Paths More Traveled: Predicting Future Recreation Pressures on America’S National Forests and Grasslands Donald B.K

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Paths More Traveled: Predicting Future Recreation Pressures on America’S National Forests and Grasslands Donald B.K United States Department of Agriculture Paths More Traveled: Predicting Future Recreation Pressures on America’s National Forests and Grasslands Donald B.K. English Pam Froemke A Forests on the Edge Report Kathleen Hawkos Forest Service FS-1034 June 2015 All photos © Thinkstock.com All photos Authors Key Words Learn More Donald B.K. English is a program Recreation, NVUM, national For further information manager for national visitor forests, population growth on this or other Forests on the Edge use monitoring; Forest Service, publications, please contact: Recreation, Heritage, and Volunteer Suggested Citation Resources Staff; Washington, DC. Anne Buckelew Pam Froemke is an information English, D.B.K.; Froemke, P.; U.S. Department of Agriculture technology specialist Hawkos, K.; 2014. Forest Service (spatial data analyst); Paths more traveled: Predicting Cooperative Forestry Staff Forest Service, Rocky Mountain future recreation pressures on 1400 Independence Avenue, SW Research Station; Fort Collins, CO. America’s national forests and Mailstop 1123 Kathleen Hawkos is a grasslands—a Forests on the Edge Washington, DC 20250–1123 cartographer/GIS specialist; report. FS-1034. Washington, DC: 202–401–4073 Forest Service, Southwestern U.S. Department of Agriculture [email protected] Regional Office, Albuquerque, NM. (USDA), Forest Service. 36 p. http://www.fs.fed.us/openspace/ Photos from front cover (top to bottom, left to right): © Thinkstock.com, © iStock.com, © Thinkstock.com, © iStock.com Paths More Traveled: Predicting Future Recreation Pressures on America’s National Forests and Grasslands A Forests on the Edge Report Learn More Abstract Populations near many national forests be expected to increase by 12 million new and grasslands are rising and are outpac- visits per year, from 83 million in 2010 to ing growth elsewhere in the United States. about 95 million in 2020. Forests experi- We used National Visitor Use Monitoring encing the most population growth and (NVUM) data and U.S. census data to highest rates of local visitation can expect examine growth in population and locally the greatest impacts on recreation resourc- based recreation visits within 50 and 100 es and other public benefits. Strong part- miles of National Forest System (NFS) nerships and cooperation among Forest boundaries. From 1990 to 2010, the popu- Service staffs, local communities, and lation living within 50 miles of NFS lands other concerned parties can help avoid or increased by 36 percent, from about 112 mitigate potential impacts associated with million to 153 million people; that popu- increased recreation pressure and enhance lation is expected to increase in the future. the recreational experiences of users. Recreation visits from local residents can Forest Service | fs.fed.us/openspace/fote • 1 The questions we sought to answer include: How many people live within 50 and 100 miles of a national forest or grassland? Which forests have the highest numbers of people living within 100 miles? How much is visitor use likely to increase in the near future? © Thinkstock.com Introduction Paths More Traveled merica’s 193 million acres of national forests and wonder and excitement of natural areas and so that grasslands—managed by the U.S. Department forests and grasslands can continue to provide other A of Agriculture (USDA), Forest Service— critical goods and services. provide enormous recreational opportunities for the American public, as well as innumerable other benefits More than half the visits to national forests or including clean water and air, timber and other forest grasslands nationwide are made by people who live products, habitats for endangered fish and wildlife within 50 miles, and two-thirds of National Forest species, and cultural and educational values. System (NFS) visits are made by those who travel fewer than 100 miles (NVUM 2012). Given these facts, it is Counties containing national forests and grasslands likely that, as nearby populations increase, so too will are among the fastest growing non-metropolitan local visits to these treasured lands increase. counties in the country (Johnson 2012). National forests and grasslands hosted This report, a publication of the upwards of 161 million visits “As nearby populations increase, Forests on the Edge project of the in 2012 (NVUM 2012); Forest Service’s State and Private these numbers are likely to so too will local visits to these Forestry Deputy Area, examines the increase in the future. treasured resources increase” growth in population within 50 and 100 miles of national forests and Understanding where and grasslands.1 To understand how when to expect increased visitor use is key to ensuring recreation pressure might increase in the future, the the proper management of Forest Service recreational report also estimates future growth in recreation visits resources so that users continue to experience the to NFS lands by local residents. © Thinkstock.com © Thinkstock.com About