DOCSLIB.ORG

Preliminary Evaluation of Potential Acecs---Royal

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Preliminary Evaluation of Potential Acecs---Royal Preliminary Evaluation of Potential ACECs—Royal Gorge Field Office Relevance and Importance Criteria Prepared by U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Royal Gorge Field Office Cañon City, CO February 2017 This page intentionally left blank Preliminary Evaluation of Potential iii ACECs—Royal Gorge Field Office Table of Contents Acronyms and Abbreviations ....................................................................................................... ix Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................... xi _1. Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 1 _1.1. Eastern Colorado Resource Management Plan ............................................................... 1 _1.2. Authorities ....................................................................................................................... 1 _1.3. Area of Consideration ..................................................................................................... 1 _1.4. The ACEC Designation Process ..................................................................................... 1 _2. Requirements for ACEC Designation .................................................................................... 3 _2.1. Identifying ACECs .......................................................................................................... 5 _2.2. Special Management Attention ....................................................................................... 5 _2.3. Nomination of ACECs .................................................................................................... 6 _2.4. Evaluation of Potential ACECs ...................................................................................... 6 _2.5. Relevance ........................................................................................................................ 6 _2.6. Importance ...................................................................................................................... 7 _2.7. Consideration of Potential ACECs ................................................................................. 7 _2.8. Comments on Proposed ACECs ..................................................................................... 8 _2.9. Designation of ACECs .................................................................................................... 8 _3. Relevance and Importance Evaluations ................................................................................. 9 _3.1. Introduction ................................................................................................................... 11 _3.2. Arkansas Canyonlands ACEC ...................................................................................... 11 _3.3. Arkansas River Corridor ACEC ................................................................................... 13 _3.4. Castle Gardens ACEC ................................................................................................... 21 _3.5. Cucharas Canyon ACEC ............................................................................................... 23 _3.6. Dikes of the Spanish Peaks ACEC (Incorporating Mount Mestas [Maestas] and North Raton Basin ACECs) ....................................................................................... 25 _3.7. Droney Gulch ACEC .................................................................................................... 27 _3.8. Eastern Plains–Lesser Prairie Chicken Habitat ACEC ................................................. 29 _3.9. Garden Park Paleontological Area ACEC .................................................................... 31 _3.10. Grape Creek ACEC ..................................................................................................... 33 _3.11. Mount Ouray to Poncha Drainages ACEC ................................................................. 35 _3.12. Reinecker Ridge .......................................................................................................... 37 _3.13. Ruby Mountain/Railroad Gulch ACEC ...................................................................... 39 _3.14. South Pikes Peak ACEC (Incorporating Existing Beaver Creek, Phantom Canyon, and Externally Proposed Phantom ACECs) ............................................................... 41 _3.15. Top of the World ACEC (Incorporating Mosquito Pass Expansion and Birdseye Gulch) ......................................................................................................................... 43 _3.16. Thompson Mountain–Twin–Gribble Mountain ACEC .............................................. 45 February 2017 Table of Contents iv Preliminary Evaluation of Potential ACECs—Royal Gorge Field Office _4. List of Preparers ..................................................................................................................... 47 Table of Contents February 2017 Preliminary Evaluation of Potential v ACECs—Royal Gorge Field Office List of Figures Figure 3.1. Map of Arkansas Canyonlands ACEC ........................................................................ 12 Figure 3.2. Map of Arkansas River Corridor ACEC Zone 1 ......................................................... 