DOCSLIB.ORG

North Umpqua Wild and Scenic River Environmental Assessment

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
North Umpqua Wild and Scenic River Environmental Assessment NORW UMPQUA WII), AND SCENIC RIVER Environmental Assessment AWildUtJdMenicrivaenvirrmrnentcrlarceJstnantdevebpedjoinCIyby:. U. S. DEPT OF AGRlCUIXURE U.S. DEPT. ;Eu Ib$‘EIXIO; FOREST SERVICE Pa&k Northwest Region gg @ TqjT Umpqua National Forest OREGON STATE PARKS Q RECREATION DEPARTMENT JULY 1992 Environmental Assessment North Umpqua Wild and Scenic River Table ofContents CHAPTER I Purpoee and Need for Action.. ............................................................................... 1 Purpcee and Need/Proposed Action .............................................................................................I Background...................................................................................................................................... .1 Management Goal ...........................................................................................................................2 Scoping ............................................................................................................................................. 2 Outstandingly Remarkable Values ................................................................................................5 l.ssues................................................................................................................................................ 5 CHAPTER II Affected Envlronment .............................................................................................7 Setting............................................................................................................................................... .7 Climate/Geology ..............................................................................................................................7 Hydrology.. ........................................................................................................................................a Fish ................................................................................................................................................16 Wildlife.............................................................................................................................................26 Vegetation ....................................................................................................................................29 Timber............................................................................................................................................. 30 Guttural ..........................................................................................................................................32 Recreation ....................................................................................................................................34 Scenery ..........................................................................................................................................45 Land Ownership and Uses ......................................................................................................... 46 Access Within the Corridor ......................................................................................................... 49 Minerals ..........................................................................................................................................50 Energy and Utilization ..................................................................................................................50 Fire ................................................................................................................................................ 51 Congressional Designations......................................................................................................... 51 Tribal Considerations .................................................................................................................. 51 CHAPTER Ill Alternatives ............................................................................................................ 53 Overview of the Alternatives......................................................................................................... 53 Elements Common to All Aiternatives ....................................................................................... 53 Description ot the Alternatives .................................................................................. ................. 56 Boundary Process ........................................................................................................................66 Project Proposals...........................................................................................................................70 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Further Conslderation .................................... 74 CHAPTER Iv Environmental Conaaquenoas ........................................................................... 75 water ............................................................................................................................................. 75 Fish ................................................................................................................................................ 77 Cultural .......................................................................................................................................... 64 Recreation ....................................................................................................................................85 Scenery ..........................................................................................................................................86 Vegetation .................................................................................................................................... 67 Wildlife/Plants ................................................................................................................................. 67 6ocbEconomic ........................................................................................................................... 67 Boundary ....................................................................................................................................... 69 Prhrate Landowners ..................................................................................................................... 69 APPENDIX A Dbxaalon of Oubtendlngly Remarkable Reeouroe Valuw ........................ 91 .~_ APPENDIX B Site Speclflc ProJecl Propoeab ........................................................................1Oi _ APPENDIX C Glaeealy.. ...............................................................................................................113. APPENDIX D Llel of Preparen ..................................................................................................127. APPENDIX E Referencea ...........................................................................................................129. APPENDIX F Comutetlon end Aeeletanw from Others ......................................................133 -, .