Wilderness Need Assessment Instructions

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Wilderness Need Assessment Instructions 2/11/11 Updated Coconino National Forest Wilderness Need Evaluation Introduction Anything in this document that has been changed since the last version has been highlighted in Green. The purpose of the Wilderness Need Assessment is to identify the need for additional wilderness on the Coconino National Forest and in the US Forest Service’s Southwest Region (Region 3 or Region) based on a variety of factors including visitor demand, the need to provide protections for various fish, wildlife, and plant species, and provididsng a reasonable representation of landforms and ecosystems within the National Wilderness Preservation System. Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 1909.12, Subsection 72.3 describes the factors that are to be considered. The following report provides the complete documentation of consideration of these factors following the Forest Service’s Southwest Region working group guidance. Because most of these factors are intended to be evaluated at a regional scale, the majority of table and figures were created using data from the Region 3 Wilderness Needs Evaluation (Forest Service 2007a). Factor #1 Factor #1, Item #1 The location, size, and type of other wildernesses in the general vicinity and their distance from the proposed area. 1. How many, what size (# of acres), and what types of other wilderness areas exist within the general vicinity of your forest (within 100 air miles)? There are 15 wilderness areas within the Coconino National Forest (the Forest or Coconino NF) and there are 32 Wilderness Areas within 100 air miles of the Coconino NF, including those on other National Forests (Tonto, Prescott, and Kaibab National Forests), National Park Service (NPS) administered lands, and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) administered lands (Table 1). These Wilderness Areas total approximately 1.3 million acres. 2. How far from the potential wildernesses are these other areas? Each potential wilderness has many Wilderness Areas within 100 miles (Table 2). The potential wilderness areas are on average 50-60 miles from surrounding wilderness, however, several are neighboring existing wilderness (0 miles). Strawberry Crater, Abineau, White Horse, Bismark, Railroad Draw, East Clear Creek, and Barbershop potential wilderness areas have the fewest acres of existing Wilderness within 100 miles. 1 Coconino NF Wilderness Needs Assessment - DRAFT 2/17/2011 2/11/11 Table 1: Existing Wilderness Areas in the General Vicinity of the Coconino National Forest Wilderness Area Name Acres Administered by: Kachina Peaks Wilderness 18,857 Coconino NF Strawberry Crater Wilderness 11,268 Coconino NF Red Rock-Secret Mountain Wilderness 50,312 Coconino NF Munds Mountain Wilderness 17,997 Coconino NF Sycamore Canyon Wilderness 58,818 Prescott/Coconino NFs West Beaver Wilderness 6,721 Coconino NF Woodchute Wilderness 5,790 Coconino NF West Clear Creek Wilderness 26,291 Coconino NF Kendrick Mountain Wilderness 8,200 Kaibab/Coconino NF Saddle Mountain Wilderness 41,815 Kaibab NF Kanab Creek Wilderness 775 Kaibab NF Fossil Springs Wilderness 10,754 Coconino/Tonto NF Mazatzal Wilderness 248,858 Coconino/Tonto NF Hellsgate Wilderness 38,845 Tonto NF Salome Wilderness 18,688 Tonto NF Four Peaks Wilderness 60,487 Tonto NF Cedar Bench Wilderness 16,585 Prescott NF Pine Mountain Wilderness 18,656 Prescott NF Granite Mountain Wilderness 9,850 Prescott NF Apache Creek Wilderness 5,435 Prescott NF Juniper Mesa Wilderness 7,575 Prescott NF Castle Creek Wilderness 24,477 Prescott NF Petrified Forest National Wilderness Area 9,620 NPS Hassayampa River Canyon Wilderness 12,672 BLM Hells Canyon Wilderness 9,841 BLM Upper Burro Creek Wilderness 18,235 BLM Tres Alamos Wilderness 8,034 BLM Arrastra Mountain Wilderness 129,167 BLM Harcuvar Mountain Wilderness 25,465 BLM Harquahala Mountain Wilderness 22,559 BLM Rawhide Mountains Wilderness 38,208 BLM Hummingbird Springs Wilderness 30,038 BLM Big Horn Mountains Wilderness 21,444 BLM Aubrey Peak Wilderness 15,898 BLM Swansea Wilderness 17,073 BLM Wabayuma Peak Wilderness 38,561 BLM East Cactus Plain Wilderness 15,001 BLM Sierra Estrella Wilderness 14,746 BLM Eagletail Mountains Wilderness 100,511 BLM Gibraltar Mountain Wilderness 18,731 BLM Warm Springs Wilderness 5,349 BLM Signal Mountain Wilderness 13,125 BLM 2 Coconino NF Wilderness Needs Assessment - DRAFT 2/17/2011 2/11/11 Table 2: Proximity of potential wilderness