DOCSLIB.ORG

Little North Santiam Watershed Analysis

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Little North Santiam Watershed Analysis LITTLE NORTH SANTIAM WATERSHED ANALYSIS Cascade Resource Area Salem District Bureau of Land Management 1717 Fabry Road, SE Salem, OR 97306 (503) 375-5646 Team Members John DePuy Team Leader John Barber Soils/Hydrology Jim England Wildlife Biology Floyd Freeman Silviculturalist Laura Graves Human Resources/Recreation Barbara Raible Forest Ecologist/Botany Dave Roberts Fish Biologist Anita Leach USFS Sam Caliva Fire Ecologist Randy Herrin Forester Fran Philipek Cultural Resource Specialist Bruce Ahrendt GIS Wayne Barney GIS John Davis USF&W Mark Koski GIS Robert Ryan GIS _________________________________________________________________ The analysis portion of this document was done in 1997. This is an iterative document and will be updated periodically as new information becomes available. The data in this document was the best available at the time the analysis was completed. Management opportunities for this watershed must be considered in light of the checkerboard land ownership patterns of the BLM administered lands and the legislative mandates of Forest Service and BLM administered lands. _________________________________________________________________ VERSION 1.0 December 1997 TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary.............................................................................................................. Ex. Sum.-1 Chapter 1 Introduction................................................................................................... 1-1 Scoping.......................................................................................................... 1-3 Management Direction - Land Use Allocations........................................... 1-3 Chapter 2 Characterization............................................................................................ 2-1 Chapter 3 Issues and Key Questions............................................................................. 3-1 Chapter 4 Historical Conditions................................................................................... 4-1 Geologic History.......................................................................................... 4-1 Disturbance Regimes and Ecological Effects.............................................. 4-2 Chapter 5 Current Conditions....................................................................................... 5-1 Terrestrial..................................................................................................... 5-1 Special Status/Special Attention Species .................................................... 5-13 Aquatic......................................................................................................... 5-25 Human Uses................................................................................................. 5-49 Chapter 6 Future Conditions and Trends...................................................................... 6-1 Terrestrial...................................................................................................... 6-2 Special Status/Special Attention Species ..................................................... 6-7 Aquatic.......................................................................................................... 6-10 Human Uses................................................................................................. 6-17 Chapter 7 Findings and Management Recommendations............................................. 7-1 Terrestrial & SSSA.......................................................................................... 7-1 Findings................................................................................................7-1 Recommendations................................................................................ 7-4 Aquatic & SSSA................................................................................................7-7 Findings.................................................................................................7-7 Recommendations.................................................................................7-9 Human Condition..............................................................................................7-10 Findings.................................................................................................7-10 Recommendations.................................................................................7-12 Chapter 8 Data Gaps. Limitation, & Monitoring Needs....................................................8-1 i Appendices A. Acronyms.....................................................................................A-1 B. Public Scoping.............................................................................B-1 C. Terrestrial.....................................................................................C-1 C.1 Soils.............................................................................................C-1 C.2 Density Stand Management Tables and Total Acres Available for Treatment.....................................................................................C-6 D. SSSA ...........................................................................................D-1 D.1 SS Plants Searched For In the LNS WAA...................................D-1 D.2 Survey and Manage Species Known to Occur in the Cascade Resource Area..............................................................................D-7 D.3 Noxious Weeds to Search for in