DOCSLIB.ORG

Petitioner Circulator

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

From: Sarah McDaniel To: Beyer, Stacie R Subject: Milton Township petition submission Date: Monday, August 22, 2016 4:41:51 PM Attachments: PostHearingSubmission-McDaniel-082216.pdf 2015 Energy Plan Update Final.pdf Dear Stacie, Please enter the attached comments into the record and provide them to the Commissioners to guide in their rulemaking. Attached to this email is my testimony and the 2015 Energy Plan. I will send the other attachments by separate emails to ensure that they get through. Regards, Sarah ________________________________________________ Sarah A. McDaniel Douglas McDaniel Campo & Schools LLC, PA 90 Bridge Street, Suite 100 Westbrook ME 04092 (o) 207-591-5747, x 115 (f) 207-591-5752 [email protected] www.mainelandlaw.com www.douglasmcdaniel.com Confidentiality Notice: This communication is confidential and intended to be privileged pursuant to applicable law. This message is intended only for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by telephone (207) 591-5747 and destroy any and all contents. Thank you. IRS Notice: In accordance with I.R.S. Circular 230 we advise you that any tax advice in this email (or in any attachment) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, by any recipient for the avoidance of penalties under federal tax laws. Thank you. STATE OF MAINE LAND USE PLANNING COMMISSION Substantive Review, Milton Township ) POST-HEARING SUBMISSION ON Petition to Remove Milton from the Expedited ) BEHALF OF PETITION CIRCULATOR Permitting Area for Wind Energy Development ) AND LOCAL RESIDENTS I represent Violetta Wierzbicki, landowner in Milton Township who was one of the lead circulators of the Petition to Remove Milton Township from the Expedited Permitting Area for Wind Energy Development. I also represent Peter Fetchko and Warren Hillquist, residents of Woodstock who both own land in Milton and Woodstock where they reside on the sides of Champlain Mountain. The substantive review process was instigated by Mr. Wayne Buck, on behalf of himself and EverPower Wind Holdings, Inc. (“EverPower”), the entity that might someday propose a wind project on Bryant and Champlain Mountains in Milton Township. However, all of EverPower’s testimony at the public hearing was focused on hypothetical details of a potential specific wind project, without any regard for the legal standards that the Commission must apply in this rulemaking proceeding. THE LEGAL STANDARDS FOR REMOVAL ARE SATISFIED In 2015, the Legislature elected to return to the unorganized territories a voice in determining whether wind power development is appropriate in their communities. In doing so, it mandated that LUPC remove any township from the expedited permitting area if 10% of the voting residents from the prior gubernatorial election petitioned for removal. 35-A M.R.S. § 3453-A(1) (“shall, by rule, remove” if there is no substantive review requested). Notably, this required removal has no substantive standards to guide the 1 Commission’s decision making if there is no objection filed. The Commission need not give consideration to accomplishment of the state’s wind energy goals, or to consistency with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan (“CLUP”). In contrast, if only one resident of the township requests “substantive review” of the petition (as happened here), the Legislature requires this Commission to apply the following two legal standards before rulemaking to remove the township from the expedited permitting area: (1) Does removal of Milton Township have an unreasonable adverse effect on the State’s ability to meet its wind capacity goals? (2) Is removal of Milton Township consistent with the principal values and goals of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan? 35-A M.R.S. § 3453-A(3). To apply these substantive standards, the Commission must first understand the legal consequences of removing Milton Township from the expedited permitting area. WHAT DOES REMOVAL MEAN? Removing Milton Township from the expedited permitting area does not mean that development of wind power is forever prohibited everywhere in the township. Unsurprisingly, EverPower framed its testimony as if such an extreme result would be the unavoidable consequence of removal. However, the Governor’s Task Force and the Legislature avoided the draconian approach of prohibiting wind development when it created the expedited permitting area. Instead of prohibiting wind development anywhere in the State, it established areas where wind power development would be encouraged by easing regulatory burdens. Consequently, all that removal does is return Milton Township 2 to its prior condition, with most of its land area in the General Management District (MGN). If a truly exceptional wind resource existed in Milton, any wind developer could