DOCSLIB.ORG

Table 6 - NFS Acreage by State, Congressional District and County

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Table 6 - NFS Acreage by State, Congressional District and County Table 6 - NFS Acreage by State, Congressional District and County * Unit is in two or more States ** Acres estimated pending final boundary development + Special Area that is part of a proclaimed National Forest State Congressional District County Unit NFS Acreage Alabama 1st Escambia Conecuh National Forest 29,100 1st Totals 29,100 2nd Coffee Pea River Land Utilization Project 40 Covington Conecuh National Forest 54,883 2nd Totals 54,923 3rd Calhoun Rose Purchase Unit 161 Talladega National Forest 21,400 Cherokee Talladega National Forest 2,231 Clay Talladega National Forest 66,752 Cleburne Talladega National Forest 98,723 Macon Tuskegee National Forest 11,349 Talladega 46,277 3rd Totals 246,893 4th Franklin William B. Bankhead National Forest 1,277 Lawrence William B. Bankhead National Forest 90,681 Winston William B. Bankhead National Forest 90,044 4th Totals 182,002 Refresh Date: 10/18/2014 Table 6 - NFS Acreage by State, Congressional District and County * Unit is in two or more States ** Acres estimated pending final boundary development + Special Area that is part of a proclaimed National Forest State Congressional District County Unit NFS Acreage 6th Bibb Talladega National Forest 60,867 Chilton Talladega National Forest 22,827 6th Totals 83,694 7th Dallas Talladega National Forest 2,167 Hale Talladega National Forest 27,968 Perry Talladega National Forest 32,796 Tuscaloosa Talladega National Forest 10,998 7th Totals 73,929 Alabama Totals 670,541 Refresh Date: 10/18/2014 Table 6 - NFS Acreage by State, Congressional District and County * Unit is in two or more States ** Acres estimated pending final boundary development + Special Area that is part of a proclaimed National Forest State Congressional District County Unit NFS Acreage Alaska At Large Anchorage Municipality Chugach National Forest 248,424 Haines Borough Tongass National Forest 768,190 Hoonah-Angoon Census Area Tongass National Forest 1,958,456 Juneau City and Borough Tongass National Forest 1,675,660 Kenai Peninsula Borough Chugach National Forest 1,260,874 Ketchikan Gateway Borough Tongass National Forest 3,054,611 Matanuska-Susitna Borough Chugach National Forest 35,504 Petersburg Borough Tongass National Forest 1,802,495 Prince of Wales-Hyder Census Area Tongass National Forest 2,812,522 Sitka City and Borough Tongass National Forest 1,824,884 Skagway Municipality Tongass National Forest 89,029 Valdez-Cordova Census Area Chugach National Forest 3,873,902 Wrangell City and Borough Tongass National Forest 1,600,602 Yakutat City and Borough Chugach National Forest 391 Tongass National Forest 1,232,056 At Large Totals 22,237,600 Alaska Totals 22,237,600 Refresh Date: 10/18/2014 Table 6 - NFS Acreage by State, Congressional District and County * Unit is in two or more States ** Acres estimated pending final boundary development + Special Area that is part of a proclaimed National Forest State Congressional District County Unit NFS Acreage Arizona 1st Apache Apache National Forest 445,813 Sitgreaves National Forest 47,528 Coconino Coconino National Forest 1,419,118 Kaibab National Forest 1,531,352 Prescott National Forest 43,718 Sitgreaves National Forest 285,595 Gila Tonto National Forest 429,156 Graham Coronado National Forest 381,182 Greenlee Apache National Forest 749,737 Navajo Sitgreaves National Forest 487,752 Pima Coronado National Forest 5,538 Pinal Coronado National Forest 23,303 Tonto National Forest 12,689 Yavapai Coconino National Forest 408,187 Prescott National Forest 4,043 Tonto National Forest 3 1st Totals 6,274,714 2nd Cochise Coronado National Forest 490,340 Pima Coronado National Forest 288,161 2nd Totals 778,501 Refresh Date: 10/18/2014 Table 6 - NFS Acreage by State, Congressional District and County * Unit is in two or more States ** Acres estimated pending final boundary development + Special Area that is part of a proclaimed National Forest State Congressional District County Unit NFS Acreage 3rd Pima Coronado National Forest 43,318 Santa Cruz Coronado National Forest 418,974 3rd Totals 462,292 4th Gila Coconino National Forest 6,023 Tonto National Forest 1,265,720 Maricopa Tonto National Forest 654,210 Mohave Kaibab National Forest 4,651 Pinal Tonto National Forest 183,171 Yavapai Coconino National Forest 18,970 Kaibab National Forest 25,269 Prescott National Forest 1,209,057 Tonto National Forest 320,623 4th Totals 3,687,694 6th Maricopa Tonto National Forest 1,190 6th Totals 1,190 Arizona Totals 11,204,391 Refresh Date: 10/18/2014 Table 