100 Years of Federal Forestry

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

100 Years of Federal Forestry 100 Years Of Federal Forestry United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service A logging crew in Clare County, Michigan. This photograph was taken before 1900. Tn 1876 Congress supported the appointment of a forestry agent in the U.S. Department of Agriculture. "100 Years of Federal Forestry" was published in 1976 to celebrate that event, which marked the birth of Federal forestry. From this position grew the agency that was Cover photo. named the Forest Service. To celebrate the A forester at work on the centennial of the National Forest System Umatilla National Forest, (1891-1991), which traces its origin to the Oregon, in July 1921. Wenaha passage of the Forest Reserve Act of 1891, the Rivet was then far from a road, Forest Service History Unit and the Centen- so this Ranger had to travel with nial Coordinator have sponsored the reprinting horse and pack outfit. of this pictorial history. 100 Years Of Federal Forestry William W. Bergoffen Forest Service, retired Agriculture Information Bulletin No. 402 Forest Service Issued December 1976 United States Department of Agriculture Approved for reprinting September 1990 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, D.C. 20402 Tabk of Contents 5 Introduction 7 Prologue 11 Before There Was A Forest Service, 1876-1904 11 Highlights 14 Sidelights 25The Early Years Of The Forest Service, 1905-19 16 25Highlights 28Sidelights 61Growing Up, 19 17-1945 61Highlights 64Sidelights 107 Years Of Great Change, 1946 1960 107 Highlights 110 Sidelights 143 Keeping Up With The Times, 1961-1975 143 Highlights 146 Sidelights 177 The Look Ahead, 1976- 191 Epilogue 194 Focus: An Enduring Contribution 195 Photo Credits 198 Major Activities Of The Forest Service 4 Intwduction 'forestry 'fdr-a-stré \ 2: the science of developing, caring for, or cultivating forests." (Webster) "Forestry" is the subject of this book, a photographic album of the men and women who have applied "the science of developing, caring for, or cultivating forests" during the century since 1876. It is principally a pictorial history of the National Forest System and the Nation's chief federal forestry agency, the Forest Service of the United States Department of Agriculturea review of its past, a look at its present, and a preview of its future. Opposite page. William Watts Hooper, Forest Supervisor, with Mrs. Hooper. A fbrmer woodsworker, sailor,surveyor, timberman, dude rancher, homesteader, and a veteran of the Civil War, Hooper began a family tradition of service to conservation with his appointment as forest ranger in the Keriosha Range of Colorado in 1898. From that start, as one of the first group of rangers hired by the General Land Office to protect the Forest Reserves on the public domain, he pursued a career that took him into the newly established Forest Service in 1905 and the position of Forest Supervisor of the Leadville National Forest, Colorado. His grandson and great-grandson, inheriting his concern for the Nation's forest values, also made careers of the Forest Service. .1 --SI Prologue Our forests compose one of the Earth's greatest reser- voirs of renewable natural resources. They can provide us with essential products indefinitely if managed properly, and at the same time remain a home for wildlife and a vital source of water supplies. Too often and in too many places, ma has not taken good care of the forests. He baa cut them waste6.illy with little thought to the values of narue or his own ftiture needs. Where he ls failed to safrguard and renew the forests, he has suffered. 8 Where people have cared for the forestsused them wisely and protected, developed, and replenished them in good timethe forests, the land, and the people alike have prospered. 1876-1904 The Forestry Division of the Department of Agriculture, primarily created to promote a popular understanding of the vital interests which are centered in the forest wealth of the United States... has shown the need of inaugurating a new system of forest manage- ment and reproduction, by which alone the perpetuation of an ample supply of forest products, so vital to national prosperity, can be secured." Bernhard E. Fernow (1886-1898) Before There Was A Forest Service, 1876-1904 Highlights The year of the Centennial of the Declaration of Inde-who would work in as well as for the forests. Dr.Bernhard pendence was one of change for the West and for the Nation. Eduard Fernow, a leader of the AFA who was trained in Indians, buffalo, and frontiersmen gave way before organized forestry in his native Germany, brought professionalism to and reckless exploitation of natural resources. Lumbermen federal forestry with his appointment as Chief of the Division had exhausted the forests of the East, were fast clearing theof