DOCSLIB.ORG

Pilot National Forest Reports

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Pilot National Forest Reports Pilot National Forest Reports Contents Gallatin National Forest ......................................................................... 34 Helena National Forest ........................................................................... 50 Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National Forests ................ 68 White River National Forest ................................................................ 116 Coconino National Forest .................................................................... 134 Sawtooth National Forest ..................................................................... 162 Shasta-Trinity National Forest ............................................................. 189 Umatilla National Forest ...................................................................... 214 Ouachita National Forest ...................................................................... 230 Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest ................................................ 240 Chugach National Forest ...................................................................... 270 33 Assessment of Watershed Vulnerability to Climate Change Gallatin National Forest April 2012 Prepared By: Joan Y. Louie Fisheries Biologist/GIS Analyst 34 R1 Regional Office, Missoula, Montana BACKGROUND The Gallatin National Forest (GNF) is located in southwestern Montana within the Northern Region (R1) of the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) and is part of the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, the largest intact ecosystem in the continental United States (fig. 1). The 1.8 million acre Forest contains more than 1,900 miles of fish-bearing streams and 700 high mountain lakes, and supports important, high-profile recreational fisheries. Figure 1—The Gallatin National Forest is located in southwestern Montana, within the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. 35 Gallatin National Forest Watershed Vulnerability Assessment, Northern Region (R1) PARTNERS Data were provided by: • The Montana Natural Resource Information System (NRIS) • Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology (MBMG) • U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) • University of Washington Climate Impacts Group (CIG) • Montana Fisheries Information System (MFISH) • U.S. Forest Service (USFS) R1 Geospatial Group • Ecoshare Assistance with the analysis was provided by: • Kerry Overton et al., Rocky Mountain Research Station • Ralph Martinez, Plumas National Forest • Jim Morrison, R1 Regional Office ASSESSMENT OBJECTIVES The objective of this project was to develop a reliable method to prioritize all HUC-6 watersheds within the GNF in order to focus forest resource conservation and restoration efforts. A watershed characterization process was first developed to assess the relative sensitivity of the watersheds to disturbance, based on various environmental parameters. A vulnerability assessment further prioritized watersheds using the Watershed Condition Framework, resources of value, and exposure (climate projections). The proposed analysis has been developed in part to address the USFS initiative in considering climate change in land management decisions. Current studies show climate change is occurring, but climate model projections are uncertain and models at common management scales are nonexistent. Therefore, alternative methods of examining the potential impacts of climate change and other environmental stressors are needed. While this initial framework was originally designed from a watershed perspective, the results can also have implications for terrestrial management, such as fire, rangeland, and wildlife management activities on the GNF. This process is intended to make it easy to update previous runs or examine other resources simply by rotating in the appropriate datasets. This project will also provide an example for other Forests in Region 1 to develop similar vulnerability assessments. SCALE OF ANALYSIS The scale of the analysis used in the GNF assessment was HUC-6 (12-digit) subwatersheds (fig. 2) and HUC-5 (10-digit) watersheds (fig. 3). 36 Gallatin National Forest Watershed Vulnerability Assessment, Northern Region (R1) Figure 2—Subwatersheds (HUC-6) on the Gallatin National Forest. Figure 3—Watersheds (HUC-5) on the Gallatin National Forest. 