and Prescott National Forests within Coconino, Gila, Mojave, and Yavapai Counties, Arizona Lead Agency: USDA Forest Service Responsible Officials: Nora B. Rasure, Forest Supervisor Coconino National Forest 1824 S. Thompson St. Flagstaff, AZ 86001 Michael R. Williams, Forest Supervisor Kaibab National Forest 800 S. 6th Street Williams, AZ 86046 Michael R. King, Forest Supervisor Prescott National Forest 344 South Cortez Street Prescott, AZ 86303-4398 For Information Contact: Charles F. Ernst 800 South 6th Street Williams, AZ 86046 Abstract: The Coconino, Kaibab, and Prescott National Forests propose to implement a control program for noxious or invasive weeds within central Arizona. Alternative 1 is the Proposed Action; Alternative 2 is the No Action; Alternative 3 has no herbicidal weed treatments; and Alternative 4 is the Agency‘s preferred alternative with less herbicidal use than the Proposed Action. Map 1-1. Location map Contents Summary ............................................................................................................................ 1 Proposed Action........................................................................................................................................ 1 Purpose and Need ..................................................................................................................................... 1 Decision to be Made ................................................................................................................................. 1 Public Involvement ................................................................................................................................... 2 Issues ........................................................................................................................................................ 3 Alternatives ............................................................................................................................................... 3 Proposed Action – Alternative 1 ...................................................................................................... 3 No Action – Alternative 2 ................................................................................................................ 4 No Herbicide Alternative – Alternative 3 ........................................................................................ 4 Preferred Alternative – Alternative 4 ............................................................................................... 4 Summary of Potential Environmental Impacts ......................................................................................... 5 Watersheds, Vegetation, Special Designation Areas, and Weeds .................................................... 5 Endangered, Threatened, Candidate, Sensitive, and Management Indicator Plant Species ............ 5 Endangered, Threatened, Proposed, Candidate and Sensitive Fish Species .................................... 6 Endangered, Threatened, Proposed, Candidate, Sensitive and Management Indicator Wildlife Species ............................................................................................................................................. 7 Public Health, Access to Vital Services, Forest Service Recreation Sites, and Plant Collection .... 7 Agency Preferred Alternative ................................................................................................................... 8 Chapter 1 - Purpose of and Need for Action .................................................................. 9 Introduction .............................................................................................................................................. 9 Background ..............................................................................................................................................10 Purpose of and Need for Action ..............................................................................................................12 Weed Definitions and Regulations ..................................................................................................13 Proposed Action.......................................................................................................................................14 Management Direction ............................................................................................................................18 Tiering .............................................................................................................................................19 Permits and Agency Approvals Required .......................................................................................20 Decision Framework ................................................................................................................................20 Public Involvement ..................................................................................................................................21 Issues .......................................................................................................................................................22 Issue 1 .............................................................................................................................................23 Issue 2 .............................................................................................................................................23 Issue 3 .............................................................................................................................................24 Chapter 2 – Alternatives Including the Proposed Action .......................................... 