Forestry in 1886. He set up scientific research programs great pine forests of the Lake States, and would soon move on and initiated cooperative forestry projects with the States, to the South and West. Herds of cattle and sheep spread over includingthe planting of trees in the Great Plains the grasslands. Homesteading farmers broke the sod and Theweight of the data and recommendationsadvanced sowed grain on the prairies and plains. Mining was a major by men like Hough and Fernow led to the genesisof the industry in the mountains. The railroads linked East and National Forest System. By 1891 it was apparent to many West and controlled great land grants in return. Acquisitive- that forests represented a great but vulnerable national asset ness was the spirit of the times, with little heed tothe rules that for the sake of posterity should beprotected from of fair play or the needs of the ftiture. unbridled despoliation. That year, 18 years after Hough's Reaction to abuse of the Nation's natural values during first call for action, Congress authorized the withdrawalof this period gave rise to the forestry and conservation move- Forest Reserves from the public domain, to be administered ment in America. In August 1876, Congress authorized by the Department of the Interior.President Benjamin $2,000 for the first federal office devoted to forestry. Those Harrison set aside the Yellowstone Timberland Reserve(now who supported the measure were men of vision. Those men part of Shoshone and TetonNational Forests) in 1891, and who in the next few decades would establish the profession of by the end of his term had proclaimed 12.4 million acresof forestry would need the same hardy spirit as their predeces- forest land safeguarded from selfish speculation. His succes- sors of the frontier past. sor, Grover Cleveland,added 25.9 million acres more, and The first of those men was Dr. Franklin B. Hough, a in 1897 Congress enacted legislation to insurethe proper physician of broad interests, who in 1873 addressed the care, protection, and managementof the public forests; to American Association for the Advancement of Science on the authorize the employment of guardians for the Reserves;and heedless consumption of American forests. The Association to open them for regulated use. sent a message to Congress supporting Dr. Hough's conten- In the two decades, the Nation had made significant tion that efforts should be made to learn the condition of the progress in its movement fromfrontier freebooting toward a fbrests in order to support their wise use and conservation. policy of wise use and conservation. The appointmentof Finally, on August 30, 1876, the Commissioner of Agricul- Franklin Hough signalled the shift. ture appointed Hough to the role of forest agent, to gather But at least one man knew that what was past was only data on the forests and forest products, European forestry prologue. He was America's first native professionalforester, practices, and on means to preserve and renew the forests. schooled in Europe, experienced in managing a large private His series of exhaustive reports laid a factual basis for the forest in North Carolina, personally familiar with manyof conservation movement and supported the work of others. the new Forest Reserves, and destined to become Chiefof the The American Forestry Association, formed in 1875, worked Division of Forestry in 1898. His name was Gifford Pinchot, to transform public concern for the forests into effective and he would be present at and take part in the birthof the legislation, to begin farsighted programs, and to train people Forest Service. 11 1876-1 904 Big wheels, big trees, big loads This was a man-sized job in characterized a growing Amer- Washington in 1901. ica's drive to appease her hunger Ratchet jacks were used to for wood after the War between load logs in Washington's the States. coastal forests. 1. Montecristo, an 1897 lumber town in the Washington Cas- cades, as photographed by Gil- ford Pinchot. 1876-1904 Logging in Michigan, in 1900, on lands that are now a part of the Manisree National Forest. These logs were being hauled to market in Michigan in 1887. 13 1876-1904 These were "Home" to the Lake State lumberjacks- The "Van" or supply store. The cookhouse. The bunkhouse. Sidelights (1876-1904) In 1885, New York State created the huge Adirondack Forest Reserve and a commission to protect and manage it, but excluded tim- ber cutting. The same year, California, Colo- rado, and Ohio set up State boards of forestry. In 1898, New York's Cornell University started the Nation's first 4-year professional forestry school, and a 1-year Biltmore Forest School opened in North Carolina. By this time 20 colleges were offering some instruc- tion in forestry. Then in 1900, Yale Forest School opened with graduate courses. The professional Society of American For- esters was founded in 1900.
