DOCSLIB.ORG

Managing Multiple Uses on National Forests, 1905-1995

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Managing Multiple Uses on National Forests, 1905-1995 MANAGING MumpLE USES ON NATIONALFoREsTs 1905-1995 A 90-year Learning Exi It Isn't Finished Yet : - 1.. I USDA UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Managing Multiple Uses on National Forests, 1905 to 1995: A 90-Year Learning Experience and It Isn't Finished Yet by John Fedkiw Dedication To the national forest resource managers and staff who, over 90 years, have devoted their knowledge and skills to the stewardship of the national forests and grasslands which make up nearly one-twelfth of the U.S. lands and waters. and To my wife, Helen, for her loving support of my professional aspirations through all our years together. Foreword Once in a while, a truly challenging book comes Managing multiple uses on national forests has along. This is one! Dr. john Fedkiw unfolds a story always included many aspects of the ecological that has not been told this way or this thoroughly approach to resource management an approach before. It is the story of how the dedicated conser- that the Forest Service explicitly adopted in1992. vationists of the Forest Service have managed the We are well on a pathway to the holistic ecological public lands, waters, and resources of the United approach to managing multiple uses on national States and served the public trust for over90years. forests. We are again "Breaking New Ground" and, together with the American people, extending the This story is not an easy one to tell. Each generation learning experience that has always been a part of the has had different expectations for the use and enjoy- use and management of the National Forest System ment of the national forests and grasslands and for the lands and resources. other programs of the Forest Service. What emerges from this book is an understanding that Society has sent and continues to send the the Forest Service has always found a way to obey the Forest Service mixed signals over ts priorities. law, care for the land, and serve people, giving Throughout its history, the Forest Service has been society most of what it wanted with extraordinary buffeted by poi itical, factional, and intergenerational efficiency. Forest Service employees, agency disputes. Reflecting society's strife, each Administra- partners, and everyone who cares about this Nation's tion and Congress has set different, sometimes con- natural treasures owe Dr. Fedkiw their thanks. flicting, priorities. As a result, there has never been quite enough money, people, or time available to the Forest Service to do the impossible - accomplishing everything that society has asked. Redacted for Privacy Nevertheless, Forest Service management of multiple uses on national forests has been resourceful in adapting to changes in society's expectations and to new knowledge and technology and in implementing Jack Ward Thomas productivity improvements to overcome limitations of Chief, USDA Forest Service,1 993-1 996 budgets. Preface This project, Managing Muttiple Uses on National the anthropocentric objective that use or choice of Forests, 1 905-1 995, was undertaken with the direct nonuse implied, there was little need for managing support and approval of the Chief of the Forest Ser- national forests aside from protecting and admin- vice, F. Dale Robertson, and Associate Chief George istering public property. So the method of the story M. Leonard and the concurrence of the U.S Depart- and account of managing multiple uses on national ment of Agriculture's Acting Assistant Secretary for forests responded to the following basic questions: Natural Resources and the Environment, John H. Beuter. The original intent was to provide a substan- . Who used the national forests and why? tive account of what "multiple-use management" was How were these uses implemented (managed) on all about in terms of principles, guidelines, and the ground? standards followed. The initial outline and proposal were prepared with the advice and guidance of Hal . What happened (over time)? Salwasser, Director, and James Caplan, Assistant Director, of the New Perspective Project. It was From this perspective, managing multiple uses on justified as necessary documentation to the 1 990 national forests emerges as the fitting of multiple Forest and Rangeland Resources Program emphasis uses into ecosystems according to their capability to on "multiple-use management" as a leading "role" support the uses compatibly with existing uses on for the Forest Service, particularly the National the same or adjoining areas, in ways that would Forest System. sustain the use's outputs, services, and benefits, and forest resources and ecosystems for future The approach through principles, guidelines, and generations. standards for multiple-use management proved infeasible because there was no systematic doc- Because the multiple uses were explicitly differenti- umentation; there were no specific budgets, pro- ated into categories (user groups) and because their grams, staffing, organization, accounting, or management knowledge and art were developed by reporting for multiple-use management per Se. function, the uses were also largely