at any time request to rezone its specific, required project area to a Development District, or request its re-addition back into the expedited permitting area. The business decision EverPower asserts it would make ~refusing to request either a rezoning or the re-addition of a discrete portion of Milton back into the expedited permitting area~ is irrelevant to the applicable legal standards for removal. Their assertion is certainly not legally binding on them, nor does it reflect the attitude of all wind developers who may be interested in Maine. While it is true that removal of Milton will no longer encourage the development of wind power there, its removal does not legally protect Milton’s unique wildlife habitat and valuable scenic resources forever. The legal consequence of removing Milton Township from the expedited permitting area is that any potential wind developer would need to first demonstrate that its specific project area “is important to meeting the state goals” for wind capacity and is consistent with the CLUP. 35-A M.R.S. § 3453(2) and (3). If that specific area is important and not inconsistent with the CLUP, then the development permit application could proceed. EverPower asserts that the standards to re-add an area into the expedited permitting area are “the same as” the standards to remove it. This is simply not true. First, the area to be re-added would be a discrete project area. In contrast, the current petition requests removal of the entire township of Milton.1 In a re-addition proceeding, the 1 If EverPower were to one day apply for re-addition, they would be presenting the Commission with specific information about the actual project area, and it would be an area that coincided with their proposed permit application. Here, EverPower’s written testimony keeps referencing only Bryant Mountain, but the maps showing their potential project area covers almost a third of the 3 substantive standards will be applied to only the discrete area necessary for the project. In this removal proceeding, the standards require the Commission to look at all of the values and resources throughout the entire township. Secondly, to re-add a specific area back into the expedited permitting area, EverPower would need to show that its specific project “is important to meeting the state goals” for wind capacity. This is a materially different question than whether removal of all of Milton will have “an unreasonable adverse effect” on the State’s ability to meet its goals. Lastly, when the standard that this Commission has to apply is “consistency with the CLUP” it is imperative that it asks the correct question. As a planning document, the CLUP contains both economic development and environmental protection goals that must be balanced when any proposal is to be implemented on the ground. All of EverPower’s testimony on this standard (presented primarily by its Stantec consultants) thus far in this proceeding have framed the question as if they want to re-add their project area back into the expedited permitting area. They try to get the Commission to ask whether “developing wind power on Bryant Mountain is consistent with the CLUP?”, but that is the wrong question. The question that this Commission must answer is whether “removal of Milton Township from the expedited permitting area is consistent with the CLUP.” Because removal of Milton Township is both consistent with the CLUP and will not have any unreasonably adverse effect on reaching the State’s wind capacity goals, the Commission should vote to remove Milton Township from the expedited permitting area. township, including both Bryant and Champlain Mountains. See Stantec testimony of June 29, 2016, Exhibit 2. 4 THERE IS NO UNREASONABLE ADVERSE EFFECT ON MAINE’S ABILITY TO MEET ITS WIND CAPACITY GOALS BY REMOVAL OF MILTON TOWNSHIP The Wind Energy Act enacted optimistic goals that were designed to encourage the development of appropriately sited wind power capacity in the State. By 2020, the State wants 3,000 MW of wind power capacity, of which at least 300 MW should be ocean-based. By 2030, the State wants 8,000 MW of wind power capacity, of which at least 5,000 MW should be ocean-based. 35-A M.R.S. § 3404 (2). Milton Township cannot contribute in any way to the ocean-based wind power goals, so it’s only potential role is in meeting the 2,700 MW of land-based wind power capacity by 2020, and 3,000 MW by 2030. EverPower implies that the loss of its one potential wind site on Bryant and Champlain Mountains would prevent these goals from being met. However, such an extreme viewpoint is not supported by the legislative history or the legal standard. The opportunity for removal of unorganized territories was enacted in 2015, at a time when the State had already failed to achieve its 2015 wind capacity goals.
Recommended publications
  • RI Equisetopsida and Lycopodiopsida.Indd

