DOCSLIB.ORG

General Plan Update 2014 - 2024 Town of Payson, Arizona

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
General Plan Update 2014 - 2024 Town of Payson, Arizona [PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK] General Plan Update 2014 - 2024 Town of Payson, Arizona PROJECT TEAM ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Payson Town Council: Planning & Zoning Commission: Kenny Evans, Mayor Jeff Loyd, Chairman Michael Hughes, Vice Mayor John Swenson, Vice Chairman John Wilson, Council Member Dan Jaeger, Commissioner Ed Blair, Council Member Clark Jones, Commissioner Su Connell, Council Member Lori Meyers, Commissioner Fred Carpenter, Council Member James Scheidt, Commissioner Rick Croy, Council Member Mark Waldrop, Commissioner General Plan Steering Committee Joel Mona Barbara Underwood Ron Hitchcock Ralph Bossert Kayla Percell Emily DePugh Jeff Loyd Joel Goode Rob Ingram Robert Sanders Sharon King John Wakelin Jim Hunt Staff Participants: Debra Galbraith, Town Manager LaRon Garrett, Assistant Town Manager Sheila DeSchaaf, Zoning Administrator Donald Engler, Chief of Police Cameron Davis, Chris Floyd, Parks, Recreation & Tourism Director Executive Assistant Community Development Doni Wilbanks, Planning Technician Citizen Participants: As part of the General Plan Update 2014-2024 process, the Town of Payson engaged citizen participation through an online survey, workshops, an information forum, and access to Town staff and officials. Over 775 Payson citizens and stakeholders participated in the yearlong Update process. Consultants: TischlerBise was retained by the Town of Payson to deliver a General Plan Update 2014-2024. The findings and conclusions in this analysis are the culmination of data collection, research, and stakeholder input. The Berkley Group was retained by TischlerBise to assist with the public participation component of the General Plan Update 2014-2024 along with substantive portions of the Plan’s development in close collaboration with TischlerBise staff. i General Plan Update 2014 - 2024 Town of Payson, Arizona APPROVAL SCHEDULE Agency Reviews June 14, 2013 – August 14, 2013 Planning Commission Public Hearing August 12, 2013 Planning Commission Recommendation September 9, 2013 Town Council Public Hearing October 3, 2013 Town Council Recommendation TBD Ratification by Payson Citizens August 2014 ii General Plan Update 2014 - 2024 Town of Payson, Arizona TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 General Plan and Planning Framework .................................................................. 3 1.1 Town of Payson Planning Process ...................................................................... 3 1.2 General Plan Update 2014-2024 Development Process ................................... 5 2 Introduction: Payson Arizona .................................................................................. 9 2.1 Town of Payson in Context ................................................................................. 9 2.2 Payson Planning Area .......................................................................................... 9 2.3 Population and Households .............................................................................. 11 2.4 Population Demographics ................................................................................. 13 2.5 Housing Demographics ..................................................................................... 16 2.6 Household Demographics ................................................................................. 18 2.7 Industry and Occupation Employment ........................................................... 20 2.8 Payson Workforce ............................................................................................... 26 2.9 Travel and Tourism Industry ............................................................................ 30 2.10 Retail Industry ..................................................................................................... 32 3 Environmental Planning Element.......................................................................... 36 3.1 Overview .............................................................................................................. 36 3.2 Critical Issues ....................................................................................................... 41 3.3 Goals and Strategies ........................................................................................... 41 4 Water Resources Element ....................................................................................... 43 4.1 Overview .............................................................................................................. 43 4.2 Critical Issues ....................................................................................................... 49 4.3 Goals and Strategies ........................................................................................... 50 5 Open Space, Parks, and Recreation Element ......................................................... 51 5.1 Overview .............................................................................................................. 51 5.2 Open Space .......................................................................................................... 52 5.3 Parkland and Amenities .................................................................................... 53 5.4 Multi-Modal Trails .............................................................................................. 56 5.5 Critical Issues ....................................................................................................... 59 5.6 Goals and Strategies ........................................................................................... 63 iii General Plan Update 2014 - 2024 Town of Payson, Arizona 6 Land Use Element ................................................................................................... 64 6.1 Overview .............................................................................................................. 64 6.2 Land Use Controls .............................................................................................. 68 6.3 Future Land Use Map......................................................................................... 68 6.4 Land Use Designations ...................................................................................... 71 6.5 Critical Issues ....................................................................................................... 