Wieder, W. R., and N. W. Bower. 2004. Fire History of the Aiken

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Wieder, W. R., and N. W. Bower. 2004. Fire History of the Aiken THE SOUTHWESTERN NATURALIST 49(2):239±298 JUNE 2004 NOTES FIRE HISTORY OF THE AIKEN CANYON GRASSLAND-WOODLAND ECOTONE IN THE SOUTHERN FOOTHILLS OF THE COLORADO FRONT RANGE WILLIAM R. WIEDER AND NATHAN W. BOWER* Environmental Science Program, Colorado College, 14 East Cache La Poudre, Colorado Springs, CO 80903 *Correspondent: [email protected] ABSTRACT A ®re history for the Aiken Canyon Nature Conservancy preserve in Colorado is presented. Eighteen cross-sections cut from ponderosa pine recorded 20 ®re events for the period spanning 1602 to 1999. An unusually small median ®re interval (MFI) of 7.5 years was obtained for the period 1753 to 1935. A signi®cant association was found between El Nino weather patterns and the ®res at Aiken Canyon. A shorter MFI was observed in the grasslands, which are at lower elevations. Fires from railroads or cattle ranching might have caused the shorter MFI in the grass- lands between 1872 and 1935. After 1935, ®re suppression became common. RESUMEN Se presenta la historia de fuegos en la reserva de la Aiken Canyon Nature Conser- vancy en Colorado. Dieciocho secciones cortadas de Pinus ponderosa registraron 20 acontecimien- tos de fuego en el perõÂodo de 1602 a 1999. Un medio excepcionalmente pequenÄo del intervalo de fuego (MIF) de 7.5 anÄos se obtuvo por el perõÂodo de 1753 a 1935. Se encontro una asociacioÂn signi®cativa entre patrones de tiempo de El NinÄo y fuegos en el Aiken Canyon. Un MIF maÂs corto se observo en los prados que estaÂn en elevaciones maÂs bajas. Fuegos de los ferrocarriles o de ranchos de ganado pudieron haber causado el MIF corto en los prados entre 1872 y 1935. DespueÂs de 1935, la supresioÂn del fuego llego a ser comuÂn. The Nature Conservancy dedicated the Aik- Numerous ®re histories have been created en Canyon Preserve in 1994 and soon became using ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa) ®re concerned about the loss of grassland to wood- scars in Arizona and New Mexico (Swetnam land within this ecotone. Disturbances such as and Dieterich, 1985; Baisan and Swetnam, ®re alter landscapes, encouraging species di- 1990; Danzer et al., 1996; Fuli et al., 1997) and versity and spatial heterogeneity. Baker (1992) in northern and central Colorado (Laven et recommended managing nature preserves al., 1980; Brown et al., 1999; Veblen et al., based on landscape-scale processes rather than 2000; Donnegan et al., 2001). The nearest for individual species or particular communi- comparable sites to our study area are those of ties, noting that ecotones are worth preserving Brown and Shepperd (2001): Wet Mountain in their own right. The Nature Conservancy site, 90 km southwest (elevation 2,680 m), with considered controlled burns as a restoration 10 trees; and Manitou Demonstration Plot, 50 method at Aiken Canyon, but such manage- km north (2,400 m), with 26 trees. They ob- ment requires knowledge of past ®re distur- served median ®re-free intervals of 10 and 7.5 bance patterns in terms of their timing, sever- years covering periods from 1514 to 1908 and ity, and spatial distribution. Consequently, we 1521 to 1865, respectively. Only a few pub- conducted this study during the summer of lished ®re histories have examined the margins 1999 to examine the historic and climatic fac- of the Great Plains (Brown and Sieg, 1999), tors in¯uencing the grassland-woodland ®res but none exist for the grassland-woodland eco- at Aiken Canyon and to support management tone along the southeast-facing slopes of the decisions. Front Range of Colorado. 