DOCSLIB.ORG

Region 6 Grants and Agreements U.S

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Region 6 Grants and Agreements U.S FISCAL YEAR 2012 ANNUAL REPORT REGION 6 GRANTS AND AGREEMENTS U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service Pacific Northwest Region REGION 6 FY 2012 GRANTS & AGREEMENTS ANNUAL REPORT Table of Contents INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 2 REGIONAL OFFICE .............................................................................................................. 4 REGION-WIDE/MULTI-FORESTS (UNIT 0600) ....................................................................... 6 COLUMBIA RIVER GORGE NATIONAL SCENIC AREA (UNIT 0622) .................................... 8 COLVILLE NATIONAL FOREST (UNIT 0621)....................................................................... 10 DESCHUTES NATIONAL FOREST (UNIT 0601) ................................................................... 12 FREMONT - WINEMA NATIONAL FOREST (UNIT 0602) .................................................... 14 GIFFORD PINCHOT NATIONAL FOREST (UNIT 0603) ....................................................... 16 MALHEUR NATIONAL FOREST (UNIT 0604)...................................................................... 18 MT. BAKER - SNOQUALMIE NATIONAL FOREST (UNIT 0605) .......................................... 20 MT. HOOD NATIONAL FOREST (UNIT 0606) .................................................................... 22 OCHOCO NATIONAL FOREST (0607) ............................................................................... 24 OKANOGAN -WENATCHEE NATIONAL FORESTS (UNIT 0617) ........................................ 26 OLYMPIC NATIONAL FOREST (UNIT 0609) ....................................................................... 28 ROGUE RIVER -SISKIYOU NATIONAL FOREST (UNIT 0610) ............................................. 30 SIUSLAW NATIONAL FOREST (UNIT 0612) ....................................................................... 32 UMATILLA NATIONAL FOREST (UNIT 0614) ..................................................................... 34 UMPQUA NATIONAL FOREST (UNIT 0615) ...................................................................... 36 WALLOWA-WHITMAN NATIONAL FOREST (UNIT 0616) .................................................. 38 WILLAMETTE NATIONAL FOREST (UNIT 0618) ................................................................. 40 ATTACHMENT A – FY12 NEW AGREEMENTS BY COOPERATOR ...................................... 42 Data used in this report were generated from the following reports from Natural Resource Management (NRM): • GARP010L (Workload by Forest for Fiscal Year 2012) – Provides the total number of federal financial assistance awards, partnership agreements (incoming and outgoing) and modifications executed during fiscal year 2012, as well as Forest Service and Cooperator contributions • GARP015L (G&A by Status) – Provides total number of federal financial assistance and partnership agreements that were, at the close of the fiscal year, still in active status and the total value of all contributions. • GARP040L (Incoming and Outgoing Funds for ALL Executed Agreements) – Provides a list of federal financial assistance awards, and partnership agreements that were still active/executed at the end of fiscal year 2012. In addition, the report lists Forest Service and Cooperator cash, non-cash and in-kind contributions for each funded agreement. Glossary: • Agreement Contribution Types: “Cash” = actual cash exchanged between partners to support the project: “Non-Cash” = partner’s internal costs to support the project (e.g. direct salary costs); “In-Kind” = contributions for which the partner incurred no cash expense (e.g., value of volunteer labor) • Non-Funded Agreements include Memoranda of Understanding, and Partnership Agreements that only exchange services. 