Teton Wildlife: Observations by a Naturalist
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Roundtail Chub (Gila Robusta Robusta): a Technical Conservation Assessment
Roundtail Chub (Gila robusta robusta): A Technical Conservation Assessment Prepared for the USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region, Species Conservation Project May 3, 2005 David E. Rees, Jonathan A. Ptacek, and William J. Miller Miller Ecological Consultants, Inc. 1113 Stoney Hill Drive, Suite A Fort Collins, Colorado 80525-1275 Peer Review Administered by American Fisheries Society Rees, D.E., J.A. Ptacek, and W.J. Miller. (2005, May 3). Roundtail Chub (Gila robusta robusta): a technical conservation assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: http:// www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/roundtailchub.pdf [date of access]. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We would like to thank those people who promoted, assisted, and supported this species assessment for the Region 2 USDA Forest Service. Ryan Carr and Kellie Richardson conducted preliminary literature reviews and were valuable in the determination of important or usable literature. Laura Hillger provided assistance with report preparation and dissemination. Numerous individuals from Region 2 national forests were willing to discuss the status and management of this species. Thanks go to Greg Eaglin (Medicine Bow National Forest), Dave Gerhardt (San Juan National Forest), Kathy Foster (Routt National Forest), Clay Spease and Chris James (Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National Forest), Christine Hirsch (White River National Forest), as well as Gary Patton and Joy Bartlett from the Regional Office. Dan Brauh, Lory Martin, Tom Nesler, Kevin Rogers, and Allen Zincush, all of the Colorado Division of Wildlife, provided information on species distribution, management, and current regulations. AUTHORS’ BIOGRAPHIES David E. Rees studied fishery biology, aquatic ecology, and ecotoxicology at Colorado State University where he received his B.S. -
Plant Species of Special Concern and Vascular Plant Flora of the National
Plant Species of Special Concern and Vascular Plant Flora of the National Elk Refuge Prepared for the US Fish and Wildlife Service National Elk Refuge By Walter Fertig Wyoming Natural Diversity Database The Nature Conservancy 1604 Grand Avenue Laramie, WY 82070 February 28, 1998 Acknowledgements I would like to thank the following individuals for their assistance with this project: Jim Ozenberger, ecologist with the Jackson Ranger District of Bridger-Teton National Forest, for guiding me in his canoe on Flat Creek and for providing aerial photographs and lodging; Jennifer Whipple, Yellowstone National Park botanist, for field assistance and help with field identification of rare Carex species; Dr. David Cooper of Colorado State University, for sharing field information from his 1994 studies; Dr. Ron Hartman and Ernie Nelson of the Rocky Mountain Herbarium, for providing access to unmounted collections by Michele Potkin and others from the National Elk Refuge; Dr. Anton Reznicek of the University of Michigan, for confirming the identification of several problematic Carex specimens; Dr. Robert Dorn for confirming the identification of several vegetative Salix specimens; and lastly Bruce Smith and the staff of the National Elk Refuge for providing funding and logistical support and for allowing me free rein to roam the refuge for plants. 2 Table of Contents Page Introduction . 6 Study Area . 6 Methods . 8 Results . 10 Vascular Plant Flora of the National Elk Refuge . 10 Plant Species of Special Concern . 10 Species Summaries . 23 Aster borealis . 24 Astragalus terminalis . 26 Carex buxbaumii . 28 Carex parryana var. parryana . 30 Carex sartwellii . 32 Carex scirpoidea var. scirpiformis . -
Grand Teton National Park News Release
National Park Service Grand Teton PO Box 170 U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Moose, Wyoming 83012 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Jackie Skaggs/307.739.3393 January 08, 2010 10-01 Grand Teton National Park News Release Environmental Assessment Available for Public Review on Site Work for Grand Teton National Park Headquarters Rehabilitation Project Grand Teton National Park Superintendent Mary Gibson Scott announced today that the Moose Headquarters Rehabilitation Site Work Environmental Assessment (EA) is now available for public review. This EA will be open to review for 30 days, from January 11 through February 9, 2010. The National Park Service (NPS) proposes to perform site improvements that are designed to enhance visitor services and address employee health and safety deficiencies at Grand Teton National Park’s headquarters area in Moose, Wyoming. The site work would restructure vehicle/pedestrian access points, promote better traffic flow, reduce user-created trails and consolidate pedestrian walkways, and improve way-finding throughout the Moose headquarters complex. The purpose of the proposal is to upgrade and improve conditions in a way that enhances visitors’ experiences while providing a safe, healthy, and functional working/living environment for park employees and their families. The NPS preferred alternative involves the reconfiguration of vehicle and pedestrian traffic within the park administrative area and the Moose river landing access, the removal of several temporary buildings, and restoration work targeted at providing appropriate stormwater management. The proposed improvements are designed to increase visitor and employee safety, refine parking and traffic flow patterns, reduce the built environment, and improve water quality while still preserving the character of the area and protecting natural and cultural resources. -