the LNS WAA......................D-10. D.4 Plant Species List for the LNS WAA.......................................D-12 D.5 Lichens Found on Opal Creek Field Outing by Oregon State University Lichen /Bryophyte Study Group.............................D-19 D.6 Vertebrate Wildlife Species List - LNS....................................D-22 D.7 SSSA Wildlife Species Know or Suspected - LNS WAA........D-31 D.8 Invertebrate Species - LNS........................................................D-35 E. Aquatic.......................................................................................E-1 E.1 ECA Values for LNS WAA by SWB and Precipitation Zones.E-1 E.2 Statistical Summary of Significant Differences in Water Quality Between Stations........................................................................E-4 E.3 Summary of Habitat Parameters in the LNS WAA...................E-10 E.4 ODF &W Benchmarks of Stream Habitat Parameters for “Desirable” and “Undesirable” Conditions...............................E-12 F. Human Resource Components...................................................F-1 F.1 Summary of Recorded Cultural Sites in the LNS WAA............F-1 F.2 Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS)..................................F-10 G. LNS WAA Bibliography and Resources...................................G-1 H. GIS Maps ii Figure 1. Federal Land Use Allocation..........................................................................Ch.1-5 Figure 2. Land Use Allocations (federal lands - Riparian Reserves acres included in each allocation).......................................................................................................Ch.1-7 Figure 3. Ownership Percentages in the LNS Watershed..............................................Ch.2-6 Figure 4. Comparison of Mean Fire Rotation Intervals by Elevation............................Ch.4-6 Figure 5. Comparison of Mean Fire Rotation Intervals by Aspect................................Ch.4-7 Figure 6. Plant Association Series..................................................................................Ch.5-5 Figure 7. Seral Stage for Federal Ownership.................................................................Ch.5-7 Figure 8. Seral Stage for Other Ownerships...................................................................Ch.5-7 Figure 9. Seral Stage for All Lands................................................................................Ch.5-8 Figure 10. River Profile in Feet Above Sea Level.........................................................Ch.5-27 Figure 11. Stream Density by Sub-Watershed...............................................................Ch.5-28 Figure 12. Precipitation and Discharge..........................................................................Ch.5-29 Figure 13. Exceedance and Non-Exceedance Flows......................................................Ch.5-30 Figure 14. Residual Mass Curves...................................................................................Ch.5-31 Figure 15. Sum of Runoff to Precipitation.....................................................................Ch.5-32 Figure 16. 1961 Little North Santiam Stream Hydrograph............................................Ch.5-33 Figure 17. 1995 Little North Santiam Stream Hydrograph............................................Ch.5-33 Figure 18. 1995 Seven-Day Maximum Average Water Temperature............................Ch.5-38 Figure 19. 1996 Seven-Day Maximum Average Water Temperature............................Ch.5-38 Figure 20. Equivalent Clearcut Acres (in percentage)...................................................Ch.5-43 Figure 21. Water Available for Runoff..........................................................................Ch.5-44 Figure 22. Percent Older Forests in Eastern and Western LNS.......................................Ch.6-4 Figure 23. Percent Older Forests in Western LNS by Sub-Watershed Basins.................Ch.6-5 Figure 24. Estimated Future Equivalent Clearcut Acres, Western Sub-Watersheds......Ch.6-11 Figure 25. Eastern
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Oregon Historic Trails Report Book (1998)
    i ,' o () (\ ô OnBcox HrsroRrc Tnans Rpponr ô o o o. o o o o (--) -,J arJ-- ö o {" , ã. |¡ t I o t o I I r- L L L L L (- Presented by the Oregon Trails Coordinating Council L , May,I998 U (- Compiled by Karen Bassett, Jim Renner, and Joyce White. Copyright @ 1998 Oregon Trails Coordinating Council Salem, Oregon All rights reserved. No part of this document may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. Printed in the United States of America. Oregon Historic Trails Report Table of Contents Executive summary 1 Project history 3 Introduction to Oregon's Historic Trails 7 Oregon's National Historic Trails 11 Lewis and Clark National Historic Trail I3 Oregon National Historic Trail. 27 Applegate National Historic Trail .41 Nez Perce National Historic Trail .63 Oregon's Historic Trails 75 Klamath Trail, 19th Century 17 Jedediah Smith Route, 1828 81 Nathaniel Wyeth Route, t83211834 99 Benjamin Bonneville Route, 1 833/1 834 .. 115 Ewing Young Route, 1834/1837 .. t29 V/hitman Mission Route, 184l-1847 . .. t4t Upper Columbia River Route, 1841-1851 .. 167 John Fremont Route, 1843 .. 183 Meek Cutoff, 1845 .. 199 Cutoff to the Barlow Road, 1848-1884 217 Free Emigrant Road, 1853 225 Santiam Wagon Road, 1865-1939 233 General recommendations . 241 Product development guidelines 243 Acknowledgements 241 Lewis & Clark OREGON National Historic Trail, 1804-1806 I I t . .....¡.. ,r la RivaÌ ï L (t ¡ ...--."f Pðiräldton r,i " 'f Route description I (_-- tt |".
