DOCSLIB.ORG

Coconino National Forest Draft Land Management Plan – February 2011 Iii

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Coconino National Forest Draft Land Management Plan – February 2011 Iii United States Coconino National Department of Agriculture Forest Forest Draft Land Service Southwestern Region Management Plan February 2011 Notes for reviewers: • This document is an initial draft of the Coconino National Forest’s revised land management plan. It was made available for public review in February 2011. • Language highlighted in gray is incomplete or needs further attention. Draft Revised Land Management Plan Prepared for: The Coconino National Forest 1824 S. Thompson St. Flagstaff, AZ 86001 and USDA Forest Service Southwestern Region 333 Broadway SE Albuquerque, New Mexico 87102 Submitted by: Plan Revision Team Coconino National Forest Contents Draft Revised Land Management Plan ........... i Chapter 1. Background ................................................................................................................. 1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 1 Purpose of the Land Management Plan .................................................................................... 1 Summary of the Analysis of the Management Situation ........................................................... 1 Plan Content .............................................................................................................................. 2 Plan Decisions ..................................................................................................................... 2 Other Content ...................................................................................................................... 4 Guiding Future Projects, Program Plans, and Assessments ...................................................... 4 Transition in the Implementation of the Plan ............................................................................ 5 Changes to the Plan ................................................................................................................... 5 Plan Organization ...................................................................................................................... 6 Roles and Contributions of the Coconino NF ........................................................................... 6 The Coconino National Forest’s Mission ............................................................................ 9 The Coconino National Forest’s Vision ............................................................................ 10 Chapter 2. Forestwide Management ........................................................................................... 11 Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 11 Landscape Character Zones ..................................................................................................... 11 Ponderosa Pine Landscape Character Zone....................................................................... 11 San Francisco Peaks Landscape Character Zone .............................................................. 12 Volcanic Woodlands Landscape Character Zone .............................................................. 13 Anderson Mesa Landscape Character Zone ...................................................................... 14 East Clear Creek Landscape Character Zone .................................................................... 15 Red Rock Landscape Character Zone ............................................................................... 16 Verde Valley Landscape Character Zone .......................................................................... 17 Painted Desert Landscape Character Zone ........................................................................ 18 Air Resources .......................................................................................................................... 18 Air Quality ......................................................................................................................... 18 Aquatic Resources .................................................................................................................. 19 Introduction to Aquatic Resources .................................................................................... 19 Watershed Management, Water Quality and Quantity ...................................................... 20 Water Quantity and Quality ............................................................................................... 20 Constructed Waters ........................................................................................................... 23 Stream Ecosystems ............................................................................................................ 23 Wetlands and Reservoir/Lake ............................................................................................ 25 Springs ............................................................................................................................... 28 Biophysical Features ............................................................................................................... 30 Caves, Cliffs, Sinkholes, Lave Tubes, Fissures, and Talus Slopes ................................... 30 Paleontological Resources ................................................................................................. 32 Soils ........................................................................................................................................ 33 Wildlife, Fish, and Botanical Resources ................................................................................. 35 Vegetation ............................................................................................................................... 38 All Vegetation Types ......................................................................................................... 38 Riparian Types .................................................................................................................. 40 Cottonwood Willow Riparian Forest ................................................................................. 43 Desert Communities .......................................................................................................... 