Paleontological Resources at Grand Teton National Park, Northwestern Wyoming Vincent L
University of Wyoming National Park Service Research Center Annual Report Volume 22 22nd Annual Report, 1998 Article 7 1-1-1998 Paleontological Resources at Grand Teton National Park, Northwestern Wyoming Vincent L. Santucci National Park Service William P. Wall Georgia College and State University Follow this and additional works at: http://repository.uwyo.edu/uwnpsrc_reports Recommended Citation Santucci, Vincent L. and Wall, William P. (1998) "Paleontological Resources at Grand Teton National Park, Northwestern Wyoming," University of Wyoming National Park Service Research Center Annual Report: Vol. 22 , Article 7. Available at: http://repository.uwyo.edu/uwnpsrc_reports/vol22/iss1/7 This Grand Teton National Park Report is brought to you for free and open access by Wyoming Scholars Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in University of Wyoming National Park Service Research Center Annual Report by an authorized editor of Wyoming Scholars Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Santucci and Wall: Paleontological Resources at Grand Teton National Park, Northwest PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES AT GRAND TETON NATIONAL PARK, NORTHWESTERN WYOMING + VINCENT L. SANTUCCI+ NATIONAL PARK SERVICE KEMMERER + WY WILLIAM P. WALL+ DEPARTMENT OF BIOLOGY GEORGIA COLLEGE AND STATE UNIVERSITY MILLEDGEVILLE + GA + ABSTRACT landscape, and though the last great ice masses melted 15 ,000 years ago, some re-established small Paleontological resources occur throughout glaciers still exist. the formations exposed in Grand Teton National Park. A comprehensive paleontological survey has This report provides a preliminary not been attempted previously at Grand Teton assessment of paleontological resources identified at National Park. Preliminary paleontologic resource Grand Teton National Park. data is given in this report in order to establish baseline data. -
1 KECK PROPOSAL: Eocene Tectonic Evolution of the Teton-Absaroka
KECK PROPOSAL: Eocene Tectonic Evolution of the Teton-Absaroka Ranges, Wyoming (Year 2) Project Leaders: John Craddock (Macalester College; [email protected]) and Dave Malone (Illinois State University; [email protected]) Host Institution: Macalester College, St. Paul, MN Project Dates: ~July 15-August 14, 2011 Student Prerequisites: Structural Geology, Sedimentology. Preamble: This project is an expansion of a 2010 Keck project that was funded at a reduced level (Craddock, 3 students); Malone and 4 students participated with separate funding. We completed or are currently working on three 2010 projects: 1. Structure, geochemistry and geochronology (U-Pb zircon) of carbonate pseudotachylite injection, White Mtn. (J. Geary, Macalester; note that this was not part of last year’s proposal but a new discovery in 2010 caused us to redirect our efforts), 2. Calcite twinning strains within the S. Fork detachment allochthon, northwest, WY (K. Kravitz, Smith; note because of a heavy snow pack in the Tetons this past summer, we chose a different structure to study), and 3. Provenance of heavy minerals and detrital zircon geochronology, Eocene Absaroka volcanics, northwest, WY (R. McGaughey, Carleton). We did not sample the footwall folds proposed in the previous proposal (under snow) and will focus on this project and mapping efforts of White Mountain and the 40 x 10 km S. Fork detachment area near Cody, WY, in part depending on the results (calcite strains, detrital zircons) of the 2010-11 effort. All seven students are working on the detrital zircon geochronology project, and two abstracts are accepted at the 2011 Denver GSA meeting. Overview: This proposal requests funding for 2 faculty to engage 6 students researching a variety of outstanding problems in the tectonic evolution of the Sevier-Laramide orogens as exposed in the Teton and Absaroka ranges in northwest Wyoming. -
Bozeman Climbers Tackle Gan
BOZEMAN CLIMBERS TACKLE GANNETT PEAK TO BENEFIT U... http://chronicleoutdoors.com/2010/03/18/bozeman-climbers-to-tackle-w... Chronicle Outdoors Dedicated to outdoor adventure in Southwest Montana Home Photo Gallery Where Am I Contest About Contact .: This week's poll :. Fifteen years ago wolves were released into Yellowstone Park. They have since established range outside the park and been embroiled in controversy. Do you think their presence is appropriate? Yes, wolves are a native predator that help maintain a natural balance in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. No way, wolves have depleted elk herds, killed sheep and cattle and caused conflict. They create more problems than they solve. Vote View Results .: Gallatin ational Forest Avalanche Report :. GNFAC Avalanche Advisory for Sun Mar 21, 2010 Good Morning. This is Eric Knoff with the Gallatin National Forest Avalanche Advisory issued on Sunday, March 21, at 7:30 a.m. Bountiful Table, in cooperation with the Friends of the Avalanche Center, sponsors today's advisory. This advisory does not apply to operating ski areas. Mountain Weather: A ridge of high pressure has stalled over southwest M […] .: Latest news from Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks :. Wild Bison’s Future In Montana What is the future for wild bison in Montana? […] Three Bear Aware Meetings Planned For Front State wildlife officials are planning three community meetings in April to remind north central Montana residents to be bear aware. The meetings will begin at 7 p.m. and take place April 12, Simms high school; April 13, Marias River Electric Coop in Shelby; and April 14, Wolf Creek School. -