    [Show full text]
  • Timing of In-Water Work to Protect Fish and Wildlife Resources
    OREGON GUIDELINES FOR TIMING OF IN-WATER WORK TO PROTECT FISH AND WILDLIFE RESOURCES June, 2008 Purpose of Guidelines - The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, (ODFW), “The guidelines are to assist under its authority to manage Oregon’s fish and wildlife resources has updated the following guidelines for timing of in-water work. The guidelines are to assist the the public in minimizing public in minimizing potential impacts to important fish, wildlife and habitat potential impacts...”. resources. Developing the Guidelines - The guidelines are based on ODFW district fish “The guidelines are based biologists’ recommendations. Primary considerations were given to important fish species including anadromous and other game fish and threatened, endangered, or on ODFW district fish sensitive species (coded list of species included in the guidelines). Time periods were biologists’ established to avoid the vulnerable life stages of these fish including migration, recommendations”. spawning and rearing. The preferred work period applies to the listed streams, unlisted upstream tributaries, and associated reservoirs and lakes. Using the Guidelines - These guidelines provide the public a way of planning in-water “These guidelines provide work during periods of time that would have the least impact on important fish, wildlife, and habitat resources. ODFW will use the guidelines as a basis for the public a way of planning commenting on planning and regulatory processes. There are some circumstances where in-water work during it may be appropriate to perform in-water work outside of the preferred work period periods of time that would indicated in the guidelines. ODFW, on a project by project basis, may consider variations in climate, location, and category of work that would allow more specific have the least impact on in-water work timing recommendations.
    [Show full text]
  • Bıoenu V( Land Management in U›E5v›I
    'Me Wíldemefif Eevíew P›v5›Aın v( tfie Bıoenu v( Land Management in U›e5v›ı _ " ;.` › › __. V L i_ „_ 4 ;' ~ gp ""! ¬~ «nvıvq f 1 -4-" _ ._ , 4_&,;¬__§?~~..„ V ıdı; "^. \-*_ ~¬¬ Q 1.z,“-_ ,._§,.';;.è,;;¶±„»_§ ' 1 4. _ _ı-?L_V wı -_ _` ' “T `;",~=:.f~ "_ ';1f“-=".f=«'í~.'›._ 2* T e \ ' "§11 ` `~. xx« (Part Une) Array Kerr ~OSPlR(5 lrwfr March 19/8 THE WILDERNESS REVIEW PROGRAM OF THE BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT IN OREGON PART I Andy Kerr OSPIRG Intern March, 1978 This study is dedicated to those Bureau of Land Management personnel who know what is right for the land and are doing their best to see that it is done by the Bureau. They work under difficult circurs'ances. But with them on the inside and us on the outside, changes are being made, Someday they may all come out of the rloset victorious. Copyright l978 by Oregon Student Public Interest Research Group. Individuals may reproduce or quote portions of this handbook For academic or cítizen action uses, but reproduction for commercial purposes is stríctly prohihíted. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I must thank several persons who knowingly, and unknowingly, aided in this study. l'm sure that l'm forgetting some. First the BLM agency people: Ken white and Don Geary (Oregon State Office); Warren Edinger, Ron Rothschadl, and Bob Carothers (Medford District); and Dale Skeesick, Bill Power, Larry Scofield, Jerry Mclntire, Warren Tausch, John Rodosta, Scott Abdon. Jenna Gaston, Karl Bambe, and Paul Kuhns (Salem District). Bob Burkholder (U_S, Fish and Wildlife Service) was most helpful with the Oregon Islands Study.
