DOCSLIB.ORG

Tehipite Fire: a Timeline Started on Or About 7/14, Detected on 7/19 7/26-7/31- 2 Hotshot Crews and 3 Helicopters Assigned

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Tehipite Fire: a Timeline Started on Or About 7/14, Detected on 7/19 7/26-7/31- 2 Hotshot Crews and 3 Helicopters Assigned Sierra National Forest, Sequoia National Forest & Sequoia & Kings Canyon National Parks Wildland Fire: Our Reality Prior to fire suppression policies (circa 1860) • 15,000-20,000 acres/year historically burned in the parks based upon tree rings(dendrochronology)studies conducted by fire ecologists and other researchers. • 10,000 acres this year. •Approximately 26,000 acres/year historically burned on the Sierra National Forest • 11,000 acres this year. Tree rings with fire scars from a giant sequoia tree demonstrate that fire occurred frequently in the Sierra Nevada Caring for the Land and Serving People Experience Your America Sierra National Forest, Sequoia National Forest & Sequoia & Kings Canyon National Parks In California Before the1800s, 1.1 million acres/year burned on average in forests. California skies were likely smoky from late summer to early fall (Stephens, et al). 1.5 million acres have burned in California this year. This is well within the historic norm. Lightning strikes, flicked cigarettes, escaped campfires, car fires, etc. happen The Siskiyou Fire, July 9 We need to work together to manage smoke when we manage fire. Caring for the Land and Serving People Experience Your America Sierra National Forest, Sequoia National Forest & Sequoia & Kings Canyon National Parks Nationally Collected Statistics Show the Average Annual Fire Acreage is Increasing 6 of the 10 largest acreage fire seasons have happened in the last decade. The numbers show that this trend is not an anomaly. Source: NIFC Skyland Fire, Montana, 2007 Caring for the Land and Serving People Experience Your America Sierra National Forest, Sequoia National Forest & Sequoia & Kings Canyon National Parks Factors considered by land managers when considering fire: •Firefighter and public safety •Protection of property and infrastructure •Land Management Plans (Fire Management Plans, General Plans, and other applicable law such as the Wilderness Act) •Smoke Impacts •Cost •Availability of firefighting resources and other fires in the state or nation •Ecological benefits of fire and reducing the risk of future large fires. Caring for the Land and Serving People Experience Your America Sierra National Forest, Sequoia National Forest & Sequoia & Kings Canyon National Parks Firefighter Safety •Firefighter and public safety: Land Managers have ethical and legal responsibilities to provide for firefighter safety. There are rules of engagement that need to be met. • There were 27 firefighter fatalities nationally in 2008– 16 in California, 14 in aircraft. •We, as federal land managers, would like to work with SJVUAPCD to help define how firefighter safety is integrated with smoke and public health objectives of the District into our decision making. Caring for the Land and Serving People Experience Your America Sierra National Forest, Sequoia National Forest & Sequoia & Kings Canyon National Parks Tehipite Fire: A Timeline Started on or about 7/14, detected on 7/19 7/26-7/31- 2 hotshot crews and 3 helicopters assigned. Fireline completed. Numerous holding issues in the steep terrain. 7 injuries during this time. Two firefighters still not back to work. Tehipite Fire on July 20 Caring for the Land and Serving People Experience Your America Sierra National Forest, Sequoia National Forest & Sequoia & Kings Canyon National Parks 8/12- Fireline is compromised when fire rolls out, makes uphill run and spots across control lines on SW. 477 acres. 8/13 Strategy for fire revised upon safety concerns. Conversations with the Sierra begin in earnest for mutual management of the fire. 10/29: 11,596 acres, 4140 on park, 7,456 Tehipite Fire makes an uphill run, on forest. August 14 Caring for the Land and Serving People Experience Your America Sierra National Forest, Sequoia National Forest & Sequoia & Kings Canyon National Parks Hidden Fire Timeline Started by lightning on September 10. Detected by Buck Rock at 1824. Aggressive initial attack was the strategy identified in the Fuels &Fire Management Plan •Significant probability of fire spreading beyond park boundaries to private lands to the west •Significant smoke impacts to local communities and the valley •Limited terrain to support direct attack with fireline •Large fire growth/ long duration fire Hidden Fire, 9/13 Caring for the Land and Serving People Experience Your America Sierra National Forest, Sequoia National Forest & Sequoia & Kings Canyon National Parks Hidden Timeline Cont’d 9/15 Red Flag Warning for low relative humidity 9/16: 466 acres, Type II team in-briefed 9/17: 807 acres, direct attack on the eastern and southern flanks abandoned as the fire moved into steeper terrain. Fire Info Meeting held in Three Rivers Hidden Fire 9/19 9/18-9/23: Burnout operations deepen fireline in advance of the main fire. 9/23: 2,041 acres 9/30: Contained at 3,685 acres. Caring for the Land and Serving People Experience Your America Sierra National Forest, Sequoia National Forest & Sequoia & Kings Canyon National Parks •The challenge facing federal land managers and SJVUAPVD is dealing with the reality of wildland fire in an already air polluted environment. •We as federal