to existing Wilderness Areas within the general vicinity of the Coconino National Forest Potential Number of Existing Acres of Existing Wilderness Wilderness Wilderness areas within within 100 miles1 100 Miles Strawberry Crater 19 667,981 PW-03-04-001 Abineau 20 745,868 PW-03-04-002 White Horse 20 750,764 PW-03-04-003 Bismark 20 739,626 PW-03-04-004 Railroad Draw 24 104,1621 PW-03-04-006 Deadwood Draw 26 779,120 PW-03-04-018 Walker Mountain 27 895,102 PW-03-04-019 Cedar Bench 28 1,054,022 PW-03-04-022 Black Mountain 29 1,061,003 PW-03-04-023 Cimmaron- Boulder 30 1,235,215 PW-03-04-025 Hackberry 33 1,149,791 PW-03-04-026 Tin Can 28 938,754 PW-03-04-027 Davey’s 30 1,117,015 PW-03-04-028 East Clear Creek 24 941,457 PW-03-04-036 Barbershop 25 960,849 PW-03-04-037 *Average Distance is the average of the distances between the potential wilderness center and the center of each existing wilderness. Factor #1, Item #2 Accessibility of existing and potential wildernesses to population centers and user groups. 1 Acres of private inholdings were removed from wilderness acres. 3 Coconino NF Wilderness Needs Assessment - DRAFT 2/17/2011 2/11/11 1. How accessible are existing and potential wilderness areas in the vicinity to population centers in the planning area? Current Wilderness Distribution Southwestern Region In Region 3, out of a total of 20.8 million acres of Forest Service lands, 2.7 million are designated Wilderness, representing 13 percent of the Forest Service landbase within the Region. Compared to the national figure, there are about five percent fewer wilderness acres in Region 3. For wilderness acres in the region to be at the national average would require the addition of about 1 million acres. In Arizona, most wilderness is located in the southwestern quadrant of the state (see Table 3 below). The least amount of wilderness is in the northeast quadrant. Wilderness within the northwest and northeast quadrants, which contain the Coconino NF, are below the national average of 17 percent of federal lands designated as wilderness. Therefore, although the state of Arizona as a whole is close to the national average, existing Wilderness is less accessible to the communities of Northern Arizona than it is to communities in other parts of Arizona. Table 3: Wilderness Acres by Quadrant, Arizona, 2007 Quadrant of Managing Agencies Number of Total Federal Wilderness Arizona Wilderness Acres (BLM, Acres/Total Acres in FWS, FS, NPS Federal Acres Quadrant only) (BLM, FWS, FS, NPS only) Northwest BLM, FWS, FS, NPS 1,028,820 12,508,980 8% Northeast BLM, FS, NPS 173,036 2,855,187 6% Southwest BLM, FS, FWS, NPS 2,287,391 7,564,100 30% Southeast BLM, FS, NPS 1,232,699 7,628,459 16% Accessibility to Wilderness for Coconino National Forest Communities Table 4 shows the acres of Wilderness within 100 miles of the major population centers in and around the Coconino NF. Communities were chosen based on their size, proximity to the Forest and National Visitor Use Monitoring data. The Flagstaff population is underserved, compared to other surrounding communities. Strawberry Crater, Abineau, Whitehorse, Bismark, and Railroad Draw potential wilderness are best able to meet that need as they are the closest to Flagstaff. An argument can also be made that the Phoenix Metropolitan area is underserved base on the size of the area’s population compared to the acres of available wilderness. The approximately 1.5 million acres of wilderness serves a population of 4,160,999 people (US Census 2008). Overcrowding in wilderness areas close to Phoenix is a common concern of resource managers throughout central Arizona. Table 4: Wilderness Acres within 100 Miles of Coconino National Forest Communities Population Center Acres of Wilderness within 100 miles 4 Coconino NF Wilderness Needs Assessment - DRAFT 2/17/2011 2/11/11 Cottonwood-Verde Valley 1,165,257 Flagstaff 696, 936 Payson 919,485 Prescott 1,228,043 Prescott Valley 1,267,444 Sedona 901,566 New River (North Phoenix Metro) 1,495,368 Factor 1 Rating Criteria: Potential wilderness that were both distant from existing Wilderness and could serve underserved populations (Flagstaff) were rated as “high” need. Potential wilderness that were both distant from existing Wilderness or could serve the Phoenix Metropolitan area were rated as “medium” need. Those potential wildernesses that had more than a million acres of Wilderness area within 100 miles and were not within close proximity to underserved communities were rates as “low” need. Factor 1 Results: Table 5: Factor 1 Wilderness Need