74 6.6 Development Design Standards ....................................................................... 75 6.7 Goals and Strategies ........................................................................................... 79 7 Growth Area Element ............................................................................................. 80 7.1 Overview .............................................................................................................. 80 7.2 Critical Issues ....................................................................................................... 90 7.3 Goals and Strategies ........................................................................................... 93 8 Circulation/Transportation Element ...................................................................... 94 8.1 Overview .............................................................................................................. 94 8.2 Critical Issues ....................................................................................................... 98 8.3 Transportation Design Components ................................................................ 99 8.4 Goals and Strategies ......................................................................................... 106 9 Cost of Development Element ............................................................................. 107 9.1 Overview ............................................................................................................ 107 9.2 Factors Influencing the Fiscal Sustainability of Land Uses ......................... 107 9.3 Existing Financial Condition ........................................................................... 110 9.4 Critical Issues ..................................................................................................... 112 9.5 Goals and Strategies ......................................................................................... 113 10 Implementation Plan ............................................................................................ 114 10.1 General Plan Process ........................................................................................ 114 10.2 Approval, Adoption, and Ratification ........................................................... 114 10.3 Amendment Procedure .................................................................................... 116 10.4 Implementation Process ................................................................................... 118 10.5 Implementation Matrix .................................................................................... 119 11 Appendices ............................................................................................................ 129 11.1 2012 Payson Community Survey .................................................................... 129 11.2 Urban Land Institute – Definitions of Retail ................................................. 131 iv General Plan Update 2014 - 2024 Town of Payson, Arizona LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Decennial Population for Payson ...................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Apache and Navajo Counties Wildlife Connectivity Assessment: Report on Stakeholder Input January 2013
    The Apache and Navajo Counties Wildlife Connectivity Assessment: Report on Stakeholder Input January 2013 Photograph by B. Sitko, AGFD Arizona Game and Fish Department In partnership with The Arizona Wildlife Linkages Workgroup TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES ..................................................................................................................................................................... ii LIST OF TABLES ....................................................................................................................................................................... ii RECOMMENDED CITATION ............................................................................................................................................... iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .......................................................................................................................................................... iii DEFINITIONS ............................................................................................................................................................................ iv EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................................................................................... 1 BACKGROUND........................................................................................................................................................................... 2 THE APACHE AND NAVAJO COUNTIES WILDLIFE CONNECTIVITY ASSESSMENT
    [Show full text]
  • General Plan Update 2014 - 2024 Town of Payson, Arizona
    [PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK] General Plan Update 2014 - 2024 Town of Payson, Arizona PROJECT TEAM ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Payson Town Council: Planning & Zoning Commission: Kenny Evans, Mayor Jeff Loyd, Chairman Michael Hughes, Vice Mayor John Swenson, Vice Chairman John Wilson, Council Member Dan Jaeger, Commissioner Ed Blair, Council Member Clark Jones, Commissioner Su Connell, Council Member Lori Meyers, Commissioner Fred Carpenter, Council Member James Scheidt, Commissioner Rick Croy, Council Member Mark Waldrop, Commissioner General Plan Steering Committee Joel Mona Barbara Underwood Ron Hitchcock Ralph Bossert Kayla Percell Emily DePugh Jeff Loyd Joel Goode Rob Ingram Robert Sanders Sharon King John Wakelin Jim Hunt Staff Participants: Debra Galbraith, Town Manager LaRon Garrett, Assistant Town Manager Sheila DeSchaaf, Zoning Administrator Donald Engler, Chief of Police Cameron Davis, Chris Floyd, Parks, Recreation & Tourism Director Executive Assistant Community Development Doni Wilbanks, Planning Technician Citizen Participants: As part of the General Plan Update 2014-2024 process, the Town of Payson engaged citizen participation through an online survey, workshops, an information forum, and access to Town staff and officials. Over 775 Payson citizens and stakeholders participated in the yearlong Update process. Consultants: TischlerBise was retained by the Town of Payson to deliver a General Plan Update 2014-2024. The findings and conclusions in this analysis are the culmination of data collection, research, and stakeholder input.
