DOCSLIB.ORG

PAD-US (CBI Edition) Version 2.1 - Protected Areas Checklist

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

PAD-US (CBI Edition) Version 2.1 - Protected Areas Checklist Area of Critical Environmental Concern (690:1042) Protected Area Name Establishment Date In PAD-US (CBI Edition) 111 Ranch Research Natural Area NO Abert Rim Area of Critical Environmental Concern YES Acid Shale-Pine Forest Area of Critical Environmental Concern 1994 YES Adobe Badlands Area of Critical Environmental Concern 1989 NO Adams Canyon Area of Critical Environmental Concern YES Afton Canyon Area of Critical Environmental Concern 2006 YES Agua Fria Area of Critical Environmental Concern 2010 YES Ah-Shi-Sle-Pah Road Area of Critical Environmental Concern 2003 YES Alamo Hueco Mountains Area of Critical Environmental Concern 2003 YES Alamo Mountain Area of Critical Environmental Concern 2003 YES Alcova Fossil Area of Critical Environmental Concern 2007 NO Albert Mesa Area of Critical Environmental Concern YES Alkali Lakes Area of Critical Environmental Concern 2007 YES Alkali Ridge Area of Critical Environmental Concern 2008 YES Alkali Sinks Area of Critical Environmental Concern 2008 YES Alligator Rock Area of Critical Environmental Concern 2008 YES Alvord Desert Area of Critical Environmental Concern NO Amargosa Mesquite Area of Critical Environmental Concern 1998 NO Amargosa River Area of Critical Environmental Concern 1998 YES Amboy Crater Area of Critical Environmental Concern 1998 NO American Basin Area of Critical Environmental Concern 1993 YES American River Historic Sites District 2009 NO Ammonite Site Area of Critical Environmental Concern 1984 NO Anasazi Culture Multiple Use Area Area of Critical Environmental Concern YES Andrews Ranch Area of Critical Environmental Concern YES Angel Peak Area of Critical Environmental Concern 2003 YES Antelope Flat Research Natural Area 1999 NO 1 Anvik River Area of Critical Environmental Concern 1981 NO Apache Box Area of Critical Environmental Concern 1981 YES Appleton-Whittell Area of Critical Environmental Concern YES Arden Historic Sites Area of Critical Environmental Concern 1998 YES Arkansas Canyonlands Area of Critical Environmental Concern 1996 YES Armagosa Mesquite Area of Critical Envirionmental Concern YES Armboy Crater Area of Critical Environmental Concern YES Arrow Canyon Area of Critical Environmental Concern YES Arms Lake Research Natural Area 1986 NO Ash Meadows Area of Critical Environmental Concern 1998 YES Ash Valley Area of Critical Environmental Concern 1998 YES Ashiih Naa'a Area of Critical Environmental Concern YES Aubrey Peak Area of Critical Environmental Concern YES Azure Cave Area of Critical Environmental Concern 1994 YES Baboquivari Peak Area of Critical Environmental Concern NO Badger Wash Area of Critical Environmental Concern 1987 YES Bagby Serpentine Area of Critical Environmental Concern 2008 YES Baker Cypress Area of Critical Environmental Concern YES Baking Powder Flat Area of Critical Environmental Concern 2008 YES Bald Eagle Area of Critical Environmental Concern 2003 YES Ball Ranch Area of Critical Environmental Concern 1986 YES Barstow Woolly Sunflower Area of Critical Environmental Concern 2006 YES Beale Slough Riparian and Cultural Area of Critical Environmental Concern YES Bear Creek Flats Area of Critical Environmental Concern 1994 YES Bear Creek Area of Critical Environmental Concern 1994 YES Bear Gulch Area of Critical Environmental Concern NO Bear Springs Badlands Area of Critical Environmental Concern YES Beatty Creek Area of Critical Environmental Concern NO Beaver Creek Area of Critical Environmental Concern 1996 NO Beaver Dam Slope Area of Critical Environmental Concern 1999 YES Beaver Wash Canyon Area of Critical Environmental Concern YES Beaver Rim Area of Critical Environmental Concern NO Beaverhead Rock Area of Critical Environmental Concern 2006 YES 2 Bedrock Spring Area of Critical Environmental Concern 2006 YES Bee Burrow Area of Critical Environmental Concern YES Behind The Rocks Area of Critical Environmental Concern 2008 NO Bendire'S Thrasher Area of Critical Environmental Concern 2008 YES Benjamin Area of Critical Environmental Concern NO Bering Glacier Research Natural Area 2007 NO Bi Yaazh Area of Critical Environmental Concern YES Big Alvord Creek Area of Critical Environmental Concern NO Big Beaver Area of Critical Environmental Concern 1981 YES Big Cedar Ridge Area of Critical Environmental Concern 1997 NO Big Dune Area of Critical Environmental Concern 1998 YES Big Flat Tops Area of Critical Environmental Concern 2009 YES Big Hatchet Mountains Area of Critical Environmental Concern 2009 YES Big Hole Area of Critical Environmental Concern 2009 NO Big Marias Area of Critical Environmental Concern NO Big Morongo Canyon Area of Critical Environmental Concern YES Big Windy Hot Spring Research Natural