25 Introduction .............................................................................................................................................25 Alternatives Considered in Detail ............................................................................................................25 Alternative 1: Proposed Action .......................................................................................................25 Alternative 2: No Action .................................................................................................................26 Alternative 3: No Herbicide ............................................................................................................26 Alternative 4: Preferred ...................................................................................................................26 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study ................................................................27 Integrated Weed Treatment Strategy .......................................................................................................28 Manual Control ...............................................................................................................................30 Mechanical Control .........................................................................................................................30 Cultural Control ..............................................................................................................................31 Final Environmental Impact Statement for Integrated Treatment of Noxious or Invasive Weeds i Contents Biological Control ...........................................................................................................................31 Herbicide Control ............................................................................................................................33 Consistency with the Coconino, Kaibab, and Prescott National Forests Plans ........................................38 Agency Preferred Alternative ..........................................................................................................38 Summary Comparison of Alternatives .....................................................................................................38 Chapter 3 - Affected Environment ................................................................................ 49 Introduction .............................................................................................................................................49
Load more

Recommended publications
  • IMBCR Report
    Integrated Monitoring in Bird Conservation Regions (IMBCR): 2015 Field Season Report June 2016 Bird Conservancy of the Rockies 14500 Lark Bunting Lane Brighton, CO 80603 303-659-4348 www.birdconservancy.org Tech. Report # SC-IMBCR-06 Bird Conservancy of the Rockies Connecting people, birds and land Mission: Conserving birds and their habitats through science, education and land stewardship Vision: Native bird populations are sustained in healthy ecosystems Bird Conservancy of the Rockies conserves birds and their habitats through an integrated approach of science, education and land stewardship. Our work radiates from the Rockies to the Great Plains, Mexico and beyond. Our mission is advanced through sound science, achieved through empowering people, realized through stewardship and sustained through partnerships. Together, we are improving native bird populations, the land and the lives of people. Core Values: 1. Science provides the foundation for effective bird conservation. 2. Education is critical to the success of bird conservation. 3. Stewardship of birds and their habitats is a shared responsibility. Goals: 1. Guide conservation action where it is needed most by conducting scientifically rigorous monitoring and research on birds and their habitats within the context of their full annual cycle. 2. Inspire conservation action in people by developing relationships through community outreach and science-based, experiential education programs. 3. Contribute to bird population viability and help sustain working lands by partnering with landowners and managers to enhance wildlife habitat. 4. Promote conservation and inform land management decisions by disseminating scientific knowledge and developing tools and recommendations. Suggested Citation: White, C. M., M. F. McLaren, N. J.
    [Show full text]
  • Interior Columbia Basin Mollusk Species of Special Concern
    Deixis l-4 consultants INTERIOR COLUMl3lA BASIN MOLLUSK SPECIES OF SPECIAL CONCERN cryptomasfix magnidenfata (Pilsbly, 1940), x7.5 FINAL REPORT Contract #43-OEOO-4-9112 Prepared for: INTERIOR COLUMBIA BASIN ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT PROJECT 112 East Poplar Street Walla Walla, WA 99362 TERRENCE J. FREST EDWARD J. JOHANNES January 15, 1995 2517 NE 65th Street Seattle, WA 98115-7125 ‘(206) 527-6764 INTERIOR COLUMBIA BASIN MOLLUSK SPECIES OF SPECIAL CONCERN Terrence J. Frest & Edward J. Johannes Deixis Consultants 2517 NE 65th Street Seattle, WA 98115-7125 (206) 527-6764 January 15,1995 i Each shell, each crawling insect holds a rank important in the plan of Him who framed This scale of beings; holds a rank, which lost Would break the chain and leave behind a gap Which Nature’s self wcuid rue. -Stiiiingfieet, quoted in Tryon (1882) The fast word in ignorance is the man who says of an animal or plant: “what good is it?” If the land mechanism as a whole is good, then every part is good, whether we understand it or not. if the biota in the course of eons has built something we like but do not understand, then who but a fool would discard seemingly useless parts? To keep every cog and wheel is the first rule of intelligent tinkering. -Aido Leopold Put the information you have uncovered to beneficial use. -Anonymous: fortune cookie from China Garden restaurant, Seattle, WA in this “business first” society that we have developed (and that we maintain), the promulgators and pragmatic apologists who favor a “single crop” approach, to enable a continuous “harvest” from the natural system that we have decimated in the name of profits, jobs, etc., are fairfy easy to find.