1 | Page REGION 6 FY 2012 GRANTS & AGREEMENTS ANNUAL REPORT INTRODUCTION The role of the Pacific Northwest Region Grants and Agreements (Region 6 G&A) program is to assist the Forests in meeting the mission and objectives of the U.S. Forest Service, including support of regional and national annual priorities. To accomplish this, Region 6 G&A works directly with District, Forest and Regional staff to develop and execute a wide range of grant and agreement instruments that support national forest system land management activities, as well as the mission of our many important partners. In the process, the Region 6 G&A team provides valuable advice and assistance in developing and maintaining the partnerships that are becoming ever more critical to our success. The Region 6 G&A program is comprised of two areas commonly referred to as G&A North Operations and G&A South Operations. G&A North Operations is responsible for administering grants and agreements for the national forests in Washington and northeastern Oregon. G&A South Operations is responsible for administering grants and agreements for the remaining national forests in Oregon. Regional-level agreements are serviced by both operational areas. This FY 2012 Annual Report summarizes G&A activity for each Forest/Unit within Region 6, displaying both Forest Service contributions and those of our Partners (Cooperators). Each section in this report includes a discussion of both the new agreements and modifications executed in FY 2012 and the dollar value of all active agreements for that Unit in order to characterize the total workload managed by Region 6 G&A. In addition, each section includes a display of recent trends in G&A activity for each Unit using data from 2009-2012. For a listing of all new agreements by Cooperator, see Attachment A. This report does not include American Recovery & Reinvestment Act (ARRA) agreements or instruments awarded through State & Private Forestry. 2 | Page REGION 6 FY 2012 GRANTS & AGREEMENTS ANNUAL REPORT FY2012 R6 G&A at a Glance The following pie-chart depicts both Forest Service and Partner contributions toward projects and activities implemented in Region 6 during FY2012. A total of 529 new federal financial assistance awards and partnership agreements, and 1,252 modifications were executed, resulting in $60,911,551.84 in total contributions. FS NON- COOPERATOR CASH AND IN- CASH KIND 31% 17% FS CASH COOPERATOR 25% NON-CASH AND IN-KIND 27% In FY2012, approximately $25,504,834.25 in Forest Service contributions leveraged over $35,406,717.59 in contributions from all partners. For a listing of the new agreements by Cooperator executed in FY 2012, please see Attachment A. The following pie chart depicts the proportional share of the total contributions by all Region 6 units and partners during FY 2012: Region 6 G&A Partner Contributions FS TOTAL COOPERATOR 42% TOTAL 58% 3 | Page REGION 6 FY 2012 GRANTS & AGREEMENTS ANNUAL REPORT REGIONAL OFFICE G&A Activity in FY12 During fiscal year 2012, the Regional Office executed a range of grants and agreements, which included funded and non-funded agreement actions. The unit’s FY 2012 accomplishments include the execution of 22 new agreements and 71 modifications for a total of 93 agreement actions. For a listing of the new agreements by Cooperator executed in FY 2012, please see Attachment A. The following pie chart depicts the proportional share of the total contributions by the Regional Office and its Cooperators for FY 2012: FS NON- COOPERATOR CASH AND IN- CASH KIND 15% 19% COOPERATOR NON-CASH FS CASH AND IN-KIND 32% 34% Regional Office FY 2012 G&A Contributions . Data Source: NRM G&A Report GARP040L Total G&A Workload The Regional Office’s total G&A workload includes both the new 2012 agreement actions discussed above plus prior year agreements that are still active (executed, not closed). According to NRM-generated reports, there are 241 agreements that are still in an active status. The total value of all active agreements and modifications (includes all cash, non-cash and in-kind contributions) is $31,158,421.48 The total contributions for all active agreements are as follows: U.S. Forest Service Cash Contributions $17,345,864.63 U.S. Forest Service Non-Cash and In-Kind Contributions $ 2,399,806.46 U.S. Forest Service Total Contributions $19,745,671.09 Cooperator Cash Contributions $ 5,190,293.87 Cooperator Non-Cash and In-Kind Contributions $ 6,222,456.52 Cooperator Total Contributions $11,412,750.39 4 | Page REGION 6 FY 2012 GRANTS & AGREEMENTS ANNUAL REPORT G&A Trends 2009-2012 – Regional Office Recent trends in G&A activity are displayed in the following tables and bar graph: NEW # OF FY AGREEMENTS MODIFICATIONS COOPERATORS 2009 21 28 24 2010 22 27 22 2011 25 32 30 2012 22 71 15 Regional Office FY 2009 – 2012 G&A Actions Data (GARP010L and