Area 1986 NO Bigelow Cholla Area of Critical Environmental Concern 1986 YES Bird Spring Area of Critical environmental Concern YES Birch Creek Area of Critical Environmental Concern 1999 NO Biscuitroot Area of Critical Environmental Concern 1992 YES Bis Sa'ani Area of Critical Environmental Concern YES Bitner Area of Critical Environmental Concern 1992 NO Bitter Creek Area of Critical Environmental Concern 2003 NO Black's Gulch Area of Critical Environmental Concern YES Black-Footed Ferret Area of Critical Environmental Concern 1996 YES Black Butte Area of Critical Environmental Concern YES Black Forest Area of Critical Environmental Concern YES Black Grama Area of Critical Environmental Concern NO Black Hills Area of Critical Environmental Concern NO Black Knolls Area of Critical Environmental Concern YES Black Mesa Area of Critical Environmental Concern 1998 YES Black Mountain Area of Critical Environmental Concern 2006 YES 3 Black Mountains Area of Critical Environmental Concern YES Black's Gulch Area of Critical Environmental Concern NO Blanca Area of Critical Environmental Concern YES Blanco Area of Critical Environmental Concern YES Blanco Star Panel Area of Critical Environmental Concern YES Blackcanyon Area of Critical Environmental Concern NO Blanca Area of Critical Environmental Concern 1991 NO Block Mountain Area of Critical Environmental Concern 2006 NO Blowout Penstemon Area of Critical Environmental Concern 2008 NO Block Mountain Area of Critical Environmental Concern YES Blue Hill Area of Critical Environmental Concern 1984 YES Blue Lake Area of Critical Environmental Concern 2006 NO Blue Mass Scenic Area Area of Critical Environmental Concern 2008 NO Blue Ridge Area of Critical Environmental Concern 2008 YES Blue Springs Area of Critical Environmental Concern 1998 YES Blue Spring Area of Critical Environmental Concern 1997 YES Bluewater Area of Critical Environmental Concern 1986 YES Bobby Creek Area of Critical Environmental Concern NO Bodie Bowl Area of Critical Environmental Concern YES Boise Front Area of Critical Environmental Concern 1988 YES Bonneville Salt Flats Area of Critical Environmental Concern 1990 YES Borax Lake Area of Critical Environmental Concern YES Boulder Creek Area of Critical Environmental Concern 1999 NO Bowen Canyon Bald Eagle Sanctuary Area of Critical Environmental Concern 1988 YES Bowie Mtn Scenic Area of Critical Environmental Concern YES Bowknot Bend Area of Critical Environmental Concern 2009 YES Box Canyon Area of Critical Environmental Concern 1985 YES Box River Treeline Research Natural Area 1986 NO Brewer Spruce Area of Critical Environmental Concern NO Brewster Roost Area of Critical Environmental Concern 1987 YES Bridger Butte Area of Critical Environmental Concern 2010 NO Brown/Howe Dinosaur Area of Critical Environmental Concern 1995 NO Brown's Canyon Area of Critical Environmental Concern 1996 YES 4 Browns Park Area of Critical Environmental Concern 2008 YES Bruneau/Jarbidge River Area of Critical Environmental Concern 1987 YES Buckwheat Flats Research Natural Area 1988 NO Buffalo Creek Canyons Area of Critical Environmental Concern 1988 NO Bull Gulch Area of Critical Environmental Concern NO Bullhead Bajada Natural and Cultural Area of Critical Environmental Concern YES Burro Creek Riparian and Cultural Area of Critical Environmental Concern YES Bushnell-Irwin Rocks Area of Critical Environmental Concern NO Butler Wash Area of Critical Environmental Concern YES Butte Creek Area of Critical Environmental Concern YES Cabezon Peak Area of Critical Environmental Concern 1986 YES Cache Creek Corridor Area of Critical Environmental Concern 1986 YES Cagle's Site Area of Critical Environmental Concern YES Calico Early Man Site Area of Critical Environmental Concern 2006 YES Camas Swale Area of Critical Environmental Concern NO Canaan Mountain Area of Critical Environmental Concern 1999 YES Canon Tapai Area of Critical Environmental Concern YES Canyon View Ruin Area of Critical Environmental Concern YES Captain John Creek Research Natural Area 2009 NO Carbonate Endemic Plants Research Natural Area 2006 YES Carizzo Plain Area of Critical Environmental Concern 2006 YES Carolyns Crown Area of Critical Environmental Concern 1984 NO Carrow-Stephens Ranches Area of Critical Environmental Concern YES Carson Wandering Skipper Area of Critical Environmental Concern 2001 YES Carter Mountain Area of Critical Environmental Concern 1990 NO Carter Spit Area of Critical Environmental Concern 2008 NO Carwright Canyon Area of Critical Environmental Concern 1993 YES Casa Del Rio Archaeological Protection Area of Critical Environmental Concern YES Casamero Community Area of Critical Environmental Concern 2003 YES Case Mountain Area of Critical Environmental Concern 2003 YES Castle Rock Area of Critical Environmental
Recommended publications
  • Jacks River Hiking Trail