Forests on the Edge Forests on the Edge (FOTE) is a project developed and coordinated by the Forest Service, State and Private Forestry Deputy Area, in conjunction with Forest Service Research and Development and National Forest System Deputy Areas, universities, and other partners. FOTE reports identify areas across the country where public and/or private forests might change because of increased population, housing, or other factors, including climate change. This report focuses on the projected growth in recreational uses of U.S. national 1This report uses population data and results for only the forests and grasslands. contiguous United States. Results for National Forest System lands in Alaska, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico are not included. Forest Service | fs.fed.us/openspace/fote • 3 Paths More Traveled © Thinkstock.com © iStockphoto.com © iStockphoto.com As indicated in figure 1, a 50-mile the Northeast. People living within of national forests often receive zone drawn around national forests this zone have access to numerous the greatest benefits from the and grasslands includes almost benefits from national forests and ecosystem services and economic the entire western portion of the grasslands, including substantial activity that come from those lands, United States and much of the recreational opportunities. Indeed, including the jobs that depend on Southeast, as well as the northern people living within an hour’s forest outputs such as timber and tier of the Lakes States and parts of drive, or approximately 50 miles, nontimber products. Figure 1—Location of national forests and grasslands in the United States with a 50-mile buffer zone. 4 • Forest Service | fs.fed.us/openspace/fote Paths More Traveled How Far and How Often Do People Travel to National Forests and Grasslands? he Forest Service’s National Visitor Use about 87 percent of recreation visits to the Bitterroot Monitoring (NVUM) program offers a great National Forest (Montana) are made by people Tdeal of information about the people who visit traveling 50 or fewer miles, 85 percent of visits to the national forests and grasslands. For example, through National Forests in Mississippi are made by people NVUM surveys, we have learned that people who living within 50 miles, and 81 percent of visits to the live in nearby areas are the Forest Service’s primary Lolo National Forest (Idaho) are locally based. recreation customers and are the main beneficiaries of the recreation opportunities that NFS lands provide. On the other hand, some forests receive most of About 15 percent of all visits are made by people who their visits from much farther away, drawing from are frequent visitors—that is, they report visiting that more regional or national markets. Several of these forest at least 50 times per year, or roughly once national forests and grasslands are located more than per week. 50 miles from large population centers, while others have or are near to other resources that draw people We also have a good idea of the proportion of visits to from a wide array of distances. Examples include the each NFS unit by people who report driving 50 miles Kaibab (Arizona) and the Inyo (California) National or less (NVUM 2012). We know, for example, that 90 Forests, where only 12 percent of visits are made by percent of NFS frequent visitors live within 50 miles people living within 50 miles, and the White Mountain of the forest they visit; the most avid recreation users National Forest (New Hampshire), with about 19 often live in the zone closest to the forest. percent of visits locally based. However, the distribution of local visits is not uniform across the NFS. Some forests do receive most of their recreation visits from the local area. For example, “People who live in nearby areas are the Forest Service’s primary recreation customers” Ken Hammond, USDA Hammond, Ken Forest Service | fs.fed.us/openspace/fote • 5 5Million With close to 5 million people living within 50 miles, the Mount Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest is a popular recreation destination. © Thinkstock.com Paths More Traveled Methods Estimating Current and Future Recreation Patterns To determine how many people live within 50 and 100 miles of America’s national forests and grasslands, we followed several steps.2 1 2 3 First, we obtained polygons We then added a buffer of Next, we overlaid the of forest and grassland the desired distance (50 or NFS boundary plus buffer administrative boundaries. 3 100 straight-line miles) to the polygons with data showing boundary polygons. the location of county and census tracks. 4 4 5 We multiplied that 6 For each census polygon, we proportion of the census We summed population calculated the proportion of tract area by the census across all spatial units. its area that lies within the area’s population (which administrative boundary plus assumes that population the buffer polygon. within the census polygon is spatially distributed more or less evenly). To estimate and compare the recreational use of each forest by surrounding populations, we multiplied the percentage of visits from people within 50 miles by the total estimated recreation visits for the forest, as reported in the NVUM (2012).