GARP040L) COOPERATOR FS NON- FY COOPERATOR NON -CASH AND COOPERATOR CASH AND TOTAL CASH IN-KIND TOTAL FS CASH IN-KIND FS TOTAL AMOUNT 2009 $1,175,737.00 $ 387,663.41 $1,563,400.41 $ 4,363,547.69 $ 36,895.33 $ 4,400,443.02 $ 5,963,843.43 2010 $ 975,663.00 $ 1,775,005.00 $2,750,668.00 $ 6,049,625.35 $ 440,056.00 $ 6,489,681.35 $ 9,240,349.35 2011 $1,875,775.03 $ 1,363,991.13 $3,239,766.16 $ 6,227,538.89 $ 682,207.54 $ 6,909,746.43 $10,149,512.59 2012 $ 807,379.36 $ 1,813,042.98 $2,620,422.34 $ 1,698,273.00 $1,035,682.20 $ 2,733,955.20 $ 5,354,377.54 Regional Office FY 2009 – 2012 G&A Contributions Data (GARP040L) Regional Office FY 2009 - 2012 G&A Contributions $12,000,000.00 $10,000,000.00 2009 $8,000,000.00 2010 $6,000,000.00 2011 2012 $4,000,000.00 $2,000,000.00 $- COOPERATOR COOPERATOR COOPERATOR FS CASH FS NON-CASH FS TOTAL TOTAL CASH NON-CASH TOTAL AND IN-KIND AMOUNT AND IN-KIND Data Source: NRM
Load more

Recommended publications
  • National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska Final Integrated Activity Plan/Environmental Impact Statement Errata
    United States Department of the Interior BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT Alaska State Office 222 West Seventh Avenue, #13 Anchorage, Alaska 99513-7504 www.blrn .gov/alaska Dear Reader: The enclosed Errata Sheet documents minor corrections to the text of the Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska Integrated Activity Plan (TAP) that was publicly released on June 26. 2020. These corrections reflect errors that were discovered after the release of the Final EIS. We have utilized “tracked changes” (red text additions and green text crossed-out deletions) for the changes where we felt it would assist the reader to more easily identify the corrections. There are no changes or significant new circumstances or information identified in this Errata Sheet that affect the impact conclusions in the final EIS. In the Final EIS, an error was identified in Table 2-1 for the acreage available for leasing and infrastructure under Alternative E. Correcting this error required updates throughout the text of the EIS wherever acreage available for leasing and infrastructure under Alternative E was referenced. These changes are denoted with an asterisk (*) in the errata sheet. This Errata Sheet is part of the administrative record for the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska lAP Final EIS. These corrections will be posted on the BLM-Alaska website at www.blm.gov/alaska. For additional information or clarification regarding the attached Errata Sheet, please contact Stephanie Rice, Project Lead, at (907) 271-3202. Chad B. Padge t State Director Attachment: Errata Sheet ATTACHMENT: ERRATA SHEET In the Final EIS, an error was identified in Table 2-1 for the acreage available for leasing and infrastructure under Alternative E.
    [Show full text]
  • D Classification Review in Seven Locations Across Io
    Alaska LANDFIRE Application Project: Map and Classification Review in Seven Locations across Alaska Tina Boucher, Keith Boggs Lindsey Flagstad, Mike Duffy Alaska Natural Heritage Program CAS, University of Alaska Anchorage 707 A Street, Anchorage, AK 99515 907-257-2784 [email protected] 1 4°¢¨• ض #ØÆ¥•Æ¥≥ aa!wò hC CLb5LbD{ LbÇwh5Ü/ÇLhb a9ÇIh5{!//Üw!/ò !{{9{a9bÇ {ÇÜ5ò !w9! a9ÇIh5{ a9ÇIh5{v Ü![LÇ!ÇLë9 w9ëL9í {ÇÜ5ò !w9! a9ÇIh5{ w9{Ü[Ç{!//Üw!/ò !{{9{{a9bÇ{ 59b![L 9ëÇ a!t 59b![L t[hÇ !{{LDba9bÇ Çh 9/h[hDL/![ {ò{Ç9a 59b![L /[!{{LCL/!ÇLhb !bL!Y/I!Y 9ëÇ a!t !bL!Y/I!Y t[hÇ !{{LDba9bÇ Çh 9/h[hDL/![ {ò{Ç9a !bL!Y/I!Y /[!{{LCL/!ÇLhb w9{Ü[Ç{v Ü![LÇ!ÇLë9 w9ëL9í òÜYhb!/I!w[9ò b!ÇLhb![ t!wY Y9b!L CWhw5{ b!ÇLhb![ t!wY D[!/L9w .!ò b!ÇLhb![ t!wY D!Ç9{ hC ÇI9 !w/ÇL/ b!ÇLhb![ t!wY íw!bD9[[!{!LbÇ 9[L!{ b!ÇLhb![ t!wY w9/haa9b5!ÇLhb{ !/Ybhí[95D9a9bÇ{ $ w9C9w9b/9{ $ !tt9b5Ló 9wwhw a!ÇwL/9{ !bL!Y/I!Y 9wwhw a!ÇwLó 59b![L 9wwhw a!ÇwLó !tt9b5Ló íw!bD9[[!{Ç 9[L!{ 59Ç!L[95 {/w99b {IhÇ{ !b5 Ç9óÇ 2 aa!wò hC CLb5LbD{ We conducted accuracy assessments for two national park units (the north side of Denali National Park and Aniakchak National Monument) and qualitative assessments in five additional areas representing the major ecological zones across the state including boreal, boreal transition, maritime, arctic, and Aleutian. In each assessment we reviewed the Existing Vegetation Type (EVT) Map and the ecological system classification.
