DOCSLIB.ORG

Upper Weber Marion Kamas Francis Woodland Uinta Mountains Peoa

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Upper Weber Marion Kamas Francis Woodland Uinta Mountains Peoa Kamas Driving Guide 2008 3/17/08 9:34 AM Page 1 10 19. Duchesne Tunnel. Built 1940 - 1952. 32 Upper Weber This 6 mile tunnel brings water from the 7. Smith and Morehouse Reservoir. Campground, Duchesne River to the Provo River. Milepost 18, Hwy 150. Closed in winter. 300 North boat ramp, picnic area, mountain access. 12 miles from Oakley. Hwy 213. 20. Uinta Falls. Milepost 12.6, Hwy 150. Closed in winter. 200 North Kamas 8. Holiday Park. The Headwaters of the 21. Trial Lake High Mountain Dams, & John est 100 North Weber River. Grix Cabin. Lakes built with pack animals W and 2-wheeled carts between 1910 & 1940. 200 Center St. Cabin built 1922 - 1925 during 11 The valley’s elevation made 32 100 South expansion of Trial Lake. Closed in winter. 12 Marion farming difficult, but the 31 22. Bald Mountain Pass. High point (10,678 ft). 200 South 150 248 To Uintas 9. Original LDS Church. towns soon found a cash crop Blazzard Lumber in Kamas 30 Views into the Uinta Wilderness and of Bald est 300 South Built 1910-1914. Now Mt. (11,947) Hayden Peak (12,473), Mt in timber. Great forest of pine covered the mountains Cover photo: Janet Thimmes “Traffic on Main Street in Kamas” W 24 Kamas Valley Co-op. Agassiz (12,429). Milepost 29•B, Hwy 150. and canyons above the towns. Timber camps were 100 400 South Note the arched windows. Closed in winter. erected near the headwaters of Beaver Creek, the Provo Milepost 15.9, Hwy 32. 23. Highline Trail. East west hiking trail the and Weber Rivers. 32 length of the Uinta Mountains. Milepost 300 East 200 East 100 East 10. William and Martha Myrick House. (Nat. Reg.) oothill Dr Weber River Canyon Rd. F Built 1902. Mile 14.4, Hwy 32. 31•4 Hwy 150. Closed in winter. 8 150 24. Black’s Fork Commissary. Log cabins from d late 1870’s. 16.5 north of Mirror Lake, 32 oa n R To Peoa Oakley yo right on north slope Rd. USFS 058 Rockport Reservoir an Kamas r C ive (4 wheel drive recommended), to Black’s er R Stevens eb 11. Rhodes Valley Fort W Fort (18.8 mi), then 0.6 miles north. Closed in winter. Marion. In the wide Monument and Kamas Valley, on S.R. 23 Daughters of Utah Pioneers Cabin. Site of fort 32 Peoa Smith & Morehouse Reservoir 32, between Oakley Peoa built 1866 to protect 49 Families during Picnic Area 7 Indian wars. Center & 1st West. and Kamas lies the 1 Main Street 3 12. John Lambert home Monument. One 25. Beaver Creek. 15 picnic town of Marion. One of 2 Center St. 4 of the first original settlers. 165 East 100 South. tables Milepost 8, Hwy 150. the town’s most Cow Alley 5 26. Shingle Creek. Located just 29 The Myrick House imposing structures is 3 Oakley east of the camping area. 3 large picnic units. a large, elaborately decorated home on the west side of the 5 Mirror Lake 4 6 Francis Will accommodate around 100 people. road. The Myrick House was built in 1901-02. Once owned 22 r Milepost 9, Hwy 150. Marion ve 9 28 Ri To Kamas 10 er 13. Francis Settlement Daughters of the Utah by Marion Myrick Sorensen. Her name became the namesake 21 eb 27. Upper Provo Bridge. 6 picnic tables, 27 W of the town. 32 6 Pioneers Cabin and Monument. One house accommodating up to 30 people. 32 west of flashing light at intersection Hwy 32 No water at site Milepost 23, Hwy 150. Francis. Before settlements, Indians Oakley and Hwy 35. 28. Bald Mountain. 3 picnic tables, No water 11 summer camped here to feed cattle, sheep, Kamas 14. Byron T. Mitchell House. at this site. Milepost 28, Hwy 150. and horses. Their carvings in caves can be 248 16 (Nat. Reg.) Built 1897. 29. Mirror Lake. 18 picnic tables. Milepost 32, 26 seen nearby. In 1870 Nathan Neibour 17 18 25 West corner of intersection Hwy 150. Peoa Hwy 32 and Hwy 35. 30. Sulfur. One large picnic unit homesteaded land here and built a cabin. Francis DUP 20 accommodating 60 people. Milepost 39, He received a patent to the land in 1882 and a warranty 14 1. Fort Sage Bottom Monument. Bell hung Hwy 150. deed in 1885. These were the first documents filed in this 13 150 19 atop the school for 60 years. 