DOCSLIB.ORG

Cascade Creek Llc

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Cascade Creek Llc CASCADE CREEK LLC CASCADE CREEK HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT FERC No. 12495 DRAFT RECREATION RESOURCES STUDY REPORT FEBRUARY 2011 Prepared by: CASCADE CREEK, LLC CASCADE CREEK HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT FERC No. 12495 DRAFT RECREATION RESOURCES STUDY REPORT FEBRUARY 2011 Prepared by: CASCADE CREEK LLC CASCADE CREEK HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT FERC No. 12495 DRAFT RECREATION RESOURCES STUDY REPORT TABLE OF CONTENTS DEFINITION OF TERMS, ACRONYMS, AND ABBREVIATIONS ......................................... 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 1-1 2.0 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY ............................................................. 2-1 3.0 METHODOLOGY .......................................................................................................... 3-1 3.1 Literature Review and Data Search ..................................................................... 3-1 3.2 Recreation Site Inventory .................................................................................... 3-1 3.3 Outfitter/Guide Survey......................................................................................... 3-3 3.4 Resident Boater/Pilot Survey ............................................................................... 3-7 3.5 Survey Data Analysis ......................................................................................... 3-10 3.6 Current Recreation Use Estimates ..................................................................... 3-11 3.7 Future Recreation Use Estimates ....................................................................... 3-12 4.0 REGIONAL RECREATION OPPORTUNITIES ........................................................... 4-1 4.1 Southeast Alaska .................................................................................................. 4-1 4.1.1 Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve .................................................. 4-4 4.1.2 Tongass National Forest .......................................................................... 4-5 4.1.3 Admiralty Island National Monument ..................................................... 4-7 4.1.4 Misty Fiords National Monument ............................................................ 4-8 4.1.5 Wilderness Areas ..................................................................................... 4-9 4.2 Project Vicinity Recreation Opportunities ......................................................... 4-10 4.2.1 Angling Opportunities ........................................................................... 4-13 4.2.2 Hunting Opportunities ........................................................................... 4-16 4.2.3 Hiking Trails .......................................................................................... 4-18 4.2.4 Sea Kayaking Routes ............................................................................. 4-19 4.2.5 Overnight Use (Camping and Cabins) ................................................... 4-22 4.2.6 Specially Designated Recreation Areas ................................................. 4-30 4.2.7 State Parks and Forests .......................................................................... 4-33 4.2.8 Other State Lands ................................................................................... 4-33 4.2.9 County and Municipal Recreation Areas ............................................... 4-35 5.0 RECREATION FACILITIES ADJACENT TO AND WITHIN THE PROJECT AREA ... .......................................................................................................................................... 5-1 5.1 Cascade Creek Cabin ........................................................................................... 5-1 5.2 Cascade Creek Trail ............................................................................................. 5-2 - i - Table of Content’s (Cont’d) 5.3 Falls Lake Shelter ................................................................................................ 5-4 5.4 Swan Lake Cabin ................................................................................................. 5-4 6.0 RECREATION USE ........................................................................................................ 6-1 6.1 Commercial Recreation Use ................................................................................ 6-1 6.1.1 Business and Commercial Trip Characteristics ....................................... 6-1 6.1.2 Characterization of Business Owners ...................................................... 6-3 6.1.3 Characterization of Commercial Patrons ................................................. 6-3 6.1.4 Expenditure Analysis ............................................................................... 6-4 6.1.5 Commercial Use Analysis........................................................................ 6-5 6.2 Public Recreation Use .......................................................................................... 6-8 6.2.1 Characterization of Public Recreators ..................................................... 6-8 6.2.2 Trip Characteristics .................................................................................. 6-8 6.2.3 Expenditure Analysis ............................................................................... 6-9 6.2.4 Public Use Analysis ............................................................................... 6-10 7.0 POTENTIAL PROJECT EFFECTS TO RECREATION ............................................... 7-1 7.1 Effects of Project Structures ................................................................................ 