Recommended publications
  • Table 8 — National Wilderness Areas in Multiple States
    Table 8 - National Wilderness Areas in Multiple States * Unit is in two or more States ** Acres estimated pending final boundary determination + Special Area that is part of a proclaimed National Forest National Wilderness Area State NFS Other Total Unit Name Acreage Acreage Acreage Absaroka-Beartooth Wilderness Montana Custer National Forest* 331,130 1,482 332,612 Gallatin National Forest 582,181 2,657 584,838 Wyoming Shoshone National Forest 23,694 0 23,694 Absaroka-Beartooth Wilderness Totals 937,005 4,139 941,144 Big Frog Wilderness Georgia Chattahoochee National Forest 136 0 136 Tennessee Cherokee National Forest* 7,996 0 7,996 Big Frog Wilderness Totals 8,132 0 8,132 Black Fork Mountain Wilderness Arkansas Ouachita National Forest* 8,249 79 8,328 Oklahoma Ouachita National Forest* 5,098 40 5,138 Black Fork Mountain Wilderness Totals 13,347 119 13,466 Cohutta Wilderness Georgia Chattahoochee National Forest 35,284 9 35,293 Tennessee Cherokee National Forest* 1,746 0 1,746 Cohutta Wilderness Totals 37,030 9 37,039 Ellicott Rock Wilderness Georgia Chattahoochee National Forest 2,023 0 2,023 North Carolina Nantahala National Forest 3,417 0 3,417 South Carolina Sumter National Forest 2,857 9 2,866 Ellicott Rock Wilderness Totals 8,297 9 8,306 Processed Date: 2/5/2014 Table 8 - National Wilderness Areas in Multiple States * Unit is in two or more States ** Acres estimated pending final boundary determination + Special Area that is part of a proclaimed National Forest National Wilderness Area State NFS Other Total Unit Name Acreage Acreage
    [Show full text]
  • Tonto National Forest Travel Management Plan
    Comments on the DEIS for the Tonto National Forest Travel Management Plan Submitted September 15, 2014 via Electronic Mail and Certified Mail #7014-0150-0001-2587-0812 On Behalf of: Archaeology Southwest Center for Biological Diversity Sierra Club The Wilderness Society WildEarth Guardians Table of Contents II. Federal Regulation of Travel Management .................................................................................. 4 III. Impacts from Year Round Motorized Use Must be Analyzed .................................................. 5 IV. The Forest Service’s Preferred Alternative .............................................................................. 6 V. Desired Conditions for Travel Management ................................................................................. 6 VI. Purpose and Need Statements ................................................................................................... 7 VII. Baseline Determination .............................................................................................................. 8 A. The Forest Service cannot arbitrarily reclassify roads as “open to motor vehicle use” in the baseline. ............................................................................................................................................ 10 B. Classification of all closed or decommissioned routes as “open to motor vehicle use” leads to mischaracterization of the impacts of the considered alternatives. ...................................................... 11 C. Failure
    [Show full text]
  • Schedule of Proposed Action (SOPA) 04/01/2021 to 06/30/2021 Coronado National Forest This Report Contains the Best Available Information at the Time of Publication
    Schedule of Proposed Action (SOPA) 04/01/2021 to 06/30/2021 Coronado National Forest This report contains the best available information at the time of publication. Questions may be directed to the Project Contact. Expected Project Name Project Purpose Planning Status Decision Implementation Project Contact Projects Occurring Nationwide Gypsy Moth Management in the - Vegetation management Completed Actual: 11/28/2012 01/2013 Susan Ellsworth United States: A Cooperative (other than forest products) 775-355-5313 Approach [email protected]. EIS us *UPDATED* Description: The USDA Forest Service and Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service are analyzing a range of strategies for controlling gypsy moth damage to forests and trees in the United States. Web Link: http://www.na.fs.fed.us/wv/eis/ Location: UNIT - All Districts-level Units. STATE - All States. COUNTY - All Counties. LEGAL - Not Applicable. Nationwide. Locatable Mining Rule - 36 CFR - Regulations, Directives, In Progress: Expected:12/2021 12/2021 Sarah Shoemaker 228, subpart A. Orders NOI in Federal Register 907-586-7886 EIS 09/13/2018 [email protected] d.us *UPDATED* Est. DEIS NOA in Federal Register 03/2021 Description: The U.S. Department of Agriculture proposes revisions to its regulations at 36 CFR 228, Subpart A governing locatable minerals operations on National Forest System lands.A draft EIS & proposed rule should be available for review/comment in late 2020 Web Link: http://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=57214 Location: UNIT - All Districts-level Units. STATE - All States. COUNTY - All Counties. LEGAL - Not Applicable. These regulations apply to all NFS lands open to mineral entry under the US mining laws.
