DOCSLIB.ORG

Defining the Wildland–Urban Interface

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Defining the Wildland–Urban Interface fire Defining the Wildland–Urban Interface Susan I. Stewart, Volker C. Radeloff, Roger B. Hammer, and Todd J. Hawbaker Federal wildland fire policy in the United States has been substantially revised over the past 10 years (HFRA), which became law in 2003—reit- and new emphasis has been given to the wildland–urban interface (WUI), which creates a need for erated the need for resource managers to information about the WUI’s location and extent. We operationalized a policy definition published in work with communities and homeowners in the Federal Register (US Department of the Interior [USDI] and US Department of Agriculture [USDA]), the WUI to reduce the risks associated with 2001, Urban wildland interface communities within vicinity of federal lands that are at high risk from wildfire. wildfire. Fed. Regist. 66(3):751–777) to create national maps and statistics of the WUI to guide The increasing national fire policy fo- strategic planning. Using geographic information system analysis, we evaluate the national WUI by cus on the WUI came in response to recent altering the definition’s parameters to assess the influence of individual parameters (i.e., housing housing trends in the United States. Home- density, vegetation type and density, and interface buffer distance) and stability of outcomes. The most owners want to be near open space and in sensitive parameter was the housing density threshold. Changes in outputs (WUI homes and area) were close contact with nature. From 1940 to ABSTRACT much smaller than parameter variations suggesting the WUI definition generates stable results on most 2000, significant housing growth occurred landscapes. Overall, modifying the WUI definition resulted in a similar amount of WUI area and number in suburban and rural areas, especially in and of homes and affected the precise location of the WUI. near forests (Radeloff et al. 2005a). Housing growth was strong nationwide, including ar- Keywords: wildland–urban interface; wildland fire; housing growth; GIS sensitivity analysis; eas with short fire return intervals and high wildland fire policy departure from historic conditions such as the Rocky Mountains and the Sierra Nevada (Hammer et al. in press). The effects of re- he wildland–urban interface it clarified the role of the federal agencies in source management practices, climate (WUI) has become the central fo- fighting fires in the WUI (USDI and USDA changes, and insect and disease infestations, cus of wildland fire policy in the 1995). A 10-year overhaul of US wildland together with continued housing growth in T high fire-risk areas thus create an urgent United States. The tragic 1994 Storm King fire policy followed, spurred on by the ex- incident, in which 14 firefighters were killed, treme fire season of 2000. Each of the re- need to understand and manage fire risk in initiated intense scrutiny of wildfire policy ports and initiatives issued in successive the WUI (Pyne 2001). and management (US Department of the years—the Report to the President in Sep- Governments at all levels share respon- Interior [USDI] and US Department of Ag- tember of 2000, the 10-year Comprehensive sibility for wildland fire management in the riculture [USDA] 2006). When the Federal Strategy of 2001, its implementation plan WUI. The federal government’s role is to Wildland Fire Management Policy and Pro- and the Healthy Forest Initiative in 2002, provide leadership, coordination, and re- gram Review was issued the following year, and the Healthy Forest Restoration Act search across the country, a role that benefits Received June 20, 2006; accepted April 17, 2007. Susan I. Stewart ([email protected]) is research social scientist, Northern Research Station, USDA Forest Service, 1033 University Avenue, Suite 360, Evanston, IL 60201. Volker C. Radeloff ([email protected]) is associate professor, Department of Forest Ecology and Management, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin. Roger B. Hammer ([email protected]) is assistant professor, Department of Sociology, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon. Todd J. Hawbaker ([email protected]) is Ph.D. student, Department of Forest Ecology and Management, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin. The authors are grateful for the comments of Pam Jakes and Don Field on an earlier version of this article. Support for this research was provided by the USDA Forest Service Northern Research Station under the National Fire Plan, and by the University of Wisconsin–Madison. Copyright © 2007 by the Society of American Foresters. Journal of Forestry • June 2007 201 from the ability to locate and compare the the Western Governor’s Association (Teie ulation data and determined vegetation WUI in different states and regions. To sup- and Weatherford 2000), with only minor proximity via detailed fuels mapping, al- port this aspect of WUI management and changes. The more recent HFRA moves though the Census data’s resolution, the strategic planning, we created a map of the away from this standardized approach to de- rules for determining vegetation and popu- WUI across the lower 48 states (Radeloff et fining the WUI by allowing communities to lation proximity, and the types of vegetation al. 2005b). Unlike a community-level WUI establish a buffer zone around the town, the included were not specified, and the distinc- map that can be enriched by using detailed civic infrastructure, and evacuation routes, tion between interface and intermix WUI local data, this “big picture” national map including these areas in the WUI as well. was made based on