44 Coconino National Forest Draft Land Management Plan – February 2011 iii Semi-Desert Grasslands ..................................................................................................... 46 Interior Chaparral .............................................................................................................. 47 Piñon and Juniper .............................................................................................................. 48 Ponderosa Pine .................................................................................................................. 51 Dry Mixed Conifer ............................................................................................................ 54 Wet Mixed Conifer ............................................................................................................ 57 Montane/Subalpine and Great Basin Grasslands ............................................................... 60 Spruce Fir Forest ............................................................................................................... 63 Alpine Tundra .................................................................................................................... 65 Invasive Exotic Species Management..................................................................................... 66 Community Forest Interface ................................................................................................... 66 Fire Management .................................................................................................................... 66 Heritage Resources ................................................................................................................. 68 General Description for Heritage Resources ..................................................................... 68 Heritage Site Conservation and Evaluation ....................................................................... 68 Heritage Collections .......................................................................................................... 70 Heritage Enhancement and Interpretation ......................................................................... 70 Tribal Relations and Uses ....................................................................................................... 71 Infrastructure ........................................................................................................................... 72 Facilities ............................................................................................................................ 72 Roads ................................................................................................................................. 73 Lands ....................................................................................................................................... 74 Land Adjustments .............................................................................................................. 74 Range and Livestock Grazing ................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Land Areas of the National Forest System, As of September 30, 2019
    United States Department of Agriculture Land Areas of the National Forest System As of September 30, 2019 Forest Service WO Lands FS-383 November 2019 Metric Equivalents When you know: Multiply by: To fnd: Inches (in) 2.54 Centimeters Feet (ft) 0.305 Meters Miles (mi) 1.609 Kilometers Acres (ac) 0.405 Hectares Square feet (ft2) 0.0929 Square meters Yards (yd) 0.914 Meters Square miles (mi2) 2.59 Square kilometers Pounds (lb) 0.454 Kilograms United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Land Areas of the WO, Lands National Forest FS-383 System November 2019 As of September 30, 2019 Published by: USDA Forest Service 1400 Independence Ave., SW Washington, DC 20250-0003 Website: https://www.fs.fed.us/land/staff/lar-index.shtml Cover Photo: Mt. Hood, Mt. Hood National Forest, Oregon Courtesy of: Susan Ruzicka USDA Forest Service WO Lands and Realty Management Statistics are current as of: 10/17/2019 The National Forest System (NFS) is comprised of: 154 National Forests 58 Purchase Units 20 National Grasslands 7 Land Utilization Projects 17 Research and Experimental Areas 28 Other Areas NFS lands are found in 43 States as well as Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. TOTAL NFS ACRES = 192,994,068 NFS lands are organized into: 9 Forest Service Regions 112 Administrative Forest or Forest-level units 503 Ranger District or District-level units The Forest Service administers 149 Wild and Scenic Rivers in 23 States and 456 National Wilderness Areas in 39 States. The Forest Service also administers several other types of nationally designated
    [Show full text]
  • VGP) Version 2/5/2009
    Vessel General Permit (VGP) Version 2/5/2009 United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) VESSEL GENERAL PERMIT FOR DISCHARGES INCIDENTAL TO THE NORMAL OPERATION OF VESSELS (VGP) AUTHORIZATION TO DISCHARGE UNDER THE NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM In compliance with the provisions of the Clean Water Act (CWA), as amended (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), any owner or operator of a vessel being operated in a capacity as a means of transportation who: • Is eligible for permit coverage under Part 1.2; • If required by Part 1.5.1, submits a complete and accurate Notice of Intent (NOI) is authorized to discharge in accordance with the requirements of this permit. General effluent limits for all eligible vessels are given in Part 2. Further vessel class or type specific requirements are given in Part 5 for select vessels and apply in addition to any general effluent limits in Part 2. Specific requirements that apply in individual States and Indian Country Lands are found in Part 6. Definitions of permit-specific terms used in this permit are provided in Appendix A. This permit becomes effective on December 19, 2008 for all jurisdictions except Alaska and Hawaii. This permit and the authorization to discharge expire at midnight, December 19, 2013 i Vessel General Permit (VGP) Version 2/5/2009 Signed and issued this 18th day of December, 2008 William K. Honker, Acting Director Robert W. Varney, Water Quality Protection Division, EPA Region Regional Administrator, EPA Region 1 6 Signed and issued this 18th day of December, 2008 Signed and issued this 18th day of December, Barbara A.