    Jacks River Hiking Trail

    Jacks River Hiking Trail A little over nine miles into the Jacks River Trail, hikers encounter Jacks River Falls-an impressive 80-foot, two-tier waterfall. For hikers contemplating a walk on the Jacks River Trail, it's helpful have a little background on the Cohutta Wilderness, the location of the trail, before beginning the hike. Officially designated on January 3, 1975, the Cohutta Wilderness now encompasses 36,977 acres - 35,268 acres within Georgia and the remainder in Tennessee. The Georgia portion of the wilderness is located northeast of Chatsworth, primarily in Fannin and Murray counties. The Georgia Wilderness Bill of 1986 added 2,940 acres, all within the Chattahoochee National Forest, to the Cohutta Wilderness. This new designation extended the Cohutta to the northeast, from Dally Gap along FS 22 to the Tennessee line. Although much of this wilderness was logged earlier in the century, the forest has returned, healing the scarred land and obliterating all but the smallest traces of man's past exploitation. With continued wilderness designation and the passage of time, the forest will slowly regain much of its former magnificence. A network of fifteen trails totaling 87 miles penetrates this rugged wilderness, where elevations range from 950 to 4,200 feet. All but three of these trails lead to or follow the scenic Jacks and Conasauga Rivers, whose headwaters are protected by National Forest land in and around the wilderness. These two rivers are among the few larger streams in North Georgia that still offer quality wild-trout fishing. Tennessee's 8,082-acre Big Frog Wilderness in the Cherokee National Forest is contiguous with the Cohutta Wilderness along the Cohutta's northern border.
  • Ambler Draft EIS Map 3-6 Large Rivers, Lakes, and Hydrologic Gages