14 Figure 3.3. Map of Arkansas River Corridor ACEC Zone 2 ......................................................... 16 Figure 3.4. Map of Arkansas River Corridor ACEC Zone 3 ......................................................... 18 Figure 3.5. Map of Arkansas River Corridor ACEC Zone 4 ......................................................... 20 Figure 3.6. Map of Castle Gardens ACEC .................................................................................... 22 Figure 3.7. Map of Cucharas Canyon ACEC ................................................................................ 24 Figure 3.8. Map of Dikes of the Spanish Peaks ACEC ................................................................. 26 Figure 3.9. Map of Droney Gulch ACEC ...................................................................................... 28 Figure 3.10. Map of Eastern Plains–Lesser Prairie Chicken Habitat ACEC ................................. 30 Figure 3.11. Map of Garden Park Paleontological Area ACEC .................................................... 32 Figure 3.12. Map of Grape Creek ACEC ...................................................................................... 34 Figure 3.13. Map of Mount Ouray to Poncha Drainages ACEC ................................................... 36 Figure 3.14. Map of Reinecker Ridge ACEC ................................................................................ 38 Figure 3.15. Map of Ruby Mountain/Railroad Gulch ACEC ........................................................ 40 Figure 3.16. Map of South Pikes Peak ACEC ............................................................................... 42 Figure 3.17. Map of Top of the World ACEC ............................................................................... 44 Figure 3.18. Map of Thompson Mountain–Twin–Gribble Mountain ACEC ................................ 46 February 2017 List of Figures This page intentionally left blank Preliminary Evaluation of Potential vii ACECs—Royal Gorge Field Office List of Tables Table 3.1. Arkansas Canyonlands ACEC Relevance and Importance Criteria ............................. 11 Table 3.2. Arkansas River Corridor ACEC Zone 1 Relevance and Importance Criteria .............. 13 Table 3.3. Arkansas River Corridor ACEC Zone 2 Relevance and Importance Criteria .............. 15 Table 3.4. Arkansas River Corridor ACEC Zone 3 Relevance and Importance Criteria .............. 17 Table 3.5. Arkansas River Corridor ACEC Zone 4 Relevance and Importance Criteria .............. 19 Table 3.6. Castle Gardens ACEC Relevance and Importance Criteria .......................................... 21 Table 3.7. Cucharas Canyon ACEC Relevance and Importance Criteria ...................................... 23 Table 3.8. Dikes of the Spanish Peaks ACEC Relevance and Importance Criteria ....................... 25 Table 3.9. Droney Gulch ACEC Relevance and Importance Criteria ........................................... 27 Table 3.10. Eastern Plains–Lesser Prairie Chicken Habitat ACEC Relevance and Importance Criteria ................................................................................................................................ 29 Table 3.11. Garden Park Paleontological Area ACEC Relevance and Importance Criteria .......... 31 Table 3.12. Grape Creek ACEC Relevance and Importance Criteria ............................................ 33 Table 3.13. Mount Ouray to Poncha Drainages ACEC Relevance and Importance Criteria ........ 35 Table 3.14. Reinecker Ridge ACEC Relevance and Importance Criteria ..................................... 37 Table 3.15. Ruby Mountain/Railroad Gulch ACEC Relevance and Importance Criteria ............. 39 Table 3.16. South Pikes Peak ACEC Relevance and Importance Criteria .................................... 41 Table 3.17. Top of the World ACEC Relevance and Importance Criteria ..................................... 43 Table 3.18. Thompson Mountain–Twin–Gribble Mountain ACEC Relevance and Importance Criteria ...............................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • USGS Scientific Investigations Map 3394 Sheet 1
    U.S. Department of the Interior Scientific Investigations Map 3394 U.S. Geological Survey Sheet 1 of 2 Pamphlet accompanies map 106°22'30" Pahlone Peak (PP) 38°30' 10800 106°15' 14 13 10800 Mount Ouray (MO) Old Monarch 106°07'30" Poncha Pass (PO) 18 Pass 17 106° 16 15 9200 Monarch Pass 10800 14 13 18 38°30' 10400 108° 106° 104° 10400 17 16 Poncha Hot 15 14 13 8800 8000 11600 10400 11600 10000 18 17 Springs 8400 40° 9600 9200 16 15 Hunter 14 13 18 17 Figure 16. Panoramic view 0 10 20 30 40 50 MILES 23 24 Porphyry Gulch Dry Lake 8800 10800 Round Mountain Gulch Wicker PikesPark Peak 10800 across crest of Whale Hill (dacitic Bonanza Tuff) 11600 Hayden Peak Creek Spring Creek 19 20 11200 Whale Hill Elkhorn resurgent dome, eastward 0 25 50 75 KILOMETERS 21 Peak (late lava flows) San Luis Valley Denver Porphyry 11200 22 Dacitic Creek 23 24 (RioRedman Grande rift) toward San Luis Valley (Rio 9600 SangreCreek de Cristo Mountains 19 Rhyolitic Porphyry Peak Bonanza Tuff 20 Creek F 10800 21 22 Grande rift), from west rim of r Bonanza Tuff 23 24 19 o 11200 20 Cleveland n Bonanza caldera. Intracaldera 21 22 23 t 11200 8000 24 19 8400 12400 Mountain 8800 20 10000 Bonanza Tuff is as much as 2.5 8400 Agate Creek Pahlone 9600 8400 Park Caldera-floor lavas c r Peak km thick, dips 45–55° on flank ni ocks Mount 12000 Creek Southeast a R 25 Peck lc a 26 12000 of resurgent dome.