240 The Southwestern Naturalist vol. 49, no. 2 FIG.1 Map of The Nature Conservancy Aiken Canyon Preserve, Colorado (625 ha). Fire-scarred tree samples are indicated by dots. Ecotones composed of intermingled grass- The historical context should also be re- lands and pinÄon-juniper woodlands (Pinus ed- ported when developing ®re histories. In 1842, ulis and Juniperus monosperma), as at Aiken Can- the city of Pueblo, Colorado was founded and yon, will have scarred trees, but dif®culties in mail service along the Front Range was initi- dating pinÄon and juniper render these ®re-his- ated. Railroads reached the area in 1872, and tory studies unreliable. Instead, researchers fa- rangeland was sometimes burned to improve vor working with nearby ponderosa pine fodder for cattle (Chapman, 1924). Unlike stands, extrapolating onto adjacent plant com- much of Colorado, Aiken Canyon was never munities (Kaib et al., 1996; Brown and Sieg, logged (Colorado Natural Areas Program, 1999). 2002). Fire suppression became a policy of the Several studies exist connecting ®re frequen- Forest Service by 1910, but enforcement would cy to variations in climate at the seasonal, an- have been impractical until a Conservation nual, and decadal level for New Mexico and Corps was formed nearby in 1935 (Colorado Colorado (Swetnam and Betancourt, 1990; State Archives, 2002). Diaz and Markgraf, 1992; Swetnam and Betan- Aiken Canyon is 20 km southwest of Colo- court, 1998; Grissino-Mayer and Swetnam, rado Springs (388389N, 1048539W) on the east- 2000; Donnegan et al., 2001). For Aiken Can- ern slope of the Rampart Range, a smaller yon, such connections are of special interest range within the foothills of the Front Range because it lies on the edge of an area where (Fig. 1). Higher elevations to the west (Ram- Cole and Cook (1998) found strong correla- part Range) and north (Monument Hill/Palm- tions between El NinÄo southern oscillations er Divide) of Aiken Canyon create a barrier and local drought area indices. that supports a grassland-woodland ecotone. June 2004 Notes 241 FIG.2 Fire chronology for Aiken Canyon Preserve, Colorado, with tree sample numbers corresponding to those shown in Fig. 1. The northern limit of candelabra cactus gram FHX2 for data reduction (Grissino-May- (Opuntia imbricata) and the eastern limit of er, 2001). blue spruce (Picea pungens) are located here. The complete dendrochronology extends From 36 to 51 cm of precipitation are received from 1602 to 1999, and the results of the data over the 2,100 to 2,500 m elevation range at reduction are summarized in Fig. 2. For the this site (United States Department of Agricul- period 1753 to 1935, when at least 4 ®re- ture, 1981). The variation in precipitation, scarred trees were present, there was a median soils, and drainage creates a mosaic of tallgrass ®re interval of 7.50 years and a Weibull median and midgrass species (e.g., Andropogon gerardii 50% probability interval (WMPI) of 9.53 years, and Bouteloua gracilis), pinÄon-juniper wood- with a range of intervals from 2 to 37 years. land, and deciduous shrubland (e.g., Quercus These intervals are at the low end of the results gambelii). These grade into coniferous forest reported by Brown and Shepperd (2001). They (Abies concolor, Pinus ponderosa, and Pseudotsuga are also low compared to most of the sites of menziesii) growing above 2,200 m, where soils Donnegan et al. (2001), although their lowest are more acidic compared to the calcic sedi- elevation site (1,996 m) with 12 trees had a mentary soils of the grasslands. WMPI of 5 years for the period 1781 to 1920. Eighteen samples (all cross-sections or wedg- The 65 injuries and scars recorded corre- es, no cores) were collected and cross-dated vi- sponded to at least 20 ®res, with 5 ®re years sually using skeleton plots (Stokes and Smiley, (1753, 1839, 1859, 1892, and 1933) scarring 3 1968) for all ®re-scarred ponderosa pines that or more trees spaced over multiple hectares. could be located along the grassland-woodland Overall, the ®re interval at Aiken Canyon was ecotone. Fire-scar dates were assigned after the relatively short compared to most sites in Col- dendrochronology was completed, and scar orado. Along the northern Front Range, Veb- dates were subsequently entered into the pro- len et al. (2000) found that widespread ®re was 242 The Southwestern Naturalist vol. 49, no. 2 more than twice as frequent in the zone below Wilderness, Arizona, USA. Canadian Journal of 2,015 m compared to above 2,440 m. In our Forest Research 20:1559±1569. study, grasslands (,2,140 m) had twice the ®re BROWN, P. M., M. R. KAUFMANN, AND W. D. SHEPPERD. frequency compared to the woodlands 1999. Long-term, landscape patterns of past ®re (.2,140 m) for the period 1872 to 1935 (Fig. events in a montane ponderosa pine forest of central Colorado. Landscape Ecology 14:513± 2). 532. There was an association (x 2 5 5.15, P 5 c BROWN,P.M.,AND W. D. SHEPPERD. 2001. Fire history 0.023) between the proxy index of El NinÄo and ®re climatology along a 58 gradient in lati- events (Quinn et al., 1987) and ®res at Aiken tude in Colorado and Wyoming, USA. Paleobot- Canyon occurring 1 to 2 years later for the pe- anist 50:133±140. riod 1753 to 1935. This association was mea- BROWN,P.M.,AND C. H. SIEG. 1999. Historical vari- sured using a 2 3 2 contingency table with con- ability in ®re at the ponderosa pine northern tinuity correction for the correlation of di- Great Plains prairie ecotone, southeastern Black chotomous nominal-scale data (Zar, 1996). By Hills, South Dakota. Ecoscience 6:539±547. using this nonparametric approach with El CHAPMAN, A. 1924. The story of Colorado, out where NinÄo events and ®res scored as being present the West begins. Rand McNally and Company, New York. or absent, assumptions about underlying dis- COLE,J.E.,AND E. R. COOK. 1998. The changing tributions are minimized. Including ordinal in- relationship between ENSO variability and mois- formation about the magnitude of the events ture balance in the continental United States.
Recommended publications
  • Colorado 1 (! 1 27 Y S.P
    # # # # # # # # # ######## # # ## # # # ## # # # # # 1 2 3 4 5 # 6 7 8 9 1011121314151617 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ) " 8 Muddy !a Ik ") 24 6 ") (!KÂ ) )¬ (! LARAMIE" KIMBALL GARDEN 1 ") I¸ 6 Medicine Bow !` Lodg Centennial 4 ep National Federal ole (! 9 Lake McConaughy CARBON Forest I§ Kimball 9 CHEYENNE 11 C 12 1 Potter CURT GOWDY reek Bushnell (! 11 ") 15 ") ") Riverside (! LARAMIE ! ") Ik ( ") (! ) " Colorado 1 8 (! 1 27 Y S.P. ") Pine !a 2 Ij Cree Medicine Bow 2 KÂ 6 .R. 3 12 2 7 9 ) Flaming Gorge R ") " National 34 .P. (! Burns Bluffs k U ") 10 5 National SWEETWATER Encampment (! 7 KEITH 40 Forest (! Red Buttes (! 4 Egbert ") 8 Sidney 10 Lodgepole Recreation Area 796 (! DEUEL ") ) " ") 2 ! 6 ") 3 ( Albany ") 9 2 A (! 6 9 ) River 27 6 Ik !a " 1 2 3 6 3 CHEYENNE ") Brule K ") on ") G 4 10 Big Springs Jct. 9 lli ") ) Ik " ") 3 Chappell 2 14 (! (! 17 4 ") Vermi S Woods Landing ") !a N (! Ik ) ! 8 15 8 " ") ) ( " !a # ALBANY 3 3 ^! 5 7 2 3 ") ( Big Springs ") ") (! 4 3 (! 11 6 2 ek ") 6 WYOMING MI Dixon Medicine Bow 4 Carpenter Barton ") (! (! 6 RA I« 10 ) Baggs Tie Siding " Cre Savery (! ! (! National ") ( 6 O 7 9 B (! 4 Forest 8 9 5 4 5 Flaming UTAH 2 5 15 9 A Dutch John Mountain ") Y I¸11 Gorge (! 4 NEBRASKA (! (! Powder K Res. ^ Home tonwo 2 ^ NE t o o ! C d ! ell h Little En (! WYOMING 3 W p ! 