population density required nationally consistent data and a sin- This more flexible definition is consistent alone. A coarse-scale map of the wildland gle standardized WUI definition. Here, we with the HFRA’s emphasis on empowering fire risk to structures was developed as a tool sought to understand how the national WUI local communities to develop Community for strategic planning (Schmidt et al. 2002). map is influenced by the WUI definition Wildfire Protection Plans. Ambient population data (USDE 2005) was used, the relative effect of each part of the Throughout its evolution, the WUI used to derive housing densities and com- definition, and the overall usefulness of the definition always includes three compo- bined with extreme fire potential (derived map in identifying homes likely to be af- nents: human presence, wildland vegeta- from climate data) and potential fire expo- fected by wildfire. We used geographic in- tion, and a distance that represents the po- sure data (derived from vegetation data) to formation system (GIS) analysis to address tential for effects (e.g., wildland fire and categorize threat levels at a 1-km resolution. these questions. human activity) to extend beyond bound- These examples illustrate that despite aries and impact neighboring lands. Beyond all that has been written about the WUI and Literature Review these three components, most WUI discus- its significance in fire policy, there is no sin- A good WUI map provides a graphic sions are imprecise regarding what is or is gle operational definition. A review by the representation that matches the conceptual not included. For example, human presence Government Accountability Office (GAO) understanding of what and where the WUI has been defined by housing density, popu- of NFP implementation criticized the fed- is. This conceptual understanding of the lation density, number of houses, or eral agencies responsible for wildland fire WUI has evolved over time; the area where configuration of housing developments and management on this point (Hill 2001). In a houses and forests meet has attracted atten- neighborhood characteristics. Wildland formal response included in the GAO re- tion for many years. Bradley’s book (Bradley vegetation is always mentioned, but the den- port, Forest Service Chief Bosworth reaf- 1984) on the resource management issues in sity, extent, and type of vegetation that firmed his agency’s commitment to main- the interface is a major early contribution. makes some vegetation “wildland vegeta- taining enough flexibility in defining the Even earlier, Henry Vaux characterized the tion” is not well defined. The distance that WUI to accommodate the many different WUI as the “hotseat of forestry” (Vaux the WUI extends into wildlands or into a kinds of landscapes it manages. 1982) and cautioned foresters not to under- housing development has been described in Flexibility is valuable for both forest- estimate its political and policy significance. many different ways, including the distance and community-level mapping and manage- Both authors discussed a wide range of WUI a golf ball will fly off the porch or the dis- ment but is counterproductive when issues and neither equated the WUI with tance from which flames or firebrands can comparing WUI across places or over time wildland fire. However, the focus of WUI reach a structure (Summerfelt 2003), but periods. Our research was intended to assess discussions had narrowed by the end of the specific distances are rarely given. the WUI across regions and to track its 1980s, when Davis (1990) characterized the Conceptually, these many definitions growth and change over time, two purposes WUI as a setting where wildland fire is a all refer to the same basic idea, that the WUI that required standardizing the WUI defini- problem and where conflicts arise over re- is where houses and wildlands meet or over- tion. With no previous standard definition sponsibility for protecting homes from wild- lap. However, operationally, they differ and of the WUI to draw from, we tested the def- fire. A 1997 issue of the Journal of Forestry in previous WUI maps, definitions vary de- inition we developed to ensure its consis- featured a cover photo of a wildland fire en- pending on data available at the time and tency with our research aims and with stra- croaching on a subdivision and included two across the extent of the map. For example, tegic wildland fire planning.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Sustaining America's Urban Trees and Forests
    United States Department of SSustainingustaining AAmerica’smerica’s Agriculture Forest Service UUrbanrban TTreesrees andand ForestsForests Northern Research Station State and Private Forestry General Technical DDavidavid J.J. NNowak,owak, SusanSusan M.M. Stein,Stein, PaulaPaula B.B. Randler,Randler, EricEric J.J. GreenGreenfi eeld,ld, Report NRS-62 SSaraara JJ.. CComas,omas, MMaryary AA.. CCarr,arr, aandnd RRalphalph J.J. AligAlig June 2010 A Forests on the Edge Report ABSTRACT Nowak, David J.; Stein, Susan M.; Randler, Paula B.; Greenfi eld, Eric J.; Comas, Sara J.; Carr, Mary A.; Alig, Ralph J. 2010. Sustaining America’s urban trees and forests: a Forests on the Edge report. Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS-62. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station. 27 p. Close to 80 percent of the U.S. population lives in urban areas and depends on the essential ecological, economic, and social benefi ts provided by urban trees and forests. However, the distribution of urban tree cover and the benefi ts of urban forests vary across the United States, as do the challenges of sustaining this important resource. As urban areas expand across the country, the importance of the benefi ts that urban forests provide, as well as the challenges to their conservation and maintenance, will increase. The purpose of this report is to provide an overview of the current status and benefi ts of America’s urban forests, compare differences in urban forest canopy cover among regions, and discuss challenges facing urban forests and their implications for urban forest management. Key Words: Urban forest, urbanization, land Lisa DeJong The Plain Dealer, Photo: AP management, ecosystem services Urban forests offer aesthetic values and critical services.