37 Gallatin National Forest Watershed Vulnerability Assessment, Northern Region (R1) CONNECTIONS TO OTHER PROJECTS AND ASSESSMENTS GNF Stream Temperature Modeling The objective of this project is to develop a broad-scale geographic information system (GIS) model to predict the effects of climate change on stream thermal regimes that in turn, provide the basis for estimating impacts on fisheries resources. A standardized approach was developed to collect and share temperature information among partner agencies and the public. The results will be used in conjunction with the GNF Watershed Vulnerability Assessment (WVA) to identify thermally sensitive habitats and vulnerable native fish populations, and to prioritize future restoration activities to mitigate the effects of climate change on aquatic resources. GIS analysis identified locations for deployment of stream temperature loggers in HUC-6 watersheds intersecting the Gallatin and Custer National Forests. A matrix was developed comparing stream size (y-axis) and elevation (x-axis). Multiple temperature deployment locations were chosen from each cell of the matrix across broad spatial scales (see fig. 4 for the Lower East Boulder River HUC-6 watershed). Approximately 100 stream temperature loggers will be deployed, which include 40 long-term/multi-year deployments and 60 short-term/annual deployments. The data collected will be used to develop a model to predict changes in stream temperature with respect to elevation, contributing area (stream size), and air temperature. The methods employed were developed by the Rocky Mountain Research Station. For a complete description, refer to the following Web site: http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/boise/AWAE/projects/stream_temp/multregression/methods.shtml E as t Bo ulde r Riv er h c l Dry Fork Creek u G t h ig Burnt Gulch Wr Canyon Creek Blakely Creek Figure 4—Temperature deployment locations within the Lower East Boulder River HUC-6 watershed. 38 Gallatin National Forest Watershed Vulnerability Assessment, Northern Region (R1) Watershed Condition Framework The Watershed Condition Framework (WCF) was included as one step in the process. The WCF established a nationally consistent method for classifying watershed condition and documenting improvements in watershed condition at the forest, regional, and national scales (U.S. Forest Service 2011). This process uses 12 indicators and 24 attributes to serve as surrogate variables representing fundamental ecological, hydrological, and geomorphic functions, and processes that affect watershed condition. The primary emphasis is on ecological processes and conditions that Forest Service management activities can influence. There are three watershed condition classes identified in this process: • Class 1 = Functioning Properly • Class 2 = Functioning at Risk • Class 3 = Functionally Impaired Watersheds considered to be Functioning Properly have ecosystem processes functioning within their range of natural variability. In general, the greater the departure from the natural pristine state, the more impaired the watershed condition is likely to be (USFS 2011). Climate Change Performance Scorecard The Climate Change Performance Scorecard is the Forest Service’s tracking tool to assess progress in integrating climate change considerations into programs, plans, and projects. It is composed of 10 performance elements, with a national goal of 100 percent of Forests/Grasslands to achieve a “Yes” rating on 7 of the 10 elements by FY 2015. One of these elements is a vulnerability assessment, which the WVA would fulfill. Forest Landscape and Rapid Assessments The WVA would not replace these assessments but can help validate priorities being identified in these assessments. 39 Gallatin National Forest Watershed Vulnerability Assessment, Northern Region (R1) WATERSHED VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT PROCESS Figure 5—The Gallatin National Forest Watershed Vulnerability Assessment Model. The assessment consists of several different types of information (added and removed as necessary) to identify vulnerable watersheds. Geophysical/Sensitivity Characterization The first step of the WVA process, the geophysical/sensitivity characterization, was the most time- consuming. As interdisciplinary team (fish biologist, hydrologist, and soil scientist), identified the dominant physical processes and features of the watershed that affect ecosystem function and condition. Identifying which watersheds are the most geophysically reactive can indicate how much a watershed responds to disturbances such as floods, drought, intense precipitation, and fires. The datasets determined to be most important for the watershed characterization were soils, geology, hydrology, terrain, and groundwater. The initial run of this analysis utilized pre-existing datasets (often outdated and of lower resolution and accuracy). These datasets include the GNF Soil Survey (slope classes, surficial geology, and shallow groundwater) and datasets derived from the National Hydrography Dataset, National Elevation Dataset, and R1 VMap (water yield, high flows, and low flows). After this initial run, the team met again to evaluate the results and determine which watershed characteristics were most important. The second run of the analysis included newer datasets developed for the analysis. The state surficial
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Table 8 — National Wilderness Areas in Multiple States