7-1 7.2 Effects of Project Operations ............................................................................... 7-8 8.0 EFFECTS TO LAND MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES ................................................ 8-1 8.1 Land Use Designations ........................................................................................ 8-2 8.2 Assessment of Project Structures within Land Use Designations ....................... 8-7 8.3 Visual Priority Routes and Use Areas ................................................................. 8-8 9.0 CURRENT AND FUTURE RECREATION NEEDS .................................................... 9-1 9.1 Potential Future Recreation Use .......................................................................... 9-1 9.2 Adequacy of Existing Sites .................................................................................. 9-2 9.3 Need for New Facilities ....................................................................................... 9-6 10.0 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS ......................................................................... 10-1 10.1 Potential Effects ................................................................................................. 10-1 10.1.1 Project Construction............................................................................... 10-1 10.1.2 Project Facilities and Operation ............................................................. 10-1 10.2 Conclusions ........................................................................................................ 10-3 11.0 REFERENCES .............................................................................................................. 11-1 LIST OF TABLES Table 4-1. Project Vicinity Freshwater and Saltwater Fishing Opportunities .................... 4-14 Table 4-2. Total Angling Days (2003 – 2008) for the Project Vicinity .............................. 4-16 Table 6-1. Services Provided by Commercial Outfitters/Guides .......................................... 6-2 Table 6-2. Commercial Patron Expenditures ........................................................................ 6-4 Table 6-3. Commercial Recreation Use (RVD) Estimated from 2010 Outfitter/Guide Survey Effort (October, 2009 through September, 2010) ................................................ 6-6 Table 6-4. Recreational Activities Reported for Commercial Patrons by Season ................ 6-7 Table 6-5. Resident Boater/Pilot Expenditures ................................................................... 6-10 - ii - Table of Content’s (Cont’d) Table 6-6. Reported Recreation Use (in Trip Days) for the Project Area and Immediate Vicinity .............................................................................................................. 6-11 Table 6-7. Public Recreation Use (RVD) Estimated from 2010 Boater/Pilot Survey Effort (October, 2009 through September, 2010) ........................................................ 6-12 Table 6-8. Recreational Activities Reported for Public Recreators by Season ................... 6-15 Table 9-1. Estimated Future Recreation Participation for the Project area and immediate vicinity ................................................................................................................. 9-1 Table 9-2. Reported Capacities at PRD Study Areas within the Project Vicinity (2004-2008) (in Recreation Visitor Daysa). .............................................................................. 9-3 Table 9-3. USFS Recreation Capacities ................................................................................ 9-4 Table 9-4. Project Area Recreation Facilities Overnight Use from 2007-2010 by Number of Days Occupied ..................................................................................................... 9-5 LIST OF FIGURES
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Wilderness in Southeastern Alaska: a History
    Wilderness in Southeastern Alaska: A History John Sisk Today, Southeastern Alaska (Southeast) is well known remoteness make it wild in the most definitive sense. as a place of great scenic beauty, abundant wildlife and The Tongass encompasses 109 inventoried roadless fisheries, and coastal wilderness. Vast expanses of areas covering 9.6 million acres (3.9 million hectares), wild, generally undeveloped rainforest and productive and Congress has designated 5.8 million acres (2.3 coastal ecosystems are the foundation of the region’s million hectares) of wilderness in the nation’s largest abundance (Fig 1). To many Southeast Alaskans, (16.8 million acre [6.8 million hectare]) national forest wilderness means undisturbed fish and wildlife habitat, (U.S. Forest Service [USFS] 2003). which in turn translates into food, employment, and The Wilderness Act of 1964 provides a legal business. These wilderness values are realized in definition for wilderness. As an indicator of wild subsistence, sport and commercial fisheries, and many character, the act has ensured the preservation of facets of tourism and outdoor recreation. To Americans federal lands displaying wilderness qualities important more broadly, wilderness takes on a less utilitarian to recreation, science, ecosystem integrity, spiritual value and is often described in terms of its aesthetic or values, opportunities for solitude, and wildlife needs. spiritual significance. Section 2(c) of the Wilderness Act captures the essence of wilderness by identifying specific qualities that make it unique. The provisions suggest wilderness is an area or region characterized by the following conditions (USFS 2002): Section 2(c)(1) …generally appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature, with the imprint of man’s work substantially unnoticeable; Section 2(c)(2) …has outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation; Section 2(c)(3) …has at least five thousand acres of land or is of sufficient FIG 1.