    [Show full text]
  • Senate Bill 1014 Sponsored by COMMITTEE on RULES (At the Request of Coalition for Oregon River Rights)
    73rd OREGON LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY--2005 Regular Session Senate Bill 1014 Sponsored by COMMITTEE ON RULES (at the request of Coalition for Oregon River Rights) SUMMARY The following summary is not prepared by the sponsors of the measure and is not a part of the body thereof subject to consideration by the Legislative Assembly. It is an editor′s brief statement of the essential features of the measure as introduced. Establishes public right to use certain water bodies up to ordinary high water line for certain recreational purposes. Specifies limits of public right. Provides that title to land lying between or- dinary high water line is unaffected. Provides that landowner is not liable for damage to natural resources caused by public use of water body. Directs State Marine Board to develop management plan governing recreational use of water bodies. Allows modification of plan. Directs State Marine Director to establish Floatable Water Bodies Advisory Committee. Speci- fies duties. Establishes program for issuance of recreational use registrations. Directs use of registration fees by board. Specifies that portion of fees be allocated to counties for law enforcement. Punishes violation of management plan or violation of public right by fine of up to $180. 1 A BILL FOR AN ACT 2 Relating to floatable water bodies; creating new provisions; amending ORS 105.672, 830.140 and 3 830.150; and appropriating money. 4 Be It Enacted by the People of the State of Oregon: 5 SECTION 1. Sections 2 to 9 of this 2005 Act are added to and made a part of ORS chapter 6 830.
    [Show full text]
  • Corridor Plan
    HOOD RIVER MT HOOD (OR HIGHWAY 35) Corridor Plan Oregon Department of Transportation DOR An Element of the HOOD RIVER-MT. HOOD (OR 35) CORRIDOR PLAN Oregon Department of Transportahon Prepared by: ODOT Region I David Evans and Associates,Inc. Cogan Owens Cogan October 1997 21 October, 1997 STAFF REPORT INTERIM CORRIDOR STRATEGY HOOD RIVER-MT. HOOD (OR HWY 35) CORRIDOR PLAN (INCLUDING HWY 281 AND HWY 282) Proposed Action Endorsement of the Hood River-Mt. Hood (OR HWY 35) Corridor Strategy. The Qregon Bep ent of Transportation (ODOT) has been working wi& Tribal and local governments, transportation service providers, interest groups, statewide agencies and stakeholder committees, and the general public to develop a long-term plan for the Hood River-Mt. Hood (OR HWY 35) Corridor. The Hood River-Mt. Hood Corridor Plan is a long-range (20-year) program for managing all transportation modes within the Oregon Highway 35 corridor from the 1-84 junction to the US 26 junction (see Corridor Map). The first phase of that process has resulted in the attached Interim Com'dor Stvategy. The Interim Corridor Strategy is a critical element of the Hood River- Mt. Hood Corridor Plan. The Corridor Strategy will guide development of the Corridor Plan and Refinement Plans for specific areas and issues within the corridor. Simultaneous with preparation of the Corridor Plan, Transportation System Plans (TSPs) are being prepared for the cities of Hood River and Cascade Locks and for Hood River County. ODOT is contributing staff and financial resources to these efforts, both to ensure coordination between the TSPs and the Corridor Plan and to avoid duplication of efforts, e.g.
    [Show full text]
  • PUDDING RIVER BASIN Oregon State Game Commission Lands
    PUDDING RIVER BASIN I Oregon State Game Commission lands Division Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife Page 1 of 59 Master Plan Angler Access & Associated Recreational Uses - Pudding River Basin 1969 PUDDING RIVER BASIN M.aster Plan for Angler Access and Associated Recreational Uses By Oregon State Game Commission Lands Section April 1969 Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife Page 2 of 59 Master Plan Angler Access & Associated Recreational Uses - Pudding River Basin 1969 _,,.T A___ B L -E 0 F THE PLAN 1 VICINITY MAP 3 AREA I 4 AREA II 5 AREA III 31 APPENDIX - Pudding River Basin map Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife Page 3 of 59 Master Plan Angler Access & Associated Recreational Uses - Pudding River Basin 1969 PUDDING RIVER BASIN Master Plan for Angler Access and Associated Recreational Uses This report details a plan that we hope can be followed to solve the access problem of the Pudding River Basin. Too, we hope that all agencies that are interested in retaining existing water access as well as providing additional facilities, whether they be municipal, county, or state will all join in a cooperative effort to carry out this plan in an orderly manner. It is probable that Land and Water Conservation Funds will be available on a 50- 50 matching basis. In order to acquire these funds, it will be necessary to apply through the Oregon State Highway Department. The Pudding River Basin, located in the center of the Willamette Valley, is within close proximity to the large population centers of the Willamette Valley. Numerous highways and county roads either cross or follow the major streams within the basin making them quite accessible by vehicle.