    [Show full text]
  • Urban Forestry Manual
    URBAN FORESTRY MANUAL TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction _______________________________________________________________________________________ 2 Purpose _____________________________________________________________________________________________ 3 Objectives __________________________________________________________________________________________ 3 Definition of Terms _____________________________________________________________________________ 3-6 Standard of Care __________________________________________________________________________________ 6 Tree Care Management ________________________________________________________________________ 6-7 Tree Care Procedures _________________________________________________________________________ 8-17 Arboretum & Botanic Garden _______________________________________________________________ 17-18 Utility, Curb, Gutter, and Sidewalk Repairs ________________________________________________ 19-20 New Development and Construction ______________________________________________________ 21-25 Tools and Staffing ___________________________________________________________________________ 26-27 Jurisdiction/Governing Authority __________________________________________________________ 27-29 Tree Donation Program _____________________________________________________________________ 30-31 Glendora’s Protected Trees _____________________________________________________________________ 32 List of Approved and Undesirable Trees ___________________________________________________ 33-35 FAQ’s __________________________________________________________________________________________
    [Show full text]
  • Partners in Progress
    Partners in Progress CALIFORNIA Final Report 1 Table of Contents California ReLeaf....................................................3 Selection by the US Forest Service......................4 ARRA Sub-Grant Recipients California Urban Forests Council..........................5 The City of Chico....................................................6 Community Services & Employment Training.....7 Daly City.................................................................8 Friends of Oakland Parks......................................9 Friends of the Urban Forest................................10 Goleta Valley Beautiful.........................................11 Hollywood/LA Beautification Team....................12 Koreatown Youth and Community Center.........13 The Los Angeles Conservation Corps.................14 North East Tree....................................................15 Our City Forest.....................................................16 The City of Porterville..........................................17 Sacramento Tree Foundation..............................18 Tree Fresno...........................................................19 The Urban Corps of San Diego County...............20 Urban Releaf.........................................................21 2 alifornia ReLeaf works statewide to promote Calliances among community-based groups, individuals, industry, and government agencies, encouraging each to contribute to the livability of our cities and the protection of our environment by planting and caring for trees. California
    [Show full text]
  • Urban Forest Assessments Resource Guide
    Trees in cities, a main component of a city’s urban forest, contribute significantly to human health and environmental quality. Urban forest ecosystem assessments are a key tool to help quantify the benefits that trees and urban forests provide, advancing our understanding of these valuable resources. Over the years, a variety of assessment tools have been developed to help us better understand the benefits that urban forests provide and to quantify them into measurable metrics. The results they provide are extremely useful in helping to improve urban forest policies on all levels, inform planning and management, track environmental changes over time and determine how trees affect the environment, which consequently enhances human health. American Forests, with grant support from the U.S. Forest Service’s Urban and Community Forestry Program, developed this resource guide to provide a framework for practitioners interested in doing urban forest ecosystem assessments. This guide is divided into three main sections designed to walk you through the process of selecting the best urban forest assessment tool for your needs and project. In this guide, you will find: Urban Forest Management, which explains urban forest management and the tools used for effective management How to Choose an Urban Forests Ecosystem Assessment Tool, which details the series of questions you need to answer before selecting a tool Urban Forest Ecosystem Assessment Tools, which offers descriptions and usage tips for the most common and popular assessment tools available Urban Forest Management Many of the best urban forest programs in the country have created and regularly use an Urban Forest Management Plan (UFMP) to define the scope and methodology for accomplishing urban forestry goals.