Ratings for Coconino National Forest Wilderness Areas. Potential Wilderness Factor 1 Rating Strawberry Crater PW-03-04-001 High Abineau PW-03-04-002 High White Horse PW-03-04-003 High Bismark PW-03-04-004 High Railroad Draw PW-03-04-006 High Deadwood Draw PW-03-04-018 Med Walker Mountain PW-03-04-019 Med Cedar Bench PW-03-04-022 Med MaybBlack Mountain PW-03-04-023 Med Cimmaron-Boulder PW-03-04-025 Med Hackberry PW-03-04-026 Med Tin Can PW-03-04-027 Med Davey’s PW-03-04-028 Med East Clear Creek PW-03-04-036 Med Barbershop PW-03-04-037 Med Generally, those areas in the Northern part of the Forest (Strawberry Crater, Abineau, Whitehorse, Bismark and Railroad Draw potential wildernesses) were rated as High Need for Factor 1.
Recommended publications
  • Analysing Data on Protected Areas Work in Progress
    The OECD is developing a method to report a more detailed and harmonised account of countries’ terrestrial and marine protected areas. It applies a harmonised methodology to data from the World Database on Protected Areas. Analysing data on protected areas WORK IN PROGRESS CONTACT Head of Division Nathalie Girouard [email protected] Senior Economist Ivan Haščič [email protected] Statisticians Alexander Mackie [email protected] and Sarah Sentier [email protected] Communications Clara Tomasini [email protected] Image credits: Dormitor Park by Thomas Maluck, Flickr/CC licence. UNSDG. Perereca de folhagem Moisés Silva Lima Flickr/CC Licence. Icon TheNounProject.com http://oe.cd/env-data 2 December 2016 International goals Methodology THE WORLD DATABASE ON PROTECTED AREAS The OECD is developing an improved method to The OECD’s indicators are based on data Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) generate more detailed indicators on protected from the World Database on Protected Areas and its World Commission on Protected areas, both terrestrial and marine, for countries (WDPA), which is a geospatial database of Areas (WCPA). across the world. terrestrial and marine protected areas. The WDPA is updated monthly. It contains The WDPA is managed by the United information on more than 200 000 It applies a harmonised methodology to data Nations Environment Programme’s World protected areas. from the World Database on Protected Areas. Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP- WCMC) with support from the International CATEGORIES OF MANAGEMENT By 2020, conserve at least 10 per cent of coastal and The World Database on Protected Areas lists z Ia Strict Nature Reserve marine areas, consistent with national and international protected areas designated at national (IUCN z Ib Wilderness Area law and based on best available scientific information.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 11 the Natural Ecological Value of Wilderness
    204 h The Multiple Values of Wilderness USDA Forest Service. (2002).National and regional project results: 2002 National Chapter 11 Forest Visitor Use Report. Retrieved February 1,2005. from http:Nwww.fs.fed.usl recreation/pmgrams/nvum/ The Natural Ecological Value USDA Forest Service. (200 1). National und regional project results: FY2001 National Foresr ViorUse Report. Retrieved February 1,2005, from http:llwww.fs.fed.usI of Wilderness recreation/pmgrams/nvum/ USDA Forest Service. (2000).National and regional project results: CY20a) Notional Fowst Visitor Use Repor?. Retrieved February 1,2005, from http://www.fs.fed.usl recreation/programs/nvud H. Ken Cordell Senior Research Scientist and Project Leader Vias. A.C. (1999). Jobs folIow people in the nual Rocky Mountain west. Rural Devel- opmenr Perspectives, 14(2), 14-23. USDA Forest Service, Athens, Georgia Danielle Murphy j Research Coordinator, Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia Kurt Riitters Research Scientist USDA Forest Service, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina J. E, Harvard Ill former University of Georgia employee Authors' Note: Deepest appreciation is extended to Peter Landres of the Leopold Wilderness Research Institute for initial ideas for approach, data. and analysis and for a thorough and very helpful review of this chapter. Chapter I I-The Natural Ecological Value of Wilderness & 207 The most important characteristic of an organism is that capacity modem broad-scale external influences, such as nonpoint source pollutants. for self-renewal known QS hcaltk There are two organisms whose - processes of self-renewal have been subjected to human interfer- altered distribution of species, and global climate change (Landres, Morgan ence and control.