7 as S Tala Sh (! W Slater cam ^ ") Ovid 4 ! ! mant Snake River pm ^ ^ 3 ! es Cr (! ! ! ^ Li ! Gr Mi en ^ ^ ^ ttle eek 8 ! ^JULESBURG een Creek k Powder Wash ddle t ! Hereford (! ! 8 e NORTHGATE 4 ( Peetz ! ! Willo ork K R Virginia Jumbo Lake Sedgwick ! ! # T( ") Cre F ing (! 1 ek Y 7 RA ^ Cre CANYON ek Lara (! Dale B I§ w Big Creek o k F e 2 9 8 Cre 9 Cr x DAGGETT o Fo m Lakes e 7 C T(R B r NATURE TRAIL ") A ee u So k i e e lde d 7 r lomon e k a I« 1 0 Cr mil h k k r 17 t r r 293 PERKINS River Creek u e 9 River Pawnee v 1 e o e ") Carr ree r Rockport Stuc Poud 49 7 r® Dry S Ri C National 22 SENTINAL La HAMILTON RESERVOIR/ (! (! k 6 NE e A Gr e Halligan Res.
    [Show full text]
  • Pikes Peak Massif
    Wild Connections Conservation Plan for the Pike & San Isabel National Forests Chapter 5 – Complexes: Area-Specific Management Recommendations This section contains our detailed, area-specific proposal utilizing the theme based approach to land management. As an organizational tool, this proposal divides the Pike-San Isabel National Forest into eleven separate Complexes, based on geo-physical characteristics of the land such as mountain ranges, parklands, or canyon systems. Each complex narrative provides details and justifications for our management recommendations for specific areas. In order to emphasize the larger landscape and connectivity of these lands with the ecoregion, commentary on relationships to adjacent non-Forest lands are also included. Evaluations of ecological value across public and private lands are used throughout this chapter. The Colorado Natural Heritage Programs rates the biodiversity of Potential Conservation Areas (PCAs) as General Biodiversity, Moderate, High, Very High, and Outranking Significance. The Nature Conservancy assesses the conservation value of its Conservation Blueprint areas as Low, Moderately Low, Moderate, Moderately High and High. The Southern Rockies Ecosystem Project's Wildlands Network Vision recommends land use designations of Core Wilderness, Core Agency, Low and Moderate Compatible Use, and Wildlife Linkages. Detailed explanations are available from the respective organizations. Complexes – Summary List by Watershed Table 5.1: Summary of WCCP Complexes Watershed Complex Ranger District
    [Show full text]
  • Community Wildfire Protection Plan for Unincorporated El Paso County
    Community Wildfire Protection Plan i for Unincorporated El Paso County Community Wildfire Protection Plan for Unincorporated El Paso County “A Continuing Process” El Paso County Sheriff’s Office Emergency Services Division 101 West Costilla Street, Colorado Springs, CO 80903 ii Community Wildfire Protection Plan for Unincorporated El Paso County Contents Acknowledgements........................................................................................................ i Supporting agencies...................................................................................................... ii Fire Departments............................................................................................................................................ ii Forestry and Natural Resources..................................................................................................................... iii Emergency Management............................................................................................................................... iii Land Use and Planning.................................................................................................................................. iii Utilities.......................................................................................................................................................... iii Local Community Wildfire Protection Plans in Unincorporated El Paso County.......................................................................... iv Introduction ................................................................................................................1