    [Show full text]
  • Final 2012 Monitoring and Evaluation Report Full Document
    United States Department Tongass National Forest of Agriculture Forest Service 2012 Annual & Five Year Monitoring and Alaska Region Evaluation Report R10-MB-757 July 2013 Monitoring Overview INSIDE THIS The 2012 Annual Monitoring and Evaluation The monitoring report can be found on the Tongass web REPORT Report summarizes specific monitoring site under Projects and Plans. A full reference report for completed during fiscal year 2012 in ac- each question is available by hyperlink. cordance with the Tongass Land and Re- If you have questions or comments about this report, source Management Plan (Forest Plan). please contact Carol Seitz-Warmuth at the Ketchikan Physical & Biologi- 2–20 Chapter 6 of the Forest Plan specifies an Forest Supervisor’s Office, 907-228-6341. cal Environment annual written summary of forest wide mon- itoring programs. As a result of the 2008 Forest Plan Amend- Human Uses and 20–28 ment, some monitoring protocols and ques- Land Manage- tions were updated to better ment define and focus the monitoring work. This report serves as both Economic and 29 the annual written summary of Social Environ- forest wide monitoring programs, and also the five year review of ment all monitoring done since the Forest Plan Amendment. The five year review is a compre- hensive description of results for each monitoring question, and an evaluation of the last five years of data. Monitoring efforts are currently underway for most of the ques- tions in this report. In some cases, monitoring protocols are still being developed or under review. Monitoring and Evaluation Program Monitoring and evaluation is a ment of plans and budgets, or gathered during the year and quality control process for im- both, to facilitate feasible and identification of issues requiring plementation of the Tongass meaningful action on the immediate attention, while a Forest Plan.
    [Show full text]
  • Native Orchids in Southeast Alaska Marlin Bowles & Bob Armstrong Juneau, Alaska 2019
    Native Orchids in Southeast Alaska Marlin Bowles & Bob Armstrong Juneau, Alaska 2019 Preface Southeast Alaska's rainforests, peatlands and alpine habitats support a wide variety of plant life. The composition of this vegetation is strongly influenced by surrounding biogeographical factors. For example, the ranges of some Asian plant species extend into Southeast Alaska by way of the Aleutian Islands; other species extend northward into this region along the Pacific coast or southward from central Alaska. Included in Southeast Alaska's vegetation are at least 27 native orchid species and varieties whose collective ranges extend from Mexico north to beyond the Arctic Circle, and from North America to northern Europe and Asia. These orchids survive in a delicate ecological balance, requiring specific insect pollinators for seed production, and mycorrhizal fungi that provide nutrients essential for seedling growth and survival of adult plants. These complex relationships can lead to vulnerability to human impacts. Orchids also tend to transplant poorly and typically perish without their fungal partners. They are best left to survive as important components of biodiversity as well as resources for our enjoyment. Our goal is to provide a useful description of Southeast Alaska's native orchids for readers who share enthusiasm for the natural environment and desire to learn more about our native orchids. This book addresses each of the native orchids found in the area of southeast Alaska extending from Yakutat and the Yukon border south to Ketchikan and the British Columbia border. For each species, we include a brief description of its distribution, habitat, size, mode of reproduction, and pollination biology.