land managers and the SJVUAPCD have the responsibility to implement the Clean Air Act for public health. We manage and live in a Class I airshed. It is in all of our interests to work together to manage smoke. •Example: Sharing data and expertise to better understand the influence of wildland fire smoke emissions on regional air quality. Caring for the Land and Serving People Experience Your America Sierra National Forest, Sequoia National Forest & Sequoia & Kings Canyon National Parks N Oakhurst Prather Trimmer Convict Flat Cedar Grove Hume Lake Pinehurst * Ash Mountain * Three Rivers Springville * Federal agencies maintained a network of EBAMS that were deployed from Oakhurst to Springville. *These sites are operated year- round. Caring for the Land and Serving People Experience Your America Key Points of 2001 Federal Wildland Fire Policy • Two types of fire – Prescribed – Wildfire response • Management for multiple objectives on a wildland fire or combination of wildland fires .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Giant Sequoia National Monument, Draft Environmental Impact Statement Volume 1 1 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences
    United States Department of Giant Sequoia Agriculture Forest Service National Monument Giant Sequoia National Monument Draft Environmental Impact Statement August 2010 Volume 1 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. Chapter 4 - Environmental Consequences Giant Sequoia National Monument, Draft Environmental Impact Statement Volume 1 1 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Volume 1 Giant Sequoia National Monument, Draft Environmental Impact Statement 2 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Chapter 4 includes the environmental effects analysis. It is organized by resource area, in the same manner as Chapter 3. Effects are displayed for separate resource areas in terms of the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects associated with the six alternatives considered in detail. Effects can be neutral, beneficial, or adverse. This chapter also discusses the unavoidable adverse effects, the relationship between short-term uses and long-term productivity, and any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources. Environmental consequences form the scientific and analytical basis for comparison of the alternatives.
    [Show full text]
  • Giant Sequoia National Monument Management Plan 2012 Final Environmental Impact Statement Record of Decision Sequoia National Forest
    United States Department of Agriculture Giant Sequoia Forest Service Sequoia National Monument National Forest August 2012 Record of Decision 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. Giant Sequoia National Monument Management Plan 2012 Final Environmental Impact Statement Record of Decision Sequoia National Forest Lead Agency: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service Pacific Southwest Region Responsible Official: Randy Moore Regional Forester Pacific Southwest Region Recommending Official: Kevin B. Elliott Forest Supervisor Sequoia National Forest California Counties Include: Fresno, Tulare, Kern This document presents the decision regarding the the basis for the Giant Sequoia National Monument selection of a management plan for the Giant Sequoia Management Plan (Monument Plan), which will be National Monument (Monument) that will amend the followed for the next 10 to 15 years. The long-term 1988 Sequoia National Forest Land and Resource environmental consequences contained in the Final Management Plan (Forest Plan) for the portion of the Environmental Impact Statement are considered in national forest that is in the Monument.
    [Show full text]
  • Sequoia National Forest
    FOREST, MONUMENT, OR PARK? You may see signs for Sequoia National Forest, Giant Sequoia National Monument, and Sequoia & Kings Canyon National Parks… and wonder what is the difference between these places? All are on federal land. Each exists to benefit society. Yet each has a different history and purpose. Together they provide a wide spectrum of uses. National Forests, managed under a "multiple use" concept, provide services and commodities that may include lumber, livestock grazing, minerals, and recreation with and without vehicles. Forest employees work for the U.S. Forest Service, an agency in the Department of Agriculture. The U.S. Forest Service was created in 1905. National Monuments can be managed by any of three different agencies: the U.S. Forest Service, the National Park Service, or the Bureau of Land Management. They are created by presidential proclamation and all seek to protect specific natural or cultural features. Giant Sequoia National Monument is managed by the U.S. Forest Service and is part of Sequoia National Forest. It was created by former President Bill Clinton in April of 2000. National Parks strive to keep landscapes unimpaired for future generations. They protect natural and historic features while offering light-on-the-land recreation. Park employees work for the National Park Service, part of the Department of the Interior. The National Park Service was created in 1916. Forests, Monuments, and Parks may have different rules in order to meet their goals. Read "Where can I..." below to check out what activities are permitted where within the Sequoia National Forest, Giant Sequoia National Monument, and Sequoia & Kings Canyon National Parks.