    [Show full text]
  • Green Infrastructure Design for Transport Projects: a Road Map To
    GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE DESIGN FOR TRANSPORT PROJECTS A ROAD MAP TO PROTECTING ASIA’S WILDLIFE BIODIVERSITY DECEMBER 2019 ASIAN DEVELOPMENT BANK GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE DESIGN FOR TRANSPORT PROJECTS A ROAD MAP TO PROTECTING ASIA’S WILDLIFE BIODIVERSITY DECEMBER 2019 ASIAN DEVELOPMENT BANK Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 IGO license (CC BY 3.0 IGO) © 2019 Asian Development Bank 6 ADB Avenue, Mandaluyong City, 1550 Metro Manila, Philippines Tel +63 2 8632 4444; Fax +63 2 8636 2444 www.adb.org Some rights reserved. Published in 2019. ISBN 978-92-9261-991-6 (print), 978-92-9261-992-3 (electronic) Publication Stock No. TCS189222 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.22617/TCS189222 The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views and policies of the Asian Development Bank (ADB) or its Board of Governors or the governments they represent. ADB does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this publication and accepts no responsibility for any consequence of their use. The mention of specific companies or products of manufacturers does not imply that they are endorsed or recommended by ADB in preference to others of a similar nature that are not mentioned. By making any designation of or reference to a particular territory or geographic area, or by using the term “country” in this document, ADB does not intend to make any judgments as to the legal or other status of any territory or area. This work is available under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 IGO license (CC BY 3.0 IGO) https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/igo/.
    [Show full text]
  • State Route 260 Little Colorado River Bridge Scour Retrofit Project FHWA File # 260-C(204)T ADOT File # 260-AP-394-H8269-01C
    United States Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service Arizona Ecological Services Office 9828 North 31st Avenue, Suite C3 Phoenix, Arizona 85051 Telephone: (602) 242-0210 Fax: (602) 242-2513 In reply refer to: 02EAAZ00-2015-F-0270 June 3, 2019 Mr. Joshua Fife, Biology Team Lead Arizona Department of Transportation Environmental Planning 1611 West Jackson Street Phoenix, Arizona 85007 RE: State Route 260 Little Colorado River Bridge Scour Retrofit Project FHWA File # 260-C(204)T ADOT File # 260-AP-394-H8269-01C Dear Mr. Fife: Thank you for your June 12, 2018, request for formal consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. § 1531-1544), as amended (Act). Your request was dated June 12, 2018, and was received by us via electronic mail (email) on the same day. At issue are effects that may result from a proposed scour retrofit and culvert extension project at the Little Colorado River (LCR) bridge on State Route (SR) 260 (hereafter the LCR bridge) within the town of Eagar, Apache County, Arizona. The proposed action may affect the threatened Little Colorado spinedace (Lepidomeda vittata) (spinedace). Below we provide a biological opinion (BO) on effects of the proposed action on the spinedace. In your letter, you requested our concurrence that the proposed action is not likely to adversely affect the endangered southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus) (flycatcher) and endangered New Mexico meadow jumping mouse (Zapus hudsonius luteus) (jumping mouse). We concur with your determinations for the flycatcher and jumping mouse and provide our rationales in Appendix A.