    [Show full text]
  • National Highway System: Alaska U.S
    National Highway System: Alaska U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration Aleutian Islands Eisenhower Interstate System Lake Clark National Preserve Lake Clark Wilderness Other NHS Routes Non-Interstate STRAHNET Route Katmai National Preserve Katmai Wilderness Major STRAHNET Connector Lonely Distant Early Warning Station Intermodal Connector Wainwright Dew Station Aniakchak National Preserve Barter Island Long Range Radar Site Unbuilt NHS Routes Other Roads (not on NHS) Point Lay Distant Early Warning Station Railroad CC Census Urbanized Areas AA Noatak Wilderness Gates of the Arctic National Park Cape Krusenstern National Monument NN Indian Reservation Noatak National Preserve Gates of the Arctic Wilderness Kobuk Valley National Park AA Department of Defense Kobuk Valley Wilderness AA D II Gates of the Arctic National Preserve 65 D SSSS UU A National Forest RR Bering Land Bridge National Preserve A Indian Mountain Research Site Yukon-Charley Rivers National Preserve National Park Service College Fairbanks Water Campion Air Force Station Fairbanks Fortymile Wild And Scenic River Fort Wainwright Fort Greely (Scheduled to close) Airport A2 4 Denali National Park A1 Intercity Bus Terminal Denali National PreserveDenali Wilderness Wrangell-Saint Elias National Park and Preserve Tatalina Long Range Radar Site Wrangell-Saint Elias National Preserve Ferry Terminal A4 Cape Romanzof Long Range Radar Site Truck/Pipeline Terminal A1 Anchorage 4 Wrangell-Saint Elias Wilderness Multipurpose Passenger Facility Sparrevohn Long
    [Show full text]
  • Border Security Threatens Northern Border Wildernesses
    Wilderness In Peril: Border Security Measures Threaten Wilderness along the Northern Border with Canada An Analysis Prepared by Wilderness Watch October 2012 Wilderness Watch P.O. Box 9175 Missoula, MT 59807 406-542-2048 www.wildernesswatch.org For more information, contact: George Nickas, Executive Director Kevin Proescholdt, Conservation Director [email protected] [email protected] 406-542-2048 612-201-9266 2 Table of Contents Executive Summary………………………………………………...…………….Page 3 Introduction………………………………………………………..………..….....Page 4 Background…………………………………………………..………………....…Page 4 A. Early 20th Century Border Easements B. International Boundary Treaties with Canada C. 2005 REAL ID Act D. 2006 Interagency Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) Border Patrol Practices on the Southern Border and Lessons for the North……………………………………………………………….Page 9 A. Border Wall Construction B. Illegal Roads and Vehicle Routes C. Border Security Infrastructure D. Motorized Patrols Emerging Major Threats to Wildernesses near the Northern Border……...…Page 13 A. Congressional Legislation B. Northern Border Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement C. 2006 MOU and Motorized Patrols D. Administrative Waiver of Federal Laws E. Clearing and Construction in Border Reservations F. Conclusion Needed Actions to Reestablish and Affirm Wilderness Protections Along the Northern Border……………………………………….……………..Page 17 A. Existing Homeland Security Laws B. 2006 MOU C. Northern Border PEIS D. Pending Legislation E. Restore Wilderness Protection Appendix - Wildernesses at Risk along the Northern Border………………....Page 18 3 Executive Summary Under the guise of border security, a plethora of new and proposed laws, policies, memoranda, and other governmental actions pose an unprecedented threat to Wildernesses, including in many national parks, along our nation’s Northern Border. This whitepaper describes the threats and presents several recommendations for securing the protection of Wilderness and parks along the Northern Border.