Recommended publications
  • Table 8 — National Wilderness Areas in Multiple States
    Table 8 - National Wilderness Areas in Multiple States * Unit is in two or more States ** Acres estimated pending final boundary determination + Special Area that is part of a proclaimed National Forest National Wilderness Area State NFS Other Total Unit Name Acreage Acreage Acreage Absaroka-Beartooth Wilderness Montana Custer National Forest* 331,130 1,482 332,612 Gallatin National Forest 582,181 2,657 584,838 Wyoming Shoshone National Forest 23,694 0 23,694 Absaroka-Beartooth Wilderness Totals 937,005 4,139 941,144 Big Frog Wilderness Georgia Chattahoochee National Forest 136 0 136 Tennessee Cherokee National Forest* 7,996 0 7,996 Big Frog Wilderness Totals 8,132 0 8,132 Black Fork Mountain Wilderness Arkansas Ouachita National Forest* 8,249 79 8,328 Oklahoma Ouachita National Forest* 5,098 40 5,138 Black Fork Mountain Wilderness Totals 13,347 119 13,466 Cohutta Wilderness Georgia Chattahoochee National Forest 35,284 9 35,293 Tennessee Cherokee National Forest* 1,746 0 1,746 Cohutta Wilderness Totals 37,030 9 37,039 Ellicott Rock Wilderness Georgia Chattahoochee National Forest 2,023 0 2,023 North Carolina Nantahala National Forest 3,417 0 3,417 South Carolina Sumter National Forest 2,857 9 2,866 Ellicott Rock Wilderness Totals 8,297 9 8,306 Processed Date: 2/5/2014 Table 8 - National Wilderness Areas in Multiple States * Unit is in two or more States ** Acres estimated pending final boundary determination + Special Area that is part of a proclaimed National Forest National Wilderness Area State NFS Other Total Unit Name Acreage Acreage
    [Show full text]
  • Tonto National Forest Travel Management Plan
    Comments on the DEIS for the Tonto National Forest Travel Management Plan Submitted September 15, 2014 via Electronic Mail and Certified Mail #7014-0150-0001-2587-0812 On Behalf of: Archaeology Southwest Center for Biological Diversity Sierra Club The Wilderness Society WildEarth Guardians Table of Contents II. Federal Regulation of Travel Management .................................................................................. 4 III. Impacts from Year Round Motorized Use Must be Analyzed .................................................. 5 IV. The Forest Service’s Preferred Alternative .............................................................................. 6 V. Desired Conditions for Travel Management ................................................................................. 6 VI. Purpose and Need Statements ................................................................................................... 7 VII. Baseline Determination .............................................................................................................. 8 A. The Forest Service cannot arbitrarily reclassify roads as “open to motor vehicle use” in the baseline. ............................................................................................................................................ 10 B. Classification of all closed or decommissioned routes as “open to motor vehicle use” leads to mischaracterization of the impacts of the considered alternatives. ...................................................... 11 C. Failure
    [Show full text]
  • Chiricahua Leopard Frog (Rana Chiricahuensis)
    U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Chiricahua Leopard Frog (Rana chiricahuensis) Final Recovery Plan April 2007 CHIRICAHUA LEOPARD FROG (Rana chiricahuensis) RECOVERY PLAN Southwest Region U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Albuquerque, New Mexico DISCLAIMER Recovery plans delineate reasonable actions that are believed to be required to recover and/or protect listed species. Plans are published by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and are sometimes prepared with the assistance of recovery teams, contractors, state agencies, and others. Objectives will be attained and any necessary funds made available subject to budgetary and other constraints affecting the parties involved, as well as the need to address other priorities. Recovery plans do not necessarily represent the views nor the official positions or approval of any individuals or agencies involved in the plan formulation, other than the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. They represent the official position of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service only after they have been signed by the Regional Director, or Director, as approved. Approved recovery plans are subject to modification as dictated by new findings, changes in species status, and the completion of recovery tasks. Literature citation of this document should read as follows: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007. Chiricahua Leopard Frog (Rana chiricahuensis) Recovery Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Southwest Region, Albuquerque, NM. 149 pp. + Appendices A-M. Additional copies may be obtained from: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Arizona Ecological Services Field Office Southwest Region 2321 West Royal Palm Road, Suite 103 500 Gold Avenue, S.W.