    [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]
  • SR 260 – Payson to Heber Archaeological Project: Results of Archaeological Testing and a Plan for Data Recovery in the Doubtful Canyon Segment
    SR 260 – Payson to Heber Archaeological Project: Results of Archaeological Testing and a Plan for Data Recovery in the Doubtful Canyon Segment Sarah H. Herr Pat H. Stein Technical Report No. 2009-09 Desert Archaeology, Inc. SR 260 – Payson to Heber Archaeological Project: Results of Archaeological Testing and a Plan for Data Recovery in the Doubtful Canyon Segment DRAFT Project Number: STP-053-2 (38) Sarah H. Herr TRACS Number: 260 GI 269 H4698 01C Pat H. Stein Contract Number: 99-59 Submitted to Historic Preservation Team Environmental and Enhancement Group Arizona Department of Transportation 205 South 17th Avenue Phoenix, Arizona 85007 Technical Report No. 2009-09 Desert Archaeology, Inc. 3975 North Tucson Boulevard, Tucson, Arizona 85716 • December 2009 COMPLIANCE SUMMARY Date: 18 December 2009 Report Title: SR 260 – Payson to Heber Archaeological Project: Results of Archaeological Testing and a Plan for Data Recovery in the Doubtful Canyon Segment. Technical Report Number 2009-09. Client: Arizona Department of Transportation Client Project Name: State Route 260 – Payson to Heber project Compliance Agency: Tonto National Forest, Arizona Department of Transportation Compliance Level: Federal ADOT TRACS Number: 260 GI 269 H4698 01C Applicable Laws/Regulations: Arizona Antiquities Act, ARS §41-841; Federal Organic Administration Act of June 4, 1897; Antiquities Act of 1906, As Amended; Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979, As Amended; National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Section 106; Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) Applicable Permits: TNF permit TON426 for prehistoric period sites; TNF permit TON425 for historic sites; TNF permit TON570 for survey work. Arizona Antiquties Act Project Specific Permit 1999-121ps Tribal Consultation: When working on Tonto National Forest land the State Route 260 project works under the Plan for the Treatment and Disposition of Human Remains and Other Cultural Items from the Tonto National Forest pursuant to the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (Revised 2001).
    [Show full text]
  • Page 1517 TITLE 16—CONSERVATION § 1131 (Pub. L
    Page 1517 TITLE 16—CONSERVATION § 1131 (Pub. L. 88–363, § 10, July 7, 1964, 78 Stat. 301.) Sec. 1132. Extent of System. § 1110. Liability 1133. Use of wilderness areas. 1134. State and private lands within wilderness (a) United States areas. The United States Government shall not be 1135. Gifts, bequests, and contributions. liable for any act or omission of the Commission 1136. Annual reports to Congress. or of any person employed by, or assigned or de- § 1131. National Wilderness Preservation System tailed to, the Commission. (a) Establishment; Congressional declaration of (b) Payment; exemption of property from attach- policy; wilderness areas; administration for ment, execution, etc. public use and enjoyment, protection, preser- Any liability of the Commission shall be met vation, and gathering and dissemination of from funds of the Commission to the extent that information; provisions for designation as it is not covered by insurance, or otherwise. wilderness areas Property belonging to the Commission shall be In order to assure that an increasing popu- exempt from attachment, execution, or other lation, accompanied by expanding settlement process for satisfaction of claims, debts, or judg- and growing mechanization, does not occupy ments. and modify all areas within the United States (c) Individual members of Commission and its possessions, leaving no lands designated No liability of the Commission shall be im- for preservation and protection in their natural puted to any member of the Commission solely condition, it is hereby declared to be the policy on the basis that he occupies the position of of the Congress to secure for the American peo- member of the Commission.
