DOCSLIB.ORG

Arizona Missing Linkages

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Arizona Missing Linkages ARIZONA MISSING LINKAGES Munds Mountain – Black Hills Linkage Design Paul Beier, Daniel Majka, Emily Garding submitted September 2006 last revised March 13, 2007 MUNDS MOUNTAIN -BLACK HILLS LINKAGE DESIGN Acknowledgments This project would not have been possible without the help of many individuals. We thank Chasa O’Brien, and Dr. Jason Marshal for parameterizing models for focal species and suggesting focal species. Catherine Wightman, Fenner Yarborough, Janet Lynn, Mylea Bayless, Andi Rogers, Mikele Painter, Valerie Horncastle, Matthew Johnson, Jeff Gagnon, Erica Nowak, Lee Luedeker, Allen Haden, Shaula Hedwall, and Martin Lawrence helped identify focal species and species experts. Robert Shantz provided photos for many of the species accounts. Shawn Newell, Jeff Jenness, Megan Friggens, and Matt Clark provided helpful advice on analyses and reviewed portions of the results. Funding This project was funded by a grant from Arizona Game and Fish Department to Northern Arizona University. Recommended Citation Beier, P., D. Majka, and E. Garding. 2006. Arizona Missing Linkages: Munds Mountain – Black Hills Linkage Design. Report to Arizona Game and Fish Department. School of Forestry, Northern Arizona University. Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................................................ I LIST OF TABLES & FIGURES............................................................................................................................. III TERMINOLOGY.......................................................................................................................................................V EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................................................................................................................... VI INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................................................1 NATURE NEEDS ROOM TO MOVE ...............................................................................................................................1 A STATEWIDE VISION .................................................................................................................................................1 ECOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE OF THE MUNDS MOUNTAIN – BLACK HILLS LINKAGE ...................................................2 EXISTING CONSERVATION INVESTMENTS ...................................................................................................................3 THREATS TO CONNECTIVITY ......................................................................................................................................4 LINKAGE DESIGN & RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................................................................................9 FOUR ROUTES AND A TWISTING RIPARIAN STRAND PROVIDE CONNECTIVITY ACROSS A DIVERSE LANDSCAPE .......9 LAND OWNERSHIP , LAND COVER , AND TOPOGRAPHIC PATTERNS WITHIN THE LINKAGE DESIGN ...........................10 IMPACTS OF ROADS ON WILDLIFE ............................................................................................................................14 Mitigation for Roads............................................................................................................................................14 Existing Roads in the Linkage Design Area ........................................................................................................18 Existing Crossing Structures on Highway 89A and Highway 260 ......................................................................18 Recommendations for Highway Crossing Structures ..........................................................................................24 IMPEDIMENTS TO STREAMS ......................................................................................................................................26 Importance of Riparian Systems in the Southwest...............................................................................................26 Stream Impediments in the Linkage Design Area................................................................................................26 Mitigating Stream Impediments...........................................................................................................................26 URBAN DEVELOPMENT AS BARRIERS TO MOVEMENT ..............................................................................................28 Urban Barriers in the Linkage Design Area........................................................................................................28 