    [Show full text]
  • Trains of the Colorado Rockies
    Trains of the Colorado Rockies Presented by San Bernardino County Museum Association Tour Information Presentation When: Thursday, November 4th Where: San Bernardino County Museum Association 2024 Orange Tree Lane, Redlands, CA 92374-4560 Time: 6:00 PM For more information call and to R.S.V.P. Please contact Lawanda Avery-Brown at (909) 307-2669 Ext. 225 [email protected] Day 1: Saturday, August 06, 2011 Denver, Colorado - Tour Begins August 06 - August 14, 2011 Traverse the Colorado Rockies with Collette Vacations as you journey through the beauty of Highlights... nature with Alpine lakes, towering peaks and rolling Denver • Rocky Mountain National Park • Georgetown Loop Railroad • Grand Junction • meadows at every turn. Your tour begins in the “Mile Colorado National Monument • Durango & High City” of Denver, Colorado. Silverton Railroad • Durango • Mesa Verde Today Dinner is included. National Park • Royal Gorge Railroad • Colorado Springs • Pike's Peak Cog Railway • Garden of the Gods • Day 2: Sunday, August 07, 2011 Denver - Boulder - Estes Park - Rocky Mountain 9 Days • 12 Meals: National Park - Denver 8 Breakfasts • 4 Dinners Travel to the resort village of Estes Park, famous for its Stanley Hotel, the inspiration for Stephen King's Per Person Rates*: novel, The Shining. Enjoy leisure time to meander Double $2349 among its unique shops and fine galleries. Next stop Single $2949 is Rocky Mountain National Park to discover the Triple $2319 true meaning of “panoramic” as you experience incredible views. Then, travel across the famed *Included in Price: Air Taxes and Fees/Surcharges of Trail Ridge Road* which forms the highest $50 (subject to increase until paid in full), Hotel Transfers, Round Trip Air from Ontario International.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 5 – Complexes: Area-Specific Management Recommendations
    Wild Connections Conservation Plan for the Pike & San Isabel National Forests Chapter 5 – Complexes: Area-Specific Management Recommendations This section contains our detailed, area-specific proposal utilizing the theme based approach to land management. As an organizational tool, this proposal divides the Pike-San Isabel National Forest into eleven separate Complexes, based on geo-physical characteristics of the land such as mountain ranges, parklands, or canyon systems. Each complex narrative provides details and justifications for our management recommendations for specific areas. In order to emphasize the larger landscape and connectivity of these lands with the ecoregion, commentary on relationships to adjacent non-Forest lands are also included. Evaluations of ecological value across public and private lands are used throughout this chapter. The Colorado Natural Heritage Programs rates the biodiversity of Potential Conservation Areas (PCAs) as General Biodiversity, Moderate, High, Very High, and Outranking Significance. The Nature Conservancy assesses the conservation value of its Conservation Blueprint areas as Low, Moderately Low, Moderate, Moderately High and High. The Southern Rockies Ecosystem Project's Wildlands Network Vision recommends land use designations of Core Wilderness, Core Agency, Low and Moderate Compatible Use, and Wildlife Linkages. Detailed explanations are available from the respective organizations. Complexes – Summary List by Watershed Table 5.1: Summary of WCCP Complexes Watershed Complex Ranger District
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter W-9 - Wildlife Properties
    07/15/2021 CHAPTER W-9 - WILDLIFE PROPERTIES Index Page ARTICLE I GENERAL PROVISIONS #900 REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO ALL WILDLIFE 1 PROPERTIES, EXCEPT STATE TRUST LANDS ARTICLE II PROPERTY SPECIFIC PROVISIONS #901 PROPERTY SPECIFIC REGULATIONS 8 ARTICLE III STATE TRUST LANDS #902 REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO ALL STATE TRUST LANDS 53 LEASED BY COLORADO PARKS AND WILDLIFE #903 PROPERTY SPECIFIC REGULATIONS 55 ARTICLE IV STATE FISH UNITS #904 REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO ALL STATE FISH UNITS 71 #905 PROPERTY SPECIFIC REGULATIONS 72 ARTICLE V BOATING RESTRICTIONS APPLICABLE TO ALL DIVISION CONTROLLED PROPERTIES, INCLUDING STATE TRUST LANDS LEASED BY COLORADO PARKS AND WILDLIFE #906 AQUATIC NUISANCE SPECIES (ANS) 72 APPENDIX A 74 APPENDIX B 75 Basis and Purpose 81 Statement CHAPTER W-9 - WILDLIFE PROPERTIES ARTICLE I - GENERAL PROVISIONS #900 - REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO ALL WILDLIFE PROPERTIES, EXCEPT STATE TRUST LANDS A. DEFINITIONS 1. “Aircraft” means any machine or device capable of atmospheric flight, including, but not limited to, airplanes, helicopters, gliders, dirigibles, balloons, rockets, hang gliders and parachutes, and any models thereof. 