    [Show full text]
  • CX Appendix C Burro Movem
    1 B. RESEARCH OBJECTIVES 2 Name and Address of Applicant or Applicant Organization: 3 Arizona Game and Fish Department 4 5000 W. Carefree Highway 5 Phoenix, AZ 85086 6 Evaluation of Burro Movements and Collisions along Roads Near Lake Pleasant 7 Herd Management Area 8 With burro populations above acceptable Herd Management Area (HMA) levels, burro- 9 vehicle collisions (BVC) have become an increasing problem for the travelling public on 10 roads in proximity to Lake Pleasant (LP) HMA. BVC in and around the LPHMA have 11 increased dramatically and exceeded 35 between October 1, 2015 and December 7, 12 2015, and will continue to pose a hazard to motorists. The Bureau of Land Management 13 (BLM) and its partners are seeking solutions to return the population to acceptable HMA 14 levels. Current BLM burro removal efforts cannot keep pace with the herd’s population 15 growth. Until long-term burro reduction strategies are implemented, there is an ever 16 increasing risk to the safety of both motorists and burros. The Arizona Department of 17 Transportation (ADOT) shoulders a bulk of the liability associated with BVCs. To help 18 mitigate risks to motorists and burros, an evaluation of burro movements and collision 19 locations is warranted. We propose to gather information on burro movements along 20 roads within and adjacent to LPHMA through the collection of 1) GPS movement data, 21 2) BVC hotspots and associated variables, and 3) burro roadway access point camera 22 data collection. Our analysis of this Information will 1) provide recommendations for 23 strategic reduction in BVCs while considering implications to wildlife connectivity and 2) 24 identify additional areas for burro removal efforts.
    [Show full text]
  • Arizona´S Public Lands
    52 OF THE STATE’S SCENIC WONDERS JANUARY 2018 ESCAPE • EXPLORE • EXPERIENCE EXPLORE ARIZONA´S PUBLIC LANDS P.S. THIS LAND IS YOUR LAND 2 EDITOR’S LETTER 16 OPEN TO THE PUBLIC 52 SCENIC DRIVE For nearly a century, Arizona Highways Agua Caliente Road: With all of the farm- 3 CONTRIBUTORS has been showcasing the scenic beauty land, stockyards and solar panels around Grand Canyon National Park of the forty-eighth state. There’s a lot of Gila Bend, it might come as a surprise 4 LETTERS Jerome ground to cover, and more than a third of that there’s a scenic drive in the area, too, Hellsgate January 2018 it is located on public lands — this land but this historic route fits the bill. Wilderness 5 THE JOURNAL is your land. It’s too much to present By Noah Austin PHOENIX People, places and things from around comprehensively, so we’ve narrowed the Photographs by Jim Marshall the state, including a restaurant in list of great outdoor places to 52 … one Gila Bend Jerome called Grapes — it’s not “another for each weekend of the year. 54 HIKE OF THE MONTH tourist trap,” the owner says; the history Edited by Robert Stieve Tucson behind Bisbee’s $2 million tunnel; and Blackett’s Ridge Trail: The payoff on this Bisbee a former cattle ranch near Tucson that hike is one of the best panoramas in the 42 ROUGH COUNTRY Santa Catalina Mountains. But getting now features luxury casitas, a nature POINTS OF INTEREST IN THIS ISSUE trail and the toy-like squeaks of Gila An Essay by Kelly Vaughn there takes some doing.