- - CHAPTER I Purpose and Need for Action _-:, Purpose and The proposed action ls the development ofa comprehensive rivermanagement NeedlProposed plan for the North Umpqua River as the result of Congressional designation Action via the Omnibus Oregon Wild and Scenic RhrersAct of 1955. The decisions _. to be made include: � Methods to protect and enhance outstandingly remarkable dyer-related values. ,- � Determination of the boundary. Planning for National Forests and SLM lands has two levels. The first level of planning, the programmaticlevel, is ths Forest Plan and Resource Management Plan. This level provides area-wide analysis and management standards and guidelines. This rker management piannlng process fails within this catagory. r. The second level of planning is s5e-specifk project planning. Projectsidentified in this river planning process must go through this level of NEPA analysis before implementation. *. The results of this process will require an amendment to the Umpqua National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. Background Recognizing the need to protect outstanding free4kwing rivers, Congress passed the Wild and Scenic RhrersAct in I93B. To complement the Federal Wild and Scenic Rivers AU, the State of Oregon passed the Oregon Scenic - Waterways AU in 19B9 to preserve free4iowfng rkers and their associated sign5icant resource vafues and to prctect the property rights of adjacent landowners. in 1978, the US Forest Service adopted their decadal Land Use Plan (LMP) which spec5ied that the North Umpqua Rhrerwould be managed as a Wild and Scenic River even though it had not yet been designated. In 1993, the __ BLM adopted their Resource Management Plan (RMP) and took the same actkn. In 19513,the State of Oregon conducted an evaiuatkn of the scenic waterway potentiai of the North Umpqua River from slackwater at Wkchester Dam to Soda Spdngs Dam. The evaiuatkn process sewed to eliminate river segments that did not fulfill, in an outstanding manner, the scenk waterway criteria as depicted by the Oregon Scenk Waterways Act. The study concluded that a 33.5-rniie segment of the North Umpqua Rfver, from Rock Creek to Soda Springs Powerhouse, met the qua5fkatkns for State scenic waterway - designation as outlined by ORS 399.855. The segment was recommended for inclusion in the Oregon Scenic Waterway system because it possessed 1 r - Chapter I _~ outstanding
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Timing of In-Water Work to Protect Fish and Wildlife Resources
    OREGON GUIDELINES FOR TIMING OF IN-WATER WORK TO PROTECT FISH AND WILDLIFE RESOURCES June, 2008 Purpose of Guidelines - The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, (ODFW), “The guidelines are to assist under its authority to manage Oregon’s fish and wildlife resources has updated the following guidelines for timing of in-water work. The guidelines are to assist the the public in minimizing public in minimizing potential impacts to important fish, wildlife and habitat potential impacts...”. resources. Developing the Guidelines - The guidelines are based on ODFW district fish “The guidelines are based biologists’ recommendations. Primary considerations were given to important fish species including anadromous and other game fish and threatened, endangered, or on ODFW district fish sensitive species (coded list of species included in the guidelines). Time periods were biologists’ established to avoid the vulnerable life stages of these fish including migration, recommendations”. spawning and rearing. The preferred work period applies to the listed streams, unlisted upstream tributaries, and associated reservoirs and lakes. Using the Guidelines - These guidelines provide the public a way of planning in-water “These guidelines provide work during periods of time that would have the least impact on important fish, wildlife, and habitat resources. ODFW will use the guidelines as a basis for the public a way of planning commenting on planning and regulatory processes. There are some circumstances where in-water work during it may be appropriate to perform in-water work outside of the preferred work period periods of time that would indicated in the guidelines. ODFW, on a project by project basis, may consider variations in climate, location, and category of work that would allow more specific have the least impact on in-water work timing recommendations.
    [Show full text]
  • A Bill to Designate Certain National Forest System Lands in the State of Oregon for Inclusion in the National Wilderness Preservation System and for Other Purposes
    97 H.R.7340 Title: A bill to designate certain National Forest System lands in the State of Oregon for inclusion in the National Wilderness Preservation System and for other purposes. Sponsor: Rep Weaver, James H. [OR-4] (introduced 12/1/1982) Cosponsors (2) Latest Major Action: 12/15/1982 Failed of passage/not agreed to in House. Status: Failed to Receive 2/3's Vote to Suspend and Pass by Yea-Nay Vote: 247 - 141 (Record Vote No: 454). SUMMARY AS OF: 12/9/1982--Reported to House amended, Part I. (There is 1 other summary) (Reported to House from the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs with amendment, H.Rept. 97-951 (Part I)) Oregon Wilderness Act of 1982 - Designates as components of the National Wilderness Preservation System the following lands in the State of Oregon: (1) the Columbia Gorge Wilderness in the Mount Hood National Forest; (2) the Salmon-Huckleberry Wilderness in the Mount Hood National Forest; (3) the Badger Creek Wilderness in the Mount Hood National Forest; (4) the Hidden Wilderness in the Mount Hood and Willamette National Forests; (5) the Middle Santiam Wilderness in the Willamette National Forest; (6) the Rock Creek Wilderness in the Siuslaw National Forest; (7) the Cummins Creek Wilderness in the Siuslaw National Forest; (8) the Boulder Creek Wilderness in the Umpqua National Forest; (9) the Rogue-Umpqua Divide Wilderness in the Umpqua and Rogue River National Forests; (10) the Grassy Knob Wilderness in and adjacent to the Siskiyou National Forest; (11) the Red Buttes Wilderness in and adjacent to the Siskiyou
    [Show full text]
  • Bretz Club Field Guide - Sunset Bay Area 2012 P.183-198
    Bretz Club Field Guide - Sunset Bay Area 2012 p.183-198 Wallick et al., 2011, Umpqua River Channel Change & Transport p. 199-215 Stop 1. Bastendorff Beach Figure 1‐1. Navigation Leaving OIMB, our first stop is Bastendorff Beach, a short drive over Coos Head. Oregon Beach dynamics The Oregon Coast is highly active, with one of the most energetic wave climates (Figure 1‐2) in the world, and all of that energy pushes a lot of sand around. We all learned about longshore drift in Geo 101, but the pattern in Oregon is fundamentally different. Oregon’s coast is broken into a series of “pocket beach” littoral cells, long stretches of dune or bluff‐backed beach bounded by rocky headlands that extend into water that is deep enough to block sediment transport around the ends of the headlands. There are also large differences in the direction and energy of summer versus winter waves (Figure 1‐3); highly energetic winter waves erode the beaches and move sand offshore to form sand bars, while gentler summer waves restore the sand to the beaches. Within each cell, sand also moves north or south depending on the prevailing wave directions and in response to climate events such as El Nino’s. Here at Bastendorf beach we see evidence for this intra‐cell movement in the form of dramatic accretion of the beach since the construction of the south jetty in the early 1900’s. The beach rapidly accreted (Figure 1‐3) until about 1967, and has reached some state of equilibrium since then.