    [Show full text]
  • Assessing Urban Forest Effects and Values, San Francisco’S Urban Forest
    United States Department of Agriculture Assessing Urban Forest Forest Service Eff ects and Values Northern Research Station Resource Bulletin NRS-8 San Francisco’s Urban Forest Abstract An analysis of trees in San Francisco, CA reveals that this city has about 669,000 trees with canopies that cover 11.9 percent of the area. The most common tree species are blue gum eucalyptus, Monterey pine, and Monterey cypress. The urban forest currently stores about 196,000 tons of carbon valued at $3.6 million. In addition, these trees remove about 5,200 tons of carbon per year ($95,000 per year) and about 260 tons of air pollution per year ($1.3 million per year). The structural, or compensatory, value is estimated at $1.7 billion. Information on the structure and functions of the urban forest can be used to improve and augment support for urban forest management programs and to integrate urban forests within plans to improve environmental quality in the San Francisco area. The Authors DAVID J. NOWAK is a research forester and project leader, ROBERT E. HOEHN III, is a biological sciences technician, DANIEL E. CRANE is an information technology specialist, JACK C. STEVENS is a forester, and JEFFREY T. WALTON is a research forester with the Forest Service’s Northern Research Station at Syracuse, NY. Acknowledgments We are grateful for the contributions of Alexis Harte, UFORE project coordinator; Leslie Bandy, survey coordination; Karin Avila, Sarah Cobey, Maria D’agostino, Rachel Freund, Meleana Judd, Lorraine Maldague, Jennifer Mar, and Kelly Palomera, surveyors. Published by: For additional copies: USDA FOREST SERVICE USDA Forest Service 11 CAMPUS BLVD SUITE 200 Publications Distribution NEWTOWN SQUARE PA 19073-3294 359 Main Road Delaware, OH 43015-8640 February 2007 Fax: (740)368-0152 Visit our homepage at: http://www.nrs.fs.fed.us Executive Summary Trees in cities can contribute signifi cantly to human health and environmental quality.
    [Show full text]
  • The Emergence of the Wildland- Urban Interface Concept
    The Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) is a common story line in many of today’s wildfire events. The WUI concept was formally introduced in 1987 Forest Service Research budget documents but was not acknowledged as a major component for federal fire management until the 2000 National Fire Plan. Although the 1987 introduction was meant to increase research focus on demographic factors influencing fire and other resource management, its California roots can be traced to post-World War II civil defense concerns about fire and water. The author offers a personal perspective on why the WUI concept was promoted by the Forest Service at an inauspicious time for fire research. The Emergence of the Wildland- Urban Interface Concept n January 27, 1987, President Ronald Reagan gave his sixth State of the Union address. Reagan’s speech was not well received.1 Forest Service O Research—and Fire Research in particular—had suffered through six years of the Republican president’s budget request reductions. Although these proposed reductions were partially offset by targeted (i.e., “ear- aged 51,805 fires and 2,021,846 acres burned and supported the mark”) restorations by the Democrat-controlled Congress, Forest argument that the “fire problem was solved.”2 This assumption Service research funding continually eroded. Fire activity in the would be reinforced by fire statistics that showed no discernible previous four years of the Reagan presidency (1983–86) had aver- upward trend. With the exception of the Yellowstone Fires in BY WILLIAM T. SOMMERS 12 FOREST HISTORY TODAY | FALL 2008 F. E. DUNHAM, U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Urban Forestry Management Plan
    [URBAN FORESTRY MANAGEMENT PLAN] A plan to sustainably, holistically and efficiently manage Bozeman’s urban forest to realize the full expanse of benefits urban trees can provide 1 Acknowledgements: Mitch Overton: Director of Parks and Recreation Bozeman Bozeman Tree Advisory Board The Bozeman Citizenry Jamie Kirby: Montana DNRC This document was funded by an urban forestry program development grant from the State of Montana - Department of Natural Resources & Conservation – Urban & Community Forestry Program Gallatin Tree Care, February 2016 Bozeman Urban Forestry Management Plan 2 Table of Contents Abstract ......................................................................................................................................................... 4 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................... 