implemented by A top-down policy approach was infeasible because function on national forests. Crhere were few user the policy direction for managing national forests for advocates for "multiple use" per Se. Users generally multiple uses dd not give any specific guidelines for advocated their particular interests, usually recog- applying this policy to specific land areas where nizing the need to "share" the land with other users management for multiple uses was actually taking with different objectives when the uses were com- place. Upon pondering this dead end, it became patible and to compete for the land when they were evident that multiple-use management was not a not). That is the way the story of managing multiple system or method as the term and its connotation uses on national forests is here told. Over time, implied. Rather, it referred to the policy direction to implementation of overlapping and adjoining uses manage National Forest System lands for multiple- becomes progressively a matter of technical plan- use purposes and values. ning and coordinating; then integrating multiple disciplines; next, interdisciplinary team planning; and Because the level and mix of uses of national forest now, an ecosystem approach to managing multiple eocsystems changed over time in response to shifts uses. The fitting of multiple uses within the capa- in demands, technology, knowledge, and social bilities of ecosystems and compatibly with existing values, there seemed to be no other way to cover the uses became the development of sustainable systems subject of managing multiple uses on national forests for recreation, wildlife, fisheries, watershed, timber, than to tell it empiricallyfrom beginning to end, landscape, range, wilderness, minerals, and many 1 905 to 1 995, use by use, area by area, year by year, other more specific uses within national forest and decade by decade. Following this approach, it soon rangeland ecosystem. Thus, managing multiple uses became clear that the uses and users were the became analogous to forest management and the "drivers" of national forest management; for that ecosystem approach to management and evolved matter, of all resource management. Without use and within a changing framework of the state of the art Preface and knowledge and societal values. The art and the under the administration of the USDA Forest Service knowledge, for forest management and the ecosys- from 1905 to 1995. It is so viewed here in this story of tem approach to management, are both dynamic in managing multiple uses on national forests. response to changing uses, technology, knowledge, and societal values. The Epilogue sums up this story as a 90-year learning experience for national forest resource managers, The modern effort to move from the traditional resource professionals generally, and the American management for multiple uses to "ecosystem man- people. With the formal adoption of the ecosystem agement" or, as it has been expressed and adopted management approach to managing multiple uses for national forests, to an "ecological approach to and benefits in 1992, national forest managers are management for multiple benefits" can be viewed once again "Breaking New Ground" in the tradition in an historical context as an evolutionary rather of the Conservation Movement as expressed by than a revolutionary shiftan extension of the Gifford Pinchot. The learning experience is now evolving management of national forests that began being extended into the future within the ecosystem with the Organic Act of 1897 under the administra- framework of management. tion of the Department of the Interior and continued VIII Acknowledgments I have received help from many people in telling James W. Giltmier, Executive Editor, The Con- this story about managing multiple uses on national servation Legacy, The Newsletter of the Pinchot forests and am pleased to acknowledge these Institute for Conservation, Washington, DC. contributions. Lawrence W. Hill, Director, Forest Policy, Society My deepest gratitude goes to Norene Blair, Office of of American Foresters, Bethesda, MD. Public Affairs, Forest Service, Washington, DC, who George M. Leonard, retired, Former Associate collaborated on this manuscript and carefully and Chief of the Forest Service, Fairfax, VA. patiently reviewed and edited repeated drafts. These efforts have added substantially to the coherence of Douglas W. MacCleery, Assistant Director, Forest the manuscript and its readability. Norene has also Ecosystems and Planning, Timber Management worked at au organizational levels of the Forest Staff, USDA Forest Service, Washington, DC. Service, from the ranger district to the Washington John R. McGuire, retired, Former Chief of the Office, so she ground-truthed much of my manu- Forest Service, Gaithersburg, MD. script. I am especially grateful to Norene for her sup- port of the idea of the book - a story that needed to Mark A. Reimers, retired, Former Deputy Chief, be told and her gentle, but constructive encourage- Programs and Legislation, USDA Forest Service, ment to return to the story and complete it when Washington, DC.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Mark Your Calendar