Mitigation for Urban Barriers.............................................................................................................................29 APPENDIX A: LINKAGE DESIGN METHODS..................................................................................................31 FOCAL SPECIES SELECTION ......................................................................................................................................31 HABITAT SUITABILITY MODELS ...............................................................................................................................32 IDENTIFYING POTENTIAL BREEDING PATCHES & POTENTIAL POPULATION CORES ..................................................33 IDENTIFYING BIOLOGICALLY BEST CORRIDORS .......................................................................................................34 PATCH CONFIGURATION ANALYSIS ..........................................................................................................................35 MINIMUM LINKAGE WIDTH ......................................................................................................................................36 FIELD INVESTIGATIONS ............................................................................................................................................37 APPENDIX B: INDIVIDUAL SPECIES ANALYSES ..........................................................................................38 BLACK BEAR (URSUS AMERICANUS )..........................................................................................................................40 ELK (CERVUS ELAPHUS )............................................................................................................................................43 JAVELINA (TAYASSU TAJACU ) ....................................................................................................................................46 MOUNTAIN LION (PUMA CONCOLOR )........................................................................................................................49 MULE DEER (ODOCOILEUS HEMIONUS ).....................................................................................................................52 PRONGHORN (ANTILOCAPRA AMERICANA )..................................................................................................................55 RIPARIAN AND AQUATIC OBLIGATES .......................................................................................................................58 APPENDIX C: SUGGESTED FOCAL SPECIES NOT MODELED...................................................................61 APPENDIX D: CREATION OF LINKAGE DESIGN ..........................................................................................63 APPENDIX E: DESCRIPTION OF LAND COVER CLASSES ..........................................................................64 Arizona Missing Linkages i Munds Mountain – Black Hills Linkage APPENDIX F: LITERATURE CITED...................................................................................................................67 APPENDIX G: DATABASE OF FIELD INVESTIGATIONS .............................................................................72 Arizona Missing Linkages ii Munds Mountain – Black Hills Linkage List of Tables & Figures List of Tables TABLE 1: FOCAL SPECIES SELECTED FOR MUNDS MOUNTAIN – BLACK HILLS LINKAGE ............................................. VII TABLE 2: APPROXIMATE LAND COVER FOUND WITHIN LINKAGE DESIGN .....................................................................10 TABLE 3: MAJOR TRANSPORTATION ROUTES IN THE LINKAGE DESIGN . .......................................................................20 TABLE 4: HABITAT SUITABILITY SCORES AND FACTOR WEIGHTS FOR EACH SPECIES. SCORES RANGE FROM 1 (BEST ) TO 10 (WORST ), WITH 1-3 INDICATING OPTIMAL HABITAT , 4-5 SUBOPTIMAL BUT USABLE HABITAT , 6-7 OCCASIONALLY USED BUT NOT BREEDING HABITAT , AND 8-10 AVOIDED . ............................................................38 List of Figures FIGURE 1: THE LINKAGE DESIGN BETWEEN THE MUNDS MOUNTAIN AND BLACK HILLS WILDLAND BLOCKS INCLUDES FOUR TERRESTRIAL STRANDS (LABELED A-D), AND A TWISTING RIPARIAN STRAND (LABELED E), EACH OF WHICH IS IMPORTANT TO DIFFERENT SPECIES ................................................................................................................. VIII FIGURE 2: LAND OWNERSHIP WITHIN THE LINKAGE PLANNING AREA ............................................................................5 FIGURE 3: LAND COVER WITHIN THE LINKAGE PLANNING AREA . ..................................................................................6 FIGURE 4: THE LINKAGE PLANNING AREA (CIRCLED ) IS CONNECTED TO VAST STRETCHES