    [Show full text]
  • 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]
  • Land Areas of the National Forest System
    United States Department of Agriculture Land Areas of the National Forest System As of September 30, 2018 Forest Service WO Lands FS-383 November 2018 United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Land Areas of the WO, Lands National Forest FS-383 System November 2018 As of September 30, 2018 Published by: USDA Forest Service 1400 Independence Ave., SW Washington, D.C. 20250-0003 Web site: https://www.fs.fed.us/land/staff/lar-index.shtml Cover photo courtesy of: Chris Chavez Statistics are current as of: 10/15/2018 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 = 192,948,059 NFS lands are organized into: 9 Forest Service Regions 112 Administrative Forest or Forest-level units 506 Ranger District or District-level units The Forest Service administers 128 Wild and Scenic Rivers in 23 States and 446 National Wilderness Areas in 39 States. The FS also administers several other types of nationally-designated areas: 1 National Historic Area in 1 State 1 National Scenic Research Area in 1 State 1 Scenic Recreation Area in 1 State 1 Scenic Wildlife Area in 1 State 2 National Botanical Areas in 1 State 2 National Volcanic Monument Areas in 2 States 2 Recreation Management Areas in 2 States 6 National Protection Areas in 3 States 8 National Scenic Areas in 6 States 12 National Monument Areas in 6 States 12 Special Management Areas in 5 States 21 National Game Refuge or Wildlife Preserves in 12 States 22 National Recreation Areas in 20 States Table of Contents Acreage Calculation ...........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Maricopa County Wildlife Connectivity Assessment: Report on Stakeholder Input January 2012
    The Maricopa County Wildlife Connectivity Assessment: Report on Stakeholder Input January 2012 (Photographs: Arizona Game and Fish Department) Arizona Game and Fish Department In partnership with the Arizona Wildlife Linkages Workgroup TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................................ i RECOMMENDED CITATION ........................................................................................................ ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................................................................................................. ii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................ iii DEFINITIONS ................................................................................................................................ iv BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................ 1 THE MARICOPA COUNTY WILDLIFE CONNECTIVITY ASSESSMENT ................................... 8 HOW TO USE THIS REPORT AND ASSOCIATED GIS DATA ................................................... 10 METHODS ..................................................................................................................................... 12 MASTER LIST OF WILDLIFE LINKAGES AND HABITAT BLOCKSAND BARRIERS ................ 16 REFERENCE MAPS .......................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Maricopa County Regional Trail System Plan
    Maricopa County Regional Trail System Plan Adopted August 16, 2004 Maricopa Trail Maricopa County Trail Commission Maricopa County Department of Transportation Maricopa County Parks and Recreation Maricopa County Planning and Development Flood Control District of Maricopa County We have an obligation to protect open spaces for future generations. Maricopa County Regional Trail System Plan VISION Our vision is to connect the majestic open spaces of the Maricopa County Regional Parks with a nonmotorized trail system. The Maricopa Trail Maricopa County Regional Trail System Plan - page 1 Credits Maricopa County Board of Supervisors Andrew Kunasek, District 3, Chairman Fulton Brock, District 1 Don Stapley, District 2 Max Wilson, District 4 Mary Rose Wilcox, District 5 Maricopa County Trail Commission Supervisor Max Wilson, District 4 Chairman Supervisor Andrew Kunasek, District 3 Parks Commission Members: Citizen Members: Laurel Arndt, Chair Art Wirtz, District 2 Randy Virden, Vice-Chair Jim Burke, District 3 Felipe Zubia, District 5 Stakeholders: Carol Erwin, Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) Fred Pfeifer, Arizona Public Service (APS) James Duncan, Salt River Project (SRP) Teri Raml, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Ex-officio Members: William Scalzo, Chief Community Services Officer Pictured from left to right Laurel Arndt, Supervisor Andy Kunasek, Fred Pfeifer, Carol Erwin, Arizona’s Official State Historian, Marshall Trimble, and Art Wirtz pose with the commemorative branded trail marker Mike Ellegood, Director, Public Works at the Maricopa Trail