    [Show full text]
  • Sunset Crater Volcano National Monument Foundation Document
    NATIONAL PARK SERVICE • U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Foundation Document Overview Sunset Crater Volcano National Monument Arizona Contact Information For more information about the Sunset Crater Volcano National Monument Foundation Document, contact: [email protected] or (928) 526-1157 or write to: Superintendent, Flagstaff Area National Monuments, 6400 N. Hwy 89, Flagstaff, AZ 86004 Purpose Significance Significance statements express why Sunset Crater Volcano National Monument resources and values are important enough to merit national park unit designation. Statements of significance describe why an area is important within a global, national, regional, and systemwide context. These statements are linked to the purpose of the park unit, and are supported by data, research, and consensus. Significance statements describe the distinctive nature of the park and inform management decisions, focusing efforts on preserving and protecting the most important resources and values of the park unit. • Most Recent Eruption. Erupting roughly 900 years ago, Sunset Crater Volcano is the youngest of 600 volcanoes within northern Arizona’s San Francisco Volcanic Field. • Geology. The monument’s display of plate tectonics, volcanism, and pristine eruption features provides excellent opportunities for science, education, and interpretation in the context of regional and global geology. • Community. This catastrophic event profoundly affected the life of people in the region and left a unique archeological and ethnographic record of human response, adaptation, and recovery. Sunset Crater Volcano and its impressive features continue to be significant to contemporary American Indian tribes. • Ecology. A 100-square-mile cinder and ash blanket smothered all life nearest the volcano, resulting in ecologic succession and a unique assemblage of plants in a largely barren landscape.
    [Show full text]
  • Historical Stand-Replacing Fire in Upper Montane Forests of the Madrean Sky Islands and Mogollon Plateau, Southwestern USA
    Fire Ecology Volume 7, Issue 3, 2011 Margolis et al.: Historical Stand-Replacing Fire doi: 10.4996/fireecology.0703088 Page 88 RESEARCH ARTICLE HISTORICAL STAND-REPLACING FIRE IN UPPER MONTANE FORESTS OF THE MADREAN SKY ISLANDS AND MOGOLLON PLATEAU, SOUTHWESTERN USA Ellis Q. Margolis1*, Thomas W. Swetnam1, and Craig D. Allen2 1University of Arizona Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research, 105 W. Stadium, Tucson, Arizona 85721, USA 2US Geological Survey Jemez Mountains Field Station, HCR 1, Box 1, Number 15, Los Alamos, New Mexico 87544, USA *Corresponding author: Tel.: 001-520-626-2733; e-mail: [email protected] ABSTRACT The recent occurrence of large fires with a substantial stand-replacing component in the southwestern United States (e.g., Cerro Grande, 2000; Rodeo-Chedeski, 2002; Aspen, 2003; Horseshoe 2, Las Conchas, and Wallow, 2011) has raised questions about the his- torical role of stand-replacing fire in the region. We reconstructed fire dates and stand-re- placing fire patch sizes using four lines of tree-ring evidence at four upper montane forest sites (>2600 m) in the Madrean Sky Islands and Mogollon Plateau of Arizona and New Mexico, USA. The four lines of tree-ring evidence include: (1) quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides) and spruce-fir age structure, (2) conifer death dates, (3) traumatic resin ducts and ring-width changes, and (4) conifer fire scars. Pre-1905 fire regimes in the upper montane forest sites were variable, with drier, south-facing portions of some sites record- ing frequent, low-severity fire (mean fire interval of all fires ranging from 5 yr to 11 yr among sites), others burning with stand-replacing severity, and others with no evidence of fire for >300 yr.
    [Show full text]
  • NEWSLETTER March 2020
    FRIENDS OF NORTHERN ARIZONA FORESTS ‘? NEWSLETTER March 2020 Early Start to 2020 Projects for Aspen Team This a good news/bad news story on the mild winter weather we’ve had in northern Arizona since the first of the year: • The bad news first: lack of moisture and warmer days creating anticipated early onset of drought conditions through the summer. • The good news is the Aspen Team has taken advantage of our milder weather conditions and has already been in the field completing project. An early start has been advantageous for the team based on the wish lists projects for 2020 requested by representatives from the Forest Service and other allied agencies. At the FoNAF Board of Directors meeting on January 15, their proposed projects for the Aspen Team were presented and described by the respective representatives. http://www.friendsofnorthernarizonaforests.org/ Page 2 Below are brief summaries of each representative’s wish lists. Mark Nable: Flagstaff Ranger District • Two new aspen exclosures, • Reconstruct/repair exclosures #25 and #27 and remove fencing in two other exclosures, • Water seedlings in two exclosures on Highway 180 where aspen saplings were replanted if needed in early Spring before monsoons arrive, • Chip/haul slash in Lockett Meadow, possibly using available logs for peeling/log-worm fences. Amy Madera: Flagstaff Ranger District • Fence work and modifications along Waterline road, Casner Park and along FR420, • Barbed wire fences are candidates for removal following consultation with Forest Service. Patrick McGervey: Flagstaff Ranger District • PSAR volunteers from FoNAF to participate throughout the season, • Building log worm fences, • Clean up the area surrounding a water catchment off the Sunset Loop Road near the Strawberry Crater wilderness area.