    [Show full text]
  • Forest Insect and Disease Conditions in the Southwestern Region, 2008
    United States Department of Forest Insect and Agriculture Forest Disease Conditions in Service Southwestern the Southwestern Region Forestry and Forest Health Region, 2008 July 2009 PR-R3-16-5 The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720- 2600 (voice and TTY). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TTY). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. Cover photo: Pandora moth caterpillar collected on the North Kaibab Ranger District, Kaibab National Forest. Forest Insect and Disease Conditions in the Southwestern Region, 2008 Southwestern Region Forestry and Forest Health Regional Office Salomon Ramirez, Director Allen White, Pesticide Specialist Forest Health Zones Offices Arizona Zone John Anhold, Zone Leader Mary Lou Fairweather, Pathologist Roberta Fitzgibbon, Entomologist Joel McMillin, Entomologist
    [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]
  • National Forest Imagery Catalog Collection at the USDA
    National Forest Imagery Catalog collection at the USDA - Farm Service Agency Aerial Photography Field Office (APFO) 2222 West 2300 South Salt Lake City, UT 84119-2020 (801) 844-2922 - Customer Service Section (801) 956-3653 - Fax (801) 956-3654 - TDD [email protected] http://www.apfo.usda.gov This catalog listing shows the various photographic coverages used by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and archived at the Aerial Photography Field Office. This catalog references U.S. Forest Service (FS) and other agencies imagery. For imagery prior to 1955, please contact the National Archives & Records Administration: Cartographic & Architectural Reference (NWCS-Cartographic) Aerial Photographs Team http://www.archives.gov/research/order/maps.html#contact Coverage of U.S. Forest Service photography is listed alphabetically for each forest within a region. Numeric and alpha codes used to identify FS projects are determined by the Forest Service. The original film type for most of this imagery is a natural color negative. Line indexes are available for most projects. The number of index sheets required to cover a project area is shown on the listing. Please reference the remarks column, which may identify a larger or smaller project area than the National Forest area defined in the header. Offered in the catalog listing at each National Forest heading is a link to locate the Regional and National Forest office address and phone number at: http://www.fs.fed.us/intro/directory You may wish to visit the National Forest office to view the current imagery and have them assist you in identifying aerial imagery from the APFO.
    [Show full text]
  • Lincoln National Forest
    Chapter 1: Introduction In Ecological and Biological Diversity of National Forests in Region 3 Bruce Vander Lee, Ruth Smith, and Joanna Bate The Nature Conservancy EXECUTIVE SUMMARY We summarized existing regional-scale biological and ecological assessment information from Arizona and New Mexico for use in the development of Forest Plans for the eleven National Forests in USDA Forest Service Region 3 (Region 3). Under the current Planning Rule, Forest Plans are to be strategic documents focusing on ecological, economic, and social sustainability. In addition, Region 3 has identified restoration of the functionality of fire-adapted systems as a central priority to address forest health issues. Assessments were selected for inclusion in this report based on (1) relevance to Forest Planning needs with emphasis on the need to address ecosystem diversity and ecological sustainability, (2) suitability to address restoration of Region 3’s major vegetation systems, and (3) suitability to address ecological conditions at regional scales. We identified five assessments that addressed the distribution and current condition of ecological and biological diversity within Region 3. We summarized each of these assessments to highlight important ecological resources that exist on National Forests in Arizona and New Mexico: • Extent and distribution of potential natural vegetation types in Arizona and New Mexico • Distribution and condition of low-elevation grasslands in Arizona • Distribution of stream reaches with native fish occurrences in Arizona • Species richness and conservation status attributes for all species on National Forests in Arizona and New Mexico • Identification of priority areas for biodiversity conservation from Ecoregional Assessments from Arizona and New Mexico Analyses of available assessments were completed across all management jurisdictions for Arizona and New Mexico, providing a regional context to illustrate the biological and ecological importance of National Forests in Region 3.