    [Show full text]
  • Table of Contents
    TABLEGUIDELINES OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 12: CONTACT INFORMATION AND MAPS 12.1 ADOT CONTACT INFORMATION……………………………………………….......122 12.2 BLM CONTACT INFORMATION…………………………………………………......123 12.3 USFS CONTACT INFORMATION………………………………………………….....124 12.4 FHWA CONTACT INFORMATION…………………………………………………....130 12.5 GIS INFORMATION..............................................................................................131 12.6 MAPS...................................................................................................................132 121 12.1 ADOT CONTACT INFORMATION ADOT web link azdot.gov/ ADOT maps azdot.gov/maps General Information 602-712-7355 OFFICE ADOT DIRECTOR 602.712.7227 Deputy Director of Transportation 602.712.7391 Deputy Director of Policy 602.712.7550 Deputy Director of Business Operations 602.712.7228 Multimodal Planning Division (MPD) Director 602.712.7431 MPD Planning and Programming Director 602.712.8140 MPD Planning and Environmental Linkages Manager 602.712.4574 Infrastructure Delivery and Operations Division (IDO) 602.712.7391 State Engineer, Sr. Deputy State Engineer and Deputy State Engineer Offices 602.712.7391 DISTRICT ENGINEERS Northcentral azdot.gov/business/district-contacts/northcentral 928.774.1491 Northeast azdot.gov/business/district-contacts/northeast 928.524.5400 Central Construction District azdot.gov/business/district-contacts/central 602.712.8965 Central Maintenance District azdot.gov/business/district-contacts/central 602.712.6664 Northwest azdot.gov/business/district-contacts/northwest 928.777.5861
    [Show full text]
  • Grand Canyon
    ALT ALT To 389 To 389 To Jacob Lake, 89 To 89 K and South Rim a n a b Unpaved roads are impassable when wet. C Road closed r KAIBAB NATIONAL FOREST e in winter e K k L EA O N R O O B K NY O A E U C C N T E N C 67 I A H M N UT E Y SO N K O O A N House Rock Y N N A Buffalo Ranch B A KANAB PLATEAU C C E A L To St. George, Utah N B Y Kaibab Lodge R Mount Trumbull O A N KAIBAB M 8028ft De Motte C 2447m (USFS) O er GR C o Riv AN T PLATEAU K HUNDRED AND FIFTY MIL lorad ITE ap S NAVAJO E Co N eat C A s C Y RR C N O OW ree S k M INDIAN GRAND CANYON NATIONAL PARK B T Steamboat U Great Thumb Point Mountain C RESERVATION K 6749ft 7422ft U GREAT THUMB 2057m 2262m P Chikapanagi Point MESA C North Rim A 5889ft E N G Entrance Station 1795m M Y 1880ft FOSSIL R 8824ft O Mount Sinyala O U 573m G A k TUCKUP N 5434ft BAY Stanton Point e 2690m V re POINT 1656m 6311ft E U C SB T A C k 1924m I E e C N AT A e The Dome POINT A PL N r o L Y Holy Grail l 5486ft R EL Point Imperial C o Tuweep G W O Temple r 1672m PO N Nankoweap a p d H E o wea Mesa A L nko o V a Mooney D m N 6242ft A ID Mount Emma S Falls u 1903m U M n 7698ft i Havasu Falls h 2346m k TOROWEAP er C Navajo Falls GORGE S e v A Vista e i ITE r Kwagunt R VALLEY R N N Supai Falls A Encantada C iv o Y R nt Butte W d u e a O G g lor Supai 2159ft Unpaved roads are North Rim wa 6377ft r o N K h C Reservations required.
    [Show full text]
  • 2010 Npr Annual Report About | 02
    2010 NPR ANNUAL REPORT ABOUT | 02 NPR NEWS | 03 NPR PROGRAMS | 06 TABLE OF CONTENTS NPR MUSIC | 08 NPR DIGITAL MEDIA | 10 NPR AUDIENCE | 12 NPR FINANCIALS | 14 NPR CORPORATE TEAM | 16 NPR BOARD OF DIRECTORS | 17 NPR TRUSTEES | 18 NPR AWARDS | 19 NPR MEMBER STATIONS | 20 NPR CORPORATE SPONSORS | 25 ENDNOTES | 28 In a year of audience highs, new programming partnerships with NPR Member Stations, and extraordinary journalism, NPR held firm to the journalistic standards and excellence that have been hallmarks of the organization since our founding. It was a year of re-doubled focus on our primary goal: to be an essential news source and public service to the millions of individuals who make public radio part of their daily lives. We’ve learned from our challenges and remained firm in our commitment to fact-based journalism and cultural offerings that enrich our nation. We thank all those who make NPR possible. 2010 NPR ANNUAL REPORT | 02 NPR NEWS While covering the latest developments in each day’s news both at home and abroad, NPR News remained dedicated to delving deeply into the most crucial stories of the year. © NPR 2010 by John Poole The Grand Trunk Road is one of South Asia’s oldest and longest major roads. For centuries, it has linked the eastern and western regions of the Indian subcontinent, running from Bengal, across north India, into Peshawar, Pakistan. Horses, donkeys, and pedestrians compete with huge trucks, cars, motorcycles, rickshaws, and bicycles along the highway, a commercial route that is dotted with areas of activity right off the road: truck stops, farmer’s stands, bus stops, and all kinds of commercial activity.