6 - NFS Acreage by State, Congressional District and County * Unit is in two or more States ** Acres estimated pending final boundary development + Special Area that is part of a proclaimed National Forest State Congressional District County Unit NFS Acreage Arkansas 1st Baxter Ozark National Forest 63,299 Lee St. Francis National Forest 11,658 Stumpy Point Purchase Unit 24 Phillips St. Francis National Forest 9,605 Stumpy Point Purchase Unit 1,496 Searcy Ozark National Forest 31,134 Richland Creek Purchase Unit 604 Stone Ozark National Forest 61,258 1st Totals 179,078 2nd Conway Ozark National Forest 6,902 Perry Ouachita National Forest 98,946 Saline Ouachita National Forest 59,091 Van Buren Ozark National Forest 32,060 2nd Totals 196,999 Refresh Date: 10/18/2014 Table 6 - NFS Acreage by State, Congressional District and County * Unit is in two or more States ** Acres estimated pending final boundary development + Special Area that is part of a proclaimed National Forest State Congressional District County Unit NFS Acreage 3rd Benton Ozark National Forest 8,429 Crawford Ozark National Forest 52,938 Marion Ozark National Forest 3,300 Newton Ozark National Forest 71,758 Pope Ozark National Forest 186,818 Ozark Purchase Unit 4,923 Washington Ozark National Forest 22,045 3rd Totals 350,211 4th Ashley Ouachita National Forest 1,685 Crawford Ozark National Forest 32,502 Franklin Ozark National Forest 104,299 Garland Ouachita National Forest 120,697 Hot Spring Ouachita National Forest 327 Howard Ouachita National Forest 1,537 Johnson Ozark National Forest 181,731 Logan Ouachita National Forest 18,723 Ozark National Forest 76,021 Madison Ozark National Forest 48,459 Montgomery Ouachita National Forest 337,064 Refresh Date: 10/18/2014 Table 6 - NFS Acreage by State, Congressional District and County * Unit is in two or more States ** Acres estimated pending final boundary development + Special Area that is part of a proclaimed National Forest State Congressional District County Unit NFS Acreage Newton Ozark National Forest 123,992 Pike Ouachita National Forest 13,494 Polk Ouachita National Forest 204,510 Scott Ouachita National Forest 368,367 Sebastian Ouachita National Forest 18,830 Yell Ouachita National Forest 189,116 Ozark National Forest 24,883 4th Totals 1,866,237 Arkansas Totals 2,592,525 California 1st Butte Lassen National Forest 52,867 Lassen Other 55 Plant Introduction Station Other 204 Plumas National Forest 85,089 Glenn Mendocino National Forest 28 Lassen Lassen National Forest 428,962 Lassen Other 18 Modoc National Forest 170,711 Plumas National Forest 35,929 Toiyabe National Forest 1,293 Modoc Modoc National Forest 1,379,457 Modoc Other 100 Shasta National Forest 4,526 Nevada Tahoe National Forest 184,769 Toiyabe National Forest 3,728 Refresh Date: 10/18/2014 Table 6 - NFS Acreage by State, Congressional District and County * Unit is in two or more States ** Acres estimated pending final boundary development + Special Area that is part of a proclaimed National Forest State Congressional District County Unit NFS Acreage Placer Tahoe National Forest 31,954 Lassen National Forest 148,890 Plumas National Forest 1,003,266 Tahoe National Forest 11,455 Shasta Lassen National Forest 243,795 Shasta National Forest 455,615 Trinity National Forest 32,711 Sierra Plumas National Forest 41,136 Tahoe National Forest 354,645 Toiyabe National Forest 28,367 Siskiyou Butte Valley National Grassland 19,489 Klamath National Forest 1,645,324 Klamath Other 689 Modoc National Forest 130,331 Rogue River National Forest 51,466 Shasta National Forest 475,356 Six Rivers National Forest 10,228 Trinity National Forest 1 Tehama Lassen National Forest 191,281 Lassen Other 80 Mendocino National Forest 125,214 Trinity National Forest 76,478 1st Totals 7,425,507 Refresh Date: 10/18/2014 Table 6 - NFS Acreage by State, Congressional District and County * Unit is in two or more States ** Acres estimated pending final boundary development + Special Area that is part of a proclaimed National Forest State Congressional District County Unit NFS Acreage 2nd Del Norte Northern Redwood Purchase Unit 1,208 Siskiyou National Forest 31,539 Six Rivers National Forest 404,729 Humboldt Klamath National Forest 260 Six Rivers National Forest 335,298 Trinity National Forest 2,234 Mendocino Mendocino National Forest 176,606 Mendocino Other 6 Trinity Mendocino National Forest 75,402 Shasta National Forest 236,921 Six Rivers National Forest 226,023 Trinity National Forest 945,425 Trinity Other 11 2nd Totals 2,435,662 3rd Colusa Mendocino National Forest 68,078 Glenn Mendocino National Forest 215,004 Lake Mendocino National Forest 255,199 Mendocino Other 4 Yuba Plumas National