    Ambler Draft EIS Map 3-6 Large Rivers, Lakes, and Hydrologic Gages

    Chapter 3 - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Large Rivers, Lakes, and Hydrologic Gages in the Project Area U.S DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR | BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT | ALASKA | AMBLER ROAD EIS Noatak National Hydrologic National Preserve Dataset University of Alaska Fairbanks - Water and (!!(Wiseman !( r Environmental Research e R v i USGS Center Water Gage e R ID:15564875 r e d h !( USGS Water Gage e Gates of the Arctic c v R i i r (! Coldfoot t !( i National Park Alternative A R v Alatna River e r i e John River k e Iniakuk Lake r D u v Walker Lake USGS Alternative B t i k R ID:15564879 u Alternative C er l Wild River Riv o k ! k g lu Avaraart Lake ute Ambler Mineral Belt ( o # m Fo ") a e ala rk )"161 n K n M !( Koyukuk River Ambler g au Ambler Mining District n M B u e ! h a !( ( Community S v !( e S. Fork Reed River !( Kollioksak r Alatna River )"# Dalton Highway Mile Post USGS C Bedrock Shungnak ! r Nutuvukti Lake (! Evansville (! ( ID:15743850 Lake e !( National Wildlife Refuge ek Creek Bettles Kobuk Boundary Narvak Lake Lake Minakokosa Old Bettles Ku r Site National Park Service ki Lake Selby K ive !( ch obuk R Boundary e Norutak Lake USGS r P k Gates of the Arctic ID:15564885 ick R Alatna River . National Preserve R r i e v Yukon v e i r R Allakaket Flats a tz Alatna (!(! a NWR Pah River og H Selawik NWR iver Kanuti NWR k R ku u D y A o L K T O Hughes Creek N H W Y Lake Tokhaklanten To Fairbanks Klalbaimunket Lake Hughes !((! USGS ID:15564900 Ray River )"60")# !( g Salt River Indian River Bi USGS ID:15453500 Date: 6/28/2019 Huslia No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land (! Management as to the accuracy, reliability, K or completeness of these data for individual o or aggregate use with other data.
  • Wilderness Visitors and Recreation Impacts: Baseline Data Available for Twentieth Century Conditions

    Wilderness Visitors and Recreation Impacts: Baseline Data Available for Twentieth Century Conditions

    United States Department of Agriculture Wilderness Visitors and Forest Service Recreation Impacts: Baseline Rocky Mountain Research Station Data Available for Twentieth General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-117 Century Conditions September 2003 David N. Cole Vita Wright Abstract __________________________________________ Cole, David N.; Wright, Vita. 2003. Wilderness visitors and recreation impacts: baseline data available for twentieth century conditions. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-117. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 52 p. This report provides an assessment and compilation of recreation-related monitoring data sources across the National Wilderness Preservation System (NWPS). Telephone interviews with managers of all units of the NWPS and a literature search were conducted to locate studies that provide campsite impact data, trail impact data, and information about visitor characteristics. Of the 628 wildernesses that comprised the NWPS in January 2000, 51 percent had baseline campsite data, 9 percent had trail condition data and 24 percent had data on visitor characteristics. Wildernesses managed by the Forest Service and National Park Service were much more likely to have data than wildernesses managed by the Bureau of Land Management and Fish and Wildlife Service. Both unpublished data collected by the management agencies and data published in reports are included. Extensive appendices provide detailed information about available data for every study that we located. These have been organized by wilderness so that it is easy to locate all the information available for each wilderness in the NWPS. Keywords: campsite condition, monitoring, National Wilderness Preservation System, trail condition, visitor characteristics The Authors _______________________________________ David N.
  • Fact Sheet for the Draft NPDES General Permit for Suction Dredge

    Fact Sheet for the Draft NPDES General Permit for Suction Dredge

    FACT SHEET The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Plans To Reissue A National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit To: Small Suction Dredge Miners in Idaho and the State of Idaho Department of Environmental Quality Proposes to Certify under Clean Water Act (CWA) § 401 Public Comment Start Date: December 13, 2017 Public Comment Expiration Date: January 29, 2018 Technical Contact Name: Cindi Godsey Phone: (206) 553-1676 Email: [email protected] EPA Proposes NPDES Permit Reissuance EPA proposes to reissue an NPDES General Permit (GP) to small suction dredgers operating in Idaho. Small suction dredges are limited to an intake nozzle size of 5 inches in diameter or less (or the diametrical equivalent defined in the GP) and equipment rated at 15 horsepower or less. The draft GP sets conditions on the discharge - or release - of pollutants from these operations into waters of the United States. This Fact Sheet includes: - Information on public comment, public hearings, and appeal procedures - a description of the industry - a description of draft GP conditions - background information supporting the conditions in the draft GP The State of Idaho CWA § 401 Certification Upon EPA’s request, the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (IDEQ) has provided a draft certification of the permit under CWA § 401. Persons wishing to comment on State Certification should submit written comments by the public notice expiration date to Nicole Deinarowicz, Idaho Department of Environmental Quality, 1410 N. Hilton Boise, Idaho 83706. Ms. Deinarowicz may be reached by phone at (208) 373-0591 or by e-mail at [email protected].
  • VGP) Version 2/5/2009