4 History and People .................................................................................................................................... 6 Process and Plan Development ................................................................................................................. 7 Climate and Environment ......................................................................................................................... 7 Population Dynamics ................................................................................................................................ 8 Value of Urban Forest ..............................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • US Urban Forest Statistics, Values, and Projections
    J. For. 116(2):164–177 RESEARCH ARTICLE doi: 10.1093/jofore/fvx004 Copyright © 2018 Society of American Foresters urban & community forestry US Urban Forest Statistics, Values, and Projections David J. Nowak and Eric J. Greenfield U.S. urban land increased from 2.6% (57.9 million acres) in 2000 to 3.0% (68.0 million acres) in 2010. States value of services provided by urban forests with the greatest amount of urban growth were in the South/Southeast (TX, FL, NC, GA and SC). Between 2010 across the nation. Research on urban forests and 2060, urban land is projected to increase another 95.5 million acres to 163.1 million acres (8.6%) with 18 over the past several decades has advanced our states projected to have an increase of over 2 million acres. Overall, there are an estimated 5.5 billion trees (39.4% understanding of this resource and its impact tree cover) in urban areas nationally that contain 127 million acres of leaf area and 44 million tons of dry-weight on society. These impacts include many eco- leaf biomass. Annually, these trees produce a total of $18.3 billion in value related to air pollution removal ($5.4 system services and costs associated with veg- billion), reduced building energy use ($5.4 billion), carbon sequestration ($4.8 billion) and avoided pollutant emis- etation in close proximity to people, many of sions ($2.7 billion). States with greatest annual urban forest values were: Florida ($1.9 billion), California ($1.4 which remain to be quantified. These services billion), Pennsylvania ($1.1 billion), New York ($1.0 billion) and Ohio ($971 million).
    [Show full text]
  • Urban Forestry Program, Five-Year Plan
    URBAN FORESTRY PROGRAM FIVE YEAR PLAN ADOPTED JANUARY 2017 URBAN FORESTRY PROGRAM ACKNOWLEDGMENTS MAYOR KEVIN L. FAULCONER CITY OF SAN DIEGO CITY COUNCIL Funding for this project has • District 1: Barbara Bry been provided by the California • District 2: Lori Zapf Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund • District 3: Chris Ward through the California Department • District 4: Myrtle Cole of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE), Urban and Community Forestry • District 5: Mark Kersey Program. • District 6: Chris Cate • District 7: Scott Sherman • District 8: David Alvarez • District 9: Georgette Gómez COMMUNITY FORESTRY ADVISORY BOARD • Anne Fege – Chair • Chris Drayer – District 3 • Stephen Lamprides – District 4 • Rachele Melious – District 5 • Vince Mikulanis – District 7 • Troy Murphee – District 9 • Devon Boutte – Landscape Architect • Robin Rivet – Certified Arborist • Jake Sibley – Non-Profit Organization INLAND URBAN FORESTRY GROUP CITY OF SAN DIEGO STAFF • David Graham, Deputy Chief Operating Officer, Mayor’s Office • Mike Hansen, Deputy Chief of Staff & Chief of Policy, Mayor’s Office • Jeff Murphy, Director, Planning Department • Tom Tomlinson, Assistant Director, Planning Department • Alyssa Muto, Deputy Director, Planning Department • Jeremy Barrick, Urban Forestry Program Manager, Planning Department • Melissa Garcia, Senior Planner, Planning Department • Lara Gates, Community Development Specialist IV, Planning Department • Nancy Graham, Senior Planner, Planning Department • Lesley Henegar, Senior Planner, Planning Department • Sergio
    [Show full text]
  • Urban Forest Ecology