    [Show full text]
  • Off-Road Vehicle Plan
    United States Department of Agriculture Final Environmental Assessment Forest Service Tusayan Ranger District Travel Management Project April 2009 Southwestern Region Tusayan Ranger District Kaibab National Forest Coconino County, Arizona Information Contact: Charlotte Minor, IDT Leader Kaibab National Forest 800 S. Sixth Street, Williams, AZ 86046 928-635-8271 or fax: 928-635-8208 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 alternate means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. Printed on recycled paper Chapter 1 5 Document Structure 5 Introduction 5 Background 8 Purpose and Need 10 Existing Condition 10 Desired Condition 12 Proposed Action 13 Decision Framework 15 Issues 15 Chapter 2 - Alternatives 17 Alternatives Analyzed
    [Show full text]
  • IMBCR Report
    Integrated Monitoring in Bird Conservation Regions (IMBCR): 2015 Field Season Report June 2016 Bird Conservancy of the Rockies 14500 Lark Bunting Lane Brighton, CO 80603 303-659-4348 www.birdconservancy.org Tech. Report # SC-IMBCR-06 Bird Conservancy of the Rockies Connecting people, birds and land Mission: Conserving birds and their habitats through science, education and land stewardship Vision: Native bird populations are sustained in healthy ecosystems Bird Conservancy of the Rockies conserves birds and their habitats through an integrated approach of science, education and land stewardship. Our work radiates from the Rockies to the Great Plains, Mexico and beyond. Our mission is advanced through sound science, achieved through empowering people, realized through stewardship and sustained through partnerships. Together, we are improving native bird populations, the land and the lives of people. Core Values: 1. Science provides the foundation for effective bird conservation. 2. Education is critical to the success of bird conservation. 3. Stewardship of birds and their habitats is a shared responsibility. Goals: 1. Guide conservation action where it is needed most by conducting scientifically rigorous monitoring and research on birds and their habitats within the context of their full annual cycle. 2. Inspire conservation action in people by developing relationships through community outreach and science-based, experiential education programs. 3. Contribute to bird population viability and help sustain working lands by partnering with landowners and managers to enhance wildlife habitat. 4. Promote conservation and inform land management decisions by disseminating scientific knowledge and developing tools and recommendations. Suggested Citation: White, C. M., M. F. McLaren, N. J.
    [Show full text]
  • LIGHTNING FIRES in SOUTHWESTERN FORESTS T
    This file was created by scanning the printed publication. Errors identified by the software have been corrected; however, some errors may remain. LIGHTNING FIRES IN SOUTHWESTERN FORESTS t . I I LIGHT~ING FIRES IN SOUTHWESTERN FORESTS (l) by Jack S. Barrows Department of Forest and Wood Sciences College of Forestry and Natural Resources Colorado State University Fort Collins, CO 80523 (1) Research performed for Northern Forest Fire Laboratory, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station under cooperative agreement 16-568 CA with Rocky Mountain For­ est and Range Experiment Station. Final Report May 1978 n LIB RARY COPY. ROCKY MT. FO i-< t:S'f :.. R.l.N~ EX?f.lt!M SN T ST.A.1101'1 . - ... Acknowledgementd r This research of lightning fires in Sop thwestern forests has been ? erformed with the assistan~e and cooperation of many individuals and agencies. The idea for the research was suggested by Dr. Donald M. Fuquay and Robert G. Baughman of the Northern Forest Fire Laboratory. The Fire Management Staff of U. S. Forest Service Region Three provided fire data, maps, rep~rts and briefings on fire p~enomena. Special thanks are expressed to James F. Mann for his continuing assistance in these a ctivities. Several members of national forest staffs assisted in correcting fire report errors. At CSU Joel Hart was the principal graduate 'research assistant in organizing the data, writing computer programs and handling the extensive computer operations. The initial checking of fire data tapes and com­ puter programming was performed by research technician Russell Lewis. Graduate Research Assistant Rick Yancik and Research Associate Lee Bal- ::.