    [Show full text]
  • Alternative Methods’ of Carrying out the Undertaking
    Draft Environmental Assessment Lakeview Waterfront Connection 5.0 DESCRIPTION, EVALUATION AND RATIONALE FOR ‘ALTERNATIVE METHODS’ OF CARRYING OUT THE UNDERTAKING ‘Alternative Methods’ are different ways of doing the same activity. In the context of the LWC Project, ‘Alternative Methods’ are similar ways of designing a new natural waterfront park on created land with ecological habitat and public linkages within the LWC Project Study Area. For the purpose of the EA, different ‘Alternative Methods’ were identified by modelling different fill volumes and alternative shoreline treatments in relation to the coastal processes that will ultimately dictate their configuration. The initial identification of ‘Alternative Methods’ considered the amount of fill required to establish a footprint upon which other LWC Project objectives could be achieved. Different combinations of hard and soft shorelines (i.e. revetment vs. beach) and the incorporation of different fill volumes produced a series of alternative footprints upon which the various LWC Project objectives could be achieved. LWC Project objectives were addressed as subsequent layers applied to the alternative footprints. The identification and evaluation of ‘Alternative Methods’ was carried out in a four-step process depicted in Figure 5.1. 5.1 STEP 1: DETERMINE FOOTPRINT FOR ALTERNATIVES The first step in defining the Alternative LWC Project Configurations was to develop a range of footprints12 up to a maximum spatial extent. This range of footprints was determined through consideration of coastal processes, effects on water quality and the economical use of fill. The LWC Project footprint can be affected by and/or can affect coastal processes to the detriment of the broader LWC Regional Study Area or to the detriment of the LWC Project footprint itself.
    [Show full text]
  • An Inventory of Rare Plants of Misty Fiords National Monument, Usda Forest Service, Region Ten
    AN INVENTORY OF RARE PLANTS OF MISTY FIORDS NATIONAL MONUMENT, USDA FOREST SERVICE, REGION TEN A Report by John DeLapp Alaska Natural Heritage Program ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES INSTITUTE University of Alaska Anchorage 707 A Street, Anchorage, Alaska 99501 February 8, 1994 ALASKA NATURAL HERITAGE PROGRAM ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES INSTITUTE UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA ANCHORAGE 707 A Street • Anchorage, Alaska 99501 • (907) 279-4523 • Fax (907) 276-6847 Dr. Douglas A. Segar, Director Dr. David C. Duffy, Program Manager (UAA IS AN EO/AA EMPLOYER AND EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION) 2 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This cooperative project was the result of many hours of work by people within the Misty Fiords National Monument and the Ketchikan Area of the U.S. Forest Service who were dedicated to our common objectives and we are grateful to them all. Misty Fiords personnel who were key to the initiation and realization of this project include Jackie Canterbury and Don Fisher. Becky Nourse, Mark Jaqua, and Jan Peloskey all provided essential support during the field surveys. Also, Ketchikan Area staff Cole Crocker-Bedford, Michael Brown, and Richard Guhl provided indispensable support. Others outside of the Forest Service have provided assistance, without which this report would not be possible. Of particular note are Dr. David Murray, Dr. Barbara Murray, Carolyn Parker, and Al Batten of the University of Alaska Fairbanks Museum Herbarium. 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS..........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Alaska December 2011
    LANDFIRE 2001 and 2008 Refresh Geographic Area Report Alaska December 2011 - 0 ­ xecutive Summary The LANDFIRE National Project (LF_1.0.0) was successfully completed in 2009. The goal of LANDFIRE National was to generate consistent 2001 vintage 30 meter spatial data sets for all 50 States for fire and other natural resource applications. This report highlights results from the continuation of LANDFIRE as a program to update the spatial data layers through 2008. The focus of this phase of the program was to improve the data products and account for vegetation change across the landscape caused by wildland fire, fuel and vegetation treatments, and management. In addition, changes caused by insects and disease, storms, invasive plants, and other natural or anthropogenic events were incorporated when data were available. This report describes the LANDFIRE 2001/2008 Refresh effort to update existing map layers to reflect more current conditions, focusing primarily on vegetation changes. The effort incorporated user feedback and new data, producing two comprehensive Refresh data product sets: 1. LANDFIRE 2001 Refresh (LF_1.0.5) enhanced LANDFIRE map layers by incorporating user feedback and additional data to provide a foundation to update data to 2008. It was also designed to provide users with a data set to help facilitate comparisons between 2001 and 2008 (i.e. Refresh LF_1.1.0) data sets. 2. LANDFIRE 2008 Refresh (LF_1.1.0) updated map layers to reflect vegetation changes and disturbances that occurred between 1999 and 2008. In this report, we (1) address the background and provide details pertaining to why there are two Refresh data sets, (2) explain the requirements, planning, and procedures behind the completion and delivery of the updated products for each of the data product sets, (3) show and describe results, and (4) provide case studies illustrating the performance of LANDFIRE National, LANDFIRE 2001 Refresh and LANDFIRE 2008 Refresh (LF_1.1.0) data products on some example wildland fires.