2. "Water contact activities" means swimming, wading (except for the purpose of fishing), waterskiing, sail surfboarding, scuba diving, and other water-related activities which put a person in contact with the water (without regard to the clothing or equipment worn). 3. “Youth mentor hunting” means hunting by youths under 18 years of age. Youth hunters under 16 years of age shall at all times be accompanied by a mentor when hunting on youth mentor properties. A mentor must be 18 years of age or older and hold a valid hunter education certificate or be born before January 1, 1949.
    [Show full text]
  • Profiles of Colorado Roadless Areas
    PROFILES OF COLORADO ROADLESS AREAS Prepared by the USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region July 23, 2008 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 2 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS ARAPAHO-ROOSEVELT NATIONAL FOREST ......................................................................................................10 Bard Creek (23,000 acres) .......................................................................................................................................10 Byers Peak (10,200 acres)........................................................................................................................................12 Cache la Poudre Adjacent Area (3,200 acres)..........................................................................................................13 Cherokee Park (7,600 acres) ....................................................................................................................................14 Comanche Peak Adjacent Areas A - H (45,200 acres).............................................................................................15 Copper Mountain (13,500 acres) .............................................................................................................................19 Crosier Mountain (7,200 acres) ...............................................................................................................................20 Gold Run (6,600 acres) ............................................................................................................................................21
    [Show full text]
  • A Revision of the Bark Beetle Genus Dendroctonus Erichson (Coleoptera: Scolytidae)
    Great Basin Naturalist Volume 23 Number 1 – Number 2 Article 1 6-14-1963 A revision of the bark beetle genus Dendroctonus Erichson (Coleoptera: Scolytidae) Stephen L. Wood Brigham Young University Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/gbn Recommended Citation Wood, Stephen L. (1963) "A revision of the bark beetle genus Dendroctonus Erichson (Coleoptera: Scolytidae)," Great Basin Naturalist: Vol. 23 : No. 1 , Article 1. Available at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/gbn/vol23/iss1/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Western North American Naturalist Publications at BYU ScholarsArchive. It has been accepted for inclusion in Great Basin Naturalist by an authorized editor of BYU ScholarsArchive. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. Y The Great Basin Naturalist Published at Provo, Utah by Brigham Young University Volume XXIII June 14, 1963 ' Jj'^^^^^ljS^ AUG 1 8 1966 hMrxvMrXLJ A REVISION OF THE BARK BEETLE GENUS ^ SIT DENDROCTONUS ERICHSON (COLEOPTERA: SCOLYTIDAE)^ Stephen L. Wood' Abstract This taxonomic revision of all known species of Dendroctonus is based on an analysis of anatomical and biological characters. Among the anatomical structures found to be of greatest use in char- acterizing species were the seminal rod of the male genital capsule, the surface features of the frons, and the features of the elytral declivity. Characters of the egg gallery, position and arrangement of egg niches and grooves, and the character and position of the larval mines provided features for field recognition of species that were equal to, if not superior to, anatomical characters.