    RI Equisetopsida and Lycopodiopsida.Indd

    IIntroductionntroduction byby FFrancisrancis UnderwoodUnderwood Rhode Island Equisetopsida, Lycopodiopsida and Isoetopsida Special Th anks to the following for giving permission for the use their images. Robbin Moran New York Botanical Garden George Yatskievych and Ann Larson Missouri Botanical Garden Jan De Laet, plantsystematics.org Th is pdf is a companion publication to Rhode Island Equisetopsida, Lycopodiopsida & Isoetopsida at among-ri-wildfl owers.org Th e Elfi n Press 2016 Introduction Formerly known as fern allies, Horsetails, Club-mosses, Fir-mosses, Spike-mosses and Quillworts are plants that have an alternate generation life-cycle similar to ferns, having both sporophyte and gametophyte stages. Equisetopsida Horsetails date from the Devonian period (416 to 359 million years ago) in earth’s history where they were trees up to 110 feet in height and helped to form the coal deposits of the Carboniferous period. Only one genus has survived to modern times (Equisetum). Horsetails Horsetails (Equisetum) have jointed stems with whorls of thin narrow leaves. In the sporophyte stage, they have a sterile and fertile form. Th ey produce only one type of spore. While the gametophytes produced from the spores appear to be plentiful, the successful reproduction of the sporophyte form is low with most Horsetails reproducing vegetatively. Lycopodiopsida Lycopodiopsida includes the clubmosses (Dendrolycopodium, Diphasiastrum, Lycopodiella, Lycopodium , Spinulum) and Fir-mosses (Huperzia) Clubmosses Clubmosses are evergreen plants that produce only microspores that develop into a gametophyte capable of producing both sperm and egg cells. Club-mosses can produce the spores either in leaf axils or at the top of their stems. Th e spore capsules form in a cone-like structures (strobili) at the top of the plants.
  • Methods and Work Profile

    Methods and Work Profile

    REVIEW OF THE KNOWN AND POTENTIAL BIODIVERSITY IMPACTS OF PHYTOPHTHORA AND THE LIKELY IMPACT ON ECOSYSTEM SERVICES JANUARY 2011 Simon Conyers Kate Somerwill Carmel Ramwell John Hughes Ruth Laybourn Naomi Jones Food and Environment Research Agency Sand Hutton, York, YO41 1LZ 2 CONTENTS Executive Summary .......................................................................................................................... 8 1. Introduction ............................................................................................................ 13 1.1 Background ........................................................................................................................ 13 1.2 Objectives .......................................................................................................................... 15 2. Review of the potential impacts on species of higher trophic groups .................... 16 2.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 16 2.2 Methods ............................................................................................................................. 16 2.3 Results ............................................................................................................................... 17 2.4 Discussion .......................................................................................................................... 44 3. Review of the potential impacts on ecosystem services .......................................
  • Notes on Some Species of Diphasiastrum

    Notes on Some Species of Diphasiastrum

    Preslia, Praha, 47: 232 - 240, 1975 Notes on some species of Diphasiastrum Poznamky k n~kterym druhum rodu Dipha11iaatrum Josef Holub HOLUB J. (1975): Notes on some species of Diphasiastrum. - Preslia, Praha, 47: 232- 240. Taxonomic and nomenclatural problems of some species of Diphasiastrum HOLUB are discussed. A special attention is pa.id to the interspecies D. / X / issleri and D. / x / zei­ leri. Original plants of D. / x / issleri correspond to the combination D. alpinum - D. complanatum. Plants corresponding to the combination D. alpinum - D. tristachyum have been collected in the ~umava Mts. Some taxa described from the subarctic regions of Europe and North America are shown to belong most probably to the neglected interspecies D. / x / zeileri. Botanical I nstitute, Czechoslovak Academy of Sciences, 25~ 43 Prithonice, Czecho.,lovakia. INTRODUCTION This is a second part of my study of the new genus Diphasiastrum (HOLUB 1975), which could not be published in this journal in its entirety. Notes on taxonomy and nomenclature are selected from materials gathered originally for my "Catalogue of Czechoslovak vascular plants". With regard to the character of that work the present observations summarize the results of my own studies and suggests problems to be studied in the future. OBSERVATIONS f!.iphasiastrum alpinum (L.) HOLUB Two varieties have been described in this species (both under the name Lycopodium alpi­ nttm L.): var. thellungii HERTER from Switzerland and var. planiramulosum TAKEDA from Japan. Both these taxa, especially the first one, require a taxonomic revision; the possibility cannot be exclu<led that they are conspecific with D. / x / issleri.
  • The Role of Protein O-Mannosyltransferase in The