    [Show full text]
  • Fish Creek Delta Scoping 2021 Richard Carstensen Discovery Southeast for Southeast Alaska Watershed Council
    Fish Creek Delta scoping 2021 Richard Carstensen Discovery Southeast for Southeast Alaska Watershed Council Fish Creek delta on 2013 CBJ LiDAR DEM. Extreme High Water (20.8ft) in red. Preface 20200722 Place names convention: In my writing & cartography since publication of Haa In the 'first covid winter,' early 2020, I began talk- the two projects are quite different. While much L’éelk’w Hás Aani Saax’ú: Our grandparents’ names on the land (Thornton & Martin eds ing with Rob Cadmus and John Hudson at South- has been deleted, even more has been added. 2012), I’ve used Lingít place names whenever available, followed by translation in italic, east Alaska Watershed Coalition (SAWC) about There are 3 parts to this document: and IWGN (important white guy ) in parentheses. Example: Kadigooni X’áat’, island with potential habitat improvements to the delta of Fish 1 Scoping contains background materials, spring water (Spuhn Island). Where Lingít went unrecorded I default to IWGN, and may Creek. This has led to a SAWC-DSE collaborative and a fairly comprehensive 'bedrock-to-bugs' acknowledge its inadequacy with "(noTN?)," : Lingít toponyms are problematic study and synthesis for a 194-acre project area, natural & cultural history overview for the delta Bad news for Fish Creek. : although boring and generic, at least it's not an IWGN. outlined on the following page. project area. Good news For a 2010 trailhead-sign interpretive project 2 Journal entries are field notes from past with CBJ Parks and Recreation, I started a fairly visits. These are not as geographically exten- Contents detailed, informal 'scoping document' with field sive as those in the 'parent' document, which notes and background materials for the larger Fish Part 1: Scoping ..................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Aniakchak National Monument and Preserve Vascular Plant Inventory
    ANIAKCHAK NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE VASCULAR PLANT INVENTORY ANIAKCHAK NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE VASCULAR PLANT INVENTORY FINAL TECHNICAL REPORT Robert Lipkin Alaska Natural Heritage Program Environment and Natural Resources Institute University of Alaska Anchorage 707 A Street Anchorage, Alaska 99501 National Park Service Southwest Alaska Network Inventory & Monitoring Program NPS Report: NPS/AKR/SWAN/NRTR-2005/06 November 2005 Cooperative Agreement No. 1443CA991000013 Funding Source: National Park Service, Inventory & Monitoring Program i ANIAKCHAK NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE VASCULAR PLANT INVENTORY SUGGESTED CITATION: Lipkin, R. 2005. Aniakchak National Monument and Preserve, vascular plant inventory, final technical report. National Park Service, Southwest Alaska Network, Anchorage, AK. NPS/AKR/SWAN/NRTR-2005/06. 41 pp. TOPIC(S): biological inventories, vascular plants THEME KEYWORDS: vascular plants, species of conservation concern, biological inventories PLACE NAME KEYWORDS: Southwest Alaska Network, Aniakchak National Monument and Preserve, Aniakchak Caldera, Aniakchak River, Black Creek Lagoon, the Garden Wall, the Gates, Meshik Camp, Meshik River, Packer’s Cabin, Waterfall Creek ACRONYMS: I&M Inventory & Monitoring SWAN Southwest Alaska Network AKNHP Alaska Natural Heritage Program ANIA Aniakchak National Monument & Preserve KATM Katmai National Park & Preserve LACL Lake Clark National Park & Preserve INITIAL DISTRIBUTION: Southwest Alaska Network ii ANIAKCHAK NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE VASCULAR PLANT INVENTORY
    [Show full text]
  • LANDFIRE Biophysical Setting Model
    LANDFIRE Biophysical Setting Model Biophysical Setting 7816650 Alaskan Pacific Maritime Coastal Meadow and Slough-Levee This BPS is lumped with: see below This BPS is split into multiple models: Alaskan Pacific Maritime Coastal Dune, Beach, and Beach Meadow (1666). General Information Contributors (also see the Comments field Date 4/1/2008 Modeler 1 Amy Miller [email protected] Reviewer Tom DeMeo [email protected] v Modeler 2 Karen Dillman [email protected] Reviewer Modeler 3 Reviewer Vegetation Type Map Zone Model Zone Upland Grassland/Herbaceous 78 Alaska N-Cent.Rockies California Pacific Northwest Dominant Species* General Model Sources Great Basin South Central Literature HOPE POEM Great Lakes Southeast Local Data LEMO8 FERU2 Northeast S. Appalachians LAJAM DESCH Expert Estimate Northern Plains Southwest EQVA LUNO Geographic Range This system is found along the North Pacific coastline from Prince William Sound through southeast AK. Biophysical Site Description This system includes moist and wet meadows associated with delta deposits and uplifted marsh and beach deposits as well as coastal sandy beaches, meadows, beach dunes and sand spits. Vegetation zonation in this system is related to exposure to salt spray and disturbance. Sandy soils may be periodically exposed to overwash from storm surges and exceptionally high tides, but they drain rapidly and precipitation rapidly leaches salt from the system (Boggs 2000). Vegetation Description Plant communities on these coastal sand systems can be dominated by a variety of grasses and forbs. Salt tolerant forb communities featuring Honckenya peploides and Mertensia maritima var. asiatica (not common in SE AK) often occur just above mean high tide.