Forest 23,479 Tahoe National Forest 20,489 3rd Totals 582,253 Refresh Date: 10/18/2014 Table 6 - NFS Acreage by State, Congressional District and County * Unit is in two or more States ** Acres estimated pending final boundary development + Special Area that is part of a proclaimed National Forest State Congressional District County Unit NFS Acreage 4th Alpine Eldorado National Forest 56,841 Stanislaus National Forest 122,582 Toiyabe National Forest 237,075 Amador Eldorado National Forest 78,072 Stanislaus National Forest 1 Calaveras Eldorado National Forest 1 Stanislaus National Forest 78,187 Stanislaus Other 159 El Dorado Eldorado National Forest 501,615 Eldorado Other 182 Eldorado Purchase Unit 327 Inst.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Chiricahua Leopard Frog (Rana Chiricahuensis)
    U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Chiricahua Leopard Frog (Rana chiricahuensis) Final Recovery Plan April 2007 CHIRICAHUA LEOPARD FROG (Rana chiricahuensis) RECOVERY PLAN Southwest Region U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Albuquerque, New Mexico DISCLAIMER Recovery plans delineate reasonable actions that are believed to be required to recover and/or protect listed species. Plans are published by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and are sometimes prepared with the assistance of recovery teams, contractors, state agencies, and others. Objectives will be attained and any necessary funds made available subject to budgetary and other constraints affecting the parties involved, as well as the need to address other priorities. Recovery plans do not necessarily represent the views nor the official positions or approval of any individuals or agencies involved in the plan formulation, other than the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. They represent the official position of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service only after they have been signed by the Regional Director, or Director, as approved. Approved recovery plans are subject to modification as dictated by new findings, changes in species status, and the completion of recovery tasks. Literature citation of this document should read as follows: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007. Chiricahua Leopard Frog (Rana chiricahuensis) Recovery Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Southwest Region, Albuquerque, NM. 149 pp. + Appendices A-M. Additional copies may be obtained from: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Arizona Ecological Services Field Office Southwest Region 2321 West Royal Palm Road, Suite 103 500 Gold Avenue, S.W.
    [Show full text]
  • Notices Federal Register Vol
    60272 Notices Federal Register Vol. 70, No. 199 Monday, October 17, 2005 This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER coordinated implementation of the agenda for the public to speak to the contains documents other than rules or Record of Decision (ROD) of April 13, general body. proposed rules that are applicable to the 1994, for Management of Habitat for Renewal of the PACs does not require public. Notices of hearings and investigations, Late-Successional and Old-Growth an amendment of Bureau of Land committee meetings, agency decisions and Forest Related Species Within the Range Management or Forest Service planning rulings, delegations of authority, filing of documents because the renewal does petitions and applications and agency of the Northern Spotted Owl. The PIEC statements of organization and functions are consists of representatives of the not affect the standards and guidelines examples of documents appearing in this following Federal agencies: Forest or land allocations. The Bureau of Land section. Service, Natural Resources Conservation Management and Forest Service will Service, Bureau of Indian Affairs, provide further notice, as needed, for Bureau of Land Management, National additional actions or adjustments when DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Marine Fisheries Service, National Park implementing interagency coordination, Service, Fish and Wildlife Service, public involvement, and other aspects Office of the Secretary Geological Survey Biological Resources of the ROD. Division, Environmental Protection Equal opportunity practices will be Provincial Advisory Committees Agency, and U.S. Army Corps of followed in all appointments to the AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, USDA. Engineers. advisory committee. To ensure that the recommendations of the PACs have ACTION: Notice of intent to renew Ecosystem management at the taken into account the needs of diverse Federal Advisory Committee.