    [Show full text]
  • Draft Small Vessel General Permit
    ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM PUBLIC NOTICE The United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 W. Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois has requested a determination from the Illinois Department of Natural Resources if their Vessel General Permit (VGP) and Small Vessel General Permit (sVGP) are consistent with the enforceable policies of the Illinois Coastal Management Program (ICMP). VGP regulates discharges incidental to the normal operation of commercial vessels and non-recreational vessels greater than or equal to 79 ft. in length. sVGP regulates discharges incidental to the normal operation of commercial vessels and non- recreational vessels less than 79 ft. in length. VGP and sVGP can be viewed in their entirety at the ICMP web site http://www.dnr.illinois.gov/cmp/Pages/CMPFederalConsistencyRegister.aspx Inquiries concerning this request may be directed to Jim Casey of the Department’s Chicago Office at (312) 793-5947 or [email protected]. You are invited to send written comments regarding this consistency request to the Michael A. Bilandic Building, 160 N. LaSalle Street, Suite S-703, Chicago, Illinois 60601. All comments claiming the proposed actions would not meet federal consistency must cite the state law or laws and how they would be violated. All comments must be received by July 19, 2012. Proposed Small Vessel General Permit (sVGP) United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) SMALL VESSEL GENERAL PERMIT FOR DISCHARGES INCIDENTAL TO THE NORMAL OPERATION OF VESSELS LESS THAN 79 FEET (sVGP) AUTHORIZATION TO DISCHARGE UNDER THE NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM In compliance with the provisions of the Clean Water Act, as amended (33 U.S.C.
    [Show full text]
  • 2008 ANNUAL REPORT SARAH PALIN, Governor
    STATE OF ALASKA CITIZENS' ADVISORY COMMISSION ON FEDERAL AREAS 2008 ANNUAL REPORT SARAH PALIN, Governor 3700AIRPORT WAY CITIZENS' ADVISORY COMMISSION FAIRBANKS, ALASKA 99709 ON FEDERAL AREAS PHONE: (907) 374-3737 FAX: (907)451-2751 Dear Reader: This is the 2008 Annual Report of the Citizens' Advisory Commission on Federal Areas to the Governor and the Alaska State Legislature. The annual report is required by AS 41.37.220(f). INTRODUCTION The Citizens' Advisory Commission on Federal Areas was originally established by the State of Alaska in 1981 to provide assistance to the citizens of Alaska affected by the management of federal lands within the state. In 2007 the Alaska State Legislature reestablished the Commission. 2008 marked the first year of operation for the Commission since funding was eliminated in 1999. Following the 1980 passage of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA), the Alaska Legislature identified the need for an organization that could provide assistance to Alaska's citizens affected by that legislation. ANILCA placed approximately 104 million acres of federal public lands in Alaska into conservation system units. This, combined with existing units, created a system of national parks, national preserves, national monuments, national wildlife refuges and national forests in the state encompassing more than 150 million acres. The resulting changes in land status fundamentally altered many Alaskans' traditional uses of these federal lands. In the 28 years since the passage of ANILCA, changes have continued. The Federal Subsistence Board rather than the State of Alaska has assumed primary responsibility for regulating subsistence hunting and fishing activities on federal lands.
    [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]
  • UNDISCOVERED MINERAL RESOURCES of SOUTHEASTERN ALASKA- REVISED MINERAL-RESOURCE-ASSESSMENT-TRACT DESCRIPTIONS by David A
    UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY UNDISCOVERED MINERAL RESOURCES OF SOUTHEASTERN ALASKA- REVISED MINERAL-RESOURCE-ASSESSMENT-TRACT DESCRIPTIONS By David A. Brew 1 Donald J. Grybeck2 Cliff D.Taylor3 Robert C.Jachens 1 Dennis P. Cox1 David F. Barnes1 Richard D.Koch1 Robert L.Morin1 and James L. Drinkwater1 U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 96-716 This report is preliminary and has not been edited or reviewed for conformity with U.S. Geological Survey editorial standards or with the North American Stratigraphic Code. Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government lU.S. Geological Survey Menlo Park, CA 94025-3591, U.S.A. ^U.S. Geological Survey Anchorage, AK 99508-4667 ^U.S. Geological Survey Denver, CO 80225 1996 UNDISCOVERED MINERAL RESOURCES OF SOUTHEASTERN ALASKA- REVISED MINERAL-RESOURCE-ASSESSMENT-TRACT DESCRIPTIONS By David A. Brew 1 , Donald J. Grybeck2, Cliff D. Taylor3, Robert C. Jachens 1 , Dennis P. Cox 1 , David F. Bames 1 , Richard D. Koch 1 , Robert L. Morin1 , and James L. Drinkwater1 iU.S. Geological Survey, Menlo Park, CA 94025-3591, 2U.S. Geological Survey, Anchorage, AK 99506- 4667, 3U.S. Geological Survey, Denver, CO 80225 INTRODUCTION This report presents revisions, re-descriptions, and additions to the mineral-resource-assessment-tract information contained in the Tongass National Forest and adjacent areas reports by Brew and others (1991) and Brew and Drinkwater (1991).The changes to some individual tracts are significant, but the overall effect of the changes on the conclusions of those two reports is not thai great.