31. Beaver View. One large picnic unit part of the Utah Territory. The LDS Ward was organized in Milepost 212, Hwy 32. Woodland Woodland accommodating 30 people. Milepost 41, 1889. This land was given to local Daughters of Utah 2. Peoa School House. Built 1927-1930. 15. Woodland Cash Store. Built 1930. 32 Francis Hwy 150. 15 Peoa Cemetery. 2734 E. Hwy 35. Pioneers in 1940. 35 32. Stillwater. 3 large picnic unit =Cemetery accommodating 100 people. Milepost 45, Woodland. was settled in Nat. Reg. = Hwy 150. 1867 along the valley of the National Register Oakley Uinta Mountains of Historic Places Provo River. The Woodland 3. Oakley Church. Built in 1903, now 16. Samak (Kamas spelled backwards) Country “Unless history lives in our present Cash store was built in the City Hall. The bell hung on top of the Store. Best known for beef and turkey jerky it has no future.” old Oakley school from 1904-1938 Milepost 2.5, Hwy 150. 1930s. Please visit our HISTORICAL SOCIETY Y 0 Mile 18, Hwy 32. T 0 17. Kamas Fish Hatchery. Open to visitors. HISTORICAL SOCIETY MUSEUM N 0 This area is teeming with U 2 O 4. Indian Trail Monument. Across from 60 NORTH MAIN C D Self-guided tours. Hwy 150. T I wildlife such as sandhill COALVILLE, UTAH R M Oakley City Hall. A M 18. Beaver Creek Natural Arboretum. W www.summitcounty.org/history U S Woodland Cash store cranes, moose and deer. A 5. W. H Stevens Home. Built in 1884 of Natural area from Milepost 6 to 15, Funded through Summit County Restaurant Tax P R E S E R V A T I O N handmade brick. Corner Hwy 32 & Cow Alley. Utah State Historical Society Hwy 150. © 2008 Summit County Historical Society 6. Oakley Recreation Complex. 3400 N. SR 32 Kamas Driving Guide 2008 3/17/08 9:34 AM Page 2 Kamas Valley History The land we call the Kamas Valley Next to come to our valley were the fur traders or trappers, O’Driscoll remembered twenty-seven families living there Easy access to the nearby mountains made lumbering a In 1861 a fort was built on a nearby creek, moved in 1866 has a long and colorful history. Ours is just the latest sometimes called the Mountain Men. They came in the early when she and her husband John arrived in June 1869. natural local industry. Settlers cut and hauled logs to Salt to Sage Bottom, sometimes called Woodenshoe, one mile chapter in a rich story that makes this land its home. 1820s for the purpose of collecting furs from the wild The Indians made a raid on the settlers’ horses and an Lake City to trade for provisions; the trip usually took at south of Peoa. Houses of split logs and clay were placed Scientists believe that the Kamas Valley was once covered animals to sell in eastern markets. After snaring for many Indian boy was captured, taken to the fort and chained. least four days. close together with a church in the center. The bell atop this with water. The land on which we now live was once at the months, the fur trappers would all meet together at some When the chains were removed the next morning, the boy In addition to the livestock, monument was used for nearly 60 years in the schoolhouse. bottom of a large inland lake. Fossils of aquatic animals rendezvous where they would talk, have contests and tell escaped but was shot in the hand by one of the settlers. He dairy, and lumber industries, Drinking water was obtained from a well. Settlers from both have been found to prove this. The water slowly evaporated, tall tales. One such gathering was held in 1825 on what was was able, however, to rejoin his tribe on the Weber River. Kamas has been, for a number of Kamas and Peoa lived here during the Black Hawk War. leaving rich soil. The valley soon became covered with then known as the Kamas Prairie. After several days, a large group of Indians returned to the years, the headquarters of the Oakley. In 1868 William Stevens willow, cottonwood, alder, and river birch. Maple, oak, Some of the fur traders who attended were: fort and demanded food in payment for the injury. After Wasatch National Forest and became the first permanent settler chokecherry, service berry, and hawthorn grew on the hills J. W. Ashley, Jim Bridger, Jedediah Smith, receiving beef and other supplies and feasting with the plays an important role as a in what was called Oak Creek, and through the valley. Sage brush was also very common. William Sublett, John Weber and Entienne settlers, they returned to their tribe. supply station for those hiking or then renamed Oakley. In 1903 the With the abundance of plant life, animals were found in Provost. The Weber River was named after There seems to be camping in the nearby Uinta Oakley City Hall served as the the valley in great numbers. The streams were filled with John Weber, and the Provo River was named some disagreement as Mountains and the Granddaddy place of worship for the local fish as well as fur-bearing animals such as the beaver and after Entienne Provost.