    [Show full text]
  • Downloaded and Reviewed on the State Parks’ Webpage Or Those Interested Could Request a Hard Copy
    Governor of Arizona Janet Napolitano Arizona State Parks Board William Cordasco, Chair ting 50 ting 50 ra Y Arlan Colton ra Y b e b e a William C. Porter a le le r r e e s s William C. Scalzo C C Tracey Westerhausen Mark Winkleman 1957 - 2007 Reese Woodling 1957 - 2007 Elizabeth Stewart (2006) Arizona Outdoor Recreation Coordinating Commission Jeffrey Bell, Chair Mary Ellen Bittorf Garry Hays Rafael Payan William Schwind Duane Shroufe Kenneth E. Travous This publication was prepared under the authority of the Arizona State Parks Board. Prepared by the Statewide Planning Unit Resources Management Section Arizona State Parks 1300 West Washington Street Phoenix, Arizona 85007 (602) 542-4174 Fax: (602) 542-4180 www.azstateparks.com The preparation of this report was under the guidance from the National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, under the provisions of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 (Public Law 88-578, as amended). The Department of the Interior prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, religion, national origin, age or disability. For additional information or to file a discrimination complaint, contact Director, Office of Equal Opportunity, Department of the Interior, Washington D.C. 20240. September 2007 ARIZONA 2008 SCORP ARIZONA 2008 Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP) Arizona State Parks September 2007 iii ARIZONA 2008 SCORP ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The 2008 Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP) for Arizona was prepared by the Planning Unit, Resources Management
    [Show full text]
  • Oak Creek Canyon
    ' " United States (. Il). Department of \~~!J'~~':P Agriculture CoconinoNational Forest Service ForestPlan Southwestern Region -""""" IU!S. IIIII.IIIIII... I I i I--- I I II I /"r, Vicinity Map @ , " .. .' , ",', '. ',,' , ". ,.' , ' ' .. .' ':':: ~'::.»>::~: '::. Published August 1987 Coconino N.ational Forest Land and Resource Management Plan This Page Intentionally Left Blank Coconino Foresst Plan TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION Purpose of the Plan. 1 Organization of the Forest Plan Documentation. 2 Planning Area Description. 2 2. ISSUES Overview . 5 Issues . 5 Firewood . 6 Timber Harvest Levels. 7 The Availability of Recreation Options . 8 Off-Road Driving . 9 Wildlife Habitat . 9 Riparian Habitat . 11 Geothermal Development . .. 11 Management of the Transportation System . 12 Use of the Public Lands . 13 Law Enforcement . 13 Landownership Adjustment . 14 Opportunities . 14 Public Affairs . 14 Volunteers . 15 3. SUMMARY OF THE ANALYSIS OF THE MANAGEMENT SITUATION Overview . 17 Prior Allocations . 18 4. MANAGEMENT DIRECTION Overview . 21 Mission . 21 Goals . 21 Objectives . 26 Regional Guide/Forest Plan . 26 Outputs & Range of Implementation . 26 Management Prescriptions . 46 Management Area Description . 46 Management Emphasis . 46 Program Components . 46 Activities . .. 47 Standards and Guidelines . 47 How to Apply Prescriptions . .. 47 Coordinating Requirements . .. 47 Coconino National Forest Plan – Partial Cancellation of Amendment No. 15 -3/05 Replacement Page i Coconino Forest Plan Table of Contents continued Standards and Guidelines . 51 Forest-wide . 51 MA 1 Wildernesses . 98 MA 2 Verde Wild and Scenic River . .. 113 MA 3 Ponderosa Pine and Mixed Conifer, Less Than 40 Percent Slopes. .. 116 MA 4 Ponderosa Pine and Mixed Conifer, Greater Than 40 Percent Slopes. 138 MA 5 Aspen . 141 MA 6 Unproductive Timber Land .