    [Show full text]
  • ON TAP “Drinking Water You Can Trust”
    ON TAP “Drinking Water You Can Trust” Vol. 24 Issue 1 March 1, 2010 2009 YEAR IN REVIEW 2009 was a year of slow growth for Umpqua Basin Water Association, Inc. Our membership grew with the addition of 4 new members. We had 19 new members join the Association but, we lost 15 members. Your Association grew to a total of 3,240 members. CURRENT AND PLANNED SYSTEM UPGRADES In 2009 your Association completed one of its largest projects to date. We replaced the water mainline that was hanging on Browns Bridge with a 950’, 22” HDPE (High Density Polyethylene) line, under the North Umpqua River. This new mainline has a life expectancy that will probably outlast the next two new bridges. ODOT and Douglas County are in the development stages of a new overpass that will be replacing the current Del Rio Rd over pass (exit 129). At this time UBWA is considering where our current line, which is attached to the current over pass, will be located. We are currently working with all the landowners, Douglas County, ODOT and others in this process. THE NORTH UMPQUA RIVER The North Umpqua River is a tributary of the Umpqua River, approximately 100 miles long, in southwestern Oregon in the United States. It drains a scenic and rugged area of the Cascade Range southwest of Eugene, flowing through steep canyons and surrounded by large Douglas fir forests. The North Umpqua River rises in the high Cascades, issuing from Maidu Lake at an elevation of 5,980 feet in the Mount Thielsen Wilderness.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Oregon Plan Assessment- Hydropower Program
    Part 4(C) ODFW (8) Hydro Final Report May 6, 2005 OREGON PLAN ASSESSMENT- HYDROPOWER PROGRAM OREGON COAST COHO SALMON ESU Perspective The impacts to coho salmon populations from hydroelectric projects are variable among stream basins or within evolutionarily significant units (ESU). Hydropower development within the Oregon Coastal Coho ESU has not been as extensive as within other ESU’s, and impacts are not a significant issue within this ESU, except in the Umpqua River Basin where two major hydroelectric projects have been constructed. These are PacifiCorp’s North Umpqua project (FERC 1927) and Douglas County’s Galesville project (FERC 7161). Both projects were constructed without fish passage facilities and prevent anadromous fish, including coho salmon, from accessing approximately 8 miles of historical habitat in the upper North Umpqua River (North Umpqua project) and 28 miles in Cow Creek (Galesville project), a tributary to the South Umpqua. There are five other small non-FERC licensed hydroelectric projects within this ESU which have hydroelectric licenses authorized by the Oregon Water Resources Department (OWRD). All are outside of coho spawning, rearing and migration corridors. ESU Perspective Conclusion Generally, within the majority of the ESU, impacts from hydroelectric projects are insignificant or non-existent. Specifically, within the Umpqua basin, Oregon Coastal coho have been prevented from reaching 36 miles of spawning and rearing habitat by hydroelectric projects. Impacts to downstream reaches include; alteration of flows and interruption of natural sediment and large woody debris regimes. Mitigation measures have already been implemented and additional measures will be implemented as part of hydroelectric project relicensing and reauthorization.