    [Show full text]
  • COLORADO Year in Review 2020 IENDS, R F Sincerely, DEAR How Pandemic Has Shown by a Ned Defi a Year Expected
    COLORADO Year in Review 2020 The Nature Conservancy in Colorado BOARD OF TRUSTEES Chair: Stuart Brown Vice Chair: Carol Burt Treasurer: Annette Quintana Bruce Alexander Janelle Blessing Sharon K. Collinge Warren H. Dean Bruce Dines DEAR FRIENDS, Elaine Feeney Ken Gart What a year! I think it’s safe to say that this was not the 2020 anyone expected. A year defi ned by a pandemic has shown how Shannon Gi ord much we rely on science, nature and the outdoors. Urban parks, backyards, local trails, and neighborhood walks provided refuge Terry Hu ngton and an escape during lockdown. Meanwhile, record wildfi res, drought and shocking new science on the world’s biodiversity loss Richard Jorgensen further highlighted the urgency for us to act on climate and conserve nature. Kristin McKissick Art Reimers Despite these diffi cult times, there are still plenty of reasons to feel hopeful. I fi nd hope in our work to help nature and people Greeley Sachs adapt to change, and in the evolving “new normal” in the ways we live, travel, and interact. I fi nd hope in the increasing awareness Cynthia Scott of climate change and the connections between the environment and racial injustice, and the new pressure and enthusiasm we Susan Sturm 2 are seeing—especially from young people—to address these injustices. And I always fi nd hope in watching my daughter explore Suzanne White and learn through all these changes, and seeing her relentless optimism and adaptability carry her through just about anything. Joseph Zell COLORADO YEAR IN REVIEW 2020 COLORADO Here at The Nature Conservancy in Colorado, I also fi nd hope in our passionate and committed team.
    [Show full text]
  • Water and Growth in Colorado: a Review of Legal and Policy Issues
    University of Colorado Law School Colorado Law Scholarly Commons Getches-Wilkinson Center for Natural Books, Reports, and Studies Resources, Energy, and the Environment 2001 Water and Growth in Colorado: A Review of Legal and Policy Issues Peter D. Nichols Megan K. Murphy Douglas S. Kenney University of Colorado Boulder. Natural Resources Law Center Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.law.colorado.edu/books_reports_studies Part of the Public Policy Commons, Water Law Commons, and the Water Resource Management Commons Citation Information Peter D. Nichols, Megan K. Murphy & Douglas S. Kenney, Water and Growth in Colorado: A Review of Legal and Policy Issues (Natural Res. Law Ctr., Univ. of Colo. Sch. of Law 2001). PETER D. NICHOLS, MEGAN K. MURPHY & DOUGLAS S. KENNEY, WATER AND GROWTH IN COLORADO: A REVIEW OF LEGAL AND POLICY ISSUES (Natural Res. Law Ctr., Univ. of Colo. Sch. of Law 2001). Reproduced with permission of the Getches-Wilkinson Center for Natural Resources, Energy, and the Environment (formerly the Natural Resources Law Center) at the University of Colorado Law School. WATER AND GROWTH IN COLORADO A REVIEW OF LEGAL AND POLICY ISSUES by Peter D. Nichols, Megan K. Murphy, and Douglas S. Kenney Natural Resources Law Center University of Colorado School of Law © Natural Resources Law Center, University of Colorado School of Law, 2001 The mission of the Natural Resources Law Center is to “promote sustainability in the rapidly changing American West by informing and influencing natural resource laws, policies, and decisions.” Peter D. Nichols, J.D. Megan K. Murphy, J.D. Douglas S. Kenney, Ph.D.