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 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]
  • Land Areas of the National Forest System
    United States Department of Agriculture Land Areas of the National Forest System As of September 30, 2018 Forest Service WO Lands FS-383 November 2018 United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Land Areas of the WO, Lands National Forest FS-383 System November 2018 As of September 30, 2018 Published by: USDA Forest Service 1400 Independence Ave., SW Washington, D.C. 20250-0003 Web site: https://www.fs.fed.us/land/staff/lar-index.shtml Cover photo courtesy of: Chris Chavez Statistics are current as of: 10/15/2018 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 = 192,948,059 NFS lands are organized into: 9 Forest Service Regions 112 Administrative Forest or Forest-level units 506 Ranger District or District-level units The Forest Service administers 128 Wild and Scenic Rivers in 23 States and 446 National Wilderness Areas in 39 States. The FS also administers several other types of nationally-designated areas: 1 National Historic Area in 1 State 1 National Scenic Research Area in 1 State 1 Scenic Recreation Area in 1 State 1 Scenic Wildlife Area in 1 State 2 National Botanical Areas in 1 State 2 National Volcanic Monument Areas in 2 States 2 Recreation Management Areas in 2 States 6 National Protection Areas in 3 States 8 National Scenic Areas in 6 States 12 National Monument Areas in 6 States 12 Special Management Areas in 5 States 21 National Game Refuge or Wildlife Preserves in 12 States 22 National Recreation Areas in 20 States Table of Contents Acreage Calculation ...........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Summits on the Air – ARM for the USA (W7A
    Summits on the Air – ARM for the U.S.A (W7A - Arizona) Summits on the Air U.S.A. (W7A - Arizona) Association Reference Manual Document Reference S53.1 Issue number 5.0 Date of issue 31-October 2020 Participation start date 01-Aug 2010 Authorized Date: 31-October 2020 Association Manager Pete Scola, WA7JTM Summits-on-the-Air an original concept by G3WGV and developed with G3CWI Notice “Summits on the Air” SOTA and the SOTA logo are trademarks of the Programme. This document is copyright of the Programme. All other trademarks and copyrights referenced herein are acknowledged. Document S53.1 Page 1 of 15 Summits on the Air – ARM for the U.S.A (W7A - Arizona) TABLE OF CONTENTS CHANGE CONTROL....................................................................................................................................... 3 DISCLAIMER................................................................................................................................................. 4 1 ASSOCIATION REFERENCE DATA ........................................................................................................... 5 1.1 Program Derivation ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 6 1.2 General Information ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 6 1.3 Final Ascent
    [Show full text]
  • (Central Arizona) GEOSPHERE
    Research Paper GEOSPHERE Incision history of the Verde Valley region and implications for uplift of the Colorado Plateau (central Arizona) 1 2 2 GEOSPHERE; v. 14, no. 4 Richard F. Ott , Kelin X. Whipple , and Matthijs van Soest 1Department of Earth Sciences, ETH Zurich, Sonneggstrasse 5, 8092 Zurich, Switzerland 2School of Earth and Space Exploration, Arizona State University, 781 S. Terrace Road, Tempe, Arizona 85287, USA https://doi.org/10.1130/GES01640.1 12 figures; 3 tables; 1 supplemental file ABSTRACT et al., 2008; Moucha et al., 2009; Huntington et al., 2010; Liu and Gurnis, 2010; Flowers and Farley, 2012; Crow et al., 2014; Darling and Whipple, 2015; Karl- CORRESPONDENCE: richard .ott1900@ gmail .com The record of Tertiary landscape evolution preserved in Arizona’s transition strom et al., 2017). As part of this debate, the incision of the Mogollon Rim, zone presents an independent opportunity to constrain the timing of Colo­ the southwestern edge of the Colorado Plateau (Fig. 1), is not well constrained CITATION: Ott, R.F., Whipple, K.X., and van Soest, rado Plateau uplift and incision. We study this record of landscape evolution in the literature, and disparate ideas about its formation and incision history M., Incision history of the Verde Valley region and implications for uplift of the Colorado Plateau by mapping Tertiary sediments, volcanic deposits, and the erosional uncon­ have been proposed (Peirce et al., 1979; Lindberg, 1986; Elston and Young, ( central Ari zona): Geosphere, v. 14, no. 4, p. 1690– formity at their base, 40Ar/39Ar dating of basaltic lava flows in key locations, and 1991; Holm, 2001).
    [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]
  • Oak Creek Canyon
    ' " United States (. Il). Department of \~~!J'~~':P Agriculture CoconinoNational Forest Service ForestPlan Southwestern Region -""""" IU!S. IIIII.IIIIII... I I i I--- I I II I /"r, Vicinity Map @ , " .. .' , ",', '. ',,' , ". ,.' , ' ' .. .' ':':: ~'::.»>::~: '::. Published August 1987 Coconino N.ational Forest Land and Resource Management Plan This Page Intentionally Left Blank Coconino Foresst Plan TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION Purpose of the Plan. 1 Organization of the Forest Plan Documentation. 2 Planning Area Description. 2 2. ISSUES Overview . 5 Issues . 5 Firewood . 6 Timber Harvest Levels. 7 The Availability of Recreation Options . 8 Off-Road Driving . 9 Wildlife Habitat . 9 Riparian Habitat . 11 Geothermal Development . .. 11 Management of the Transportation System . 12 Use of the Public Lands . 13 Law Enforcement . 13 Landownership Adjustment . 14 Opportunities . 14 Public Affairs . 14 Volunteers . 15 3. SUMMARY OF THE ANALYSIS OF THE MANAGEMENT SITUATION Overview . 17 Prior Allocations . 18 4. MANAGEMENT DIRECTION Overview . 21 Mission . 21 Goals . 21 Objectives . 26 Regional Guide/Forest Plan . 26 Outputs & Range of Implementation . 26 Management Prescriptions . 46 Management Area Description . 46 Management Emphasis . 46 Program Components . 46 Activities . .. 47 Standards and Guidelines . 47 How to Apply Prescriptions . .. 47 Coordinating Requirements . .. 47 Coconino National Forest Plan – Partial Cancellation of Amendment No. 15 -3/05 Replacement Page i Coconino Forest Plan Table of Contents continued Standards and Guidelines . 51 Forest-wide . 51 MA 1 Wildernesses . 98 MA 2 Verde Wild and Scenic River . .. 113 MA 3 Ponderosa Pine and Mixed Conifer, Less Than 40 Percent Slopes. .. 116 MA 4 Ponderosa Pine and Mixed Conifer, Greater Than 40 Percent Slopes. 138 MA 5 Aspen . 141 MA 6 Unproductive Timber Land .
    [Show full text]
  • Coconino National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan
    Appendix A PROGRAM COMPONENT INDEX AND MANAGEMENT INFORMATION HANDBOOK ACTIVITIES INDEX – APPENDIX A Program Component Index A2 Recreation Operation and Maintenance A3 Recreation Improvements B1 Wilderness C2 Wildlife and Fish O&M C3 Wildlife and Fish Habitat Improvements D2 Range O&M D3 Range Improvements E4 Reforestation E5 TSI E8 Timber Sales F2 Soil, Water, and Air O&M F3 Soil and Water Improvements G1 Minerals: Energy G2 Minerals: Nonenergy J2 Land Management Planning J3 Landownership Management L2 FA&O and Road O&M L3 FA&O and Road Construction/Reconstruction P2 Forest Fire Protection P3 Fuel Treatment With FFP T1 General Administration Coconino National Forest Plan 229 Appendix A Primary Code Code Description A01 Recreation Planning A02 Inventory A03 Cultural Resource Evaluation and Assessments A04 Cultural Resource Protection and Enhancement A05 Facility and Site Reconstruction A06 Facility and Site Construction A07 Facility and Site Management A08 Use Administration A11 Trail Construction B01 Wilderness Planning B02 Wilderness Inventory B03 Wilderness Use Administration C01 Survey, Planning, Prescriptions, Monitoring, Corporation, and Administration C02 Non-structural Habitat Improvement C03 Structural Habitat Improvement C04 Structural Habitat Maintenance D01 Range Resource Planning D02 Range Resource Inventory D03 Range Non-structural Improvement D04 Range Non-structural Improvement Maintenance D05 Range Structural Improvement - New D06 Range Structural Improvements - Maintenance E00 Timber Resource Management Planning and
    [Show full text]
  • Grand Canyon Council Oa Where to Go Camping Guide
    GRAND CANYON COUNCIL OA WHERE TO GO CAMPING GUIDE GRAND CANYON COUNCIL, BSA OA WHERE TO GO CAMPING GUIDE Table of Contents Introduction to The Order of the Arrow ....................................................................... 1 Wipala Wiki, The Man .................................................................................................. 1 General Information ...................................................................................................... 3 Desert Survival Safety Tips ........................................................................................... 4 Further Information ....................................................................................................... 