    [Show full text]
  • 135 Cong Rec H 3705
    Congressional Record -- House Thursday, July 13, 1989 101st Cong. 1st Sess. 135 Cong Rec H 3705 REFERENCE: Vol. 135 No. 93 SPEAKER: Mr. BARTLETT; Mr. DeFAZIO; Mr. GLICKMAN; Mr. HUCKABY; Mr. JONTZ; MR. KANJORSKI; Mr. KLECZKA; Mrs. LLOYD and Messrs; Mr. MARLENEE; Mr. MILLER of California; Mr. MORRISON of Washington; Mr. MRAZEK; Mr. OLIN; Mr. REGULA; Mr. RHODES; Mr. SCHEUER; Mr. TALLON; Mr. VOLKMER; Mr. YOUNG of Alaska TEXT: Text that appears in UPPER CASE identifies statements or insertions which are not spoken by a Member of the House on the floor. [*H3705] AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. VOLKMER TO THE AMENDMENT IN THE NATURE OF A SUBSTITUTE OFFERED BY MR. DE LA GARZA Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute. The Clerk read as follows: Amendment offered by Mr. Volkmer to the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. de la Garza: The amendment is amended on page 8 by inserting after line 24 the following: "The Secretary shall also maintain a buffer zone along all tributaries of such streams in accordance with best management practices for water quality.". Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, the amendment that I have offered now has to do with the buffer zone language that is in the substitute of the Committee on Agriculture, and merely clarifies the buffer zone language as it applies to tributaries of the anadromous streams which are used in the fishing process. The amendment I am offering now provides that the buffer zone shall extend to tributaries of such streams in accordance with the best management practices for water quality.
    [Show full text]
  • Coronation Island Wilderness Kuiu Wilderness Stikine-Leconte
    Kuiu US DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE FOREST SERVICE Wilderness Point Baker ALASKA REGION Stikine-LeConte TONGASS NATIONAL FOREST Ò Port Protection Wilderness 1:290,000 3.5 1.75 0 3.5 7 10.5 14 Miles 5 2.5 0 5 10 15 20 Kilometers [ Cities Congressionally Designated LUD II Areas and Monument Wrangell Mainline Roads Wilderness/Monument Wilderness Other Road Canada Roaded Roadless National Park 2001 Roadless Areas National Wildlife Refuge Tongass 77 VCU AK Mental Health Trust Land Exchange Land Returned to NFS Non-Forest Service Land Selected by AK Mental Health Development LUD* Tongass National Forest Coronation * Development LUDs include Timber Production, Modified Landscape, Scenic Viewshed, and Experimental Forest Whale Pass Island Map Disclaimer: Wilderness The USDA Forest Service makes no warranty, expressed or implied, including the warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose, nor assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, reliability, Warren Edna Bay completeness or utility of these geospatial data, or for the improper or incorrect use of these geospatial data. These Island geospatial data and related maps or graphics are not legal documents and are not intended to be used as such. The data and maps may not be used to determine title, ownership, legal descriptions or boundaries, legal jurisdiction, or Wilderness restrictions that may be in place on either public or private land. Natural hazards may or may not be depicted on the data and maps, and land users should exercise due caution. The data are dynamic and may change over time. The user is responsible to verify the limitations of the geospatial data and to use the data accordingly and use constraints information.
