DOCSLIB.ORG

Final General Management Plan/ Environmental Impact Statement

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Final General Management Plan/ Environmental Impact Statement National Park Service Final General Management Plan/ U.S. Department of the Interior Environmental Impact Statement Crater Lake National Park May 2005 Oregon Final General Management Plan / Environmental Impact Statement Crater Lake National Park Klamath, Jackson, and Douglas Counties, Oregon Crater Lake National Park was authorized by an act of Congress on May 22, 1902 (Public Law 32 Stat. 20). The last comprehensive management plan for the park was completed in 1977. Much has changed since 1977 — visitor use patterns and demographics have changed, there are new demands for various recreational experiences and activities, and 22,400 acres were added to the park. Each of these changes has implications for how visitors access and use the national park and the facilities needed to support those uses, how resources are managed, and how the National Park Service manages its operations. A new plan is needed. This document examines four alternatives for managing the national park for the next 15 to 20 years. It also analyzes the impacts of implementing each of the alternatives. The “no- action” alternative, alternative 1 describes the existing conditions and trends of park management and serves as a basis for comparison in evaluating the other alternatives. The emphasis of alternative 2 would be on increased opportunities in recreational diversity and resource education. Under alternative 3 visitors would experience a greater range of natural and cultural resources through recreational opportunities and education. The focus of alternative 4 would be on preservation and restoration of natural processes. Alternative 2 is the National Park Service’s preferred alternative. Impacts resulting from the no- action alternative would be negligible to minor on natural resources, park operations, and concession operations, with no adverse impact on most cultural resources. Under alternative 2 there would generally be moderate to major beneficial impacts. Impacts from alternative 3 would be generally beneficial. Alternative 4 would offer moderate beneficial impacts to natural and cultural resources, with a moderate, adverse impact on visitor use. For more information about this document, contact the Superintendent, Crater Lake National Park, P.O. Box 7, Hwy 62, Crater Lake, OR 97604, at (541) 594- 3002 or via email at [email protected]. SUMMARY The purpose of this Final General Under the no- action alternative, Management Plan / Environmental Impact archeological and ethnographic resources Statement for Crater Lake National Park is in the park would continue to be surveyed, to present a direction for resource inventoried, and evaluated as National preservation and visitor use and a basic Park Service staff and funding permitted. foundation for decision making for the Natural resource management protection, park for the next 15 to 20 years. The preservation, and restoration activities general management plan provides a would also continue as staffing and comprehensive direction for managing funding allowed. resource activities, visitor activities, and development that would be appropriate at Existing buildings and facilities in the park the park in the future. would remain; some historic structures would be adaptively used. Munson Valley An important element in determining the would continue to serve as the center of desired resource and visitor experience NPS administration, maintenance, and conditions for the park has been public housing. participation. Many issues and concerns were identified by the general public and The existing road access and circulation NPS staff as part of the initial planning system within the park would continue, efforts, and comments were solicited at and visitor recreational opportunities and public meetings, in planning newsletters, interpretive programs in the park would and on the internet. continue. Once public input was received the Impacts planning team identified four alternatives for managing the park —a no- action and Impacts resulting from the no- action three action alternatives, including the alternative would be negligible to minor preferred alternative. The plan also on natural resources, park operations, and analyzes and presents the environmental concession operations. Most cultural and socioeconomic impacts or conse- resources, archeological sites, cultural quences of implementing each of those landscapes, ethnographic resources, or alternatives ⎯ the environmental impact museum collections would have no statement part of this document. A adverse impacts. Rehabilitation of the summary of the alternatives and the superintendent’s residence would result in important impacts is given below. minor adverse impacts due to some loss of historic fabric. However, adaptive use of ALTERNATIVE 1 – NO ACTION the structure as a science and learning center would ensure its long- term Description preservation and therefore provide a moderate beneficial impact. The no- action alternative represents continuation of the current management Visitor access, recreational and educa- direction and approach at the park. It is a tional opportunities, and visitor facilities way of evaluating the proposed actions of and services would remain relatively the other three alternatives. unchanged, and the park would continue iii SUMMARY to be an important visitor attraction, scientists, and educational groups. The contributing to the tourism industry in the information gathered would be dissemi- region. However, potential increases in nated throughout the park to rangers, visitation over the life of the plan could interpretive staff, and visitors. As a result, impact the ability to access some areas of special