    MARK YOUR CALENDAR OLD FORESTS, NEW MANAGEMENT: CANADIAN INSTITUTE OF FORESTRY–100TH ANNUAL CONSERVATION AND USE OF OLD-GROWTH FORESTS GENERAL MEETING AND CONFERENCE IN THE 21ST CENTURY September 7–10, 2008. Fredericton, New Brunswick. Contact: February 17–21, 2008. Hobart, Tasmania, Australia. An interna- CIF, 151 Slater Street, Suite 504 Ottawa, ON K1P 5H3; Phone: tional scientific conference hosted by the CRC for Forestry, 613-234-2242; Fax: 613-234-6181; [email protected]; http://www.cif- Forestry Tasmania, and the International Union of Forest ifc.org/english/e-agms.shtml. Research Organizations. Contact: Conference Design, Sandy Bay Tasmania 7006, Australia; Phone: +61 03 6224 3773; SOCIETY OF AMERICAN FORESTERS [email protected]; www.cdesign.com.au/oldforests2008/. NATIONAL CONVENTION November 5–9, 2008. Reno, Nevada. Contact: William V. Brumby, ASSOCIATION OF BRITISH COLUMBIA FOREST Society of American Foresters; Phone: 301-897-8720, ext. 129; PROFESSIONALS CONFERENCE AND ANNUAL GENERAL [email protected]; www.safnet.org. MEETING February 20–22, 2008. Penticton, British Columbia. Theme: “Facets AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR ENVIRONMENTAL HISTORY of Our Future Forests.” Contact: ExpoFor 2008, Association of ANNUAL MEETING BC Forest Professionals, 1030–1188 West Georgia Street, Vancouver, February 25–March 1, 2009. Tallahassee, Florida. Contact: Fritz BC V6E 4A2. Phone: 604-687-8027; Fax: 604-687-3264; info@expo- Davis, local arrangements chair, at [email protected]; www.aseh.net/ for.ca; http://www.expofor.ca/contactus/contactus.htm. conferences. AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR ENVIRONMENTAL HISTORY FIRST WORLD ENVIRONMENTAL HISTORY CONVENTION ANNUAL MEETING August 4–9, 2009. Copenhagen, Denmark. Sponsored by the March 12–16, 2008.
    [Show full text]
  • Forest Songbird Abundance and Viability at Multiple Scales on the Monongahela National Forest, West Virginia
    Graduate Theses, Dissertations, and Problem Reports 1999 Forest songbird abundance and viability at multiple scales on the Monongahela National Forest, West Virginia Thomas Eugene DeMeo West Virginia University Follow this and additional works at: https://researchrepository.wvu.edu/etd Recommended Citation DeMeo, Thomas Eugene, "Forest songbird abundance and viability at multiple scales on the Monongahela National Forest, West Virginia" (1999). Graduate Theses, Dissertations, and Problem Reports. 1045. https://researchrepository.wvu.edu/etd/1045 This Dissertation is protected by copyright and/or related rights. It has been brought to you by the The Research Repository @ WVU with permission from the rights-holder(s). You are free to use this Dissertation in any way that is permitted by the copyright and related rights legislation that applies to your use. For other uses you must obtain permission from the rights-holder(s) directly, unless additional rights are indicated by a Creative Commons license in the record and/ or on the work itself. This Dissertation has been accepted for inclusion in WVU Graduate Theses, Dissertations, and Problem Reports collection by an authorized administrator of The Research Repository @ WVU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. FOREST SONGBIRD ABUNDANCE AND VIABILITY AT MULTIPLE SCALES ON THE MONONGAHELA NATIONAL FOREST, WEST VIRGINIA Thomas Eugene DeMeo Dissertation Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the College of Agriculture and Forestry West Virginia University In Partial
    [Show full text]
  • IMBCR Report
    Integrated Monitoring in Bird Conservation Regions (IMBCR): 2015 Field Season Report June 2016 Bird Conservancy of the Rockies 14500 Lark Bunting Lane Brighton, CO 80603 303-659-4348 www.birdconservancy.org Tech. Report # SC-IMBCR-06 Bird Conservancy of the Rockies Connecting people, birds and land Mission: Conserving birds and their habitats through science, education and land stewardship Vision: Native bird populations are sustained in healthy ecosystems Bird Conservancy of the Rockies conserves birds and their habitats through an integrated approach of science, education and land stewardship. Our work radiates from the Rockies to the Great Plains, Mexico and beyond. Our mission is advanced through sound science, achieved through empowering people, realized through stewardship and sustained through partnerships. Together, we are improving native bird populations, the land and the lives of people. Core Values: 1. Science provides the foundation for effective bird conservation. 2. Education is critical to the success of bird conservation. 3. Stewardship of birds and their habitats is a shared responsibility. Goals: 1. Guide conservation action where it is needed most by conducting scientifically rigorous monitoring and research on birds and their habitats within the context of their full annual cycle. 2. Inspire conservation action in people by developing relationships through community outreach and science-based, experiential education programs. 3. Contribute to bird population viability and help sustain working lands by partnering with landowners and managers to enhance wildlife habitat. 4. Promote conservation and inform land management decisions by disseminating scientific knowledge and developing tools and recommendations. Suggested Citation: White, C. M., M. F. McLaren, N. J.