    [Show full text]
  • Density and Elevational Distribution of the San Francisco Peaks Ragwort, Packera Franciscana (Asteraceae), a Threatened Single-Mountain Endemic
    MADRON˜ O, Vol. 57, No. 4, pp. 213–219, 2010 DENSITY AND ELEVATIONAL DISTRIBUTION OF THE SAN FRANCISCO PEAKS RAGWORT, PACKERA FRANCISCANA (ASTERACEAE), A THREATENED SINGLE-MOUNTAIN ENDEMIC JAMES F. FOWLER AND CAROLYN HULL SIEG USFS Rocky Mountain Research Station, 2500 S Pine Knoll Drive, Flagstaff, AZ 86001 [email protected] ABSTRACT Packera franciscana (Greene) W. A. Weber and A. Lo¨ve is endemic to treeline and alpine habitats of the San Francisco Peaks, Arizona, USA and was listed as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act in 1983. Species abundance data are limited in scope, yet are critical for recovery of the species, especially in light of predictions of its future extinction due to climate change. This study defined baseline population densities along two transects which will allow the detection of future population trends. Packera franciscana ranged from 3529 to 3722 m elevation along the outer slope transect and densities were 4.18 and 2.74 ramets m22 in 2008 and 2009, respectively. The overall P. franciscana 2009 density estimate for both transects was 4.36 ramets m22 within its elevational range of occurrence, 3471–3722 m. The inner basin density was higher, 5.62 ramets m22, than the estimate for outer slopes, 2.89 ramets m22. The elevation of the 2009 population centroid for both transects was at 3586 (610 SE) m with the inner basin centroid significantly lower than the outer slopes centroid: 3547 (67 SE) m vs. 3638 (67 SE) m, respectively. In mid-September, 6–9% of the P. franciscana ramets were flowering and/or fruiting in 2008–2009.
    [Show full text]
  • Fire Facility Sunset Crater Volcano National Monument Coconino County, Arizona
    National Park Service Sunset Crater Volcano U.S. Department of the Interior Sunset Crater Volcano National Monument Arizona Fire Facility Sunset Crater Volcano National Monument Coconino County, Arizona Environmental Assessment / Assessment of Effect June 2006 Note to Reviewers and Respondents If you wish to comment on the environmental assessment, you may mail comments to the name and address below or post comments online at http://parkplanning.nps.gov/. This environmental assessment will be on public review for 30 days. It is the practice of the NPS to make all comments, including names and addresses of respondents who provide that information, available for public review following the conclusion of the environmental assessment process. Individuals may request that the NPS withhold their name and/or address from public disclosure. If you wish to do this, you must state this prominently at the beginning of your comment. Commentators using the website can make such a request by checking the box "keep my contact information private." NPS will honor such requests to the extent allowable by law, but you should be aware that NPS may still be required to disclose your name and address pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act. We will make all submissions from organizations, businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses available for public inspection in their entirety. Please Address Comments to: Flagstaff Area National Monuments Attn: Scott Travis, Superintendent 6400 N. Hwy 89 Flagstaff, Arizona 86004 EXPERIENCE YOUR AMERICA Summary The National Park Service (NPS) is planning for a Fire Facility at Sunset Crater Volcano National Monument.