    [Show full text]
  • Defining Wilderness Within IUCN
    Article for the International Journal of Wilderness, to be published in 2009 Defining wilderness in IUCN Nigel Dudley, Cyril F. Kormos, Harvey Locke and Vance G. Martin The IUCN protected area classification system describes and defines a suite of protected area categories and management approaches suitable for each category, ranging from strictly protected “no-go” reserves to landscape protection and non-industrial sustainable use areas. Wilderness has its own protected area category under IUCN’s classification system, Category Ib, which describes the key objectives of wilderness protection and, more importantly, identifies the limits of what is and is not acceptable in such areas. At the 2008 World Conservation Congress, a new edition of management guidelines for the IUCN categories (Guidelines for Applying Protected Area Management Categories, Dudley 2008) was published following long consultation. Guidance for wilderness protection is now more detailed and precise than in the previous 1994 edition, and as a result will help further the application of this category around the world. We describe the revisions to the new guidelines generally, and some of the implications for wilderness protected areas specifically. Wilderness areas and protected areas The term “wilderness” has several dimensions: a biological dimension, because wilderness refers to mainly ecologically intact areas, and a social dimension, because many people – from urban dwellers to indigenous groups – interact with wild nature, and all humans depend on our planet’s wilderness resource to varying degrees. A wilderness protected area is therefore an area that is mainly biologically intact, is free of modern, industrial infrastructure, and has been set aside so that humans may continue to have a relationship with wild nature.
    [Show full text]
  • Antarctica's Wilderness Has Declined to the Exclusion of Biodiversity
    bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/527010; this version posted January 22, 2019. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under aCC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license. Antarctica’s wilderness has declined to the exclusion of biodiversity Rachel I. Leihy1, Bernard W.T. Coetzee2, Fraser Morgan3, Ben Raymond4, Justine D. Shaw5, Aleks Terauds4, and Steven L. Chown1 1School of Biological Sciences, Monash University, Victoria 3800, Australia. 2Global Change Institute, University of the Witwatersrand, WITS 2050, Johannesburg, South Africa. 3Landcare Research New Zealand, Private Bag 92170, Auckland Mail Centre, Auckland 1142, New Zealand. 4Australian Antarctic Division, Department of the Environment and Energy, 203 Channel Highway, Kingston, Tasmania 7050, Australia. 5School of Biological Sciences, The University of Queensland, Queensland 4072, Australia. Recent assessments of the biodiversity value of Earth’s dwindling wilderness areas1,2 have emphasized the whole of Antarctica as a crucial wilderness in need of urgent protection3. Whole-of-continent designations for Antarctic conservation remain controversial, however, because of widespread human impacts and frequently used provisions in Antarctic law for the designation of specially protected areas to conserve wilderness values, species and ecosystems4,5. Here we investigate the extent to which Antarctica’s wilderness encompasses its biodiversity. We assembled a comprehensive record of human activity on the continent (~ 2.7 million localities) and used it to identify unvisited areas ≥ 10 000 km2 (1,6-8) (i.e. Antarctica’s wilderness areas) and their representation of biodiversity.