    [Show full text]
  • Schedule of Proposed Action (SOPA) 04/01/2021 to 06/30/2021 Coronado National Forest This Report Contains the Best Available Information at the Time of Publication
    Schedule of Proposed Action (SOPA) 04/01/2021 to 06/30/2021 Coronado National Forest This report contains the best available information at the time of publication. Questions may be directed to the Project Contact. Expected Project Name Project Purpose Planning Status Decision Implementation Project Contact Projects Occurring Nationwide Gypsy Moth Management in the - Vegetation management Completed Actual: 11/28/2012 01/2013 Susan Ellsworth United States: A Cooperative (other than forest products) 775-355-5313 Approach [email protected]. EIS us *UPDATED* Description: The USDA Forest Service and Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service are analyzing a range of strategies for controlling gypsy moth damage to forests and trees in the United States. Web Link: http://www.na.fs.fed.us/wv/eis/ Location: UNIT - All Districts-level Units. STATE - All States. COUNTY - All Counties. LEGAL - Not Applicable. Nationwide. Locatable Mining Rule - 36 CFR - Regulations, Directives, In Progress: Expected:12/2021 12/2021 Sarah Shoemaker 228, subpart A. Orders NOI in Federal Register 907-586-7886 EIS 09/13/2018 [email protected] d.us *UPDATED* Est. DEIS NOA in Federal Register 03/2021 Description: The U.S. Department of Agriculture proposes revisions to its regulations at 36 CFR 228, Subpart A governing locatable minerals operations on National Forest System lands.A draft EIS & proposed rule should be available for review/comment in late 2020 Web Link: http://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=57214 Location: UNIT - All Districts-level Units. STATE - All States. COUNTY - All Counties. LEGAL - Not Applicable. These regulations apply to all NFS lands open to mineral entry under the US mining laws.
    [Show full text]
  • Status and Ecology of Mexican Spotted Owls in the Upper Gila Mountains Recovery Unit, Arizona and New Mexico
    Status and Ecology of Mexican Spotted Owls in the Upper Gila Mountains Recovery Unit, Arizona and New Mexico Joseph L. Ganey James P. Ward, Jr. David W. Willey United States Forest Rocky Mountain General Technical Report Department Service Research Station RMRS-GTR-256WWW of Agriculture May 2011 Ganey, Joseph L.; Ward, James P. Jr.; Willey, David W. 2011. Status and ecology of Mexican spotted owls in the Upper Gila Mountains recovery unit, Arizona and New Mexico. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-256WWW. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 94 p. Abstract This report summarizes current knowledge on the status and ecology of the Mexican spot- ted owl within the Upper Gila Mountains Recovery Unit (UGM RU). It was written at the request of U.S. Forest Service personnel involved in the Four Forests Restoration Initia- tive (4FRI), a collaborative, landscape-scale restoration effort covering approximately 2.4 million ac (1 million ha) across all or part of four National Forests (Apache-Sitgreaves, Coconino, Kaibab, and Tonto National Forests) located within the UGM RU. The UGM RU supports >50% of the known population of Mexican spotted owls, and the central location of the UGM RU within the overall range of the owl appears to facilitate gene flow throughout that range. Consequently, the UGM population is viewed as important to stability within the overall range of the owl, and management that impacts owls within the UGM RU could affect owl populations beyond that RU. Keywords: abundance, demography, habitat selection, diet composition, movements Authors Joseph L.