    Table 8 - National Wilderness Areas in Multiple States * Unit is in two or more States ** Acres estimated pending final boundary determination + Special Area that is part of a proclaimed National Forest National Wilderness Area State NFS Other Total Unit Name Acreage Acreage Acreage Absaroka-Beartooth Wilderness Montana Custer National Forest* 331,130 1,482 332,612 Gallatin National Forest 582,181 2,657 584,838 Wyoming Shoshone National Forest 23,694 0 23,694 Absaroka-Beartooth Wilderness Totals 937,005 4,139 941,144 Big Frog Wilderness Georgia Chattahoochee National Forest 136 0 136 Tennessee Cherokee National Forest* 7,996 0 7,996 Big Frog Wilderness Totals 8,132 0 8,132 Black Fork Mountain Wilderness Arkansas Ouachita National Forest* 8,249 79 8,328 Oklahoma Ouachita National Forest* 5,098 40 5,138 Black Fork Mountain Wilderness Totals 13,347 119 13,466 Cohutta Wilderness Georgia Chattahoochee National Forest 35,284 9 35,293 Tennessee Cherokee National Forest* 1,746 0 1,746 Cohutta Wilderness Totals 37,030 9 37,039 Ellicott Rock Wilderness Georgia Chattahoochee National Forest 2,023 0 2,023 North Carolina Nantahala National Forest 3,417 0 3,417 South Carolina Sumter National Forest 2,857 9 2,866 Ellicott Rock Wilderness Totals 8,297 9 8,306 Processed Date: 2/5/2014 Table 8 - National Wilderness Areas in Multiple States * Unit is in two or more States ** Acres estimated pending final boundary determination + Special Area that is part of a proclaimed National Forest National Wilderness Area State NFS Other Total Unit Name Acreage Acreage
    [Show full text]
  • APPEAL of DECISION NOTICE, GUNNISON RANGER DISTRICT Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunnison National Forests
    APPEAL OF DECISION NOTICE, GUNNISON RANGER DISTRICT Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunnison National Forests DOUBLE HEART RANCH, ON BEHALF OF LOCAL LANDOWNERS AND INTERESTED CITIZENS APPELLANTS Notice of Appeal, Statement of Reasons and Request for Relief Regarding the Geothermal Lease Nomination COC- 73584 EA and DN v. CHARLES RICHMOND GMUG FOREST SUPERVISOR AND JOHN MURPHY GUNNISON RANGER DISTRICT RESPONDENTS NOTICE OF APPEAL STATEMENT OF REASONS AND RELIEF REQUESTED DATED this 25 th day of March, 2011 Matthew R. Jones Double Heart Ranch 7500 County Road 887 Gunnison, CO 81230 Direct: (512) 635-7814 Fax: (214) 378-7501 Email: [email protected] David Brown Ranch Manager: (970) 641-0690 1 NOTICE OF APPEAL On February 10, 2011, Forest Supervisor Charles Richmond signed the Decision Notice for Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584. This is a Notice of Appeal of that decision pursuant to 36 C.F.R. Part 215. The Double Heart Ranch, Local Landowners, and a great many others use and enjoy the Tomichi Dome, and the surrounding lands covered by this decision. Further, DH Ranch submitted comments at every stage of this process to every agency involved to be considered for this National Environmental Policy Act process. DH Ranch also attended every public meeting, even when notice was grossly insufficient and public comment was inappropriately restricted and prevented. This appeal is timely pursuant to 36 C.F.R. §215.14. Appellant requests that the DN be withdrawn, a proper NEPA process be conducted, and a new decision of No Action be issued, protecting our public resources. THE APPELLANTS The Double Heart Ranch is a historic Colorado property wholly situated on or around the Tomichi Dome and the property encompassed by this decision.
    [Show full text]
  • Photo Guide for Appraising Downed Woody Fuels in Montana Forests
    This file was created by scanning the printed publication. Errors identified by the software have been corrected; however, some errors may remain. USDA FOREST SERVICE GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT INT-96 NOVEMBER 1981 PHOTO GUIDE FOR APPRAISING DOWNED WOODY FUELS IN MONTANA FORESTS: Grand Fir- Larch-Douglas-Fir, Western Hemlock, Western Hemlock-Western Redcedar, and Western Redcedar Cover Types William C. Fischer INTERMOUNTAIN FOREST AND RANGE EXPERIMENT STATION U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE FOREST SERVICE OGDEN, UTAH 84401 THE AUTHOR WILLIAM C. FISCHER is a research forester for the Fire Effects and Use Research and Development Program, at the Northern Forest Fire Laboratory. His current assignment is to develop techniques and procedures for applying existing research knowledge to the task of producing improved operational fire management plans, with special emphasis on fire use, fuel treatment, and fuel management plans. Mr. Fischer received his bachelor's degree in forestry from the University of Michigan in 1956. From 1956 to 1966, he did Ranger District and forest staff work in timber management and fire control on the Boise National Forest. RESEARCH SUMMARY Four series of color photographs show different levels of ,downed woody material resulting from natural processes in four forest cover types in Montana. Each photo is supplemented by inventory data describing the size, weight, volume, and condition of the debris pictured. A subjective evaluation of potential fire behavior under an average bad fire weather situation is given. I nstructions are provided for using the photos to describe fuels and to evaluate potential fire hazard. USDA FOREST SERVICE GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT INT-96 NOVEM,BER 1981 PHOTO GUIDE FOR APPRAISING DOWNED WOODY FUELS IN MONTANA FORESTS: Grand Fir- Larch-Douglas-Fir, Western Hemlock, We~tern Hemlock-Western Redcedar, and Western Redcedar Cover Types Will iam C.