4 Contact Agencies and Organizations ............................................................................. 5 National Forests ............................................................................................................. 5 U. S. Department Of The Interior - Bureau Of Land Management ................................ 7 Maricopa County Parks And Recreation System: .......................................................... 8 Arizona State Parks: .................................................................................................... 10 National Parks & National Monuments: ...................................................................... 11 Tribal Jurisdictions: ..................................................................................................... 13 On the Road: National
    [Show full text]
  • American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
    USDA Forest Service American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Projects as of June 2, 2009 TABLE OF CONTENTS ALABAMA 4 ALASKA 6 ARIZONA 12 CALIFORNIA 18 COLORADO 26 DELAWARE 30 FLORIDA 30 GEORGIA 31 HAWAII 34 IDAHO 34 ILLINOIS 41 INDIANA 43 KENTUCKY 45 MAINE 48 MASSACHUSETTS 50 MICHIGAN 51 MISSISSIPPI 60 MISSOURI 61 MONTANA 63 NEVADA 71 NEW HAMPSHIRE 75 NEW MEXICO 76 NEW YORK 78 NORTH CAROLINA 79 OHIO 81 Page 2 of 119 OREGON 84 PENNSYLVANIA 97 PUERTO RICO 99 RHODE ISLAND 100 SOUTH CAROLINA 100 TENNESSEE 102 VERMONT 103 VIRGINIA 106 UTAH 107 VIRGIN ISLANDS 107 WASHINGTON 108 WEST VIRGINIA 115 WISCONSIN 117 Page 3 of 119 Alabama Auburn HVAC Repair, Energy Upgrade and LEED-EB Certification Date of Announcement: March 9, 2009 Estimated Funding: $ 550,000 for Capital Improvement and Maintenance County: Lee Jobs will be created to replace this Southern Research Station (SRS) laboratory's antiquated and failing HVAC system and make the facility a model for energy efficiency. The SRS has completed 60-percent of the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design for Existing Buildings' (LEED-EB) certification process, as established by the U.S. Green Building Council, for the 23,340 square foot facility. These updates include retro-commissioning, water reduction measures, waste management and recycling programs, and storm water management projects. The project will replace major components of the 38-year-old system and will add new fresh air economizers and a new direct digital control system. The project will create an estimated energy savings of 35-percent. The G.W. Andrews Forestry Sciences Laboratory will be the first LEED- EB certified facility in the Forest Service inventory.
    [Show full text]
  • Arizona Statewide Elk Management Plan
    Arizona Statewide Elk Management Plan Arizona Game and Fish Department 5000 W. Carefree Highway Phoenix, Arizona 85086 Revision Date: December 3, 2011 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 3 Plan Goal 5 Plan Objectives 6 Future Management Needs 6 STATEWIDE SUMMARY 7 Survey Efforts 7 Population Status 7 Disease Surveillance 8 Management Issues and Opportunities 8 REGIONAL HERD PLANS 11 Region 1 11 Region 2 21 Regions 3 and 4 26 Region 5 41 Region 6 43 2 Arizona Elk Management Plan December 2011 INTRODUCTION The native Merriam's elk were historically distributed in Arizona from the White Mountains westward along the Mogollon Rim to near the San Francisco Peaks. These native elk were extirpated just prior to 1900. In February 1913, private conservationists released 83 elk from Yellowstone National Park into Cabin Draw near Chevelon Creek. Two other transplants of Yellowstone elk followed in the 1920s—one south of Alpine and another north of Williams. As a result of these original transplants, Arizona’s elk population has grown to levels that support annual harvests of 8,000 or more elk. Regulated hunting of the transplanted Yellowstone elk began in 1935 and continues today, with only a brief hiatus during 1944 and 1945 due to World War II. During the late 1940s and early 1950s, concerns over growing elk herds lead managers to increase permits, culminating in 1953 when 6,288 permits were issued and 1,558 elk were taken, more than 1,000 of which were cows. Elk permits leveled off and remained below 5,000 through the mid-1960s, when they were again increased in response to expanding populations.