    [Show full text]
  • Forest Wide Hazardous Tree Removal and Fuels Reduction Project
    107°0'0"W VAIL k GYPSUM B e 6 u 6 N 1 k 2 k 1 h 2 e . e 6 . .1 I- 1 o 8 70 e c f 7 . r 0 e 2 2 §¨¦ e l 1 0 f 2 u 1 0 3 2 N 4 r r 0 1 e VailVail . 3 W . 8 . 1 85 3 Edwards 70 1 C 1 a C 1 .1 C 8 2 h N 1 G 7 . 7 0 m y 1 k r 8 §¨¦ l 2 m 1 e c . .E 9 . 6 z W A T m k 1 5 u C 0 .1 u 5 z i 6. e s 0 C i 1 B a -7 k s 3 2 .3 e e r I ee o C r a 1 F G Carterville h r e 9. 1 6 r g 1 N 9 g 8 r e 8 r y P e G o e u l Avon n C 9 N C r e n 5 ch w i r 8 .k2 0 N n D k 1 n 70 a tt e 9 6 6 8 G . c 7 o h 18 1 §¨¦ r I-7 o ra West Vail .1 1 y 4 u h 0 1 0. n lc 7 l D .W N T 7 39 . 71 . 1 a u 1 ch W C k 0 C d . 2 e . r e 1 e 1 C st G e e . r 7 A Red Hill R 3 9 k n s e 5 6 7 a t 2 .
    [Show full text]
  • A MODEL for BIOMASS ASSESSMENT E-023 SUBMITTED BY: Dr
    • A MODEL FOR BIOMASS ASSESSMENT E-023 SUBMITTED BY: Dr. Stephen J. Walsh Associate Professor Dr. George p. Malanson Assistant Professor Dr. John D. Vitek Associate Professor Dr. David R. Butler Assistant Professor Department of Geography Oklahoma State University & in conjunction with USDA/Agricultural Research Service SUBMITTED TO: Dr. Norman N. Durham, Director Water Research Center Oklahoma State University March 14, 1983 Introduction The surface of the earth is a complex system responding to the input of energy, natural and human. Human use of the surface for maximum agricultural efficiency requires knowledge of the interactions of all variables involved in the system. Broad categories of phenomena, including the atmosphere (weather and climate), biosphere (vegetation, fauna, and human activity), hydrosphere (precipitation, runoff, infiltration, fluvial erosion, and evapotranspiration), and the lithosphere (soil, topography, and parent material), can be identified as the major variables in any assessment. Assessment of interactions requires data from various sources. The emergence of remote sensing as a source of data for assessments in the last decade permits the development of more accurate predictive models. Refinements in data acquisition, such as improved resolution, the use of radar, and the correlation of detailed surface observations with satellite overpasses, provide researchers with the capability to assess inter­ relationships and create accurate models. A conceptual model, Figure 1, illustrates the interaction of the Department of Geography/CARS and the USDA/Agricultural Research Service with components of the natural system for the purpose of creating a predictive model for biomass assessment~~CARS, the remote sensing center at Oklahoma State University, plus ARS of the USDA bring different skills to this joint research effort.