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Provo River Watershed Plan Introduction Public Water Systems
    Provo River Watershed Plan Introduction Public water systems (PWSs) in the State of Utah who treat surface water or groundwater under the direct influence of surface water are required by the Drinking Water Source Protection (DWSP) Rule, to develop, submit and implement a DWSP Plan for all sources of public drinking water. All PWSs are required to delineate watershed protection zones, develop a listing of potential contamination sources within the protection zones, and subsequently prepare and implement management plans to provide protection for surface water sources within the watershed protection zones. The following PWSs along the Wasatch Front have formed the Watershed Protection Coalition (Coalition) and have initiated a cooperative project to develop their DWSP Plans for the Provo River Basin Watershed: Central Utah Water Conservancy District Jordan Valley Water Conservancy District Metropolitan Water District of Salt Lake & Sandy The mission of the Watershed Protection Coalition is to: Work cooperatively to understand the watershed, identify priorities, and develop and implement long-term strategies to protect the drinking water source(s) from contamination, as a primary safeguard to protect the public health. Support federal, state and local agencies that are empowered with the authority and jurisdiction necessary to protect the watershed(s) and drinking water source(s) through regulations, rules and ordinances. The members of the Coalition, all of whom are active signing and funding members of the Provo River Watershed Council (PRWC), are working together to protect regional surface water resources. By working together in cooperation with other agencies and programs, the Coalition is able to maximize efficiency, and jointly manage potential contamination sources.
    [Show full text]
  • Mountain Goat Unit Management Plan | Wasatch and Central Mountains
    MOUNTAIN GOAT UNIT MANAGEMENT PLAN Wasatch and Central Mountains Lone Peak / Box Elder Peak / Timpanogos / Provo Peak / Nebo August 2019 BOUNDARY DESCRIPTIONS Lone Peak – Salt Lake County: Boundary begins at the junction of I-15 and I-80 in Salt Lake City; east on I-80 to the Salt Lake-Summit county line; south along this county line to the Salt Lake-Wasatch county line; southwest along this county line to the Salt Lake-Utah county line; southwest along this county line to I-15; north on I-15 to I-80 in Salt Lake City. Box Elder Peak – Utah County: Boundary begins at I-15 and the Salt Lake-Utah county line; east along this county line to the Utah-Wasatch county line; south along this county line to “Pole Line Pass” on the Snake Creek-North Fork American Fork Canyon road; west on this road to SR-92; west on SR-92 to I-15; north on I-15 to the Salt Lake-Utah county line. Timpanogos – Utah County: Boundary begins at the junction of SR-92 and SR-146; southeast on SR-92 to US-189; southwest on US-189 to SR-52; west on SR-52 to US-89; north on US-89 to SR-146; north on SR-146 to SR-92. Provo Peak – Utah County: Boundary begins at the junction of I-15 and US-6 at Spanish Fork; north on I-15 to SR-52; east on SR-52 to US-189; northeast on US-189 to the South Fork Drainage of Provo Canyon; east along this drainage bottom to the Berryport trail; south along this trail to the Left Fork of Hobble Creek road; south on this road to the Right Fork of Hobble Creek road; east on this road to Cedar Canyon; south along this canyon bottom to Wanrhodes Canyon; south along this canyon bottom to Diamond Fork Creek; southwest along this creek to US-6; northeast on US-6 to I-15.