    [Show full text]
  • BOLLETTINO DELLA SOCIETÀ ENTOMOLOGICA ITALIANA Non-Commercial Use Only
    BOLL.ENTOMOL_150_2_cover.qxp_Layout 1 07/09/18 07:42 Pagina a Poste Italiane S.p.A. ISSN 0373-3491 Spedizione in Abbonamento Postale - 70% DCB Genova BOLLETTINO DELLA SOCIETÀ ENTOMOLOGICA only ITALIANA use Volume 150 Fascicolo II maggio-agosto 2018Non-commercial 31 agosto 2018 SOCIETÀ ENTOMOLOGICA ITALIANA via Brigata Liguria 9 Genova BOLL.ENTOMOL_150_2_cover.qxp_Layout 1 07/09/18 07:42 Pagina b SOCIETÀ ENTOMOLOGICA ITALIANA Sede di Genova, via Brigata Liguria, 9 presso il Museo Civico di Storia Naturale n Consiglio Direttivo 2018-2020 Presidente: Francesco Pennacchio Vice Presidente: Roberto Poggi Segretario: Davide Badano Amministratore/Tesoriere: Giulio Gardini Bibliotecario: Antonio Rey only Direttore delle Pubblicazioni: Pier Mauro Giachino Consiglieri: Alberto Alma, Alberto Ballerio,use Andrea Battisti, Marco A. Bologna, Achille Casale, Marco Dellacasa, Loris Galli, Gianfranco Liberti, Bruno Massa, Massimo Meregalli, Luciana Tavella, Stefano Zoia Revisori dei Conti: Enrico Gallo, Sergio Riese, Giuliano Lo Pinto Revisori dei Conti supplenti: Giovanni Tognon, Marco Terrile Non-commercial n Consulenti Editoriali PAOLO AUDISIO (Roma) - EMILIO BALLETTO (Torino) - MAURIZIO BIONDI (L’Aquila) - MARCO A. BOLOGNA (Roma) PIETRO BRANDMAYR (Cosenza) - ROMANO DALLAI (Siena) - MARCO DELLACASA (Calci, Pisa) - ERNST HEISS (Innsbruck) - MANFRED JÄCH (Wien) - FRANCO MASON (Verona) - LUIGI MASUTTI (Padova) - MASSIMO MEREGALLI (Torino) - ALESSANDRO MINELLI (Padova)- IGNACIO RIBERA (Barcelona) - JOSÉ M. SALGADO COSTAS (Leon) - VALERIO SBORDONI (Roma) - BARBARA KNOFLACH-THALER (Innsbruck) - STEFANO TURILLAZZI (Firenze) - ALBERTO ZILLI (Londra) - PETER ZWICK (Schlitz). ISSN 0373-3491 BOLLETTINO DELLA SOCIETÀ ENTOMOLOGICA ITALIANA only use Fondata nel 1869 - Eretta a Ente Morale con R. Decreto 28 Maggio 1936 Volume 150 Fascicolo II maggio-agosto 2018Non-commercial 31 agosto 2018 REGISTRATO PRESSO IL TRIBUNALE DI GENOVA AL N.