    The Role of Protein O-Mannosyltransferase in The

    THE ROLE OF PROTEIN O-MANNOSYLTRANSFERASE IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF DROSOPHILA TORSION PHENOTYPES A Dissertation by RYAN ANDREW BAKER Submitted to the Office of Graduate and Professional Studies of Texas A&M University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Chair of Committee, Vladislav Panin Committee Members, Gary Kunkel Lanying Zeng Paul Hardin Head of Department, Gregory Reinhart December 2016 Major Subject: Biochemistry Copyright 2016 Ryan Baker ABSTRACT Congenital muscular dystrophies (CMD’s) are serious diseases affecting muscle, brain, eye, and other tissues and often result in premature death of patients. These forms of muscular dystrophy are largely underlain by defects in the glycosylation of dystroglycan, and specifically by defects in the O-mannosylation pathway. The fruit fly Drosophila melanogaster is a good model system for studying many genetic diseases, including CMD’s, as they utilize many of the same molecular processes as mammals. They have homologues of mammalian Protein O-MannosylTransferase (POMT) 1 and 2 which have been shown to O-mannosylate dystroglycan. In this dissertation I studied the biological defects associated with POMT mutations primarily by using a live imaging approach in Drosophila. In Drosophila the most prominent defect associated with POMT mutations is a clockwise torsion of posterior abdominal segments relative to anterior segments. The mechanism by which this torsion arises was not previously known. Here I characterized the gross physiological mechanism by which torsion arises. I showed that it is present at the embryonic stage, that embryos undergo chiral rolling within their shells during peristaltic contractions, and that abnormal contraction patterning in POMT mutants leads to differential rolling that gives rise to torsion of the dorsal midline.
  • Xyleninae 73.087 2385 Small Mottled Willow

    Xyleninae 73.087 2385 Small Mottled Willow

    Xyleninae 73.087 2385 Small Mottled Willow (Spodoptera exigua) 73.089 2386 Mediterranean Brocade (Spodoptera littoralis) 73.091 2396 Rosy Marbled (Elaphria venustula) 73.092 2387 Mottled Rustic (Caradrina morpheus) 73.093 2387a Clancy's Rustic (Caradrina kadenii) 73.095 2389 Pale Mottled Willow (Caradrina clavipalpis) 73.096 2381 Uncertain (Hoplodrina octogenaria) 73.0961 2381x Uncertain/Rustic agg. (Hoplodrina octogenaria/blanda) 73.097 2382 Rustic (Hoplodrina blanda) 73.099 2384 Vine's Rustic (Hoplodrina ambigua) 73.100 2391 Silky Wainscot (Chilodes maritima) 73.101 2380 Treble Lines (Charanyca trigrammica) 73.102 2302 Brown Rustic (Rusina ferruginea) 73.103 2392 Marsh Moth (Athetis pallustris) 73.104 2392a Porter's Rustic (Athetis hospes) 73.105 2301 Bird's Wing (Dypterygia scabriuscula) 73.106 2304 Orache Moth (Trachea atriplicis) 73.107 2300 Old Lady (Mormo maura) 73.109 2303 Straw Underwing (Thalpophila matura) 73.111 2097 Purple Cloud (Actinotia polyodon) 73.113 2306 Angle Shades (Phlogophora meticulosa) 73.114 2305 Small Angle Shades (Euplexia lucipara) 73.118 2367 Haworth's Minor (Celaena haworthii) 73.119 2368 Crescent (Helotropha leucostigma) 73.120 2352 Dusky Sallow (Eremobia ochroleuca) 73.121 2364 Frosted Orange (Gortyna flavago) 73.123 2361 Rosy Rustic (Hydraecia micacea) 73.124 2362 Butterbur (Hydraecia petasitis) 73.126 2358 Saltern Ear (Amphipoea fucosa) 73.127 2357 Large Ear (Amphipoea lucens) 73.128 2360 Ear Moth (Amphipoea oculea) 73.1281 2360x Ear Moth agg. (Amphipoea oculea agg.) 73.131 2353 Flounced Rustic (Luperina
  • Vulnerability of At-Risk Species to Climate Change in New York (PDF