    [Show full text]
  • Table of Contents
    TABLEGUIDELINES OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 12: CONTACT INFORMATION AND MAPS 12.1 ADOT CONTACT INFORMATION……………………………………………….......122 12.2 BLM CONTACT INFORMATION…………………………………………………......123 12.3 USFS CONTACT INFORMATION………………………………………………….....124 12.4 FHWA CONTACT INFORMATION…………………………………………………....130 12.5 GIS INFORMATION..............................................................................................131 12.6 MAPS...................................................................................................................132 121 12.1 ADOT CONTACT INFORMATION ADOT web link azdot.gov/ ADOT maps azdot.gov/maps General Information 602-712-7355 OFFICE ADOT DIRECTOR 602.712.7227 Deputy Director of Transportation 602.712.7391 Deputy Director of Policy 602.712.7550 Deputy Director of Business Operations 602.712.7228 Multimodal Planning Division (MPD) Director 602.712.7431 MPD Planning and Programming Director 602.712.8140 MPD Planning and Environmental Linkages Manager 602.712.4574 Infrastructure Delivery and Operations Division (IDO) 602.712.7391 State Engineer, Sr. Deputy State Engineer and Deputy State Engineer Offices 602.712.7391 DISTRICT ENGINEERS Northcentral azdot.gov/business/district-contacts/northcentral 928.774.1491 Northeast azdot.gov/business/district-contacts/northeast 928.524.5400 Central Construction District azdot.gov/business/district-contacts/central 602.712.8965 Central Maintenance District azdot.gov/business/district-contacts/central 602.712.6664 Northwest azdot.gov/business/district-contacts/northwest 928.777.5861
    [Show full text]
  • Lincoln National Forest
    Chapter 1: Introduction In Ecological and Biological Diversity of National Forests in Region 3 Bruce Vander Lee, Ruth Smith, and Joanna Bate The Nature Conservancy EXECUTIVE SUMMARY We summarized existing regional-scale biological and ecological assessment information from Arizona and New Mexico for use in the development of Forest Plans for the eleven National Forests in USDA Forest Service Region 3 (Region 3). Under the current Planning Rule, Forest Plans are to be strategic documents focusing on ecological, economic, and social sustainability. In addition, Region 3 has identified restoration of the functionality of fire-adapted systems as a central priority to address forest health issues. Assessments were selected for inclusion in this report based on (1) relevance to Forest Planning needs with emphasis on the need to address ecosystem diversity and ecological sustainability, (2) suitability to address restoration of Region 3’s major vegetation systems, and (3) suitability to address ecological conditions at regional scales. We identified five assessments that addressed the distribution and current condition of ecological and biological diversity within Region 3. We summarized each of these assessments to highlight important ecological resources that exist on National Forests in Arizona and New Mexico: • Extent and distribution of potential natural vegetation types in Arizona and New Mexico • Distribution and condition of low-elevation grasslands in Arizona • Distribution of stream reaches with native fish occurrences in Arizona • Species richness and conservation status attributes for all species on National Forests in Arizona and New Mexico • Identification of priority areas for biodiversity conservation from Ecoregional Assessments from Arizona and New Mexico Analyses of available assessments were completed across all management jurisdictions for Arizona and New Mexico, providing a regional context to illustrate the biological and ecological importance of National Forests in Region 3.
    [Show full text]
  • Socioeconomic Assessment for the Tonto National Forest
    4. Access and Travel Patterns This section examines historic and current factors affecting access patterns and transportation infrastructure within the four counties surrounding Tonto National Forest (TNF). The information gathered is intended to outline current and future trends in forest access as well as potential barriers to access encountered by various user groups. Primary sources of data on access and travel patterns for the state’s national forests include the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT), the Arizona Department of Commerce (ADOC), and the circulation elements of individual county comprehensive plans. Indicators used to assess access and travel patterns include existing road networks and planned improvements, trends in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) on major roadways, seasonal traffic flows, and county transportation planning priorities. Additional input on internal access issues has been sought directly from forest planning staff. Various sources of information for the area surrounding TNF cite the difficulty of transportation planning in the region given its vast geographic scale, population growth, pace of development, and constrained transportation funding. In an effort to respond effectively to such challenges, local and regional planning authorities stress the importance of linking transportation planning with preferred land uses. Data show that the area surrounding Tonto National Forest saw relatively large increases in VMT between 1990 and 2000, mirroring the region’s relatively strong population growth over the same period. Information gathered from the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) and county comprehensive plans suggest that considerable improvements are currently scheduled for the region’s transportation network, particularly when compared to areas surrounding Arizona’s other national forests.
    [Show full text]
  • North Kaibab Ranger District Travel Management Project Environmental Assessment
    Environmental Assessment United States Department of Agriculture North Kaibab Ranger District Forest Service Travel Management Project Southwestern Region September 2012 Kaibab National Forest Coconino and Mohave Counties, Arizona Information Contact: Wade Christy / Recreation & Lands Kaibab National Forest - NKRD Mail: P.O.Box 248 / 430 S. Main St. Fredonia, AZ 86022 Phone: 928-643-8135 E-mail: [email protected] It is the mission of the USDA Forest Service to sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of the Nation’s forests and grasslands to meet the needs of present and future generations. 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 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. Printed on recycled paper – September
    [Show full text]