in- depth tours would be available the park and enjoy those areas in relative to interest groups such as birdwatchers or solitude and tranquility. geology clubs. ALTERNATIVE 2 (PREFERRED) – As described under the no- action EMPHASIS ON INCREASED alternative, existing buildings and facilities OPPORTUNITIES in the park would remain, but some structures would be adaptively used. Description Current and future needs for office and Management of the park would emphasize administrative space would be increased opportunities for recreational accommodated without additional diversity and research and education. construction. Administrative and other Most recreational opportunities would organizational functions, which are not by remain, but new opportunities along Rim necessity park- based, would be moved to Drive would allow visitors to directly surrounding communities as demand for experience the primary resource of Crater space within the park increased. Lake in ways other than driving. Any new uses around the rim would be nonmotor- Parking and road congestion at the park ized and low impact. Opportunities to would be managed by improving existing experience the lake by hiking and biking in pullouts, parking areas, and overlooks. If, a quieter setting would be explored by in the future, crowding conditions devel- experimental seasonal road closures of oped, shuttles and other alternative trans- East Rim Drive. Other frontcountry portation systems would be used to solve opportunities, such as short trails and the problems, rather than expanding road picnic areas, would be along the roadways. and parking capacities. These new opportunities would provide transitional experiences between the Impacts developed areas (or transportations corridors) and the backcountry and also This alternative increases visitor provide for enhanced interpretation, new opportunities for recreation, education research, and access to the backcountry. and interpretation, and access to park The Grayback Road would change from facilities and services, creating major motorized use to a non paved trail for beneficial impacts on the visitor hikers, bicyclists, and stock use. Winter experience. snowmobile and snowcoach access would remain along North Junction to the rim. Impacts on cultural resources, including the superintendent’s house, would be the Research and educational opportunities same as the no- action alternative, with the would be enhanced. A new science and exception of museum collections, which learning center would form the core of the would have minor to moderate, long- term new research. The park would expand and benefits. encourage partnerships with universities, iv Summary Greater emphasis on research, partnering, provide the focus for interpretation and and visitor education would enhance the education. quality and quantity of resource information. The information gained Resources would be managed to permit would allow for better management of on- recreation while protecting the resources. going resource programs and, therefore, Opportunities for recreation would be would indirectly promote moderate viewed in a regional context, where the beneficial effects on biotic communities. park could serve as a source of informa- Resource management programs could tion for regional recreational oppor- result in some direct short- term adverse tunities. Winter access would be improved impacts, but would result in long- term by grooming along North Junction Road. beneficial impacts on some threatened and During the summer season use of a shuttle endangered species. bus system would be explored. As in alternative 1, some benefits would Use of most current facilities would result from reconfiguration of Rim Village continue. Treatment of historic structures and adaptive reuse of existing buildings. and cultural landscapes would be similar However,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Insert Park Picture Here
    Mount Assiniboine Park Management Plan Part of the Canadian Rocky Mountain Parks World Heritage Site November 2012 Cover Page Photo Credit: Christian Kimber (Park Ranger) This document replaces the direction provided in the Mount Assiniboine Provincial Park Master Plan (1989). Mount Assiniboine Park Management Plan Approved by: November 15, 2012 ______________________________ __________________ Tom Bell Date Regional Director, Kootenay Okanagan Region BC Parks November 15, 2012 ______________________________ __________________ Brian Bawtinheimer Date Executive Director, Parks Planning and Management Branch BC Parks Plan Highlights The management vision for Mount Assiniboine Park is that the park continues to be an international symbol of the pristine scenic grandeur of British Columbia’s wilderness and the recreational enjoyment it offers. Key elements of the management plan include strategies to: Implement a zoning plan that enhances the emphasis on Mount Assiniboine Park’s value both as a component of a UNESCO World Heritage Site (which protects significant examples of Canadian Rocky Mountain ecosystems) and as the location of an internationally recognized wilderness recreation feature associated with heritage structures from the earliest days of facility-based backcountry tourism in the Canadian Rockies. Approximately 86% of the park is zoned as Wilderness Recreation, 13% is zoned as Nature Recreation, less than 1% is zoned as Special Feature and less than 0.01% is zoned as Intensive Recreation. Develop an ecosystem management strategy that coordinates management of vegetation and wildlife in the park with that of adjacent protected areas under other agencies’ jurisdiction and with activities on adjacent provincial forest lands. This includes a proposal to prepare a vegetation management strategy to maintain or restore natural disturbance regimes (i.e., insects, disease and fire) wherever possible.
    [Show full text]
  • Role of the Protected Area Provincial and Regional Context
    Role of the Protected Area Provincial and Regional Context Height of the Rockies and Elk Lakes provincial parks lie in southeastern British Columbia in the Rocky Mountains, about 85 km southwest of Calgary, Alberta. They are flanked to the East by the Elk Valley and the Kananaskis Valley and to the West by the Park Ranges. The mountain ranges of the Kootenay District provide a wide diversity of natural values and recreation opportunities as evidenced by the numerous national and provincial parks in the District (Fig. 2). Over 16% of the land base in the East Kootenays is in protected areas. · Height of the Rockies and Elk Lakes provincial parks are a significant part of BC's system of protected areas. In conjunction with Banff National Park and Peter Lougheed Provincial Park in Alberta, they form a large, contiguous protected area that is rich in natural, recreational and cultural values. Also, these parks are critical links in the Yellowstone to Yukon Conservation Initiative (Y2Y)1. · The combined size of these two provincial parks contributes to the protection of biodiversity in the region and is integral to the conservation of wildlife populations, plant communities and biodiversity. · These parks offer a wide range of top caliber wilderness recreation opportunities and outstanding features. Plate 2 : Fish fossil in Elk Lakes Provincial Park 1 Proposal by Canada and U.S. conservation groups to create a thread of ecological connectivity linking protected areas in both countries from Yellowstone National Park to the Yukon. 11 Significance in the Protected Areas System Height of the Rockies and Elk Lakes provincial parks are a significant part of BC's system of protected areas.
    [Show full text]
  • Glaciers of the Canadian Rockies
    Glaciers of North America— GLACIERS OF CANADA GLACIERS OF THE CANADIAN ROCKIES By C. SIMON L. OMMANNEY SATELLITE IMAGE ATLAS OF GLACIERS OF THE WORLD Edited by RICHARD S. WILLIAMS, Jr., and JANE G. FERRIGNO U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY PROFESSIONAL PAPER 1386–J–1 The Rocky Mountains of Canada include four distinct ranges from the U.S. border to northern British Columbia: Border, Continental, Hart, and Muskwa Ranges. They cover about 170,000 km2, are about 150 km wide, and have an estimated glacierized area of 38,613 km2. Mount Robson, at 3,954 m, is the highest peak. Glaciers range in size from ice fields, with major outlet glaciers, to glacierets. Small mountain-type glaciers in cirques, niches, and ice aprons are scattered throughout the ranges. Ice-cored moraines and rock glaciers are also common CONTENTS Page Abstract ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- J199 Introduction----------------------------------------------------------------------- 199 FIGURE 1. Mountain ranges of the southern Rocky Mountains------------ 201 2. Mountain ranges of the northern Rocky Mountains ------------ 202 3. Oblique aerial photograph of Mount Assiniboine, Banff National Park, Rocky Mountains----------------------------- 203 4. Sketch map showing glaciers of the Canadian Rocky Mountains -------------------------------------------- 204 5. Photograph of the Victoria Glacier, Rocky Mountains, Alberta, in August 1973 -------------------------------------- 209 TABLE 1. Named glaciers of the Rocky Mountains cited in the chapter
    [Show full text]
  • Grizzly Bear Population Dynamics Across Productivity and Human Influence Gradients
    Grizzly bear population dynamics across productivity and human influence gradients by Clayton T. Lamb A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Ecology Department of Biological Sciences University of Alberta © Clayton T. Lamb, 2019 Abstract Coexistence with large carnivores is one of the greatest conservation challenges across the globe, in part because mechanisms of coexistence are unknown or contested. Large carnivores can be conflict-prone and pose real or perceived threats to human life and property. In North America, grizzly bears (Ursus arctos) typify the struggle to conserve and coexist with large carnivores amongst a matrix of competing land uses. Grizzly bears are a symbol of wildness to society, but the management of this species can divide communities, derail collaborative conservation initiatives, and are the focus of high-profile media coverage and lawsuits. At the center of this controversy is scientific uncertainty around population dynamics of the species, primarily relating to population size, limiting factors, and the ecology of conflict. The contemporary threats of wilderness loss, human population expansion, and climate change pose both a no-analog future for grizzly bears, but also opportunity. Leveraging novel ecological tools, and the ongoing human-induced landscape and climate change, considerable opportunity exists to investigate the mechanisms driving grizzly bear population dynamics and those promoting coexistence—enduring populations of wildlife in human-dominated landscapes. The goal of this dissertation was to test the factors limiting grizzly bear population dynamics across ecosystems, update local population estimates, and to identify the mechanisms promoting carnivore coexistence and those exacerbating it.
    [Show full text]
  • The Dragonflies (Insecta: Odonata) of the Columbia Basin, British Columbia: Field Surveys, Collections Development and Public Education by Robert A
    Living Landscapes The Dragonflies (Insecta: Odonata) of the Columbia Basin, British Columbia: Field Surveys, Collections Development and Public Education by Robert A. Cannings, RBCM, Sydney G. Cannings, CDC, and Leah Ramsay, CDC The Dragonflies (Insecta: Odonata) of the Columbia Basin, British Columbia: Field Surveys, Collections Development and Public Education by: Robert A. Cannings, Royal BC Museum Sydney G. Cannings, B.C. Conservation Data Centre Leah Ramsay, B.C. Conservation Data Centre Table of Contents CIP data Acknowledgements Overview of the Project Introduction to the Dragonflies of the Columbia Basin Dragonfly Habitat in the Columbia Basin Biogeography and Faunal Elements Systematic Review of the Fauna Suborder Zygoptera (Damselflies) Family Calopterygidae (Jewelwings) Family Lestidae (Spreadwings) Family Coenagrionidae (Pond Damsels) Suborder Anisoptera (Dragonflies) Family Aeshnidae (Darners) Family Gomphidae (Clubtails) Family Cordulegastridae (Spiketails) Family Macromiidae (Cruisers) Family Corduliidae (Emeralds) Family Libellulidae (Skimmers) The Effects of Human Activity on Dragonfly Populations Recommendations for Future Inventory, Research and Monitoring References Appendix 1: Checklist of Columbia Basin Dragonflies Appendix 2: Columbia Basin Odonata and Their Faunal Elements Appendix 3: Project Participants Species Distribution Maps and Collecting Data Royal British Columbia Museum 1-888-447-7977 1 675 Belleville Street (250) 356-7226 Copyright 2000 Royal British Columbia Museum Victoria, British Columbia http://www.royalbcmuseum.bc.ca
    [Show full text]
  • Sustainable Forest Management Plan Canfor Kootenay Operations Version 5.0 December 2017
    Sustainable Forest Management Plan Canfor Kootenay Operations Version 5.0 December 2017 Canadian Forest Products Ltd. Kootenay Operations “Sustainable forest management is the balanced, concurrent sustainability of forestry-related ecological, social and economic values for a defined area over a defined time frame.” Canfor Kootenay Operations SFM Plan Acknowledgements We wish to thank all members, past and present, of the Public Advisory Group (PAG) for their contributions and dedication to sustainable forest management in the Kootenay Region. We also gratefully acknowledge the contributions from Indigenous Peoples, ENGOs and members of the public who provided input into the development of this plan, as well as the Annual Reports. In addition, we would like to thank Kootenay Forest Management Group staff who provided timely and thought-provoking additions to many sections. The biodiversity and wildlife sections of this plan (Criterion 1) were written by Kari Stuart- Smith, PhD., RPBio, Forest Scientist for Canfor, with the assistance of Stephanie Keightley, BSc. In addition, they provided expertise into the Climate Change, soils and water quality sections. Ecosystem Resilience sections, including silviculture, regeneration, invasive plant species and climate change were written by Kori Vernier, RPF. Ian Johnson, RPF wrote the sections on forest productivity, soils, water quantity and quality, as well as socio-economic sections such as, overlapping tenure holders and non-timber forest benefits. In addition to leading this SFM Plan, Grant Neville, RPF wrote the balance of the socio-economic sections. These included but are not limited to: First Nation and stakeholder involvement/information sharing, local employment, local procurement, contribution to the communities and safety.
    [Show full text]
  • A. Canadian Rocky Mountains Ecoregional Team
    CANADIAN ROCKY MOUNTAINS ECOREGIONAL ASSESSMENT Volume One: Report Version 2.0 (May 2004) British Columbia Conservation Data Centre CANADIAN ROCKY MOUNTAINS ECOREGIONAL ASSESSMENT • VOLUME 1 • REPORT i TABLE OF CONTENTS A. CANADIAN ROCKY MOUNTAINS ECOREGIONAL TEAM..................................... vii Canadian Rocky Mountains Ecoregional Assessment Core Team............................................... vii Coordination Team ....................................................................................................................... vii Canadian Rocky Mountains Assessment Contact........................................................................viii B. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS................................................................................................... ix C. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.................................................................................................... xi Description..................................................................................................................................... xi Land Ownership............................................................................................................................. xi Protected Status.............................................................................................................................. xi Biodiversity Status......................................................................................................................... xi Ecoregional Assessment ..............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Prepared For
    Terasen Pipelines (Trans Mountain) Inc. Environmental Assessment TMX - Anchor Loop Project Section 5.1 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC SETTING OF PIPELINE AND FACILITIES 5.1 Introduction The following section is a summary of the environmental and socio-economic conditions for the Proposed Route of the TMX – Anchor Loop Project. It was compiled from technical studies conducted in 2004 and 2005, and has been supplemented where warranted with materials listed in Section 5.5. 5.1.1 Spatial Boundaries Five spatial boundaries were used to describe the environmental and socio-economic conditions within the Project area. These spatial boundaries were determined using Guide A.2.4 Description of the Environmental and Socio-Economic Setting of the NEB Filing Manual (2004). The spatial boundaries considered for describing the environmental and socio-economic conditions include one or more of the following study areas (Figure 5.1): • A Project Footprint study area made up the area directly disturbed by assessment, construction and clean-up activities, including associated physical works and activities (i.e., permanent right-of-way, temporary construction workspace, temporary access routes, temporary stockpile sites, temporary staging areas, construction work camps, off load areas, borrow pits, facility sites). • A Local Study Area (LSA) consisting of a 2 km buffer centered on the proposed pipeline right-of-way. The LSA is based on the typical ‘indirect footprint’ of pipeline facilities and activities (i.e., the zone of influence within which plants (50 m), animals (500 m), and humans (500-800 m) are most likely to be affected by project construction and operation.
    [Show full text]
  • MOUNT ASSINIBOINE PROVINCIAL PARK MANAGEMENT PLAN BACKGROUND DOCUMENT DRAFT 4P Prepared for Ministry of Environment Environmenta
    MOUNT ASSINIBOINE PROVINCIAL PARK MANAGEMENT PLAN BACKGROUND DOCUMENT DRAFT 4P Prepared for Ministry of Environment Environmental Stewardship Division Kootenay Region November 2005 Wildland Consulting Inc. Table Of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................II Figure 2: Summer and Winter Mean Temperatures (in ºC) 15....................................... 0 MAP #5: CULTURAL SITES, EXISTING FACILITIES AND TRAILS 55.......................................... 0 MAP #6: MOUNT ASSINIBOINE PROVINCIAL PARK LAND TENURES 77 ................................... 0 PREFACE....................................................................................................................................... 1 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................................................................................................................. 1 INTRODUCTION.........................................................................................................3 PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT HISTORY ..................................................................................... 3 PARK ESTABLISHMENT, LEGISLATION AND MANAGEMENT DIRECTION ....................................... 6 1989 Master Plan Highlights................................................................................................... 7 Direction from the Kootenay Boundary Land Use Plan and Implementation Strategy .......... 9 NATURAL VALUES..................................................................................................13
    [Show full text]
  • Elk in the Rocky Mountain National Park Ecosystem - a Model-Based Assessment
    ELK IN THE ROCKY MOUNTAIN NATIONAL PARK ECOSYSTEM - A MODEL-BASED ASSESSMENT Final Report to: U.S. Geological Survey Biological Resources Division and U.S. National Park Service Michael B. Coughenour Natural Resource Ecology Laboratory Colorado State University Fort Collins, Colorado August 2002 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.......................................................1 INTRODUCTION.............................................................1 7 SITE DESCRIPTION. .........................................................2 4 Landscape..............................................................2 4 Climate................................................................2 4 Soils..................................................................2 5 Vegetation. ............................................................2 5 ECOLOGICAL HISTORY......................................................2 8 Evidence of Elk Prior to Euro-American Settlement.. 2 8 Elk Carrying Capacity Estimates............................................2 9 Elk Management. .......................................................3 0 Upland Herbaceous and Shrub Communities. 3 1 Aspen.................................................................3 3 Willow................................................................3 4 Beaver. ...............................................................3 5 VEGETATION MAP. .........................................................3 7 MODEL DESCRIPTION AND DATA INPUTS.....................................4 0 Ecosystem
    [Show full text]
  • The Grasslands of British Columbia
    The Grasslands of British Columbia The Grasslands of British Columbia Brian Wikeem Sandra Wikeem April 2004 COVER PHOTO Brian Wikeem, Solterra Resources Inc. GRAPHICS, MAPS, FIGURES Donna Falat, formerly Grasslands Conservation Council of B.C., Kamloops, B.C. Ryan Holmes, Grasslands Conservation Council of B.C., Kamloops, B.C. Glenda Mathew, Left Bank Design, Kamloops, B.C. PHOTOS Personal Photos: A. Batke, Andy Bezener, Don Blumenauer, Bruno Delesalle, Craig Delong, Bob Drinkwater, Wayne Erickson, Marylin Fuchs, Perry Grilz, Jared Hobbs, Ryan Holmes, Kristi Iverson, C. Junck, Bob Lincoln, Bob Needham, Paul Sandborn, Jim White, Brian Wikeem. Institutional Photos: Agriculture Agri-Food Canada, BC Archives, BC Ministry of Forests, BC Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection, and BC Parks. All photographs are the property of the original contributor and can not be reproduced without prior written permission of the owner. All photographs by J. Hobbs are © Jared Hobbs. © Grasslands Conservation Council of British Columbia 954A Laval Crescent Kamloops, B.C. V2C 5P5 http://www.bcgrasslands.org/ All rights reserved. No part of this document or publication may be reproduced in any form without prior written permission of the Grasslands Conservation Council of British Columbia. ii Dedication This book is dedicated to the Dr. Vernon pathfinders of our ecological Brink knowledge and understanding of Dr. Alastair grassland ecosystems in British McLean Columbia. Their vision looked Dr. Edward beyond the dust, cheatgrass and Tisdale grasshoppers, and set the course to Dr. Albert van restoring the biodiversity and beauty Ryswyk of our grasslands to pristine times. Their research, extension and teaching provided the foundation for scientific management of our grasslands.
    [Show full text]
  • Birds of the Rocky Mountains—Introduction
    University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln Birds of the Rocky Mountains -- Paul A. Johnsgard Papers in the Biological Sciences 11-2009 Birds of the Rocky Mountains—Introduction Paul A. Johnsgard University of Nebraska-Lincoln, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/bioscibirdsrockymtns Part of the Ornithology Commons Johnsgard, Paul A., "Birds of the Rocky Mountains—Introduction" (2009). Birds of the Rocky Mountains -- Paul A. Johnsgard. 4. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/bioscibirdsrockymtns/4 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Papers in the Biological Sciences at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Birds of the Rocky Mountains -- Paul A. Johnsgard by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. This book is dedicated to my new grandson Scotti may he love these mountains as one would a favorite book, and may the life therein offer him its manifold lessons. Introduction The Rocky Mountains represent the longest and in general the highest of the North American mountain ranges, extending for nearly two thou­ sand miles from their origins in Alaska and northwestern Canada south­ ward to their terminus in New Mexico, and forming the continental divide for this entire length. As such, these mountains have provided a convenient corridor for northward and southward movement of both plants and animal life, but on the other hand have produced impor­ tant barriers to eastern and western plant and animal movements. These effects result nat only from their height and physical nature, but also from their manifold effects on such things as precipitation, humidity, temperature, and other important climatic factors affecting plant and animal life.
    [Show full text]