    [Show full text]
  • Santa Fe National Forest
    Chapter 1: Introduction In Ecological and Biological Diversity of National Forests in Region 3 Bruce Vander Lee, Ruth Smith, and Joanna Bate The Nature Conservancy EXECUTIVE SUMMARY We summarized existing regional-scale biological and ecological assessment information from Arizona and New Mexico for use in the development of Forest Plans for the eleven National Forests in USDA Forest Service Region 3 (Region 3). Under the current Planning Rule, Forest Plans are to be strategic documents focusing on ecological, economic, and social sustainability. In addition, Region 3 has identified restoration of the functionality of fire-adapted systems as a central priority to address forest health issues. Assessments were selected for inclusion in this report based on (1) relevance to Forest Planning needs with emphasis on the need to address ecosystem diversity and ecological sustainability, (2) suitability to address restoration of Region 3’s major vegetation systems, and (3) suitability to address ecological conditions at regional scales. We identified five assessments that addressed the distribution and current condition of ecological and biological diversity within Region 3. We summarized each of these assessments to highlight important ecological resources that exist on National Forests in Arizona and New Mexico: • Extent and distribution of potential natural vegetation types in Arizona and New Mexico • Distribution and condition of low-elevation grasslands in Arizona • Distribution of stream reaches with native fish occurrences in Arizona • Species richness and conservation status attributes for all species on National Forests in Arizona and New Mexico • Identification of priority areas for biodiversity conservation from Ecoregional Assessments from Arizona and New Mexico Analyses of available assessments were completed across all management jurisdictions for Arizona and New Mexico, providing a regional context to illustrate the biological and ecological importance of National Forests in Region 3.
    [Show full text]
  • Socioeconomic Assessment for the Tonto National Forest
    4. Access and Travel Patterns This section examines historic and current factors affecting access patterns and transportation infrastructure within the four counties surrounding Tonto National Forest (TNF). The information gathered is intended to outline current and future trends in forest access as well as potential barriers to access encountered by various user groups. Primary sources of data on access and travel patterns for the state’s national forests include the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT), the Arizona Department of Commerce (ADOC), and the circulation elements of individual county comprehensive plans. Indicators used to assess access and travel patterns include existing road networks and planned improvements, trends in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) on major roadways, seasonal traffic flows, and county transportation planning priorities. Additional input on internal access issues has been sought directly from forest planning staff. Various sources of information for the area surrounding TNF cite the difficulty of transportation planning in the region given its vast geographic scale, population growth, pace of development, and constrained transportation funding. In an effort to respond effectively to such challenges, local and regional planning authorities stress the importance of linking transportation planning with preferred land uses. Data show that the area surrounding Tonto National Forest saw relatively large increases in VMT between 1990 and 2000, mirroring the region’s relatively strong population growth over the same period. Information gathered from the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) and county comprehensive plans suggest that considerable improvements are currently scheduled for the region’s transportation network, particularly when compared to areas surrounding Arizona’s other national forests.
    [Show full text]
  • Southwestern Region Map Order Form
    Southwestern Region Map Order Form National Forest and Grassland Visitor Maps Wilderness Maps Arizona Arizona Location Qty Price Total Location Qty Price Total Apache-Sitgreaves $14 Blue Range (Apache) $14 Coconino $14 Granite Mountain (Prescott) $14 Coronado (Santa Catalina & Safford Districts) $14 Juniper Mesa/Apache Creek (Prescott) $14 Coronado (Sierra Vista & Nogales Districts) $14 Mazatzal (Tonto) $14 Coronado (Douglas District) $14 Mt. Baldy (Apache) $14 Coronado N. Chiricahua Mountains. & Chiricahua National $14 Mt. Wrightson and Pajarita (Coronado) $14 Monument Pusch Ridge (Coronado) $14 Kaibab (North) $14 Superstition (Tonto) $14 Kaibab (Tusayan & Williams Districts) $14 Sycamore Canyon Wilderness (Coconino, Kaibab, and Prescott) $14 Prescott $14 Tonto $14 New Mexico Location Qty Price Total New Mexico Apache Kid/Withington (Cibola) $14 Location Qty Price Total Aldo Leopold (Gila) $14 Carson $14 Capitan Mountains (Lincoln) $14 Cibola (Magdalena District) $14 Cruces Basin (Carson) $14 Cibola (Mt. Taylor District) $14 Gila $14 Cibola (Mountainair District) $14 Latir Peak/Wheeler Peak (Carson) $14 Cibola (Sandia District) $14 Manzano Mountains (Cibola) $14 Cibola (Kiowa/Rita Blanca National Grasslands – New Mexico, $14 Pecos (Santa Fe) $14 Oklahoma, Texas) San Pedro Parks (Santa Fe) $14 Cibola (Black Kettle National Grasslands - Oklahoma) $14 White Mountain (Lincoln) $14 Gila $14 Lincoln (Smokey Bear & Sacramento Districts) $14 Lincoln (Guadalupe District) $14 Totals Santa Fe $14 Quantity Total Other Map Products Location Qty Price Total Name: _________________________________________________________________ AZ Big Game Hunting Unit Topographic Map Index $2 Address: ________________________________________________________________ NM Big Game Hunting Unit Topographic Map Index $2 City, State, Zip ___________________________________________________________ Gila Day Hikes near Gila Visitor Center $2 Phone __________________________________________________________________ Mt.