    [Show full text]
  • Helena Interagency Dispatch Center
    Helena Interagency Dispatch Center Cooperating Agencies: USDA Forest Service- Helena National Forest USDI Bureau of Land Management Montana Dept. of Natural Resources & Conservation- Central Lands Office Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks Lewis and Clark, Broadwater, Jefferson and Meagher Counties Helena, Montana NEWS RELEASE For Release Immediately Contact:: Amy Teegarden Office: (406) 495-3747 Cell Phone: (406) 439-9135 FIRE RESTRICTIONS TO BEGIN THIS WEEK HELENA, MONT., July 17, 2007- Stage 1 fire restrictions will be implemented this Friday, by the Helena National Forest and members of the Helena Fire Restrictions division. “Thunderstorms coupled with record-breaking heat this week is a recipe for wildfires and local officials are instituting fire restrictions in an effort to reduce new fire starts.” stated Amy Teegarden, spokesperson for the Helena National Forest. Restrictions on smoking and open fires on federal and state lands, as well as on private-forested lands in Lewis and Clark County will take effect Friday, July 20 at 0001. Restrictions will be enforced on lands administered by the Helena National Forest, Bureau of Land Management and Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks in Lewis and Clark, Broadwater and Jefferson Counties. Under the restrictions campfires may be built only in developed recreation sites such as campgrounds and picnic areas. Campfires in rock rings and the use of wood stoves in canvas tents outside of campgrounds and other developed sites are prohibited. The Helena Interagency Dispatch Center provides initial
    [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]
  • Cut and Sold (New) - CUTS203F Cumulative As of FY 2014 Q1 Report Type: Quarterly Page: 1 of 39 Filter: All Sales ,All Sales Run Date: 01/23/2014 06:54 PM
    Cut and Sold (New) - CUTS203F Cumulative as of FY 2014 Q1 Report Type: Quarterly Page: 1 of 39 Filter: All Sales ,All Sales Run Date: 01/23/2014 06:54 PM Region: R1, Northern Region Forest: 02 Beaverhead/Deerlodge National Forest SIZE CLASS INFORMATION Size Sold Sold Sold Sold Cut Cut Cut Class Size Class Description Number Volume Volume Value ($) Volume Volume Value ($) of Sales (MBF) (CCF) (MBF) (CCF) 0 Size Class = 0, in TSA backfeed 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 Non-convertible 39 0.00 0.00 5,650.00 0.00 0.00 195.00 3 < $300 399 843.47 2,151.35 8,469.43 1,992.48 5,012.43 18,459.55 4 $301 - $10,000 2 404.40 699.00 25,056.84 2,533.03 5,259.92 67,989.84 5 $10,001 - $100,000 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6 $100,001 - $1,000,000 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 7 $1,000,001 - $5,000,000 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 8 > $5,000,000 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 A **ADDVOL Default Size Class 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 N **NONTIM Default Size Class 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 P **PRETIM Default Size Class 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 R **RPLCMT Default Size Class 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Forest (0102) Total : 440 1,247.87 2,850.35 39,176.27 4,525.51 10,272.35 86,644.39 Cut and Sold (New) - CUTS203F Cumulative as of FY 2014 Q1 Report Type: Quarterly Page: 2 of 39 Filter: All Sales ,All Sales Run Date: 01/23/2014 06:54 PM Region: R1, Northern Region Forest: 02 Beaverhead/Deerlodge National Forest (Continued) PRODUCT & SPECIES - CONVERTIBLE 01 Sawtimber Species Sold Sold Sold Sold ($) Sold ($) Cut Cut Cut Code Description
    [Show full text]
  • Pilot Season
    Portland State University PDXScholar University Honors Theses University Honors College Spring 2014 Pilot Season Kelly Cousineau Portland State University Follow this and additional works at: https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/honorstheses Let us know how access to this document benefits ou.y Recommended Citation Cousineau, Kelly, "Pilot Season" (2014). University Honors Theses. Paper 43. https://doi.org/10.15760/honors.77 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access. It has been accepted for inclusion in University Honors Theses by an authorized administrator of PDXScholar. Please contact us if we can make this document more accessible: [email protected]. Pilot Season by Kelly Cousineau An undergraduate honorsrequirements thesis submitted for the degree in partial of fulfillment of the Bachelor of Arts in University Honors and Film Thesis Adviser William Tate Portland State University 2014 Abstract In the 1930s, two historical figures pioneered the cinematic movement into color technology and theory: Technicolor CEO Herbert Kalmus and Color Director Natalie Kalmus. Through strict licensing policies and creative branding, the husband-and-wife duo led Technicolor in the aesthetic revolution of colorizing Hollywood. However, Technicolor's enormous success, beginning in 1938 with The Wizard of Oz, followed decades of duress on the company. Studios had been reluctant to adopt color due to its high costs and Natalie's commanding presence on set represented a threat to those within the industry who demanded creative license. The discrimination that Natalie faced, while undoubtedly linked to her gender, was more systemically linked to her symbolic representation of Technicolor itself and its transformation of the industry from one based on black-and-white photography to a highly sanctioned world of color photography.