    [Show full text]
  • OR Wild -Backmatter V2
    208 OREGON WILD Afterword JIM CALLAHAN One final paragraph of advice: do not burn yourselves out. Be as I am — a reluctant enthusiast.... a part-time crusader, a half-hearted fanatic. Save the other half of your- selves and your lives for pleasure and adventure. It is not enough to fight for the land; it is even more important to enjoy it. While you can. While it is still here. So get out there and hunt and fish and mess around with your friends, ramble out yonder and explore the forests, climb the mountains, bag the peaks, run the rivers, breathe deep of that yet sweet and lucid air, sit quietly for awhile and contemplate the precious still- ness, the lovely mysterious and awesome space. Enjoy yourselves, keep your brain in your head and your head firmly attached to the body, the body active and alive and I promise you this much: I promise you this one sweet victory over our enemies, over those desk-bound men with their hearts in a safe-deposit box and their eyes hypnotized by desk calculators. I promise you this: you will outlive the bastards. —Edward Abbey1 Edward Abbey. Ed, take it from another Ed, not only can wilderness lovers outlive wilderness opponents, we can also defeat them. The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men (sic) UNIVERSITY, SHREVEPORT UNIVERSITY, to do nothing. MES SMITH NOEL COLLECTION, NOEL SMITH MES NOEL COLLECTION, MEMORIAL LIBRARY, LOUISIANA STATE LOUISIANA LIBRARY, MEMORIAL —Edmund Burke2 JA Edmund Burke. 1 Van matre, Steve and Bill Weiler.
    [Show full text]
  • Public Law 98-328-June 26, 1984
    98 STAT. 272 PUBLIC LAW 98-328-JUNE 26, 1984 Public Law 98-328 98th Congress An Act June 26, 1984 To designate certain national forest system and other lands in the State of Oregon for inclusion in the National Wilderness Preservation System, and for other purposes. [H.R. 1149] Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Oregon United States ofAmerica in Congress assembled, That this Act may Wilderness Act be referred to as the "Oregon Wilderness Act of 1984". of 1984. National SEc. 2. (a) The Congress finds that- Wilderness (1) many areas of undeveloped National Forest System land in Preservation the State of Oregon possess outstanding natural characteristics System. which give them high value as wilderness and will, if properly National Forest preserved, contribute as an enduring resource of wilderness for System. the ben~fit of the American people; (2) the Department of Agriculture's second roadless area review and evaluation (RARE II) of National Forest System lands in the State of Oregon and the related congressional review of such lands have identified areas which, on the basis of their landform, ecosystem, associated wildlife, and location, will help to fulfill the National Forest System's share of a quality National Wilderness Preservation System; and (3) the Department of Agriculture's second roadless area review and evaluation of National Forest System lands in the State of Oregon and the related congressional review of such lands have also identified areas which do not possess outstand­ ing wilderness attributes or which possess outstanding energy, mineral, timber, grazing, dispersed recreation and other values and which should not now be designated as components of the National Wilderness Preservation System but should be avail­ able for nonwilderness multiple uses under the land manage­ ment planning process and other applicable laws.
    [Show full text]
  • Geology and Mineral Resources of Douglas County
    STATE OF OREGON DEPARTMENT OF GEOLOGY AND MINERAL INDUSTRIES 1069 State Office Building Portland, Oregon 97201 BU LLE TIN 75 GEOLOGY & MINERAL RESOURCES of DOUGLAS COUNTY, OREGON Le n Ra mp Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries The preparation of this report was financially aided by a grant from Doug I as County GOVERNING BOARD R. W. deWeese, Portland, Chairman William E. Miller, Bend Donald G. McGregor, Grants Pass STATE GEOLOGIST R. E. Corcoran FOREWORD Douglas County has a history of mining operations extending back for more than 100 years. During this long time interval there is recorded produc­ tion of gold, silver, copper, lead, zinc, mercury, and nickel, plus lesser amounts of other metalliferous ores. The only nickel mine in the United States, owned by The Hanna Mining Co., is located on Nickel Mountain, approxi­ mately 20 miles south of Roseburg. The mine and smelter have operated con­ tinuously since 1954 and provide year-round employment for more than 500 people. Sand and gravel production keeps pace with the local construction needs. It is estimated that the total value of all raw minerals produced in Douglas County during 1972 will exceed $10, 000, 000 . This bulletin is the first in a series of reports to be published by the Department that will describe the general geology of each county in the State and provide basic information on mineral resources. It is particularly fitting that the first of the series should be Douglas County since it is one of the min­ eral leaders in the state and appears to have considerable potential for new discoveries during the coming years.