    62 Rowntree: Concepts in Urban Forest Ecology URBAN FOREST ECOLOGY: CONCEPTUAL POINTS OF DEPARTURE by Rowan A. Rowntree In this special issue of the Journal of Arboriculture, the field of urban forest ecology is substantially advanced by a set of studies conducted in Sacramento, California, the capital of the largest, most urbanized, and one of the fastest-growing states in the U.S. Sixteen years ago in the introduction to the first textbook on urban forestry, Grey and Deneke (1978) recommended that cities should soon employ "the concept of integrated urban forest ecosystem management." In the years since this suggestion, most cities barely have been able to keep up with pruning and removal, let alone manage their resource as an ecosystem. It is even more difficult to embrace an ecological approach when it is perceived—as it is by many—that urban forestry lacks intellectual roots in ecology. Yet there is almost half a century of thoughtful, scholarly, scientific writings that are the natural antecedents to contemporary urban forest ecology. This introduction to the special issue illustrates the evolution of the ecological view in urban forestry and discusses several useful concepts that have emerged. Abstract. The ecological view in urban forestry evolved on the environment, man might learn to change from diverse roots beginning over 100 years ago and is the face of he earth in rational, constructive fash- currently expressed in formal programs of research and ion" (Thomas 1956a, p. xxix). Indeed, in 1847, practice. Among the most useful concepts in urban forest ecology are structure, function, diversity, dominance, he praised Vermont farmers for filling "with light mosaic-gradients, and ecosystems.
    [Show full text]
  • Capitalization of Environmental Amenities and Wildfire in Private Home Values of the Wildland Urban Interface of Northwest Montana, USA
    University of Montana ScholarWorks at University of Montana Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers Graduate School 2008 Capitalization of Environmental Amenities and Wildfire in Private Home Values of the Wildland Urban Interface of Northwest Montana, USA Kyle Matthew Stetler The University of Montana Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.umt.edu/etd Let us know how access to this document benefits ou.y Recommended Citation Stetler, Kyle Matthew, "Capitalization of Environmental Amenities and Wildfire in Private Home Values of the Wildland Urban Interface of Northwest Montana, USA" (2008). Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers. 1256. https://scholarworks.umt.edu/etd/1256 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at ScholarWorks at University of Montana. It has been accepted for inclusion in Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks at University of Montana. For more information, please contact [email protected]. CAPITALIZATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL AMENITIES AND WILDFIRE IN PRIVATE HOME VALUES OF THE WILDLAND-URBAN INTERFACE OF NORTHWEST MONTANA, USA By Kyle Matthew Stetler B.A. Economics, University of Montana, Missoula, Montana, 2006 Presented in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science Forestry The University of Montana Missoula, Montana Spring 2008 Approved By: Dr. David A. Strobel, Dean Graduate School Dr. Tyron J. Venn, Chair Department of Forest Management Dr. Doug Dalenberg Department of Economics Dr.Woodam Chung Department of Forest Management Stetler, Kyle Matthew, M.Sc., May 2008 Forestry The Capitalization of Environmental Amenities and Wildfire in Private Home Values in the Wildland Urban Interface of Northwest Montana, USA Committee Chair: Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • Re: Ecosystem Analysis for the Grouse Mountain Area
    City of North Vancouver URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN Technical Report DIAMOND HEAD CONSULTING LTD. Prepared for: Prepared by: City of North Vancouver Diamond Head Consulting Ltd. 141 West 14th Street 342 West 8th Avenue North Vancouver BC V7M-1H9 Vancouver BC V5Y-3X2 January 2007 City North Vancouver Urban Forest Management Plan – Technical Report i Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction .................................................................................................................. 1 2.0 Methodology................................................................................................................. 2 3.0 Natural Areas Management Objectives................................................................... 3 4.0 Overview........................................................................................................................ 4 4.1 Terrain............................................................................................................................. 4 4.2 Terrestrial Ecology ........................................................................................................ 4 4.3 Stand Types.................................................................................................................... 7 4.3.1 Deciduous Forests............................................................................................................ 8 4.3.2 Mature Mixed Coniferous/Deciduous Forests................................................................. 8 4.3.3 Mature Coniferous Forests
    [Show full text]