    [Show full text]
  • Preserve America Grants Summary and Project Descriptions
    PRESERVE AMERICA GRANTS SUMMARY AND PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS Note: Though these grants remain authorized, the Congress has not appropriated funding for them since FY 2010. The Preserve America competitive matching-grant program provides funding to designated Preserve America Communities, State Historic Preservation Offices, and Tribal Historic Preservation Offices to support preservation efforts through heritage tourism, education, and historic preservation planning. Administered by the National Park Service in partnership with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, funded activities include interpretation and education, planning, promotion, training, and research and documentation of cultural and historic resources. Projects are funded between a range of $20,000 and $250,000. Successful projects involve public- private partnerships and require a 50/50 non-federal match. Innovative projects serve as models to communities nationwide for heritage tourism, historic preservation planning, history education, and economic development. From 2006 through 2010: $21.7 million was awarded through 8 competitive rounds to 281 projects in 49 states 721 project proposals were received requesting over $56.5 million Projects were funded in five categories: O Interpretation and Education – 84 projects O Promotion – 77 projects O Planning – 53 projects O Research and Documentation – 53 projects O Training – 14 projects www.PreserveAmerica.gov www.PreserveAmerica.gov ALABAMA Ensley Historic Building Survey and National Register Nomination Birmingham, Alabama $25,000 Tuxedo Junction and Ensley were the birthplace and training ground for many of Alabama’s Jazz, Soul, and R&B legends. This grant will support research that will lead to the nomination of Ensley’s Commercial District and Tuxedo Junction to the National Register of Historic Places, an architectural guide to Ensley’s commercial district, the publication of a history of the cultural and industrial communities of Ensley and Tuxedo Junction, and the establishment of these areas as destination points.
    [Show full text]
  • Aikorns KAUAI
    May / Summer 2018 Volume 14 / Issue 5 A MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT “THE FINAL MESSAGE” s I sat down to write my final President’s Amessage, I thought about my many earlier compositions. I thank Leslie for her patience and understanding; I knew each deadline date and I aikorns imagine I missed almost all of them. AIKEN AUDUBON SOCIETY Aiken Audubon is an active group of bird- ers. Through our programs we have birded the Arctic, Colorado, Papua New Guinea, Brazil, Australia, Costa Rica, Namibia, Botswana and THE ISLANDS OF ALOHA— Hawaii—to name just a few. We have cruised the Caribbean, learned quite a bit about the diminu- tive Flammulated Owl and how to identify raptors, sparrows and gulls. We have hiked and birded all KAUAI over El Paso County looking for that “First of Year” bird, an unusual spring migrant, or a new “lifer.” If Story & photos by Mel Goff you want to see the next first-of-Colorado bird, just ...continued on page 2 auai (the Garden Isle) is the true gem of Hawaii. It lives up to its name with a Ktropical feel, botanical gardens, stunning scenery, and great birding. Kayaking, Coming programs zip lines, golf, diving/snorkeling, gorgeous beaches and great restaurants add up to MAY 16 a top vacation destination. Add over 150 species of birds to the mix and you get a One Finch, Two Finch: A short history of counting real bucket list entry. birds in the United States I have saved our favorite island for the last stop on this four-part tour of our fiftiest Clark Jones state.