    [Show full text]
  • Geographic Names
    GEOGRAPHIC NAMES CORRECT ORTHOGRAPHY OF GEOGRAPHIC NAMES ? REVISED TO JANUARY, 1911 WASHINGTON GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1911 PREPARED FOR USE IN THE GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE BY THE UNITED STATES GEOGRAPHIC BOARD WASHINGTON, D. C, JANUARY, 1911 ) CORRECT ORTHOGRAPHY OF GEOGRAPHIC NAMES. The following list of geographic names includes all decisions on spelling rendered by the United States Geographic Board to and including December 7, 1910. Adopted forms are shown by bold-face type, rejected forms by italic, and revisions of previous decisions by an asterisk (*). Aalplaus ; see Alplaus. Acoma; township, McLeod County, Minn. Abagadasset; point, Kennebec River, Saga- (Not Aconia.) dahoc County, Me. (Not Abagadusset. AQores ; see Azores. Abatan; river, southwest part of Bohol, Acquasco; see Aquaseo. discharging into Maribojoc Bay. (Not Acquia; see Aquia. Abalan nor Abalon.) Acworth; railroad station and town, Cobb Aberjona; river, IVIiddlesex County, Mass. County, Ga. (Not Ackworth.) (Not Abbajona.) Adam; island, Chesapeake Bay, Dorchester Abino; point, in Canada, near east end of County, Md. (Not Adam's nor Adams.) Lake Erie. (Not Abineau nor Albino.) Adams; creek, Chatham County, Ga. (Not Aboite; railroad station, Allen County, Adams's.) Ind. (Not Aboit.) Adams; township. Warren County, Ind. AJjoo-shehr ; see Bushire. (Not J. Q. Adams.) Abookeer; AhouJcir; see Abukir. Adam's Creek; see Cunningham. Ahou Hamad; see Abu Hamed. Adams Fall; ledge in New Haven Harbor, Fall.) Abram ; creek in Grant and Mineral Coun- Conn. (Not Adam's ties, W. Va. (Not Abraham.) Adel; see Somali. Abram; see Shimmo. Adelina; town, Calvert County, Md. (Not Abruad ; see Riad. Adalina.) Absaroka; range of mountains in and near Aderhold; ferry over Chattahoochee River, Yellowstone National Park.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • Sangre De Cristo Salida and San Carlos Wet Mountains San Carlos Spanish Peaks San Carlos
    Wild Connections Conservation Plan for the Pike & San Isabel National Forests Chapter 5 – Complexes: Area-Specific Management Recommendations This section contains our detailed, area-specific proposal utilizing the theme based approach to land management. As an organizational tool, this proposal divides the Pike-San Isabel National Forest into eleven separate Complexes, based on geo-physical characteristics of the land such as mountain ranges, parklands, or canyon systems. Each complex narrative provides details and justifications for our management recommendations for specific areas. In order to emphasize the larger landscape and connectivity of these lands with the ecoregion, commentary on relationships to adjacent non-Forest lands are also included. Evaluations of ecological value across public and private lands are used throughout this chapter. The Colorado Natural Heritage Programs rates the biodiversity of Potential Conservation Areas (PCAs) as General Biodiversity, Moderate, High, Very High, and Outranking Significance. The Nature Conservancy assesses the conservation value of its Conservation Blueprint areas as Low, Moderately Low, Moderate, Moderately High and High. The Southern Rockies Ecosystem Project's Wildlands Network Vision recommends land use designations of Core Wilderness, Core Agency, Low and Moderate Compatible Use, and Wildlife Linkages. Detailed explanations are available from the respective organizations. Complexes – Summary List by Watershed Table 5.1: Summary of WCCP Complexes Watershed Complex Ranger District
    [Show full text]
  • Frozen Ground
    Frozen Ground Th e News Bulletin of the International Permafrost Association Number 32, December 2008 INTERNATIONAL PERMAFROST ASSOCIATION Th e International Permafrost Association, founded in 1983, has as its objectives to foster the dissemination of knowledge concerning permafrost and to promote cooperation among persons and national or international organisations engaged in scientifi c investigation and engineering work on permafrost. Membership is through national Adhering Bodies and Associate Members. Th e IPA is governed by its offi cers and a Council consisting of representatives from 26 Adhering Bodies having interests in some aspect of theoretical, basic and applied frozen ground research, including permafrost, seasonal frost, artifi cial freezing and periglacial phenomena. Committees, Working Groups, and Task Forces organise and coordinate research activities and special projects. Th e IPA became an Affi liated Organisation of the International Union of Geological Sciences (IUGS) in July 1989. Beginning in 1995 the IPA and the International Geographical Union (IGU) developed an Agreement of Cooperation, thus making IPA an affi liate of the IGU. Th e Association’s primary responsibilities are convening International Permafrost Conferences, undertaking special projects such as preparing databases, maps, bibliographies, and glossaries, and coordinating international fi eld programmes and networks. Conferences were held in West Lafayette, Indiana, U.S.A., 1963; in Yakutsk, Siberia, 1973; in Edmonton, Canada, 1978; in Fairbanks, Alaska, 1983; in Trondheim, Norway, 1988; in Beijing, China, 1993; in Yellowknife, Canada, 1998, in Zurich, Switzerland, 2003, and in Fairbanks, Alaska, in 2008. Th e Tenth conference will be in Tyumen, Russia, in 2012.Field excursions are an integral part of each Conference, and are organised by the host Executive Committee 2008-2012 Council Members Professor Hans-W.
    [Show full text]