    [Show full text]
  • Programmatic Agreement Among the Usda Forest
    PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT AMONG THE USDA FOREST SERVICE, TONGASS NATIONAL FOREST, THE ALASKA STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER, THE ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION, AND THE ALASKA MENTAL HEALTH TRUST LAND OFFICE REGARDING LAND EXCHANGE BETWEEN THE TONGASS NATIONAL FOREST AND THE STATE OF ALASKA MENTAL HEALTH TRUST LAND OFFICE DATE: April 16, 2018 AMHTLandExchangePA FINAL Signature 3-27-2018.docx TABLE OF CONTENTS PREAMBLE........................................................................................................................................................... 1 I. STIPULATIONS ............................................................................................................................................. 3 A. PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS ............................................................................................................................ 3 B. PREVIOUSLY COMPLETED IDENTIFICATION AND EVALUATION ....................................................................................... 3 C. REQUIRED IDENTIFICATION AND EVALUATION ........................................................................................................... 4 D. SCOPE OF WORK FOR NORTH AND WEST NAUKATI PARCELS (SEE I.C.3 MITIGATION MEASURES). ..................................... 6 E. MITIGATION MEASURES ...................................................................................................................................... 7 F. OTHER PROVISIONS REQUIRED BY THE ACT ...........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Page 1464 TITLE 16—CONSERVATION § 1132
    § 1132 TITLE 16—CONSERVATION Page 1464 Department and agency having jurisdiction of, and reports submitted to Congress regard- thereover immediately before its inclusion in ing pending additions, eliminations, or modi- the National Wilderness Preservation System fications. Maps, legal descriptions, and regula- unless otherwise provided by Act of Congress. tions pertaining to wilderness areas within No appropriation shall be available for the pay- their respective jurisdictions also shall be ment of expenses or salaries for the administra- available to the public in the offices of re- tion of the National Wilderness Preservation gional foresters, national forest supervisors, System as a separate unit nor shall any appro- priations be available for additional personnel and forest rangers. stated as being required solely for the purpose of managing or administering areas solely because (b) Review by Secretary of Agriculture of classi- they are included within the National Wilder- fications as primitive areas; Presidential rec- ness Preservation System. ommendations to Congress; approval of Con- (c) ‘‘Wilderness’’ defined gress; size of primitive areas; Gore Range-Ea- A wilderness, in contrast with those areas gles Nest Primitive Area, Colorado where man and his own works dominate the The Secretary of Agriculture shall, within ten landscape, is hereby recognized as an area where years after September 3, 1964, review, as to its the earth and its community of life are un- suitability or nonsuitability for preservation as trammeled by man, where man himself is a visi- wilderness, each area in the national forests tor who does not remain. An area of wilderness classified on September 3, 1964 by the Secretary is further defined to mean in this chapter an area of undeveloped Federal land retaining its of Agriculture or the Chief of the Forest Service primeval character and influence, without per- as ‘‘primitive’’ and report his findings to the manent improvements or human habitation, President.
    [Show full text]
  • Mapping Landscape Values and Forest Uses On
    MAPPING LANDSCAPE VALUES AND FOREST USES ON THE TONGASS NATIONAL FOREST By Britta Schroeder RECOMMENDED: Dr. Todd Brinkman Dr. Peter Fix Dr. ~a~r~~ry Committee Chair APPROVED: icultural Sciences Date MAPPING LANDSCAPE VALUES AND FOREST USES ON THE TONGASS NATIONAL FOREST A THESIS Presented to the Faculty of the University of Alaska Fairbanks in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE By Britta Schroeder, B.S. Fairbanks, Alaska May 2014 v ABSTRACT Throughout the world, humans are often faced with the challenge of sustaining economic development while also promoting environmental stewardship. Such is true for the management history of the Tongass National Forest, where the U.S. Forest Service is transitioning away from harvesting old-growth and moving towards a more economically and environmentally sustainable approach. To measure the preferences of local community members affected by this transition, I conducted an interdisciplinary case study on the Wrangell Ranger District in Southeast Alaska. Community members from Wrangell mapped landscape values, acceptable and unacceptable forest uses. By assessing these landscape values and forest uses with respondents’ attitudes towards forest management alternatives, I identify spatial locations of conflicting timber harvest uses and recommend forest management objectives for the district. Through public participation, communities can provide spatially explicit input during the planning process, which creates opportunities for managers to incorporate community
    [Show full text]