    [Show full text]
  • Landfire Overview
    LANDFIRE MAP, LEGEND, AND ECOLOGICAL SYSTEMS DESCRIPTIONS FOR ALASKA Existing Vegetation Type The Existing Vegetation Type (EVT) layer represents the species composition currently present at a given site. Vegetation map units are primarily derived from NatureServe's Ecological Systems classification, which is a nationally consistent set of mid-scale ecological units. Additional units are derived from NLCD, National Vegetation Classification Standard (NVCS) Alliances, and LANDFIRE specific types. EVTs are mapped using decision tree models, field data, Landsat imagery, elevation, and biophysical gradient data. Decision tree models are developed separately for each of the three lifeforms -tree, shrub, and herbaceous and are then used to generate lifeform specific EVT layers. 1 3 ES_Code Ecological System General Description Range Comments Landcover Type CES1.10 Developed-Low Intensity Land Use CES1.11 Developed-Medium Intensity Land Use CES1.12 Developed-Open Space Land Use CES1.4 Agriculture-Cultivated Crops Land Use and Irrigated Agriculture CES1.6 Agriculture-Pasture/Hay Land Use CES1.7 Barren Land Use CES1.9 Developed-High Intensity Land Use CES102.179 Alaska Arctic Tussock Tundra Herbaceous Tussock tundra is common in valleys and slopes throughout This system occurs throughout Wetlands arctic Alaska. These sites are cold, poorly drained, and arctic Alaska, from the Bristol underlain by mesic, silty mineral soils with a shallow surface Bay lowlands in southwestern organic layer surrounding the tussocks. Permafrost is present. Alaska to the North Slope on Patch size is small to large. Tussock tundra has >35% cover of the Arctic Ocean. sedges in a tussock growth form; the combined cover of dwarf- and low shrubs is <25%, and lichen cover is <25%.
    [Show full text]
  • TESTIMONY Highland-Ridgewood Reservoir 06.19.08
    City of New York Parks & Recreation New York City Council Committee on Parks & Recreation Highland Park and Ridgewood Reservoir: A discussion on the restoration and enhancement of a community resource June 19, 2008 Testimony by Adrian Benepe, Commissioner INTRODUCTION A little over one year ago, on Earth Day 2007, Mayor Bloomberg presented a long-term plan for a greener, greater New York. PlaNYC laid out 127 initiatives designed to address the challenges of a city whose population will grow by one million people by 2030; among those initiatives are providing significant improvements to eight regional parks. Today we are here to talk about one of the regional parks selected for improvement – Highland Park and the Ridgewood Reservoir. REGIONAL PARKS PlaNYC provides an opportunity for the city to re-envision eight regional parks sites across the city. With at least one new regional park in every borough, the Department plans to enhance these existing green spaces and turn them into destinations for the 21 st Century; admired by residents and visitors from across the city. We have been working with community organizations and individual residents to create designs that respond to and address community priorities and needs and that also provide more recreational opportunities to keep New Yorkers healthy and active. As you know, we are confronting rising levels of obesity and related diseases, including diabetes and heart disease. Well designed and maintained parks are a foundation for recreational activities and fitness that are crucial to healthful lives. Today we are here to talk about one of the eight regional parks - the Highland Park and Ridgewood Reservoirs in Brooklyn and Queens - but I would like to first give you an overview of our planning and design approaches for the regional parks.
    [Show full text]