    Vulnerability of At-Risk Species to Climate Change in New York (PDF

    Vulnerability of At-risk Species to Climate Change in New York Matthew D. Schlesinger, Jeffrey D. Corser, Kelly A. Perkins, and Erin L. White New York Natural Heritage Program A Partnership between The Nature Conservancy and the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation New York Natural Heritage Program i 625 Broadway, 5th Floor Albany, NY 12233-4757 (518) 402-8935 Fax (518) 402-8925 www.nynhp.org Vulnerability of At-risk Species to Climate Change in New York Matthew D. Schlesinger Jeffrey D. Corser Kelly A. Perkins Erin L. White New York Natural Heritage Program 625 Broadway, 5th Floor, Albany, NY 12233-4757 March 2011 Please cite this document as follows: Schlesinger, M.D., J.D. Corser, K.A. Perkins, and E.L. White. 2011. Vulnerability of at-risk species to climate change in New York. New York Natural Heritage Program, Albany, NY. Cover photos: Brook floater (Alismodonta varicosa) by E. Gordon, Spadefoot toad (Scaphiopus holbrookii) by Jesse Jaycox, and Black Skimmers (Rynchops niger) by Steve Young. Climate predictions are from www.climatewizard.org. New York Natural Heritage Program ii Executive summary Vulnerability assessments are rapidly becoming an essential tool in climate change adaptation planning. As states revise their Wildlife Action Plans, the need to integrate climate change considerations drives the adoption of vulnerability assessments as critical components. To help meet this need for New York, we calculated the relative vulnerability of 119 of New York’s Species of Greatest Conservation Need (SGCN) using NatureServe’s Climate Change Vulnerability Index (CCVI). Funding was provided to the New York Natural Heritage Program by New York State Wildlife Grants in cooperation with the U.S.
  • Insects That Feed on Trees and Shrubs

    Insects That Feed on Trees and Shrubs

    INSECTS THAT FEED ON COLORADO TREES AND SHRUBS1 Whitney Cranshaw David Leatherman Boris Kondratieff Bulletin 506A TABLE OF CONTENTS DEFOLIATORS .................................................... 8 Leaf Feeding Caterpillars .............................................. 8 Cecropia Moth ................................................ 8 Polyphemus Moth ............................................. 9 Nevada Buck Moth ............................................. 9 Pandora Moth ............................................... 10 Io Moth .................................................... 10 Fall Webworm ............................................... 11 Tiger Moth ................................................. 12 American Dagger Moth ......................................... 13 Redhumped Caterpillar ......................................... 13 Achemon Sphinx ............................................. 14 Table 1. Common sphinx moths of Colorado .......................... 14 Douglas-fir Tussock Moth ....................................... 15 1. Whitney Cranshaw, Colorado State University Cooperative Extension etnomologist and associate professor, entomology; David Leatherman, entomologist, Colorado State Forest Service; Boris Kondratieff, associate professor, entomology. 8/93. ©Colorado State University Cooperative Extension. 1994. For more information, contact your county Cooperative Extension office. Issued in furtherance of Cooperative Extension work, Acts of May 8 and June 30, 1914, in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Agriculture,
  • Flora of the Carolinas, Virginia, and Georgia, Working Draft of 17 March 2004 -- BIBLIOGRAPHY

    Flora of the Carolinas, Virginia, and Georgia, Working Draft of 17 March 2004 -- BIBLIOGRAPHY