    VGP) Version 2/5/2009

    Vessel General Permit (VGP) Version 2/5/2009 United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) VESSEL GENERAL PERMIT FOR DISCHARGES INCIDENTAL TO THE NORMAL OPERATION OF VESSELS (VGP) AUTHORIZATION TO DISCHARGE UNDER THE NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM In compliance with the provisions of the Clean Water Act (CWA), as amended (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), any owner or operator of a vessel being operated in a capacity as a means of transportation who: • Is eligible for permit coverage under Part 1.2; • If required by Part 1.5.1, submits a complete and accurate Notice of Intent (NOI) is authorized to discharge in accordance with the requirements of this permit. General effluent limits for all eligible vessels are given in Part 2. Further vessel class or type specific requirements are given in Part 5 for select vessels and apply in addition to any general effluent limits in Part 2. Specific requirements that apply in individual States and Indian Country Lands are found in Part 6. Definitions of permit-specific terms used in this permit are provided in Appendix A. This permit becomes effective on December 19, 2008 for all jurisdictions except Alaska and Hawaii. This permit and the authorization to discharge expire at midnight, December 19, 2013 i Vessel General Permit (VGP) Version 2/5/2009 Signed and issued this 18th day of December, 2008 William K. Honker, Acting Director Robert W. Varney, Water Quality Protection Division, EPA Region Regional Administrator, EPA Region 1 6 Signed and issued this 18th day of December, 2008 Signed and issued this 18th day of December, Barbara A.
  • National Monuments and the Forest Service

    National Monuments and the Forest Service

    NATIONAL MONUMENTS AND THE FOREST SERVICE Gerald W. Williams, Ph.D., (Retired) USDA Forest Service Washington, DC National monuments are areas of federal land set aside by the Congress or most often by the president, under authority of the American Antiquities Act of June 8, 1906, to protect or enhance prominent or important features of the national landscape. Such important national features include those land areas that have historic cultural importance (sites and landmarks), prehistoric prominence, or those of scientific or ecological significance. Today, depending on how one counts, there are 81 national monuments administered by the USDI National Park Service, 13 more administered by the USDI Bureau of Land Management (BLM), five others administered by the USDA Forest Service, two jointly managed by the BLM and the National Park Service, one jointly administered by the BLM and the Forest Service, one by the USDI Fish & Wildlife Service, and another by the Soldiers’ and Airmen’s Home in Washington, D.C. In addition, one national monument is under National Park Service jurisdiction, but managed by the Forest Service while another is on USDI Bureau of Reclamation administered land, but managed by the Park Service. The story of the national monuments and the Forest Service also needs to cover briefly the creation of national parks from national forest and BLM lands. More new national monuments and national parks are under consideration for establishment. ANTIQUITIES ACT OF 1906 Shortly after the turn of the century, many citizens’ groups and organizations, as well as members of Congress, believed it was necessary that an act of Congress be passed to combat the increasing acts of vandalism and even destruction of important cultural (historic and prehistoric), scenic, physical, animal, and plant areas around the country (Rothman 1989).
  • Alaska Park Science 19(1): Arctic Alaska Are Living at the Species’ Northern-Most to Identify Habitats Most Frequented by Bears and 4-9

    Alaska Park Science 19(1): Arctic Alaska Are Living at the Species’ Northern-Most to Identify Habitats Most Frequented by Bears and 4-9