    [Show full text]
  • Gila County Management Responsibility
    ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! GGIILLAA CCOOUUNNTTYY MMAANNAAGGEEMMEENNTT RREE! SSPPOONNSSIIBBIILLIITTYY ! ! ! Arizona State Land Department / U.S. Bureau of Land Management ! ! State and Federal Government Working Togethe!r ! ! ! 111°33'45"W 111°15'0"W 110°56'15"W ! 110°37'30"W 110°18'45"W 110°0'0"W ! 430000 440000 450000 460000 470000 480000 490000 500000 510000 520000 ! 530000 540000 550000 560000 570000 580000 590000 ! ! ! ! ! ! Mcguireville ! ! ! 0 ! 0 0 0 0 0 ! ! ! 0 0 3 3 8 ?Ð 8 ! ! 3 ! ?æ K± 3 ! ! ! ?Ä ! ! ! ?c SEDONW SEDONE HOLW HOLE STJW ! ?Ð ! CAMP VERDE ! ! ?ô ! ! ! ?ù ?ù COCONINO ! O o E ! MOHAVE ! J H A n 0 ! 0 ?Ð C V 0 0 ! ?Ä ! A o 0 0 ?ôSPRW A ! P 0 0 i Iv N 2 ?ô 2 A ! ?ô t ! 8 PAYW PAYE SHOWW SHOWE 8 ! SNOWFLAKE 3 3 Iv a ! ! ?ô YAVAPAI ! ! ! c ! ! !! ?ô ! ! E o ! ! E E ! E ! ! ! ?ùL ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 8E ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! x GILA E ! ?Ð Iv p LA PAZ ! ! E ! ! e ?ý TAYLOR ! ! ! a ! ! ! ! L ! MARICOPA ! ! ! ! ! d ! ! N ! ! 9E ! M ! Fossil ! E 10E ! ! ! n ?í ?Á ! ! ! E ! I ! ! ! NUTRIW ! Springs ! o PINAL R ! 0 YUMA 0 ! ! ! ! ! ?ù ! ! ! 0 0 ! ! TRW TRE SENEW SENEE G Wilderness S ! 11E ! ! 7E ! 0 I M GRAHAM 0 ! ! R !!! HebeI r ! 0 0 ! ! ! 1 ! 1 ! ! ! N R ! 8 8 ! O ! ! ! 3 L ! 3 L ! PIMA L ! ! ! O ! ! M O G ! ?Ñ Shumway ! Overgaard ! ! Strawberry A COCHISE ! ! ! ?ô ?í 12E ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! N ! Pine ! ! N " ! " ! ! ! 0 k Strawberry Mountain Iv ! SANTA CRUZ 0 ! ! ! e Iv 3 TONTO ' ! 3 r e Deadman Mesa ' ! ! ! 2 C ! Iv ! ?Ð ?ä 2 ! ! ! 2 2 CL! IFW ° ! ! Silver Creek ! ° ! ! 4 ! Clay
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 3. Management Areas
    Chapter 3. Management Areas Introduction to Management Areas Management areas are areas that have similar management intent and a common management strategy that are more specific than forestwide guidance provided in Chapter 2. This direction does not substitute for or repeat forestwide direction, but rather provides additional direction for the applicable area. In the event that a plan decision in this section and the forestwide component in another section conflict, the more restrictive plan decision generally prevails. A project or activity-level evaluation, however, may be required to resolve the conflict; generally, however, the more restrictive plan decision prevails. Some management areas are special areas that have been designated by Congress or an office of the Executive Branch. They are managed to protect the special features or character for which they were designated and must be managed in accordance with relevant law, regulation, and policy and any area- specific management plan, such as the Verde River Comprehensive River Management Plan. Because of the complication of carrying forward direction from the previous forest plan there are two management areas that overlay the Sedona-Oak Creek Management Area (MA). The Oak Creek Canyon and House Mountain-Lowlands MAs are both subject to direction for the Sedona-Oak Creek MA and have unique direction that applies only to these overlay areas. In addition, there are several guidelines in the Sedona-Oak Creek MA to which the House Mountain-Lowlands MA is an exception. Scenery desired conditions (desired landscape character) for wilderness and wild and scenic rivers is described in the MA direction. For other management areas, see the Landscape Character Zones for this direction.
    [Show full text]