    [Show full text]
  • Umpqua National Forest
    Travel Management Plan ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Umpqua National Forest Pacific March 2010 Northwest Region The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, 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 TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 14th and Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (202) 720-5964 (voice and TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. TRAVEL MANAGEMENT PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT LEAD AGENCY USDA Forest Service, Umpqua National Forest COOPERATING AGENCY Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL Clifford J. Dils, Forest Supervisor Umpqua National Forest 2900 NW Stewart Parkway Roseburg, OR 97471 Phone: 541-957-3200 FOR MORE INFORMATION CONTACT Scott Elefritz, Natural Resource Specialist Umpqua National Forest 2900 NW Stewart Parkway Roseburg, OR 97471 Phone: 541-957-3437 email: [email protected] Electronic comments can be mailed to: comments-pacificnorthwest- [email protected] i ABSTRACT On November 9, 2005, the Forest Service published final travel management regulations in the Federal Register (FR Vol. 70, No. 216-Nov. 9, 2005, pp 68264- 68291) (Final Rule). The final rule revised regulations 36 CFR 212, 251, 261 and 295 to require national forests and grasslands to designate a system of roads, trails and areas open to motor vehicle use by class of vehicle and, if appropriate, time of year.
    [Show full text]
  • The Distribution and Relative Abundance of Spawning and Larval Pacific Lamprey in the Willamette River Basin
    The distribution and relative abundance of spawning and larval Pacific lamprey in the Willamette River Basin Final Report to the Columbia Inter-Tribal Fish Commission for project years 2011-2014 May 2014 Prepared by Luke Schultz1* Mariah P. Mayfield1, 2 Gabriel T. Sheoships1 Lance A. Wyss3 Benjamin J. Clemens4 Brandon Chasco5 and Carl B. Schreck6 (P.I.) CRITFC Contract number C13-11 Fiscal Year 2013 (May 1, 2013-April 30, 2014) BPA Contract number 60877 BPA Project number 2008-524-00 1Oregon Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, U. S. Geological Survey, 104 Nash Hall, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR 97331 *E-mail: [email protected]; phone: 541-737-1964 2current address: Rural Aquaculture Promotion, Peace Corps, Lusaka, Zambia 3current address: Calapooia, North Santiam, and South Santiam Watershed Councils Brownsville, OR 4current address: Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Salem, OR Corvallis, OR 97331 5Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, 104 Nash Hall, Oregon State University 6USGS, Oregon Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, 104 Nash Hall Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR 97331. [email protected] Acknowledgements Funding for this study was provided by the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission through the Columbia Basin Fish Accords partnership with the Bonneville Power Administration under project 2008-524-00, Brian McIlraith, project manager. Fieldwork assistance was generously provided by J. Doyle, B. Gregorie, B. McIlraith, K. Kuhn, V. Mayfield, R. McCoun, J. Sáenz, L. Schwabe, K. McDonnell and C. Christianson. B. Heinith, J. Peterson, B. Gerth, G. Giannico, J. Jolley, G.
    [Show full text]
  • Summary of Public Comment, Appendix B
    Summary of Public Comment on Roadless Area Conservation Appendix B Requests for Inclusion or Exemption of Specific Areas Table B-1. Requested Inclusions Under the Proposed Rulemaking. Region 1 Northern NATIONAL FOREST OR AREA STATE GRASSLAND The state of Idaho Multiple ID (Individual, Boise, ID - #6033.10200) Roadless areas in Idaho Multiple ID (Individual, Olga, WA - #16638.10110) Inventoried and uninventoried roadless areas (including those Multiple ID, MT encompassed in the Northern Rockies Ecosystem Protection Act) (Individual, Bemidji, MN - #7964.64351) Roadless areas in Montana Multiple MT (Individual, Olga, WA - #16638.10110) Pioneer Scenic Byway in southwest Montana Beaverhead MT (Individual, Butte, MT - #50515.64351) West Big Hole area Beaverhead MT (Individual, Minneapolis, MN - #2892.83000) Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness, along the Selway River, and the Beaverhead-Deerlodge, MT Anaconda-Pintler Wilderness, at Johnson lake, the Pioneer Bitterroot Mountains in the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest and the Great Bear Wilderness (Individual, Missoula, MT - #16940.90200) CLEARWATER NATIONAL FOREST: NORTH FORK Bighorn, Clearwater, Idaho ID, MT, COUNTRY- Panhandle, Lolo WY MALLARD-LARKINS--1300 (also on the Idaho Panhandle National Forest)….encompasses most of the high country between the St. Joe and North Fork Clearwater Rivers….a low elevation section of the North Fork Clearwater….Logging sales (Lower Salmon and Dworshak Blowdown) …a potential wild and scenic river section of the North Fork... THE GREAT BURN--1301 (or Hoodoo also on the Lolo National Forest) … harbors the incomparable Kelly Creek and includes its confluence with Cayuse Creek. This area forms a major headwaters for the North Fork of the Clearwater. …Fish Lake… the Jap, Siam, Goose and Shell Creek drainages WEITAS CREEK--1306 (Bighorn-Weitas)…Weitas Creek…North Fork Clearwater.
    [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]