    [Show full text]
  • USDA Forest Service Youth Conservation Corps Projects 2021
    1 USDA Forest Service Youth Conservation Corps Projects 2021 Alabama Tuskegee, National Forests in Alabama, dates 6/6/2021--8/13/2021, Project Contact: Darrius Truss, [email protected] 404-550-5114 Double Springs, National Forests in Alabama, 6/6/2021--8/13/2021, Project Contact: Shane Hoskins, [email protected] 334-314- 4522 Alaska Juneau, Tongass National Forest / Admiralty Island National Monument, 6/14/2021--8/13/2021 Project Contact: Don MacDougall, [email protected] 907-789-6280 Arizona Douglas, Coronado National Forest, 6/13/2021--7/25/2021, Project Contacts: Doug Ruppel and Brian Stultz, [email protected] and [email protected] 520-388-8438 Prescott, Prescott National Forest, 6/13/2021--7/25/2021, Project Contact: Nina Hubbard, [email protected] 928- 232-0726 Phoenix, Tonto National Forest, 6/7/2021--7/25/2021, Project Contact: Brooke Wheelock, [email protected] 602-225-5257 Arkansas Glenwood, Ouachita National Forest, 6/7/2021--7/30/2021, Project Contact: Bill Jackson, [email protected] 501-701-3570 Mena, Ouachita National Forest, 6/7/2021--7/30/2021, Project Contact: Bill Jackson, [email protected] 501- 701-3570 California Mount Shasta, Shasta Trinity National Forest, 6/28/2021--8/6/2021, Project Contact: Marcus Nova, [email protected] 530-926-9606 Etna, Klamath National Forest, 6/7/2021--7/31/2021, Project Contact: Jeffrey Novak, [email protected] 530-841- 4467 USDA Forest Service Youth Conservation Corps Projects 2021 2 Colorado Grand Junction, Grand Mesa Uncomphagre and Gunnison National Forests, 6/7/2021--8/14/2021 Project Contact: Lacie Jurado, [email protected] 970-817-4053, 2 projects.
    [Show full text]
  • Table 8 - National Wilderness Areas in Multiple States
    Table 8 - National Wilderness Areas in Multiple States * Unit is in two or more States ** Acres estimated pending final boundary determination + Special Area that is part of a proclaimed National Forest National Wilderness Area State NFS Other Total Unit Name Acreage Acreage Acreage Absaroka-Beartooth Wilderness Montana Custer National Forest* 331,130 1,482 332,612 Gallatin National Forest 582,181 2,657 584,838 Wyoming Shoshone National Forest 23,694 0 23,694 Absaroka-Beartooth Wilderness Total 937,005 4,139 941,144 Big Frog Wilderness Georgia Chattahoochee National Forest 136 0 136 Tennessee Cherokee National Forest* 7,996 0 7,996 Big Frog Wilderness Total 8,132 0 8,132 Black Fork Mountain Wilderness Arkansas Ouachita National Forest* 8,249 79 8,328 Oklahoma Ouachita National Forest* 5,098 40 5,138 Black Fork Mountain Wilderness Total 13,347 119 13,466 Cohutta Wilderness Georgia Chattahoochee National Forest 35,284 9 35,293 Tennessee Cherokee National Forest* 1,746 0 1,746 Cohutta Wilderness Total 37,030 9 37,039 Ellicott Rock Wilderness Georgia Chattahoochee National Forest 2,023 0 2,023 North Carolina Nantahala National Forest 3,417 0 3,417 South Carolina Sumter National Forest 2,857 9 2,866 Ellicott Rock Wilderness Total 8,297 9 8,306 Refresh Date: 10/18/2014 Table 8 - National Wilderness Areas in Multiple States * Unit is in two or more States ** Acres estimated pending final boundary determination + Special Area that is part of a proclaimed National Forest National Wilderness Area State NFS Other Total Unit Name Acreage Acreage Acreage
    [Show full text]