    National Park Service US Department of the Interior Alaska Park Science Region 11, Alaska Below the Surface Fish and Our Changing Underwater World Volume 19, Issue 1 Noatak National Preserve Cape Krusenstern Gates of the Arctic Alaska Park Science National Monument National Park and Preserve Kobuk Valley Volume 19, Issue 1 National Park June 2020 Bering Land Bridge Yukon-Charley Rivers National Preserve National Preserve Denali National Wrangell-St Elias National Editorial Board: Park and Preserve Park and Preserve Leigh Welling Debora Cooper Grant Hilderbrand Klondike Gold Rush Jim Lawler Lake Clark National National Historical Park Jennifer Pederson Weinberger Park and Preserve Guest Editor: Carol Ann Woody Kenai Fjords Managing Editor: Nina Chambers Katmai National Glacier Bay National National Park Design: Nina Chambers Park and Preserve Park and Preserve Sitka National A special thanks to Sarah Apsens for her diligent Historical Park efforts in assembling articles for this issue. Her Aniakchak National efforts helped make this issue possible. Monument and Preserve Alaska Park Science is the semi-annual science journal of the National Park Service Alaska Region. Each issue highlights research and scholarship important to the stewardship of Alaska’s parks. Publication in Alaska Park Science does not signify that the contents reflect the views or policies of the National Park Service, nor does mention of trade names or commercial products constitute National Park Service endorsement or recommendation. Alaska Park Science is found online at https://www.nps.gov/subjects/alaskaparkscience/index.htm Table of Contents Below the Surface: Fish and Our Changing Environmental DNA: An Emerging Tool for Permafrost Carbon in Stream Food Webs of Underwater World Understanding Aquatic Biodiversity Arctic Alaska C.
  • A Watershed Database for National Parks in Southwestern Alaska and a System for Further Watershed-Based Analysis

    A Watershed Database for National Parks in Southwestern Alaska and a System for Further Watershed-Based Analysis

    A Watershed Database for National Parks in Southwestern Alaska and a System for Further Watershed-based Analysis David M. Mixon 2005 Introduction This document describes a project designed to delineate and quantitatively describe watersheds located within or flowing into or out of national park lands in the National Inventory and Monitoring program’s Southwest Alaskan Network (SWAN) of parks. The parks included in this study are Aniakchak National Monument & Preserve, Katmai National Park & Preserve, Lake Clark National Park & Preserve, and Kenai Fjords National Park. This effort was undertaken to support decision-making processes related to the Inventory and Monitoring program’s goals. A variety of environmental and physical attributes were collected for each watershed using remotely sensed data in the form of a geographic information system (GIS). The GIS data used is from a variety of sources with variable quality. The nature of GIS analysis is such that many times a newer, higher-resolution dataset may become available during the course of any given study. For this reason, a set of scripts and methods are provided, making the incorporation of newer datasets as easy as possible. The goal is to provide an initial analysis of park hydrology as well as a means for updating the database with a minimal amount of effort. It was necessary to choose a watershed size (stream order) that would provide sufficient detail for each park and allow useful comparison of basins within the parks while minimizing the complexity of the study. Review of standards for hydrologic unit delineation being used for the National Hydrography Dataset (NHD) (FGDC, 2002), suggested that the officially designated level 5 watersheds would provide the level of detail desired while minimizing redundancy.
  • Statement of Mike Pool Acting Deputy Director for Operations Bureau of Land Management U.S

    Statement of Mike Pool Acting Deputy Director for Operations Bureau of Land Management U.S

    Statement of Mike Pool Acting Deputy Director for Operations Bureau of Land Management U.S. Department of the Interior Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee Subcommittee on Public Lands, Forests, and Mining S. 1167, Owyhee Wilderness Areas Boundary Modifications Act April 21, 2016 Thank you for inviting the Department of the Interior to testify on S. 1167, the Owyhee Wilderness Areas Boundary Modifications Act. This bill would modify the boundaries of the Pole Creek, Owyhee River, and North Fork Owyhee Wilderness Areas; authorize the use of motorized vehicles for livestock monitoring, herding, and gathering in six wilderness areas in Idaho; and require the Secretary of the Interior to submit a report describing livestock grazing management activities that were authorized in these six areas prior to their designation as wilderness in 2009. The BLM acknowledges the dedicated efforts of stakeholders to collaborate on issues concerning wilderness management in this region of Idaho. Generally, the BLM supports stakeholder-driven efforts to refine management boundaries, provided those solutions further the purposes of the original enabling legislation and represent a balanced approach to enhancing manageability. The Administration, however, strongly opposes S. 1167, because of broad management changes that would lift essential protections from wilderness areas. In particular, we oppose provisions for the use of motorized vehicles in wilderness areas because the language undermines the longstanding definition and spirit of wilderness
  • Identification and Characterization of Inconnu Spawning Habitat in the Sulukna River, Alaska

    Identification and Characterization of Inconnu Spawning Habitat in the Sulukna River, Alaska