    [Show full text]
  • Viability Analyses for Vascular Plant Species Within Prescott National Forest, Arizona
    Viability analyses for vascular plant species within Prescott National Forest, Arizona Marc Baker Draft 4 January 2011 1 Part 1. Description of Ecological Context (Adapted from: Ecological Sustainability Report, Prescott National Forest, Prescott, Arizona, April 2009) Description of the Planning Unit Prescott National Forest (PNF) includes mostly mountains and associated grassy valleys of central Arizona that lie between the forested plateaus to the north and the arid desert region to the south. Elevations range between 3,000 feet above sea level along the lower Verde Valley to 7,979 feet at the top of Mount Union, the highest natural feature on the Forest. Roughly half of the PNF occurs west of the city of Prescott, Arizona, in the Juniper, Santa Maria, Sierra Prieta, and Bradshaw Mountains. The other half of the PNF lies east of Prescott and takes in the terrain of Mingus Mountain, the Black Hills, and Black Mesa. The rugged topography of the PNF provides important watersheds for both the Verde and Colorado Rivers. Within these watersheds are many important continuously or seasonally flowing stream courses and drainages. A portion of the Verde River has been designated as part of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. Vegetation within PNF is complex and diverse: Sonoran Desert, dominated by saguaro cacti and paloverde trees, occurs to the south of Bradshaw Mountains; and cool mountain forests with conifer and aspen trees occur within as few as 10 miles upslope from the desert . In between, there are a variety of plant and animal habitats including grasslands, hot steppe shrub, chaparral, pinyon-juniper woodlands, and ponderosa pine forests.
    [Show full text]
  • GYMOAZ07-19 Mount Baldy
    Mount Baldy Wilderness: East Fork Trail from Gabaldon Campground I drove to the Gabaldon Campground, just south of the East Fork Trail of the Mount BaldyWilderness #95, to meet up with a Monday hiking group comprised of 11 hikers led by TRACKS member and trail guide George Tichenor. There is a connector trail from the campground and it is very convenient for horseback riders — each campsite has a corral. We weren’t riding horses but it was a great place to start after a 30+ minute drive from Pinetop because of the large parking area but most important -- its outhouse. We followed the connector trail through a meadow and then crossed the Little Colorado River just before connecting to the East Fork Trail. The Trail travels through meadows and tunnels and climbs through a forest of Colorado blue spruce, white fir, Douglas fir, Ponderosa pine, white pine and ancient aspen — Pines so tall and so wide, we couldn’t connect hands while trying to wrap our arms around the trunks. We hiked past giant boulders and spires that towered over the trail and continued hiking until we reached the rock cliffs. It was here that we stopped and feasted on watermelon that was trekked in by Ron Miller, avid hiker, climber of highest peaks and retiree from the BIA, then turned around and headed back. The hike back descends a gravel trail -- where I gracefully slid and fell (saving my camera) -- and Miller, who was hiking ahead of me, turned around and said “Oh, let me help you” as he tripped over an exposed root crossing the trail, nearly falling himself and then appropriately named it “the root of all evil.” I have to say that there is a sense of camaraderie on this trail (or any trail).
    [Show full text]
  • San Francisco Peaks Controversy Overview
    San Francisco Peaks Controversy Overview: The development of the Snow Bowl and the San Francisco Peaks was a contentious issue during the 1970’s in Flagstaff. Students, by creating their own newspaper, will look at many different aspects of the issue, including environmental, religious, and economic concerns, by creating a newspaper. This may be done on the computer or on poster paper, depending on the resources available. Students will complete an article, including a journalistic “lead.” Objectives: At the end of this lesson, students will be able to: Ø To understand the opposing sides of this controversy Ø To identify one key argument from each side Ø To compare points of view on development, environment and religious beliefs. Ø To write five to seven coherent paragraphs in newspaper column format. Grade Level/Subject Area: Ø 11-12 Ø Arizona/Hopi History Ø U.S. History Ø Social Studies Materials: Ø Primary source documents (listed below) from NAU Special Collections and Archives § Richard and Jean Wilson Collection § Walter Taylor Collection § John Duncklee Collection Ø Sample newspapers – including the front page and editorials Ø Poster butcher paper OR Computer program such as PageMaker Time Frame: Ø 4-5 days Background (from NAU Special Collections and Archives Biography): The "Save the Peaks" fight was a decade-long struggle, originally pitting local citizens against Summit Properties and its parent corporation, the Post Company. The object of the controversy was a 350-acre parcel of land in the Hart Prairie area of the San Francisco Peaks. In the early 1970's, local Flagstaff citizens united to prevent the company's proposed development of the Hart Prairie acreage.
    [Show full text]