    [Show full text]
  • Table 7 - National Wilderness Areas by State
    Table 7 - National Wilderness Areas by State * Unit is in two or more States ** Acres estimated pending final boundary determination + Special Area that is part of a proclaimed National Forest State National Wilderness Area NFS Other Total Unit Name Acreage Acreage Acreage Alabama Cheaha Wilderness Talladega National Forest 7,400 0 7,400 Dugger Mountain Wilderness** Talladega National Forest 9,048 0 9,048 Sipsey Wilderness William B. Bankhead National Forest 25,770 83 25,853 Alabama Totals 42,218 83 42,301 Alaska Chuck River Wilderness 74,876 520 75,396 Coronation Island Wilderness Tongass National Forest 19,118 0 19,118 Endicott River Wilderness Tongass National Forest 98,396 0 98,396 Karta River Wilderness Tongass National Forest 39,917 7 39,924 Kootznoowoo Wilderness Tongass National Forest 979,079 21,741 1,000,820 FS-administered, outside NFS bdy 0 654 654 Kuiu Wilderness Tongass National Forest 60,183 15 60,198 Maurille Islands Wilderness Tongass National Forest 4,814 0 4,814 Misty Fiords National Monument Wilderness Tongass National Forest 2,144,010 235 2,144,245 FS-administered, outside NFS bdy 0 15 15 Petersburg Creek-Duncan Salt Chuck Wilderness Tongass National Forest 46,758 0 46,758 Pleasant/Lemusurier/Inian Islands Wilderness Tongass National Forest 23,083 41 23,124 FS-administered, outside NFS bdy 0 15 15 Russell Fjord Wilderness Tongass National Forest 348,626 63 348,689 South Baranof Wilderness Tongass National Forest 315,833 0 315,833 South Etolin Wilderness Tongass National Forest 82,593 834 83,427 Refresh Date: 10/14/2017
    [Show full text]
  • Kaibab National Forest
    United States Department of Agriculture Kaibab National Forest Forest Service Southwestern Potential Wilderness Area Region September 2013 Evaluation Report 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, familial 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 of 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: Kanab Creek Wilderness Kaibab National Forest Potential Wilderness Area Evaluation Report Table of Contents Introduction ................................................................................................................................................. 1 Inventory of Potential Wilderness Areas .................................................................................................. 2 Evaluation of Potential Wilderness Areas ...............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Wilderness Fire Management in a Changing World
    STEWARDSHIP Wilderness Fire Management in a Changing World BY CAROL MILLER everal strategies are available for reducing accumu- results from either human or natural causes, and the man- lated forest fuels and their associated risks, including agement objective is to stop the spread of the fire and S naturally or accidentally ignited wildland fires, man- extinguish it at the least cost (USDA and USDI 2001). In agement ignited prescribed fires, and a variety of mechanical some cases, concerns about firefighter safety and suppres- and chemical methods (Omi 1996). However, a combina- sion costs will result in a less aggressive suppression tion of policy, law, philosophy, and logistics suggest there is response to a wildfire, with features of the landscape being a more limited set of fuels man- used to allow fire to burn within a designated area. WFU is agement activities that are the management of naturally ignited wildland fires to pro- appropriate in wilderness (Bryan tect, maintain, and enhance resources in predefined areas 1997; Parsons and Landres 1998; outlined in fire management plans (USDA and USDI 2001). Nickas 1998). Naturally ignited The management objective is to allow fire, as nearly as pos- wildland fires is the commonly sible, to function in its natural ecological role. In some cases, preferred fuels management strat- certain suppression tactics might be used with WFU to pro- egy in wilderness (Miller 2003), tect life, property, or specific values of concern. Recently, with management-ignited pre- there has been discussion about effectively dissolving the scribed fire being considered in distinction between wildfire and WFU, and managing all some cases (Landres et al.
    [Show full text]
  • Grand Canyon Council Oa Where to Go Camping Guide
    GRAND CANYON COUNCIL OA WHERE TO GO CAMPING GUIDE GRAND CANYON COUNCIL, BSA OA WHERE TO GO CAMPING GUIDE Table of Contents Introduction to The Order of the Arrow ....................................................................... 1 Wipala Wiki, The Man .................................................................................................. 1 General Information ...................................................................................................... 3 Desert Survival Safety Tips ........................................................................................... 4 Further Information ....................................................................................................... 4 Contact Agencies and Organizations ............................................................................. 5 National Forests ............................................................................................................. 5 U. S. Department Of The Interior - Bureau Of Land Management ................................ 7 Maricopa County Parks And Recreation System: .......................................................... 8 Arizona State Parks: .................................................................................................... 10 National Parks & National Monuments: ...................................................................... 11 Tribal Jurisdictions: ..................................................................................................... 13 On the Road: National
    [Show full text]