    Identification and characterization of inconnu spawning habitat in the Sulukna River, Alaska Item Type Thesis Authors Gerken, Jonathon D. Download date 01/10/2021 17:30:58 Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/11122/6994 IDENTIFICATION AND CHARACTERIZATION OF INCONNU SPAWNING HABITAT IN THE SULUKNA RIVER, ALASKA By Jonathon Gerken RECOMMENDED: Mr. Randy Bpown h jM k i - ____________________ Dr. David Verbyla C9/ts Dr. Christian Zimmerman _________ , .///A , l Dr. Joseph Margraf, Advisory Committee C^iair 7 fU > Dr. Shannon Atkinson, Interim Director, Fisheries Division APPROVED: Dr. Denis Wiesenburg Dean, SchoaUef Fisheries and Ocean Sciences /Sr DfTLawrence Duffy, Dean of the Graduate School Date IDENTIFICATION AND CHARACTERIZATION OF INCONNU SPAWNING HABITAT IN THE SULUKNA RIVER, ALASKA A THESIS Presented to the Faculty of the University of Alaska Fairbanks in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE By Jonathon D. Gerken, B.S. Fairbanks, Alaska December 2009 Ill Abstract InconnuStenodus leucichthys are present throughout much of the Yukon Rlver drainage in Alaska, but only five spawning areas have been identified. Spawning habitat requlrements are therefore thought to be very speclflc; however, the physlcal qualltles of these habitats have only been characterized in general terms. The Sulukna River is one of five identified inconnu spawning areas within the Yukon River drainage. A systematic sampling design was used in September and October of 2007-2008 to define Sulukna River spawning locations. Presence of inconnu was identified using hook and line sampling methods and spawning was verified by catching broadcast eggs in plankton nets. Small-scale, large-scale, and chemical habitat variables were sampled at transects located every 1.8 river kilometer (rkm).
  • The Nationwide Rivers Inventory APPENDIX National System Components, Study Rivers and Physiographic Maps

    The Nationwide Rivers Inventory APPENDIX National System Components, Study Rivers and Physiographic Maps

    The Nationwide Rivers Inventory APPENDIX National System Components, Study Rivers and Physiographic Maps The National Park Service United States Department of the Interior Washington, DC 20240 January 1982 III. Existing Components of the National System 1981 National Wild and Scenic Rivers System Components State Alaska 1 _ ** River Name County(s)* Segment Reach Agency Contact Description (mile1s) (s) Designation State Congressional Section(s) Length Date of District(s) Managing Physiographic Agency Alagnak River including AK I&W The Alagnak from 67 12/2/80 NPS National Park Service Nonvianuk Kukaklek Lake to West 540 West 5th Avenue boundary of T13S, R43W Anchorage, AK 99501 and the entire Nonvianuk River. Alntna River AK B.R. The main stem within the 83 12/2/80 NPS National Park Service Gates of the Arctic 540 West 5th Avenue National Park and Preserve. Anchorage, AK 99501 Andreafsky River and AK I614- Segment from its source, 262 12/2/80 FWS Fish and Wildlife Service East Fork including all headwaters 1011 E. Tudor and the East Fork, within Anchorage, AK 99503 the boundary of the Yukon Delta National Wildlife Refuge. AK All of the river 69 12/2/80 NPS National Park Service Aniakchak River P.M. including its major 540 West 5th Avenue including: Hidden Creek tributaries, Hidden Creek, Anchorage, AK 99501 Mystery Creek, Albert Mystery Creek, Albert Johnson Creek, North Fork Johnson Creek, and North Aniakchak River Fork Aniakchak River, within the Aniakchak National Monument and Preserve. *Alaska is organized by boroughs. If a river is in or partially in a borough, it is noted.
  • National Forests in Mississippi

    National Forests in Mississippi

    The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TTY). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. Land and Resource Management Plan National Forests in Mississippi Forest Supervisor’s Office – Jackson, Mississippi Bienville National Forest – Forest, Mississippi Delta National Forest – Rolling Fork, Mississippi De Soto National Forest: Chickasawhay Ranger District – Laurel, Mississippi De Soto Ranger District - Wiggins, Mississippi Holly Springs National Forest – Oxford, Mississippi (Includes the Yalobusha Unit) Homochitto National Forest – Meadville, Mississippi Tombigbee National Forest – Ackerman, Mississippi (Includes the Ackerman and Trace Units) Responsible Official: Elizabeth Agpaoa, Regional Forester Southern Region