    [Show full text]
  • GOVERNANCE & OVERSIGHT NARRATIVE Local Authority
    GOVERNANCE & OVERSIGHT NARRATIVE Local Authority: Wasatch County Instructions: In the cells below, please provide an answer/description for each question. PLEASE CHANGE THE COLOR OF SUBSTANTIVE NEW LANGUAGE INCLUDED IN YOUR PLAN THIS YEAR! 1) Access & Eligibility for Mental Health and/or Substance Abuse Clients Who is eligible to receive mental health services within your catchment area? What services (are there different services available depending on funding)? Wasatch County Family Clinic-Wasatch Behavioral Health Special Service District (WCFC-WMH) is a comprehensive community mental health center providing mental health and substance use disorder services to the residents of Wasatch County. WCFC-WBH provides a mental health and Substance Use screening to any Wasatch County resident requesting services. Based on available resources, (funding or otherwise), prospective clients will be referred to or linked with available resources. Medicaid eligible clients will be provided access to the full array of services available. Individuals who carry commercial insurance will be seen as their benefits allow. Clients with no funding may be seen on a sliding fee scale. Who is eligible to receive substance abuse services within your catchment area? What services (are there different services available depending on funding)? Identify how you manage wait lists. How do you ensure priority populations get served? WCFC-WBH provides substance abuse services to residents of Wasatch County. Medicaid and commercial insurances are also accepted and services are provided as benefits allow. WCFC-WBH provides substance abuse services as funding allows those without insurance or ability to pay. A sliding fee scale is available for these clients. Clients accepted into the drug court also have all services available and fees are also set based on the sliding scale.
    [Show full text]
  • Fish Surveys on the Uinta & Wasatch-Cache National
    FISH SURVEYS ON THE UINTA & WASATCH-CACHE NATIONAL FORESTS 1995 By Paul K Cowley Forest Fish Biologist Uinta and Wasatch-Cache National Forest January 22, 1996 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS ...................... i LIST OF FIGURES ....................... iii LIST OF TABLES ....................... v INTRODUCTION ........................ 1 METHODS ........................... 1 RESULTS ........................... 4 Weber River Drainage ................. 5 Ogden River ................... 5 Slate Creek ................... 8 Yellow Pine Creek ................ 10 Coop Creek .................... 10 Shingle Creek .................. 13 Great Salt Lake Drainage ............... 16 Indian Hickman Creek ............... 16 American Fork River .................. 16 American Fork River ............... 16 Provo River Drainage ................. 20 Provo Deer Creek ................. 20 Right Fork Little Hobble Creek .......... 20 Rileys Canyon .................. 22 Shingle Creek .................. 22 North Fork Provo River .............. 22 Boulder Creek .................. 22 Rock Creek .................... 24 Soapstone Creek ................. 24 Spring Canyon .................. 27 Cobble Creek ................... 27 Hobble Creek Drainage ................. 29 Right Fork Hobble Creek ............. 29 Spanish Fork River Drainage .............. 29 Bennie Creek ................... 29 Nebo Creek ................... 29 Tie Fork ..................... 32 Salt Creek Drainage .................. 32 Salt Creek .................... 32 Price River Drainage ................