    [Show full text]
  • Field Assessment of Whitebark Pine in the Sierra Nevada
    FIELD ASSESSMENT OF WHITEBARK PINE IN THE SIERRA NEVADA Sara Taylor, Daniel Hastings, and Julie Evens Purpose of field work: 1. Verify distribution of whitebark pine in its southern extent (pure and mixed stands) 2. Assess the health and status of whitebark pine 3. Ground truth polygons designated by CALVEG as whitebark pine Regional Dominant 4. Conduct rapid assessment or reconnaissance surveys California National Forest Overview Areas surveyed: July 2013 Sequoia National Forest Areas surveyed: August 2013 Eldorado National Forest Areas surveyed: September 2013 Stanislaus National Forest Field Protocol and Forms: • Modified CNPS/CDFW Vegetation Rapid Assessment protocol Additions to CNPS/CDFW Rapid Assessment protocol: CNDDB • Individuals/stand • Phenology • Overall viability (health/status) Marc Meyer • Level of beetle attack • % absolute dead cover • % of whitebark cones CNPS • Impacts and % mortality from rust and beetle Field Protocol and Forms: • CNPS/CDFW Field Reconnaissance (recon) protocol is a simplified Rapid Assessment (RA) protocol 3 reasons to conduct a recon: 1. WBP stand is largely diseased/infested 2. CALVEG polygon was incorrect 3. WBP stand was close to other RA Results: Sequoia National Forest • Whitebark pine was not found during survey in Golden Trout Wilderness • Calveg polygons assessed (36 total) were mostly foxtail pine (Pinus balfouriana) • Highest survey conducted was at 11,129 ft at the SEKI and NF border Results: Eldorado National Forest (N to S) Desolation Wilderness: • 3 rapid assessments and 8 recons were conducted • 9,061 to 9,225 ft in elevation • Lower elevation stands were more impacted from MPB Mokelumne Wilderness: • 5 rapid assessments and 10 recons were conducted • 8,673 to 9,566 ft.
    [Show full text]
  • California Water Trust Network
    RESTORING CARSON MEADOWS: ASSESSMENT AND PRIORITIZATION A report supported by the National Fish and Wildlife February 2018 Foundation Results of a broadly-collaborative effort to prioritize meadows in the Carson River Watershed for restoration. Restoring Carson Meadows Restoring Carson Meadows: Assessment and Prioritization Julie Fair, Luke Hunt, Meg Hanley and Jacob Dyste 2018. Restoring Carson Meadows: Assessment and Prioritization. A report by American Rivers submitted to the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. Page 1 Restoring Carson Meadows CONTENTS CONTENTS ........................................................................................................................... 2 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 3 THE CARSON WATERSHED .................................................................................................. 4 METHODS ............................................................................................................................ 5 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION OF CONDITION DATA ............................................................ 7 PRIORITIES ........................................................................................................................... 9 PRIORITIZATION FOR LAHONTAN CUTTHROAT TROUT ................................................. 14 INFLUENCE OF BEAVER ..................................................................................................... 14 CONCLUSION
    [Show full text]
  • Data Set Listing (May 1997)
    USDA Forest Service Air Resource Monitoring System Existing Data Set Listing (May 1997) Air Resource Monitoring System (ARMS) Data Set Listing May 1997 Contact Steve Boutcher USDA Forest Service National Air Program Information Manager Portland, OR (503) 808-2960 2 Table of Contents INTRODUCTION ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9 DATA SET DESCRIPTIONS -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------10 National & Multi-Regional Data Sets EPA’S EASTERN LAKES SURVEY ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------11 EPA’S NATIONAL STREAM SURVEY ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------12 EPA WESTERN LAKES SURVEY------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------13 FOREST HEALTH MONITORING (FHM) LICHEN MONITORING-------------------------------------------------14 FOREST HEALTH MONITORING (FHM) OZONE BIOINDICATOR PLANTS ----------------------------------15 IMPROVE AEROSOL MONITORING--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------16 IMPROVE NEPHELOMETER ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------17 IMPROVE TRANSMISSOMETER ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------18 NATIONAL ATMOSPHERIC DEPOSITION PROGRAM/ NATIONAL TRENDS NETWORK----------------19 NATIONAL
    [Show full text]
  • Recreational Fishing in the Golden Trout Wilderness at $148,000 to $713,000 a Year