    [Show full text]
  • Soil Survey of the Marion County Area, Oregon
    This is a scanned version of the text of the original Soil Survey report of Marion County Area, Oregon, issued September, 1972. Original tables and maps were deleted. There may be references in the text that refer to a table that is not in this document. Updated tables were generated from the NRCS National Soil Information System (NASIS). The soil map data has been digitized and may include some updated information. These are available from http://soildatamart.nrcs.usda.gov. Please contact the State Soil Scientist, Natural Resources Conservation Service (formerly Soil Conservation Service) for additional information. SOIL SURVEY OF THE MARION COUNTY AREA, OREGON BY LYNN H. WILLIAMS, SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE FIELDWORK BY LYNN H. WILLIAMS, PARTY LEADER, AND LEROY A. DEMOULIN, HAROLD R. MANLEY, CLARENCE KNEZEVICH, W. R. PATCHING, AND CLARENCE OLDS, SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE, IN COOPERATION WITH THE OREGON AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION THE MARION COUNTY AREA consists of 544,879 acres from the sale of fruits, berries, vegetables, and specialty in the western two-thirds of Marion County, Oregon (fig. 1) . crops, although wood products are also a major source of Elevations range from about 100 feet along the Willamette farm income. The eastern part of the survey area is used River to about 5,000 feet on the forested foot slopes of the mainly for producing timber. Cascade Mountains. Salem, the State capital, is in this area. In mapping the survey area, two intensities of. soil mapping Approximately 205,841 acres in the mountainous eastern part were used (fig.
    [Show full text]
  • Impact Report
    2019 Impact Report Natural springs, meadows and forested wetlands produce, filter, and store water for approximately 50% of communities in the western US that are dependent upon forested watersheds for water provision. Front Cover: The Scott River Headwaters property contains 40,000 acres of forests with the highest conifer diversity in the world, is a source of cold, clean water, and connects three wilderness areas to a rich agricultural valley below. EFM develops natural climate solutions that aim to generate positive environmental A Leading and social impacts, including carbon sequestration, habitat enhancement, and water quality protection while creating Impact investor value. EFM stewards over $200M of capital under management and advisement via commingled private funds and consulting Investment services. Investments are made through long-term fund vehicles that serve a diverse array of investors, including individuals, Manager family offices, foundations, and institutions. We specialize in blending public, private, and philanthropic capital in investment strategies that address multiple-stakeholder objectives and in managing investments for their full range of financial, ecological and social values. The Garibaldi forest is home to the first verified carbon project on private forestland in Oregon and Washington, which was developed by EFM in 2013 and expanded in 2019. These offsets are made possible by EFM’s management actions that extend rotations, expand reserves, retain trees in harvest units and protect important habitat. 1 Real
    [Show full text]
  • OR Wild -Backmatter V2
    208 OREGON WILD Afterword JIM CALLAHAN One final paragraph of advice: do not burn yourselves out. Be as I am — a reluctant enthusiast.... a part-time crusader, a half-hearted fanatic. Save the other half of your- selves and your lives for pleasure and adventure. It is not enough to fight for the land; it is even more important to enjoy it. While you can. While it is still here. So get out there and hunt and fish and mess around with your friends, ramble out yonder and explore the forests, climb the mountains, bag the peaks, run the rivers, breathe deep of that yet sweet and lucid air, sit quietly for awhile and contemplate the precious still- ness, the lovely mysterious and awesome space. Enjoy yourselves, keep your brain in your head and your head firmly attached to the body, the body active and alive and I promise you this much: I promise you this one sweet victory over our enemies, over those desk-bound men with their hearts in a safe-deposit box and their eyes hypnotized by desk calculators. I promise you this: you will outlive the bastards. —Edward Abbey1 Edward Abbey. Ed, take it from another Ed, not only can wilderness lovers outlive wilderness opponents, we can also defeat them. The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men (sic) UNIVERSITY, SHREVEPORT UNIVERSITY, to do nothing. MES SMITH NOEL COLLECTION, NOEL SMITH MES NOEL COLLECTION, MEMORIAL LIBRARY, LOUISIANA STATE LOUISIANA LIBRARY, MEMORIAL —Edmund Burke2 JA Edmund Burke. 1 Van matre, Steve and Bill Weiler.