    [Show full text]
  • PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT of APPEALS for the THIRD CIRCUIT Nos. 10-1265 and 10-2332 MINARD RUN OIL COMPANY; PENNSYLVANIA
    PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT Nos. 10-1265 and 10-2332 MINARD RUN OIL COMPANY; PENNSYLVANIA INDEPENDENT OIL AND GAS ASSOCIATION; ALLEGHENY FOREST ALLIANCE; COUNTY OF WARREN, PENNSYLVANIA, v. UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE, an agency of the U.S. Department of Agriculture; TOM TIDWELL, in his official capacity as Chief of the U.S. Forest Service; KENT P. CONNAUGHTON, in his official capacity as regional Forester for the U.S. Forest Service, Eastern Region; LEANNE M. MARTEN, in her official capacity as Forest Supervisor for the Allegheny National Forest; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; FOREST SERVICE EMPLOYEES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ETHICS; ALLEGHENY DEFENSE PROJECT; SIERRA CLUB Forest Service Employees for Environmental Ethics, Allegheny Defense Project, Sierra Club, Appellants. (Pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 43 (c)(2)) (Amended Pursuant to the Clerk's Order of June 18, 2010) On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania (D.C. No. 1-09-cv-00125) District Judge: Honorable Sean J. McLaughlin Argued on January 27, 2011 Before: FUENTES, CHAGARES and ROTH, Circuit Judges (Opinion filed: September 20, 2011) Brian J. Sonfield, Esquire Assistant General Counsel United States Department of Agriculture Washington, DC 20250 Ignacia S. Moreno, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Aaron P. Avila, Esquire Ruth Ann Storey, Esquire United States Department of Justice Environment & Natural Resources Division P.O. Box 663 Washington, DC 20044 2 Lane N. McFadden, Esquire Robert P. Stockman, Esquire (Argued) United States Department of Justice Environment & Natural Resources Division P.O. Box 23795, L‟Enfant Plaza Station Washington, DC 20026 Counsel for Federal Appellants Timothy M.
    [Show full text]
  • Fishlake National Forest
    FISHLAKE NATIONAL FOREST RESPONSE TO COMMENTS for the FISHLAKE OHV ROUTE DESIGNATION PROJECT 12 October 2006 INTRODUCTION The forest incorporated existing comments from prior public participation processes during the pre- NEPA (NFMA) assessment. The following documents from these efforts are incorporated by reference: Public comments received for the 2001 OHV Event Environmental Assessment for the Rocky Mountain and Fillmore Jamborees. The assessment covered all of the Fishlake and portions of the Dixie and Manti-LaSal National Forests as well as Richfield BLM. OHV and travel management comments received by mail or at public meetings for Forest Plan revision efforts. Meeting notes and final presentations and reports from the Forest Plan revision Topical Working Groups (TWiGs) for OHVs, dispersed camping, and undeveloped area suitability. These records are included in the OHV project file and are incorporated by reference. The Notice of Intent (NOI) for the Fishlake OHV Route Designation Project was published in the Federal Register on June 7, 2004. The NOI included a proposed action (Alternative 2) that designated routes and areas open to motorized use on the Fishlake National Forest. The effect of these designations is to close the forest to unrestricted motorized cross-country travel. The NOI asked for comments on the proposed action by July 30, 2004. Immediately prior to release of the NOI, the Forest Service briefed local governmental officials, motorized advocacy groups, businesses, and environmental groups. The project web site http://www.fs.fed.us/r4/fishlake/projects/ohv.shtml, press release, and postings at some trailheads were used to disseminate information and gather comments.