    ECONOMIC VALUE OF GOLDEN TROUT FISHING IN THE GOLDEN TROUT WILDERNESS, CALIFORNIA An Analysis By Carolyn Alkire, Ph.D. Resource Economist A Report for California Trout March 21, 2003 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Thanks to the many individuals who provided essential data and information, without which this study would not have been possible: Del Hubbs, Adam McClory, and Julie Molzahn, Inyo National Forest; Cheryl Bauer and Judi Kaiser, Sequoia National Forest; Jim Shackelford, Forest Service Region 5; and Donn Burton and Dave Lentz, California Department of Fish and Game. The author is grateful for the professional review by Dr. John Loomis. Stan Stephens of the California Department of Fish and Game and Dr. Robert Richardson also offered helpful comments and suggestions. This report was expertly edited by Deanne Kloepfer. California Trout would like to thank Joseph Tomelleri for the use of his trout illustrations. California Trout thanks C. Pat Patterson and Bill Hooper for generously funding this report. Cover illustration courtesy of Michael Flynn FOREWORD By R. Brett Matzke Public Lands Director California Trout, Inc. Cattle began grazing the Kern Plateau more than 130 years ago, long before the area and surrounding environs were established as the Inyo and Sequoia national forests. Various studies have documented that cattle grazing can seriously damage water and land resources. But attempts to reform grazing management policy on the Kern Plateau and to protect native species in this case, California's state fish, the golden trout, and its close relative shave met with little success. In part, the failure to reform grazing management stems from the long-held view that cattle ranching is the cornerstone of the local economy.
    [Show full text]
  • August 25, 2016 Forest Planner, Forest Plan Revision USDA Forest
    August 25, 2016 Forest Planner, Forest Plan Revision USDA Forest Service, Region 5 Sent via: [email protected] Re: Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans To the Forest Plan Revision Team: These comments on the Draft Forest Plans and Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans are submitted on behalf of the organizations noted below. Collectively, we have been engaged in the forest plan revision process for these three national forests since initiated in 2012. Many of our organizations also have a long history of engagement in forest planning beginning with the first plans adopted in the late 1980s to early 1990s for national forests in the Sierra Nevada. We have embraced the new Planning Rule and taken seriously its invitation to provide feedback early in the process and throughout the development of the revised plans. We remain committed to working with your agency to develop revised forest plans that protect sensitive resources, provide for ecological integrity, and provide high quality recreational experiences. Our detailed review of the draft plans and DEIS indicate that there are significant gaps in assessment, development of plan components and evaluation of environmental consequences that preclude a meaningful analysis of the effects of the draft plans and alternatives on the environment. We ask that you revise the draft plans and revise or supplement the DEIS and circulate these documents for a 90-day comment period. Please contact Susan Britting (530-295-8210; [email protected]) if you have questions about these comments.
    [Show full text]
  • 4.10 Forestry Resources
    4.10 FORESTRY RESOURCES INTRODUCTION This section describes the impacts on commercial forest resources associated with development under the Draft General Plan. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING Information regarding the types of forest resources and management methods is presented in Chapter 7.8, Natural Resources, Forestry and Timber Resources, in the General Plan Background Report (Background Report). Chapter 7.8 of the Background Report is hereby incorporated by reference and summarized below. Timber lands are defined as land available for timber production and capable of growing at least 20 cubic feet of industrial quality wood per acre per year. Almost all of the timberlands in Fresno County lie within the southern part of the Sierra National Forest and the northern portion of the Sequoia National Forest. The National Forest system falls within the jurisdiction of the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) under the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The boundaries of the Sierra National Forest include portions of Fresno, Inyo, Madera, Mariposa, and Mono counties. The boundaries of the Sequoia National Forest include portions of Fresno, Kings, Tulare, and Inyo counties. Chapter 1, Land Use and Population, details the acreage of both the public and private land holdings within each forest. Approximately 17,000 acres in the County have been zoned as Timberland Preserve Zone. There is no timber production in the incorporated communities in the East Valley or West Valley. Annual yields within the Sierra National Forest have averaged approximately 88 million board feet but have scaled down to approximately 40 million board feet in recent years. The reduction in acreage available for logging is partially a result of recent endangered species regulations pertaining to the California spotted owl and the red-legged frog requiring immediate land set asides to preserve suitable habitat for these species.