    [Show full text]
  • Southern Gila County Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP)
    LAST UPDATED: 11/23/2015 This page intentionally left blank. Southern Gila County Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP) PLAN APPROVAL The Healthy Forests Restoration Act (HFRA) of 2003 requires that the following entities must mutually agree to the final contents of a CWPP: the applicable local government (i.e., counties or cities); the local fire department(s); and the state entity responsible for forest management. The following entities have approved the 2015 Update to the Southern Gila County Community Wildfire Protection Plan: Agency Signature Date Arizona State Forestry Department United States Forest Service Globe Fire Department Tonto Basin Fire Department Tri-City Fire Department San Carlos Apache Fire Department Final Approval by: Agency Signature Date Gila County Office of Emergency Management Gila County Board of Supervisors Plan Approval i | Page Southern Gila County Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP) This page intentionally left blank. Plan Approval ii | Page Southern Gila County Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP) TABLE OF CONTENTS Plan Approval ................................................................................................................................... i Section I: Introduction .................................................................................................................... 1 Section II: Community Assessment ................................................................................................. 9 A. Canyon Fire Department ........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • United States Department of the Interior U.S
    United States Department of the Interior U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2321 West Royal Palm Road, Suite 103 Phoenix, Arizona 85021-4951 Telephone: (602) 242-0210 FAX: (602) 242-2513 AESO/SE 2-21-90-F-299-R1 May 23, 2001 Mr. Robert E. Hollis, Division Administrator U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration, Arizona Division 234 North Central Avenue, Suite 330 Phoenix, Arizona 85004 Dear Mr. Hollis: This reinitiated biological opinion responds to your request for consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531-1544), as amended (Act). Your request for reinitiation of formal consultation was dated April 2, 2001, and received by us on April 2, 2001. At issue are impacts that may result from use of Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) funds for proposed construction of the Christopher Creek and Kohls Ranch segments of Arizona Department of Transportation’s (ADOT) State Route (SR) 260 improvements from Payson to Heber, Gila and Navajo counties, Arizona. FHWA/ADOT proposes to widen from 2 to 4 lanes and make other improvements to 7.6 miles of SR 260. Impacts resulting from the project may affect the following listed species: Mexican spotted owl (Strix occidentalis lucida) (threatened), spikedace (Meda fulgida) (threatened), loach minnow (Tiaroga cobitis) (threatened); and may also affect one species proposed for listing as threatened, the Chiricahua leopard frog (Rana chiricahuensis). We concur that the proposed action is not likely to adversely affect the latter three species. The basis for our conclusion is provided in Appendix 1 of this biological opinion.
    [Show full text]
  • Citizen's Coaltion Comment Letter on the Tonto National Forest Draft Fores Plan and Draft Envriomental Impact
    COALITION COMMENTS: TONTO FOREST PLAN REVISION A CITIZEN’S COALITION COMMENT LETTER TONTO NATIONAL FOREST DRAFT FOREST PLAN AND DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT MARCH 12, 2020 1 COALITION COMMENTS: TONTO FOREST PLAN REVISION March 12, 2020 Tonto National Forest Attn: Forest Planner 2324 E McDowell Rd. Phoenix, AZ 85006 Submitted online at: https://cara.ecosystem-management.org/Public//CommentInput?Project=51592 RE: Tonto National Forest Draft Forest Plan and Draft Environmental Impact Statement The following letter is submitted on behalf of the Center for Biological Diversity, Wild Arizona, WildEarth Guardians, Defenders of Wildlife, Sierra Club, American Whitewater, Arizona Riparian Council, Arizona Mining Reform Coalition, The Rewilding Institute, The Wilderness Society, Maricopa Audubon Society, and White Mountain Conservation League. This coalition of organizations came together to provide input during the Tonto National Forest’s Plan Revision process with the goal of ensuring the best available science was used in the creation of the new Forest Plan and to advocate for greater protections for wild species and habitat and environmentally-responsible natural resource management. To summarizing our comments, we are asking for substantial revisions of major elements of the EIS and Plan. Primarily, we feel that the Wilderness Recommendation and Wild and Scenic River Eligibility evaluations have made major, systemic errors, leading to far fewer protections than these keystone landscapes deserve. Also, the Draft Plan provides few constraints on livestock grazing, which has degraded significant areas of the Tonto, and ignores a trove of science supporting the need for drastic reductions in grazing. Likewise, the plan does not provide the needed measures to protect resources from the ever growing impacts of off-road vehicles, and fails to provide needed protections for our most imperiled wildlife from mining, grazing, OHVs, climate change, old-growth logging, and habitat fragmentation.
    [Show full text]