    [Show full text]
  • Forest Insect and Disease Conditions in the Southwestern Region, 2008
    United States Department of Forest Insect and Agriculture Forest Disease Conditions in Service Southwestern the Southwestern Region Forestry and Forest Health Region, 2008 July 2009 PR-R3-16-5 The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720- 2600 (voice and TTY). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TTY). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. Cover photo: Pandora moth caterpillar collected on the North Kaibab Ranger District, Kaibab National Forest. Forest Insect and Disease Conditions in the Southwestern Region, 2008 Southwestern Region Forestry and Forest Health Regional Office Salomon Ramirez, Director Allen White, Pesticide Specialist Forest Health Zones Offices Arizona Zone John Anhold, Zone Leader Mary Lou Fairweather, Pathologist Roberta Fitzgibbon, Entomologist Joel McMillin, Entomologist
    [Show full text]
  • National Forest Imagery Catalog Collection at the USDA
    National Forest Imagery Catalog collection at the USDA - Farm Service Agency Aerial Photography Field Office (APFO) 2222 West 2300 South Salt Lake City, UT 84119-2020 (801) 844-2922 - Customer Service Section (801) 956-3653 - Fax (801) 956-3654 - TDD [email protected] http://www.apfo.usda.gov This catalog listing shows the various photographic coverages used by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and archived at the Aerial Photography Field Office. This catalog references U.S. Forest Service (FS) and other agencies imagery. For imagery prior to 1955, please contact the National Archives & Records Administration: Cartographic & Architectural Reference (NWCS-Cartographic) Aerial Photographs Team http://www.archives.gov/research/order/maps.html#contact Coverage of U.S. Forest Service photography is listed alphabetically for each forest within a region. Numeric and alpha codes used to identify FS projects are determined by the Forest Service. The original film type for most of this imagery is a natural color negative. Line indexes are available for most projects. The number of index sheets required to cover a project area is shown on the listing. Please reference the remarks column, which may identify a larger or smaller project area than the National Forest area defined in the header. Offered in the catalog listing at each National Forest heading is a link to locate the Regional and National Forest office address and phone number at: http://www.fs.fed.us/intro/directory You may wish to visit the National Forest office to view the current imagery and have them assist you in identifying aerial imagery from the APFO.
    [Show full text]
  • Santa Fe National Forest
    Chapter 1: Introduction In Ecological and Biological Diversity of National Forests in Region 3 Bruce Vander Lee, Ruth Smith, and Joanna Bate The Nature Conservancy EXECUTIVE SUMMARY We summarized existing regional-scale biological and ecological assessment information from Arizona and New Mexico for use in the development of Forest Plans for the eleven National Forests in USDA Forest Service Region 3 (Region 3). Under the current Planning Rule, Forest Plans are to be strategic documents focusing on ecological, economic, and social sustainability. In addition, Region 3 has identified restoration of the functionality of fire-adapted systems as a central priority to address forest health issues. Assessments were selected for inclusion in this report based on (1) relevance to Forest Planning needs with emphasis on the need to address ecosystem diversity and ecological sustainability, (2) suitability to address restoration of Region 3’s major vegetation systems, and (3) suitability to address ecological conditions at regional scales. We identified five assessments that addressed the distribution and current condition of ecological and biological diversity within Region 3. We summarized each of these assessments to highlight important ecological resources that exist on National Forests in Arizona and New Mexico: • Extent and distribution of potential natural vegetation types in Arizona and New Mexico • Distribution and condition of low-elevation grasslands in Arizona • Distribution of stream reaches with native fish occurrences in Arizona • Species richness and conservation status attributes for all species on National Forests in Arizona and New Mexico • Identification of priority areas for biodiversity conservation from Ecoregional Assessments from Arizona and New Mexico Analyses of available assessments were completed across all management jurisdictions for Arizona and New Mexico, providing a regional context to illustrate the biological and ecological importance of National Forests in Region 3.