    [Show full text]
  • Integrated Noxious Weed Management Plan: US Air Force Academy and Farish Recreation Area, El Paso County, CO
    Integrated Noxious Weed Management Plan US Air Force Academy and Farish Recreation Area August 2015 CNHP’s mission is to preserve the natural diversity of life by contributing the essential scientific foundation that leads to lasting conservation of Colorado's biological wealth. Colorado Natural Heritage Program Warner College of Natural Resources Colorado State University 1475 Campus Delivery Fort Collins, CO 80523 (970) 491-7331 Report Prepared for: United States Air Force Academy Department of Natural Resources Recommended Citation: Smith, P., S. S. Panjabi, and J. Handwerk. 2015. Integrated Noxious Weed Management Plan: US Air Force Academy and Farish Recreation Area, El Paso County, CO. Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado. Front Cover: Documenting weeds at the US Air Force Academy. Photos courtesy of the Colorado Natural Heritage Program © Integrated Noxious Weed Management Plan US Air Force Academy and Farish Recreation Area El Paso County, CO Pam Smith, Susan Spackman Panjabi, and Jill Handwerk Colorado Natural Heritage Program Warner College of Natural Resources Colorado State University Fort Collins, Colorado 80523 August 2015 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Various federal, state, and local laws, ordinances, orders, and policies require land managers to control noxious weeds. The purpose of this plan is to provide a guide to manage, in the most efficient and effective manner, the noxious weeds on the US Air Force Academy (Academy) and Farish Recreation Area (Farish) over the next 10 years (through 2025), in accordance with their respective integrated natural resources management plans. This plan pertains to the “natural” portions of the Academy and excludes highly developed areas, such as around buildings, recreation fields, and lawns.
    [Show full text]
  • Biological Control of Yellow Starthistle
    Biological Control of Yellow Starthistle Lincoln Smith, USDA-ARS-WRRC, 800 Buchanan St, Albany CA 94710 Joe Balciunas, USDA-ARS-WRRC, 800 Buchanan St, Albany CA 94710 Michael J. Pitcairn, California Dept. of Food and Agriculture, 3288 Meadowview Road, Sacramento, CA 95832 Yellow starthistle (Centaurea solstitialis L.) is an alien plant that probably originated from the eastern Mediterranean. It was first collected in California in 1869, and now infests 42% of the state’s townships. It interferes with land use such as grazing and recreation, displaces native species, and is toxic to horses (Sheley, et al. 1999 and papers cited therein). This weed is much less invasive in its land of origin. This is presumably because natural enemies, such as insects, plant diseases, animals or competing plants help to keep it under natural control. We are exploring for insects and pathogens that attack this plant. They are tested for host specificity to make sure they do not attack other plants. After evaluation and approval by state and federal agencies, these agents will be released to try to reestablish the natural control that occurs in the land of origin. So far, six species of insect biological control agents have been introduced to control yellow starthistle (Turner et al. 1995; Rees et al. 1996; Jette, et al. 1999). All six attack the seedheads. The most promising agent is the hairy weevil (Eustenopus villosus), which is well established in California and occurs in high densities, attacking 25 to 80% of seedheads. Adults damage young flower buds by feeding on them, and lay eggs on later-developing flower buds.
    [Show full text]
  • Population Buildup and Combined Impact of Introduced Insects on Yellow Starthistle (Centaurea Solstitialis L.) in California
    Proceedings of the X International Symposium on Biological Control of Weeds 747 4-14 July 1999, Montana State University, Bozeman, Montana, USA Neal R. Spencer [ed.]. pp. 747-751 (2000) Population Buildup and Combined Impact of Introduced Insects on Yellow Starthistle (Centaurea solstitialis L.) in California MICHAEL J. PITCAIRN1, DALE. M. WOODS1, DONALD. B. JOLEY1, CHARLES E. TURNER2, and JOSEPH K. BALCIUNAS2 1California Department of Food and Agriculture, Biological Control Program, 3288 Meadowview Road, Sacramento, California 95832, USA 2United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, 800 Buchanan Street, Albany, California 94710, USA Abstract Seven exotic seed head insects have been introduced into the western United States for control of yellow starthistle. Six are established; three are widespread. Preliminary evaluations suggest that no one insect species will be able to reduce yellow starthistle abundance in California. Rather, a combination of the current, and possibly, future natu- ral enemies may be necessary. Studies were initiated in 1993 to evaluate the population buildup, combined impact, and interaction of all available biological control insects on yellow starthistle. Three field sites were established in different climatic regions where yellow starthistle is abundant. Four insects, Bangasternus orientalis, Urophora sirunase- va, Eustenopus villosus, and Larinus curtus, were released at each site in 1993 and 1994 and long-term monitoring was initiated. The accidentally-introduced insect, Chaetorellia succinea, was recovered in 1996-98 at these sites. Four years after the first releases, we have evidence that these biological control agents are having an impact on yellow starthistle seed production that may translate into a decline in mature plant populations.