    [Show full text]
  • Workshop Proceedings
    This file was created by scanning the printed publication. Errors identified by the software have been corrected; however, some errors may remain. ALPINE BIRD COMMUNITIES OF WESTERN NORTH AMERICA: IMPLICATIONS FOR MANAGEMENT AND RESEARcH!/ Clait E. Braun Wildlife Researcher Colorado Division of Wildlife, Research Center, 317 West Prospect Street, Fort Collins, Colorado 80526 ABSTRACT The avifauna of alpine regions of western North America is notably depauperate. Average community size is normally 3 to 4 although 5 species may consistently breed and nest above treeline. Only 1 species is a year around resident and totally dependent upon alpine habitats. Seasonal habitat preferences of the breeding avifauna are identified and the complexity of the processes and factors influencing alpine regions are reviewed. Management problems are discussed and research opportunities are identified. KEYWORDS: alpine ecosystem, habitat, avifauna, management, western North America. INTRODUCTION Alpine ecosystems occur in most of the high mountain cordilleras of western North America. Alpine, as used in this paper, refers to the area above treeline where habitats are characterized by short growing seasons, low temperatures and high winds. The term "tundra" is frequently used to describe these habitats but is more properly used in connection with arctic areas north of the limit of forest growth (Hoffmann and Taber 1967). While use of the terms "alpine tundra" and "arctic tundra" is common in designating above treeline (alpine) and northern lowland areas (arctic), the terminology of Billings (1979) is preferred. Likewise, lumping of alpine and arctic ecosystems into the "tundra biome" (see Kendeigh 1961) is not really feasible because of the extreme differences in radiation, moisture, topography, photo­ period, presence or absence of permafrost, etc.
    [Show full text]
  • Old Spanish National Historic Trail Final Comprehensive Administrative Strategy
    Old Spanish National Historic Trail Final Comprehensive Administrative Strategy Chama Crossing at Red Rock, New Mexico U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Service - National Trails Intermountain Region Bureau of Land Management - Utah This page is intentionally blank. Table of Contents Old Spanish National Historic Trail - Final Comprehensive Administrative Stratagy Table of Contents i Table of Contents v Executive Summary 1 Chapter 1 - Introduction 3 The National Trails System 4 Old Spanish National Historic Trail Feasibility Study 4 Legislative History of the Old Spanish National Historic Trail 5 Nature and Purpose of the Old Spanish National Historic Trail 5 Trail Period of Significance 5 Trail Significance Statement 7 Brief Description of the Trail Routes 9 Goal of the Comprehensive Administrative Strategy 10 Next Steps and Strategy Implementation 11 Chapter 2 - Approaches to Administration 13 Introduction 14 Administration and Management 17 Partners and Trail Resource Stewards 17 Resource Identification, Protection, and Monitoring 19 National Historic Trail Rights-of-Way 44 Mapping and Resource Inventory 44 Partnership Certification Program 45 Trail Use Experience 47 Interpretation/Education 47 Primary Interpretive Themes 48 Secondary Interpretive Themes 48 Recreational Opportunities 49 Local Tour Routes 49 Health and Safety 49 User Capacity 50 Costs 50 Operations i Table of Contents Old Spanish National Historic Trail - Final Comprehensive Administrative Stratagy Table of Contents 51 Funding 51 Gaps in Information and
    [Show full text]
  • Biotic Communities of the Southern Wasatch and Uinta Mountains, Utah C
    Great Basin Naturalist Volume 6 Article 1 Number 1 – Number 4 11-15-1945 Biotic communities of the southern Wasatch and Uinta Mountains, Utah C. Lynn Hayward Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/gbn Recommended Citation Hayward, C. Lynn (1945) "Biotic communities of the southern Wasatch and Uinta Mountains, Utah," Great Basin Naturalist: Vol. 6 : No. 1 , Article 1. Available at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/gbn/vol6/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]. .. The Great Basin Naturalist Published by the Department of Zoology and Entomology Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah X'oi.iMK \'\ X()VP:MP.KR 15, 1945 Nos. 1-4 BTOTTC COMMUNITIES OF THE SOUTHERN WASATCH AND UINTA MOUNTAINS, UTAH"' C. T.YXN HAYWARD(^) Associate Professor of Zoology P.rijiham Young University Table of Contents 1. INTRODUCTION 2 A. Scope and Nature of Problem 2 B. Methods 4 C. Review of Previous Work 8 IP TOPOGRAPHY AND GEOLOGY 9 A. Location and General Topography 9 B. Geological Histor}- 11 C. Glaciation 13 III. CLIMATE 13 A. Gene^^l Climate of Wasatch Mountains 13 P>. Climate of Mt. Timpanogos and L'intas 15 1 Temperature 15 2. Precipitation Pt 3. Relative Humidity 1/ ' 4. Wind 18 5. General Discussion 18 IV. CONCEPTS OF BIOTTC COMMUNITIES 1c> \-.
    [Show full text]
  • Structure of Alpine Plant Communities Near King's Peak, Uinta Mountains, Utah
    Great Basin Naturalist Volume 42 Number 1 Article 3 3-31-1982 Structure of alpine plant communities near King's Peak, Uinta Mountains, Utah George M. Briggs University of Montana, Missoula James A. MacMahon Utah State University Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/gbn Recommended Citation Briggs, George M. and MacMahon, James A. (1982) "Structure of alpine plant communities near King's Peak, Uinta Mountains, Utah," Great Basin Naturalist: Vol. 42 : No. 1 , Article 3. Available at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/gbn/vol42/iss1/3 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]. STRUCTURE OF ALPINE PLANT COMMUNITIES NEAR KING'S PEAK, UINTA MOUNTAINS, UTAH George M. Briggs' and James A. MacMahon- Abstract.- a study was made at 18 sites with elevations between 3512 and 3768 m in the Uinta Mountains, Utah. Sites were small in extent but typified vegetation patterns found in the Uintas. Standing crop, species compo- sition (based on dry weight), and values for several physical parameters were determined at each site. Simple linear regressions performed between the various biotic and abiotic characters revealed significant relationships between the characteristics of rocks visible at the surface (the number, size, and variation in size) and vegetation cover. This relationship was probably due to the burial of rocks as a region became vegetated. Bray and Curtis ordinations per- formed on the indicated data that there were several factors which influenced the species composition but that no single factor dictated the vegetational pattern.
    [Show full text]
  • Echo Dam, Weber River Project Summit County, Utah, Safety of Dams Modification, Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact PRO-EA-05-003
    Echo Dam, Weber River Project Summit County, Utah, Safety of Dams Modification, Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact PRO-EA-05-003 Weber River Project, Summit County, Utah Upper Colorado Region Provo Area Office U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation Provo Area Office Provo, Utah September 2009 Mission Statements The mission of the Department of the Interior is to protect and provide access to our Nation’s natural and cultural heritage and honor our trust responsibilities to Indian Tribes and our commitments to island communities. The mission of the Bureau of Reclamation is to manage, develop, and protect water and related resources in an environmentally and economically sound manner in the interest of the American public. Echo Dam, Weber River Project Summit County, Utah, Safety of Dams Modification, Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact PRO-EA-05-003 Weber River Project, Summit County, Utah Upper Colorado Region Provo Area Office Contact Person W. Russ Findlay Provo Area Office 302 East 1860 South Provo, Utah 84606 801-379-1084 U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation Provo Area Office Provo, Utah September 2009 Contents Page Chapter 1 – Need for Proposed Action and Background.................................. 1 1.1 Introduction........................................................................................... 1 1.2 Dam Safety Program Overview............................................................ 1 1.2.1 Safety of Dams NEPA Compliance Requirements..................... 2 1.3 Purpose of and Need for the Proposed Action...................................... 2 1.4 Description of Echo Dam and Reservior .............................................. 2 1.4.1 Echo Dam.................................................................................... 3 1.4.2 Echo Reservoir............................................................................ 5 1.4.3 Normal Operations.....................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Utah Reclamation Mitigation & Conservation Commission FY2016
    UTAH RECLAMATION MITIGATION & CONSERVATION COMMISSION FY2016-2018 Report Introduction Contents Welcome to the FY2016-2018 Report of the Utah Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation Commission (Mitigation Meet the Mitigation Commission ........... Page 1 Commission). The Mitigation Commission was authorized and established by Congress and the President in 1992 through the Program Elements Map ........................ Page 2-3 Central Utah Project Completion Act (CUPCA; Titles II through VI Lower Provo River/Utah Lake.................. Page 4 of Public Law 102-575). The Mitigation Commission’s primary responsibility is to plan, coordinate and fund programs to mitigate Middle and Upper Provo River ............... Page 6 for adverse effects of the Bonneville Unit of the Central Utah Diamond Fork Watershed ....................... Page 8 Project on fish, wildlife and related recreation resources in Utah. This report highlights Mitigation Commission accomplishments for Strawberry/Duchesne Watershed ........ Page 12 fiscal years 2016 through 2018, and describes the effectiveness of Great Salt Lake/Jordan River ............... Page 14 those actions toward achieving CUPCA requirements. It also identifies actions planned for the foreseeable future and Statewide ................................................ Page 16 potential revisions to our Mitigation and Conservation Plan. In our Office ............................................ Page 17 By design, the Mitigation Commission’s program relies on FY2016-2018 Financial Report ............... Page 17 partnerships with the larger natural resource community. The Mitigation Commission forms partnerships with natural resource Our Partners ...................................... back cover agencies, State and local governments, Indian tribes, universities and non-profit organizations, to carry out its many projects in a coordinated and cooperative manner. Therefore, throughout this report, the term “we” is intended to include the many partners essential to moving Mitigation Commission projects forward.
    [Show full text]
  • Forest Plan Monitoringmonitoring Wasatch-Cache National Forest First Year Report: March 2003 - March 2004
    Forest Plan MonitoringMonitoring Wasatch-Cache National Forest First Year Report: March 2003 - March 2004 1 Education and Information 2 Recreation Opportunity 3 Vegetation Management 4 Fuels Reduction 5 Rangeland Management 6 Recreation Concentrated Use Areas 7 Major Trail Development 8 Management Indicators 9 Endangered Species Act 10 Resource Protection 11 User Density Thresholds 12 NFMA Compliance United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Intermountain Region 13 National Historic Preservation Act Wasatch-Cache National Forest A Note from the Forest Supervisor ANote from the Forest Supervisor The Revised Forest Plan for the Wasatch-Cache National Forest was approved March 19, 2003. An important part of keeping the Plan current and adapting it as conditions change or as we learn from experience is monitoring. The Revised Plan Monitoring and Evalu- ation section (Chapter 4, pg. 4-105) outlines the program for follow- ing up on important decisions made in the Plan. Last September we shared with you further steps or “protocols” for moving forward with this program. We have now been implementing this new Plan for more than a year and would like to share some of the results of the first year. In some cases it is too early to actually report on what we have accomplished in each area because the monitoring protocol requires more than a year. In other areas information has been collected as a baseline to track future trends. In the coming years, a collective review of several years of information will be evaluated to determine if our management is actually moving the forest toward desired conditions.
    [Show full text]
  • A History of Morgan County, Utah Centennial County History Series
    610 square miles, more than 90 percent of which is privately owned. Situated within the Wasatch Mountains, its boundaries defined by mountain ridges, Morgan Countyhas been celebrated for its alpine setting. Weber Can- yon and the Weber River traverse the fertile Morgan Valley; and it was the lush vegetation of the pristine valley that prompted the first white settlers in 1855 to carve a road to it through Devils Gate in lower Weber Canyon. Morgan has a rich historical legacy. It has served as a corridor in the West, used by both Native Americans and early trappers. Indian tribes often camped in the valley, even long after it was settled by Mormon pioneers. The southern part of the county was part of the famed Hastings Cutoff, made notorious by the Donner party but also used by Mormon pioneers, Johnston's Army, California gold seekers, and other early travelers. Morgan is still part of main routes of traffic, including the railroad and utility lines that provide service throughout the West. Long known as an agricultural county, the area now also serves residents who commute to employment in Wasatch Front cities. Two state parks-Lost Creek Reservoir and East A HISTORY OF Morgan COUY~Y Linda M. Smith 1999 Utah State Historical Society Morgan County Commission Copyright O 1999 by Morgan County Commission All rights reserved ISBN 0-913738-36-0 Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 98-61320 Map by Automated Geographic Reference Center-State of Utah Printed in the United States of America Utah State Historical Society 300 Rio Grande Salt Lake City, Utah 84 101 - 1182 Dedicated to Joseph H.
    [Show full text]