    [Show full text]
  • News Release
    NEWS RELEASE USDA FOREST SERVICE ● Intermountain Region 324 25th STREET OGDEN, UTAH 84401 ● Web: http://www.fs.fed.us/r4 Release No. R4-1201 Contact: Erin O’Connor 801-625-5347 Mitch Snow 202-912-7368 National Forests Added and Comment Period Formally Extended on Planning for Sage Grouse Conservation Measures In cooperation with the Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management will issue a corrected Notice of Intent to address sage-grouse in 10 additional National Forest System Lands and Resource Management Plans and formally extended the comment period through March 23, 2012. The notice will appear in the February 10, 2012 Federal Register. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) are seeking public comment on issues that should be addressed in Environmental Impact Statements (EIS’s) and Supplemental Environmental Impact Statements (SEIS’s) that will evaluate and provide greater sage-grouse conservation measures in land use plans in 10 Western states. This notice continues public comment on the scoping process for the EISs/SEISs through March 23, 2012. The EIS’s/SEIS’s will be coordinated under two regions: The Rocky Mountain Region, previously designated as the Eastern Region, which includes land use plans in the states of Colorado, Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota and portions of Utah and Montana; and the Great Basin Region, previously designated as the Western Region, which includes land use plans in northeastern California, Oregon, Idaho, Nevada, and portions of Utah and Montana. Within the Rocky Mountain Region, the potentially affected National Forest System Land Management Plans include: Colorado’s Routt National Forest Wyoming’s Thunder Basin National Grassland, Medicine Bow National Forest and the Bridger-Tetons National Forest.
    [Show full text]
  • USDA Forest Service Youth Conservation Corps Projects 2021
    1 USDA Forest Service Youth Conservation Corps Projects 2021 Alabama Tuskegee, National Forests in Alabama, dates 6/6/2021--8/13/2021, Project Contact: Darrius Truss, [email protected] 404-550-5114 Double Springs, National Forests in Alabama, 6/6/2021--8/13/2021, Project Contact: Shane Hoskins, [email protected] 334-314- 4522 Alaska Juneau, Tongass National Forest / Admiralty Island National Monument, 6/14/2021--8/13/2021 Project Contact: Don MacDougall, [email protected] 907-789-6280 Arizona Douglas, Coronado National Forest, 6/13/2021--7/25/2021, Project Contacts: Doug Ruppel and Brian Stultz, [email protected] and [email protected] 520-388-8438 Prescott, Prescott National Forest, 6/13/2021--7/25/2021, Project Contact: Nina Hubbard, [email protected] 928- 232-0726 Phoenix, Tonto National Forest, 6/7/2021--7/25/2021, Project Contact: Brooke Wheelock, [email protected] 602-225-5257 Arkansas Glenwood, Ouachita National Forest, 6/7/2021--7/30/2021, Project Contact: Bill Jackson, [email protected] 501-701-3570 Mena, Ouachita National Forest, 6/7/2021--7/30/2021, Project Contact: Bill Jackson, [email protected] 501- 701-3570 California Mount Shasta, Shasta Trinity National Forest, 6/28/2021--8/6/2021, Project Contact: Marcus Nova, [email protected] 530-926-9606 Etna, Klamath National Forest, 6/7/2021--7/31/2021, Project Contact: Jeffrey Novak, [email protected] 530-841- 4467 USDA Forest Service Youth Conservation Corps Projects 2021 2 Colorado Grand Junction, Grand Mesa Uncomphagre and Gunnison National Forests, 6/7/2021--8/14/2021 Project Contact: Lacie Jurado, [email protected] 970-817-4053, 2 projects.