    [Show full text]
  • Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunnison National Forests Road - Light Duty ¤£87 Q Private Intermittent Stream 550 Disclaimer ¤£ ¤£50 114 U.S
    9 9 9 0 0 2 9 0 0 0 9 2 2 0 00 0 9000 0 0 0 9 9 000 0 2 9 0 200 9 0 96 0 2 0 00 0 ! 00 ! 90 8800 90 C o 94 ! 00 k 9600 a e 0 17 80 l e 8 9 ! 9 9 C 0 16 r 2 40 0 0 ! 00 00 13 0 0 9 r 940 9 C 14 200 0 18 e ! 15 ! ! s e k a k e l 7 l 00 4 e 90 17 15 0 r ! a 16 9400 0 00 14 C 17 D 6 C r 9 Propose13d Whitehouse Add1i8tions to the 20 ! h e ! k c a W t 8600 8 ! r t ! n x Willow i 7 7 o h 8 n e 2 9200 D 1 F i 0 D 9400 o t 0 0 t Swamp e n n 5 s 9 h Mt. Sneffels Wilderness, 2 00 8 ! 00 w 78 e ! D o o 7 u i W T t 2 ! 1 V c s ! 5 0 Moonshine y e 0 . a ! 0 h 6 60 2 n a 8 9 7 c C March 22, 2018 ! 0 A 0 e w 960 r Park ! g 9600 5 C e ! d 8 r Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre i e e 8 k ! e R ! 5 00 k 6 ! 9 ! 2 ! ! . Lake 9600 0 1 1 40 . and Gunnison 9 A ! Map depicts proLpenooresed boundaries for the Whitehouse ! 1 ! 21 5 ! ! 9 ! ! 8 8 0 ! 0 0 ! 22 9 B 0 6 National Forests Additions to the Mt.
    [Show full text]
  • Table of Contents
    TABLEGUIDELINES OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 12: CONTACT INFORMATION AND MAPS 12.1 ADOT CONTACT INFORMATION……………………………………………….......122 12.2 BLM CONTACT INFORMATION…………………………………………………......123 12.3 USFS CONTACT INFORMATION………………………………………………….....124 12.4 FHWA CONTACT INFORMATION…………………………………………………....130 12.5 GIS INFORMATION..............................................................................................131 12.6 MAPS...................................................................................................................132 121 12.1 ADOT CONTACT INFORMATION ADOT web link azdot.gov/ ADOT maps azdot.gov/maps General Information 602-712-7355 OFFICE ADOT DIRECTOR 602.712.7227 Deputy Director of Transportation 602.712.7391 Deputy Director of Policy 602.712.7550 Deputy Director of Business Operations 602.712.7228 Multimodal Planning Division (MPD) Director 602.712.7431 MPD Planning and Programming Director 602.712.8140 MPD Planning and Environmental Linkages Manager 602.712.4574 Infrastructure Delivery and Operations Division (IDO) 602.712.7391 State Engineer, Sr. Deputy State Engineer and Deputy State Engineer Offices 602.712.7391 DISTRICT ENGINEERS Northcentral azdot.gov/business/district-contacts/northcentral 928.774.1491 Northeast azdot.gov/business/district-contacts/northeast 928.524.5400 Central Construction District azdot.gov/business/district-contacts/central 602.712.8965 Central Maintenance District azdot.gov/business/district-contacts/central 602.712.6664 Northwest azdot.gov/business/district-contacts/northwest 928.777.5861
    [Show full text]
  • National Forest & Grasslands, Dispersed Camping, Maximum
    This document may be freely republished or shared without permission, Page 1 of 12 as long as it remains unmodified. U.S. National Forests and Grasslands Maximum Limits Per Stay for Dispersed Camping Forest or Grassland State Length of Stay Official Rule Text Date Rule Established Source Chugach NF AK 14 days Camping, occupying, using, or leaving any personal items at any one area, June 12, 2020 https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fseprd754185.pdf campground or site on Chugach National Forest System lands for more than 14 days, during any 30-day period. Any camp relocation within the 30-day period must be at a distance of at least 10 air miles from the previous campsite. Tongass NF AK 30 days No camping for more than 30 days during