    Flora of the Carolinas, Virginia, and Georgia, Working Draft of 17 March 2004 -- BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY Ackerfield, J., and J. Wen. 2002. A morphometric analysis of Hedera L. (the ivy genus, Araliaceae) and its taxonomic implications. Adansonia 24: 197-212. Adams, P. 1961. Observations on the Sagittaria subulata complex. Rhodora 63: 247-265. Adams, R.M. II, and W.J. Dress. 1982. Nodding Lilium species of eastern North America (Liliaceae). Baileya 21: 165-188. Adams, R.P. 1986. Geographic variation in Juniperus silicicola and J. virginiana of the Southeastern United States: multivariant analyses of morphology and terpenoids. Taxon 35: 31-75. ------. 1995. Revisionary study of Caribbean species of Juniperus (Cupressaceae). Phytologia 78: 134-150. ------, and T. Demeke. 1993. Systematic relationships in Juniperus based on random amplified polymorphic DNAs (RAPDs). Taxon 42: 553-571. Adams, W.P. 1957. A revision of the genus Ascyrum (Hypericaceae). Rhodora 59: 73-95. ------. 1962. Studies in the Guttiferae. I. A synopsis of Hypericum section Myriandra. Contr. Gray Herbarium Harv. 182: 1-51. ------, and N.K.B. Robson. 1961. A re-evaluation of the generic status of Ascyrum and Crookea (Guttiferae). Rhodora 63: 10-16. Adams, W.P. 1973. Clusiaceae of the southeastern United States. J. Elisha Mitchell Sci. Soc. 89: 62-71. Adler, L. 1999. Polygonum perfoliatum (mile-a-minute weed). Chinquapin 7: 4. Aedo, C., J.J. Aldasoro, and C. Navarro. 1998. Taxonomic revision of Geranium sections Batrachioidea and Divaricata (Geraniaceae). Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 85: 594-630. Affolter, J.M. 1985. A monograph of the genus Lilaeopsis (Umbelliferae). Systematic Bot. Monographs 6. Ahles, H.E., and A.E.
  • Mining Index To

    Mining Index To

    MINING INDEX TO HENDERSON, HOLLISTER, AND CANFIELD HISTORIES DENVER PUBLIC LIBRARY WESTERN HISTORY DEPARTMENT Typed and edited by Rita Torres February, 1995 MINING INDEX to Henderson, Hollister, and Canfield mining histories. Names of mines, mining companies, mining districts, lodes, veins, claims, and tunnels are indexed with page number. Call numbers are as follows: Henderson, Charles. Mining in Colorado; a history of discovery, development and production. C622.09 H38m Canfield, John. Mines and mining men of Colorado, historical, descriptive and pictorial; an account of the principal producing mines of gold and silver, the bonanza kings and successful prospectors, the picturesque camps and thriving cities of the Rocky Mountain region. C978.86 C162mi Hollister, Orvando. The mines of Colorado. C622.09 H72m A M W Abe Lincoln mine p.155c, 156b, 158a, 159b, p.57b 160b Henderson Henderson Adams & Stahl A M W mill p.230d p.160b Henderson Henderson Adams & Twibell A Y & Minnie p.232b p.23b Henderson Canfield Adams district A Y & Minnie mill p.319 p.42d, 158b, 160b Hollister Henderson Adams mill A Y & Minnie mines p.42d, 157b, 163b,c, 164b p.148a, 149d, 153a,c,d, 156c, Henderson 161d Henderson Adams mine p.43a, 153a, 156b, 158a A Y mine, Leadville Henderson p.42a, 139d, 141d, 147c, 143b, 144b Adams mining co. Henderson p.139c, 141c, 143a Henderson 1 Adelaide smelter Alabama mine p.11a p.49a Henderson Henderson Adelia lode Alamakee mine p.335 p.40b, 105c Hollister Henderson Adeline lode Alaska mine, Poughkeepsie gulch p.211 p.49a, 182c Hollister Henderson Adrian gold mining co.
  • Synthesis of Aquatic Climate Change Vulnerability Assessments for the Interior West

    Synthesis of Aquatic Climate Change Vulnerability Assessments for the Interior West