    [Show full text]
  • Table 6 - NFS Acreage by State, Congressional District and County
    Table 6 - NFS Acreage by State, Congressional District and County State Congressional District County Unit NFS Acreage Alabama 1st Escambia Conecuh National Forest 29,179 1st Totals 29,179 2nd Coffee Pea River Land Utilization Project 40 Covington Conecuh National Forest 54,881 2nd Totals 54,922 3rd Calhoun Rose Purchase Unit 161 Talladega National Forest 21,412 Cherokee Talladega National Forest 2,229 Clay Talladega National Forest 66,763 Cleburne Talladega National Forest 98,750 Macon Tuskegee National Forest 11,348 Talladega Talladega National Forest 46,272 3rd Totals 246,935 4th Franklin William B. Bankhead National Forest 1,277 Lawrence William B. Bankhead National Forest 90,681 Winston William B. Bankhead National Forest 90,030 4th Totals 181,987 6th Bibb Talladega National Forest 60,867 Chilton Talladega National Forest 23,027 6th Totals 83,894 2019 Land Areas Report Refresh Date: 10/19/2019 Table 6 - NFS Acreage by State, Congressional District and County State Congressional District County Unit NFS Acreage 7th Dallas Talladega National Forest 2,167 Hale Talladega National Forest 28,051 Perry Talladega National Forest 32,796 Tuscaloosa Talladega National Forest 10,998 7th Totals 74,012 Alabama Totals 670,928 Alaska At Large Anchorage Municipality Chugach National Forest 248,417 Haines Borough Tongass National Forest 767,952 Hoonah-Angoon Census Area Tongass National Forest 1,974,292 Juneau City and Borough Tongass National Forest 1,672,846 Kenai Peninsula Borough Chugach National Forest 1,261,067 Ketchikan Gateway Borough Tongass
    [Show full text]
  • Timeline for Long Term Monitoring
    Timeline for long term monitoring Project (Grant #, and Treatment National Forest 5 Year 10 Year 15 Name) Start Date Management Unit Post Post Year Post 16-01 MRGCD Bosque 2003 Cibola NF 2008 2013 2018 06-02 San Juan Bosque 2003 Santa Fe NF 2008 2013 2018 03-01 La Jicarita 2005 Carson NF 2010 2015 2020 36-04 Turkey Springs 2005 Lincoln NF 2010 2015 2020 Ruidoso 27-04 Santa Fe FD WUI 2005 Santa Fe NF 2010 2015 2020 28-05 Ensenada 2006 Carson NF 2011 2016 2021 01-05 Bluewater 2006 Cibola NF 2011 2016 2021 21-04 Sierra SWCD Black 2006 Gila NF 2011 2016 2021 Range 39-05 SBS II -Cedar Creek 2006 Lincoln NF 2011 2016 2021 11-01 LTRR Monument 2006 Santa Fe NF 2011 2016 2021 Canyon 02-05 P&M Thunderbird 2007 Cibola NF 2012 2017 2022 05-07 Santa Ana Juniper II 2007 Cibola NF 2012 2017 2022 2007 Lincoln NF 13-07 Ruidoso Schools 2012 2017 2022 15 Project (Grant #, and Treatment National Forest 5 Year 10 Year Year Name) Start Date Management Unit Post Post Post 33-05 Taos Pueblo 2008 Carson NF 2013 2018 2023 16-07 FG III Santa 2008 Carson NF 2013 2018 2023 Cruz/Embudo 22-04 Gallinas -Tierra y 2008 Santa Fe NF 2013 2018 2023 Montes 22-07 Barela Timber 2008 Santa Fe NF 2013 2018 2023 25-07 Santa Clara Pueblo 2008 Santa Fe NF 2013 2018 2023 - Beaver 28-07 Santa Domingo 2008 Santa Fe NF 2013 2018 2023 Forest to Farm 29-07 SWPT Ocate State 2008 Santa Fe NF 2013 2018 2023 Lands Source: Derr, Tori, et.
    [Show full text]