    [Show full text]
  • Denver & Rio Grande Western Railroad San Juan Extension
    NATIONAL HISTORIC LANDMARK NOMINATION NPS Form 10-900 USDI/NPS NRHP Registration Form (Rev. 8-86) OMB No. 1024-0018 DENVER & RIO GRANDE RAILROAD SAN JUAN EXTENSION Page 1 United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service National Register of Historic Places Registration Form 1. NAME OF PROPERTY Historic Name: Denver & Rio Grande Railroad San Juan Extension Other Name/Site Number: Cumbres & Toltec Scenic Railroad; 5AA664; 5CN65 2. LOCATION Street & Number: Railway corridor from Antonito, CO to Chama, N.M. via Cumbres Pass Not for publication: City/Town: Antonito Vicinity: State: Colorado County: Conejos Code: 021 Zip Code: 81120 City/Town: Chromo Vicinity: X State: Colorado County: Archuleta Code: 007 Zip Code: 81128 City/Town: Chama Vicinity: State: New Mexico County: Rio Arriba Code: 039 Zip Code: 87520 3. CLASSIFICATION Ownership of Property Category of Property Private: Building(s): ___ Public-Local: District: _X_ Public-State: X Site: ___ Public-Federal: Structure: ___ Object: ___ Number of Resources within Property Contributing Noncontributing 21 5 buildings 0 0 sites 144 110 structures 1 0 objects 166 115 Total Number of Contributing Resources Previously Listed in the National Register: 240 contributing Name of Related Multiple Property Listing: Railroads in Colorado 1858-1948 NPS Form 10-900 USDI/NPS NRHP Registration Form ((Rev. 8-86) OMB No. 1024-0018 DENVER & RIO GRANDE RAILROAD SAN JUAN EXTENSION Page 2 United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service National Register of Historic Plaaces Registration Form 4. STATE/FEDERAL AGENCY CERTIFICATION As the designated authority under the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, I hereby certify that tthis ____ nomination ____ request for determination of eligibility meets the documentation standards for registering properties in the National Register of Historic Places and meets the procedural and professional requirements set forth in 36 CFR Part 60.
    [Show full text]
  • WCCP Complete Document
    Wild Connections Conservation Plan for the Pike & San Isabel National Forests WILD CONNECTIONS CONSERVATION PLAN For Protecting Biological Diversity and Ecosystem Health in the Pike and San Isabel National Forests Submitted as an option for the Pike and San Isabel National Forests Plan Revision June 2006 Authored by: The Upper Arkansas and South Platte Project June, 2006 Wild Connections Conservation Plan for the Pike & San Isabel National Forests All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system without permission in writing from the publisher. © Upper Arkansas and South Platte Project, 2006 The following people have generously provided photographs: Cover: Hiking in Browns Canyon Wilderness Study Area, Kurt Kunkle (Colorado Environmental Coalition); elk calf and mountain lion, Dave Jones. Executive summary: Dave Jones, Jean C. Smith, John Stansfield and Darel Hess ( © Hess – www.2bnTheWild.com). Complex title pages: Badger Creek roadless area, Deb Callahan; Salt Creek and Pikes Peak West roadless areas, Jean C. Smith; Square Top roadless area, Mike Foster; Limbaugh Canyon, Blanca Peak and Thirtynine Mile roadless areas, Michael Dwyer; Collegiate Peaks Wilderness, Michael Rogers; Sheeprock and Northrup Gulch roadless areas, Mike Kienast; Purgatoire roadless area, Trey Beck; Highline roadless area, Stephanie Hitzthaler. Southern Rockies Wildlands Network Vision map courtesy of the Southern Rockies Ecosystem Project; Southern Rocky Mountain Ecoregional Assessment map courtesy of The Nature Conservancy. 35% post consumer waste June, 2006 Wild Connections Conservation Plan for the Pike & San Isabel National Forests i.