    [Show full text]
  • Apalachicola & Conecuh National Forests
    Apalachicola & Conecuh National Forests Recreation Realignment Report Prepared by: Christine Overdevest & H. Ken Cordell August, 2001 Web Series: SRS-4901-2001-4 Web Series: SRS-4901-2001-4 Table of Contents Introduction ................................................................. 1 Report Objectives ............................................................ 1 On Analysis Assumptions ...................................................... 1 Vision of Interactive Session: How to Use this Report .................................. 2 Report Contents .............................................................. 3 The Realignment Context ....................................................... 4 Recreation Realignment Step 1. - Population Analysis ................................................... 6 Step 2. - Recreation Participation Analysis and Segmentation of Activities ................. 11 Step 3. - Analysis of Fastest Growing Outdoor Recreation Activities ..................... 16 Step 4. - Recreation Participation Analysis by Demographic Strata ....................... 17 Step 5. - Summing Step 4 Activity Scores Across Demographic Strata ................... 40 Step 6. - Summing Activity Scores Over 3 Dimensions of Demand ....................... 41 Step 7. - Identifying Niche Activities ............................................. 43 Step 8. - Equity Analysis ..................................................... 44 Step 9. - Other Suppliers of Outdoor Recreation in your Market Area ................... 47 Step 10 - Summary Observations,
    [Show full text]
  • 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]
  • LIGHTNING FIRES in SOUTHWESTERN FORESTS T
    This file was created by scanning the printed publication. Errors identified by the software have been corrected; however, some errors may remain. LIGHTNING FIRES IN SOUTHWESTERN FORESTS t . I I LIGHT~ING FIRES IN SOUTHWESTERN FORESTS (l) by Jack S. Barrows Department of Forest and Wood Sciences College of Forestry and Natural Resources Colorado State University Fort Collins, CO 80523 (1) Research performed for Northern Forest Fire Laboratory, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station under cooperative agreement 16-568 CA with Rocky Mountain For­ est and Range Experiment Station. Final Report May 1978 n LIB RARY COPY. ROCKY MT. FO i-< t:S'f :.. R.l.N~ EX?f.lt!M SN T ST.A.1101'1 . - ... Acknowledgementd r This research of lightning fires in Sop thwestern forests has been ? erformed with the assistan~e and cooperation of many individuals and agencies. The idea for the research was suggested by Dr. Donald M. Fuquay and Robert G. Baughman of the Northern Forest Fire Laboratory. The Fire Management Staff of U. S. Forest Service Region Three provided fire data, maps, rep~rts and briefings on fire p~enomena. Special thanks are expressed to James F. Mann for his continuing assistance in these a ctivities. Several members of national forest staffs assisted in correcting fire report errors. At CSU Joel Hart was the principal graduate 'research assistant in organizing the data, writing computer programs and handling the extensive computer operations. The initial checking of fire data tapes and com­ puter programming was performed by research technician Russell Lewis. Graduate Research Assistant Rick Yancik and Research Associate Lee Bal- ::.
    [Show full text]
  • Land Stewardship Proposal, Tahoe National Forest, Bear River
    Land Stewardship Proposal for the Lake Spaulding, Bear River, & Fordyce Lake Planning Units of the Yuba Bear Watershed by the USDA Forest Service, Tahoe National Forest PART 1 - ORGANIZATIONAL INFORMATION Contact Information: Primary Contact: Fran Herbst Lands Program Manager 631 Coyote Street Nevada City, CA 95959 (530) 478-6852 [email protected] Fax (530) 478-6109 Secondary Contact: Heather Newell (New Secondary Contact) Yuba River Ranger District Assistant Public Service Officer 15924 Highway 49 Camptonville, CA 95922 (530) 288-0727 [email protected] Fax (530) 478-6109 Executive Director: Tom Quinn Forest Supervisor 631 Coyote Street Nevada City, CA 95959 (530) 478-6200 [email protected] Fax (530) 478-6109 1 2. Executive Summary The Tahoe National Forest (TNF) is managed by the United States Forest Service (USFS) which is a federal agency in the Department of Agriculture. National Forest System (NFS) lands are generally managed with similar goals and objectives as the Beneficial Public Values (BPVs) identified for Stewardship lands. Some of the laws requiring the protection of these values include the National Forest Management Act, National Environmental Policy Act, Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act, Endangered Species Act, Clean Water Act, National Historic Preservation Act, and Archaeological Resources Protection Act. The Forest Service was established in 1905. The Forest Service manages 193 million acres of public lands, known collectively as the National Forest System. Currently, a critical emphasis of the USFS is to retain and restore ecological resilience of the NFS lands to achieve sustainable ecosystems that provide a broad range of services to humans and other organisms.