    [Show full text]
  • Or Wilderness-Like Areas, but Instead Declassified Previously Protected Wildlands with High Timber Value
    48 OREGON WILD A Brief Political History of Oregon’s Wilderness Protections Government protection should be thrown around every wild grove and forest on the Although the Forest Service pioneered the concept of wilderness protection in the mountains, as it is around every private orchard, and trees in public parks. To say 1920s and 1930s, by the late 1940s and 1950s, it was methodically undoing whatever nothing of their values as fountains of timber, they are worth infinitely more than all good it had done earlier by declassifying administrative wilderness areas that contained the gardens and parks of town. any commercial timber. —John Muir1 Just prior to the end of its second term, and after receiving over a million public comments in support of protecting national forest roadless areas, the Clinton Administration promulgated a regulation (a.k.a. “the Roadless Rule”) to protect the Inadequacies of Administrative remaining unprotected wildlands (greater than 5,000 acres in size) in the National Forest System from road building and logging. At the time, Clinton’s Forest Service Protections chief Mike Dombeck asked rhetorically: here is “government protection,” and then there is government protection. Mere public ownership — especially if managed by the Bureau of Is it worth one-quarter of 1 percent of our nation’s timber supply or a fraction of a Land Management — affords land little real or permanent protection. fraction of our oil and gas to protect 58.5 million acres of wild and unfragmented land T National forests enjoy somewhat more protection than BLM lands, but in perpetuity?2 to fully protect, conserve and restore federal forests often requires a combination of Wilderness designation and additional appropriate congressional Dombeck’s remarks echoed those of a Forest Service scientist from an earlier era.
    [Show full text]
  • Molalla River-Table Rock Recreation Area Management Plan and Decision Record
    Molalla River-Table Rock Recreation Area Management Plan and Decision Record Environmental Assessment Number: DOI-BLM-OR-S040-2010-0003-EA July 2011 United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management, Salem District Clackamas County, Oregon T6S-R3E, T7S-R3E, T7S-R4E, T7S R5E, Willamette Meridian Clackamas County, Oregon Responsible Agency: USDI - Bureau of Land Management Responsible Official: Cindy Enstrom, Field Manager Cascades Resource Area 1717 Fabry Road SE Salem, OR 97306 (503) 315-5969 For further information, contact: Zachary Jarrett, Project Lead Cascades Resource Area 1717 Fabry Road SE Salem, OR 97306 (503) 375-5610 As the Nation’s principal conservation agency, the Department of the Interior has responsibility for most of our nationally owned public lands and natural resources. This includes fostering wisest use of our land and water resources, protecting our fish and wildlife, preserving the environmental and cultural values of our national parks and historical places and providing for the enjoyment of life through outdoor recreation. The Department assesses our energy and mineral resources and works to assure that their development is in the best interest of all our people. The Department also has a major responsibility for American Indian reservation communities and for people who live in Island Territories under U.S. administration. BLM/OR/WA/AE-11/021+1792 Molalla River-Table Rock Recreation Area Management Plan and DR July 2011 2 Table of Contents Interdisciplinary Team of Preparers ...............................................................................................
    [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]