Grand Teton National Park Youngest Range in the Rockies
GRAND TETON NATIONAL PARK YOUNGEST RANGE IN THE ROCKIES the town of Moran. Others recognized that dudes winter better than cows and began operating dude ranches. The JY and the Bar BC were established in 1908 and 1912, respectively. By the 1920s, dude ranch- ing made significant contributions to the valley’s economy. At this time some local residents real- ized that scenery and wildlife (especially elk) were valuable resources to be conserved rather than exploited. Evolution of a Dream The birth of present-day Grand Teton National Park involved controversy and a struggle that lasted several decades. Animosity toward expanding governmental control and a perceived loss of individual freedoms fueled anti-park senti- ments in Jackson Hole that nearly derailed estab- lishment of the park. By contrast, Yellowstone National Park benefited from an expedient and near universal agreement for its creation in 1872. The world's first national park took only two years from idea to reality; however Grand Teton National Park evolved through a burdensome process requiring three separate governmental Mt. Moran. National Park Service Photo. acts and a series of compromises: The original Grand Teton National Park, set Towering more than a mile above the valley of dazzled fur traders. Although evidence is incon- aside by an act of Congress in 1929, included Jackson Hole, the Grand Teton rises to 13,770 clusive, John Colter probably explored the area in only the Teton Range and six glacial lakes at the feet. Twelve Teton peaks reach above 12,000 feet 1808. By the 1820s, mountain men followed base of the mountains. -
VITAL SIGNS 2016 This Report Is Made Possible Through Generous Support from Grand Teton National Park Foundation and Grand Teton Association
Science and Resource Management National Park Service Grand Teton National Park U.S. Department of the Interior & John D. Rockefeller, Jr. Memorial Parkway GRAND TETON NATIONAL PARK & John D. Rockefeller, Jr. Memorial Parkway Natural and Cultural Resources VITAL SIGNS 2016 This report is made possible through generous support from Grand Teton National Park Foundation and Grand Teton Association. Science and Resource Managment Grand Teton National Park & John D. Rockefeller, Jr. Memorial Parkway P.O. Drawer 170 Moose, WY 83012 www.nps.gov/grte 2 Vital Signs 2016 • Grand Teton National Park Acknowledgments To supplement the work done by Grand Teton National Park staff, the following organizations provided data and/or analysis that were used in preparing this report: • Biodiversity Research Institute • Craighead Beringia South • Colorado State University, Federal Land Manager Environmental Database • Grand Teton Fire Management Program • Greater Yellowstone Inventory and Monitoring Network • Greater Yellowstone Whitebark Pine Monitoring Working Group • Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team (U.S. Geological Survey–Biological Resources Division, National Park Service, U.S. Forest Service, and the states of Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming) • National Park Service Air Resources Division • National Park Service Northern Rockies Exotic Plant Management Team • Northern Rockies Conservation Cooperative • Sky Aviation • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Elk Refuge • U.S. Forest Service, Bridger Teton National Forest • U.S. Geological Survey, Northern -
Draft Bison and Elk Management Plan
CONTENTS CHAPTER 2. ALTERNATIVE MANAGEMENT PLANS Introduction...............................................................................................................................................................39 Criteria for Determining a Reasonable Range of Alternatives ................................................................39 Actions Independent of the Alternatives .....................................................................................................40 Elements Common to All Alternatives.........................................................................................................40 Structure of the Alternatives.........................................................................................................................41 Alternative 1: No Action..........................................................................................................................................42 Alternative 2: Minimal Management of Habitat and Populations, with Support for Migrations..................44 Alternative 3: Restore Habitat, Support Migration, and Phase Back Supplemental Feeding .....................46 Alternative 4: Adaptively Manage Habitat and Populations (Preferred Alternative)...................................48 Alternative 5: Restore Habitat, Improve Forage, and Continue Supplemental Feeding .............................50 Alternative 6: Restore Habitat, Adaptively Manage Populations, and Phase Out Supplemental Feeding 52 Alternative Comparison by Goal............................................................................................................................54 -