    [Show full text]
  • Land Areas of the National Forest System, As of September 30, 2019
    United States Department of Agriculture Land Areas of the National Forest System As of September 30, 2019 Forest Service WO Lands FS-383 November 2019 Metric Equivalents When you know: Multiply by: To fnd: Inches (in) 2.54 Centimeters Feet (ft) 0.305 Meters Miles (mi) 1.609 Kilometers Acres (ac) 0.405 Hectares Square feet (ft2) 0.0929 Square meters Yards (yd) 0.914 Meters Square miles (mi2) 2.59 Square kilometers Pounds (lb) 0.454 Kilograms United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Land Areas of the WO, Lands National Forest FS-383 System November 2019 As of September 30, 2019 Published by: USDA Forest Service 1400 Independence Ave., SW Washington, DC 20250-0003 Website: https://www.fs.fed.us/land/staff/lar-index.shtml Cover Photo: Mt. Hood, Mt. Hood National Forest, Oregon Courtesy of: Susan Ruzicka USDA Forest Service WO Lands and Realty Management Statistics are current as of: 10/17/2019 The National Forest System (NFS) is comprised of: 154 National Forests 58 Purchase Units 20 National Grasslands 7 Land Utilization Projects 17 Research and Experimental Areas 28 Other Areas NFS lands are found in 43 States as well as Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. TOTAL NFS ACRES = 192,994,068 NFS lands are organized into: 9 Forest Service Regions 112 Administrative Forest or Forest-level units 503 Ranger District or District-level units The Forest Service administers 149 Wild and Scenic Rivers in 23 States and 456 National Wilderness Areas in 39 States. The Forest Service also administers several other types of nationally designated
    [Show full text]
  • Fishlake National Forest
    FISHLAKE NATIONAL FOREST RESPONSE TO COMMENTS for the FISHLAKE OHV ROUTE DESIGNATION PROJECT 12 October 2006 INTRODUCTION The forest incorporated existing comments from prior public participation processes during the pre- NEPA (NFMA) assessment. The following documents from these efforts are incorporated by reference: Public comments received for the 2001 OHV Event Environmental Assessment for the Rocky Mountain and Fillmore Jamborees. The assessment covered all of the Fishlake and portions of the Dixie and Manti-LaSal National Forests as well as Richfield BLM. OHV and travel management comments received by mail or at public meetings for Forest Plan revision efforts. Meeting notes and final presentations and reports from the Forest Plan revision Topical Working Groups (TWiGs) for OHVs, dispersed camping, and undeveloped area suitability. These records are included in the OHV project file and are incorporated by reference. The Notice of Intent (NOI) for the Fishlake OHV Route Designation Project was published in the Federal Register on June 7, 2004. The NOI included a proposed action (Alternative 2) that designated routes and areas open to motorized use on the Fishlake National Forest. The effect of these designations is to close the forest to unrestricted motorized cross-country travel. The NOI asked for comments on the proposed action by July 30, 2004. Immediately prior to release of the NOI, the Forest Service briefed local governmental officials, motorized advocacy groups, businesses, and environmental groups. The project web site http://www.fs.fed.us/r4/fishlake/projects/ohv.shtml, press release, and postings at some trailheads were used to disseminate information and gather comments.