    [Show full text]
  • 2015 California Forest Health Highlights
    2015 California Forest Health Highlights A publication of the California Forest Pest Council TABLE OF CONTENTS Environmental Conditions 2 Aerial Detection Survey 3 Bark Beetles and Wood Borers 3 Defoliators 4 Diseases 4 Insect Conditions 5 Native Insects 5 Defoliators 8 Other Species 8 Invasive Insects 10 Forest Diseases and Abiotic Conditions 12 Abiotic Diseases and Complexes 12 Native Diseases 14 Exotic Diseases 15 Invasive Plants 18 New Pest Management Practices Available Soon 18 New or Newly Naturalized Invasive Plant Species in California 18 California Forest Pest Council 19 Contributors 20 VISIT US ON THE WEB: HTTP://CAFORESTPESTCOUNCIL.ORG/ Environmental Conditions Page 2 California experienced a fourth consecutive year of below-average precipitation in 2015. Most rainfall occurred from October 2014 to February 2015 (water years are from October 1 – September 30), with only 6.1 in. of the total 36.8 in. of precipitation falling in northern California the last 8 months of the year. The statewide snowpack was also well below normal, at 5 percent of average. Mean monthly temperatures reachedU.S. record Drought or near record Monitor highs in January, February, March, and June,April making 29,2015 2014the hottest year on record for the state. In northern California (in the central and eastern portion), June temperatures(Released Thursday,were 5 to May.7 degrees 1, 2014) warmer than historical averages, with Californiaareas such as Redding experiencing 17 days over 100 °F. High temperaturesValid 8 a.m. EDT continued through July and into late summer. The prolonged drought, over-stocked forests, and higher than average temperatures were the most significant factors affecting California forest health in 2015, with nearly 28 million dead trees mapped during US Forest Service forest health aerial surveys.
    [Show full text]
  • Giant Sequoia National Monument, Draft Environmental Impact Statement Volume 1 1 Chapter 3 Affected Environment
    United States Department of Giant Sequoia Agriculture Forest Service National Monument Giant Sequoia National Monument Draft Environmental Impact Statement August 2010 Volume 1 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. Chapter 3 - Affected Environment Giant Sequoia National Monument, Draft Environmental Impact Statement Volume 1 1 Chapter 3 Affected Environment Volume 1 Giant Sequoia National Monument, Draft Environmental Impact Statement 2 Chapter 3 Affected Environment Chapter 3 Affected Environment Chapter 3 describes the affected environment or existing condition by resource area, as each is currently managed. This is the baseline condition against which environmental effects are evaluated and from which progress toward the desired condition can be measured. Vegetation, including Giant Sequoia Groves Vegetation within the Giant Sequoia National Monument can be grouped into ecological units with similar climatic, geology, soils, and vegetation communities. These units fall within three categories: oak woodlands/grasslands, shrublands/chaparral, and forestlands. The forested category between 5,000 and 7,000 feet in elevation, spanning the Monument from north to south, is dominated by mixed conifer and its variants.
    [Show full text]
  • USGS DDS-43, Recreation in the Sierra
    TIMOTHY P. DUANE Department of City and Regional Planning and Department of Landscape Architecture University of California 19 Berkeley, California Recreation in the Sierra ABSTRACT Recreation is a significant activity in the Sierra Nevada, which serves INTRODUCTION as a center for a wide range of recreational activities. The Sierra con- The Sierra Nevada region is a popular destination for tains some of the world’s outstanding natural features, and they at- recreationists. Year-round local residents and California resi- tract visitors from throughout the country and the world. Lake Tahoe, dents and nonresidents pursue a wide variety of recreational Yosemite Valley, Mono Lake, and the Sequoia Big Trees attract mil- activities. These pursuits occur throughout the entire region, lions of visitors each year. Recreational activities on public lands alone from the bottom of steep river canyons to the top of the high- account for between 50 and 60 million recreational visitor days (RVDs) est mountain peaks. The mountain range is the natural infra- per year, with nearly three-fifths to two-thirds of those RVDs occur- structure that supports wilderness backpackers, skiers, fishing ring on lands administered by the U.S. Forest Service. The Califor- enthusiasts, off-road vehicle users, naturalists, and many oth- nia Department of Parks and Recreation has the second greatest ers. All individuals who pursue outdoor activities within the number of RVDs, followed by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, the Sierra Nevada rely upon the natural world for an enjoyable National Park Service, and the U.S. Bureau of Land Management. experience. The ecological conditions of the Sierra Nevada Additional recreational activities on private lands account for millions are therefore important factors influencing patterns of recre- more RVDs that are currently not accounted for by any agency in a ational activity.
    [Show full text]