    [Show full text]
  • Environmental Assessment
    ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT INTERAGENCY LAND EXCHANGE Between the U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT And the COLORADO STATE BOARD OF LAND COMMISSIONERS Fremont, Saguache, Conejos, and Alamosa Counties, Colorado Number CO-500-08-0008-EA To support CONSOLIDATION OF LANDS within GREAT SAND DUNES NATIONAL PARK AND PRESERVE and within THE BACA NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE July 2009 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT INTERAGENCY LAND EXCHANGE Between the U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT And the COLORADO STATE BOARD OF LAND COMMISSIONERS Fremont, Saguache, Conejos, and Alamosa Counties, Colorado Number CO-500-08-0008-EA To support CONSOLIDATION OF LANDS within GREAT SAND DUNES NATIONAL PARK AND PRESERVE and within THE BACA NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE Prepared for Bureau of Land Management Colorado State Office Branch of Lands and Realty 2850 Youngfield Street Lakewood, CO 80215 With Contributions by Colorado State Board of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Park Service Land Commissioners Interagency Land Exchange Environmental Assessment EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A land exchange between the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the Colorado State Board of Land Commissioners (State Land Board [SLB]) is evaluated in this environmental assessment (EA) under the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended. Involved in the proposed exchange are 28 parcels of Federal land in Fremont, Saguache, and Conejos counties in south-central Colorado, and 20 parcels of state land in Alamosa and Saguache counties in the San Luis Valley. This land exchange supports the provisions of the Great Sand Dunes National Park and Preserve Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-530 or PPA-2000).
    [Show full text]
  • Environmental Assessment
    ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT INTERAGENCY LAND EXCHANGE Between the U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT And the COLORADO STATE BOARD OF LAND COMMISSIONERS Fremont, Saguache, Conejos, and Alamosa Counties, Colorado Number CO-500-08-0008-EA To support CONSOLIDATION OF LANDS within GREAT SAND DUNES NATIONAL PARK AND PRESERVE and within THE BACA NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE July 2009 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT INTERAGENCY LAND EXCHANGE Between the U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT And the COLORADO STATE BOARD OF LAND COMMISSIONERS Fremont, Saguache, Conejos, and Alamosa Counties, Colorado Number CO-500-08-0008-EA To support CONSOLIDATION OF LANDS within GREAT SAND DUNES NATIONAL PARK AND PRESERVE and within THE BACA NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE Prepared for Bureau of Land Management Colorado State Office Branch of Lands and Realty 2850 Youngfield Street Lakewood, CO 80215 With Contributions by Colorado State Board of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Park Service Land Commissioners Interagency Land Exchange Environmental Assessment EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A land exchange between the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the Colorado State Board of Land Commissioners (State Land Board [SLB]) is evaluated in this environmental assessment (EA) under the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended. Involved in the proposed exchange are 28 parcels of Federal land in Fremont, Saguache, and Conejos counties in south-central Colorado, and 20 parcels of state land in Alamosa and Saguache counties in the San Luis Valley. This land exchange supports the provisions of the Great Sand Dunes National Park and Preserve Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-530 or PPA-2000).
    [Show full text]
  • The Field Press
    COLORADO PARKS & WILDLIFE Th e Field Press A PUBLICATION FROM THE COLORADO NATURAL AREAS PROGRAM VOLUME 17, ISSUE 1 March 2019 From the Desk of the Coordinator By Raquel Wertsbaugh, CNAP Coordinator This last year has been a productive one for CNAP. Our exceptional team of staff, contractors, Colorado Natural Areas Council members, and volunteer stewards once again outdid themselves! Staff and volunteers collectively made 95 monitoring visits to State Natural Areas last year, and revisited almost 100 element occurrences (i.e. locations of important natural features such as rare plants or wildlife). CNAP staff and contractors conducted quantitative monitoring and/or surveys on 9 rare plant species in 2018, almost all of which are federally listed, candidate, or petitioned species. Additionally, CNAP staff has been busy assisting the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service with numerous reviews such as Species Status Assessments for rare plants. Staff and Council members have been in the process of a comprehensive review and evaluation of our current Natural Areas System. With the help of the Council, CNAP staff have completed evaluations and rankings of all 95 designated natural areas and over 20 registered sites. We have conducted a system review and identified features that are not represented in our current system of registered and designated natural areas. We have decided to first focus on an area of the state that is underrepresented on our map: the eastern plains. I am very excited about this new undertaking. We are already off to a great start by identifying potential new sites on the eastern plains that could be excellent additions to our Natural Areas System.
    [Show full text]