    [Show full text]
  • Table 7 - National Wilderness Areas by State
    Table 7 - National Wilderness Areas by State * Unit is in two or more States ** Acres estimated pending final boundary determination + Special Area that is part of a proclaimed National Forest State National Wilderness Area NFS Other Total Unit Name Acreage Acreage Acreage Alabama Cheaha Wilderness Talladega National Forest 7,400 0 7,400 Dugger Mountain Wilderness** Talladega National Forest 9,048 0 9,048 Sipsey Wilderness William B. Bankhead National Forest 25,770 83 25,853 Alabama Totals 42,218 83 42,301 Alaska Chuck River Wilderness 74,876 520 75,396 Coronation Island Wilderness Tongass National Forest 19,118 0 19,118 Endicott River Wilderness Tongass National Forest 98,396 0 98,396 Karta River Wilderness Tongass National Forest 39,917 7 39,924 Kootznoowoo Wilderness Tongass National Forest 979,079 21,741 1,000,820 FS-administered, outside NFS bdy 0 654 654 Kuiu Wilderness Tongass National Forest 60,183 15 60,198 Maurille Islands Wilderness Tongass National Forest 4,814 0 4,814 Misty Fiords National Monument Wilderness Tongass National Forest 2,144,010 235 2,144,245 FS-administered, outside NFS bdy 0 15 15 Petersburg Creek-Duncan Salt Chuck Wilderness Tongass National Forest 46,758 0 46,758 Pleasant/Lemusurier/Inian Islands Wilderness Tongass National Forest 23,083 41 23,124 FS-administered, outside NFS bdy 0 15 15 Russell Fjord Wilderness Tongass National Forest 348,626 63 348,689 South Baranof Wilderness Tongass National Forest 315,833 0 315,833 South Etolin Wilderness Tongass National Forest 82,593 834 83,427 Refresh Date: 10/14/2017
    [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]
  • Grand Canyon National Park
    To Bryce Canyon National Park, KANAB To St. George, Utah To Hurricane, Cedar City, Cedar Breaks National Monument, To Page, Arizona To Kanab, Utah and St. George, Utah V and Zion National Park Gulch E 89 in r ucksk ive R B 3700 ft R M Lake Powell UTAH 1128 m HILDALE UTAH I L ARIZONA S F COLORADO I ARIZONA F O gin I CITY GLEN CANYON ir L N V C NATIONAL 89 E 4750 ft N C 1448 m RECREATION AREA A L Glen Canyon C FREDONIA I I KAIBAB INDIAN P Dam R F a R F ri U S a PAGE RESERVATION H 15 R i ve ALT r 89 S 98 N PIPE SPRING 3116 ft I NATIONAL Grand Canyon National Park 950 m 389 boundary extends to the A MONUMENT mouth of the Paria River Lees Ferry T N PARIA PLATEAU To Las Vegas, Nevada U O Navajo Bridge M MARBLE CANYON r e N v I UINKARET i S G R F R I PLATEAU F I 89 V E R o V M L I L d I C a O r S o N l F o 7921ft C F 2415 m K I ANTELOPE R L CH JACOB LAKE GUL A C VALLEY ALT P N 89 Camping is summer only E L O K A Y N A S N N A O C I O 89T T H A C HOUSE ROCK N E L E N B N VALLEY YO O R AN C A KAIBAB NATIONAL Y P M U N P M U A 89 J L O C FOREST O K K D O a S U N Grand Canyon National Park- n F T Navajo Nation Reservation boundary F a A I b C 67 follows the east rim of the canyon L A R N C C Y r O G e N e N E YO k AN N C A Road to North Rim and all TH C OU Poverty Knoll I services closed in winter.
    [Show full text]