    [Show full text]
  • Draft Environmental Assessment for North Texas Optimization of Airspace and Procedures in the Metroplex
    Draft Environmental Assessment for North Texas Optimization of Airspace and Procedures in the Metroplex Volume II - Appendices September 2013 Prepared by: United States Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration Fort Worth, Texas Table of Contents APPENDIX A A.1 First Early Notification Announcement................................................................................ 1 A.1.1 Early Notification Letters ..................................................................................................... 1 A.1.2 Comments Received From the First Announcement........................................................23 A.1.3 Outreach Meetings............................................................................................................49 APPENDIX B B.1 List of Preparers.................................................................................................................. 1 B.1 Receiving Parties & Draft EA Notification of Availability..................................................... 3 APPENDIX C C.1 Contact Information............................................................................................................. 1 C.2 References.......................................................................................................................... 1 APPENDIX D D.1 List of Acronyms.................................................................................................................. 1 D.2 Glossary .............................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • HISTORY of the TOIYABE NATIONAL FOREST a Compilation
    HISTORY OF THE TOIYABE NATIONAL FOREST A Compilation Posting the Toiyabe National Forest Boundary, 1924 Table of Contents Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 3 Chronology ..................................................................................................................................... 4 Bridgeport and Carson Ranger District Centennial .................................................................... 126 Forest Histories ........................................................................................................................... 127 Toiyabe National Reserve: March 1, 1907 to Present ............................................................ 127 Toquima National Forest: April 15, 1907 – July 2, 1908 ....................................................... 128 Monitor National Forest: April 15, 1907 – July 2, 1908 ........................................................ 128 Vegas National Forest: December 12, 1907 – July 2, 1908 .................................................... 128 Mount Charleston Forest Reserve: November 5, 1906 – July 2, 1908 ................................... 128 Moapa National Forest: July 2, 1908 – 1915 .......................................................................... 128 Nevada National Forest: February 10, 1909 – August 9, 1957 .............................................. 128 Ruby Mountain Forest Reserve: March 3, 1908 – June 19, 1916 ..........................................
    [Show full text]
  • Our 25Th Year of Blazing a Trail for Longleaf Restoration
    19005112_Longleaf-Leader-WINTER-2020_rev.qxp_Layout 1 1/9/20 10:44 AM Page 2 Our 25th Year of Blazing a Trail for Longleaf Restoration Volume Xii - issue 4 WiNTeR 2020 19005112_Longleaf-Leader-WINTER-2020_rev.qxp_Layout 1 1/9/20 10:44 AM Page 3 19005112_Longleaf-Leader-WINTER-2020_rev.qxp_Layout 1 1/9/20 10:44 AM Page 4 TABLE OF CONTENTS 14 56 23 44 10 President’s Message....................................................2 LANDOWNER CORNER .......................................23 Calendar ....................................................................4 TECHNOLOGY CORNER .....................................26 Letters from the Inbox ...............................................5 REGIONAL UPDATES .........................................29 Understory Plant Spotlight........................................7 Wildlife Spotlight .....................................................8 ARTS & LITERATURE ........................................40 2019 – A Banner Year for Longleaf ..........................10 Longleaf Destinations ..............................................44 The Alliance Teaches its 100th Longleaf Academy: PEOPLE .................................................................47 A Look Back............................................................14 SUPPORT THE ALLIANCE ................................50 RESEARCH NOTES .............................................18 Heartpine ................................................................56 PUBLISHER The Longleaf Alliance, E D I T O R Carol Denhof, ASSISTANT EDITOR
    [Show full text]
  • Consumer Plannlng Section Comprehensive Plannlng Branch
    Consumer Plannlng Section Comprehensive Plannlng Branch, Parks Division Texas Parks and Wildlife Department Austin, Texas Texans Outdoors: An Analysis of 1985 Participation in Outdoor Recreation Activities By Kathryn N. Nichols and Andrew P. Goldbloom Under the Direction of James A. Deloney November, 1989 Comprehensive Planning Branch, Parks Division Texas Parks and Wildlife Department 4200 Smith School Road, Austin, Texas 78744 (512) 389-4900 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Conducting a mail survey requires accuracy and timeliness in every single task. Each individualized survey had to be accounted for, both going out and coming back. Each mailing had to meet a strict deadline. The authors are indebted to all the people who worked on this project. The staff of the Comprehensive Planning Branch, Parks Division, deserve special thanks. This dedicated crew signed letters, mailed, remailed, coded, and entered the data of a twenty-page questionnaire that was sent to over twenty-five thousand Texans with over twelve thousand returned completed. Many other Parks Division staff outside the branch volunteered to assist with stuffing and labeling thousands of envelopes as deadlines drew near. We thank the staff of the Information Services Section for their cooperation in providing individualized letters and labels for survey mailings. We also appreciate the dedication of the staff in the mailroom for processing up­ wards of seventy-five thousand pieces of mail. Lastly, we thank the staff in the print shop for their courteous assistance in reproducing the various documents. Although the above are gratefully acknowledged, they are absolved from any responsibility for any errors or omissions that may have occurred. ii TEXANS OUTDOORS: AN ANALYSIS OF 1985 PARTICIPATION IN OUTDOOR RECREATION ACTIVITIES TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction ...........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]