any 6-month period on National Forest 1994 https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprd3803286.pdf System lands. Bankhead NF AL 14 days Dispersed camping is permitted, but no rules have been published. Per phone call Per phone call with forest headquarters with National Forests in Alabama HQ, maximum camping limit is 14 days, after you vacate, you are expected to wait 24 hours before returning to the forest. Conecuh NF AL 14 days Dispersed camping is permitted, but no rules have been published. Per phone call Per phone call with forest headquarters with National Forests in Alabama HQ, maximum camping limit is 14 days, after you vacate, you are expected to wait 24 hours before returning to the forest. Talladega NF AL 14 days Dispersed camping is permitted, but no rules have been published.
    [Show full text]
  • Biography USDA Forest Service ● Alaska Region
    Biography USDA Forest Service ● Alaska Region WAYNE OWEN DIRECTOR, WILDLIFE, FISHERS, ECOLOGY, WATERSHED AND SUBSISTENCE MANAGEMENT Wayne Owen joined the Alaska Region in July 2010 as the Director of Wildlife, Fisheries, Ecology, Watersheds and Subsistence Management. As Director, he has the responsibility of providing for and integrating the management of the resources in his portfolio in collaboration with the Tongass and Chugach National Forests. He works closely with a wide range of stakeholders, partners and communities of interest to promote the sustainable management, conservation, restoration and stewardship of watersheds, fisheries, wildlife, botanical and subsistence resources. He also has a primary role in facilitating ecological data collection throughout the Alaska Region and leads several conservation and outdoor education initiatives. Owen previously served for eight years in the agency’s national headquarters in Washington, D.C., as the senior policy analyst for biodiversity issues for the National Forest System; National Botany Program Leader and liaison to the National Fish and Widlife Foundation. Prior to working in Washington, Owen was the Regional Ecologist for the Forest Service Southeastern Region in Atlanta, Georgia. He has worked on national forests in the South and Intermountain West and served as a technical specialist for the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project. His first Forest Service job was doing radio-telemetry studies with the Pacific Southwest Research Station in central California. Owen has been acknowledged for his contribution to several national planning efforts. He received national recognition from the Chief of the Forest Service and Director of the Bureau of Land Management in 2004 for his efforts on behalf of conservation education and partnership programs.
    [Show full text]
  • Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunnison National Forests
    9 9 9 0 0 2 9 0 0 0 9 2 2 0 00 0 9000 0 0 0 9 9 000 0 2 9 0 200 9 0 96 0 2 18 0 0 0 0 9000 8800 8 90 C 94 0 5 o 871 00 k 1 9600 .1 a e 5 00 17 8 l e 8 8 9 9 16 9 2 C 400 r 0 13 00 00 00 20 0 9 r 940 9 C 14 200 0 0 18 e . 15 1A s e k a k e 8 l 7 40 l 00 4 e 0 90 0 r a 17 16 9400 15 0 0 14 C D 60 r 9 C Propose13d Whitehouse Additions to the 20 h 8 k W e c a t 8600 r t 5 x 87 i 7 1 Willow n o h 8 2 e 9200 D n F i 0 D 400 t . 0 Swamp 9 o e t n 2 1 s 9 n h Mt. Sneffels Wilderness, 2 800 8 00 w 0 B 7 e o o D 7 0 u W T i 2 1 V t s c 5 0 Moonshine a y 0 e 00 . h 6 6 2 n a 8 9 7 C April 8, 2016 c 9600 A e w Park r g 9600 C e d r Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre i e 0 8 0 e 8 0 1 k 5 e R 2 7 0 k 5 1 5 2 8 2 .
    [Show full text]