    FINAL REPORT: SYNTHESIS OF AQUATIC CLIMATE CHANGE VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENTS FOR THE INTERIOR WEST MARCH 31ST, 2015 This report was produced by the Rocky Mountain Research Station as part of the Southern Rockies Landscape Conservation Cooperative project “Vulnerability Assessments: Synthesis and Applications for Aquatic Species and their habitats in the Southern Rockies Landscape Conservation Cooperative”IA#R13PG80650 Report authors: Megan M. Friggens United States Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research Station Albuquerque, New Mexico Carly K. Woodlief United States Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research Station Albuquerque, New Mexico For More Information or to request a copy of this report or data, please contact: Megan Friggens Rocky Mountain Research Station 333 Broadway SE Albuquerque, NM 87102 [email protected] Cover: Adapted From Averyt et al. 2013. Sectoral contributions to surface water stress in the coterminous United States. Environmental Research Letters 8: 035046 (9pp). 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 4 Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 5 Vulnerability Assessments ........................................................................................................................ 6 Vulnerability Assessment Approaches .....................................................................................................
  • Summits on the Air – ARM for USA - Colorado (WØC)

    Summits on the Air – ARM for USA - Colorado (WØC)

    Summits on the Air – ARM for USA - Colorado (WØC) Summits on the Air USA - Colorado (WØC) Association Reference Manual Document Reference S46.1 Issue number 3.2 Date of issue 15-June-2021 Participation start date 01-May-2010 Authorised Date: 15-June-2021 obo SOTA Management Team Association Manager Matt Schnizer KØMOS Summits-on-the-Air an original concept by G3WGV and developed with G3CWI Notice “Summits on the Air” SOTA and the SOTA logo are trademarks of the Programme. This document is copyright of the Programme. All other trademarks and copyrights referenced herein are acknowledged. Page 1 of 11 Document S46.1 V3.2 Summits on the Air – ARM for USA - Colorado (WØC) Change Control Date Version Details 01-May-10 1.0 First formal issue of this document 01-Aug-11 2.0 Updated Version including all qualified CO Peaks, North Dakota, and South Dakota Peaks 01-Dec-11 2.1 Corrections to document for consistency between sections. 31-Mar-14 2.2 Convert WØ to WØC for Colorado only Association. Remove South Dakota and North Dakota Regions. Minor grammatical changes. Clarification of SOTA Rule 3.7.3 “Final Access”. Matt Schnizer K0MOS becomes the new W0C Association Manager. 04/30/16 2.3 Updated Disclaimer Updated 2.0 Program Derivation: Changed prominence from 500 ft to 150m (492 ft) Updated 3.0 General information: Added valid FCC license Corrected conversion factor (ft to m) and recalculated all summits 1-Apr-2017 3.0 Acquired new Summit List from ListsofJohn.com: 64 new summits (37 for P500 ft to P150 m change and 27 new) and 3 deletes due to prom corrections.
  • Forest Wide Hazardous Tree Removal and Fuels Reduction Project

    Forest Wide Hazardous Tree Removal and Fuels Reduction Project

    107°0'0"W 1 F 8 r H 2 a 2 a 2 0 3 rsh a . s 203 9 .1 Sheephorn Mountain Gu 1 e .1 8.1 lch r A 2 ek Trappers Peak C 0 1 8 4 2 .1 re r 8 C ee 1 m p k 1 20 a . 3 8 C . 9 3 1 . 1 0 M 2 7 M Colorado 8 a iddl 7 rv 3.1 2 Sedgwi1ck e For in k k 8 S e C e 82 5 1 De 18 5 1 r e rby 8. 1 D 1 9 8 1 8 .1 C ree u . k Congor Mesa r n 1 g C Logan y n i n r e ek Battle Mountain d y Jackson Larimer F K Moffat l si Phillips o d pruce C re e e t e 6 r th S k i k r t o e e Weld 2 1 k C N Routt 1 1 f r 8 0 C r r C 5 8 2 . u e Dice Hill 7. 7 1 a e e 1 6 3 b o k 1 8 Project Ao rea Sheep Mountain 6 N i a 2 . .1 5 D 1 1 n e k . 8 R 1 Morgan N C G re 1 3 r C 96 7 e 1 8 ek r . 1 .1 e Grand 30 re l e C Grand Boulder k .1 C il R 1 e - Washington Yuma N . 6 Grand Co. u c M 3 Rio Blanco 1 1 5 1 p r r 8 1 C S k e 8 9 0 P Routt e v 1 1 .