Bridger-Teton National Forest Evaluation of Areas with Wilderness Potential
BTNF Evaluation of Areas with Wilderness Potential 2008 BRIDGER-TETON NATIONAL FOREST EVALUATION OF AREAS WITH WILDERNESS POTENTIAL Phillips Ridge Roadless Area 9/23/2009 1 CONTENTS Introduction ..................................................................................................................................2 The 2001 roadless rule, areas with wilderness potential, and process for integration .................2 Capability factors defined ............................................................................................................4 Availability defined .....................................................................................................................9 Need defined ................................................................................................................................9 BTNF areas with wilderness potential .........................................................................................11 Eligibility factors by area .............................................................................................................15 Summary of capability factors .....................................................................................................68 Areas with Wilderness potential and Forest Plan revision ..........................................................70 INTRODUCTION Roadless areas were identified during the Roadless Area Review and Evaluation II (RARE II) analysis conducted in 1978 and re-evaluated in 1983 to include all areas of at least -
Molecular Systematics of Western North American Cyprinids (Cypriniformes: Cyprinidae)
Zootaxa 3586: 281–303 (2012) ISSN 1175-5326 (print edition) www.mapress.com/zootaxa/ ZOOTAXA Copyright © 2012 · Magnolia Press Article ISSN 1175-5334 (online edition) urn:lsid:zoobank.org:pub:0EFA9728-D4BB-467E-A0E0-0DA89E7E30AD Molecular systematics of western North American cyprinids (Cypriniformes: Cyprinidae) SUSANA SCHÖNHUTH 1, DENNIS K. SHIOZAWA 2, THOMAS E. DOWLING 3 & RICHARD L. MAYDEN 1 1 Department of Biology, Saint Louis University, 3507 Laclede Avenue, St. Louis, MO 63103, USA. E-mail S.S: [email protected] ; E-mail RLM: [email protected] 2 Department of Biology and Curator of Fishes, Monte L. Bean Life Science Museum, Brigham Young University, Provo, UT 84602, USA. E-mail: [email protected] 3 School of Life Sciences, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287-4501, USA. E-mail: [email protected] Abstract The phylogenetic or evolutionary relationships of species of Cypriniformes, as well as their classification, is in a era of flux. For the first time ever, the Order, and constituent Families are being examined for relationships within a phylogenetic context. Relevant findings as to sister-group relationships are largely being inferred from analyses of both mitochondrial and nuclear DNA sequences. Like the vast majority of Cypriniformes, due to an overall lack of any phylogenetic investigation of these fishes since Hennig’s transformation of the discipline, changes in hypotheses of relationships and a natural classification of the species should not be of surprise to anyone. Basically, for most taxa no properly supported phylogenetic hypothesis has ever been done; and this includes relationships with reasonable taxon and character sampling of even families and subfamilies. -
Conservation in Yellowstone National Park Final Report on the COVER Wolverine Tracks in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem
Wolverine Conservation in Yellowstone National Park Final Report ON THE COVER Wolverine tracks in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. Photo by Jason Wilmot. Wolverine Conservation in Yellowstone National Park Final Report Authors John Squires Kerry Murphy US Forest Service US Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research Station Jackson Ranger District 800 East Beckwith Avenue PO Box 25 Missoula, Montana 59801 Jackson, Wyoming 83001 [email protected] [email protected] (formerly Yellowstone Center for Resources, With contributions from Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming) Robert M. Inman Wildlife Conservation Society Jason Wilmot Wolverine Program Field Office Northern Rockies Conservation Cooperative 222 East Main Street PO Box 2705 Lone Elk 3B Jackson, Wyoming 83001 Ennis, Montana 59729 [email protected] [email protected] Jeff Copeland Mark L. Packila US Forest Service Wildlife Conservation Society Rocky Mountain Research Station Wolverine Program Field Office 800 East Beckwith Avenue 222 East Main Street Missoula, Montana 59801 Lone Elk 3B [email protected] Ennis, Montana 59729 [email protected] Dan Tyers US Forest Service Doug McWhirter Gardiner Ranger District Wyoming Game and Fish Regional Office PO Box 5 2820 State Highway 120 Gardiner, Montana 59030 Cody, Wyoming 82414 [email protected] National Park Service Yellowstone National Park Yellowstone Center for Resources Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming YCR-2011-02 March 2011 Suggested citation: Murphy, K., J. Wilmot, J. Copeland, D. Tyers, J. Squires, R. M. Inman, M. L. Packila, D. McWhirter. 2011. Wolverine conservation in Yellowstone National Park: Final report. YCR-2011-02. National Park Service, Yellowstone National Park, Yellowstone Center for Resources, Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming.