DOCSLIB.ORG

Salida Ranger District MVUM

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Salida Ranger District MVUM Lake George T w e lv e m i l e S C h r e Fo e e urmile ek p Creek C r e e B k H i i g gh U C n ek r i re ee on C k ve A C Ca r r k e e a k n s a k H s Cree igh Creek R S gh i pr Hi v ing er C re e F k ou Twelvemi rm k le Creek Twe i atte Rive e l l Pl r ve e th e mil Cre Sou r e C e ree k er C k iv R n tte r So o Pla atte Rive ut i South South Pl h n Fork h Pl ig U ut at B o te S R k iv e er e r C S n ou o t i h F n or U k S r g o e i u v th i B k R ee P r la e t t C te t t R a i i l A B v o er P k Box r Tw h e Cre k t ox Cre e ek a ou B ek r n S C sa x B s R o o i B x ve C r r k ee ree eek k ton C r g e C n sk h Creek W i or A ic ek r C rk R re i r a C l a g l n o k H s in k a l e e s b w e e r R r ek m C Cre iv u C e r C e T e sk r e l r e i n o & k o C m i ch h e n A l g e r u r U k u h o a G n T s s R k a s e s a k e e R P r e iv w r C e o C s Creek r L 8 lett G 1 m t u d ar lch 6 B L a m k y e i a ee n l S k r i L e C c h G k f C ee r O r e C e s m A k r l k m a a c n l h B u m G s i n a to S y s P ek a on e k D R y C fa r reek uf lo C e i B e v r Go e rdo r C n Gu k lch e s Cre y m Pon Sp m ring i BUFFALO PEAKS Creek S reek ache Creek 05 p ing C e r u t l u c i r g A f o t n e m t r a p e D s e t a t S d e t i n U C A S r 28 36 04 35 r 04 12 16 24 28 36 k a 11 nsas R ive 17 23 11 17 e c i v r e S t s e r o F 390000 r 4320000 400000 410000 420000 4310000 430000 440000 450000 4300000 460000 106°15'0"W 106°7'30"W 29 106°0'0"W 35 105°52'30"W R75W 105°45'0"W 38°52'30"N 105°37'30"W 05 105°30'0"W W R384 0W R79W 18 R78W R77W 05 R76W 11 17 23 29 R74W 35 R73W R72W i 06 10 0 1 0 2 O D A R O L O C PURPOSE AND CONTENTS l OPERATOR l 18 i 22 s 22 30 10 13 01 06 re G 33 10 30 06 e C ek 18 22 34 ak u 09 13 Pike National Forest 34 e L l Clear Creek 21 East Buffalo 25 Salt Cre k 21 OF THIS MAP RESPONSIBILITIESc 02 33 09 h ) 09 13 33 ) 21 25 Threemile Pike National Forest Peak The designations shown on this map are effective Reservoir 14 20 West Buffalo Operating a motor vehicle on National Forest SystemB 26 01 Mountain 01 14 20 o 32 T14S 03 Peak 02 08 08 as of the date stamped or printed on the front cover. s 08 19 27 14 20 26 32 roads, National Forest System trails, and in areas on w 15 ) 04 e k 12 19 27 This map shows the National Forest System roads, l ree BUF 15 02 l C FALO P 31 k 04 5 15 National Forest System lands carries a greater e EAKS e 28 07 C ach 16 36 re £ 19 27 31 07 07 ¤ r C C National Forest System trails, and the areas on ! WI F 28 03 59 e 11 LDERN o lt 24 ! k E e K responsibility than operating that vehicle in a city or other Cree SS u 29 a 03 Thirtynine Mile Mountain J 28 k r r S s r o o d t u O t a e r G s ' a c i r e m A ! a m National Forest System lands in the Salida Ranger 05 le 24 Pike 24 16 24 28 36 12 16 ! 23 il ) developed setting. Not only must the motor vehicle C e ! ¤£ 35 10 17 C 12 04 29 District that are designated for motor vehicle use ! 35 r 11 05 23 operators know and follow all applicable traf! fic laws, but 17 23 11 17 13 22 e National Forest 29 18 e ! 30 pursuant to 36 CFR 212.51. This map also contains a k 34 05 they need to show concern for the environm! ent as well as 09 06 30 34 ! k 10 18 22 30 10 18 list of those designated roads, trails, and areas that e L 25 34 06 other forest users. The misuse of motor vehicles can lead 14 21 e 33 22 08 r e 01 ! 25 33 enumerates the types of vehicles that are allowed on C 02 09 4320000 Antero Junction 09 to the temporary or permanent closure of any designated 15 k e a 21 25 33 01 13 ee 20 26 32 r n We 32 each route and in each area and any seasonal C i d 13 21 st eek road, trail, or area. Operators of motor vehicles are subject ia P 26 F Cr b 27 v 08 14 ourmile restrictions that apply on those routes and in those Pike 20 26 32 02 08 14 16 m i 36 31 to State traffic law, including State requirements for u 19 03 20 l l 3 31 areas. o l 309 0 15 27 24 C e N . 9 19 27 31 53 15 at A 07 B licensing, registration, and operation of the ! vehicle in 28 ional Forest KJ 17 04 u ! A 19 R f Designation of a road, trail, or area for motor 36 ! 23 r 35 07 f 04 question. k 16 03 a ! a 24 36 16 24 T12S n a 12 28 04 12 l 28 ! o 05 ! s vehicle use by a particular class of vehicle under 36 a 05 ! 22 29 s n 11 G ek ! R 35 re Motor vehicle use, especially off-highway vehicle use, i Marmot Peak 3 17 u r C CFR 212.51 should not be interpreted as ! v g 23 29 35 05 l 17 23 29 rne ! 06 1 11 c ! 30 34 e ga r ) 1 h m e 311 Bu ! 39°0'0"N 21 10 . 3 involves inherent risks that may cause property damage, B 2 30 06 encouraging or inviting use, or to imply that the road, ! r 3 18 ! 7 9 30 34 25 5 34 06 10 18 22 serious injury, and possibly death to participants! . Riders k 33 01 D .D trail or area is passable, actively maintained, or safe ! e 02 09 re 20 3 No A ! C 7 rt 13 21 g 01 09 r k i 5 h .A 22 a should drive cautiously and anticipate rough surfa! ces and a 26 S 25 33 e A 33 01 21 for travel. Motor vehicle designations include parking ! e e 08 e 1 25 t 09 13 l 32 s . e ! C r 3 v 311.C 1 C 7 e 3 9 C 9 ! t features, such as snow, mud, vegetation, and water n 7 n 3 32 r 08 e 11. 2 ¬ ! 19 « 02 08 along designated routes and at facilities associated 27 d r 14 D 20 ee 3 4290000 31 d m 02 k 20 32 ! 14 a i 3 crossings common to remote driving conditions. ! Waverly Mountain cF c il 26 with designated routes when it is safe to do so and ! 3 15 e 1 26 T M 03 75 8 27 S! 28 t .B F 3 C 19 03 07 Participants voluntarily assume full responsibilit! y for these ) 36 07 ou 16 7 r 27 03 07 19 31 3 3 15 102 when not causing damage to National Forest N! 04 k e 2 e 12 rm .A e 9 C 04 D! k 31 u KJ 460000 e il 3 r damages, risks, and dangers. Motor vehicle oC! perators r e C r 38°45'0"N System resources.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Papilio (New Series) #24 2016 Issn 2372-9449
    PAPILIO (NEW SERIES) #24 2016 ISSN 2372-9449 MEAD’S BUTTERFLIES IN COLORADO, 1871 by James A. Scott, Ph.D. in entomology, University of California Berkeley, 1972 (e-mail: [email protected]) Table of Contents Introduction………………………………………………………..……….……………….p. 1 Locations of Localities Mentioned Below…………………………………..……..……….p. 7 Summary of Butterflies Collected at Mead’s Major Localities………………….…..……..p. 8 Mead’s Butterflies, Sorted by Butterfly Species…………………………………………..p. 11 Diary of Mead’s Travels and Butterflies Collected……………………………….……….p. 43 Identity of Mead’s Field Names for Butterflies he Collected……………………….…….p. 64 Discussion and Conclusions………………………………………………….……………p. 66 Acknowledgments………………………………………………………….……………...p. 67 Literature Cited……………………………………………………………….………...….p. 67 Table 1………………………………………………………………………….………..….p. 6 Table 2……………………………………………………………………………………..p. 37 Introduction Theodore L. Mead (1852-1936) visited central Colorado from June to September 1871 to collect butterflies. Considerable effort has been spent trying to determine the identities of the butterflies he collected for his future father-in-law William Henry Edwards, and where he collected them. Brown (1956) tried to deduce his itinerary based on the specimens and the few letters etc. available to him then. Brown (1964-1987) designated lectotypes and neotypes for the names of the butterflies that William Henry Edwards described, including 24 based on Mead’s specimens. Brown & Brown (1996) published many later-discovered letters written by Mead describing his travels and collections. Calhoun (2013) purchased Mead’s journal and published Mead’s brief journal descriptions of his collecting efforts and his travels by stage and horseback and walking, and Calhoun commented on some of the butterflies he collected (especially lectotypes). Calhoun (2015a) published an abbreviated summary of Mead’s travels using those improved locations from the journal etc., and detailed the type localities of some of the butterflies named from Mead specimens.
    [Show full text]
  • 36 CFR Ch. II (7–1–13 Edition) § 294.49
    § 294.49 36 CFR Ch. II (7–1–13 Edition) subpart shall prohibit a responsible of- Line Includes ficial from further restricting activi- Colorado roadless area name upper tier No. acres ties allowed within Colorado Roadless Areas. This subpart does not compel 22 North St. Vrain ............................................ X the amendment or revision of any land 23 Rawah Adjacent Areas ............................... X 24 Square Top Mountain ................................. X management plan. 25 Troublesome ............................................... X (d) The prohibitions and restrictions 26 Vasquez Adjacent Area .............................. X established in this subpart are not sub- 27 White Pine Mountain. ject to reconsideration, revision, or re- 28 Williams Fork.............................................. X scission in subsequent project decisions Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, Gunnison National Forest or land management plan amendments 29 Agate Creek. or revisions undertaken pursuant to 36 30 American Flag Mountain. CFR part 219. 31 Baldy. (e) Nothing in this subpart waives 32 Battlements. any applicable requirements regarding 33 Beaver ........................................................ X 34 Beckwiths. site specific environmental analysis, 35 Calamity Basin. public involvement, consultation with 36 Cannibal Plateau. Tribes and other agencies, or compli- 37 Canyon Creek-Antero. 38 Canyon Creek. ance with applicable laws. 39 Carson ........................................................ X (f) If any provision in this subpart
    [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]
  • 2017 Petition to Revise Mount Graham Red Squirrel Critical Habitat
    December 14, 2017 Department of the Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke FAX: (202) 208-6956 (Email: [email protected]) Fish and Wildlife Service Acting Director Greg Sheehan FAX: (202) 208-6965 (Email: [email protected]) Fish and Wildlife Service Regional Director Amy Lueders FAX: (505) 248-6910 (Email: [email protected]) Fish and Wildlife Service State Supervisor Steve Spangle FAX: (602) 242-2513 (Email: [email protected]) Arizona Game and Fish Department Director Ty Gray FAX: (623) 236-7930 (Email: [email protected]) Dear Messrs. Zinke, Sheehan, Spangle and Gray, and Ms. Lueders, RE: Petition to revise the January 5, 1990, Mount Graham Red Squirrel Critical Habitat to reflect the current change in status of the squirrel and its habitat. CURRENT STATUS OF MOUNT GRAHAM’S SPRUCE-FIR FOREST The Mount Graham Red Squirrel has survived in isolation on Mount Graham since the retreat of the continental glaciers 11,000 or more years ago at the end of the Pleistocene. Now only about 35 Mount Graham Red Squirrels survive on Earth. Historically, the summit’s spruce/fir association has contributed “most of the excellent food habitat”1 that has allowed the squirrel to survive long term on Mount Graham. In 1988, approximately 615 suitable acres of the estimated 700 historical acres of the pure spruce/fir association forest remained.2 Now very little of the high elevation, essential spruce-fir habitat survives. Very little spruce-fir forest survives owing to (1) habitat destruction by wildfire, (2) habitat destruction by firefighting efforts focused on the protection of telescopes and structures as opposed to protection of endangered Mount Graham Red Squirrel habitat, and (3) habitat destruction by unnecessary back burning resulting from pressure on fire fighters by University of Arizona astronomers.
    [Show full text]
  • Range Fuels at 'End of Road'
    1A 1A HEALTH CARE BOULDER COUNTY & WELLNESS New techniques reduce pain of back problems BUSINESS 11A Serving Boulder and Broomfield Counties REPORT$1 Volume 31 Issue 3 | Feb. 3-9, 2012 Range Fuels at ‘end of road’ BY PAULA MOORE York-based Bloomberg New Energy [email protected] Failed biofuel production plant Finance. “The problem with them was absolutely technological. Their BROOMFIELD — Range Fuels situation tells you that money doesn’t Inc., a Broomfield-based biofuels takes toll on firm in Broomfield guarantee something’s going to work.” company, appears to be out of busi- by an automated system. Its website, “Range Fuels has met the end of But Christine Shapard, executive ness with the recent foreclosure sale www.rangefuels.com, is inactive. the road,” said Kalib Kersh, an analyst director of the Colorado Cleantech of its troubled cellulosic ethanol plant Recent messages left for Range Fuels at Lux Research Inc. in Boston who Industry Association, believes the near Soperton, Georgia. CEO David Aldous in Colorado and followed the Colorado company. state’s biofuels industry overall still The company’s headquarters office company founder/investor Vinod Kho- “With Range Fuels, the issue wasn’t has plenty of potential. She singled near the Interlocken business park is sla of Khosla Ventures LLC in Menlo funding,” said Alejandro Zamorano out companies such as ZeaChem Inc. vacant, and its phone number is answered Park, California, were not returned. Cadavid, a biofuels analyst at New ➤ See End, 15A FDIC has BOULDER AND BEYOND Mile High Boulder Economic Council’s 2012 forecast event paints brighter picture Banks on short leash Bank’s capital condition ‘continues to deteriorate’ BY BETH POTTER [email protected] LONGMONT — Mile High Banks is “significantly undercapitalized,” according to a document released Jan.
    [Show full text]
  • Henderson Street Names A
    Henderson Street Names STREET NAMEP* FIRE SAM NUMBERING ADDRESS LOCATION MAP MAP STARTS/ENDS A Abbeystone Circle 3728-94 86 Mystical / 360’ CDS 2484-2495 Sunridge Lot 21 Abbington Street 3328-43 77 Courtland / Muirfield 300-381 Pardee GV South Abby Avenue 3231-64 120 Dunbar / Sheffield 1604-1622 Camarlo Park Aberdeen Lane 3229-23 102 Albermarle / Kilmaron 2513-2525 Highland Park Abetone Avenue 4226-16 422 CDS/Cingoli Inspirada Pod 3-1 Phase 2 Abilene Street (Private 3637-94, 260 Waterloo / Mission / San 901-910 Desert Highlands; Blk Mt Ranch within Blk Mtn Ranch) 3737-14 Bruno Ability Point Court 3533-48 169 Integrity Point / 231-234 Blk Mt Vistas Parcel C Unit 3 Abracadabra Avenue 3637-39 259 Hocus Pocus / Houdini 1168-1196 Magic View Ests Phs 2 Abundance Ridge Street 3533-46/56 169 Solitude Point / Value 210-299 Blk Mt Vistas Parcel C Unit 2, 3 Ridge Acadia Parkway 3332-92 143 Bear Brook/American Acadia Phase I Pacific Acadia Place 3329-63 99 Silver Springs / Big Bend No #’s Parkside Village Acapulco Street 3638-42 270 DeAnza / Encanto 2005-2077 Villa Hermosa Accelerando Way 3236-85 233 Barcarolle/Fortissimo Cadence Village Phase 1-G4 Ackerman Lane 3329-16 100 Magnolia / CDS 400-435 The Vineyards Acorn Way 3427-52 54 Wigwam / Pine Nut No #’s Oak Forest Acoustic Street 3537-29 257 Canlite / Decidedly 1148-1176 The Downs Unit 3 Adagietto Drive 3828- 87, 88 Moresca / Reunion 1361-1399 Coventry Homes @ Anthem 3, 4 66/56/46 Adagio Street 3728-11 85 Anchorgate / Day Canyon 801-813 Sunridge Lot 18 Adams Run Court 3735-63 218 155' CDS
    [Show full text]
  • Energy Efficiency, but at What Cost?
    HIGH-TECH PRINTING MARKETPLACE AND GRAPHICS App makes connecting Cool new developments to conference calls easy in large-format printing $1 6A 10A Volume 31 Issue 13 | Date June 8-21, 2012 Energy efficiency, but at what cost? BY MICHAEL DAVIDSON place to start as the city moves toward [email protected] Proposed changes to Boulder’s achieving its climate goals, said Eliza- beth Vasatka, the city’s business sus- BOULDER — As the city of Boul- tainability coordinator. der considers changes to its climate climate action plan spark concern Prior studies have shown energy action plan, businesses and commer- properties. Passing laws that would require use accounts for up to 76 percent of cial property owners are concerned Boulder is reviewing its climate buildings to be more efficient is one of Boulder’s greenhouse gas emissions, about the possibility the city will pass plan and energy strategy, and in May the options the council is considering. and nearly 83 percent of those emis- ordinances requiring them to make the Boulder City Council had a study Making commercial buildings sions come from the industrial and energy-efficiency upgrades to their session on the topic. more energy efficient is an obvious ➤ See Efficiency, 23A ORBITAL TECHNOLOGY Drug race Business is cooking at Custom Microwave Inc. in Longmont lures local companies to fast lane Pharma firms quietly studying biosimilars BY BETH POTTER [email protected] BOULDER — Merck & Co. Inc. and Amgen Inc. — two global phar- maceutical companies with opera- tions in the Boulder Valley – appear to be on the front lines of the new and often-stealthy world of researching biosimilar drugs.
    [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]
  • Salida Buena Vista
    CHAFFEE COUNTY, COLORADO R 82 W R 81 W R 80 W R 79 W R 78 W R 77 W R 76 W South Peak Mt Elbert Casco Peak Black Mountain Bull Hill Independence Mountain Parry Peak T 11 S Lower Lake Upper Lake Monitor Rock T 11 S Star Mountain LAKE COUNTY Ouray Peak l Y Grizzly Lake 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 36 31 32 33 34 35 33 34 T 34 32 Grizzly Peak 35 36 31 35 l 31 G r a n i t e 398-D G r a n i t e 2905 l Twin Peaks +$ N 2903 l Rinker Peak 2901 4 2899 6 5 3 2 1 6 5 6 4 3 1 Garfield Peak 4 3 2 1 5 2 6 4 2 l La Plata Peak 5 3 U l lRed Mountain 7 8 O 7 9 10 11 12 9 Willis Lake l 8 9 10 11 8 10 Mt H11ope 12 7 12 Crystal Lake lQuail Mountain 7 8 9 10 11 Middle Mountain Clear Creek Reservoir l C 3 18 17 16 15 13 16 14 18 17 15 14 18 17 16 15 14 13 13 18 15 14 0 $+390 17 16 13 N 5 V i c k s b u r g 7 I V i c k s b u r g 9 T 12 S 21 0 20 19 20 19 21 022 23 24 $+388 23 24 19 20 21 022 23 22 0 24 19 20 21 22 23 24 19 20 l T 12 S K 3 0 West Buffalo Peak 0 ¤£204 21 l $+371 P Antero Reservoir W i n f i e l d East Buffalo Peak T W3i n f i e l d 30 Winfield Pea2k9 28 27 26 I 3 A l 25 3 25 30 29 26 28 27 26 27 26 l 25 30 29 28 25 30 29 28 l Cross Mountain Waverly Mountain 1 R P Jenkins Mountain Middle Mountain 371 K l $+ Virginia Peak 1 l Mt Oxford l 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 35 Browns Peak 33 34 35 36 C 32 34 35 Mt Belford 31 33 36 31 032 33 l Waupaca Reservoir O l 3 2 U Rainbow Lake 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 l6Missouri Mountain5 4 2 Huron Peak Cloyses Lake 3 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 6 N l 5 4 Lois Lake Granite Mountain T l Iowa Peak l l 1 6 386 Y 12 $+ Marmot Peak 9 7 8 9 10 11 12 7 8
    [Show full text]
  • Petition to Revise the January 5, 1990, Mount Graham Red Squirrel Critical Habitat to Reflect the Current Change in Status of the Squirrel and Its Habitat
    December 14, 2017 Department of the Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke FAX: (202) 208-6956 (Email: [email protected]) Fish and Wildlife Service Acting Director Greg Sheehan FAX: (202) 208-6965 (Email: [email protected]) Fish and Wildlife Service Regional Director Amy Lueders FAX: (505) 248-6910 (Email: [email protected]) Fish and Wildlife Service State Supervisor Steve Spangle FAX: (602) 242-2513 (Email: [email protected]) Arizona Game and Fish Department Director Ty Gray FAX: (623) 236-7930 (Email: [email protected]) Dear Messrs. Zinke, Sheehan, Spangle and Gray, and Ms. Lueders, RE: Petition to revise the January 5, 1990, Mount Graham Red Squirrel Critical Habitat to reflect the current change in status of the squirrel and its habitat. CURRENT STATUS OF MOUNT GRAHAM’S SPRUCE-FIR FOREST The Mount Graham Red Squirrel has survived in isolation on Mount Graham since the retreat of the continental glaciers 11,000 or more years ago at the end of the Pleistocene. Now only about 35 Mount Graham Red Squirrels survive on Earth. Historically, the summit’s spruce/fir association has contributed “most of the excellent food habitat”1 that has allowed the squirrel to survive long term on Mount Graham. In 1988, approximately 615 suitable acres of the estimated 700 historical acres of the pure spruce/fir association forest remained.2 Now very little of the high elevation, essential spruce-fir habitat survives. Very little spruce-fir forest survives owing to (1) habitat destruction by wildfire, (2) habitat destruction by firefighting efforts focused on the protection of telescopes and structures as opposed to protection of endangered Mount Graham Red Squirrel habitat, and (3) habitat destruction by unnecessary back burning resulting from pressure on fire fighters by University of Arizona astronomers.
    [Show full text]
  • Pikes Peak Massif
    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]
  • Biological Opinion on the Wildfire-Suppression Actions
    United States Department of the Interior U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2321 West Royal Palm Road, Suite 103 Phoenix, Arizona 85021-4951 Telephone: (602) 242-0210 FAX: (602) 242-2513 In Reply Refer To: AESO/SE 02-21-04-M-0299 June 8, 2007 Ms. Jeanine Derby Forest Supervisor Coronado National Forest 300 West Congress, 6th Floor Tucson, Arizona 85701 Dear Ms. Derby: This letter constitutes our biological opinion (BO), based on our review of the wildfire- suppression actions associated with the Nuttall-Gibson Complex Wildfire located in the Pinaleño Mountains on the Coronado National Forest, Graham County, Arizona. This biological opinion analyzes the project’s effect on the Mount Graham red squirrel (Tamiasciurus hudsonicus grahamensis, MGRS) and its associated critical habitat and the Mexican spotted owl (Strix occidentalis lucida, MSO) and its associated critical habitat in accordance with section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). We received your August 31, 2005, request for formal consultation on September 1, 2005. In that request, you determined that suppression activities associated with the Nuttall-Gibson Complex Wildfire likely adversely affected MGRS and MSO and each species’ critical habitat. You also requested our concurrence that suppression activities may have affected, but did not likely adversely affect, Apache trout (Oncorhyncus apache). Our concurrence with that determination is provided in Appendix A. This BO is based on information provided in the August 31, 2005, biological assessment (BA), discussions with your staff, and information in our files. Literature cited in this BO is not a complete bibliography of all literature available on the species of concern, wildfire suppression and its effects, or on other subjects considered in this opinion.
    [Show full text]